Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer fusion device

AGD said:
Absolute rubbish. Have any been submitted for independent testing with proper scientists? Methinks not.
Click to expand...

the article says it has

"But this was a third iteration demo, designed to satisfy skeptics of two previous demonstration at the prestigious University of Bologna. Attending the third demo were two Swedish scientists. One was chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the other was chairman of the Energy Committee of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science. They were both allowed to freely examine the entire setup except for the contents of the tiny, 50cc reactor chamber."
 
Really?

Or was it that it took them 15 years to perfect the design before they released it to the public?...

EDIT: That part was aimed at Greebo..

We've had this very thing on here before, can't find the thread though, however it's interesting that it's still going, it may be useful afterall.
 
Superficial said:
the article says it has

"But this was a third iteration demo, designed to satisfy skeptics of two previous demonstration at the prestigious University of Bologna. Attending the third demo were two Swedish scientists. One was chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the other was chairman of the Energy Committee of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science. They were both allowed to freely examine the entire setup except for the contents of the tiny, 50cc reactor chamber."
Click to expand...

That is not independent testing and I don't believe that it was with respected scientists either.
 
Ok... Anyone started reading the bottom of the second article? It goes on to say essentially that cold fusion has been covered up since 1989... Hmmm
 
Amp34 said:
Really?

Or was it that it took them 15 years to perfect the design before they released it to the public?...

EDIT: That part was aimed at Greebo..

We've had this very thing on here before, can't find the thread though, however it's interesting that it's still going, it may be useful afterall.
Click to expand...

Nothing to perfect. The guy had a fully working working prototype and had been developing it for 20 years. At the end of the day, vehicle manufacturers should have been the ones buying his idea, not the tyre company. After all, any release of the technology into the mainstream was only going to hurt tyre sales.

I am always suspicious when it's a company who's sales/revenues would be hit buys up an invention rather than the people who make the goods. For example, what good reason would an oil company have for buying an invention which say could give you 100mpg out of any car when logic dictates that it should be a car manufacture who would have the most interest in buying it and getting it to market in the quickest time? (not saying that has happened, jsut an example)
 
Last edited:
Superficial said:
The good news is that nickel is plentyful:

http://www.minara.com.au/files/docs/8_FactSheet_Nickel.pdf

The oil companies will of course do their best - will probably try and buy up the start-ups but the overiding point is that this material is WAY more abundant than oil and so prices would come down and there'd be less of an oligopoly on world wide fuel.
Click to expand...

Plentiful but expensive to mine. Nickel is mainly used for Stainless steel and due to the massive increase in demand in the last decade for stainless steel, we have seen Nickel increase by 800% (at it's peak a few years ago it had increased by 1700%). It's something like $25,000 per tonne atm.

They can't mine enough it now to meet world demand never mind if this fusion thing works. Imagine the price of Nickel then? $250,000 per tonne perhaps? That then might make the cost of this energy no cheaper than fossil fuels especially if the Nickel has to be replaced every 6 months.
 
Greebo said:
I am always suspicious when it's a company who's sales/revenues would be hit buys up an invention rather than the people who make the goods. For example, what good reason would an oil company have for buying an invention which say could give you 100mpg out of any car when logic dictates that it should be a car manufacture who would have the most interest in buying it and getting it to market in the quickest time? (not saying that has happened, jsut an example)
Click to expand...

the oil company can license it out to car manufactures and so get profit from every vehicle not just the ones that use their fuel?

Oil companies are investing huge amounts in alternative energy etc, because they have vast amounts of money and the logistic experience to implement them.

They know oil wont last forever, you think they're happy to just go bust when it starts to be abandoned, heck no they want to be selling it's replacement.


If you produce a machine that produces electricity at 1p/kw while everyone else produces at say 10 and sell at 15

you can sell it at 14 and rake in incredible profits.

You're not just going to start selling it at bare minimum, you'll just turn the previous costs into profit.
 
Greebo said:
Plentiful but expensive to mine. Nickel is mainly used for Stainless steel and due to the massive increase in demand in the last decade for stainless steel, we have seen Nickel increase by 800% (at it's peak a few years ago it had increased by 1700%). It's something like $25,000 per tonne atm.

They can't mine enough it now to meet world demand never mind if this fusion thing works. Imagine the price of Nickel then? $250,000 per tonne perhaps? That then might make the cost of this energy no cheaper than fossil fuels especially if the Nickel has to be replaced every 6 months.
Click to expand...

hmm food for thought...

At th very least, though, if it does prove viable - there would be a strong alternative to Oil for enrgy consumption (we'd still need oil for other things such as lubricants etc). I'd welcome the competition as we're currently being held to ransom by OPEC.
 
Superficial said:
the article says it has

"But this was a third iteration demo, designed to satisfy skeptics of two previous demonstration at the prestigious University of Bologna. Attending the third demo were two Swedish scientists. One was chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society and the other was chairman of the Energy Committee of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science. They were both allowed to freely examine the entire setup except for the contents of the tiny, 50cc reactor chamber."
Click to expand...


So everything but the actual important part.....

I've made a 100% perfect AI that can pass the Turing test, you can question it as much as you like but only fro ma remote connection and never see the actual machine.


I promise it's not really a person at a computer.
 
Tefal said:
the oil company can license it out to car manufactures and so get profit from every vehicle not just the ones that use their fuel?

Oil companies are investing huge amounts in alternative energy etc, because they have vast amounts of money and the logistic experience to implement them.

They know oil wont last forever, you think they're happy to just go bust when it starts to be abandoned, heck no they want to be selling it's replacement.


If you produce a machine that produces electricity at 1p/kw while everyone else produces at say 10 and sell at 15

you can sell it at 14 and rake in incredible profits.

You're not just going to start selling it at bare minimum, you'll just turn the previous costs into profit.
Click to expand...

Very true so they will keep their licensed inventions at artifically high prices just to make it slightly cheaper than the alternative.

Still doesn;t help us the consumers or the planet though? Take my car analogy again.

If you were a car manufacturer and you had bought the tecnology for a 100mpg petrol engine for a say standard 2 litre engine, you would have launched it at a slightly inflated price as soon as possible and pretty much be guranteed to be the no 1 car maker in the world and probably sell your engines to your competitors and/or license it and rake it in. Maybe even wipe out a lot of your rivals?

If you are an oil company you will shelve the technology for a good few decades until customer pressure gets too much and then you license it or you license it for such silly money per unit that it adds £10,000 per car so it's just worthwhile to buy one with the fuel savings compared to buying a normal car.
 
Superficial said:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/511619/Royal-Swedish-Academy-of-Sciences

yes they are

Either way dismissing it as "rubbish" is stupid. If you have doubts then wait. the 'evidence' or however you wish to refer to it is positive so far. it may prove fruitless but we simply don't know yet for sure.
Click to expand...

I've read the report supposedly written by these scientists...

It is very poorly written, and not rigorous science in any way. The descriptions are general. Despite clearly stating they have no knowledge of what is inside the container - they state that they know (somehow) that it has hydrogen and nickel in it and in exact amounts. :/ Clearly rubbish.
 
Superficial said:
hmm food for thought...

At th very least, though, if it does prove viable - there would be a strong alternative to Oil for enrgy consumption (we'd still need oil for other things such as lubricants etc). I'd welcome the competition as we're currently being held to ransom by OPEC.
Click to expand...

Yeah, makes you fancy investing in Nickel really if this fusion thing comes off? ;)

But if it does work OPEC will just be replaced by a similar organisation setting the world's Nickel price and hence the cost of the energy produced for the fusion device.

I can foresee where it will come in just cheaper than fossil fuels but with green credentials and that would be good enough for it to still sell.

So no "cheap" energy source after all...................
 
Greebo said:
If you are an oil company you will shelve the technology for a good few decades until customer pressure gets too much and then you license it or you license it for such silly money per unit that it adds £10,000 per car so it's just worthwhile to buy one with the fuel savings compared to buying a normal car.
Click to expand...

The thing about that is that you run the risk of another company or scientists inventing the technology in the mean time - they get the patent application in first and clean up. You not only lose from falling oil prices but also the lost licensing money for the tech.
 
Greebo said:
Nothing to perfect. The guy had a fully working working prototype and had been developing it for 20 years. At the end of the day, vehicle manufacturers should have been the ones buying his idea, not the tyre company. After all, any release of the technology into the mainstream was only going to hurt tyre sales.

I am always suspicious when it's a company who's sales/revenues would be hit buys up an invention rather than the people who make the goods. For example, what good reason would an oil company have for buying an invention which say could give you 100mpg out of any car when logic dictates that it should be a car manufacture who would have the most interest in buying it and getting it to market in the quickest time? (not saying that has happened, jsut an example)
Click to expand...

Yet you seem to be missing the big positive of having this technology...

"Our tyres last 20% longer than the competitors but are only 10% more expensive..."

Dunlop would have had increased their sales by a large amount and been able to make more profit on each tyre they sold.
 
Tefal said:
So everything but the actual important part.....

I've made a 100% perfect AI that can pass the Turing test, you can question it as much as you like but only fro ma remote connection and never see the actual machine.


I promise it's not really a person at a computer.
Click to expand...

TBH though, 50cc is tiny, they will know it's not a radioactive source and AFAIK the only other thing that would be able to provide that sort of power without any emissions would be a battery. A battery that can produce 18kw of energy at that size? Even if it is a battery it would wipe the floor with any other battery we have today!
 
Amp34 said:
Yet you seem to be missing the big positive of having this technology...

"Our tyres last 20% longer than the competitors but are only 10% more expensive..."

Dunlop would have had increased their sales by a large amount and been able to make more profit on each tyre they sold.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. The invention related to the vehicle, not the tyre.

Therefore if bought by a vehicle manufacturer they could claim "Buy our vehicle, your tyres will last 20% longer". Dunlop had to license the technology to the vehicle manufacturers which they either did eventually (not sure) or alternative but similar technologies got developed and released by the vehicle manufacturers some 15 years later(we are talking HGV's, not cars here btw)

I agree if it related to the tyres directly then worth the tyre company buying it but that's my point. Things get bought up by the people that's going to see their sales drop not by the people who make the things and would be their unique selling point. Say there had never been a similar idea developed or could be developed and it was an unique "one off" invention. How much would that be worth to a world tyre manufacturer to buy it up and never let the technology be used? 20% of sales is worth a lot.

I can fully understand why they do it. Dunlop buying that invention either kept their tyre sales secured until somebody else brought out a similar thing or meant they could control when it was released and used and get a revenue stream back in to offset their drop in tyre sales. They are just trying to protect their profits which is only natural.

However, my point is that if companies didn't do that then we would probably be far more advanced than we are now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom