EPTRossi's energy catalyzer - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On February 17 2012 03:04 ticklishmusic wrote: Well, maintenance for most of these panels is cheaper than producing a new barrel of oil or two is it not? So the "average cost" of energy from a solar source decreases over time, while oil remains more or less constant, and at some point, 1kwh of solar electricity is "cheaper" than 1 lwh of oil-derived electricity. It's like buying a LED vs. conventional lightbulb-- LED is much more expensive, but its more efficient and lasts much longer and pays for itself over time relative to the conventional lightbulb. I think I may have seen that lecture, on TED or at some lecture I attended, I don't recall. I am more familiar with research using enzymes (from termites and the like) to break down cellulose into B-glucose, and converting that to ethanol. You are correct that the average cost of solar decreases over time but that is not how the cost of energy is compared. Electric utilities evaluate based on what's called 'levelised cost of energy' (LCOE) which takes into account capital costs, fuel costs, maintenance etc. all discounted over time. Currently solar electricity is more expensive then fossil fuels and is only economic when you add in government tax credits. Cost of electricity by source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source | ||
|
simmion
United States34 Posts
On February 16 2012 02:01 liberal wrote: You already stated that you know nothing about science, so I guess I won't argue the point here. But the reason we don't have good solar energy isn't because of some kind of nefarious corporate conspiracy, it's because solar energy will never be able to compete with oil or other fossil fuels in cost effectiveness. It's just simple science. Why didn't the horse breeders and carriage riders hatch a conspiracy to stop the automobile? I mean it's just common sense that they wouldn't want the car to put them all out of business, it just makes sense that they would want to protect their interests. Did Microsoft poison Steve Jobs? I mean that just makes sense, that they would want to do that, to save themselves money. Come on man... you just come off as kooky and ignorant when you talk like this. The convorsation above, and some of the other posts that came after it on the last page, sort of makes me think of how Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel motor, and designed it to run on renewable organic materials (Peanut oil) but the large oil companies saw this as a threat and invented the petroleum based "Diesel Fuel" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel Also I can't find the quote, but even henry ford realised that we could run vehicles using fuels originating from potatoes. Only recently have people started to learn these things, but they aren't becomming rapidly popluar as they should be due to corporations holding the knowledge and the technology down. One big thing that holds a lot back is that its been found that hemp would make for an amazing source of biofuel, however its association with marijuana makes it a difficult sell. (Henry ford also built a car out of hemp. you can still find a video of him bashing the car with a hammer, the car doesnt dent. and when its days are numbered, it decomposes instead of rusting away in a junk yard) | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
However, I'll believe it when I can buy one and see it actually working. There's interesting possibilities, but he's making an extraordinary claim about what he's managed to do. It will take extraordinary proof. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Live webcast is available if you follow the link. What's this? Essentially, the CERN has invited two LENR researchers to speak on progress made in the field. This is remarkable because the CERN has traditionally been highly skeptical of LENR, so it appears that there has been a slight shift in their stance. I wonder what will happen. Will Celani and Srivastava be able to make compelling arguments or will they fail to convince the audience? PS: Integra can rest assured that Rossi and/or Defkalion will be mentioned in regards to "industrial applications". | ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
The real litmus test for the eCat technology was for the device to be independently reviewed by a reliable 3rd party. A lot has happened in the past 6 months regarding this very subject but I wanted to hold off until the actual 3rd party report was released. A collection of noted Italian and Swedish scientists were given a working eCat by Rossi last December. This group was given full access to a device of their own for testing in any way they saw fit. Some of the participants in the testing were Giuseppe Levi and Evelyn Foschi of Bologna University, Bologna Italy, and Swedish scientists Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, and Hanno Essén Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Without further ado, here is a link to the report: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf To summarize, the eCat was tested over a period from December to March of this year. The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source, with energy densities somewhere between chemical and nuclear. If you want to catch up on the latest news on the eCat saga, check out the facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/EnergyCatalyzer?hc_location=stream | ||
|
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
| ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On May 20 2013 21:59 ElMeanYo wrote: http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf I love their references :D Using wikipedia? Tsk tsk.. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On May 20 2013 22:27 Neneu wrote: I love their references :D Using wikipedia? Tsk tsk.. Yeah that is quite funny - but it's cos the image copyright is wiki commons though. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On May 20 2013 22:31 Deleuze wrote: Yeah that is quite funny - but it's cos the image copyright is wiki commons though. That is okey when you are writing a bachelor thesis, when you're writing an article intended for publishing however, it is not. Besides, the figure they are linking to contains and are used for informative data. Bad, bad, bad. And only 9 references? Really? Edit: And it's a shame to ruin an interesting article like that, because it is so simple to fix. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21681 Posts
The important question is, Does this prove that his machine works as advertised rather then a likely hoax as was generally believed until now. | ||
|
Timmsh
Netherlands201 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On May 20 2013 22:29 Djzapz wrote: Is this listed somewhere other than Rossi's website and other "fan" websites? It's only on arxiv at the moment. One of the academics that's mentioned in the list of authors confirmed the report that's distributed is not fake. | ||
|
Timmsh
Netherlands201 Posts
On May 20 2013 22:46 Gorsameth wrote: It doesn't matter much if they link Wikipedia, it doesn't matter much how many references they use. The important question is, Does this prove that his machine works as advertised rather then a likely hoax as was generally believed until now. Proof is a big word, but if you want to believe the people who done the research: "The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source" | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21681 Posts
Proof isnt that big of a word. Say how it works so that independent sources can test it. Looking at it and saying from the outside what it does has been done before. | ||
|
Stol
Sweden185 Posts
The testing looked solid, the only thing still required is more independent testers reaching a similar conclusion before it can be regarded as 'proof'. | ||
|
lolmlg
619 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On May 20 2013 22:42 Neneu wrote: That is okey when you are writing a bachelor thesis, when you're writing an article intended for publishing however, it is not. Besides, the figure they are linking to contains and are used for informative data. Bad, bad, bad. And only 9 references? Really? Edit: And it's a shame to ruin an interesting article like that, because it is so simple to fix. This isn't the case. I work in a university and am currently having my own work published in a journal, the images I am using I have requested to reproduce in my work in perpetuity from the copyright holder this is a big fuss and can involve fees - why go to the bother when there is a free public domain image that serves your purpose. I make no judgements about the content of the report. Can anyone tell me whether this report has been subject to peer-review? And indeed under what circumstances this was published? This will tell us most about the reliability of it's findings. | ||
| ||
