It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thanks for the links but according to the physorg article it's not getting mainstream yet:
Originally posted by Maslo
This is now on Physorg:
Its finally getting mainstream.
Here are the specifications, here is the paper, here is the patent.
The reason they gave for rejecting the paper at first seems unfair, that they don't have a model for how it works, but I think the reasons go deeper than that:
Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals
That sounds like more of a reason to reject it than not having a good model for how it works.
“Where are the quantitative descriptions of these copper radioisotopes? What detectors were used? Have the results been replicated by independent researchers? Pardon my skepticism as I await real data.”
Personally, if they had something with good data and they show it's producing more output energy than input energy, I'd accept their results based on the data even if they don't understand how it works. But the lack of data is a showstopper for me to believe it.
a patent that has been partially rejected in a preliminary report. According to the report, “As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. … In the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention.
While I'd say that's a partially valid argument, the point at which it becomes persuasive to me is when he has satisfied customers who have purchased the device and can provide testimonials that it works. We aren't at that point yet. (and the lack of data doesn't raise my hopes that it's going to happen, either). But if I'm wrong, and it really does work, the demand will soar and we will all know it and at that point I'd be happy to admit I was wrong. But right now, if I was a gambling person, I'd bet their lack of data is a clear signal something isn't right.
“We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing.”
Originally posted by curious7
This is kinda freaking me out simply because I'm sure a member here had been experimenting with a cold fusion thing somewhat successfully in his kitchen the last week or two and now I'm hearing this for the first time.
I'll mention it to him and see if he can bring himself here and discuss whether or not the experiments in this report match what he's been doing because honestly, although I can comprehend a lot of things, the above posts explaining it and this other member's posts lose me in jargon and I just sit thinking "errr......plain english please?" because none of the words mean anything to me.
A couple of weeks ago we reported that the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi has announced that he has a commercial ready cold fusion reactor that is safe and reliable, capable of producing 10 kW of heat; and is in process of going into production, with a 1 MW plant being built ganging 125 of these units together.
In a paper that came out Monday morning (Italy time), Prof. Giuseppe Levi of the University of Bologna describes two experiments. One was performed in December of 2010 and the other on January 14 of 2011, during the public demonstration and press conference. In both experiments Andrea Rossi's cold fusion reactor is tested to determine if more energy is output than input. The results are clear that in both tests much more energy was produced than was put into the system.
In the first test, Levi reported that Rossi's device actually self-sustained for approximately 15 minutes after all power was cut, until they had to stop the reactor by applying additional cooling water. When reading the document one may realize that the output energy for the second test is missing. However, this information has already been posted and was over 10KW.
In the second paper (ref, pp. 7-12) Dr. David Bianchini, also of the University of Bologna, describes his tests to determine if radioactivity is escaping the system for safety purposes, during the January 14 demonstration. He detects no radiation escaping the shielding of the system.
source close to the recent 18-hour test of the Rossi device gave me the
following figures. These are approximations.
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = 833 ml/s.
Input temperature: 15°C
Output temperature ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W
for 6 hours
Notes from Jed
5°C temperature difference * 833 ml = 4,165 cal/s = 17,493 W
According to one aspect of the present invention, the above mentioned aim and objects, as well as yet other objects, which will become more apparent hereinafter, are achieved by a method and apparatus for carrying out a highly efficient exothermal reaction between nickel atoms and hydrogen atoms, in a tube, preferably, though not exclusively made of a metal, filled by a nickel powder and heated to a high temperature preferably, though not necessarily, from 150 to 5000C, by injecting hydrogen into said metal tube said nickel powder being pressurized, preferably, though not necessarily, to a pressure from 2 to 20 bars . In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions w,hich are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements, thereby triggering a capture of a proton by the nickel powder, with a conseguent transformation of nickel to copper and a beta+ decay of the latter to a nickel nucleus having a mass which is by an unit larger than that of the starting nickel.
Originally posted by jlv70
Wow, I hate to get my hopes up, but this sounds like this could be some good news for a change.
Here's a link to another site that has some video: