Skip to comments.Cold Fusion Gets a Little More Real
Posted on 10/21/2012 5:33:40 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Cold fusion, otherwise called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), is, theoretically, the fusing together (rather than a chemical reaction) of elements at normal temperatures such that they release more energy than is required to fuse them.
This is an idea that is incredibly appealing because if it could be achieved it would provide mankind with, again in theory, incredibly cheap energy. In practice, there could be drawbacks such as pollution and radiation but until cold fusion is actually demonstrated and developed, no one knows.
Hot fusion, on the other hand, is the process by which elements would be fused together at temperatures and pressures only found naturally in stars.
While hot fusion, yet again theoretically, would create more energy than it would to induce fusion the conditions required are so extreme that rather than a simple test tube it requires machines the size of houses and enormous supporting facilities that bring the whole project up to factory scale (see the National Ignition Facility). Hot fusion is also guaranteed to have radioactive waste products.
Unfortunately it turned out that the Fleischmann and Pons experiment was not reliably reproducible. In the academic fracas that followed, both mens reputations were ruined and the field was quickly relegated to the domain of fringe science along with perpetual motion, telekinesis, and anti-gravity.
While mainstream science was apparently quite happy with this situation and went about spending billions of dollars on hot fusion (there are many who claim that cold fusion was systematically marginalized and deprecated by establishment scientists), a few rogue researchers continued with cold fusion research and, over the last few years, evidence has piled up that cold fusion may, in fact, be real.
I wrote may
be real because until recently the evidence looked promising but hardly conclusive.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Someone had some space to fill and a deadline.
So I guess that when MIT lead a full-court press among academic physics departments all over the world to marginalize, denigrate and discredit cold fusion back in 1989 by means of an unprecedented phone, FAX and e-mail campaign... I guess that was 100%... absolute, unadulterated... BS. As in nonsense. As in untruth. As in big fat lie.
There is Obamaloon level physics, and there is the standard model.
I’ll take the standard model for $500, John.
...announced that they had achieved this phenomena in a test tube in their lab.
"Phenomena" is the plural of "phenomenon." Forbes can't afford to hire a copy editor?
They'll say anything to sell paper.
Try and keep an open mind, there is some strange stuff at the sub atomic level.
Try and keep an open mind, there is some strange stuff at the sub atomic level.
In 1969 I was told cold fusion was just 30 years away
In 1979 I was told cold fusion was just 10 years away
In 1989 I was told cold fusion was just 20 years away
In 1999 I was told cold fusion was just 10 years away
In 2009 I was told cold fusion was just 10 years away
Folks, I am running out of time here. Put up or shut up. I know your grant is a sweet thing, but at least make a spark.
Wasn’t there some poster on this site that used to pimp some Italian who was going to imminently offer mega-watt cold fusion units. Something about him not being able to pass an independent test without pixie dust, if I remember correctly!
The U.S. Navy has been studying it for some time and think that there is something to it.
In my book, cold fusion was/is electrochemistry. A characteristic of electrical expreiments are that they are hard to duplicate because they are critically dependent on the apparatus used. So, cold fusion requires the proper setup to get it going. Apparently, many researchers didn’t/don’t have the experience or the skilled glass blowers to make the apparatus. I will give you an 85% probability it will will work with the proper equipment.
By constructing these devices in thin layers divided with graphene you can get phenomenal improvements in simple battery performance ~ try: http://www.torquenews.com/1080/battery-thomas-edison-invented-finding-new-life-cars for starters! (that's a pun)
Rossi's industrial size battery case ordinarily contained some quite ordinary iron hydride anodes ~ but he'd modified pieces of the circuitry ~ by themselves a full load of batteries could hold and discharge an appreciable amount of energy for about 5.5 hours (the time period he held his experiment to).
If he was getting more charge out of the units than he put into them I'd look at something besides his jumba juice and nickel powder ~ maybe some part chock a bloc full of nanoparticles of some kind ~ maybe even produced by accident, but otherwise reliably produced in some quite understandable but ignored process.
Folks have been working with these super high capacity units for in-line emergency power sources for a couple of decades ~ and the newer graphene sheet augmented units do the same job and more ~ graphene appears to have almost magical power (according to some of the guys working with it) and has been proposed for inclusion in hot fusion operations as well ~ for what purpose?
Now's the time to pick up the battery cases (about 1/4 the size of an international transportation container) and anodes ~ they've quit subsidizing the windmills which were one of the major users of the newst sorts of storage batteries. They were smoothing the power output with them.
That's after the world has poured hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars down a rathole.
Are you talking about hot fusion.
1950, only 30 years away
1980, only 30 years away
2012, only 30 years away.
P&F cold fusion was a child of the 80’s
The digital media can’t last in stand-alone form.
Technology does not always go forward; remember the Concorde?
The CIA studied "remote viewing" for some time and thought there was something to it. There wasn't. Just because some lame-brain happens to work for the government doesn't mean he/she/they know shit from ice cream.
Geeezzzeee, I guess so. Right now they are trying to develop a computer based on it. It will be faster than the speed of light because of the nature of the “entwined subatomic particles.” It would be binary, like our computers today, but,it would have no space limitations as is the case in ordinary physics.
The Concorde was not an improvement in technology ~ any plane taking off at Dulles that I can hear from my basement is a problem!
P&F still got millions of dollars in the 1990's to do their cold fusion research in Europe and they still came up with nothing.
The author is a blogger. Obviously, Forbes doesn't check his work in any way.
I take it the space shuttle was no improvement either? The world has lost that as well.
That was Kevmo. He tried unsuccessfully to get me banned, then he tried to get the FR moderators to declare cold fusion a religion so he could keep me from commenting on his cold fusion threads, once again unsuccessfully.
If anyone wants to know the latest about Rossi the con artist, they should read this thread:
Still, there were billions spent on hot fusion and where is it?
Robotics have supplanted whatever the Shuttle could do. For quite some time we will do our planetary searches with machines. Unless, of course, someone comes up with workable cold fusion systems.
What do you mean by hot fusion?
I heard Ford made fusion a while back.
Does Forbes actually fact check its "science" articles?
Neither hot fusion nor cold fusion are "guaranteed" to have radioactive waste products. The apparent best pathway for both right now -- if we stipulate that we believe in cold fusion for the sake of discussion -- is neutronic, so both produce radioactive decay products, and for both the decay products are very short lived compared to fission.
That’s not what is happening at all. We are hitching rides on Russian spacecraft.
Like anti-gravity boots, cold fusion will revolutionize the world, just needs a few more tweeks and press releases to put the oil producers out of business. (see e-cat.com)
Sounds like they are basing it on the one real-world fusion reaction we see every day that is 93 million miles away. Plenty of X-rays come out of that reaction. Fusion in the core of that reaction does produce gamma rays, but those frequencies get slowed down before they reach the surface.
Aneutronic fusion is the Holy Grail of Green Weenies. I doubt very much they’re talking about gamma rays; almost all interactions produce photons, in particular both hot and cold fusion. They die off exponentially and don’t generally produce long lived products.
The space shuttle was not an improvement.
It was developed to service the space station, which was developed to give the shuttles something to do.
It is perfectly apparent, at least to me, that we aren’t going to do much of anything in space until we come up with a form of propulsion that isn’t rocket-based.
If we could control the gravitational force with 1% of the effectiveness with which we control the electromagnetic force, we’d be on our way. Anywhere.
Green Weenies abhor the very idea of any form of cheap, non-polluting energy.
It would allow the whole human race to greatly exceed the present American standard of living.
What a nightmare.
I forget which prominent greenie remarked something to the effect that giving the human race unlimited energy would be like giving a toddler a machine gun.
A reusable spacecraft not an improvement over non-reusable ones, plus able to carry significant payloads? That’s a new one to me. Never mind the existence of the shuttle centering around the “space station” (unidentified), and apparently the shuttle work with the Hubble telescope has been forgotten.
If by non-rocket-based propulsion you mean something that will accelerate spacecraft beyond what a rocket is capable of, we seem to have a bunch of dead ends. Rockets will be the main way to get into earth orbit, though.
They want aneutronic fusion because it’s probably unattainable outside of stars.
You are correct, it was HOT FUSION
hate it when I get the hot/cold mixed up
My point, which obviously doesn’t really disagree with yours, is that they don’t really want us to find any form of cheap, non-polluting energy.
I feel as if I have been transported back in time to when the only way most people saw news was at the movie house on the weekend.
And the Newsreel Clips are all harping about some unrealistic goal of something that will eliminate vacuum tubes.
That is the essence of the problem: getting independently reproducible results. The guy who can figure out how to do that will win the Nobel Prize.
That said, I've been disappointed often enough that I have little interest until we have
(1) someone with reputation evaluating it ON THE RECORD
(2) in his independent lab and
(3) having it run long enough and generate enough energy that there is no possibility of a chemical reaction, preferably by an order-of-magnitude.