It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Focardi and Rossi demonstrate Cold Fusion!!

page: 5
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
So far with out a doubt the coolest and biggest hope giving story I have read yet on ATS.hooray for progress !!!

I just hope big corps don't find a way to kill this product.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
The reason why this is not on the news is because the academic world is still skeptical, especially for not using the peer-review procedure.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by R_Clark
 


Our coverage should have been the primary link on this thread:

Multi-kilowatt Ni-H cold fusion demo under way January 14 in Italy

Cold Fusion getting hot with 10kw heater prepping for market

Directory: Andrea A. Rossi Cold Fusion Generator
edit on 18-1-2011 by sterlingda because: fix links



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
if this is true then KUDOS to them, hope we can get this out on the market soon so the electric companys stop using coal, oil etc etc



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
It all sounds very interesting, promising even but it's not the first or last time we've seen such claims of achieving the elusive holy grail. What it needs is simple absolute proof that it's genuine, repeatable and commercially viable in relation to well-established alternative energy sources which sounds simple but those are the hurdles that none have actually cleared yet with their 'miraculous' new tech.

I'm all for it if it works
Just prove beyond doubt that does really work - maybe they can do that, we'll see.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I think the choice to avoid peer-review is a good one. If it really works and will be sold on the market for few notes there's no better evidence than that. So many scientists in history have been ridiculized by their colleagues and forced to retreat their claims, proved to be correct in the end. In this way, no ridicule only bankrupt if device not working.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by R_Clark
 


Apparently there is no "fusion" in the actual sense of the term. There is a transmutation of nickel by beta+ decay and the heat source is in fact an antimatter - matter reaction of electrons and positrons. Any of the copper isotopes created would as far as i can see be radioactive as long as any of the stable isotopes of nickel are used. That is if the description of the process you provided is correct. How the transmutation of the nickel isotope is achieved is not clear, but I may have to read through it again.

Interesting if true.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hundroid
 


Hmm, a proton that plugs into an atom and produces energy through a matter - antimatter reaction, now where have I heard that before..............?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Clavicula
 


Bob Lazar? So was the Element 115 just disinfo? Or does that tie in somehow?

I have been saying for awhile that Lazar was a disinfo agent suppressing super technologies. I came to this conclusion based on personal info - my dad witnessd the same craft lazar described up close and persoanl long before Lazar revealed his info.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8311-XHT
reply to post by Clavicula
 


Bob Lazar? So was the Element 115 just disinfo? Or does that tie in somehow?

I have been saying for awhile that Lazar was a disinfo agent suppressing super technologies. I came to this conclusion based on personal info - my dad witnessd the same craft lazar described up close and persoanl long before Lazar revealed his info.



Just made the leap of thought myself, but looking at the description provided there are some strange similarities to the Ununpentium antimatter reactor claim and the descripion on how this device works. I will not make any conclusion as to the validity of either I just found it to be an interesting correlation.

The UFO device:
A small proton accelerator provides enough punch to overcome the coloumb barrier and transmutes element 115 to element 116 which through some sort of beta+ decay releases a lot of positrons that then annihilate with electrons at the target to produce energy in the form of heat.

The Italian "Cold fusion" device:
A vessel holding water and a nickel powder, undergoes through some electromagnetic manipulation which is still a bit unclear, a transmutation where the nickel absorbs a proton and subsequently beta+ decays. Sending out positrons that annihilate with electrons in the surrounding medium (water) to produce heat.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8311-XHT
reply to post by Clavicula
 


my dad witnessd the same craft lazar described up close and persoanl long before Lazar revealed his info.



Really? On the ground or in the air? What could he tell about it?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by wakeUpOrDie
 



Originally posted by wakeUpOrDie

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


Buddy, when I have personally seen and used for many years the technology you claim doesn't exist, I don't know what to do but laugh. You are a bafoon.


Special pleading and ad hominem attack. Two logical fallacies in one. If you cannot prove that you've used this technology than your claim is about as valid as the spam in my e-mail telling me I can 'add inches'/.



All you did was claim everything I said was 'ignorant'. When in fact, you just saying this only displays how ignorant you are!!!! Have you cracked open a physics book that was written after 1895?


Why yes, I have. I actually read contemporary physics books in my free time during the summer. I happen to have some quite good ones.

Please, explain to me how energy can be stored in 'dimensions'.




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

No, it isn't. This is a shockingly ignorant claim

There is no "readily available unlimited source" or energy. Energy is limited. Were it unlimited it would require an unlimited amount of space to contain it and that would mean we would have a logically contradiction on our hands.


Oh yeah... Have you ever heard of an advancement in science called 'quantum physics'.


Why yes, I have. Quantum physics is a study of subatomic phenomena. I've yet to see anyone demonstrate macroscopic quantum physics.



Have you heard of the Casimir effect? Do you know there is enough energy in a cup of space to boil an ocean? Well let me introduce you to 1950s era physics


Why yes, I've heard of it. I've yet to hear of any nontheoretical application of it. Unfortunately, quantum physics is in a realm that is full of more theories than certainties. We have all sorts of competing theoretical frameworks, yet not enough data to support one over any other.

And are you aware that an empty styrofoam cup has enough energy to wipe out a city? That's just relativity.



NASA - Some Emerging Possibilities (current realities)


From NASA
In simplistic terms it has been said that there is enough energy in the volume the size of a coffee cup to boil away Earth’s oceans. - that’s one strong cup of coffee! For a while a lot of physics thought that concept was too hard to swallow. This vacuum energy is more widely accepted today.

What evidence shows that it exists?

First predicted in 1948, the vacuum energy has been linked to a number of experimental observations. Examples include the Casimir effect, Van der Waal forces, the Lamb-Retherford Shift, explanations of the Planck blackbody radiation spectrum, the stability of the ground state of the hydrogen atom from radiative collapse, and the effect of cavities to inhibit or enhance the spontaneous emission from excited atoms.



Vacuum energy is still unverified. It's a possible theoretical model.



And if you would have read my earlier post you would see how they went about extracting the energy even though the energy is considered at 'ground state' with no gradient. Do you know what an energy gradient is? Or will you call a concept you never heard of 'ignorant'?


Thanks for shoving words in my mouth!

I'm actually aware of that basic physical concept.



I feel like i'm house breaking a puppy dog here.


I'm done with this discussion after this post. You are repeatedly resorting to name calling in an attempt to discredit my posts. Your arguments still rely purely on special pleading.



Also I suggest you start by reading up on the Casimir effect




Casimir Effect


Wow, I can cite wikipedia too!



Now I know this stuff might be a little above you head.


Wow, you're insulting and condescending.



I would have given you the benefit of the doubt but that comment you made about 'only enough energy to move air molecules around' demonstrates to me you have a lot of catching up to do in the world of modern physics.





So do you see when you claim proven 1950's era physics is a 'shockingly ignorant claim' how silly it makes you look?


Please show me a practical demonstration that definitively proves the Casimir effect.



Please, as I said earlier, do some research before you make an even bigger fool of yourself


Please, gain an understanding of the current jungle that is theoretical quantum physics before you claim anything is proven. It's a possible explanation.

Please, read up on the philosophy of science as well.

Also, on the Casimir effect...how would you turn a device that runs on it off? How would you gain anything but a minute charge from it? If you were to implement the effect on some massive scale you'd still have to work against the attraction and reset the plates for the next cycle...basically you're claiming that the equivalent of a wind up toy is a great way to get things going.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Vacuum energy is still unverified. It's a possible theoretical model.


as is the theory of relativity and other such THEORIES. scientist like to sprout theories as fact but in the end theories are exactly that. educated guesses based on scientific observation until they are proven wrong.
the world is flat
the universe revolves around the earth/sun
even the exalted theory of relativity may one day be proven false or "almost" right.

i believe that we are just scratching the surface of whats possible with technology and science, if we as man and humanity can grow up beyond the greed / power stage of our evolution i think that our future will look bright unfortunatly i dont think we are going to do so without some pain and failure.

look at some of the things that are being announced on a daily basis these last few months, break throughs in computers (1 thz possible in the future)
possible other universes bumping into and "bruising" our universe
even the big bang theory which has been held for many years is now being called to the question.
i think that in another 100 years or so were gonna softly laugh at ourselves at our foolishness thinking we know everything.

time and again it has been proven that the big labs only refine technology not bring in inovation. its the little guy sitting in his basement without someone over his sholder saying you cant do that... that has brought about the true life changing touches that affect us all on a daily basis.

weather this is or is not fusion and proves not to be some trick is basicly an arguement of sematics... if it does as it advertises and we will know soon enough once the first one's are sold.. then it plays the part and thats good enough for me. not all technologies and inventions start off on a computer based on the latest scientific model of xxxx sometimes its the little guy twiddling away and suddenly goes.. what if i try.... and we have our next big invention.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Clavicula
 


Yes, I have complete faith in my dad's story. He is completely sane.. very bright guy. The craft he saw was hovering next to the power lines that ran along a highway in northern Washignton state. It sat there hovering for several minutes. Made no sound and no wind. It eventually flew straight up high in the sky and then shot off at an angle faster than anything he has ever seen.

My dad just happened to run across an image of the craft Lazar saw in a Popular Mechanics in the mid 90s and showed it to me and said it was exactly the same. But at that time we had no idea what that image was from. It was a piece of artwork based on an expereince Lazar claimed he had. It was referencing Lazar's story and we didn't know it. I realized this much much later when I was researching Lazar, just a few months ago in fact.

Now that I know Lazar's true purpose I feel I can see this all so clearly. For example.. John Lear's dad's company, Lear Jet, was one of the major groups researching antigravity in the 50s.and he flew for the CIA. Also, Bob Lazar has a company online that sells dangerous chemicals and he has explained to us how we could have hydrogen cars if only the hydride material was legal. So he is posing as somekind of freedom fighter, when in fact he is suppressing super tehcnologies that I am guessing they feel are too dangerous and too destabilizing.

I could go on and on.. I have discovered a lot of stuff.. a couple points. I believe Mark McCandlish is on the money (minus the alien disinfo), And I also think Billy Meier was Bob Lazar 1.0. Those craft he had in his pictures were very similar in design to what my dad saw as well.
edit on 18-1-2011 by 8311-XHT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by R_Clark
 


Nice read, thanks for the post. Free energy can only mean good thngs.
What's that movie with val kilmer?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hundroid
I think the choice to avoid peer-review is a good one. If it really works and will be sold on the market for few notes there's no better evidence than that. So many scientists in history have been ridiculized by their colleagues and forced to retreat their claims, proved to be correct in the end. In this way, no ridicule only bankrupt if device not working.


Peer review is the kiss of death for something, like this, which is really original and earth shattering. "Not made here", "Couldn't be true, even if the proof is in the demo".



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
About Peer review..

Well... Focardi said himself doesn't know why that device works... a peer review shouldn't accept such paper because the author doesn't know. After Focardi discover why he can publish the paper

edit on 19/1/11 by blackcube because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/1/11 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
About Peer review..

Well... Focardi said himself doesn't know why that device works... a peer review shouldn't accept such paper because the author doesn't know. After Focardi discover why he can publish the paper


Rossi is the inventor and an engineer, looking for a practical application. Focardi doesn't know how the device works or what Rossi did to make it work. Focardi wants the credit and may yet share in it. This will be in use long before the theories of operation are worked out in detail. All that must be done is to make sure the operation is safe, engineer different modules, and begin production.

A peer review is meaningless at this point.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Ahh to be young again. Am i the only one who noticed that every 5 to 10 years someone makes a cold fusion reactor that really really works, honest it works! then it's either proven to be a hoax, or bad science, or we just sit and wait for it to magically appear.

i have no clue of this is legit, and from what I've read, I highly doubt it is, the inventor doesn't know how it works and wants to avoid any peer review. Well that just smacks of wholesome fact based claims now doesn't it?

"It works, I don't know how, and I won't let you look to see, but trust me, it works, now where's my cheque?"

This would be a huge breakthrough, even more than the hydrogen from water fuel system which was also highly suspect.

If you can't tell me how it works, and you won't let accredited scientists look at it to see, why on earth should I take your word for it? Especially when we're talking cold fusion, one of the most hoaxed discoveries of the past 30 years.

And yes, if I were in the military and had top secret level information, I would surely hint about it on a conspiracy site that can easily be tracked back to my home computer, because that's just how awesome I am. Oh and I'd also mention the non-disclosure agreement that specifically states I can't mention I've signed a non-disclosure agreement.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Clark
Possibly the biggest scientific news story of our time is not getting out on the media... What a surprise.. In a quiet group backed by the US Military and GM, an Italian scientific group is announcing Cold Fusion in 10kW sizes which are plug and play.. This shocking game changer will revolutionize the way we live, work, and play. MSM does not even mention it. The positive minded among us would imagine this is only to protect the tech from being bought out by big Oil..

Obviously, the white hats in the military will bring change and save us from the Fed : Big Oil Hegemony... possibly saving America.

nextbigfuture.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


The accuracy of this story aside, science is a respectable and Truth-based field of study. However, I cannot say that fusion is a welcome
prospect.

The reason for this is that I am certain that humanity will abuse and mis-use fusion. It is not that fusion itself is inherently bad- it is not. A Truth-based society and sane species could get massive and legitimate benefits from such technology.

But current societies will use technologies to accelerate the devolution of humanity and human society.
edit on 19-1-2011 by SeerTravisTruman because: Add comment re the doubt I have over the story itself.




top topics



 
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join