Slashdot Mirror
Cold Fusion Back From The Dead
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."
I thought the article was referring to Macromedia Coldfusion!
Phew!
You guys could've fit at least ONE MORE "warming up" pun in the summary. It's like you weren't even trying!
Given the history of cold fusion, the Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. notice seemed strangely appropriate. :)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
How's about "Cold Fusion warmed over" instead?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Apart from the fact that there were problems reproducing the cold fusion effects, it's very easy to see why cold fusion has always been given the cold shoulder. It would effectively end the fission power-based business aswell as fossil fuel generated electricity.
Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
...apologies to the pioneers of cold fusion, like Pons and Fleischman? Seems to me like a positive finding in a DoE report would at least be some verification that they might deserve one.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Waffle waffle
Cold fusion regarded as a joke for ages
waffle waffle
"THE FIRST HINT that the tide may be changing came in February 2002, when the U.S. Navy revealed that its researchers had been studying cold fusion on the quiet more or less continuously since the debacle began. "
waffle waffle
"At San Diego and other research centers, scientists built up an impressive body of evidence that something strange happened when a current passed through palladium electrodes placed in heavy water. "
waffle waffle
"Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100 percent--one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2 experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of 100 percent produce excess heat. "
Summary: Cold fusion wasn't reproducible because not all factors were accounted for, and millitary scientists think they nailed it.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Now I can power my car for free, and for an indefinite period of time with all of those unused AOL CD's I saved. Not to mention all of the junk mail that has increased exponentially since the DO NOT CALL list came into being.
"Things are warming up" ...considering its meant to be cold fusion isn't that cheating?
Cold Fusion Back From the Dead
U.S. Energy Department gives true believers a new hearing
Later this month, the U.S. Department of Energy will receive a report from a panel of experts on the prospects for cold fusion - the supposed generation of thermonuclear energy using tabletop apparatus. It's an extraordinary reversal of fortune: more than a few heads turned earlier this year when James Decker, the deputy director of the DOE's Office of Science, announced that he was initiating the review of cold fusion science. Back in November 1989, it had been the department's own investigation that determined the evidence behind cold fusion was unconvincing. Clearly, something important has changed to grab the department's attention now.
The cold fusion story began at a now infamous press conference in March 1989. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, both electrochemists working at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, announced that they had created fusion using a battery connected to palladium electrodes immersed in a bath of water in which the hydrogen was replaced with its isotope deuterium - so-called heavy water. With this claim came the idea that tabletop fusion could produce more or less unlimited, low-cost, clean energy.
In physicists' traditional view of fusion, forcing two deuterium nuclei close enough together to allow them to fuse usually requires temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Celsius. The claim that it could be done at room temperature with a couple of electrodes connected to a battery stretched credulity [see photo, "Too Good to Be True?"].
But while some scientists reported being able to reproduce the result sporadically, many others reported negative results, and cold fusion soon took on the stigma of junk science.
Today the mainstream view is that champions of cold fusion are little better than purveyors of snake oil and good luck charms. Critics say that the extravagant claims behind cold fusion need to be backed with exceptionally strong evidence, and that such evidence simply has not materialized. "To my knowledge, nothing has changed that makes cold fusion worth a second look," says Steven Koonin, a member of the panel that evaluated cold fusion for the DOE back in 1989, who is now chief scientist at BP, the London-based energy company.
Because of such attitudes, science has all but ignored the phenomenon for 15 years. But a small group of dedicated researchers have continued to investigate it. For them, the DOE's change of heart is a crucial step toward being accepted back into the scientific fold. Behind the scenes, scientists in many countries, but particularly in the United States, Japan, and Italy, have been working quietly for more than a decade to understand the science behind cold fusion. (Today they call it low-energy nuclear reactions, or sometimes chemically assisted nuclear reactions.) For them, the department's change of heart is simply a recognition of what they have said all along - whatever cold fusion may be, it needs explaining by the proper process of science.
THE FIRST HINT that the tide may be changing came in February 2002, when the U.S. Navy revealed that its researchers had been studying cold fusion on the quiet more or less continuously since the debacle began. Much of this work was carried out at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, where the idea of generating energy from sea water - a good source of heavy water - may have seemed more captivating than at other laboratories.
Many researchers at the center had worked with Fleischmann, a well-respected electrochemist, and found it hard to believe that he was completely mistaken. What's more, the Navy encouraged a culture of risk-taking in research and made available small amounts of funding for researchers to pursue their own interests.
At San Diego and other research centers, scientists built up an impressive body of evidence that something strange happened when a current passed through palladium electrodes placed in h
In the next Slashdot story perpetual motion is shown to be possible.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
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.
Heh... Cold Fusion Back From The Dead is almost as good as Stealing Fire from the Gods
Something there is producing some serious heat. Nobody ever denied that. But if it were fusion that were doing it, the researchers would be dead from radiation poisoning. I think that the phenomenon needs research, but I wouldn't hold my breath as to actually getting fusion out. There could still be a chemical basis for the energy.
"... and if science Research & Development funding can be stimulated with a positive DoE report (due soon), it might be an interesting rebirth"
When someone says that progress depends on funding it scares me. This is one of the most vaporsearch/vapordev discoveries in history. There have fabrication after fabrication and pseudodiscovery after pseudodiscovery.
I'm SURE that the companies/universities that are doing this research are well funded or have such active "life work" people involved that MORE funding really isn't necessary or even requested.
I'm also relatively sure that the people that are making progress in this field are keeping it mum - this will be one of the greatest discoveries of all time and will make someone very rich - and people think this is going to be just broadcast that someone contactable/killable has achieved it?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
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...
Over the years, a number of groups around the world have reproduced the original Pons-Fleischmann excess heat effect, yielding sometimes as much as 250 percent of the energy put in.
(snip)
Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100 percent--one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2 experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of 100 percent produce excess heat.
Something is going on here that we don't understand, and it looks like it can be reproduced. Yeah I would say it would be worth looking into further. The 250% heat output sounds like a good thing (especially if no toxic by-products are produced) so how does that compare to other types of heat generation I wonder?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Surely there are better things to be spending time and money on?
As some of you know Tesla already envisioned a realistic nearly perfect method for harnessing energy from Earth's atmosphere. But that would have destroyed the monopoly of electrical companies and was thus never allowed to come into existence. Cold fusion research was not as promising, but it was nipped in the bud for the very same reason. Progress standing in the way of the profit of a select few.
Free power? Unheard of. Free software? Unheard - wait a minute!
Well, a regular fusion reactor requires gigantic magnets and/or lasers, so in short, no. Unless you can cram a multi-megawatt laser into your trunk, or unless cold fusion has some compact form (but we don't have it "working well" yet).
stuff |
Oh, shit! This again and again.
Cold fusion is impossible and Physics have long demostrated it.
Robert L. Park, the President of the American Physical Society, wrote a book that deals with this and explains it clearly: Voodoo Science. He will probably treat this "rebirth" of the hype on his What's new science column.
How long until the USA Government understands they cannot beat the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
I'll stick to my pebble bed reactor.
1) The research will only go forward with more funding 2) SRI International is involved ("No, really, Uri Geller *is* a psychic!") 3) "Mike McKubre from SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those pursuing cold fusion" is not the same as "Mike McKubre, a respected researched who is also working on cold fusion" 4) It's an election year and DOE, hardly a bastion of good science under Bush, is about to announce Cold Fusion is workable at a time of record world oil prices?
Pons and Fleischmann, the original perpertrators of Cold Fusion, were from the University of Utah.
What's the bet that this "re-birth" of Cold Fusion has something to do with SCO?
Judge: Mr McBride, do you have anything to say before the jury adjourn to find you guilty and sentence you to death by stoning?
Darl: Look! Excess neutrons!
Jugde: Where? [Looks away]
Darl: [Exit, stage left]
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
the magic numbers were "projections" from a single observed incident, based on the differential voltage across a "cf cell" going down so they didn't have to pump more current in to generate the "excess heating."
in other words, they pulled the numbers out of their ass, and played that card for almost five years.
there is a very good reason the "two pioneers" fled the country, and no good reason they weren't extradited to face felony fraud charges, IMHO.
BOOOOOO - gusssssss. whores of "science", both of 'em.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
For example, the Nova fusion laser produces 16 *T*rillion watts of laser light.
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Remington.html
The new one will be even more: "NIF will generate up to 750 trillion watts of laser light."
Dang! That's definitely not fitting in my trunk.
stuff |
Didnt they just order boatloads of the now previous year model?
"/Dread"
What worries me is the military interest. It's all a push to build bigger and better ways to kill people, now powered with more efficient means! Don't get me wrong, historically we have many great things coming from military driven technology (space program, wireless comm., nuclear power, etc.) but at what cost?
Palladium, tritium? Even if they can consistently get more heat out than energy in, that only describes the current event.
It does not describe the entire economic input. That palladium and tritium has to come from somewhere, and it's expensive.
Until this can be done with non-exotic materials, it will probably be a push as its worthiness.
Cold Fusion Back From the Dead. U.S. Energy Department gives true believers a new hearing Later this month, the U.S. Department of Energy will receive a report from a panel of experts on the prospects for cold fusion--
Mind yourself. For now this annouce is actually void. I can annouce that I have by the end of the month a vaccin against AIDS. What good does that do ? What value does that bring ?
This cold fusion subject is so senstive that, we shouldn't regard any void annouce.
Don't get me wrong. I don't discuss it is possible or impossible. I just underline the fact that there is a need of 1) reprocductible 2) proved stuff.
Critics say that the extravagant claims behind cold fusion need to be backed with exceptionally strong evidence, and that such evidence simply has not
Wafle. There is no such a thing as a strong evidence or "exceptionnaly". An evidence is or is not. Period. This vocabulary shows we are chatting rather emotionnaly. The idea that "pioneres" were "silenced" is just wrong. Pioneres had and have to repoduce something. Period.(Now for a bit of subbjective point of view: I am thriled at the idea it could come this way.)
Z.
ITER will have a toriodal vacuum vessel 150 m^3 in volume, plus superconducting magnets and the associated cryogens. JET and its support buildings are about the size of a sports stadium, and that's smaller than ITER will be. See the latest(?) issue of Scientific American's (apparently they do exist) article on big science machines for an idea of the scale.
The best bet for powering a car is H/O fuel cells, but you still need to supply power to produce H and O first. For that you use big power plants and a grid, or decentralised power generation systems like solar cells.
Fusion has a similar benefit in that small amounts of fuel produce large amounts of energy. The current problem is that more energy is needed to create a controlled fusion process than is derived from the reation thus there is no benefit to creating the fusion reaction.
Something as small as a car will not likely be powered by any type of nuclear reaction, fusion or fission. Cold fusion, however, would allow us all to plug our electric vehicles in at night and suck up lots of energy for a small price and with no waste produced by the power plant.
at about $2 US, for a ml of heavy water at 99.99% pure, it will be a while for this to power our cars. At least there is an 'interesting effect' to watch for.
...that cold fusion was a hoax.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
... In the next Slashdot story perpetual motion is shown to be possible.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
... works great if you are a true believer... Oh, yeah and forget all about the scientific method.
This looks like another way of "pretending" we are doing something about the energy issue while in fact funding companies to put out bogus results. Meanwhile the price of oil and gas will continue to rise.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
The article is a good look at the whole CF phenomenon as of 1993.
Imagine how much energy you'd have to inject into those blocks if they're not positioned right.
But once you position them right, they slide right in.
Perhaps the way the molecules bump into each other is influenced in a similar way and they don't need to be smashed into each other at incredibly high temperatures.
if I could get funding, I'd quit my job today and start working on maybe using computers to improve the effeciency of solar panels by pointing at the sun better or something... (top of my head example sorry)
I'd like to thing if others had these kind of opportunities, we'd see some fruits.
but I agree, gov't dole for science isn't required.
/me buys stocks in airline companies. Or do you think a dramatic drop in their operating costs will be a problem for them?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You, sir, have a clue. I fear that means you will not be modded up.
Stick Men
IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist), so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but what exactly is the problem with regular old "hot" fusion? Is it just the containment problem? Why can't you regulate and contain a small fusion reaction with control rods or some other mechanism like you can with fission?
In any case while you are right about them having a press conference instead of publishing in a journal I have zero recollection of any Mormon conspiracy stories. I have no idea if Pons or Fleischman is LDS. Jones is.
Lasers Controlled Games!
The article blurb referred to Technology Review as a "leading science journal". It isn't. It's a magazine. I like to think it's a good magazine, as I've written for it, but it is most definitely not a scientific journal.
There's an article on this in this weeks New Scientist as well.
I love this notion that "the POWERS THAT BE suppressed the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE for their own evil ends!" It's such a charming fantasy.
The Evil Vested Interests of the world are regularly blindsided by new technology. The usual pattern (*cough*RIAA*cough*) is that they ignore it until it really starts to hurt them, and then they try to make it go away through legal action. Those folks do not have a magic ability to predict the future. In fact, they demonstrably suck at it.
When "cold fusion" was announced, the people who discredited it were academics who tried like hell to reproduce the effect, and found it to be irreproducible based on the information they had at the time. This is called "peer review". Scientists are supposed to be profoundly skeptical. In that respect, they differ from conspiracy theorists.
If you RTFA, you'll notice that no extravagant claims are being made. If it turns out that there's something there which really is both reproducible and interesting, we'll hear more about it.
The fission power business depends on massive subsidy, at least in .uk. As for fossil-fuel energy, that may have the clout to squash new technologies in .uk and .us, but I suspect that in .jp, where they're wholly dependent on imported power, any alternative would be welcomed.
.cx
We all know that these kinds of experiments opened a blackhole in
All I need is tritium, which is so rare that there's only 25 tons of it on the entire planet. And with these fancy new robotic arms that I made, fusion's a snap to control!
Why aren't I mentioned in these articles? I'm far beyond everyone else. So what if I haven't actually done it before, or if I have no safety backups?
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
We're doing most of our development in .NET now, lucky us.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I beg to differ. Palladium only costs about as much as gold, and is used commonly for things like spark plugs and catalytic converters for cars. It's also not consumed by the reaction, so it's a one-time cost.
In regards to tritium, I'll agree that it's expensive now. This may not always be the case, though, especially if there's a use for it besides thermonuclear devices and glowing keychains. The article seemed quite optimistic about the possiblity of getting the needed heavy water from the sea ("Much of this work was carried out at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, where the idea of generating energy from sea water--a good source of heavy water--may have seemed more captivating than at other laboratories." - emphasis added).
If cold fusion turns out to be the Real Deal (TM), then there will be scientists and engineers falling over themselves to find economical ways of producing the fuel, I guarantee it.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
...remarked with bitter irony that every triumphant theory passes through three stages: first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth.
- as quoted by S.J. Gould
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/
Found Here:
Marge : I'm worried about the kids, Homey. Lisa's becoming very obsessive. This morning I caught her trying to dissect her own raincoat.
Homer : I know. And this perpetual-motion machine she made today is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster.
Marge : And Bart isn't doing very well either. He needs boundaries and structure. There's something about flying a kite at night that's so unwholesome.
[Looks out window]
Bart : [creepily] Hello, mother dear.
Marge : That's it, we have to get them back to school.
Homer : I'm with you, Marge. Lisa. Get in here.
[Lisa walks in]
Homer : In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
correctly done experiments now result in 250% over-unity
No. Energy production is still under unity. It's impossible for over-unity to exist. (Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.)
Unity refers to the total amount in and out, including fuel. As their device uses fuel (heavy water), it's not over-unity, any more than a diesel generator is over-unity.
Spy Rule #42: Whenever looking for a top secret formula/document/microfilm, always look in the bra of hottest woman in the room.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Only if they can buy and pilot an aircraft.
That said, I can't see cold fusion providing an aircraft fuel. If it works, you get hot water. What are you going to do with that? Power the plane with a steam rocket? Then suddenly your fuel, while certainly cheap, is heavy... Let it boil and expand and run a piston engine, maybe... how do gigantic prop-driven, cold-fusion powered flying boats grab you? ;-)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
where's my tinfoil hat ;o)
I'd highly recomend the wikipedia article on cold fusion, here.
This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
The Americans actually built a nuclear powered aeroplane back in the 1950s. It was enormous and had to be flown over uninhabited ground because they couldn't put enough shielding around the reactor due to size and weight constraints.
Stick Men
I doubt what is going on is nuclear fusion, but we certainly should be studying and understanding metal/hydrogen interactions, as they appear to be very complex, and could have a wide variety of chemical uses (such as dense hydrogen storage, for instance).
MAybe that was it, there's too much junk on my group's coffee table.
Back in the early 90's I was a personal assistant to Dr. John O'M. Bockris (Professor of Electro-Chemistry at Texas A&M University). His laboratory was the first in the world to "verify" the results of Pons & Fleischmann.
During my year and a half as a personal assistant (one of several), one of my main responsibilities was to help with correspondence with other scientists. I'd open their mail, scan it for importance, and act on it (usually forward it to the Dr. Bockris if it was personal correspondence or reply back to the sender with relevant publications if it was a request for information). Needless to say, I saw a lot of unpublished information about "cold fusion".
Among many, one particular hand-written note stands out in my mind: it described the palladium cathode melting during the course of the experiment, with no apparent cause, other than "cold fusion". I don't remember the researcher, but I do remember that this particular guy had tons of papers to his name & was a highly respected scientist.
Of course among the correspondence, there was also some petty squabbling. I was most disturbed by the fact that anyone that researched "cold fusion" was regarded as a wacko by the entrenched scientific community. The attitude that normal physicists seemed to have was that "cold fusion" was a hoax & that further investigation was an entire waste of time. They'd cry "But where are all the neutrons", or "You'd be dead by now if that much excess heat were actually being produced." What most of these so-called entrenched scientists failed to realize was, this was something entirely new. Maybe it doesn't follow the laws of nuclear physics as we understand them now. But the same thing can be said for almost any major change in our understanding of the universe (relativity and quantum physics certainly fit the bill). But the effect of their collective crying, bitching, and moaning was to make funding for "cold fusion" research a difficult thing to acquire. All this did was slow down progress on research on something that could radically alter our understanding
Anyway, the constant influx of reports during those years ('92-'93?) showed that there was something new going on. The problem was that nobody could reliably reproduce their results. But regardless, in the decade since I worked there, "rogue researchers" kept pounding away at the problem & the damned problem just won't go away. In fact, it seems (from this article and many other publications: http://www.defusion.com/ & http://www.infinite-energy.com/) that people are making real progress on the problem.
I still read some of the lighter publications & summaries, but to tell you the truth, I'm a programmer with a BS in engineering and that stuff is WAY over my head. But progress is being made. It's about freakin' time the main-stream science community stopped their bitching & started taking a good, long, hard look at this problem.
As my grandma says, "Many hands make light work."
...ever bothered to pick up a copy of Infinite Energy magazine?
If you had, you might have noticed that there have been papers posted from labs around the world with consistent, reproducible results, for the past 10 years. I realize it's fashionable in some circles to read Skeptical Inquirer and be devotees of The Annoying Randi, but an open mind and a real scientific inquiry is actually sometimes needed. Rejecting something out of hand because you don't understand what's occurring doesn't qualify as objective scientific inquiry, no matter what experts are doing the rejection. (And yes, that's exactly what the reaction was of many of the experts in both the fusion and fission communities... "I don't understand what's happening here and it contradicts all my pet theories, and, more importantly, may affect my sources of funding and research grants... so it MUST be a lot of crap. Even though I've never investigated it, I just know it.")
BTW, for the tinfoil hat crowd, shortly after the DoE announced that they going to reinvestigate the published research, the founder and editor of Infinite Energy magazine, Dr. Eugene Mallove, was found murdered in his home. Make of it what you will.
I was at the APS meeting where Cold Fusion was officially debunked.
About five different highly respected labs, including at UMD and
Caltech, tried and failed to reproduce the results.
BUT.
Here's the thing: at least one (maybe two?) of the labs noted that
Pons & Fleischmann's results could be reproduced if one neglected one
of the steps needed to reproduce it (stirring?). If one failed to do
that step, you would get a chemical reaction of about the magnitude
P&F described.
Note well that the likeliest reason for any other researcher to
observe the reaction P&F describe would be a similar carelessness.
Could it be cold fusion? Could be. But it's very, very, very
unlikely. The chances of human error are alot higher than the
chances that physical theory is so wrong.
There was one embarrassing mistake. The funding agencies had already
promised funding for cold fusion. Thus, a (sometimes persuasive)
constituency was created for keeping cold fusion research dollars
flowing. That constituency is basically being paid to keep the cold
fusion myth alive. That's anothing thing you should keep in mind when
you hear about cold fusion nonfailures (because it's as likely that
you'll see cold fusion generators as it is that you'll get a real
opportunity to own the Brooklyn Bridge...)
D2O production takes a reasonably large amount of electrical power and a lot of water to produce.
Pd is used all over the place as a catalyst (in car exhausts for one) so isn't particularly hard to get hold of. It's also believed to be a catalyst in the alleged reaction, so it isn't used up.
Cold Fusion is simply Fusion at a lower macro-temperature (as in a room-temperature room). Fusion clearly is possible, unless you care to explain atomic weapons, stars, nuclear power another way (do I hear giant government conspiracy maybe? matrix-like pseudo-reality?).
Cold fusion may or may not be possible, but clearly science hasn't proven it either way. And as another form of Fusion, it certainly does not violate the 2nd law.
Maybe cold fusion works better with tin foil instead of palladium?
So we have recorded many experimental excess energy setups, and the main objection is 'there's no prouve of deuterium fision'?
Bravo!
But what about the second law of termodinamics?
What's in a sig?
Tritium isn't even used in the process. Deuterium, which is far more common, is.
One neutron versus two.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
my scooter has run on cold fusion for years...what's the big deal?
I think the hot fusion people have a valid theory.... its call the sun...
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
Let's not forget the other uses for oil, such as plastics, lubrication, and just about anything in organic chemistry.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Does anybody really think that the providers of centralized x would not be threatened by the prospect of decentralized x? And that, threatened, they would do nothing to stop or delay it? Has the cold war between proprietary and open source software taught us nothing?
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
They'd set the experiment up in a different lab so the postdocs decided to try setting the original experiment up *exactly* as it was before, including the same room. Voila! they induce radioactivity again. Call Fermi back and say, nevermind, they've got it going again.
The crucial piece of equipment turned out to be the lab bench. The original bench was made of wood, the null result bench was steel. The hydrogen in the wood slowed the neutrons down enough that they could interact with the sample they were shooting neutrons at.
In describing the setup, they never mentioned the bench because they didn't know it mattered. Their discovery that hydrogen atoms moderated neutrons led them to repeat the experiment all over, and around the lab - including out by the goldfish pond which was filled with lots of hydrogen.
Oil companies would be richer than ever if this pans out.
I disagree.
The oil won't stop being needed, it'll just stop being burned.
The question isn't "will oil still be needed", it's "HOW MUCH oil will still be needed?" And the answer (quite obviously) is "much less than is needed right now."
Yes, some oil will still be needed, but the fact that a great deal of it is burned means that the *demand* side of the "supply and demand" equation will drop. Significantly.
And guess what happens then?
quite a few "oil companies" have figured out that they are in the energy business, not the oil business.
Oil companies currently have it pretty good - why would they want to actually have to go out and *compete* if they don't have to? It's just like the RIAA and the MPAA - when new technology comes out that creates competition for their current business model, they're more inclined to fight the technology, rather than embrace it, even if embracing it would provide a new revenue stream that will dwarf their current profits.
A former head of the Atomic Energy Commission's fusion program -- indeed one of the 3 primary founders of the Tokamak program, Robert Bussard, picked up that legislation and sent it to all members of the Congressional committees on energy as well as to the various physics labs. In his cover letter he admitted that the Tokamak program had been a sham program -- promoted in the wake of the Apollo program -- to try and get funding to try out all the "hopeful ideas" out there. The Tokamak program turned into a Frankenstein monster and instead started killing all the hopeful ideas they had originally set out to fund.
It's taken quite a while for the government to lose its fixation on the Tokamak.
Maybe now they'll reconsider my legislation -- especially now that the prize award approach has been largely vindicated.
Or will it take another Viet Nam, or worse, WW III for them to wake up to the stupidity of their energy policies?
Seastead this.
Just as an example: Proton tunnelling has been observed over 0.5 Å with a 2E-23 J barrier. (as a contribting effect in hydroxyl group proton exchange)
It takes 100,000,000 times that energy to get a proton just within 1E-13 m of another proton.
Now consider that the tunneling rate is exponentially dependent on the barrier. Uh-huh.
With all due respect to the above journals, they are not peer-reviewed journals where research results are reported. If the journals had been Nature, Science and Physics Review, then I'd be excited. But they aren't, so I'm not. Besides, I read the articles, and I didn't get the impression they were all that enthusiastic...
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
"And if this effect turns out to be real, it will be the paintstaking, not-by-press-conference slow work of real researchers who understand how science works, that will ironically provide actual justification."
Real technical breakthroughs generally come from people who can take risks, can think from many angles, and can stand some failures.
Your idea of a "real researcher" is someone who can only make incremental, if any, progress, and who cannot dare to risk the ridicule of the other "real researchers".
Oh please. "Creation science" isn't science at all. Science makes predictions based on theories, and often has applicable uses. "Creation science" just attacks an evolutionary strawman. Nothing useful has come out of it, and no predictions can be made from it, and its practicioners don't follow the scientific method of empirical research.
To believe that crap, you have to discard physics (radioactive dating), astrophysics (age of the universe), biology (evolution and DNA), geology (age of the earth), paleoclimatology (ancient weather), and probably several other scientific disciplines that I just can't think of at the moment. Every one of THOSE sciences actually produce results. The atomic clock which you set your watch by in the morning is based on the same rate of radioactive decay which allows us to date rocks and sediment and fossils. The rockets that we send into space calculate their trajectory based on the same science which tells us how old the universe is. DNA and evolutionary research have given us new prescription drugs that are used to treat diseases. Paleoclimatology tells us what happens when the cabon dioxide levels get too high and cause global warming.
Has "Creation science" contributed anything to mankind, other than a bunch of wrongheaded thinking? Can you use "creation science" to make a better retrovirus drug? No. It's not science, it's muddle headed philosophy, and it will never be any more than that because it is fundamentally wrong.
When scientists say the earth is billions of years old, that theory is not based on pseudo-science, but cold, hard facts that "creation science" doesn't deal with, because it can't. If we used "creation science" geology to build our buildings, they would collapse. If we used "creation science" nuclear physics to build our nuclear reactors, they would explode. The only way you could possibly believe that crap is if you are woefully or intentionally ignorant of the facts.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
it sucked.
It took me a few seconds to realize that they werent talking about the scripting language.
.cfm pages recently, and I dont know what advantage they have over PHP, but I guess CF is still popular with a few people
I have been seeing more
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
I thought they meant Macromedia Cold Fusion was back from the dead.
Is a more generic form of prize devoted to energy sources. It would be worthwhile to have a prize that would simply related to non-patented technological changes that make their way into energy sources-particularly power plants.
Isn't there one of those science discovery betting pools that has "cold fusion" as one of the things to bet on? I desperately want to bet against it, at whatever odds they'll give me. Easy money at 100000:1. Looks like gullible /.-ers alone would put the book at more like 10:1 though, meaning that if it had a two-year window it would be a 5% investment even if I had to put the money in escrow up front. Heck, if it weren't illegal in the US, I would make book on it myself. Advantages of a physics degree and a wide reading list, dontcha know.
It's interesting that some experiments are able to produce excess energy, but I wonder if there is excess energy across the entire cycle. How much energy is required to "saturate" the palladium? Can the same palladium be used repeatedly, or is there some additional energy-consuming reprocessing that must be done? (Or, even worse, does it for some reason simply not work on reprocessed palladium?). How much energy is required to extract and concentrate the deuterium? Even, how much energy is required to mine and process the palladium.
Some of the results are definitely attention-getting, but before I start celebrating, I'll want to see whether this is just a shifting of energy consumption.
And that doesn't even address whether the process can be effectively done in an environment for capturing the heat
output (like a power plant).
With that said, I'd still like to see money put into researching this, because I don't like being a major contributor to the worldwide environmental destruction of "global warming" through the use of a computer in an air-conditioned house.
Figured I'd move this to the top thread so that as many people saw it as possible. Wow, you people really have no idea, at all, what you are talking about. ColdFusion 4? Uh, that was 6 years ago! ColdFusion MX is a Java/J2EE application that runs on JRun, WebSphere, Tomcat, etc. and utterly trounces other web development languages. It has tags that make all common needs simple to solve (create a web service with one line of code?!) and if you need to do anything complex, call anything in the Java API straight from your CFML code. Any statements about lack of scalability or security are utterly false and are clearly coming from someone who has no clue about what CFMX is. I've been a CF developer for 6 years and do very well at it, building extremely large and complex ecommerce and data warehouse systems. It's just hilarious to see people show their ignorance by saying things as "facts" that are actually totally incorrect.
"...The only thing in the body that heavy water might affect is osmosis, so I think that is a very unlikely suggestion..."
No Nobel prize. Not even a White Owl. Here's a more knowledgeable view of heavy water toxicity
To quote:
"When body deuterium reaches about 50%, it inhibits mitosis because spindle microtubules won't form (some hydrogen bond effect inhibiting self-polymerization, I think). So all eucaryotic cells are poisoned about about these concentrations, or a little higher (bacteria can survive full deuteration-- they just grow half as fast). The consequences of failure of cell division for an intact animal like a rodent, are somewhat like those of radiation or chemo-- the bone marrow and gut lining cells suffer. Animals die of infection or diarrhea. "
T&K.
Political language
You're probably trolling, but I'll bite. First off, I need to know a couple starting points.
1) Are you a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) or an OEC (Old Earth Creationist)?
2) Do you accept "microevolution" or not?
3) Whose particular theories do you subscribe to ("Creation Science" doesn't have a single set of "How Things Work", but rather each "scientist" postulates his own. There's a reason for this - they contradict each other - but we can get into that later).
Respond to this, and we can continue from there.
I'm you from the future! We have to finish our time machine before the Angels of Destruction find the portal!
I read a lot about cold fusion when the controversy first erupted and in the next few years. It's much more difficult to evaluate than you would think.
The problem is that there is a pre-loading phase where you are running the current and nothing is happening. This is when the hydrogen is being taken up by the palladium electrodes. Then after a while you start to get some heat, often sporadically.
But is it excess heat? Or are you merely recovering energy you spent in the pre-loading phase?
This question is the subject of calorimetry, or heat measurement, and it is one of the most difficult types of measurements to do precisely. Making it harder is the fact that the experiments run for several days or even weeks and you have to monitor the energy spent and recovered throughout that time. Some of the early experiments went bad because the stirring of the water by convection wasn't properly taken into account. That's how subtle and difficult it is.
It seems clear that at least some of the early cold fusion results were merely calorimetric errors. Now, it's possible that they have improved their experimental technique and that the new data is more convincing. But the nature of the experiment - long periods of feeding energy in, then short bursts of heat out - makes it inherently difficult to come up with convincing proof of what is happening.
there are no stupid people. Only very smart people conspiring to make you believe they're dumb.
It would be helpful to describe examples of prize award criteria you have in mind.
Seastead this.
What planet are you (and the guy that modded you up) from?
When someone comes forward with an experiment that can consistently demonstrate the cold fusion phenomena, then it will instantly be out of the scientific cold, because the benefits of it are too overwhelming for those in the energy business to ignore it just because its been viciously controversial within the scientific community in the past.
In politics, you can win arguments with just charisma or force of character or simply yelling louder than your opponent, but in the scientific community you ultimately win arguments with *evidence* and nothing else. It is the *lack* of such evidence which has kept cold fusion in the cold all this time, not another one of the endless, bizarre conspiricy theories from the fringe.
You, Mr. AC, are an idiot, although not as bad as the one that modded you up.
It is libel, not slander.
As to the argument; no matter how it is presented, a fact is a fact. I am not saying that they did or did not demonstrate Cold Fusion, if their research turns out to be correct, who cares how it is presented?
I linked to a article about renewed DOE interest in cold fusion in one of my comments and was throughly ridiculed. Well just goes to show that being ahead of the curve is never easy.
Exactly how do you achieve this "100% saturation" they talk about? Does D actually diffuse into Paladium to the point where there is a 1:1 atomic ratio? I find that hard to believe.
Maybe they are just talking about the surface perhaps? Can anybody clarify this?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"If you had, you might have noticed that there have been papers posted from labs around the world with consistent, reproducible results, for the past 10 years."
Ok, I'll bite. Why aren't these people now all billionaires, having developed and sold their new fusion technologies as a practical energy source?
If it is reliably reproducable, someone ought to be able to make a practical 'cold fusion reactor' and sell it, even if we don't entirely understand the effect. People were burning wood for energy long before we knew anything about combustion chemistry.
I have a better theory than Creation Science. I say the world was created last Wednesday. By a supernatural entity I like to call "Al". Al has the ability to make a universe, set into motion all the physical processes in such a way that they "appear" to have started before last Wednesday and so forth.
Disprove it? You can't. Which is why invoking the supernatural is a forbidden move in real science. Once you allow it science as a way of knowing becomes untenable. (Which, of course, doesn't mean that Al didn't create the universe last Wednesday, just that if that sort of thing is going to happen much, predicting the future on the basis of observing the past will be kinda pointless.)
Cold fusion is a whole different animal. IMHO while it got dissed because of institutional and cultural problems as well as real scientifically sound holes in the idea, it was possibly a valid scientific theory.
Creationism isn't even a *possibly* valid scientific theory. Therefore, it's safe to say that people who advance it are just clueless about what science is about.
It's not groupthink to think that fusion produces radiation in large doses. One of the main ways of detecting fusion at rooms temperatures is to detect the almost inevitable neutron emmisions. The whole reason that fusion reactions can occur is because the system ends up with lower energy after the reaction than it had before. The excess energy has to go somewhere, and it typically ends up partly as heat in the system and partly as kinetic energy in an emmited particle--radiation. And a particle has to be emitted to conserve momentum. And radiation, in large enough doses, is deadly-very deadly. I would have to be a fool indeed to think that just because its radiation also means its safe, especially because it isn't. However, I am not afraid of nuclear resonance imaging, for instance (also known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging). I know how it works, and I know it isn't dangerous-radio waves just interact with the nucleus, but there is no ionizing radiation. Perfectly safe. I'm quite smart enough to judge each instance on its own merits. As for the cold fusion bit, I think something is happening in the cells. But it probably isn't just fusion.
Twentieth-century physics also gave us the solid state (quantum mechanical) theories needed to understand semiconductor rectification and other phenomena used to make things like, oh, TRANSISTORS. And the atomic physics necessary to make LASERS. So that computer with its CD-ROM drive in front of you wouldn't exist without the efforts of 20th century PHYSICISTS.
None of these were "technologists" working on something they didn't understand, but scientists who actually used the full power of modern physical theories to predict and discover useful phenomena.
And I haven't even reached back to the 19th century to mention a guy by the name of Maxwell, and all the great things made possible by his theoretical research. Like, oh, I don't know, radio.
Even Edison wouldn't have gotten very far if it hadn't been for Ampere, Coulomb, and Faraday. All that funky telegraph stuff that gave Edison his start depended on what was once cutting-edge physics.
I'll freely admit general relativity hasn't (and almost certainly won't) lead to technological breakthroughs. But quantum mechanics has pretty clearly kicked ass.
My, my, you sound like a real reasonable open-minded person, ya know?
For the record, I don't have an opinon on CF, maybe its real, maybe its not, and I do believe P&F really screwed up going to the press first before having solid evidence and a consistently reproducible experiment (even if it was an administrator that set the press conference up, they should have known as any responsible scientist would, that it was *way* too early to be talking to the press). If this had been handled in a normal fashion, ie, the issue kept within scientific circles at this early stage things probably would have gone very differently. After 15 years, maybe there is now enough evidence to convince most of the skeptics that *something* weird is happening, but I suspect some of the critics will never be convinced....
I don't know what the outcome will be, but a) your "faith-based initiative" remark is utter bullshit, no one has shown evidence that P&F were trying to deliberately deceive anyone (sloppy, maybe even incompetent, but not evil), and b) there *is* an ulterior motive for some of those who are so pathologically hostile to the CF idea (hmm, like you are..).
Try reading this. This should be a real shocker, and no, the article isn't arguing about whether CF is real, it does however go into detail about the reactions to the idea. There are a number of fascinationg revelations here, like some of the early experiments that were done to prove CF wrong, were themselves flawed, and even worse, the data from the famous MIT experiment which really sank the CF ship before it got to sea, showed altered data that would be hard to explain as anything other than deliberate fraud. Why?, well, ask yourself why were the most vocal critics then (and perhaps still today), the hot-fusion scientists who stand to lose *big* if CF were shown to be real? Their entire career working on hot fusion would get thrown in the dustbin if CF was realized. Wouldn't it be really funny if you're last comment, that reference to a funding grab, turned out to be right but the guilty parties aren't in the CF community but in the "respected" community everyone currently assumes is correct?
Its a very interesting article, ironically the scientific process of debate and argument among scientists can sometimes look even worse than a political compromise worked out in a smoke-filled back room, and that is often compared unfavorably to watching certain meat products being made...
Anyway, unfortunately when it comes to human behavior, truth/reality is usually *far* more complicated, even insidiously complex, and often downright bizarre, compared to our quick *assumptions* about why something happened. When has *anything* turned out to be as simple and one-sided as you make it out to be? IMO, never. This ain't kindergarden, man, everybody out there aren't wearing just white or black hats, their hats are all shades of gray, and some are even in technicolor!
But hey, since this is
Pons and Fleishman told of trying an experiment in a portable cooler; when no positive results were immediately apparent, the cooler was put into a closet and forgotten about for years -- until there was a fire which the arson investigators deduced started in the closet, in the cooler....
Pons and Fleishman were clear (to me) in saying the "apparatus" had to spend years "charging." Their words.
Right after their announcement, a Palo Alto, CA laboratory charged with trying to replicate their experiment used the same brand cooler and put it in a closet for years.... Students graduated, professors retired or moved on, and suddenly, there was a fire in the lab, which investigators reported started in a closet....
(This based on contemporary news reports carried in the SF CHronicle.)
I doubt the PA replication experiment was designed to start a fire inadvertently, but that appears to be what happened.
Pons and Fleishman's explanation of their apparatus was MORE accurate than most of the doubters realized or even accepted.
It appears to me (an interested amateur) that the battery uses time to somehow attract a Deuterium atom to each palladium atom, at which time, according to the article, energy amplification ("cold fusion") occurs 100 per cent of the time.
The big fuss over cold fusion came about the same time as the bogus theory that water had a memory. If you can believe that the water in your next can of Pepsi (or Coke) "remembers" that it was most recently in your bladder, more power to you, but it's this same quackery that gives us homeopathic remedies. Let's not confuse what we would like to be, with what is reality. Bad science is just that and wishing that it wasn't doesn't make it so.
--When it's my time, I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather -- not screaming like all the passengers in his car
My dad was a PhD student for Dr Fleischmann (at a point separate from the cold fusion saga). I have little personal knowledge of the situation, but the received wisdom is that the main mistake the good doctors made was to go into too much detail. They declared precisely what they thought was going on, and this pissed off a lot of physicists who thought that electrochemists should stick to their own subject. I can't guarantee the truth or falsity of this, but it sounds plausible. And it's worrying to think that the anger of the specialist scientific community may have held back cheap power for a long period of time.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Had you considered that there are massive vested interests at work here, all of whom must be struggling to control this new technology?
Is it truly beyond comprehension that perhaps the discovery was deliberately derailed in order for the established concerns to further develop their schemes?
Words to men, as air to birds.
Definite tinfoil hat response.
Mysterious "vested interests" can't stop you from building one whopping big fusion device and unequivocally demonstrating the effect to all comers. And if you can do that, then there's no shortage of money that will be available. The "vested interests" will be more than happy to buy your company and use it to make even more money than they do now.
Heck, it's not like all the "vested interests" are even all on the same side. They're often bitter rivals, and one of them would fund you just to spite his enemy.
And if you really want to torpedo the "vested interests", you can just release the detailed engineering drawings on the Internet after they threaten to kill you.
If it were as obvious and practical to do as you say, it would be in the market already.
Is it truly beyond comprehension that perhaps the discovery was deliberately derailed in order for the established concerns to further develop their schemes?
Um, yeah. Why expend so much effort to derail a discovery when you can just buy it out?
For those that want (and in the very long term viewpoint, I hope this does happen) to have a "Mr. Fusion" that they put onto their car and get 2000 mi/gal of water you can pull from your garden hose, I want to say don't get your hopes up too high.
Cold Fusion, like the Farnsworth Fusor technology, is very difficult to scale up to an appreciable size. For now, at best, you will only be able to have some sort of simple device that will be able to turn on and off nuclear reactions with a light switch. Now that is a big deal, and for some scientific studies that would be something in itself very useful, but not practical for running your laptop with.
I have no doubt that there is some actual physical process that does go on in the pladium cryztal to induce nuclear fusion under some circumstances. To what extent though that you can turn it into a practical device for power generation is another story.
Another thing to consider is the political consequences of the ability for each home to generate its own electricity. For now, most home can't do that, even with solar and wind power giving a strong assist (and saving you money when you "sell back" electricty to the power company). Certainly the tin hat crowd has reason to be worried about cold fusion, and it could be as disruptive to the power industry as micros were to the main-frame computer industry. 'nuff said on this point.
Sure ... and everything is just so open and everyone is so amazingly honest. Oh, and perhaps you're just being amazing naive and incredibly superficial?
Personally, I'm always amazed by the sheer number of apologists there are. Talk about vested interest, eh.
Of course, in my opinion, the overly affluent are already living a fantasy.
Words to men, as air to birds.
Physics Today and MIT Technology Review are not leading science journals. I may be drunbk, but I am still right... err correct.
just so someone doesn't come and refute you later and think they crushed your whole point. atomic clocks work on vibrations... not decays... your point still generally stands though.
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
I have no problem with people spending money to investigate this system, as long as no claims are made whatsoever on the basis of "excess" heat. Wake me up and report the excess heat when the "excess" heat arrives at a steam turbine.
If a bunch of nuclear scientists go out for a dinner together, do the funds tended *ever* amount to l'addition?
Exotic isotopes swimming in your post-fusion afterglow are worth reporting. Reporting that you can't add up your pay stub is not.
That's hot!
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
yes, but 90% of their industrial needs are supplied by oil.
And dont forget too that OIL has 100000 other uses besides burning, re - plastics, ferts, etc.... it just doesnt come from rocks.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Oh and then there are the arguments from authority regarding eminent authorities telling us how Pons and Fleischmann were so second rate.
Cold fusion is either happening or it isn't. If it is happening, I don't care of Pons and Fleischmann are cheating on their wives and their income taxes, and if isn't happening, I don't care if they are as virtuous as saints.
If true even Bill Gates dosn't haveenough money
We are talking about a potential market in the Trillions
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I find it interesting that many of the opponents of Cold Fusion were directly or indirectly getting lots of funding from high-temperature fusion grants. Wasn't there a high-profile guy at MIT who resigned over one of these "debunking" reports?
I find it very interesting that this news comes out just a few days after we learn that the US is killing funding for high temperature fusion research.
I'm not sure what, if any, link there is but the timing seems significant.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
More proof that science is becoming politics.
Sure, like buying fusion, fission or internal combustion ... sheesh. Ever hear of Standard Oil?
Words to men, as air to birds.
For thos who don't understand metaphor, science blithely accepts as truth things it does not understand and so, cannot explain.
Your stupid metaphor is not only wrong, it's not about science at all. It's about real life. The teacher could not care less what scientist think about the electrons at the moment (they're not made of quarks, btw, electrons ARE quarks), he's teaching about electricity, not quantum physics, it's enough that he know electrons carry a charge, what they are or are not made of, is of no significance.
I don't need to know general relativity to know basic mechanics, Newton works just fine, and I don't need to know anything about subatomic properties of invidual electron to know how electricity behaves.
Ninety percent of scientists have IQ's below that of Spiro Agnew (135).
Not that IQ means anything, mind you, but are you suggesting that IQ below 135 is supposed to be very bad? You do realize that 50% of all people have IQ under 100, by definition, and that only about 1% of all humans have IQ in 135 range? Looks like scientist are ten times smarter than rest of us if ten percent of them reach that instead of one in a hundred like the rest of us.
I am suggesting that only ten per cent of scientists are bright enough to understand the generalities of their disciplines (rather than the specifics on which they are working drone-like) and its connection to the rest of the world.
Agnew was smart enough to figure out how to take cash bribes in the Vice President's White House office.
The teacher was teaching TV-transmitter theory and practice -- not simple electricity.
The point I was trying to make was Pons and Fleishman's work was reviewed by "peers" who were bound to their ignorance (and probably inhabited the ninety per cent) rather than open to following the (admittedly sketchy and unscientific) announcement of the discovery fifteen years ago and trying to replicate it.
There is quite a difference between setting out to disprove "cold fusion" and replicating its proponents' methods and principles calmly and patiently.
Science acts like it is a closed system where everything we need to know is already known, when, indeed, it is an open system where some fraction of its "knowledge" will be proved wrong in future.
For a decent explanation of this, see http://www.active-stream.com/Story/KazanisSci.shtm l
Since "Cold Fusion" may have national defense applications, I would not be surprised if the early reports discounting its truth might have sprung from a government agency intent to keep such a principle secret -- or to discredit it enough so other governments won't believe it.
In any case, science marches on -- one step back and two steps ahead.
I would prefer much more that they were going to the moon to harvesting helium 3 and trying to fuse it with deuterium, the fact that helium 3 lacks something and dueterium has bit to much of something could make a fusion reaction easier to achieve. A link here. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0006 30.html/
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
No, electrons are leptons.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
That's true but it doesn't mean they are not quarks as well.
Leptons are just one family of quarks, the another being fermions.
Come on, don't be so nice, tell us how you really feel!
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The quarks are up, down, strange, charmed, bottom, and top, and corresponding antiparticles. The leptons are the electron, muon and tau, and their associated neutrinos, and again, the corresponding antiparticles.
Quarks and leptons are all fermions, as opposed to bosons, such as photons and other force-carrying particles.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
You are of course totally correct.
I was cheerily talking about fermions - or actually a word which would have encompassed both fermions and bosons, that is, quanta or "elementary particles" depending on excessive latin tolerance - with a wrong name.