Wilmot McCutchen Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 The Rossi reactor, which generates slow neutrons in the transmutation of hydrogen-loaded nickel into copper under THz radiation, has produced 1.5 MWh of energy over 32 days. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline
imatfaal Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Wilmot - sorry but the most recent paper is not going to cut it with most sceptics. It is from the same team that wrote a fairly dodgy paper which had some dreadful methodology, huge assumptions, impossible leaps of logic, and conflicts of interest.
swansont Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Not seeing where "neutrons" are mentioned in the article. The paper says "neither neutrons, charged particles nor gammas are observed from the E-cat reactor" so any contention that neutrons are involved strains credultiy. How could they not leak out?
Wilmot McCutchen Posted October 14, 2014 Author Posted October 14, 2014 You're right, slow neutrons are not mentioned in that article, but in another. NASA says that slow neutrons can be produced by nickel with lots of hydrogen in the lattice. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane
swansont Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 You're right, slow neutrons are not mentioned in that article, but in another. NASA says that slow neutrons can be produced by nickel with lots of hydrogen in the lattice. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/149090-nasas-cold-fusion-tech-could-put-a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home-car-and-plane That article says "To regain its stability, the nickel strips a neutron of its electron" so it's not exactly a bastion of solid physics. I suspect that it's more a case of nobody knowing what's going on. Or possibly if anything unusual is going on, since these extraordinary claims are coupled with some rather ordinary evidence. In the original article and paper, I find it curious that they went to great lengths to model and measure the radiation and convection, rather than just so some fairly simple calorimetry, and that they hand-wave their way out of why they didn't do some fairly straightforward comparisons of the dummy system and the reactor. "it was not meant to compare the operation of the loaded reactor to the dummy run." That's exactly the kind of thing you could do as a double-blind test, especially by a third party 1
Recommended Posts