14 Years Later, Cold Fusion Still Gets The Cold Shoulder

segment writes "It has been 14 years since two little-known electrochemists announced what sounded like the biggest physics breakthrough since Enrico Fermi produced a nuclear chain reaction on a squash court in Chicago. Using a tabletop setup, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, of the University of Utah, said they had induced deuterium nuclei to fuse inside metal electrodes, producing measurable quantities of heat. That was the opening bell for one of the craziest periods in science. Cold fusion, if real, promised to solve the world's energy problems forever. Scientists around the world dropped what they were doing to try to replicate the astounding claim." The linked AP story (carried on SFGate.com) is about the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which took place in the last week of August.

Comments

"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[koreth]

Maybe it still gets the cold shoulder because there didn't turn out to be anything to it? Nah, stilly me, must be some kind of conspiracy.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[naasking]

The whole situation was handled poorly by all parties involved. The politics doesn't mean there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of investigation.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[LS]

Did you RTFA or anything else on cold fusion in the last few years??? There IS something, though whether it is caused by cold fusion or not is the question. In fact, the article is specifically about people like you who deny things before they investigate them.

LS

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[d'fim]

Whatever "it" is, it is NOT fusion.

So call it something else already, and maybe those who study whatever "it" is may have a shot at being taken seriously.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[bcboy]

It was investigated by all the best labs in the world. Result: they have no theory; they have no data.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[fm6]

Let me think. Either a lot of physics is a crock, or there's "something there"...

Yeah, I know, scientific theories get invalidated all the time. But a lot of badly controlled experiments done by people out to prove a really silly point aren't going to do it.

Re: "Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Black Parrot]

> It was investigated by all the best labs in the world. Result: they have no theory; they have no data.

Never stopped other varieties of kook from sticking to their story.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[d'fim]

.....adding to my own post:

They have been studying "it" for 14 years now, and they are STILL at the "we suspect that something is there, but we don't really have a clue as to what it might be, nor do we even have any real evidence that anything is really there at all" stage.

Nonetheless, cold fusion conspiracy theorists like to point out that a "major Japanese corporation" has a working model that is due to be demonstrated Real Soon Now.....

and has been so due for 14 years so far.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[NortWind]

Cold fusion doesn't go against physics in any way at all. All you need to do is to get a gradient of a couple of volts across an atomic distance, and you will be able to overcome the natural repulsion two protons feel for each other. When cold fusion was "hot" the theorists were all over it with ways that it could reasonably be happening.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many of these researchers also have diagrams for perpetual motion machines...

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Professor D]

Do _you_ understand what science is and how it works?

The cold fusion-ists can't even agree amongst themselves what that "something" is! Heat? Neutrons? Helium? Alchemy? In the quantities they claim, all three are DIFFERENT and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of each other. Only the low-level, low-rate neutron claim is even consistent with nuclear fusion!!!!

What seems to go over the article writer's head completely is that the claims _were_ looked at, scrutinized, dissected, analyzed and critiqued already FOURTEEN years ago!

Any failure of communication between the cold fusion camp and outside scientists falls at the feet of the cold fusionists themselves for failing to show that their results are real.

Put another way : The writer of the article might as well criticize physicists for failing to scrutinize the astrological predictions printed in their local newspaper.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[aagha]

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but I would say that there were a series of steps that occurred to turn Fleischmann and Pons' discovery into a joke when it was real, serious science.

If you have a chance, check out the book The Scientist, the Madman, the Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Biggest Scandal in the History of Science. Other than greats like Tesla, it talks about the political maneuvering that took place at their university, and institutions and other scientists with which they worked.

Fleischmann and Pons' discovery may be considered a hoax by many, but in fact their research has been duplicated (and often with even better "cold fusion" results) by hundreds of scientists all over the world, including here in the US, Japan, and India.

Before you pan something as a conspiracy, do try and do a bit more research, read a book or two on the subject, and ask yourself if you didn't have all the information you needed to make an informed decision in the first place.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[imsabbel]

Yeah, but if you realize what such an field gradient would do with the electrons, you would see that that wont stay cool for more than a few plank-times....

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[LeoDraco]

By that logic, we might as well stop all AI development across laboratories the world over: as we have yet to create a spark of sentient intelligence in a machine, it obviously cannot be done, therefore we should stop trying.

Whether or not cold fushion is replicable isn't really the issue, I think. More of the issue, is whether we can still fund research in the given field. If we can still spare capital without draining the rest of our resources, I say, "Why not let the phyicists play?"

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[pfdietz]

No, in the opinion of the vast majority of scientists the 'evidence' (such as it is, being most self-contradictory) is the result of misinterpretation, error, or outright fraud.

Nonsense like this breaks out periodically in physics. Remember polywater? The '14 KeV neutrino'? The 'fifth force'? The 'Allison Effect'? 'N rays'? All of these were big in their day, but died away because there turned out not to be anything there.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Noren]

You're right.

It was the irreproducability of the alleged results that meant that there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of further investigation.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[bcboy]

If you mean "go against physics" in the usual sense, that it violates accepted theory, then your statement that cold fusion doesn't go against physics is categorically false.

Steve Koonin, of Caltech, delivered the fatal blow some years ago.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[NortWind]

Lots of interesting things happen with electrons in crystals, especially in stretched crystals. I'm not claiming that I know that cold fusion works, I just object to folks saying that "it goes against physics" as thought physics were a religion or something. If cold fusion were a fact, physics could accomodate it easily in the existing framework of things. No need to change quantum mechanics or anything, just some previously unknown nano-scale effects. We've already seen some things like this that did pan out, the light microscope that uses a metalized glass fiber with an aperature smaller than 1 wavelength of light to illuminate the specimen.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[DerekLyons]

Fleischmann and Pons' discovery may be considered a hoax by many, but in fact their research has been duplicated (and often with even better "cold fusion" results) by hundreds of scientists all over the world, including here in the US, Japan, and India.

Certainly their results have been duplicated by many, but for every duplication that produced excess heat, their has been two that fail to do so. An experiment that can only be replicated by believers isn't science, it's charlatanism. (Testable propositions and repeatable experiments are the very heart and core of science.)

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[NortWind]

The cold fusion-ists can't even agree amongst themselves what that "something" is! Heat? Neutrons? Helium? Alchemy? In the quantities they claim, all three are DIFFERENT and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of each other.

If there were any fusion taking place, there would be excess heat, released neutrons (posibly), and helium produced, which could be called Alchemy (H + H = He). We know fusion is possible, because the Sun can do it, and we can do it will intertial or magnetic confinement and simple thermal energy applied to the hydrogen or duterium or tritium. If heat energy can do the job at pressures far below those found in an ordinary solid or liquid, you better know an awful lot before you make the claim that it is impossible to cause fusion in a solid with electrical energy at room temperature.

You are quite right that cold fusion has not been proven, but neither has the possibility of cold fusion been disproven. That would be a much harder job to do.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[turboalberta]

My there friend, if the New Scientist runs a story about it and can't decide, as some respected scientist actually do at this moment of time, that it is all a fake I can't really think that there isn't something going on that we do not understand. Something is going on. Whether it is something spectacular or not is to be seen but things like contradictory evidence pops up everywhere, even amongst "respected" scientists. It's difficult to refute it saying that results are contradictory. Time will tell.
Anyway, if scientists still are going for it ten years after the facts, risking their careers, I can't think nothing is going on. Think twice, quite a lot of what are accepted facts nowadays where called totally outrageous and ungrounded at the time they were published. History teaches us not to dismiss something at first sight, even if it seems totally outrageous.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[dvdeug]

You are quite right that cold fusion has not been proven, but neither has the possibility of cold fusion been disproven. That would be a much harder job to do.

That would be an impossible thing to do. It's possible that cold fusion only works within 15 meters of the core of the Andromeda Galaxy. All we can say is the evidence doesn't indicate that cold fusion exists.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[mantera]

I remember when it was on the news back in 1989, i was a 14/15 year old whose favorite magazine was Scientific American, which i bought every week and thought a subscription would've been a cool gift. Aids was rising as an epidemic and the iron curtain was melting with articles popping up here and there about fascinating soviet technology and science. As for conspiracy theory, i remember in 1993, someone in a reputable engineering school, whom i was hanging out with close to or past midnight, told me that there'd been an invention of an alternative source of energy, which a can of coke full of it would enable a car to travel either either a 200Kms or a 1000Kms distance, don't remember the figure, and that a fuel company, forgot which one, secretly bought it, so it doesn't mess up their business. Now that's conspiracy thoery.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Kenneth]

Certainly their results have been duplicated by many, but for every duplication that produced excess heat, their has been two that fail to do so. An experiment that can only be replicated by believers isn't science, it's charlatanism.

Not quite what's happening here. It's obvious that most people here haven't read anything about what's going on with those studying 'cold fusion'. Most of those who do study it agree that whatever is happening, it isn't fusion. It retains the name for historical reasons.

What IS happening doesn't seem to conform to what anyone understands about physics. People performing (as far as they can tell) the exact same expierment will get different results. Even the same person doing the same expierment multiple times gets different results.

Often there is a significant amount of heat generated, often not. Somtimes there are neutrons, sometimes not. Most of those who are looking into it will freely say that it isn't fusion, and that most likely it isn't going to be too useful. The fact that there are some anomolous results happening, that aren't easily accounted for, indicates that it's at least worth studying.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[2short]

"If we can still spare capital without draining the rest of our resources"

We can't. By definition, monet spent on one thing may not be spent on another. That said, I'm happy to fund physicists. I'm less happy to fund people who call themselves physicists while mumbling pseudo-scientifically about an effect they can not measure, reproduce, or even define. The original cold-fusion "discoverers" were wrong. All evidence points to the fact that they knew they were wrong well before they stopped making lots of noise about their "discovery".

Whether it's replicable is very much the issue. If it is not replicable, it is not science.

I would certainly not fund an AI researcher who said he had produced an machine that showed evidence of being fully sentient, but which isn't doing so anymore, and he can't build another one (Unless we give him millions, of course). I would fund one who had a machine (and instructions so anyone can build one) that demonstrated some interesting behaviors, and who had some ideas, with clear theoretical backing, about how to improve it further.

Cold fusion started out as either a mistake or a hoax, and within days became definitely a hoax and an attempt to defraud the government for funding. That there are people wacko enough to want to associate themselves with such a famously false field I find amazing. That anyone calls those people "physicists" I find insulting.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Goozbach]

finally someone who notices the value of my life's work.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[sg_oneill]

Its interesting your objection. A friend of mine is a physicist working at Nasa, and when I asked him on it, he said that what interested him is no one had given a good reason why it *shouldnt* work. The guy added he was a remote sensing dude and not a full guru on the nuclear stuff, but he made a good point.

A bad experiment doesnt necesarrily disprove a theory. Just the experiment.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Anonymous Coward]

My there friend

You have no friends. I checked. ;)

if the New Scientist runs a story about it and can't decide

They're just a publication house, despite the material they carry.

as some respected scientist actually do at this moment of time

You presume to know too much about the personal thoughts of scientists.

Whether it is something spectacular or not is to be seen but things like contradictory evidence pops up everywhere, even amongst "respected" scientists.

There is no contradictory evidence. Respected scientists have actually failed to reproduce an energy surplus every single time they've attempted a sanctioned, controlled experiment. Unsanctioned experiments introduce risks to the validity of the results like sample impurities leading to chemical reaction energy which can be mistaken for fusion energy, or even outright fraud by falsifying the results. As such, they cannot be accepted as evidence. Cold fusion is very well-known, so there is much money to be made from the gullible and fanciful. It should come as no surprise that there are so many independent "experiments" being done.

if scientists still are going for it ten years after the facts, risking their careers

They aren't risking anything. It's actually plenty profitable just feeding the hype. These scientists are still getting funds; moreso than with more legitimate theories due to cold fusion's fame. There will be no shortage of people willing to buy in until a property is discovered or understood well enough to explain very simply (as far as physics goes... This is key, as you're dealing with laypeople) why cold fusion does not work. This is the same thing that happened with theories such as polywater or the super-neutrino.

quite a lot of what are accepted facts nowadays where called totally outrageous and ungrounded at the time they were published

The difference here is that they were consistently repeatable in the scientific process when they finally got a break, and were then proven. Cold fusion got its break and was disproven.
That's the opposite of what happened to the previously-ludicrous truths of today, and it's why the truths are now recognized as the truth and cold fusion is recognized as fantasy.

History teaches us not to dismiss something at first sight

We didn't. We gave it even more chances than we did electromagnetism, and it still failed.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[naasking]

It was the irreproducability of the alleged results that meant that there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of further investigation.

Don't be silly. The results were reproducible, and many labs around the world announced success. But the results weren't reliably reproducible. So those who couldn't reporoduce them on the first or second try immediately dismissed the whole claim as a hoax.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[sean23007]

Actually they are at the point where they see clearly that there is something there, and the something is unexplainably generated heat. Since it is a chemical reaction, they expected to be able to explain the heat by a chemical process, but there was way too much heat generated for any known chemical process to explain it. The level of heat placed the reaction in the realm of nuclear processes, though there was (and is) no known way to initiate a nuclear reaction through chemical methods.

They see what they see, and they have plenty of evidence for it. What they don't know is exactly what it is. Either it is a chemical reaction that produces heat in levels that are factors of ten higher than should be possible for chemical reactions, or it is a nuclear reaction started in a way that shouldn't be possible for nuclear reactions. Either way, the phenomenon is worth investigating, even if everybody gets up in arms just when they hear the name.

Perhaps people should get over the fact that they (perhaps foolishly) decided to call it "Cold Fusion" and look at the phenomenon itself.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Noren]

In science, reproducable means that anyone can do the same experiment and get the same result (within expected error margins.) This is fundamental.

Taking a very difficult measurement(one in which experimental error is common and which the observations are barely above the noise level of the apparatus) and occasionally getting a positive result, and then not running any controls (after the initial media frenzy, several labs found the same minute energy increase was also sometimes observed while using non-deuterated water!) does not qualify as reproducable as the word is commonly used in science. Some of the initial results were even worse than irreproducable- small energy increases were extrapolated for higher concentrations as large energy generation and then presented as if they were experimentally generated as data points. Those results were never produced in the first place, let alone being reproducable!

Koonin, Lewis, and another Caltech prof whose name I'm blanking on tried tens of these experiments, did not find any heat that wasn't accounted for from normal, non-cold-fusion sources- and they published their results in a scentific journal and presented them to scientists. The scientists who kept getting tens of millions to do further research on this still haven't come up with anything particularly interesting- the only reproducable results seem to result from a lattice effect of packing a lot of hydrogen in interstitial sites in metals, which is interesting but is not "cold fusion".

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[bill_mcgonigle]

they have no theory; they have no data

While there is some data to be found, the lack of theory isn't necessarily a problem.

After all, Volta never lived to learn about the electron.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[bigpat]

"Nonsense like this breaks out periodically in physics. Remember polywater? The '14 KeV neutrino'? The 'fifth force'? The 'Allison Effect'? 'N rays'? All of these were big in their day, but died away because there turned out not to be anything there."

soon hopefully String Theory.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[radtea]

It was a 17 keV neutrino, and neither it nor the fifth force deserve to be in this list. Both were valid (if somewhat over-enthusiastic) interpretations of experiments that were carried out with good technique.

The 17 keV neutrino in particular showed up in both Simpson's tritium spectra and in 14-C measurements made a Berkeley. It was that latter measurements that made most of us take notice.

The first experiments that failed to see the 17 keV neutrino were not as rigorous as one would like, and Simpson was in my view justified in his criticisms. 2nd generation experiments, such as my own measurement on 35-S, were done more carefully in consequence, and the scientific community had relatively little trouble coming to concensus that there ain't no 17 keV. Even Simpson and Hime agree with this, and no one thinks that they were anything but unlucky.

Cold fusion is not like this. Those who claim positive results can't come up with a consistent universe of phenomena that requires explaining, and they continually promise definitive results "real soon now" and have been for a decade or more.

This is not science, but nonsense.

--Tom

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Cunk]

He isn't the guy who crashed all those probes into Mars, is he?

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[MadAhab]

And a properly conducted experiment that scientists refuse to try to replicate is... well, science, and the people who can't even bother to refute them through science are just voodoo priests in white lab coats. Like it or not, there are a lot of people examining some difficult-to-replicate phenomena under the rubric of cold fusion research, and the majority of them are real scientists. You can't say only believers can replicate it - because you would characterize anyone who did as a believer, which makes you about as scientific as the Spanish Inquisition.

Scientists are as bad as the rest of the human race when it comes to believing in what they know and calling everything else fantasy. The scientific method - eventually - drags them kicking and screaming into reality, but that doesn't mean they won't kick and scream the whole way.

Prions, for example, were thought total bullshit by much of the scientific community for an awfully long time. They didn't specifically bother to refute anything, for the most part, they just said that it was too preposterous to look at. Now it's well accepted that mad cow disease, among other things, are caused by prions.

Wake up and smell the scientific method, dude.

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[dvdeug]

Cold fusion isn't possible within 15 meters of the core of the Andromeda Galaxy.

There's a supermassive black hole there busy crushing protons and electrons into neutrons, let alone deuterium into helium. That kind of pressure guarantees that it's not cold subatomic fusion, either.

Nice theory, but there's no proof of that, either. (A whole hell of a lot of evidence, but physicists don't deal much in proof.)

Re:"Still gets the cold shoulder"

[Beliskner]

Repeatability occurs by reverse engineering the science experiment, and thus violates the DMCA. Therefore all of science is illegal

If real?

[thinkninja]

What do you think powers my flying car?

Re:If real?

[DA-MAN]

If it's anything like my flying car, probably good ol Mr. Fusion

Re:If real?

[91degrees]

I thought just powers the time circuits.

Re:If real?

[Jason1729]

Imagination

Re:If real?

[Subcarrier]

You don't need a flying car to take off on Cold Fusion.

Re:If real?

[DA-MAN]

Well yes. The time circuit, or flux capacitor, and the hover capabilites of the car are both powered by Mr. Fusion. Old model's required primitive Plutonium or Lightning as a source of power, pfft.

Re:If real?

[falzer]

> What do you think powers my flying car?

Your own sense of self-satisfaction?

Re:If real?

[sydb]

My karmah powers my flying car.

Re:If real?

[56ker]

More like wishful thinking.

Re:If real?

[NanoGator]

"What do you think powers my flying car? "

A motion control rig?

Re:If real?

[exebeoex]

Mine is powered by the hot air surrounding the story.

Re:If real?

[d3faultus3r]

no, Carma powers flying cars Karmah on the other hand powers KDE.

Re:If real?

[tcc]

> What do you think powers my flying car?

The same thing powering the on-board 22" OLED display computer playing Duke Nukem Forever I guess? :)

Re:If real?

[ded_guy]

Pixie dust and happy thoughts?

Re:If real?

[orasio]

That would be the flux capacitor

they made a movie about it too!

[civilengineer]

Val Kilmer in "Saint" is about some bad guys in Russia trying to steal cold fusion tech from an american scientist in Britain.

Re:they made a movie about it too!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But the scientist concerned wore a real lab coat, so it must work...

Re:they made a movie about it too!

[Nexzus]

I think it was used heavily of the first Robocop TV series.

Re:they made a movie about it too!

[Nexzus]

errr, "one of the episodes of the first Robocop TV series"

That's the last time I'll just use the submit button.

Re:they made a movie about it too!

[j-beda]

Oh yeah, that was the one where the "scientist" had equations on a sheet of paper divided into six pieces and was trying to figure out what order they should be put in so that they would "work". At a glance, each piece of the paper had about 3 equations with about 20 characters in each. The claim was that this idea was worth a bizzillion dollars and nobody thought to just try out all the possible combinations? Like 6x5x4x3x2=6!=720 experiments would be too hard to run? With the promise of a bizzillion bucks you couldn't find a few colleagues to do some lab work for you?

And then this scientist loses the fiddley bits of papers (stuffed in her bra as I recall?) and she never made copies? Can't recreate the work? Can't recall what the equations were? Had no other notes about her calculations?

With all that said, it was fun to see Val Kilmer do a bunch of different disguises.

What really happened

[sonicattack]

This is from the good ole' fortune file. It really has an answer to everything!

- "Yo, Mike!"
- "Yeah, Gabe?"
- "We got a problem down on Earth. In Utah."
- "I thought you fixed that last century!"
- "No, no, not that. Someone's found a security problem in the physics program. They're getting energy out of nowhere."
- "Blessit! Lemme look... Hey, it's there all right! OK, just a sec... There, that ought to patch it. Dist it out, wouldja?"

-- Cold Fusion, 1989

Re:What really happened

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Pope calls an emergency teleconference of all of the cardinals from around the world. He says, "Well, gentlemen, I have some good news and bad news. The good news is that Jesus Christ has returned! I just spoke to him on the telephone."

Amidst the cheers and hurrahs, one of the cardinals asked, "Father, this is of course a joyous day. But do tell---what could the bad news possibly be?"

"He was calling from Salt Lake City."

Re:What really happened

[void warranty()]

So, when are they going to patch the platypus? That thing's been since about launch.

God blessed lazy devs!

Re:What really happened

[Hentai]

Some bugs are just too hilariously funny to patch. All the better when they're more-or-less benign.

Actually, to be honest, we DID patch it, about 60 million years ago, but our lead felt it was so hilarious, he put it back in as an easter-egg in the evolution module's garbage collection heap, where he figured noone would see it.

We had to cancel memory deallocation when people showed up and started LIVING there, before the memory corruption spread too far. We managed to stabilize the region, of course, but not before they started thinking "G'day mate" was a proper way to talk.

Re:What really happened

[euxneks]

For some reason I instantly thought of Microsoft when reading this.... ?

Re:What really happened

[CommieLib]

That is correct. Also, shouldn't it be

"Non in vita pax est."

I can't put my finger on a grammar rule, so it may just be a stylistic thing. Just sounds more like the Latin I've read. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:What really happened

[Hentai]

*nods* I've had it both ways, and had people correct me for both of them. Guess you can't win whichever way you go. ;)

I'll have to pull out my Latin book and try to figure it out again.

Re:What really happened

[The_Laughing_God]

It actually works both ways. It depends on a subtlety of how you interpret "is" (shades of Clinton). If you interpret "est" as "=" (i.e not(in vita = pax) then it's a predicate nominative and you should use "pax" not "pacem". One can, however, interpret the "est" to mean other things, like "exists", and then the nominative is not required. The general meaning is unchanged, but one could make subtle distinctions by using one or the other. The Roman orators loved to do this, often indicating the shades of meaning through, for example, parallel phrases with less ambiguous grammar. Today's politicians do the same sometimes, making what would be considered a pun, if it were not a serious setting and elegant turn of a phrase. They also do it to usurp meanings without the listener quite knowing what happened.

There's also often wiggle room in usage between old Latin, classical, medieval, etc.

Maybe it's a meaningless nitpick, but I'm pleased to see such discussions here (or anywhere)

In other news...

[nacturation]

Scientists for the International Society of Alchemy held their 284th annual conference next door to the cold fusion conference. Still under debate is: did Gaythorpe the Great really turn lead into gold?

Re:In other news...

[Izago909]

At least someone took the time to prove alchemy wrong. It's a travesty for a scientist to say cold fusion is wrong because of his faith. Be a scientist and use that damn method you've heard about since childhood. Since when does peer review mean you only test things that fit into your view of the universe?

Say what you want, alchemists were very smart for their time. They made that one thing that produced energy around 2000 years ago, and it has held the human mind captive ever since. What did they call that damn thing???
Oh yea... the arc of the covenant (aka the worlds first battery). Put the top on and close the circuit.... bam... sparks and heat everywhere. Give me some medicine, a flashlight, and a way to go back 2000 years, and I'll be your messiah. Jebus ain't got nuttin on me.

Re:In other news...

[rtaylor]

Turning lead into gold is easy.

Turning lead into gold profitably at current gold prices is not so easy.

Re:In other news...

[BigFootApe]

Did he have a spare particle accelerator and working knowledge of nuclear physics?

Re:In other news...

[nacturation]

At least someone took the time to prove alchemy wrong. It's a travesty for a scientist to say cold fusion is wrong because of his faith. Be a scientist and use that damn method you've heard about since childhood. Since when does peer review mean you only test things that fit into your view of the universe?

Chill, it's a joke.

Re:In other news...

[DrXym]

To be nit picky alchemy has been proven right since every element there is was formed in the heart of stars from other elements. And of course nuclear decay forms elements in the opposite direction.

Obviously some crackpot mixing chemicals in his crucible isn't going to achieve the same (and may as well be pissing in the wind for all the good it would do him). But the underlying principle that you can make turn base metals or anything else into gold is true if you have a spare ten billion years and a star or two to do it with.

Re:In other news...

[Guppy06]

"At least someone took the time to prove alchemy wrong."

It's impossible to transmute one element into another one? I'm sure all those people in Hiroshima in August of 1945 will be glad to know that what that B-29 dropped on them was powered by a figment of somebody's imagination.

Turning lead into gold isn't impossible, it's just expensive.

Re:In other news...

[sjames]

Obviously some crackpot mixing chemicals in his crucible isn't going to achieve the same

Oddly enough, if he mixes the right sort of earth with quicksilver and then applies fire 'to drive away the excess water', he will in fact find gold has been left behind. Of course he'll also get a terrible case of mercury poisoning.

Re:In other news...

[ScrewMaster]

You've been reading that Von Daniken idiot again, haven't you.

Re:In other news...

[Izago909]

So link to the reviewed article that says stirring molten lead and chanting the right phrases creates gold. Alchemists 1000 years ago had no idea of fission, fusion, or the subatomic. Hell, up until 150 or so years ago people thought tables were made of table atoms and people were made of people atoms. Alchemy is just about as (dis)provabe as magick. Fission is truth. Please don't confuse the two.

Re:In other news...

[Izago909]

You can't prove a vague theory wrong.

But you can give their papers the review they want. If their noise disturbs you, then silence them by giving them what tehy want. Surely they don't control every variable or set up genuine experiments (read: by the scientific model). If they did, either new things would be discovered that needed to be addressed, or they would see what they are doing isn't possible (either by limitations of current technology or some other means). Ignoring them just makes them shout louder.

Re:In other news...

[dvdeug]

At least someone took the time to prove alchemy wrong. It's a travesty for a scientist to say cold fusion is wrong because of his faith. Be a scientist and use that damn method you've heard about since childhood. Since when does peer review mean you only test things that fit into your view of the universe?

I claim that if you tape two pennies and a nickle and drop them, they will hover in midair. Are you acting like a scientist and testing it?

There's a infinite range of things that could be true, but there's not an infinite amount of time to check each one. So smart people only bother checking things that they believe have a possibility to be true. Cold fusion was weighed, and came up wanting. You can spend time checking every variation to see if there is something there, or you can use it on something you feel is productive (and keeps your job) until someone comes up with some evidence that's at least somewhat convinving. You didn't test the pennies/nickle drop, because it goes against everything you know, but all I'd have to do to get it studied scientifically, if it works, is to go into a repudable scientist and show him and have him try it with his own money.

Re:In other news...

[Izago909]

Yeah, I dropped them. I guess Newton was right. I didn't need to test it though. Ever since I learned to fall down, I've known the effects of gravity. I KNOW what effect gravity will have on me because my size means that Newtonian physics best explains the effects of our masses on each other (mine and the earth). When's the last time you fused and exerted a neutron? However, I understand that quantum physics is not a fully developed discipline. As such, its hallmark is that certainty does not exist by any means (ex: Heisenberg). Seeing how fusion functions at and below Planck width, and certainty does not exist, saying you are certain that cold fusion is impossible seems a bit... arrogant. Until I see credible evidence either way, I'm going to assume it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Hell, it's theoretically possible for me to pass through a wall without interacting with any of its mass, so cold fusion doesn't seem too far fetched. Unfortunately, some people think they can 'solve' their cold fusion annoyance by ignoring it. I see that some people still forgo the history classes for science classes. That's a shame, we could learn from both.

Re:In other news...

[Kenneth]

At least someone took the time to prove alchemy wrong.

Where exactly was alchemy wrong? Sure alchemy started being called chemistry, and the magical overtones were dropped, but I would call technology the modern magic.

Early alchemists likely knew a lot about what they were doing, but trying to explain it to those not versed in the art proved impossible. By the time you got the fifth word out their eyes would be glazed over, and once you had explained in detail how it worked, they turn around and ask again.

Ask someone who isn't a geek, how most special effects are done, and the confident answer you're likely to get is that they use computers. If you press them for more detail, (and I've tried this) you get that the computer figures it out. There is not even a basic comprehension among the majority of the populace about how things work inside. A computer is just a magic box that doesn't work they way you want it to.

They have no more understanding of what's going on than the people talking to the alchemist. Substitute the word technology for magic, and the descriptions of how things work could come from 2000 years ago.

Oh yea... the arc of the covenant (aka the worlds first battery). Put the top on and close the circuit.... bam... sparks and heat everywhere.

More likely a capicitor, but a good point. Note the directive never to touch it, unless it was on the ground and open. Also notice that the poles it was carried with would have insulated those carrying it from any discharge, but touch it directly and ground yourself ...

Re:In other news...

[ariels]

They made that one thing that produced energy around 2000 years ago, and it has held the human mind captive ever since. What did they call that damn thing???
Oh yea... the arc of the covenant (aka the worlds first battery). Put the top on and close the circuit.... bam... sparks and heat everywhere.

Sorry, wrong movie. That was Raiders of the Lost Ark; we're talking Cold Fusion here...

Re:In other news...

[AoT]

Alchemy hasn't beeen "proven right". Alchemy was very often used as a code for philosophical discusions that were heretical. The quest for the Pilosopher's Stone was more the quest for a philosophical/metaphysical/spiritual gnosis.

Re:In other news...

[Guppy06]

"So link to the reviewed article that says stirring molten lead and chanting the right phrases creates gold. Alchemists 1000 years ago had no idea of fission, fusion, or the subatomic."

You're confusing methodology with basic premise. The parent mocked alchemy, but the fact of the matter is that you can transmute elements into something else. Just because alchemists a few hundred years ago were quacks doesn't mean that all such claims of transmuting elements must therefore be bunk.

You know, like how just because Pons and Fleischmann were screwy doesn't mean that the concept of cold fusion is without merit.

"Alchemy is just about as (dis)provabe as magick. Fission is truth. Please don't confuse the two."

Here's some magic for you, then: the reference I was using to Hiroshima wasn't about fission, it was about what was being fissioned: plutonium. In the 1940's they didn't even know that (trace amounts of) plutonium actually occur natually. Every miligram of plutonium used in that bomb was transmuted from a different element.

Re:In other news...

[Izago909]

Here's some magic for you, then: the reference I was using to Hiroshima wasn't about fission, it was about what was being fissioned: plutonium. In the 1940's they didn't even know that (trace amounts of) plutonium actually occur naturally. Every milligram of plutonium used in that bomb was transmuted from a different element.

Many disciplines of today do have their ancestral roots in alchemy, but there is a reason that word is not used. It's like a tribal shaman who knows what plants to use to treat wounds, but doesn't have the tools to heal some serious damage. They may have had the idea of transmuting elements, but in all honesty having a broad idea is rather easy when you don't have any concept of a working model. Because it wasn't a true science, they didn't have the facilities to expand and grow.

Plutonium does occur naturally, but the processes that produce it are not common around here. The scientists were going to use uranium at first, and it would have worked, but they realized that plutonium was much more adept at fast fission. This made it much more favorable for weapons use because it would lead to higher yields.
The scientists just learned that exposing uranium to a nuclear reactor is much better than searching for very rare atoms. Most of the material used was separated and purified in Tennessee. They built magnetic accelerators the shape of a horse tracks. The principal is that the heavier element they were looking for would not hold as tight around the turn as the lighter uranium. Then it was trapped as it flew outwards. The downside is that it's a very slow process. The DoD borrowed millions of dollars worth of silver from the treasury to make the wire for the accelerators because copper was needed badly for the war.
Near the end, gas diffusion was used. They use a highly corrosive and toxic gas to separate and suspend each atom. Then they made a barrier with holes the exact size of the atoms they needed and used a high pressure current to force a separation. It's much more efficient, but you need a barrier made to stay at exact specifications despite corrosive gasses.

Re:In other news...

[dvdeug]

it's theoretically possible for me to pass through a wall without interacting with any of its mass

It's also theoretically possible for those nickels and pennies to hover in midair. So?

cold fusion doesn't seem too far fetched.

To the untutored mind, it doesn't seem too far fetched to have a quintic equation in terms of the elementary functions. To those with a deep understanding of math, it's clearly impossible.

Quantum mechanics is not as poorly understood as you think. It may not be obvious to every English major, but it's fairly clear from what's known that cold fusion shouldn't work. Just as importantly, it has been tested and failed.

Unfortunately, some people think they can 'solve' their cold fusion annoyance by ignoring it.

I'm a great fan of Unicode; I was even indirectly helpful getting a character added to Unicode. There are competitors to Unicode, like Tron, which, as a general rule, Unicode people ignore. We could spend hours arguing over against specious claims with people who only see their culture's side of the problem; but ignoring it, and letting it go away on its own, is the better route.

A physicist could spend a life arguing about remote detectors, telekenesis, young-earth people (quite an effect on the age of the universe and the speed of light) and cold fusion. Or he could spend it doing research. Any time one of those people want to get a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, they can. Until then, ignoring it and letting it go away on its own (unless they can actually show something that's good enough to get peer-reviewed) leaves time to study something besides these apparently-dead routes.

Cold fusion works!

[Alomex]

My neighbor had a cold fusion plant working like a charm, but he hasn't done much with it since the time he decided to connect to the electricity grid and give all his fellow Ohians free juice.

Simple rule of thumb:

[Black Parrot]

> Maybe it still gets the cold shoulder because there didn't turn out to be anything to it?

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."

That's what I said to a friend the day after the "discovery" hit the news, and I haven't had any cause to reconsider my position since.

Re:Simple rule of thumb:

[Anonymous Coward]

well now, there's a scientific aphorism! Hell who needs experiments, critical scrutiny, the scientific method. We can just evaluate all theories with this aphorism!

You must feel particularly good to have such bountiful wisdom. Did your dad teach you that saying? Well done.

Re:Simple rule of thumb:

[aagha]

I've already mentioned this book in response to the parent, but another mention might not hurt.

The Scientist, the Madman, the Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Biggest Scandal in the History of Science

The book is a good, fun read. Even if you don't believe everything in the book, there's great coverage of the science behind "cold fusion" (and other technologies). If you are sceptical and don't have "any cause to reconsider [your] position", read the book--You won't be dissapointed.

Full Disclosure: I have absolutely no association with the book, author, publisher, etc... -- Just a great book which I finished reading a month ago and have reccomended to a ton of my friends, all who have enjoyed it very much and made them ask questions they hadn't thought about asking before.

Re:Simple rule of thumb:

[Anonymous Coward]

> "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."

It probably isn't true, or it probably isn't too good to be true?

Re:Simple rule of thumb:

[DerekLyons]

Rather than a book that's a "fun read", and by an author whose other titles suggests a low credibility threshold try
"Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion
". It's a difficult read, but it has footnotes and goes to some pains to explain the issues involved. (And the authors other title is also serious scientific journalism.)

Chain Reaction

[Wylfing]

I always liked the hidden commentary in the movie Chain Reaction that someone really did discover cold fusion but it has been massively covered up by existing power interests (e.g., oil, coal). Surely nonesense, because this is a genie that would not go back in the bottle if it was true, but if cold fusion really was developed you can bet your ass we'd see Congress trying to pass some kind of doublespeak like "Protecting Home Access to Electricity Act" which makes it illegal to purchase non-coal generated electricity.

Re:Chain Reaction

[Prior Restraint]

[I]f cold fusion really was developed you can bet your ass we'd see Congress trying to pass some kind of doublespeak like "Protecting Home Access to Electricity Act" which makes it illegal to purchase non-coal generated electricity.

I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory, but the more realistic outcome would be along the lines of forcing whoever patents it to give RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms to all the existing power companies so they can upgrade their netowrks on the cheap.

Re:Chain Reaction

[craigtay]

It must be nonsense.. because we don't have a nearly unlimited supply of air and sun for instance. Why don't we use those two energy sources instead of coal and oil?

Re:Chain Reaction

[AeiwiMaster]

If you study the U.S. Department of Energy investigation in detail you will
see, that is what actually happened.

Re:Chain Reaction

[AeiwiMaster]

Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann had the nerve to
publish instead of patenting it and when something is published
it can't be patented.
So the only option they got where a cover up.

Re:Chain Reaction

[BigFootApe]

The TV series "The Outer Limits" (the episode was "Final Exam"), a Good-Will-Hunting type Physics student invents and builds a cold fusion bomb using everyday components.

If I remember correctly, the fictional bomb had a pretty astounding yield - over 50 megatons, larger than the biggest H-Bomb. I believe the authorities would suppress knowledge of cold fusion for this reason much more readily than for the sake of the energy industry.

Re:Chain Reaction

[Jonny_Haircut]

Did you watch the movie? Its not cold fusion at all, and they never claim it is.

They shine a laser through a chamber of water (which is being 'vibrated' or something, by this machined part that keanu makes at the start. big whoop) Anyway, this laser supposedly separates the water into hydrogen, and oxygen, which they burn for power. They also claim that upon recombining the oxygen and hydrogen (aka, burning it), they can get more energy out then they put in.

In essence, they have a pretty little perpetual motion machine there, since the burning produces water that can be fed back into the tank, making it a closed energy creation system.

Other parts of the movie that I wont go into make me think that the original story was about cold fusion, but they thought it would be over the average viewers head, so they rewrote it with the hydrogen/oxygen from water concept.

Sorry to rant, but talking about this movie always gets me riled up!

Re:Chain Reaction

[Zemrec]

Close. The student was in college, taking some sort of physics class. He did prove that CF works, and after being failed built not just a reactor, but bombs as well.

He blew up the clock tower of the college as a demonstation, and held a classroom of students hostage. He insisted the materials were readily available and it was easy to build, and said something to the effect of "I think I know why SETI has failed...all civilizations that discover CF destroy themselves because any idiot can built a multi-megaton bomb."

He gave a bomb as another demonstration to the military to explode as proof. They didn't believe it actually worked, and a few dozen people were killed. Then they took him seriously.

He ended up getting shot, and the government tried to cover everything up by instituting a massive disinformation campaign saying that CF was impossible and every schoolkid had to learn about that.

The show ended with another physics student taking an exam on why CF was impossible, but instead proved it was...

Makes you think. Thats what I love about Outer Limits...are they still producing it? Seems to be just old reruns from mid-90's.

CF would solve all the world's energy problems, you could take your house off the grid, and maybe even have CF powered cars (or at least electric ones that you charged at home.)

But if indeed it can make a bomb as well...that's a very scary prospect.

Re:Chain Reaction

[WhiteKnight07]

If you can come up with an economical way to produce large amounts of power reliably and safely using only sunlight and/or wind you will be a rich man.

Re:Chain Reaction

[Guppy06]

"If I remember correctly, the fictional bomb had a pretty astounding yield - over 50 megatons, larger than the biggest H-Bomb."

Ehhh... I wouldn't say that...

At any rate, I don't forsee cold fusion being all that useful for making bombs since (if possible) it wouldn't nearly be energetic enough to make a useful explosion. Don't forget that the only reason fusion bombs work is that they include a fission bomb to kick-start the process (and in the early days of H-bomb development, sometimes even that didnt't work).

Re:Chain Reaction

[statusbar]

Beyond that, I personally believe that us humans are not yet able to handle a cheap, powerful energy source such as fusion. Imagine if energy were effectively free. What would we do with it? Constructive, imaginative things?

No - with a powerful, cheap energy source comes the ability to make even more powerful, cheap weapons.

As our technology advances and becomes ubiquitous, the ability of a single, rogue person to kill many people increases.

--jeff++

Re:Chain Reaction

[jnik]

I always liked the hidden commentary in the movie Chain Reaction that someone really did discover cold fusion
Chain Reaction wasn't about cold fusion. If you paid attention to the "plot," it was about burning hydrogen. They took water and added energy to split it into hydrogen and oxygen. Then they burned the hydrogen, combining it with oxygen to get water and energy. Somehow there was a net gain to this.....

Re:Chain Reaction

[NoMaster]

Has anyone else noticed a theme with Keanu's movies? So many of them revolve around his brain - in "Chain Reaction" he discovers the secret of making the not-cold-fusion work; in "Johnny Mnemonic" there's the concept that his brain can hold a huge amount of information (though, as we all suspected, that turns out not to be so true after all...); "The Matrix" - 'nuff said; even in "Bill and Ted" you could argue his brain is what makes the whole thing believable.

But not "Speed"...

Ever wonder why?

Re:Chain Reaction

[HuguesT]

Partly false. In the US, last I checked you can publish and you still have up to a year to lodge a patent application. This is not true in most of the rest of the world.

Re:Chain Reaction

[NortWind]

Thats what I love about Outer Limits...are they still producing it? Seems to be just old reruns from mid-90's.

You have your ten's digit upside down.

Re:Chain Reaction

[BigFootApe]

Just like every good series, the Outer Limits got remade.

Re:Chain Reaction

[guybarr]

Beyond that, I personally believe that us humans are not yet able to handle a cheap, powerful energy source such as fusion. Imagine if energy were effectively free. What would we do with it? Constructive, imaginative things?

No - with a powerful, cheap energy source comes the ability to make even more powerful, cheap weapons.

What will we do, destroy humanity 10000 times over, instead of 10 ?

Controlled fusion will, very likely, not be able to produce new weapons (not that we need ones; current fission products are quite enough). It will, if successful, solve the energy crisis for centuries. Can you be any more constructive ?

And having worked for 2 years on a plasma-MSc, believe me, on this I know a thing or two.

Re:Chain Reaction

[stmfreak]

Surely nonesense, because this is a genie that would not go back in the bottle if it was true

A genie known to only a few people is rather easy to put back in the bottle if you act quickly to eliminate or control those people and the evidence. This was the point of the movie "Chain Reaction" and many other conspiracy theories.

It may be harmless for the energy conglomerates to permit and monitor University research into alternative energy science. But you can bet they monitor cold fusion closely and hope to catch it before it becomes as common and end-user accessible as electricity generation is today.

What I find amusing is that as a species, we've always spoken derisively about the explorers and inventors right up until they are proven correct in their conquests. We pshaw'd stars, planets, Round Earth Theory, electricity, flight, 55mph, the speed of sound, Earth Orbit, Fission, Fusion, Black Holes, Strings, Quantum Computers, AI, FTL, Immortality, and probably every other significant accomplishment of human history, past and future.

Yet despite a pretty solid track record of overcoming obstacles, we continue to scoff and ridicule those that pursue the cutting edge sciences hoping to unlock the next great discovery. We already know fusion is possible, given time, hot-fusion will likely iterate through a series of scale-downs and temperature controls to make it virtually indistinguishable from cold-fusion. Who can say today whether someone won't jump technology ahead a few iterations at once?

Re:Chain Reaction

[qtp]

when something is published it can't be patented.

Patenting something is publishing it.

Re:Chain Reaction

[statusbar]

I'm not talking about large scale nuclear weapons here.

I am talking about the ability for a single crazy person to kill many people by himself.

For instance, long ago when the only personal weapons we had were sticks and rocks, it was hard to kill single person, and in the meantime someone would stop the attacker.

Then we had swords. A single person with a sword can kill more effectively with a sword and would require an opponent with a sword to stop him.

Now we have personal firearms. A single person can kill a whole bunch of people before he is taken out by the SWAT team.

The current fission products are not quite enough, it requires many people's involvement to fire one off. A single crazy person can't do this, and does not have the capability to do so.

However, once effectively 'free' energy is available, everything changes.

Give the hateful suicidal crazy person free energy, and instead of constructive, effective changes, you will see HUGE amounts of innocent people die because of his decisions before he could be stopped.

What happens next when I can wear a cheap mega-watt generator device on my back that is powering a hand-held magnetron that I can aim at people from a distance? Would YOU give everyone the tools to do this?

--jeff++

Re:Chain Reaction

[BobTheLawyer]

a large part of the problem is that, instead of publishing and going through the peer review process, they announced their "discovery" at a press conference.

Oh, and you totally misunderstand the patent system. Your conspiracy theory is nuts.

Re:Chain Reaction

[amunter]

As I recall it wasn't cold fusion in that movie. It was some form of sonoluminescence that was energetic enough to cause fusion.

Re:Chain Reaction

[guybarr]

At any rate, I don't forsee cold fusion being all that useful for making bombs since (if possible) it wouldn't nearly be energetic enough to make a useful explosion. Don't forget that the only reason fusion bombs work is that they include a fission bomb to kick-start the process

I don't know about cold fusion, but for ICF this is probably wrong: if you have ignition w/o a fission-detonator, you can probably increase the mass and yield considerably and still use a fissionless hohlraum-based approach (like a regular H-bomb, w/o the fission)

As a rule of thumb, in nuclear systems, scaling up is much easier than down ...

(That doesn't mean that a fission-detonator based HB won't be easier and more efficient, though)

Re:Chain Reaction

[XO]

Doubt it - how many millions of things would one figure have been invented that would probably seriously affect the income of electrical companies, oil companies, telephone companies, and other "required" utilities .. that are now locked away in some super top secret vault by those companies? I'd be willing to bet a LOT.

Remember, those who are in power, want to maintain the status quo -- they don't want to give ANYONE the opportunity to beat them!

Re:Chain Reaction

[XO]

According to this story virtually anyone can build a nuclear reactor.. therefore, point is mostly irrelevant. Build that thing on a bigger scale, and then send it off, and Boom! there goes half a state. Great for the Fourth of July!

Re:Chain Reaction

[CommieLib]

This "oil companies cover up new energy source" is a memetic outgrowth of a persecution complex. When you really think about it, it underestimates the greed of power companies.

Look at it this way: no matter how power is generated, energy companies own massive infrastructure in storing, transporting and producing (in the sense of producing it after it has been stored in one fashion or another). Like or not, if somebody suddenly discovers cold fusion tomorrow, they're still going to be talking to the people with a century of experience and investment in producing and generating power.

If you really wanted to bleed some Hollywood crapfest from that alternative energy turnip, you could do a story about the companies killing to get the secret, kind of like what was going on in Pi.

Re:Chain Reaction

[j-beda]

They shine a laser through a chamber of water (which is being 'vibrated' or something, by this machined part that keanu makes at the start. big whoop) Anyway, this laser supposedly separates the water into hydrogen, and oxygen, which they burn for power.

It is based on a real effect called "sonoluminescence" (that was the first link I could find, there are many others). When you send the proper type of sound waves through water (and other fluids?) with the proper type of bubbles in it, the bubbles give off flashes of light. I do not know what the current understanding of the effect is, but it has been theorized that very strange things are going on. The type of light flashes indicate, how long they last and what frequencies of light they contain are quite unexpected. There are indications that the tiny tiny bubbles get very very very very hot, very very very quickly. Some have talked about high enough temperatures to start nuclear effects. Otheres have researched possible medical applications, using the bubbles in people's blood system to blast clogs or somehow deliver drugs (or maybe I am confusing it with something else...)

Anyhow, in "Chain Reaction", it was fun seeing Keanu Reeves as some supposedly brilliant grad student on a motorcycle.

I was at a sonoluminescence physics lecture at UIUC in which the speaker mentioned that the Chain Reaction people had used some of the old equipment from their labs for the movie set so all the people from the lab took the afternoon off to see the movie. He said that they were glad that they did not recieve any written credit for their equipment since the movie science was so bad, but it was nice to get some $$ for the university for some useless lab materials.

Here is a link to an article about "working with Hollywood". UIUC's K.S.Suslick says "The movie is about a Nobel laureate professor and his graduate student who discover the use of sonoluminescence to produce unlimited quantities of hydrogen (the ultimate clean fuel) from water, catalytically. (Minor technical errors -- such as violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics -- are obviously no problem for Hollywood.) "

Re:Chain Reaction

[orim]

I don't think we'd kill each other with it... We would probably just kill our planet faster with all the excess heat.
Think about using this energy... a by-product of using electricity is almost always heat... At least now, people have this view of coal burning plants, and say "Maybe I will turn the lights off when I leave". If you had virtually free energy, any conservation would be out the window, I'm afraid.
A very simplified view, to be sure, but something to think about.

Re:Chain Reaction

[juhaz]

How about READING that article?

The moron did not build a nuclear reactor, basically he put together a (smallish) pile of radioactive stuff and freaked out when it actually radiated. Whoopee.

There's a REALLY long way from that to a reactor.

Re:Chain Reaction

[dasunt]

There was an Outer Limits episode about this awhile back.

A scientist goes insane, holds up a bunch of hostages, and its revealed that he's discovered the ability to easily create high-yeild weapons, on par with nuclear bombs.

What's worse is that all of scientific progress is heading to the point that even if he dies, chances are excellent that one or more researchers will find the exact same technique. [Basically, it was the solution to Fermi's paradox - any civilization will progress to a point where it will easily destroy itself.]

At the end of the episode, after the scientist is dead, there is a scene in a university, where a professor is handing out a test. One question is 'Prove that cold fusion is wrong'. A student starts to work on the problem, ends up scribbling frantically, then jumps out of his chair, leaving the room with his test paper to the dismay of the professor.

Re:Chain Reaction

[Prior Restraint]

[H]ow many millions of things would one figure have been invented... that are now locked away in some super top secret vault by those companies? I'd be willing to bet a LOT.

I wouldn't. If only one company had access to this invention, it'd be a huge competitive advantage. Why settle for oligopoly when you can go for full monopoly? If they all have access to it, they'd be hard-pressed to keep it a secret.

Besides, if it was invented once, it could be invented again by someone else.

Let us dream

[ihatewinXP]

I know the popular thing to do is bash psuedo-sciences, and cold fusion because of its shaky introduction into popular thought quickly falls into this quagmire. But, let the human race dream before summarily dismissing the entire concept. I for one dont believe that all I have to look forward to as i grow older is a greater dependence on big oil, old money, and the like. Many groups (and by that I mean countries, companies, and current presidents) would love to convince us that there is no better way to live than under our present conditions. Not giving cold fusion and other radical departures from our current system an honest chance is not far from why were are stuck with Windows as the dominant platform in computers and oil as the backbone of our way of life.
Im not saying that cold fusion itself is the future, but what we are presently using is certainly not the platform for all future generations. Hell, if Bush gets his way there might not even be enough sun left for solar energy so there has to be soemthing to fill the void.

Re:Let us dream

[fastdecade]

At the same time, you can't always dream because resources are finite. If we dreamt like Rip Van Winkle, we'd be spending billions of dollars and a few fine minds researching parapsychology, astrology, and endeavouring to produce a perpetual motion machine.

In this case, though, the stakes are huge and quite frankly no method is a clear winner, so it seems justified to spend heavily even on very speculative ideas.

Re:Let us dream

[mikedaisey]

It *was* given a chance--many of them--and it failed to turn up. Dream if you like, and the rest of us will keep working toward power solutions that actually function.

Re:Let us dream

[BiggerIsBetter]

Every good idea was once a dream or merely a spark of inspiration. Just because it doesn't work today, doesn't mean it never can. It won't if people stop trying, but it might if they keep at it. It only takes one moment of genius to make the impossibly possible.

Importantly, any "failed" research may lead to other as-yet unthought of possibilities. IIRC, even Post It notes were the result of a glue was considered a failure for not being sticky enough.

Re:Let us dream

[henryalichi]

Several years ago i spoke biefly with peter hagelstein (MIT guy) and he indicated cold fusion was a REAL DEAL. anyone know what became of his interest?

Re:Let us dream

[mpsmps]

At the same time, you can't always dream because resources are finite. If we dreamt like Rip Van Winkle, we'd be spending billions of dollars and a few fine minds researching parapsychology, astrology, and endeavouring to produce a perpetual motion machine.

You mean like Princeton University's impressively rigorous parapsychology research? I'm inclined to be skeptical, but I can't see why carefully controlled scientific research like this is inappropriate.

Re:Let us dream

[timeOday]

Personally, I am very skeptical that the perfect power source can ever be discovered.

We already have plain old fission nuclear power, and the only think really wrong with it is that it works TOO well. Any relatively small package capable of releasing tremendous energy will be usable as a weapon, and that is exactly what's keeping nuclear power down.

I realize there are environmental concerns too, but I think fear over the devastating potential of nuclear weapons is the root problem. Without that, pollution can be managed and contained.

Re:Let us dream

[Prior Restraint]

Every good idea was once a dream or merely a spark of inspiration. Just because it doesn't work today, doesn't mean it never can. It won't if people stop trying, but it might if they keep at it. It only takes one moment of genius to make the impossibly [sic] possible.

Importantly, any "failed" research may lead to other as-yet unthought of possibilities. IIRC, even Post It notes were the result of a glue was considered a failure for not being sticky enough.

Except you're making a fundamental error: you're equating theory and application.

The glue in Post-It Notes is an adhevise; it just wasn't strong enough to be used for its intended purpose. Cold fusion, on the other hand, hasn't been proved to even exist. You can't re-purpose a fiction and turn it into something practical.

Re:Let us dream

[BiggerIsBetter]

Except you're making a fundamental error: you're equating theory and application.

No I'm not.

I know full well that cold fusion hasn't been proved. The point is that people are trying, and that in itself could be beneficial. I'm suggesting that something discovered in the process of trying to attain cold fusion may be useful in another context. The Post It Note scenario is mentioned as an analogy to illustrate that success can emerge from failure.

Re:Let us dream

[mattdm]

But, let the human race dream before summarily dismissing the entire concept. I for one dont believe that all I have to look forward to as i grow older is a greater dependence on big oil, old money, and the like.

Well, be comforted, then. If our oil consumption continues to grow, we'll handily run out in your lifetime.

Re:Let us dream

[acxr is wasted]

No, nuclear waste cannot be managed and contained safely. You're spouting exactly the kind of BS that the Yucca Mountain supporters want you to believe. Tool.

Re:Let us dream

[salesgeek]

Any relatively small package capable of releasing tremendous energy will be usable as a weapon, and that is exactly what's keeping nuclear power down.

Kooks who like their rain acidic and their garden carcinogenic because they can't give up on fossil fuels are the reason. Reactors do not have to produce anything near weapons grade byproducts.

Re:Let us dream

[i_am_nitrogen]

It is possible to use large quantities of the byproduct waste of fission reactors in dirty bombs.

Dirty bombs are nasty though, so only someone who doesn't care would want to use them.

Re:Let us dream

[2short]

It didn't get a "shaky introduction". It was false. It was a hoax. Dream all you want, but if you want funding for your "cold fusion" research, then I want funding for my research into fairy-dust. Cold fusion was given an honest chance. The researchers were found to be dishonest, and cold fusion to be non-existant. Giving cold-fusion reseachers anything at this point is not being "open-minded"; it's being terminally stupid. If you want to fund cold fusion research, I expect you'd like to buy the Brooklyn bridge. From a different guy every day for a month. Call me at the end of that month, I've got the legitimate deed.

Looking "outside the box" for solutions to our energy needs is a fine thing, and we need to do it. But that doesn't mean we should throw money at crackpots fourteen years after we figured out they were definitely wrong.

Re:Let us dream

[ParamonKreel]

Just because the Uranium resources are dying doesn't mean it's better in the long short run (100 years) than using fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels : Nuclear Power :: Heating your house with bacon fat : Heating your house with natural gas

Re:Let us dream

[timeOday]

Well, one major problem is that the uranium sources in the world are slowly draining. So fission nuclear power has no more of a future than fossiles.

Check out breeder reactors.

Re:Let us dream

[guybarr]

In this case, though, the stakes are huge and quite frankly no method is a clear winner

But some methods are clear losers: some were quite valid science, like muon-CF, for example (which was also quite cool IMHO ;) ).

Also laser and particle-beams ICF will probably not work, unless a drastic breakthrough is achieved.

There is one method which currently considered a realistic approach, which is hohlraum-based ICF, using dense wire-array Z-Pinch as X-ray source. If you're interested, lookup the 1998 sci-am article about it.

Re:Let us dream

[DickBreath]

I know full well that cold fusion hasn't been proved. The point is that people are trying, and that in itself could be beneficial. I'm suggesting that something discovered in the process of trying to attain cold fusion may be useful in another context.

Using that logic, you should apply for a grant so study perpetual motion machines. According to your reasoning, there may be spinoff benefits, or you may even succeed, despite the laws of thermodynamics.

Some useful things your research may discover in the process of trying to attain perpetual motion (1) how to game the system to get grants, and (2) how broken the US PTO is, (3) how gullible the American public is -- you could become a profitable guest speaker, write books, etc.

Re:Let us dream

[BiggerIsBetter]

It must be nice to live in such a black and white world...

But you don't get it do you? Of course perpetual motion machines won't work due to the laws of thermodynamics as we know them. But maybe we're wrong. Maybe there's useful energy to be had at a quantum level (isn't that referred to as zero-point by somefolks?). Maybe they can work on a given timescale, eg, for our purposes the Sun will last "perpetually" but really it will eventually burn out. Of course, using the term "perpetual" probably torpedoes any formal success before it's even started.

Anyway, back on track... A few years back, people thought powered flight was ridiculous, and putting a man into space was even more ludicrous. The idea of an atom being split was considered impossible for a while. Point is that just because it's "impossible" doesn't mean it can't be done. We just don't know how yet. And in the process of learning how, we got lots of useful spinoffs.

BTW, Nice work selecting the fragment of "logic" out of context. That's like pulling an equation apart and using a piece to prove that 1=2 (Don't bother - I've seen proofs before). And what's really amusing, is that your argument is based on the assumption that cold fusion IS impossible. Maybe it is, but we won't know for many years yet. There's some very smart people who work on it - obviously they're just gaming the system too. Does history teach you nothing? Ass.

Re:Let us dream

[aminorex]

The fact is that *no* path to commercially useful
fusion can be passed without some kind of *invention*.

Software engineers should understand very well from
experience that estimating the time on a project
that involves unknown design elements is quixotic.

While you can always chose, quite reasonably, to
trust in the seat-of-the-pants guesswork of an
experienced authority, in the absense of anything better,
still I'm quite dubious that anyone is going to
be able to competently predict the time scale of
the specific inventions required to bring *any*
of the outstanding paths to fusion within the
realm of commercial utility.

Re:Let us dream

[aminorex]

"It was a hoax."

If Pons or Fleischmann cared enough, they could
get a court of law you hand them your ass on a
platter for that calumny. These were two highly
respected chemists, probably with vastly more
credibility and compentence than you will every
display during the entire course of your life,
and they had no interest in promoting the
observed phenomena dishonestly.

You, sir, are a troll.

Re:Let us dream

[guybarr]

The fact is that *no* path to commercially useful
fusion can be passed without some kind of *invention*.

The invention you're talking about may very well be Sanford's 1995 discovery, that the use of fine wire arrays improves dense Z-pinches X-ray yield by many orders of magnitude.

Re:Let us dream

[2short]

"If Pons or Fleischmann cared enough, they could
get a court of law you hand them your ass on a
platter for that calumny."

No they could not. Among other things, they would have to prove the statement false, which they have not been able to do in 14 years, despite better motivation than suing someone over a slashdot post.

"These were two highly respected chemists"

Note the past tense.

"they had no interest in promoting the
observed phenomena dishonestly"

Yet they did. Credible, competent scientists do not announce their "results" to the press and pursue funding while witholding the details necessary to reproduce their experiment.

Note that I do not say it started out as a hoax. I beleive it started out as an honest mistake. But when they figured out their mistake, they did not retract. They obfuscated, they bluffed, in short, they hoaxed.

Stop cold fusion research...

[ryen]

by grabbing the www.iccf11.org domain before the 11th conference ;)

Re:full text

[Madcapjack]

I read an ethnography about scientists and the detection of gravity waves. It described how scientists, after having decided that something was wrong, persisted in simply ignoring papers that continued the research despite the productivity and interesting results of the further research. It was interesting, too bad I don't have a reference.

Re:cold fusion?

[Joe U]

No, the title for that article is:

"6 versions later and ColdFusion still gets the cold shoulder (And crashes now and then for some reason)"

So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[saskboy]

"It has been 14 years"

It been at least that long since we were promised Hydrogen fuel cells. Where's my fuel cell powered truck?

I think consumers have been patient enough. Now it is time for companies to deliver something.

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[B3ryllium]

Dude. FUEL CELL POWERED LAPTOPS. Duh. And there are fuel cell powered busses operating in Vancouver, thanks to Ballard Power.

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chill. We're working on it. This is a tenth of what we do, the site is under construction yet:
Argonne National Laboratory Hydrogen Research
Give us 0.1% of the money we spent on Iraq and we'll give you a hydrogen economy. The question is, do you really want a change, or will you ride your SUV into oblivion?

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[Phyz]

got 10 million?

Problems to be solved:
catalyst cost / catalyst packing
power density (1400 mA / cm^2 +)
fuel (hydrogen storage / infrastructure)
membrane hydration
extension of membrane life

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[linzeal]

What do we get for .2%, flying cars and genetically engineered sex slaves chauffering them?

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[GigsVT]

You can get a fuel cell generator, 1kw for about $5000. Of course you get get a gasoline generator of that power for $350. The technology is there, you just don't want to pay for it.

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[windowshater13]

BMW of Germany has a working Hydrogen filling statoin for its cars and it is fully aoutmated. Hydrogen is here. http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/fascination/tech nology/cleanenergy/index.html

Re:So you could say the trail has grown cold?

[saskboy]

"Hydrogen is here"

Too bad I don't live in Germany, then.

It would be nice if my part of North America took the environmental plunge.

Embarassed

[Herkum01]

This is a pride issue. The cold-fusion scientists are trying to get recognition from their detractors but they don't want to have anything to do with it. There are two reasons,

1. They got burned the first time because the conclusion, it was a hoax. Nothing makes a scientist burn up more than to have been tricked by some psuedo science experiment.
2. They really would hate to admit that they are wrong a second time. If they look and find that they are wrong and it was not a hoax it looks bad for them. Worse, they back it up and they find out that it was still considered a hoax, they fell like fools for a second time.

No win situation for their critics really. They are going to have a tough time getting any support.

Re:Embarassed

[Professor D]

Mod the parent down. 'Insightful?' Hardly. It's pretty clear that what Herkum01 knows about scientists is learned from watching too many bad B sci-fi/horror movies.

It is true that physicists can be a prideful lot, but that tends be truer than not for smart people in general. But to reject what would be remarkable new science because they 'got burned' would be beyond pride and well into hubris.

Lots of physicists tried the experiments back in 1989 because the claims were so remarkable, the recipe so simple and the researchers apparently credible enough that they had to at least give it a try. No new science was found. The cold fusion community failed to demonstrate unambiguously that their experimental results were real, trustworthy and replicable.

FOURTEEN years later, and the cold fusion community STILL can't seem to agree on what their results are (neutrons? heat?) nevermind finding unambiguous signs of fusion and it's somehow the critic's fault for being prideful?

Cold fusion researchers are never going to get any attention even negative) at all until they can demonstrate absolutely that there is something there!

Re:Embarassed

[heli0]

Report of Ecstasy Drug's Great Risks Is Retracted

Seems that even Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine can make blatant errors in their experiments.

Re:Embarassed

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I agree. My impression is that the original "discoverers" were pretty much fraudsters, much like the Raeleans that sooo claimed to have done human cloning the end of last year. Exactly _where_ are these clone babies? They claimed to say that we'd only need to wait a few weeks to be able to make independent analysis. To me it was mostly about attention. There still were grave problems exhibited in other cloned mammals that needed to be adressed. I shudder to think that process was claimed to have been used on humans. But that is a different issue, but still about human vanity.

My understanding is that after no one else managed to replicate the results, the original discoverers wouldn't even allow their materials and equipment to be tested and analyzed by others. So tell me, _who_ has the pride? The scientific method was used to put it to the test, and the cold fusioners failed the test.

Re:Embarassed

[t0ny]

Very well stated. What essentially damned the Cold Fusion community, whiich people seem to be forgetting here, is the common practice of Peer Review. Cold Fusion had been weighed by the scientific community, and found wanting.

Now to say that something is there and you dont know why it works is one thing, and is even perfectly acceptable. But completely unreproducable results is another matter entirely.

I would have to say that, on the whole, the physics community is a rather open minded one (especially given that most of them have grown up watching Star Trek, dreaming of space flight and alien life forms). However, it is also one with a high degree of technical competance: they generally care more about merit than politics.

People need to face the facts: "Cold Fusion" had fourteen years to prove that something was happening, and they still havent. Personally, I think Cold Fusion is what "The Ghostbusters" used to power their proton packs.

Re:Embarassed

[barakn]

"Science progresses, funeral by funeral"

-Max Planck

Re:Embarassed

[aminorex]

I'm sorry, but if I'm forced to choose between
the credibility of an august, respected, credentialled
professional Chemist and a junior cadet from the
Church of Sagan... well, let's just say that
redness of eye and cottony diction are not my
principle discriminators of respectability.

You did manage to modulate "fraudster" well enough
to save your bank accounts in any potential libel
trial, however! Nicely done.

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is flamebait, but I just have to point out what an idiot you are.

Suppose such a technology exists...big oil is in the best possible position to exploit it; they have the money, and the distribution networks. If they dominate the technology, they'd make much more money than the do through oil that they have to dig out of the ground or buy from an arab cartel.

Cold Fusion?

[mlush]

Just a Fleisch in the Pons

Here's a good article...

[RichardtheSmith]

This was always my favorite re-telling of the story... From David Goodstein at Caltech...

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html

Re:Here's a good article...

[floki]

This was always my favorite re-telling of the story... From David Goodstein at Caltech...
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html

Already slashdotted.

<karmawhoring> Google's cached version </karmawhoring>

Pons and Fleischmann

[gribbly]

[disclaimer: from memory]

The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion" experiment was thoroughly discredited shortly after the press conference (in which they grossly overstated their results). Apparently they were spooked by another researcher working in a similar area. They had signed an agreement with him not to release any results, but got paranoid that he was going to "claim the credit", and went ahead and announced - kind of an "announce and hope the results back you up" gamble. Well, the results *didn't* back them up, although it is interesting that many reputable teams who sought to replicate the results initially did so, but one by one retracted their findings when they discovered various flaws in their methodologies.

I think the basic problem with the original Pons and Fleischmann experiment was that their calorimeter (which they used to get their "excess heat" measurements) was either faulty, or inappropriate for the experiement they were performing, and they didn't control for it.

grib.

Re:Pons and Fleischmann

[ScrewMaster]

Hot fusion has one advantage: the process exists in nature. Cold fusion, so far as we know, does not occur in nature.

However, you are correct. Whenever any major research effort manages to snag significant federal funding, they begin to act like Teamsters and do anything to keep the cash flowing. If that means slandering or discrediting the competition, so be it. That's unfortunate and very, very unprofessional. I guess this just means that scientists are people too. Alas.

NASA has been accused of very similar behavior when it comes to private space flight. Only, in that case NASA threatens any large corporation attempting to build workable spacecraft with loss of big Federal and military contracts. Nice bunch of folks, don't you think?

Broadband access for $2/month

[digitalhermit]

Using the techniques published in the paper, I've been developing a method a quantum communication over great distances. The possibilities of these innovations to the original deuterium breakdown system are staggering; among these breakthroughs are advances in communication.

We all know the typical objection to unlimited data compression. One needs only to Google for "counting argument" to realize that further compression of essentially random (e.g., binary) data is impossible. Searches for better compression algorithms at best have minimal returns (1-2% reductions are considered remarkable) or at worst ineffective or outright hoaxes.

My new technology builds upon quantum duality -- influence at a distance. From first year quantum physics we know that observation of a particle can fix its state. Should a particle and anti-particle be released, we can *at a distance* fix the identity of the opposite particle merely by observation. What does this mean? Well, for one, by sending a stream of anti-particles to a remote observer then observing its opposite, we can then fix the identity of the remote particles *no matter how much distance*. This means we can instantaneously send as a stream of quantum particles. Schroedinger's and Heisenbergs body of work more than amply addresses the mechanics of this remote communication so I won't bore you with the technical details here.

How does my method overcome the inherent randomness of quantum identity? It doesn't. I rely upon a remote lookup table. The receiver will only need to be sent a key of several bits. The remote receiver can then index the key to a table of longer values. For example, a key code of 001 would correspond to a larger sequence such as 00100111. By performing a lookup on this table the receiver can then expand the key to arbitrarily large bit sequences. How are the keys transferred? Our new technology -- Extended Schroedinger Particle (ESP) -- bases itself upon the aforementioned work by Mr. Schroedinger. Of course, trade secrets and corporate lawyers prevent me from revealing the exact method.

Anyhow, please send me money so that I can continue my research. It has the potential to obviate and obsolete all current telecommunications networks.

KLL

Re:Broadband access for $2/month

[Izago909]

I've got a better one. How about free energy? I've developed a way to do what tiny alpha particles have been doing since minutes after the big bang. We're going to simply borrow the energy from uncertianty. We don't have to pay the old man back either. Whenever he comes knocking on the door, observing him means that he is not there anymore.

Re:Broadband access for $2/month

[ChaoticLimbs]

Good one. This is wonderful bullshit. I especially like how you lump several BS phenomena together with the statement "from first year quantum physics" and not terminating your observations on that bent before going into your hyperbole.
I love the "lookup table", but to truly achieve compression of random data, your key will have to have as many entries as possible bit combinations in the random data. I would suggest keeping the key in hexadecimal (base16) so that each character can resolve 4 bits of binary. This alone will give you 4-1 compression of your binary bitstream. Ain't I a genius? You could just send your data in hexadecimal instead of binary and then you'll have compression without your fancy key!

Old Cold Fusion Stuff

[Wyatt Earp]

Stuff on the US Navy and Cold Fusion

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs /t r/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf

Re:Old Cold Fusion Stuff

[blincoln]

Mod the parent post up. From the foreword:

"We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding."

I am fairly skeptical of extraordinary claims, but if the US military has researchers writing things like this, I'm definitely willing to listen.

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[Sir Holo]

And just who is this "they" that you speak of? Please clarify.

and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[forgotmypassword]

we will use it to boil water

(you have to know how a nukular power plant works to get this joke)

Re:and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[Quasar1999]

Umm.. yes, that is exactly what you want it to do. The cold in 'cold fusion' means colder than the sun.

So then why isn't it called "Colder fusion"? Yeah, I thought so... ;)

And why is it called fusion anyway? Isn't it more re-arranging associations? A couple protons here, a few there, lets put them closer together... hell, it should be called a sub-atomic party! All the particles get nice and friendly! Yeah, yeah... that's it! Now to patent my idea!

Re:and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[Man of E]

We can ask GW Bush how a nukular plant works, he knows all about nukular power, and nukular weapons, but he usually just talks about oil.

Re:and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[forgotmypassword]

Umm.. yes, that is exactly what you want it to do. The cold in 'cold fusion' means colder than the sun.

You don't think it's a bit crufty to use the greatest science known to mankind to power a steam engine?

It's like putting a corvette engine on a pogo stick!

Re:and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[danro]

You don't think it's a bit crufty to use the greatest science known to mankind to power a steam engine?

If you know a better (read: more efficient) way to convert heat to electricity on a massive scale, I'd love to hear it.

Face it, the pogo-stick is the best we've got.
Make do.

Re:and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[forgotmypassword]

If you know a better (read: more efficient) way to convert heat to electricity on a massive scale, I'd love to hear it.

a heluim gas turbine

Re:and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[danro]

Q) If you know a better (read: more efficient) way to convert heat to electricity on a massive scale, I'd love to hear it.

A) a heluim gas turbine

Damn, guess I should know better than to try being a smartass on /.
What I meant (but didn't say) was a cheap and efficient way. Wouldn't a helium gas turbine be a very expensive on that scale?
Or am I talking out of my ass here?

Re:and when we do achieve cold fusion...

[forgotmypassword]

Damn, guess I should know better than to try being a smartass on /.

I've had people debate me on core subjects here, so much worse has happened.

What I meant (but didn't say) was a cheap and efficient way. Wouldn't a helium gas turbine be a very expensive on that scale?
Or am I talking out of my ass here?

I imagine it would be a bit more expensive than the current method. But helium is cheap to make with some water and electricity. It's just keeping it in a big pressurized container. Though I am a scientist not an engineer, so I can't speak in realistic proportions.

Nuclear power plants get built so sporadically now, I hope someone tries to implement this (or something else interesting) somewhere around the world. I think everyone is just really scared to mess up.

Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[joestar]

Hi - I just wanted to tell you that there is a guy - Jean-Louis Naudin - who performed many cold fusion experiments recently, using different setups, with different kinds of electrods.

It seems that he is successful in getting more power produced than power eaten (around 200%).

You'll like all his experiments (full description, RealPlayer videos and full results are publicly available) at:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm

If there are real physicists here, please comment his results, it can be interesting.

Jean-Louis is also the guy who successfully replicated the Lifter (electrostatic propulsion).

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[FreeLinux]

Here is where the "magic" really is. You see, the "Cold Fusion Reactor" is plugged into a 220volt socket. If you unplug the 220volt power supply the light goes out.

If he really had a reaction that was actually creating energy, you could unplug the power supply and the reaction would continue. Infact the reaction would continue to grow and a means of throttling the reaction would be necessary.

What he really has here is a rather dangerous light bulb. It's none too efficient either.

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[joestar]

Well... this is only *your* claim. I guess that if you unplug power supply in any power plant, it stops to produce electricity quite quickly. The real question is: is there more energy produced than electricity consumed or not.

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[joestar]

Do you know how electricity is produced from a thermal or nuclear powerplant? heat->vapor->electricity (through a turbine).

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[smoondog]

Jean-Louis is also the guy who successfully replicated the Lifter (electrostatic propulsion).

That isn't necessarily a good recommendation. It is hard to tell what he is thinking now (he gives, what I believe to be an accurate description of the lifters), but he still suggests that it is an antigravity effect. I have not seen any indication that it is anything other than the ionocraft he suggests it is. (BTW - Why do quack theorists always use patents to suggest they are scientifically sound? Patents are written by lawyers, science is written by scientists.) That said, lifters are cool, assuming you don't shock yourself to death.

See the original slashdot article for more info.

-Sean

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[tftp]

Actually, power plants can use their own generated energy for maintenance of the plant, similarly to how a car can recharge the battery.

However this is not the primary mode of operation, only a backup and safety measure in case peers go offline. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to start the plant (and it would be awfully dark and cold there to begin with.)

But this experiment looks weird. I can't figure out what exactly this guy is trying to measure - looks like he is trying some sort of deception (Chewbacca Defense comes to mind). Nobody argues that the current will flow through his solution, so what's the point? His setup is by design unable to return any power into the power grid; so what he is trying to show?

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[BigBadBri]

My big problem is his calculation of input power.

If you look at the power meter picture, you'll see 0.347 kWh of electricity used.

He converts this to an input power of 347 watts - which is (pardon my French) cuillons (that's 'bollocks' for the non-Francophones).

0.347 kWh used in 30 minutes is 694 watts input power - thus (as someone has pointed out) he has just made a dangerous lightbulb.

It's an elementary mistake, but buried in so much garbage that it's easy to miss.

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reactor diffuses more heat than it should given the amount of power it is fed. The output/input power ratio is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.6 (these numbers out of Naudin and Ohmori/Mizuno experimental results).

So if one could stick an alternator and condensator on the reactor and plug it on the reactor's input, it could very well run for days or months, until whatever "fuel" it is using is depleted, all the while producing extra "free" power (somewhere around 200 W for a 2 liter reactor, my own gross estimate).

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[mpaque]

> I guess that if you unplug power supply in any power
> plant, it stops to produce electricity quite quickly.

So, when we disconnect shore power from a nuclear sub, take it out to sea, and dive, the nuclear power plant is shut down? Or is there a Top Secret Invisible Extension Cord?

Re:Cold Fusion experiments for everyone...

[confused one]

I'm assuming you're complaining about the comment that if the plant is unplugged, it stops generating... That's very true actually. By law, a fission plant cannont be self energizing. It must obtain the excitation power for it's generators from an external source. If the external source is removed, excitation is removed and no amount of heat results in electrical production...

maybe not cold but...

[jbloggs]

Hot fusion is alive and working in experimental reactors. They are able to keep in 10^8 kelvins using a magnetic field. It also is powered using heavy water and will be available commercially in 50 years or less. http://www.fusion.org.uk/

Re:maybe not cold but...

[NortWind]

Hot fusion is alive and working in experimental reactors.

If you plot the time from the present until hot fussion will be commercially available over time, you will see that it keeps moving farther into the future every year. In 50 years, it will be ready for commercial use in 70 more years, if the trend continues.

I expect the copyright to "Steamboat Willie" to expire just before we see commercial fusion plants.

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[gl4ss]

yes and there's foolproof cure for cancer and aids too, and for aging too but they dare not bring it about since gwb might use it. you should be modded up as funny, not insightful.

think for a moment what amount of cold money could be made on such invention combined with hmm, patenting it? you think any party that had the chances to something like that would keep it under lid until someone else figures it out too, as is usually bound to happen in the way that such advances work out to happen nowadays? why would they do such research if they didn't want to do anything with it and especially would like it to be stuffed away?

Cold Shoulder?

[Black Parrot]

What the heck kind of shoulder did you expect cold fusion to get?

Things to remember

[cluge]

Some quick facts:

Science by press release is almost never ever good science.

Big physics has been getting more money than big chemistry. Many chemists jumped on the bandwagon in the hopes of getting research grants in their discipline.

The nature of fusion makes the whole idea of "cold fussion" an oxymoron.

A lot of ameteur's have been getting closer to fusion in their homes than the cold fusion people have ever gotten.

See sig for final thoughts on this subject.

Re:Things to remember

[hazem]

Big physics has been getting more money than big chemistry. Many chemists jumped on the bandwagon in the hopes of getting research grants in their discipline.

Don't you know? Chemistry is just a branch of Physics!

(that's what the physics profs say where I last worked!)

Re:Things to remember

[Thjorska]

"Cold" fusion is relative. Regular fusion happens in stars, at temperatures that'd really singe your eyebrows. And then melt them off your face.
Fusion is cold when done at far lower temperatures, such as those easily sustainable in a laboratory. Sure, it'll still be damned hot, but still colder than the heart of a star.

Re:Things to remember

[zenyu]

Science by press release is almost never ever good science.

Yes, but sometimes it is. I remember a molecular biologist friend of mine say that he thought Dolly would turn out to be another "cold fusion" experiment. I asked him when we would know, "five weeks, the mice are already pregnant." You know how that one turned out. He had tried a slightly different experiment himself as a graduate student and it had failed, but tiny differences in the experiment had made all the difference.

Re:Things to remember

[DerekLyons]

A lot of ameteur's have been getting closer to fusion in their homes than the cold fusion people have ever gotten.

Jesus, let's hope not. Acoording to the website, the device does on fact produce neutrons. This is a bad idea to do without proper shielding.

Re:Things to remember

[Oddly_Drac]

"The nature of fusion makes the whole idea of "cold fussion" an oxymoron."

Not really, you're falling into the trap of considering the only way to cause fusion is by supplying a lot of kinetic/thermal energy to the whole thing. You might want to go look at the work done on cooling atoms with lasers and ask how light can cool matter.

I've been involved with the Cold Fusion crowd in the past in my capacity as a skeptic, and I honestly say that the vast majority of the supporters were professional scientists that were open-minded about what they were seeing in terms of the experiments that might have showed minute gains. That level of enquiry was true to the heart of scientific discovery, while a small coterie of very vocal, loud and quite obnoxious hot fusion devotees did the equivalent of christian fundamentalists picketing a rock concert.

Anyone interested in this might want to consider looking at scientific history and/or Robert Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions'.

Although I'm very hard science, I try not to let it become religion, simply because something like cold fusion _might_ be possible.

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[stewart.hector]

Think about what Cold fusion or other low cost, high energy power source, would do internationally - This would cripple countries - namely, Middle East countries that rely soley on Oil Exports.

Would it not be possible that the impact of such fuel sources be too high for the world to bear, at the moment.

The primary beneficiary

[Otter]

It has been 14 years since two little-known electrochemists announced what sounded like the biggest physics breakthrough since Enrico Fermi produced a nuclear chain reaction on a squash court in Chicago.

Coincidentally, it's been 14 years since my Introductory Physics professor blew off pretty much the entire second semester to try to replicate the Pons & Fleischman findings. It worked out well -- he got a cover article in Nature and I got an A+ after he reused all the previous years' exams verbatim.

(You'd think everyone else would have gotten old exams from their friends, but I, though hardly an Alpha Beta, was apparently one of the few students who _had_ friends. For that matter, I could never understand how people could be given a word problem with the force and mass, told to find the acceleration, and given the relevant equations, couldn't locate f=ma and plug the values in.)

The same guy, when he talked about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse pronounced it "Tacomanaros". It was years before I learned that it wasn't in Uruguay or Bolivia...

Re:The primary beneficiary

[aonifer]

The same guy, when he talked about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse pronounced it "Tacomanaros".

I love Taco Bell's tacomaneros.

History teacher ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you shouldn't rely on your history teacher for anecdotal scientific stories about lasers...

Who cares?

[nuggz]

So we'll have cold fusion. It's more convenient than hot fusion.

Doesn't solve a few problems.
#1 is it safe?
#2 will it pollute? Radiation is the 'obvious' one, but what about spent fuel? is it poisonous?
#3 where will we get the fuel for this? It won't run on nothing.

Why not focus on using less energy, and improving the efficiency of current sources. Solar cells have a LONG way to go both in efficiency and financial competativeness.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why post something like that when you apparently know nothing about the subject?

#1 is it safe?
It will probably (I say probably because the actually mechanism hasn't been invented yet) be safe mainly because the reaction that occurs must be forced, it won't occur in nature. Unlike modern fission, which relies merely on enough fissile material being in close proximity and can quickly become uncontrollable.

#2 will it pollute? Radiation is the 'obvious' one, but what about spent fuel? is it poisonous?
RTFA, the main output is helium 4, a non-radioactive isotope of helium. Helium is also the most inert material known to man, making it do anything other than just sit there is a feat of science in itself. As for other radioactivity, most secondary radioactive materials have a half-life measured in seconds, not really an issue.

#3 where will we get the fuel for this? It won't run on nothing.
Again, its in the article. Its deuterium, and its available in sea water, or any number of other sources.

The reason some of these people find cold fusion so cool, is that it really is a safe, possibly cheap, way to potentially generate ALOT of energy. With the only side effect being that a little extra Helium is released into our atmosphere. Cold fusion is physically unlikely, but I'm stoked someone is still working on it!

Re:Who cares?

[dreadnougat]

Helium is highly reactive and therefore highly dangerous.*

The first few elements on the periodic table are the least stable, and therefore the most radioactive.*

The same place we get all our other deuterium, just maybe?

*slight levels of sarcasm detected

Re:Who cares?

[jerde]

#1 is it safe?

All energy sources are dangerous, nuclear fission probably the most so. But a carefully designed, run, and monitored plant can be acceptably safe. Plus, fusion promises to be much safer than fission.

#2 will it pollute? Radiation is the 'obvious' one, but what about spent fuel? is it poisonous?

The odd unanswered question here is why so _few_ nutrons are produced compared to the heat generated. But even a few nutrons is enough of a problem that radioactive contamination of the surrounding equipment is a concern, just as it is for nuclear fission.

BUT, the nice thing about any kind of fusion is that there is no spent fuel. The hydrogen(deuterium) is consumed, and helium is produced. The helium is not radioactive or harmful in any way.

Anything exposed to the nutrons could become radioactive by absorbing those nutrons and transmuting into a radioactive element, but the amount of material involved is trivial compared to a fission reactor's spent fuel.

Now, if any tritium (H with two nutrons) is produced, its radioactivity could be harmful. If that is a problem, I'd imagine that it could be reliably captured and stored as waste.

#3 where will we get the fuel for this? It won't run on nothing.

Deuterium is a naturally occurring element. Granted, it is rare (about 1:4500 compared to protium, or regular hydrogen). But otherwise it is a pretty much unlimited resource. As long as your fusion process generates more power than your deuterium-separation process, your fuel is "free".

- Peter

Re:Who cares?

[Chmcginn]

>With the only side effect being that a little >extra Helium is released into our atmosphere

Although if cold fusion were proven real tommorrow, and all the planet's electricity generated by it by next year, sometime in 2320 the atmosphere would be about 1.5% helium, and we'd all sound kind of squeaky.

Cold fusion in Cambridge

[Tim Ward]

Some months after the original story I was at some dinner or other at which some Cambridge physicists were present, so we asked them their views.

"Well," they said, "we've set it up in the lab, and it gets hot." Then they shrugged and talked about something else. (I don't remember who this was or I'd maybe ask them what their views are now.)

Cold Fusion"and Neural Networks: Similar Fates

[reporter]

What is happening to the research in the cold fusion also happened to the research in neural newtorks. Please read the following.

1. " Perceptrons: An Associative Learning Network".
2. "Single and Multi-Layer Perceptrons"
3. Perceptron.

To briefly summarize the tale of woe, Frank Rosenblatt invented the perceptron in 1957. It had one layer of artificial neurons and sparked an entire field of research in artificial learning. In 1969, Marvin Minsky at MIT wrote a book called "Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry"; in it, he mathematically proved that the perceptron could not solve certain classes of problems. This book essentially decimated funding for neural-network research for about 15 years.

In 1982, John Hopfield at Caltech revived the field with the invention of the Hopfield Networks. Further, several researchers invented backpropagation as a way to train neural networks with 2 or more layers or artificial neurons and overcame the limitations that Minsky indicated. Now, the field of neural networks has plenty of money to do research.

So, there is a possibility that research into cold fusion will grow hot again.

... from the desk of the reporter

Media, Culture vs Science

[smoondog]

There are two things that could be at work here. First, scientists may hate everything to do with cold fusion and not want to see it go anywhere. And/Or, Two, the media may be fueling the perception that scientists don't want anything to do with it.

I spoke with a nobel laureate physicist about cold fusion. I found that while he didn't think there was much to cold fusion (it isn't his primary area of research, but if he can't comment on it, who can?), I didn't get the feeling he held the anomosity usually attributed to the scientific community at large. (I frankly don't either) I think that the media plays a significant role in blackening the field. Kind of like the kid on the playground who eggs on fights, but never participates in them.

Scientists believe in publication, in particular good ones. If cold fusion-ites publish interesting/good research on the subject, they will be recognized. As pointed out in the above link, there was a seemingly cold fusion-like experiment that was published in science quite recently (it isn't quite cold fusion, because the events themselves are hot and very small).

Most scientists deal with skeptical peers regularly, this isn't just a property of the cold fusion community. That said, just because there is a conference on it doesn't make it real or even interesting. I personally find it interesting, but I wouldn't bet on seeing commercial applications of this in our lifetimes.

-Sean

Re:Media, Culture vs Science

[BryanL]

You may be right about the media fueling the perception. The way that cold fusion was announced made the media look bad. "Look folks, these scientist just created cheap energy. Uh, well, um, ...nevemind." The media looked almost more foolish than Pons and Fleischmann did. The media has a reason to ridicule cold fusion. (Not that I believe in conspiracies or anything.)

Re:Media, Culture vs Science

[sstory]

I wouldn't bet on seeing commercial applications of this in our lifetimes.

I wouldn't either, because it was wrong.

If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[Black Art]

they would be dead right now.

Fusion produces lots of hard radiation. A slight detail that the believers tend to gloss over.

If they had discovered fusion in a bottle, they would have been well done a few moments later.

Re:Today's choice from the random article file

[JanneM]

Um, do "we"? What exactly - that there isn't other sites you can visit instead, by the way?

Re:Paralell Science story

[benzapp]

You had me going until I read: she closed them by using the normal technique *WHILE* jumping off her stool.

I wonder if she engages in some acrobatics in the sack. THAT would be interesting.

Hurumph.

[mikedaisey]

Frankly, that's ridiculous--they'd take control of the process and make America even more powerful. Last I checked the coal lobby is not all that and a bag of chips\.

Re:Hurumph.

[StrangeTikiGod]

perhaps not the coal lobby, but the petroleum lobby certainly can tell politicians when to jump and how high...

Explain?

[mr100percent]

Can someone explain Cold Fusion to me in easy, "I took 'Physics for Poets' in College" terms?

Utah the source of hoaxes?

[Grishnakh]

What is it with the people in Utah and hoaxes? First, you have the Mormon religion, where some sheister named Joseph Smith makes up a ridiculous story about finding golden tablets that somehow only he can translate, but later loses them, and this actually starts a whole religion.

Later, in 1989, some "scientists" at the University of Utah make up a fraudulent claim about Cold Fusion.

And now in 2003, a company in Lindon, UT now calling itself SCO makes up ridiculous claims about owning the IP in Linux so they can pump up their stock price.

I'm sure there's more examples throughout Utah's history. Is there something about the culture in this state that makes it a breeding ground for crazy fraudulent get-rich schemes?

Re:Utah the source of hoaxes?

[mcp33p4n75]

Sorry. Joseph Smith created Mormonism back east. I think it was New York. Only later they were persecuted and moved to Utah.

Of course... maybe he just moved the BS there?

Re:Utah the source of hoaxes?

[Bearpaw]

I'm sure there's more examples throughout Utah's history. Is there something about the culture in this state that makes it a breeding ground for crazy fraudulent get-rich schemes?

I bet the people in one block of Madison Avenue generate more crazy fraudulent get-rich schemes than the entire population of Utah.

Re:Utah the source of hoaxes?

[La Temperanza]

Sorry, but Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, grew up in New York, started preaching in Ohio, and died in Illinois. He never went to Utah; that was Brigham Young (who, oddly, was also born in Vermont and grew up in New York.)

Re:Utah the source of hoaxes?

[CharlesEGrant]

While a lot of people think that the Pons-Fleischman episode was very bad science, I don't think many people think it was a hoax, which would implies deliberate deception. I think the consensus was that neutron detection and ultra-precise calorimetery are very hard to get right, and that Pons and Flieschman were too eager to publish and way too naive about sources of error in the experiment.

Near the close of the article Jones of Utah says that some of the experiments are "approaching" 80% reproducible. This means that after 14 years of work it is still a flaky experiment, and I expect this accounts for the reluctance of many scientists to get involved in cold fusion research. Until you have a reliable experiment there is too much chance that you'll chase your tail over experimental artifacts.

Re:Utah the source of hoaxes?

[Grishnakh]

As someone else pointed out, Joseph Smith never even lived in Utah, so I guess you're right. Brigham Young took his lead, and moved all the BS with him to Utah.

So the question is, who's the bigger sheister, Smith or Young? Looks like Smith started it, with the hoaxes about golden tablets and such (I also recall he claimed to be able to divine water), but Young moved it to a much larger scale, creating a large cult out in Utah out of it.

More SCO news.....

[MADCOWbeserk]

SCO has announced they sueing Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.. "SCO owns all rights to bullshit from the state of UTAH. Cold fusion therefore meets our criteria for deritive works." Chris Sontag, VP of SCO..

Re:More SCO news.....

[hndrcks]

Pons and Fleischmann, upon being sued by SCO, anounced they are on their way to IRAQ to search for WMD. Said Pons: "If we can't find em, nobody will."

The difference between scientists and engineers

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Scientist sees a wee spark in a test tube and starts ranting about free energy etc. Engineer thinks about real-world problems that need to be solved to scale the technology into real world applications.

Well I remember the time when high temperature superconductivity was announced (little pill of material magnetically levitated in a cooled environment). Scientists started spouting on about lossless power lines using superconductors. Engineers skeptically thought that the energy required for the refridgeration was way more than the losses with conventional wiring. High temperature superconductors have very few realworld applications beyond generating Nobel prizes.

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[the_2nd_coming]

true, but one day, we will have a room temp SC and can then apply it to electric lines, etc, but I think that scaling will be a problem at first so the major applications will take place in computer circuts.

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[mattdm]

true, but one day, we will have a room temp SC [...]

One day we *might*. But that statement is kinda like: one day we'll have time travel and FTL spacecraft. Sure, we *might* have room-temp superconductors, but it's also possible that no such material exists.

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[SEE]

First, although general lines are not, there are a few refitted power plants that use "high" temp superconductors for short (dozens of meter long), very high power lines. The losses to resistance and the cooling that would be required by the heat generated by the resistance are high enough in these short fat lines between generation and the grid that SC wires with liquid nitrogen coooling is a net gain on efficiency.

Second, real point was that there was no longer a theoretical barrier to there being 50 deg. C superconductors. If and when those are discovered, they'll radically change things, even if they turn out to be a bastard to work with mechanically.

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[Sir Holo]

Engineers skeptically thought that the energy required for the refridgeration [sic] was way more than the losses with conventional wiring.

Bzzt! Wrong. The energy saved by eliminating resistive losses in power transmission cables would be far greater than that used to keep superconducting lines cold. This has been demonstrated. The major scientific and engineering issue at the moment is developing the manufacture of superconducting cables to the point that they are cheap enough to buy.

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[deaddrunk]

Doesn't mean we should stop looking though.

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[egumtow]

These engineers think superconductivity will generate money for their pocket book: American Superconductor Corp

In fact, they're laying 600m of it in New York: Superconductor lines could boost U.S. power grids

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[cev]

Let us not also forget that superconductors have numerous applications besides power transmission.
I'm in optics, so this is my example:

Have you ever heard of a superconductor bolometer? It is an excellent far-infrared detector. Its a detector made out of superconducting material. The temperature is stabilized at exactly the threshold of superconductivity. Its resistivity changes slightly when exposed to light (of any frequency).

http://www.google.com/search?q=high%20temperatur e% 20superconducting%20bolometer

Re:The difference between scientists and engineers

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Hey, I'm not anti-science/pro-engineering. What I am anti though are scientist types who see a spark in a test-tube and make rash predictions of a changed world.

Every (physical) engineering effort is underpinned by the corresponding scientific discoveries etc, but that does mean that a new discovery ensures some major change in the way we live.

There are definitely some soteric applications of superconductivity (IR detectors etc), but they have not entered mainstream application. Even those superconductive propulsion systems are only demonstration/experimental. Stream and gas turbines are here for a long time still.

Re:If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[jesco]

You're mixing up fission and fusion. When splitting heavy elements like Uranium and/or Plutonium into lighter ones, many of these are radioactive. This is, even while the products are lighter than Uranium, they are still very heavy elements which are mostly instable and thus radioactive.

The light elements produced by fusion (usually He) are mostly stable. Two Deuterium atoms (heavy hydrogen), for example, combine to Helium-4, which is stable. Tritium + Deuterium makes for Helium-4 plus a neutron (which can be a problem, for it may induce decay in other elements of the surrounding material.

I think fusion in general is a very worthwhile field of research. Even if cold fusion may not work, hot fusion (which is technically possible, but still horribly complicated) has a much better energy-output-to-danger ratio than traditional nuclear energy.

Crackpot Index...

[ewithrow]

THE CRACKPOT INDEX by John Baez A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. -5 point starting credit. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. Appendage: 100 points for anything involving cold fusion, tabletop fusion, or super fusion.

Re:Crackpot Index...

[Bearpaw]

It would be a lot simpler to rate an idea by how it's formatted. You, know, like if it's presented all in one big paragraph.

Re:Crackpot Index...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Better?

Old Compuserve Science & Math forum

[ralphh]

Cold Fusion was thoroughly beaten up in the old Compuserve Science & Math forum at the time.

Seems there were a lot of complex things interacting, electrical, chemical, thermal and *mechanical*. The palladium electode absorbing hydrogen gets visibly larger as it pulls the ions in - there was speculation that a lot of energy was being stored this way via a spring-loading effect, but nobody on the forum knew or cared to calculate how much. Spontaneous collapse of many microscopic internal structures in the electrode could account for episodes of heat release IF enough energy is stored this way.

The CFers also claimed elevated radiation near the experiments once. It turned out they were measuring radon levels in the basement where the experiment was being conducted.

Wish I'd saved my Compuserve logs of this stuff, but I couldn't afford the floppies, $5 each at the time. :-)

Anyway, once it became apparent the experiments had many possible flaws and were failing to produce any clear positive results, researchers who valued their career would have been crazy to waste the time.

Anybody here participate in the Science & Math forum back then? I've always wondered what happened to the moderator, Emory Kimbrough.

Re:Old Compuserve Science & Math forum

[Anonymous Coward]

A google on Emory Kimbrough indicates he is (or at least was recently) President of the Alabama Skeptics.

Re:Old Compuserve Science & Math forum

[krysith]

Oh, that's nothing. I used to lurk on sci.physics.fusion, the mainstay of cold fusion discussion on the net (before there was a web). Crazy stuff - Archimedes Plutonium fit right in!

Re:Old Compuserve Science & Math forum

[eric777]

>Wish I'd saved my Compuserve logs of this stuff, but I couldn't afford the floppies, $5 each at the time. :-)

$5.00 ??? Where were you buying your floppies?

I remember back in college (Yeshiva University, 1986) - a few geeks got together and ordered floppies in bulk - ~ $100 + shipping for 100 units, bulk packaged with no sleeves.

Cold fusion it's impossible

[paugq]

Cold fusion is impossible: it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Every announcement of somebody getting cold fusion to work is only a fraud or a mistake.

There's a good book by Robert L. Park (Nobel Prize of Physics) dealing with cold fusion and other scientific frauds (such as perpetual movement engines): Voodoo Science

Robert Park also writes a column for the American Physical Society.

Re:Cold fusion it's impossible

[paugq]

Because cold fusion tries to generate more energy than it takes.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that any process will generate the same amount of energy, or less, than it takes.

But that's in ideal conditions. Of course, those conditions never take place. So here comes the Second Law of Thermodynamics: in real conditions, any process will generate less energy than it takes. Of course, the remaining energy is not destroyed: it's only transformed in a non-profitable kind of energy (read: the entropy grows)

This is not easy to explain in only a few lines. I recommend to read "Voodoo Science" and then fully understand this all.

Re:Cold fusion it's impossible

[paugq]

In the ages of Copernicus, very little about Science was known.

Today, we know a lot about Science, and every and each thing and fact we know do nothing but empower the laws of Thermodynamics.

Learn some humility Sir, we know a lot, more than we need to debunk parasciences, pseudociences and fraud science (and cold fusion is fraud science).

Re:Cold fusion it's impossible

[LauraW]

>So here comes the Second Law of Thermodynamics: in real conditions, any process will generate less energy than it takes.

Sort of. That version of the 2nd law is true in classical thermodynamics. But when you throw relativity and nuclear reactions into the mix, it breaks down. Instead, you have talk about both mass and energy, which are equivalent in the good old ratio E=mc^2. This is why atomic fission (nuclear reactors and fission bombs) and "hot" fusion (hydrogen bombs) work. A small fraction of the mass is converted into energy. The classical versions of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are being violated, but if you take the equivalence of mass and energy into account then it all works again. (It's been ages since I studied this stuff, but I think I have that basically right.)

Re:Cold fusion it's impossible

[kst]

Because cold fusion tries to generate more energy than it takes.

No, it doesn't. Cold fusion, if it works, generates energy by fusing light nuclei to form heavier ones. It's the same basic process as what occurs in an H-bomb or in the Sun.

I'm not saying that cold fusion actually works, just that it doesn't necessarily violate thermodynamics (as far as I can tell).

Re:If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[aflat362]

You would think that the scientists working on it would have been able to anticipate any risks and put themselves out of harms way when they needed to. Did the scientists of the manhatten project blow themselves up when they invented the first atomic bomb? No - it was detonated when they were far away. Duh.

Hate to break it to you

[nuntius]

but it looks to me like your friend's "reactor" is a simple corrosion mechanism. By placing a high DC voltage across the two terminals, he can eat away the metal from one (in this case, tungsten). As his own data shows, there is no nulcear radiation coming from his experiments; just light and heat. He just wrapped some college chemistry experiments in a container and called it a reactor.

Yes, many of us know how nuclear power plants work. No, he doesn't have one.

Re:Hate to break it to you

[joestar]

your friend's "reactor" : I just want to make clear that I just don't know him - as a result he isn't my friend at all.

A Logical Explanation

[argoff]

A Palladium lattice is porous enough to let hydrogen pass thru, but not other elements. I could see all sorts of scenarios where hydrogen accumulates in the paladium lattice, and burns off with simple oxygen in the air when proded enough. Depending on at what state you observe it, or how the palladium was handled before the experiment - it could easially appear to give off more energy that was put into it, no matter how accurate your temperature sensors are.

Re:A Logical Explanation

[sigwinch]

Keeping in mind that I am not a physicist, what about the helium-4 traces?

The atmosphere is about 5 ppm He-4, and helium is notoriously good at leaking through even solid matter. (Notoriously good as in certain vacuum tubes have to be routinely replaced because atmospheric helium diffuses through the glass and ruins them.)

Re:A Logical Explanation

[TheHawke]

Yer onto something there.. Palladium does get refined in different ways and is a tempermental metal to work with.
What would happen if the metal was refined where the structure is made more pourus, allowing for more hydrogen accumulation, then using pressure and a small electrical charge (ionized gases or fluids perhaps) in a attempt to kickstart the reaction by cramming more and more H2 into the matrix?

There has to be another metal that has a higher porosity that can be used in place of palladium that can yield better results.

My 2 cents worth..

Re:A Logical Explanation

[TheHawke]

Nuts... H, not H2! My bad....

Re:A Logical Explanation

[myowntrueself]

Another possibility;

The palladium lattice soaks up hydrogen like a sponge. A block of palladium left soaking in liquid hydrogen will actually swell up.

If one were to use deuterium (instead of hydrogen) and force the absorbtion (by using electrolysis eg) the deuterons would likely (?) accumulate in the cells of the lattice; one deuteron per cell, just as with hydrogen.

But... What if there were some fluke impurities in the palladium which made the lattice distorted in such a way as to push two deuterons into one cell.

Maybe they would start a (very very small and localised) fusion reaction?

While the nature of the impurities remains a mystery, such conditions would possibly be reproducable, but not with any reliability.

Very similar to what we actually saw; some (very few) labs reported similar results. Most did not.

We'd need a whole field of research into the effects of impurities on the deformation of palladium lattices...

Re:A Logical Explanation

[guybarr]

But... What if there were some fluke impurities in the palladium which made the lattice distorted in such a way as to push two deuterons into one cell.

first, you would need to overcome the atoms' electronic repulsion (van-der-vaals repulsive part). This is called pressure ionization and needs pressure like the inside of gas giants. Highly unlikely inside ordinary solid state matter.

Second, you'll need a way to overcome the nucleon's electostatic repulsion. This requires energies of at least thousands of eVs (>10^7 degrees). I don't see where this energy would come from ...

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[jerde]

Conspiracy! Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt!

Nah, I don't buy it.

The first major auto manufacturer to come out with a significant improvement in fuel economy or type stands to make a killing in the market.

If someone comes up with a fabulous renewable energy source, and then can patent or otherwise control the market, they'd make a killing too. There is financial incentive to develop these technologies, which is why these companies are spending a lot on research.

A light bulb that lasts 20 years... could be sold for something like 10x the price of a regular light bulb. They'd sell like hotcakes, and make the company money. So, if they have one of these mythical things, they'd sell it. I don't buy this buried technology business without proof.

Non-addtictive cigarette indeed... they wouldn't sell very well, since your customer base is addicted to, well, the addictive drug in tobacco. So if you sell cigarettes without that drug, it wouldn't satsfy the needs/wants of your customers. No conspiracy.

- Peter

The US Millitary is rolling out fuel powered vehic

[Crashmarik]

Theyre not rolling out cold fusion powered vehicles.Also fuel cell stacks are being used to generate intermittent power in more than a few cities.

The thing that got me about the coldfusion people was when they started doing the calorimetry to prove it worked.

The surest way you can spot bullshit power generation claims, is when their proponents pull out the calorimeter. Anything thats going to be a real power generation technology isn't going to need a calorimeter to prove it will work. The amount of heat that a calorimeters is orders of magnitude less than generating systems normally waste.

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[gl4ss]

it would 'cripple' just few countries that are largely cripled already from my point of view(they don't control themselfs and get exploited silly already) as it is. 'cheap energy' is just small part of many of developing countries problems(of which some of the oil countries are), poor education being and lack of technical knowhow(which is also education) being the biggest problems. it could be arguead as well that having oil is their biggest problem, have you read any news about middle east and caucasus lately? of the other oil states(norway&etc), they would know to adapt to the situation.

but the main point still being that keeping technology like that under lid(and not going on patenting and using it) would be just insanely silly because what they've achieved is very probably achieved by somebody else soon.

oil and byproducts would have markets still for _decades_ anyways, even with alternative source for energy(like, nuclear power, and sometime in future true fusion).

and remember to use the tinfoil, just because inventing something would cause country x to loose something doesn't mean that thing is invented and country x is just hiding it(to some extent this has happened with exploiting developing countries but that is an another issue).

you could argue that paperless office is still fantasy because then paper companies would lose some income, or that universities are hiding machines that can cram information into peoples heads in seconds, but that's just similar nonsense.

Fusion Reactor Types

[pontifier]

There are actually many types of fusion reactors, many that may work at tabletop sizes.
Here are a few different types I have found:

Tokamak Reactor:
Large size, Confines plasma in a toroid.

Stellarator reactor:
Large size, simmilar to a Tokamak.

Laser Ignition Reactor:
Fires extremly powerfull lasers at a target causing fusion.

Inertial Confinement Reactor:
Small size, uses high voltage to fling protons to toward a Tungsten cage. This type of fusion rector can be build easily by anyone with a decent workshop, and acess to a hi-voltage power supply.

Table-top fiusion:
there is evidence that sonoluminescent bubbles could reach temperatures and pressures where fussion can happen.
(my understanding is that cold fusion was an attempt to pull protons into a Palladium electrode increasing the pressure to this sort of level)
I also read that some powered neutron sources use a fusion reaction to create the neutrons.

The tough thing about fusion is not creating fusion, but getting more out than you put in.

Re:Fusion Reactor Types

[imsabbel]

Have you any links to papers regarding the sonoluminescense bubbles?
I always thought that neither pressure nor temperature does even come close to the needed levels.

btw: The ultimate energy source would be an ultrasmall black whole trapped in a ioffe-trap.
Just keep it at a size with significant hawking radiation and feed it with a particle jet.
You get 100% mass to energy conversion.
(but i thing you also get a small problem with entropy and thermodynamics. they dont really like such stuff :) )

Re:Fusion Reactor Types

[gumbi west]

Your more right than you give yourself credit for. "but i thing you also get a small problem with entropy and thermodynamics".Relativity has no second law and Hawking radiation is the exception.

Science for Poets 101

[bnavarro]

Johnny was a Chemest
Johnny is no more.
For what Johnny thought was H2O,
was H2SO4.

Re:Science for Poets 101

[Xenothaulus]

Nice :D

Re:Science for Poets 101

[md81544]

Off topic, I know, but that reminds me of this one... Johnny, finding life a bore, Drank some H2SO4. Johnny's father, an MD, Gave him some CACO3 Now he's neutralised, its true, But he's full of CO2

Re:Science for Poets 101

[Cylix]

You failed to provide a copy of the gpl in your sig!

Aren't you supposed to be distributing along that with your gpl'd works?

You sir, are in violation!

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[WCMI92]

The problem I see with your scenerio is how far down the road to total IP lockdown the US has gone.

It's virtually impossible to invent ANYTHING that won't infringe on someone's patent or copyright, even if totally unrelated, someone can hunt through the piles of too broad patents and find something vaguely covering some aspect of what you invented.

Blammo! Lawsuit. Sell out for pennies on the dollar (if you get anything at all) because you can't afford to fight frivilous claims.

While I don't believe in conspiracy theroies, per se, It IS worth pointing out that any invention that threatened the oil-based energy nature of our economy WOULD no doubt have oil companies (and companies that make things that run on oil based fuel)would act against you.

Case in point: There really is no reason NOT to switch to hydrogen as an energy source. It's clean, it's abundant (most common element in the universe). Why hasn't this happened?

However, I DO feel that Hydrogen power will be the fuel of the 21st Century. Soon as we get sick and tired of kowtowing to tin horn religious jihader bandit kingdoms in an otherwise worthless desert..
.

Two independent issues.

[xplenumx]

Simply because the cold fusion hypothesis is not dead does not make Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann any more correct in their findings. The scientists weren't ostracized because they claimed to have experimental evidence to support cold fusion - had the evidence proved true, the world would have been ecstatic. The problem was in how the scientists presented their results.

Anyone who presents their data to the popular press prior to being peer reviewed should be heavily criticized. Even the most senior and brightest scientist make mistakes, become too enthusiastic, or may fail to run the proper controls. Furthermore, given that their data changed over time (from one Watt in, four out to one Watt in, ten out) with no reasoning, backing or explanation, one has to question the accuracy of their data.

Great scientists sometimes make big mistakes, such as with Dr. Atassi and his experiment with pepzymes. Unlike the cold fusion scientists, Dr. Atassi went through the peer review process and later didn't play the ego game. Personally, I think Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann were greatly mislead by their enthusiasm (I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call them frauds). Just as the mistakes of these two scientists don't invalidate the field of cold fusion, the successes of the field don't make their claims any more accurate.

Re:Two independent issues.

[Tumbleweed]

Going public at that time was not the idea of Drs Pons & Fleischmann - it was that of the University where they worked at the time, eager for some publicity. They were basically forced to go along. Unfortunate for them, as it pretty much destroyed their careers.

Terrible excuse

[MarcQuadra]

Who knows, maybe 'they' have. All I know is that the discovery of a much more efficient energy source would be an incredible boon for all of humanity, and it would net the executives in charge of the company more money in licensing than selling oil ever would. With cold-fusion the air would be noticeably cleaner in the span of a few years, and all the jobs lost in the oil and generating industries would be folded into the rest of the now much-more-prosperous rest of the economy.

Almost every small business involved with food would be able to hire several more people if their energy costs were lower.

Re:Terrible excuse

[qeveren]

Just because you've found a more efficient way of doing something doesn't necessarily mean the established industries are going to want to change to that method. They already have massive investment in the current infrastructure, and have tweaked things as finely as they can for maximum profit.

Look at the recording industry and the Internet...

Where are the neutrons?

[Mabelyne]

Where are the neutrons? If there is really fusion, then there are neutrons. Are neutrons so hard to detect in 14 years?

Re:Where are the neutrons?

[BigBadBri]

Not if you're making helium from deuterium, there aren't - you get them in hot fusion where tritium is being used (there are spare neutrons to go round), but 2 deuterium nuclei will make 1 helium-4 nucleus + energy.

Re:Where are the neutrons?

[radtea]

Not if you're making helium from deuterium, there aren't - you get them in hot fusion where tritium is being used (there are spare neutrons to go round), but 2 deuterium nuclei will make 1 helium-4 nucleus + energy.

And the 4-He will in fact get most of that energy, which will make it move so fast that it will knock neutrons off deuterium nuclei (and other nuclei) while slowing down. If the 4He doesn't get the energy, it must come out in gamma rays (ignoring inadequate coupling constants for a moment--we're doing phictional physics here).

Neither neutrons nor gamma rays are observed. Nor, for that matter, is 4He.

Ergo, no nuclear processes are occuring

--Tom

Re:Coldfusion

[NanoGator]

"Coldfusion (Score:0, Offtopic)

I use Coldfusion at work, and while I would possibly choose other methods of web application development if it were up to me, it still remains a good, solid Web application development tool, which is easy to learn and quite powerful.
It runs fine on linux, as well! "

It's not off-topic when it's a joke about the topic.

blowing my own horn

[TheSHAD0W]

One sleepless night I pondered the set-up everyone's been using to test cold fusion, with all its failings, and came up with a new experimental test to try and isolate the effect. After toying with the idea for a few weeks, I decided I'd never build it myself, and published it. I sent emails to a few places that do such research, and never heard back.

http://www.shambala.net/misc/hoffmancell.gif

If anyone wishes to play with this design, please do; I'd even be interested if you tried and didn't find anything.

Re:Gaythorpe?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Okay, now that was funny.

Carl Sagan: "The Burden of Skepticism"

[David Hume]

I know the popular thing to do is bash psuedo-sciences, and cold fusion because of its shaky introduction into popular thought quickly falls into this quagmire. But, let the human race dream before summarily dismissing the entire concept.

Carl Sagan addressed this issue in his essay, "The Burden of Skepticism." (See also lecture version).

Sagan explained:

It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you're in deep trouble.

If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress.

On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.

Re:Carl Sagan: "The Burden of Skepticism"

[aminorex]

Wow, Carl, send me some of what you've been
smoking!

*puffs*

Yeah, man, you're making so much sense to me now!

It may not be cold fusion, but what is it?

[irishkev]

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm

Re:If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[iggymanz]

Actually, some scientists of the Manhattan project did indeed get themselves killed from assemblies of fissionable material going slightly supercritical. Scientists through the ages have poisoned, electrocuted, drowned, shot, burned, disemboweled and blown up themselves.

Re:If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[SydShamino]

>>plus a neutron (which can be a problem

Can be a problem? It is one of the major problems. Most (hot) fusion reactions produce a 14.1 MeV neutron as a primary or secondary reaction. The neutron flux (initial current + reflected and slowed neutrons) is sufficient enough so that, at the power levels a commercial fusion reactor would probably operate, every-single atom in the first wall of the reactor containment would be displaced from its lattice every few months!

Plus, there is no way to deflect or stop a neutron without letting it run into something, and whatever it hits will become radioactive itself as its atomic structure is blown apart from the bombardment. This means that a large, radioactive shield structure could have to be replaced every few months, making fusion not very much better than fission.

One of the few reactions that does not produce the neutron is the helium-3 helium-3 reaction. (He-3 + He-3 -> He-4 + 2 protons) Of course, helium 3 isn't that easy to find either. This is where the stories about "mining the moon for helium" come from; the moon is constantly blasted with miniscule trace amounts of helium-3 from the sun.

Reference: Roth, J. R. Introduction to Fusion Energy. Ibis Publishing, 1986. Pages 210, 295-296.

My analysis

[nuntius]

I'm an electrical engineer; a chemist could give a better explanation of what's happening.

Source of reactor info:
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/html/cfrtiny2. htm

Experimental setup:
Place tungsten welding rods in a corrosive solution of NaHCO3. Use a AC/DC rectifier to convert wall current to a high DC potential across the rods. Measure the input energy using a power meter. Calculate the output energy by measuring the evaporated water and increase in heat (like you would with a cheapo calorimeter). Compare.

Test and analysis:
Run the system for approximately 3 minutes. Note that, as the rods corrode, their conductance goes down, bringing down the Wattage as well.

This is easily predicted. Resistance (R) is roughly proportional to the rod corrosion. Current (I) equals the applied voltage (V) divided by the resistance; I=V/R. Power (P) is P=I^2*R; for our system, P=(V/R)^2*R=V^2/R. Therefore, as R goes up, the input power goes down. This agrees with the experiment.

The "researcher" then makes several obvious mistakes in calculating the output energy. First, he ignores the effect of the NaHCO3, and pretends the rods were dipped in pure water. Second, he forgets to subtract the 6mL of evaporated water from the 150mL of water that rose in temperature. He also ignores the chemical effect of eating away at the tungsten rods.

His experiment does show more energy output than input, and I believe his numbers are roughly accurate (barring the mistakes outlined above).

My analysis:
This experiment shows that exothermic chemical reactions exist. Other famous examples of exothermic chemical reactions which corrode metal are Energizer and Duracell batteries. Burning a match is also characteristically similar.

His experiment has nothing to do with nuclear reactions. Just chemical ones.

That isn't how it works

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the unexplained anomalies they report sound interesting, but then again, there are millions of unexplained phenomena waiting for study, and a much smaller number of employed physicists. Without convincing evidence that there is indeed new physics to be explored, you'll have a hard time convincing a publish-or-perish-mode academic to gamble his reputation on this sort of still-born turd.

You'd even have trouble bothering one to look at it. Physics faculty and graduate students get bombarded with crackpot claims, frequently in mispelled pidgin English. They need a mail filter that would block emails with "wherin the boson-fermion are united to GONG PARTICLE" and "Dear Sir: Attached is summary of Megaphysics." Granted, I RTFA, and it sounds almost incomparably better. But parts like

"I, for one, would love to hear smart physicists explain why the excess heat from the deuterium-filled palladium reflects not nuclear fusion but the release of mechanical energy"

"I'd love to see a smart critique of a 2002 paper by Japanese scientists, published in a Japanese physics journal that few American scientists saw, describing (shades of medieval alchemists) the transmutation of elements through cold fusion"

smell a little. Some of the most pitiable crackpot theories come in the form,

"I know this must be wrong, because it contradicts [insert some venerated physical principle here] but I've spent years trying, and I can't understand why. I've even talked to a few experts, and they can't find anything wrong with it."

People of this sort journey for hundreds of miles, appearing unexpectedly at some unfortunate professor's door, and plead for a hearing. There is usually some "groundbreaking" document involved. The first paragraph or so of this document makes it obvious the author has no idea what in the hell he's talking about. At this point, the professor can a) spend a few weeks bringing the poor guy up to speed with a line-by-line explanation of the million things he got wrong, or b) tell him, "Huh... I don't know" and politely kick him out. In the real world, option b) is the only choice.

The way to get a physicist's attention is to get the damn thing working themselves and shove the trillion-dollar patent check in our faces. If they are capable of doing the correct experimental bookkeeping (as the article claims) they are capable of continuing their experiment on their own. They don't need any help.

Codl fusion != Cold Fusion

[angel'o'sphere]

First:
The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion" experiments where reproduced by several labs(including my university). However, it has nothing to do with cold fusion, that is the resume. As fusion, cold or not, creates measureable amounts of neutrons. Those did not get detected.
What remains is a heat producing aparatus with unknown reaction.

Second:
There are a lot of other ways to get a cold fusin reaction. And that is old science from the late 70th. One is "myon catalised fusion". In that case you bombard H atoms with myons. Myons are particls with similar behaviour likel electrons. Those can replace the electorns of an H atom. As a myon has about 300,000 times the mass of an electron it orbits the H atom very close. When two H atoms with their electrons replaced by myons form a mulecule, the two H cores are brought so close together that a fusion can happen.

There are likely other ways for "cold fusion".

Interesting, that a "geek net magazine" where posters/readers are supposed to have a clue about computers and related sciences behave like inquisitors when it goes about cold fusion and behave like experts when it goes about asteroid deflection or near earth misses ....

Probably it would be at least nice, if not wise, to open up your mind.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Codl fusion != Cold Fusion

[DerekLyons]

The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion" experiments where reproduced by several labs(including my university). However, it has nothing to do with cold fusion, that is the resume. As fusion, cold or not, creates measureable amounts of neutrons. Those did not get detected.
What remains is a heat producing aparatus with unknown reaction.

Numerous universities repeated the experiment and got excess heat. Numerous others also repeated the experiment and didn't find any excess heat. (Or found that they had 'false positives' for various reasons.)

In short, what's left is an apparatus that seems to only provide excess heat when in the hands of a believer, and not when in the hands of a skeptic.

Re:Codl fusion != Cold Fusion

[angel'o'sphere]

In short, what's left is an apparatus that seems to only provide excess heat when in the hands of a believer, and not when in the hands of a skeptic.


I dont think there have been a noticeable amount of people with the equipment to repeat the experiment wich could be called believers.

The experiment is not expensive in itself, but the equipment is.

Its a non sciense attitute (of you and others) to bash because Pons/Fleischman likely where idiots. But bashing the whole topic maks he bashers looking like fools as well.

I can assure you the guys I talked to, which found excess heat, are no believers but skepticers. And as they are skepticers they found no point in repeating the experiments when it became aparent that Pons/Fleischman had "exagerated".

In our days it is not adviseable for a physician to stand up and proclaim: "I repeated the experiement ... and find it working". Its far better to shut up and turn to other topics .... or would YOU find it amusing to see a an article on /. with your name and the laughter on top?

I appologize for getting my numbers about the myon mass wrong -- when I started this thread --, I had 270.000 in mind instead of 270 and rounded up.

angel'o'sphere

Well what do you expect?

[xihr]

It was pseudoscience, the claims were nonsense, and the scientific community investigated the claims thoroughly to try to reproduce the claimed results and no one, including the original "researchers," could manage. It was bullshit, and was demonstrated to be bullshit. The rest of the world moved on.

Just because you want something bad enough doesn't make it real.

Re:Well what do you expect?

[Fantastic Lad]

Just because you want something bad enough doesn't make it real.

Indeed. And that can be extended to, "Just because the media tells you something which you are too lazy to investigate more deeply on your own, doesn't make popular concensus true either."

Hell, popular concensus is never particularly reliable.

-FL

Re:Cold Fusion"and Neural Networks: Similar Fates

[Izago909]

That's just like that one guy said, "What the hell are we going to do with something that weighs 30 pounds and make polarized light of the same wavelength?"
Is a machine thinking so hard to believe? You are a machine. Instead of electro-chemical, the 'AI' of today is electro-mechanical. People invent things like religion and philosophy so they don't have to feel so insignifigant, but you are still a machine by every sense of the definition.
Science isn't like pop culture which thrives on instant gratification. Some new idea may not be pratcical, but one idea leads to another idea leads to another... until you have the next greatest thing sitting in your garage. I can't wait until the day someone bitches about how making something the size of a baseball travel faster than light is going to effect him.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Anyone remember that short lived series where they had an episode about a guy who "discovered" cold fusion? Basically his professor was teaching the class that cold fusion was impossible but this one kid found the flaw in the equation and built a cold fusion bomb out of a few household materials...

Scary when you think about it: "They could have weapons of mass destruction! They must agree to give up water and electricity immediately!" Oy vey.

Re:zerg

[jayrtfm]

Final Exam

Cold fusion and muon catalysis

[rjh]

Not true--cold fusion is possible, just not like Pons and Fleischmann described. (Nothing like it, in fact.) The quantum mechanical description of the energy states of a hydrogen atom are identical whether you use electrons or muons; use either, the hydrogen atom doesn't care. (Now, when you ask the very important question "yeah, genius, now how do you create quintillions of muon-replaced hydrogen atoms?", I'll resort to the classic physicist's dodge: "that's an engineering issue; go ask an engineer.")

QMech says that if you've got hydrogens with muon shells instead of electron shells, you'll see spontaneous fusion reactions at very low temperatures. The reasons why are hard to explain without going into a lot of math, but it's quite possible according to the Standard Model.

Of course, there's a world of difference between possible and feasible. But physicists are only concerned with the possible. Feasible is for engineers. :)

Re:Cold fusion and muon catalysis

[Scott Carnahan]

Muon-catalyzed fusion was first observed in a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber, by Alvarez in 1957. You can google for any of the interesting above words to get a reference. Protons with a muon replacing an electron are about 1/200 the radius of a normal hydrogen atom, so the amplitude of an interesting nuclear interaction is much higher than normal.

There are two obstructions to getting this to work on a large scale. First, there aren't enough naturally occurring muons to create any sort of chain reaction, by which I mean they decay much too quickly (half-life ~ 1.56 microseconds) to catalyze many reactions, unless the hydrogen is compressed to some absurd concentration. Second, muons are sufficiently heavy that artificial production would cost more energy than you'd get out of the fusion, so it would be difficult give nature a hand this way.

Re:Cold fusion and muon catalysis

[rjh]

they decay much too quickly (half-life ~ 1.56 microseconds) to catalyze many reactions

They're up to one muon catalyzing 150 D-D fuses in a laboratory environment. Depending on your definition of "many", this is either "nowhere near enough" or "surprisingly a lot, all things considered". Both are, IMO, defensible viewpoints.

Theoretical break-even was reached in the early '80s, where muon-catalyzed fusion produced as much energy (in fuses) as it took to create the muons. It's still a long, long way from (a) scalable break-even (i.e., works for more than just proof-of-concept) or (b) practical break-even (i.e., produces enough energy to pay for the energy cost of the muons, plus the operating costs of the people and personnel required to run the reactor).

Re:Do you mind...

[stewart.hector]

rotfl!!

Its hapenning in my drink right now!

[starm_]

fusion: noun the act or process of liquefying or melting

ice is considered to be cold to be cold right?

Re:Coldfusion

[revividus]

Thankyou! Somebody gets the joke. I can suffer with my moderation. Perserverance builds character. Fight the power.

Re:electric cars

[jcam2]

Energy density - 1kg of petrol stores a lot more energy that a 1kg battery for your electric car.

Re:They probably have achieved cold fusion

[jerde]

There really is no reason NOT to switch to hydrogen as an energy source.

Except, of course, that we don't have a ready, cheap supply of it, or a distribution network for it.

We can extract hydrogen fairly cheaply from natural gas, but it's still cheaper just to burn the gas...

No, right now, hydrogen is not an energy source ! It is, however, a very nice energy transporter, and it might very well make environmental sense to replace all our internal combustion engines with hydrogen-burning ones, at least in urban areas.

- Peter

This is the way it's always been...

[DesScorp]

" It's a travesty for a scientist to say cold fusion is wrong because of his faith... Since when does peer review mean you only test things that fit into your view of the universe? "

It's always been this way. Theres a big difference between the scientific method, and Science, Inc. And while you're at it, realize that Science Inc is as much a religion as any other faiths. It has its orthodoxies just like anything else. The Atkins Diet has always had its detractors. It took them, what, over two decades to admit that you can lose weight with it? And even now some doctors refuse to acknowledge that it can work. It violated the dogma of low fat/high carbs. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, science has its dogmas. Stephen Hawking is considered a genius now, but back when he was starting his career, the Steady State theory was the reigning dogma of physics. Some scientists simply refused to acknowledge any other possibilities.

Revolutionary ideas in science are often met with skepticism at first.

Re:This is the way it's always been...

[ebuck]

Science is a religion based around these simple principles:

1. Phenomenon may be measured.
2. If phenomenon is observerd to repeat at least 19 times out of 20, then it will be considered repeating.
3. Theories should be based on evidence, and when evidence is contrary to the theory, the theory should be suspect.

I don't see any measurement of the phenomenon in any labs that I feel are credible (ie most of the world), and I don't see repeatability (either in the one lab that claims creation, or the other lab that "mysteriously" involved the discoverer) So I can't even start building a theory as to how cold fusion works.

MILLIONS lost to reproduction of this experiment, the "discoverer" a known shennagin when it comes to doctoring results, and you want me to reconsider the theory without evidence because of polictical reasons? Blech.

Re:This is the way it's always been...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something you forgot to include in your equation is that your body will throw out shit that it doesn't like or need. That's the key to the Atkins Diet.

You don't retain a set percentage of all the calories you consume. It depends entirely on what you eat. Carbohydrates are very easy to metabolize, so they do tend to map very close to 1-to-1. Fats and proteins are a very different story.

The biggest problem with consuming fats like cholesterol is that they're very complex molecules. What you ingest is often damaged from meal preparation and cooking, such as bad cholesterol. Your body will use what it gets if it has to, but with a surplus it will fill its needs with good cholesterol first and actually discard excess bad cholesterol.

The body is surprisingly good at taking care of itself, provided its needs are being properly met.

Muon fusion catalysis

[rjh]

Muon-catalyzed fusion is real and comes within a factor of 15 of being commercially viable--muon-catalyzed reactions became self-sustaining in a theoretical sense in the 1980s (generating more energy out than was put in), but there's a long way between theoretical and practical self-sufficiency.

They hit the theoretical; they're within a factor of 15 of practical. This makes muon-catalyzed fusion the closest to viability of any fusion method so far. On the other hand, people have been throwing themselves at it for 20 years now trying to close that factor-of-15 gap and haven't gotten anywhere. Nowadays it's thought that there are some physical limitations on muon fusion which will prevent it from closing that factor-of-15 gap, and muon catalysis is no longer considered to be the most promising light on the horizon.

Muons are not 300,000 times the mass of an electron; they're 207 times the mass of an electron (or appreciably close to the mass of a proton).

Re:electric cars

[Timmeh]

No, but hydrogen is has decent energy density, and without worries of efficient use of energy you could electrolyze water 'til the cows come home. As I recall, hydrogen (either in pressurized tanks or in powdered sodium borohydride form) has a decent energy density, and if not, I'm sure this would give someone sufficient reason to develop more economical H containment.

Troll??

[TheSHAD0W]

Ahem. The link goes to an experimental design that would require a lot less money to perform, since it's smaller and needs fewer materials; it also eliminates the problem of trying to calculate how much heat you're putting into the experiment by running a current between the electrodes and determining the amount of "excess heat", which would be a couple orders of magnitude lower. It's a serious design, not a "troll".

Not myons

[adrianbaugh]

You mean "muons". Also: fusion isn't defined by neutron production, though that does occur in many fusion reactions. (A counterexample would be the fusion of two Helium-3 atoms.)

Re:Not myons

[sql*kitten]

A counterexample would be the fusion of two Helium-3 atoms

He3 fusion is really the holy grail, because since it produces charged particles instead of neutrons, there's no need to attach it to an old-style heat exchanger and steam turbine plant. You can extract the energy and convert it to electricity directly using magnetohydrodynamic induction. It's very elegant. And we know where to get loads of He3, it's abundant on the moon, just not on Earth. Regular deuterium fusion will be the proof of concept and might be the first into commercial production, but He3 fusion won't be too far behind it. It will make mining on the moon commercially viable!

Re:Not myons

[adrianbaugh]

On the mining side, is it possible with near-future technology to mine the 3He, ship it back to Earth and use it to generate energy and still end up with more energy out than went into the whole process? Or would it require esoteric tech like those magnetic railguns to launch cargo back towards the Earth?
(Not trolling, I'm just curious.)

Re:Not myons

[sql*kitten]

On the mining side, is it possible with near-future technology to mine the 3He, ship it back to Earth and use it to generate energy and still end up with more energy out than went into the whole process? Or would it require esoteric tech like those magnetic railguns to launch cargo back towards the Earth?

My reference in these matters is Dr Robert Zubrin, who has written extensively on using existing and very-near-future technology (i.e. direct extrapolations from current research) to colonize Mars and the moon. We know from probes that He3 exists on the moon's surface (probably caused by the solar wind hitting the unprotected surface). We have a technique called "shake and bake" used in mining here on Earth for extracting gases from rocks. What would be required would be to deploy a highly automated and solar powered shake and bake plant to process moon rock to extract and store He3.

You would need to process 250,000 tonnes or rock to extract 1kg of He3. That's 1km square to a depth of 10cm. That sounds like terrible odds, but in a 60% efficient MHD fusion reactor, at a price of $0.06/kWh that works out at $1M/kg. If electricity prices go up, obviously that'd be more. So the question really is, how much can you automate bulldozing rock into a furnace? Zubrin estimates if 1kg to LEO can be brought down to $1000, you could get to the moon for $5000/kg, then you could break even in 4 years.

There IS something there...

[Ezmate]

While I attended Texas A&M, I spent 2 (93-94) years as a personal assistant (gofer, typist, etc) to James Bockris (Distinguished Professor of Electro-Chemestry - the first scientist to "confirm" Pons & Fleischmann). As such, I had full access to his corespondance (I had to open it all, sort it by subject, & reply to some of the simplier inquiries) & was able to learn quite a bit.

Although it's now been 10 years since I've done any serious research on the subject (every now & then I read the symposium notes), I can give you my opinions of the whole Cold Fusion uproar:

-There is something strange & new going on in these experiments
-This something strange & new has been very difficult to reproduce consistently (much of the research focuses on certain types of atomic level imperfections in the cathodes)
-Pons & Fleischmann screwed the pooch by announcing their results before they could reproduce them. This basically had the effect of turning 95% of the scientific community against them. This has led to many people assuming the entire field of study as bogus.
-Many scientist around the world have reported "good results" - ranging from melted cathodes (excess heat) to extra helium (fusion of hydrogen atoms?).


My guess is that there is some new type of reaction occuring in these experiments. It may or may not be able to produce excess heat. Regardless, I'd bet in 10-20 years, a paper will be published that will explain it all.


As a side note, Dr. Bockris was a very "interesting" fellow to work with - he was the epitomy of the absent minded professor; one day he came in to work with his button down dress shirt on INSIDE OUT (think about how much effort it would take you to button a dress shirt in such a fashion); he frequently would put a MARKER in his front pocket without the cap on - leading to a HUGE ink stain on many of his dress shirts. And yes, I know he's done some weird stuff in his life (alchemy, anyone?! - http://www.spectrometer.org/path/free.html).

Re:There IS something there...

[GnarlyNome]

I worked at SLAC and we were called in to clean up a lab the story was that they were doing electrolysis when I asked how much H2 was involved they said about 10 cc
(the lab bench was a total wreck. A lot of energy was released there. also I saw Platnium-Palladium elements in the wreckage. but then what do I know We were just Facilities Apes

Re:There IS something there...

[nanojath]

Although it's now been 10 years since I've done any serious research on the subject (every now & then I read the symposium notes), I can give you my opinions of the whole Cold Fusion uproar:

-There is something strange & new going on in these experiments

I've no doubt this is quite possibly true. Regardless of what "it" turns out to be (or whether we'll ever know) I think it makes an excellent case study of why the system of peer review and formal publication exists, and the costs of electing to circumvent channels, whether out of over-enthusiasm or naked self-promotion.

By making a big public furor over experiments that hadn't been reproduced and obviously were not properly understood (since we're still trying to figure them out over a decade later), Pons & Fleischmann attached an onus to the whole business that it has yet to shake.

If they had gone a more cautious and traditional route, publishing their findings without radical claims about its meanings in appropriate general science and electrochemistry journals, the tag of "cold fusion," which is now essentially just an albatross to any legitimate researcher, could have been avoided, interest and research would have developed more sustainably (instead of the bandwagon rush to prove or disprove, followed by an equally frenetic rush to gain distance from a discredited claim surrounded by shadows of impropriety) and the fascinating anomaly Pons & Fleischmann discovered in their lab might have created a whole lot more progress, albeit a lot more quietly.

Re:There IS something there...

[agrippa_cash]

one day he came in to work with his button down dress shirt on INSIDE OUT (think about how much effort it would take you to button a dress shirt in such a fashion);

When he took it off, he just unbuttoned the top button and pulled it off like a sweater. When he put it back on it was already inside out and he may have just flipped the collar and put on his tie. Believe me, I know how these things happen.

Forget cold fusion --

[Sphere1952]

and go for nano-fusion. How hard would it be to etch an accerator onto a chip?

I saw a paper once which even offered up the possibility of non-radioactive nano-fusion -- boron and carbon, I think.

You mean...

[DesScorp]

"No, we are still waiting for a peer-reviewed study to be published that shows something other than caloriesIn-caloriesBurned*0 = weightLoss, regardless of the type of caloric intake."

You mean like this one
and this one ?

Sorry abou the MSNBC link, but the New England Journal of Medicine's website seems to be down right now....the article discusses two studies on Atkins.

Re:You mean...

[AKAImBatman]

"No, we are still waiting for a peer-reviewed study to be published that shows something other than caloriesIn-caloriesBurned < 0 = weightLoss, regardless of the type of caloric intake."

Your article says:

"These preliminary data suggest that weight losses will be comparable to conventional approaches over a one-year period"

In fact, your article states that they limited the test subjects to standard 1500-1800 calorie diets. If you're overweight and limit your caloric intake to what you should be getting, you WILL loose weight since it takes more calories to maintain your greater weight-point. Thus, you will keep loosing weight until you hit a weight point that is supported by your caloric intake.

BTW, I'm speaking not just from knowledge and study of the subject, but also from experience. As for health concerns, BALANCE YOUR DIET! That's the best thing you can do for your body. Too much of anything will quite effectively kill you in the long run.

Re:You mean...

[AnotherBlackHat]

"No, we are still waiting for a peer-reviewed study to be published that shows something other than caloriesIn-caloriesBurned

I'd bet you can't point to a study that shows that eating more calories results in weight gain.
(I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that you won't be able to find a study that proves it.)

-- this is not a .sig

Re:You mean...

[AKAImBatman]

I'd bet you can't point to a study that shows that eating more calories results in weight gain.
(I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that you won't be able to find a study that proves it.)

Actually, I'm betting I could if I had enough time to spare to go to a medical library and look up said studies. They're hard to find because they're somewhere between 75-100 years old!!! This is not new science. People have been trying to loose weight since the turn of the century. (Heart disease as we know it today started appearing in the 1920s.) Not to mention that fat storage is one of the better understood parts of the body. It works something like this:

Your body uses simple sugars (glucose) as a source of fuel. In order to keep a constant supply of energy on hand, it keeps a ready storage of glucose both in your bloodstream and in your cells. However, if your blood sugar rises too far, your body decides to store the excess for later. Thus it tells cells to take it out of the blood stream and molecularly bond it into fat. The signal to do this is insulin.

Now the interesting part about fat is that it's a very efficient storage mechanism. By binding some extra junk in with the sugars, fat is able to store about twice as much energy per the same amount.

So, how do you become overweight? Simple, give your body too much sugar and it will make sure to store it for later use, just in case. The problem is, Sugar, Carbohydrates, and Fat are all either forms of sugar or sugar can be chemically extracted. Simple sugars are considered bad because they raise your blood sugar quickly (almost no conversion is necessary) and can send your body on a rollercoaster to produce more insulin, now raise the blood sugar, now produce more insulin, etc.

Carbs are considered best because your body has to break them down into sugars for use. Thus they become a long lasting fuel that helps keep your blood sugar consistent (as long as you don't eat too much).

Fats are one of those questionable issues. While your body can break them down for energy, ketosis (the state in which fat is being used) produces a large number of toxins. (Remember that extra junk that gets bound to sugars?) Normally your body would expect to be in ketosis for a short period of time, at which point it would have a chance to flush out these toxins. If your body doesn't get the chance, it can actually lead to a ketosis coma (happens to diabetics). Even on Atkins, things usually don't get that bad, but if you're really eating as few carbs as you're told (another problem all-together), then you *are* increasing the number of toxins in your body and thus reducing its operating capacity.

The other problem with fats is that they're usually attached to some pretty crappy oils and lipids. Saturated and poly-saturated fats are often mistakenly used by your body to build blood vessels. The problem is that the lipids never solidify and are just waiting to be dislodged in a mess of heart clogging (literallly) goo. If this goo hits your heart, it may result in a Mascular Infarctation which will kill some or all of the heart tissue. Your body will try to respond with an instant heart bypass (Yes, your bod is pretty neat. It can build a bypass within minutes!) If you're in good health, it might find enough room and materials to succeed. If you're not...

Yet another problem with fats is that they can often be attached to high sources of protein. While in a balanced diet this doesn't cause a problem, too much protein can quite handily cause kidney failure. Not a pleasent thing to have happen.

Now, with all that in your head, consider this for a moment. If you simply need to loose a few pounds, everything we know about the body and how it works says that you probably just want to eat less and eat a balanced diet with stuff from ALL food groups (forbidden food diets almost always fail anyway). For many people that means cut out the soda pop and you'll do just fine.

However, if you weigh 300 pounds and nothing

Re:If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'heaviness' of the elements is meaningless.

Hydrogen-2 + Hydrogen-2 = Helium-4 + Energy

That energy, at least in the Sun, causes the Helium-4 to do one of the following:

1. Become Helium-3 and spit off a neutron.
2. Become Hydrogen-3 and spit off a proton.
3. Stay as Helium-4 and spit off gamma radiation.

The third case is the one that most physicists use to debunk this whole fusion thing.

Cold Fusion WAS Proven Wrong

[localroger]

It was really quite obvious. Pons and Fleischmann claimed to get a certain amount of energy from their apparattus. Well, fusion doesn't just create heat; it also creates neutrons. Shitloads of neutrons. Think "neutron bomb."

And their apparattus was not shielded.

The fact that they were still alive proved that they had not succeeded in doing what they thought they had done.

Stonecutters, again...

[TheVidiot]

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Whow leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Whot keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs the cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!

Duke

[zurmikopa]

Why do I get the feeling that this fusion project has the codename "Duke Nukem Forever"

Re:Duke

[Rude-Boy]

ooooo, take THAT 3DRealms!

Tabletop Fusion Does Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Some additional details:

http://www.fusor.net/

Decent basic description: http://members.tm.net/lapointe/IEC_Fusion.html

Basic operational premise: Solar fusion operates by heating up the atoms until they reach a velocity where their random interaction results in enough nuclei hitting each other hard enough to overcome the repulsive force and fuse together.
In a fusor, rather then using heat energy to strip the outer electrons and speed up the nuclei, an electrostatic charge measuring in the upper tens of thousands of volts, up to several million volts is used to accelerate the nuclei directly toward each other.

It isn't currently commercially useful for producing energy - still getting out loads less then the amount of energy put in, and in inconvenient forms (xray, gamma, high energy neutrons, and no easy way to draw off the heat produced)

The point is that there may be a number of catalyzing methods for fusion that we simply don't know about yet.

One of the unsettling details that came out in cold fusion research at various universities over the last several years (check the newsgroup if you're really interested in the details) is that while consistent results could be achieved by different electrodes within a batch, (no results, some results for a short while, or "where the hell is all this helium coming from?!" type results) various batches of palladium (nickel too) gave different results - despite having >identicalsomething, but the results have been largely inconsistent. Until all the parameters that influence the interstitial diffusion and storage of hydrogen are known, we probably won't see any serious advances in small-scale, 'cold' fusion.

Nightmare:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/h eavy.htm
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll ?&query=la ntern+mantles
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1 111/n1782_v297/ 21281407/print.jhtml
Some omitted. You connect the dots.

: ) Thank God most Fundamentalist Crazies are so stupid.

Oh THAT Coldfusion

[Pionar]

I mean, I knew that other languages were more popular, but I didn't think Coldfusion was that bad, expecially MX :)

Hot fusion in our time...

[blueberry(4*atan(1))]

I for one dont believe that all I have to look forward to as i grow older is a greater dependence on big oil, old money, and the like. Many groups (and by that I mean countries, companies, and current presidents) would love to convince us that there is no better way to live than under our present conditions.

Check out the Focus Fusion Society for a promising solution to the world's energy woes.

They are developing a hot fusion device, called a plasma focus, which is small, inexpensive, simple (relatively), energetic, produces no long-term radioactive waste, and effectively converts fusion energy straight to electricity. A working prototype has already demonstrated sustained fusion. As a side-note, the plasma focus looks to be conveniently ideal for fusion space propulsion, producing much higher specific impulse than chemical rockets.

The development of usable fusion power, long prophesied by science fiction, will be a watershed event for human civilization.

Please visit the above link and look it over. I'm a member of the society. Join us and help change the world.

--Porkrind

What are you talking about?

[mshiltonj]

Nobody uses Cold Fusion anymore, now that Macromedia bought it. Everyone has switched to PHP.

Secrecy Alone Should Have Nipped This in the Bud

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Cold fusion is the poster boy for what is wrong with modern science practice.

Like the cart pulling the horse, agenda is leading all aspects of investigation. The end result doesn't function.

Now, I'm not densedly supposing that agenda (bias, philosophy ... call it what you will) can't serve a purpose in science. Facts don't decide how to investigate ... people have to sift facts and decide how to pursue things. That decision process is biased.

But ... as one other poster pointed out, doing "science by press release" is an extraordinarily bad practice. It oozes political need while letting sharp investgation fall by the wayside.

In addition, I often wonder if the majority of scientists today are simply too badly trained to even begin to address their serious lack of objectivity. As their mentors become progressively more whores for government and industry grants, that agenda-rich attitude can only pervade their students. The developing product is what we clearly see today: cold fusion is still an "I don't know" topic when all they had to do was run some arguably cheap and computationally simple experiments. Forgetting to take into account mass and heat loss from evaporation? These people aren't scientists.

Let's not forget the brouhaha over Pons's and Fle.'s legendary reluctance to be forthcoming about methods in order to have their experiment duplicated. That alone should have had the claim laughed off the press (non full disclosure is a hallmark of a hoax). But it wasn't ... since once again, agenda oozed into the picture and certain scientists could milk grants on the basis of uncertainty and greed.

Cold fusion is right freakin' up there with perpetual motion. PM claims are easy to debunk ... on non-disclosure terms alone. We should be relegating CF to the same graveyard of fraud.

Re:Coldfusion

[DA-MAN]

Personally I think Macromedia is the devil incarnate!!!

I'd be happier both without Flash and those damn Cold Fusion servers.

Re:Cold Fusion?

[ScrewMaster]

Now that's comedy.

the engineers need the scientists

[QEDog]

It is unfair to critize the scientist saying that what they do doesn't have applications. Some of it does, some of it doesn't, but they ARE discovering new phenomena after all. You talk about High Tc Super Conductors, but forget about the transistor and many other. It is hard to predict what will be the big next thing. Scientist try to milk phenomenas as much as they can, sometimes with high hopes, and sometimes their expectations were not realistic. This happens in engineering too. The good thing about science that even if there isn't an immediate application, maybe in the far future there will be. And, you can always do science just because understanding the universe can't be a bad thing.

At least morgan freeman was in it as well

[The-Bus]

Yet, it was a phenomenon worthy enough of a Keanu Reeves movie.

Re:At least morgan freeman was in it as well

[Noren]

Oh, yeah, Easy Reader from The Electric Company!

I'm glad to hear he's still getting work.

Re:electric cars

[Galvatron]

Sure, but all of these are long term projects. Fusion power, by itself, will not kill oil companies, we'll need to have hydrogen powered cars as well, and even optimistic forcasts put that at least 5 years off. On top of that, politicians would have to explain to their constituents why they're banning a much cheaper form of electricity. No matter how powerful you think oil companies are, they can't stop EVERY country from using fusion, so word will get out about how much better it is.

No, oil companies won't have the will, nor will politicians have the incentive, to block cold fusion if it were invented.

Not the University research, but independant.

[Frobnicator]

The headline is misleading, saying they were "of the University of Utah". It was originally independant research being done on the Campus, not work for the University. Only after the announcement did the University adopt it in exchange for further resources.

Stanly Pons and Martin Fleischmann were both separately employeed by the University, but the research was not sponsored by the school. They were using some of the school's facilities with permission, basically because of the high cost of the equipment.

See http://www.chem.utah.edu/depthistory/ChemDept_Hist ory.pdf for some of this:

"Stan Pons did his doctoral dissertation research at Southampton University, where he developed a scientific collaboration with Professor Martin Fleischmann. In the 1980's Martin was a frequent visitor to Utah and had been given a courtesy visiting professorship at the University of Utah. On March 23, 1989, a press conference was convened at the University of Utah ... to announce the discovery by Stan and Martin of cold fusion. The euphoria and disillusionment that followed that event have been told in many subsequent newspaper articles and books. A recent 365 page book [Charles G. Beaudette, Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, Oak Grove Press, South Bristol, Maine, 2000] does a balanced job of recounting the story." (emphasis added)

Because the original press conference was conveniend at the University, and because both professors were affiliated with the U of U, and that further research was taken up by the University at the time of the press conference, many journalists jumped to the conclusion that it was the University's project.

Other than the /. error, the article iteself is rather interesting, including this answer from a professor: "The question I get more than any other is, 'Are you still doing this?', " says Prof. Jones. "The answer is yes, and what we are seeing is very difficult to explain outside of cold fusion. The repeatability of these experiments now approaches 80 percent." [Insert comparison to Microsoft here.]

frob

Re:Aircraft fuel runs my friend's Flying car

[MCZapf]

Does your friend have a website? I'd like to know more about this plane/car.

Heh heh heh

[Sirion]

"Crochety"

Other countries

[lonesome phreak]

Other countries are still working on it, as the article states about Japan. What is the chance that it is just ostrasized in the US, or maybe even "blacklisted" media-wise? It's alot like the stem-cell debate in a way.

We are just ignoring something that might be possible "out of hand". The MIT prof said several times "I wish some physicist would prove us wrong now", but they don't. It's just completly ignored, even though there is some current evidence. But other countries continue work.

There is a vested intrest against cold-fushion and pro hot-fushion in the US. Hot fushion is a hard thing to do, therefor it's not really profitable as an energy source for the public. Plus, the US already is against nuclear plants after three-mile island and such. So, we stay dependent on...coal. Oil for the initial energy source.

Other countries don't need to be tied to oil like the US is, and are moving on. Just as our prohibition on stem-cell research is mostly religious based. Someone else will figure it out, and we will have some problems dealing with someone else with the upper technological hand for once...especially if they don't like us.

There ARE real-world applications

[snStarter]

Small high-power electric motors for ship propulsion are prime candidates for "high-temperature" superconductors.

The US Navy has funded demonstration projects for ship propulsion.

Indeed electric propulsion for surface ships and submarines, that use common components is a very big research item right now for all the obvious reasons.

What about aneutronic fission?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting to hear that mu-cat fusion research is alive and well. I thought the Tokamak people had pretty much quashed all other lines of fusion research.

Now how about we give Bogdan Maglich a few million to finish his Migma experiments?

Here's a scary thought: do you think some lines of fusion research have been suppressed because they could lead to "pure" fusion bombs (H-bombs without an A-bomb trigger)?

Re:What about aneutronic fission?

[rjh]

Here's a scary thought: do you think some lines of fusion research have been suppressed because they could lead to "pure" fusion bombs (H-bombs without an A-bomb trigger)?

No. Hydrogen bombs are horribly misnamed; they're really just very, very large fission bombs. The initial fission core goes off; the heat and pressure creates a very brief fusion reaction; as a consequence of this fusion reaction a huge amount of very energetic neutrons are produced; and the neutrons from the fusion reaction are then used to induce a critical reaction in a thick jacket of U-238 which surrounds the nuclear core.

U-238 normally has no critical mass, so you can put as much of it around the core as you like. But when there's a fusion reaction going on inside the U-238 jacket, and it's bathed in a sea of energetic neutrons, U-238 goes nuclear.

The only purpose of the hydrogen step is to create the neutrons required for an extremely large fissile step. In the '60s we did some experiments (the Bassoon Tests) with true fusion H-bombs and the results were generally not as impressive as with fusion-boosted A-bombs.

Re:What about aneutronic fission?

[amorsen]

There's one thing I don't get about those energetic neutrons. If you are building a nuclear reactor, you want relatively low energy neutrons, since the high energy neutrons rarely induce a chain reaction. Therefore you use a moderator. But in a fusion boosted fission bomb, what is the moderator?

Re:What about aneutronic fission?

[Zeriel]

I believe that the U-238 (being big, stable atoms and a dense material in general) serves as the moderator--I honestly want to say that the secondary fission reaction starts from the outside of the U-238 blanket and works its way in.

Re:What about aneutronic fission?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs. They are triggered by an initial fission reaction, then the main core is fusion. The U238 is just "hey, we have some extra neutrons, and all this depleted Urianium we can't use in radioactive shell casings as fast as we make it, lets put it where it can explode stuff". The U238 is a tertiary explosive force, not the main charge which is fusion.

Re:What about aneutronic fission?

[rjh]

Check FAS. Quoting liberally from that document, and with minor editing for clarity:

=====

The quest for the H-bomb was based in part on a false premise: that there is an inherent limitation on the size and power of a uranium fission bomb, namely the limitation imposed by critical mass considerations. When a sphere of uranium-235 any larger than a softball is assembled, a nuclear chain reaction will start prematurely. This must, of course, be avoided until the moment of detonation. If only one critical mass (one softball) is used, the size of the explosion is limited to a few tens of kilotons. This was the supposed limitation.

[After some discussion of ways to get around the limitation...] Another technique was to use uranium-238, which has no critical mass limitation and which, by the way, is dirt cheap. The bomb can have as much uranium-238 as the designer wants, in any shape, but the neutrons for fission must come from an outside source, namely fusion.

Despite the public hype about the hydrogen bomb contest, there was a serious problem with any weapon based mostly on fusion energy. It doesn't produce a very satisfactory explosion. In uranium fission, 90% of the energy is released as the kinetic energy of highly-charged, fully-ionized fission fragments. With a high electrostatic charge, these fission fragments convert their energy to heat quickly and within inches, producing an intense point source of heat. The resulting blast and fire is the whole point of a nuclear explosion.

In fusion, on the other hand, only 20% of the energy is released as the kinetic energy of charged fusion products, and their electrostatic charge is only a plus two. Because of the lower charge, the Bremsstrahlung Effect, which produces the heat, is much less powerful with fusion products than with fission products. More importantly, the bulk of the fusion energy (80%) is carried off by neutrally-charged neutrons which can travel hundreds of yards before colliding with something and giving up their energy. By themselves, neutrons are very inefficient producers of blast and fire. But an H-bomb which is designed so that every fusion-produced neutron results in a uranium fission event is very efficient. It not only converts relatively useless neutron energy into blast and fire energy, it also multiplies the total energy release by a factor of ten or more. The neutron, with an energy value of 14 MeV, produces a fission event worth 180 MeV.

In a weapon optimized for fission-fusion symbiosis, fission actually dominates the explosion, providing 90% of the total energy and virtually all of the energy that contributes to blast and fire.

=====

Read the entire article if you have time, BTW. It's absolutely excellent.

Re:What about aneutronic fission?

[rjh]

It is possible that the Hydrogen bomb does not create a fusion reaction

All modern H-bombs fuse hydrogen as their secondary stage, immediately preceding the very large fission stage.

Re:What about aneutronic fission?

[rjh]

in a nuclear reaction (not chemical), U-238 + H --> Np + 2 neutrons

If you're using "H" to denote a proton, be advised that's not what's happening here. The U-238 is hit by a very energetic fusion-originated neutron and undergoes fission, at the end of which it's split into two halves of an average electrostatic charge of +46.

Please see my other posts in this thread. H-bombs do not work anything like what you're talking about here.

Of course, it's possible that IHBT. In which case, have a nice day. :)

Re:Hydrogen cars won't work out very well...

[saskboy]

CHlittle tiny 4.

We don't have much hydrogen? ;-)

The boy who cried Cold Fusion...

[johnwyles]

We are constantly redefining what physics is and thus to completly shun real science is ignorant. I know these researchers and scientists are not in the lab tossing around ficticious numbers and what they are finding should be replicated. This is so fundamental about how we progress towards a greater understanding of the universe. But alas it will be up to the underdogs to prove anything (but isn't that the way it always works?). Besides these stories always read better afterwards.

Re:"please know your subject"

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold fusion does not mean the electrodes or the
water will be cold , in fact , they are
looking for excess heat from which to generate
electricity or other forms of energy trough diferent
means . http://jnaudin.free.fr/ some great info
on alternative research and other weird things .

and for the love of god , keep your mind open ,
its because of closed minds that we live in this
crazy/stupid/disfunctional/inefecient world.

What annoys me about the Cold Fusion conference

[Laplace]

The organizers always schedule it to be coincident with the annual Perpetual Motion Machine conference.

From Cold Fusion to Crystal Power

[sa-thigpen]

There has been some talk in Cold Fusion circles (www.infinite-energy.com) about changing the name from Cold Fusion to something with less negative connotations. I think Crystal Power is an apt title. Some of these experimental cells (http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm) look almost good to go! I'm hoping to one day use these power cells in a lab of my own.

Free Energy?

[donutz]

Scientist sees a wee spark in a test tube and starts ranting about free energy etc.

From what I hear, George W Bush strongly advocates further research into free energy and antigravity.

Horseshit.

[Fantastic Lad]

This is a pathetic attempt to defend the outright ridicule, rejection and general guffaws Cold Fusion received some 14 years ago. You're embarrassed that you had no spine or enough curiosity to go against the flow and explore the issue beyond the popular media's bullshit coverage? Well, boo-hoo.

In truth, 95% of so-called smart people who should have known better, instead demonstrated themselves to be first-class chumps who bought the lines, "Hoax", "Fraud", and "Quack Science", without a second thought. Skeptics can be such incredible twits! They seem to think that just because many non-orthodox claims are invalid, that ALL non-orthodox claims are invalid. Talk about a logical falacy! (All cows are animals, therefore all animals are cows). This is why we were given brains! -To sort this stuff out, not put up walls to everything except what corrupt corporations and politicians want us to think is real.

I sputtered in stunned amazement at the 95% back then, (I was in my late teens at the time and actually believed it impossible that everybody could be so bloody stupid,) and today I simply shake my head in jaded aquiescence. Nothing changes. --We were all taught many stories about this in school, where heros were time and again outcast by a small-minded populace, but even when this lesson is directly described, (Galileo, Tesla, Darwin), still virtually everybody goes out and fails the real test when it actually counts.

And yes, they say: "But those guys were eventually proven right."

Yeah. So? This only happened after years of fighting. --14 years before people start to admit that maybe there's something there after all to Cold Fusion, is pretty much in keeping with this pattern. It would be much, much faster if people weren't generally so incredibly cruel and dumb.

Sadly, I think that people truly deserve this burning world they have invested in. Let the blood spill. Learning is usually quite effective when it hurts like hell.

-FL

Which is why it was the chem dept that did this.

[MickLinux]

I liked your analysis. That said, I don't think cold fusion is necessarily impossible, but it would take some very specific molecular design to force two hydrogen nuclei to within a distance where a reasonable chance of tunnelling could be had.

I'm guessing that you'd need an explosive bond that triggered two armatures, each with a H+ nucleus attached, to swing at each other. Each armature would have to have only 2 degrees of freedom, and so on, and so forth... ... and then you'd have to be able to manufacture the darn thing. Not necessarily impossible, but highly improbable.

Aside from that, though, Don Lancaster pointed out a second, more important flaw of "free energy" theories, which would also apply to cold fusion: Anyone who comes up with a "free energy source", had better darn well come up with a "free energy sink" as well, or in releasing their discovery on the planet, they'll be the worst criminal in human history.

In line with this, I imagine a new invention that makes use of a wormhole tunnel 2/3 of the way into the Sun, to heat my apartment...

Infinate energy, its already here

[Mr.Zong]

One Word. BioDiesel. We've had a infinte, low pollution (97% less emissions vs. petro), Nontoxic(i could chug a gallon and still walk straight), super easy to produce(were talking your garage here) power source for a hundred years that could also completely replace petro in producing plastics. Its not insane to imply that there have possibly been break throughs that we havent heard about. I mean, Big oil has completely killed not only the idea of BioDiesel, but is determined to make sure it can control and future energy scource with its "5(15) year plan" for fuel cells. BioDiesel = Cheaper, Cleaner, Renewable, and would put the American farmer back on the map!

I am surprised nobody has mentioned ...

[adipocere]

... exactly what it is for which they should be looking.

If this is fusion, and we look up the basic fusion definition, we should get helium (He-3 or He-4) from the fusion of hydrogen (unless they skip some steps and get something heavier).

The assumption that either neutrons or heat should be produced is based on our only working example of fusion, good ole Sol. Nice and hot, emits neutrons in bits.

Clearly, if cold fusion exists (and that is a big if), it wouldn't be a process remotely like what goes on in the Sun. The only part we can assume is the definition: helium as a product. Heat and neutrons are relatively easy to detect, but that's the wrong thing to hunt.

NPR mentioned, many years ago, someone attempting an experiment using a sealed stainless steel reaction chamber with a single gas sample port, hoping to find concentrations of helium greater than what would be found in the atmosphere, also compared against another control cannister heated with the same contents (minus the heavy water) to the same degree. This seems more reasonable.

Cold fusion (should it exist), may have some very unusual pathways that we might not know about to produce the result. Focus on the product, not the pathways.

Great story about CF.

[Futurepower(R)]

Mod parent up to +10!

Great story.

"cold fusion" was inept bullshit, period

[swschrad]

and to top it off, the "excess heat gains" that got everybody's attention, the 2500 percent stuff, were hypotheticals on the order of "if we didn't have to charge the cell to make the effect happen, we'd get this much power."

that's like saying if I didn't have to spend a trillion dollars to fly to the moon, I'd do it monthly. if M$ didn't have bugs and undocumented exploits, they'd be putting out stable software. if I don't care about rules and science, I can convince myself that anything is possible, like making Buicks from shaving cream and squirrel hair.

it's a collection of failed experiments poorly calculated with no controls, and a few Jack Daniels insights.

read "Bad Science" by Gary Taubes, ISBN 0-394-58456-2, or "Voodoo Science" by Robert Park, ISBN 0-19-513515-6.

there is no wiggle room, Pons and Fleischman have been caught like shined deer in a scam. the "experiment" never was, the results never happened, and being non-reproduceable is the correct result.

"believers" need medical help and tutoring in 3rd grade science.

Re:Horsepoo.

[xplenumx]

Sir, as an microbiologist who has published and peer-reviewed papers, both written and received grants, and have given talks at several scientific meetings, I can say that you don't have the faintest clue as to what you're talking about.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Papers, or in the case of the cold fusion scientists - press conferences, that go against conventional thought must provide additional evidence, additional controls, and extremely meticulous record keeping. Simply because you are a fan of cold fusion, does not make Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments quality experiments. Cold fusion could be shown to be a reality tomorrow, and Dr. Pons' and Dr. Fleischmann's experiments still wouldn't be considered good science (nor would they win the Nobel prize). Likewise, just because some individuals made a mistake regarding cold fusion, doesn't mean that the field should be disregarded entirely.

You'll find that scientists in general are very open minded about accepting unconventional ideas, provided there is strong evidence to support those ideas. In fact, I know that both my peers and I would absolutely love to have papers which show some well accepted dogma to be incorrect. Similarly, you'll also find that after reading story after story of "Scientist finds amazing cure for cancer!!", scientists tend to give the mass media very little, if any, attention regarding scientific issues. We know the media doesn't know the first thing about science (though we'd like them to, and we work hard to educate them), and that our results are unfortunately often grossly over exaggerated and only half the story told (sometimes in our favor, sometimes painting us as unethical, evil beings).

You're absolutely correct - there are many stories where (now) heroes like Galileo, Tesla and Darwin who were outcast and discredited for their revolutionary ideas. However, simply being shunned and discredited for one's ideas doesn't make them a hero - Water memory, Vitamin O, polywater, and (dare I say) timecube. Should the people who came up with these ideas be regarded as heroes? For every hero, there are plenty of individuals who were forgotten, disregarded and even labeled as frauds - and rightfully so.

Scientists who disregard cold fusion do so, not because of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, but for other reasons all together. As far as I can tell, the only people that are angry with the two scientists are those working in the field of cold fusion, who believe that it may be possible, and now have to work under a legacy of some poor experimental work. If cold fusion is shown to be true, it'll be despite of Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann's work, not because of it.

A silver lining!!!

[Lelon]

It may have all been a hoax, but the idea gave us "The Saint" in which the guy from "True Genius" steals the secret of cold fusion.

RTFA

[MegaFur]

You're probably right, but you should still RTFA. According to the article, these guys have spent millions of dollars making sure they get their temperature measurements just right and there's still some heat that (they claim) can't be explained by any simple mechanism. Is their claim bogus? Probably. But how can we actually know unless someone rips apart their argument properly?

Cold Fusion Work at Bell Labs Back Then

[billstewart]

I was working at Bell Labs back when the Cold Fusion hype happened, though not in one of the chemistry departments. About two days after the initial announcement hit the press, there was an Official Pronouncement that nobody was allowed to withdraw palladium from the company stockroom without their director's approval... A bit later, a researcher at some university was killed in a hydrogen explosion, and any cold fusion research inside the Labs became much more strictly controlled as a response to it - messing with electrolysis is too easy a way to get into chemical accidents.

One of my jobs was sysadmin for a departmental computer lab that was in a big glass-fishbowl room (remember when computers were big?) I was heading off for a week to see a customer on another project, but I took a few minutes to print out a line-printer banner about "Cold Fusion Research Laboratory" and cobble together some random parts and wires and 5-gallon jars of liquid and set them up in the window before I left. They were gone by the time I got back :-)

article title bias

[MegaFur]

The title of this article, which was taken from the first article it links to, is biased in favor of cold fusion.

A Wankel Engine!

[turgid]

A Wankel engine of course!

Pseudo-science ...

[j_w_d]

is creationism, argument from faith. The CF issue was and still should be concerned with a) is there excess energy, b) inexplicable particles, c) the magnitude of the effect if real. The experiments are apparently repeatable, but irregularly so. You have the ONR investigating it, but no "thoughful" critical study going on. Simply fiath based responses from "sceptics." The problem has been that the entire discussion has reduced to an "is so ... is not" form and a lot of the "psuedo" science is actually being practiced by "sceptics" arguing from authority rather than concerning themselves with the empirical issues.

Cold fusion, hmmm..

[adeyadey]

I thought it was something eskimos did.. :-)

Gamma Radiation?

[therealneil]

I remember reading that if they had been succesful then the gamma radiation given off would of made the holding of the test tube without any protection a very bad idea. Is this accurate?

Re: The Mootrix has them

[quarkscat]

the dreams of using cold fusion has been
replaced by an Iowan farmer that discovered
a new source of unlimited energy -- he
replaced his milk cows' feed with a mixture
of beans, habaneros chilis, and onions.
When he plugged the cows into the milking
machines, he got methane ...

If I had a dollar....

[Shadowmist]

For every Slashdotter who claimed to have "a friend at NASA", I'd be able to buy out Bill Gates.

Re:If I had a dollar....

[sg_oneill]

I didnt say he was a guru. Just someone who knows a bit more on the issue than My CS/IT background.

And yeah. Its a job description that impresses me.

Cops , firemen, helicopter pilots and Nasa scientists impress me deeply. Deal with it.

Stealing the best mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ -- Americans even have to take credit for the best mistakes!

While Pons was from the University of Utah, Fleischmann was professor of electrochemistry at the University of Southampton (in the UK). He did visit Utah, and apparently first mentioned his ideas about it to Pons there, but basically it was a Southampton collaboration. Even the scriptwriters of The Saint got that right!

Incidentally, in spite of the subject heading, it isn't clear to me that it necessarily was a mistake. I listened to a talk by Fleischmann a couple of years ago (I did a PhD at Southampton), and he talked at length about how quantum electrodynamics is necessary to truly understand the physics. He appeared to imply that hot fusion physicists were making unfounded theoretical assumptions in their rubbishing of CF. Since Julian Schwinger, one of the creators of QED, apparently agreed, the theory surely cannot be as clear-cut as some of the alleged experts in this forum, and others, claim. While Fleischmann and Pons's mode of announcement -- essentially not waiting for refereed publication -- was unwise, the Stalinist anti-CF attitude of mainstream journals seems even worse.

past revisiting

[Cackmobile]

Just been reading a bill bryson book (think its called a short history of everything) which is a short history of scientific discovery. it is full of examples of scientists being pooh-pooh by others but then the results turn out to be right. i say it may be competely wrong but at least give it ago

A&M claimed it, too.

[dcr]

People tend to forget that Texas A&M claimed to be able to produce Cold Fusion, too, shortly after the Utah "discoveries."

Folks in the lab had t-shirts that said "I might have discovered cold fusion and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

More useful research

[kfx]

I've got a better idea. How about instead of going on about cold fusion, which has yet to yield any real results in 14 years, we concentrate on regular fusion.

Unlike cold fusion, normal fusion has the potential to be truly useful and it is just a matter of us developing better magnetic constriction metods, etc. before we can harness it completely.

Who knows, maybe if we got more people working on that we might actually be able to build some useful fusion power plants sometime in the near future.

Re:If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[aflat362]

Thanks for the link. It was a good article. I do realize that scientists occasionally f up and get themselves killed. However the comment I was replying to suggested that if they succeeded and did everything correctly they would die. I was saying that this wouldn't happen as they should anticipate risks under normal operation. I used the atom bomb example because the scientists of the Manhatten project knew what would happen under normal operations and were able to put themselves out of harm's way when appropriate.

Re:The US Millitary is rolling out fuel powered ve

[John Harrison]

The calorimeter is used to prove that there is a phenomenon taking place that we don't understand. Once/if it is understood, then perhaps the effect can be utilized to produce the amount of power you are talking about. Or perhaps studying will never lead to a revolution in power generation but will simply give us a better understanding of physics.

The point is that it doesn't have to lead to power generation to be of scientific interest.

Re:Just like the Matrix, but different

[Dastardly]

No, nuclear waste cannot be managed and contained safely. You're spouting exactly the kind of BS that the Yucca Mountain supporters want you to believe. Tool.

No, fossil fuel waste cannot be managed and contained safely. You're spouting exactly the kind of BS that the no nuclear anywhere crowd wants you to believe. Tool.

What woudl you rather deal with a few tons of solid nuclear waste? Or, millions of tons of gaseous waste?

Dastardly

Extraordinary. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

And that's the problem right there.

I mean, who comes up with this stuff? What's wrong with just ordinary evidence? Why is it that when new ideas threaten the status quo that normal evidence must be overturned and ignored regardless of its value? (This is a rhetorical question, of course.)

Modern scientific 'methodology', which from what I have witnessed, and from what has been reported to me by the many professionals I have met who work in the sciences, consists largely of white papers peer reviewed by a scientific community riddled with ego-driven old-boy-clubbers terrified of losing respect and the ability to earn their next grant, corrupt science journals, and corporately sponsored labs with massive conflicts of interest, is a at its very best a limiting, but somewhat useful tool, and at its worst, a system, (designed or not), which has the peculiar ability to slow scientific advancement to a mis-directioned crawl or in many cases, a complete stop.

I don't recall Galileo, Tesla or Darwin getting any help from the respected research structures available in their times. --And I seriously doubt that they would have been aided today were they to come up with valid ideas which went against either the popular or the big-money grain.

Many of us lived through the times when Cold Fusion graced the scene. And I distinctly recall an overpowering negative bias which drowned out the signal. The idea was written off, and worse, it achieved the fine status of 'uncool' so that no 'real' scientists would lend their time to further examination of the idea, and no government would grant its money.

--And there was signal. There was also repressed signal in the case of MIT hot fusion people deliberately fudging their results.

Yes. There is a lot of kook science out there. But there is a stark, and what I would have thought to be an extremely obvious, difference between what happened, (some researchers getting the experiment to work, some not, some even losing their lives when a cell exploded, destroying an entire lab. --A military lab, as it happened. All this stuff went down within the first sixty days of the initial announcement.) --There is a big, big difference between this and, 'timecubes'.

But rather than the scientific community saying, "Hm. We didn't quite get it right the first time, but there is certainly something interesting going on here!" They scorned and feared and acted like a bunch of jr. high students. Female jr. high students, at that.

If science only worked within the narrow parameters of today's fear and greed driven model of acceptable research, then humans would still be living in mud huts.

Oh wait. A few billion of us still do. Hmmm.

-FL

Can only be replicated by belivers?

[XNormal]

An experiment that can only be replicated by believers isn't science, it's charlatanism.

Let us assume that a hypothetical physical effect depends on factors that are hard to control such as minute impurities, nealy flawless crystal structure or something similar. Furthermore, even when it occurs this effect may rather difficult to measure. Let us further assume that a first attempt at reproducing that effect would have a around 2%.

A "believer" would attempt it again and again until he perfects his methods and achieves a much better success rate (say, 80%) and larger magnitude of the effect that is easier to measure.

A "non believer", expecting the experiment to fail would find all the support he needs for his beliefs.

Note that such difficult-to-achieve effects are not unheard of in science. Some of them have later been tamed and mass produced once the process was perfected.

This is, of course, not a proof that cold fusion exists, but it does show that it *could* exist in spite of being rejected by the majority of the scientific community. A scenario where such an effect exists would not require any elaborate conspiracy theories to explain the apparent contradiction.

Re:Just like the Matrix, but different

[acxr is wasted]

Actually, I would prefer no waste at all.

Science Fair Project

[tgrigsby]

Is it just me or did the pictures of the "conference" look more like a science fair project, complete with high school kids and the occasional assisting alumni building, displaying, and explaining the project to their teachers?

Is this site for real? Or did someone just put one over on all of /.?

Wrong

[jpmorgan]

A U-238 tamper surrounding a U-235 shell surrounding a deuterium/tritium core is called a boosted fission bomb. You can't get super-large fission devices, even with boosting, because as you increase the mass of uranium/plutonium, you decrease your efficiency - a lot of material is simply vaporised before it detonates.

Now, in a classic Teller-Ulam thermonuclear device, the fission trigger is physically seperated from the fusion device. In the microseconds before the blast wave from the detonating fission device reaches the fusion device (which would destroy it), the intense X-ray radiation pulse explosively collapses a container of deuterium and tritium, super-compressing it. The compression wave also sets off a second fission device inside this container which super-heats the already super-compressed hydrogen, triggering the fusion reaction. There are other designs.

IIRC, the largest nuclear bomb ever tested (a russian bomb) was a multi-stage variant of the tellar-ulam design, with 97% of the output energy produced by fusion. The comparatively low amount of fission in a thermonuke is one of the reasons they're considered 'clean' nukes.

Try again.

[rjh]

Read my other post in this thread. If you can refute that, along with references to back up your refutations, then I'll consider what you're saying. Otherwise, you're arguing against FAS, and I trust them and their analysis a hell of a lot more than anything I read from J. Random Physics Wannabe on Slashdot.

Re:full text

[Madcapjack]

When you're known for publishing shoddy research, people don't tend to trust what you publish after that.

Perhaps, but in this case the research wasn't shoddy, it is just that the amount of gravity waves that were detected were considered to be higher than was expected given the believed sensitivity of the device. The researcher then went on to show that the sensitivity of the measuring device was greater than believed and showed why.

Re:If they had really discovered cold fusion...

[jesco]

This isn't exactly my area. However:

> The 'heaviness' of the elements is meaningless.

Heavy elements with more than 70 or 80 protons (dunno the exact number) are more likely to have instable isotops than lighter elements.

Neutron counts also towards instability of elements. Hydrogen-3 is highly instable, for instance.