Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cold Fusion Back From The Dead

Posted by michael on from the warmed-over dept.

misterfusion writes "Looks like the IEEE is warming up to cold fusion with the latest story "Cold Fusion Back from the Dead". This has been a good year for this field with several leading science journals (Physics Today, MIT Technology Review, etc) contributing stories. Things are warming up and if science Research & Development funding can be stimulated with a positive DoE report (due soon), it might be an interesting rebirth."

7 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Let science work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is good to finally see a fair balance in the study of this idea. It may not generate anything usable, but then agin, it might. I think that is the key... to get real science studying the situation, not having the ideas tested and approved through the media.

    With ITER in a political freeze, there is ample time to study cold fusion concepts further. I don't see how one can create fusion conditions at room temperature. But if we understand how to control the collisions of the atoms better, then we may lower ignition temperatures. If the temperatures required were only several tens of thousands of degrees, then we do away with the complex containment systems and have a very viable energy source without multi billion dollar energy stations.

    Bottom line: Let real science work. The worst case scenario is that we have a better understanding of the atomic interactions that will be used in whatever fusion reaction processes that we eventually use.

  2. How do they know it's fusion? by dspacemonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article it seems like Fleischmann saw more energy coming out than he put in (up to 250% apparently) and thought to himself:

    "Aha! This must be cold fusion."

    Is it just me, or does that seem to be a bit of a leap of faith? After all, if one sets light to petrol one gets more energy out than a match puts in. Surely there are other possibilities.

    Occam's razor anyone?

    I'm not sure about "strong evidence" from a single research laboratory either...

    1. Re:How do they know it's fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are very correct. This is why we publish results, and have peer review. We are in the infancy of this branch of science. Worst cast scenario: it doesn't work period. We have at least investigated another possiblity. We learn and apply to other endevours into fusion power.

      Will anything major pop out of this research? Maybe, maybe not. But we are learning. At the very least, this should train another generation of people to not buy into hype one way or another. First it was "COLD FUSION IS HERE!" then it was "COLD FUSION IS A TOTAL SCAM!". Neither is correct. But with the attention span of the media this is all you will get.

      Be patient. Let science work.

  3. Re:Better title... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Imagine sticking it to oil companies with nuclear cars and planes.

    Oil companies would be richer than ever if this pans out. The oil won't stop being needed, it'll just stop being burned. And quite a few "oil companies" have figured out that they are in the energy business, not the oil business. And would probably be in the forefront of providing high-grade deuterium for your cold fusion units.

    "Mr. Fusion", anyone?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Re:Bob Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess I need to bow down to Robert L. Park as God. If he says that "cold fusion" is impossible, then it must be. Physics, of course, knows all -- there's no more problems to solve, and the theories explain everything. If there's an effect observed in some experiment which seems to violate all the theories (that cannot be explained in any way), then the effect DOES NOT EXIST and those who observe it must be executed at dawn for their apostasy and unorthodoxy. Of course, no one will be allowed to reproduce the experiment, and those who attempt to do so will also stand against the wall.

    All hail Robert L. Park, the keeper of scientific orthodoxy!

    I think the article sums it up -- there is clearly *something* going on to produce the excess heat. Apparently the researchers have now figured out how to get more reproduceable results, so others may now verify the effect and thereby focus on studying the effect itself rather than just trying to reproduce it.

    Now what that *something* is, is another matter. Maybe it is a chemical reaction of some sort, or maybe some other energy-release mechanism based on the thermophysical or thermochemical properties of the palladium substrate. Or maybe it is some unusual type of catalyzed nuclear reaction ("cold fusion".) Or maybe it is something else heretofore unknown. Now that the effect appears to be more reliably reproducible, it will now be possible to study the effect itself and solve the mystery. Although I am skeptical it is "cold fusion", it nevertheless appears to be interesting enough to study it in earnest.

    Regarding "the Second Law" as Mr. paugq mentions, I suggest he brush up on his thermodynamics since I assume he is uttering it with respect to energy conservation, which comes under the First Law.

  5. Re:Bob Park by Havokmon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Cold fusion is impossible and Physics have long demostrated it.

    Nothing is impossible. If you think the limit of our knowledge is already in textbooks, you have quite a rude awakening coming.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  6. Re:Would that rebirth include... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't describe the environment in which an experiment can be reproduced reliably, you don't understand the phenominon properly enough to be calling press conferences.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming