Cold Fusion Computer ?

[Clanscorpia]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you provide a source to back up your claims? Also, 99% efficient compared to what? Fuel to energy conversion? Or when compared to a non-refuse fueled combustion power plant?

Like the output I saw in a video. When I said 99% efficiency I meant the gas output, that the gases outputted where 99% safe

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Like the output I saw in a video. When I said 99% efficiency I meant the gas output, that the gases outputted where 99% safe

So you're talking about the ratio of combusted fuel vs waste material? Interesting. Do you have a source for that? I'm still pretty skeptical about low pollutants.

[corrado33]

12 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Thats what I was told, that they burned 99% of what goes in and msot of it turns into harmless gases

Ha! "Harmless" gasses.

 

I'm going to tell you to do something. Look up "combustion" reactions online. Tell me what the general products are.

 

Then look up the most prevalent greenhouse gasses. Compare, etc. 

[Clanscorpia]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So you're talking about the ratio of combusted fuel vs waste material? Interesting. Do you have a source for that? I'm still pretty skeptical about low pollutants.

 

3 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Ha! "Harmless" gasses.

 

I'm going to tell you to do something. Look up "combustion" reactions online. Tell me what the general products are.

 

Then look up the most prevalent greenhouse gasses. Compare, etc. 

This isnt the one I watched but it has a few of my points. Im looking for the video with the 99% of something taken out but I may have gotten confused with the recycles 99% of their trash

[Clanscorpia]

5 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

 

This isnt the one I watched but it has a few of my points. Im looking for the video with the 99% of something taken out but I may have gotten confused with the recycles 99% of their trash

Its still a pretty interesting watch though

[Sakkura]

On 19/11/2016 at 6:34 PM, Clanscorpia said:

They actually dont, Sweden uses them and they burn it really cleanly

Denmark uses it so much we have to import garbage from other countries.

[Mira Yurizaki]

If you want to harness the power of nuclear energy, just use a plutonium thermal battery.

[Sakkura]

5 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Sorry but NO. Absolutely not. Those "power plants" are not at all efficient (significantly less than traditional power plants, which are only at ~%30 themselves), they produce a crap ton of CO2 (as does any power plant that "burns" things) and there are MUCH better ways to use biomass than by burning it. 

 

Sure, they may "burn" everything, but that does not make them a good power source. I can get my campfire to burn 90% of the wood I throw into it. It's not a hard thing to do. 

They are highly efficient, especially when you're using them for cogeneration.

 

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you provide a source to back up your claims? Also, 99% efficient compared to what? Fuel to energy conversion? Or when compared to a non-refuse fueled combustion power plant?

In technical terms the efficiency is actually above 100%. But that's obviously just due to technicalities.

 

Here is an article google-translated from Danish, in the magazine Ingeniøren (The Engineer, highly regarded technical news magazine).

[Thunderpup]

On 11/19/2016 at 10:28 AM, dr_sepheroth said:

So I been thinking, could it be possible to design and invent a device that uses cold fusion to power a computer ?

 

This would decrease man kinds energy consumption cost by about half, as half the worlds energy is spent on running the computers that run the world. Why not have a computer that generates it's own power. 

 

Any ideas on how this might be possible ?

It's already a thing.  You just need to get yourself a Mr. Fusion and you can power your computer using scraps from the kitchen.