4 ms·

> The ECAT 1MW plant contains 106 smaller ECAT units mounted in a shipping container. Valve for filling the Hydrogen is on the front of each unit, together with

by lutusp 13y ago

> The ECAT 1MW plant contains 106 smaller ECAT units mounted in a shipping container. Valve for filling the Hydrogen is on the front of each unit, together with electrical connection to the immersion heater used to start the reaction. Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power -- to sustain the cold fusion reaction, of course -- totals just over 1 MW continuous. > Current delivery time is estimated to four months. That should be enough time to sign up an adequate number of perfect fools.

zokier 13y ago
> Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power The tech data page specifies 200kW input power
- lutusp 13y ago
  > > Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power > The tech data page specifies 200kW input power Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough, rather than trying to sign people up to buy his unprotected, yet-to-be-built device. Also, why doesn't Rossi use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement? This "fact sheet" reads very differently to someone who actually understands physics.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough As for patents on perpetual motion devices, the Patent Office is geared to reject claimed cold fusion patents that don't include a demonstration of a working device (of course, the reason for this is such claims have proven irreproducible, which impinges on the utility test for patentability.)
    - BerislavLopac 13y ago
      Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents?
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents? It has to demonstrate utility for all patents; but utility doesn't generally require a working device (even for patents of a "device" type). Whether it should is an interesting question, but if its clear from the information in the patent and the information generally available outside of it that a practitioner in the field could derive real utility from the described mechanism, I think there's at least a clear argument that actually having a demonstrated device is unnecessary, while with ones whose claims appear to violate physical laws or be of a class where claims have shown to be impossible to reproduce by other practitioners, the demonstration of a working device to demonstrate utility is important.
- pavlov 13y ago
  The first shipping generators will have an unfortunate bug that caps the output at approximately one-fifth of maximum capacity. The company will promise that, as soon as the bug is fixed and some new parts are installed, the machines will deliver the promised 1 MW.
  - VonGuard 13y ago
    Think this is what happened with the ECAT the DoD bought?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      The DoD did not buy one of these with my tax dollars -- tell me it isn't so. Because if they did, by now they would have exposed this scammer to justify the expenditure of public funds. It's a hoax -- the "fact sheet" has more holes than a Swiss cheese.
- stox 13y ago
  If it needs a heater, wouldn't it be warm fusion then?
  - astrodust 13y ago
    Considering fusion in the sun happens at 15 million degrees K, then anything in the hundreds of degrees is considered "cold".
- Yetanfou 13y ago
  If this thing produces 1 MW in heat output for a 200 KW power input, it is no more efficient than a good heat pump (with a COP of 5, not unusual in large-size installations)...
  - lafar6502 13y ago
    My quick calculation below shows that the device is not capable of 1MW power output with declared parameters (amount of heated water produced). It's calculated maximum power output would be like 160-180kW, which strangely is quite similar to declared input power. So it's not a heat pump, it's an ordinary (but expensive) electric boiler ;) I only wonder what it does with all that nickel and hydrogen...
andyjohnson0 13y ago
Source?
- lutusp 13y ago
  Common sense, unless that term is no longer applicable to modern times. If this were something real, we would be hearing about Rossi's valiant efforts to secure patent protection, not customers.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - lutusp 13y ago
      And he has obviously failed, and for a very good reason -- he cannot back up his claims. Patents in this realm (not in software) require scientific evidence. Only a perfect fool would try to market a breakthrough device in advance of securing patent protection. So the explanation is obvious -- the device doesn't perform as claimed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29 "In January 2011 Andrea Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion in a device called an Energy Catalyzer, although in an interview Rossi claimed that his Energy Catalyzer does not work on the basis of cold fusion, but weak [force] nuclear reactions.[15] The international patent application received an unfavorable international preliminary report on patentability because it seemed to "offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories" and to overcome this problem the application should have contained either experimental evidence or a firm theoretical basis in current scientific theories.[16] Journalists were not allowed to examine the core of the reactor, and there is uncertainty about the viability of the invention.[17]"
  - busterarm 13y ago
    It's not "common sense" to pull a number out of thin air. The data sheet says 200kW. Also, Rossi has applied for a patent and it was partially rejected. http://phys.org/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html http://phys.org/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-... Keep in mind, I still think this is likely B.S., but let's evaluate it based on what we know.

by lutusp 13y ago

zokier 13y ago

> Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power The tech data page specifies 200kW input power

lutusp 13y ago
> > Not mentioned in the article is that the "immersion heater" required power > The tech data page specifies 200kW input power Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough, rather than trying to sign people up to buy his unprotected, yet-to-be-built device. Also, why doesn't Rossi use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to sustain the reaction, thus removing the input power requirement? This "fact sheet" reads very differently to someone who actually understands physics.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Yes, but you see, that is a marketing claim, not a physical one. If it were true, Rossi would be sequestered with a team of crack lawyers attempting to secure patent protection for his breakthrough As for patents on perpetual motion devices, the Patent Office is geared to reject claimed cold fusion patents that don't include a demonstration of a working device (of course, the reason for this is such claims have proven irreproducible, which impinges on the utility test for patentability.)
  - BerislavLopac 13y ago
    Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Shouldn't this be a requirement for all patents? It has to demonstrate utility for all patents; but utility doesn't generally require a working device (even for patents of a "device" type). Whether it should is an interesting question, but if its clear from the information in the patent and the information generally available outside of it that a practitioner in the field could derive real utility from the described mechanism, I think there's at least a clear argument that actually having a demonstrated device is unnecessary, while with ones whose claims appear to violate physical laws or be of a class where claims have shown to be impossible to reproduce by other practitioners, the demonstration of a working device to demonstrate utility is important.
pavlov 13y ago
The first shipping generators will have an unfortunate bug that caps the output at approximately one-fifth of maximum capacity. The company will promise that, as soon as the bug is fixed and some new parts are installed, the machines will deliver the promised 1 MW.
- VonGuard 13y ago
  Think this is what happened with the ECAT the DoD bought?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    The DoD did not buy one of these with my tax dollars -- tell me it isn't so. Because if they did, by now they would have exposed this scammer to justify the expenditure of public funds. It's a hoax -- the "fact sheet" has more holes than a Swiss cheese.
stox 13y ago
If it needs a heater, wouldn't it be warm fusion then?
- astrodust 13y ago
  Considering fusion in the sun happens at 15 million degrees K, then anything in the hundreds of degrees is considered "cold".
Yetanfou 13y ago
If this thing produces 1 MW in heat output for a 200 KW power input, it is no more efficient than a good heat pump (with a COP of 5, not unusual in large-size installations)...
- lafar6502 13y ago
  My quick calculation below shows that the device is not capable of 1MW power output with declared parameters (amount of heated water produced). It's calculated maximum power output would be like 160-180kW, which strangely is quite similar to declared input power. So it's not a heat pump, it's an ordinary (but expensive) electric boiler ;) I only wonder what it does with all that nickel and hydrogen...

andyjohnson0 13y ago

Source?

lutusp 13y ago
Common sense, unless that term is no longer applicable to modern times. If this were something real, we would be hearing about Rossi's valiant efforts to secure patent protection, not customers.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - lutusp 13y ago
    And he has obviously failed, and for a very good reason -- he cannot back up his claims. Patents in this realm (not in software) require scientific evidence. Only a perfect fool would try to market a breakthrough device in advance of securing patent protection. So the explanation is obvious -- the device doesn't perform as claimed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29 "In January 2011 Andrea Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion in a device called an Energy Catalyzer, although in an interview Rossi claimed that his Energy Catalyzer does not work on the basis of cold fusion, but weak [force] nuclear reactions.[15] The international patent application received an unfavorable international preliminary report on patentability because it seemed to "offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories" and to overcome this problem the application should have contained either experimental evidence or a firm theoretical basis in current scientific theories.[16] Journalists were not allowed to examine the core of the reactor, and there is uncertainty about the viability of the invention.[17]"
- busterarm 13y ago
  It's not "common sense" to pull a number out of thin air. The data sheet says 200kW. Also, Rossi has applied for a patent and it was partially rejected. http://phys.org/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html http://phys.org/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-... Keep in mind, I still think this is likely B.S., but let's evaluate it based on what we know.