Live data from Hacker News

The cold fusion horizon

aeon.co

31–40 of 198 posts

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#31
That reminds me, whatever happened to that perpetual energy machines from those "Steorn" lads from Dublin?

edit: never mind I see they are still around somehow (and managed to waste millions in process) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn http://orbo.com/

------------

"Welcome to the online shop for Orbo technology, home of our "never die" battery technology-based products.

We're excited to move towards bringing the first of our products to market in 2016 and revolutionising the world of consumer electronics.

The battery is dead."

------------

Oo

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#32
The key sentence:

We are like a thirsty town, desperate for a new water supply.

Our human inclination is to talk ourselves into believing the mirage. Add in the inevitable snake oil salesmen... As scientists, the more we desperately, wish for a thing to be true, the more we must demand of the evidence.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#33
post #24

Great article. I'm not going to defend Rossi, but what happened in 1989 was a travesty. Yes, Pons and Fleischmann were premature in their annnouncement. But they didn't deserve to be made pariahs, and there were others whose careers were destroyed for so much as publicly entertaining the possibility that cold fusion might be made to work. Edward Teller, on the other hand, was old enough not to care: Around 1992, McKu…

Early announcements would have been one thing, but all evidence points to these guys committing flat out fraud.

Evidence?

As far as I can tell the only 'fraudulent' thing they did was jump to the conclusion of "WE MADE ENERGY WITH COLD FUSION" when they probably should've announced their result with "looks like we have some unexplained heat". They most probably were, however, understandably rather excited.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#34
post #4

I understand the argument about the sociological reputation trap, but a little more reading about Rossi's research turns up some very fishy evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer In particular, the copper supposedly generated by the fusion of hydrogen and nickel has an isotopic composition very similar to that of natural copper, rather than what one would expect from byproducts of nuclear reactions.…

And that is, what I think is Rossi's biggest problem. Very showy, very secretive.

The explanation I've heard is that he has something which works (for some definition of works) but doesn't know how it works or why. And because of that he is walking around afraid that if too many details get out about how it works then someone smarter then him will jump in and patent/publish the why and then be forever known as the person who "invented" this technology.

I don't know if that is true, but listening to Rossi talk and what he has written it seems like it could be true.

But elephant in the room is that if you can produce a MW of usable energy out of this thing then why not run it 24/7 and generate your quarter million a year in revenue (pretty much any market will buy baseload power at $30/MWhr. Use your first quarter million to build another one in year two, then use the half million from year two to build two more for year 3 and use the million dollars you get in year 3 to build four more, and the two million dollars from year 3 to build 8 more. Etc. Easy to sell shares in a company that is doubling in revenue each year and will continue to do so until it reaches 25% of baseload power (1TW or about a billion a year in revenue).

Either way, the way in which Rossi's e-cat story is playing out it screams hoax not breakthrough. That has nothing to do with the "reputation" of cold fusion and everything to do with the difference between seeing breakthroughs get promoted and hoaxes get promoted.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#35
post #4

I understand the argument about the sociological reputation trap, but a little more reading about Rossi's research turns up some very fishy evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer In particular, the copper supposedly generated by the fusion of hydrogen and nickel has an isotopic composition very similar to that of natural copper, rather than what one would expect from byproducts of nuclear reactions.…

It's somewhat ironic to say you want to avoid groupthink and then to cite Wikipedia as your source.

you’re not wrong there is potentially irony there, but … it’s not like Wikipedia doesn’t have sources you can follow. Linking to Wikipedia is linking to a consensus summary & portal to more links

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#36

Great article. I'm not going to defend Rossi, but what happened in 1989 was a travesty. Yes, Pons and Fleischmann were premature in their annnouncement. But they didn't deserve to be made pariahs, and there were others whose careers were destroyed for so much as publicly entertaining the possibility that cold fusion might be made to work. Edward Teller, on the other hand, was old enough not to care: Around 1992, McKu…

Big science is made out of meat like everything else and suffers from all the same biases and cognitive blinds and fallacies.

Scientists are genetically 99.9% identical to new age woo woo peddlers and quacks. Science is more rational because it cultivates more rational methods, but not because it runs on better hardware.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#38
post #33
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early announcements would have been one thing, but all evidence points to these guys committing flat out fraud.

Evidence? As far as I can tell the only 'fraudulent' thing they did was jump to the conclusion of "WE MADE ENERGY WITH COLD FUSION" when they probably should've announced their result with "looks like we have some unexplained heat". They most probably were, however, understandably rather excited.

Producing even a little heat with fusion produces a lot of nasty radiation. As in kill everyone in the unsheilded room within a few seconds.

Based on the amount of unexplained heat they produced fusion would have been extremely radioactive, however they did not treat there setup as an extreme radiation hazard. Which suggest they did not think there would be any fusion.

PS: Here are some pictures for a device expected to produce less than 1W of fusion. http://www.cmgww.com/historic/farnsworth/inventions/fusion/f... Note the deep and cheap to produce pit.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#39
The same thing goes for those that would dare to dispute string theory or human-caused global warming. Trying to publish any papers that defy either of those canons will likely end your career.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#40

hold short, wasn't it proven months ago that the E-Cat "worked" by using the ground return for powering a second heating coil?

As far as I know, it hasn't been proven, as the requisite access has not been granted. Of course, Rossi could easily have disproved it as soon as the issue was raised, if it were not so.

Edit: The posited arrangement is diagrammed and described here, along with other reasons to doubt:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat...

Post reply on HN