Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

One Mega Watt E-Cat Cold Fusion Device Test Successful!

page: 6
142
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
It would look very good if it did not conect to two
box tralers and a generator and two tubs of water.
it would take all of the ground floor of your home!

if it works. they will make it Not work.




posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
It would look very good if it did not conect to two
box tralers and a generator and two tubs of water.
it would take all of the ground floor of your home!

if it works. they will make it Not work.


this is a 1mw application enough to power hundreds of homes.
10kw would be plenty to run an average home and 90% smaller



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
It would look very good if it did not conect to two
box tralers and a generator and two tubs of water.
it would take all of the ground floor of your home!

if it works. they will make it Not work.


1MW (as this "container plant") would power anywhere from 750-1000 homes.
In the container, he had 106 of his single devices connected, each single unit is relatively small.

The "idea" is that such a single device (not larger than a microwave really) PLUS a turbine/generator (which would be driven by the heated steam) would be sufficient to power a home.

As said, that's the claim.

Why he thought its needed to make a 1MW plant (instead of proving that it works with ONE device) to "sell" his invention - better ask him, because i don't have an answer
edit on 29-10-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-10-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It's absolutely imperative this info is shared extensively .........
No doubt there are some very intelligent people who frequent ATS.....use your smarts on the chance that this technology could change the life of every person on this planet..
edit on 29-10-2011 by wutz4tom because: (no reason given)


Even if ends being called a Fail, isn't this one worth the risk?
edit on 29-10-2011 by wutz4tom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 




Why would someone invest this much $$$ into such a pointless hoax?

oh, just see to so "innovative" techs like railgun, space elevators & so on
idiotism, to get easy $$$ are sign of this time



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
Your source: pesn.com...


Cold Fusion #1 Claims NASA Chief
A Chief NASA scientist, Dennis Bushnell has came out in support of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology, but denies any type of nuclear fusion is taking place, saying it is probably beta decay per the Widom Larson Theory. Repackaging the terminology to avoid embarrassment will not erase over twenty years of suppression and the reality of cold fusion!

The problem is that what he said did not, as hawkiye said, verified that the E-Cat runs with no outside power sources, what he said was that it looks like we are getting to a time in which some of the problems of achieving cold fusion are already gone, from what he said it looks like he has never seen the the system, so he cannot verify anything.

But I may have misheard something on the EV World podcast available on that site.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
OK for those of you who had posts with the words free energy in it please read.

There is no such thing as free energy. The source may be free but the cost of materials, equipment, manpower, and networks is certainly not. You need production plants and transmission lines. You need workers and support industries. These all cost money.

This pipe dream of free energy is exactly that, a pipe dream. The money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

Please use common sense in future posts.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
OK for those of you who had posts with the words free energy in it please read.

There is no such thing as free energy. The source may be free but the cost of materials, equipment, manpower, and networks is certainly not. You need production plants and transmission lines. You need workers and support industries. These all cost money.

This pipe dream of free energy is exactly that, a pipe dream. The money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

Please use common sense in future posts.


I'll call it what I want. It is not a finite resource and it is something that can be set up within government infrastructures to be "free". That's like saying my coupon for a "free" milkshake is not really free because I have to drive to get it. It's a silly thing to split hairs over.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Thats allot of equipment for just 470watts



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8ILlBILl8
Thats allot of equipment for just 470watts


KILO watts
470.000 Watts



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Why does he say in the video "kilowatt hour per hour"?


Or am I misunderstanding what he says?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 8ILlBILl8
 


And...Remember how large the first computers were? And now look.Would this technology progress the same way?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by metaldemon2000
 


Whether or not there are start up cost or not shouldn't be a deal breaker. It's the idea of getting out from under a Never Ending Energy bill etc...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
To reiterate the sentiments of many around here, I'm skeptical but hopeful. This would be truly revolutionary if real.
I think if Rossi is hoaxing anyone it is himself...

I do not see the benefit of hoaxing something like this. What is the point? Money you say...but how much money can someone make selling a product that doesn't work...ok, perhaps A LOT.

But those Steorn people, what did they gain? I can't imagine they made a ton of money (correct me if I'm wrong), but they did ruin their reputations in the engineering/science fields for the rest of their lives.

Unless Rossi thinks he can perpetuate a hoax to the tune of hundred of millions of dollars or more I don't see why he would be hoaxing.

Hoaxers are usually losers with nothing to lose....Rossi, apparently, is a legitimate academic...so I hope it all pans out.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Stuff like this disappears fast.
Somehow an oil company will probably come along and buy them out.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
OK for those of you who had posts with the words free energy in it please read.

There is no such thing as free energy. The source may be free but the cost of materials, equipment, manpower, and networks is certainly not. You need production plants and transmission lines. You need workers and support industries. These all cost money.

This pipe dream of free energy is exactly that, a pipe dream. The money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

Please use common sense in future posts.


Uhm...i don't know how else to say it, but this is nonsense to argue that energy is "not free" because of material costs or transport costs. It has nothing to do with it, RATHER with law of physics.

If we assume there WAS "free" energy...there would be a point where the gain and output of the energy would simply outweigh the costs of production/transport - regardless of the initial costs. It would be only a matter of time til the gains would outweigh the cost.

Also..think about *what exactly* makes the cost of energy *today* - let's just take nuclear energy as an example. One problem here is the inability to actually get rid of radioactive waste....those cost alone.

Or the cost of digging/drilling for oil....let alone the fact that those resources are limited. It would not even be a remote comparison if we HAD a source of energy which can create energy...from, say, 100g nickel powder AS CLAIMED.

From that point of view saying "free energy" would be legit (although not physically correct)...but it would be ok..heck give me 100g nickel powder and i power my home for 6 months..how more "free" can it get?
edit on 29-10-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Why does he say in the video "kilowatt hour per hour"?


Or am I misunderstanding what he says?


I think they differentiated between "total energy created in those 5ish hours"...which was a total of claimed 2635kwH....and then averaged to 470ish kwH (as in "per hour")...as compared to the total energy produced?!



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Is there any independent confirmation of it running without direct power from the generator after the initial "spark" as others put it? By independent confirmation I mean somewhere other than the free energy website linked to. I'm referring to peer reviewable studies by credible scientists or electrical engineers who can definitively say, "Yes, I was there, and yes it ran without any external power apart from the initial 'spark' for the duration of the test, and we proved this empirically by __________ means, which are published here as follows. (Followed by published results.)"

The inventor, his unnamed customer, and the aforementioned website are not what I would consider independent sources of verification. Are there any?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


Thanks, that makes sense.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Is there any independent confirmation of it running without direct power from the generator after the initial "spark" as others put it?


No


The inventor, his unnamed customer, and the aforementioned website are not what I would consider independent sources of verification. Are there any?


No, of course there are none. Which does not stop some people believing anything a snake oil salesman tells them.





new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join