/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6801777
its bogus. cold fusion is pseudo-science.

>>6801788
Well... did you read the article? Researchers can't explain how the ecat works. Something interesting is going on...

>>6801788
belief or fact?
>also source

I'm not saying i believe in op's shit l'm just not certain if cf is possible or not

>>6801791
when they can actually put it inside something as a usable power source, then their claims might have credibility.

show me this thing running under load, show me the money.

>>6801798
You can preorder it. Just read the article. They are running it under load and it achieves the output it advertises

>rossi
lol

Thermal cameras like last time instead of using a better system like a calorimeter. Why repeat the experiment done last time, why not improve the experiment and remove uncertainties?

Two measured isotope ratios for the same sample differ by over 30%. And they don't flag that as an issue even though they claim a 3% error. The discrepancy shows the isotope measurements are bogus. The paper is shit.

It's still a scam, this paper proves nothing.

>>6801856
because a thermal camera lets them keep the system completely hands-off so nobody uncovers the hoax

>>6801846
And when exactly has one of these systems produced electrical power?

>>6801777
Huh. I gotta admit, this looks like actual data.

I have revised my confidence that Rossi is a fraud from 99% down to 80%'

Cold Fusion has been known for quit a while now. Do something new faggots

http://coldfusionnow.org/commercial-developments-presented-at-2014-mit-cold-fusion-conference/

cold fusion is bogus shit. I talked with my fusion professor a week or two ago about the topic actually and said I think it's pretty crackpot stuff but wanted to know what he thought (he's been at the uni longer than almost anyone in the dept, has phd in phys and has done all kinds of work in fusion plasma phys and technology) and he basically said it's bullshit and they even had to come up with the newer term of LENR because saying cold fusion is almost enough to discredit the scientific merit of your work. it's a crock of shit really.

>>6801798
fucking this

Power something with it.

>>6801898
Yeah. I'm not going to believe this until somebody actually puts this into a working machine.

Could you just place it in a boiler and run a turbine with it?

there's thousands of these science scams floating around

all you need to do is obfuscate how the shit "works" with big words or impossible math and theory
BAM INVESTOR MONEY FOR YOUR MIRACLE UNLIMITED ENERGY MACHINE

>>6801777
I still am not convinced it works, and won't be until somebody actually builds a model power plant and uses one to do work.

But I've looked over the paper, and this looks solid enough that I'm not going to actively ridicule Rossi fanboys anymore.

After how many years how can people still fall for E-Cat bullshit?

I'm going to do the usual and wait for Thunderf00t to post a video explaining why it's obviously a load of shit.

>>6801777
If this ends up being real, the whole world as we know it just changed. Also star investing in gas to Electric car conversions.

Very exiting shit happening.

>>6801929
It's the same scam for like 10th year running

>Totally invented cold fusion, but don't use it to anything nor become an instant billionaire and hero of humanity nobel prize winner honorary president
>instead i'm waiting for some alleged nigerian prince investor and all the "scientist" who "tested" the thing happen to have a same surname as I do
This time it's surely legit

>>6801777
cold fusion is a scam
but so is hot fusion

>>6801887
also, let me know when you get a legitimate source from a peer reviewed journal and reproduced data from other labs and not this bullshit from "extremetech" how are people this gullible

>>6801941
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

>>6801929
>Also star investing in gas to Electric car conversions.
Why?

>>6801962
That's just a report, it hasn't been peer reviewed.

>>6801962
>no radioactivity was detected outside the reactor during the run
don't even need to read any further. also that's just their report of what they did, that's not been peer reviewed.

>Total energy obtained over 32 days was 1.5 MWh.
that's about a hundred and fifty bucks at average american energy prices

if he spent only two years selling that power back to the grid and taking all the profits and putting it into constructing new devices, in two years he would have enough devices to create the energy equivalent of two billion dollars a month

if this nonsense actually worked he wouldn't need anyone to test it or fund it. he could take what he's already built and destroy the entire energy economy singlehandedly

the fact that he hasn't is telling

>>6801968

Cause this would make electric cars a hell of a lot cheaper to operate and buy. And there might be a market for gas to electric conversions. why discard a perfectly good car body if yo dont wanna buy expensive gas for it?

If you all were actually intelligent you would also be scamming investors with bogus science and math.

Just to put this shit into perspective for you gullible dickheads 1.5 MWhr over 32 days is about 5.4 GJ energy. It would take not even 14 grams of Po-210 just sitting in a box to produce that same amount of energy in the same 32 days

>>6801846
>You can preorder it.
You can preorder a spaceelevator from my company too, just $1000 in non-refundable downpayment for it!

>>6802038
>accused of research misconduct
>get arrested for fraud
>completely shunned by scientific community

>>6801997
Yup, doing that alone would be enough to make his claims even more believable. The market would prove him right/

>>6802039
>No radiation detected

Whatever this thing is (an elaborate scam), it's not just a great big RTG.

>>6802077
that's what happens with nuclear transformations, which they claim to have occuring. you get radiation

>>6802105
i thought you >>6802077 were replying to >>6801980 mybad but you wouldn't detect alphas outside of something that would utilize the radiation from Po for energy. also you should get radiation out of the shit in the OP but it's crackpot bullshit so of course they didnt

It's really frightening that you internet age youth still can say cold fusion/LENR is bogus when 15 minutes of internet search show you that NASA and other somewhat reputable institutions study it.

>>6802052
Yeah, just like the market proved Stanley Meyer's fuel cell right by having him assassinated right during his business meeting

>>6801997
Boy he already has all the fundings he need, the market has already spoken.
In fact when they first made the project public to the world they weren't asking for money, they already had their investment.

>>6801997
/thread

the very fact that he is trying to market this, which exposes his "patent" to abuse (a risk he uses to justify his otherwise unacceptable secrecy regarding verification experiments), instead of just turning it into a money machine under complete privacy, is all you have to know to see that this is a scam.

failing that, a little knowledge about nuclear physics and energy requirements/returns for fusing elements heavier than iron should be more than enough to put a nail in the coffin.

>>6803514
>source: rossi told me so on his webpage

man, you are an easy mark

>>6803526
see >>6803510

"It don't work within our present paradigm so it doesn't work period!"

Lel

>>6803526
inb4 muh catalyst

a catalyst will lower the activation energy required for the reaction, it does nothing to alter the energy levels of the product and reactant states, thus it cannot change net energy.

fusing elements heavier than iron is always endothermic, the physics are very well understood here. there can never be a net energy output from this reaction, ever.

which explains why nobody in the scientific community at large pays the slightest bit of interest in Rossi. he is a scam artist, selling bullshit.

>>6803533
nuclear physics in this context is not a paradigm. it is established fact.

grow the fuck up, idiot

>>6803526
Or maybe he doesn't want to end up poisoned or with a bullet in his head while his factory burns

>>6803534
"It don't work within our paradigm so it can't work period!"

>>6803535
Yeah like the flat earth around which the planet revolve was an established fact.

Re-lol

>>6803538
>that failed logic

hurr durr so i'll sell a single factory to some asshole in china, who will immediately turn around and rip me off

>paradigm
>science

its obvious you are too stupid to understand the argument here.

>>6803539
1) flat earth was never a wide-spread theory, and the belief that it was is a fallacy from the get-go. it was widely known that the earth was round since at least the time of ancient greeks

2) nuclear physics has been rigorously tested. this makes it scientific fact and not 'a human paradigm'. flat-earth theories were assumedly also tested, and failed. do you even science, bro?

>>6803539
>>6803538
>Muh feels > physics

Are you seriously arguing this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_peak

>>6803543
>>6803550
>>6803548

So you guys basically state that science has reached its final form. Much like skeptopaths who said planes couldn't fly and dismissed every new breakthrough.

"B...but m..muh paradigm. We know all theory behind matter and we know all parameters ;_; please Mom make the bad pseudoscience go away!"

>>6803561
You keep posing untested hypothesis as examples of supposedly 'established fact', that is a fallacy and your argument falls on it's face from that point on.

Please stop wasting our time, the rest of us can actually science here.

>>6803503
There are often NASA researchers who try to reproduce bold claims (including anti-gravity and other pseudoscience) but none of these things have worked out.

>>6803561
knowledge of nuclear physics has advanced to the point where the models and underlying theory are exceptionally accurate, and further modifactions are only superficial increases in precision, rather than significant changes and certainly do not include 'paradigm shifts.'

you need to read more

>>6803565
No, I'm merely making fun of how you are saying that it doesn't work because it doesn't fit the current model, while 25 years of "cold fusion" experiments, ranging from NASA to Joes doing it in their kitchen, proves otherwise.

But faggots like you will be all "oh but we knew it all along hurfdurf" when some new theoretical model emerges that allows and proves LENR.

You guys are literally on par with radical muslims and creationists when it comes to groupthink.

Why not push for Thorium reactors and Hydrogen engines?

>>6803571
No, you actually posed 'heavier than air machines' as a model for a rigorously tested hypothesis, when in fact, at the time, it was anything but. Its fucking written right there.

>Much like skeptopaths who said planes couldn't fly and dismissed every new breakthrough.

Also, 25 years of cold fusion experiments have most certainly not 'proved otherwise'. They have shown, quite concisely through their consistent failures to produce net energy, that our knowledge of nuclear physics is accurate.

>>6803568
>modifactions
>you need to read more

Learn me a book?

If underlying theory is exceptionally accurate please edumacate me on gravity, surely you can show me detection of gravitons

Also educmate me on how rats for example wirelessly transmit information so they perform better and better at new experiments while being on different continents

>>6803571
quit trolling, faggot.

>>6803575
>cant win argument
>point out typos instead

>>6803574
You're one dense retard. 15 minutes of internet research on LENR will show you how NASA, MIT and Toyota for example are on it. But keep living in your reality tunnel

>>6803557
/thread
>For elements before iron, nuclear fusion releases energy. For elements heavier than iron, nuclear fusion consumes energy, but nuclear fission releases it.

>>6803579
If underlying theory is exceptionally accurate please educate me on gravity, surely you can show me detection of gravitons

Also educate me on how rats for example wirelessly transmit information so they perform better and better at new experiments while being on different continents

>>6803580
>moving the goal posts

This thread isnt about cold fusion in general, of which I said nothing for or against. This thread is specifically about Rossi's claim to have created net energy by fusing heavier than iron elements (cold or hot fusion, it doesnt matter).

That claim is patently false on its face, and evidence has been presented. You have yet to contribute a meaningful argument as to why the energy state of the products should somehow, quite magically I would add, be altered such that a thermodynamicly exothermic reaction could ever take place.

>>6803586
Well for example, alchemy works and nobody knows how, just that it entangles the practitioner. People have NDE all the time, or astral travel and see and hear stuff that happens in the physical world, while being clinically dead or kilometers away. How do you explain that with our current parameters? It's not possible, just like rats sharing (in)consciousness while being on differents points of the globe

New parameters have to be detected and added to create a more accurate model.

Now Rossi might be a scam, though it seems doubtful, but LENR is very real and can hardly be explained within the present model, which therefore has to evolve.

>>6803582
>Also educate me on how rats for example wirelessly transmit information so they perform better and better at new experiments while being on different continents
>still repeating that old bullshit

>>6803593
>that post

>>6803594
http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/rat-learning-and-morphic-resonance

>>6803599
>These experiments were done carefully
No they weren't.

This shit happens in all the labs, and in fact you discover that there isn't one, but multiple reasons the rats get more information that they should. And if you forget just one of them, then the rats perform better than you expect.

But retards would rather jump on hippie brain magic.

>>6803593
>>/x/

>>6801863

read the article you fucking imbecile

/g/ here
Now this faggot is on our board shitting it up.
Thanks a million.

>>6803809
/g/ and /a/ here
Faggots shitting up both boards

>>6803510
>Stanley Meyer's fuel cell right by having him assassinated right during his business meeting

From Wikipedia:
>Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996.

>Stanley Meyer died suddenly on March 20, 1998 after dining at a restaurant. His brother claimed that during a meeting with two Belgian investors in a restaurant, Meyer suddenly ran outside, saying "They poisoned me".[1] After an investigation, the Grove City police went with the Franklin County coroner report that ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a cerebral aneurysm

Go home /x/, yer drunk.

>>6803829
p.s.:
>Meyer's patents have expired. His inventions are now in the public domain, available for all to use without restriction or royalty payment.[13] Despite this, no engine or vehicle manufacturer has incorporated Meyer's work.[

>>6801980
>>6802039
>mfw these posts get like no replies because the idiots in /sci/ don't really know shit about science and just shitpost all day about dumb shit hoaxes and scams. how do you realize that cold fusion is a crock of shit scam and will never work

>>6801854

An ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

Evidence stands, or falls, on it's own merits.

Don't be retards. This is what it takes to build a fusion reactor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

A lot of countries, a lot of money, the world's best minds and a lot of fucking space. It's huge, really. This is post is so ridiculous in perspective

>>6803836
>Evidence stands, or falls, on it's own merits.
None has been provided.

Some allegedly existing researchers did some allegedly rigid research in some lab allegedly provided by -if I get this right- an architectural firm, and allegedly found energy by IR or whatever and nickel-61 or something by unknown, unexplained means.

I call SCAM & bullshit.

>The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

lol

This is the Mars One of the energy industry world.

>>6803839
>None has been provided.

Yes it has: The third party researchers started with Nickel-58/60 and ended up with Nickel-62.

They don't know how. No radiation was measured. This is a mystery.

>>6803854
The only mystery here is how you could be so stupid and gullible.

Looks like most of the energy output was measured using an IR thermometer, hardly ideal on cream colored ceramics and certainly nowhere near accurate enough for verifying energy production.

>>6803854
>nuclear transmutation
>no radiation
seriously i'm tired of seeing this fucking shit. show me some neutrons and gammas, or get the fuck out of here with nonsense claims of phenomena that don't exist. fucking gullible 1st year math/phys exam babbys

>>6803856

>The only mystery here is how you could be so stupid and gullible.

You have evidence that no Nickel-62 has been produced?

Or, are you simply doubting the credibility of the independent researchers?

Just to clarify, I'm a skeptic. I'm merely intrigued by the existence of the Nickel-62.

>>6803863
You're a fucking retard, get the fuck out.

>>6803854
>The third party researchers
Which, in fucking Switzerland, worked in a lab not provided by any University, but by some architecture bureau?

Which probably aren't real researchers?

"Persons" (probably invented ones / stolen from websites, but maybe some are actually scammers) went to youtube in 2011 and before like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9sONzr2Gbw ... showing their extreme academic prowess and intellectual honesty?

>>6803865
>You're a fucking retard,

I've emailed the researchers at Uppsala University (Sweden) regarding the production of Nickel-62, I'm intrigued by its existence, frankly.

Their findings run contrary to my scientific education, and firsthand experience in the lab, I would have expected to see radiation if Nickel-62 was indeed produced.

Are you not curious?

>>6803846
Told Fusion REKTor

>>6803868
>Which probably aren't real researchers?

You mean: they have no science training?

>>6803872
Ask them to send you spectrometry data showing the existence of Ni-62

>>6803875

One step ahead of you ;-)

The journalist reporting the researcher's findings states: "...analyzing the fuel before and after the 32-day burn... there is an isotope shift from a “natural” mix of Nickel-58/Nickel-60 to almost entirely Nickel-62".

I can only assume spectrometry data exists to back this claim. I guess I'll find out.

Will keep /sci/ posted.

>>6803874
Some might not, or not be any good. IDK.


The real most pressing point in my mind that indicates a scam is why in so many years, they couldn't perform this test in a few Swiss or Swedish or Italian or whatever universities with as many people having a look at the experiment as are interested...

>>6803879
>I can only assume
You shouldn't assume with this kind of stuff. If this were legit it would be published and well known and there would be this data in their reports. Also they would have found radiation

>>6803884

The lack of radiation flags this as highly suspicious, but I'd be interested to test the only evidence they actually have: the Nickel-62.

>>6803887
You could test it easily by seeing if the guy suddenly becomes a billionaire

>>6803586
>. You have yet to contribute a meaningful argument as to why the energy state of the products should somehow, quite magically I would add, be altered such that a thermodynamicly exothermic reaction could ever take place.
actually no you don't, you just need to repeat the experiment and publish

how it works isn't even relevant in terms of showing whether or not it works

>>6803888

That too.

Rossi has no credibility as a scientist, he has nothing to prove to his peers, his name is mud. And, he appears not to care.

I imagine he will simply deliver a working product, ready for manufacture, if he isn't bulshitting.

>>6803893
>I imagine he will simply deliver a working product, ready for manufacture, if he isn't bulshitting.
He will also claim he is doing that IF he is bullshitting.

Getting investors and money for his "company" or for selling his -undoubtfully "secret"- technology must be part of the plan if it's a scam. Why else bother.

>>6803891
Hey man I just created this machine that creates light through cold fusion. All you have to do is screw this bulb into a conventional electrical socket and the fusion begins, producing light. It's only $10,000 but I will send you a sample for only $100 so you can see that it works and actually does produce light.

>>6801928
His video on molyneux was a bit disappointing for me, he didn't do his usual thorough explanation on why he was wrong, he just did what everyone else does and attacked him and his wife. Also, he obviously doesn't understand the NAP so him saying that molyneux was being inconsistent seemed a little silly. Don't get me wrong, I don't like molyneux, but I was really hoping to see something more than what he did.

>>6803906
I hope some independent researchers have verified this in a storage shed gracefully provided by Artist&Painter corp, under allegedly very seriously real testing conditions?


Because I want to believe this is legit and give you monies, but I currently just can't. Wife says I'm a dumbass...

Just letting yall know, if Ni-58 or Ni-60 experienced neutron absorption, you would get gammas of over 4 MeV, and they would be easily detectable, but none were detected. also they say they started with Li-7 and Ni-58/Ni-60 and ended up with Ni-62 and Li-6. that just doesn't make sense. where did all the other neutrons come from to get from Ni-58 and Ni-60 to Ni-62 when Li-7 is only losing one neutron, but Ni-58 requires 4 and Ni-60 requires 2? this shit is fucking bollocks and if you believe what theyre feeding you you're a gullible, scientifically illiterate retard. it's just not possible what they're saying happened. No radiation, no storry

>>6803599
>posts anything relating to rupert sheldrake
Holy fuck you absolute retard you fell for his shit. It doesn't take a slow kindergartner to figure out that sheldrake is an idiot.

This attempt at cold fusion
Pros
>I can't think of any
Cons
>isotope shift from ni58/60 to ni62
Is that even ectothermic after the .7 MeV needed to get a neutron from hydrogen?
>no radiation detected
High energy particles =/= no radiation
No high energy particles == no nuclear reaction (or at least no energy profitable ones)
>wants money
Electricity is worth money and he seems to have a free source but he wants ours...
>easily faked
Anybody with a big enough neutron source could have made isotopes such as polonium 210 which could achieve the test conditions and could make a spot of ni62 for ease of faking internal neutrons

Actual attempts at cold fusion (NASA and some companies are trying)
>5000-30000 gigahertz electric field turns hydrogen into neutrons
This has been tested and works
>said electric field is difficult to get
With the energy profits of fusion their scourge for this wave is 100 times less efficient than it needs to be
>can't find more info

Considering cold fusion
>lead radiated with neutrons spits out alpha particles
I'd think the most efficient way to use neutrons to get energy would be to make alpha particles (considering that's what hit fusion attempts to do for a reason)
>hydrogen to neutron reaction
This may or may not be impossible to achieve reliably without crazy conditions (like NASAs 5000-30000 ghz wave)

My conclusion is
>this e cat thing is a stupid hoax
>cold fusion might work but probably doesn't
>stick to fission power

i'm from /pol/

is it habbening? or this a bust?

>>6803958
its a crock of shit

>>6803926
How and why?

You raging retards are supposed to be science students. It's fucking scary how fucking entrenched in your beliefs you are. Really no better than creationists.

We'd still have medieval technology if it was up to you. "This can't work, we can't explain it!"

>>6803970
look you trolling dickhead, you don't get nuclear transformations without radiation out, of which they detected fucking nothing. it's fairy tale shit and you're eating it like cake you dumb shit

>>6803971
Millenia of alchemical transmutations prove you wrong.

OMG THIS CANNOT BE BECAUSE IT DOENST FIT OUR MODEL

>>6803973
/sci/ everyone

>>6803973
Oh boy

what is cold fusion?

>>6803993
Fusion that occurs without star-like heat that fucking melts everything nearby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

>>6803998
what can be done with it

>>6803993
a hoax

>>6803973
hahahahahahHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

>Millenia of alchemical transmutations prove you wrong.


hahahahahahaha

>>6804000
If it DID exist, actually PRODUCED ENERGY rather than eating it and WERE small enough, maybe you could power airplanes, ships or even cars with that... suffice to say, any of them carrying a fucking sun onboard to power their engines wouldn't ever meet safety requirements.

Note that even with "hot" fusion, we kinda have problems scaling it down to useful sizes and harnessing the energy, right now.

All the actual nuclear reactors used are fisson ones, which is not the same.

The only Fusion we currently can use for energy is the radiation emitted from the Sun... which is a fusion reaction. But not one that we control or can transplant into our devices directly.

>>6804007
I don't get it, why people strive to make more "suns" when even this one we have produces more than enough energy for everyone. We just need to learn how to collect it efficiently

>>6804010
so we can control all the parameters and output and everything

>>6804010
> We just need to learn how to collect it efficiently
This doesn't look easy, though.

Same as actually collecting "most" of the energy from a nuclear reactor (or even a fossil car engine) also isn't easy... we loose most. Gains there would obviously also be great, though.

Well, actually it's looking difficult in all directions (also fusion and fission to a good extent), but still, we probably are best off throwing a wide net and seeing what it yields.

>>6804010
>I don't get it, why people strive to make more "suns" when even this one we have produces more than enough energy for everyone.
Because man, we only get tiny weeny fraction of it. Even if you reached 100% efficiency on solar panels you would still need to cover a fucktardedly large area of land to cover our needs.

Plus the little transportations/storage problems if you want to actually heat your house during winter.

>>6804010
A working fusion reactor has way more applications than just using solar panels.

Not only is the energy production controllable and stable during the night it's also intensive as fuck so you don't have to go out of your way to ship energy from some desert to a city when you can just produce it there.
This would also make it suitable to power things like ships and maybe even airplanes if the design was small enough with electricity.

>>6804018
I'm scared /sci/ bros. What if we never manage to get something with as much energy density as oil and plane travels end up being super expensive so we can't afford them anymore?

No more comfy conferences around the world :(

>>6804016
>Even if you reached 100% efficiency on solar panels you would still need to cover a fucktardedly large area of land to cover our needs.
No, at that point it'd be pretty feasible.

Pic related is, as it says, with ~20% efficiency.

> Plus the little transportations/storage problems if you want to actually heat your house during winter.
Well built houses need very little heat, you could fairly trivially store that in water and in most places, collect some during winter, too.

Frankly, your body warmth is actually pretty close to enough to heat the best houses we can build right now.

>>6804021
More like what happens when plane propelled with fusion reactor falls down to earth?

>>6804026
Probably not much more than regular plane.

>>6804024
By the way, a "best houses" database:

http://www.minergie.ch/list-of-buildings.html

http://www.passivhausprojekte.de/

Germany and Switzerland in particular are serious about their certifications, so I used these databases. Also shows it's not just theory and research projects... those are new constructions and renovations in pretty serious numbers.

>>6804024
Here's the thing that will always be a problem with solar, there's no storage. Solar will never be worthwhile until you can give me uninterrupted power without using power generated from sources other than solar.

>>6804029
no extraordinary explosion?

>>6804026
Nothing.
If fusion sustained that easily by itself we would be happy.

>>6804024
>Frankly, your body warmth is actually pretty close to enough to heat the best houses we can build right now.
It's a figure of speech m8, I still want to browse le 4chins at night.

Winter is still peak load.

Also, think of the political stability you would need for that map to work. Middle east sending power through a giant oceanic cable to America during nighttime? Yeah sure.

>>6804036
Solar for warmth works quite well.

We're already using this in our house with a pretty small collector and it almost entirely has made the electrical heater pointless (instead, it's just a pump and some electronics attached to a thermal sensor that run now, plus a bunch of solenoids).

Storing large quantities of hot water in a tank for heating isn't too infeasible either.

But electrical power... I agree. That will be somewhat tricky right now. I think a significant amount of our energy mix could be solar power (we could even have our household machines automatically run at peak solar production and all that). But can it be most all of it? I currently don't think so.

Still, achieving 30-40% might be possible.

>>6804045
> It's a figure of speech m8, I still want to browse le 4chins at night.
Sure. Arguably, your local river or something might already provide enough power for that. Or the one nuclear power plant of the region. IDK.

We primarily build power to handle peak loads, at night isn't one of them, right?

> Winter is still peak load.
For electricity, it doesn't really have to be.

There's nothing profoundly wrong IMO with filtered wood pellet stoves or stuff like that. Tree-stored solar energy.

Also, I actually know we still get solar warm water in quite a few winter.days here in the middle of Yurop. So that's also some contribution that should probably be realized almost everywhere where it works.

> Also, think of the political stability you would need for that map to work. Middle east sending power through a giant oceanic cable to America during nighttime? Yeah sure.
At 100% efficiency, you wouldn't nearly have to stick to this map and still arrive at smaller areas.

Not that we'll likely get 100%.

>>6804057
>at night isn't one of them, right?
Evening is, and it can be pretty dark by then during winter.

The winter peak load isn't only because of heating. People stay inside and do stuff at home with their electricity.

>>6804049
Even that much isn't possible without either better storage or tearing the entire electrical grid down and rebuilding it from scratch.

Relying on a large percentage of solar causes massive fluctuations in energy supply and demand, many of which are unpredictable - the grid simply can't handle this without blackouts. It was designed to run on predictable, controllable power that could be turned up and down as needed, to supply demand that typically fluctuates in a, fairly regular fashion. As a result, a vast proportion of the grid has to be coal, hydro, oil, or nuclear - things that provide controllable baseline power.

If the storage problem can be solved, though, then solar can act as baseline power, and we could switch over potentially the whole grid.

>>6804062
LED solve the "darkness problem" quite adequately on low power consumption.

And yes, I'm not actually sure we could entirely get rid of all loads, but lets start with Minergie / Passivhaus buildings and depicted first.

It can be expanded very rapidly on small budgets, too - these were mostly done with small-scale subsidies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating#Solar_heating_in_European_Union_.2B_Switzerland

I mean, it's a fucking pump, a relatively simple panel, and a bunch of cheap electronics and sensors. It should be everywhere.

>>6804036
>Solar will never be worthwhile until you can give me uninterrupted power

yeah, no. thats horse shit. Solar is considered "disruptive" by current energy producers because it has the potential to decentralize the power grid, forcing companies to lose money with their oversized plants.

the EEI published a big thing about it when the big net metering push went through.

>>6804066
>Even that much isn't possible without either better storage or tearing the entire electrical grid down and rebuilding it from scratch.
Yup. You're right about that. Though I think we wouldn't tear it down, we would probably expand and computerize the grid.

But well, if you're in the USA, you can let Germany do the pioneering work, and install solar warm water and better house insulation first. You have plenty of things to do there. [Not that you don't want to rework your power grid either way...]

It's more simple, very predictable, and also solves quite a lot of problems with emissions and power consumption.

>>6804073
Nobody is saying solar is useless (well maybe that other guy but I don't).
But saying "fusion is useless because we have solar panels" is plain silly.

>>6803907

Molyneux is a crazy person, his "arguments" refute themselves.

>>6804037

Fusion is an anti-explosion.

>>6801777
Cool. Now let's just see a real demonstration that proves that there's nothing else going on.

I'm not going to shitpost about the 100 reasons why it shouldn't work or what professor told me that cold fusion is a crackpot subject. They've made a claim that should be trivial to prove if it actually works.

>>6804106
For example?

>>6804136
>people who want to SHOOT ME IN THE HEAD?!?

>>6804148
I don't think there's enough substance to that post to really answer my question. You may not have liked that line, but there's not any other information there to deem whether or not there is something wrong with it.

>>6804158

The guy's an idiot. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot too.

>>6803514
then he wouldn't need to shuffle the thing around for ten years trying to validate it like he has.

>>6803836
>An ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
that wasn't an ad hominem. i made no assertions regarding the veracity of his claims or his device.

just laughing at someone isn't an ad hominem.

>>6804132
Needing a paradigm change isn't trivial by any means

>>6804159
It should be pretty easy to actually provide an instance where his argument is self-defeating.

I wasn't asking because I had a position on the matter, I was simply wanting an example out of curiosity. However, it seems to me that the only thing you are capable of doing is saying, "I disagree with him, so he's an idiot. If you don't agree with me, then you're an idiot too."

My apologies for assuming that you were capable of a baseline level of critical thinking.

>>6803970
No one is stopping this technology from working except for the technology itself you fucking nut.

>>6804227
But it works, that's the problem. And it's not explainable within the current paradigm.

Stay mad but don't expect reality to suit your whims.

>>6804235
shut the fuck up

>>6804236
Stay mad cultist :^)

>>6801777
>Cold fusion
>Apparatus in pic is so hot it's glowing

>DADDY LOOK AT ME
>I CAN RESTATE YOUR OPINION
>ACCEPT ME

daddy stand for your retarded peers in case you people don't get it

>>6804259
>science
>opinions
nah, unlike the rest of the stupid shits on /sci/ I use facts and data to back up what I say. this shit isn't real cold fusion is bogus shit and /sci/ is fucking retarded

>>6804251
Cold compared to the Sun's core.

>>6803971
>you don't get nuclear transformations without radiation out
...that we know of. and who said they have to be nuclear transformations?

You're speaking like a fucking religious fundamentalist, as if we had the answers to everything.

>>6804293
>they claim to have different nucl idea than when they started
>b-but how do we know it's a nuclear transformation
Seriously fuck of with your said stupid shit

>>6804305
This is an English language board, can you please type in English?

>>6804305
WELL SAID BROTHER THIS THREAD HAS THE TAINT OF HERESY

What if Rossi is Cointelpro?

>>6804209

Sorry. Any evidence that requires a change in thought to work, doesn't really work.

Fission works even when you don't believe in fission. That's why people are willing to spend billions making nuclear power plants.

If this experiment can only be performed by people that already believe it will work, it casts a fairly large shadow of doubt on the authenticity of any effect it claims to find.

If anyone has any questions about actual fusion and not this crock of shit go ahead and ask.

>>6801910
>Could you just place it in a boiler and run a turbine with it?

if it wasn't a scam then this would be the most straightforward way to verify it and make money with it.

if that were the case, the creators of the device would be billionaires by now.

>>6804739
fusion

>>6803571
>25 years of "cold fusion" experiments, ranging from NASA to Joes doing it in their kitchen, proves otherwise.

you're aware that nobody has EVER made cold fusion work, right?

i mean sure, i'll gladly accept evidence. show me those 25 years if NASA experiments that confirm cold fusion. please do.

>>6801777
will be killed by the oil industry. sorry m8.

>>6804776

"We've done this and it works, we just don't want to release the data yet for [ridiculous, bullshit reason]."

And the press conferences are held regularly, each one promising proof, "very soon," and then a date is promised, and it comes and passes, and those connected to development claim they can't talk about why there's still no evidence, for security reasons, and goddamnit we do this shit every four years. It's the overbalanced wheel, Dean drive, Searl Effect Generator, Magnetic Gates, and they all use the same language and tall talk of overthrowing known science. Why is everyone so bent on overthrowing known science?

>>6803571

>>6801788
>it hasn't been conceived yet and there isn't a uniform way we know we would go about it.
MUST NOT EXIST!

>>6804802

Hey, cool. Can we bet $200 on it?

>>6804802
>idea contradicts everything we know
>the only people who claim it works are the people who try to sell products that supposedly use it

it doesn't take much reasoning to see why it's bullshit.

>dude claims he has made a cold fusion energy source
>a device that provides lots of energy for little to no cost
>a device that pretty much prints money for its owner

>instead of using it to make money, reinvest that money into making more of them, and getting filthy rich while also solving all energy problems humanity has, he keeps it a secret and sells preorders for it to people willing to buy them

it just doesn't add up.
if it worked as he says it does, he'd literally have near-infinite wealth and power at his hands. why doesn't he make use of that and get rich? that alone would silence many sceptics.

How is this thread still here?

Here's a test for you "cold fusion" retards:
-Did they find a way to efficiently produce muons? (No)
-Did they find a way to produce and stabilize microscopic black holes? (No)

If the answer to both of the above questions is "No" (it is), then "cold fusion" has not been developed.

>>6804785
yes?

>>6804828
most people trying to make cold fusion devices don't have the equipment to even test for those phenomena, so the absence of knowledge on those subjects is not useful

>>6804852
>most people trying to make cold fusion devices
are retarded

Let's say this so-called cold fusion were to be commercialized.

Then who would build the roads?

>>6804828
Nigga, you stole my picture.

>>6804875
the robots.

>>6804875
road workers?

>>6804452
>Any evidence that requires a change in thought to work, doesn't really work

Aw gawd

>>6804793
Actually the oil industry can survive on plastics polymers etc, but what about the "green" energies such as wind turbines etc?

>>6804814
Free market is a myth

>>6804981
>Aw gawd

Give a *single* counterpoint, then. A single example of a technology that requires you to believe it works for it to work.

>>6804999
placebo you fuck

>>6805028
lel

>>6805028

Hah! Well, then, I've got a placebo cold fusion reactor in a shoebox at home. I'm gonna be placebo rich!

>>6805052
I'm so placebo jealous right now.

>>6804999
I was talking about paradigm change, you need a theory change / advancement for explaining how the Coulomb barrier gets passed through, and how there are no radiations.

But that's funny that you mention entanglement with the practitioner, just like what happens in alchemy

>>6805079
0/10

>>6805079
>for explaining how the Coulomb barrier gets passed through

Not who you were talking to, but as per your statement...

I believe that protons can quantum tunnel past the coulomb barrier.

>>6803534
>nobody in the scientific community at large pays the slightest bit of interest in Rossi. he is a scam artist, selling bullshit.
He has a long track record of fraud and dishonesty and on cold fusion he has not met his predictions - not even close.

>>6803534
>fusing elements heavier than iron is always endothermic

Doesn't Rossi's reactor fuse hydrogen?

>>6805735
How do you think lightning puts off gamma rays?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#High-energy_radiation

>>6805745
> How do you think lightning puts off gamma rays?

I don't know. Nor does Rossi. You will have to do better than "some phenomena are unexplained therefore Rossi is above board".

>>6805745
>some phenomena

Are the production of gamma rays one sign of nuclear processes?

>>6805750

>>6805753

Lightning primarily radiates in the visible spectrum. 500 nm I think is the average peak, sort of a green-blue. (This happens to be very near the wavelength to which the human eye is most sensitive.)

>>6805753
Nuclear processes may produce gamma rays, but not all gamma rays come from nuclear processes.

Lightning *can* produce gamma rays, though it does not always do so. It's altitude-dependent... I suspect that this isn't wholly because the atmosphere is opaque to gamma radiation, but that there may be some molecular collisions stuff going on. Lightning basically always puts out detectable x-rays, though at a fairly low level relative to visible light.
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960111002933

>>6805793
>but that there may be some molecular collisions stuff going on.

Molecular collisions that put off gamma rays?

>>6805793
>Lightning primarily radiates in the visible spectrum. 500 nm I think is the average peak, sort of a green-blue.

Yes, although I understand that the intense burst of light from the thermal emission of the atmosphere is not the Only effect of lightning, is it?

>>6804221
Thunderfoot is incorrect on the Molyissue. He even had to make a video to detract from the comments defeating him in his own video section. They weren't all Moly supporters. Even I fucking hate the guy, but tunderfoot uses out of context quotes, doesn't address that there is a difference between the complaint and the resolution of his wife endorsing their beliefs, and says "this guy is dumb hurr agree with me."

The real issue with Moly, which is why me and many others thinks he's so full of shit, is his rant on child abuse. He relates EVERYTHING that is negative in a person's life back to child abuse. For example I will paraphrase his 50 minute long video on Robin Williams.
>Robin Williams had to please his mother and had no father figure so therefore he was abused as a child and was fucked up forever and that's why he committed suicide

It's not just the Robin Williams video if something thinks I'm cherry picking. It's a topic in every broadcast, every truth video, everything. I had enough of it so I unsubbed a year ago. I showed my friend the Robin Williams video to show the reason to not watch Moly. I hadn't seen the video or knew anything about the video or Robin Williams life, yet I accurately predicted to my friend that Moly would make a huge deal about the "abuse" he received as a child and use it as a reason for why he was fucked up.

>>6805801
No, more to do with the fact that high collision frequency means faster relaxation times for excited molecules, so they don't ionize as easily, and also means that already ionized molecules can interact more readily. In terms of a lightning strike, this means that the ionized air which permits the strike will recover more quickly at low altitude.

So you have a molecule X which gets ionized to X- and starts conducting well. But then it hits some Y+ ion and exchanges an electron, and no longer conducts. Higher impedance means a reduced current flow, both in terms of magnitude (Ohm's law) and time (a higher required voltage to sustain a strike), and therefore reduces the amount of gamma that is released. Gamma is more heavily affected than lower energy waves because of the exponential nature of this effect.

I'm killing myself in a week and my only regret is that I won't be around to see cold-fusionfags get blown the fuck out

>>6805745
lightning is a natural pinch type of plasma formation, the x-rays could be from brem radiation

>>6805730
technically they can but the probabilities are pretty low and much too low to make a viable device from