Andrea Rossi has started commercializing ECAT nuclear fusion devices
ecat.com
ecat.com
Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power -- to sustain the cold fusion reaction, of course -- totals just over 1 MW continuous.
> Current delivery time is estimated to four months.
That should be enough time to sign up an adequate number of perfect fools.
The tech data page specifies 200kW input 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, why doesn't Rossi use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement? This "fact sheet" reads very differently to someone who actually understands physics.
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.)
It has to demonstrate utility for all patents; but utility doesn't generally require a working device (even for patents of a "device" type).
Whether it should is an interesting question, but if its clear from the information in the patent and the information generally available outside of it that a practitioner in the field could derive real utility from the described mechanism, I think there's at least a clear argument that actually having a demonstrated device is unnecessary, while with ones whose claims appear to violate physical laws or be of a class where claims have shown to be impossible to reproduce by other practitioners, the demonstration of a working device to demonstrate utility is important.
Also, Rossi has applied for a patent and it was partially rejected. http://phys.org/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-...
Keep in mind, I still think this is likely B.S., but let's evaluate it based on what we know.
Yes, speaking of pulling numbers out of thin air. If this were really a cold fusion device, no continuous input power would be required -- the device could be started once using an impulse of power, then it would become self-sustaining using its own generated energy -- no further input power would be required.
Look at the claims:
* Input power required: 200KW
* Claimed output power: 1 MW
Why isn't 200 KW of the 1 MW output power used to sustain the reaction? What's wrong with this picture? Only someone with no understanding of physics would post this "fact sheet".
He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that his base product doesn't include more than just the basics for now.
Wait -- the input power requirement is intended to run a heater, not provide electricity. And I should never have mentioned thermoelectric converters, that only complicates the discussion with no benefit.
Because the input power is needed to run a "immersion heater" according to the linked page, and because the output power is heat, this whole account quickly unravels.
> He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power.
No problem, there are plenty of those available. But the claims in the "fact sheet" are obviously false. If he really had a working unit that developed a megawatt using dozens of smaller units working in parallel, then why doesn't he just start one small unit with a tiny power kick, then use that unit to start four additional units, four to 16, ad infinitum, like a logical design. But Rossi hasn't bothered to think this deeply. The reason? He's not really going to build it. And the reason for that is it cannot be built.
19 of them didn't function at all. The 8 that did work only produced 1 Watt of power instead of the 800 promised.
The guy is a scam artist.
All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. Otherwise we're doing nothing but putting out more hot air than this generator does.
If we did that for everyone trying to sell a highly flawed device with engineering requirements that are not yet mastered by even world experts, we could measure such claims all day and achieve no real benefit. It is his job to demonstrate this to us.
It is possible that this device is actually performing better-than-breakeven fusion. But I would happily bet money against it.
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 with some very obvious defects.
> I understand physics.
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?
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_.
No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden.
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 cannot meet that burden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Again, no disagreement, but you're starting your attack before he has a finished product with which he can attempt to meet that burden.
Just because you know something, doesn't mean that you need to be aggressive about it. You're actually giving Rossi more attention than he deserves before these things are ready to be tested.
You talk about the null hypothesis and filtering out claims and not even giving him the benefit of the doubt. Absolutely. A scientist who has useful things to do with their time just ignores it until there is evidence otherwise.
Going on the attack is something completely different.
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. :(
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. :)
Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction. Of course, that just begs the question: why not say it's only needed for start-up? I suppose that there could be engineering concerns...
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is baloney. But I don't think the argument about requiring input power is what proves that.
> Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction.
Yes, but his megawatt unit consists of dozens of smaller units, each of which (if we accept the premise for the moment) requires a much smaller amount of bootstrap power. Therefore, logically, he would power one unit with a tiny bootstrap kick, that unit would use its generated power to sustain itself and bootstrap four additional units, four would bootstrap 16, all with surplus power. Logical, yes?
Anyone with the slightest familiarity with science and technology would see this is the logical arrangement, but it appears Rossi doesn't have the slightest familiarity with science and technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff
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....
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29
Next up: Machine that turns lead into gold and Bitcoins.
> 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.
Note that they are looking for a beta site customer... lower right corner... next to the impressive list of folks who have validated cold fusion, which would be zero by my count. At least from places that don't feature folks with funny hats made of foil.
100,000 times more efficient?
Wow. Just wow.
http://www.kohlerpower.com/rental/detail.htm?sectionNumber=2...
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.