Thread: Cold fusion

I understand that the experiment thought to produce cold fusion was proven not to be fusion. But, I also understand that the experiment did produce electricity. Ignoring all the fuss about the inaccurate name, why has no one used the process to make electricity?

Not being a nuclear bio-physisist I can only give you my assumption based on other examples


the most likely explanation is it's too expensive, For example grinding stones together to generate electiricity works, its how it was originally mass produced But given modern technology it is in effect obsolete, the energy used is not worth the electricity produced therefore it's more efficient to use other methods I'm guessing whatever the Cold Fussion experiment did was the reverse, it's so advanced it takes too much energy/fuel to do


the other alternative is it just isn't I don't understand why but for some reason some governments refuse to do the balatently sensible for example, the sea around scottland can easily be harnessed in the form of hydro-electricity, and the electricity produced from this would power all of Great Britain with plenty of power to spare so the sensible option would be to do so no? and yet for some reason we haven't
might be the same with CF electricity

Originally Posted by Booms

I don't understand why but for some reason some governments refuse to do the balatently sensible for example, the sea around scottland can easily be harnessed in the form of hydro-electricity, and the electricity produced from this would power all of Great Britain with plenty of power to spare

Hi, Booms, welcome. This is an either/or, A/B question set.

A
1. Please demonstrate, with figures, that tidal and wave power off the Scottish coast is sufficient to power all of GB.
2. How do you plan to offset the ecological damage of the necessary installations?
3. What compensation plan do you envisage for the inhabitants of the communities whose infrastructure and natural beauty are disrupted.
4. How do you plan to compensate Scotland for the resultant loss of tourist revenues.
5. By what means will you make the transition from a crofting and tourist based economy to one based on maintenance engineering.
6. Will you accept the cost of burying the transmission cables, or will you destroy the natural beauty and remaining tourist industry of the interior of the country?
7. Which of the largely untested systems of power generation will you install?
8. Given the intermittent and variable nature of the power available from tides and waves how do you intend to provide, economically, the electricity when these are substantially (perhaps as much as 50%) below peak levels?
9. How do you plan to finance the substantial subsidies that will be required to encourage private investors to sink money into untried technology, in a hostile enviroment, in a volatile political situation?

B
Or, would you accept that you haven't fully thought the proposal through. :wink:

Hi, also.

I am more bored than u arrrrrrrrrr.

Originally Posted by George Moll

I understand that the experiment thought to produce cold fusion was proven not to be fusion. But, I also understand that the experiment did produce electricity. Ignoring all the fuss about the inaccurate name, why has no one used the process to make electricity?

You have been misled. The experiment did not produce any net energy. It consumed but did not produce electricity.

The basic experiment was set up by electrochemists. They input electrical energy and measured, or thought they had measured, more heat output than electrical energy input. But their measurements were in error, basically bad calorimetry.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

But their measurements were in error, basically bad calorimetry.

In other words, although they got their fingers burned they didn't get their fingers burned.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by George Moll

I understand that the experiment thought to produce cold fusion was proven not to be fusion. But, I also understand that the experiment did produce electricity. Ignoring all the fuss about the inaccurate name, why has no one used the process to make electricity?

You have been misled. The experiment did not produce any net energy. It consumed but did not produce electricity.

The basic experiment was set up by electrochemists. They input electrical energy and measured, or thought they had measured, more heat output than electrical energy input. But their measurements were in error, basically bad calorimetry.

I used to manufacture three phase heating equipment. Most documentation calls for 14.5kw Or 14,500 watts applied for one hour to raise 50 gallons of water 100 degrees Fahrenheit. These numbers appear to be slightly off from the actual BTU to Watt conversion. Often allowing, for tank heat up, heater heat up, or tank loss.

The formula is gallons of water in my case 60 gallons times 8.33 pounds per gallon, equals 499.8 pounds. Times the number of degrees you wish to raise the water, in this case 100 degrees. That gives you BTU's required of 49,480.

If you want to convert that to kilowatt-hours you divide by 3,412 to get the kilo watt hours. Giving you 14.648 kilowatt-hours.

I went with slightly more input power. I went with 18,000 watts, as recommended by the Watlow engineer. It is customary to use a 35 percent leeway beyond anything called for.

In this unit in twenty minutes we could get 60 gallons of water well above 155 degrees from a starting temperature of around 55 degrees. Meaning all the stuff you read and learn, is just stuff to read and learn. It can bite you and kill you later on.

My tank bottoms were 1/4" type 321 or 316 stainless steel. I believe that the stainless steel is responsible for some of this effect. Once heated to a certain point. It appears to maintain temperature, as if the stainless was hot through and through. Even though one side is against a cold surface. It is a very interesting substance. It causes the heaters to run slightly hotter. That in turn makes for a better heating surface. And heater.

The unit would evaporate totally the 60 gallons of water, often in under five hours.

Sincerely,


William McCormick