Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I just stumbled upon this document:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

It is related to Andrea Rossi's "E-Cat", a claimed to be working (and sold to an unnamed military institution already) Low Energy Nuclear Reaction device. http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw

The claim is that one can make some hydrogen or deuterium cores fuse at temperatures well below those that have been seen as possible by physics up to now. In other words: They claim to be able to produce vast amounts of energy out of an abundant element with no radiation and no waste, at a cost that is well below that of any known power source.

Of course, the word "hoax" immediately comes to mind. After Pons and Fleischman first reported about "Cold Fusion" in 1989 but reproduction seemed impossible later that year, people are sceptical about any such claims. The notion usually goes "if it sounds too good to be true, then it usually is."

Apparently, there are people now who are thinking about using such devices in space probes, in place of radionuclid batterys that are currently used and have limitations and undesireable side effects.

Personally, I don't know what to think about it. If it is not a hoax, it is clearly a game changer extraordinaire. If it is a hoax, then it is a very well-done one...

What do you think?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
03-23-2012, 11:56 PM
I think that we have heard this enough times by now for me to actually want a fusion reactor attached to my house, before I belive it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
03-23-2012, 11:59 PM
Well, you could just buy that thing on Rossi's web page for a million Euros to be sure. But I won't right now.

Edit: Apparently, he plans to sell these things as very small devices for about 1000 dollars later this year...


Edit2: Hm... NASA link:
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html

Makes one thinking.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
03-24-2012, 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
I just stumbled upon this document:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

It is related to Andrea Rossi's "E-Cat", a claimed to be working (and sold to an unnamed military institution already) Low Energy Nuclear Reaction device. http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw

The claim is that one can make some hydrogen or deuterium cores fuse at temperatures well below those that have been seen as possible by physics up to now. In other words: They claim to be able to produce vast amounts of energy out of an abundant element with no radiation and no waste, at a cost that is well below that of any known power source.

Of course, the word "hoax" immediately comes to mind. After Pons and Fleischman first reported about "Cold Fusion" in 1989 but reproduction seemed impossible later that year, people are sceptical about any such claims. The notion usually goes "if it sounds too good to be true, then it usually is."

Apparently, there are people now who are thinking about using such devices in space probes, in place of radionuclid batterys that are currently used and have limitations and undesireable side effects.

Personally, I don't know what to think about it. If it is not a hoax, it is clearly a game changer extraordinaire. If it is a hoax, then it is a very well-done one...

What do you think?
I'm calling ******** on it for several reasons. Both the ECAT and LENR are pretty much doing exactly the same exact thing. Experimenting with all the different materials as they have, the LENR project is still producing mildly radioactive waste that has a very short half life and could be easily contained. ECAT is saying their combination of materials is producing absolutely no waste and no radioactivity. that's were I call ******** # 1

******** #2: ECAT cost 1.5 million per unit and you only get a 2 year warranty. 2 dollars per mw hr...my electric bill barely hits 50 dollars in the coldest New York winters and that's including my heating as well and not having to shell out 1.5 million.

******** #3: No matter what source you're using there is energy transfer loss, the more complex the system processes are the more energy loss there will be.

******** #4: If the ECAT really is as save and reliable as it is why does it require a 20ft long cargo container which by design are specifically designed to not only carry regular cargo but also hazardous materials.

All in all do the Earth the favor and skip on the reactive and radioactive (if even mildly) materials and go with the next-gen layered solar panels that are coming out or did come out and remember to recycle the batteries.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
03-24-2012, 12:39 AM
Addition the my above NASA video link.

http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/201...gateway-video/

"There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASAís support for LENR or as proof that Rossiís e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy."
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
03-24-2012, 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by voicesinthedark View Post
[...]
******** #2: ECAT cost 1.5 million per unit and you only get a 2 year warranty. 2 dollars per mw hr...my electric bill barely hits 50 dollars in the coldest New York winters and that's including my heating as well and not having to shell out 1.5 million.
[...]
Well, but that is for a 1 MW plant. That may boil down to 300 kW actual electricity, but over two years, that would be 2,6 million kwh. If one kWh costs about 20 cents where you live, you pay about 500 000 dollars for that amount of energy from conventional sources - but the plant is claimed to last at least 6 years, possibly longer. And we haven't taken into account the heating application.

So, if the claims are correct, I can see this being commercially viable. And think about possible applications in cars, aviation and seafaring vessels... and spacecraft, of course.

Quote:
[...]
All in all do the Earth the favor and skip on the reactive and radioactive (if even mildly) materials and go with the next-gen layered solar panels that are coming out or did come out and remember to recycle the batteries.
I am all for solar power, and sceptical about this LENR thing, but one cannot deny that if it turned out to be real, it would be vastly superior to any form of energy production that we currently have.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
03-24-2012, 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Well, but that is for a 1 MW plant. That may boil down to 300 kW actual electricity, but over two years, that would be 2,6 million kwh. If one kWh costs about 20 cents where you live, you pay about 500 000 dollars for that amount of energy from conventional sources - but the plant is claimed to last at least 6 years, possibly longer. And we haven't taken into account the heating application.

So, if the claims are correct, I can see this being commercially viable. And think about possible applications in cars, aviation and seafaring vessels... and spacecraft, of course.



I am all for solar power, and sceptical about this LENR thing, but one cannot deny that if it turned out to be real, it would be vastly superior to any form of energy production that we currently have.
okay didn't realize this but I forgot a part with the top section you mentioned. Their claim is that it cost 2 dollars mw per hour for materials and maintenance, The biggest faults with that is actually that they are not taking into account the strain on the public water systems in supplying the high pressured water system with water or the waste water treatment. I really don't believe their claim that their system creates no waste or radioactive waste of any kind. Combine that with the amount of energy the system could actually output and actual transfer after transfer loss and the amount of systems it would take to generate enough usable electricity for multiple homes/businesses and then figure the real costs and I'm guessing it's no where near what they are saying.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
03-24-2012, 02:36 AM
Apparently, I am currently not able to really compute properly. The above number was for one year, not two.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
03-24-2012, 05:53 AM
if i can get my vehicle to glow in the dark without those stupid neon lights, i'm game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
03-24-2012, 06:26 AM
Thing is, they claim to measure only negligible amounts of radiation, if any.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:09 AM.