New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

[jiimbergin]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

+1

The thing that would be hard to spoof with a sleight-of-hand is conjuring up radiation to register on Bianchini's instruments. But Bianchini didn't observe any extra radiation evolved by the reactor during its operation, or any extra activity in the "fuel" following its "transmutation". On the other hand, I can purchase ⁶²Ni in 99% isotopic purity (the concentration measured by the astonishingly gullible independent scientists) from various vendors who serve the scientific community. Do none of the "scientists" who are supposedly scrutinizing the experiment recognize a catalog chemical product when they see it? Why would a naturally-occurring mixture of nickel isotopes (chiefly ⁵⁸Ni and ⁶⁰Ni) happen to transmute into exactly 99% pure ⁶²Ni? Perhaps because 99% purity is a common standard for laboratory reagents and material samples? And even if some heretofore unknown physics permits you to add neutrons to ⁵⁸Ni and ⁶⁰Ni in a low-temperature reaction, those neutrons are coming from the nuclei of other elements present in the fuel mixture, and these nuclear reactions are going to spit out radiation and leave behind some concentration of activated nuclei. Indeed, if you're generating heat from nuclear transformations of this sort, that heat starts out as ionizing radiation and the kinetic energy of fission fragments. But it's hard to purchase radioactive isotope samples of any substantial activity, and it's hard to surreptitiously generate fluxes of neutrons and gamma-rays for some hapless Italian scientist to measure with his instruments. However, it probably is pretty easy to swap out "fuel" samples over the course of a 32-day "experimental run".

As far as I'm concerned, someone is clearly trying to hint at nuclear reactions by demonstrating evidence of nuclear transformation, but they are using industrially refined isotope samples to do it. This isn't the case of someone who is convinced they have something real, trying to prove that it is... this is intentional fraud.

Thanks ASH!

[aaron]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

We have had at least 3 threads over the years discussing this dirtbag. He is a con artist, and I hope he pisses off somebody with a lot of guns. I hate these types of guys.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

+1

The thing that would be hard to spoof with a sleight-of-hand is conjuring up radiation to register on Bianchini's instruments. But Bianchini didn't observe any extra radiation evolved by the reactor during its operation, or any extra activity in the "fuel" following its "transmutation". On the other hand, I can purchase ⁶²Ni in 99% isotopic purity (the concentration measured by the astonishingly gullible independent scientists) from various vendors who serve the scientific community. Do none of the scientists who are supposedly scrutinizing the experiment recognize a catalog chemical product when they see it? Why would a naturally-occurring mixture of nickel isotopes (chiefly ⁵⁸Ni and ⁶⁰Ni) happen to transmute into exactly 99% pure ⁶²Ni? Perhaps because 99% purity is a common standard for laboratory reagents and material samples? And even if some heretofore unknown physics permits you to add neutrons to ⁵⁸Ni and ⁶⁰Ni in a low-temperature reaction, those neutrons are coming from the nuclei of other elements present in the fuel mixture, and these nuclear reactions are going to spit out radiation and leave behind some concentration of activated nuclei. Indeed, if you're generating heat from nuclear transformations of this sort, that heat starts out as ionizing radiation and the kinetic energy of fission fragments. But it's hard to purchase radioactive isotope samples of any substantial activity, and it's hard to surreptitiously generate fluxes of neutrons and gamma-rays for some hapless Italian scientist to measure with his instruments. However, it probably is pretty easy to swap out "fuel" samples over the course of a 32-day experimental run.

As far as I'm concerned, someone is clearly trying to hint at nuclear reactions by demonstrating evidence of nuclear transmutation, but they are using industrially refined isotope samples to do it. This isn't the case of someone who is convinced they have something real, trying to prove that it is... this is intentional fraud.

Also some of the team's choices for the experimental setup were odd and throw up red flags.
They used thermography to measure temperatures. Why not thermocouples or RTDs affixed to the surface?
And the device is laid on a steel rack in open room air, introducing all manner of complications from convection and radiation.
Why not immerse the device in a stable oil bath and measure temp rise in the oil?
They used three-phase AC power for resistance heaters wired in delta, but they are only generating a paltry 360 watts of power, less than half your kitchen toaster. Why not DC, or simple single phase AC?

Seems like they have used unconventional and indirect methods to create a fog of uncertainties that can be exploited to fabricate a desired result.
.
.
.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

My answer is that, (please correct me if I am wrong), not one of you has any knowledge of anyone else that has set out to try and replicate the experiments. What you are all doing is presenting opinion, yes, some based upon seemingly very sound science. Yes, again, my instant thought of the images of the experimental set up were entirely negative; I too could see many reasons to believe that they were not based upon what I would have expected to see.

However, in science, there is only one sure fire method of proof acceptable to everyone; replication of the experiment, or not as the case may be. So my input to this debate is that, surely, the only way to bring a solution to the debate is replication of the experiments?

If you disagree, why?

[astonas]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

My answer is that, (please correct me if I am wrong), not one of you has any knowledge of anyone else that has set out to try and replicate the experiments. What you are all doing is presenting opinion, yes, some based upon seemingly very sound science. Yes, again, my instant thought of the images of the experimental set up were entirely negative; I too could see many reasons to believe that they were not based upon what I would have expected to see.

However, in science, there is only one sure fire method of proof acceptable to everyone; replication of the experiment, or not as the case may be. So my input to this debate is that, surely, the only way to bring a solution to the debate is replication of the experiments?

If you disagree, why?

Because the burden of proof must always be on the individual who wishes to change the paradigm.

Any other approach would mean devoting more resources to testing and re-testing literally millions of crackpot theories than any nation could ever afford. Thinking of such an idea is trivial, compared to the cost and effort of testing it. I personally have about 100 ideas for every 10 that should be tested, and in turn for every one that I have the resources to test.

Imagine demanding that a society test and explore all 100 of them. It would be hundreds of subsidized tests a year -- per scientist. It's simply not a reasonable request.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Because the burden of proof must always be on the individual who wishes to change the paradigm.

Any other approach would mean devoting more resources to testing and re-testing literally millions of crackpot theories than any nation could ever afford. Thinking of such an idea is trivial, compared to the cost and effort of testing it. I personally have about 100 ideas for every 10 that should be tested, and in turn for every one that I have the resources to test.

Imagine demanding that a society test and explore all 100 of them. It would be hundreds of subsidized tests a year -- per scientist. It's simply not a reasonable request.

With the very greatest of respects, it would seem from the above answer that you really do not understand the world you live in.

Out here there are quite literally millions of very small businesses; each of them constantly experimenting their particular idea of how the theme of "small business" should work. Out here, everyone is in the business of experimentation. Indeed, it was this realisation that became the driving force for chapter 2, Job Creation, not Credit; is the primary driver of prosperity, in The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective. Yes, your problem is a lack of funding. But as I see it, that problem entirely relates to the manner of the funding; today, almost entirely from desperately over borrowed government.

So, where the new small business regards their challenge, to try and prove their belief in their business idea, as the driver for their thinking; in science it would seem today, (if this discussion is anything to go by), the driver is to find any way NOT to.

Have you not noticed how the entire economy has crashed? Have any of you considered why? That the underlying reason is that there are now so many that simply find ways NOT to try.........

Negative thinking lies at the heart of your answer.

[DRumsfeld2000]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Look at the phenomenal advances being made in nuclear:-


Technology revolution in nuclear power could slash costs below coal
A report by UBS said the latest reactors will be obsolete by within 10 to 20 years, yet Britain is locking in prices until 2060
A general view of the security fence at Heysham Nuclear Power Station on March 17, 2011 in Heysham, United Kingdom
Scientists have already designed better reactors based on molten salt technology that promise to slash costs by half or more Photo: Getty Images

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

9:23PM BST 24 Sep 2014



The cost of conventional nuclear power has spiralled to levels that can no longer be justified. All the reactors being built across the world are variants of mid-20th century technology, inherently dirty and dangerous, requiring exorbitant safety controls.

This is a failure of wit and will. Scientists in Britain, France, Canada, the US, China and Japan have already designed better reactors based on molten salt technology that promise to slash costs by half or more, and may even undercut coal. They are much safer, and consume nuclear waste rather than creating more. What stands in the way is a fortress of vested interests.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report for 2014 found that 49 of the 66 reactors under construction - mostly in Asia - are plagued with delays, and are blowing through their budgets.

Average costs have risen from $1,000 per installed kilowatt to around $8,000/kW over the past decade for new nuclear, which is why Britain could not persuade anybody to build its two reactors at Hinkley Point without fat subsidies and a "strike price" for electricity that is double current levels.

All five new reactors in the US are behind schedule. Finland's giant EPR reactor at Olkiluoto has been delayed again. It will not be up and running until 2018, nine years late. It was supposed to cost €3.2bn. Analysts now think it will be €8.5bn. It is the same story with France's Flamanville reactor.

We have reached the end of the road for pressurised water reactors of any kind, whatever new features they boast. The business is not viable - even leaving aside the clean-up costs - and it makes little sense to persist in building them. A report by UBS said the latest reactors will be obsolete by within 10 to 20 years, yet Britain is locking in prices until 2060.

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation in London is tracking seven proposals across the world for molten salt reactors (MSRs) rather than relying on solid uranium fuel. Unlike conventional reactors, these operate at atmospheric pressure. They do not need vast reinforced domes. There is no risk of blowing off the top.

The reactors are more efficient. They burn up 30 times as much of the nuclear fuel and can run off spent fuel. The molten salt is inert so that even if there is a leak, it cools and solidifies. The fission process stops automatically in an accident. There can be no chain-reaction, and therefore no possible disaster along the lines of Chernobyl or Fukushima. That at least is the claim.

The most revolutionary design is by British scientists at Moltex. "I started this three years ago because I was so shocked that EDF was being paid 9.25p per kWh for electricity," said Ian Scott, the chief inventor. "We believe we can achieve parity with gas (in the UK) at 5.5p, and our real goal is to reach 3.5p and drive coal of out of business," he said.

The Moltex project can feed off low-grade spent uranium, cleaning up toxic waste in the process. "There are 120 tonnes of purified plutonium from nuclear weapons in Britain. We could burn that up in 10 to 15 years," he said. What remained would be greatly purified, with a shorter half-life, and could be left safely in salt mines. It does not have to be buried in steel tanks deep underground for 240,000 years. Thereafter the plant could be redesigned to use thorium, a cleaner fuel.

The reactor can be built in factories at low cost. It uses tubes that rest in molten salt, working through a convection process rather than by pumping the material around the reactor. This cuts corrosion. There is minimal risk of leaking deadly cesium or iodine for hundreds of miles around.

Transatomic Power, in Boston, says it can build a "waste-burning reactor" using molten salts in three years, after regulatory approval. The design is based on models built by US physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s, but never pursued - some say because the Pentagon wanted the plutonium residue for nuclear warheads.

It would cost $2bn (overnight cost) for a 550-megawatt plant, less than half the Hinkley Point project on a pro-rata basis. Transatomic says it can generate 75 times as much electricity per tonne of uranium as a conventional light-water reactor. The waste would be cut by 95pc, and the worst would be eliminated. It operates in a sub-critical state. If the system overheats, a plug melts at the bottom and salts drain into a cooling basin. Again, these are the claims.

The most advanced project is another Oak Ridge variant designed by Terrestrial's David LeBlanc, who worked on the original models with Weinberg. It aims to produce power by the early 2020s from small molten salt reactors of up to 300MW, for remote regions and industrial plants. "We think we can take on fossil fuel power on a pure commercial basis. This is a revolution for global energy," said Simon Irish, the company's chief executive.

Toronto-based Terrestrial prefers the "dry tinder" of uranium rather than the "wet wood" of thorium, which needs a blowtorch to get started and keep going, typically plutonium 239. But it could use either fuel.

A global race is under way, with the Chinese trying everything at the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear and Applied Physics, reportedly working under “warlike” pressure. They have brought forward their target date for a fully-functioning molten salt reactor - using thorium - from 25 to 10 years.

Ian Scott, at Moltex, originally planned to sell his technology to China, having given up on the West as a lost cause. He was persuaded to stay in Britain, and is talking to ministers. "The first stage will cost around £1bn, to get through the regulatory process and build a prototype. Realistically, only the government can do this," he said.

A state-venture of such a kind should not be ruled out. The travails of Hinkley Point show that the market cannot or will not deliver nuclear power on tolerable terms. The project has degenerated into a bung for ailing foreign companies. We have had to go along with it as an insurance, because years of drift in energy policy have left us at an acute risk of black-outs in the 2020s.

There is no reason why Britain cannot seize the prize of molten salt reactors, if necessary funded entirely by the government - now able to borrow for 10 years at 2.5pc - and run like a military undertaking. A new Brabazon Committee might not go amiss.

The nation still has world-class physicists. The death of Britain's own nuclear industry has a silver lining: there are fewer vested interests in the way. We start from scratch. The UK's "principles-based" philosophy of regulation means that a sudden pivot in technology of this kind could be approved very fast, in contrast to the America's "rules-based" system. "I would never even think of doing it in the US," said Dr Scott.

It would be hard to argue that any one of the molten salt technologies would be more expensive than arrays of wind turbines in the Atlantic. Indeed, there is a high likelihood that the best will prove massively cheaply on a kW/hour basis.

Such a project would kickstart Britain's floundering efforts to rebuild industry. It would offer some hope of plugging a chronic and dangerously high current account deficit, already 5pc of GDP even before North Sea oil and gas fizzles out. It is fracking on steroids for import substitution.

Britain split the atom at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge in 1911. It opened the world's first commercial reactor at Calder Hall in 1956. Surely it can rise to the challenge once again. If not, let us cheer on the Chinese.

[astonas]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

With the very greatest of respects, it would seem from the above answer that you really do not understand the world you live in.

Your condescension seems to imply that you think you understand the world considerably better than any who questions you possibly could, which is entirely incompatible with having respect for them.

Any entrepreneur faces criticism on a regular basis. Responding with only positive thinking does not lead to success, but using those critiques to iteratively challenge, and thus improve, the business or technology, may. Closing one's ears to criticism, by insisting that you must know better than others, does not enable success, but prevents it.

Out here there are quite literally millions of very small businesses;

Yes I know, I own one of them. A one-person business, currently funded only from my other investments. (thanks iTulip!)

each of them constantly experimenting their particular idea of how the theme of "small business" should work.

Agree so far.

Out here, everyone is in the business of experimentation.

I know; It is precisely what I do.

Indeed, it was this realisation that became the driving force for chapter 2, Job Creation, not Credit; is the primary driver of prosperity, in The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective. Yes, your problem is a lack of funding.

No, it's not. The total amount of funding is actually not too far off from a reasonable number. The problem is that of the funding that is present, entirely too much of it goes to crazy and ridiculous ideas (the logical equivalent of perpetual motion machines) instead of those projects that actually have a chance to work, and still have a significant impact in the field. The problem I am having is that decent ideas (I consider mine reasonably well-supported) get lost in the heaps of utter detritus out there.

That problem will always be there. Or at least, it will be there as long as there are people who think every unsupported notion is worth investigating, no matter how far-fetched. For this reason, my problem will only get worse as standards for funding are loosened. It will draw the crackpots out in droves, and make it even harder to be heard above the noise. It requires a small business to spend less time developing technology, and instead turn into an aggressive sales-and-marketing machine.

The chief consequence of loosening standards further than they already are, will be to promote the "ideas" (but really, cons) of charlatans -- like Rossi. Such people understand how to sell garbage very well, even while they understand technology poorly--if at all.

The simple and sad fact of the matter is while there are large numbers of people who believe they or their favorite con-artist have the next, big, revolutionary idea, the overwhelming majority of them are simply still ignorant of the reason that the idea is, in fact, incredibly wrong. I talk to such people all the time. If they spent their time finding that reason out, instead of complaining about insufficient funding, they would be able to move on to another idea, or at least another iteration of the same one.

But as I see it, that problem entirely relates to the manner of the funding; today, almost entirely from desperately over borrowed government.

As I see it, the problem is that entirely too little scrutiny is given to funding, so that incredible sums are wasted. Yes, of course I would be happy if much more money were spent on R&D, in the interest of "job creation". I might even get my sliver of it. But unless that is accompanied by considerably more rigor in review, GOOD business ideas (the ones that create jobs that last beyond the end of the subsidy) won't see much benefit at all, and the money will go to over-selling hucksters, or those willfully ignorant of the elementary flaws in their work.

So, where the new small business regards their challenge, to try and prove their belief in their business idea, as the driver for their thinking; in science it would seem today, (if this discussion is anything to go by), the driver is to find any way NOT to.

This is entirely unsupported, and likely unsupportable. I have bridged the world of academia and entrepreneurship throughout my career, and the thinking is more similar than you imply. In each, ideas compete for attention and resources. In each, the vast majority don't pan out, being flawed in one way or another. This is simple math. Denying it is delusion. Pretending that a solution lies in funding more dross, rather than better-supported work, is entirely backward.

Have you not noticed how the entire economy has crashed?

Of course.

Have any of you considered why?

This question causes one to wonder if you read iTulip: "Have any of you considered why the economy has crashed?" It is the entire focus of this site! The principle reason is political and financial-system fraud, in various forms. And fraud, like any con job, is made possible by combining insufficient rigor of review, with excessive optimism that economic growth can somehow come from nowhere.

That the underlying reason is that there are now so many that simply find ways NOT to try.........

I am currently trying, full time. I am one of those you claim to be trying to help with your ideas. I assure you, the "help" you are suggesting is not what I need. It is the opposite of what I would find beneficial. Please, I beg you, stop trying to "help" me this way. It is not helpful, but harmful, to me. Please? Please?

Negative thinking lies at the heart of your answer.

No, critical thinking lies at the heart of my answer. Critical, in this case referring not to negative, but rather clear of delusion.

It isn't that complicated. What is rare in this world is not "brilliant" ideas, or enthusiastic "inventors". They are everywhere. A dime a dozen. Can't throw a stick without hitting one! A lack of them is not impeding the progress of science, nor slowing economic growth. There are indeed so many that giving money to them all is purest folly.

What is rare in this world are those that are right to believe in their ideas. Those for whom the ironic quotes in the above paragraph may be omitted. Those with valid theories, or technologies supported by rigorous data, or at least world-consistent modeling. More money for everyone (regardless of viability) is not the solution. It is the problem. It can only create "jobs" that will vanish in a handful of months as the idea is disproved, rather than real jobs that are capable of surviving after the subsidy goes away.

Such vanishing jobs have little to no value for society, when compared to those that last, provide real stability, and create marketable products.

So yes, technically, more money will always add to the number of jobs. But that is not at all the same thing as contributing meaningfully to the well-being of a nation. I sincerely beg of you not to pursue this path in the name of small inventors, such as myself. It is hard enough to stand out amid the plentiful charlatans already.

[jpetr48]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Astonas, brilliant responses, thank you for those insights.
i was reading in Investor Business daily that many IPOs are not profitable and commanding high market caps.
However at the end of the day it is what you are referring to as sales and marketing machine that ought to do strategic marketing first.
One of the best books and educational programs i went thru was at Drucker School of Management.
In analyzing any business, he would ask 5 simple questions from his book The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your Organization

Question 3: What does the customer value

In being the sales and marketing machine throughout my career i find brilliant inventors can not translate from science to application. In marketing terms this is a solution looking for a problem.

When i started my business in 1995, and though i have a science/tech background, i went into management consulting. I called close to 100 Vice President of Sales in technology and asked them what are the two areas they wish they can improve the most. From this I created a program and one page two side flyer and my business took off

Roll the tape forward 10 years i am now Director of Sales for a SP 500 company. I ask our marketing people how many people did you talk to before planning this new product introduction- less than 15 and it sounded like our closest friends. Needless to say this new product introduction was a flop. Compounding the problem, our President who was a bright PhD biotech inventor type person expected us to sell this new product without demos. I find this arrogant attitude common in CEO and Presidents who expect you to materialize signifiant capital allocations on the order of 10X of what a company is used to spending- all based on their experiences with one or two customers.
They forgot you only have x number of early adopters.

Make Drucker's question #3 the first question, and ask as many potential customers as statistically possible to give 95% confidence, and then mission etc will flow not to mention the results.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Look at the phenomenal advances being made in nuclear:-


Technology revolution in nuclear power could slash costs below coal
A report by UBS said the latest reactors will be obsolete by within 10 to 20 years, yet Britain is locking in prices until 2060
A general view of the security fence at Heysham Nuclear Power Station on March 17, 2011 in Heysham, United Kingdom
Scientists have already designed better reactors based on molten salt technology that promise to slash costs by half or more Photo: Getty Images

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

9:23PM BST 24 Sep 2014



The cost of conventional nuclear power has spiralled to levels that can no longer be justified. All the reactors being built across the world are variants of mid-20th century technology, inherently dirty and dangerous, requiring exorbitant safety controls.

This is a failure of wit and will. Scientists in Britain, France, Canada, the US, China and Japan have already designed better reactors based on molten salt technology that promise to slash costs by half or more, and may even undercut coal. They are much safer, and consume nuclear waste rather than creating more. What stands in the way is a fortress of vested interests.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report for 2014 found that 49 of the 66 reactors under construction - mostly in Asia - are plagued with delays, and are blowing through their budgets.

Average costs have risen from $1,000 per installed kilowatt to around $8,000/kW over the past decade for new nuclear, which is why Britain could not persuade anybody to build its two reactors at Hinkley Point without fat subsidies and a "strike price" for electricity that is double current levels.

All five new reactors in the US are behind schedule. Finland's giant EPR reactor at Olkiluoto has been delayed again. It will not be up and running until 2018, nine years late. It was supposed to cost €3.2bn. Analysts now think it will be €8.5bn. It is the same story with France's Flamanville reactor.

We have reached the end of the road for pressurised water reactors of any kind, whatever new features they boast. The business is not viable - even leaving aside the clean-up costs - and it makes little sense to persist in building them. A report by UBS said the latest reactors will be obsolete by within 10 to 20 years, yet Britain is locking in prices until 2060.

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation in London is tracking seven proposals across the world for molten salt reactors (MSRs) rather than relying on solid uranium fuel. Unlike conventional reactors, these operate at atmospheric pressure. They do not need vast reinforced domes. There is no risk of blowing off the top.

The reactors are more efficient. They burn up 30 times as much of the nuclear fuel and can run off spent fuel. The molten salt is inert so that even if there is a leak, it cools and solidifies. The fission process stops automatically in an accident. There can be no chain-reaction, and therefore no possible disaster along the lines of Chernobyl or Fukushima. That at least is the claim.

The most revolutionary design is by British scientists at Moltex. "I started this three years ago because I was so shocked that EDF was being paid 9.25p per kWh for electricity," said Ian Scott, the chief inventor. "We believe we can achieve parity with gas (in the UK) at 5.5p, and our real goal is to reach 3.5p and drive coal of out of business," he said.

The Moltex project can feed off low-grade spent uranium, cleaning up toxic waste in the process. "There are 120 tonnes of purified plutonium from nuclear weapons in Britain. We could burn that up in 10 to 15 years," he said. What remained would be greatly purified, with a shorter half-life, and could be left safely in salt mines. It does not have to be buried in steel tanks deep underground for 240,000 years. Thereafter the plant could be redesigned to use thorium, a cleaner fuel.

The reactor can be built in factories at low cost. It uses tubes that rest in molten salt, working through a convection process rather than by pumping the material around the reactor. This cuts corrosion. There is minimal risk of leaking deadly cesium or iodine for hundreds of miles around.

Transatomic Power, in Boston, says it can build a "waste-burning reactor" using molten salts in three years, after regulatory approval. The design is based on models built by US physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s, but never pursued - some say because the Pentagon wanted the plutonium residue for nuclear warheads.

It would cost $2bn (overnight cost) for a 550-megawatt plant, less than half the Hinkley Point project on a pro-rata basis. Transatomic says it can generate 75 times as much electricity per tonne of uranium as a conventional light-water reactor. The waste would be cut by 95pc, and the worst would be eliminated. It operates in a sub-critical state. If the system overheats, a plug melts at the bottom and salts drain into a cooling basin. Again, these are the claims.

The most advanced project is another Oak Ridge variant designed by Terrestrial's David LeBlanc, who worked on the original models with Weinberg. It aims to produce power by the early 2020s from small molten salt reactors of up to 300MW, for remote regions and industrial plants. "We think we can take on fossil fuel power on a pure commercial basis. This is a revolution for global energy," said Simon Irish, the company's chief executive.

Toronto-based Terrestrial prefers the "dry tinder" of uranium rather than the "wet wood" of thorium, which needs a blowtorch to get started and keep going, typically plutonium 239. But it could use either fuel.

A global race is under way, with the Chinese trying everything at the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear and Applied Physics, reportedly working under “warlike” pressure. They have brought forward their target date for a fully-functioning molten salt reactor - using thorium - from 25 to 10 years.

Ian Scott, at Moltex, originally planned to sell his technology to China, having given up on the West as a lost cause. He was persuaded to stay in Britain, and is talking to ministers. "The first stage will cost around £1bn, to get through the regulatory process and build a prototype. Realistically, only the government can do this," he said.

A state-venture of such a kind should not be ruled out. The travails of Hinkley Point show that the market cannot or will not deliver nuclear power on tolerable terms. The project has degenerated into a bung for ailing foreign companies. We have had to go along with it as an insurance, because years of drift in energy policy have left us at an acute risk of black-outs in the 2020s.

There is no reason why Britain cannot seize the prize of molten salt reactors, if necessary funded entirely by the government - now able to borrow for 10 years at 2.5pc - and run like a military undertaking. A new Brabazon Committee might not go amiss.

The nation still has world-class physicists. The death of Britain's own nuclear industry has a silver lining: there are fewer vested interests in the way. We start from scratch. The UK's "principles-based" philosophy of regulation means that a sudden pivot in technology of this kind could be approved very fast, in contrast to the America's "rules-based" system. "I would never even think of doing it in the US," said Dr Scott.

It would be hard to argue that any one of the molten salt technologies would be more expensive than arrays of wind turbines in the Atlantic. Indeed, there is a high likelihood that the best will prove massively cheaply on a kW/hour basis.

Such a project would kickstart Britain's floundering efforts to rebuild industry. It would offer some hope of plugging a chronic and dangerously high current account deficit, already 5pc of GDP even before North Sea oil and gas fizzles out. It is fracking on steroids for import substitution.

Britain split the atom at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge in 1911. It opened the world's first commercial reactor at Calder Hall in 1956. Surely it can rise to the challenge once again. If not, let us cheer on the Chinese.

There has been quite a number of possible solutions to the underlying problem of how to improve nuclear power generation and your response is a very good discussion on the many different ideas being both floated and in some cases, moving forward to production. (and I have to say, make a very good response to my "negative" argument, that has sparked some unintended anger).

To me, two things stand out:

The Chinese are educating many more professional engineers than anywhere here in what we call the West. If at the same time they are concentrating upon working under war like pressure, then they will take the lead and we will be playing catchup for many decades to come.

"The first stage will cost around £1bn, to get through the regulatory process and build a prototype. Realistically, only the government can do this,"

This brings me back to what is my, (seeming contentious), point in my earlier comment; the money is not in the hands of government; almost every government on the planet is so deep in debt that they are close to complete financial collapse. That it is the lack of a systematic method, accepted by everyone, to drive new investment into new technology, or for that matter, any new business, from the external to government financial system; often referred to as "the market".

There are more than 10 million young people in Europe alone without ANY job. It seems likely that there are the same number in the US. Certainly, I have seen a figure of a total of more than 40 million in the US without proper employment. To me, that speaks of a massive disconnect between where we are today and where we should all be; and that the disconnect is one of gross under capitalisation.

We once had a capital system here in the UK where new technology simply "arrived" as a demonstration. The very best example I can think of is Charles Parsons and Turbinia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbinia

[Chris Coles]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Your condescension seems to imply that you think you understand the world considerably better than any who questions you possibly could, which is entirely incompatible with having respect for them.

Any entrepreneur faces criticism on a regular basis. Responding with only positive thinking does not lead to success, but using those critiques to iteratively challenge, and thus improve, the business or technology, may. Closing one's ears to criticism, by insisting that you must know better than others, does not enable success, but prevents it.


Yes I know, I own one of them. A one-person business, currently funded only from my other investments. (thanks iTulip!)

Agree so far.

I know; It is precisely what I do.

No, it's not. The total amount of funding is actually not too far off from a reasonable number. The problem is that of the funding that is present, entirely too much of it goes to crazy and ridiculous ideas (the logical equivalent of perpetual motion machines) instead of those projects that actually have a chance to work, and still have a significant impact in the field. The problem I am having is that decent ideas (I consider mine reasonably well-supported) get lost in the heaps of utter detritus out there.

That problem will always be there. Or at least, it will be there as long as there are people who think every unsupported notion is worth investigating, no matter how far-fetched. For this reason, my problem will only get worse as standards for funding are loosened. It will draw the crackpots out in droves, and make it even harder to be heard above the noise. It requires a small business to spend less time developing technology, and instead turn into an aggressive sales-and-marketing machine.

The chief consequence of loosening standards further than they already are, will be to promote the "ideas" (but really, cons) of charlatans -- like Rossi. Such people understand how to sell garbage very well, even while they understand technology poorly--if at all.

The simple and sad fact of the matter is while there are large numbers of people who believe they or their favorite con-artist have the next, big, revolutionary idea, the overwhelming majority of them are simply still ignorant of the reason that the idea is, in fact, incredibly wrong. I talk to such people all the time. If they spent their time finding that reason out, instead of complaining about insufficient funding, they would be able to move on to another idea, or at least another iteration of the same one.

As I see it, the problem is that entirely too little scrutiny is given to funding, so that incredible sums are wasted. Yes, of course I would be happy if much more money were spent on R&D, in the interest of "job creation". I might even get my sliver of it. But unless that is accompanied by considerably more rigor in review, GOOD business ideas (the ones that create jobs that last beyond the end of the subsidy) won't see much benefit at all, and the money will go to over-selling hucksters, or those willfully ignorant of the elementary flaws in their work.

This is entirely unsupported, and likely unsupportable. I have bridged the world of academia and entrepreneurship throughout my career, and the thinking is more similar than you imply. In each, ideas compete for attention and resources. In each, the vast majority don't pan out, being flawed in one way or another. This is simple math. Denying it is delusion. Pretending that a solution lies in funding more dross, rather than better-supported work, is entirely backward.


Of course.



This question causes one to wonder if you read iTulip: "Have any of you considered why the economy has crashed?" It is the entire focus of this site! The principle reason is political and financial-system fraud, in various forms. And fraud, like any con job, is made possible by combining insufficient rigor of review, with excessive optimism that economic growth can somehow come from nowhere.



I am currently trying, full time. I am one of those you claim to be trying to help with your ideas. I assure you, the "help" you are suggesting is not what I need. It is the opposite of what I would find beneficial. Please, I beg you, stop trying to "help" me this way. It is not helpful, but harmful, to me. Please? Please?



No, critical thinking lies at the heart of my answer. Critical, in this case referring not to negative, but rather clear of delusion.

It isn't that complicated. What is rare in this world is not "brilliant" ideas, or enthusiastic "inventors". They are everywhere. A dime a dozen. Can't throw a stick without hitting one! A lack of them is not impeding the progress of science, nor slowing economic growth. There are indeed so many that giving money to them all is purest folly.

What is rare in this world are those that are right to believe in their ideas. Those for whom the ironic quotes in the above paragraph may be omitted. Those with valid theories, or technologies supported by rigorous data, or at least world-consistent modeling. More money for everyone (regardless of viability) is not the solution. It is the problem. It can only create "jobs" that will vanish in a handful of months as the idea is disproved, rather than real jobs that are capable of surviving after the subsidy goes away.

Such vanishing jobs have little to no value for society, when compared to those that last, provide real stability, and create marketable products.

So yes, technically, more money will always add to the number of jobs. But that is not at all the same thing as contributing meaningfully to the well-being of a nation. I sincerely beg of you not to pursue this path in the name of small inventors, such as myself. It is hard enough to stand out amid the plentiful charlatans already.

In truth, I had not set out to be in any way condescending and if I have appeared to be, I must offer my most humble apologies. It was never my intention to cause anger.

However, regardless, with so many, particularly young people without a job, (or any hope of getting one), to overcome such a deep level of disconnect, everyone is going to have to accept that the primary aiming point is the re-capitalisation of the Western economy. That will, inevitably, involve many trying with just a few succeeding. Yes, I do understand that, if the process crowds out the good ideas, then it will fail. That is why I want to build a system that drives investment into every good idea under strict rules that ensure each gets their chance to shine above any other.

And, yes, marketing, just like every other aspect of a new business; must be adequately capitalised.

[DSpencer]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

astonas,

Thank you for refuting this utter drivel and attempting to restore sanity.

[astonas]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Astonas, brilliant responses, thank you for those insights.
i was reading in Investor Business daily that many IPOs are not profitable and commanding high market caps.
However at the end of the day it is what you are referring to as sales and marketing machine that ought to do strategic marketing first.
One of the best books and educational programs i went thru was at Drucker School of Management.
In analyzing any business, he would ask 5 simple questions from his book The Five Most Important Questions You Will Ever Ask About Your Organization

Question 3: What does the customer value

In being the sales and marketing machine throughout my career i find brilliant inventors can not translate from science to application. In marketing terms this is a solution looking for a problem.

[...]

Make Drucker's question #3 the first question, and ask as many potential customers as statistically possible to give 95% confidence, and then mission etc will flow not to mention the results.

Thank you jpetr48. And for contributing your own important insights as well. Drucker's work should indeed be required reading, and it is good of you to point it out here.

Just to be clear, I was not criticizing (or rather, it was not my intention to criticize) sales and marketing. I understand that every small business must sell, then build, their product and that understanding your target market (strategic marketing) as early as possible in the design process is vital. I agree that the only way to do that is to talk to actual, potential customers, and as many of them as possible.

I should have used other words, or at least heavily emphasized the word "aggressive" in my post. My word choice not only misstated my thoughts, it also understated my real point:

As you undoubtably know, a small business has very finite resources. As a market has been identified, and development cycles are underway, struggling amid a cacophony of phony competitors for funding, attention, meeting slots, and more, will necessarily take some time away from the many other efforts that are also needed to advance the business. My concern was that from what I have read about Chris' proposal, it would in effect increase the background "noise" for small companies such as mine, without doing enough to ensure that it will also enhance the "signal-to-noise ratio".

I was trying to be diplomatic in conversation with Chris by referring to this struggle using the softer term "aggressive sales and marketing" when in fact that does a disservice to the very valid contribution of necessary and appropriate sales and marketing efforts, as you describe them.

Upon consideration, a better phrase might have been constructed around: "aggressive hucksterism," "unethical salesmanship," or perhaps "race-to-the-bottom con-artistry." If the pool is filled with people essentially lying about the capabilities of their technology, it is hard to attract attention with seemingly inferior, but far more real, results. In other words, it takes particularly impressive salesmanship (and marketing, for that matter) to ethically succeed in a field of liars.

That is why Rossi's work is particularly offensive: to whatever extent it is still attracting attention, it is thereby making it harder for more legitimate endeavors to succeed. They would have to explain why they aren't seeing the same effects, or getting the same impressive numbers. They'd have to spend time debunking the junk work, or at least explaining how theirs is different, every time they try to present their own. The presence of pretenders also makes it harder for people to take ANY work in the field more seriously, and even legitimate work is eventually met with eye-rolling where it might otherwise be greeted with interest. (All of the above assumes that there actually IS valid work in the field of cold fusion, of course, which is not a position I would care to defend, but I am willing to grant that it is conceivable.)

So to defend what is by now clearly junk science (See ASH's post, above among others) as though it were legitimate is thus not a "pro-small business" stance at all, nor even a neutral one. It is a stance that is, in its end effect, hostile to legitimate small businesses. That it claims to be broadly supporting them in doing so could only add hypocrisy or self-inconsistency to its list of faults.

With the understanding that the above was my intended point, please accept my apology for describing my concerns in a way that confused these extraneous salesmanship requirements I was critical of, with your own very important field of work, which I do understand to be vital to the advancement of all viable business efforts, in spite of my inadvertent libel. It was the result of careless editing on my part. I can only point to a lack of sleep by way of explanation.

[EJ]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

I was thinking more along the lines of: Everyone who is convinced this is real can send me a dollar. When they drive their e-cat powered car to my house, I will give them back two.

Getting together and trying to build one has several flaws:

1. If the skeptics are right, all that will be accomplished is losing time and money.
2. Most of the people who would be qualified to attempt it (a group which does not include me) seem to be on the skeptic side.
3. I'm not sure if sufficient information on how to build it is even public. And it sort of feels like getting together to test a perpetual motion machine.

My big issue with the believers in this case is that I read comments about how science has been wrong before and nobody believed scientist X when they made important discovery Y. That is all fine and well, but to me that's like saying that I should be trying every brand of snake oil I can find, because how else will I know that they don't work?

I agree with this assessment.

With respect to Rossi, I can't say one way or the other whether his rig produces any net energy or not from cold fusion, but I can describe how a well constructed scientific scam works.

First develop a complex prototype which if it works can create infinite riches for investors by delivering monumental price performance advantages over existing technologies.

Allow reputable scientists to test the prototype but carefully limit the range of testing (e.g., only indirect measurement via thermal cameras) and interfere with testing (turn off dummy unit) such that test results are always both positive and ambiguous.

License the technology to the hopeful for millions of dollars.

Raise millions from hopeful investors.

Use the millions in license revenue and investment funds to threaten to sue anyone who suggests that your science may be fraudulent.

Use the financing to expand marketing to increase the number of licenses sold.

Scam ends when someone qualified gets their hands on a prototype and is permitted to fully test it on their own.

Again, not saying that this is what Rossi is doing. However, new Rossi e-cat threads shall be moved to the Rant and Rave forums in the future.

I have arranged for an interview with a reputable cold fusion technology developer I have known for many years who has agreed to an interview on the condition of anonymity, citing the desire to "not get all kinds of crazy people wanting to talk to me about their 'theory'".

Spoiler alert: "One of these days we may actually end up figuring out what's going on with deuterated palladium," but no suggestion of when.

And, no, he isn't raising money.

[Chris Coles]

Re: New in-depth test results confirm 'Cold Fusion' is real - COP 3.2-3.6 in Rossi 'E-Cat' device

Scam ends when someone qualified gets their hands on a prototype and is permitted to fully test it on their own.

Thank you EJ for returning to the point; that the only way to lay such claims to bed was to take the technology and fully test it. I look forward to the interview with great interest.