×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Italian Scientists Demonstrate Cold Fusion?

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the believe-it-when-it-powers-my-toaster dept.

Power 815

Haffner quotes physorg which says "Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W....when the atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen are fused in their reactor, the reaction produces copper and a large amount of energy. The reactor uses less than 1 gram of hydrogen and starts with about 1,000 W of electricity, which is reduced to 400 W after a few minutes. Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20C water into dry steam at about 101C. Since raising the temperature of water by 80C and converting it to steam requires about 12,400 W of power, the experiment provides a power gain of 12,400/400 = 31."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

815 comments

Uh, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981748)

More out than in = no

Re:Uh, no (4, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981784)

Heh it's from Bologna. Where are the baloney jokes?

Re:Uh, no (0)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981874)

More like, "Cold Fusion? Another overpriced Adobe Product!" Jokes.

No really, just reading the full summary, what they're doing could totally be done with 1/3rd the specs but its all due to some sloppy programming practices, I'm sure.

Re:Uh, no (5, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981890)

More out than in = no

Use a lighter for a split second on a piece of paper, then turn it off. Bam. More out than you put in.

Re:Uh, no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982032)

More out than in = no

Use a lighter for a split second on a piece of paper, then turn it off. Bam. More out than you put in.

I bet you think you really made some clever insightful point there, don't you, you smarmy one-liner spewing bastard.

Re:Uh, no (4, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982002)

More out than in = no

It's called rest energy...and they're certainly not getting out more than they put in.

That said, I'm more than a wee bit skeptical that this works. But if it does...well, I'm gonna go long in nickel and short the copper market ;)

Re:Uh, no (3, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982226)

More out than in = no

If they're really starting a fusion reaction, then it's totally plausible. For a practical demonstration, go outside right now and look at that bright thing in the sky.

All the other cold fusion schemes turned out to be bogus, and this one probably will, too, but that doesn't mean it'll never happen.

Re:Uh, no (5, Funny)

thewils (463314) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982320)

Er, I live in Vancouver, BC you insensitive clod. What is this strange bright thing in the sky you are talking about?

Re:Uh, no (3, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982294)

"More out than in" is actually not a bad definition of an exothermic reaction. Of course, you're ignoring the whole "converting energy from one form to another" aspect.

Well now.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981750)

Don't we hear a claim like this every few years, just have to it turn out to be false?

Re:Well now.... (2)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981918)

Don't we hear a claim like this every few years, just have to it turn out to be false?

The truth is out there! I saw them do this in Russia in an old Val Kilmer/Elisabeth Shue movie about how the cold fusion problem was solved.

It was romantic^n.

Re:Well now.... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982062)

It would be nice if it was real, but considering the... um... somewhat storied record of cold fusion experiments, I'll retain some skepticism.

Re:Well now.... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982276)

I can't help but think that the "storied" in this case must be a common mishearing of "sordid".

At least "storied" still makes a little logical sense. It's a lot better than some of the misheard/misunderstood phrases I've seen..

Riiight (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981758)

Call me when it's repeatable in more than 2 other labs please.

Re:Riiight (2)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982114)

Call me when they can attach a generator to it, hook the output up to the input, and keep it running by just putting in cold water and getting steam.

All you need to know, from TFA (4, Informative)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981762)

Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism. They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works. According to a press release in Google translate, the scientists say they cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered, “but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses.”

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (2)

killdashnine (651759) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981820)

Good find. As always, being a Cold Fusion Physicist generally qualifies you as a crank scientist. Not having a theory for how something works is cause for concern unless it was, of course, serendipity.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (5, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981830)

There is a chance that they stumbled upon something useful without having a clue how it works, therefore unable to produce a good paper on it. Notably 'cold fusion' appears likely to have nothing to do with it.

Someone writing it up along those lines:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/19/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-probably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/ [newenergytimes.com]

Hard to tell.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981946)

There is a chance that they stumbled upon something useful without having a clue how it works, therefore unable to produce a good paper on it. Notably 'cold fusion' appears likely to have nothing to do with it.

Someone writing it up along those lines:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/19/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-probably-real-with-credit-to-piantelli/ [newenergytimes.com]

Hard to tell.

If it really works they could create a business out of it and retire.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982056)

If it really works they could create a business out of it and retire.

But if it really is nuclear something, I doubt they want to try to scale it up until they know what's really going on.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982208)

If it really works they could create a business out of it and retire.

But if it really is nuclear something, I doubt they want to try to scale it up until they know what's really going on.

Just have the lawyers write up a really long caution label and start selling it. Need a pretty box too.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982258)

If it really works they could create a business out of it and retire.

But if it really is nuclear something, I doubt they want to try to scale it up until they know what's really going on.

The problem is the nickel metal hydride battery manufacturers have been screwing around with nickel and hydrogen for a long time on a very large scale without vaporizing the planet, so regardless of what is going on, scaling it up will probably be as harmless as a nearby battery plant.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982090)

If it really works they could create a business out of it and retire.

From their webiste
http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/

"This recent public demonstration alone is is a huge development, but what's more, they also claim to be going into production, expecting to have these available for purchase commercially within a year. This would become the world's first commercially-ready "cold fusion" device. The first units are supposed to ship in three months, with mass production commencing by the end of 2011."

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982240)

If it really works they could create a business out of it and retire.

From their webiste
http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/ [pesn.com]

"This recent public demonstration alone is is a huge development, but what's more, they also claim to be going into production, expecting to have these available for purchase commercially within a year. This would become the world's first commercially-ready "cold fusion" device. The first units are supposed to ship in three months, with mass production commencing by the end of 2011."

They ripped off my business model! I have another waiting for events like this:

1. See invention
2. Claim business model included an invention
3. Hire lawyers
4. Profit!

No question.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982210)

There is precedent. The "Father of Radio", Lee De Forrest, did not have a CLUE on how his creation of the audion (a device that allowed for what we think of as modern radio) worked. He would just pour over patents and mix up combinations of components. It took Edwin Armstrong, who came along and improved the device to explain how it actually worked.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982340)

Thanks for the read. That was at least informative. I wonder about the credentials a bit however.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (4, Insightful)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981836)

This sounds like any number of hoaxes that have been perpetrated; be they related to cold fusion or perpetual motion machines.

The "inventor"/"discoverer" are the only ones who can repeat the process and always under their own conditions or in their own lab. On further inspection the man behind the curtain is always found instead of any real magic.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (4, Funny)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981962)

This sounds like any number of hoaxes that have been perpetrated; be they related to cold fusion or perpetual motion machines.

The "inventor"/"discoverer" are the only ones who can repeat the process and always under their own conditions or in their own lab. On further inspection the man behind the curtain is always found instead of any real magic.

On the other hand, if it is a hoax they could write books about it, sell videos online, claim to be suppressed and silenced, then retire.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (5, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981914)

That's not an absolute mark against them - if they really were trying to do something different and the thing just started kicking out power inexplicably then their paper may well look like crap. Not to say I believe them - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that - I won't be satisfied until (as the article heading says) I see one powering my toaster, but I have more respect for guys saying "Shit, we haven't got a clue, it just happened" than ones spouting demonstrably false pseudoscience like so many before have.

Of course, the better way to go about this would perhaps have been to send detailed plans and experimental records to colleagues at other universities and ask that they try to replicate it. Maybe steer clear of mentioning 'cold fusion' at all and simply ask if they get unusual excess energy readings.

It's probably junk, but hey, I'm holding on to the glimmer of hope that this could be a game-changer, just for a little longer!

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981968)

It sounds to me like Pons and Fleishman all over again, except they were chemists and these guys are physicists. Now, if they're not only physicists but good enough to do what was formerly thought impossible, why is it that they can't explain it?

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (2)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982180)

Just because there is no current explanation, it does not mean they are lying.

Now, the fact that they cant explain it doesn't exactly lend any credibility to the story. If I invented cold fusion, irregardless if I could explain it or not, I would have every scientist I could find come look at it.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981984)

They are already commercializing a small reactor. From TFA:

The reactors need to be refueled every 6 months, which the scientists say is done by their dealers.

Also from TFA, in the "responses" section:

Steven B. Krivit, publisher of the New Energy Times, noted that Rossi has been accused of a few crimes, including tax fraud and illegally importing gold, which are unrelated to his research.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982076)

They are already commercializing a small reactor.

      And let me guess - they are looking for "investors" too?

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (4, Insightful)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982072)

It's most likely not a success but I just want to touch on the logical fallacy there.

Simply being unable to explain a phenomenon doesn't mean a scientist hasn't discovered something new.

Perhaps they simply gave them one of the first few common eliminators they use to reject amateur submissions.

Re:All you need to know, from TFA (3, Informative)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982084)

That was almost my favorite part of the article. It ran a close third to this:

Rossi and Focardi have applied for a patent that has been partially rejected in a preliminary report. According to the report, “As the invention seems, at least at first, to offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories, the disclosure should be detailed enough to prove to a skilled person conversant with mainstream science and technology that the invention is indeed feasible. In the present case, the invention does not provide experimental evidence (nor any firm theoretical basis) which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention. The description is essentially based on general statement and speculations which are not apt to provide a clear and exhaustive technical teaching.” The report also noted that not all of the patent claims were novel.

But neither holds a candle to this:

Further, the scientists say that the reactor is well beyond the research phase; they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011.

Extraordinary proof (1)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981770)

Results like that should be extremely obvious to replicate. Could this finally be the Holy Grail we've been looking for?

If so, I just hope it doesn't have any snags that will prevent us from actually extracting useful amounts of energy out of it.

Re:Extraordinary proof (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981800)

One word: NO.

Welcome to Salt Lake City, err, again. (2, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981920)

I remember (vaguely) some similar claim being made in Utah back in the 1980's (or was 1990s? I forget).

Anyrate, it was hailed with a big amount of hoopla... until no one else could replicate the results. Then the questions came, and the original scientists couldn't provide a single answer.

Last I checked, Mr. Newton still has the last laugh. There was a bit of 'cold fusion' research awhile back that involved chasing bubble cavitation as a source of energy, but otherwise no one seriously (or rather, no serious scientist) chases that particular dream anymore.

Now if a third party can replicate the results, then maybe it's worth looking into, but until then, I think it can be safely filed under "yeah, right - now pull the other one".

Nickel and Hydrogen? (1, Interesting)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981772)

It could just be bad reporting, but nickel and hydrogen?

Maybe it's possible with some extreme isotopes of the two, but as far as I can tell, the fusion of nickel and hydrogen is not exothermic.

Re:Nickel and Hydrogen? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982146)

What's your reasoning? Hydrogen is energy-packed so it should be exothermic. Anyway it's easy to find out. I chose the most stable compatible isotopes:

mass(H-1) + mass(Ni-62) - mass(Cu-63) =
1.00782503207 + 61.9283451 - 62.9295975 = 0.0065726
mass(H-1) + mass(Ni-64) - mass(Cu-65) =
1.00782503207 + 63.9279660 - 64.9277895 = 0.0080015

The left side is heavier than the right side, so the reaction is exothermic.

Re:Nickel and Hydrogen? (5, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982188)

If the mass of the hydrogen plus nickel atoms is more than the mass of the resulting copper, the fusion will release energy. Let's check some values (source: Wikipedia).

So start with Ni-58 (the most abundant), mass 57.9353429 amu.

Add hydrogen: 1.00794 amu.

Total: 58.943283 amu.

Get Cu-59, mass 58.9394980 amu.

And you just lost 0.003785 amu - mass which has become energy. That's how you get the exothermic fusion.

The problem here is that Cu-59 is unstable with a half-life of just 81 seconds; pretty hard to detect. Though skimming through their research paper I found that they say that the decay results in other isotopes of copper, or even decaying back into nickel. Anyway if this fusion takes place, there will be copper left, and energy is set to be released.

Now whether this whole reaction takes place, that's for other researchers to figure out - "all" they have to do is "just" try to reproduce the results, which may not be easy. It seems something happens, and it may be interesting to figure out what it is. The amounts of energy they claim to have produced are significant, too much to be simply systemic errors. But what is going on - well that's nothing I can speculate on from here.

Re:Nickel and Hydrogen? (2)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982254)

Cu-59, IIRC, produces about 5MeV per decay. Thats MORE then the energy of fusion you calculated. And at 81S half-life, with enough power the boil a significant amount of water, the reactor would be a complete hot-zone, radioactively speaking.
You should see the Cerenkov radiation of all those gammas in the watertank...

Re:Nickel and Hydrogen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982286)

-1 Significant Figures.
-1 __No Uncertainties!__

Re:Nickel and Hydrogen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982282)

The only fusion reaction that will produce heat is hydrogen to helium. All other take energy to fuse.

That is the reason why the sun runs out of energy after producing Iron(FE).

If this was actually producing energy then the sun would be full of copper.

And the best part... (3, Insightful)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981778)

...is that they don't understand why it works, just that their magic box makes more energy than they put in.

Re:And the best part... (5, Insightful)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981980)

Isn't that the case for almost everything? We have many "observed" universal behaviors, but did anyone really break the fundamental working to explain the universe? For instance, I think nobody has been able to explain gravity; I think they tried to explain it using a particle called graviton, but nothing was ever proven.

Moreover, many things were actually discovered before they could be explained. At one point, unless it can be dangerous (which could apply in this case), the fact that it simply works should be enough for most people.

Einstein figured out what gravity was. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982164)

"For instance, I think nobody has been able to explain gravity;"

Actually, Einstein figured it out. It is the warping of space caused by an object. Actually any object warps space somewhat for small objects, the warping is infinitesimal. For a very massive object such as a black hole, the warping is very great. Of course, this is a vast oversimplification but most of us here are not astrophysicists.

There's a 'Primer' joke in here somewhere (4, Funny)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982052)

They later found that a stopwatch placed inside the box ran for about 1300 times longer than the time elapsed outside the box.

Re:And the best part... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982066)

At least they're honest about it, which means that if it can be replicated, it's worth looking into.

I give 'em props for being honest enough to say 'nope - we don't know why it works either.'

Re:And the best part... (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982284)

I'm not sure that you have to understand why something works to show that it does work. For instance, if you look at the prescribing information for many drugs, you may see statements like 'the mechanism of this action is not known'. We can show that the drug does in fact reduce blood pressure. We can show that it is safe for humans. We can show that it causes these side effects. We have no idea why it reduces blood pressure.

Rejected by peer reviewed journals ... (2, Informative)

Syncerus (213609) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981782)

Also, the site on which this report was published is owned by the authors.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/24/italian-scientists-claim-cold-fusion-breakthrough/?test=faces

Coming to you in 5 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981786)

First post!

RTFA first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981788)

based on the article, it sounds like another hoax.

I call baloney (1)

Nicky G (859089) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981808)

But, if it's true, and repeatable by others, well, wouldn't this just solve all our energy problems.

Re:I call baloney (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982112)

But, if it's true, and repeatable by others, well, wouldn't this just solve all our energy problems.

But if pigs could fly, we'd solve our transportation problems at the same time.

If only I could beleive this. (1)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981814)

Wouldn't it be great if this was true. I just can't believe it is. If something seams to good to be true.......well normally it is.

Doesn't pass the smell test (3, Insightful)

JW CS (1593833) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981860)

From the article:

"Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism."

Everything about this seems like a scam.

Might not be fusion (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981870)

They could have accidentally made a Nickel-Hydrogen battery. A remarkably efficient battery, which itself is pretty useful, but until they provide some concrete evidence that fusion is producing the majority of the power output here (e.g. a high fast-neutron flux), other methods of power production are more likely.

Assuming the device actually works, of course.

Re:Might not be fusion (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982216)

They could have accidentally made a Nickel-Hydrogen battery. A remarkably efficient battery, which itself is pretty useful, but until they provide some concrete evidence that fusion is producing the majority of the power output here (e.g. a high fast-neutron flux), other methods of power production are more likely.

Assuming the device actually works, of course.

A better question, is why does their nickel-metal hydride "reactor" produce excess power that never showed up when the NiMH researchers did their rather extensive battery experiments in the past? News stories about batteries spontaneously combusting are mostly about lithium batteries not NiMH.

Now if it was common knowledge that NiMH battery plants occasionally went nuclear, then maybe their experiment would have some merit, but...

Bullshit and Snakeoil (5, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981876)

Those guys fell from the fraud tree and hit every single branch on the way down:

- Created their own, "serious sounding" journal for publication
- Do not disclose the actual device they claim to have been running
- Do not allow independent observation of the experiment
- Experiment is an open system (making it SO easy to fake)
- Making totally implausible claims that would be too much even if it DID work.

Not only have they yet to prove they did any kind of fusion, they also would not produce energy with the process they claim to do even if they were doing it (trans-iron fusion is not exothermic).

And the really stupid thing is that there will be tons of "sceptics" that have no fucking clue about science that will eat up their claims just because they are "anti-established science". Wankers.

Re:Bullshit and Snakeoil (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982104)

And the really stupid thing is that there will be tons of "sceptics"

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Bullshit and Snakeoil (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982138)

True enough. I think you have gotten it down pat. Until it has been replicated it is all just fantasy.

And yes the "skeptics" do tend to be the worst kind of true believers.
I had this discussion at work about UFOs. I said that I didn't believe that they where from other planet's and or star systems because.
1. They would be so big and put out so much energy that every one would know they where their.
or
2. They would be so good at hiding that we would have no clue the where their.

It just struck me as dumb that a race that could travel across light years and not require massive ships that had exhausts as bright as stars would be dumb enough to fly around with with their headlights on if they wanted to hide.
I was declared a happy villager...

Re:Bullshit and Snakeoil (3, Informative)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982220)

Trans-iron fusion with ITSELF is not exothermic, but trans-iron with Hydrogen?
In small amounts this might happen in stars, but by the time a star has anything more than trace amounts of elements up to iron it has exhausted its hydrogen so any fusion of other elements with hydrogen is in the minority and doesn't contribute to the stars energy.

Re:Bullshit and Snakeoil (1, Interesting)

ebuck (585470) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982300)

And the really stupid thing is that there will be tons of "sceptics" that have no fucking clue about science that will eat up their claims just because they are "anti-established science". Wankers.

You can only estimate the number of times I've wished that anti-established science wankers could be sent to an environment where they didn't reap the benefits of established science. Established science has self-correcting methods such that even if some understanding was incredibly wrong, it eventually drifts into correctness. That's how we replace the Earth at the center of the Solar System with the Sun, and how we replace Eculid's elements with Atoms.

Re:Bullshit and Snakeoil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982338)

Wankers.

brilliant

The cold fu***? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34981932)

Cold Fusion DEEZ! Come back when you have built a full reactor plant for the plain purpose of just testing the process out.

Can't be cold fusion yet... (1, Funny)

JazzyJ (1995) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981938)

"...the experiment provides a power gain of 12,400/400 = 31"

Well since the power gain was only 31, it can't possibly be cold fusion.

When they hit '42'....let me know....*goes back to sleep*

free copper! (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981950)

Finally someone figured out a way to synthesize copper, so people can stop stealing it from the plumbing of abandoned buildings in Detroit.

The question is how to get rid of all that extra waste energy it releases... Maybe we can shunt it into space somehow?

Re:free copper! (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982172)

Finally someone figured out a way to synthesize copper, so people can stop stealing it from the plumbing of abandoned buildings in Detroit.

The question is how to get rid of all that extra waste energy it releases... Maybe we can shunt it into space somehow?

No joke. AGW folks will go nuts when they find out we're not just making greenhouse gases, we're making heat!

I'm SO excited . . . (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981952)

It is the salvation of mankind! It is the end of poverty.

Uh, haven't I been here before?

Produces copper? (4, Insightful)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 2 years ago | (#34981964)

Did they weigh the copper wires to the electrodes before and after?

Re:Produces copper? (2)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982022)

Fully open system, they did even let the steam escape.
So if they really HAD done fusion, they would have radioactively contaminated their whole building.

It is an abomination! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982004)

The tab for the article is showing up as "Italian Scientists Demons.." in google chrome. I think this truncation explains it all.

Point out the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982088)

University of Baloney. Nuff said.

Leave it to the Italians (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982092)

Steve jobs or no, if they can shove one of those into an iPad I might just break down and buy one.

Game analogy (4, Funny)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982122)

Fusion is the Duke Nukem Forever of the physics community.

It's University of Bologna! (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982132)

All you need to know is that this research comes from the esteemed University of Baloney.

Here's how you'll know if someone invents... (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982158)

...cold fusion or any similar energy generating scheme: one day you'll notice that they'll offer to sell large companies electricity at half the market price.

REDEEECULOUS (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982234)

Reedeeculous.

The real test of cold fusion would be detecting neutrons, LOTS of them if they were getting kilowatts of heat. I'm too lazy to calculate again how many neutrons, but it's certainly enough to fry everybody in that room.

You'd think after Pons and that Margarine guy made the same dumb mistake, not claiming scads of neutrons, these guys would patch up that hole.

Re:REDEEECULOUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982302)

Reedeeculous.

The real test of cold fusion would be detecting neutrons, LOTS of them if they were getting kilowatts of heat. I'm too lazy to calculate again how many neutrons, but it's certainly enough to fry everybody in that room.

You'd think after Pons and that Margarine guy made the same dumb mistake, not claiming scads of neutrons, these guys would patch up that hole.

Doesn't that depend on the fusion reaction in question? DD fusion releases neutrons. Does PNi fusion?

Money making machine (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982256)

From TFA "Krivit also noted that Rossi has been accused of a few crimes, including tax fraud and illegally importing gold, which are unrelated to his research."

So, my guess is that we got all wrong. The machine works. But it was designed to generate money instead of energy. I also like the part:

"reactor seems similar to a nickel-hydrogen low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) device originally developed by Francesco Piantelli of Siena, Italy, who was not involved with the current demonstration. In a comment, Rossi denied that his reactor is similar to Piantelli’s, writing that 'The proof is that I am making operating reactors, he is not.' "

Yeah. making money reactions.

Has it been independently verified? (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 2 years ago | (#34982322)

No? Then, I don't believe it.

I seem to remember a similar claim from the late 1980s and the fallout from the claims.

Hoax. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34982336)

This ain't be published in "Hardware" but in "Idle" ./

Is it already April 1st or what?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...