Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power NASA Science

Can NASA Warm Cold Fusion? 556

Posted by Soulskill
from the as-long-as-it's-not-on-the-moon dept.
TomOfAmalfi writes "Andrea Rossi says he can provide domestic energy sources (about 10 kW) based on his E-Cat system (a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction or Cold Fusion energy source) for between 100 and 150 US$/kW and begin shipping this year. Many people are skeptical about Rossi's claims because he has not explained how his 'reactors' work (apparently the reactors contain ingenious security devices to prevent reverse engineering), there is no theoretical basis to support his process, and no one has supplied independent measurements to support the specs on his black boxes. However, buried at the bottom of a NASA web page there is a comment about progress in 'cold fusion' research and a link to the slides used in a September 2011 presentation (PDF) which talks about LENR research. NASA has also released a video describing the great benefits we will get from NASA LENR research. Could Rossi be on to something?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can NASA Warm Cold Fusion?

Comments Filter:
  • Answer, in brief: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dudeman2 (88399) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:23AM (#38705096) Homepage

    No.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:32AM (#38705166)
      Hell, no.
    • by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:25AM (#38705382)

      Wait wait now, before we dismiss him out of hand, there is one very important question.

      Does he have any contacts/spies inside North Korea?

      I have it on very good assurance (no less than the former president of NK) that the country had Cold Fusion research in the bag.

      So it is possible that this Rossi guy has himself reverse engineered hyper-advanced North Korean technology (which they themselves perhaps stole from santa or the tooth fairy).

    • Re:Answer, in brief: (Score:5, Informative)

      by drolli (522659) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:33AM (#38705768) Journal

      I agree. The most comprehensive document i found using the search lenr on the NASA webpage on the research there seems to be:

      http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf [nasa.gov]

      It is an obviously very optimistic document on why NASA should fund cold fusion research. And let me - as somebody who was a scientist for 10 years - clearly state that you viewpoint should be an optimistic one, when presenting in terms of "why is that fundamentally interesting". However, you should have a realistic opinion on "what needs to be done to verify the effect" *before* promising fancy devices.

      these are the references cited in the presentation above, which are not conference presentations, progress reports, or books, but real peer-reviewed papers:

      Li, Xing Z.; Liu, Bin; Tian, Jian; Wei, Qing M.; Zhou, Rui and Yu, Zhi W.: âoeCorrelation between abnormal deuterium flux and heat flow in a D/PD system,â J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 36 3095-3097 (2003).

      Widom, A., Larsen, L., âoeUltra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," Eur. Phys. J. C (2006)

      Kim, Y. E., âoeTheory of Bose-Einstein Condensation for Deuteron-Induced Nuclear reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particlesâ, Naturwissenschaften 96, 803(2009).

      Let me say that very clearly: i am not an expert on the field. But if there would be anything which seems close to being implemented to people working in the field, then i know there would be several high-ranking papers.

      what makes me *particularly* (i am an experimentalist) doubt about this research, and especially Rossi (who claims incredible rates of conversion of the material) is that it should be extremely easy to detect the helium or other products (in Rossis case) in the output. The order of magnitude of the effects cited would be *massive* and easily detectable by the signature of the reactions in the waste products. Instead of looking at the reactors, i claim it would be better to examine the material input and output.

      Show me the peaks in am AMS, (if needed for efficiency, please use an acceleration mass spectrometer) for the fresh fuels and the spent fuel, and i believe in Cold fusion. Show me nice pictures and make a fence several meters around your device and don't publish in peer-reviewed journals and you will trigger my scepticism.

      • by TheLink (130905) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:52AM (#38705880) Journal
        IMO the "cold fusion" was worth looking into because even if it wasn't really fusion, it might have led to a different type of "battery" technology. At worst it might be some interesting phenomena.

        So I was a bit disappointed when the whole thing became a polarized mess, rather than a good start into proper scientific research. Almost any scientist who investigated cold-fusion was considered a quack immediately.
    • Here is a talk given at SRI in October 2011 that suggests you should be less brief and more open.

      The talk has been uploaded as eight videos and the link is to the first. They suggest there is more here than just smoke, in the opinion of many sophisticated people. Whether Rossi can actually commercialize any of this is the question, but it does appear that something interesting is going on, that Fleischmann and Pons found it, but that they had the misfortune to not realize what was required to replicate the

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:23AM (#38705098)

    They'd probably achieve more than Adobe does.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:24AM (#38705106)

    Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR.

    • by newcastlejon (1483695) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:33AM (#38705172)

      At one time called "cold fusion," now called "low-energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR.

      A herring by any other name would smell as fishy... in any event if LENR, as you put it, were a practicable possibility I'd expect to be hearing announcements from someone more reputable than this Rossi character. He claims to have invented not one but two cold fusion technologies*. Now this may be a terrible, terrible bit of prejudice against someone who may end up in the history books, but I tend towards a more cynical or pragmatic attitude when it comes to parting with my or the public's money.

      *"The 1 MW plants have a totally different technology and engineering." [e-catworld.com]

    • by paiute (550198) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:09AM (#38705630)

      Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat

      There are plenty of ways "anomalous" heat can be generated during chemical/mechanical processes without jumping right to the conclusion that it must be two nuclei fusing - the same way that seeing something unknown in the sky does not automatically mean it came from some other planet.

      • by tgd (2822) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @11:12AM (#38706000)

        Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat

        There are plenty of ways "anomalous" heat can be generated during chemical/mechanical processes without jumping right to the conclusion that it must be two nuclei fusing - the same way that seeing something unknown in the sky does not automatically mean it came from some other planet.

        This is true, but cold fusion research never really stopped, and there are a half dozen large labs around the world that have spent 20 years doing research, trying to figure out what is going on, even if there's no good theory behind the science yet. Discounting their work out-of-hand without a theory is just ignorant. There is vastly more published evidence *for* those reactions happening than against them, no matter what the theories might say. (And the variables that impacted the rapid set of tests that couldn't reproduce the P&F experiments are much better understood now -- according to published papers, the reproduction rate is near 100% in the last ten years.)

        So the real electrochemists working on the problem don't claim to know *what* is causing the excess heat, but from a power generation standpoint, it kind of doesn't matter. They also have proven they're getting at least some transubstantiation going on, which suggests at least *some* of that heat is coming from nuclear processes.

        Its weird (and strangely ignorant) that on this one subject, so many researchers take the "we don't know any way that COULD be happening, so lets not research it" position instead of the "something we don't understand is happening, and that is exciting to research" position. Even if it was a purely chemical reaction, there's something exciting about figuring out THAT, too!

        • They also have proven they're getting at least some transubstantiation going on...

          I'm pretty sure that if they find blood in there, it's because someone cut their finger.

        • by c6gunner (950153) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @01:31PM (#38706882)

          There is vastly more published evidence *for* those reactions happening than against them, no matter what the theories might say.

          Nonsense. After 20 years of research, they still only have measurements that are barely statistically significant, occurring irregularly, primarily amongst "researchers" who already believe there's an effect. If you're going to call that evidence, then you have to conclude that "psychic powers" are real, also, because we've been getting the same kind of "evidence" from the "psi-researchers" for a couple decades now. It's nonsense. It's a perversion of the scientific method - sifting through noise until you find something that looks like a pattern, then using publication bias to reinforce your presuppositions, and sticking them in your conclusion. It's a waste of time and money, and it's a shame that so many people can't see that kind of "research" for the scam it is.

          • by this great guy (922511) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @06:42PM (#38709114)

            You are wrong. The anomalous heat detected in some experiments is statistically significant. Just one example: in a 1998 experiment, Focardi had set up a cell that ran continuously for 278 days and produced an excess power of about 900 megajoule: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf [lenr-canr.org]

            The problem is that this experiment, and many others, despite providing very interesting results, have been mostly ignored by the scientific community purely because of the stigma associated to Cold Fusion research. This is frustrating!

            The submitter is also incorrect when saying that Rossi provided no details about how his reactors work. He explained that (a) he processes the nickel powder to create tubercles and enhance its contact surface with hydrogen, (b) he uses 2 nickel isotopes to enhance the reaction, (c) he splits molecular hydrogen (H2) into atomic hydrogen (H1), (d) he uses high pressure and temperature to initiates the reaction, etc.

            I used to think that Rossi's E-Cat was a scam, but after researching deeply the subject, I am now convinced this guy might be onto something, see this post I wrote explaining many Cold Fusion experiments that seem to support Rossi and that have been ignored by the community at large: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=61 [zorinaq.com]

  • Electric vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:27AM (#38705120) Homepage Journal

    Whether this is a hoax or not, it's the right direction. Nuclear and hopeful thermonuclear for use in homes and in vehicles - heavy machinery and private cars, trains, boats, planes and spacecraft.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I can't help but think than an ideal battery ought to be good enough for cars and even some kinds of boats (efficient ones, mostly.) Or you know, something vaguely close. As it is you can accomplish quite a lot with the lousy ones we have now. Bring on the shipstones!

    • by dbIII (701233)
      Um, why?
      Isn't the best idea always to go for the best tool for the job in a sane price range instead of just something that sounds cool in a comic?
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@NOspAm.world3.net> on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:53AM (#38705536) Homepage

      I'm not sure if you are kidding or not, but safety aside small reactors are not very efficient or cheap. It makes much more sense to have large scale generation and pump it out to individual devices as we do now, just with better batteries in the case of cars, boats and aircraft.

      Plus we already have a massive fusion reactor supplying enough energy to power the entire world, so might as well make use of that.

  • No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:27AM (#38705124)

    No. Rossi us a fraudster, this will be proven to be a scam too. Did you not notice him give a price before giving the science?

  • Of course he could (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msobkow (48369) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:27AM (#38705126) Homepage Journal

    There's always the possibility a snake-oil salesman is on to something.

    But without independent verification and independent PROOF that it works, everyone will continue to think it's just snake oil. There have been too many claims by "inventors" of cold fusion devices, perpetual motion machines, "free energy" theories, etc. for people to take anyone at their word.

    I wouldn't give Rossi a DIME until there was independent verification.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      everyone will continue to think it's just snake oil.

      If that were only true. he will find some suckers that will 'invest' in his project. He will make a bunch of money and vanish. Remember there is a sucker born every minute. The only trick is finding them and parting them with their cash with the proper 'smoke and mirrors'.

    • Agreed. Independently verify it (with an aggression / truth level set to "Genghis Khan"), then purchase it, tear it apart, and find out what other scientists have been missing for the last 40 years.

    • by sycodon (149926) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:12AM (#38705650)

      I don't think Pons and Fleischmann were fraudsters. In fact they don't deserve the derision they still suffer today. They saw and reported the results. Part of science is being wrong yet these guys were lynched for it.

        LENR experiments seem to have a modicum of truth in that many times there is excess heat. It's just not easily reproduced or explained. Hell, if NASA is looking into it, no matter how down low they try to keep it, unless you feel NASA employees cranks and nuts, then there is evidently enough there to keep them poking and prodding it.

      If you think about it, all this secrecy and mystery does make sense. Today, Energy is what gold was in the past. Anyone who can find a way to generate it cheaply (which $150 Kw is not), without the expense and mess of fossil fuels or the potential risk of fission, will become so fucking rich they would make the so-called 1% look like hamburger flippers. I wouldn't be real surprised if there were many well respected folks working on this, but just keeping it under their hats.

      That all being said, wake me when I can buy it at Home Depot.

      • by DrJimbo (594231)

        I don't think Pons and Fleischmann were fraudsters. In fact they don't deserve the derision they still suffer today. They saw and reported the results. Part of science is being wrong yet these guys were lynched for it.

        I agree they were not knowingly trying to deceive people. OTOH this is not what they were criticised for (link [wikipedia.org]):

        On May 1, 1989, the American Physical Society held a session on cold fusion in Baltimore, including many reports of experiments that failed to produce evidence of cold fusion. At the end of the session, eight of the nine leading speakers stated that they considered the initial Fleischmann and Pons claim dead with the ninth, Johann Rafelski, abstaining. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann" which was met with a standing ovation.

        When you think about it, science is mainly a set of techniques and methods to avoid self-delusion about your own results. The human tendency towards self-dulusion is vast. A beautiful example of this is Albrecht Durer's attempt to use a geometrical construction [wordpress.com] to form an ellipse. His own bias bled through the mechanical straight-edge and compass construction so his end result was lopsided a

  • Let me guess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrXym (126579) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:28AM (#38705132)
    People can "get in at the start" on this miracle by investing small fortunes and they'll receive continuous updates over the next 10 to 20 years how the device is close to manufacturing, and how nefarious powers are trying to "suppress" the device, and how Mr Rossi's eventual prosecution for fraud is all part of this conspiracy to silence him.
    • by dpilot (134227)

      But other than that last clause, doesn't this also describe the state of conventional nuclear fusion, as well? Hasn't fusion been 20 years away for the past 50 years, or so?

      • Re:Let me guess (Score:4, Interesting)

        by vlm (69642) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:56AM (#38705276)

        But other than that last clause, doesn't this also describe the state of conventional nuclear fusion, as well? Hasn't fusion been 20 years away for the past 50 years, or so?

        That quote is a confusion of political posturing and engineering critical path project planning.

        Here's the standard /. car analogy. For political reasons we will advertise that we will sell a car getting 10 MPG more than our current model. It takes a year or two to design, a year or two to develop and get the assembly line up and running (not a year or two of actual work, but a year or two of calendar time to shut down one line, get everyone ready for the new one, about two weeks of millright time to move the machines...) The newest announced car model is ALWAYS about 3 years away, because thats how long it takes from "say go" to "drive off the stealership lot". At some point, probably early, in the 3 year process, its cancelled.

        Another good analogy is we're always 15 years away from men on mars, because every couple years its proposed, they figure it'll take 15 years to get there, they cancel, repeat.

        Fusion has always been 20 years away because it takes 20 years from "say go" to "plant pushing power into the grid". As long as its politically useful to put on a big show about how we're starting a new initiative, and later cancel it, we'll continue to do so.

  • by aglider (2435074) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:29AM (#38705136) Homepage

    There's still someone talking about the eCat.

  • Not this again... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:33AM (#38705174)

    There was no independent test of his device yet, so I consider it highly unlikely to work.

    Rossi claims he's heating a factory in italy with one of his devices. I wonder how the authorities would react if they learn that an unauthorized nuclear device is being used there, considering that italy has laws that prohibit nuclear facilities.

  • by Twinbee (767046) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:34AM (#38705184) Homepage
    Here's Reddit's discussion of the story: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ofz9f/nasa_developing_a_low_energy_nuclear_reactor_its/ [reddit.com]

    A couple from that thread claim that NASA hasn't discovered cold fusion here, but 'merely' radio active beta decay, which is similar to an atomic battery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery [wikipedia.org]
    • by Twinbee (767046) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:42AM (#38705214) Homepage
      If some PhD in the field can confirm the above, that would be useful. It would show then that "LENR" doesn't always equate to "cold fusion". This would also provide less evidence for the validity of the E-cat, as wonderful as that would be.
      • by philcowans (2548324) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:15AM (#38705346)

        So I've been trying (with minimal success) to find any quality information on this, but there are a few bits and pieces out there.

        My understanding is that the most likely theory here is that there's a low energy mechanism for generating neutrons in condensed matter via 'heavy' electrons (high effective mass due to lattice phenomena), and that these neutrons can be used to trigger energy producing reactions (there's a lithium based cycle with no net consumption of lithium, for example). The reactions themselves aren't new, but producing neutrons cheaply enough to generate a net energy gain is. I don't have enough of an understanding of the theory to really judge how feasible it is, but the idea that electrons in lattices can behave in interesting ways (c.f. superconductivity) isn't crazy enough IMO to dismiss the idea outright.

        I think this is relatively orthogonal to Rossi and Co., although I believe there was some interaction between him and NASA at some stage. He's definitely mishandled the public relations around his announcement, is likely out of his depth in terms of understanding what he's doing and may well be attempting fraud. That doesn't change the fact that there may be some worthwhile science to be done in the field.

        • All these reactions produce radiation that would have killed everyone around the plant. So unless you arm wave to claim that radiation is not magically produced in this device, your back to square one. Just like with other cold fusion claims.

          Also the eCat claims to fuse a proton with Nickel to produce copper. A quick check of the relevant tables gives us a "proton chain" where eventually a stable copper isotope is produced. However there are few unstable copper intermediates in between. These all decay v
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:33AM (#38705430) Journal

        LENR is not cold fusion. LENR is a broad category and basically means 'stuff that is not high-energy fission / fusion.' It includes neutron capture (i.e. a neutron hits a nucleus, is absorbed, and no fission occurs) and radioactive decay. There are a lot of LENR generators. Some pacemakers contain betavoltaic generators that are powered by a small quantity of tritium. The Russians used to power lighthouses with radiothermal generators (RTFs) and there are three of them powering each of the Voyager spacecraft, with a rated lifespan of about 60 years each.

        eCat sounds like they are claiming two low-energy reactions: a neutron capture followed by a decay. This is potentially feasible, but then good snake oil is always feasible...

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:38AM (#38705202) Homepage Journal

    A way to scam more people out of their cash.

  • Fusion Confusion (Score:5, Informative)

    by muon-catalyzed (2483394) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:42AM (#38705218)
    For confirmed peer reviewed low temperature fusion see Muon-Catalyzed fusion [wikipedia.org]. What we are approaching here is a whole new field of very promising catalyzed fusion science. NASA already has patents on some approaches and deems it OK to spend public funds on further research.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The problem is it takes more energy to make the Muon than you get out of the reaction in the end.

      From
      S. Atzeni and J. Meyer-ter-Vehn, The Physics of Inertial Fusion (Oxford University Press, 2004)

      For energy production by mu-catalysed fusion, it is necessary that the Nf reactions catalysed on average by one muon release a larger amount of energy than that required to produce the muon itself. The muon is obtained by the decay of the pion, with an estimated cost of 5 GeV. Assuming that fusion energy is convert

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I hate the cold fusioners with a passion - every time they trump up another scam like this it makes people distrust real science more and more. So something as exciting and potentially awesome as the Polywell languishes, because no one believes that fusion will work from a device that isn't $10+ billion dollars and smaller than a football stadium.

    Strap him to a rocket and shoot him into the sun, if he wants to bullshit about fusion so bad.

    • I wouldn't say the Polywell project is languishing. AFAIK they're quietly getting on with testing WB8 and getting data; their research is still being funded by the US Navy. [recovery.gov] Sure, it'd be nice if they were getting more funding than they are but at least they're doing something.

      From what I've read they're concentrating on finding out if the device will scale to larger sizes, which was one of the more contentious points (Bussard claimed that power scaled as size^7) when the idea was first presented. I'd be abs

  • No way (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gweihir (88907) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:47AM (#38705238)

    This is a sophisticated fraudster. It is unclear what he is doing to simulate success, but one credible suggestion was that he could have gotten his hands on a nuclear battery, e.g. from the former soviet union. Such a device could easily produce the amount of energy observed in the given volume.

    • Re:No way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sgt scrub (869860) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <muitnias>> on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:15AM (#38705342)

      If he produced observable energy last October, when he was going to reveal the greatness to the world, we would have heard about it. Nobody has said shit; so, I doubt his faud can even be called sophisticated.

    • Re:No way (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 15, 2012 @09:35AM (#38705444)

      It is actually simple how he is doing it, there is a big issue with his "tests"

      No one is accurately measuring the actual volume of steam coming out, and some who have seen the test indicate there does not appear to be enough steam coming out for claimed amount...the basic claim is that xx amount of water went in and the same amount of steam came out...but consider xx water went in and 1/10*xx steam came out...that would also explain why he never runs the test for a really long time...the water is collecting in the device. All of the energy calcs are based on "knowing" that all of the water comes out as steam, and from reading the reports that is assume but never actually measured.

      The simple reality is that he could easily prove this device (if it was real) by turning it on and leaving it on producing steam for days and weeks (which he claims is possible as he has claimed the device is heating a factory some place and has been running for years)...he has never shown that he always does the shorter test that have the above flaw...which makes me believe the flaw above is the trick being used, and the device does not actually work at all.

      And if you look into Rossi's past he has pulled crap this this before...so he is either scamming someone for money, or he believes it is working.

    • His 1MW demo was hilarious. There was a fault so it only produced about "500kW" or something... There was a 500kW generator at the front that was only used to "bootstrap" the system.... and was never turned off. Yea right. A fool and his money. I just gota work out how to meet these fools with all this money.
  • Science that works cannot be kept secret. Observe that over centuries, every single real invention has been independently discovered by multiple scientists in such close succession that it might as well be simultaneous. That is not a coincidence. New discoveries build upon existing discoveries and technologies, and when their time has come, they will appear.
    If this invention were based on a theory that actually had some basis in reality, other physicists would have grasped it by now, at the very least by knowing what to look for. This scam is targeted at the gullibility of people who don't understand how scientific advances are made.
    "No one else has figured it out, so there must be something to it" is the wrong argument. If it's a magic box, we should be treating it as a magician's sideshow: Not to be believed until proved fake, but to consider it fake until all its workings are fully and extensively public and shown to be sound by other scientists.

    Five hundred years ago, self-styled alchemists and sorcerers parted investors with their money by claiming to have some secret apparatus to turn lead into gold. It's depressing to see that now, after the periodic table, the theory of relativity and the discovery of the atom, we're falling for the same trick. We shouldn't even be debating whether it's real, just like we don't debate whether the world will end this December. It should be dismissed out of hand until the inventor decides to either cough up how it is done or shuts up and goes away.

  • by Peter Harris (98662) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @02:03PM (#38707070) Homepage

    The most ingenious device used to prevent reverse engineering is that it doesn't fucking work.

    Remember, Rossi was going to have a 1MW fusion plant working in October last year. My lack of surprise about that not happening is so overwhelming I can't even bother to

  • by wytcld (179112) on Sunday January 15, 2012 @03:55PM (#38707850) Homepage

    A video lecture on the topic [cam.ac.uk] from the man who gave us the Josephson junction [berkeley.edu], who is certifiably smarter than any of us here and as good a physicist as we have on the planet. That doesn't mean he doesn't have some peculiar ideas. He most certainly does. Walks funny too. But some of his most peculiar ideas have paid off big time, and were contrary to "everyone's" intuitive sense of how things work in reality.

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...