Are you ready...?
- Thread starter Spinward Scout
- Start date
No radiation or expected levels of He. Looks like a chemical process and they measured incorrectly..
It's not doing D+D⇒He fusion; It's doing D+Ni⇒Cu. Which shouldn't generate much He.
The resulting shift from Ni58 and Ni60 to Ni62 indicates something nuclear is happening. Not of need fusion in the classic sense.
So if it's not creating a new element, then is it just adding electrons? Ni62 is stable, so would it be more appropriate to call it Cold Nuclear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-62
To get from 60Ni to 62Ni, it's probably going to62Cu then down to62Ni by beta decay.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_copper
Likewise, from 58 to 62, it goes 58Ni+2H to 60Cu. Which then lasts half an hour, beta decays to 60Ni, which fuses with 2H to make 62Cu, which beta decays in about 10 minutes to 62Ni.
Ugh, I forgot how much I suck at chemistry.
The article said it produces 1.5 MWh.
So my calculations are showing me this:
1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours = 13,140 MWh = 13,140,000 kWh
Close to the energy usage of about 1200 average households. In a box. About the size of an old computer screen or TV screen. With an end result of a stable isotope of nickel.
I'll bet 100 Credits it doesn't go anywhere.
The article said it produces 1.5 MWh.
So my calculations are showing me this:
1.5 MW × 365 days × 24 hours = 13,140 MWh = 13,140,000 kWh
Close to the energy usage of about 1200 average households. In a box. About the size of an old computer screen or TV screen. With an end result of a stable isotope of nickel.
I'll bet 100 Credits it doesn't go anywhere.
thesmiths4
SOC-8
Hmmm.
Wiki has some interesting things about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
I'm very much suspect of cold fusion, by the way. In fact, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to achieve "hot" fusion in a sustainable way.
Wiki has some interesting things about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
I'm very much suspect of cold fusion, by the way. In fact, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to achieve "hot" fusion in a sustainable way.
leo knight
SOC-12
Spinward Scout, if I read the article correctly, the 1.5 MWh was the output for the entire 32 day test, so:
1,500,000 watts/ 32 days/ 24 hours = 1953.125 watts per hour?
That's still a lot of power from a tiny device.
Or am I doing that wrong?
1,500,000 watts/ 32 days/ 24 hours = 1953.125 watts per hour?
That's still a lot of power from a tiny device.
Or am I doing that wrong?
Or am I doing that wrong?
Honestly, I'm not sure. I always thought 'MWh' was MegaWatts per hour. I'm confused now too.
leo knight
SOC-12
The chart a little way down shows net energy production in watts. Even then, that's enough to power an average home or two in a very small package. If this works (BIG if!) you might have something the size of a small refrigerator in your basement, powering your house.
If it really does work it wouldn't take more than a year or two to commercialize something so simple in design...
I'll bet you don't see anything come to market.
Got a Friend that's a mid ranked Public Servant, him and his boss where at a dinner to cover for the Minster who their department works for, he told me he heard a high up from the biggest Power company talking about this to folks from the major parties, he was overheard saying "We finely get Solar under control now this" referring to the latest E-Cat tests.
apparently their not to concerned about the Urban Residential & Commercial markets, but the Rural & Semi-Rural markets and Remote Location Industrial.
apparently their not to concerned about the Urban Residential & Commercial markets, but the Rural & Semi-Rural markets and Remote Location Industrial.
Though not on the same scale, that starts to make it sound like the Shipstones from Heinlein's book Friday.
I'll call B.S. on your friends "story". The power companies have never feared "solar" because it is not a viable base load source. (that's why Germany has about the highest electricity rates in the industrialized world. Ridiculously high) Ergo, electrical power company higher ups don't even think about it in that way.
You are grossly underestimating the nature of regulatory agencies and their restrictions upon power sources.
In the US, anything "Nuclear" requires at least a million dollars worth of permitting process per installation if it's used outside a physics lab with an extant experimental permit.
There have been several teens who built fusion reactors at home, and the NRC has seized their equipment as unlawful. None of them have been prosecuted, and several have been lauded, but the fact remains: they lose their gear due to it being unlawful to operate a nuclear reactor without expensive permits.
If indeed this thing is fusing stuff, it falls under the purview of the NRC and the Dept of Energy, and the required permits put any "proven" tech at least a million dollars and 5 years downrange, simply due to the EIS and radiation containment studies. Plus the vibration and impact resistance tests. Even if NASA were to replicated it tomorrow, the earliest we could put it legally in our homes in the US is at least 5 years after that, because of the required durability testing.
More likely, it would be 10 years, 2-3 lawsuits, and $1B to bring to market, and making up the upfront costs would make it nigh impossible to actually get it installed until the patents expire. So, at least 10 years.
It's not like it's easily enough made to be a typical garage project, either.
And that's before the costs of the extant commercial companies trying to prevent it coming to market, or worse, lobbying to get it outlawed except in centralized large scale plants.
I was considering for a product outside of the US (I think that this isn't a US based person/entity) as I DO know the completely insane US regulatory situation. I ought to. I've spent enough time on the Hill and at the W.H. battling anti-business/jobs crap. it. For US product? 25+ years.
