The first nuclear reactor produced a 'trivial' amount of energy.

Thanks, but that isn't in response to the report from a few days ago. I respect your knowledge on the subject matter but the report doesn't say it is cold fusion and cautions against it but they were not able to explains how it works either. Then again, the "inventor" was involved in the testing in some crucial parts which I found odd. Maybe they are all in cahoots.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/16/experts_skeptical_over_lockheed_martins_claims_to_ have_cracked_fusion/

"The search for fusion has been long and painful and a lot of people embarrassed about it," Prof Morse said.

The professor also pointed out a curious part of the Lockheed announcement: the frequent mention of the search for outside investors. If the technology is such a game changer, why isn't moneybags Lockheed prepared to put its own money behind it?

"Lockheed Martin had revenues of $45bn last year, and profits of $2.9bn, so why are they seeking external funding, he asked. "That's like Barack Obama asking me for a loan."

I thought he borrowed money constantly [/PARF]

By the way, I know a perfectly fine way of doing fusion reaction: Just collect 10^30 kg hydrogen and it'll lighten-up by itself! ;)

THAT is the correct size of the container...doesn't even need plastic wrap!

SmileWavy

I think the problem is that the E-Cat's results (claimed results) don't make any sense. There are also people posting issues with the recent report (i.e. Rossi personally messing the reactor during the test), but in my mind the original objections still apply. How does one make copper from nickel without those pesky 511 keV gammas?

What's a sunway?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1413503535.jpg

With PFM?

I'm doubtful. Even Doc Ock had trouble controlling it...

http://www.dtheatre.com/story_images/3661_19b.jpg

Swepco?

MFI baby! MFI!

Sorry, I didn't see the copper when I read through it and I admit a lot was over my head. I know they were avoiding calling it cold fusion but didn't understand the surplus of energy. I just thought it would be difficult to hoax 32 days of surplus unless the entire team was in on it. Which is entirely possible.

Yeah. Until it's verified independently, it's in the realm of snake oil.

I have little concern or fear of an economic collapse... as Mr. Sammy sez we will continue to consume... it will just switch for petro base to electromotive (for transportation. We will still need petro for oodles of thing besides gas and diesel... and it will take years if not decades to phase out petro powered transportation.

And I have no fear that capitalism will be there to milk every penny... the internet should be free but it is not... ten years ago T-Mobile gave me a free flip phone just for signing up and I paid $40 a month for cell... We can stream free TV over the internet... but the networks block it.

Why is LM looking for investors? The same reason hedge fund managers do. Why do it with your money when you can do it with someone elses.

Philosopher's stone?

did you even read my quote?

Actually, we went from splitting the atom in 1938 to the first chain reaction in 1942 to the first power generator (5MW) in 1954. In 1956 the first commercial reactor was 50MW. ~16-18 years

The idea of the fusion bomb was thought up in 1941. 1951 the first test of fission occurred inside an atomic bomb. First controlled fusion 1958.

Lots of development, ideas, attempts, etc. ~73 years later, no commercially viable fusion yet.

got it. fusion, on an economically viable, commercially viable level is several orders of difficulty more difficult. thank you for your post.

Interesting thread - sub'd

I found some info. It looks like they may using a variation of Fusor technology. If they can come up with a way to capture the Neutron energy and recycle it into the reaction...