Skip to comments.'Cold Fusion' Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source
Posted on 03/23/2009 12:42:14 PM PDT by FlameThrower
ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
And it seems to have become much more in that way
Maybe the cold fusion contract Intrade is a bargain...
Dr Yoshiaki Aratas Cold Fusion Experiment
Dr Arata’s experiment to be replicated in peer-reviewed scientific journal on/before 31 Dec 2009 M Trade
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
3.5 11.0 4.0 111 0
“Low energy” tells me this is interesting only from a scientific perspective, not an economic one.
About a year ago I read an article that while the total reaction was slightly positive that there were small areas of much greater reaction. They were trying to find out what made local greater reactions.
I guess that's why we aren't doing it.
Now THAT’S just plain funny, right there!
But the question of whether or not anomalous energy production is occurring is separate and distinct from the question of whether or not any sort of nuclear reaction is involved. And whether or not the phenomenon could be economically used by society to produce energy is yet a third issue.
I've long felt that the name "cold fusion" is largely responsible for the controversy.
It depends. If we scale energy sources from "low" to "high," I think that "cold fusion" might well end up being on roughly the same level as the gasoline engine. "Hot fusion," by contrast, being a very high energy source.
I would sure like to see this riddle solved. Whether it really is cold fusion or whatever, I don’t care. Whether it is useful or not, I don’t care. I just want someone to once-and-for-all show me just what the heck is going on.
Low energy compared to an H-bomb explosion or low energy compared to a light bulb? Scale would be an important descriptor.
Excellent post from you. Nothing else needs to be said.
(Some advances in science have happened when the mainstream view was wrong, many others have have occurred when the mainstream view was right. ALL have required ENGINEERING to succeed, and quite frankly, it is in the engineering and funding and detail design that most theoretical advances have failed.)
After all, the THEORY of rocket science was known in the 1920's based on "simple" equations of physics known since Newton's era. It took tens of thousands of man-years of effort to get to today's level of expertise - where NASA STILL blows them up on the launch pad, and has them fly to Mars and Venus - only to fail on re-entry in the last hundred feet. (Er, meters.)
Feet, meeters - eh, one little boo-boo.
Next thing ya know, we’re gonna be up to our necks in neutrons! Then what? Eh?
Strange that, isn't it?
The one actual physically possible solution to EVERY one of their problems is NOT even discussed as a potential event.
But solar and wind power are deemed not only economical by 2050, but WILL be legislated into use for 50% - 80% of our power by 2050.
“Hot” or “Cold”, “Low energy” or “High energy” has to do with the energy of the participating ingredients needed to make the reaction go, not the amount of energy available if the reaction goes.
I’ll believe in “cold fusion” when they pry it from my cold, dead hands......................
Certainly a great improvement for flux capacitors.
Practical Cold Fusion could rapidly accelerate Global Warming and should be banned to save humanity.
Wouldn’t 10kw vs. a 1 metaton detonation be considered “Low energy”? I could power my house for almost a year.
Kind of like when Elroy Jetson was playing with his chemistry set splitting atoms just like any red blooded boy would do in the utopian future. His mother, Jane, scolded him not to get all those messy atoms all over her clean floor.
· Google ·
An experimental "cold fusion" device produced this pattern of "triple tracks" (shown at right), which scientists say is caused by high-energy nuclear particles resulting from a nuclear reaction (Credit: Pam Boss, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR))
only to fail on re-entry in the last hundred feet. (Er, meters.)
What? You think it failed? LOL! That’s just the cover story. Remeber that face on Mars? Hmmmm? ;^)
I just ran through quite a few of the articles in science daily about “LENR”. I’m beginning to believe that in time, Pons and Fleischman are going to get the credit for their experiment that I have always believed they deserved. I don’t have any idea why they managed to get that thing to work back then, but I’ve always believed they were honest scientists who managed to somehow get everything exactly right, or that some trace impurity was responsible for their experiment working. If they are someday fully vindicated, as it seems increasingly possible they will be, it will be a fascinating lesson for all of science.
How many times have we heard this?
The Global Warming crowed is opposed to both wind and solar as well. They oppose all energy.
Title: Feinstein: Don’t Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels
Kennedy faces fight on Cape Wind
You are correct. What leftists really oppose is people.
Notice that whenever they get a chance, they kill as many as they can.
No sane person would like for this to be a fluke. I can’t say it’s impossible, but unless they can somehow concentrate this this seemingly fleeting phenomenon I’m skeptical. Skeptical by nature so no surprise there.
3000 papers on cold fusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.