Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

    You may have heard that an Italian scientist by the name of Rossi has twice demonstrated what he claims is a device that generates a great deal of energy through some sort of chemically-assisted nuclear reaction using hydrogen, nickel, and some catalyst(s) that he is keeping secret until he can get a patent on them. Apparently the demonstrations were rather convincing. He is in the process of producing a scaled-up version of this device that will be able to generate 1 megawatt of power and which he has committed to installing in an industrial facility in Greece as a demonstration of the commerical viability of the process. From what I've read, he plans another demonstration this October at the factory he owns in Florida where he is producing the device.

    Ok, let's start by granting that this is in all likelihood as spurious as all the other cold fusion claims have been for the last twenty years. So please don't bother responding to this with what would undoubtedly be very reasonable skepticism. We all know all the reasons why it is probably not for real.

    But in the interests of scanning the horizon for possible significant investment opportunities -- the kind of thing E.J. and some of us did a decade ago that got us into gold -- let's just do a thought experiment and pretend for the moment that this demonstration comes off successfully in October and the 1 megawatt version is actually installed and operating in a Greek factory next year.

    What would be the investment implications of a new, virtually limitless source of clean electrical energy? Here's an article about the Rossi device which explores some possibilities.

    It seems to me that if the device actually was the real thing, it could be construed as a great big sell signal for precious metals.

    If energy prices drop dramatically - say, to 1/100 of what they are now - the costs of goods and services would drop dramatically because so much of their cost is energy-related.

    If the costs drop dramatically, profits rise dramatically. The prices of goods would come down. People would find they had a lot of income freed up to service their debt, or pay higher taxes to service government debt.

    The debt load people, companies, and governments are carrying would become dramatically easier to service.

    If the private, commercial, state, and federal debt, and the debt of countries around the world becomes manageable, the money printing stops. If the money printing stops, the need to protect oneself by investing in precious metals largely disappears.

    If energy becomes radically cheaper, it seems to me that the most valuable thing becomes land and commodities. If energy is boundless, then the limiting factor is finding the raw materials and land to use that energy upon to create the stuff people want.

    I imagine the price of oil would plummet, perhaps to the single digits. Natural gas would become very cheap. (Or perhaps the global warming crowd would get large taxes imposed on them and on coal to discourage their use.)

    But it seems to me that the price of land and industrial commodities would skyrocket. Previously unusable desert might become usable with desalinated water.

    Or might commodities drop in price because with very cheap energy, it might be economically feasible to mine deposits that weren't worth it before? Or even separate them from the contents of landfills?

    I imagine the stock market in general would go on a hellacious tear upwards.

    So it seems to me to be worthwhile to at least keep an eye on news related to the Rossi device and be prepared, in the admittedly unlikely event that it is the real thing, to dump precious metals and jump into the stock market and perhaps to load up on industrial commodities and land.

    Anyone have a different take on it?

  • #2
    Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

    The Rossi device might be a good thing. I'm living in France and I will spend about as much time thinking about it as I will the next earthquake. I have been following some nearer term deals that recently got a writeup on metafilter:
    the wave disk engine and the opposed piston opposed cylinder engine. That last one looks like a winner.
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/wav...-35-times.html
    http://www.metafilter.com/100442/Opp...posed-Cylinder

    This is an engine that they have been using for about 20 years here in europe that burns pure ethanol in a diesel cycle. It works in sub-zero temperatures ( unlike for instance a F150 with E100 ). France is the worlds number two sugar producer and I think ethanol is set to be the next big thing here.

    http://www.scania.com/products-servi...s/ethanol.aspx
    http://www.ongreen.com/thought-leade...-diesel-engine

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

      OK, I going to assume the article is factual.
      If this device can output net energy of nearly 15KW for 18 hours, it should be a no brainer to verify if it is a hoax or not.


      One of the first questions I would have is how much does it cost, and does it scale? Fuel costs are mentioned, but not the reactor costs itself. If it can't scale to the 100 MW range, then it is not a drop in replacement for a conventional electrical generation plant. If it is not scalable if it were cheap, could we set up micro grids of some sort? Powering a neighborhood?

      As far as replacing liquid fuels can it be modified to be put into a car, bus or train? Can the device be scaled to the proper size to provide the right amount of power to a car? Can it be turned off and turned on quickly just like an internal combustion engine or do we have to rely on continuous a continuous on state to charge batteries? The chevy volt may be almost practical, but it is expensive.

      Additionally, hydorcarbons are used in to make roads, plastics, fertalizer, etc. So their use may be cut in half, 1/3 etc and their prices would plummet, but they would not go to zero.

      Is it safe enough and idiot proof enough to be serviced by the public, or will it have to be walled off and serviced by experts.

      I guess in general if the device works, it is a giant leap forward, but a lot more work needs to be done.

      By the way Master Shake just hit the jackpot with this shed full of nickels
      Last edited by charliebrown; March 20, 2011, 08:37 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

        Okay, this could be fun. IF the Rossi Device really works the question becomes how scalable it really is and how safe it is. Weaponization is the unknown issue. Beyond that a few ideas ...

        1. The current economy would collapse. It is having trouble with the information revolution so I seriously doubt it would weather something like this. For some reason we consider this a bad thing instead of preparing for it and making it a painless thing. We should be collapsing the economy by design every few years anyway to clear out the deadwood just make it as painless as possible.

        2. Human Beings would live over the entire surface of the globe including the oceans since local environmental control would be trivial.

        3. Perpetual robots would develop.

        4. Every city would become Las Vegas as the chief reason for people to gather would be entertainment. Lights would be everywhere. It would be the new pollution.

        5. Water desalination and demineralization will increase the number of agricultural acres available for food. In fact water and access to it would become the logical precious resource as it will be used for everything. Aqueducts would be everywhere. Water evaporation would become the new environmental challenge.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

          Well, according to the AGW'ers, the evil oil companies are holding us back from the promised land of alternative energy via their millions of private sector lobbying dollars overwhelming the billions of government and NGO dollars.

          So if the device is real, then a oil company sponsored F-22 will 'accidentally' drop a 2000 lb bunker buster on Mr. Rossi's lab while hunting a Libyan warship/fishing boat, while he's in it, and the whole thing will be covered up via tobacco lobby like studies to create FUD.

          If this doesn't happen, then clearly Rossi is just monkeying around with metal hydrides - i.e. battery in a beaker. Nothing to see here...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

            Originally posted by charliebrown View Post
            By the way Master Shake just hit the jackpot with this shed full of nickels
            Ha! I'm still accumulating, baby!
            Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

              If you're curious, here's a couple of physicists looking at the Rossi device:

              http://www.stardrive.org/index.php?o...ogna&Itemid=56

              Bottom line: a whole lot is missing from the whole equation - gamma rays if normal physics/chemistry is involved and a whole s***load of missing heat if not.

              Scott Chubb in Nov 2010 Physics Today Letter gives a theory of cold fusion without gamma rays.

              from a public email list

              On Jan 23, 2011, at 3:24 PM, nick herbert wrote:
              "Thank you Brian for providing information on what might be the most important discovery of the 21th-century--the Focardi-Rossi cold-fusion demonstration at University of Bologna (1/14/11) which produced 12 kW of heat for more than 30 minutes using ordinary hydrogen and Ni as the reactants.

              This experiment is important not only because of the large amount of heat produced but also because it uses hydrogen rather than deuterium which would make power reactors based on the F-R Effect much cheaper to run.

              However I (Nick Herbert) am very skeptical concerning the results of this experiment and predict that it will go the way of Pons-Fleishman, that is, it will never be able to be reproduced by other researchers and may even be a scam.

              I hope I am wrong because this Bologna invention could truly change the world.

              Here is my reasoning (I welcome input from Brian and other physicists).

              Focardi & Rossi are disturbingly vague concerning the actual mechanism of their reaction except that it is some sort of nuclear reaction between protons (hydrogen nuclei) and Nickel. Such a p-Ni reaction would be expected to produce an isotope of copper in an excited state which upon de-excitation would transfer some of its energy to the water bath. Since this is a nuclear reaction rather than a chemical one, we expect a great deal of energy from each reaction R.

              The conversion factor between nuclear energies (MeVs) and heat energy (Joules) is:
              1 MeV = 1.6 X 10^-13 Joules

              Now suppose each nuclear reaction R produces 1.5 Mev.

              Then to produce a power output of 12 kW (= 12000 Joules/sec) would require a reaction rate R(dot) of 5 x 10^16 reactions/second.

              R(dot) = 5x10^16 reactions/second

              Consider a typical p-Ni reaction with Ni(58)--the most abundant Ni isotope (68.3%)
              (taken from an AEC Chart of the Nuclides)

              p + N(58) --> Cu(59)* --> Ni(59) + positron + neutrino + gamma.

              According to the AEC chart the positron and neutrino share an energy of 3.78 Mev and the gamma takes away another 1.1 Mev. For the sake of easy calculation I assume the average kinetic energy of the positron is 1.5 Mev AND THAT THIS ENERGY IS ABSORBED BY THE WATER BATH. The rest of the beta-decay energy is taken away by the neutrino and plays no further part in the calculation.

              Hence the figure used here of 1.5 Mev per reaction.

              However in addition to the heat energy, each nuclear reaction produces 3 gamma rays-- one (of energy 1.1 Mev) from deexcitation of Cu(59)* and two gamma rays of (0.511 Mev each) from annihilation of the positron.

              Hence the Focardi-Rossi reactor operating at 12000 watts might be expected to produce a gamma ray output of

              G(dot) = 15 x 10^16 gamma rays/second.

              The strength of a radioactive source is measure in Curies

              1 Curie = 3.7 x 10^10 disintegrations/sec

              Thus the calculated gamma ray flux from the F-R reactor is then equivalent to a radiation source of strength 4x10^6 Curies of gamma radiation
              [expected output from the Focardi-Rossi reactor]

              From the Wikipedia entry on the Curie as a unit of radiation
              "A radiotherapy machine may have 1000 Curies of a radioisotope such as Cesium 137 or Cobalt 60. This quantity of nuclear material can produce severe health effects within a few minutes of exposure."

              ONE THOUSAND CURIES is considered a seriously dangerous radiation source.

              Yet the calculated radiation strength of the Focardi-Rossi reactor (running at 12000 watts) is in the range of ONE MILLION CURIES.

              To their credit the researchers at Bologna placed a gamma ray detector along side the reactor but it detected essentially nothing during the course of the experiment.

              In conclusion, I wish the Italian experimenters every success and hope that their invention will revolutionize the world by producing a cheap, efficient and clean source of energy for mankind.
              However the total lack of gamma rays from what is supposed to be a nuclear reaction is highly suspicious. If I were an investor I would be extremely cautious about putting money into this scheme until F & R manage to produce a plausible mechanism for the operation of their device.

              What's your thinking concerning this device, Brian?

              ===============================
              Nick Herbert
              http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com

              On Jan 23, 2011, at 2:34 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

              --On 22 January 2011 16:54:37 -0800 Paul Zielinski wrote:

              It's a long thesis and not everyone has the time to wade through it.
              She has an interesting article in July 2010's Scientific American (requires subscription to read it all on line):

              Is the Universe Leaking Energy?

              Total energy must be conserved. Every student of physics learns this fundamental law. The trouble is, it does not apply to the universe as a whole ...

              Brian

              PS on the subject of Sci.Am., take a look at and my comment. Disgraceful, but one expects no better from them!

              PS2: are you (Sharon especially) aware that a cold fusion reactor has been demonstrated in Italy? The 'scientific report' is due out soon. See
              <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360>
              and <http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm>
              * * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.ukThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
              * Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
              * Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
              * Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
              * * * * * * *

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                There was an earlier thread that looked at the physical plausibility of Rossi's claims. That's not the topic of this thread, but I thought I'd link.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                  Here is a link to an article a couple of days ago (3/17/2011) regarding Rossi's supposed invention. I have no idea if this thing is plausible or not, just adding a link I found....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                    Also a link to Hydrogen/Nickel cold fusion probable mechanism and Is the Rossi energy amplifier the first pico-chemical reactor provide more insight into Rossi's device. I'm no expert, so read the articles yourselves, but what I gather is that whether this thing is called Cold Fusion, or a Pico-Chemical reaction, or what ever it is, that there are scientists looking into it's plausibility.

                    Ash, your insight into what these articles say, and whether there is something to them, or they are complete B.S. would be welcomed!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                      lol Come on Ash tell us it's all BS - you seem to know - so what is it Ash?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                        Hi tmicou. My initial reaction is that Hydrogen/Nickel cold fusion probable mechanism doesn't pass the smell test. Part of this is the way it reads, and part of this is the actual content.

                        There is an odd mix of pre-college and advanced physics here, both treated qualitatively, that makes me wonder whether this was written by someone who has read a lot of popularizations of physics, but who may not have a sound background. It's written by someone who claims to be a "professor", but it doesn't read like that. The main thing that makes me wonder about the writer is the didactic, and wrong, description of the ground state of a hydrogen atom in terms of the circular "orbital" motion of its electron. Historically, this is one early way in which the idea of the de Broglie wavelength was introduced, but that primitive model describes an electron with some orbital angular momentum, where centripetal force balances electrostatic attraction. In fact, the ground state of the hydrogen atom has zero orbital angular momentum (l=0), and centripetal force from orbital motion plays no role in separating the electron from the nucleus. The picture of a sine wave looping back on itself, which appears in the link, is sometimes taught as an approximate model of the hydrogen atom in low level classes, or presented in popularizations of physics, because it is intuitively easy to grasp. But that level of physical inaccuracy is way out of place amongst some of the other topics raised by the writer.

                        That said, I don't think that detail actually impacts the physical argument made by the writer. It's just a little weird.

                        As for the substance of what was said, I have strong doubts. As I wrote when this first came up (in the pay area), it's 28 times harder to fuse hydrogen to nickel than hydrogen to hydrogen, and the process actually loses energy from the standpoint of the nickel nucleus (but would release energy in net only because the hydrogen nucleus had been bound to something). In other words, fusing hydrogen to nickel is a priori stupid -- if you could do that, then you ought to be trying to fuse hydrogen to lighter nuclei, because it is easier and will give you more energy.

                        A second, more substantive criticism, is that none of the points raised in the article seem specific to what Rossi is doing. You can pack hydrogen into defects and interstices in all sorts of materials. This won't put the inter-nuclear separation any smaller than in a hydrogen molecule, which is easier to fuse. The writer is basically positing some very short-lived, high-energy "virtual" transition states that permit Coulomb barrier penetration as a neutral unit. The basic idea of short-lived transition states, permitted by the energy-time uncertainty relationship, is sound. I don't think this application is sound. If something like what is suggested were possible, then it could also happen in hydrogen molecules -- and more easily. It doesn't.

                        A last comment about what was presented: the writer threw out some round numbers, but then failed to walk through the order-of-magnitude calculation that would connect them. I might do that later, but have to attend to the kids. Anyway, he spent the entire article declining to make any quantitative estimate, but engaged in a lot of pettifogery, quoting some symbols and the occasional formula which he then did not use. Makes me think he's a poser.
                        Last edited by ASH; March 21, 2011, 11:08 AM. Reason: fixed typo m --> l

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                          Originally posted by rabot10 View Post
                          lol Come on Ash tell us it's all BS - you seem to know - so what is it Ash?
                          I'm just sayin' that it's 28 times harder to fuse hydrogen to nickel than it is to fuse hydrogen to hydrogen, and you get less energy for your trouble. Also, the nuclei aren't any closer together with the hydrogen adsorbed onto or absorbed into the nickel, than they would be in a hydrogen molecule. Unless there's a way to get the nuclei about 200x closer together than in a hydrogen molecule, you aren't going to get much fusion at low temperature. Also, the barrier penetration mechanism proposed in one of the links that tmicou posted doesn't seem specific to nickel, so it's hard to understand why this would suddenly work in Rossi's apparatus, but isn't observed in any other circumstance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                            If the new model for the structure of the proton, as set out in my book is correct, then this might be entirely possible. BUT!

                            From what one sees in print, they have a device that has to be set up and run, and then it works for a relatively short period and has to be re-set up again. They are not describing in any way a system that will deliver a continuous power output system.

                            If, if it works, continuously; then the first thing to go is the internal combustion engine, (ICE). Why? Because if you have an easy way to produce steam, then we return to a pure steam engine for vehicles. Many will not realise that at the time of the changeover from steam to the ICE and electricity, steam was the dominant source of heat and power in every factory. Steam is very well understood and relatively easy to re-implement. So all those museum pieces demonstrating good old fashioned triple expansion engines will once again become the dominant technology.

                            Why bother to convert steam to electricity, when you can save on transmission and all the other costs associated with electricity???

                            So as I see it, this will bring a huge return to old fashioned engineering. A collapse in ICE production. A collapse in oil as an industry and thus the idea..... who needs oilfields?? and all the attendant costs of protecting them.....

                            Almost every company listed at present will be at an immediate disadvantage, so I do not see a sharp increase in the DOW; rather a collapse of existing and an opening up of the need for rapid new investments right across the board.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Rossi Device - Implications for Investment if It Turns Out To Be The Real Thing

                              Didn't we have this same type of discussion a few years ago about car engines or something like that? Secret technology, just waiting to be perfected( and the requisite cash infusion)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X