Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsig said:
I must say that "gallons of gas per Ford Explorer" is an unorthodox unit of measurement. If he could somehow relate it to football fields he'd have a better chance with American investors.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not. On my one and only visit to the USA I found that the cost of filling a car with gas was far and away the chief topic of interest and indignant comment, even though that cost was much lower than its UK or European equivalent.
 
Craig B said:
According to the website New Energy and Fuel, which enthuses over Cold Fusion from time to time, there is commercial interest in one other project in addition to Rossi's e-cat: Brillouin Energy's Controlled Electron Capture Reaction (CECR). It's yet another nickel thing, like the Rossi contraption. It allegedly works like this: Would anyone like to comment on the plausibility of such a reaction as a source of energy? "Big money is standing by", seemingly. http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/n...fusion-goes-commercial-big-money-standing-by/
Click to expand...

Well, all of those reactions are routinely studied by real nuclear physicists. p+n --> d releases a 2.2 MeV gamma ray. d+n --> t releases a 6.25 MeV gamma ray. t+n --> "quadrium" is known not to occur. Seriously. An extra neutron is *repelled* from tritium, not captured; if you force a neutron in (using a high-energy n beam on a T target), the extremely-short-lived "4H resonance" simply falls apart, it does NOT beta-decay to 4He.

If you're creating neutrons in an environment with a mix of H and Ni, the result is *almost entirely* captures on nickel nuclei (4.5 barns on 58Ni) rather than on H (0.3 barns). Capture on *trace* deuterium is almost nil (0.0005) in this environment. Neutron capture on nickel has an easily-identified gamma ray spectrum, and produces the long-lived radioactive isotopes 59Ni and 63Ni.

And, neutrons don't capture right where they are created. Make a neutron in a bit of nickel powder in a steel tube, you will neutron-irradiate everything in the room.

In other words: Yet again, just like Widom and Larsen, these people are using real words like "neutron" and "capture" and "isotope", but they're not talking about the actual behaviors of actual neutrons. Yes, if you had a way of running e+p-->n (which requires energy input), you would be able to get excess power by exploiting the resulting neutron captures. No, this would not look like "a mysterious and secretive process producing excess heat", it would look like a neutron generator.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Brillouin’s power equation is 2.4 units of energy going in and 24 units coming out.

The amount of hydrogen in a 8-oz (237 ml) glass of water holds the energy equivalent of the gasoline needed to fill up 7903 Ford Explorers or to power 3279 average homes for a month. The nickel or other metal element acts only as a host and catalyst, and is not consumed.
- See more at: http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/n...l-big-money-standing-by/#sthash.a5nVsoVr.dpuf

I must say that "gallons of gas per Ford Explorer" is an unorthodox unit of measurement. If he could somehow relate it to football fields he'd have a better chance with American investors.
Click to expand...


Actually, since I drive an F-150, that's actually a useful measure, as they're probably quite similar, gas-tank wise.

So this would let me replace 7903 fill-ups, at about $90-100 a pop these days. That's between $700 000-800 000 savings in gas, assuming I either keep my truck for 152 years (filling up every 2 weeks or so), or drive more than one truck at a time for 20 years. :D

But seriously. Assuming a fill-up every week*, and a truck life time of 15 years, that's about $78 000 in savings. Let's say we pro-rate it at 50% (to make it economically attractive), and I'd be willing to pay about $39 000 more for my truck, if it means I never have to fill up again**.

If they can't market a working version of a tin can filled with nickel and hydrogen for less than that, there's something very wrong with their business plan.

So, where's my Water Powered F-150?




*Because now, **** worrying about mileage! Sunday Drives for Everybody!!


**Plus, since it's about 10 times more energy that the truck needs in its lifetime, when I'm home, I could plug the house into the truck, to run everything there.
 
ben m said:
If you're creating neutrons in an environment with a mix of H and Ni, the result is *almost entirely* captures on nickel nuclei (4.5 barns on 58Ni) rather than on H (0.3 barns). Capture on *trace* deuterium is almost nil (0.0005) in this environment. Neutron capture on nickel has an easily-identified gamma ray spectrum, and produces the long-lived radioactive isotopes 59Ni and 63Ni.
Click to expand...



For those playing at home,

The absorption neutron cross-section of an isotope of a chemical element is the effective cross sectional area that an atom of that isotope presents to absorption, and is a measure of the probability of neutron capture. It is usually measured in barns (b).
Click to expand...


So in addition to explaining why this is bollocks, it also has the coolest unit name ever (think about it!).
 
ben m said:
... t+n --> "quadrium" is known not to occur. Seriously. An extra neutron is *repelled* from tritium, not captured; if you force a neutron in (using a high-energy n beam on a T target), the extremely-short-lived "4H resonance" simply falls apart, it does NOT beta-decay to 4He.
Click to expand...
According to wiki on isotopes of hydrogen
Other, highly unstable nuclei (4H to 7H) have been synthesized in the laboratory but not observed in nature. The most stable radioisotope is tritium, with a half-life of 12.32 years. All heavier isotopes are synthetic and have a half-life less than a zeptosecond (10^-21 second).
Click to expand...
Another indication of the validity of the Brillouin theory is found in the same wiki article:
In the 1955 satirical novel The Mouse That Roared, the name quadium was given to the hydrogen-4 isotope that powered the Q-bomb that the Duchy of Grand Fenwick captured from the United States.
Click to expand...
Is this all a satire modelled on old jokes? That novel is worth a read, by the way. I read it when I was about twelve years old. Good laugh.
 
Sockor said:
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/nucldata/GroundStatedecays/04H.shtml

Looks like 4H is made with a whole bunch of reactions, none of which is T+n.
Click to expand...

True enough; high-energy neutrons are such inconvenient beasts in the laboratory that there are far fewer experiments with them than (focus-able, steerable, energy-selectable) charged beams. D(T,p) (meaning D target + T beam --> anything + p), or T(D,p), is very nearly n +T with a spectator proton; deuterium is often used this way at high energies.

Point being: 4H barely exists. It's a resonance, not a bound state. It does not form from thermal neutron capture on tritium. It does not beta-decay to 4He.
 
phunk said:
100% against Rossi here.

"I don't really need your money" means "I don't really think I can win this bet", doesn't it?
Click to expand...

What it really means is that I wish to remain anonymous and bets tend to preclude that.
Phunk = against
 
Reality Check said:
You forgot that ultimate egomaniac, pteridine: Rossi :eye-poppi!

You also forgot to back up your insult about Nathan Lewis and Richard Garwin with actual evidence or even citations to their "error". Are you just insulting random people in the world, pteridine? Can we expect you to label Winnie the Pooh an egomaniac next :D?
Click to expand...

Garwin's study for DOE was flawed in that he was at U Rochester at the time which was receiving significant funding for hot fusion.....you remember that technology that has been in the future for about 5 decades...and he didn't disqualify himself because he was not disinterested.
During the furor over Fleischmann and Pons claims, Lewis made up the Nathan Lewis rule which said that an excess of 20% energy was needed to show the effect. 19% was lacking. Lewis was the arbiter because Lewis was a raving genius who knew everything about everything.

Thank you for your clever use of the smilies to illustrate the depths of your emotion.
 
Ben,
It would be good to carefully define the terms. Given that there are many claiming that Rossi is a fraud and the effect is not real, how about "Rossi is a fraud/not a fraud" or "the effect is real/is an artifact?"
 
Horatius said:
Nice. You bump the thread not to provide the evidence of a working ECat that we've been waiting for for almost three years now (evidence that was promised to us multiple times over that period), but instead to subtly insult us by implying WE are the people who would have difficulty admitting we were wrong.

Nice.
Click to expand...

It would seem that I am just as confident that the effect is real as you are that it is not. Is the [e]cat dead or alive? The box is still closed.
 
pteridine said:
Garwin's study for DOE was flawed in that he was at U Rochester at the time which was receiving significant funding for hot fusion
Click to expand...

In 1989 Garwin was a staff member at the IBM Watson Research Center (not in Rochester) and an adjunct professor at Columbia (also not in Rochester).
 
pteridine said:
It would seem that I am just as confident that the effect is real as you are that it is not. Is the [e]cat dead or alive? The box is still closed.
Click to expand...

Which is telling. You are confident about a closed box you never checked for yourself. We are confident about an open box (open research) we checked ourself (for those of us which experimented in the domain or read the report of those which experimented there).

Now I wonder who is the more arrogant.
 
pteridine said:
It would seem that I am just as confident that the effect is real as you are that it is not. Is the [e]cat dead or alive? The box is still closed.
Click to expand...
Why so? What prevents it from being opened, and its contents revealed? How long will we have to wait?
 
pteridine said:
It would seem that I am just as confident that the effect is real as you are that it is not. Is the [e]cat dead or alive? The box is still closed.
Click to expand...

Your metaphor is flawed. THey keep telling us that there is a box but refuse to reveal it...
 
ben m said:
In 1989 Garwin was a staff member at the IBM Watson Research Center (not in Rochester) and an adjunct professor at Columbia (also not in Rochester).
Click to expand...
You mean pteridine is utterly wrong in his pontifications and slanderous implications? How strange........
:rolleyes:

Shades of his posts in the 'TWA 800' thread.
 
pteridine said:
It would seem that I am just as confident that the effect is real as you are that it is not. Is the [e]cat dead or alive? The box is still closed.
Click to expand...

Aepervius said:
Which is telling. You are confident about a closed box you never checked for yourself. We are confident about an open box (open research) we checked ourself (for those of us which experimented in the domain or read the report of those which experimented there).

Now I wonder who is the more arrogant.
Click to expand...



Exactly. We have clearly defined what it would take to convince us that Rossi (and any other cold fusion type claims) are real. And yet, none of the CF proponents have ever met that burden, despite how easy it would be if their claimed results were true.

Meanwhile, pteridine, you tell us to wait for Rossi to "open his box", and that you'll withhold judgement until he does - knowing all the while that, if he is a fraud, he will never open that box.

Unless and until you can list some criteria under which you would admit that Rossi is a fraud, criteria that Rossi himself does not have absolute control over, you're nothing more than a close minded fanboy who is deluding himself about "being open minded".

And none of your smug arrogant fantasies about how we will refuse to recognize Rossi's success if he ever shows a real effect will change that.
 
Really , this is like always the same script that those folk use, since keely and maybe even before :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ernst_Worrell_Keely

1) announce incredible stuff
2) announce test
3) make sure nobody can look too near
4) on the side try to get investor
5) make REALLY sure there is no independent test
6) try to scam more money
7) repeat ad nauseam until caught , or until everybody abandon the stuff

All the guy which came afterward , even Steorn or rossi or defkalion ? same script really.

They keep changing what the miracle is, but the recipes is the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom