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.
It was initially skeptical reaction to the arrival of the E-Cat, or energy catalyzer, because allegations that the unit would work on the basis of cold fusion. It confirms that the device produces 2.6 kilowatts while the input is only 300 watts, reports the Swedish technology magazine NyTeknik. The technology was patented in April and is expected this fall in the market. Inventors Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi announced the E-Cat in January to by stating that they had created a reactor that produces huge amounts of energy by nickel and hydrogen nuclei to fuse at room temperature. If the invention proves real, it is a great scientific achievement and oil would be redundant. The unit produces virtually limitless energy with no radioactive waste products and carbon dioxide emissions. The inventors say their process eight units of output per unit input and generates about a penny per kilowatt-hour would cost several times cheaper than a coal plant. As expected, there are many skeptics who deny the existence of cold fusion. Focardi and Rossi have not released details about their process. However, they tested their device on several occasions publicly and more tests confirm that it works. Physicists who were present reported that there is indeed electricity was generated. The latest tests found the energy catalyzer on 28 April 1919 and last place in Bologna. During the tests, generated an output of 2.3 to 2.6 kW at an input of 300 watts. Professors Sven Kullander and Hanno Essen believe that the values can only be explained by a nuclear reaction. Rossi will cooperate with the company Ampenergo the technology behind the E-Cat to spread. The Universities of Uppsala in Sweden and Bologna, Italy E-Cats will get your heart that can be tested.
Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours
I just watched your video on ATS. While it is true what you say, you have to realize that most web sites are government disinformation sites. They made the internet and they control it. But you have to know ho to find the truth through multiple sources of news, not just the ATS. I get threads banned, trashed, etc, all the time. In fact I put a post up, someone closed it down, and the next day someone else put it up as their own.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't depend on sites. If you can't realize that they are government run, you will be disappointed.
As for HHO, I saw everything and got right to it like millions of others out there.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D. VT) and nine other senators introduced S. 968: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP)
It's easiest to explain the loss if you plug in some numbers.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by spikey
You are talking about using the system that gets electricity from running water down hill, getting energy from it, then pumping at an it back up at a 20-40% loss.
Posted by spikey
Losing 20-40% of..what?
Meaning what? You fell for one of the scams claiming that HHO will increase your gas mileage, when controlled tests show that it doesn't?
Originally posted by Fromabove
As for HHO, I saw everything and got right to it like millions of others out there.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by nh_ee
Please tell me what the difference would be if natural gas, coal and nuclear were powering the process that separates Hydrogen for fuel use...be compared to using gasoline?
Explain the difference.
Or why it would even be better.
Or why it would even be better.
Density (0 °C, 101.325 kPa) 0.08988 g/L
1 cubic foot = 28.3168466 litre
(energy density)
Hydrogen, Gas 0.01079 MJ/L
Conventional gasoline 34.8 MJ/L
1
There are more than 352[31] thermochemical cycles which can be used for water splitting,[32] around a dozen of these cycles such as the iron oxide cycle, cerium(IV) oxide-cerium(III) oxide cycle, zinc zinc-oxide cycle, sulfur-iodine cycle, copper-chlorine cycle and hybrid sulfur cycle are under research and in testing phase to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water and heat without using electricity.[33] These processes can be more efficient than high-temperature electrolysis, typical in the range from 35 % - 49 % LHV efficiency. Thermochemical production of hydrogen using chemical energy from coal or natural gas is generally not considered, because the direct chemical path is more efficient.
None of the thermochemical hydrogen production processes have been demonstrated at production levels, although several have been demonstrated in laboratories.