Skipjack wrote:Seeing how much money people here spend on heating and hot water, this thing would still be gods end (if it worked, which I think it wont). Most of the polution in old, european cities comes from heating with coal and oil. So for this purpose this would be awesome!
In fact for this purpose, you would not even need 100 degrees. Even 70 degrees (C) would be more than sufficient for anything in the household from heating to bath tub water.
I agree. My heating bill is double my electricity bill and I am using Natural gas for water and home heat.
It will be a great market if this thing works, but I am also quite skeptical.
Axil wrote: What can the Rossi device do as currently demonstrated? With 100C heat, first and foremost, it will be great for space heating.
Great use.
Axil wrote: It can power a “steam” car:
VERY low efficiency!
Axil wrote: It can drive a steam train
VERY low efficiency!
Axil wrote: It can generate mechanical power for a grain mill:
VERY low efficiency!
If you are going to use the output of these generators (i.e., co-generation) for space or process heat, it may be cost effective for these stationary installations. Might be great in the Antarctic or Siberia.
Of course, the "100° C" may not be the top end of the temperture in which case, these other proposals become more and more attractive.
I'm really not sure I should be adding to this thread, which is rapidly [rabidly?] turning into another monster, but it would be pretty straight forward to stick the whole thing into a box, along with a little steam-generator, to replace the off-grid supply. At that power output, it need not be very efficient, just one of those little hobby-boiler affairs you can get for a few $100.
Then, stick the whole lot in a see-through box with a water supply, and leave it on in plain view of a web-cam for a few weeks, and/or in some display cabinet in a university lobby somewhere.
This'd be MUCH more convincing.
I suppose those who throw their money at such schemes will learn the truth all too soon.
I guess the funny thing is, in life, that there are plenty of examples of successful companies based on totally flawed products, and also plenty of companies that produced remarkable, successful innovations that went bust.
I've never quite understood this, but it seems to me that the success of a business is largely independent of the success of the product.
One last little thing; on the matter of whether this is 'nucelar' or not.
There is a simple test - repeat with deuterium.
If it is chemical there would be very little difference of result between the two [differences from isotopic kinetics notwithstanding]. If it is nuclear then one would expect to see a difference.
Simple test, easily done.
But as always with Ni-H tests, it seems that the simplest tests are the ones the researchers are the keenest to avoid. Funny, that.....
chrismb wrote:One last little thing; on the matter of whether this is 'nucelar' or not.
There is a simple test - repeat with deuterium.
If it is chemical there would be very little difference of result between the two [differences from isotopic kinetics notwithstanding]. If it is nuclear then one would expect to see a difference.
Simple test, easily done.
But as always with Ni-H tests, it seems that the simplest tests are the ones the researchers are the keenest to avoid. Funny, that.....
Didn't someone post that Rossi said it did NOT work with Deuterium? Maybe I'm thinking of something else. Hmmm.
If you are going to use the output of these generators (i.e., co-generation) for space or process heat, it may be cost effective for these stationary installations. Might be great in the Antarctic or Siberia.
Well, we here in northern Europe do get quite cold winters and we do have to heat a lot.
For heating purposes the water does not have to be very hot, definitely not 100 degrees. For hot water for bath and shower 60 degrees is perfectly fine (I have set my electric boiler to output 55 degrees water, because it saves me 10 (and more) Euros a month on my electricity bill to use 55 instead of 60 degrees). So if you were to create some low level electricity from it, e.g. with a stirling engine and then use the slightly cooler water to heat your house and provide warm water for your bath, then it could still be cheaper than doing this with oil/gas, or coal, as many people here do. Some even use electricity to heat their house, but with the electricity prices here, this is prohibitively expensive. So for Europe this would, if it worked (cant stress this enough), be really great. Even if it only saves you a few Euros a year and does not cost more than an oil burning solution to install (I dont see why it would), you will have a huge market here.
Re working with deuterium, it was reported that Rossi has stated neither deuterium or tritium will work.
Krivit writes that the process was discovered by Francesco Piantelli, a retired professor of biophysics with the University of Siena. On one occasion the reactor ran away, getting much too hot, and Piantelli bemoaned that at the time he didn’t know that deuterium killed the reaction and used nitrogen instead, requiring a major rebuild. Rossi claims the systems are different and Piantelli’s design didn’t produce anything like as much heat.
Although I earlier mentioned that the apparatus was shielded with lead, this seems to be missed when talking about radiation.
I haven't seen anything that hints the output temperature is limited to around 100C
I read that Rossi's paper was refused publication in a peer reviewed journal because he didn't have an acceptable theory.
LIkewise, he is having trouble getting a patent because the examiner doesn't think cold fusion is possible.
Just suppose someone comes up with a device that does work. How would he go about getting it accepted and protected? Possibly Rossi is right in stating the only way forward is simply to manufacture and sell the device.
[A question I have posed before..... as I would like to know the answer...!]
In this case, the issue is his claim 'a nuclear process'. If you are *claiming* that, then you have to have a theory.
I strongly suspect that if he a) did a review of all other Ni-H experiments [properly sited or otherwise, e.g. Blacklight], showing that the anomalies he has measured are representative of a meta-analysis of previous studies [thereby expanding on them]; and b) reported only 'anomalous reactions' and the data of those reactions, then he'd get published and probably even patented.
But, clearly from the press brief, he has not provided 'enablement' [as he is keeping the detailed workings a secret] and insists it is nuclear in origin but then asks people to focus on the experimental outcome. These are the inconsistencies that mean he won't get published, either journal or patent.
Drop the nuclear claims and replace with 'anomalous reactions of an unknown type', and fill in all the experimental details so it can be repeated elsewhere [no 'black boxes'] and he may progress some publications.
chrismb wrote:[A question I have posed before..... as I would like to know the answer...!]
In this case, the issue is his claim 'a nuclear process'. If you are *claiming* that, then you have to have a theory.
I strongly suspect that if he a) did a review of all other Ni-H experiments [properly sited or otherwise, e.g. Blacklight], showing that the anomalies he has measured are representative of a meta-analysis of previous studies [thereby expanding on them]; and b) reported only 'anomalous reactions' and the data of those reactions, then he'd get published and probably even patented.
But, clearly from the press brief, he has not provided 'enablement' [as he is keeping the detailed workings a secret] and insists it is nuclear in origin but then asks people to focus on the experimental outcome. These are the inconsistencies that mean he won't get published, either journal or patent.
Drop the nuclear claims and replace with 'anomalous reactions of an unknown type', and fill in all the experimental details so it can be repeated elsewhere [no 'black boxes'] and he may progress some publications.
agreed. if i were "peer reviewing" a paper like that, i'd send it back with the same advice. i'd basically say: either send me a new theory consistent with known and widely reproduced experimental results that makes testable predictions, or send me reproducable experimental results. one or the other.
Strange logic. You suggest he should specify exactly what catalysts he is using (without patent protection) together with all the working parameters and then he could get published and get a patent. I don’t think so.
It looks like the reaction is nuclear, as it produces copper, but there is no known theory yet to explain it, that is acceptable. Wouldn’t it be better to give him patent protection when he has to disclose everything and then let others work on the theory?
parallel wrote:Strange logic. You suggest he should specify exactly what catalysts he is using (without patent protection) together with all the working parameters and then he could get published and get a patent. I don’t think so.
It looks like the reaction is nuclear, as it produces copper, but there is no known theory yet to explain it, that is acceptable. Wouldn’t it be better to give him patent protection when he has to disclose everything and then let others work on the theory?
no that is a caricature of what has been said. nobody ever said anything about what order he should do anything in. we're just talking about what requirements one needs to fulfill to pass a peer review or alternatively get a patent. noones even saying he should do one or the other. just that those happen to be the de facto requirements to get a paper or alternatively patent request accepted.
Quote "just that those happen to be the de facto requirements to get a paper or alternatively patent request accepted."
To get a patent in this area, Rossi was refused because he didn't have an acceptable, peer reviewed theory. Now the only way to get a paper published seems to be if he discloses everything. See the problem?