Cold Fusion Tech Ready to go (Andrea Rossi)

Jaafa

Hope this is the right place for this. Feel free to move if not mods.

So this guy from the university of Bologna claims to have cold fusion technology commercially read to go. His tests are allegedly fully recappable. Producing an average of 15kilowatts of power from just a 80watt input. Apprently all he needs to do now is prove its safe (which he claims it is) and work will being on a plant.

I know people have been making claims like this for years but this looks pretty serious and its using materials that are very very cheap so it would mean almost free energy.

I hope I haven't got it all wrong. Is this too good to be true?


Heres the link.
http://pesn.com/2011/02/28/9501774_Future_Impact_of_Rossis_Cold_Fusion/

SOL

not to say definitely it's nonsense, but, there have been MANY of these over the years, none have been true, so I'll wait to see...

Pablo_

anyone think if we do figure out incredibly cheap energy, we will just become even more wasteful, whole cities being built up and then same old social rot and problems ... pessimist? i guess so

no harm looking at possible consequences though, the excitement seems temporary at the least, and more for the scientists researching it themselves

Jaafa

another thing. Is it possible that governments would not like to adopt this technology as it may lead to an collapse in the many industries that relied on oil and other fossil fuels?

Professor_Fink

Pablo_ wrote: »

no harm looking at possible consequences though, the excitement seems temporary at the least, and more for the scientists researching it themselves

Nope. Water shortage is a massive problem for a large portion of the worlds population, and is going to become even more acute over the coming years. We know how to desalinate sea water to make it drinkable, but the price of the energy required is prohibitively expensive. A cheaper, more abundant, energy supply could not only help you provide clean safe water to those in need (thereby heading off conflicts over resources), but you could irrigate many places in Africa which are currently barren.

That said, I do not at all believe the claim about cold fusion.

Professor_Fink

Jaafa wrote: »

another thing. Is it possible that governments would not like to adopt this technology as it may lead to an collapse in the many industries that relied on oil and other fossil fuels?

No, that's nonsense. If it provided a cost advantage over oil it would no doubt be exploited by some companies as it would give them a massive advantage. The idea of all companies agreeing not to use it is unstable, since the first one to break the pact gains a commerial advantage. The stable solution is for a transition to whatever the cheapest source of power is.

Improbable

Seems like a fairly standard "I've discovered a brilliant new technology" story. One that pops up again and again. The problem with cold fusion (to the best of my knowledge) is that the fusions occur at such a low rate that it's not even worth it. All this guy has said is "I've added a catalyst, which shall go nameless and unidentified in any way for proprietary reasons". I call hogwash.

digme

I heard he became suicidal and may have killed himself.

Pablo_

The 'extra' energy he accidently discovered using nickel as a catalyst is usually a miscalculation of the energy in and out of the system according to thermodynamic experts. This is the usual reason for the loads of patents every year for free energy being disqualified. i'm no expert but seems reasonable

Jaafa

Pablo_ wrote: »

The 'extra' energy he accidently discovered using nickel as a catalyst is usually a miscalculation of the energy in and out of the system according to thermodynamic experts. This is the usual reason for the loads of patents every year for free energy being disqualified. i'm no expert but seems reasonable

Surely something as simple as that couldn't happen so often? He's off by a large amount if that is the case.

Unless of course it was done deliberately? But then your always going to get found out so why bother?

Improbable

Jaafa wrote: »

Surely something as simple as that couldn't happen so often? He's off by a large amount if that is the case.

Unless of course it was done deliberately? But then your always going to get found out so why bother?

Publicity probably. If he refuses to let anyone look at it, then he's still got his name out there without the massive embarrassment of other scientists finding out that he's faking his results.

Professor_Fink

Improbable wrote: »

Publicity probably. If he refuses to let anyone look at it, then he's still got his name out there without the massive embarrassment of other scientists finding out that he's faking his results.

I don't really like seeing claims that anyone is faking results when it has not been proven. In cases like this where a somewhat unbelievable claim is put forward, if it turns out later to be incorrect (which I suspect this will be) it is far more usual that it is simply an error in the analysis than deliberate misconduct.

Pablo_

Jaafa wrote: »

Surely something as simple as that couldn't happen so often? He's off by a large amount if that is the case.

Unless of course it was done deliberately? But then your always going to get found out so why bother?

I am not saying anyone is a fake ... it is the complexity of what the system is in thermodynamic terms is, it is a genuine mistake

When talking about energy moving at the speed of light at a maximum it is not easy to quantify everything

Improbable

Professor_Fink wrote: »

I don't really like seeing claims that anyone is faking results when it has not been proven. In cases like this where a somewhat unbelievable claim is put forward, if it turns out later to be incorrect (which I suspect this will be) it is far more usual that it is simply an error in the analysis than deliberate misconduct.

Would it not be a fair assumption that any genuine scientist with good intentions would have had someone assist him with the analysis before claiming that he had achieved sustainable and commercially viable cold fusion.

As an example, in a recent experiment over an 18 hour period with an average input of 80 watts it produced at least 15 kilowatts continuous, and sometimes as high as 20 kW.

I don't see how any scientist who might be capable of such a monumentous achievement could simultaneously be so bad at analysis. 15kW output from an 80W input? I think there has to be something more to that than just having the decimal point in the wrong place.

Also of note is that nowhere in his patent application claims section does he say that fusion is involved.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=CLAIMS

Professor_Fink

Improbable wrote: »

Would it not be a fair assumption that any genuine scientist with good intentions would have had someone assist him with the analysis before claiming that he had achieved sustainable and commercially viable cold fusion.

Actually, no, I don't think that really is fair. Some scientists work in groups and collaborate freely, others prefer to work alone (see Grigori Perelman for an extreme example of the latter). It doesn't correlate well with the quality of their work.

Improbable wrote: »

I don't see how any scientist who might be capable of such a monumentous achievement could simultaneously be so bad at analysis. 15kW output from an 80W input? I think there has to be something more to that than just having the decimal point in the wrong place.

It's really really easy to make mistakes, even with others proof reading your calculations.

Improbable

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Actually, no, I don't think that really is fair. Some scientists work in groups and collaborate freely, others prefer to work alone (see Grigori Perelman for an extreme example of the latter). It doesn't correlate well with the quality of their work.




It's really really easy to make mistakes, even with others proof reading your calculations.

I notice you didn't make any comments about the patent application. Or how about the fact that the only journal he has published in is the Journal of Nuclear Physics? Which actually isn't a journal at all as far as I can see.

Professor_Fink

Improbable wrote: »

I notice you didn't make any comments about the patent application. Or how about the fact that the only journal he has published in is the Journal of Nuclear Physics? Which actually isn't a journal at all as far as I can see.

Frankly I couldn't be arsed digging into a perported claim of cold fussion (I don't even know if that is what they are claiming). However, following your assertion that the man in question had never published in a real journal, I did a quick search on Web of Science. There is someone of that name at the same university who has published in some really good journals (PRL for example), albeit as part of a mamoth collaboration.

I have no idea what is being claimed, but no matter what it is alleging scientific misconduct is a serious matter, and should not occur without ample evidence. As a scientist, if someone claims one of your results is incorrect you might be concerned (or might not if they had missed some point), but this would be concern over whether the result was correct or not, in which case you should do your best to resolve the issue. That's how science operates. On the other hand, if someone claimed you faked results, then I think it would be quite understandable to resort to legal action. So, please, no claims of that sort here.

Jaafa

Well failing the attempts at cold fusion, do you guys think that hot fusion will ever be economically viable? I know there's an attempt being made in France as part of an EU collaboration. Can't think of the name of the project right now...will edit later If I find it.

And if it was achieved would it be that much better than nuclear fission?

Professor_Fink

Jaafa wrote: »

Well failing the attempts at cold fusion, do you guys think that hot fusion will ever be economically viable? I know there's an attempt being made in France as part of an EU collaboration. Can't think of the name of the project right now...will edit later If I find it.

And if it was achieved would it be that much better than nuclear fission?

The project you are thinking of is ITER, and yes, I think it is a very good step in the right direction. Fusion can potentially produce much more power than fission, and though it can produce some nasty stuff, the waste has a relatively short half-life.

Improbable

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Frankly I couldn't be arsed digging into a perported claim of cold fussion (I don't even know if that is what they are claiming). However, following your assertion that the man in question had never published in a real journal, I did a quick search on Web of Science. There is someone of that name at the same university who has published in some really good journals (PRL for example), albeit as part of a mamoth collaboration.

Actually, I only meant that he has not published his purported discovery of commercially viable cold fusion in an acceptable, peer-reviewed journal.

Professor_Fink wrote: »

I have no idea what is being claimed, but no matter what it is alleging scientific misconduct is a serious matter, and should not occur without ample evidence. As a scientist, if someone claims one of your results is incorrect you might be concerned (or might not if they had missed some point), but this would be concern over whether the result was correct or not, in which case you should do your best to resolve the issue. That's how science operates. On the other hand, if someone claimed you faked results, then I think it would be quite understandable to resort to legal action. So, please, no claims of that sort here.

I am not presenting it as a statement of fact, merely as a statement of opinion. I assume that the legal action you speak of would be one of libel, in which case, statements of opinion are a defence.

If this is a moderator instruction, I will of course abide by that, regardless of whether I consider it to be right or not. If however it is simply a post from one user to another, I would be interested in carrying on the conversation.

Professor_Fink

Improbable wrote: »

If this is a moderator instruction, I will of course abide by that, regardless of whether I consider it to be right or not. If however it is simply a post from one user to another, I would be interested in carrying on the conversation.

Consider it a post from a mod who really really does not want to have to have Physics & Chemistry be the cause of the next lawsuit for boards, and from a user who finds that kind of thing distasteful anyway.

Jaafa

Professor_Fink wrote: »

The project you are thinking of is ITER, and yes, I think it is a very good step in the right direction. Fusion can potentially produce much more power than fission, and though it can produce some nasty stuff, the waste has a relatively short half-life.

But aren't the start up costs a lot bigger than nuclear?

Shorter compared to nuclear?

Professor_Fink

Jaafa wrote: »

But aren't the start up costs a lot bigger than nuclear?

Shorter compared to nuclear?

Both are nuclear power. Fission is splitting nuclei, fusion is combining them. There is a minimum break even scale for fusion which is quite high for current reactor designs. I believe ITER is about 1/4th the scale a commercial plant would need to be to make the cost competitive with fossil fuels.

The half-life of light nuclei produced in fission tends to be much shorter than for the larger nuclei used in fission, due to the lower per nucleon binding energy.

Jaafa

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Both are nuclear power. Fission is splitting nuclei, fusion is combining them. There is a minimum break even scale for fusion which is quite high for current reactor designs. I believe ITER is about 1/4th the scale a commercial plant would need to be to make the cost competitive with fossil fuels.

The half-life of light nuclei produced in fission tends to be much shorter than for the larger nuclei used in fission, due to the lower per nucleon binding energy.

Damn I knew that one I swear.

Yes I was thinking that about the cost. If it proves successful under the current design only the richest nations will be able to afford it for some time I'd say.

derry

I spotted this one a few weeks back in other fusion energy forums so haven't had time to study it much.
Hopefully its not another hoax

Specs suggest pres wont be too expensive

The more interesting experimental types they said they made could have a ratio of 400:1 or 400 units power produced for one unit of power input but they said it tended to explode at these high power ratio levels .

Very high power ratio types of 350:1 if they worked would possibly give ery powerful fast cars or even fast jet planes with very long ranges

Derry

fox65

Jaafa wrote: »

Damn I knew that one I swear.

Yes I was thinking that about the cost. If it proves successful under the current design only the richest nations will be able to afford it for some time I'd say.

Valid point but this is the same for all new emerging tech. Electric cars were things of prototypes and motor shows a few years back. For motor companies to be seeing to be doing their part, now tech has gained ground and costs have come down with usability going up.

I'm a big supporter of both forms of nuclear power. I wasn't aware of ITER. I'm glad that such a large scale effort is being made, the knowledge gained from this will hopefully lead to commercially viable generation 2 (not sure if they even are settled on a gen 1) reactors. My opinion, it might take 10 years for this to happen but it is a huge step in the right direction

Professor_Fink

fox65 wrote: »

My opinion, it might take 10 years for this to happen but it is a huge step in the right direction

ITER alone will take 10 years to complete. Unfortunately fusion research is relatively slowly moving due to the time scales required to build the necessary facilities.

Genghiz Cohen

Sorry for ze bump.
My dad (who, lets face it, is one of those types) pointed me at this guy.

The first thing I do when I see a claim like this is Google "[Claim] debunked", but Le Goog didn't really turn up much. any idea how far away that patent is so we can see how much BS is involved?

krd

Improbable wrote: »

I notice you didn't make any comments about the patent application. Or how about the fact that the only journal he has published in is the Journal of Nuclear Physics? Which actually isn't a journal at all as far as I can see.

Do you know who owns and edits "the journal of Nuclear Physics"?


Why, it's the marvelous and mysterious Mr. Rossi of course.

The other names who appear on it are supposedly his sock puppets. And co-authors of his stuff most of the time do not exist - or if they do exist there's something a little iffy about them - like they have no science background and have degree in something like embroidery.

Mr. Rossi's bunk is definitely bunk of the highest order - straight fresh the horse's arse.

krd

Pablo_ wrote: »

The 'extra' energy he accidently discovered using nickel as a catalyst is usually a miscalculation of the energy in and out of the system according to thermodynamic experts. This is the usual reason for the loads of patents every year for free energy being disqualified. i'm no expert but seems reasonable

There's the thing, ya see. A catalyst is something used in a chemical reaction. It has nothing to do with nuclear physics.

If Rossi has even once termed his materials as a catalyst in nuclear fusion, he is talking out of his arse.

I'll explain Rossi's wonderful device and what it supposedly does.

Now watch my explanation very closely, and you'll see the scam.

It's a metal tube. To be filled with Nickel "nano" particles (nickel dust) and hydrogen. There's a heating filament in the tube ( - do ya see ).

When the device is operated. The hydrogen atoms, through some "nano" particle magic fuse with the the nickel, to produce copper. And heat is released. Note: Rossi has to keep this device in a lead lined suitcase to stop the harmful radioactive byproducts escaping.

Rossi's doesn't explain the theoretical basis of how the box works, it just "works".

krd

Improbable wrote: »

I don't see how any scientist who might be capable of such a monumentous achievement could simultaneously be so bad at analysis. 15kW output from an 80W input? I think there has to be something more to that than just having the decimal point in the wrong place.

I explain how the huckster do it. It's down to how you measure the power output.

Say if I tell you I have a magical light bulb, that magically pulls energy out of dark matter, or some other rubbish.

We set up my light bulb in a room - or a box. And we set up the some kind of thermometer to measure the power output. At first - if the light bulb is a 40w bulb, our thermometer readings, put through out equation will show a power output of 40w..........then as the box heats up, the temperature on our thermometer will magically rise. And when we put the figures through our equation, it will tells us we're getting a 80w, or 140w, or wattever out of our magical light bulb.

Also of note is that nowhere in his patent application claims section does he say that fusion is involved.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009125444&IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=CLAIMS

Of course he doesn't say anywhere in his patent his device is a fusion reactor. He doesn't because it doesn't. And when it fails, he will be able to laugh all the way to the bank with his investors money.