Posted on 08/21/2011 11:17:19 AM PDT by Kevmo
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/LANR2011Colloq.pdf
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/LANR2011Colloq.pdf
ColdFusion; LENR; E-CAT; CMNS
Thanks, Kevmo. Things seem to be developing quickly with cold fusion. Now it is just a matter of who gets there the quickest with the most commercially viable system.
/sarc
Cold Fusion ping!
Just like Pons Fleischmann time - they host a symposium, bash the results, then file as many ancillary patents around the phenomenon as they can think of. They’re still thinking those old patents could make them a flood of money.
It’s just around the corner........
Regards,
GtG
If teflon is the "real deal" why hasn't it been observed in nature?
Maybe it does exist in nature, only it is a geologic process occurring deep in the earth and we never see the ‘process’ of fusion, only its end result.
Teflon is made using fluorine gas which is highly reactive (has a very high electron affinity) and is not normally present in a free state because it forms stable compounds, fluorides, with all other elements except for helium and neon. That being said, fluorine gas will form a stable compound with carbon (Ie: tetrafluoroethylene gas). Polymerized perfluoroethylene (Teflon) is formed when tetrafluoroethylene gas comes in contact with an iron catalyst under low temperature and high pressure conditions. It does not appear naturally for the same reason that nylon, dacron, polyethylene, or polystyrene do not appear naturally. All of these materials are man made through the process of polymerization, which is the formation of long chain molecules from smaller (monomer) molecules. This process relies on temperature, pressure and the presence of a catalyst.
Producing "man made" materials through chemical synthesis is not the same thing as releasing energy through a fusion reaction. After decades of trying we have yet to demonstrate controlled high temperature fusion, which clearly occurs freely in nature. Why then cannot a "cold" fusion process be demonstrated? I'll settle for a lab demonstration or a natural occurrence. The only stipulation is that the process must output more energy then is input (it would be nice to witness some helium being produced as well).
Regards,
GtG
Well the pressures and temperature under the Earth's mantle are certainly much higher then in the "shirt sleeve" environment alluded to by the proponents of "cold fusion". They, however, and not nearly high enough to generate the "hot fusion" as found in the sun. The other problem that comes to mind is where does the hydrogen come from as fuel for this hypothetical reaction?
Regards,
GtG
Why not?
The process of making polymers from monomers requires some input of energy (heat & pressure) and in the case of teflon produces a slippery solid that is practically inert. You can apply heat and it doesn't ignite. Apply enough heat and it sublimates (turns from a solid into a gas with passing thru a liquid phase. You do not have a net energy gain (which is what you are looking for with any form of fusion).
Looking at what you are doing with polymerization, you are actually working on a molecular level, taking simple constructs of atoms and without messing with the atomic structure, linking them together to build a longer (usually) or bigger (3D) structure from the small components, rather like tinker toys. All of the atoms making up the molecule are unchanged.
When you attempt fusion you are working on a subatomic level. You are trying to force two hydrogen nuclei together to form a helium atom and release a great deal of energy. The sun does it by crushing hydrogen atoms with a huge gravity field. A thermonuclear bomb uses a fusion bomb to provide a radiation shock-wave to substitute for the gravity field to do the same thing. The forces that hold atoms together are immense but operate over very short distances. The forces that hold molecules together are so much smaller that a bit of heat (fire) will break down a molecular structure.
While fusion may look something like polymerization there are many orders of magnitude difference in the forces involved.
I think I have beaten this subject to death...
Regards,
GtG
Maybe it's published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics (Rossi's blog).
It still sounds like a chemical reaction
***That would be fine with me. No oversight by the NRC.
If cold fusion is the “real deal” why hasn’t it been observed in nature?
***Here’s a start.
Science: Rocks reveal the signature of fusion at the centre of the Earth
06 May 1989
Magazine issue 1663. Subscribe and save
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216633.500—science-rocks-reveal-the-signature-of-fusion-at-the-centre-of-the-earth—.html
NUCLEAR fusion could be responsible for at least some of the Earth’s heat, according to one of the researchers involved in the current controversy over producing cold fusion in a test tube.
Steven Jones and his team at Brigham Young University, Utah, who last week published the results of their experiments on cold fusion in Nature (vol 338, p 737), suggest that the fusion of deuterium and hydrogen could produce the isotope helium-3 deep inside the Earth. This mechanism would also explain the high levels of helium-3 found in rocks, liquids and gases from volcanoes and regions in the Earth’s crust where tectonic plates are active.
It was this implication that provided the impetus for Jones’s efforts to achieve fusion between deuterium nuclei in an electrolytic cell with titanium and palladium electrodes. Jones detected a few neutrons with a specific energy that indicated nuclear fusion.
Three years ago, Paul Palmer, ...
To continue reading
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.