Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Scott Sando

This Is One Of The Game Changing Alternative Power Source Gereld Celente Was Talking About

Recommended Posts


Few areas of science are more controversial than cold fusion, the hypothetical near-room-temperature reaction in which two smaller nuclei join together to form a single larger nucleus while releasing large amounts of energy. In the 1980s, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann claimed to have demonstrated cold fusion - which could potentially provide the world with a cheap, clean energy source - but their experiment could not be reproduced. Since then, all other claims of cold fusion have been illegitimate, and studies have shown that cold fusion is theoretically implausible, causing mainstream science to become highly speculative of the field in general. (PhysOrg.com)

The claim

Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi say that, when the atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen are fused in their reactor, the reaction produces copper and a large amount of energy. The reactor uses less than 1 gram of hydrogen and starts with about 1,000 W of electricity, which is reduced to 400 W after a few minutes. Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20°C water into dry steam at about 101°C. Since raising the temperature of water by 80°C and converting it to steam requires about 12,400 W of power, the experiment provides a power gain of 12,400/400 = 31. As for costs, the scientists estimate that electricity can be generated at a cost of less than 1 cent/kWh, which is significantly less than coal or natural gas plants.

"The magnitude of this result suggests that there is a viable energy technology that uses commonly available materials, that does not produce carbon dioxide, and that does not produce radioactive waste and will be economical to build," according to this description of the demonstration.

Rossi and Focardi explain that the reaction produces radiation, providing evidence that the reaction is indeed a nuclear reaction and does not work by some other method. They note that no radiation escapes due to lead shielding, and no radioactivity is left in the cell after it is turned off, so there is no nuclear waste.

Giuseppe Levi, a nuclear physicist from INFN (Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics), helped organize last Friday's demonstration in Bologna. Levi confirmed that the reactor produced about 12 kW and noted that the energy was not of chemical origin since there was no measurable hydrogen consumption. Levi and other scientists plan to produce a technical report on the design and execution of their evaluation of the reactor.

Also at the demonstration was a representative of Defkalion Energy, based in Athens, who said that the company was interested in a 20 kW unit and that within two months they would make a public announcement. For the Rossi and Focardi, this kind of interest is the most important.

"We have passed already the phase to convince somebody," Rossi wrote in his forum. "We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that works and go to sell it, as we are doing."

Text from PhysOrg.com
Video by Rossi and Focardi
Music and titles by Gerard Cruz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know yet, I just found out about it in this interview with Gereld Celente here

Not cold fusion again FFS. This was done to death by Robert Park in "Voodoo Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science

Park's seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific - those seven warning signs are:

1 Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.

2 Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.

3 The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.

4 Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.

5 True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.

6 The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.

7 The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Point 1 seems appropriate...

Voodoo Science is excellent on Pons and Fleischmann. They did'nt share the "theory" either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not cold fusion again FFS. This was done to death by Robert Park in "Voodoo Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science

Park's seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific - those seven warning signs are:

Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.

Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.

The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.

Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.

True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.

The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.

The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

These warning signs are nearly identical with those of pathological science, as discussed by physicist Irving Langmuir in 1953.

Your example falls at point 1...

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, sqeegee your third eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not cold fusion again FFS. This was done to death by Robert Park in "Voodoo Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science

Park's seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific - those seven warning signs are:

1 Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.

2 Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.

3 The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.

4 Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.

5 True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.

6 The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.

7 The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Point 1 seems appropriate...

Voodoo Science is excellent on Pons and Fleischmann. They did'nt share the "theory" either

I've been reading about this device and the science behind it for the last couple of weeks, after I spotted the story on wattsupwiththat.

Rossi doesn't claim that the device uses nuclear fusion, but rather low energy nuclear reactions. The US Navy have been researching this area with some success too and they claim that there is a good chance of there being a breakthrough in the coming years. I assume the US Navy aren't into 'voodoo science'.

I am still unsure if the claims for Rossi's device are true and we won't know until production devices are available. However, his predicted time line to get units being produced is relatively short - 3-12 months. If his device does as claims, then the science is going to have to understand why - there are plausible theories floating about, which can explain the effect, it seems. I am unqualified to say how good or bad these are though.

If the device does as described, it could be a game changer. The repercussions are rather boggling, when you consider what it could deliver.

EDIT: Some links:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

http://www.newenergytimes.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading about this device and the science behind it for the last couple of weeks, after I spotted the story on wattsupwiththat.

Rossi doesn't claim that the device uses nuclear fusion, but rather low energy nuclear reactions. The US Navy have been researching this area with some success too and they claim that there is a good chance of there being a breakthrough in the coming years. I assume the US Navy aren't into 'voodoo science'.

I am still unsure if the claims for Rossi's device are true and we won't know until production devices are available. However, his predicted time line to get units being produced is relatively short - 3-12 months. If his device does as claims, then the science is going to have to understand why - there are plausible theories floating about, which can explain the effect, it seems. I am unqualified to say how good or bad these are though.

If the device does as described, it could be a game changer. The repercussions are rather boggling, when you consider what it could deliver.

EDIT: Some links:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

http://www.newenergytimes.com/

Low energy nuclear reactions is a way of not having to say cold fusion. Scientists are so closed minded you have too trick them with semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading about this device and the science behind it for the last couple of weeks, after I spotted the story on wattsupwiththat.

Rossi doesn't claim that the device uses nuclear fusion, but rather low energy nuclear reactions. The US Navy have been researching this area with some success too and they claim that there is a good chance of there being a breakthrough in the coming years. I assume the US Navy aren't into 'voodoo science'.

I am still unsure if the claims for Rossi's device are true and we won't know until production devices are available. However, his predicted time line to get units being produced is relatively short - 3-12 months. If his device does as claims, then the science is going to have to understand why - there are plausible theories floating about, which can explain the effect, it seems. I am unqualified to say how good or bad these are though.

If the device does as described, it could be a game changer. The repercussions are rather boggling, when you consider what it could deliver.

EDIT: Some links:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

http://www.newenergytimes.com/

Come on though. Something like this would be easy to test. I bet I could test it. All I need to do is show that it generates more energy than could be sneaked in on a battery I havent spotted. They would get worldwide acclaim and Nobel Prize. The test would take little more than an hour to do.

So, given that it hasnt been independently tested, I will assume that it is a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Sire, the lead is all molten and I shall just add this powder that I obtained from an Ancient wise man thousands of miles away in the Eastern desert, and the lead will change to gold.

King: Yeah, right. Just like that other clever feller that got boiled alive in Bonrovia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on though. Something like this would be easy to test. I bet I could test it. All I need to do is show that it generates more energy than could be sneaked in on a battery I havent spotted. They would get worldwide acclaim and Nobel Prize. The test would take little more than an hour to do.

So, given that it hasnt been independently tested, I will assume that it is a fraud.

I'll just have an open mind on this one.

Black then white are all I see in my infancy.

Red and yellow then came to be,

reaching out to me, lets me see.

As below so above and beyond I imagine,

drawn beyond the lines of reason.

Push the envelope. Watch it bend.

Over thinking, over analyzing,

separates the body from the mind.

Withering my intuition, missing opportunities and I must

feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines.

Black then white are all I see in my infancy.

Red and yellow then came to be,

reaching out to me, lets me see.

There is so much more and it beckons me to look though to these,

infinite possibilities.

As below so above and beyond I imagine,

drawn outside the lines of reason.

Push the envelope. Watch it bend.

Over thinking, over analyzing,

separates the body from the mind.

Withering my intuition, leaving opportunities behind.

Feed my will to feel this moment, urging me to cross the line.

Reaching out to embrace the random.

Reaching out to embrace whatever may come.

I embrace my desire to...

I embrace my desire to...

feel the rhythm,

to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow,

to feel inspired,

to fathom the power,

to witness the beauty,

to bathe in the fountain,

to swing on the spiral,

to swing on the spiral,

to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human.

With my feet upon the ground,

I lose myself between the sounds and open wide to suck it in.

I feel it move across my skin.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.

I'm reaching for the random or whatever will bewilder me,

whatever will bewilder me.

And following our will and wind,

we may just go where no one's been.

We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.

Spiral out. Keep going.

Spiral out. Keep going.

Spiral out. Keep going.

Spiral out. Keep going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low energy nuclear reactions is a way of not having to say cold fusion. Scientists are so closed minded you have too trick them with semantics.

I'm not going to bother going through this at length, but suffice to say, they didn't know what was causing it back in the late 80s and assumed it must be fusion. The media coined it cold fusion and the rest is history.

A similar underlying effect has been reproduced by many different scientists, but most of them no longer think it is nuclear fusion (in the hot fusion sense), but transmutation (the changing of state of a material) from one material to another. Apparently, this process releases substantial amounts of energy, but it is not well understood.

TBH though, this sort of technology, genuine or otherwise, was always going to be looked at with mocking, cynical eyes. I have read the reports and am reasonably convinced that there is nothing too suspicious going on. As for the catalysts, we don't know what they are, how long they last etc.

BTW, there couldn't have been a chemical reaction involving the hydrogen, as too little was used. Additionally, the power output was more than a plug could provide, let alone concealed batteries. The amount of water this thing vaporised in minutes would take a microwave hours. Either it's a very clever rouse, the outputs are being incorrectly measured or it's genuine. We don't have long to wait either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on though. Something like this would be easy to test. I bet I could test it. All I need to do is show that it generates more energy than could be sneaked in on a battery I havent spotted. They would get worldwide acclaim and Nobel Prize. The test would take little more than an hour to do.

So, given that it hasnt been independently tested, I will assume that it is a fraud.

That much has pretty much been tested already. Read the reports at the links if you want to convince yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, the power output was more than a plug could provide, let alone concealed batteries. The amount of water this thing vaporised in minutes would take a microwave hours.

I'm not sure that this is true. It actually says...

Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20°C water into dry steam at about 101°C.

Which is just over half a pint. I think my kettle could probably do that.

Apologies if I've misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that this is true. It actually says...

Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20°C water into dry steam at about 101°C.

Which is just over half a pint. I think my kettle could probably do that.

Apologies if I've misunderstood.

Half a pint of water into steam in a minute? Some kettle you have there! :)

At this point we can try a simple calculus in order to evaluate the power produced. In

order to raise the temperature of 168 g of water by 1°C, ≈ 168*4.185 = 703 J are

needed. The water inlet temperature was 15°C so the ∆T was 85°C. We have

703*85=59755 J. To this energy one must add the evaporation heat ≈2272 J/g *

168=381696 J. Total energy in 45 sec is 59755+381696=441451 J, and power is

441451/45=9810 W

(more here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf)

IIRC, a wall plug delivers a maximum of about 3000W*, with the power gauge saying a maximum of 1000W was drawn, falling to 400W after the device was up to speed.

EDIT: *changed

With a peak of 12kw, from a 0.4kw input, something interesting is going on there. Whether it is a fraud or something revolutionary is the question, but from reading debates from better versed people, it sounded like no mean feat considering the volume of the device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that this is true. It actually says...

Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20°C water into dry steam at about 101°C.

Which is just over half a pint. I think my kettle could probably do that.

Apologies if I've misunderstood.

My A-level physics are a bit rusty, but I think it goes something like this on the energy front:

mass = 0.292 kg

temp diff = 80 C

specific heat capacity of water = 4.187 kJ/kgK

latent heat of evaporation = 2270 kJ / kgK

energy to heat water to 100 C = 80 * 0.292 * 4.187kJ = 97.8 kJ

energy to convert to steam = 0.292 * 2270 = 663 kJ

Total energy = 761 kJ

761kJ in 60 seconds = 12.7 kW

Power = Voltage * Current (aka P=U*I) <=> I = P/U

12.7kW from 240V requires an input of 12700/240 amps = 53 amps, which is probably around the same amount of total supply a normal house has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one to think that in the very very unlikely event that this works that it could lead to war?

There would be a lot of unhappy people in the energy industry which must be a huge part of the global economy.

Oil, solar, wind, gas, coal, geothermal, all of it into the dustbin of history in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

check this out,

Comedy :lol:

Comedy gold :lol:

So many great lines

"When this hits Youtube, things are going to change!" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not cold fusion again FFS. This was done to death by Robert Park in "Voodoo Science". http://en.wikipedia..../Voodoo_science

Park's seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific - those seven warning signs are:

1 Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.

2 Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.

3 The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.

4 Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.

5 True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.

6 The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.

7 The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

That's not necessarily an indicator that the science is dodgy. Andrew Wiles and Fermat's last theorem springs to mind - he deliberately worked in isolation from his colleagues in order to avoid being on the receiving end of quackery accusations as his work progressed. But the downside is that when he did eventually release his work for peer review, someone found a flaw pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bother going through this at length, but suffice to say, they didn't know what was causing it back in the late 80s and assumed it must be fusion. The media coined it cold fusion and the rest is history.

A similar underlying effect has been reproduced by many different scientists, but most of them no longer think it is nuclear fusion (in the hot fusion sense), but transmutation (the changing of state of a material) from one material to another. Apparently, this process releases substantial amounts of energy, but it is not well understood.

TBH though, this sort of technology, genuine or otherwise, was always going to be looked at with mocking, cynical eyes. I have read the reports and am reasonably convinced that there is nothing too suspicious going on. As for the catalysts, we don't know what they are, how long they last etc.

BTW, there couldn't have been a chemical reaction involving the hydrogen, as too little was used. Additionally, the power output was more than a plug could provide, let alone concealed batteries. The amount of water this thing vaporised in minutes would take a microwave hours. Either it's a very clever rouse, the outputs are being incorrectly measured or it's genuine. We don't have long to wait either way.

From the video:

"'When the atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen are fused in their reactor, the reaction produces copper and a large amount of energy".

Can any of you scientists confirm whether the atomic weights of nickel and hydrogen combined would equal that of copper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not cold fusion again FFS. This was done to death by Robert Park in "Voodoo Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science

Park's seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific - those seven warning signs are:

1 Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.

2 Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.

3 The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.

4 Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.

5 True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.

6 The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.

7 The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Point 1 seems appropriate...

Voodoo Science is excellent on Pons and Fleischmann. They did'nt share the "theory" either

8 When needing to do an independent verification, they invite their mate from the lab up the road, rather than an international team of experts.

Saying that I don't know whether this is real or not. There could be some weird non convential physics going on that we don't understand. More likely it is simply an electrochemical effect that the inventors haven't accounted for. I hope it's real, but experience tells me that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not cold fusion again FFS. This was done to death by Robert Park in "Voodoo Science". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science

Park's seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific - those seven warning signs are:

1 Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.

2 Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.

3 The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.

4 Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.

5 True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.

6 The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.

7 The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Point 1 seems appropriate...

Voodoo Science is excellent on Pons and Fleischmann. They did'nt share the "theory" either

Hasn't there been suppression of medical discoveries by big pharma in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the video:

"'When the atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen are fused in their reactor, the reaction produces copper and a large amount of energy".

Can any of you scientists confirm whether the atomic weights of nickel and hydrogen combined would equal that of copper?

Yes copper is atomic number 29, nickel 28 and hydrogen 1. The number of protons. If you add one proton to a nickel nucleus you get a copper nucleus.

They claim "radiation" is emitted. Is this em such as gamma rays or alpha/beta particles ? Interestingly copper seems to have quite a large number of radioactive isotopes. If you wanted to play a game you might just coat a nickel "electrode" with a thin layer of radioactive copper. Maybe there would be enough energy in the decay to heat water if it were placed around it (a bit like the plutonium in the James Bond movie).

This would be great, as it would have all the ingredients that they claim. You could electroplate the surface of the nickel with an uneven splattering of the copper to make it look like a deposit rather than something artificial.

I guess the only issue for me would be whether the radioactive decay of the copper would generate that much heat. Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.