Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10k x the energy density of gas
extremetech.com
extremetech.com
Simply put, they didn't actually exclude external sources of power, nor did they properly measure before and after fusion. The test also happened only when the device was on. This isn't an independent review; it's equivalent to me looking at it and saying "wow, that box is pretty!"
Deleted comment
Some because they are hopeless naive, as you say, but probably some because they desperately want what is being claimed to be true, so they accept things they wouldn't generally accept in this specific case.
But besides the requirement of proof, the curiosity that Rossi continues to seek out funds when, if true, he could be building power plants and under cutting everyone on their cost of power. And thus crushing the power industry and becoming independently wealthy.
So that makes me skeptical. And like radio in the past, without understanding how it works, we don't make progress very quickly. Radio turned out to be a real thing, and this could too, but so far I'm still betting on the 'don't pass' line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
Note particularly: Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel commented at scienceblogs saying Rossi did not allow the reactants or products to be measured on this occasion. In the previous tests there were not enough Nickel-62 and Nickel-64 (the only two isotopes which can fuse with hydrogen), at 3.6% and 0.9% respectively, in the reactants to explain the 10% copper output; these isotope levels are typical of natural copper, rather than of fusion by-product. According to Siegel, Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating despite it being an easy way to surreptitiously power the device. He also added that the supposedly independent testers had to rely on data supplied by Rossi.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Isolate the system in a Caloric chamber, once the device is at operating temperatures, and prove beyond all doubt that there are no hidden energy inputs.
Measure heat generated for a period of many hours. The results should be obvious.
Document everything for easy repeatability.
The Rossi-Focardi "E-Cat" is being seriously questioned. Their credibility is not great. I won't outright call it a scam yet, but I have grave doubts.
"The device subject to testing was powered by 360 W for a total of 96 hours, and produced in all 2034 W thermal."
When it does, and the reviewers find that the authors can't even get their units correct, this will be dismissed like every other cold fusion experiment.
The first obvious question is "how are you overcoming the Coulomb barrier?". Protons absorbing electrons won't just 'happen' - it's energetically unfavorable, requiring 780,000 eV of energy input. (Unbound neutrons are unstable for this reason.) Given that the energy of chemical reactions is usually around 1-3 eV, one has to wonder where the heck all this energy comes from.
The second obvious question is "where does the excess energy/momentum go?". If (say) you hit a proton with an electron at 1 MeV, and 0.78 MeV is absorbed in conversion to a neutron, 0.21 MeV of energy and all the electron's momentum still has to go somewhere. Neutrinos weigh almost nothing, so all the momentum has to go into the neutron, which is now traveling at around 500 eV (not 1 eV). You'd likely also get gamma ray emissions.
The third obvious question is "what's the reaction cross-section?". Weak force mediated reactions happen very rarely, which is why the neutron's decay time is so long.
Hope is the last thing you lose, but it's pretty clear this particular case of "cold fusion" is (as the debunking article linked above) shenanigans.
If I were evaluating something that claimed anything like nuclear power densities, you can be certain that I'd have radiation detectors around, and I'd write about it in my paper. This would be as much for my own safety as for science.
A successful invention of an alternative energy source won't require secrecy. That's what a patent is for. It's not something that can be commercialized (or even produced in quantity) without someone tearing it apart and figuring out how it works.
Such idiotic claims. What comes next, that meat has twice the energy energy density of a fruit blender? Since when does one compare a fuel and a machine, instead of two fuels?
Think of what goes into your bill -- it's not all a pass-through of whatever the provider had to burn, there's also labor and infrastructure.
But let's assume for argument's sake that CF is a plug-in replacement, and it's 1/10th the cost. What makes you think the utility execs will just give that away?
They have armies of lobbyists, decades of experience at bamboozling the public, and control of the infrastructure -- in some US states, they even have the power to seize property by force.
And when pressed, they'll just restructure their business so that their cost of buying energy is low or nonexistent, in order to justify their rates.
Or, more ominously, they'll manipulate the markets for CF materials to maintain or increase their rates.
Just a dose of reality. But, hey I could be wrong.
Naturally the utilities would fight that with every fiber of their being. But doesn't everybody here dream of that kind of disruption?
I think the same applies here.
For electricity instead there is so much demand to satisfy that the inventor could make MUCH more money than he ever dreamed of just selling it in the Countries that would respect his patent.
What Andreas is doing will obviously take more than a few days to invent.
1) Most break through inventions can be broken down in to smaller, patentable parts. Every patentable part at some point was "created" in an instant, rather than days.
2) You could use the logic to argue that software patents make perfectly good sense by saying that you had to spend years experimenting with software, learning what code works and what code doesn't work and understanding the market for various devices before coming up with your groundbreaking software patent on XYZ.
What if you did crack cold fusion.. imagine the (justifiable) paranoia and measures you would have to take to protect yourself, and your discovery.
I'd want to get the plans/schematics in the public domain ASAP. Someone is going to throw money at you to help build bigger and better versions once all doubt is removed anyway.
The peer review process should really be exercised before looking to publish an article, to avoid just such lines.