Desktop Cold Fusion Reconsidered

Armchair Anarchist writes "Nature.com reports on Rusi Taleyarkhan of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, who is once again claiming to have achieved ultrasound-induced fusion in deuterium-enriched acetone. Other experts are sceptical, but Taleyarkhan is keen to have other scientists check his results."

Comments

Cold Fusion

[liangzai]

Modern Alchemy.

Re:Cold Fusion

[adlib24]

In this case, Ultrasonic Alchemy would be more appropriate. "Modern" is just ...so 20th century.

Re:Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up

Re:Cold Fusion

[Rei]

Unjustly dismissive. First off, even initially, Taleyarkhan rallied about as much support as he did opposition. Now, even much of his initial opposition considers his work valid. Sonofusion seems to be quite a real phenominon (albeit, currently six orders of magnitude from breakeven).

Here's a very interesting paper by him in Oct. 2005, in which they discuss many of the recent developments, including the potential for nonlinear scaling of efficiency and even the possibility of criticality. It's a very interesting read.

Re:Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked Nuclear Transmutation best.

Re:Cold Fusion

[detritus`]

Hehe, alchemy always reminds me of Luminol (and i'm sure if you've taken any chemistry you've probably seen the picture of the guy looking into a vial that is glowing white), one of my personal favorite experiments to awe kids. What throws me for a loop in this article is that nature of all places has a mistake so glaring obvious in the article. In the caption under the picture "Imploding bubbles, caught on film emitting light. Are they emitting energy too?". Now i'm a simple grad student, but seriously, even grade 10 students know that light == energy. Now i'm sure he meant are they emitting more energy than is put into the system, but still, boo on you Nature.

Re:Cold Fusion

[QQoicu2]

*Einstein voice* Coold foozhin izh a hoakzsh!

Re:Cold Fusion

[tsotha]

I don't understand why so many people on slashdot are quick to dismiss this. Clearly there's something happening. Here's my question, though:

Let's assume they can increase efficiency enough orders of magnitude they get much more heat out than they put in. Clearly they won't be able to run the "reactor" at super high temperatures, since it depends on the liquid phase of the water to work. So how will they extract enough electricity out of a relatively small temperature gradient to make the whole thing worthwhile?

Re:Cold Fusion

[Rei]

PWRs only work if the water is in a liquid state, too ;) Now, pressure may end up being bad here, but still, it's just an issue of how quickly you can draw off heat from the core. Also, since the neutrons contain most of the energy of the reaction, you could have them tend to be absorbed in a different chamber than the core.

Re:Cold Fusion

[WalksOnDirt]

Am I the only one who found that clicking the link didn't work? The paper is the top link on this page:http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/laheypub.html

Re:Cold Fusion

[tsa]

Taleyarkhan et al. must be very happy that they were not dismiised as crooks the way Fleischmann et al. (the dudes who published the first paper on cold fusion) were. I still think it's ridiculous they way they were treated.

Re:Cold Fusion

[ciroknight]

A lot of people said that about Apple and Intel too, ya know.

Re:Cold Fusion

[Truekaiser]

no it's more like. "It is said of nuclear fusion that is is the energy source of the future, and always will be." for those of you who doesn't understand the wording i suggest you go back to school.

Re:Cold Fusion

[mako1138]

As long as the fusion is happening within water, you'll deposit some energy inside the core. But let's say you've found a way to minimize that, and you've got a surrounding chamber that can go superhot. A few issues to contend with are

1) Heat flux. How do you ensure that the sono chamber stays cool while right next to a much hotter system?

2) Neutronics/materials. The wall(s) keeping the systems from mixing are going to see a whole lot of fast neutrons, which is a big problem. You have to pick a material that holds up well under fast neutron flux + heat.

These two issues are, ironically/unsurprisingly, two of the issues "conventional" magnetic fusion faces. In such a device, you've got vacuum pumps that run at cryogenic temperatures (1), and a so-called 'first wall' that sees a whole lotta neutrons over its operating lifetime (2). Needless to say, we don't have good solutions to these problems yet.

Re:Cold Fusion

[DigitlDud]

I don't understand why so many people on slashdot are quick to dismiss this.

One word, Purdue.

Re:Cold Fusion

[online-shopper]

I bet he uses a sonic screwdriver to start it off.

Re:Cold Fusion

[hairykrishna]

I personally feel that sonofusion has suffered from being referred to as 'cold fusion' by the media. It brings to mind the whole pons and fleischman (correct spelling?)palladium fiasco which you are correct in asserting is no better than alchemy. These experiments may have more too them.

Re:Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pressurize water enough it will stay liquid up to temperatures of 500-600 degrees Kelvin. See the phase diagram

Re:Cold Fusion

[BoneFlower]

Couple ways around this.

The obvious answer is to pressurize the water. This will increase the boiling temperature, letting you run the reactor much hotter.

Alternately, if that is impractical, run multiple cells. Each cell may only be able to put off enough heat to produce a few volts, string enough of them together, and you can put out a lot of power. With proper design, increasing capacity would be relatively simple compared to a single large reactor. On the other hand, maintenance of potentially hundereds of minireactors could be a nightmare.

Re:Cold Fusion

[gumbright]

Agreed. I certainly expect it pan out to nothing, but if there is something to look at, the discoverer is doing the right thing by placing it up for review (unlike Fleischman (sp?) & Pons). If there is nothing, it will shake out as such.

Re:Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be hot fusion ... or at least pretty hot inside the bubble.
This is not the "cold fusion" that stirred controversy 1989.

This is much more conventional.
Whether it is hot/dense enough, and actually works is aother question.
Beyond that would it find a practical use?

This is an old oddball phenomena that has been studied for a long time so
far without much success. I don't expect this process to produce useful
power, but I don't know enough to say fusion inside the bubble is ridiculous.

Just unproven.

Re:Cold Fusion

[gwait]

If there is any fusion going on: The water based version may be nothing more than a research tool, but perhaps this will lead to an understanding of how to induce fusion in other more practical power generating systems.

Re:Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, wait. I'm trying to understand your wording, but no matter how I look at it, I can't imagine how "doesn't" is a valid verb in that sentence. Your capitalization and punctuation are bad enough, but how am I supposed to understand what you're saying i fyou can't even use verbs correctly?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not Cold Fusion

[znu]

From the article:

The idea is simple enough. Blast a liquid with waves of ultrasound and tiny bubbles of gas are created, which release a burst of heat and light when they implode. The core of the bubble reaches 15,000 C, hot enough to wrench molecules apart.

This isn't cold fusion, it's just a sneaky way of achieving hot fusion without huge x-ray lasers and giant magnets and such.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

This isn't cold fusion, it's just a sneaky way of achieving hot fusion without huge x-ray lasers and giant magnets and such.

Bingo. And this is one of 50,000 articles that Slashdot has had on Sonofusion. The long and short of it is, there's lots of light and neutrons when some tiny bubbles pop. Some scientists think it's fusion. If it is fusion (as predicted), there's no current way to make it energy positive. However, it will make a nice desk ornament right next to your Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. (Which is also table-top, BTW.)

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rei]

There's no current way to make it energy positive

It's currently six orders of magnitude from breakeven.

  * The addition of tritium into the mix should automatically make it three orders of efficiency better. In fact, even starting with deuterated acetone, it would eventually breed enough tritium to make a difference.

  * There is no reason to believe the current starting conditions (the solution used, the temperature and pressure used, the frequency of the ultrasound, etc) are anywhere close to optimal.

  * There is potential for faster than linear scaling. The more efficient it gets, the larger the bubble clusters you have; the shock waves from multiple bubbles in a cluster interact to produce stronger shocks.

  * There is potential for criticality in theory, in which neutrons from one reaction seed bubbles at its acoustic anti-nodes at the time in which they're under maximal tension.

So, no, there is no reason for your fatalistic attitude. *Will* it pan out? Who knows, but it is definitely worth investigation, just like the concept of fission criticality was early this century.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[tomhudson]

Not cold fusion because it's at 15,000 degrees? Sure it is.

http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Abstrac ts/Donoabst.html

In practice, an ignition temperature of 400M K is needed to compensate for lost energy

Even the lower temperature of only77 million degrees makes 15,000 degrees look positively arctic. Being able to do it in a container without magnetic containment in a vacuum ... well, sounds like cold fusion to me.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rob Carr]

If this ever did achieve better than breakeven, it would make triggering a fusion bomb much easier. Currently fission is used to trigger a fusion bomb. This might make it easier, although I doubt it would be as compact.

Even if it doesn't reach breakeven, it still has weapons potential. This thing gives off neutrons. If it's portable, it could be set up someplace and used to spray neutron radiation in a city. At low levels of efficiency, it would just be a weapon of terror. At high levels, it's a dirty bomb.

Thankfully, one can't simply ask Harry Osborne for some deuterium-enriched acetone. This isn't quite the "Mr. Fusion" of back to the future -- which is a good thing!

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[EvilSporkMan]

So, no, there is no reason for your fatalistic attitude. *Will* it pan out? Who knows, but it is definitely worth investigation, just like the concept of fission criticality was early this century.
You mean last century?

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

If this ever did achieve better than breakeven, it would make triggering a fusion bomb much easier.

No it wouldn't. The fission bomb is used to produce a high pressure shockwave sufficient to compress the dueterium. This won't produce a sufficient shockwave to act as a trigger.

Even if it doesn't reach breakeven, it still has weapons potential. This thing gives off neutrons.

Lots of things give off neutrons. They're useful for a controlled nuclear reaction like a power-plant, but not that useful when what you actually need is more pressure than the surface of Jupiter.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

>>There is potential for faster than linear scaling. The more efficient it gets, the larger the bubble clusters you have; the shock waves from multiple bubbles in a cluster interact to produce stronger shocks.
>>

Well, or they interfere and diminish the shock wave, thus reducing the effect.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[deglr6328]

Oh damn, my nocluebie-o-meter just exploded!

"If this ever did achieve better than breakeven, it would make triggering a fusion bomb much easier. Currently fission is used to trigger a fusion bomb. This might make it easier, although I doubt it would be as compact."

Stupid. The imploding fusing bubble IS the fusion "bomb"! You might also have trouble with the fact that it occurs on the MICROSCOPIC scale and you need conditions equivalent to that on the cm to METER scale to set off a conventional fusion bomb. This has absoluelty no weapons applications whatsoever.

"Even if it doesn't reach breakeven, it still has weapons potential. This thing gives off neutrons. If it's portable, it could be set up someplace and used to spray neutron radiation in a city. At low levels of efficiency, it would just be a weapon of terror. At high levels, it's a dirty bomb."

OH NOES TEH TERRORISTS, AHHH!! Even if fusion yeild were scaled up by a million fold you would have to sit right on top of the damn thing for hours in order to get any kind of noticeable dose at all. Strapping a piece of explosives to a chunk of Cs-137 from some medical deviece to make a dirty bomb would be, oh jeez I don't know, about a billion times easier and more effective!?!

Why isn't there a "clueless -1" mod?

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rei]

Brennen (1995), Akhatov et al (2005), and Nigmatulin et al (2005) disagree with you. The shocks converge toward the center of the bubble cluster. Also, some of the central bubbles will coalesce into larger ones, thus creating more intense implosions on their own.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[deglr6328]

Where are you pulling the figure "currently six orders of magnitude from breakeven" from? I don't really buy that. What I've heard of Rusi's sonofusion results is they have barely got things going over a thousand neutrons/pulse if that. (I don't believe its real yet anyway, but for the sake of argument) ICF schemes currently put the breakeven and ignition regime at around 10^16 - 10^17 neutrons/pulse so I'd say we're more like a factor of nearly a QUADRILLION off.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[zippthorne]

actually you need more pressure than *anywhere* on jupiter. Since jupiter is clearly not a star.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rei]

My mistake - seven orders (I was typing from memory). Taleyarkhan cites Lahey et al, 2005 for that number.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Progman3K]

> it is definitely worth investigation, just like the concept of fission criticality was early this century.

Last century, but point taken, point taken.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

And we aren't doing hydrogen (protium technicly, the common form of hydrogen) fusion, but deuterium-deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion which according to currently known data might very well be happening in the core of Jupiter.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[William Robinson]

Yo, buddy. dey shudave kall' it konfusion.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rei]

Oh, and remember that breakeven depends on how much energy you have to put into it. In Fig. 4 of "Sonofusion - Fact or Fiction?", they show a measurement of ~4e5 neutrons/s, so we're looking at 7e6 MeV/s = 1.12e-9 watts. 7 orders of magnitude would imply that the input energy was around 11.2 milliwatts. Sounds a little low, but is conceivable.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[rgmoore]

ICF schemes currently put the breakeven and ignition regime at around 10^16 - 10^17 neutrons/pulse so I'd say we're more like a factor of nearly a QUADRILLION off.

But you're only looking at one side of the equation, the energy output. Since breakeven is defined by (energy output/energy input) > 1, you also have to look at energy input. I don't have any figures handy, but I'm reasonably confident that ICF requires many orders of magnitude more energy to start than sonofusion does. When you take that into account, you may discover that the 6-7 orders of magnitude figure is correct.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rob Carr]

No it wouldn't. The fission bomb is used to produce a high pressure shockwave sufficient to compress the dueterium. This won't produce a sufficient shockwave to act as a trigger.

Who said anything about violating Lawson's criteria? If the sonoluminescent fusion is actually occurring significantly above breakeven, then you've already exceeded Lawson and the critical ignition temperature somewhere! The trick is to make use of that. At that point, it's engineering. Is that engineering going to be easy? There's no guarantee, but the possibility has already inspired folks long before Pons and Fleischman became household names.

Lots of things give off neutrons. They're useful for a controlled nuclear reaction like a power-plant, but not that useful when what you actually need is more pressure than the surface of Jupiter.

I switched topics and you didn't. The second case was an example of what might be done with something that doesn't exceed the breakeven point. Again, think it through. We're not talking about a fusion bomb now, but rather what destruction can be done with a very good source of neutrons. Let's say someone achieved sonoluminescent fusion in a normal pyrex beaker. How close do you want to stand to it?

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[WalksOnDirt]

I don't know where Nature got the 15,000 degree number. I've seem reports of measurements of sonoluminescence temperatures of over 100,000 K (from the spectrum, and only a lower limit because the fluid wasn't transparent to high enough frequency light). For the fusion experiments different techniques were used and temperatures of over 100M K were targeted.

The case for fusion here is perhaps not solid yet, but if it is fusion, it's hot.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rob Carr]

Stupid. The imploding fusing bubble IS the fusion "bomb"! You might also have trouble with the fact that it occurs on the MICROSCOPIC scale and you need conditions equivalent to that on the cm to METER scale to set off a conventional fusion bomb. This has absoluelty no weapons applications whatsoever.

Making the transition of scale is indeed the trick. Simply putting one next to the other would not work. Finding a way to jump the change in scale has interested a lot of people, though. Remember, you don't try to set a log on fire directly with sparks from flint. If it's possible, the engineering will not be simple, but as long as it's easier than getting and enriching fissile material, it's worth the effort.

Even if fusion yeild were scaled up by a million fold you would have to sit right on top of the damn thing for hours in order to get any kind of noticeable dose at all.

Do you remember the original Pons and Fleischman announcement? A big argument against their actually having accomplished what they claimed was that no one died from it, and folks weren't sitting on top of it.

Neutron radiation from a fusion reactor that's not breakeven won't contaminate a city. But there are tactical uses for which it would be far superior to your Cs.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

The addition of tritium into the mix should automatically make it three orders of efficiency better. In fact, even starting with deuterated acetone, it would eventually breed enough tritium to make a difference.

But where would we get enough of the precious tritium to make this possible? You'd need to get some kind of crazy 8-armed scientist to steal it for you!

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[plantman-the-womb-st]

Why would you even waste your time thinking of ways to make more and newer weapons? The ones we have kill people well enough thank you.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[mako1138]

We're still talking 10 reactions per bubble collapse. Supposing the ultrasound is 10 MHz, and all the 17.6 MeV produced from DT fusion is recovered:

10 * 10e6 1/s * 17.6e3 eV * 1.6e-19 J/ev = 0.28 microwatts (gross output)

This is going to need some serious scaleup if it's ever going to be a viable power source, provided it can surpass breakeven.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[mikkom]

This isn't cold fusion, it's just a sneaky way of achieving hot fusion without huge x-ray lasers and giant magnets and such.

Taleyarkhan himself calls it "sonofusion".

There was a documentary about this some time ago in television about Taleyarkhans previous claim of same issue in 2002 (I think it by BBC) and the scientists who studied the results, didn't find the cold fusion that Taleyarkhan claimed when they reproduced the demo. So I'm a little bit sceptical.

If this however would be true, it would be the holy grail of todays science so I'm really looking forward for the results.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Surt]

Technically, a century is a period of 100 years, not necessarily starting at a year numbered xx00 in the Christian calendar, so he could have meant 'earlier in the last 100 years', which is interestingly enough probably what he was trying to express.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Surt]

Slashdot ate my first submission attempt:

Technically, a century is a period of 100 years, not necessarily starting at a year numbered xx00 in the Christian calendar, so he could have meant 'earlier in the last 100 years', which is interestingly enough probably what he was trying to express.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/century

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[radtea]

The bubbles are seriously far from thermodynamic equilibrium, so assigning a single "temperature" is misleading. If this is fusion there are clusters are particles with average energy quite a bit higher than that implied by 15,000 K.

To answer another question in this thread: the reason to be skeptical about this means of inducing hot fusion ever reaching breakeven is twofold. For one, there are getting on for a dozen different ways of inducing hot fusion that have failed to get close to breakeven in the past fifty years. Fusion is the technology of the future and always will be. For two, hot fusion in a small volume of high density matter is pretty much a worst-case in terms of loss processes.

However, given that no one would ever have predicted this phenomenon to occur at all, it is certainly not impossible that it will someday reach breakeven. My personal bias is that would be a very good thing, but I'm not hopeful that it will ever happen. Still, sometimes moonshine turns out to be stronger than anyone expected.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Kadin2048]

but as long as it's easier than getting and enriching fissile material, it's worth the effort.

That's just the point. It's not. Getting and enriching fissile material is markedly easier than doing a lot of very basic scientific research which may or may not lead anywhere, could well consume millions of dollars, and could take decades to produce anything.

If you really wanted a bomb, it would probably be easier to go and buy the fissile material or dig it up out of the ground in central Africa (or heck pick one up off of the ocean floor -- there are a number of them laying around, you can even find a list if you Google it) than it would be to try to build some entirely new inititator technology.

This technology is so far away from weaponizability that it really reeks of FUD to start talking about it at this point. Having an abundance of caution is one thing, but jumping at shadows is another entirely, and this is definitely of the latter sort.

If you wanted to produce neutrons, whether for good or evil, there are a lot easier ways too -- ways that are known to actually produce neutrons, even used commercially for that purpose, and would be a lot more reliable. The Farnsworth fusor comes to mind (somewhere above in the comments is a link). It's state-of-the-art 1950s technology, certainly more practical than some device which the best scientists in the world aren't sure if even works.

Let's not scare the living bejeezus out of everone with what The Terrorists might do with some invention that doesn't even exist yet. That sounds like a great way to make sure that it never actually exists at all -- "cutting off your nose to spite your face," as my mother probably would have said.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rob Carr]

Let's not scare the living bejeezus out of everone with what The Terrorists might do with some invention that doesn't even exist yet. That sounds like a great way to make sure that it never actually exists at all -- "cutting off your nose to spite your face," as my mother probably would have said.

First, this thread is a discussion of a report on possible sonoluminescent fusion. It should work, based on the math. If it doesn't now, it will at some point in the future. Possible applications for such technology are fair game for a Slashdot discussion. Powerful technology can always be weaponized. That's what makes it powerful.

Anything's open for discussion. That's the way it should be. Ideas were made to be played with!

Discussing something doesn't ensure it doesn't happen -- it ensures that you're ready for it. A perfect example is Paul Berg's first recombinant DNA experiments. Practical recombinant DNA was 50 years away, according to my 1975 copy of Lenninger. People hadn't thought out the implications. Berg started getting phone calls from respected researchers in the field (not crackpots). Several asked him if SV40 (a virus known to cause cancer in humans) genes could be inserted in E. coli. He asked them why. The answer was "To see if it could be done." There was absolutely no consideration for the consequences of seeing if it could be done. Having intestinal flora that churn out cancer-causing viruses is something that needed a bit more thought than a late night phone call.

The Asilomar conference was hastily called. They extended biosafety protocols to recombinant DNA and set guidelines to prevent recombinant "oopsies" from occurring.

Think about the consequences before you can actually do something and you'll be better equipped to handle the situations that come up. for it.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean xx01. The first century was 1 A.D. to 100 A.D.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Surt]

My whole point with the post was that when you want to pick your start time for 'a century' is arbitrary. ;-) However, I did in fact mean xx01, I was typing too fast.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

OR, you could just purchase it from a radioisotope supply company. Believe it or not, some of them even have websites where you can order materials. (Rather on the expensive side, though.)

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[AKAImBatman]

Who said anything about violating Lawson's criteria? If the sonoluminescent fusion is actually occurring significantly above breakeven, then you've already exceeded Lawson and the critical ignition temperature somewhere!

I don't understand what you're getting at. You may be overcoming the Columb barrier inside your device, but that doesn't help create the shockwave used in an H-Bomb. The problem isn't just a matter of energy. It's a matter of gaining a compression shockwave powerful enough to compress the dueterium sphere of the bomb. The fission bomb was used for this because no one had yet figured out any other way of getting the compression necessary to make fusion work.

Now if you have an energy positive fusion method, you might be able to engineer a comletely different type of bomb. (i.e. Make the sonofusion itself the bomb.) I say "might", however, because a bomb needs the sudden and massive release of energy that's usually associated with super-criticality. Just having an energy positive device isn't enough. You need a runaway reaction that burns through the fuel within seconds. The fission bomb does that through sudden compression of the fissible materials. That produces a shockwave energetic enough to compress ALL of the dueterium the fusion.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Oh, get real, Rei. One major university Physics department .PLUS. 4 years intensive research budget .SHOULD.EQUAL. success. Since this hasn't happened yet, I just don't see this happening EVER with breakeven desktop fusion of any kind. Hence, I'm intensely skeptical.

Look, tech that can be figuratively-speaking "made in a garage" can ONLY produce results from a few garages across America and Europe. The same general rule applies to things like cold fusion and sonofusion. Uni labs should have cranked a few dozen of these solutions out over a decade ago. Since they haven't, it's likely that cold- and sono-fusion are simply bullshit.

In even more general terms, we've been buying into the fusion myth for 50 years. How many more decades of wasted money are we going to pour into academic welfare before we wise up? Meanwhile, solar exploitation is just begging for its Apollo Project, so I'd say that the Human race clearly has its wires crossed about what we SHOULD be investing in for practical energy research. Leave fusion to the quacks and lets get solar going, eh?

Nothing CAN speak louder than results. The fusion mythologists just don't have any practical results for us. Isn't it time to call snake oil "snake oil"?

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Rei]

One major university Physics department .PLUS. 4 years intensive research budget .SHOULD.EQUAL. success.

Completely illogical. It took dozens of universities and several decades to produce fission power, and even more universities and time still haven't produced hot fusion. What on Earth makes you think that four years and a tiny budget is going to produce a final product from physics that weren't even understood before?

Look, tech that can be figuratively-speaking "made in a garage" can ONLY produce results from a few garages across America and Europe.

Your garage has deuterated acetone and a Pu-Be neutron source? Wow, please invite me over some time!!!!

Uni labs should have cranked a few dozen of these solutions out over a decade ago.

No, they most certainly shouldn't have. Sonoluminescence has focused almost exclusively on water in the past (non-deuterated, at that, and not nucleated except in some relatively recent experiments that showed that nucleation from cosmic radiation was critical to its performance). In any fluid, there are fundamental limitations on the pressure achievable by the shocks on single and multiple bubble collapse, based on the interfacial stability mechanisms, "Bjerknes force", rectified diffusion, and other factors. Different fluids have different limits on this. Taleyarkan's team managed to get far larger bubbles (physically measured) imploding than ever produced before by the use of degassed, heavily nucleated acetone.

Since they haven't, it's likely that cold- and sono-fusion are simply bullshit.

Since you don't know anything about what you're talking about, you should shut up.

In even more general terms, we've been buying into the fusion myth for 50 years.

Fusion is quite real; most energy on Earth is fusion from a gravitational-confinement reactor. ;) Gravity is just another force that can be used for confinement; magnetic, electrostatic, and inertial confinement are equally valid. High temperature magnetic confinement (such as in ITER) already broke break-even in 1996 in JT-60, and we're still just getting started. ITER is expected to reach Q=10 (and does so in simulations), but since it's just a research reactor, it will mainly go into running its own facility (it's not designed to sell power; ITER's successor is planned to). Many of the other methods are interesting because they're cheap to build and have their own scaleup potentials. There's even some that don't rely on containment at all, such as muon-catalyzed fusion.

Meanwhile, solar exploitation is just begging for its Apollo Project

Oh, now that's hilarious! You criticize fusion power for eating little money and showing little results (except for a dozen orders of magnitude efficiency increase... in the past couple decades), and you think that the money should go to thrifty tasks like *space exploration*, who haven't reduced costs half an order of magnitude in the past 50 years? That's bloody hilarious.

Nothing CAN speak louder than results.

And that's why they have funding. :)

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[stonecypher]

This isn't cold fusion, it's just a sneaky way of achieving hot fusion without huge x-ray lasers and giant magnets and such.

Bzzt. Cold fusion means achieving fusion with mechanisms other than temperature, for which the temperature generally needs to be on the order of middle seven digits; the bubbles in these machines rarely break the low six digits, and have only twice been measures to break 100,000 degrees F.

Cold fusion is a blanket term covering various techniques, of which this is one; the proper name for use here is Piezofusion. This machine creates fusion through pressure, rather than temperature. In fact, it is cold fusion, arguably the canonical example thereof.

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[LaCosaNostradamus]

I said: "One major university Physics department .PLUS. 4 years intensive research budget .SHOULD.EQUAL. success."

You said: "Completely illogical. It took dozens of universities and several decades to produce fission power, and even more universities and time still haven't produced hot fusion. What on Earth makes you think that four years and a tiny budget is going to produce a final product from physics that weren't even understood before?"

Firstly, in this age of electronic collaboration, one large uni dept can do the work of many from the 1940s. You should have thought that one through a bit more, Rei, since it was obvious after a microsecond or so.

Secondly, I should have defined "success", so that's my fault. "Success" is a positive indication of fusion that takes the next step. Cold- and sono-fusion are still being ARGUED and DEBATED on basic levels ("does it exist?", etc.), which makes a laughingstock of all the academics involved. What's to argue about if you had bothered to (1) get adequate funding for the project, and (2) had done your experiments correctly (i.e. without errors, like Pons and F. were famous for)?

So my view point of scientists + time + funding = success is entirely correct. What we have now is media + scientists + halfassedfunding = travesty. So of course we're not seeing any successes ... just a lot of people squawking. Note well that this is the major problem with Western Civilization today; there's a whole lot of talk, but very few people completing work towards goals. In effect, since too many academics are in a welfare system, they have little motivation to complete work towards defined goals. Literally, results are bad since that would mean projects (hence funding) would end.

I said: "Look, tech that can be figuratively-speaking "made in a garage" can ONLY produce results from a few garages across America and Europe."

You said: "Your garage has deuterated acetone and a Pu-Be neutron source? Wow, please invite me over some time!!!!"

Now you're just being an ass. We had an American kid refine radioactives from smoke detectors in his yard shed and basement, in his attempts to make a power-producing reactor. Things like rare chemicals and neutron sources can be obtained and installed in a garage. Stop being silly, Rei. America's inventors have done marvellous things in (figurative) garages ... if they are allowed access to wealth and materials. They've also done the things that needed to be done when large organizations refused to do them. Any computer Apple user should be thankful for that, although the microcomputer industry cannot entirely claim fatherhood from Jobs' and Wozniak's garage antics.

I said: "Uni labs should have cranked a few dozen of these solutions out over a decade ago."

You said: "No, they most certainly shouldn't have. [details]"

Rei, listen to me verrrrrry carefully. Scientists are supposed to explore the limits of knowledge based upon their superb education and rationality, not hand us a list of arbitrary goddamn excuses about endless technical details that are allegedly causing them to not produce results. Your list sounds like the equally-arbitrary list of reasons the US invaded and occupied Iraq. Each point applies to the failure to get results purely on faith. We may as well have them tell us the "framistat was decalibrated".

Scientists are supposed to be smart and educated. "Smart and educated" means you have a deep understanding of things. One thing that should be understandable is WHAT you're experimenting for, and past that point HOW you'll overcome restrictions to make the NEXT discovery. But that's NOT what's happening with cold- and sono-fusion experiments. Either these so-called scientists are playing

Re:Not Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Man that must've been painful writing that much just to troll. In fact, I can't believe I read through that entire post of yours without finding a single trace of scientific knowledge whatsoever.

You are entitled to your belief that fusion is a waste of money but you cannot dispute that gains have been made in hot fusion technology, containment and power recovery. And that doesn't even address the pure physics research aspects.

Some methods of fusion *cannot* reach break-even (e.g. muon-catalyzed that Rei referred to). But hot fusion has the potential to exceed it. Is our spending on fusion sometimes inefficient? Sure. Do we cut other programs that would benefit the technology? Yes. But that goes for many other government-funded projects as well.

In any research field, the pure field - say, mathematics - usually runs years or decades ahead of the applied areas like cryptography. Physics research compared with fusion power generation is no different.

I suppose you'd rather continue spending our money on investments with a good return like the war in Iraq, though.

Before you jump to conclusions...

[freedom_india]

Before you jump to conclusions like the Robot Lawyers episode, here's a scrap from the article:

"Although the neutron count doubles at some points in the experiments, Putterman says that neutrons produced in random showers of cosmic rays, rather than fusion events, could be responsible. But Taleyarkhan points out that the neutron count was smaller in detectors further from the reaction chamber.
To prove that the neutrons are coming from fusion as bubbles burst, Putterman and Suslick suggest that the team closely monitor exactly when the neutrons appear. The current experiment simply counts up the number of neutrons detected over minutes, so correlations with bubble bursts cannot be seen."

They are NOT yet sure whether the neutrons come from bubbles or from cosmic rays.

So let's not start the usual jokes about using car stereos to power cars, sound waves harming swan ears, etc.

Re:Before you jump to conclusions...

[modmans2ndcoming]

read further, he says that detectors farther away present far less neutron activity, indicating the source is the tank.

Glow in the dark scientist

[Belseth]

I'll be more interested when either the results are confirmed or one of them gets radiation poisoning. Although potentially safe by nuclear standards fusion should result in a lot more radiation than any of the cold fusion tests have so far. Good ole Mr Fusion is still going to require some serious lead shielding. There have been some intriguing results but by science standards until it can reliably be reproduced it doesn't exist. The problem is it could be a whole new effect they are seeing and not actual fusion. Even if it is if it can't be scaled up it'll wind up a laboratory curiousity and not the savor if civilization.

Re:Glow in the dark scientist

[Rei]

Undue harshness given the state of the literature. It *has* been reproduced extensively, so those comments are completely incorrect; the main controversy is about the level of radiation emitted. Subsequent experiments in better conditions have reduced much of the criticism.

However, good comments on fusion's radiation. Even prized "pure" fusion reactions, such as B11+p, produce nasty radiation because you get some p-p fusion, you get some of the alpha particles (He4) as fusion reactants, even a tiny B12 or Dt impurity will dramatically increase the radiation levels, and all sorts of other problems.

The good thing about radiation from fusion reactors is that the fusing materials generally aren't "hot". The only problem is that irradiation of the reactor chamber itself can leave it radioactive; however, proper selection of construction materials can ensure that it has a short halflife, making reactor part disposal much less controversial.

Re:Glow in the dark scientist

[Animats]

I'll be more interested when either the results are confirmed or one of them gets radiation poisoning.

During the first cold fusion flap, back in the 1980s, I went to a talk by a physicist at Stanford who was trying to replicate the experiment. He mentioned that when they first started, they had radiation alarms set up around the equipment, but after a while, they moved those back. They measured neutron levels around twice background on occasion, but realized that people around the experiment were acting as neutron reflectors for background radiation and affecting the results. So the whole experiment was moved into a cube of lead bricks, after which no neutron emissions were observed.

Bear in mind that it's not that hard to generate fusion. There have been fusion lab setups since the 1950s. There are many ways to force large amounts of energy into a small volume and thus create the conditions for small-scale fusion. The hard part is getting out more energy than you put in.

Re:Glow in the dark scientist

[WoodieR]

Although potentially safe by nuclear standards fusion should result in a lot more radiation than any of the cold fusion tests have so far. according to generally accepted theorys - correct? so maybe this is real and we need to rethink certain theorys? Good ole Mr Fusion is still going to require some serious lead shielding. There have been some intriguing results but by science standards until it can reliably be reproduced it doesn't exist. Isn't that what these yobbos are doing? creating / obtaining the replicatible results? The problem is it could be a whole new effect they are seeing and not actual fusion. Even if it is if it can't be scaled up it'll wind up a laboratory curiousity and not the savor if civilization. see above, about new theorys and rethinking our understanding of ... Everything CAN be scaled up - we just don't know how at this moment, and we don't really have a great understanding of WHAT EXACTLY we are trying to ramp up ! Speak first, Shoot ( the questioners ) questions later ...?

Re:Glow in the dark scientist

[hweimer]

Undue harshness given the state of the literature. It *has* been reproduced extensively, so those comments are completely incorrect; the main controversy is about the level of radiation emitted. Subsequent experiments in better conditions have reduced much of the criticism.

Do you have any references of experiments carried out to verify Taleyarkhan's observations?

Re:Glow in the dark scientist

[Rei]

Sure. The first independent confirmation was by Yiban Xu and Adam Butt at Purdue in 2005. I could probably track down all of those who have confirmed his setup if you want; it's a relatively new field, so there shouldn't be too many papers.

A biproduct of this research...

[gasmonso]

A byproduct of this research has led him to create the variable velocity bullet. You can read more here: http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventors/a/ve locity_bullet.htm

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:A biproduct of this research...

[Michael Woodhams]

That description doesn't describe how they vary the force of the explosion. Presumably there is some mechanism for introducing a measured amount of noncondensible gas into the round prior to firing? How long do you have to wait after introducing the gas before pulling the trigger?

Re:A biproduct of this research...

[Helish]

What gas? The round works by using Al and H20, just altering the amount of H20 should do it. Or controling the current going through the round would alter the rate at which Al would melt.

Re:A biproduct of this research...

[tradiuz]

They use a variable current to trigger the explosion, instead of gunpowder. More current == bigger boom == higher velocity == death.

Who gets the patents?

[davidwr]

Will Fleischmann and Pons be vindicated?

Stay tuned for the next segment of our game show Is This Experiment Reproducible, right after this commercial break. [applause]

Re:Who gets the patents?

[AKAImBatman]

We now return from our commercial break.

[applause]

So the question is, Is This Experiment Reproducible? Amazingly the answer is "yes". Sonoluminescence has been an established fact in science since 1934, but has only gained attention again in 2002 when scientists began to investigate if Sonoluminescence might be... SonoFusion. The 2004 experiment by Taleyarkhan was reproducable enough that by 2005 most of the critics began to accept the idea that it might be fusion.

But are Fleischmann and Pons vindicated?

Taleyarkhan's experiments showed that sonofusion couldn't possibly be the cold fusion that excited the media so many years ago. Not only do you have to put more energy in than you get out, but the popping of each bubble produces a shockwave that heats the immediate area to thousands of degrees in temperature!

As it turns out, there's nothing cold about this fusion at all.

[Flip to video of lava flowing from volcano]

So for now, science will continue its search for this holy grail of "Cold" fusion. Perhaps one day, Fleischmann and Pons will be vindicated.

[fade to black]

(Don't you hate it when shows give you a cliffhanger like this; then after making you wait, spout some crap you already know?)

this has come up again?

[superyanthrax]

Here's the most important part of the article: "There is one big problem, however: the experiment doesn't always work, and the group is not sure why." Until they figure out what's going on, the group really hasn't advanced much beyond what is already there.

Also I'm interested in seeing other try to replicate their experiment. That will be the ultimate test as to whether their methods are valid or not.

My recommendation

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold Fusion should focus on the server where it belongs. The desktop is just a pipe dream.

Re:My recommendation

[ChrisMaple]

just | dream > desktop

sceptical?!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://webster.com/dictionary/skeptical

I can't believe you call yourselves "editors", or more likely "edatters".

Re:sceptical?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sceptical" is the British spelling, you wancre.

Re:sceptical?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Correcting peoples grammar? What a wanker!

Re:sceptical?!

[HugePedlar]

That would be "people's".

Oh shit.... did I just...? Damn.

Re:sceptical?!

[Tim C]

Strictly, it should be "correcting a person's grammar", but most people would say "correcting people's grammar".

Re:sceptical?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the should be :

Correctly peoples' grammar

Re:sceptical?!

[Punko]

You are correct. But please, don't call me Shirley.

Re:sceptical?!

[Bombula]

Septical, even.

Re:sceptical?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man: I'm sheduled to meed with Lord Dracula.
Peasant 1: Dracula?
Peasant 2: Dracula?!
Peasant 3: DRACULA?!?!
Peasant 4: ....sheduled?

Re:sceptical?!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://webster.com/dictionary/sceptical

how how to tell if its for real

[Jodka]

The real test of whether cold fusion is for real is not scientific. It is economic. When someone opens a cold fusion power plant which sells more power than it consumes, you'll know it's the real deal.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[lumbercartel.ca]

I thought perpetual motion was impossible!

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent is too normal (for this website), he means energy as normal humans know it (heat, electricity, etc), not mass, so while it might consume mass, aslong as it outputs more energy then it takes to run it.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[Inspector Lopez]

The real test of whether cold fusion is for real is not scientific. It is economic. When someone opens a cold fusion power plant which sells more power than it consumes, you'll know it's the real deal.

This is true in a pretty strong sense. If it was possible to extract large amounts of energy by inserting pins into effigies of (say) Britney Spears or Tom Delay, and we didn't know why it worked, that wouldn't erase the basic fact that you could get energy out of torturing dolls.

The infuriating thing about "economic" is that it periodically annoints technologies which all Right Thinking Persons know are blasphemous, such as: Windows (compared to Mac OS or Gnu/Linux), or VHS (vs Betamax), or Infix Notation (vs Postfix), or MKS (vs CGS), or Vi (vs. Emacs), or Visual Basic (vs. Lisp), or the Dallas Cowboys (vs. the Green Bay Packers), or GSM (vs. CDMA), or Complex Numbers (vs. Quaternions), or the Hummer (vs. the Prius), or the body image of Kate Moss (vs. that of Scarlett Johansen), or that of Brad Pitt (vs. that of Jack Black), or ABBA (vs. Silkworm), or Old Coke (vs. New Coke); or George Bush (vs. George McGovern).

For all you nerd-kings and nerd-queens out there: ignore "economics" at your peril. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't ignore economics; it just means that you should ignore it at your peril. Occasionally weird things happen, involving (say) quixotically charismatic Finnish grad students. Some of them become cellists http://www.apocalyptica.com/home/, or hackers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds, or radar waveform designers, http://www.eiscat.no/EISCAT/boards/discuss/0081.ht ml.

You just never know.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[Guppy06]

Considering the fuel efficiencies possible with fusion, the real test is if you can forsake all those wires from the power company and instead set up Mr. Fusion in some corner of your own garage.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[Anonymous Coward]

Offtopic -1. I just have to say I agree with everything you say, especially about Green Bay. And Apocalyptica is one of the best bands live I've ever seen and I've seen quite a few, although their CD isn't all that great.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was possible to extract large amounts of energy by inserting pins into effigies of (say) Britney Spears or Tom Delay

Fuck economics - let's do that anyway!

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[arodland]

Vi is better because it irritates my wrists less.
MKS is better because nobody cares about a gram of anything anyway.
GSM is better because it actually works.
Jack Black is cool, but Jack White is cooler.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[stretch0611]

The infuriating thing about "economic" is that it periodically annoints technologies which all Right Thinking Persons know are blasphemous, such as: Windows (compared to Mac OS or Gnu/Linux), or VHS (vs Betamax), or Infix Notation (vs Postfix), or MKS (vs CGS), or Vi (vs. Emacs), or Visual Basic (vs. Lisp), or the Dallas Cowboys (vs. the Green Bay Packers), or GSM (vs. CDMA), or Complex Numbers (vs. Quaternions), or the Hummer (vs. the Prius), or the body image of Kate Moss (vs. that of Scarlett Johansen), or that of Brad Pitt (vs. that of Jack Black), or ABBA (vs. Silkworm), or Old Coke (vs. New Coke); or George Bush (vs. George McGovern).

With the current story you forgot the one relevant comparison: ASP (vs. Cold Fusion)

Also, kudos... It is always good to see a positive reference to Apocalyptica tossed into a tech discussion.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was possible to extract large amounts of energy by inserting pins into effigies of (say) Britney Spears or Tom Delay

I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:how how to tell if its for real

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was possible to extract large amounts of energy by inserting pins into effigies of (say) Britney Spears or Tom Delay

Nope - doesn't work.

As long as..

[Rob T Firefly]

As long as this guy hasn't been seen around, I'm keeping an open mind.

Darn, Happened Again, Howcome?

[Lucas Membrane]

Every school that discovers tabletop fusion has a Division 1 football team.

Re:Darn, Happened Again, Howcome?

[Rob T Firefly]

Maybe they're playing tabletop football.

Re:Darn, Happened Again, Howcome?

[benjamindees]

Bread and circuses and hopes of energy independence?

Re:Darn, Happened Again, Howcome?

[LividBlivet]

Hockey yes.
RPI sucks at football, always has.

Re:Darn, Happened Again, Howcome?

[Just Some Guy]

In other news, Pensiltucky Community College has not yet built a scanning tunneling microscope. The Board of Regents, Bill and Pete, blame it on their lack of a good football team, and not on the fact that their tiny school doesn't have a physics degree program.

light was a form of energy last time I checked...

[inio]

Caption on the figure:

Imploding bubbles, caught on film emitting light. Are they emitting energy too?

So apparently I'm wrong.

Oh, and apparently the new MacBook Pro produces energy too.

...but it wont surpass the "break even" threshold.

[keilinw]

Nuclear Fusion is most certainly possible. However, in order for it to be useful (at least for power production purposes) the energy output must surpass the energy input. In the article it looks like (and I'm not sure if it is even true) the "ultrasonic" waves introduce enough energy into the liquid to separate molecules, which in turn fuse together and release energy.

So, the "cool" aspect of this technology is *not* that ultrasound can wrench molecules apart, but that the molecules release energy upon "fusing".

Regardless of however, "cool" this is, it is still quite impractical. Perhaps if the energy released was in the form of heat instead of "light" then a chain reaction could occur. We'll I just hope that humanity invests in the "basic" research necessary to create useful technologies from this. At a minimum, it is very interesting!

Matthew Wong.

Conspiracy Theory

[Essef]

The reason their experiment only works "sometimes", is because the US Military Industrial Complex is in cahoots with Big Oil and is using alien technology from the Rosswell crash to constantly alter the laws of physics in close proximity to any attempted Cold Fusion reactions.

--
Don't believe the hype; Tinfoil hats work.

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Roswell ... dork. Christ! You can look it up before you hit submit the same as anyone else!

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

>> ... using alien technology from the Rosswell crash ...

> Roswell ... dork. Christ! You can look it up before you hit submit the same as anyone else!

 
I thought he was just pronouncing it like that geek on the X-Files. Y'know, like Mulder starts dragging him out of the room and he starts yelling "Ross-well! ROSS-WELL!"

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[dunkelfalke]

i heard it was a lone gunman

Is this "Desktop" Cold Fusion as in ...

[Dlugar]

Is this "Desktop" Cold Fusion like the ENIAC is a Desktop PC?

Let's face it. . .

[jafac]

We're all willing to put up with dozens of repeat articles on cold fusion based on the dream that one day, we'll all be able to extend our middle fingers at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron.

Re:Let's face it. . .

[Mspangler]

"We're all willing to put up with dozens of repeat articles on cold fusion based on the dream that one day, we'll all be able to extend our middle fingers at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron."

Nice thought, won't happen. They are energy companys, not just oil companys. If it works, and goes commercial, dollars to doughnuts that you would be buying the deuterium from them. Kiloton lots of deuterated acetone (or even heavy water) are not Walmart stock items.

Re:Let's face it. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any topic at all that you guys won't try to drag off onto a lame and unoriginal anti-Bush screech?

Your time would be more productively spent in trying to line up a candidate who doesn't suck for 2008.

Hint: it's not that Bush doesn't suck. It's that your guy sucked even more.

Work on it.

Re:Let's face it. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're all willing to put up with dozens of repeat articles on cold fusion based on the dream that one day, we'll all be able to extend our middle fingers at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron."

lol! exactly!

Re:Let's face it. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Not until he pulls the Republican party back to small government and low taxes. The problem is not that "my guy" was worse than Bush. Bush *is* my guy, he's just not very good at doing what I want from a Republican. I want a fiscally conservative and a socially laissez-faire administration, not a deficit-spending social imperialist.

Re:Let's face it. . .

[Loundry]

We're all willing to put up with dozens of repeat articles on cold fusion based on the dream that one day, we'll all be able to extend our middle fingers at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron.

You don't have to wait for that day. You can extend your middle figure at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron right now. There are many eco-communes set up that rely on very little fossil fuels and are very much unplugged from the car culture of the USA, and these eco-communes are even in the USA. Rebelling against the oil-driven capitalistic society is very much in line with the thoughts of many eco-communes, so I think you would find friends there.

Why sit around and dream when you can do something?

http://www.dancingrabbit.org/

Re:Let's face it. . .

[jafac]

Bush *is* my guy, he's just not very good at doing what I want from a Republican. I want a fiscally conservative and a socially laissez-faire administration, not a deficit-spending social imperialist.

Republicans will lie and say that's what they're for, and SUCKERS like you will vote for them. Not realizing that once they get into power, they're just whores for the highest bidder like any other politician.

If the self-proclaimed american conservatives weren't so gullible, this wouldn't be a problem. Must have something to do with how gullible one has to be to accept "Free Market Economic" theory as viable. . .

Re:Let's face it. . .

[geekoid]

"...we'll all be able to extend our middle fingers at ExxonMobilShellAramcoBushCoHalliburtonChevron."

who do you think will own the rights?

Re:Let's face it. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think will be selling the CF power to you at inflated prices?

Cold Fusion

[ltwally]

Cold Fusion. And, I quote, "I'll believe that when me shit turns purple and smells of rainbow sherbert."

He wasn't. But these 2 guys were.

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush and Bill CLinton.

Sonofusion != Cold fusion

[Quiet_Desperation]

The temperature inside the bubbles is at the levels of traditional fusion.

Harness the power

[ben_1432]

... of a dodgy burrito! 15,000 C - Sure feels that way. tiny bubbles of gas - Sure smells that way. which release a burst of heat and light - Sure sounds that way. hot enough to wrench molecules apart - Sure hurts that way.

Re:Defending cold fusion and talkin' about Chewbac

[saifatlast]

He's using the Chewbacca defense folks!

Re:Defending cold fusion and talkin' about Chewbac

[kfg]

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?

Ewok Stew

        * 1 village of ewoks
        * gizzard of a chickenwalker (for flavor)
        * 30 gollons of water
        * 1 dash salt
        * 3 tsp. pepper

Boil at 1500 degrees for 2 hours or until thick. Leaving the fur on adds extra flavor and protein, but may cause difficulty in consuming. After cooking, strain out bones. Add 1800 lbs of carrots (sliced) and 1600 lbs peas. Cook for 30 minutes on high flame or nuclear reactor. Makes about enough stew for a small New York soup kitchen on Wednesday.

KFG

What a day!

[alex_guy_CA]

We've got diesel from algae, electricity from trees, and now Mr. Fusion! We're saved! Woo Hoo!

Re:What a day!

[Parity]

Electricity from trees is nonsense. We all know it's just a vegetable-matter battery
(potato-clock, lemon-light, whatever experiment) with bigger spikes.

Not that I'm banking on anything else, but the trees is one I'm ready to dismiss out of hand.

Re:...but it wont surpass the "break even" thresho

[Rei]

Perhaps if the energy released was in the form of heat instead of "light" then a chain reaction could occur.

Incorrect. First off, you get light even when there is no fusion; the light is simply blackbody radiation of very hot material that was heated by the coalescing of shocks from bubble collapse in a very small region. The *fusion* gives off most of its energy as high-energy neutrons.

It's six orders of magnitude from breakeven currently, but has a lot of potential to scale up, including potential for criticality. Will it actually pan out as a valid energy source? Who knows; it's still in its infancy.

Conjugatin' the emancipation proclomamation...

[Z34107]

I hope it was the exploding grapes in a microwave that got modded "Informative" and not the South Park reference. :D

The Chewbacca Defense

(That link is pretty damned cool, by the way.)

Re:Conjugatin' the emancipation proclomamation...

[paco3791]

I'm still trying to decide if the fact that there is an indepth and well reasoned description/discussion, of a scene from a south park episode 8 years ago, on an information site that becomes more respected and referenced every day means we are progressing as a society, or if it's a sign of the coming apacolypse.

"Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!" .... *SPLAT*

Whats the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold fusion is real, they just can't explain it yet by the laws of physics yet. The problem is we don't know enough! Not that it does not work!! I have listened to many REAL disertations on "cold fusion" and I can assure you its there, but the better you are at "measuring" it the worst the cooralations are! In other words, the impurities in the experiment make it happen! not the way "science" likes it, at all...

Re:Not Cold Fusion (And nothing new)

[Matt Edd]

This is called sonification. Commercial products can be perchaced that do this. I'm working with a guy that want's to use this on some of the research I have done.

Re:Defending cold fusion and talkin' about Chewbac

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?

Well, if the Wookie is a male, he'd be a Jack Napier or Peter North among Ewoks. That Ewok booty would be, you know, tight!

Experimental Improvement Needed

[sanman2]

Even before getting to any goal of practical power generation, the most important thing in a scientific investigation is to structure it to avoid doubts -- meaning either proving or disproving it completely. There's no dishonour in disproving it, if it helps to clarify what the remaining fusion possibilities are. Dr Taleyarkhan should have specifically monitored the neutron outputs to see if they had any cyclicality that coincided with the bubble oscillation cycle. If you get neutron spikes when the bubbles implode, then that's a very helpful sign consistent with acoustic fusion occurring. Why a big scientist like him didn't do such an obvious thing worries me. But the article says that Putterman et all will be working to duplicate his experiments. Duplication is really the essential thing for proving something. After all, if it only works when Taleyarkhan does it, but not for anybody else, then you know something's wrong.

Had this guy for class...

[pro-mpd]

... and he's a freakin' genius. He taught us very briefly about his work, but was hesitant when I took the class to go into a lot of details because of the pre-publication nature of the work. The TA for the class, Adam Butt, is also a very quick guy. Although I recognize the possibility of fabrication, all the people I know around the project were hesitant to make claims until they had better proof. They are still hesitant to proclaim victory. All things considered, I think this is the most promising energy work since the Manhattan project.

Re:Had this guy for class...

[TropicalCoder]

I think this is the most promising energy work since the Manhattan project.

The Manhattan project was promising? Promising what? Mutually Assured Destruction?

Re:Had this guy for class...

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

That is the folly of man not the technology. It does not take huge mental leaps to comprehend that if the only weapon on the world was toilet paper the incidents of toilet paper related deaths would skyrocket. Man will always find something to kill man with; he just prefers the most efficient means. That does not negate a technologies positive factors it merely means we are closer to monkeys than we believe.

Re:Had this guy for class...

[TropicalCoder]

I wasn't expressing any anti-nuclear or anti-war sentiments ...more a statement about an unfortunate choice of words. I believe he probably meant to say, "I think this is the most promising energy work since the establishment of viable nuclear enegery" ...or such, thus making an analogy between a potential new energy source and a pre-existing, but likewise revolutionary technology.

To compare a potential new source energy to the race to develop the atomic bomb makes me worry if people learn much about history these days. The Manhattan Project is a symbol for two things: 1.) a colossal, all out effort to succeed, and 2.) the development of the most powerfull weapon the world had ever seen. There is nothing in his comment to suggest that he really intended to make a comparison with either of these symbols.

To describe the Manhattan Project as a promising energy work would be completly inappropriate. In fact, it already fufilled its 'promise' long ago, if it ever had one, which would have been to develop the Bomb before Hitler or the Russians and win the war. To use the term "promising" is to imply that some thing holds hope for the future. I don't think nuclear weapons ever held any promise as a potential energy source for the future.

.

Re:Had this guy for class...

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

I see your point, sorry for the tirade.

Re:Defending cold fusion and talkin' about Chewbac

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You never had hot midget sex?

Desktop cold fusion

[Thomas Henden]

Guess I don't need to buy the 1kW power supply for this system, or...?

Now, if they also would come up with a laptop cold fusion unit...

Are you really sure about that?

[Cadallin]

Did Gore REALLY suck more than Bush? How about Kerry? Be honest now, if you are you have to admit the the wildest accusations of how bad either would have been are nothing compared to the things which the Democratic Party A. Predicted Bush would do, and B. Bush has subsequently done.

What was so bad about Gore? He claimed to have taken the initiative on Creating the internet as it exists today? WHICH IS TRUE, he sponsored the bill that opened up Arpanet as the public internet. What a Bastard, actually claiming credit for his accomplishments.

What was so bad about Kerry? OOOH he's actually a Vietnam veteran, who ACTUALLY SAW COMBAT. Awarded 3 purple hearts and a silver star, oh but the republicans questioned one of those purple hearts so he's soft on terrorism and anti-american. Note that Gore WAS ALSO in Vietnam, as a noncombatant journalist, but that's a million lightyears closer than "George son of the governor and AWOL from the national guard Bush.

Re:light was a form of energy last time I checked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's a matter of context. This is perfectly valid grammar:

(Wife steals money from husband, and this is known problem to husband for a long time)
(Man one day walks into his room and finds his wife fucking the latino poolboy, Fernando)
"You're cheating on me, too??", says the man.

...and believe me... I KNOW THIS FROM EXPERIENCE *cries uncontrollably*

Don't speak too soon

[DoubleRing]

There's virtually an infinite amount of time left in the universe (regardless of what theory you follow, this stuff will be here forever). I think that in that time, something will happen. Close your mind like that, and it pretty much becomes impossible. Think about it, before they were invented, things like human flight, space flight, electric lightbulbs, and a score of other devices had lots of sceptics. Quantum mechanics had a lot of sceptics (Einstein included). Perhaps we're going about it wrong, and in the future, we might find a better way. There too many different things that haven't been tried yet. Don't speak to soon.

Re:Don't speak too soon

[tehwebguy]

it was a joke man, macromedia (allaire) cold fusion as an operating system.

Re:Don't speak too soon

[DoubleRing]

Damn, now I feel stupid. lol.

Re:Don't speak too soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem; Adobe now, not MM.

Re:Don't speak too soon

[Anonymous Coward]

As well you should.

Re:Don't speak too soon

[Anonymous Coward]

There's virtually an infinite amount of time left in the universe (regardless of what theory you follow, this stuff will be here forever)

Wrong!

Re:Don't speak too soon

[tehwebguy]

uh, it was a joke? cfm.. like index.cfm, as a desktop os, get it? get ittt?

Sure

[Lucas Membrane]

Phil Farnsworth, boy inventor of television, later worked on the Farnsworth Fuser, which was a small fusion machine. It didn't produce more energy than it used, but it did fusion and was still a good idea for some stuff that otherwise would have stretched the limits of science as it was known back in those golden days. So, fifty, sixty years later, maybe we got another. My advice, better to invent television again. It was better back then, too.

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Phil Farnsworth didnt invent television, John Logie Baird had already given a public demonstration before Farnsworth even started work on it.

"John Logie Baird, a Scotsman, was the first to send 'pictures by wireless,' as he termed them, sending the shadow of a cross across his laboratory in 1923, using Nipkow disks and selenium-coated screens to scan and recreate the images. Baird gave a public demonstration of "seeing by wireless" in 1925, transmitted the first face over television in 1926, achieved the first transatlantic TV broadcast in 1928, and started regularly broadcasting, under license of the BBC, in 1929."

it's not that cold

[Quadraginta]

This is not exactly Pons and Fleischmann style cold fusion, because it isn't room-temperature cold. The temperature at the center of the imploding bubbles is at least 5-20 kK. In other words, at least the temperature of the surface of the Sun, probably much higher.

The problem, however, is that this is still nowhere near the temperature of the center of the Sun, which is 10-100 MK. I find it pretty unlikely that it could get that high, too. But who knows? Stranger things have happened. Just not in my lifetime.

I don't think so

[Quadraginta]

I don't think the temperatures is anywhere near "normal" fusion temperatures. Here is a reference suggesting you need 10-100 million degrees. TFA says the the temperature in the bubbles is maybe 15,000 or so at best.

how difficult is this?

[wall0159]

The thing I think is interesting is perception of difficulty. I have an idea:

We'll get a multiple-hundred-ton platform, and float it on the open ocean. Despite currents and storms, we'll send a 10-inch drill bit down 1-3 kilometres in to the ground below the ocean. From there we'll drill into a big oil resivoir.
Then we'll pump the oil up - without spilling it. We'll somehow load it onto ships, and distribute it all around the world.

When you think about it, this is bloody amazing. It shows what we can do if we put our minds to it. Granted - the oil industry has a bit of a headstart over cold-fusion, but we must recognise the limitations of oil and pursue other options.

Re:how difficult is this?

[TheLink]

Not only that, the processed oil is cheaper than bottled water (which often has practically nothing done to it in comparison).

Re:how difficult is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can buy purified water for $0.25/gallon if I bring my own bottles. And there's not a hidden cost in terms of my tax dollars having to support 100,000 soldiers in a foreign country defending our sources of bottled water.

Re:Defending cold fusion and talkin' about Chewbac

[Zerth]

>Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with
> a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?

Whenever someone brings this up, I have only one thing to say.

Midget fetish.

One thing screams "HOAX!"

[Dr. Spork]

If they were really interested in testing this, they would use run the very same setup and test a solution with normal hydrogen (which will 100% not fuse), then compare that to their results with deuterium. This would in one stroke settle the cosmic ray question, the "it's just energy you're putting in" question, and many others.

What makes me think this is a hoax is the fact that this obvious and cheap control was not done (or not reported - either way, a bad sign).

Re:One thing screams "HOAX!"

[pubidiot]

From their Oct 2005 paper ...

It is significant that 2.45 MeV D/D fusion neutrons were measured only when chilled, well-degassed, cavitated D-acetone was used. That is, no neutrons were measured when room temperature D-acetone, or as expected, normal acetone, was used.

So the obvious and cheap control was done after all.

Re:One thing screams "HOAX!"

[squoozer]

Agreed. I would also have another nutron detector set up specifically to read the background neutron count. Thick lead sheilding all round the experiment with plenty of before and after neutron measurements would be nice as well.

What makes me really skeptical is the way the experimenter is trying to change the world but hasn't been taken the time to set up a 110% bullet proof experiment. If I was going to announce something like this tothe world I would make damn sure there wasn't any possible way someone could pick simple holes in my experiment.

Re:One thing screams "HOAX!"

[Merlyn_3k]

Whatever...

Hydrogen DOES undergo fusion, just not as easily as deuterium, because it has a smaller reaction cross-section. Yes, it would have been nice to do a control run with plain acetone instead of the deuterium-enriched acetone used in the experiment. However, TFA does not say whether or not he did a control run, so its kinda hard to make definitive judgements.

The only way to make a bulletproof case for any effect which is commonly belived to be impossible (and please don't rag about belief having no place in science, believe me, its there) is to design an experiment which is completely procedurally transparent (to prevent accusations of fraud), easy to understand, and above all produces a large and obvious result consistently. Until they can get a better idea of what exactly is going on in the bubbles and improve the reproducibility, they don't have a chance of convincing most skeptics.

Re:One thing screams "HOAX!"

[Dr. Spork]

Ah, thank you, I wish they mentioned this in TFA, it seems important!

This IS NOT cold fusion

[putigger]

The whole idea behind "sonofusion" or "bubble fusion" is that the pressure wave created by an imploding bubble creates a small region of very, very high temperature, which, combined with the pressure of implosion is sufficient to initiate fusion. The first paper was subject to much controversy, but the results were ultimately reproduced by others and objections regarding the instrumentation addressed.

Re:This IS NOT cold fusion

[BillStanden]

Also, unless I'm missing something obvious, this wouldn't really even remain cool fusion at higher outputs, no matter the scale you look at it from. If the cores of these bubbles are hitting 15,000 degrees doesn't that mean as you put more energy into the liquid it's going to heat it to a rather high temperature? To get serious power out of this aren't you going to need some fairly impressive liquid unobtainium (liquid at room temp and still a liquid at several thousand degrees) or will breakeven probably occur (if it does at all) before we get to that point?

Re:This IS NOT cold fusion

[m50d]

Keeping water liquid at high temperature is just a question of putting enough pressure on it. We do this all the time using water to cool normal (fission) nuclear reactors - it heats to 7000+ C but stays liquid because it's under enough pressure. 15000 doesn't seem unreasonable.

Re:This IS NOT cold fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

man you are way off..
no nuclear reactor goes to a temperatur of 7000 C.

They mostly heat the water up to ~800 C

7000 C is way to hot.. there is no material that can withstand such a temperatur for a long period of time. At that temperatur your material will become a plasma. No way that it will stay liquid.

Re:I don't think so

[Geoff St. Germaine]

Agreed, JET and TFTR, which both performed deuterium-tritium fusion, had ion temperatures of around 40 keV, which is around 400 million degrees K.

actually the problem is the scientists

[eadint]

The scientific comunity is more like the Mafia an anything else. The idea of cold fusion is not a theory it is a fact ( this is why helium is minned ). Cold fusion happens every day inside the earth, people just don't know why or how it happens. The real problem is that the scientific community is more like the Mafia, it is not and open minded industry for enlightenment it is more like the Catholic church during Gallileos time. When pons and fleishman published their experiment they essentially threatend all of the very expensive plasma and laser bassed fusion projects and because of this it was shut down, instead of investigating the phenominae of cold fusion it was instantly ostrisized. Plasma and lasers will never work in the arena of fusion and they will just continue to suck up money and resources but the scientific comunity is backing that technowlogy and they will never acknolege any other method of fusion until the money has run dry and they are considered the fools that they are. we should be investigating and trying to replicate what is happening in the earth, but doing so wil kill your carreer.

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Fleishman and pons completely circumvented the normal scientific processes. Instead of submitting their claims to a peer-reviewed journal, they went straight to the press. Rather than open the experiment so other scientists could actually investigate their claims and reproduce it, they simply said they had proof. They did, however, open enough so people could try and replicate the experiment, which failed multiple times. Fleishman and Pons were victims of their own refusal to follow the normal protocol for review of scientific evidence. No one could reproduce their results, thus they lost credibility.

Oh, and can you cite specific sources which lead you to believe that "the scientific community is more like the Mafia, it is not and open minded industry for enlightenment it is more like the Catholic church during Gallileos time."?

Simply because the scientific community doesn't embrace every half-baked crackpot who jumps up and down claiming they managed to do cold fusion doesn't make it like the Mafia or the ca 16th century Church.

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[iogan]

Kinda got me thinking about Hwang Woo-suk, whose research would certainly have shook up a thing or two, and had some very large economic interests very annoyed.

Strange then that the part of his research that was fake wasn't even done by himself, but by people working for him, the same people now suing him for fraud... people who had previously been studying and working in the US, one of the countries most opposed to stem cell research...

Sounds a tad fishy to be quite honest. And no, I'm not a korean. And yes, I do have a tinfoil hat.

______________
http://www.doyoulikemyface.com/

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[be-fan]

Why are there so many kooks on Slashdot? What is it about this place that attracts the ignorant and paranoid?

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why are there so many kooks on Slashdot? What is it about this place that attracts the ignorant and paranoid?

Way, back in the day when Slashdot was new this place was full of people with R&D background, you could discuss almost anything seriously and at a high level.

Personally I blame the rotten system of moderators that value tired attempts of witticisms over true insight and that I believe is the reason those in the know left. So what is left is a small minority of people who can think and a massive majority of knuckle dragging paranoid cranks that keeps breeding and recruiting more cranks.

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[Ranger]

Why are there so many kooks on Slashdot? What is it about this place that attracts the ignorant and paranoid?

It's flypaper for freaks. They were always paranoid.

I don't know but between choosing Ruby on Rails evangelistas and the army of undead Amiga enthusiasts or choosing the ignorant kooks is ...well, boy,... that's a tough call.

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[Koiu Lpoi]

You know, part of the resson they were ostricised was that they went straight to the media, not peer review.

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[eadint]

I work for scientists and under very big projects so this is first hand experiance.

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[Dracophile]

Cold fusion happens every day inside the earth, people just don't know why or how it happens.

Wait a sec... isn't a He atom just an alpha particle with a couple of electrons? And aren't alpha particles produced in the normal course of spontaneous fission of heavy radioactive elements?

Re:actually the problem is the scientists

[geekoid]

The Catholic church was very interested in during Gallileo's time.

It was abuot his methods of publishing, and a personal vindatta.

Not to excuse the action of the church, it's just a common misconception that the catholic church is, or has been, anti science.

OTOH most Cathiolics don't even know their own theology.

Not, fundies, they are anti-science.

from the article:

[shrewd]

from the article: " Imploding bubbles, caught on film emitting light. Are they emitting energy too?"

errrrr.....

Cool man....

[Alpha_Traveller]

What a gas!

No pun intended.

I beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

The TA for the class, Adam Butt, is also a very quick guy.

I had that TA. But personally I thought he was an ass.

Re:I beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not a bright person are you?

Re:Defending cold fusion and talkin' about Chewbac

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Or just put a lit cigarette in there on a plate and save yourself an hour.

Accoustic Levitation? Standing waves?

[mcrbids]

Ok, so using ultrasonics, they're able to create momentary "pops" that produce a heat flash in a special mix of deuterium. Cool. What about applying technologies such as those that product so-called 'standing waves' or accoustic levitation?

In sort, it may be possible, using a careful design of sonic generators, and specially designed chambers, to create a single, constant, "fusion point" in a sonic chamber. Furthermore, I believe it would be possible to tune the sonic chamber so that the vibrations from the release of energy from the fusion reaction create the sonic conditions necessary to repeat the process - at this point, it's not only self-sustaining, but self-regulating, since increasing the energy release from a reaction changes the sonic conditions, making the next reaction sub-optimum, reducing the reaction to something closer to tolerances.

Easy? No. There's plenty of work to be done to make it happen. But, I'll bet it's possible.

Now that I've posted these ideas on slashdot, I have one year to submit a provisioenal patent request to the USPO if I want to patent this idea. (It'd only cost me about $500 to do this, since I can do almost all the work myself!)

Re:Accoustic Levitation? Standing waves?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you actually keep a point in the liquid in a state of constant collapse? I think the situation is necessarily ephemeral. A sonic chamber might allow you to tune to maximize bubble creation, or the heats/pressures generated during their collapse, but you need to allow the system time to reset before a bubble can be formed again.

Re:Accoustic Levitation? Standing waves?

[mcrbids]

If you pay close attention to what I wrote, you'd find that it describes cyclic activity. Furthermore, a "standing wave" isn't constant - it's just a wave that regularly appears at known points.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any reason to believe that this is cold fusion? The temperatures in the bubble are said to be at least some thousands of degrees.

Mirror

[trolleymusic]

Mirror ;)

I'm interested in Desk Drawer Fusion.

[hullabalucination]

Because when I keep it on my desktop, all that light makes it hard to read my monitor.

* * * * * * *
"I never met a Mu Meson I didn't like." --Will Rogers
* * * * * * *
"Have you put on weight, or is that a Mu Meson in your back pocket?"
--Stalin to Churchill at the Potsdam Conference, 1945

Energy from Sonoluminescence?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand this is just a new take on getting energy from Sonoluminescence, which has been going on since 1934. AFAIK, no one has ever been able to harness the energy from this method to do anything productive. If Taleyarkhan's work can be reproduced by anyone outside his lab, then this would be good news.

ConFusion

[dsmall]

Hmm. Call me Mr. Confused. I see references to 15,000 degrees C as being a valid temperature. I thought fusion required extreme temperatures. Where am I going wrong?
"Sourcebook on Atomic Energy" (Glasstone) says that D+D reactions need about 40keV or ~~ 400 million degrees to start off (page 543).
The two D+D reactions listed yield (Glasstone, pp. 540): D+D -> 2He3+n+3.2 MeV, and,
D+D -> 2He4 + 23 MeV and,
D+D -> T + p + 4.0 MeV. Since this yields tritium, I don't know why that wouldn't open the door to:
D+T -> 2He4 + n + 17.6 Mev, which is one hot neutron indeed, and other T+T reactions.
D+n -> T is listed as generating "large" quantities of tritium. I'm surprised this does not show up if there are neutrons around.
As Chuck Hanson says on pp.20 of "U.S. Nuclear Weapons": "Fusion-generation neutrons have an energy in excess of 1MeV and can fission natural or enriched uranium (tuballoy or oralloy)." Am I missing something, or is this an excessively Darwin Award line of research? Natural uranium (non-enriched) is not difficult to obtain.
I too am mystified why such high energy products haven't killed the experimenters. I would be expecting on the order of 3 feet of shielding. Chuck Hanson goes out of his way to mention that fusion generates 30 times the neutrons of fission, kt for kt. Neutron flux is not healthy.
Sign me, Confused

I like the article caption...

[heatdeath]

Imploding bubbles, caught on film emitting light. Are they emitting energy too? ...

*cry*

again

[Anonymous Coward]

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to invent cold fusion!

Laptop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Desktop cold fusion? My laptop carries out HOT fusion...

Finally

[steevc]

Cold fusion is ready for the desktop.

But can it open Word files?

Mod Parent Up

[geddes]

Though calling the scientific community the catholic church fighting against galileo is somewhat inflammatory, the whole thing stinks of conspiracy.

Most scientists and techies and as we have seen, a lot of Slash-dotters, are very dismissive of Cold Fusion. Why? Because renowned universities like MIT have discredited the results.

When MIT reproduced Pons and Fleishmann's original Utah experiment, they claimed that it hadn't work. However, evidence has surfaced that they _doctored the data_. Eugene Mallov, who was the chief science writer at MIT at the time resigned over this issue, (link) he was so upset at MIT for publishing doctored data to discredit another institution's work. This would have been in MIT's financial interest since Pons and Fleishmann had applied for Department of Energy funding for their projects. MIT does a lot of research in Hot Fusion, and recieved millions of dollars in DOE grants every year, Cold Fusion would have competed with that. Also, and probably more importantly, it was a huge blow to their pride - if Cold Fusion is real it means the changing of geopolitics and the end of our dependency on oil. How is it possible that some dinky Utah University would discover this, and not the prestigious MITs or Stanfords? Cold Fusion could be a reality if people would stop laughing at it. more info here .

LENR-CANR site

[Anonymous Coward]

Just check the Jed's Rothwell site about Cold Fusion:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
In my opinion there is some kind of scientific revolution which we will see in coming years.
All that "Cold Fusion" stuff is just a humble and unnotified beginning.
Soon the "Nuclear Chemistry" will come.
It will be about synthesizing the elements as we do with ordinary chemical compounds today.
Just check results from Iwamura experiments published on the site.

/R

Please, get a clue! Cold Fusion is real

[JochenBedersdorfer]

At least according to lenr-canr.org
which is the homepage for all research activities concerning
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions.

The original cold fusion experiments have been successfully replicated many times over.
There are hundreds scientists around the world working in the field

To quote the webpage:
"Cold fusion was never "debunked" and even the harshest critics until now have never suggested that it was fraudulent. The cold fusion effect was replicated at high signal to noise ratios by researchers at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Shell, Amoco, SRI, Texas A&M, Los Alamos, Mitsubishi Res. Center, BARC Bombay, Tsinghua U. and over a hundred other world-class laboratories."

Re:Please, get a clue! Cold Fusion is real

[RevMike]

I've seen this before too. It seems that there is a fairly large component of non-crackpot scientists who believe that Pons-Fleischman found something interesting. The experiments have been duplicated, sometimes with positive and sometime with negative results, by others. This indicates to me that the scientific community does not have sufficient understanding of the process that Pons-Fleishman observed to identify and control the variables.

Pons-Fleishman were guilty of performing "bad science" because they announced - in a press conference - results that could not be reliably duplicated, not because their work was valueless. They jumped to conclusions that they could not defend, and sidestepped peer review.

Re:Please, get a clue! Cold Fusion is real

[mysticgoat]

Pons-Fleishman were guilty of performing "bad science" because they announced - in a press conference - results that could not be reliably duplicated, not because their work was valueless. They jumped to conclusions that they could not defend, and sidestepped peer review.

This is the best summation of the public events that I have seen. Thank you. However I don't think it goes far enough to explain the historic events.

It should be noted that Pons and Fleischmann were both chemists, not physicists. There is no question that they were aware of the normal channels for peer review and would have been very familiar with those channels in the field of chemistry. But this wasn't chemistry.

What are the mechanisms for timely peer review of physics work done by persons with no credentials in physics? It seems that what happens in these cases is that the original work never gets reviewed: the submission goes into a slush pile; some grad student looking for thesis material might eventually latch on to it; and eventually the work might end up being duplicated and published as something original by somebody else who had physicist bona fides. Or it might not get published at all. P-F may have had legitimate concerns about whether the validating research they wanted to trigger would have ever come about in their life time, if they had attempted to publish in the traditional way.

Then there's also a more paranoid concern about the way that the high energy physics peer review process is monitored by US government agencies to assure that no critical information gets into the hands of various enemies. P-F may have felt that introducing their work through the peer review process might have led to it being suppressed by the US government. Even persons who adamently refuse to ever put on a tinfoil hat should be aware that the US government has historically suppressed a lot of information related to initiating fission and fusion processes.

For what it is worth, I think it is good to keep in mind that Pons and Fleischmann released their findings in a way that assured that many research facilities across international borders would attempt to repeat the experiments. As Parent points out, their work has had value-- at the very least, electrolysis of water is a much more complex phenomenon than anyone had appreciated before. It is doubtful this would have been explored as intensively as it is being explored if P-F had tried to use the orthodox methods of the scientific community (which has nothing to do with experimental method, or with scientific reasoning) to release their findings.

Re:Defending cold fusion and talkin' about Chewbac

[rco3]

You've obviously never been the meat in an Ewok sandwich. Why, I've seen an Ewok take a .... never mind. I've heard things, that's all.

There goes the neighborhood! ...Literally.

[GhaleonStrife]

I can see it now, I work on a document in Word 2033, and Windows or Word crash, sending my brand-new cold fusion reactor power supply into critical mass, making my entire neighborhood a smoking crater. Should these be used for PC power supplies, MS will be the end of the human race... until they release a patch.

Link to original Times article referenced in TFA

[Zog The Undeniable]

Here.

Desktop Cold Fusion

[Anonymous Coward]

I;n waiting for notebook/laptop cold fusion, batteries haven't kept pace with the power requirements of modern computers...

A Man WIth Many Pockets

[Rob Carr]

Why waste time thinking of new weapons?

I didn't think these two up. They were given to us during one of the breakout "tabletop" sessions in an Incident Command for HazMat seminar back in 1988. At the time, I thought the guy was riffing on Back to the Future's "Mr. Fusion." Then a couple months later, Pons and Fleischman made their announcement.

Another scenario was a 747 into a nuclear power plant's used fuel pit. Someone cracked wise with the local "worst-case scenario" and was made to plan for it: 747 into a skyscraper.

Some folks sit around inventing new ways to kill people. Others of us sit around inventing ways to save those people.

And yes, I've read the Ray Bradbury story about the emperor and the man with many pockets.

Not even the 99th time self-fooling has hap'd

[Ancient_Hacker]

There's a well-known phenomenon that all scientists should watch out for-- unintentional self-fooling. In any experiment that requires many runs, it's all too easy to disqualify certain runs on dodgy criteria. For example:

• "Oh, I sneezed during that run, maybe that shook the neutron detector"
• "There was a cosmic ray burst there near the end, throw out the whole run".
• "There couldnt have been zero neutrons during that run, that's implausible, the neutron detector must gotten saturated by a super cosmic ray burst".

All it takes is a little of this to really fudge the results.

I've seen scientists doing this! They have the BEST of intentions, but human nature gets in the mix and who knows if the results have any significance at all.

Re:Not even the 99th time self-fooling has hap'd

[DaveV1.0]

I do believe this is why we have peer review.

I thought this was about Adobe's ColdFusion

[jocknerd]

And they were considering making it a desktop development language.

Re:I thought this was about Adobe's ColdFusion

[bmalia]

I thought it was going to be about Adobe's ColdFusion to. Seems more likely than the "the thing".

From the Life imitates art

[DaveV1.0]

Chain Reaction has them using water and not acetone, but same difference.

Obligatory 'The Saint' Quote

[bmalia]

"You don't believe in all this cold-fusion mumbo jumbo do you? You know you're a very pretty lady." - Simon

Re:Please, get a clue - websites claim anything

[iggymanz]

That website is a from a business which would like to profit from low energy research (nothing wrong with that, but it's not an objective scientist's site). If you restrict yourself to websites of national laboratories and respect physicist groups, you'll find a different story: continued investigation recommended, but no convincing evidence because of background noise, poor experimental technique, etc. For a summary of the state of affairs, see this So it's premature to say "IT's Real!", just that scientiists say it's worthy of further research.

Re:Not Cold Fusion - or is it?

[freeze128]

Ironically, It's the huge x-ray lasers and giant magnets that make hot fusion 'cool'.

Desktop fusion? Bah!

[21mhz]

I have that with my Opteron for months now.
Oh, you mean cold fusion...

But. . .

[TripleE78]

Cold Fusion is for web applications! Why would I want it on my desktop? What are those people at Macromedia thinking?

Oh wait, you mean "cold fusion" in the physics context. Oh well, carry on then.

This is what I get for reading Slashdot before my morning coffee. . .

~EEE~

Old Tech

[ChrisMaple]

Professor Ned Brainard demonstrated this in 1961. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054594/

Desktop Cold Fusion Reconsidered

[drgroove]

"Macromedia.com reports on Rusi Taleyarkhan of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, who is once again claiming to have achieved dynamic web-sites using Cold Fusion. Other developers in the CS department are sceptical, but Taleyarkhan is keen to have other students check his results."

Batman is a scientist

[poot_rootbeer]

So is the scientific community anything like the Mafia? You didn't really say.

Re:Batman is a scientist

[mfrank]

Only the oceanographers. They're swimming with the fishes.

Re:Not Cold Fusion (And nothing new)

[JavaMoose]

Que?

No, seriously, que?

Desktop Cold Fusion

[CuriosityKilledWHAT]

So this will not only power the newest Intel processors, it'll cool them too? Awesome!

I want electricity!

[juan2074]

Call me when someone can actually get useful electricity from this process.

Re:I want electricity!

[misterfusion]

You want electricity huh? Here you go. Read carefully: http://www.iscmns.org/iccf12/2005KrivitS-ICCF12-Pr esentation.pdf /JChan

Fusion...

[tenco]

...not Fission. You cannot get sth like a "critical mass" with Fusion. I wonder when people finally recognize the difference[tm].

Re:Fusion...

[GhaleonStrife]

It was said for comedic purposes, not for accuracy.

Re:Fusion...

[tenco]

Don't you think that scientific jokes should also be accurate? ;-)

Het Exchanger

[Ironsides]

learly they won't be able to run the "reactor" at super high temperatures, since it depends on the liquid phase of the water to work. So how will they extract enough electricity out of a relatively small temperature gradient to make the whole thing worthwhile?

They can run it similar to how they do now. Have two sets of water. One inner loop highly presurized (remember, the higher the pressure, the higher the boiling point) and one inner loop at a lower presure (perhaps normal pressure, 1 atmoshpere?). Run the two through a heat exchanger so that you get steam from the lower pressure outerloop and you can still keep the inner core as a liquid. Run the steam through a turbine and you are all set.

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

...whoosh! The sound of the joke flying right over your head.

Next time I'll think twice before posting elaborate humour for a crowd primarily made up of kids who catch the short bus to school.

Entertainment v. News

[Z34107]

[...] [I]t's a sign of the coming apacolypse.

It depends. Is Slashdot intellectualizing people's entertainment, or retarding their news?

Re:Entertainment v. News

[paco3791]

I would take that even further and say that this issue extends well beyond /. Whether you call it a pandemic or a revolution depends on your point of view.

Elaborate?

[alienmole]

I'm not sure a pun on the name "Butt" qualifies as "elaborate humour"! Except if you're deliberately playing to the short bus crowd, that is...

Did you read some of the papers?

[JochenBedersdorfer]

Sure, websites can claim anything, but did you actually read some of the scientific papers? Did you look at the agenda of the latest ICCF12 conference? And the website is taking donations, btw.