4 ms·

> It's not "common sense" to pull a number out of thin air. The data sheet says 200kW. Yes, speaking of pulling numbers out of thin air. If this were really a

by lutusp 13y ago

> It's not "common sense" to pull a number out of thin air. The data sheet says 200kW. Yes, speaking of pulling numbers out of thin air. If this were really a cold fusion device, no continuous input power would be required -- the device could be started once using an impulse of power, then it would become self-sustaining using its own generated energy -- no further input power would be required. Look at the claims: * Input power required: 200KW * Claimed output power: 1 MW Why isn't 200 KW of the 1 MW output power used to sustain the reaction? What's wrong with this picture? Only someone with no understanding of physics would post this "fact sheet".

sp332 13y ago
The 1 MW output is in heat, not electricity.
- lutusp 13y ago
  So is the required input power! The input power is required in order to generate heat to initiate the reaction, and the output power is heat. In any case, it would be child's play to use a thermoelectric converter to efficiently generate electricity from the vast claimed heat output.
  - sp332 13y ago
    I thought that part was just to start the reaction at first? Does it require 200kW all the time?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      That's the claim, and that's only one of several flaws in the "fact sheet".
  - crusso 13y ago
    I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient? That wouldn't allow the reaction to sustain itself. He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power. It doesn't seem unreasonable that his base product doesn't include more than just the basics for now.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient? Wait -- the input power requirement is intended to run a heater, not provide electricity. And I should never have mentioned thermoelectric converters, that only complicates the discussion with no benefit. Because the input power is needed to run a "immersion heater" according to the linked page, and because the output power is heat, this whole account quickly unravels. > He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power. No problem, there are plenty of those available. But the claims in the "fact sheet" are obviously false. If he really had a working unit that developed a megawatt using dozens of smaller units working in parallel, then why doesn't he just start one small unit with a tiny power kick, then use that unit to start four additional units, four to 16, ad infinitum, like a logical design. But Rossi hasn't bothered to think this deeply. The reason? He's not really going to build it. And the reason for that is it cannot be built.
    - bglazer 13y ago
      As a side note Rossi sold 27 thermoelectric converters with a claimed efficiency of 20% to the Department of Defense. 19 of them didn't function at all. The 8 that did work only produced 1 Watt of power instead of the 800 promised. The guy is a scam artist.
busterarm 13y ago
I'm not swayed by the fact sheet. I understand physics. I also know enough to know that we don't really know shit. Things happen that prove earlier notions to be wrong. It used to be that we all KNEW that the Earth was flat, and that it was the center of the universe too. There could be something going on here that we don't understand. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but I want to attack his claims ONLY by measurables. All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. Otherwise we're doing nothing but putting out more hot air than this generator does.
- carbocation 13y ago
  > All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. If we did that for everyone trying to sell a highly flawed device with engineering requirements that are not yet mastered by even world experts, we could measure such claims all day and achieve no real benefit. It is his job to demonstrate this to us. It is possible that this device is actually performing better-than-breakeven fusion. But I would happily bet money against it.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > There could be something going on here that we don't understand. In science, the null hypothesis rules. The null hypothesis -- the premise that something is false until evidence proves otherwise -- is why scientists have a reputation for skepticism. It also filters out claims like this one. A scientist wouldn't give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. A scientist would demand scientific evidence, not a marketing sheet with some very obvious defects. > I understand physics. If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that? > All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
  - busterarm 13y ago
    > If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that? What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me? Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test? > No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot Again, no disagreement, but you're starting your attack before he has a finished product with which he can attempt to meet that burden. Just because you know something, doesn't mean that you need to be aggressive about it. You're actually giving Rossi more attention than he deserves before these things are ready to be tested. You talk about the null hypothesis and filtering out claims and not even giving him the benefit of the doubt. Absolutely. A scientist who has useful things to do with their time just ignores it until there is evidence otherwise. Going on the attack is something completely different. Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(

by lutusp 13y ago

sp332 13y ago

The 1 MW output is in heat, not electricity.

lutusp 13y ago
So is the required input power! The input power is required in order to generate heat to initiate the reaction, and the output power is heat. In any case, it would be child's play to use a thermoelectric converter to efficiently generate electricity from the vast claimed heat output.
- sp332 13y ago
  I thought that part was just to start the reaction at first? Does it require 200kW all the time?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    That's the claim, and that's only one of several flaws in the "fact sheet".
- crusso 13y ago
  I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient? That wouldn't allow the reaction to sustain itself. He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power. It doesn't seem unreasonable that his base product doesn't include more than just the basics for now.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient? Wait -- the input power requirement is intended to run a heater, not provide electricity. And I should never have mentioned thermoelectric converters, that only complicates the discussion with no benefit. Because the input power is needed to run a "immersion heater" according to the linked page, and because the output power is heat, this whole account quickly unravels. > He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power. No problem, there are plenty of those available. But the claims in the "fact sheet" are obviously false. If he really had a working unit that developed a megawatt using dozens of smaller units working in parallel, then why doesn't he just start one small unit with a tiny power kick, then use that unit to start four additional units, four to 16, ad infinitum, like a logical design. But Rossi hasn't bothered to think this deeply. The reason? He's not really going to build it. And the reason for that is it cannot be built.
  - bglazer 13y ago
    As a side note Rossi sold 27 thermoelectric converters with a claimed efficiency of 20% to the Department of Defense. 19 of them didn't function at all. The 8 that did work only produced 1 Watt of power instead of the 800 promised. The guy is a scam artist.

busterarm 13y ago

I'm not swayed by the fact sheet. I understand physics. I also know enough to know that we don't really know shit. Things happen that prove earlier notions to be wrong. It used to be that we all KNEW that the Earth was flat, and that it was the center of the universe too. There could be something going on here that we don't understand. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but I want to attack his claims ONLY by measurables. All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. Otherwise we're doing nothing but putting out more hot air than this generator does.

carbocation 13y ago
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. If we did that for everyone trying to sell a highly flawed device with engineering requirements that are not yet mastered by even world experts, we could measure such claims all day and achieve no real benefit. It is his job to demonstrate this to us. It is possible that this device is actually performing better-than-breakeven fusion. But I would happily bet money against it.
lutusp 13y ago
> There could be something going on here that we don't understand. In science, the null hypothesis rules. The null hypothesis -- the premise that something is false until evidence proves otherwise -- is why scientists have a reputation for skepticism. It also filters out claims like this one. A scientist wouldn't give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. A scientist would demand scientific evidence, not a marketing sheet with some very obvious defects. > I understand physics. If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that? > All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
- busterarm 13y ago
  > If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that? What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me? Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test? > No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot Again, no disagreement, but you're starting your attack before he has a finished product with which he can attempt to meet that burden. Just because you know something, doesn't mean that you need to be aggressive about it. You're actually giving Rossi more attention than he deserves before these things are ready to be tested. You talk about the null hypothesis and filtering out claims and not even giving him the benefit of the doubt. Absolutely. A scientist who has useful things to do with their time just ignores it until there is evidence otherwise. Going on the attack is something completely different. Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(