Scientists unlock nature's hydrogen secrets

Originally posted by Raelsatu
How would this compare to Brillouin's reactor?? According to their tech overview, the hydrogen in a single glass of water holds the energy equivalent of around 182,000 gallons of gasoline.

Having read your link, I can only say don't listen to what they are chatting about, as it's bollocks.

A proton, capturing an electron, becomes a neutron? Noooo, it most certainly does not... A typical hydrogen atom is a proton and an electron. A neutron is something else entirely.. And where does this electromagnetic energy come from the use for their "process" and do you get more energy out than you put in? I doubt it.

reply to post by stumason


Not to be rude, but do you really know enough about the subject to be calling it out as 'bollocks'?? As far as I know Brillouin has been coming along steadily; with independently verified testing, recent $20m funding from SRI International, was just granted a patent from China & is working on patents in other countries. Their tech has not been disproved or discredited -- I think you should do some research before stating this technology is fake.

reply to post by Raelsatu


In order to combine a proton and an electron into a free neutron, other than the energy issues with the electron, is that you also have to supply about 0.78 MeV and an electron anti-neutrino.

You can work the same trick with some isotopes of nickel by having it take place in the nucleus of the nickel atom, though.

Originally posted by stumason
A proton, capturing an electron, becomes a neutron? Noooo, it most certainly does not...

Not often but it does happen. In general, only in certain isotopes (maybe 10 do this), a proton will pull an electron in from the k-shell and morph into a neutron, spitting out an electron neutrino. IIRC correctly. Go look up beta capture or electron capture decay.

OTOH, in a normal system with stable isotopes, it DOESN'T happen.

reply to post by Bedlam


Well here's the link to their Controlled Electron Capture Reaction hypothesis. There's also videos you can watch & other information on their site. I honestly don't know nearly enough to determine whether their science/tech is "bollocks", but as far as the independent verifying goes I think they're headed down the right path.

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I honestly don't know nearly enough to determine whether their science/tech is "bollocks", but as far as the independent verifying goes I think they're headed down the right path.

Anyone in the cold fusion camp gets an auto-bollocks from me as well, *however*, that being said, beta decay and electron capture are two things you can actually tinker with and influence with external conditions. If you had to pick something to build a nice hoax around, it would be a good place to start.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Anyone in the cold fusion camp gets an auto-bollocks from me as well

So you're telling me you can discount all the research done into LENR/CANR? If you've been paying any attention to the re-emerging field, you'd know there's a an ever-increasing pile of evidence showing that low temperature fusion reactions are possible; and many devices being created now that show this.

Among MIT, multiple other universities & institutions; there's enough peaking interest now that favors cold fusion. To say it deserves an "auto-bollocks" sounds incredible short-sighted..... Do you have some information/knowledge that disproves all the research?

Originally posted by stumason
You lot are so paranoid - the guy isn't going to be whacked .......

I agree. But you have to remember the type that frequent ATS as a serious site.... they're alll a bit paranoid, like some redneck family in the Kentucky hills (never been there, just saw some movies!).

The article is very interesting. It reminds me about another breakthrough reported around 3 years ago (+/-) by Daniel Nocera at MIT where his team came up with a method to do electrolysis which also mimicked photosynthesis. His discovery was a breakthrough in the following ways over traditional electrolysis:

* Used catalyst that were not consumed by the reaction
* Used catalyst that were abundant and much less expensive
* Did not require pure water or even clean water (urine would work for example)
* Did not require expensive apparatus (pvc pipes and propane tank were a few of the parts)
* Was working in his laboratory for months at a scale that would be sufficent to power a home
* More compact size

The key idea is that any source of energy (wind, solar, hydro) can be used as the input to generate hydrogen thereby overcoming one of the primary arguments often heard against alternative energy -- that the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. By generating the hydrogen, the energy can be stored while you're away at work (solar and wind) or while you're sleeping (wind) and then used later.

The Aussie discovery sounds like a variation of Nocera's work and might be quite useful in a symbiotic way with what he has already done or as an enhancement but their work appears to be solely dependent on sunlight just as a leave would be. Hope to hear lots more about it going forward.

Anyway not to highjack the thread but if you are interested in learning more about Nocera's photosyntheis, there are some pretty good youtube vids of him speaking about it. He does a great job of describing it with the right of amount of technical detail for the layman. His primary aim is rather altruistic; he wants to enable this technology to provide electricity to third world villages and indirectly help them increase available clean water since the output of a fuel cell is pure water. Here is one particular link that I found to be especially worthwhile: Dan Nocera: Personalized Energy

reply to post by Raelsatu


Show me one that actually WORKS. Not just has some guy saying "It'll be here...tomorrow!" or "I've got the proof in my lab, and no one can see but my friends!"

Put one in my hand. Can't? That's right. No one's got one you can just buy. Because it's bollocks.

Is it maybe possible? The Navy thinks it is. Ok - but same thing.

Your question is reducible to...can you prove a negative? No. No one can. So no one phrases honest questions that way. My question to you would be...show me one. That's proof of a positive. Where is one you can purchase? Where is one that's been replicated by multiple believable labs? If not, it's likely a pile of porkies.

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by Raelsatu

 

Show me one that actually WORKS. Not just has some guy saying "It'll be here...tomorrow!" or "I've got the proof in my lab, and no one can see but my friends!"

Put one in my hand. Can't? That's right. No one's got one you can just buy. Because it's bollocks.

Is it maybe possible? The Navy thinks it is. Ok - but same thing.

Your question is reducible to...can you prove a negative? No. No one can. So no one phrases honest questions that way. My question to you would be...show me one. That's proof of a positive. Where is one you can purchase? Where is one that's been replicated by multiple believable labs? If not, it's likely a pile of porkies.

edit on 9-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

What a disappointing post. You literally just said that technology you cannot have in your hand right now must be bollocks??.... I'm having a hard time understanding your logic here.

Am I saying you have to prove a negative? No, I'm saying you have to disprove all the research being done into cold fusion, which you cannot do. I would like to see you give me some valid reasoning as to why numerous universities, institutions & scientists researching cold fusion are wrong. Are you telling me you know more than them? Are you telling me just because you can't obtain a device this very day, that it's not real?

Take a look at MIT's Jet Energy Inc. NANOR device, which has been running since January of this year; producing 14 times energy gain/excess heat. Let me guess; these MIT scientist must be experimenting with "porkies" because you can't have one in your home today?

I'm not here to provide you with proof of this technology; that's what scientist/engineers are for, & what they are starting to do. The information access on the web allows people to research this for themselves, which is what I implore you to do.

Originally posted by Raelsatu

What a disappointing post. You literally just said that technology you cannot have in your hand right now must be bollocks??.... I'm having a hard time understanding your logic here.

Here's the logic. If you've got a real effect, it'll be pretty easy to replicate anywhere, by anyone. No? You're right...it's spotty and erratic. Lots of people from Naval Sea Systems to Blacklight have SAID they can do this, but it's not replicable, generally. There's also the dead research assistant issue. If this is happening, there ought to be a lot more radiation than there is.

Am I saying you have to prove a negative? No, I'm saying you have to disprove all the research being done into cold fusion, which you cannot do.

Samey same. It's the Augean Stables challenge. "Disprove ALL research ever done!" No, prove that this research is replicable. No? You're right. Hasn't been done reliably. That "disprove" statement implies proof of a negative. "Prove it's NOT true". Here's you a challenge - disprove that flying monkeys don't come out of my arse. You can't. That's because I've asked you to prove a negative. Any request with "disprove" in will end up being proof of a negative.

Take a look at MIT's Jet Energy Inc. NANOR device, which has been running since January of this year; producing 14 times energy gain/excess heat. Let me guess; these MIT scientist must be experimenting with "porkies" because you can't have one in your home today?

14 is sort of the top. Most of the time it's much less. Let's see some other lab replicate it. (crickets)

Trust me, it would be nice if it were the sort of thing you could replicate. I'd LOVE for it to be true. But it needs to have some sort of theoretical basis that doesn't require radiation, and it needs to be replicable anywhere, by anyone. If it's the sort of thing you just see at times, it's anecdotal. And LENR/CANR is anything but replicable. See also: N-rays.

edit to add: I AM an engineer. Show me one. Show me a REPLICABLE one. You can't. It's not even replicable at MIT. "Show me one" is part of the scientific method - it's called, oddly, replicability, and demands that anyone be able to do this, in any lab. If you can only get good results in one place, it's a BAD thing.

edit to add further: The entire "works sometimes, doesn't work others" is sort of typical of beta decay/beta capture. LENR is still interesting, don't get me wrong. I just don't swallow it as a 'given'.

reply to post by Bedlam


This response is more thoughtful, so thanks for laying it out that way. I just don't take too kindly to terms like "pile of porkies" being used when referring to potentially revolutionary energy technology. You seemed to have some sort of bias against the term cold fusion, perhaps due to the negative reputation it garnered over the decades. All I'm saying is that to automatically label this research being done as bollocks is a bit short-sighted.

Whether or not this sort of tech makes its way to the market anytime soon I cannot say. I'm optimistic about it however.

it seems ironic that our entire system is built on control and all they try to sell us is freedom. In fact I do believe America is the current flag bearer for freedom.

But lets wait and see till this is a workable unit that we all can use to free ourselves just the little bit so we can breath. Honestly its ridiculous how lazy we all are. We have the internet for knowledge we should all be experimenting with this stuff. Unfortunately I am not technically well adept.

Originally posted by wantsome
Taking water and separating hydrogen from oxygen is easy but it takes electricity which makes is non practical. So they say in the article they found a more efficient way of doing it. It's wont be much use to us now and we'll have to wait to see if it comes to fruition.

Ummm....use a little solar and a little wind power to produce the electricity then while your producing your hydrogen and oxygen you can be using the process to also clean parts or electroplate to offset the cost of production/infrastructure. I've used the process to clean the parts of an old steam locomotive, I just never collected the gases. If you have a sectioned container for the electrodes, then you can funnel away the hydrogen and oxygen seperately and condense them into individual reefer containers I would imagine.

YouSir

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Sadly, if this is genuinely "big", then it's probably the last we've heard from Prof Stranger.

A lot of these professors should make a 'bucket list' when they accept a tenure somewhere. "I'm about to solve the oil crisis, but I've never been to Paris, jumped out of a plane, snorkled or had anal sex..."

Yes off course that's true because the only thing made from oil is fuel

So thats 2 more scientists that may.... Go Missing one day, Suddenly appear with their own private Island(After they promise to sell the patent to big oil), Or be found dead and their patent in big oils hands....
Like many that have gone before...

Would it be possible to utilize both plasma and hydrogen to stabilize a reactor of some sort?

I mean if aliens are using crafts that have such small power plants what gives is it exotic off planet resources or stuff we can cobble together with or without help.

reply to post by Nuke2013


what are you talking about h2o is already in our atmosphere in the form of clouds when consintration gets to great it falls bake to earth as rain, or snow