
Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10k x the energy density of gas - ColinWright
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
======
daeken
Here's a great breakdown of why this paper is junk science:
[http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-
cat...](http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-
and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/)

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!"

~~~
yid
For everyone commenting on this story -- the link daeken posted is well worth
a read. Very reasonable measures were completely ignored. The most amazing to
me was the fact that _external power was never disconnected_ from the device!

------
ChuckMcM
It will be lovely if this pans out. It will be a challenge as well.

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.

------
jessriedel
Andrea Rossi is a guy with a history of being a charlatan.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)>

~~~
dragonwriter
More info on the page on this particular device:

<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._

------
sounds
I suspect this will need several independent verifications, all of which meet
the most stringent standards of scientific rigor.

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.

------
joosters
Cold fusion CONFIRMED - for people who live in rooms at temperatures of 859.1
degrees centrigrade, apparently. And who don't need their research papers to
be peer-reviewed :)

~~~
raverbashing
In other news, room temperature superconductivity was confirmed by researchers
at the University of Fairbanks

------
Jabbles
" _which hasn’t yet undergone peer review_ "

" _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.

------
justinjlynn
_meh_ I'll wait until the paper is peer reviewed before I get excited.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

------
apsec112
I'm not a fusion expert, but I studied physics in undergrad, and this seems
pretty much impossible.

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.

~~~
RBerenguel
I agree with the general sentiment wrt this article, but I can address your
first objection: quantum tunneling. Just like in those old (and real, even
though energetically deficient) muon-catalysed cold fusion devices

~~~
apsec112
Quantum tunneling increases the rate of energetically favorable reactions, but
it can't create energy from nowhere. Eg. in the muon catalysis case, the
reaction (D + T -> He4 + H) produced a huge amount of energy as soon as nuclei
could "tunnel through" the barrier. In this case (p + e -> n + v), no energy
is produced even after the barrier is overcome; the energy used to overcome
the Coulomb barrier goes into the mass of the neutron. Hence, that energy
still must come from somewhere.

~~~
RBerenguel
Yes, I realised this a while after answering. A pity muons are so expensive to
generate, since at method is theoretically and effectively beautiful.

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.

------
ISL
Neutrons. If it is a cold fusion device (which the arXiv article does not
claim), then copious neutron production is almost unavoidable.

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.

------
gngeal
_"The cold fusion device being tested has roughly 10,000 times the energy
density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline. Even allowing for a
massively conservative margin of error, the scientists say that the cold
fusion device they tested is 10 times more powerful than gasoline"_

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?

------
squozzer
I'm keeping the bubbly on ice for now. Not because the reactor may be a hoax,
but even if it's wildly successful -- by which I mean CF replaces all current
power generators -- does the estimable readership of HN think it's really
going to reduce our energy bill?

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.

~~~
mark-r
If it's cheap enough and doesn't produce toxic byproducts, you could get
point-of-use reactors. No more need for utilities.

Naturally the utilities would fight that with every fiber of their being. But
doesn't everybody here dream of that kind of disruption?

------
HarryRotha
ive been following this ever since the hoopla a few years ago. I want it to be
real and I want to see the world changed by it, but until I see more
verification I'm not getting my hope sup.

------
danmaz74
This situation is the perfect, legitimate situation where patents make sense.
I really wonder why Andrea Rossi doesn't simply patent his invention, and let
the whole world know how - and if - it really works.

~~~
grecy
Elon Musk covered this. They don't patent things at Space X because their
primary competitors are governments, and patent enforceability against
governments is questionable at best.

I think the same applies here.

~~~
danmaz74
This is an interesting point, but the situation here is very different. For
space launches there is a very little market, and if eg the Russians undercut
you your potential customers will go to them and you're going to lose money.

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.

------
uslic001
Why does this junk since about LENR keep ending up on the front page of Hacker
News? It is the same report over and over again with nothing new added.

------
metabrew
Extremely skeptical of course.. but:

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.

------
FeatureRush
On related note - there is also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-
catalyzed_fusion> \- also works in "lower" temperature, just needs some
muons...

------
ywang0414
If this gets verified that it produces more energy than it requires to get the
thing started, our world will be revolutionized! Can't wait for the update. We
can finally get rid of all the oil heads.

------
R_Edward
With nickel at $6.64 per pound, and copper at $3.28, I'd be more interested in
a device that went the opposite direction. (I mean, since it's not actually
performing fusion anyway.)

------
liquidise
FTA: "If Rossi and Focardi’s cold fusion technology turns out to be real..."

The peer review process should really be exercised before looking to publish
an article, to avoid just such lines.

------
Lexarius
Let's see him pop it into an electric car and take a cross-continent drive
without stopping for a recharge.

------
stuaxo
Believe it when I see it..

------
marknutter
Annnnd... the article is flagged of the front page.

~~~
ColinWright
Not just the front page - now gone below to 500s, probably into the 800s and
beyond.

