Author Topic: So, cold fusion for real? (Read 2289 times)

karajorma · **Reply #20 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.

Martinus · **Reply #21 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]

karajorma · **Reply #22 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.

Martinus · **Reply #23 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]

Kosh · **Reply #24 on:** June 08, 2005, 05:09:38 am

Quote

I think the problem has always been implementation and not understanding.

You're absolutly right.

Carl · **Reply #25 on:** June 08, 2005, 05:56:54 am

Quote

Originally posted by Dark RevenantX
****! Now we know how to make stars stop!

what?

TrashMan · **Reply #26 on:** June 08, 2005, 06:33:47 am

Quote

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Christian Science Monitor......talk about your oxymorons.
Anyway, looks cool

An oxymoron? Why do you think christianity and science are mutually exclusive? Quite the contrary..

karajorma · **Reply #27 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.

Kosh · **Reply #28 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.

Ford Prefect · **Reply #29 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.

Styxx · **Reply #30 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.

StratComm · **Reply #31 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.

karajorma · **Reply #32 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 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

Cold Fusion · **Reply #33 on:** June 08, 2005, 12:10:27 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Janos
I believe it when I see it,

*kaboom*

EtherShock · **Reply #34 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 is one of Spider-Man's arch enemies and a formidible one he is.

Mongoose · **Reply #35 on:** June 08, 2005, 09:17:09 pm

Cool concept, but I'm sticking with tokamaks until I see some more info/confirmation.

TrashMan · **Reply #36 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 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...

karajorma · **Reply #37 on:** June 09, 2005, 11:01:55 am

Surprised by what?

deep_eyes · **Reply #38 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.

Ace · **Reply #39 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.

News:

Author Topic: So, cold fusion for real? (Read 2289 times)

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?

So, cold fusion for real?