Okay, I am giving a presentation tomorrow about hydrogen engines and why the rotary engine is better than the piston engine in school. I decided to do this because the State of the Union recently proclaimed that hydrogen powered cars will be available in the near future.

So I did my homework... I read about why rotary engines are not prone to pre-ignition of hydrogen like piston engines are. I also calculated the loss of power from each engine, so piston engines run in the aread of 45% - 67% loss, while rotaries run at around 35% loss.

However in my research I found something amazing... I did a lot of research on it (been digging for an hour) and well.. you just have to read about it. And after you do, you will understand why I'm amazed.

Powerballs (http://www.powerball.net/) . They are the future, I'm convinced, of hydrogen delivery. These ping-pong ball sized energy units delivery 1300 times their volume in hydrogen. How does it work? I'll give you a brief intro, but read the site for the full details.

First a few facts (will be relevant):
- Sodium Hydroxide is one of the largest waste products of the US industrial sector today.
- Heated Sodium Hydroxide will remove oxygen and turn to Sodium Hydride.
- Sodium Hydride, when in contact with water, will release huge amounts of hydrogen.

Okay, facts are clear... remember them!

What this company does, is takes Sodium Hydroxide and heats it to get the Sodium Hydride. They take that Sodium Hydride and 'pelletize' it, which simply means getting it into a ball shape to fit inside their ping-pong ball container.

The Sodium Hydride is coated in polyuretheane (which is by the way, re-useable) and sealed.

These sealed 'powerballs' can be stored at any temperature. They are safe to carry with you. They have a longer shelf life than gasoline. And most importantly, they are ENTIRELY recyclable.

In an application for hydrogen cars, a car would be fitted with a tank of maybe 5 gallons that would carry not gasoline but... WATER! Inside that tank would be the powerballs, simply sitting in the water. When the car needs hydrogen fuel, a mechanism takes one 'powerball' and slices it open under the water. When the sodium hydride inside contacts the water, it releases hydrogen into the tank. That hydrogen is kept at ~110-125PSI for use in the car's hydrogen engine. When the pressure gets low, another ball is cut open.

However what's REALLY great is that everything in the process is recyclable. When the powerball is cut, the polyureatheane covering is placed in a separate tank. The sodium hydride when contacted with water not only produces hydrogen, but also REproduces sodium hydroxide. So when you fill up, the tank would be emptied of the sodium hydroxide and the cut powerballs and shipped back to the factory.

Then the process of heating the sodium hydroxide would occur again, and from the same powerball could be created another powerball.

There are some real advantages here that I've noticed over regular hydrogen designs.. most hydrogen designs use liquid hydrogen, which is stored in a insulated container, and adds up to 1000 lbs of weight to a car (and you know that's bad), OR with fuel cell technology. The problem with fuel cells (as I've discovered) is that they are wet inside, so cold weather may freeze it. They are made with platinum so you can imagine how much it costs to make one. And they don't like being bumped around, so bumpy roads are not an option. They weigh less than a comparable liquid hydrogen setup, but don't have as much range (the GM HyWire car has a range of <100 miles). In fact the liquid hydrogen cars only get a range of around 200 miles, with a 40 gallon tank.

I'm reading more, but PLEASE do yourself a favor and check out this site... Princeton University, University of Utah and quite a few others have given this technology a thumbs up but do admit that the process needs more refining which will come in time.

If my research proves fruitful, I'll be buying $500 of shares in this company by week's end. Valued at 2 bucks a share or so, I think it's a good bargain, especially if the fruits of their labor pay off later on.

ok so i have a question

- Heated Sodium Hydroxide will remove oxygen and turn to Sodium Hydride.

how much energy does that take compared to how much energy is produced when you drop the pellet into water. or even better yet, how much energy is used from taking the waste -> pellet form and how much energy can you get from pellet + water?

One other issue with this - the tank of water needed for this process would also freeze in cold weather without some type of heating device.

It is still very promising - but I think mainstream adoption of hydrogen powered vehicles is at least 10 years away.

Good luck with your project!

Fuel cells are definately on the horizon. They present a quantum leap forward in the design of the internal combustion engine and how we view natural resources. There are a host of car manufacturers out now who have fuel cell equipped cars in serious testing. If there was one obstacle to the implementation of fuel cell technology it lies in the red tape.

In order for fuel cells to be effective, there should be a serious effort in Washington and other capitals to begin implementing a hydrogen infrastructure. Because what good is a fuel cell car if you can't fill it up anywhere?

But then we look at the politicians and the oil companies, who donate billions to lobbyists and the federal government. If massive implementation of fuel cells are to become a reality, some politicians must start looking past the almighty dollar and elude the grasp of the oil companies stranglehold.

Piston engines don't run at those losses. Petrol engines run with 70-80% losses. While diesels run between 60-70% losses. I can't see how its possible for a rotary to run 35% losses. As if this was the case more people would be using them. Buger could you check these numbers....

35% is alarmingly low. Considering complex nuclear power plants, some of the most massively designed systems known to man run at about a 25% loss.

The rotary is an awesome concept in engines, but it isnt that good. :D

Wow! Thes powerball things are amazing! I could see them taking off in the future because the would be easy to use and of course recyclable.

Fossil fuels are simply stored energy from, at it's basis, ancient sunlight. There are no hydrogen reseviors that I know of. Any hydrogen to be used for powering cars, or anything else, has to be created. Breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen takes at least as much energy as would result from the hydrogen produced. Where does that energy come from? Fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro-electric....all the same stuff we have now. How is it that hydrogen powered cars are a benefit?

The Conservation of Energy laws haven't been repealed, have they?

Why does the Hindenburg come to mind?

Why does the Hindenburg come to mind?

That's actually one of the major stigma's against the use of hydrogen power in cars. But when you stand back and look at it, gasoline isnt exactly candy syrup is it? The fact is that the explosive characteristics of hydrogen are slighty greater than that of gasoline.

Also, I think it was determined that the Hindenburg wasn't even caused by hydrogen, but rather some funky reaction with the aluminum skin.

Originally posted by tallguylehigh


That's actually one of the major stigma's against the use of hydrogen power in cars. But when you stand back and look at it, gasoline isnt exactly candy syrup is it? The fact is that the explosive characteristics of hydrogen are slighty greater than that of gasoline.

Also, I think it was determined that the Hindenburg wasn't even caused by hydrogen, but rather some funky reaction with the aluminum skin. Indeed. An independant NASA researcher along with UCLA's engineering department concluded that the hydrogen in the Hindenburg did not catch fire at all, but rather dissipated immediately into the air. The actual cause of the fire was when the Hindenburg passed thru two storm clouds, it built a static charge and lit the paint on the outside on fire.

The paint, now realized, was made with base ingredients of ROCKET FUEL, so it was no wonder that happened. Hydrogen as a gas is EXTREMELY light, and if contacted with air will immediately dissipate only because it is so light.

I had a handout during my presentation, and everybody was suprised to hear that... in fact last night along with my research, I was suprised as well.

As per the rotary vs piston engine hydrogen losses... they are relatively accurate. The BMW piston engine runs at around a 43% loss, while the 1995 13B non-turbo ran at a 35% loss. The NA 13B made 187 horsepower, and after converted for hydrogen made 120. The BMW engine made 345 before conversion, and 204 afterwards. You can do the math :)

But the real point of my post is to discuss those Powerballs. After I get home today, I'll be doing SEVERE research into them, finding out whatever details I can. If all pans out, and the technology is real, I'll be buying $500-$1000 worth of their stock. While I know it's a risk... people 15 or 20 years ago were taking a risk with a small company called Microsoft.. and look where they are now :)

Hydrogen *is* the fuel of the future, and thus far this is the best technology (seemingly) to get hydrogen gas in a clean, efficient and CHEAP manner.

Originally posted by Hercules

But the real point of my post is to discuss those Powerballs. After I get home today, I'll be doing SEVERE research into them, finding out whatever details I can. If all pans out, and the technology is real, I'll be buying $500-$1000 worth of their stock.
Let us know how that goes, maybe we can get a group buy going :D

as per Tallguy's comments on fuel cells, i concur that they're really really neat, and that they offer tons of advantages concerning efficiency, and cleanliness, etc etc... the biggest thing is that they:
A) generate electricity, and have to use elecrtic motors to move the car (heavy)
B) are terribly expensive.

there are a few reasons why i think fuel cells are a bad idea for cars, but mostly because you can have a zero emissions engine that is no more expensive than the IC ones we have in our cars now, but simply run on H^2 instead...

but yeah jbernes, i hear ya on the generation problem... but Honda had created a "Hydrogen Station" (ie gas station) where solar panels did all the energy collection and generation of the hydrogen from city water, to store it in gaseous form in tanks... a neat idea, huh??

Originally posted by Toadman
Why does the Hindenburg come to mind?

because peopel have the miconception that the hydrogen carried on board caused the fatal fire. however it was the aluminum oxide (pardon me if i have the particular chemical wrong) coating on the skin that was the fuel for the fire.

you're right zoomy, the compound was Aluminum based, and has a nickname: "Thermite" :p
in CHEM 120, my prof made a tiny tiny little bit, and it blowed up real good...

Originally posted by tallguylehigh


In order for fuel cells to be effective, there should be a serious effort in Washington and other capitals to begin implementing a hydrogen infrastructure. Because what good is a fuel cell car if you can't fill it up anywhere?



president bush has announced a several billion dollar initiative to research and start building the infrastructure. this is in conjunction with the several billion dollar program he put in place last year for research and developement of hydrogen powered vehicles.

Originally posted by tallguylehigh


That's actually one of the major stigma's against the use of hydrogen power in cars. But when you stand back and look at it, gasoline isnt exactly candy syrup is it? The fact is that the explosive characteristics of hydrogen are slighty greater than that of gasoline.



So hydrogen is not very explosive. Ever heard of an "H-bomb"?:eek:

The problem with hydrogen versus gasoline is not the difference in explosive energy but that hydrogen can be lit up easier than gasoline since the hydrogen is gaseous.

let's not get carried away here, there is a HUGE difference between hydrogen/oxygen combustion to form water and hydrogen FUSION to helium and god knows what else in an H-bomb. to describe the difference in energy yield in the order of magnitudes would still be an understatement.

not to mention cold fusion...doesn't exactly work or we'd have generators the size of palm pilots that would light up las vegas- or something like that anyhow.

-nate

I may be a little crazy, but I think I remember about reading somewhere that the original designs of the Rotary was designed with the idea of using Hydrogen as fuel for it . . . could be a reason they are more efficient at running H^2.

Originally posted by babylou


So hydrogen is not very explosive. Ever heard of an "H-bomb"?:eek:

The problem with hydrogen versus gasoline is not the difference in explosive energy but that hydrogen can be lit up easier than gasoline since the hydrogen is gaseous. That's simply not true.

NASA engineers have already explained this... hydrogen unless in a compressed canister (like propane, butane), has a near zero percent chance of combustability. Hydrogen is SO MUCH lighter than air, so when a canister is broken, it dissipates more quickly than natural gas and thus can't combust. This is exactly what happened on the Hindenburg -- the gas escaped and people saw a colorful display of the zepplin going down.. but keep in mind -- hydrogen flames are invisible to the eye.

Going back to fuel cell discussion... one of the points has already been mentioned, in that they use electric motors which are first, more expensive to make AND to fix and secondly weigh quite a bit more because you need four individual motors for each wheel as they don't produce insane amounts of power.

Next thing to realize is that a fuel cell is WET inside.. drop below freezing temperatures outside and the cell itself will freeze, making it useless. Next thing to realize is that fuel cells as they are currently designed, require a good amount of PLATINUM to work well... so you can imagine how much it will cost to have one. A more likely application for a fuel cell is to power a home, not a car.

The reason I keep bringing up these Powerballs, is because much of the problems of hydrogen technology can be solved with it. The fuel benefits are obvious.. Since one powerball gives you 1300 times its volume in hydrogen, that's a lot of hydrogen. Next thing to realize is that they are TEENY. They are just slightly smaller than ping pong balls. A truck load of these will cost you $200,000, and are FULLY recyclable. You figure you go to the Powerball pump, and it removes all the old elements of sodium hydroxide (i think that's it) and the green ping pong ball containers that have been opened. Then they are replaced with who knows how many more in the tank. Figure if they are the size of a ping pong ball, you can fit a HELLUVA lot into a 15 gallon tank. As per Powerball's information, what's needed is about a 5 gallon tank of water. Let's say for arguement's sake, that you can fit 100 powerballs into your 5 gallon tank.

100 powerballs * 1300 = 1.3 million times the volume of those 100 powerballs. Picture 100 ping pong balls, then try to imagine 1.3 million of them. That's how much gas is yielded.

The other thing, is that it's SAFE. These balls can be carried in your backpack, car, stored in the house... they have a longer shelf life than gasoline..

Bahhh... that's enough! READ THE SITE! :D

http://www.powerball.net

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hercules
... people 15 or 20 years ago were taking a risk with a small company called Microsoft.. and look where they are now :)

Gives a whole new meaning to the expression, 'crash and burn'. :D

Originally posted by wakeech


but yeah jbernes, i hear ya on the generation problem... but Honda had created a "Hydrogen Station" (ie gas station) where solar panels did all the energy collection and generation of the hydrogen from city water, to store it in gaseous form in tanks... a neat idea, huh??

That is neat...I guess on the same track - how about a small windmill on top of everyone's garage roof to generate hydrogen all night and pump it directly into your parked car?

The problem with conventional hydrogen fueling, either for fuel cells or for liquid hydrogen, is that the fueling process would take up to or more than 15 minutes! :eek:

Thus, this product that I think is quite brilliant saves on that.. in fact fueling should be even faster than a regular car if it works the way I think it will :)

I think this is promising, though I am a bigger fan of internal combustion hydrogen than fuel cells. I just see it much easier in the near future to modify a current IC engine to burn hydrogen than to find a way to significantly reduce the size, and cost, of fuel cells (even though fuel cells use the hydrogen more efficiently).

For that reason, I look more towards BMW and Mazda than say Daimler Chrysler Mercedes, though I believe Honda is darn close to having their fuel cell car ready to roll.

And it is true, it takes more energy to get hydrogen from water than you get when you burn it. However, that doesn't take into consideration the state of the fuel. Hydrogen is worth much more than water, so there may be a $$ incentive to produce it. I would envision huge "hydrogen refineries" in parts of the world that get ungodly amounts of sun. While it would be more efficient to use solar power to move your car than to make hydrogen to move your car, if enough hydrogen could be inventoried to prevent running out during cloudy days, the benefit of having a transportable energy source would far outweigh the fact you used all that sun energy to make it, which is just being wasted anyways.

If it comes from burning fossil fuels to make hydrogen, I agree, the idea is garbage; it doesn't do a damn bit of good. What's interesting to me is that oil companies don't see this as their next opportunity. It's like refusing to improve on the model T, even though you know the Model T isn't going to cut it forever. Or how about the record companies who choose not to see the internet song swapping fever as their next opportunity to make money, but instead view it as a danger to their way of life. Hydrogen is like oil version 2.0, and I would think that oil companies have got to see that.

ok herc, i'll bite. how do you get the split ping pong balls out of the tank?

and why not just make the ping pong balls out of the stuff they make time release cold capsules out of? that way one could just drop into the water every so often and dissolve letting the hydrogen out.

on a side note a hydrogen bomb is not h2 combusting like the naturak gas from a bbq. it is an atomic fusion reaction releasing energy on a scale like the difference between the initial spark of a match and the largest forest fire and the largest volcano eruption combined.

Okay, as you need a hydrogen 'powerball', a machine would take one, slice it open, and place the waste into another canister. In essence, you'd have two tanks in your car. There are images detailing this fillup and recyling process on their site! :)

As per the dissolvable capsule... no. The water is held inside a pressurized tank. The pressure of the tank would hover at 120PSI (and I'm speculating a bit here) when the hydrogen is full. When the pressure gets too low, the car will know to cut another pellet open for more hydrogen in the container. This way none of the fuel goes to waste, as in the case of liquid hydrogen and such, the hydrogen can't sit idle for a long time else it will dissipate. The fact that only a small amount of hydrogen is available throughout the process reduces waste of it. This way whatever hydrogen even if it is dissipated out of the tank over time, will be very minimal and thus cost will be minimal to recover.

A 'cold capsule' would simply allow the pellets to dissolve constantly, and if the pressure in the tank got too high well.. you know what happens :) However I'm sure that in an application such as this, if the pressure exceeds a set amount, hydrogen would be purposely siphoned off to keep the PSI at a safe and optimal level.

Oh and I neglected to mention... as per a time-release capsule that won't fly either. You only use as much hydrogen as you need.. so as time went by you'd simply be causing more waste. It's best to have the machine cut it when you need it.

Originally posted by Jerome81
I think this is promising, though I am a bigger fan of internal combustion hydrogen than fuel cells. I just see it much easier in the near future to modify a current IC engine to burn hydrogen than to find a way to significantly reduce the size, and cost, of fuel cells (even though fuel cells use the hydrogen more efficiently).
Don't forget, that fuel cells also require an ELECTRIC motor.. I'm more a fan of the combustion process myself as well.

The hydrogen produced from this method comes from sodium hydroxide.. that chemical is one of the NUMBER ONE waste products of industries today. Lots of industries produce it as waste, and thus there will be more than plenty to supply the conversion from it to sodium hydride (which happens by simply heating it). And the fact that everything is recylclable makes it even better. :)

ok once the eggs are cracked open and moved to their waste container how do you get them back out? i dont see a diagram for this.

Originally posted by Hercules

Next thing to realize is that a fuel cell is WET inside.. drop below freezing temperatures outside and the cell itself will freeze, making it useless. Next thing to realize is that fuel cells as they are currently designed, require a good amount of PLATINUM to work well... so you can imagine how much it will cost to have one. A more likely application for a fuel cell is to power a home, not a car.



Someone mentioned that the powerball system will freeze as well. This issue hasn't been resolved yet....



100 powerballs * 1300 = 1.3 million times the volume of those 100 powerballs. Picture 100 ping pong balls, then try to imagine 1.3 million of them. That's how much gas is yielded.


I think your math is off. 1300*100 = 130,000.
And saying that it gives 1300 times the volume doesn't mean too much since we're talking about gases. Gases will expand to fill any volume given. It's not like it's "creating" hydrogen, it's just letting it expand from a solid state.

I found a more exact figure...

One gallon worth of powerballs will create 1309 gallons of hydrogen :)

As per the water freezing, I don't think it's as much an issue because you can add antifreeze elements and still preserve the chemical reaction, as with the fuel cell. The real problem with the fuel cell is its cost, and its weight.

Originally posted by Hercules
One gallon worth of powerballs will create 1309 gallons of hydrogen :)


i think that's assuming STP, just to make it seem more impressive... but i won't contend that it's not a lot of hydrogen: that's a helluva lot of *pop* (for those who've seen H^2 blow up)...

and i was about to say the same thing about mixing other (non-reactive) compounds into the water to keep it from freezing... really simple chemistry: i wouldn't worry about it.

To those responding to my earlier crack of an H-bomb; yes I and I think the rest of us know that an atomic fusion reaction is not the same as regular old combustion. That was the reason the comment had a little goofy face next to it. Sheesh.

;) don't worry 'bout it lou... SOME people just can't take a joke...

anyways, i was just reminded of the time i saw a demo of various concentrations of H^2 and O^2 (in the form of air, but corrected for O^2 concentration) in balloons, which were popped with a flaming torch... the pure H^2 just burned in a very slow (and not very hot) fireball, while only the combination which was really really close to the stoic point really sent any bits of balloon anywhere... H^2 is very safe, far more so than gasoline.

sorry babylou i read right over the smiley without seeing it . my bad:o we really need that rolleyes smiley back:)

and herc just to bug you : how do you extract the broken egg shells

Two tanks zoom. One tank full of the broken shells, one waiting for new ones. There would be two pumps, one putting the balls in, and the other taking the old ones out.

i think the figures (1309 gallons) and so on, are for pressures of 120 psi, beacause thats the pressure the tank is kept at, so it would be pretty pointless to give a false impression with other pressure figures.

also, cold fusion DOES work, its just that because it would have saved the USSR, many capitalist governments around the world decided it would be better to dissolve a super power than pursure the future form of energy generation. Theres a guy in California that runs his entire house off a TINY setup (a small setup about the size of a school desk, if i remember correctly) in his basement for virtually nothing per year. There should be at least SOME money poured into this for R&D, even as little as a billion dollars a year could yeild huge results. This is virtually free energy, that nobody has faith in.

There are soooo many technologies out there that can save the future of the planet, the thing is, nobody wants to bother with them because of the R&D costs. i for one am glad that Bush has alotted that amount (though VERY small compared to other budgets, but better than nothing) to hydrogen technology development.
________
Avandia law (http://classactionsettlements.org/)

:D AHAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! no, really, seriously POOMan no one has ever gotten cold fusion to work... and the problem isn't that R+D costs are "too high", it's that there are still (nominally, by which i mean unadjusted for pollution cost) cheaper alternatives... but don't think that if cold fusion would have worked, it wouldn't be developped... :D heh heh heh, man what conspiracy theory magazine do you subscribe to?? i wanna read it too!! be good for a few laughs....

honestly though, cold fusion is physically impossible.

I've always thought that hydrogen was the future, until I stumbled across this link: http://www.theaircar.com. I know that this might sound silly to most of you, but this engine runs on regular pressurised air!!! The thing works by putting atmospheric air into a (sort of) regular piston engine, letting the piston compress the air until it reaches 400 degrees Celcius and then releasing compressed air (from the tank) into another cylinder which in turn cools the cylinder down and forces the piston down.
http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks_images/howitworks_motor.jpg

The production ready Air Car engine produces 25hp... So it's not really a racer, YET. Remember that the first car ever produced (a Daimler) actually put out an amazing 0,75hp and today we are talking 0-60 times!

Mexico City has preordered 26.000 Air Cars to replace some af their Beetle Cabs... and Spain some 14.000, so let's hope this thing really takes off! Wouldn't you buy a 360hp RX-7 Air Car :D
http://www.theaircar.com/models_images/model_taxi.jpg

Cheers

Eske

Yea but you need some type of a reaction to heat air up... it doesn't happen by magic.. and I can't find it on the site :)

Well, you use an electric starter to compress the first rotation with amtospheric air (when you compress air the temperature rises), then release some of the pressurised air from the tank and violá: we have a chain reaction!

Still, you must admit that it is an extremely interesting concept.

Cheers

Eske

Something similar is going on in New Zealand except they use hydrogen to heat water to make steam in a rotary engine :)

The way it works is that they take a SMALL amount of hydrogen injected with a bit of water into a rotor chamber. The hydrogen is sparked, and the water as a result turns to steam and expands far beyond its normal size, pushing the rotor around and around.

I think this method is probably the best, as it uses a minimal amount of hydrogen along with a resource that 70%+ of the Earth is covered in :) However I will add, that a pure hydrogen burn will produce more power than a comparitive water/hydrogen mix would.

Save your Ping Pong Balls!
:D

also, cold fusion DOES work, its just that because it would have saved the USSR, many capitalist governments around the world decided it would be better to dissolve a super power than pursure the future form of energy generation. Theres a guy in California that runs his entire house off a TINY setup (a small setup about the size of a school desk, if i remember correctly) in his basement for virtually nothing per year.

could you site your source for this info?

and the problem isn't that R+D costs are "too high", it's that there are still (nominally, by which i mean unadjusted for pollution cost) cheaper alternatives...

no, its really that (like you said in your first sentence) no has made it work yet. several people(or groups) have claimed to in the last 15 years but noone( not even those making the claims) has been able to duplicate the processes and get the claimed results.

Hmmm I cant believe I read the whole thing. But it was just soo interesting. If this is the future of Cars it my be looking bright for rotaries!:D

Actually, cold fusion is possible. its just that its very hard to maintain.

I remember this from some Discover article I read about how some scientist were able to maintain the fusion for like 10 nanoseconds or something (can't remember the exact number). Anyways, I seem to recollect that they were using some sort gas bubble to maintain the fusion and the trick was to find the correct shape of the bubble. They actually made a breakthrough and were able to maintain fusion for like 5 ns longer or something. However they were not getting any real energy from it.

But I've never heard of some guy in California running his house from fusion. P00 do you have link somewhere to that?

Ahh... "cold fusion." As a ChemE grad student, I remember studying the infamous journal article that started the whole craze:

Fleischmann and Pons, Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 261 (1989) 301-308.

For those in the forum feeling adventurous, an ascii version of the article can be found here (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/fusion.html).

Pons and Fleischmann have subsequently left (i.e. been removed from) their respective positions at The University of Utah and the University of Southampton. A Japanese consortium now funds their research in France.

Just thought I bring a little more science to the table.

Originally posted by Salo
Ahh... "cold fusion." As a ChemE grad student, I remember studying the infamous journal article that started the whole craze:

Fleischmann and Pons, Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 261 (1989) 301-308.

For those in the forum feeling adventurous, an ascii version of the article can be found here (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/fringe_science/fusion.html).

Pons and Fleischmann have subsequently left (i.e. been removed from) their respective positions at The University of Utah and the University of Southampton. A Japanese consortium now funds their research in France.

Just thought I bring a little more science to the table.

Fleischmann & Pons were hosed. They did not want to release their findings yet until they had more experimental evidence. Unfortunately their bosses forced them to release the info because their "discovery" would have been a giant trophy for their institutions.

After their findings were released so many people raced to repeat the findings and my university, Texas A&M, was the first to release tests that agreed with Flieschmann & Pons.

The sad part was that all that was done was a chemical reaction not a fusion reaction. So if Fleischmann & Pons were allowed to do some more research they would have discovered this and they would never have been so embarrassed. Not to mention all of us Aggies out there.

The above story is proof enough that there is not some dude in Cali with a cold fusion plant in his basement. If he indeed had a cold fusion plant he would be the first $US trillionaire (million million for all you limeys;)

Originally posted by babylou


The above story is proof enough that there is not some dude in Cali with a cold fusion plant in his basement. If he indeed had a cold fusion plant he would be the first $US trillionaire (million million for all you limeys;)

I was going to say that but felt I would be simply stating the obvious.

Originally posted by Salo
stating the obvious.

*cough cough* :D indeed.

chenpin the results of that experiment have not been verified thru reproduction by anyone else including the original scientists.

sorry folks no cold fusion in cali or enron would have been wiped out long ago:D