I don't understand, if he need this amount of preorders, why he still keeps this outdated 80's style way using a poorly created word doc, signed and sent via email?
Why doesn't he hire an average computer educated kid/student ....
Greed
I don't understand, if he need this amount of preorders, why he still keeps this outdated 80's style way using a poorly created word doc, signed and sent via email?
Why doesn't he hire an average computer educated kid/student ....
Greed
Display MoreRecombination was mentioned in "Morrison's Cold Fusion Update No.8" (1), as indicated in the USPTO non-final rejection. This update concerns "the work that Fleischmann and Pons published in Physics Letters A", that is the 1992 boil-off experiment, and in particular "the excess rate of energy production […] four times that of the enthalpy input"-
There is no doubt that recombination is the wrong explanation for this specific F&P's claim. The alleged excess heat is actually a consequence of the miscalculation of the energy balance during the last 600 s of the boil-off period, caused by having ignored the presence of the foam accumulated inside the cell.
from the article "However Lee did two simple experiments. Firstly he operated the cell with the anode and cathode very close together as F&P so that there was a chance that the hydrogen and oxygen emitted by the two electrodes could mix and possibly recombine - assuming no recombination, he calculates that he had then observed excess heat. He now moved the anode and cathode apart, and as he did so the apparent excess heat vanished. This he interpreted as evidence that recombination was occuring in the F&P - type conditions and could be falsely interpreted as excess heat."
One of the most detailed speculations on atomic H and ZPE https://chavascience.com/en/hy…cess-energy-from-hydrogen
Is Mr. Pais involved as well?
Are they going to use coal and firewood in the second chamber to trigger lent?
The idea is completely different: Thermodynamics is based on the factor 3kT where the 3 comes from the degree of freedom of two atomic gases being translative motion, oscillation and rotation. Argon has only one degree of freedom and only intrinsic rotation that is not triggered. So most energy is going into kinetic movement. Key is to keep the percentage of fuel low relative to the argon volume.
They cite monatomicity as a primary factor contributing to efficiency. If you have two experiments one with cylinder filled with argon another with air as a control. Argon should produce more mechanical energy out of same input that may pass for 'excess energy''.
The argon cycle motor: https://techxplore.com/news/20…mbustion-argon-power.html
Can it explain Papp engine's 'excess energy'?
No way Rossi will be around in 2031. Either he will be dead, faking death, or in exile, "somewhere in the world but not Italy".
Don't underestimate the hustler.
Please try to avoid a truth that bothers you, be a gentleman
There are no truth or lies there are only facts you are struggling to believe in.
Display MoreI followed a lot of Rossi, the 1Megawatt trailer, several of the other companies working on a system. After about 4 years of all promises and no product, I pretty much let it go.
I received an alert this morning and so here I am.
Is there any product yet that has actually produced energy for a month without having an input power also applied?
Is Rossi still relevant?
Is it still just a pie in the sky idea?
I would love to see it happen,but it's been over 9 years and what is there?
Heck I was ready to buy that $1,000 unit at home Depot that was promised.
Set your alarm for 2031-03-05 then check back especially if you are a big Rossi fan.
Well, Max, I have a commercial hydrogen technology that is more profitable than electrolysis, and always green, But getting funding is a problem still. Most of the cash (if not sll) goes to the big players as usual.
That is why I am growing against any government interventions. All they can do is to create bubbles. Renewable subsidy, electrical vehicle subsidy, coal mining subsidy, natural gas conversion etc.
Well,, 95% of the article is about some new chemical idea using silicon nanopowders - which they say are currently too expensive to use. So they are using some more conventional chemistry right now- not the silicon system they are promoting. I suspect it is powdered aluminium/gallium alloy.
This is rather like showing off a revolutionary electric car and then mentioning (very briefly) that it currently has an IC engine because your electrical magic is too expensive to sell.
There are obvious sings of gold rush and bubbling in hydrogen industry after govts. promised huge money injections.
I can see multiple articles talking about yet another breakthrough in hydrolysis or fuel cell or alternative hydrogen production tech. Those article typically have lots of preaching to the choir and numbers like 10T market for mobile power!!! etc. What they don't have is actual numbers to see how their tech is better than existing. That is why we always have to wonder what they actually doing apart form burning grant money.
In this case , I believe, the idea was to combine silicon powder hydrogen production with high efficiency power cell for things like planes, drones etc. but they don't provide how that is better than traditional jet fuel and turbine.
Navid article doesn't say so I was hoping that Alan Smith, being a specialist in exotic extraction of hydrogen, might clear it up
Alan Smith https://en.apollonsolar.com/home
https://fuelcellsworks.com/new…-water-and-powder-packet/
Some kind of silicone powder to make hydrogen .
Curbina in 2016: 'in other words, the technology HAD been developed....'
Curbina "
То есть разработана технология для утилизации жидких радиоактивных отходов и проверки всех жизненных способностей высушенной синтрофной ассоциации (или биомассы, как мы ее иногда называем) для того, чтобы действительно активно работать, и, в случае необходимости, можно было использовать в качестве аварийных комплектов.
Подробности: https://regnum.ru/news/innovatio/2190442.html
Любое использование материалов допускается только при наличии гиперссылки на ИА REGNUM.
Curbina I agree with you but based on Kornilova interview, she had pronounced it as a done deal. So somebody here is being unrealistic. Sometimes scientists must get down to Earth and clearly show investors how to turn their $1 into $1000 instead of pretending to be tired of winning and asking for money for another decade of research.
Engineering any biotechnological remediation program takes time.
Bacteria needs to be fed, and doing it at large scale sounds much easier than it is.
As an example of laboratory proven to large scale use of bacteria that can be used as a gauge is the case of copper biological lixiviation. This was never controversial at all, in the sense that was provent at lab scale and by all means it was going to work at large scale. Yet, Chilean mining companies have been developing the bacterial copper lixiviation from low grade materials for decades now, it requires complex irrigation and aeration systems, it works fairly well now (after way too many dissapointments and bakrupted start ups), but it took decades to get the first pilot plant with decent yields.
Aren't lixiviation and transmutation two very different things. Reminds me of propaganda rhetoric where meaning of things is often switched. Why don't you bring in bread, cheese, wine making examples to support idea that bacteria can be used to remediate nuclear waste?>
Speaking of Visotdkiy and Kornilova bacterial transmutation, there are couple of controversies surrounding them. First, there was failed trial performed by the unit of Rosatom. It was explained that Rosatom was not following the protocol and there was allegedly a successful second trial.
What is more interesting is that Visotskiy book was translated to Japanese. Japanese have huge problem with radioactive water from Fukushima and bacteria were thought to be a perfect fit to dispose of it. That was long time and so far no positive news from there.