Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: The Focardi-Rossi reactor.

Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ] 

Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,874
Location: Florida

13 Jun 2011, 1:09 pm

http://pesn.com/2011/04/07/9501805_Ross ... s_Society/

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea ... m-a-nickel

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 144827.ece

Im sure you have probably read about this in the news last year. Mainstream media made a glancing mention of it and cast lots of doubt and misnamed it cold fusion fraud, etc, etc.

The Focardi-Rossi reactor however, has been constantly proven to be real several times by many prestigious universities and scholars.

Here's what makes this thing really amazing besides its ability to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power plants it can also be instantly adapted to power vehicles: Its VERY small (its the size of a desktop computer), safe (produces no radiation) and its VERY cheap to fuel up.

The test reactor used to demonstrate use water to provide the steam (aka now you'd fill your gas tank with water), 50 grams of nickel, 0.11 (yes,ZERO, POINT, 11) grams of hydrogen and an undisclosed amount of catalysts that make the reaction possible. We do not know how much of these catalysts but we know that a catalyst itself weighs very little because the WHOLE reactor device weighs less than 4 kilos (including the metal components of the reactor itself).

Power output has been reported up to 15 kilowatts per hour and has been reported to run nearly 6 months nonstop with the above fuel load.

To give you an idea, the Tesla Roadster vehicle uses an electric engine that consumes 11kw to travel 100 kilometers. Toyota Prius runs only about 80km on a fully charged battery...and that battery weighs nearly 200 pounds and gives a power output of 21kw.

The insanely high price of these vehicles is due to their batteries...the car frame and electric engine are dirt cheap. Now here's a reactor that can produce the power these vehicles can run on non-stop (aka no need for batteries); weighs less than 15 kilos (for a 3-reactor setup) and produces no polluting exhaust (its only byproduct is a minimal amount of copper).

The reactor itself is extremely simple and easy and CHEAP to build that production costs for it are minimal. And heck, it hasnt even been miniaturized and improved -yet- by years of being on the market.

So you can probably expect to see Prius type vehicles selling for less than 10 thousand that require 'fuel' once every 6 months and its water tank filled up every day or so...

and the death of big oil companies.



Garath
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 44
Location: Denmark

13 Jun 2011, 4:11 pm

Wasn't just mainstream media naming it fraud, "Peter Ekström, lecturer at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lund University in Sweden, concluded, "I am convinced that the whole story is one big scam, and that it will be revealed in less than one year.""
So until they give a valid scientific explanation for what's actually going on inside caution is adviced.


_________________
"Quantum mechanics teaches us that anything can happen at any time for no reason, also eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war"


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

13 Jun 2011, 4:58 pm

Dantac wrote:

So you can probably expect to see Prius type vehicles selling for less than 10 thousand that require 'fuel' once every 6 months and its water tank filled up every day or so...

and the death of big oil companies.


Cold fusion? Been there, done that. I want to see multiple verification using different kinds of experiment. I will believe all these good things when I see them. Not a minute before.

I don't expect to see these magic cars in my lifetime.

ruveyn



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,960
Location: Earth, mostly

13 Jun 2011, 6:04 pm

None of the sources you cite are exactly unbiased. None of them reference any publications in peer-reviewed journals, nor are there any confirming experiments done by other researchers using their own equipment. Further, one of the sources you cite claims that standard atomic-fission reactors are "bomb technology", even though the reactions that produce power and explosions are almost completely unrelated - it would be like claiming that mixing the ingredients together for a cake involves "dynamite technology" because both include heat-moderated chemical reactions. This is a clear sign of a site which has not merely an axe, but an entire armory to grind.

You claim in your post that this has been "proven to be real" by "several prestigious universities and scholars." How is it that none of these "prestigious universities and scholars" are named, either in your post or in the three blog posts - I hesitate to call them "articles" - that you linked?

No, until this can be confirmed by more than two guys and a trio of blogs, I'm calling bullstuff on this - especially with one of the "researchers", supposedly a physicist, content to say, and I quote, "There's some kind of new physics going on here," without even pretending that he's going to investigate these "new physics", despite the fact that this is exactly where Nobel prizes come from.


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

13 Jun 2011, 9:52 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:
None of the sources you cite are exactly unbiased. None of them reference any publications in peer-reviewed journals, nor are there any confirming experiments done by other researchers using their own equipment. Further, one of the sources you cite claims that standard atomic-fission reactors are "bomb technology", even though the reactions that produce power and explosions are almost completely unrelated - it would be like claiming that mixing the ingredients together for a cake involves "dynamite technology" because both include heat-moderated chemical reactions. This is a clear sign of a site which has not merely an axe, but an entire armory to grind.

You claim in your post that this has been "proven to be real" by "several prestigious universities and scholars." How is it that none of these "prestigious universities and scholars" are named, either in your post or in the three blog posts - I hesitate to call them "articles" - that you linked?

No, until this can be confirmed by more than two guys and a trio of blogs, I'm calling bullstuff on this - especially with one of the "researchers", supposedly a physicist, content to say, and I quote, "There's some kind of new physics going on here," without even pretending that he's going to investigate these "new physics", despite the fact that this is exactly where Nobel prizes come from.


The place to look for corroberation is in the reputable refereed physics and chemistry journals. Newspaper articles and magazine articles are ka ka.

As a general rule extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and verification. No reputable scientist is going to go through the circus surrounding the bogus claims by Pons and Fleischer back in 1988.

Here is a hint. If the first announcement of a breakthrough is in a magazine or a newspaper rather than in a journal, be very suspicious.

ruveyn

ruveyn



oldmantime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

18 Jun 2011, 3:10 pm

actually, the 1988 guys were probably right. it was in fox news a while back.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

18 Jun 2011, 4:26 pm

oldmantime wrote:
actually, the 1988 guys were probably right. it was in fox news a while back.


No one could duplicate their findings. Which is a pretty good indication they were either in error or were fudging the results.

Any extraordinary claim has to be backed up by lots of corroberating evidence made by other parties. That is the protocol.

ruveyn