Reaction Focardi-Rossi: is cold fusion?

Innovations, ideas or patents for sustainable development. Decrease in energy consumption, reduction of pollution, improvement of yields or processes ... Myths or reality about inventions of the past or the future: the inventions of Tesla, Newman, Perendev, Galey, Bearden, cold fusion ...
AlterEco
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 50
Registration: 13/08/12, 01:50




by AlterEco » 02/06/13, 16:12

moinsdewatt wrote:
plasmanu wrote:Imagine that hydrogen is transmuted into helium3 in the reactor.
We would have the super non-radioactive proton: it's the grail.

The higher I listed the types of fusion, it lacks one.
Terrestrial radioactivity.
The same one that makes helium underground, mainly extracted in the gas fields.

There is a serious track.


Absolutely not your level of knowledge is very low.

Helium is formed by alpha emission in fission reactions.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivit%C3%A9_%CE%B1

No 'fusion' at all.

Level 1er year of Science Deug.

find a new source of energy is not stupid
but take advantage of greed to make him believe ^^

raymon wrote:Those who wanted to reproduce Rossi's reactor did not succeed. Biberian, for example, put only nickel and hydrogen and it did not work. Rossi says he has a secret catalyst, the explanation would not come from there?

it is to assume that "the original would work", but except banal exothermic reaction, no proof of anything, except advertising on nothing ...
0 x
sam67
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 9
Registration: 21/02/11, 12:42




by sam67 » 02/06/13, 16:25

alterEco wrote:it's questions that? or affirmations
do you like to play


There is a BIG difference between a density and an atomic mass?

I advise you to re-read the posts more carefully before being aggressive towards people.
0 x
AlterEco
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 50
Registration: 13/08/12, 01:50




by AlterEco » 02/06/13, 16:44

atomic molar mass
nickel -> 58,7
copper -> 63,5

and so, what does it change, if the same reasoning applies
what do you do to juggle words to give you importance

we let you play between ° C, ° F and ° K to drown the fish if it amuses you
0 x
sam67
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 9
Registration: 21/02/11, 12:42




by sam67 » 02/06/13, 17:20

alterEco wrote:and then, what does it change, since the same reasoning applies

No precisely the "same reasoning does not apply". Because here we start from nickel in powder form which has a density very different from the density of "solid" metallic nickel. Because there is plenty of "void" in a powder. On the other hand, this does not change the atomic mass of nickel.

So there is in my opinion no problem at this level. I'm not saying Rossi is right (I don't know) I'm just saying that the fact that we "go from nickel at 8,902 g / cm3 to copper 8,96 g / cm3" cannot be proof that this is a hoax since these figures are densities of solid metal forms while the fuel is nickel in powder form.

And that the nickel when it is in the form of powder does not change of course of ATOMIC mass but its VOLUMIC mass is necessarily significantly lower than that of its solid metallic form.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/06/13, 19:26

"Absence of radioactivity expected after fusion of a proton with 58Or" ...>

Altereco understood perfectly where I was going. Anyway, what good is it to discuss ... I'm not going to argue yet to give grain to grind. It's finished.

alterEco wrote:
sam67 wrote:But I do not support the opposite ??? Show me a sentence where I support the opposite ....

.................... : Arrowd:
sam67 wrote:Ben that Those are densities of solid metal forms.

.................... : Arrowd:
sam67 wrote:

it's questions that? or affirmations
do you like to play

Indeed, it smells like a troll full nose. I have already called for sanctioning this type of attitude in this forum. Nothing works, so I did not answer because I do not care anymore, let's run.
0 x
sam67
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 9
Registration: 21/02/11, 12:42




by sam67 » 02/06/13, 20:24

Obamot wrote:Altereco understood perfectly where I was going. Anyway, what good is it to discuss ... I'm not going to argue yet to give grain to grind. It's finished.


My question remains because if Altereco understood me I still have not understood.


Obamot wrote: Nothing works, so I did not answer because I do not care anymore, let's run.


Ok so you won't answer. And I know why. Too bad, I would have liked you to leave the field of controversy and decay a little and that you come to the field of "science".
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 03/06/13, 00:11

The field of LA Science? You're not at all, Rossi it would rather "pseudoscience"...> Mr "X" -files;)

call "controversy" that you do not get in physics, but leave in peace the Volumic mass : Mrgreen: stp
= Mass density that is not deemed to change since it must be calculated as follows:

Image

... on a base homogeneous, it hit here!?!? (and not drawn from a god knows what "mistaken distinguished powder") : roll:

We should avoid mystifying us (not an insult, just an observation, driven by ignorance, and that you call "rotting") Seen? In your place I would hesitate to start taking a new rake from you.
0 x
sam67
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 9
Registration: 21/02/11, 12:42




by sam67 » 03/06/13, 08:27

Obamot wrote:... on a base homogeneous, it hit here!?!? (and not drawn from a god knows what "mistaken distinguished powder"): roll.


Very well this article on wikipedia. Besides, you should have read it. Just below the passage you quote there is an interesting paragraph: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masse_volu ... ranulaires


Obamot wrote:We should avoid mystifying us (not an insult, just an observation, driven by ignorance, and that you call "rotting") Seen? In your place I would hesitate to start taking a new rake from you.

I don't really feel like I'm taking a "rake" like you say. Quite the contrary. I'm just trying to understand from 7 posts something that seems incomprehensible to me.

So again (and it would be so simple if you provided an explanation). You wrote
How can one start from a density of:

8,902 g / cm3 (for nickel)
for allegedly ending up with a higher density of
8,96 g / cm3 (for copper after catalysis exothermo-thing)

The alchemy of transmutation still passes, but how to increase an atomic mass! It is beyond comprehension and starts to do a lot, and suddenly it is no longer "fitting" with the "standard model"


How is this a problem?
How do you conclude that
It's beyond comprehension
and
it is no longer "fitting" with the "standard model"
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 03/06/13, 12:18

Sam 67 anyway with Obamot it will always be a dialogue of the deaf and you will exhaust yourself.
The reality is that Italian and Swedish scientists whose members of an association of skeptics have checked and it works the rest is blah.
When to know what is happening in the reactor for the moment nobody is sure of anything except that it is not about a "chemical" reaction.
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 05/06/13, 15:17

Meeting of June 3 at the European Parliament in Brussels on Fleischmann-Pons effect.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/stron ... u-meeting/
0 x

Go back to "Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 85 guests