Cold Fusion a Possibility?, Maybe even in the near Future? Options

[Stahlseele]

so, i just found an article about one Andrea Rossi with his E-Cat ELNR/Cold-Fusion Device for Home-Owners . .
And after some more Research found this, which is the only link on google without ecat or something like that in the link . .
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup

What does one make of this now?

[Speed Wraith]

Good old cold fusion, rearing its mythical head again. The bigfoot of science, seen only through grainy images and looking for all the world to be fake.

It could be quite the game-changer in this world if it ever is figured out and replicated more than once. Not sure how a lot of energy companies would feel about it though.

[Stahlseele]

To be honest, i don't place much trust into Rossi and his E-Cat, but the rest of that did not sound quite as fishy . .

[Warlordtheft]

Good old cold fusion, rearing its mythical head again. The bigfoot of science, seen only through grainy images and looking for all the world to be fake.

It could be quite the game-changer in this world if it ever is figured out and replicated more than once. Not sure how a lot of energy companies would feel about it though.

Hmm, depends on how quickly it is adopted and how expensive it is to make (price per KWH). The reason coal, oil, and natural gas are still used in power plants is that it is still cheaper than wind or solar. Nuclear is cheaper in the long run, but given its radioactive dangers it is usually dismissed as an alternative.

[Draco18s]

I'll just put this here from Wikipedia.

Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded in May 2011, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year." He cites the unlikelihood of a chemical reaction being strong enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier, the lack of gamma rays, the lack of explanation for the origin of the extra energy, the lack of the expected radioactivity after fusing a proton with ⁵⁸Ni, the unexplained occurrence of 11% iron in the spent fuel, the 10% copper in the spent fuel strangely having the same isotopic ratios as natural copper, and the lack of any unstable copper isotope in the spent fuel as if the reactor only produced stable isotopes.

10% non-radioactive copper in the spent fuel? CURIOUS.

[Stahlseele]

I'll just put this here from Wikipedia.



10% non-radioactive copper in the spent fuel? CURIOUS.

Is he speaking english?
He is speaking english right?

[Draco18s]

Is he speaking english?
He is speaking english right?

Who?

[Speed Wraith]

Yeah, despite marathoning Breaking Bad, this chemistry is over my head (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Stahlseele]

Who?

That Wikipedia Guy.

[Draco18s]

That Wikipedia Guy.

I think he's speaking Science.

[Dr.Rockso]

Or Science!

Well he said that more than a year ago...anyone disprove it yet?

[Draco18s]

Or Science!

Well he said that more than a year ago...anyone disprove it yet?

I suspect the guy hasn't let anyone get a close enough look at it to say for sure.

There's apparently going to be a test next February though.

[Warlordtheft]

Blah Blah Blah...Science...Blah Blah Blah..can we go shoot something now? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[pbangarth]

Blah Blah Blah...Science...Blah Blah Blah..can we go shoot something now? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

You do realize that it is because of Science that you have a tool with which to shoot something, don't you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Halinn]

I suspect the guy hasn't let anyone get a close enough look at it to say for sure.

That's generally a bad sign in Science.

[Draco18s]

That's generally a bad sign in Science.

Yes.

Yes it is.

[Shortstraw]

Hmm, depends on how quickly it is adopted and how expensive it is to make (price per KWH). The reason coal, oil, and natural gas are still used in power plants is that it is still cheaper than wind or solar. Nuclear is cheaper in the long run, but given its radioactive dangers it is usually dismissed as an alternative.

Considering Fukushima Daiichi was a 40yr old reactor with a 50yr old design got hit with a mag 9 earthquake and tsunami and then a mag 7 aftershock centered 40 miles away and there are NO cases of residents suffering from radiation related ailments it is more perception than actual danger. Also if people are still scared you could go for LTFR instead.

[Draco18s]

Also if people are still scared you could go for LTFR instead.

What does LTFR stand for? All I can find is that it is some kind of molten salt reactor (which runs hotter).

[Sengir]

I suspect the guy hasn't let anyone get a close enough look at it to say for sure.

He has even gone as far as claiming that his reactors would be equipped with a self-destruct to prevent analysis. Oh, and it's not the frist miracle product of this Rossi guy, Google should yield plenty of history. My favorite is the company which could allegedly make toxic waste disappear or even better turn it into raw oil -- turns out they made the waste "disappear" in the deep of night at some unguarded landfills (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded in May 2011, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year." He cites the unlikelihood of a chemical reaction being strong enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier, the lack of gamma rays, the lack of explanation for the origin of the extra energy, the lack of the expected radioactivity after fusing a proton with 58Ni, the unexplained occurrence of 11% iron in the spent fuel, the 10% copper in the spent fuel strangely having the same isotopic ratios as natural copper, and the lack of any unstable copper isotope in the spent fuel as if the reactor only produced stable isotopes.

Well, sounds pretty clear to me, without a major in physics:
- The nucleus of an atom is positively charged, and nuclear fusion means bringing two cores together. What happens between two equal charges? Exactly, the coulomb force pushes them apart, unless you put in enough energy to overcome that force. The threshold to overcome the Coulomb force is the aforementioned "Coulomb barrier", and it's not exactly minuscule.
- What happens during a nuclear reaction is fairly deterministic: The reaction involves X neutrons, Y protons and Z electrons, so the resulting atom should have exactly those numbers. If instead something completely different comes out (in this case iron), there's something fishy.
-- The fishy smell gets even stronger because the result is not radioactive. The apparatus does not just produce A when it should produce B. It also happens that out of the the gazillion possible isotopes each element has, it only produces one of the few which are stable (i.e. not radioactive)


What this Rossi guy claims is that he can not just ignite a piece of wood by staring at it really hard, but that a fire started that way produces fresh mountain air instead of smoke.

[pbangarth]

... Fukushima Daiichi ... there are NO cases of residents suffering from radiation related ailments

Hmmm. How do you know this?

[BishopMcQ]

No "reported" cases perhaps?

[Shortstraw]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushim...ent_inf129.html

One of many many articles.

[pbangarth]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushim...ent_inf129.html

One of many many articles.

I'll take a look at it. In the meantime, seeing as this link is to a page by the World Nuclear Association, is there something that is not produced by an organization with a vested interest in keeping us all happy with nuclear power?

EDIT: I see references to UN and WHO studies. I'll see if I can find those, too.

[KnightAries]

What does LTFR stand for? All I can find is that it is some kind of molten salt reactor (which runs hotter).

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

[Shortstraw]

WHO preliminary study
Only one area is believed to have received "significant" doses but even there the assumptions taken were to maximize the potential dosage. Look particularly at section 3.2 on the top of p41 and note 1 at the bottom of p42. They increased the concentration based on an infants smaller size (which is correct) but then assumed that they breathed in the same amount of air as an adult (which is not). The other assumption is that people spent all their time outdoors and never went inside (which is ridiculous).