| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
On January 14 2012 13:40 Plexa wrote: Sorry guys, looks like he was beat to the punch http://www.hojomotor.com/ Perpetual motion, sounds legit. After watching the video I decided to order the 49$ handbook. The part about "erase your bills by 30%, 50%, 70%, and even more!!!!!" definitely convinced me. | ||
|
Alvin853
Germany149 Posts
1) It's a scam, he is using some conventional chemical energy source and cheating on the measurements to make the energy produced seem much higher than it actually is. Since the efficiency of the system varies greatly everytime he changes the setup to let spectators have a look at different parts of the generator, and never lets people investigate the whole thing, this answer sounds somewhat reasonable. 2) This guy who is a known scammer and only has a small budget (compared to institutes around the world) found some new physics that most legit scientists don't think is possible, and wants to profitize it before telling anyone about his new physics that would completely change our understanding of the universe. 3) The machine works and does what Rossi claims, but there is a huge downside to it that he is trying to hide and most other scientists never tried to bother with anything similar because of that huge downside. Now 1 is rather boring, and being a scientist myself I'd say 2 is highly unlikely, so for those TLers that care about real science I'll go into some details what I mean by 3. What Rossi claims: There is a machine that uses nickel, hydrogen and some magic material that he can't tell anyone about. When you put water into the machine, it is heated or turned into steam. Also the machine seems to form copper. Then there are conflicting reports whether hydrogen is used up during the process and whether radiation comes out of the machine or not. Also I couldn't find anywhere if they are using hydrogen gas or liquid hydrogen, but the report from the october presentation says they used 1.7kg of hydrogen. That amount of hydrogen gas would fill an entire room, and since the machine seems to be rather small in size I assume they use liquid hydrogen (will refer to this later). In general nuclear reactions produce some form of radiation, especially since the machine is supposed to generate heat the textbook physics reasoning has to be that radiation is produced which gives off its energy to heat up the water. He might be using a setup so most of the radiation goes in a specific direction and spectators can't measure it, but I'd definetely expect radiaton to come out of the machine if it does what Rossi says. From here on assume science as we know it and widely recognized to be valid. Nickel and Hydrogen don't fuse (unless you're going to extreme energies like particle accelerators, but this is obviously not energy efficient). Imagine fusion like glueing together bar magnets in parallel, so northpoles touch and southpoles touch. You have a glue, that once you get them to touch, it keeps them together no matter what, but as most people probably tried for themselves getting them to touch is hard work. Now when you glue them together, their magnetic fields overlap and you created a stronger magnet. You can add another magnet in the same fashion, but since the magnet becomes stronger and stronger eventually the work required to get them to touch is too high. For fusion you have the problem of adding positively charged protons to a positively charged nucleus, and eventually the charge of the nucleus is too big and protons can't get in any more. With the energy that particles have in stars for example the limit is iron (and nickel is heavier than iron, so it won't be formed inside stars), and I doubt particles in Rossi's machine can exceed those energies. But since heavier elements obviously exist, there are other ways to form them, one of the most basic and commonly used being neutron capture. You add neutrons, which is easy to do because they have no electric charge, that turn into protons later, but they are already glued to the nucleus and can't get away. By continuously adding neutrons to any stable nickel isotope you will eventually end up with the isotope 65nickel, that decays into stable 65copper with a half-life of about 2.5 hours. So if he runs the experiment for several hours most of the "activated" nickel turns into copper and gives off energy via beta and gamma radiation. But where would he get neutrons from? Hydrogen doesn't have any neutrons, and nickel really likes its neutrons and doesn't want to give them away. I'm expecting the magic material to be a neutron source, for example an alpha radiation emitter together with 9beryllium. The 9beryllium will capture the alpha particles, forming 13carbon, which gives off a neutron and becomes 12carbon. These sources can be crafted very small, only a few gramms are needed, and by varying the alpha emitter you can decide whether you want the source to last long with a low neutron output, or a high output but depleting the source quickly. Ok so we are using the magic material and the nickel, we are forming copper and giving off excess heat, how does the hydrogen come into play? Well neutrons emitted from 13carbon are usually quite fast and would shoot right through a nickel nucleus when they meet one. But it turns out liquid hydrogen is extremely effective at slowing down neutrons, because protons and neutrons have roughly the same mass. This is like playing pool, all the balls have the same mass, if the white ball was much smaller than the others it would bounce right back when it hits one, not giving off much of its energy. Once the neutrons are slow enough they can easily be captured by nickel nuclei. I haven't done the calculations as to how much energy could be produced this way, but since nuclear reactions give off a lot of energy with little material used I reckon a power source like this could easily be created in a small vessel. Doesn't sound too bad, huh, so why has noone done this before? So here it comes: the huge downside Neutron radiation is extremely hazardous, the tissue damage can be up to 20 times higher than gamma radiation of the same energy, and neutrons pass through material quite easily, unless the material contains a lot of hydrogen atoms (for example water, what we are mostly made off). This makes neutron radiation hard to detect as well. To keep the generator running constantly you would require a huge long-lasting neutron source or constantly replace a quickly depleting source. The first one would be hard to produce and hard to get rid off, and the second one would have to be produced just in time because it depletes regardless of whether it is powering a generator or not, requiring a whole nuclear lab nearby. And i just can't believe this would be in any way better or less bad than current nuclear reactors. Feel free to add links if I missed something, I only read a few of the "papers" on the ecat-site, and most of those are confusing. Also what I posted is just one possible explanation, but it's the one I would consider to be the easiest to set up with a low budget that still explains most of what's going on. I'll try to answer any questions related to my post, if someone wants more details. I tried to keep it somewhat simple for now, but the fact that nuclear physics is not simple in most cases is probably what is allowing Rossi to continue with this story and people believe him. TLDR: if this machine of Rossi's works, it is probably dangerous in one way or the other, and once he has to admit it noone will care about him anymore. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On January 14 2012 15:09 Alvin853 wrote: ....Also I couldn't find anywhere if they are using hydrogen gas or liquid hydrogen, but the report from the october presentation says they used 1.7kg of hydrogen. That amount of hydrogen gas would fill an entire room, and since the machine seems to be rather small in size I assume they use liquid hydrogen (will refer to this later). In general nuclear reactions produce some form of radiation, especially since the machine is supposed to generate heat the textbook physics reasoning has to be that radiation is produced which gives off its energy to heat up the water. He might be using a setup so most of the radiation goes in a specific direction and spectators can't measure it, but I'd definetely expect radiaton to come out of the machine if it does what Rossi says..... That there is no steam is not the only thing that is screwey with this. According to the amount of hydrogen he puts in the machine and the temperature being used it should only be working for maybe 20 minutes before all the Hydrogen is used then it shuts down, in one his experiments the dammn thing kept doing it for 1 hour. For this process to be longer Hydrogen must be consumed much slower witch means that the machine has something magic inside that makes all law of chemistry to cease. Also the amount of energy that was produced during the test you mentioned above was done in a very small room. The amount of energy that was created is the equivalent of 5 stoves being turned on, the heat this thing produced should had made that room a boiler room but people inside it was wearing coats and shit for the whole duration. And regarding the radiation, It better not be getting it from radiation since it is a closed system and the only thing it has as protection is a 2 cm thick lead casing. Why you ask? Because with the current output of heat it produces the amount of radiation required would melt the lead and everyone close to it would die within 30 seconds. | ||
|
Cytokinesis
Canada330 Posts
| ||
|
Robinsa
Japan1333 Posts
On January 14 2012 16:51 Cytokinesis wrote: this thread is probably the greatest evidence of the modern education system failing on TL, and i know everyone who reads will think they know why i said it I don't get it at all. I think it's a great example and lot of people have come with their theories and everything is viewed on with sceptesism. Isnt that a good thing ? | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Or with the same shit over and over again: "there is no peer review, blahblah" Like everyone didn't acknowledge that already. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On January 14 2012 17:07 HwangjaeTerran wrote: I think he meant that people come here with their one liners and arguments without backing them up. Or with the same shit over and over again: "there is no peer review, blahblah" Like everyone didn't acknowledge that already. The reason people keep repeating the peer review argument is because other people keep believing things even with no proof. It's repeated alot because it's important yet people seem to want to believe in flying unicorns. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 14 2012 15:09 Alvin853 wrote: I see three possible outcomes for this: 1) It's a scam, he is using some conventional chemical energy source and cheating on the measurements to make the energy produced seem much higher than it actually is. Since the efficiency of the system varies greatly everytime he changes the setup to let spectators have a look at different parts of the generator, and never lets people investigate the whole thing, this answer sounds somewhat reasonable. Covered to death in this thread. Read it. 2) This guy who is a known scammer and only has a small budget (compared to institutes around the world) found some new physics that most legit scientists don't think is possible, and wants to profitize it before telling anyone about his new physics that would completely change our understanding of the universe. Same physics, just reagents people haven't thought possible, or thought the energy gains weren't worth the effort put into the reagents and catalysts. It should take a huge amount of energy to make this fusion reaction work, and he claims he has a catalyst (a compound in a reaction that is neither consumed nor created by the reaction, but only serves to reduce the energy required to cause the reaction to happen, and accelerate the kinetics of the reaction) that makes it work. 3) The machine works and does what Rossi claims, but there is a huge downside to it that he is trying to hide and most other scientists never tried to bother with anything similar because of that huge downside. WTF? Are you serious? Your last reason is there is a huge downside. You totally NEGLECT WITHOUT QUESTION the idea that there is a chemical catalyst that reduces the energy required for a nuclear reaction. Your mysticism is astounding. Either it doesn't work or ... it works and has nasty side effects ... only two options in your mind. Watch the video again, read the linked literature. I say you going to sleep either will not work or you'll get a strange sickness, I completely ignore that possibility that you get a good night's rest. Not science. Either he's faking the reaction, he's hiding some side effects, or he's found a catalyst that reduces the energy required to produce a fusion reaction. Now 1 is rather boring, and being a scientist myself I'd say 2 is highly unlikely, so for those TLers that care about real science I'll go into some details what I mean by 3. What Rossi claims: There is a machine that uses nickel, hydrogen and some magic material that he can't tell anyone about. When you put water into the machine, it is heated or turned into steam. Also the machine seems to form copper. Then there are conflicting reports whether hydrogen is used up during the process and whether radiation comes out of the machine or not. Also I couldn't find anywhere if they are using hydrogen gas or liquid hydrogen, but the report from the october presentation says they used 1.7kg of hydrogen. That amount of hydrogen gas would fill an entire room, and since the machine seems to be rather small in size I assume they use liquid hydrogen (will refer to this later). In general nuclear reactions produce some form of radiation, especially since the machine is supposed to generate heat the textbook physics reasoning has to be that radiation is produced which gives off its energy to heat up the water. He might be using a setup so most of the radiation goes in a specific direction and spectators can't measure it, but I'd definetely expect radiaton to come out of the machine if it does what Rossi says. From here on assume science as we know it and widely recognized to be valid. Nickel and Hydrogen don't fuse (unless you're going to extreme energies like particle accelerators, but this is obviously not energy efficient). Imagine fusion like glueing together bar magnets in parallel, so northpoles touch and southpoles touch. You have a glue, that once you get them to touch, it keeps them together no matter what, but as most people probably tried for themselves getting them to touch is hard work. Now when you glue them together, their magnetic fields overlap and you created a stronger magnet. You can add another magnet in the same fashion, but since the magnet becomes stronger and stronger eventually the work required to get them to touch is too high. For fusion you have the problem of adding positively charged protons to a positively charged nucleus, and eventually the charge of the nucleus is too big and protons can't get in any more. With the energy that particles have in stars for example the limit is iron (and nickel is heavier than iron, so it won't be formed inside stars), and I doubt particles in Rossi's machine can exceed those energies. But since heavier elements obviously exist, there are other ways to form them, one of the most basic and commonly used being neutron capture. You add neutrons, which is easy to do because they have no electric charge, that turn into protons later, but they are already glued to the nucleus and can't get away. By continuously adding neutrons to any stable nickel isotope you will eventually end up with the isotope 65nickel, that decays into stable 65copper with a half-life of about 2.5 hours. So if he runs the experiment for several hours most of the "activated" nickel turns into copper and gives off energy via beta and gamma radiation. But where would he get neutrons from? Hydrogen doesn't have any neutrons, and nickel really likes its neutrons and doesn't want to give them away. I'm expecting the magic material to be a neutron source, for example an alpha radiation emitter together with 9beryllium. The 9beryllium will capture the alpha particles, forming 13carbon, which gives off a neutron and becomes 12carbon. These sources can be crafted very small, only a few gramms are needed, and by varying the alpha emitter you can decide whether you want the source to last long with a low neutron output, or a high output but depleting the source quickly. Ok so we are using the magic material and the nickel, we are forming copper and giving off excess heat, how does the hydrogen come into play? Well neutrons emitted from 13carbon are usually quite fast and would shoot right through a nickel nucleus when they meet one. But it turns out liquid hydrogen is extremely effective at slowing down neutrons, because protons and neutrons have roughly the same mass. This is like playing pool, all the balls have the same mass, if the white ball was much smaller than the others it would bounce right back when it hits one, not giving off much of its energy. Once the neutrons are slow enough they can easily be captured by nickel nuclei. I haven't done the calculations as to how much energy could be produced this way, but since nuclear reactions give off a lot of energy with little material used I reckon a power source like this could easily be created in a small vessel. Doesn't sound too bad, huh, so why has noone done this before? So here it comes: the huge downside Neutron radiation is extremely hazardous, the tissue damage can be up to 20 times higher than gamma radiation of the same energy, and neutrons pass through material quite easily, unless the material contains a lot of hydrogen atoms (for example water, what we are mostly made off). This makes neutron radiation hard to detect as well. To keep the generator running constantly you would require a huge long-lasting neutron source or constantly replace a quickly depleting source. The first one would be hard to produce and hard to get rid off, and the second one would have to be produced just in time because it depletes regardless of whether it is powering a generator or not, requiring a whole nuclear lab nearby. And i just can't believe this would be in any way better or less bad than current nuclear reactors. Feel free to add links if I missed something, I only read a few of the "papers" on the ecat-site, and most of those are confusing. Also what I posted is just one possible explanation, but it's the one I would consider to be the easiest to set up with a low budget that still explains most of what's going on. I'll try to answer any questions related to my post, if someone wants more details. I tried to keep it somewhat simple for now, but the fact that nuclear physics is not simple in most cases is probably what is allowing Rossi to continue with this story and people believe him. The whole principle is that he has found a Rossi catalyst that reduces the energy required to get these nuclei to fuse. So when you put up this "Nickel and Hydrogen don't fuse," we're left to say ... well duh! He's saying he can make a fusion reaction happen and that is the entire point. This experiment can't work because the experiment can't work. Welcome to what every skeptic is saying, my god. They talked about the measurements of gamma radiation given off by working reactors. If you have questions about the safety of it, watch all the videos again. It's measured, they checked the meters and talked about it. Secondly, you're restating what you already stated with the "long lasting neutron source." He's claiming to fuse nuclei involving an unknown catalyst and reaction environment. Fusing hydrogen nuclei with nickel nuclei is the exact thing he claims to do. He claims to have the catalyst to reduce the energy required to cause the nuclei to fuse (let's call this hot fusion, for the high temperatures). So you restate this a second time, with no more thought involved. I don't understand why you restate yourself several times, or perhaps you don't understand exactly what his claims are. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
Secondly, you're restating what you already stated with the "long lasting neutron source." He's claiming to fuse nuclei involving an unknown catalyst and reaction environment. Fusing hydrogen nuclei with nickel nuclei is the exact thing he claims to do. He claims to have the catalyst to reduce the energy required to cause the nuclei to fuse (let's call this hot fusion, for the high temperatures) There's more than just a catalyst. There is also a radiofrequency generator and the nickel powder must be prepared in a special manner. The material preparation is always extremely important in all cold fusion experiments. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
|
HoMM
Estonia635 Posts
On January 14 2012 13:40 Plexa wrote: Sorry guys, looks like he was beat to the punch http://www.hojomotor.com/ www.hojomotor.com/securel3do93lds/83lsidls93secure03ld.pdf (I hope this doesnt count as piracy, the guide is bs anyways) Not actually quite as amazing as the advertising might make it seem. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
chemistry is essentially the study of the interaction of electron fields in atoms. The nucleus only indirectly matters as really its all about electron clouds trying to get as balanced as possible. The nucleus merely has an influence on them. You could do a lot of chemistry with only knowing the balanced (full) state of an atom and comparing current states to that. neuclear physics is all about neutrons and protons ... they operate under a different set of forces to the electrostatics of chemistry The point is that chemistry and nuclear physics are *entirley* different subjects. In fact chemistry and physics only overlapped in the last 100 years or so and even then you only get taught the real reasons for that at uni level physics - because it is wierd. Chemistry was alchemy up till then and the idea of catalyst originates from these times (and has since been shown to be true under ideal circumstances). But the truth is that reactions don't happen in the nice idyllic way you get in textbooks. You get all kinds of stuff going on ... its just that the textbook equation is the dominant. IE catalysts don't entirley stay out of the products of reactions as advertised (but mainly do on the path you are interested in). A catalyst is a chemistry term ... it isn't even clear that to talk of something catalyzing a nuclear reaction makes sense. People just assume that its meaning passes over. Is there an instance of a catalyst at all in the realm of nuclear and particle reactions? I never heard of it whilst i was studying physics many many years ago. When you get into the realm of neuclear you get into the realm of things changing into other things. So the idea of a catalyst is wierd ... its just a blob of neuclear particles interacting ... the odds of a nuclear reaction spitting back out one of the inputs is unlikley. And to imply that the electrostatics of chemistry can influence the nuclear strong and weak force involved in a nuclear reaction is strange. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 14 2012 23:30 MrTortoise wrote: lol ok lets define soem things here ... namely catalyst chemistry is essentially the study of the interaction of electron fields in atoms. The nucleus only indirectly matters as really its all about electron clouds trying to get as balanced as possible. The nucleus merely has an influence on them. You could do a lot of chemistry with only knowing the balanced (full) state of an atom and comparing current states to that. neuclear physics is all about neutrons and protons ... they operate under a different set of forces to the electrostatics of chemistry The point is that chemistry and nuclear physics are *entirley* different subjects. In fact chemistry and physics only overlapped in the last 100 years or so and even then you only get taught the real reasons for that at uni level physics - because it is wierd. Chemistry was alchemy up till then and the idea of catalyst originates from these times (and has since been shown to be true under ideal circumstances). But the truth is that reactions don't happen in the nice idyllic way you get in textbooks. You get all kinds of stuff going on ... its just that the textbook equation is the dominant. IE catalysts don't entirley stay out of the products of reactions as advertised (but mainly do on the path you are interested in). A catalyst is a chemistry term ... it isn't even clear that to talk of something catalyzing a nuclear reaction makes sense. People just assume that its meaning passes over. Is there an instance of a catalyst at all in the realm of nuclear and particle reactions? I never heard of it whilst i was studying physics many many years ago. When you get into the realm of neuclear you get into the realm of things changing into other things. So the idea of a catalyst is wierd ... its just a blob of neuclear particles interacting ... the odds of a nuclear reaction spitting back out one of the inputs is unlikley. And to imply that the electrostatics of chemistry can influence the nuclear strong and weak force involved in a nuclear reaction is strange. You're right that catalysts is perhaps not the best way of talking about this. You're also right that the fullest study of nuclear reactions is undertaken by physicists and not chemists, though chemists are indeed interested in all types of reactions and nuclear chemistry is indeed a field. We're not talking cute catalysts here, and I'm unsure of exactly what you mean by "catalysts don't entirley[sic] stay out of the products of reactions as advertised (but mainly do on the path you are interested in)." I'm gonna assume you are talking about side reactions that can involve a catalyst, in which case the catalyst is staying out of the reaction that it's a catalyst in, and participating in another reaction as a reactant. Otherwise, the catalyst can be bonded too and released, intermediate complexes can be formed etc, but it isn't being generated or consumed in the way reactants and products are. So I don't take issue with much of what you are saying. Electrostatics and the quantum mechanics of electrons are principle concerns, protons and neutrons are studied but not in the depth (such as particles more elementary than those two) that a physicist would. I want to end by saying that Rossi himself is calling this an E-Cat, or Energy Catalyzer, which is why I didn't think using the terminology is too far removed from the discussion. Some of the blog discussion (ex. http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/one-and-only-one-person-knows-the-secret-catalyst-ingredient-of-the-e-cat/) talks about it as a catalyst as well. (See also http://ecatbuilder.com/catalyst for example). They are talking about chemicals here, some of the mystery here is a chemical catalyst, his patent application speaks of a catalyst. So we are not beyond considering this a reaction in nuclear chemistry involving the fusing of nuclei. Still (getting back to my previous discussion), I hope whatever company bought that shipping container full of them exposes this as a fraud or powers something for a year off of it with nothing supplied other than Ni powder. EDIT: And TL-goers keep looking for updates regarding this. | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
On January 14 2012 23:30 MrTortoise wrote: Is there an instance of a catalyst at all in the realm of nuclear and particle reactions? I never heard of it whilst i was studying physics many many years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle But that is in a fully ionized plasma. Most nucleon increases past iron are endothermic, but maybe this stumbles upon an anomaly to that curve. If nickel is consumed in the reaction then it isn't terribly exciting. There is enough hydrogen around to safely handwave that it is free. But nickel is not so ubiquitous. | ||
|
Perdac Curall
242 Posts
| ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
Here are the details that surfaced out of this. If this is a scam, it's pretty much the most detailed one I've ever heard about. Rossi has never contradicted himself on facts either. Pretty impressive true or not.
This list copied from: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1854 | ||
|
Oldfool
Australia394 Posts
On January 16 2012 00:45 ElMeanYo wrote: There was an audio interview with Rossi yesterday. Link below for the YouTube version: + Show Spoiler + Here are the details that surfaced out of this. If this is a scam, it's pretty much the most detailed one I've ever heard about. Rossi has never contradicted himself on facts either. Pretty impressive true or not. + Show Spoiler +
This list copied from: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1854 I must say this list gives a nice insight into why everything has been so hush hush and the timeline for the ecat. Going to be an exciting year to say the least. | ||
|
babybell
776 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On January 16 2012 01:10 Oldfool wrote: I must say this list gives a nice insight into why everything has been so hush hush and the timeline for the ecat. Going to be an exciting year to say the least. That's what everyone said last year. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Well, that's what I got from Gen Chem anyways. The catalyst/ container design is the whole big mystery. I spent a couple hours reading about the e-cat. The information seems to be pretty conflicting about how effective the e-cat was. However, it does seem that the people who actually got a chance to test the e-cat were pretty satisfied with the result (the military/company in Greece/whatever which bought it and the researcher). The other people who got to see a demonstration or just heard word of mouth seem to be more skeptical, and understandably so. Rossi has said that he'll release details eventually anyways, so I suppose we can at least look forward to that date as the latest everything will be revealed. I hope it works and then we can all LOL at the Middle East. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv16432 summit1g11493 gofns7858 JimRising  597shahzam500 Maynarde139 ViBE122 Livibee75 JuggernautJason29 |
|
Wardi Open
OSC
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
