Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FUBAR-BDHR on March 28, 2009, 12:55:12 am
-
Saw a piece on Discovery tonight about a chemical based cold fusion reaction that is supposedly reproducible. Did a quick search and came up with this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510589,00.html
-
Saw a piece on Discovery tonight about a chemical based cold fusion reaction that is supposedly reproducible. Did a quick search and came up with this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510589,00.html
Ye-e-e-e-e-eah.
-
It's on other sites as well.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/american-chemical-society-conference.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/03/navy-scientists.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090324/ts_alt_afp/usscienceenergynuclear
-
Ummmm..... I'm gonna say not true. If they managed to produce a cold fusion reaction (lol, I love that - cold energy), it sure as hell wasn't in just some flask. Also, see this sentence:
It creates enormous amounts of energy, but it takes huge amounts of heat to happen at all.
Mostly the bolded part.
EDIT: the other articles were posted while I was typing. Reply as follows:
Lol, none of the articles are really all that consistent. The Fox one even gets the basic materials used wrong. The actual terminology of the experiment doesn't match up, mostly the Science Daily one where they call it an electrolytic cell (most definiately will NOT result in fusion). That name actually means to break down into electricity. I also have to wonder at the 'low-energy nuclear reaction' part. How useful is it if it doesn't produce that much energy?
-
low energy refers to the temperature.
-
Cold fusion.. I get this image of lifting a 5000 lb boulder barehandedly, just by finding the correct grip.
-
**** cold fusion
i want hot fusion
-
Cold Fusion....Not again....
Look, even if this does work (which I highly doubt), the complete lack of scientific (read: open source) documentation really makes this more a conspiracy theory than anything else.
I remember watching a documentation about research into anti-gravity once, where most of the "researchers" asked the camera team to be outside and watch readouts while they conducted the "experiments" that "proved" that they had a breakthrough.
Hmmm....time to sic the Mythbusters on this.
-
/me looks forward to watching the mythbusters try to invent a fusion reactor
/me expects it to be much like john carmack's rocket experiments
-
/me looks forward to watching the mythbusters try to invent a fusion reactor
/me expects it to be much like john carmack's rocket experiments
/me looks forward to watching the Mythbusters use the scientific method, for a change.
Hell, the least that they could do would be to actually recreate the proper conditions, rather than use brand-new rope/aluminum/whatever.
-
Oh wah wah.
It's enter-****ing-tainment!!!
-
/me looks forward to watching the mythbusters try to invent a fusion reactor
/me expects it to be much like john carmack's rocket experiments
/me looks forward to watching the Mythbusters use the scientific method, for a change.
Hell, the least that they could do would be to actually recreate the proper conditions, rather than use brand-new rope/aluminum/whatever.
http://xkcd.com/397/
-
Aaaah, yes. I was hoping someone would post that.
-
lol string theory
-
i say 50 years from now cold fusion is still a ****ing joke it is now and has been for the last, what, 30 years or som
-
http://xkcd.com/397/
interesting, but flawed.
While teaching peopll to experiment is certanly useful, experiments have to be valid and rigorous. Otherwise you might as well skip the experiment alltogether.
-
I hope TrashMan is trolling. Always hard to tell with him.
-
supposedly they are getting neutrons out of what should otherwise be a chemical reaction, so, something odd is happening.
-
Yea even if it isn't cold fusion if what they say is happening is actually happening then it's something else new that we know nothing about.
-
Though, the simplest explanation is that their receptors are flawed. But we'll see, once other teams try to repeat this.
-
I want something like this to work so 'going green' wont consist of using more expensive light bulbs that contain hazardous materials in them.
-
First of all, someone has to prove that this actually is a viable, safe and non-poisonous way of producing energy on the industrial scale. [flamebait] If you want green energy, there is no alternative to nuclear reactors, IMHO [/flamebait].
-
I don't like nuclear reactors, but I'd agree they are the best way to go, simply because many of these cleaner techniques are untested on a massive scale. Yes, you could start small with them and work your way outwards, but until they are capable of taking on the load, your need a dependable core-power system, and whilst they are unpleasant if they blow up, you're probably more likely to be hit by a meteor than killed by a radiation leak from a nuclear power station.
As for cold fusion, I've seen a few of these 'miracle cures', enough to say 'bring me a working, feasible prototype' before I open the champagne and celebrate the new era of mankind.
Edit: That makes interesting reading with the word filter ;)
-
Everyone thinks 'Chernobyl' when they think nuclear. It also has the consequence of radioactive waste with a several thousand year half life. I dont think the latest generation of power plants can ever go critical like Chernobyl did but the 100-200 years of uranium 235 we have left (at current consumption levels i believe) doesnt really make it a very sensible long term option. I think hot fusion is probably the more likely candidate for the future of the grid. This cold fusion might produce something that could power your car or your house or something, which would be very cool too.
-
Note: Chernobyl is safe, now.
-
What about solar energy? The number of solar plants is increasing and there even are small versions for the general populace.
They'd be probably useless in many other countries due to noticeable weather differences, but that's better than nothing.
-
What about solar energy? The number of solar plants is increasing and there even are small versions for the general populace.
They'd be probably useless in many other countries due to noticeable weather differences, but that's better than nothing.
Solar energy has some good promises, and since the technology underneath it is constantly developed further, it might some day cover a more significant portion of the world's energy needs. But since its output is still related to the weather, there needs to be a power source capable of providing a stable energy output.
Oh, and before someone mentions orbital energy collectors that beam energy down here: If someone ever builds this in orbit around this planet, I'm leaving for Mars. I don't like Death Rays. Especially when I'm not the one controlling them.
-
What about solar energy? The number of solar plants is increasing and there even are small versions for the general populace.
They'd be probably useless in many other countries due to noticeable weather differences, but that's better than nothing.
Solar energy has some good promises, and since the technology underneath it is constantly developed further, it might some day cover a more significant portion of the world's energy needs. But since its output is still related to the weather, there needs to be a power source capable of providing a stable energy output.
Oh, and before someone mentions orbital energy collectors that beam energy down here: If someone ever builds this in orbit around this planet, I'm leaving for Mars. I don't like Death Rays. Especially when I'm not the one controlling them.
Greenhouse -> Wind Turbine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
-
Problems there:
1. Finding a suitable Location.
2. Maintaining the thing.
3. While this could replace nuclear energy in places with lots of sunshine, I don't think it would work that well in, say, the place I live in. (Europe doesn't have that many spaces that meet the requirements). So, for Africa, this is feasible. Maybe even for America. But not here, sadly. Not enough to fill the mass production role.
-
Solar energy has some good promises, and since the technology underneath it is constantly developed further, it might some day cover a more significant portion of the world's energy needs. But since its output is still related to the weather, there needs to be a power source capable of providing a stable energy output.
I thought I read about a recent breakthrough in solar panel tech that not only boosted output but allowed for production even in cloudy conditions.
-
Problems there:
1. Finding a suitable Location.
2. Maintaining the thing.
3. While this could replace nuclear energy in places with lots of sunshine, I don't think it would work that well in, say, the place I live in. (Europe doesn't have that many spaces that meet the requirements). So, for Africa, this is feasible. Maybe even for America. But not here, sadly. Not enough to fill the mass production role.
Solar energy has some good promises, and since the technology underneath it is constantly developed further, it might some day cover a more significant portion of the world's energy needs. But since its output is still related to the weather, there needs to be a power source capable of providing a stable energy output.
I thought I read about a recent breakthrough in solar panel tech that not only boosted output but allowed for production even in cloudy conditions.
Greenhouses stay warm in cold/cloudy conditions. Which is why the thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU) works at night, year-round.
-
Well, if all you are basing your criteria on is that it works in disparate weather conditions:
Molten Salt Solar Power (http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm)
Once again, Huzzah for Debate research :D!
-
I don't agree with that one for one good reason. They built a power plant (well part of one anyway) around here using molten salt as the liquid. Good in theory until something breaks which didn't take long (matter of days). I don't know much of what happened after that but I'm pretty sure they gave up trying to remove the salt after it cooled. Guess the engineers never though of needing to shut it down in a non controlled situation.
-
Guess the engineers never though of needing to shut it down in a non controlled situation.
Viola:
Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor/Integral Fast Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor)
-
I don't think the one I am talking about was nuclear. It was standard coal fired. If it was nuclear then they sure as hell did one heck of a cover up.
-
Well, if all you are basing your criteria on is that it works in disparate weather conditions:
Molten Salt Solar Power (http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm)
Once again, Huzzah for Debate research :D!
I didn't know about that one, thanks. If it gets workable, let me know.
Greenhouses stay warm in cold/cloudy conditions. Which is why the thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU) works at night, year-round.
Well, yeah, but there's a second part to the "suitable location" thing: space. According to the wikipedia article, these things take up a lot of room, room that isn't readily available where I live. And I really, really doubt that someone would want to put their main power supply somewhere where direct control is next to impossible.
-
We're already sitting on an renewable energy source capable of sustaining human needs far into the future; geothermic heat. In fact, I read a scientific article on the subject not long ago that claimed yet another major breakthrough towards wider adaptation of geothermic heat as an alternative to nuclear power. Couldn't find the article now however.
Guess the problem is drilling deep enough and finding most ideal locations to build power plants on.
-
We're already sitting on an renewable energy source capable of sustaining human needs far into the future; geothermic heat. In fact, I read a scientific article on the subject not long ago that claimed yet another major breakthrough towards wider adaptation of geothermic heat as an alternative to nuclear power. Couldn't find the article now however.
Guess the problem is drilling deep enough and finding most ideal locations to build power plants on.
Oregon is practically surrounded by volcanoes, so.... :drevil:
-
Of course I'm real!
-
But can you produce more energy than a nuke?
-
As for wind and solar.. i think those are probably good solutions for areas without a comprehensive power system already setup.. however since solar can only work maximum 50% of the day and wind power is about as efficient, but still completely dependent on the weather conditions and out of our control, and since we cannot store the vast amounts of power we need to power society, they are not viable solutions to replace fossil fuel generation plants that have close to 100% uptime. If it cant be counted on to make steady, continuous power reliably, we shouldnt go near it.
-
As for wind and solar.. i think those are probably good solutions for areas without a comprehensive power system already setup.. however since solar can only work maximum 50% of the day and wind power is about as efficient, but still completely dependent on the weather conditions and out of our control, and since we cannot store the vast amounts of power we need to power society, they are not viable solutions to replace fossil fuel generation plants that have close to 100% uptime. If it cant be counted on to make steady, continuous power reliably, we shouldnt go near it.
:wtf:
Greenhouses stay warm in cold/cloudy conditions. Which is why the thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU) works at night, year-round.
Yes, these facilities require... vast tracts of land, but I think that they'd be perfect for some of the stabler regions in The U.S.
P.S.
Greenhouses stay warm in cold/cloudy conditions. Which is why the thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU) works at night, year-round.
-
We're already sitting on an renewable energy source capable of sustaining human needs far into the future; geothermic heat. In fact, I read a scientific article on the subject not long ago that claimed yet another major breakthrough towards wider adaptation of geothermic heat as an alternative to nuclear power. Couldn't find the article now however.
Guess the problem is drilling deep enough and finding most ideal locations to build power plants on.
No the main problem with geothermic power is treating the water.
Heck, Hungary could have plenty of geo power, wherever we drill (for oil in the past), hot water comes up ready to run a heat engine.
The problem is that this water is really salty: we can't pump it right back (the structure of the ground doesn't permit it), and it's too damn salty to use in agriculture or just to dispose of, since it would kill the soil.
-
As for wind and solar.. i think those are probably good solutions for areas without a comprehensive power system already setup.. however since solar can only work maximum 50% of the day and wind power is about as efficient, but still completely dependent on the weather conditions and out of our control, and since we cannot store the vast amounts of power we need to power society, they are not viable solutions to replace fossil fuel generation plants that have close to 100% uptime. If it cant be counted on to make steady, continuous power reliably, we shouldnt go near it.
:wtf:
Yeah.. in case you havent noticed.. its not windy all the time, and the sun *gasp* sets at night.
-
As for wind and solar.. i think those are probably good solutions for areas without a comprehensive power system already setup.. however since solar can only work maximum 50% of the day and wind power is about as efficient, but still completely dependent on the weather conditions and out of our control, and since we cannot store the vast amounts of power we need to power society, they are not viable solutions to replace fossil fuel generation plants that have close to 100% uptime. If it cant be counted on to make steady, continuous power reliably, we shouldnt go near it.
:wtf:
Yeah.. in case you havent noticed.. its not windy all the time, and the sun *gasp* sets at night.
I'm misquoted and my point was ignored. Huzzah! :doubt:
By the way, in case you missed it the first four times, I'll show you in a larger font. Hell, I'll even throw in a fancy color on the crucial section, free of charge.
Greenhouses stay warm in cold/cloudy conditions. Which is why the thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU) works at night, year-round.
-
I forgot the /quote] at the end and its corrected. That Tower looks like THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDj_rG3ae5Q) from Armored Core 4.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tWlP0knKQU)
Is so horrific a waste of space and materials I don't even wanna talk about it. 10 square kilometers at least(my estimation is probably low) to generate 200 megawatts. I don't know what magical world you live in, but that won't even touch the daily consumption of even a small city. If you figure the average middle class consumer uses, say, 5 kilowatts per day, times even what I consider a small city of 50,000 to keep the math simple. Thats 250,000kW, or 250mW, which is 125% the suggested output of the above station.
A city the size of NYC would have to have the entire state of New York and possibly part of Virginia also.
And if you can't get the nutjobs who support ecological power sources to OK the deployment of sea based wind turbines that would appear to be the size of toothpicks, because it would ruin the view from they're estates in The Hamptons, this would never get approved...ever...
Good idea, just pie in the sky, good time banana rock and roll impractical.
It's like suggesting that we build a power system like is seen in Gundam 00.(best gundam i've seen, realistic character writing, not too OTT till the end) That is to say, orbital elevators with a ring of power stations strung from tower to tower.
-
Well done, you've applied it to one example and concluded it's useless everywhere.
-
Because if NYC alone requires all of NY for wind farms, how much space to you have left over for each and every other major city? We would run out of space before we got to Chicago.
-
Wow, what a brilliant straw man argument: if we can't use it everywhere to solve everything to the exclusion of all alternatives it's useless!
-
On geothermal, I dunno what the situation is in other countries, but here the biggest problem is that while we have all the required geology (Big hot granites with massive thick insulating sedimentay blankets on top) they're all way out in the desert, and the amount of energy you'd lose getting it back to major population centres makes it rarely economically viable. I think Adelaide is the only city where it has much chance of working, but, to be fair, they're well on their way towards getting that up and running. (Incidentally, the same sort of argument applies (In Australia) to these solar towers. We have the available land, it's just too far away from where we need the power. Of course, it'd be viable to power, say, smaller towns out in the desert or close to it.)
Even so, it (geothermal) wont solve our energy needs. I remember reading that even at maximum usage, we're only looking at a fairly small amount of our overall power consumption (just shy of 7% according to Wikipedia, which sounds about right).
Personally, I've always favoured a massively distributed power grid, with solar roof panels, wind turbines (off and onshore), tidal, hydro etc. etc. (all dependent on what you have available) with the occasional nuclear station around to supply baseload. So we still need nuclear.
-
Wow, what a brilliant straw man argument: if we can't use it everywhere to solve everything to the exclusion of all alternatives it's useless!
It's not a straw man argument, it's completely impractical for ANY deployment because you need more space for the power plant than you do the city it's supposed to power.
-
It's not a straw man argument, it's completely impractical for ANY deployment because you need more space for the power plant than you do the city it's supposed to power.
Ok, it's a meaningless argument then. You've arbitrarily decided that a power source bigger than the user is impractical.
-
Ok, it's a meaningless argument then. You've arbitrarily decided that a power source bigger than the user is impractical.
Thereby eliminating the sun as well....Anyway, I agree that, as a main power source for big, first world cities, this is slightly impractical. as a concept, it's definitely interesting, but nothing more. (Plus, do you really think that covering large patches of desert with plants like these is going to go over well with the environmentalist crowd?)