Cold Fusion passes another test

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,318
1,763
136
Well the issues with patents seems just as reasonable as it being a scam. Besides the fact not knowing how it works, it might also be difficult to scale up, meaning till it can be commercialized, the patent has run out and hence no profit can be made of it.

There is also no need to patent. if your product is very, complex and can't be easily understood, just keeping the knowledge secret can work too. Of course this does not work if you want to make a scientific publication.

Solar is in someway also a scam. The industry only lives because of subsidies from the governments. Solar can't really help. It is just way too diffuse but the main problem is, that it is unpredictable. It is not a constant energy source and hence it will never be able to replace coal/gas or nuclear. Best bet now for energy problem is nuclear fission. if you do it right, there is enough material around for several 100'000 years of current energy consumption.
Integral fast reactor and Thorium as key words.

Note that solar plants that create same energy as a nuclear plant would use more space than a 20 mile zone around the nuclear plant. So eve if an accident happens, there is till less space wasted than with solar...

Instead of subsidizing solar, governments should subsidize insulating houses, this would be much more efficient especially in USA (sorry guys, but the way you build is just extremely poor / low tech). Energy consumption from heating and AC could easily be halved...in that would be lots of energy (and CO2) saved.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Well the issues with patents seems just as reasonable as it being a scam. Besides the fact not knowing how it works, it might also be difficult to scale up, meaning till it can be commercialized, the patent has run out and hence no profit can be made of it.

There is also no need to patent. if your product is very, complex and can't be easily understood, just keeping the knowledge secret can work too. Of course this does not work if you want to make a scientific publication.

Solar is in someway also a scam. The industry only lives because of subsidies from the governments. Solar can't really help. It is just way too diffuse but the main problem is, that it is unpredictable. It is not a constant energy source and hence it will never be able to replace coal/gas or nuclear. Best bet now for energy problem is nuclear fission. if you do it right, there is enough material around for several 100'000 years of current energy consumption.
Integral fast reactor and Thorium as key words.

Note that solar plants that create same energy as a nuclear plant would use more space than a 20 mile zone around the nuclear plant. So eve if an accident happens, there is till less space wasted than with solar...

Instead of subsidizing solar, governments should subsidize insulating houses, this would be much more efficient especially in USA (sorry guys, but the way you build is just extremely poor / low tech). Energy consumption from heating and AC could easily be halved...in that would be lots of energy (and CO2) saved.

Not sure why you'd say that solar is a scam; it's just that it's expensive and takes a long time to break even. Then again, how long does it take for your nuclear fission plant to break even on costs? Hmmm??

I completely agree though with your last paragraph. A LOT of homes in this country are older homes that are very much inadequately insulated. Hell, my own home is very uninsulated. (A problem that I'd rectify now, but future renovations mean that all the blown in would just create a huge mess; not worth it to me to upgrade my 2" of fiberglass in the attic to something more... insulating.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,318
1,763
136
Not sure why you'd say that solar is a scam; it's just that it's expensive and takes a long time to break even. Then again, how long does it take for your nuclear fission plant to break even on costs? Hmmm??

Cost is not everything and contrary to solar nuclear has proved that it is profitable, else we would not be discussing this at all. Solar also takes forever to break even in the energy needed to create the cells and all the metal scaffold for holding the cells in place.
Note that no one knows how long such solar plants can be operated but if it is below 30 years which man experts believe is the case, they are even less economically feasible.

Solar is a scam because it will never be able to hold true the claims it's proponents have (while the actually believe their claims).

- solar does not deliver constant energy hence it can't replace coal, gas or nuclear
- it uses huge amount of space. where i live that is just not available
- waste of resources (steel,...) -> extremly inefficient. Thats why it takes years to get the energy back that was initially invested.

Even more retarded is the decentralized idea, eg. solar panels on roofs. That is even more efficient plus the current power grid would have to be completely changed and adjusted. It is not affordable.

The worst thing for economy is expensive energy. The biggest problem is always economy and global warming. Thats why nuclear fission is the only acceptable solution we have right now because it can fully replace coal and gas.

Expensive energy directly leads to a economic recession:
- everything gets more expensive
- people can afford less stuff and buy less
- companies need to lay off people because the make less profit
- even less stuff is bought
and so on...

Do you think China and India will sleep? no they are actually investing heavy in nuclear because they need cheap energy. Western world will get crushed if the go all "green".
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip-
Instead of subsidizing solar, governments should subsidize insulating houses, this would be much more efficient especially in USA (sorry guys, but the way you build is just extremely poor / low tech). Energy consumption from heating and AC could easily be halved...in that would be lots of energy (and CO2) saved.

The US govt already subsidizes upgrades to home insulation. They have been for years. This includes insulation, roofs, windows, doors and the like. Likewise with energy efficient appliances.

I also disagree with your remark about 'low tech' buildings.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
-snip-.
Even more retarded is the decentralized idea, eg. solar panels on roofs. That is even more efficient plus the current power grid would have to be completely changed and adjusted. It is not affordable.

Here again, must disagree (to a point).

The power grid need not be modified. The solar power generated on homes' roofs is run (backwards, if you will) through the existing (home network) grid and made available to homes on your grid without solar. You, in effect, sell this solar generated power to the elec company (at a higher rate than FMV rate too).

No modification to the grid is necessary. That's one the points of it really.

But yes, because of the inherent cost of solar and the 'days of strong sunshine' in many places it is not really affordable in many places without govt subsidies.

Fern
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Cost is not everything and contrary to solar nuclear has proved that it is profitable, else we would not be discussing this at all. Solar also takes forever to break even in the energy needed to create the cells and all the metal scaffold for holding the cells in place.
Note that no one knows how long such solar plants can be operated but if it is below 30 years which man experts believe is the case, they are even less economically feasible.

Solar is a scam because it will never be able to hold true the claims it's proponents have (while the actually believe their claims).

- solar does not deliver constant energy hence it can't replace coal, gas or nuclear
- it uses huge amount of space. where i live that is just not available
- waste of resources (steel,...) -> extremly inefficient. Thats why it takes years to get the energy back that was initially invested.

Even more retarded is the decentralized idea, eg. solar panels on roofs. That is even more efficient plus the current power grid would have to be completely changed and adjusted. It is not affordable.

The worst thing for economy is expensive energy. The biggest problem is always economy and global warming. Thats why nuclear fission is the only acceptable solution we have right now because it can fully replace coal and gas.

Expensive energy directly leads to a economic recession:
- everything gets more expensive
- people can afford less stuff and buy less
- companies need to lay off people because the make less profit
- even less stuff is bought
and so on...

Do you think China and India will sleep? no they are actually investing heavy in nuclear because they need cheap energy. Western world will get crushed if the go all "green".

China has also invested heavily in solar, much more heavily than has the US. Why?

More importantly, what is the basis for your certainty that solar will "never" be competitive in terms of cost efficiency? The technology has advanced considerably over the past 10 years. Are you just assuming that it has now plateaued forever?

- wolf
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
The US government is too involved with things like the oil industry to be able to warrant any other alternate energy source that may actually compete.

The only reason hybrids and other cars are making it now is because they are predominantly powered by fossil fuel generators, otherwise we would not see any of this.

As for cold fusion, bupkis. I don't, for a minute, think that a tiny box on a table (I will have to read up on this crap to get the skinny) would be able to magically fuse two atoms together and get a bunch of energy. Not unless that box was actually a time machine and was able to get the 57th revision for this back through time where they are able to get Helium to fuse simply by humming a Doctor Dre song.


As for the moon? We will sit on our heels until China launches a legit craft up there and starts claiming land. Then "National Pride" will kick in and we will have another cold war race to dominate.
And saying that the cut in NASA is due to welfare is outright idiocy. They spend more on senate salaries than NASA.
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
As for the moon? We will sit on our heels until China launches a legit craft up there and starts claiming land. Then "National Pride" will kick in and we will have another cold war race to dominate.
And saying that the cut in NASA is due to welfare is outright idiocy. They spend more on senate salaries than NASA.

I'll believe China on the moon when I see it. They care less about safety than the russians did. Go look at their cars. Apollo 13 will happen. Except the space craft will blow up. So I guess I mean Apollo 1 will happen. First on the ground. Then in space.

You underestimate the private sector in the US. If it turns out to be worth it to "mine the moon" some corporation in the US will do it. Will we be first? Who knows. Will we be before China? Well...unless the US suddenly falls into the dark ages, yes.
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
Here again, must disagree (to a point).

The power grid need not be modified. The solar power generated on homes' roofs is run (backwards, if you will) through the existing (home network) grid and made available to homes on your grid without solar. You, in effect, sell this solar generated power to the elec company (at a higher rate than FMV rate too).

No modification to the grid is necessary. That's one the points of it really.

But yes, because of the inherent cost of solar and the 'days of strong sunshine' in many places it is not really affordable in many places without govt subsidies.

Fern

This is being done already. When I was in college I did a fair amount of work on sustainable energy. In the process, we looked at solar. If I owned a home, I'd look for the most efficient panels (have we hit 30% yet?) and stick them on my roof. Well, wait...I live in WA, maybe I wouldn't. Anyway, I'd suggest it. Hell, maybe even look into a system to charge some battery backups (or ultra-caps?) for your house using solar power so that in a power outage, you at least have lights for a few days, and possibly even small amounts of heat.

Anyway, I agree that solar on people's homes, in certain regions, is a great idea. I think getting panels more efficient is also great. But we need more than just solar - we also need something that works at night/isn't reliant on weather.

And again: someone bought a cold fusion unit. WHO?
 

Ancalagon44

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2010
3,274
202
106
I find it interesting that e-cat.com now redirects to Google Green. I mean, I dont think Google is hoodwinked easily.

I hope this is true but I'm waiting for more reliable verification. They need to hand a unit over to a lab so that they can make sure it is producing more energy than it produces. Heck, it doesnt matter how it works, whether it actually is cold fusion. If its a clean and reliable energy source, cold fusion or not, its good enough for me.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
I'll believe China on the moon when I see it. They care less about safety than the russians did. Go look at their cars. Apollo 13 will happen. Except the space craft will blow up. So I guess I mean Apollo 1 will happen. First on the ground. Then in space.

You contradict yourself.

Yes China is less concerned about safety, but they are more willing to "sacrifice for the greater good".

They have one rocket blow up, they will make another and have another crew ready for it.

You underestimate the private sector in the US. If it turns out to be worth it to "mine the moon" some corporation in the US will do it. Will we be first? Who knows. Will we be before China? Well...unless the US suddenly falls into the dark ages, yes.

I am not underestimating them. they do not want to risk the capital to do something like this. If they find out it is profitable, you will have them scrambling to do something, but only then, not now.

Most of our base research starts with government programs because private industry does not want to spend the $$ for 10 years of setup research. They let the government do the dirty work, then pick up after something seems to be going somewhere.

To do otherwise would be foolish (short term) with your investment.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
The ignorance here is just amazing. If this kind of ignorance 50 years ago was as pervasive as it is now then we wouldnt have accomplished jack. No satellites. No internet. No protein folding. No nothing. It is really sad witnessing a culture become totally captured and made to think only what the top 0.1% want them to think.

If this is the real deal, then why dont they just kill Rossi? Because he could have 12 servers around the world set to publicize all his work if he gets capped and doesnt "check in" regularly. If this is real then it wont take more than 6 figures to get something up and running once the plans are public. Thousands of designs would sweep the world. The last thing they'd want to do is kill him. No, what they do is just hire/brainwash 100 monkeys into spreading FUD until the truth is no longer relevant. And that is the truth... in todays' world, "truth" is quite irrelevant and becoming moreso with each passing year.

This really isnt that outlandish of a concept anyway. It may be no different than a rare earth magnet or a hydrocarbon. It can take millions of years and thousands of tons of pressure to form the correct lattice structure in the nickel conducive to LENR. Then someone comes along and releases that stored energy and all the skeptics can say is that the laws of thermodynamics have been broken? It is just ignorance at its grossest.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,074
12,292
136
I find it interesting that e-cat.com now redirects to Google Green. I mean, I dont think Google is hoodwinked easily.

I hope this is true but I'm waiting for more reliable verification. They need to hand a unit over to a lab so that they can make sure it is producing more energy than it produces. Heck, it doesnt matter how it works, whether it actually is cold fusion. If its a clean and reliable energy source, cold fusion or not, its good enough for me.

Google has an investment group, aka Polywell, that has supplied capital for the people working on Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC). So they may be simpathetic to some of the other technologies not approved by career nuclear scientists.
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,318
1,763
136
More importantly, what is the basis for your certainty that solar will "never" be competitive in terms of cost efficiency? The technology has advanced considerably over the past 10 years. Are you just assuming that it has now plateaued forever?

Not yet but there is a known physical limit on how efficient PV panels can be. Plus:

- You either need some kind of way to store energy for the night/cloudy days to have a predictable output (expensive) or your output is completely unpredictable (unfeasible). Wind farms in Germany are backed up by coal plants that can quickly fire up if needed. Hence it is also not C02 free!!!

- land and resources intensive. For 1 wind turbine you need about 100 Tons of steel. In a country with a lot of sunshine (=best case scenario for solar), to match output of a nuclear plant you need more land area than the 20 mile "protection zone" would consume in case of an accident.

- an often heard claim is to make solar decentralized = use roofs, does not waste additional space. Downside is, this does not work with current power grid. In fact it would have to be completely re-engineered and re-built. It's obvious that that is just too expensive since even maintaining the current grid is not really done well.

All this base on the following hypothese:

- I want to drastically reduce CO2 output and hence slow global warming
while
- keeping my living standards
- have my country/region to remain economically competitive compared to China...
which requires
- always available cheap energy

There is only one way this can currently be achieved: nuclear

Note that with "green inventions" power consumption will go drastically UP while total energy consumption will go drastically down.
Example: electric cars vs. gas driven cars or heating with gas vs. heat pump
Total energy consumption goes down because an electric cars is by laws of physics more efficient than a normal car engine. Same is true for the heat pump.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I'm in graduate school for nuclear engineering and a professor in my department (George Miley) was one of the early researchers for LENRs. He still works on the technology and has spoken to Rossi. Rossi supposedly has a contract from NASA to send several units to them for testing. Dr. Miley worked with some of Rossi's units before and came away optimistic. Some other professors at my university consider Rossi to be a fraud as he has never given any explanation.

Patent issues are very real though. It is not my specific field, but I find the theory fascinating. Having reactions take place that can not be currently explained is always exciting.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
If man could ever replicate the power of the Sun, the Energy Corporations will make sure we will never see it.

No, they would own it and sell the power for a large profit. Power costs for the average person would drop like a rock so people would stop conserving.

As people use more and more power, the high profit AND high volume use would make TONS of money for the power companies.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I developed a heat engine more efficient than the one Carnot thought up...I will only show info on it after I have patented it, though. ;)

But in seriousness, patents are very important, and the only way to prevent being robbed blind.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Not yet but there is a known physical limit on how efficient PV panels can be. Plus:

- You either need some kind of way to store energy for the night/cloudy days to have a predictable output (expensive) or your output is completely unpredictable (unfeasible). Wind farms in Germany are backed up by coal plants that can quickly fire up if needed. Hence it is also not C02 free!!!

- land and resources intensive. For 1 wind turbine you need about 100 Tons of steel. In a country with a lot of sunshine (=best case scenario for solar), to match output of a nuclear plant you need more land area than the 20 mile "protection zone" would consume in case of an accident.

- an often heard claim is to make solar decentralized = use roofs, does not waste additional space. Downside is, this does not work with current power grid. In fact it would have to be completely re-engineered and re-built. It's obvious that that is just too expensive since even maintaining the current grid is not really done well.

All this base on the following hypothese:

- I want to drastically reduce CO2 output and hence slow global warming
while
- keeping my living standards
- have my country/region to remain economically competitive compared to China...
which requires
- always available cheap energy

There is only one way this can currently be achieved: nuclear

Note that with "green inventions" power consumption will go drastically UP while total energy consumption will go drastically down.
Example: electric cars vs. gas driven cars or heating with gas vs. heat pump
Total energy consumption goes down because an electric cars is by laws of physics more efficient than a normal car engine. Same is true for the heat pump.
Decentralized solar absolutely works with the current grid; we do a fair number of these designs a year (or rather we provide stamped drawings for the installers.) The reason it works so well is that grids must be designed for peak loads, typically summer 2 - 5 PM. This is also peak solar efficiency. The power from the solar installations feeds backward (through a separate meter) into the grid and reduces the amount of energy required to be pumped into the grid to meet current demand (pun intended.) The power generated by solar arrays all day long reduces the amount of coal, natural gas, uranium, etc. that must be consumed to meet our power needs. Solar can't replace all forms of generation without some very expensive energy storage, but it works great as a supplemental generation method.

If there were enough solar installations to meet peak demand, only night time, surge, and very bad weather power generation sources would be needed. Nuclear plants are best for continuous generation, but they could supply the excess as needed while using the extra capacity to separate hydrogen and oxygen which could then be burned to generate night time power - or the hydrogen could be used to power cars or trucks or buses. Natural gas plants, whose turbines spin up faster than most generation sources, could fill in the gaps. Solar cells from an efficiency standpoint are already at a useful stage; what we need are CHEAP solar cells, not more efficient solar cells, for most of the world. Only highly concentrated industrial areas and very high population density areas really need more efficient solar cells to be practical.

As far as cold fusion goes, until someone can explain where the excess protons go, I'm not buying this cheap electricity without radiation, period.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
China has also invested heavily in solar, much more heavily than has the US. Why?

More importantly, what is the basis for your certainty that solar will "never" be competitive in terms of cost efficiency? The technology has advanced considerably over the past 10 years. Are you just assuming that it has now plateaued forever?

- wolf

Because they didn't have to spend billions in Nuclear research and they have much better access to the materials required to make solar panels. They also practice something called "gradualism" in China, which leads them to trying to replace everyones water heater with a solar powered one instead of trying to force everyone to pay for large solar farms and solar installations to benefit other peoples homes.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Nuclear plants are best for continuous generation, but they could supply the excess as needed while using the extra capacity to separate hydrogen and oxygen which could then be burned to generate night time power - or the hydrogen could be used to power cars or trucks or buses.
That doesn't seem very efficient to me. Pressurized fluid, or grav potential, would probably be more efficient than electrolysis and subsequent combustion/fuel cell reacting.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That doesn't seem very efficient to me. Pressurized fluid, or grav potential, would probably be more efficient than electrolysis and subsequent combustion/fuel cell reacting.
Electrolysis and subsequent combustion/fuel cell reacting is most effective where you have power that would otherwise go unused, such as hydro or nuclear. I would imagine that there are many more effective ways of obtaining hydrogen, though I'm not sure if any are really ready for large scale production, but my point was more to capture excess energy rather than waste it. The more widespread solar becomes, the more power generation must be held in near-instant availability for storms, heavy clouds, etc. Natural gas turbines and hydro can react pretty quickly, oil boilers less quickly, coal boilers still more slowly, and nuclear reactors slowest of all. But nuclear reactors probably have the least environmental impact; therefore I favor using them, hopefully with capturing the generated heat even when it's not needed for power generation. Other methods would include pumping water to high storage reservoirs for demand hydro, flywheels, higher temperature/pressure tanks, high thermal capacity heat storage media - pretty much anything to recapture as much of the generated but not needed energy as possible.
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
That doesn't seem very efficient to me. Pressurized fluid, or grav potential, would probably be more efficient than electrolysis and subsequent combustion/fuel cell reacting.

a PEM fuel cell stack is contained in a small space. Small enough to fit a car. I'm all for creating hydrogen for a fleet of cars that either BURN hydrogen, or use it with a PEM stack.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Nah, we need a better way to store things.

Combustion of Hydrogen is great (and clean), but it is still combustion. Also, the solids that are needed to carry the hydrogen are not as clean as simply burning the gas. (You can't carry a tank of pressurized hydrogen in a car without asking for a problem down the line...).

Fusion power would be great, but until we find a way to store it effectively, we will never ba able to use it to its full potential.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The point of new homes being more insulated, etc., than old homes is a big deal. I live in a townhome and not on the end. The blower on my furnace died yesterday morning, a guy is coming out today to fix it. I live in PA, yet the temp in my home did not drop below 69 F last night. The home is less than 5 years old and is an Energy Star compliant home.

Needless to say, I am happy with the insulation of my home. :)