Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
vodka.cobra
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Florida
Contact:

Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby vodka.cobra » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:06 am UTC

http://pesn.com/2011/04/07/9501805_Ross ... s_Society/

Yet another test of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) has been performed on a 4.5 kW version near the University of Bologna. This time a new set of observers were present, one of which is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, who confirmed that Copper is being formed from Hydrogen and Nickel -- cold fusion!


Any physics nerds care to debunk/validate this?
If the above comment has anything to do with hacking or cryptography, note that I work for a PHP security company and might know what I'm talking about.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:17 am UTC

It's not twenty years from now.

And done.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby yurell » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:22 am UTC

I love the conspiracy theory rant at the end, but my main question is why don't they show us the results from gamma-ray detectors? You know, since it would support their claim of fusion should they be detected in sufficient quantities.
That article, however, doesn't mention it once. I'm only an undergraduate nuclear physicist, but that would be my first port of call.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Aaeriele » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:40 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby The Reaper » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:41 am UTC

Ah hah, that's why I recognized this. Old news. Basically we're all waiting on the results of the demo plant.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:20 am UTC

The Reaper wrote:Ah hah, that's why I recognized this. Old news. Basically we're all waiting on the results of the demo plant.
Fuck that noise
The setup is truly simple. It reminds me of old pipework from many years ago.
Let's get building!

EDIT: Hmmm, what could the catalyst be?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Ulc » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:30 am UTC

It sets off a few blips on my "crackpottery meter" - mostly because he declines to explain what is going on inside the box, what is inside the box or let anyone examine it. it also worries me that the fourth link about it on google are a facebook page, and that nothing about it has been accepted in peer reviewed papers.

His insistence on not revealing what is inside the black box is really rather worrying, it would be exciting if it's actually something we don't understand that is going, which would essentially provide us with free energy (at the cost of some hydrogen and copper, both of which are so abundant as to not make a difference) but I'm cynical that until he shows us what is inside that black box, I'm going to assume hoax.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:54 am UTC

It could be a turbine run by water pressure in the "black box". IE, turn on tap, run turbine, put in black box, pretend you have cold fusion.
Until we see real world usage, it's still very high on the "complete smoke and mirrors" scale. For every real invention, 10 other people turn up with fake products hoping to do a runner with investment money. :(
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Minerva » Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:56 am UTC

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... 2%A9n+(pdf

The present test was done on a smaller device [5] than the 10 kW device that has been used earlier during the January press conference. One of the reasons for going to smaller dimensions is safety according to Rossi.


What makes it potentially dangerous?

The conclusions from the papers [1] to [4] are that nickel and hydrogen provide the fuel for nuclear processes inside a small container in a radiation shielded setup and that in the room outside, no radiation different from the ambient one is found.


I don't give a damn about the room outside... are you detecting any kind of radiation emitted from the device itself, right next to the device, with no shielding? If so, what kind of particles, what count rate? Neutrons, photons or what? What does the spectroscopy look like? The detection of ionizing radiation of some kind is of course the signature of a nuclear reaction, and the means by which we observe and characterize and identify that reaction.

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.


330 W / 1.5 A = 200 V. What kind of power supply was used to supply the 200 V? AC or DC? What is the actual resistance of this heating resistor? What kind of instrumentation is used to measure these voltages and currents and powers? We can assume that this heating element has a resistance of 133.3 ohms since it is supposedly dissipating 300 W at 200 V, assuming that the "other instrumentation" is connected in parallel across the 200 V supply - but as the heating element heats up, its resistance is likely to change significantly, changing the power dissipation significantly. The heating element is also likely to have a bit of inductance, meaning that error will be introduced if they're careless about measuring real power, apparent power etc. They have not measured anything accurately or described anything accurately. By the standards of basic school-classroom science, they're doing a bad job.

The flow of the inlet water was calibrated in the following way. The time for filling up 0.5 liters of water in a carafe was measured to be 278 seconds. Visual checks showed that the water flow was free from bubbles. Scaled to flow per hour resulted in a flow of 6.47 kg/hour (Density 1 kg/liter assumed). The water temperature was 18 °C. The specific heat of water, 4.18 joule/gram/ °C which is equal to 1.16 Wh/kg/ °C is used to calculate the energy needed to bring 1 kg of water from 18 to 100 °C. The result is 1.16 (100-18)=95 Wh/kg. The heat of vaporization is 630 Wh/kg. Assuming that all water will be vaporized, the energy required to bring 1 kg water of 18 °C to vapor is 95+630=725 Wh/kg. To heat up the adjusted water flow of 6.47 kg/hour from 18 °C to vapor will require 725 6.47=4.69 kWh/hour. The power required for heating and vaporization is thus 4.69 kW.


A "carafe"? For crying out loud, at least try to be taken seriously and use a measuring cylinder or something.

(500 ml / 278 seconds) * 998 g/L (at 20C) = 0.0018 kg/s

Assuming a constant flow rate, an inlet temperature of 18 C, that the working fluid is water, etc, then if the heating element is dissipating 300 W than that alone will heat the inlet water to about 58 C.

If Rossi really wants to convince scientists that this isn't just another Steorn or Lutec or [insert bullshit here], then do the following.

* Put a proper flow rate meter on the water inlet, along with a thermocouple.

* Put a proper flow rate meter on the water outlet, along with a thermocouple. (If it's water and steam, actually, measuring the flow rate will be tricky, but let's just assume that it is conserved and the water doesn't just disappear.

* Put a good leak valve or needle valve with a known, controlled flow rate on the hydrogen line, or preferably a proper mass flow controller. Put a pressure transducer in the reactor vessel to measure the hydrogen pressure.

* Power the resistive heating element from a DC power supply and provide a direct measurement of the current through it and the voltage across it, independently of any other electronics.

* Plug all the above sensors into a data-logging acquisition interface and record them continuously.

* Put a HPGe detector or NaI scintillation detector or something similar next to the device, inside of any radiation shielding, along with a neutron detector. Record the type, count rate, and spectra, where practical, for any type of ionizing radiation that has actually been emitted.

* Record all this raw data from these sensors while the machine is running, and publish it and show us.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:50 pm UTC

From the original article...
It is well known to those who have been following the saga of Andrea Rossi's technology that one byproduct of the system is copper. Apparently, it is the result of the fusion reaction between nickel and hydrogen. Until now, we had to take Andrea Rossi's word for that, but the results of additional testing has confirmed his claims.

A sample of fresh nickel powder and a sample of nickel powder that had been in an active E-Cat for two and a half months was given to Kullander and Essen. Elemental and isotopic analysis was performed on the samples utilizing both X-ray Fluorescence and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. The result was that the fresh nickel powder was almost totally pure nickel, but the nickel powder that had been in an E-Cat contained 10% copper and 11% iron. Two of the copper isotopes detected were Cu63 and Cu65. Kullander has stated this is proof of nuclear reactions taking place in the reactor.

They then go on to make fun of some guy who said it's fake.

First of all, they have a rig almost entirely made of copper, and they found copper in it. ZOMG! Then they found iron, and the rest of the rig is made of iron. Hmm... Maybe build the rig without your products, and see if they still appear. Also, how is the iron appearing, if they're claiming fusion? Last I checked (which was 5 seconds ago), Fe comes before Ni.

Anyway, the only real surprise from that fanboy article was the lack of "wake up, sheeple!!!"
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:12 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Spoiler:
From the original article...
It is well known to those who have been following the saga of Andrea Rossi's technology that one byproduct of the system is copper. Apparently, it is the result of the fusion reaction between nickel and hydrogen. Until now, we had to take Andrea Rossi's word for that, but the results of additional testing has confirmed his claims.

A sample of fresh nickel powder and a sample of nickel powder that had been in an active E-Cat for two and a half months was given to Kullander and Essen. Elemental and isotopic analysis was performed on the samples utilizing both X-ray Fluorescence and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. The result was that the fresh nickel powder was almost totally pure nickel, but the nickel powder that had been in an E-Cat contained 10% copper and 11% iron. Two of the copper isotopes detected were Cu63 and Cu65. Kullander has stated this is proof of nuclear reactions taking place in the reactor.

They then go on to make fun of some guy who said it's fake.


First of all, they have a rig almost entirely made of copper, and they found copper in it. ZOMG! Then they found iron, and the rest of the rig is made of iron. Hmm... Maybe build the rig without your products, and see if they still appear. Also, how is the iron appearing, if they're claiming fusion? Last I checked (which was 5 seconds ago), Fe comes before Ni.

Spoiler:
Anyway, the only real surprise from that fanboy article was the lack of "wake up, sheeple!!!
"


That was my first inclination the guy "has no clue" what so ever. I'm glad I'm not the only one to spot it. I've not read the article. It's a complete waste of time IMO if the "we found copper" argument is part of their reasoning system. However, are they piping in Hydrogen? Is the system not going to produce energy from the hydrogen/oxygen reaction? So this guy just made a hydrogen/oxygen powered electrical generator? We have those already.

[edit]
Oh, and Iron is massively heavy is it not? Would Helium not be first? IE if we are getting iron, we are reaching an output so great we are going to have trouble containing it in something, well, the size of the sun! ;)
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:52 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:[edit]
Oh, and Iron is massively heavy is it not? Would Helium not be first? IE if we are getting iron, we are reaching an output so great we are going to have trouble containing it in something, well, the size of the sun! ;)

No, Fe is just 2 below Ni, and the claim is that they're making Cu (Ni+1) by combining Ni and H. But then they get Fe, and don't even blink. So, my question would be, what might they be putting into the "catalyst" that could strip metal ions from the piping, and deposit them on the nickel? Not to mention the question of following a batch of nickel through the process. They compared "fresh" Ni with used, but didn't sample the used when it was fresh.

For a team that claim to have discovered the biggest scientific breakthrough ever, they are astoundingly bad at science. They could do plenty of stuff to add weight to their claims without coming anywhere near risking their IP.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:30 pm UTC

OH sorry, I was thinking of the cycle of elements in solar bodies. IE the resources to get to heavy metals from hydrogen is a more than I'd expect in a table top experiment.
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Minerva » Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:35 am UTC

Also, it's funny how they claim to be liberating nuclear energy from nickel, an element which is essentially right at the peak of nuclear-binding stability, where it will be essentially impossible to get any nuclear binding energy liberated from it.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:24 am UTC

Um, yeah, good point Minerva. It's been a while since my particle physics days, but they are claiming Nickel + Hydrogen = Copper + Energy, right? Which is the wrong side of Iron on the stability curve. You'd have to add energy to Nickel and Hydrogen to get them to stick together as Copper. It certainly wouldn't release any.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:30 am UTC

But they use a catalyst!
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:37 am UTC

And it's in a box!

A magic box!

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby AvatarIII » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:38 am UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:But they use a catalyst!


a mystery catalyst at that!

i have to ask though, even if the energy input is greater than the energy output, making it impractical, it's still cold fusion though right?

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:49 am UTC

Well, it would be, if they had actually demonstrated that it was taking place.

The trouble most physicists have with cold fusion is that it completely rewrites laws of physics that have been observed in the laboratory countless times. If someone can get it to work then great, but as always extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby AvatarIII » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:53 am UTC

Deep_Thought wrote:Well, it would be, if they had actually demonstrated that it was taking place.

The trouble most physicists have with cold fusion is that it completely rewrites laws of physics that have been observed in the laboratory countless times. If someone can get it to work then great, but as always extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


if they actually are turning nickel and hydrogen into copper though, are there any other fully understood processes that could cause that?

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:06 am UTC

Deep_Thought wrote:Um, yeah, good point Minerva. It's been a while since my particle physics days, but they are claiming Nickel + Hydrogen = Copper + Energy, right? Which is the wrong side of Iron on the stability curve. You'd have to add energy to Nickel and Hydrogen to get them to stick together as Copper. It certainly wouldn't release any.

But wouldn't the theoretical physicist president of the Swedish Skeptic's Society have known about that sort of thing as well?

Maybe some sort of chemical reaction? Or just burning the hydrogen? What scam did they use to boil away all that water?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:38 am UTC

AvatarIII wrote:if they actually are turning nickel and hydrogen into copper though, are there any other fully understood processes that could cause that?

No. Nuclear fusion and fission are literally alchemy - the turning of one element into another. To do that you have to add or subtract protons from the nucleus, and hope that you get a few neutrons as well otherwise the result is really unstable and will decay quickly.

Binding a proton to a nucleus involves getting the proton close enough that the strong nuclear force can grab it. To do so you have to fight the electrostatic force (like charges repel), and the only current way to do this involves giving the protons huge amounts of kinetic energy (with a helping hand from quantum tunnelling). Iron is the most stable element (which is why it's an incredibly common element). To add protons to Iron or any subsequent element requires HUGE amounts of energy. The only common place in the universe that such energies are found is in exploding supernovas. That's how much energy we're talking, not even the sun will produce anything higher than iron during it's normal lifespan.

Imagine your proton is a marble. The interplay of the strong and electrostatic forces is kind of volcano shaped, with very tall, very steep slopes and a deep pit in the middle. The nucleus sits in that pit. To get your marble into the pit, the only known way is to flick it really hard up the side of the volcano and hope it reaches the top, so it can fall into the pit. Quantum tunnelling makes this analogy a bit messy, as there is non-zero chance that the marble can suddenly jump through the side of the volcano. But this only becomes significant near the top, where the sides are already really thin.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby AvatarIII » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:53 am UTC

ok thanks, i think i knew the majority of that stuff, but it's all buried under pointless shit in my brain,

so basically, either
a) it's a hoax, but isn't the point of skeptics societies to debunk hoaxes?
b) it's an honest mistake, but how could the skeptics society miss something like that?
or c) something we have absolutley no understanding of is going on,

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:13 pm UTC

AvatarIII wrote:a) it's a hoax, but isn't the point of skeptics societies to debunk hoaxes?
b) it's an honest mistake, but how could the skeptics society miss something like that?
or c) something we have absolutley no understanding of is going on,

a) Yes. However I can't find a Swedish Sceptic's Society webpage right now, at least in English, so I can't tell if they've even released a proper statement.
b) Again, can't check up on credentials although the original article claims one of them is a professor of physics, so he should know better.
c) There is always this possibility. But if it is this option, then this is truly Nobel prize territory. Until I see either a paper or patent at least detailing what's inside the reaction vessel I'm going to be massively sceptical. Remember that an experimental physics journal should (given a nice editor) publish a paper stating "We've done this ground-breaking experiment but don't know what's causing it. Please can the theoreticians now have a go", and a patent would give them exclusive rights to this technology for a couple of decades. The fact we have neither just leaves us with a strong smell of fish...
Last edited by Deep_Thought on Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby AvatarIII » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:18 pm UTC

it'll probably just be the emdrive all over again, that went as far as having a cover story in new scientist because it seemed to work and then it hasn't really been heard of since

Wombat2k
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:45 pm UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Wombat2k » Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:03 pm UTC

How reputable is the journal of nuclear physics? It seems to be full of LENR papers.
Edit: Not very. It`s published by Rossi himself.

Also an Italian patent has been granted. The international patent is pending. WO/2009/125444.
The first commercial reactors are being certified by the Greek ministry of environment and industry. They should have a 1MW online in the fourth quarter of this year.
The electrostatic problem is solved by putting the deutrons into a metal lattice forming a bloch wave. ( making them "fuzzy" enough to interact).
Also the nickel to copper transformation is covered here.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473#more-473

That said I`m not going to hold my breath. It seems to be impossible. You can lower the height of Avatars volcano a little by putting the deutrons into the interstices of a metal but not by much. Filed under improbable but worth keeping an eye on.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:10 pm UTC

Wombat2k wrote:The electrostatic problem is solved by putting the deutrons into a metal lattice forming a bloch wave. ( making them "fuzzy" enough to interact).
Also the nickel to copper transformation is covered here.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473#more-473

Are you being serious?
I thank you for linking to that paper. I've never seen drawing a mask on a proton as a valid method of bypassing the coulomb barrier before. It's so obvious. :shock:

Interestingly, an Ni58+5 protons=Cu63 reaction would actually release a little bit of energy. But the "paper", among myriad other problems, suggests that the protons are added one at a time. This falls at the first hurdle - Ni58+P=>Cu59 requires an amount of energy equal to an entire extra proton. That's certainly not present anywhere here.

Edit: Yes, after posting earlier I found mention of the Italian patent. Apparently the International Patent Office has passed an initial rejection. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Wombat2k
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:45 pm UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Wombat2k » Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:12 pm UTC

That list is the result of a little google research. It`s the things that made me WTF. Including the protons wearing little masks.
The main source of energy is the deutrons converting into helium. The copper is just a neat side effect of the magic fusion powder.
Obviously the international patent rejection is due to fossil fuel companies scared that cheap , almost limitless energy would eat into their profits.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:12 pm UTC

Aaah. Sarcasm has a habit of being lost in transmission over the Internet ;)

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Minerva » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:41 pm UTC

Wombat2k wrote:How reputable is the journal of nuclear physics?


http://www.techeye.net/science/italian- ... old-fusion

However, Rossi and Focardi's paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves.


Wombat2k wrote:Also the nickel to copper transformation is covered here.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473#more-473


How it works
Following Focardi Rossi [3]. a Ni58 nucleus produces a Copper nucleus according to the reaction

Ni58 + p → Cu59

Copper nucleus Cu59 decays with positron (e+) and neutrino (ν) emission in Ni59 nucleus according to

Cu59 → Ni59 + ν + e+

Then (e+) annichilates with (e-) in two gamma-rays

e- + e+ → γ + γ


Oh, great. Then we can stick a scintillation detector next to this thing and we'll see the distinctive γ-ray line at 511 keV from positron annihilation. Perfect!
Or is there an extra step in the process that they have not listed, where those gamma rays are hidden away and covered up by Big Oil before we're able to detect them? :roll:

The risk is zero, because we do not use radioactive material and we do not produce radioactive wastes.


But what they have just described on the webpage, above that bit, is the formation and resultant radioactive decay of a radionuclide. :roll:

What about that Ni-59, which has a 76000-year half-life?

Deep_Thought wrote:Remember that an experimental physics journal should (given a nice editor) publish a paper stating "We've done this ground-breaking experiment but don't know what's causing it. Please can the theoreticians now have a go", and a patent would give them exclusive rights to this technology for a couple of decades. The fact we have neither just leaves us with a strong smell of fish...


If I was running the journal I would definately publish that. But only if it was obvious that this device actually existed and actually did something interesting, and only if all the details regarding the experiment and the apparatus were fully described in detail such that the experiment could be reproduced.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media keeps giving attention to every single "Oh me yarm, world's energy problems solved forever, huge free energy breakthrough that big corporations don't want you to know about" crackpot who pops up with a supposed cold fusion machine or perpetual motion machine.

Until the press learns to stop giving them attention without first checking the basic science, they are going to continue to do this.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

Wombat2k
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:45 pm UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Wombat2k » Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:22 pm UTC

@minerva. Sorry. I seem to have created a communication failure. Deep_Thought`s post above your`s is spot on. In future I`ll stick to a straight forward way of saying things. To make it very clear my first post in this thread was a list of things that sounded wrong. I was going for informative and funny. I can continue researching this and post the amusing bits but the man behind me with a gun says that would be a very bad idea unless it is clear that this is a hoax/scam

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby nitePhyyre » Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:27 pm UTC

Deep_Thought wrote:a) Yes. However I can't find a Swedish Sceptic's Society webpage right now, at least in English, so I can't tell if they've even released a proper statement.
http://www.vof.se/index.php
This is from the site. It is before the expirement in question. Translated from swedish to english using a meat grinder google translate.
Spoiler:
2011-03-06
Cold fusion again?
As VoF-President with special interest in perpetual machines, free energy and cold fusion, which also published an idea that could possibly be interpreted as cold fusion, I was contacted by reporter Mats Lewan on New Technology. He wondered how I saw the new reports, if something like cold fusion, which came from the University of Bologna. I took some time for me to study the material that was available and came to my surprise found that it all seemed really interesting. No significant similarities with the Pons and Fleischmann flop of 1989 could be discerned. Firstly, the ongoing attempts a long history in a serious journal, and no results were reproduced by others. These are indicative of a system of nickel and hydrogen as studied by F. Piantelli and Sergio Focardi et al physicists from Siena and Bologna. For about four years ago decided inventor and engineer Andrea Rossi to try to develop this into a commercial product, with Focardi involved. According to Rossi began the work well for about 2 years ago. In short, Rossi, a reactor that produces thermal energy using the proton from the hydrogen fuses with nickel core, if you can believe him. The product currently available which are being mass-produced according to Rossi delivers 10 kW of heat energy for 6 months with about 100 grams of nickel and a few grams of hydrogen. The reactor is started by heating, but then uses a control panel 80 watts, that's all. No dangerous radiation coming through blyhöljet the reactor and the remains are not very radioactive. Patents applied for and details of the design is still industrial secrets. Why would you believe this? In the first reactor is subjected to independent testing by the physicist Giuseppe Levi, University of Bologna. The longest test has been reported so far, however, only lasted less than a day. However, the device worked flawlessly, all three times Levi helped to start it. Measurements of the inserted and extracted energy can now be entirely ruled out chemical energy. Independent analysis of nickel powder in the reactor before and after the show that the isotopic composition changed and that copper is formed. Nuclear physics behind the reaction is in order of magnitude in terms of energy production. It is difficult to understand is how the electrical repulsion between the proton and nickel core can be overcome. In addition, there should be more and more intense gamma radiation from the apparatus according to the conventional nuclear physics. However, Rossi is now concluded agreements with the University of Bologna and the testing continues. So far, however, the internal design secret. Andrea Rossi was Italian champion in the long-distance running (however, as he himself acknowledges, in the absence of the international elite) and have been training on Lidingö outside Stockholm. He has also managed to imprisonment for environmental crimes and gone bankrupt in the waste disposal industry. From this adventure, however, he has gotten away with honor intact, as he later earned a lot of money on inventions that make biodiesel from organic waste. It was when he sold the business as he got the money (about 500 000) which he invested in the development of its reactor. He has not borrowed something and are not looking for money until the product can be sold. Rossi has also opposed all the publicity surrounding the invention, it was Focardi who made ​​sure that some journalists were invited to one of the tests, now makes Rossi, however, except for Mats Lewan at New Technology. Currently building a Megawatt facility in Athens, through parallel and series connection of standard devices. It will start in October this year and when it delivers Rossi will get paid for the first time. With regard to theoretical understanding of what is happening there as usual manifold speculations. It is not uncommon in physics that one interesting experiment generates hundreds of theoretical publications. In this case, a number of Americans heard from their theories. Widom and Larsen believes that the protons are converted to neutrons and then successfully penetrating into the nickel core. Other speculations are also available. My own favorite hypothesis is that there are plasma phenomena such as "run-away electrons" and the filament ring that concentrates the energy and and produces such strong magnetic fields that Coulombrepulsionen repealed. Before it is useful to speculate further, however, considerably more empirical facts come out. Mats Lewan held a debate on New Technology of me as a positive interest and Emeritus Professor Sven Kullander (Chairman of KVASER energy committee). When I went there, I thought I would get it hot on the ears, but to my surprise was Kullander equally positive interest as myself. One reason for this turned out to be that Professor Kullander himself been involved in Japanese-Swedish attempt to obtain fusion at low energies in systems with liquid lithium. The report on these experiments is called Ultradense nuclear fusion in metallic lithium liquid (Hidetsugu Ikegami 2007) and can be downloaded from the Agency's website. Professor Kullander and I have been putting questions to and discuss with Andrea Rossi, and will actively monitor the tests at the University of Bologna. It will be very exciting. So far no indications that made ​​me suspicious, although many questions still exist. These is because this is not a question of basic scientific research but of invention, patent and industrial secrets. The really interesting physics comes first when the science is allowed to study the guts of the reactor, but then teach it to explode if everything goes as it looks right now. Stay tuned, as they say.

Deep_Thought wrote:b) Again, can't check up on credentials although the original article claims one of them is a professor of physics, so he should know better.
Hanno Essén wrote:Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.[1]

Hanno Essén received his Ph.D; at Stockholm University in 1979. The thesis was titled Topics in Molecular Mechanics and touched the approximate separations of nuclear and electron motion and the vibrational and rotational motion of molecules. He continued his research as a postdoc at Oxford University, England, for one year, and then two years at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. After some years as a temporary lecturer at the Physics Department at Stockholm University and at the Quantum Chemistry, Uppsala University, Essen got permanent employment as a lecturer at the Mechanics dept at the Royal Institute of Technology in 1988. Since 1990 he has been Director of undergraduate studies (Studierektor) at the Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology. He is member of the Editorial Board of European Journal of Physics from September 2006 and was Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for three years: 2008 april 19 – 2011 april 2.
SlagrutorJordstrålning
Hanno Essen
Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics and lecturer at the Royal Institute of Technology
Phone: 08-7908759 (work), 08-6124128 (home)
E-mail: Hanno mech.kth.se

Deep_Thought wrote:c) There is always this possibility. But if it is this option, then this is truly Nobel prize territory. Until I see either a paper or patent at least detailing what's inside the reaction vessel I'm going to be massively sceptical. Remember that an experimental physics journal should (given a nice editor) publish a paper stating "We've done this ground-breaking experiment but don't know what's causing it. Please can the theoreticians now have a go", and a patent would give them exclusive rights to this technology for a couple of decades. The fact we have neither just leaves us with a strong smell of fish...
That seems to be the inventor's position
In line of what they expressed during the discussion in February, they believe that the physics of the energy catalyzer may possibly be explained by a combination of atomic, molecular, nuclear and plasma physics. At the same time they are skeptical of detailed and hypothetical theories suggested at this stage, and stressed instead the need for more data.

They describe that Focardi and Levi have the same approach, and support their viewpoint.
lol 'atomic, molecular, nuclear and plasma physics'. Uhh, it works by, uhhhh, physics?

Minerva wrote:If I was running the journal I would definately publish that. But only if it was obvious that this device actually existed and actually did something interesting...
...The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. This means that from this point in time, 10:45, 4.69 kW power is delivered to the heating and vaporization, and 4.69 – 0.30 = 4.39 kW would have to come from the energy produced in the internal nickel-hydrogen container....
The central container is about 50 cm3 in size and it contains 0.11 gram hydrogen and 50 grams nickel. The enthalpy from the chemical formation of
nickel and hydrogen to nickel hydride is 4850 joule/mol [6]. If it had been a chemical process, a maximum of 0.15 watt-hour of energy could have been produced from nickel and 0.11 gram hydrogen, the whole hydrogen content of the container. On the other hand, 0.11 gram hydrogen and 6 grams of nickel (assuming that we use one proton for each nickel atom) are about sufficient to produce 24 MWh through nuclear processes assuming that 8 MeV per reaction can be liberated as free energy. For comparison, 3 liters of oil or 0.6 kg of hydrogen would give 25 kWh through chemical burning. Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out....
It seems to exist and is doing something interesting.

Minerva wrote:... and only if all the details regarding the experiment and the apparatus were fully described in detail such that the experiment could be reproduced.
So if you were running a journal, you would only look at this type of thing if the inventor decided to give away all the designs, making it impossible to make any money off of? If that is the standard, it is no wonder it isn't in any journals. It also make "Has it been published yet?" a extremely useless metric at judging crackpottery.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Deep_Thought » Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:32 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Minerva wrote:... and only if all the details regarding the experiment and the apparatus were fully described in detail such that the experiment could be reproduced.
So if you were running a journal, you would only look at this type of thing if the inventor decided to give away all the designs, making it impossible to make any money off of? If that is the standard, it is no wonder it isn't in any journals. It also make "Has it been published yet?" a extremely useless metric at judging crackpottery.


That is the standard for a journal publication - you have to give sufficient details that another group can replicate your work. If you think you stand to make a lot of money of something, you patent it first. Once the patent is granted you can start publishing to your hearts content, as your IP is protected against replication for profit. Other non-profit groups (ie universities) are still free to try to replicate it for research purposes. There's also the issue of the $1,000,000 nobel prize Rossi would instantly win if this thing actually works. As we've pointed out further up Rossi does appear to have an Italian patent but the International Patent Office have rejected it.

"Has it been published yet?" is simply a more advance form of "Tell me how it works". One of the key signs of crackpottery is a response of "I can't tell you because it's a secret!". A non-crackpot would wait to have something concrete (patent, journal article) before getting the publicity.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby nitePhyyre » Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:46 pm UTC

I guess that's fair, but in many cases - this one it seems - that is simply impossible. Hypothetically: All his devices is, is a tube with H at 25bar and 350deg, A little bit Nickel, and a catalyst. Let's say something really simple, like N. Once people know how simple this is, the cat is out of the bag. Everyone will just build one in their basement, china will make knock-offs and sell them on ebay, etc, etc.

And a million $ nobel prize is peanuts compared the the trillion $ world energy budget. :D
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Minerva » Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:10 am UTC

Let's just say that they're not the first crackpots in the world who claim to have invented a magical machine that will solve all the world's energy problems forever.

They're not the first to try and pull the "we can't show you any details about how it works because then Big Oil (or whatever) will steal it" rubbish.

We're quite experienced in dealing with this sort of crackpottery.

We have a method for figuring out whether stuff is true or not, and that method is called science. They're not doing it, in any meaningful way.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:14 am UTC

Yes, there have been plenty of snake oil salesmen. They say their product does wondrous things, when really they do nothing.
Spoiler:
...The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. This means that from this point in time, 10:45, 4.69 kW power is delivered to the heating and vaporization, and 4.69 – 0.30 = 4.39 kW would have to come from the energy produced in the internal nickel-hydrogen container....
The central container is about 50 cm3 in size and it contains 0.11 gram hydrogen and 50 grams nickel. The enthalpy from the chemical formation of
nickel and hydrogen to nickel hydride is 4850 joule/mol [6]. If it had been a chemical process, a maximum of 0.15 watt-hour of energy could have been produced from nickel and 0.11 gram hydrogen, the whole hydrogen content of the container. On the other hand, 0.11 gram hydrogen and 6 grams of nickel (assuming that we use one proton for each nickel atom) are about sufficient to produce 24 MWh through nuclear processes assuming that 8 MeV per reaction can be liberated as free energy. For comparison, 3 liters of oil or 0.6 kg of hydrogen would give 25 kWh through chemical burning.
Any chemical process for producing 25 kWh from any fuel in a 50 cm3 container can be ruled out....
This one does something.

Generally, when these crackpots and their devices are examined by professor and members of sceptic societies, their scam is discovered immediately, and they are shown for the frauds they are. Again, not the case with this one.

Long story short, if it is a scam, it is one of the best scams in a long while. Simply dismissing a scam this good as a scam is no fun. How the hell did they pull it off?

Oh, and "I haven't been given all the details so you must be a crackpot" isn't very science-y either.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby Glass Fractal » Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:31 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Oh, and "I haven't been given all the details so you must be a crackpot" isn't very science-y either.


If you had a friend who talked about how awesome he was at magic tricks but refused to ever do one except when he was behind a curtain so you couldn't see him would you think he knew magic or was just bullshitting you?

curtis95112
Posts: 639
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby curtis95112 » Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:46 am UTC

Glass Fractal wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Oh, and "I haven't been given all the details so you must be a crackpot" isn't very science-y either.


If you had a friend who talked about how awesome he was at magic tricks but refused to ever do one except when he was behind a curtain so you couldn't see him would you think he knew magic or was just bullshitting you?


If he let a million pigeons loose from behind the curtain, I'd be skeptical he was summoning them but I'd want to know how the hell he did it.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:39 am UTC

But from what I can tell, they're just behind the curtain yelling, "there's a million pigeons back here!"
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Rossi Cold Fusion Validated by Swedish Skeptic's Society

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:48 am UTC

@ curtis95112: I like that one!

A device that should, for all intents and purposes, have been able to heat the water to 50-60 degrees boiled away a bunch of water. That sounds like actually seeing pigeons to me.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DaBigCheez and 24 guests