51–60 of 65 posts
"ECAT 1 MW Plant produces energy through a so-called cold fusion process. No combustion takes place; instead Nickel and Hydrogen merge to produce Copper. Per unit of weight, this process is at least 100,000 more efficient than any known combustion process" Seriously, even a monkey would see it's impossible.
Next up: Machine that turns lead into gold and Bitcoins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power The tech data page specifies 200kW input power
If this thing produces 1 MW in heat output for a 200 KW power input, it is no more efficient than a good heat pump (with a COP of 5, not unusual in large-size installations)...
As stated in technical parameters: the water pump output is 30-1500 liters/hour, it means max 0.4 liter per second. Assuming it raises the temperature of water by 40 degrees K, the energy output per second is 4200J/kg K 0.5kg * 40K = 84000 Joules/sec = 84 kW. Assuming it draws 167kW, it's much worse than any electric water heater.
But let’s be optimistic! If we pick the maximum range in the technical specification [1] and suppose that the temperature difference were 120°C then it would only generate 0.21MW [2]. Just in case, I checked and at 4Bar, the boiling point of water is 144°C [3], so the device is not producing vapor, only hot water.
[1] http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw/ecat-1mw-technical-d...
[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1500+kg%2Fhr+*+1+cal%2F...
[3] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926....
"ECAT 1 MW Plant produces energy through a so-called cold fusion process. No combustion takes place; instead Nickel and Hydrogen merge to produce Copper. Per unit of weight, this process is at least 100,000 more efficient than any known combustion process" Seriously, even a monkey would see it's impossible.
> A thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can produce an explosive force comparable to the detonation of more than 1.2 million tons (1.1 million tonnes) of TNT
The energy/mass of this atomic bomb is 4.2 10^12 J/Kg=m^2/s^2 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1200000+tons+of+TNT+%28...
The energy/mass of gasoline is 4.5 10^7 J/Kg=m^2/s^2 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=specific+combustion+hea...
So the atomic bomb is 100000 more “efficient” than gasoline.
In spite of this, I’m sure this device will “mysteriously” not work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power The tech data page specifies 200kW input power
> > Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power > The tech data page specifies 200kW input power Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough, rather than trying to sign people up to buy his unprotected, yet-to-be-built device. Also, wh…
As for patents on perpetual motion devices, the Patent Office is geared to reject claimed cold fusion patents that don't include a demonstration of a working device (of course, the reason for this is such claims have proven irreproducible, which impinges on the utility test for patentability.)
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
Is there conclusive evidence that this device actually work yet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point that, if the claims were real, 200 KW of the claimed output power of 1 MW cold be used to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement. This kind of "fact sheet" can only persuade people who don't understand physics.
I'm pretty sure this is a scam/hoax. I was just trying to explain how the initial claim itself was at least plausible.
If the author had wanted to be plausible, he would not have mentioned the required input power. That's a dead giveaway and show-stopper, because anything remotely real would not have that requirement.
If the units can deliver five times their input heat energy, then 1/5 of the output energy can be used to sustain the reaction. That's not difficult to grasp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first shipping generators will have an unfortunate bug that caps the output at approximately one-fifth of maximum capacity. The company will promise that, as soon as the bug is fixed and some new parts are installed, the machines will deliver the promised 1 MW.
Think this is what happened with the ECAT the DoD bought?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There could be something going on here that we don't understand. In science, the null hypothesis rules. The null hypothesis -- the premise that something is false until evidence proves otherwise -- is why scientists have a reputation for skepticism. It also filters out claims like this one. A scientist wouldn't give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. A scientist would demand scientific evidence, not a marketing sheet…
> If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that? What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me? Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test? > No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He ca…
Because it's a fatal error and you didn't mention it.
> Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test?
What, so uneducated people can be scammed out of their life savings? Where's your sense of public duty?
His claims are bogus. If he had achieved what he claims, he would not be calling for 200 KW of input power. And even given that absurd premise, assuming this fantasy requirement as a thought experiment, he could use one of his small units to power five small units of the same kind, then five to power 25, etc., resulting in a very small initial power input for a vast output power.
The reason the "fact sheet" isn't written that way is because this guy doesn't even know how to lie convincingly.
> Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(
That shouldn't matter as you evaluate my claims, any more than it should matter in evaluating Rossi's claims. Evidence should be the only issue.
A guy once said, "In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence."
Oh, wait, that guy was me. :)