Canadian firm bids to commercialize fusion reactor

Nov 30, 2011 by Tim Lawrence
In the race against world governments and the wealthiest companies to commercialize a nuclear fusion reactor, a small, innovative Canadian firm is hoping to bottle and sell the sun's energy.

In the race against world governments and the wealthiest companies to commercialize a nuclear fusion reactor, a small, innovative Canadian firm is hoping to bottle and sell the sun's energy.

In a laboratory in this Pacific Coast city, General Fusion physicists and engineers in bright red smocks are busy assembling an experimental reactor.

They hope to test a prototype in 2014 and eventually become the first to commercialize the technology, offering a safe, cheap, pollution-free and virtually inexhaustible source of energy.

"What we're trying to do is build the technology that can make the power that drives the sun, make it here on earth," said Michael Delage, General Fusion's vice president.

It is no easy task.

But success is crucial given the harm predicted from the continued widespread burning of fossil fuels, and the uncertain outcome of a 12-day round of UN talks on climate change that got underway on Monday in Durban, South Africa.

The UN (UNFCCC) gathers 194 countries under a process launched under the 1992 Rio Summit.

Topping the agenda is the fate of the , the only that sets targets for reducing , blamed for global warming. And some have seen nuclear power as a way forward.

Nuclear energy is created by one of two ways. The first is fission, or splitting the nucleus of an atom, which is used in hundreds of nuclear reactors around the world that produce about 15 percent of our electricity.

Fusion squeezes two or more lighter atoms together producing one heavier atom plus a lot of heat. This can only be done at 150 million degrees Celsius and that takes a lot of power.

In a laboratory in this Pacific Coast city, General Fusion physicists and engineers in bright red smocks are busy assembling an experimental reactor. They hope to test a prototype in 2014 and eventually become the first to commercialize the technology, offering a safe, cheap, pollution-free and virtually inexhaustible source of energy.

The trick is to get more energy out of the reaction than is put into it, in a controlled way.

An Australian physicist was the first to fuse heavy in a laboratory in 1932, replicating the process that powers stars.

Research into fusion for military purposes began a decade later as part of the Manhattan Project and would lead to the testing of a crude hydrogen bomb in 1952.

General Fusion plans to inject two rings of superheated plasma into a metal sphere containing a vortex of molten lead and lithium then hit it with a wave of energy made by about 200 pneumatic pistons squashing the atoms together.

The heat produced would be used to spin turbines to produce electricity.

"Our big advantage is finding a way to harness these existing technologies -- that we understand -- to go at this challenge of fusion, and therefore be able to do it in a shorter timescale on less money," said Delage.

Governments have already spent billions of dollars since the 1950s on ambitious fusion projects for civilian purposes -- and so far they have come up short. Its potential therefore remains uncertain.

Hopes of seeing thermo-nuclear fusion become a source of energy by 2050 lie primarily with ITER, the world's largest and most advanced experimental nuclear fusion reactor. Construction has started in the south of France in 2007 and it is expected to be tried in 2019.

The idea to develop a new energy source to replace depleting supplies of fossil fuels was hatched at a superpowers summit 25 years ago.

The consortium of China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States -- representing half of the world's population -- last week announced the lifting into place of a last ITER module to close "the most complex and extravagant ring ever manufactured."

General Fusion admits its chances of success are slim -- but backers believe in its proposal, and are pouring CAN$30 million into the project.

"In the overall scheme of how much money is involved here it's really not that much money given the potential payoff that could be had," said Paul Austin of Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

If all goes as planned General hopes to have a working reactor on the market by the end of the decade. But even if the technology works some remain skeptical of its marketability.

"The central challenge is still that fossil fuels -- getting them out of the ground and burning them -- is still so cheap to do that there is not an adequate incentive to invest in renewables or other low carbon technologies," said Matt Horne, director of the Pembina Institute.

Coal and gas power continue to dominate the energy landscape. And for now, anyway, star power is still a distant dream.

Explore further: Dutch seek to harness energy from salt water mix

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Fusion technology: from ANU to the world

Jun 30, 2005

Technology pioneered at ANU that could see the future of power generation become clean and green has come a step closer today with the announcement of an international development to harness fusion technology. Australian sci ...

European Union OKs fusion project

Sep 03, 2007

European scientists will build on U.S. military research to try to create laser-based nuclear fusion aimed at replacing fossil fuels, it was reported.

Recommended for you

Are electric cars greener? Depends on where you live

Nov 25, 2014

Long thought a thing of the future, electric cars are becoming mainstream. Sales in the United States of plug-in, electric vehicles nearly doubled last year. Credible forecasts see the number rising within ...

Building a better battery

Nov 25, 2014

Imagine an electric car with the range of a Tesla Model S - 265 miles - but at one-fifth the $70,000 price of the luxury sedan. Or a battery able to provide many times more energy than today's technology ...

User comments : 79

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ShotmanMaslo
4.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2011
Glad to hear that. Meanwhile, Tokamak fusion is still decades away..
I think the fusion community should not concentrate only on one approach, when others seem very promising, even without those billions. The National Ignition Facility may achieve breakeven within two years, and has a plan to develop and deploy practical power plants (prototype in 2020s, commercial rollout in 2030s).
There are also a number of other smaller designs, some of which, if successful, would be quite inexpensive and quick to develop too. All will likely have definite results (positive or negative) within the next five years. These include Bussard's Polywell (currently funded by the Navy), Focus Fusion (small but with adequate private funding), Helion (currently unfunded, but built a 1/3 scale test reactor), and Tri-Alpha (well-funded by venture capital, quite secretive, but reportedly similar to Helion). In addition, MIT's levitated dipole experiment seems promising (though its funding has been cut)
Royale
4.2 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2011
Don't you need a working fusion reactor before you 'bid to commercialize'?
I hope this works out, I really do. But I think the company would be better off dropping the 30 mil on a number in roulette... Hopefully my skepticism is ill-placed.
rawa1
1.1 / 5 (16) Nov 30, 2011
General Fusion plans to inject two rings of superheated plasma into a metal sphere containing a vortex of molten lead and lithium then hit it with a wave of energy made by about 200 pneumatic pistons squashing the atoms together.
With compare to cold fusion it's apparent nonsense, unable of any economical competition. http://pesn.com/2...d_Right/
Does it mean, we could trigger thermonuclear device mechanically? It would open the doors into nuclear club to many countries, who cannot afford the uranium enrichment technology yet.
NotAsleep
4.9 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2011
The difference between this and cold fusion is that there's actual science behind this. I'm as hopeful as the next guy that cold fusion is real and merely misunderstood... but until the proof is there, let's keep pressing with hot fusion
Royale
4.8 / 5 (13) Nov 30, 2011
Thank you NotAsleep.
I would say that these boards have been humming with more cold fusion talk lately, but they're actually just Callipo/rawa1/(Zephir?) puppets. So, it's more from a single source.
And I agree, I'd love for it to work but without confirmed and repeated proof it's simply a ghost story.
antonima
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2011
The difference between this and cold fusion is that there's actual science behind this. I'm as hopeful as the next guy that cold fusion is real and merely misunderstood... but until the proof is there, let's keep pressing with hot fusion


I would reckon we know as much of the science behind cold fusion as we about the science behind the national ignition facility.

I agree that these efforts have to be funded a little at a time rather than all in one place. Cold fusion, or this pneumatic fusion above may be viable alternatives as well.

The problem is that these small scale projects are not as easily profitable to the government as an enormous centralized project, at least that is my first guess. Also, bigger looks better :p
Sean_W
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2011
So... what? Ten years from now we'll have fusion power?
NotAsleep
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2011
Sean, depends on who you ask. We can make fusion power now but it isn't economical... therein lies the problem, with any number of people throwing out estimates of what constitutes a profitable fusion power plant. A common estimate is "50 years", which is engineer-speak for "never", but that's if we don't get lucky with the research. The method of generating fusion in this article is a combination of several other methods that, by themselves, are unprofitable so maybe they will get lucky with the right combination of technology
rjn
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2011
I think at this point the odds are very much in favor of "credible" coming up on the cold fusion, lenr, roulette wheel. Rossi's fat lady may not have sung yet but I think she's on stage. And where is our hell bent for leather caped crusader who will blow this up, one way or another?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2011
Sean, depends on who you ask. We can make fusion power now but it isn't economical...
And how would you say we could do this exactly?
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2011
Ghost, several experiments have produced fusion power... the Joint European Torus sustained 10MW for over 5 seconds in 1997.
Nerdyguy
2 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2011
Is no one else astounded that a tiny company is proposing to do this for $30 million? What could they know that the rest of us don't?

ITER is expected to cost around $15 billion (that's a "B"), and that number has gone up every few weeks since someone first mentioned ITER.

I think the lunch budget of the ITER "budget committee" might be $30 million. And, yes, they have their own website. lol
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2011
So... what? Ten years from now we'll have fusion power?


Yep.

And five years from now, it will still be "ten years from now". At least, that's been the case in my lifetime.

But, we really might be closing in on it now.

The real question becomes, after we knock the science out, and create a sustainable reaction that provides a net positive energy output, how much will it cost? And will that cost be competitive with other forms of energy? And, if it's not, how long will it take to make it so? Don't be surprised if it's 2050 before you can plug in to anything running off a (hot) fusion reaction.

Of course, Rossi's generator will dominate by then, and be available at the local Home Depot for around $250. *sarcasm*
bewertow
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2011
General Fusion plans to inject two rings of superheated plasma into a metal sphere containing a vortex of molten lead and lithium then hit it with a wave of energy made by about 200 pneumatic pistons squashing the atoms together.
With compare to cold fusion it's apparent nonsense, unable of any economical competition. http://pesn.com/2...d_Right/
Does it mean, we could trigger thermonuclear device mechanically? It would open the doors into nuclear club to many countries, who cannot afford the uranium enrichment technology yet.


Wow you're a huge n00b and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2011
The difference between this and cold fusion is that there's actual science behind this.
Actually just a lack of research. If you ignore some phenomena, you cannot apply science to it, but it doesn't mean, it's unphysical. It's just ignored - no less, no more.

It's seems, E-Cat technology was replicated with another company. http://pesn.com/2...Product/

Anyway, the cold fusion has a thousands of successful replications in publications, whereas mechanically induced hot fusion has still absolutely none. It's just theoretical concept.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2011
Ghost, several experiments have produced fusion power... the Joint European Torus sustained 10MW for over 5 seconds in 1997.
So? We are decades from turning this into a commercial power source. No matter WHAT we do. No way to sustain it, no way to capture it, no way to convert it.

Learning how to do these things takes TIME. The materials and methods to do these things dont exist yet.
It's seems, E-Cat technology was replicated with another company. http://pesn.com/2...Product/
Well I'll be damned.
extinct
1 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2011
"Fusion squeezes two or more lighter atoms together producing one heavier atom plus a lot of heat. This can only be done at 150 million degrees Celsius and that takes a lot of power."
so much time, money and effort, all for nothing. Andrea Rossi is well ahead of them and is already selling LENR hardware.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2011
Thank God!!! We are all saved, this breakthrough came just in time to save us from the non-existent man made global warming.
stealthc
1.8 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2011
e-cat already beat to the punch, plus e-cat is safer, and it isn't rife with united nations tentacles which we human beings would definitely appreciate a lot less of.
Zed123
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2011
Anyway, the cold fusion has a thousands of successful replications in publications...


Care to reference any of these? Reuptable ones please.

This is exactly the problem with Cold Fusion. It MAY be possible, we don't know. But to date, noone has been able to reliably reproduce cold fusion in any sort of stringent scientific manner. A bunch of people have claimed to over the years but none have stood up to detailed scientific scrutiny.

Seriously, you're a muppet.
Moebius
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2011
I like it. The overall chances of it working are slim by their own admission. And they are doing it anyway. That's how you discover stuff.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2011
I would reckon we know as much of the science behind cold fusion as we about the science behind the national ignition facility.

I don't agree.Cold fusion has not been proven to work,and beyond that,there is no theory to explain how it could work.The national ignition facility is at least building on established physics.
kochevnik
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2011
Funny how billions are tossed into the fusion pipe dream while working free-energy generators are available. But the latter don't line the pockets of banksters because they can't put a meter on it and tax the debt slaves. Slaves might get the idea to get off the grid and be self sufficient. Can't have that!
mrlewish
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2011
Hot and Cold fusion are just names in which fusion occurs at different energy points. Both actually work right now BUT they both currently take more energy to initiate and sustain then what comes out of them. But I know this, commercial fusion power is just two decades away... and always will be.
rubberman
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2011
According to the E-cat (cold fusion reactor) data, the initial 400W ignition power produced a sustained output of 470 KW for a 5hr test prior to shutdown. It is available for purchase with a 2 year guarantee (1MW unit, 3 month delivery) and has been already (purchased)for 2M Euro's. It has been demonstrated twice in the last year (to audiences consisting of multiple physicists and journalists) and has yet to be proven a hoax. On the October 28th demonstration, the purchaser drove away with the unit as it was being demonstrated for a customer. Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of physics can log on to ecat.com and check it out as they have a brief description of the process and how it works. We'll know soon enough if it is viable or not. Ghosts link will get you there in a round about way too. IF it is viable, the world just changed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2011
The problem is that these small scale projects are not as easily profitable to the government as an enormous centralized project, at least that is my first guess. Also, bigger looks better :p
Naw the 'problem' is that we need to learn as much about containing, storing, and manipulating large quantities of plasma, as we can. In the future using materials in plasma form will be central to a number of technologies. Antimatter for instance will be handled in plasma form.

Doing this research on the nature of plasma itself requires a great deal of money and effort. The promise of cheap energy is what sustains the publics support of it. Meanwhile fossil fuel demand is still a political expedient for maintaining influence in certain areas of the globe. And so we can understand if quick and easy alternatives to these did exist, why they may have been 'discouraged' from being developed until the present.
rawa1
1 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2011
there is no theory to explain how it could work.The national ignition facility is at least building on established physics
I've such a theory and many people have it too. Apparently the mainstream physics loving trolls are willing to boycott technology just because they have no theory accepted for it. Why we are using the high temperature superconductivity,, after then? We have no theory for it too. This stance apparently illustrates, the mainstream physics changed into religion, which accepts only the finding and theories, developed with their priests and it became the brake of the further evolution of human civilization (if not danger, when we consider the attempts for black hole preparation at LHC).
ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Dec 01, 2011
because low temperature superconductors (you probably meant those) are proven to exist.
rawa1
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2011
Nope, I did mean "high temperature superconductors", because - believe it or not - I just wrote "high temperature superconductivity". High temperature superconductivity is proven to exist as well. It doesn't mean, these superconductors must be hot.

http://en.wikiped...uctivity
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2011
Oh those.. ok then:
because high temperature superconductors are proven to exist, contrary to cold fusion.
Nerdyguy
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2011
According to the E-cat (cold fusion reactor) data, ....Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of physics can log on to ecat.com and check it out as they have a brief description of the process and how it works.


The site looks interesting, but it's still not entirely clear if it's his official site. According to PESN, he had a problem with his web designer. He told them to take down the site. There's about 50 sites that say they're the "official" site.

Several references to ecat.com have conflicting info. Some say it's his site, others say it is a site "in association with him, from Northern Europe".

It's all so damn shady that it's creepy. If I wanted to incorporate right now (something I've done 4 times in the past), I could have a new corporation, and a new official website in about 3 days. Done. Why can't Rossi do this?
Newbeak
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2011
Rossi is a con artist.Doesn't publish his findings in a recognized physics journal.He shows just enough to get the suckers out there salivating..
NotAsleep
4 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2011
ECAT currently has no legitimate science behind it, including the shoddy test results taken by scientists that apparently had no clue what steam quality is. Rossi refuses to allow legitimate scientists to investigate the principles behind his device even though a simple "non disclosure agreement" would give him all the legal defense he needs. All the websites you all have referenced are not run by legitimate sources. It's excellent marketing, not excellent science.

If it works: best discovery since electricity. Until then, though, there is absolutely nothing saying cold fusion can produce this much power and very little evidence that cold fusion is even possible beyond extremely improbable events. Please stick to science, not what you read in a blog.

Kochevnik, there is no such thing as "free energy". Even the ECAT isn't claiming to be that
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2011
Rossi is a con artist.Doesn't publish his findings in a recognized physics journal.
For what? Focardi and Piantelli published their findings in physical journals for twenty years - and what happened?
Absolutely nothing. Rossi was still first, who attempted to replicate it.
. Why can't Rossi do this?
E-Cat has an official web site here http://ecat.com/n...-website
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2011
Kochevnik, there is no such thing as "free energy". Even the ECAT isn't claiming to be that
That's funny! So please explain how overunity heat pumps work.
Nerdyguy
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2011
E-Cat has an official web site here http://ecat.com/n...-website


You already posted this. I replied that I looked it over.

Go back and read my post re: reasons why it might NOT BE Rossi's site at all.

As a further example, PESN, which has been most closely associated with Rossi from the press, is reporting that Leonardo-ECat.com is Rossi's "official" site.

PESN ALSO SAYS:
"I phoned Rossi to ask him about this, and he didn't know about the website, and said he would go take a look, but that he thought it probably was the North European License group."
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2011
Kochevnik, there is no such thing as "free energy". Even the ECAT isn't claiming to be that
That's funny! So please explain how overunity heat pumps work.


Ahh, so you are indeed a crackpot.. my suspisions were right.

Overunity does not exist and e-cat is most probably a scam.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
Kochevnik, there is no such thing as "free energy". Even the ECAT isn't claiming to be that
That's funny! So please explain how overunity heat pumps work.


Because in Soviet Russia, heat pumps you!

I'll take your bait if you find two reputable universities that have published results on a working over-unity "anything"

Callippo, people have tried to reproduce the results of others that have claimed to have discovered cold fusion. No one ever has... at least no one has conclusively proven that they did. I give you full permission to rub it in my face if it turns out Rossi did, in fact, discover the secret. In fact, I promise to put a line in my profile that says, "Callippo was right about cold fusion all along. He's a very smart person."

Same goes for you, Kochevnik, about over-unity heat pumps
rubberman
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
The reason I said "if it's viable" is because of Rossi's background, from the press releases and the "he said she said" stuff going on with regards to this it is hard to say. The guy's secrecy might be because he is trying to protect his work, or he could've been trying to con somebody and it got way bigger than he thought...the University of Bologna has confirmed they have a contract with Rossi, but have also said he hasn't lived up to his end of the deal yet. (They don't say WHAT the deal is though).
rubberman
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
I do know that if I invented it, I am not handing the finished work to anyone "for testing" until I have a patent....
Nerdyguy
1.1 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2011
The reason I said "if it's viable" is because of Rossi's background, ...


Yep. It's just bizarre. I mean, I'd understand if the guy just disappeared off the face of the earth one day. Then I'd be more inclined to believe he really did it. But the announcements, followed by strange conflicting information the next day and multiple sources saying slightly different things...it's just unusual.

On the other hand, it's possible the guy is like Einstein - very smart and forgets where his house is. If he's for real, he needs to HIRE a REAL business executive and literally hand off all non-technical work to that person. That's the way it's generally done. He can be the CIO, the Chief Scientist, and the Chairman of the Board. But, he needs a CEO that's just pure business to run things. Starting with a consistent PR message.

On a related note, Rossi's own journal/blog doesn't even have a link to his so-called company website. wth?
NotAsleep
not rated yet Dec 02, 2011
I do know that if I invented it, I am not handing the finished work to anyone "for testing" until I have a patent....

Why not? Especially when the device you're trying to patent is considered "unpatentable" in most countries. There are lots of legal avenues (at least in the US) to protect your intellectual property without requiring a patent.

And if you think a patent is the "end all" to stealing intellectual property then perhaps you should read the patent laws a little closer...

NerdyGuy, for reference, there are at least TWELVE websites dedicated to covering the ECAT. For example: energycatalyzer3.com, e-catworld.com, ecatnews.com, etc.... strangely enough, wikipedia seems to have the least biased viewpoint on it. Check out the Energy Catalyzer discussion page on wikipedia for relevant, cited information
Nerdyguy
1 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2011
wikipedia seems to have the least biased viewpoint on it. Check out the Energy Catalyzer discussion page on wikipedia for relevant, cited information


Thanks. I've seen it actually. Gotta love wiki. They don't always get it right, but way more often than not.
rubberman
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
@NA
If I built and tested it myself, I either know it works and don't want anyone to (a) get there hands on it and copy it before I recoup the money I've earned through my hard work and ingenuity or (b) see how simple it is and build a better one before I recoup the money I've earned through my hard work and ingenuity...OR I've tested it and it doesn't work, but I can rig a show to fake that it works and promise money to a few people like a going nowhere PHD student from the university of Oscar meyer Bologna to say that it works at my fake demo and sell it to some sucker.
Regardless, I suscribed to the ECAT newsletter from the ecat.com site just to see what comes of this....
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2011
The reason I said "if it's viable" is because of Rossi's background
A. Rossi claims COP over 6 during last year, but the duo Foccardi and Piantelli is routinely publishing the COP > 3 during twenty years in official journal of Italian Academy of Science with full and detailed description of experiments.

Why are you dealing with Rossi and ignoring twelve years of research, which leads to the same effects? Rossi just scaled up the experiments of Piantelli.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2011
I'll take your bait if you find two reputable universities that have published results on a working over-unity "anything"
Hmm because universities invented human flight? Or rather they proved it was mathematically impossible. And they invented the light bulb? And the Tesla howitzer? And they're not at all prone to spewing that absurd Lorentz math where all the circuits are built around a short circuit, or symmetrized as engineers would describe. How are you going to get extra energy out of a short circuit? Well universities in the West systematically disregard any circuits that aren't symmetrized. So we have working tabletop over-unity machines sucking out the zero point energy while the high priests (masonic boot lickers) refuse to study such things. First their equipment is built around Heavyside and Lorentz equations so it can't measure excess energy. That's taken as "proof."

I've read about cold fusion but it's always been dogged by the "mystery energy" conundrum.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2011
Kochevnik, Universities don't invent things, people do. Universities (are one of the places that) provide the science background to either prove/refute the claims of an invention or provide a scientific basis for future inventions.

You can't "suck out" the zero point energy of any system. If you could then, by definition, it wouldn't have been the systems original zero point energy. In this case, you would be harvesting energy from the environment which is not over-unity.
PPihkala
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
You can't "suck out" the zero point energy of any system. If you could then, by definition, it wouldn't have been the systems original zero point energy. In this case, you would be harvesting energy from the environment which is not over-unity.


There are several asymmetrical systems in existence that provide "free" energy. Here with free I mean energy that you have not pay for. I will denote this as having a COP (Coefficient Of Performance) more than 1. So you get more energy out of than YOU feed in. Of course this extra energy comes from somewhere, but YOU don't pay for it.

1) Solar photovoltaics: You get more energy out of them than you put in. therefore they are COP > 1. The source of that free energy is sunshine.

2) Heat pump. The source of free energy here is the ambient air or water that will get colder in the process. But you don't pay for that extra energy.

3) Wind turbines/mills. The extra energy comes from movement of air, which is slowed down in the process.
PPihkala
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
Continued:
4) Wave power. Wave movement provides the extra energy that is harvested to some other form.

5) Geothermal power. Heat from deep underground is used to run turbines or otherwise used to deliver extra energy for human use. Could be used also directly for district heating.

6) Asymmetrical magnetic systems. It is unclear from where the extra energy comes. But probably from Heaviside/Pointing flow interaction. See http://www.steorn.com for example.

7) Cold fusion or LENR. The extra energy comes from transmutation of material to another material. See Rossi's E-CAT, where nickel is transmuted to copper.

There are probably others too, but these came to mind now.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
You can't "suck out" the zero point energy of any system
You can suck the fusion or fission energy. Most of materials are capable of releasing fusion of fission energy, because the only thermodynamically stable material is the iron.

You can imagine the atom nuclei inside of matter like the conditionally stable system of mercury droplets, which are prepared with strong shaking inside of sealed test cube, so they're so small, they appear like the black dust. Due the surface curvature these tiny droplets are behaving like superhydrophobic material and they repel itself mutually. They will not produce the fluid mercury even during prolonged standing.

But if you cover this black dust with fluid of strong surface tension, then the superhydrophobic effect is compensated and the energy from coalescing of droplets is released immediatelly. Now, we can just ask, what would convince the atom nuclei in their merging into thermodynamically stable state at room conditions?
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
The Aether Wave Theory provides some clue for solution of this problem. The merging of mercury droplets appears, when they're placed into more dense environment, which decreases the interfacial surface tension. In particular, when this environment is full of bubbles, then the merging of droplets occurs faster - why? Because the merging of mercury droplets requires the temporal formation of thin neck with strong negative curvature of survace. If you place the droplets inside of foam with is full of negatively curved surfaces, than the probability of negatively curving surface increases.

The antiparticles are serving as a bubbles of vacuum, but they're difficult to produce, with exception of the lightest ones, the neutrinos. The rest mass/energy of antineutrinos is so small (in the range of electronvolts), they could be produced even with some mechanical and chemical processes. As we know already, the neutrinos really accelerate the decay of radioactive elements.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
One possible mechanism of cold fusion at nickel is based on the presence of surface with strong negative curvature of surface. Inside of such tiny cavities the virtual photons of vacuum are shielded, so that the vacuum is behaving here like less dense material, i.e. like the foam with bubbles and it could accelerate the fusion of tiny atom nuclei, which are needing this curvature too for their fusion.

But in principle, we could prepare the neutrino states in vacuum with motion of magnetized or charged bodies, which would generate or remove the virtual photons in vacuum in mechanical way. And this could be the solution of mystery of the magnetic generators, which are using the "zero point energy". At this moment it's just a fuzzy theory, but it appears feasible for me.

The worst thing, which we could do in this moment is to ignore all these Orbos, Beddini motors and another ZPE generators in the same way, like the cold fusion research, just because we have no mainstream theory for it.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
From mainstream physics perspective the feasibility of fusion is expressed with so-called Lawson's criterions, which are based on product of time and temperature. So far the people struggled to improve the speed of fusion with brute force approach, i.e. with increasing of temperature - but they forget the time. If we prolong the contact of atom nuclei to sufficient time, we could achieve the thermonuclear fusion even at room temperature.

For example, at the surface cavities of nickel of palladium lattice the hydrogen atoms are getting negative charge, so they're attracted to atom nuclei in form of hydride ions. In addition, inside of surface cavities these ions can be squished with thermal vibrations of lattice in such a way, just the prolonged time is sufficient for overcoming of Coulomb barrier due the uncertainty principle.

We cannot say, this mechanism is impossible, because we still didn't make any calculation of it and many experiments are indicating, this way of fusion is real
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2011
You can suck the fusion or fission energy.


But do you swallow?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
Callippo..... Can you explain to us why some cold fusion "scientists" have implied that cold fusion occurs in "living systems"?

When you see that, you know it's KookFart time.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
Callippo... You do know don't you that SRI has been accused by LENR advocates of cooking their experimental data...

Inventing data points that don't exist. Adjusting data upward and downward arbitrarily to improve correlations, etc.

And these accusations come from LENR advocates.

Nanobanano
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
Kochevnik, there is no such thing as "free energy". Even the ECAT isn't claiming to be that
That's funny! So please explain how overunity heat pumps work.


The E-cat is NOT an "overunity machine", nor has it ever been claimed to be.

The E-cat allegedly works based on a nuclear fusion reaction, which on paper actually works and should produce a net gain in heat. Rossi claims this is happening at a few hundred C.

At any rate, Rossi's device is no more of an "over unity machine" than is any other nuclear reactor or engine.

The device FUSES a nuclear fuel, being isotopic Nickel and Hydrogen, converting some of the mass to energy, just like any other nuclear power supply.

the problem with people like you is you immediately define anything you haven't previously heard of as being a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, when it clearly isn't.
Nanobanano
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
What I would like to see, since the government is in possession of so much cash to throw around on this stuff...

Put Rossi on payroll, 90k per year, and give him a few million to play with, BUT with the catch that he at least has to submit to some full, prolonged testing by NIST to prove the device actually does what he claims it's doing.

As much as the government spends on testing anyway, someone at NIST ought to be able to figure out how to replicate this based solely on Rossi's original paper and patent application.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
why some cold fusion "scientists" have implied that cold fusion occurs in "living systems"
Never read about it, so I cannot comment it. any sauce?
BIG COCK
2 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2011
Wow, this article is like a giant magnet for "free energy" noobs and pseudoscience doofuses.

And as a result, this has turned into a pretty hilarious comments section.
BIG COCK
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2011

Put Rossi on payroll, 90k per year, and give him a few million to play with, BUT with the catch that he at least has to submit to some full, prolonged testing by NIST to prove the device actually does what he claims it's doing.

As much as the government spends on testing anyway, someone at NIST ought to be able to figure out how to replicate this based solely on Rossi's original paper and patent application.


Yeah sure, let's give the con artist a couple million dollars to "play with" and see what happens.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
Yeah sure, let's give the con artist a couple million dollars to "play with" and see what happens.
We gave the billions to the proponents of hot fusion already. So far the only result is the promise of ITER the 2035. The hot fusion occurs routinely at stars, but low energy nuclear reactions induced with electron capture are quite common too. There is no reason, why they shouldn't work with the same probability, like the hot fusion. And the advantages of cold fusion over the hot one are quite apparent.
BIG COCK
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2011
You can't "suck out" the zero point energy of any system
You can suck the fusion or fission energy. Most of materials are capable of releasing fusion of fission energy, because the only thermodynamically stable material is the iron.

...

But if you cover this black dust with fluid of strong surface tension, then the superhydrophobic effect is compensated and the energy from coalescing of droplets is released immediatelly. Now, we can just ask, what would convince the atom nuclei in their merging into thermodynamically stable state at room conditions?


Fuck man you're high. Got any math to support your claims, instead of page after page of essays?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
Why the mainstream physicists are so dismissive regarding the attempts for cold fusion replication? Why just the amateurs are supposed to do all the dirty work here?

http://energycata...plicated

https://netfiles....als.pptx
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
Got any math to support your claims, instead of page after page of essays?

A) You can prove with using of math, the Sun is revolving around Sun in epicycles and or that the Earth is hollow sphere, as Euler already did.

B) We still have no working math model for hight temperature superconductivity - despite of this phenomena is perfectly real.

C) Even the pile of math equations didn't save the Higgs boson model and/or string theory from refusal in LHC collider experiments.

http://blogs.disc...-theory/

The conclusion is, the presence of math doesn't mean anything for validity of predictions. I admit, it's still good as a salary generator for theorists involved, which is why they're calling for it so obstinately. Because every success of physics without math would render them useless. Which is one of reason, why they're so dismissive regarding cold fusion - it violates their religion.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
Errata: it should be "..the Sun is revolving the Earth in epicycles", as everyone probably guessed correctly.
BIG COCK
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2011

A) You can prove with using of math, the Sun is revolving around Sun in epicycles and or that the Earth is hollow sphere, as Euler already did.

Are you stupid or something?


B) We still have no working math model for hight temperature superconductivity - despite of this phenomena is perfectly real.

Yes, HT superconductivity is real and AFAIK has no universally accepted theory. In contrast, Rossi's reactor has yet to be shown to be real in the first place and has no theory at all. Is this comparison supposed to be some kind of joke?

C) Even the pile of math equations didn't save the Higgs boson model and/or string theory from refusal in LHC collider experiments.
The conclusion is, the presence of math doesn't mean anything for validity of predictions.

Yeah of course it doesn't. But at least it helps you make predictions even if they turn out to be wrong later. Rossi has neither that nor a verifiable test setup, has no patent and no independent testers. WTF?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
Callippo. Go to Youtube and watch this video.

http://www.youtub...LX8478Y8

It is a cold fusion lecture by Edmund Storms.

Fast forward to time index 22:29

On the screen you should see a page titled "Summary of what is believed by many people" - to which he earlier claimed is his belief.

Paragraph 4

"The reactions require a special arrangement of atoms in a solid lattice or in a LIVING ORGANISM called the Nuclear Active Environment.

Is "Edmund Storms" OmaTard's long lost brother?

kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
You can't "suck out" the zero point energy of any system. If you could then, by definition, it wouldn't have been the systems original zero point energy. In this case, you would be harvesting energy from the environment which is not over-unity.
That's what free energy systems do. You're just resistant to the idea despite the fact that it's working on lab desktops. Admit it, you're not being scientific you're being religious. Any TRUE scientist would see the contradiction between outcome and theory, and either fix the theory or call for more research and investigations. You're just shifting definitions around like Republicans do at debates. You can't prevail but neither can the counterparty because you change the definitions at whim because your institution got the Saudi endowment grant. You're just a mouthpiece for the vested interests. You can delay but not stop mother nature because she ultimately is the biggest bitch.
Callippo
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2011
"The reactions require a special arrangement of atoms in a solid lattice or in a LIVING ORGANISM called the Nuclear Active Environment
We have no evidence of cold fusion inside of living organisms. Period.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
"We have no evidence of cold fusion inside of living organisms. Period." - Calippo

So you can take virtually everything Edmond Storms has said and throw it out the window. He has exposed himself as a kook and is completely untrustworthy for that reason.

ab3a
2 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2011
I don't agree.Cold fusion has not been proven to work,and beyond that,there is no theory to explain how it could work.The national ignition facility is at least building on established physics.


Controlled experiments with cold fusion have not yet been replicated. That's not the same thing as "proven" one way or another. Next, we often do experiments on phenomena we do not completely understand or even have theories for.

We don't know if cold fusion exists, but it seems that many are eager to dismiss an unexplained phenonmenon which is not easily replicated. Shouldn't we be investigating?
ECOnservative
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2011
A failure would certainly be spectacular, with molen lead/lithium all over, but no radiation to clean up. I have always admired folks who take simple approaches to complex problems, usually we see the reverse.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
"We don't know if cold fusion exists, but it seems that many are eager to dismiss an unexplained phenonmenon which is not easily replicated. Shouldn't we be investigating?" - Ab3a

I think so. How much effort would it take. Get 4 hot fusion scientists and 4 electrochemists and a cold fusion team in a room. Design an experiment and run it.

12 people, and materials. What's that gonna cost, a million bucks? Let's be grand about it and give em 3 million for equipment.

Isn't that .000075 percent of what America's war crime in Iraq and Afghanistan is costing?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
"with molen lead/lithium all over, but no radiation to clean up." - ECOonservative

Oh, there will be lots of radioactive material to clean up.

What makes you think otherwise?
rawa1
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2011
Let's be grand about it and give em 3 million for equipment.
This is just the paradoxical problem of the cold fusion too. It's research is cheap and simple, if not trivial - at least by now. Here are no influential industrial lobby, motivated in supplies of giant superconductive magnets, expensive vacuum equipment, servers farms and complex data acquisition systems and so on. Currently is much easier to collect the money for problematic, but expensive projects which serves as salary generator for many people involved, than to cheap, but more risky research. Because every manager expects two things today from scientific research: results and contracts, i.e. the hushmoney.
So you can take virtually everything Edmond Storms has said and throw it out the window
I'm indeed supporter of cold fusion, but this is simply going too far and it discredits whole cold fusion thing in its very consequences. So I'm not opened to such naive extrapolations.
rawa1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2011
The hot fusion produces many neutrinos, even so called neutron-less one. The neutrons will activate the atom nuclei of all heavy elements and will convert them to radioactive isotopes. In addition, the hot neutrons destroy the structure of many materials and they change them to explosive unstable stuff. For example, the explosion in Chernobyl or fire in Windscale Piles was probably initiated with latent heat stored in the graphite moderator.

http://en.wikiped...r_energy

The hot neutrons may be slowed down by pass passing through large volume of moderator, but it will increase their activation ability even more, because slow neutrons tend to fuse with other atom nuclei, rather than bounce or pass through. These problems must be solved at the case of every hot fusion device even more, than at the case of fission reactors, which don't require complex experimental apparatus from heavy metals, which could be activated with neutrons.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
E-Cat in a Nutshell.

This video explains it all.

http://www.youtub...=related
NotAsleep
not rated yet Dec 05, 2011
@ Kochevnik, I think you're confusing the term "definition" with "opinion"

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.