Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crawdaddy said:
I have no interest in speculating about the mechanism of action of this device. I am not qualified to judge, although W&L theory seems retarded on its face. If the experimental evidence for cold fusion results in a more thorough theoretical treatment of the mechanism of the device then hopefully some competent people will look at the problem from that perspective.

An interesting reference to article about the energy of hydrogen in metal lattices can be found here however... Eur. Phys. J. A 44, 71-75 (2010)

This group observed >2keV lowering of the activation energy for fusion of hydrogen and lithium when a palladium alloy film impregnated with hydrogen was subjected to tensile stress by monitoring the reaction rate of H with Li from a 1MeV particle beam. This type of result suggests that the original poster might be making an argument based on a false premise.



I am well aware of those issues and have found the arguments about them made elsewhere very stimulating and thought provoking.
Click to expand...

Post what you think is important. A tease you are!

The truth is there are standard procedures for all this.
 
Always fun to see the same claim made in conjunction with every FE scam. That is, the claim that some big company or group of companies will keep it away from the public. This just shows that the FE believers are unable to have a clear thought for more than 1 second.

I mean, really. Let's just assume that one of these "inventions" would actually work. What would an energy company do? According to the believers, it would lock it up forever or supress it. According to reality it would most certainly be different. They would buy the inventor and the patents, get even more patents on every little aspect of the machine, to make sure that no one _else_ can use it, and then they would go ahead and build lots of power plants with that technology.

I mean, really. Companies want to make profit. Lot's of profit. So, if they had the choice to either run expensive plants that require a constant stream of fresh fuel, or less expensive plants that require only very little fuel, does anyone really believe they would keep the expensive fuel option instead of switching over? If any of these FE inventions would work, it would mean that whatever company buys the right/patents to it could produce a lot of energy for very little money, while still collecting the usual prices for the energy from their customers. Well, OK, they would probably make it a tiny tad cheaper than what the competition charges, just to grab their customers too.

Really, the argument that any company/group/whatever would lock such stuff because it would threaten their business just shows that the people making that argument have no clue about basic bookkeeping, let alone economics.

Greetings,

Chris
 
BenBurch

Last chance if you want the wager.
Click to expand...

Even proposing an even money bet for this is in poor taste.

The most generous odds I would consider are 0.125:1 and then only for 100$ max.
 
Crawdaddy said:
If you bothered to take the 5 mintues of time required to actually look up the report and look at the pictures of the devices tested. You would see that the auxiliary heater was clearly labeled on the pictures in the report and mentioned in the body of the text. The auxilliary heater i referenced was in the swedish observers' report not in the patent, therefore your comment about me appealing to the supremacy of patents is without merit.
Click to expand...

Excellent work, Crawdaddy. You managed to spot the label in the Swedish Report. So now will you do the following (in the Swedish Report)?

1) Quote the statement which establishes that the auxiliary heater is directly connected to the reactor capsule. Note that the statement "At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control." does not establish this, unless you appeal "to the supremacy of the patents". And of course you would never, ever, do that. And I know that because you said so. I believe the phrase is "is without merit".

2) quote the specifications for the auxiliary heater,

3) quote the statement which refers to observing the application of power to the auxiliary heater rather than the main heater,

4) quote the statement which establishes the power level applied to the auxiliary heater.

And finally, I suggest you read your own statement (for the second time). I've even bolded the appropriate part to make it easier for you to find.

Crawdaddy said:
The calculation of reactor cooling under 30L/hr flow rate is deeply flawed. A cursory examination of the published data and patent application shows that resistive heating is applied directly to the nickel reactor core.

It takes 5 minutes to come up with this information....
Click to expand...

And now you're complaining that I claim you referred to the patent? Get serious.

Crawdaddy, this is embarrassing. Can't you even keep track of your own statements?


Crawdaddy said:
Further if you look at the video from the most recent demonstration conducted by the swedish group (of the same devices used in the first test) you will see that the PID controller clearly has two channels in operation.
Click to expand...

Umm, maybe it has something to do with the fact that there is no evidence that there is actually any power applied to the auxiliary heater, for one.

And trust me, "It amazing to me that you still don't understand why you were wrong about this." describes my feelings exactly. But I've mentioned that before.
 
Last edited:
Crawdaddy said:
BenBurch



Even proposing an even money bet for this is in poor taste.

The most generous odds I would consider are 0.125:1 and then only for 100$ max.
Click to expand...

You mean that you estimate the odds at one in four, but you want 8 to 1 odds. That's cold, man.
 
3) quote the statement which refers to observing the application of power to the auxiliary heater rather than the main heater,
Click to expand...

dude .. seriously you need to let this go... you are wrong about this. I will admit that your original argument would be much less foolish if the auxiliary heater was never energized (lol).

You mean that you estimate the odds at one in four, but you want 8 to 1 odds. That's cold, man.
Click to expand...

Wrong again master of POV pushing. When I asked the poster what his estimate of the probability of the device being legit was, he said 0%. Yet this poster thinks an even bet is reasonable (mathematically speaking this is infinitely colder than what you contend). I split our estimates of legitimacy in order to arrive at my odds. Very reasonable and at the very least luke-warm.
 
whatroughbeast said:
fedora,

welcome to the zoo.

Is this the actual patent, or just the patent application?

And if it's the patent, can you provide a link to the text?
Click to expand...

Hi Whatroughbeast,

hxxp://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20110113&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2011005506A1&KC=A1

Page 7 has the claims of Cu-62 stability and getting mass-to-energy level outputs of power.

If such levels of energy conversion and transmutation exist within the reactor, how is it no one has been inadvertently fried by hard radiation in performing similar experiments with nickel and hydrogen? Some unexplained deaths should have been reported by now, one would think. I asked that question elsewhere, and received no response.

The energy levels he is talking about are on the order of magnitude of converting rest mass directly to energy. Elsewhere, the claim was that 30,000 tonnes of energy equivalent (from crude oil) could be had from 58 grams of nickel. This is 1.26x10^15J. Fusion cannot do this.

I don't know if Rossi has something or not. If he has an unexplained heat source, he surely has not a clue how it works. His theory is so far out in left field that it's already coming back from the right. I would feel far more confident in his claims if he simply said "I have this thing that makes a lot more heat than it seems it should, but I don't know how the hell it really works."
 
Dancing David said:
Hi so here is Rossi's answer to the fictitious name on his board:
"Guest: Who is Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire, USA) is on your board of advisors? (The university doesn’t seem to know him).

Rossi: I do not know him well. I met him ten years ago when I made a test of a Seebeck Effect apparatus in the UNH. Anybody can enter in the Board Of Advisers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics (Rossis egen websajt, reds anm) so far he wants to make for free (the Journal pays nobody, is based only upon voluntary free work)a peer reviewing. Everybody is free to enter and to go out when he wants. It is necessary to be a University Professor in Scientific matter. Prof. Kelly is specialized in Environmental Engineering, as I remember."

http://www.theeestory.com/posts/182738

Now is he this person?
http://www.nist.gov/el/building_environment/gkelly.cfm

or this person?


http://www.ebxusa.com/company/management-staff.php

or maybe teh one who works here:
http://www.langan.com/web/
Click to expand...
He is either lying or mistaken at least regarding the UNH connection; I contacted the university some time ago and was informed of the following:
1. There has only been one George Kelly who held a professorial position at the UNH, this one. He was a psychologist and died in 1967.
2. There is no staff member of that name at the university, nor has there been for at least fifteen years.
3. There is no student or researcher within their science/engineering college of that name.

I also contacted Leonardo Technologies (LTI Global) regarding the alleged involvement of one of their staff (Dr. Richard Noceti) with the journal; they completely repudiated any connection to the journal, both regarding the company and Dr. Noceti.
Noceti is a reputable researcher in the field of alternate energy systems (his doctorate is in organic chemistry), such as hydrocarbon synthesis.
 
Fedora320 said:
Hi Whatroughbeast,

hxxp://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20110113&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2011005506A1&KC=A1
Click to expand...

Sorry, Fedora. That's a US Patent application, not an Italian patent.

Thanks for the effort, though.
 
Crawdaddy said:
BenBurch



Even proposing an even money bet for this is in poor taste.

The most generous odds I would consider are 0.125:1 and then only for 100$ max.
Click to expand...

So, I ask again: why do you get to select the odds...and why are there any odds at all?
 
Yes, it is a US patent app. Either way, it is his theory, so I figured it would be relevant to the discussion.
 
Crawdaddy said:
dude .. seriously you need to let this go... you are wrong about this. I will admit that your original argument would be much less foolish if the auxiliary heater was never energized (lol).
Click to expand...

lol yourself. I notice that you have not found the quotes I asked for for the other 3 points.

And on this point, well, I suggest you consult the Swedish Report. If you are diligent, you will find the following quotes:

"Note that on the main heating resistor which is positioned around the copper tube and made of stainless steel (Figure 3) you can read the dimensions and nominal power (50mm diameter and 300W)."

"The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter reading was 1.5 amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating including the power for the instrumentation, about 30 watts. The electric heater thus provides a power of 300 watts to the nickel-hydrogen mixture. This corresponds also to the nominal power of the resistor."

You will also notice that "The electric heater" is singular. Not plural.

"seriously you need to let this go... you are wrong about this." Based on what? The facts that don't exist? The things you've said that you can't remember correctly? The quotes which support your position which you somehow can't produce?

Oh. Yeah. That stuff. My humblest apologies.

Or let's try it another way. What evidence, exactly, do you have to support the proposition that the auxiliary heater ever was turned on? Activation of the claimed reaction process doesn't count. And what evidence, exactly, do you have that the test e-Cat has the auxiliary heater connected to the reactor capsule? Patent application doesn't count.
 
Last edited:
Fedora320 said:
Yes, it is a US patent app. Either way, it is his theory, so I figured it would be relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

The problem is that patents can change between application and issue, depending on rulings by the patent examiner. So until we see the actual Italian patent, we can't be sure of what's in it.
 
Fedora320 said:
If such levels of energy conversion and transmutation exist within the reactor, how is it no one has been inadvertently fried by hard radiation in performing similar experiments with nickel and hydrogen? Some unexplained deaths should have been reported by now, one would think. I asked that question elsewhere, and received no response.."
Click to expand...

Heh. You don't know the half of it.

When I offered my bet to Crawdaddy, I suggested that he had not considered the implications of Rossi's process.

Assuming the e-Cat works as advertised, the claims of the patent application concerning energy transfer must be true: gamma radiation. 2 cm of shielding implies energy of (about) 100 KeV or less.

Now let us consider a clever little device. It consists of a small pressure vessel containing a stolen reactor capsule from an e-Cat and a resistive heater (with. of course, the heater connected directly to the capsule), and has been charged to 25 bars with hydrogen and then sealed. In the demo that has been discussed, 300 watts for 10 minutes was enough to initiate the Rossi-Focardi process. Since the device under consideration has no cooling, it must require less power. Arbitrarily, let's assume 200 watts. 200 watts for 10 minutes equals less than 35 watt-hours. This is well within the range of a laptop battery.

So. If this device is driven by a laptop battery and left somewhere crowded, let's say an airport terminal, a train station, a sports stadium during a game; and the location is selected so lots of people walk past it. What will be the consequences?

Hundreds or thousands of radiation casualties. And most of them won't even know it until days later.

To put it simply, the Rossi e-Cat will form the basis of the most cost-effective tool for terrorist weapons of mass destruction yet known. And by quite a margin.

Hence my condition in the proposed bet concerning Draconian government regulations. The e-Cat may be cheap by itself, but what will the required nuclear-weapons-level security procedures do the system economics?

Fedora320 said:
The energy levels he is talking about are on the order of magnitude of converting rest mass directly to energy. Elsewhere, the claim was that 30,000 tonnes of energy equivalent (from crude oil) could be had from 58 grams of nickel. This is 1.26x10^15J. Fusion cannot do this.
Click to expand...

You're not the first to wonder. From Rossi's site, contributed by Tony

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473&cpage=5#comment-34517

"1 tonne of crude oil (6.841 barrels) is 42 GJ (Wikipedia)
That means 58gNi transformation is the equivalent of 963/42 or 22.93 tonne or 156.8 barrels of oil.
The patent stated 30,000 tonne of mineral oil."

Rossi's response was notable for the deafening quality of its silence.

You might want to check the math yourself.
 
Last edited:
catsmate1 said:
Really............................

So you don't consider any of the following points odd:
The fake journal with the deal psychologist on it's board?
Rossi's history of fraud?
The mysteriously stable Cu62?
The lack of radiation?
The refusal to allow proper independent of the alleged fusion apparatus?
The fact that since the first claims, over eighty years ago, not one cold fusion device has been demonstrated to actually work?

And yet you say our critical thinking skills are poor?:rolleyes::eek::eye-poppi:boggled:
Click to expand...

I'd like an answer to this as well, Craw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom