Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Styxx on June 07, 2005, 07:23:04 pm

Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Styxx on June 07, 2005, 07:23:04 pm
Apparently:

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html

Not good as an energy source right now, but still, that's some neat stuff.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Taristin on June 07, 2005, 07:33:15 pm
That's pretty cool. :yes:
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Unknown Target on June 07, 2005, 07:33:26 pm
Christian Science Monitor...:wtf:...talk about your oxymorons.
Anyway, looks cool :)
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: achtung on June 07, 2005, 07:52:18 pm
Finally!  A power source for my death ray :nervous:
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Setekh on June 07, 2005, 08:00:51 pm
Wow... cool. Maybe we can make something out of this at last. :)

Quote
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Christian Science Monitor...:wtf:...talk about your oxymorons.


Hey! :p
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Rictor on June 07, 2005, 08:01:12 pm
Didn't Dr.Octpus once almost invent cold fusion? And look where that ended up.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Grug on June 07, 2005, 08:13:02 pm
Cool.

Funny how in Sci-Fi there's been quite a few references to crystals being an energy source etc.
Very interesting. :)
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: IceFire on June 07, 2005, 08:44:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grug
Cool.

Funny how in Sci-Fi there's been quite a few references to crystals being an energy source etc.
Very interesting. :)

Or a storage device....turns out that works well too.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Grug on June 07, 2005, 08:58:37 pm
Indeed. :)
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: FireCrack on June 07, 2005, 09:03:57 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Didn't Dr.Octpus once almost invent cold fusion? And look where that ended up.


No that was normal, hot, fusion, hence the big ball of fire.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Unknown Target on June 07, 2005, 09:19:10 pm
Goodnes gracious great balls of fire!
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Dark RevenantX on June 07, 2005, 09:54:10 pm
****!  Now we know how to make stars stop!
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Ashrak on June 07, 2005, 10:23:46 pm
okhay call me stupid but dont nuclear cores make a helluva bang when they fuze? i mean cmn look at the nuke ... yes the initial explosion to create the temp is big but after theat the Hydro atoms go kaboom
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Janos on June 07, 2005, 10:48:24 pm
I believe it when I see it,
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Ashrak on June 07, 2005, 10:51:28 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Janos
I believe it when I see it,



unfortunately i agree
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: phatosealpha on June 07, 2005, 10:53:43 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Ashrak
okhay call me stupid but dont nuclear cores make a helluva bang when they fuze? i mean cmn look at the nuke ... yes the initial explosion to create the temp is big but after theat the Hydro atoms go kaboom


Indeed, but mind you that's the result of a considerable chain reaction.  They fuse lots and lots and lots of hydrogen together all at once (IIRC, by setting off a fission bomb around it, creating great heat and pressure) and those release so much energy that the other hydrogen atoms have enough energy to fuse, making more energy and so on til you run out of hydrogen.

This only seems to do 1 or 2 at a time, and while they give off energy, it's not enough to heat the rest of the atoms to the point of a chain reaction.  Only the ones directly affected by the electric field can possibly fuse.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: achtung on June 07, 2005, 11:51:57 pm
who in the hell is dr. octopus?
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Kosh on June 08, 2005, 12:04:47 am
Quote
okhay call me stupid but dont nuclear cores make a helluva bang when they fuze? i mean cmn look at the nuke



Ok, you're stupid. :p
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Nix on June 08, 2005, 01:33:35 am
Yess!! Now I can look forward to putting a Mr. Fusion on the back of my Mercury Sable!
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Typhon_Paktu:SA on June 08, 2005, 01:49:21 am
Interesting... i wonder how they were able tp keep it a secret for so long. it had to be made sometime.

Now the real fun begins. Who will use it for what. The oil industry need to crash  :) We will never see better cources of energy unless they go.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: karajorma on June 08, 2005, 03:06:28 am
There has been an enormous amount of money spent on fusion because countries with no oil reserves want it (As does the American military so even the oil industry's desires come second).

As for whether this works or not I'm reserving judgement. 2 previous claims of cold fusion have proved to be complete bulls**t so I'm not going to start celebrating till I hear the responses of other phyicists.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Martinus on June 08, 2005, 03:13:18 am
[color=66ff00]The entire point of a fusion reaction (from our point of view anyway) is to get a lot of energy output from a small energy input. As the article  described the current system needs a large energy input to produce a small energy output.
[/color]
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: karajorma on June 08, 2005, 03:27:28 am
Well it's nothing more than a proof of concept at this stage. Next step is to find out the variables that influence it and only then can you start thinking about building a prototype that reverses the energy in- energy out ratio.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Martinus on June 08, 2005, 03:30:14 am
[color=66ff00]From what I inferred from the article and my (not complete by a long shot) knowledge of particle physics the factors have been known for quite some time. (Unless you're referring to the factors in this specific system?)

I think the problem has always been implementation and not understanding.
[/color]
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Kosh on June 08, 2005, 05:09:38 am
Quote
I think the problem has always been implementation and not understanding.



You're absolutly right.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Carl on June 08, 2005, 05:56:54 am
Quote
Originally posted by Dark RevenantX
****!  Now we know how to make stars stop!


what? :wtf:
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: TrashMan on June 08, 2005, 06:33:47 am
Quote
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Christian Science Monitor...:wtf:...talk about your oxymorons.
Anyway, looks cool :)


An oxymoron? Why do you think christianity and science are mutually exclusive? Quite the contrary..
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: karajorma on June 08, 2005, 06:38:36 am
Quote
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]From what I inferred from the article and my (not complete by a long shot) knowledge of particle physics the factors have been known for quite some time. (Unless you're referring to the factors in this specific system?) [/color]


I meant in this particular system. They'll spend a while on experiments like what happens if I turn dial A all the way up and turn Dial B down before they start building a prototype. The science is pretty well understood. The engineering might be a completely different matter :)

They'll want to spend a while optimising the small scale reactions before they attempt to scale them up :)

Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
An oxymoron? Why do you think christianity and science are mutually exclusive? Quite the contrary..


I think UT confused christian scientists and creation scientists. The second one is an oxymoron. The first one depends on the person.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Kosh on June 08, 2005, 09:54:16 am
Quote
An oxymoron? Why do you think christianity and science are mutually exclusive? Quite the contrary..



It is not supposed to be that way, but it is. Over the centuries, the christian church has proven itself to be very anti-technology, and very anti-progress.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 08, 2005, 10:58:45 am
"Christian science" is not just a generic term that people throw around; there is a specific institution called The Church of Christian Science. Its members are famous for letting their children die of common ailments such as appendicitis because they reject modern medicine.

I'm not sure whether this newsletter is connected with that church, but the fact that it is reporting on a relevant scientific issue would lead me to conclude that it probably is not.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Styxx on June 08, 2005, 11:38:09 am
Ok, now, I don't want to see another post about the name of the site on this thread. This is about cold fusion, not religiosity, its integration with sience and the implications of that. Future posts about it will be deleted, and the poster warned.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: StratComm on June 08, 2005, 11:48:13 am
Actually I want to go one farther than that Styxx (specifically, Re: Ford Prefect).  You people really should learn to check your statements for anything RESEMBLING reality before you post.  The Christian Science Monitor actually is a very reputable popular science journal, much like Discover, etc.  It wouldn't take much background (or for that matter, just reading one of their articles) to find that out.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: karajorma on June 08, 2005, 11:57:05 am
Rather interestingly Seth Putterman one of the scientists involved in this experiment is also responsible for debunking (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/experiment_prog_summary.shtml) the claim of the Rusi Taleyarkhan to have achieved cold fusion via soniluminesence.

I'll let the tin foil hat brigade make of that what they will :)
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Cold Fusion on June 08, 2005, 12:10:27 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Janos
I believe it when I see it,


*kaboom* :eek:
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: EtherShock on June 08, 2005, 08:31:30 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Swantz
who in the hell is dr. octopus?

Doctor Octopus or Dr. Otto Octavius was a scientist, nuclear physicist, I believe. He had a set of mechanical arms that he secured around his body to aide in his experiments. One day, an accident happened during an experiment that fused the arms to his body and gave him complete control over them with his mind, and he went "mad."

Doc Ock (http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/d/droctopus.htm) is one of Spider-Man's arch enemies and a formidible one he is.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Mongoose on June 08, 2005, 09:17:09 pm
Cool concept, but I'm sticking with tokamaks until I see some more info/confirmation.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: TrashMan on June 09, 2005, 07:33:41 am
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Rather interestingly Seth Putterman one of the scientists involved in this experiment is also responsible for debunking (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/experiment_prog_summary.shtml) the claim of the Rusi Taleyarkhan to have achieved cold fusion via soniluminesence.

I'll let the tin foil hat brigade make of that what they will :)


Why am I not surprised...
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: karajorma on June 09, 2005, 11:01:55 am
Surprised by what?
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: deep_eyes on June 10, 2005, 11:38:18 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Mongoose
Cool concept, but I'm sticking with tokamaks until I see some more info/confirmation.


the concepts of the tokamack reactors are more ahead of its time than is capable with current technologies, then again, the new "crystal" style these guys are tying to make like in star trek for example (i guess, bad example?), may end up in unison with the tokamack reactor concepts.

im not physicst, but the general idea makes a whole lot of sense, and is capable of being used, granted over time.
Title: So, cold fusion for real?
Post by: Ace on June 11, 2005, 01:27:27 am
I heard about this a few months ago.

I don't recall that these current crystals being used are specifically engineered to increase the EM field output, like the new lithium-ion batteries being developed with more surface area on the molecular scale.

This means that the process could be possibly made much more efficient.