4 ms·

While I don't disagree with you, I do have a nit: they're not claiming this is a perpetual motion machine, which is categorically impossible and an incontrovert

by lukev 15y ago

While I don't disagree with you, I do have a nit: they're not claiming this is a perpetual motion machine, which is categorically impossible and an incontrovertible indicator of a scam. They're claiming it can derive energy from nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms. This has not been proven to be impossible. In fact, we know it's possible (albiet at much higher temperatures.) Therefore, there is at least a logical possibility that it's legit, even if their behavior doesn't indicate that so far.

cbr 15y ago
I think they're actually claiming something weirder: hydrogen combining with nickel to make copper. http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/fusione-fredda-bologna.html http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/fusione-fredda-bologna.ht... "the hydrogen atoms penetrate into the nickel and copper turn. Or at least, this is our interpretation." (gli atomi di idrogeno penetrano nel nichel e lo trasformano in rame. --- translated by google)
- VladRussian 15y ago
  all these cold fusion schemes use "input/output < 1" energy demonstration as a prove of the fusion. A lot of unaccounted chemical reactions can happen inside - for example, they split water into hydrogen and oxygen and the oxygen would burn with nickel - you'd have energy gain if nickel burns better than hydrogen (i just don't remember what produces better reaction though) The real scientific approach would be to demonstrate the real indicators of supposed reaction. Be it fast neutrons, alpha or some specific radiation frequency. Because when hydrogen supposedly fuses with nickel (lets forget for a moment that nickel is past the iron in the periodic table and thus isn't expected to produce much of, if at all, a fusion energy gain) the energy is released in some very specific and detectable form - either some particle like alpha or some photon of pretty specific frequency and there is nothing easier to detect than that ... much much easier than to compare input/output energy and trace the heat loses/gains through the piping, etc... I'm a firm believer in the fusion as a practical energy source. We have upper bound - 10Kt thermonuclear weapons that produce net energy gain, we have lower bound - Z machine (my personal favorite as it is just a miniaturized thermonuclear bomb process, which is well proven at Kt scale, with X-rays produced by electric discharge (at 15% efficiency of electric power to X-rays conversion!) instead of nuclear fission primary), Tokamaks, fusor, polywell, NIF with some of them reaching output levels of tens of percent of the input energy. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. It takes money and time to develop it. ITER or even order of magnitude bigger ITER will get us there. The cold fusion which is unknown (in particular it doesn't have such proven upper/lower bounds) and when presented in such unscientific fashion it just undermines the public support, ie. funding for development of proven (in the sense mentioned above) technologies.
  - rcthompson 15y ago
    Nickel fusing with more nickel would not yield an energy gain, but nickel + hydrogen could, right?
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      no. Look at the binding energy curve. Even incremental increase of the size of nuclei for nuclei beyond iron (actually Ni-62, ie. still left of Cu which is supposed to be the result of fusion here) is generally energy consuming process. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html#c2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.htm...
      - electromagnetic 15y ago
        Nickel 62 (34 neutrons) and 64 (36 neutrons) are the only ones capable of fusing with hydrogen to produce stable copper (63 with 34 neutrons and 65 with 36 neutrons). Others are going to create an isotope of Copper, which will decay to cobalt. Obviously by their claim they're only finding copper. The problem here is that only 4.5% of nickel atoms would even be capable, which doesn't sound like an efficient reaction medium. I don't understand how a full atom would be capable of fusing with nickel when a single neutron can't efficiently fuse with a uranium 235 atom at a .72%. What I'm wondering is would there be any energy gain from turning Nickel 58 with 30 neutrons into Copper 59, which decays into Nickel 59, which in turn decays into Cobalt 59. However, this decay is long lived (76,000 years so likely not going to result in any immediate energy gains), but then there's the potential of turning cobalt 59 into nickel 60. So then you reach the question of does turning Nickel 58 into Nickel 60 net you energy? Also would keep forcing a new proton into Nickel 60 making it Copper 61, decaying into Nickel 61 + proton -> Copper 62 -> Nickel 62 (the highest binding energy) actually work? Honestly, I think they've found a "potential" here, but it's likely just the potential for exploitation. It's been too long since I've done that kind of math to work out if there's the potential for energy gain, regardless of if their 'method' would allow it.
Retric 15y ago
They are claiming that they can both fuse hydrogen atoms at low temperatures, produce useful amounts of energy, AND not produce significant amounts of radiation which seems ridiculously unlikely. To the point where a perpetual motion machine could be created without violating as many past observations. IMO, the radiation bit is the most ridiculous, If 2 atoms are going to release that much energy there is really no way to get it without either an high energy photon or high energy particles. PS: 1MW worth of power from fusion would generate enough radiation to kill a stadium full of people in a fraction of a second without a lot of shielding, but cold fusion people never seem to have an fear of radiation...
- randallsquared 15y ago
  1MW worth of power from fusion would generate enough radiation to kill a stadium full of people in a fraction of a second without a lot of shielding, Well, it depends on the reaction. The p-B reaction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion#Residual_radiation_from_a_p.E2.80.9311B_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion#Residual_radi... ) releases the vast majority of its energy in charged particles, which could potentially be converted directly to electricity with not much physical shielding. (Not that that has anything to do with the linked article, of course).
  - Retric 15y ago
    Sure, the energy of these neutrons would account for less than 0.2% of the total energy released, but do some math. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert The unit gray measures the absorbed dose of radiation (D), absorbed by any material. The unit sievert measures the equivalent dose of radiation (H), having the same damaging effect as an equal dose of gamma rays. Both the gray, with symbol Gy and the sievert, with symbol Sv are SI derived units, defined as a unit of energy (joule) per unit of mass (kilogram): 1 Gy = 1 Sv = 1 J / kg So, 2KW of gamma rays = 2000 joule per second = 2000 Gy / second. But high energy neutrons are significantly worse than gamarays so you need to multiply that by a (function of linear energy transfer L in keV/μm) but in this case we are dealing with a few different reactions all of which are producing 2+ MeV neutrons so it's 2000 times worse than Gamarays. But, how bad could 4,000,000+Gy / second be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Table_of_exposure_levels_and_symptoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Table_of_ex... 6–8Gy = 95-100% Mortality Granted that's 360^2 degrees so it's spread over 4Pi*R^2, but newton radiation also is really nasty and hard to shield.

by lukev 15y ago

cbr 15y ago

I think they're actually claiming something weirder: hydrogen combining with nickel to make copper. http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/fusione-fredda-bologna.html http://daily.wired.it/news/scienza/fusione-fredda-bologna.ht... "the hydrogen atoms penetrate into the nickel and copper turn. Or at least, this is our interpretation." (gli atomi di idrogeno penetrano nel nichel e lo trasformano in rame. --- translated by google)

VladRussian 15y ago
all these cold fusion schemes use "input/output < 1" energy demonstration as a prove of the fusion. A lot of unaccounted chemical reactions can happen inside - for example, they split water into hydrogen and oxygen and the oxygen would burn with nickel - you'd have energy gain if nickel burns better than hydrogen (i just don't remember what produces better reaction though) The real scientific approach would be to demonstrate the real indicators of supposed reaction. Be it fast neutrons, alpha or some specific radiation frequency. Because when hydrogen supposedly fuses with nickel (lets forget for a moment that nickel is past the iron in the periodic table and thus isn't expected to produce much of, if at all, a fusion energy gain) the energy is released in some very specific and detectable form - either some particle like alpha or some photon of pretty specific frequency and there is nothing easier to detect than that ... much much easier than to compare input/output energy and trace the heat loses/gains through the piping, etc... I'm a firm believer in the fusion as a practical energy source. We have upper bound - 10Kt thermonuclear weapons that produce net energy gain, we have lower bound - Z machine (my personal favorite as it is just a miniaturized thermonuclear bomb process, which is well proven at Kt scale, with X-rays produced by electric discharge (at 15% efficiency of electric power to X-rays conversion!) instead of nuclear fission primary), Tokamaks, fusor, polywell, NIF with some of them reaching output levels of tens of percent of the input energy. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. It takes money and time to develop it. ITER or even order of magnitude bigger ITER will get us there. The cold fusion which is unknown (in particular it doesn't have such proven upper/lower bounds) and when presented in such unscientific fashion it just undermines the public support, ie. funding for development of proven (in the sense mentioned above) technologies.
- rcthompson 15y ago
  Nickel fusing with more nickel would not yield an energy gain, but nickel + hydrogen could, right?
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    no. Look at the binding energy curve. Even incremental increase of the size of nuclei for nuclei beyond iron (actually Ni-62, ie. still left of Cu which is supposed to be the result of fusion here) is generally energy consuming process. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html#c2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.htm...
    - electromagnetic 15y ago
      Nickel 62 (34 neutrons) and 64 (36 neutrons) are the only ones capable of fusing with hydrogen to produce stable copper (63 with 34 neutrons and 65 with 36 neutrons). Others are going to create an isotope of Copper, which will decay to cobalt. Obviously by their claim they're only finding copper. The problem here is that only 4.5% of nickel atoms would even be capable, which doesn't sound like an efficient reaction medium. I don't understand how a full atom would be capable of fusing with nickel when a single neutron can't efficiently fuse with a uranium 235 atom at a .72%. What I'm wondering is would there be any energy gain from turning Nickel 58 with 30 neutrons into Copper 59, which decays into Nickel 59, which in turn decays into Cobalt 59. However, this decay is long lived (76,000 years so likely not going to result in any immediate energy gains), but then there's the potential of turning cobalt 59 into nickel 60. So then you reach the question of does turning Nickel 58 into Nickel 60 net you energy? Also would keep forcing a new proton into Nickel 60 making it Copper 61, decaying into Nickel 61 + proton -> Copper 62 -> Nickel 62 (the highest binding energy) actually work? Honestly, I think they've found a "potential" here, but it's likely just the potential for exploitation. It's been too long since I've done that kind of math to work out if there's the potential for energy gain, regardless of if their 'method' would allow it.

Retric 15y ago

They are claiming that they can both fuse hydrogen atoms at low temperatures, produce useful amounts of energy, AND not produce significant amounts of radiation which seems ridiculously unlikely. To the point where a perpetual motion machine could be created without violating as many past observations. IMO, the radiation bit is the most ridiculous, If 2 atoms are going to release that much energy there is really no way to get it without either an high energy photon or high energy particles. PS: 1MW worth of power from fusion would generate enough radiation to kill a stadium full of people in a fraction of a second without a lot of shielding, but cold fusion people never seem to have an fear of radiation...

randallsquared 15y ago
1MW worth of power from fusion would generate enough radiation to kill a stadium full of people in a fraction of a second without a lot of shielding, Well, it depends on the reaction. The p-B reaction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion#Residual_radiation_from_a_p.E2.80.9311B_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion#Residual_radi... ) releases the vast majority of its energy in charged particles, which could potentially be converted directly to electricity with not much physical shielding. (Not that that has anything to do with the linked article, of course).
- Retric 15y ago
  Sure, the energy of these neutrons would account for less than 0.2% of the total energy released, but do some math. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert The unit gray measures the absorbed dose of radiation (D), absorbed by any material. The unit sievert measures the equivalent dose of radiation (H), having the same damaging effect as an equal dose of gamma rays. Both the gray, with symbol Gy and the sievert, with symbol Sv are SI derived units, defined as a unit of energy (joule) per unit of mass (kilogram): 1 Gy = 1 Sv = 1 J / kg So, 2KW of gamma rays = 2000 joule per second = 2000 Gy / second. But high energy neutrons are significantly worse than gamarays so you need to multiply that by a (function of linear energy transfer L in keV/μm) but in this case we are dealing with a few different reactions all of which are producing 2+ MeV neutrons so it's 2000 times worse than Gamarays. But, how bad could 4,000,000+Gy / second be? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Table_of_exposure_levels_and_symptoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning#Table_of_ex... 6–8Gy = 95-100% Mortality Granted that's 360^2 degrees so it's spread over 4Pi*R^2, but newton radiation also is really nasty and hard to shield.