> It's not "common sense" to pull a number out of thin air. The data sheet says 200kW.
Yes, speaking of pulling numbers out of thin air. If this were really a cold fusion device, no continuous input power would be required -- the device could be started once using an impulse of power, then it would become self-sustaining using its own generated energy -- no further input power would be required.
Look at the claims:
* Input power required: 200KW
* Claimed output power: 1 MW
Why isn't 200 KW of the 1 MW output power used to sustain the reaction? What's wrong with this picture? Only someone with no understanding of physics would post this "fact sheet".
I'm not swayed by the fact sheet. I understand physics. I also know enough to know that we don't really know shit. Things happen that prove earlier notions to be wrong. It used to be that we all KNEW that the Earth was flat, and that it was the center of the universe too. There could be something going on here that we don't understand. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but I want to attack his claims ONLY by measurables.
All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_. Otherwise we're doing nothing but putting out more hot air than this generator does.
> There could be something going on here that we don't understand.
In science, the null hypothesis rules. The null hypothesis -- the premise that something is false until evidence proves otherwise -- is why scientists have a reputation for skepticism. It also filters out claims like this one.
A scientist wouldn't give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. A scientist would demand scientific evidence, not a marketing sheet with some very obvious defects.
> I understand physics.
If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that?
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_.
No! The burden of evidence belongs to Rossi, not to his critics (see below). He cannot meet that burden.
> If you understand physics, why has it not occurred to you to ask why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement? How hard is that?
What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me? Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test?
Again, no disagreement, but you're starting your attack before he has a finished product with which he can attempt to meet that burden.
Just because you know something, doesn't mean that you need to be aggressive about it. You're actually giving Rossi more attention than he deserves before these things are ready to be tested.
You talk about the null hypothesis and filtering out claims and not even giving him the benefit of the doubt. Absolutely. A scientist who has useful things to do with their time just ignores it until there is evidence otherwise.
Going on the attack is something completely different.
Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(
> What makes you think that it hasn't occurred to me?
Because it's a fatal error and you didn't mention it.
> Maybe I just don't think it's worth posting about until Rossi has a physical product we can test?
What, so uneducated people can be scammed out of their life savings? Where's your sense of public duty?
His claims are bogus. If he had achieved what he claims, he would not be calling for 200 KW of input power. And even given that absurd premise, assuming this fantasy requirement as a thought experiment, he could use one of his small units to power five small units of the same kind, then five to power 25, etc., resulting in a very small initial power input for a vast output power.
The reason the "fact sheet" isn't written that way is because this guy doesn't even know how to lie convincingly.
> Edit: ^ The moment that I realize I'm arguing about this with a legit scientist who I have major respect for and whose site I've read on occasion. :(
That shouldn't matter as you evaluate my claims, any more than it should matter in evaluating Rossi's claims. Evidence should be the only issue.
A guy once said, "In science, evidence means everything, reputation means nothing. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence."
why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement?
Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction. Of course, that just begs the question: why not say it's only needed for start-up? I suppose that there could be engineering concerns...
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is baloney. But I don't think the argument about requiring input power is what proves that.
>> why Rossi doesn't use 200 KW of the claimed 1 MW output power to remove the input power requirement?
> Because it's necessary to input the power to bootstrap the reaction.
Yes, but his megawatt unit consists of dozens of smaller units, each of which (if we accept the premise for the moment) requires a much smaller amount of bootstrap power. Therefore, logically, he would power one unit with a tiny bootstrap kick, that unit would use its generated power to sustain itself and bootstrap four additional units, four would bootstrap 16, all with surplus power. Logical, yes?
Anyone with the slightest familiarity with science and technology would see this is the logical arrangement, but it appears Rossi doesn't have the slightest familiarity with science and technology.
> All I am saying is let's prove his claims to be bullshit _by measurement_.
If we did that for everyone trying to sell a highly flawed device with engineering requirements that are not yet mastered by even world experts, we could measure such claims all day and achieve no real benefit. It is his job to demonstrate this to us.
It is possible that this device is actually performing better-than-breakeven fusion. But I would happily bet money against it.
So is the required input power! The input power is required in order to generate heat to initiate the reaction, and the output power is heat. In any case, it would be child's play to use a thermoelectric converter to efficiently generate electricity from the vast claimed heat output.
I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient? That wouldn't allow the reaction to sustain itself.
He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that his base product doesn't include more than just the basics for now.
> I hate to defend the guy when he's set off my fraud detector alarms so much, but thermoelectric converters are what, less than 10% efficient?
Wait -- the input power requirement is intended to run a heater, not provide electricity. And I should never have mentioned thermoelectric converters, that only complicates the discussion with no benefit.
Because the input power is needed to run a "immersion heater" according to the linked page, and because the output power is heat, this whole account quickly unravels.
> He would need some kind of steam-driven turbine to achieve the efficiency needed to provide net power.
No problem, there are plenty of those available. But the claims in the "fact sheet" are obviously false. If he really had a working unit that developed a megawatt using dozens of smaller units working in parallel, then why doesn't he just start one small unit with a tiny power kick, then use that unit to start four additional units, four to 16, ad infinitum, like a logical design. But Rossi hasn't bothered to think this deeply. The reason? He's not really going to build it. And the reason for that is it cannot be built.
Also, Rossi has applied for a patent and it was partially rejected. http://phys.org/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-...
Keep in mind, I still think this is likely B.S., but let's evaluate it based on what we know.