Slashdot Mirror


Fleischmann to Work on Commercial Fusion Heater

deeptrace writes "California company D2Fusion has announced they are hiring Dr. Martin Fleischmann (of 'Pons and Fleischmann' fame). The company belives that they can produce a commercial fusion based home heating prototype within a year. They are also looking at other applications, such as using it as a heat source for a commercially available Stirling electrical generator."

245 comments

  1. ...Fusion in a ... year? by punkguitarist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets hope Dr.Martin Fleischmann doesn't embaress himself again. I very much doubt this too be true, but fusion in a year would be great!

    1. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rumour has it that this is going to be turned into a challenging console game: "Duke Fusion Forever"

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    2. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lets hope Dr.Martin Fleischmann doesn't embaress himself again.

      What has he got to lose? Work out the possible scenarios

      1. Fleischman is a crank and...
      1.1 He succeeds by accident.
            Success through monumental incompetence is indistinguishable from briliance to the general public.
            See Christopher Columbus. Fleischman will spend the rest of his life unjustly rubbing his
            detractors' noses in their public humiliation.
      1.2 He fails.
            Nobody's opinion of him changes. The only people who profess to believe him are credulous people
            and those who would exploit them. The people who've been saying he was a crank will be vindicated.
            The wait and see people will also feel vindicated, and continue to wait and see, as it's no skin of
            their proverbial noses.

      2. Fleischman is a misunderstood genius and ...
      2.1 He succeeds by dint of preserverence.
            Vindication is sweet. Fleischman will spend the rest of his life justly rubbing his
            detractors' noses in their public humiliation.
      2.2 He fails through no fault of his own.
            Nobody's opinion of him changes. The only people who profess to believe him are credulous people
            and those who would exploit them. The people who've been saying he was a crank will be vindicated.
            The wait and see people will also feel vindicated, and continue to wait and see, as it's no skin of
            their proverbial noses.

      The moral of the story will either way: it never pays to give up. The only thing at stake is whether future generations of school children will be forced to produced earnest essays drawing this conclusion from the story.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Surt · · Score: 1

      The negative outcome:

      Fleischmann was a good scientist, who in a moment of over-exuberance over what he thought was a world changing discovery, rushed to publish in the publish or perish world.

      He perished when it was discovered his research was not reproducible. Having become the laughinstock of the scientific world, he can no longer get his research published. Making a living is becoming hard, as he can't get research funding.

      Rather than give up on science, and take a lower paying more menial job, he falls in with crooks, and fleeces millions out of investors.

      Now he's not just a guy who made a mistake, he's a guy who decided to do something immoral with deliberate intent. Old ladies die when they can't buy their winter heat because they got fleeced by this scam. Now he's a murderer in the eyes of history, like Ken Lay.

      I'd say that's a worse outcome.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Thangodin · · Score: 1

      I think getting this to work in a year is extremely unlikely, but if it ever does work, they'll have the IP on it. That IP might take a while to be worth something, but if it ever does pan out, it will be worth a lot. And there are other scientists who have claimed to reproduce the effect, though their reports are far more conservative--they don't want to get slagged the way Fleischmann was. According to them, the original experiment failed to document certain conditions that were necessary to produce fusion. Fleischmann just got lucky, but wasn't aware of all the requirements that played a factor in his success.

      This is an extremely high risk venture with a low possibility of an incredibly high yield. There are also more widely applicable political, economic, and evironmental gains to be made. Some people might be willing to throw money at it just on the outside chance of these general gains to society, never mind the personal gains. Heat energy is the first step to more generalized energy production. As a friend of mine put it when the original results where announced, if we can get cheap, portable fusion power, we're off the planet.

    5. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by alienw · · Score: 1

      Don't you think that if there were any useful results, we would have fusion already? It's not like the other scientists think "Oh, yeah, i can reproduce cold fusion. Let's not do anything with this revolutionary discovery.". The scientific community does not exile people who simply publish experiments that are hard to reproduce. Pons and Fleischmann's discovery was a fabrication, not just a poorly-documented experiment.

    6. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming even though cold fusion has been debunked by every physicist on the planet, there's still a small chance that Fleischmann and Pons were right after all. There is as much chance for this project to work as there is to design and build a heater powered by phlogiston.

    7. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      You're assuming even though cold fusion has been debunked by every physicist on the planet

      There are some who have not debunked it, but instead claim supporting results. I'm not saying their results are correct, mind you; certainly the consensus is that cold fusion - at least this variety - is bunk.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by aminorex · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's incomprehensible to me how anyone could have the reckless disregard for their personal integrity to lie so baldly and maliciously misinform naive readers. The truth is that the Pons-Fleischmann experiments were immediately reproduced at dozens of laboratories, and our knowledge of solid-state and other unconventional nuclear fusion processes has continued to expand exponentially since that time. Fleischmann was and is a brilliant electrochemist, who continues to actively publish in prestigous journals, now going into his 80s, and his co-discovery of catalysed solid-state fusion will be a shining event in the history of science long after your pathetic lying existence has passed into dust and been thankfully forgotten.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    9. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What color is the sky there?

    10. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Why persist in these malicious lies? Solid-state fusion, as pioneered by Pons and Fleischmann, has been reproduced in tens of thousands of experiments, generating well over a thousand peer-reviewed publications, over the last 16 years. Dozens of conferences have been conducted, and the topic is increasingly well understood as time goes on. Perhaps you have a large investment in a tokamak company?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    11. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The list you point to says that these physicists have reported "excess heat". That could be anything from measurement errors to an novel chemical process. I very much doubt that any of these physicists think that fusion is going on.

    12. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1
      I think there might be two Martin Fleischmanns in academia:

      Unless he's also a biologist, I don't think this Martin Fleischmann has published since the '89 debacle.

      Or was I missing some irony there?

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    13. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Nothing I stated in my post was a lie. Some of it was hypothesis, which could be proved correct or incorrect in the long run.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Solid-state fusion, as pioneered by Pons and Fleischmann, has been reproduced in tens of thousands of experiments, generating well over a thousand peer-reviewed publications, over the last 16 years.

      Name some. Barring that, I'll believe you if you can produce a zero power bill for this past winter (assuming winter gets cold where you are).

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    15. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Angostura · · Score: 1

      ...apparently you are from a parallel dimension. Welcome.

    16. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Since he still publishes in prestigious journals, perhaps you could give a few references. With specificity.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      There will never be a zero power (or energy) bill anywhere on the planet IMHO due to simple politics and business.

      --
      C|N>K
    18. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Worser result, runaway fusion reaction obliterates a section of Chicago, causing Keanu Reeves to ride a cycle really, really fast to escape the blast zone, with Morgan Freedman in hot pursuit.

      You don't want to see it. Trust me.

    19. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Agggggghhhh, my brain! I had already seen it and you made me remember!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    20. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Thangodin · · Score: 1

      They've managed to reproduce the additional heat output and some effects that suggest that a nuclear reaction might be happening, but they're not coming out and claiming that it's actual fusion. They just say that they can't really explain the results. Data you can't explain is a very useful result. It was precisely such unexplained phenomena that led to the Theory of Relativity.

    21. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets hope Dr.Martin Fleischmann doesn't embaress himself again.

      He makes an okay margarine, so give him some respect.

    22. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by pfdietz · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's incomprehensible to me how anyone could have the reckless disregard for their personal integrity to lie so baldly and maliciously misinform naive readers.

      The thing is, we're not terminally deluded, as you apparently are. To the extent P&F's results were reproduced, it was because others reproduced the experimental sloppiness that led P&F to delude themselves into thinking they had discovered something interesting.

      There was a flood of mutually inconsistent 'results' during the initial flurry of work. It can all be explained as a variety of experimental errors, perhaps combined with outright fraud. There are no -- repeat, no -- convincing, replicable experiments that show nuclear reactions occuring in 'cold fusion' experiments of the P&F variety.

      But the cranks and idiots will continue to believe in cold fusion, just as they believe in UFOs as alien spacecraft, ESP, Bigfoot, and numerous other pseudoscientific tropes.

    23. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      They've managed to reproduce the additional heat output

      After fiddling with experiments long enough and doing a sloppy enough measurement job they managed to get experimental artifacts that fool the self-deluded into thinking there's additional heat output.

    24. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by famebait · · Score: 1

      The moral of the story will either way: it never pays to give up.

      BZZZT! Non sequitur.
      Your analysis doesn't cover any scenarios that involve giving up, and so your conclusion has no backing in your argument.

      If the fusion stuff turns out to be bogus, it could very well be that "giving up" (i.e. moving on and applying his talent and effort to something more promising) would be the path that "pays" the best for Fleischman and everyone else.

      If it works, of course, then your two success scenarios probably beat any others rather soundly. And a heater is a brilliant place to start, requiring only the very core functionality and only a small temperature gradient in order to do its job well and pay for itself.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    25. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by Grab · · Score: 1

      It's been in NewScientist too. None of them are saying "yes, it's definitely fusion" - once bitten, and all that. But they are saying that there's something going on which isn't readily explainable. I suspect we can discount measurement errors, since it's been reproduced. A novel chemical process is a possibility (maybe some incredible catalyst that no-one's yet discovered). Or it could really be fusion.

      Not being a free-energy conspiracy-theory wierdo, I wouldn't like to guess either way. But *something* interesting is happening in there, whichever way it goes.

      Grab.

    26. Re:...Fusion in a ... year? by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Or it could really be fusion.
      Assuming a lot of physics theory is wrong. Which is always a possibility, but you need more than some unexplained heat to overturn theory. You might as well talk about phlogiston.
  2. Fusion in a year... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...and vapour(ware) in two years ?!?

    1. Re:Fusion in a year... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vapor ware is always in the future...

  3. Is that company publicly traded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm gonna short-sell and be rich in a year!

    1. Re:Is that company publicly traded? by gvc · · Score: 1

      You are making the specious assumption that stock-market price has something to do with having a viable product.

    2. Re:Is that company publicly traded? by greginnj · · Score: 1

      You are making the specious assumption that you understand what the term 'short-selling' means.

      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
    3. Re:Is that company publicly traded? by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      You are making the specious assumption that you understand the difference between the short-term and the long-term.

    4. Re:Is that company publicly traded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you a savvy investor...not. You can't short penny stocks.

    5. Re:Is that company publicly traded? by zxnos · · Score: 2, Funny

      you are making the specious assumption that you understand what specious assumption means.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
  4. Umm... by fhic · · Score: 0

    Maybe this should be tagged as "what were they thinking?"

    1. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm...It sounds like you've got a great start for a country western song there...

  5. Hmm...come to think about it... by sznupi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of businesses rely on stupidity of people. Usually on stupidity of consumers. This one just relies on stupidity of investors...

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:Hmm...come to think about it... by 0xC0FFEE · · Score: 1

      When the business plan isn't about sound business, than the business plan is the business.

    2. Re:Hmm...come to think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: Any business plan with sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    3. Re:Hmm...come to think about it... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      When it comes to technology, the stupidity of investors is much more important!

    4. Re:Hmm...come to think about it... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "This one just relies on stupidity of investors..."

      It's 1997 all over again!

  6. Will it explode by dattaway · · Score: 2, Funny

    like a cell lithium laptop battery?

    1. Re:Will it explode by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      If you connect the + directly to the -, watch out!

  7. What? April 1st already? by pentalive · · Score: 5, Funny

    My first though was "What is it, April 1st?" heat a home with fusion?? Hmm nope, not april 1st. Rent is not due.

  8. Fleishman has balls by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fleishman is delivering the science which everybody rejected until they no longer could ignore their discovery. This guy has balls. Willing to apply the science while the Doubting Thomas's snicker and lift a finger to type diatribes at him.

    1. Re:Fleishman has balls by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      He might have balls but that doesn't mean that he's not full of it. This is no more than a cynical attempt by this company to aquire venture funding. People have not ignored his 'science'; they have tested it, found that there is nothing in it and moved on.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    2. Re:Fleishman has balls by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      Even if he has balls, he has no semen so-to-speak. No proof that his inventions work.

    3. Re:Fleishman has balls by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Fleishman is delivering the science which everybody rejected until they no longer could ignore their discovery.

      You mean D2Fusion delivered the cash to Fleischmann to be a figurehead in the company.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:Fleishman has balls by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Indeed he does have cojones. There was a good special on Living on Earth about cold fusion. Turns out, the experiments have in fact been replicated but it's difficult to do so. Seems that Pons and Fleischmann jumped the gun with their discovery. Instead of publishing it and subjecting it to peer review, they put it to the media first.

      That was their first mistake because in the process, critical details about the procedure for producing cold fusion were left out.

      http://www.loe.org/series/fusion.htm where you can download mp3's of the show.

    5. Re:Fleishman has balls by hey! · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Sorry, but you just hit on one of my pet peeves.

      If you know your Bible, you'll know that the rest of the disciples had locked themselves in a room, afraid to venture out, which is a hardly a ringing endorsement of their faith. We don't know why Thomas was not with them, but if we follow earlier passages in John, we might guess Thomas is what we'd call a pragmatist. When Jesus says "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.", it's Thomas who comes up with the simple question than any practical thinker would ask: "Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?" Everyone else would have stood around nodding sagely but with no idea at all what was being said.

      We don't know why Thomas is not with them when the resurrected Jesus makes his appearance; some have inferred he was disillusioned by Jesus' execution. However, we have no evidence that Thomas has abandoned the other disciples. I like to think that somebody had to go out to buy food and get news and see to other practical concerns while the others cowered behind their locked door. And Jesus, while chiding him very gently, returns to give him exactly what he asks for.

      So, the lesson I'd draw from this is like the story of Martha and Mary. We all understand the importance of pragmatism. But you can't live for and by pragmatism alone. Which is a wise thing for a man to live by, but an unwise one for a scientist or investor. Doubting Thomas had his virtues, one of which is courage, which implies a kind of faith that is not exactly belief. Likewise his skeptical namesakes througout the ages can claim a share of those same virtues.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. This is smart. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since he's the only guy on the planet (or one of the only two, I suppose) who has the skills to make his experiment function as described.

    Who would you hire, one of the hundred or so people who couldn't do it, even though they followed the protocols to the letter?

    1. Re:This is smart. by Lispy · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I remembr correctly D. Fleischmann always said that his experiments where not carried out by the protocol. In one case they were, but the results were interpreted in a wrong way. I can only hope he's right. That would be awesome.
      Sorry, too tired to look for the actual source of my statement, but I am pretty confident that's what he said...

    2. Re:This is smart. by Axess+Denyd · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that if I buy a fusion heater I'll have to have him come to my house to change the thermostat all the time because he's the only one that can make it work?

      --
      ---- Watch out for snakes!
    3. Re:This is smart. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      "Who would you hire"?

      Keannu, of course. Mad machinist skills. (The U.S. has machinists? Do we make anything anymore?)

  10. "Within a year" by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of them say that. "Within a year". "Within two years". "Within four years".

    But never "now", or "in the stores next week", or "come, see this working!"

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:"Within a year" by kryten_nl · · Score: 1

      the standard is usually; "Within 5 years". So at least it's improving....

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    2. Re:"Within a year" by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they meant "dog year"....

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:"Within a year" by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Whenever Steve Jobs says "now" or "in the stores next week" he usually means "within a year".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:"Within a year" by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Given that he's never even proven his original experiment was authentic or repeatable, I'm leaning toward never. D2Fusion is robbing themselves blind, or getting bilked.

    5. Re:"Within a year" by HiThere · · Score: 1

      "Within a year" is a rather short time span for a scam. Usually by that point the investors would need to already be on board.

      I'm not going to put a lot of credence into this, but I'm also not going to dismiss it. And I'll hope for the best.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Hot fusion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but cold news.

  12. Stupid, Party of Many, Your Table is Ready! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Where are the investors of D2Fusion when you need them for my own whacky ideas! Hey, check out my shareware commodity server, my blog, a few unfinished next generation C languages.... come on dudes, shower some of those greenbacks over my way and I'll throw in a stupid fusion fraud to boot!

    --
    This is my sig.
  13. Fusion ? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps it will fuse hydrogen atoms with oxygen atoms - after all, no one said anything about nuclear fusion, now did they ?-)

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    1. Re:Fusion ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats Nu-cu-ler. Nu-cu-ler.
      Homer

    2. Re:Fusion ? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Bah, that's nothing! I already heat my home with a nuclear fusion engine! It's so powerful I have to keep it 1 AU away from my house and rotate the Earth so I only get heated for half a day!

      But I think it sustains all life on Earth or something. Goddamn freeloaders and leechers, wait 'til I figure out a way to bill for it.

    3. Re:Fusion ? by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      The freeloaders are gonna be pissed when your invention plus some C02 melts the polar icecaps and floods their costal homes. I think you should probably disown the heater as soon as you can and get the heck out of dodge (^^)

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    4. Re:Fusion ? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Simply claim copyright for Sun's spectrum and start suing everyone, then settle out of court. Remember, opening your eyes at day without paying you is stealing ! After all, since Sun's spectrum is copyrighted, then clearly all reflected light is a derived product.

      Coming to think of it, Moon and the planets reflect Sun's radiance, so you can't open your eyes at night either...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  14. D2O from the tap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does using this fusion-powered home water heater mean I
    have to shower with heavy water?

    1. Re:D2O from the tap? by mnemonic_ · · Score: 0, Redundant

      yes

  15. Another interesting tech used. by AWhistler · · Score: 1

    They are talking about using a Sterling engine in their product. Actually, so that there is little vibration from the engine, they are combining 4 of them together, in series, so the vibrations cancel out. However, they claim to have a patent on a "Wobble Yoke" that connects the four pistons together onto a single rotating shaft. This sounds just like a crank shaft on a regular engine. How can that be patented?

    1. Re:Another interesting tech used. by pclminion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      However, they claim to have a patent on a "Wobble Yoke" that connects the four pistons together onto a single rotating shaft. This sounds just like a crank shaft on a regular engine. How can that be patented?

      A wobble yoke (otherwise called a wobble plate) transfers the up and down motion of the pistons into a rotation ALONG THE SAME AXIS AS THE PISTON MOTION. In a car, the crankshaft rotates perpendicular to the piston motion. Wobble plates are not new (they've been used in torpedoes among other things), but they may have patented some aspect of the linkage that hasn't been done before...

    2. Re:Another interesting tech used. by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      see here
      http://www.animatedsoftware.com/pumpglos/wobble.ht m

      then explain how this linkage works I still cant see how it rotates with two pistons fastened to it

    3. Re:Another interesting tech used. by kreuzotter · · Score: 1

      the trick here is to arrange the cylinders in a square to make all the connections the same length. reduction of the vibrations is a side effect. the yoke is a novel idea, although i think one could use two conventional crank shafts. (fewer moving parts, probably less friction).

    4. Re:Another interesting tech used. by inode_buddha · · Score: 1
      The "Lancaster" auto engine of the 1890's did something similar with two cranks. Built like a VW, BMW, or Porsche "boxer" engine, with two cranks geared together at the ends, all the pistons moved in the same direction at once (and on the same stroke no less), thereby cancelling each other's vibrations out and acting like one big piston.

      No patents required.

      --
      C|N>K
    5. Re:Another interesting tech used. by rjason · · Score: 1

      This is a PUMP not an Engine. It requires the shaft on the left be rotated either by a hand crank or motor. The wobble plate rotates creating flow and pressure.

    6. Re:Another interesting tech used. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1
      There are wobble yokes and there are swashplates.

      here's a wobble yoke flash animation.

      can't find a picture of a swashplate engine but here's the old dyna-cam patent. It's not particularly clear what they're talking about but nobody seems to have online pictures. Scroll down this page about halfway and they have a cross-section drawn. If you do an image search on google under 'dyna-cam engine' you'll see what they were working on.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    7. Re:Another interesting tech used. by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      the previous link wasn't very clear in how it was supposed to work.

      http://www.roymech.co.uk/Related/Pumps/Rotary%20Po sitive%20Displacement.html

      is a lot clearer the first diagram appeared to show two pistons attached to the wobble plate in reality they are pushed against the plate by springs and the pistons track in and out following the contour of the wobble plate.

      armed with this information

      http://www.eaa.org/benefits/sportaviation/october2 003.html

      shows some engines developed using wobble plates

      and heres a better animated one

      http://www.mcmastermotor.com/technical.htm

      it claims on this page this engine in equivilent to an 8 cylinder engine.

  16. What a load of crap by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A company press release explains that, in brief, "cold" fusion involves the fusion of two nuclei of deuterium or heavy hydrogen into a single helium atom, accompanied only by a burst of heat. Unlike "thermonuclear hot fusion" that requires the plasma-inducing inferno temperatures of the sun or a hydrogen bomb, solid-state fusion reactions can be produced at normal temperatures in certain hydrogen-loving metals without unleashing hot fusion's dangerous radiation.

    Genius. They can't detect any excess neutrons so obviously there's a new, radiation free, type of D-D fusion going on.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:What a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a new, radiation free, type of D-D fusion going on."

      Actually, by increasing the size of the bra, there is less spillage around the sides. They call this DD-DD fusion.

    2. Re:What a load of crap by geobeck · · Score: 1
      ..."cold" fusion involves the fusion of two nuclei of deuterium or heavy hydrogen into a single helium atom, accompanied only by a burst of heat.

      Yo, Fleischmann, that 'puff of heat' didn't come from fusion. Exactly what did you have for lunch that day?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    3. Re:What a load of crap by barawn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's kindof the crux of the problem, actually. Assuming their measurements are right (that's a bit of an assumption, but there are quite a few people who claim that Pd-D cells generate excess heat, so maybe it's not THAT crazy) they're correct that it has to be nuclear - the energy density required is too high for it to be chemical.

      But it doesn't have to be -fusion-. Palladium is past iron, so -in theory- you can gain energy by transmuting it downward, and some of them are claiming that they're seeing elements after the cell was run that weren't there before.

      I'm not saying they're right, of course. It's still physics that would break with standard nuclear physics, but I'm always surprised that they keep pushing it as -fusion-, when they clearly don't understand (and admit that they don't understand!) what (if anything) is going on.

      Note, incidentally, that if you read, for instance, the DOE report on anomalous heat from D-Pd cells, that both sides of the discussion are at fault here. A fair number of the criticisms ("your explanation doesn't agree with current theory, so it must be wrong!" even when the explanation is essentially "it must be nuclear, but we have no idea how") and arguments on both sides are pretty crappy.

    4. Re:What a load of crap by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      If you pull two deuterion nuclei togheter, you should get helium 4, and no neutrons. Or you get helium 3 and a neutron, but this is may be very unlikely (well, I didn't make the calculations, they are hard), so you'd produce almost no neutrons.

      Not to say that I belive that he does what he says. But if he did what he says, he could very well get the results he says he get.

    5. Re:What a load of crap by hairykrishna · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, no. If you pull two deuterium nuclei together you get Helium-3 and a neut (50% of the time) or Tritium and a proton (50% of the time). So, half of your reactions produce a neutron. The reaction you present, deuterium+deuterium->helium is actually VERY unlikely (basically impossible under normal conditions due to parity concerns). Even if, due to some phenomenon unknown to current physics, he was exclusively doing this reaction there would be a flux of high energy gamma rays which would be easily detectable.

      It is important to note that the cold fusion advocates claimed for a long time to be detecting excess neutrons and only switched to this new 'it must be D-D->He reactions' when people pointed out that their neutron detection methodology was badly flawed.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    6. Re:What a load of crap by mesocyclone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The original Pons-Fleischman experiments suffered from several defects:

      1) The test tubes containing the D2O were open to the air. Diffusion thus removed very quickly the deuterium. Hence the claim that they had Deuterium in their "fusion" is wrong.

      2) The calorimetry was done poorly. Again, the system wasn't closed. The electrical power input was measured as if it was DC, but my measurements of such cells show that the signal has significant frequency components in it - probably due to bubbling.

      3) The test tube temperature was measured in a way that could be sensitive to local hot spors.

      4) Because the calorimeter was not a closed system, the amount of heat loss due to evaporation, and the energy carried off by the liberated hydrogen and oxygen were calculated, not measured. Furthermore, the energy calculations used the D2O hydrolysis energy rather than the H2O energy, even though the D had diffused away very early in the experiment.

      5) The calculation of excess power involved a denominator that was the difference between two large quantities that were very close in value and had significant error bars. This is a classic mistake that greatly inflates the apparent effect, and also the error.

      6) The calculations that showed that the "pressure" in the palladium on the adsorbed deuterium was very high were meaningless, because the quantity calculated was not a true pressure.

      In other words, the original experiments and the backing theory were meaningless - rather surprising given the good qualifications of Pons and Fleishman.

      It would be one heck of a coincidence if the same people who made this large number of experimental mistakes now happened to produce a valid result.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    7. Re:What a load of crap by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I'm no physicist nor chemist and am not going to post any links but, if I recall correctly from a physics lecture I sat in on one time when I was bored at university, palladium reacts in very interesting ways when immersed in liquid hydrogen. From what I recall it soaks it up like a sponge and actually expands in volume.

      Immerse it in deuterium and put it through electrolysis, well theres got to be something interesting happening in there... especially if impurities in the palladium matrix cause deuterons to be forced into close proximity.

      Or something like that...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:What a load of crap by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      You have to love the fact that the first article linked doesn't mention the fact that his lab results have been rather hard to reproduce independently, or that his claims of excess energy are fairly widely rejected by other physicists.

      That's not really the heart of my skepticism, though. He's been working on this with at best negligible success for what? 20 years? Suddenly there's going to be a commercially viable product in the next year when before it's been difficult to even measure the excess energy?

    9. Re:What a load of crap by barawn · · Score: 1

      It would be one heck of a coincidence if the same people who made this large number of experimental mistakes now happened to produce a valid result.

      I think you'd be surprised. The number of crappy experiments which end up actually working (even if sometimes they're almost totally forged) is quite frightening. I can think of a fair handful in my own field...

      Most of the criticisms you've addressed have been what several other researchers have been shoring up, and actually that's part of the problem with the DOE response. Certain techniques (calorimetry, for one thing) are much harder to do rigorously than they first appear, and so when the DOE guys say "you must've done the calorimetry wrong" the researchers were very angry, because the reviewers clearly failed to understand how difficult calorimetry is, and how careful the researchers were.

      I do have to agree with the researchers on that one: calorimetry is an underappreciated discipline.

    10. Re:What a load of crap by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      I haven't followed the subject in a long time, and would be interested in a pointer to more current, much more qualified research.

      When I was involved, way back shortly after P&F published, there was a mailing list with a number of researchers trying things and theoreticians theorizing stuff. One researcher did an exceedling careful job of calorimetry (his real job was as an instrumentation designer for one of the major accelerators) and his results were uniformly negative and very convincing. Others had varying degrees of success, with the success inversely proportional to the quality of the experimental design - a classic sign of pathological science.

      Hence I would be interested if folks have found replicable experiments with good calorimetry and results significant enough to not be flukes. My definition of good calorimetry includes, at a minimum, a fully closed system where the released D2 and O2 are recombined inside the calorimeter, and well calibrated instruments sampled many times per second with all samples stored for analysis.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    11. Re:What a load of crap by barawn · · Score: 1

      Closed-cell calorimetry has been done - a ton by the people at Stanford Research Institute. That criticism was taken up pretty quickly. :) The really intriguing results were when a calorimeter was modified to allow gas spectrometry to look for helium. Granted, that sort of thing is really really hard, but they did find helium, though there were criticisms that pointed out that it could be from lab room contamination. Still, this is one of those things where you're starting to grasp at straws.

      The DOE review is pretty good: here. Note that a lot of LENR-CANR is, shall we say, just a tad bit biased and crank-worthy, but they've got a lot of documentation, so they're at least useful for that.

      The DOE anonymous reviewers are particularly noteworthy: it's amazing how bad some of the reviews are, which, to be honest, is fairly insulting. The DOE paid these guys. They had a responsibility to be critical and honest, and several simply weren't (specifically 1, 2, and 15 were very bad). Conversely, however, Review 4 is excellent, as was Review 7, and Review 10 and 11, and 16 (really excellent). On the whole most were pretty good, but 1 and 2 leave a definite stink. It's interesting to read, however, because it's a completely independent and unbiased set of opinions. At least one reviewer was completely convinced.

      Review 12 has a great summation of the field: "The quality of work is so inconsistent in this field, including the work of some key players, which
      makes it difficult to clear the black cloud and to increase the credibility of the field. Repeated retractions and conflicting experimental results in the past certainly did not help. Hopefully as time on, a few careful studies will provide a definitive conclusion. Unfortunately, that has not happened yet, although some
      progress has been made."

      However, the review does make for interesting reading. Several of the reviewers do point out that there are possibilities for an actual theoretical basis for it, in particular results from German beam tests that show that anomalous screening can occur in deuterated metal films.

  17. Fusion power in your home by Quantum+Fizz · · Score: 2, Funny
    No, direct fusion-powered heating and cooling systems have been around for quite some time now. I mean, getting energy from fusion is pretty old hat these days.

    And if you consider intermediary methods of storing energy, fusion power for home heating goes back much further.

    1. Re:Fusion power in your home by SeeMyNuts! · · Score: 1


      I'm really looking forward to restaurants serving "Fusion Broiled" hamburgers. I've heard it really has an edge over flame broiling, because the outer layer of the grilled burger patty is literally a new form of matter.

    2. Re:Fusion power in your home by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      the grilled burger patty is literally a new form of matter.

      Actually, it turns to antimatter--that's what gives it the extra kick!

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  18. I for one... by cosmicaug · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new cold fusion heating overlords!

  19. How much is D2O these days? by stox · · Score: 1

    I don't see any vendors in the Yellow Pages. How much can I expect that to set me back?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  20. Sounds a lot like by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1
    those SmallCaps stock adverts I have in my inbox. Do they sell shares, too?

    That'd be Fusion Waporware (FSWP).

    --
    17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  21. All I can say is ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Doc would be proud. Beats Plutonium as a power source for your time-travelling DeLorean.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:All I can say is ... by greylion3 · · Score: 1
      Beats Plutonium as a power source for your time-travelling DeLorean.

      Maybe you don't remember the end of part I, where Doc Brown had attached a "Mr. Fusion" device on the DeLorean :)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Fusion
      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    2. Re:All I can say is ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I was making what is called an "oblique reference" to Mr. Fusion.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  22. Baloney by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

    This baloney smells so bad I'm smelling it from the other coast.

  23. are they getting more out of it? by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 1

    Are they getting more out of it than they put in? Does it matter? At the worst it will be as efficient as a normal electric heater. So my guess is that they are going to pitch a super efficient heater. Given that, even producing such a device won't resolve the controversy -- even if they sell them. If they can't prove to scientists they are doing this, I can't believe they will be lowering anybody's heating bill soon.

    --
    Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    1. Re:are they getting more out of it? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, an electric heater is one of the most efficient devices known to Man. I mean, if you set up your device to waste energy and nothing comes out of it that qualifies as "work", then it's one hundred percent efficient.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:are they getting more out of it? by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 1

      It is possible to do better than this, however. For example, heat pumps are more 'efficient' than electric heaters, although you are technically correct.

      --
      Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    3. Re:are they getting more out of it? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, but I was trying to use a little humor to point out that efficiency is relative to what it is you're trying to accomplish.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  24. Heh: Probably be available before.... by mikerand98682 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...Windows Vista

  25. The end result would be very progressive by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

    I agree that this is probably yet another dose of false hope but I'd love it if it were true.

    Personal access to cheap energy for everyone can have a very progressive effect on society. Cheap personal transportation means that a highly mobile work force can supply labor at a wide and changing array of locations near or far from their homes. I like this better than the utopia envisioned by some where we are all compelled by force to live in commune like dense housing with access only to 'public' transit. That vision is extremely regressive and a sure way to cement forever the wide gap between rich and poor.

    Cheap and private transportation is the great emancipator and I hope that this long shot of personal fusion devices can enable it.

    1. Re:The end result would be very progressive by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      cheap energy for everyone can have a very progressive effect

      For one thing,it would stop global warming (at least that from greenhouse gases; the heat from fusion itself would eventually be a problem).

  26. neutrons by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    If it worked, the neutron flux would kill you. Well, actually, if Pons and Fleischmann's original experiment had worked, the neutrons would have killed them. Of course they don't feel constrained by the standard model of particle physics, so they get to make up any excuse for that that they like.

    1. Re:neutrons by barawn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait, that's a crappy argument. I mean, a really, really crappy one.

      By that argument, you could say that Ray Davis's experiment didn't work, because it didn't agree with the Standard Model, so it obviously must have been wrong.

      Ray Davis built the first neutrino detection experiment and found that there was only about a third of the neutrinos coming from the Sun that you would expect.

      We now know that he was right - the Standard Model was (slightly) wrong, although in hindsight it should've been relatively obvious.

      Saying "their experiment doesn't work because it doesn't agree with the Standard Model" is horrible science. The Standard Model is a theory. It doesn't describe reality. It's a -guess- for how the world works - a well founded, well supported guess, and the best one we have, but still a guess. If you find that the world works in a different way, that doesn't mean your experiment must be wrong.

      There are plenty of other reasons to criticize cold fusion (the lack of repeatability being the main one) but "it doesn't agree with current theory" is about the worst criticism you can give.

    2. Re:neutrons by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Holy crap! Someone who can think! I hate to tell you, but around here, if it conflicts with the established norm, it's 100% BS. Things like critical thinking, logic, or the ability to infer is not allowed around here!

      I highly suggest you take your toys and go home...where intelligence will be appreciated!

    3. Re:neutrons by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1
      And me with no mod points.

      Excellent point. If there is anything to this--and I'm skeptical--then it's a good indication that the standard models are in serious need of revision.

      On another note, I don't really understand all the negativity about this. I see four possibilities here:

      1. Fleischmann is deluded, but has still managed to convince people that there's something there. Investors lose their money.
      2. Fleischmann knows there's nothing to it, and the company is an elaborate con. Investors lose their money. I would be surprised if this were the case--couldn't he find easier ways of doing this?--but I can't eliminate it out of hand. There are plenty of other cons out there, nothing special about this one (if it is indeed a con).
      3. Fleischmann has actually found something, which may or may not be cold fusion, but it's not commercially viable. Investors lose their money.
      4. Fleischmann has actually found something, and it's commercially viable. Investors make a lot of money.

      If they can make something worthwhile out of this, more power to them. No way in hell would I invest in it, though. The only investors who should put money into this are already obscenely wealthy and can afford to lose it all.

    4. Re:neutrons by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that the neutron flux would be high enough to really pose a threat? Sounds to me that the energy produced is not that great so also the amount of fusions.
      I think it may not even be fusion but -neutron flux is would be deadly so it cant be fusion- wouldnt be a argument, i think. As other replies said it could be some other nuclear reaction, or bad measuring of the actual power that goes in or out.

    5. Re:neutrons by nickptar · · Score: 1
      By that argument, you could say that Ray Davis's experiment didn't work, because it didn't agree with the Standard Model, so it obviously must have been wrong.


      Which would have been a reasonable thing to say, until other experiments produced the same result. Of course, then, people argue (as you can see here) as to exactly what the results of further cold fusion experiments mean.
    6. Re:neutrons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it worked, the neutron flux would kill you

      Where does this come from? How do you know how many neutrons kill a person? Neutrons are neutrons are NEUTRAL - they can likely pass right through you. Who's to say a small dose is dangerous?

    7. Re:neutrons by barawn · · Score: 1

      Which would have been a reasonable thing to say

      No! It never was! You can say that it's a "surprising result which needs to be confirmed," but you can't say "you're wrong, because theory says you're wrong."

      Criticizing an experiment for not agreeing with theory is a horrible viewpoint. Experiments should get the benefit of the doubt until they're going against other experiments. As you point out.

    8. Re:neutrons by barawn · · Score: 1

      then it's a good indication that the standard models are in serious need of revision.

      It could be some sort of wacko deuterium-moderated palladium fission. That wouldn't break models other than nuclear physics, and it's not like they're tremendously rigorous anyway.

      Part of the problem is that Pons and Fleischmann sortof jumped on the "it's fusion!!" bandwagon to the press! when it was clear they had no idea what was going on. They even admitted it in the published paper. They simply said there was a process going on via "unknown nuclear channels", which, if their results (and the results of several others) are correct, they're right about. But calling it fusion was just retarded. That's what made them a laughingstock.

    9. Re:neutrons by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      Not that it's anywhere in the same league as particle physics, but you might enjoy reading Michael Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming speech. Best line: "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    10. Re:neutrons by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    11. Re:neutrons by hughk · · Score: 1

      its all about getting large return on invetsment. These investors look for risky projects. They will research them a little and they are happy when just a few make money, because then the return is large enough to offset the other portfolio losses. This is how investment works, you spread your risk across a class of projects and is a reason why this is really for people who can afford to split their money.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    12. Re:neutrons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't help at all. Of course if you get enough of them they're going to hurt, but how many is enough? Is the number generated through fusion to boil some water enough to harm a person nearby? I doubt it.

    13. Re:neutrons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That lethality is dose dependant is obvious. Your statement "they can likely pass right through you" and "Who's to say a small dose is dangerous" shows some fundemental ignorance. People who know what they are talking about can tell you.

    14. Re:neutrons by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Their experiment doesn't work because they could never do it again and neither could anyone else.

    15. Re:neutrons by cdrguru · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, you missed #5, which is:

      5. Fleischmann believes he has found something, has investors that believe it as well. Something happens but it isn't really "cold fusion", but it does seem to produce some heat. People buy into the idea that it is "cold fusion" and, with little or no scientific basis in reality, go chasing after an elusive and ephemeral dream.

      Read up on what Lysenko did to the Russians. This is probably the absolute worst case, but it is also the most likely unless Fleischmann is a true con man. Far better for us all that he is running a con and we find out all about it in the next year or so.

    16. Re:neutrons by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that the neutron flux would be high enough to really pose a threat

      A fast neutron flux sufficient to raise your body temperature by a thousandth of a degree C will kill you. Now imagine standing next to a device pumping out kilowatts of power in neutrons.

  27. extra ordinary clams by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

    As the saying goes extra ordinary clams require extra ordinary proof. I'll have to believe this one when my feet are propped up next to it keeping my feet warm. Maybe it will be small enough that I can toss it under my desk like my old C64 power supply.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  28. Next product by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    They expect to have the "anti-cockroach flamethrower" ready to go a month after that.

  29. Proposed device name: by flyonthewall · · Score: 2, Funny

    To be called:

    Sans Nuclear And Killing Energy Overly Induced Liquid

    power unit.

    --
    "The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
  30. Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing... by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You have to admit, subjecting these claims to the marketplace should prove whether or not there's anything to them. The number of people willing to believe their houses are warm when they are cold is probably a lot smaller than the number of people willing to believe they've been cured by quack medicine.

    But... the more things change...

    In 1945, The World Publishing Company published a nice little volume, The Atomic Age Opens edited by one Gerald Wendt and helping explain to the public what recent events meant. Along with quotations by military people who had witnessed the Trinity test, tutorials on neutrons and protons "doing their stuff" (as George Orwell once phrased it), and so forth, were some predictions for the future:

    "Dr. R. M. Langer, physics research associate at the California Institute of Technology, said five years ago in _Collier's_ magazine that U-235 could create a civilization in which man would dwell underground for better living....

    [In the future] 'Light is generated by fluorescence which occurs around U-235 and is piped under the house through transparent plastic sheets along the interiors of rooms,' Langer said. 'The household supply of U-235 is stored and used slowly in the chamber where plants are grown. Appropriate portions are automatically delivered through a tube-distribution system to stations where they are needed to provide heat or power for machinery or cooking....'

    Families will travel short distances in automobiles powered by small chunks of U-235 in a water tank inside the car, he said....

    Admitting that none of the ideas he envisioned have yet been worked out in practice, Langer declared that the difficulties were those of detail...."

  31. not sure about fusion... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...from terrestrial sources, but if you take solar thermal and combine it with Stirling technology it will work. The Sun is still our most practical fusion source.

  32. It's not April First yet!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this article posted early?

    I was expecting somthing like this next saturday.

  33. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by ajpr · · Score: 1

    Isnt U235 weapons grade?

  34. Play it? by stevenm86 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will I be able to play it on my Phanton console?

    1. Re:Play it? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      No, the Phantoon was destroyed by Samus Aran in Super Metroid.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Play it? by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Volkswagen stopped bring that model to the US, now you must take your game to Europe and play it there.

  35. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

    High enrichment uranium (i.e. high in 235 - normally >90%) is weapons grade. So, basically, yes. However 235's also the bit that gives us power in power plants so it's not quite that simple!

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  36. The Fuel Comparison Chart by ajpr · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://d2fusion.com/images/fuel.jpg

    Check it out. It's suddenly eased my mind. For a minute I thought it was a scam, until I saw the milk float.

  37. Two Possibilities by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
    Either this is real and Exxon buys them out and stores the blueprints in a warehouse right next to the Arc of the Covenant and the 80mpg carburetor, or it's all bullshit.

    Seriously, this would be the biggest thing since the invention of the AC dynamo, and as such would have a profound effect on the world's economy and socio-political power structure. And many folks out there hate change.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  38. Home heating by fusion power - here already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've a fusion powered home heating source already.

    It's a south facing window.

    1. Re:Home heating by fusion power - here already by waferhead · · Score: 1

      Kids, that's not funny that's...
      +5 insightful

      If _every_ home had a decently set up south facing solar collector setup
      (thermal wall/hot water/photovoltaics pick one or several) it would put at least SOME measurable dent in your energy bills.

    2. Re:Home heating by fusion power - here already by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      All you need to go with it is a floor or wall that the sun hits to absorb the heat and then radiate it back into the room later. Tile, brick, or rock on a concrete slab works great. A cousin of mine went a bit overboard with his first house in Taos, NM. It could be 10 degrees (F) outside and over 80 inside. Worked really well combined with the insulation he installed (R 40 in the walls and R 80 in the roof all of it celulose (ie shredded and treated newspaper)). Gas water heater, range and furnace combined for about $35 a month in gas bills during the winter.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    3. Re:Home heating by fusion power - here already by kybred · · Score: 1
      If _every_ home had a decently set up south facing solar collector setup (thermal wall/hot water/photovoltaics pick one or several) it would put at least SOME measurable dent in your energy bills.

      That's a very northern-hemisphere-centric statement! :-)

  39. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by hairykrishna · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hmmmm....

    You could power your house off 235 fission (hey, we do with power plants), possibly even light your house via the glow discharge around a reactor but some people suggest that giving every house a big lump of uranium may not be the most sensible thing to do. So, what prevents us doing this is health, politics and efficiency concerns.

    What prevents us using cold fusion is the fact that it doesn't work and has never worked!

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  40. Everything can... by woolio · · Score: 1

    This sounds just like a crank shaft on a regular engine. How can that be patented?

    Oh, you must be new to Slashdot....

    Recently I was in a restaurant. As I removed the paper ring holding my napkin & utensils together, I noticed a little inscription:

    "Patent No. xxxxxx" [with a real number].

    WTF!?!?!? Sure enough, someone patented napkin rings. I don't have the patent doc in front of me, but they made the description very general -- it covers much more than just napkins [but I think it mentioned food/utensils]. I understand the USPTO getting fooled by software patents... But most people understand the concept of napkin rings... even those without a college education. Heck, I would have thought the patent examiner would have remembered seeing them in their childhood/daily lives...

    So yes, I bet the "Wobble Yoke" will get patented....

    1. Re:Everything can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently I was in a restaurant. As I removed the paper ring holding my napkin & utensils together, I noticed a little inscription:

      "Patent No. xxxxxx" [with a real number].

      WTF!?!?!? Sure enough, someone patented napkin rings.


      Are you sure it wasn't a design patent?

  41. peer review by xPsi · · Score: 2, Funny

    I see this time he's publishing his results through http://home.businesswire.com/ in instead of the New York Times. Ahhh, now there's peer review for you.

    --
    i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  42. article explaining the Cold fusion process by doyoudig · · Score: 1

    All the smarty pants out there -- read this and help me understand if it's BS: http://www.d2fusion.com/education/essay.htm Still clearing the cobwebs in my chemistry section

    1. Re:article explaining the Cold fusion process by Phys+Rev+fanboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Admittedly, I'm a high-energy physicist as opposed to a condensed matter physicist, but to me it looks like a bunch of BS. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's completely wrong, but there is at least one very large hole - I didn't read much more after I realized this one. Its section on Coulomb forces never truly explains how the Coulomb barrier is overcome. It uses a bunch of words to state, as far as I can tell, that because deuterons are bosons they can ignore the traditional Coulomb pressure. It is true that, as bosons, they aren't affected by Fermi pressure, but the parallel they draw to superconductivity is backwards. Namely, in a superconductor, it is an arractive force overcoming the Coulomb force that makes electrons pair, not the other way around. They can make all sorts of approximations of many-body physics, but when it comes down to it they don't explain how a deuteron-deuteron Coulomb force can be overcome. (There is, of course, always the possibility that one deuteron will quantum-tunnel through the barrier, but the probability of that happening is so low that it can't really be useful as any kind of energy source.)
      Without that, their theory is up the creek without a paddle. I wouldn't mind seeing cold fusion, and I'll happily admit there are a number of things about physics that aren't understood, but that explanation doesn't work.

    2. Re:article explaining the Cold fusion process by hairykrishna · · Score: 1
      First off- a disclaimer: I'm a physicist but solid state is not really my area. However, that said, the explanation presented for how the coulomb barrier is overcome seems deeply flawed.

      /PI'm on firmer ground with the later bits (I'm a nuke physicist) so I fell more confident saying that the section explaing why no gamma radiation is observed is just plain wrong. Of course, it could be correct and it's just our understanding of physics that's flawed- make your own decision!

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  43. Re:Another... Pictures are good by smokin_juan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Animations are better... a wobble yoke in action.

  44. I am convinced! by Hershmire · · Score: 1

    With such a snazzy website and professional press releases, I am totally confident this product not only exists, but will also be available within the "next two years."

    --
    if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll); //Stupid roommates.
  45. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    Actually, last I heard, two groups were able to reproduce his results using the published protocols. Many groups tried either by NOT following the protocols or tried to make up their own protocol. These groups failed! But, we can safely ignore those groups because that's called BAD SCIENCE; which is what you're basing your statement. One group which did follow the protocol, did reproduce the results but came to a different conclussion of what the results implied. Another successful group was simply unable to conclude exactly what was happening...but did confirm *something* was going on. Thusly, both indepent groups agreed more research and study was required. Both groups agreed that *something* was going on. Even the first group, which came to a different conclussion, were not able to completely explain all of the data the experiement provided.

    So clearly saying, "that it doesn't work", is at best premature and at worst, simply ignorant. Either way, you sound of someone who is afraid of science doing science. IMO, the only responsible position to take on this is one of wait-n-see, to let real scientist do their job and come to an actual conclussion. At this point in time, no real scientist has been able to come to a factually supported conclussion based on available data. And those that have, are saying more study is required.

  46. can't chat now by aachrisg · · Score: 1

    I've got to run out to the bank to take out a second mortgage on my house to invest in this company. not.

  47. I'm concerned about all this excess helium. by CFD339 · · Score: 3, Funny

    >

    Do you know what your helium footprint is?

    Are you producing excess helium with your basement fusion unit just so you can run your massively overclocked Intel Macintosh on your zero refresh time flat screen monitor at enough frames per second to keep you alive in Duke Nukem Forever?

    What about all that helium produced when you're charging up your jet pack or opening the wormhole to your new office in Tokyo?

    We're producing so much helium now that that the earth is lighter than its ever been! People are speaking in high pitched voices remote regions of New Jersey, and there are reports of rain falling up! Soon, we could see the earth become light enough that its mass is no longer in balance with its speed and our orbit of the sun increases, causing a new ice age! And its your fault! Stop the madness, burn fossil fuels.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  48. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by hairykrishna · · Score: 1
    Actually, I'd count myself as a scientist (a nuclear physicist to be specific). Do you have a link to a paper by these groups? Many, if not all, of the 'cold fusion works' claims fall down upon close scrutiny. Measuring very small neutron fluxes is a very, very difficult thing to do accurately. Indeed the cold fusion lobby has now moved on to claiming that there is a new form of neutron free, D-D fusion taking place which explains the lack of neuts. The other indicator, small temperature rises, is also very difficult to monitor.

    Before jumping all over me you should carefully consider what is being claimed here. Saying "We did this experiment and there seems to be a an anomolous source of heat, which we cannot explain" is very different to saying "We did an experiment which demonstrated a new form of fusion, which has never been seen before and can solve the worlds energy problems!"

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  49. FTC? by curtvdh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not that I have much faith in the Federal Trade Commission (after all, Sunday morning TV is still peppered with those infomercials for the handy-dandy Quattro (or whatever they're) called 'healing magnetic bracelets'), but someone is going to be mighty pissed when they find out that they've forked out 5 or 10 grand for what is effectively just a bunch of clever heat exchangers (i.e. Stirling engines) that they could have bought for a less than a thousand bucks. Probably pissed enough that they complain to the feds. Methinks that this unit will be available 'any day now' until Fleischman takes the money and skips off to the Bahamas...

  50. Logistic issues... by blindseer · · Score: 1

    From my understanding this "cold" fusion requires heavy hydrogen just like the traditional "hot" fusion. That means tritium or the more stable deuterium. Where can a person go to buy this stuff? Is the density of heavy hydrogen in normal tap water high enough to make this "Mr. Fusion - Home edition" work? Can the heavy hydrogen be derived from sources other than water? Such as natural gas? Imagine that, a standard house furnace or water heater with a fusion "afterburner" to get the most out of your natural gas bill.

    Maybe this is all moot since the heater will have a 30 year supply of heavy hydrogen inside out of the factory. Just bring it home and turn it on. When the fuel runs out send it back for disposal and buy a new one.

    Even if this does work many questions are going to have to be answered before people go out and buy it.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Logistic issues... by ductonius · · Score: 1

      "Where can a person go to buy [deuterium]?"

      Any gas supply store such as a welding shop should be able to order deuterium.

      Shows how much of a science geek I am but I actually checked once for a science fair project. It's not cheap ($70 CAN for a couple of liters) but it's avilable, at least in Canada.

    2. Re:Logistic issues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal tap water contains 1/4300 HDO and 1/75,000,000 D2O.

  51. Fleishman found something, but what? by leftie · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no question that Pons and Fleischmann discovered some kind of previous unknown phenomena in their U Utah lab in the late 1980's. The question is what? If Pons and Fleischmann send in their research to scientific journals saying we did this experiment and we regularly got excess heat we can't expalin and we don't know why, Pons and Fleischmann are heroes to the scientific community.

    Where Pons and Fleischmann made their mistake was rushing to the press to stick a label "Cold Fusion" to their unexplained phenomena that they even admitted they didn't really understand.

    Whatever the phenomenon Pons and Fleischmann discovered is, too many people have repeated similar work and been successful getting similar results.

    Mendel did a lot of great work on genetics and heredity without knowing a thing about DNA. I have a feeling the Pons and Fleischmann work will be a similar situation. They found an experiment that proves something in a science we are incapable of analyzing yet.

    1. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even if what they discovered (and the jury is still out on that) is some kind of magic radiation free D-D-fusion, it still doesn't work.

      The whole contraption operates at atmospheric pressure, so what you get is at best steam at 100 deg. C or 370K. Converting this to electricity in a perfect (but unobtainable) Carnot machine with a heat sink at 300K gives an efficiency of a measly 20%. So unless this thing puts out at least 5 times the energy being put into it, it won't even be capable of driving itself. No experiment ever demonstrated a gain even near that level, even with fusion occuring a plain old heat pump will be a more efficient heater.

      In short, even if Fleischmann is right (which I very much doubt), there's nothing here to be commercialized. It's a scam, and Fleischmann is no scientist. He probably never was.

    2. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is no question that Pons and Fleischmann discovered some kind of previous unknown phenomena in their U Utah lab in the late 1980's. The question is what?

      One of the basic principles of science is parsimony: choose the simplest explanation that fits the facts. I don't know what happened in the lab because I wasn't there, but if I'm offered a choice between assuming (A) some previously unknown phenomena, which nobody has been able to reliably reproduce, or (B)malfunctioning equipment or outright fraud, (B) seems a lot more parsimonious. Scientific experiements go wrong all the time, and scientists commit fraud more often than we'd like to think (the Korean cloning guy comes to mind).

    3. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by Convergence · · Score: 1

      A heat pump uses a small amount of energy to 'push' a larger amount of heat. For instance, a toaster that uses 1000J will create 1000J of heat. A heat pump --- say, the outside part of a window A/C unit, generates 4000J of heat, using 1000J of electricity and pumping 3000J interior heat from the inside.

      Basic thermodynamics.

      Got any specific references for your claims that cold fusion occurs everywhere? Ones that you've read yourself and found convincing?

    4. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by glitch! · · Score: 1

      The whole contraption operates at atmospheric pressure, so what you get is at best steam at 100 deg. C or 370K.
      That's fine with me. If they can produce a very simple home unit, just the heat alone would be worth at least $500 to maybe as much as $1000 per year to me. If they sold the unit for say, $10,000 and it would produce an "unlimited" amount of 100C water for more than a decade, I would buy it this hour.

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    5. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by viscous · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...and Fleischmann is no scientist. He probably never was.

      Actually, Fleischmann was definitely a real and successful scientist at least up until 1989. He's a Fellow of the Royal Society, and was head of the chemistry department at Southhampton University. Not someone you would expect to turn crackpot.

      But this doesn't mean that Cold Fusion isn't bunk. The point is that even serious scientists like Fleischmann can go fringe.

    6. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by barawn · · Score: 1

      The whole contraption operates at atmospheric pressure, so what you get is at best steam at 100 deg. C or 370K.

      Why, precisely, would you have to use water?

      Last time I checked, there are plenty of other liquids (with higher boiling points) which would be perfectly suitable.

    7. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But for *home* use? I wouldn't want to pay their liability insurance premium.

    8. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they're advertising it as a home heater. Even if there is no excess heat due to fusion, it still is a perfectly good electric heater.

    9. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no question that Pons and Fleischmann discovered some kind of previous unknown phenomena in their U Utah lab in the late 1980's.

      NONSENSE!

      See my previous posting on the numerous experimental errors in their original experiment and paper. What they demonstrated is that they were very poor at experimental design, and did extremely sloppy calorimetry. I would suggest that anyone who tends to believe this stuff look into both the history of experiments in cold fusion in the late '80s, and then the fascinating story of the very similar polywater controversy of the late '60s.

      The cold fusion episode was a classic example of pathological science.

      Furthermore, people have been studying the thermodynamics of deuterium adsorption into palladum since the 19th century! Nothing new here.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    10. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Even if what they discovered (and the jury is still out on that) is some kind of magic radiation free D-D-fusion, it still doesn't work.

      The whole contraption operates at atmospheric pressure, so what you get is at best steam at 100 deg. C or 370K. Converting this to electricity in a perfect (but unobtainable) Carnot machine with a heat sink at 300K gives an efficiency of a measly 20%.


      Well, assuming (which I doubt) that all they can do is heat water, there are a whole lot of industrial uses for heated water for "process heat", or for home water heaters, or just plain home heating, for that matter.

      If they can build some alamagoosa which takes cold water in, and puts hot water out, that puts out a lot more than 3.4 BTU per watt-hour of input power, then who cares how it happens?

      (Well, the aliens whose broadcast-power network they're tapping, they might care. A lot. :-)

      The problem is, I've heard all this before. In January of 1996, someone by the name of Patterson had a hot water heater that supposedly worked on this principle, little resin beads plated with layers of nickle and palladium. There was an item on the ABC news magazine program. (20-20?) They were supposedly going to have home hot water heaters on the market "Real Soon Now."

      Obviously, it didn't happen.

      I expect it to "not happen" this time, too.

      But I'd love to be surprised.
    11. Re:Fleishman found something, but what? by barawn · · Score: 1

      But for *home* use?

      My bad! We never use anything other than liquid in homes, like oh, say, freon (or any of the other cooling liquids).

      Or maybe you're more worried about the fact that they'd be at high temperatures, and could maybe burst pipes? Because we never use explosive materials inside homes - like, say, natural gas, home heating oil, gasoline or kerosene?

  52. They want you to invest, not pay rent by backslashdot · · Score: 1


    In me opinion, me conjectures/thinks they announced Fleischmann was hired to encourage people to invest in their company's stock. After all, if Fleischmann is willing to sign on.. they must have something of potential value. They even provided their stock ticker symbol in the article, so if you want to invest ..it's easy!

    So, to me, this does not mean they have a viable product that is guaranteed to make millions, it just means they want people to invest money in their company.

  53. Pick up that phone! by Von+Rex · · Score: 1

    If you order within the next ten minutes, he'll mail you an anti-grav generator, too.

  54. So whatever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iter project anyone?

    http://www.iter.org/ Apparently it is good to encourage children to stare into the sun, but only if it's man-made.

    Background on Iter: Multi-national project involving many forward thinking nations in the interests of capturing fusion power. I beleive the list was something like France, Germany, Japan, Canada... Zimbabwe. It's also fairly old news, I remember my father speaking about it late 2001, while driving past one of the prospective building sites, alas Canada was outbid.

  55. The drawbacks? by EZLeeAmused · · Score: 1

    You can only heat your house once, and it gets REALLY hot.

    --
    Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
  56. Here's their SEC filing by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's their SEC filing.. Remember, lies here are felonies.

    On August 18, 2005, the Company acquired D2Fusion Inc. ("D2Fusion"), as a wholly owned subsidiary in exchange for a five (5) year convertible debenture in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) and an agreement to advance up to two million two hundred thousand ($2,200,000) in the form of loans over the next twelve (12) months to capitalize D2Fusion' initial business plan. The stock purchase agreement further commits the Company to assist D2Fusion to have direct access to public markets within the next six (6) months for the purpose of raising additional funds in excess of those committed by the Company. D2Fusion is a research and development company staffed by scientists and engineers working toward the delivery of proprietary solid-state fusion aimed at entry level heat and energy applications for homes and industry. Solid-state fusion is a technology more widely recognized under the name "cold-fusion." Unlike the reactions in "cold-fusion," D2Fusion technology uses much simpler and more reliable solid state processes more akin to high temperature super-conductor physics to produce and control radiation-free fusion reactions. In this simplest form of fusion two deterium atoms which are contained and constrained under solid state conditions fuse to form a single helium atom. Each new helium atom created is accompanied by an enormous energy release. Under ideal conditions, one gram of hydrogen fuel is equivalent to billions of watts of energy. Russ George and Dr. Tom Passell, who head the Palo Alto based company, have been involved with solid state fusion research since 1989. Successful experimental prototypes have been tested at Stanford Research Institute. The immediate intention of D2Fusion is to produce kilowatt scale thermal prototypes which will be further tested and refined by collaborating research groups in the Silicon Valley, Los Alamos, the US Navy, and Frascati, Italy. D2Fusion's ultimate goal is to produce heat and electricity at a fraction of today's cost with no emissions. The Company is well aware of the controversy surrounding "cold fusion" technology. However, the Company believes that there is sufficient global evidence that the risk/reward ratio merits investment. Should D2Fusion's prototype technology be scaled to commercial size it will help solve much of the world's energy, water, and pollution problems.

    That "successful experimental prototypes have been tested at Stanford Research Institute" line looks very suspicious. For one thing, there is no "Stanford Research Institute" today. It's been "SRI International" since 1970.

    1. Re:Here's their SEC filing by Reziac · · Score: 1
      Boilerplate from the press release, and what may well be the most significant statement:

      A number of assertions in this press release may be considered to be forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, including timely development, and market acceptance of products and technologies, competitive market conditions, and the ability to secure additional sources of financing. The actual results Solar Energy Limited may achieve could differ materially from any forward-looking statements due to such risks and uncertainties.

      D'oh!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Here's their SEC filing by ribuck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > Under ideal conditions, one gram of hydrogen fuel is equivalent
      > to billions of watts of energy.

      If they think that energy is measured in watts, I don't think there's much chance that their other physics will hold up.

    3. Re:Here's their SEC filing by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      If the people who know physics wrote the SEC filing, they're definitely in trouble.

    4. Re:Here's their SEC filing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! How can 1 gram of fuel be equal to billions of watts of energy ?

      Billions of joules maybe.

      Watts are a rate, fucking morons.

    5. Re:Here's their SEC filing by boutell · · Score: 1

      "Billions of watts of energy." Uh-huh, for how long? A billion watts for a picosecond is no biggie.

      --
      Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
    6. Re:Here's their SEC filing by ShadowBot · · Score: 1
      For one thing, there is no "Stanford Research Institute" today. It's been "SRI International" since 1970.

      Hmmm..., I wonder what the SRI in 'SRI Internatinal' stands for.

      Do you think..., just perhaps..., maybe... it stands for 'Stanford Research Institute'?

      *Big Gasp* Nooooohh...!!!

      --
      Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
  57. disclaimer from TFA by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

    "A number of assertions in this press release may be considered to be forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, including timely development, and market acceptance of products and technologies, competitive market conditions, and the ability to secure additional sources of financing. The actual results Solar Energy Limited may achieve could differ materially from any forward-looking statements due to such risks and uncertainties"

    That's one big CYA.

    1. Re:disclaimer from TFA by hughk · · Score: 1

      This is really no different from filings of many similar speculative businesses. You may want to check out biotech companies, they are so speculative that they can make cold-fusion look positively blue-chip!

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  58. Wrong icon on this post. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    With the foot icon this would have been a good fun Saturday article to let folks have some fun. Posting it as a power dept article is just wrong. Guess we can feel fortunate it wasn't posted with the science icon.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  59. High pitched New Jersey voices? by FunkyRat · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is that in the future we will all sound like Fran Dresher?

    1. Re:High pitched New Jersey voices? by CFD339 · · Score: 1

      May the FSM have mercy on us all, I hope not.

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    2. Re:High pitched New Jersey voices? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes, only somewhat less nasal, obviously.

  60. Their picture looks more like by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    a commercially-available dishwasher than anything else.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  61. Why this is good for the country by marciot · · Score: 1

    The government should support this, since it will encourage nuclear families in the United States, and that is good for the children.

  62. Mayonnaise? by thewrathoffluffy · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Fleischmann make mayonnaise?

    1. Re:Mayonnaise? by Firehed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dunno, but it would be a miracle if he could whip together this product.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:Mayonnaise? by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Something's the matter with your sig line... it's telling me content restriction is good. Did you mean something like "content restriction [actualization/attainment/allowance/acceptance/ adoption/approval/...]"? Annulment is pretty much the exact opposite of the word you want there. Unless you're pro-DRM, which doesn't seem to be the case.

  63. It's Not April 1 Yet by Ranger · · Score: 1

    Is this some kind of April Fusion joke?

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  64. Why the negativity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like there is a lot of negativity flowing through this thread! While the good Doctor may not have succeeded a few years ago that doesn't mean that success is not impossible. Furhter if we moe just a bit away from the Doctors original approach we will see that there is a lot happening with low temperature fusion much of it peer reviewed and at the very least interesting.

    Who knows maybe the good Doctor learned a bit aobut following proper scientific procedure and is resisting the urge to announce anything prior to getting it right. A stretch maybe.

    As to the ability to get a home heating appliance together in a year that may be pushing it but we really don't know what technology they wish to exploit. I do wonder how one would sell these anyways as half the population is nuclear adverse. Could you imagine somewone trying to sell one of these in California or the rest of the left coast? I actually think this is the big hurdle to bridge and yes I understand that the technology hurdle is huge and frankly as new as a new born baby.

    So in a wrap there is enough evidence of low temperature fusion, much of it recent and from distinctly differrent sources than original fusion in the bottle set. The reality is that it is a process that can happen even if nobody has yet found a way to reliably produce large amounts of heat from the technology. So let him have his day.

    thanks
    dave

    1. Re:Why the negativity. by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      The negativity is due to people who completely bought into the hype once before and were let down. Now they assume that all hype is false, and if they turn out to be wrong, pleasant surprise! Still, it's rude of them to patronize people for being hopeful.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  65. they found more ways to screw up by swschrad · · Score: 1

    than anybody had previously imagined. they couldn't do the math, they couldn't figure the calorimetry out, they couldn't recognize recombination oxygen/hydrogen explosions when one hit them.

    there should have been a patent for something titleable "A New Approach to Stringing Together Balderdash."

    they were out of their field, they couldn't figure it out, and now fleischman's large body of published work, much of it rather suspect on examination, has got him another big business sucker with more money than they can apparently invest sensibly.

    we shall hear no more of this in a year, guaranteed. unless somebody holds another fusion faire on a weekend the renaissance faire doesn't have the farm field reserved.

    around the courthouse, implausible science used to promote money from folks, upon which nobody can duplicate the implausible science is known as fraud. perhaps this time, somebody will whistle up the cops.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  66. To quote a Fark cliche... by cardoso · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --

    []'s Carlos Cardoso - Becoming a brazilian ProBlogger, typo by typo
  67. All I want... by phxhawke · · Score: 1

    ...is a working Mr. Fusion! Is that so much to ask?

  68. This is nothing... by Tellalian · · Score: 1

    Wake me when they make an air conditioner using cold fusion.

  69. Hydrogen by vshepherd · · Score: 1

    Reading the explanation at http://www.d2fusion.com/education/essay.htm reminds me of Vladimir Larin's book "Hydridic Earth". His theory was that the earth contains free protons moving within metal bodies. Over time these come to the surface and on their journey combine with oxygen to make water, and carbon to make hydrocarbons. As a layman, I am ignorant, but the parallels are striking. Perhaps cold fusion is an explanation for why Helium is in oil wells.

    1. Re:Hydrogen by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

      A much better explanation why there is helium in gas wells is because 1) there is a trap and 2) there is alpha decay of radioactive isotopes.

      However the hydritic earth hypothesis is possible. It is possible petroleum (at least some of it) derives from the mantal. It actually might make sense to sink a well into the Peace River Arch in Alberta and test to see if there are hydrocarbons under the tar sands. If there are then there may be a trap with incredible quantities. So far the hypothesis has not been tested. C Warren Hunt and partners partly drilled a well but it did not reach target amid a great deal of controversy. That hole can be re-entered and deepened.

  70. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to admit, subjecting these claims to the marketplace should prove whether or not there's anything to them. The number of people willing to believe their houses are warm when they are cold is probably a lot smaller than the number of people willing to believe they've been cured by quack medicine.

    Don't these cold fusion devices supposedly require electrical input to initiate fusion? If you run current through a resistor, it will generate heat, and how many people hook their space heaters up to calorimeters and multimeters to see if power out exceeds power in?

  71. A contradiction by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Fleischmann was a good scientist..." AND "...his research was not reproducible..."
    Science is all about getting reproducible results, and a scientist who fails to do so is, by definition, not a good one.

    1. Re:A contradiction by Surt · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all. Being a good scientist is about doing careful, repeatable work. Good science is that which turns out to be reproducible by other scientists. There's no way prior to having another scientist actually repeat your work to be able to say with certainty that they will be able to do so.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:A contradiction by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Whatever the outcome, I'll still buy his yeast.

  72. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    Hrm... dark location, surrounded by plastic, no view of the ouside world, lighted by fluorescence... Sounds like a cube farm to me!

  73. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can do nuclear power with non-enriched uranium (see CANDU reactors, among others).

  74. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

    Yes, Magnox too. In these the 0.7% or so of 235 found in natural (un-enriched) uranium is the important bit.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  75. Uh oh, they're on to us!!!! by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Why persist in these malicious lies?... Perhaps you have a large investment in a tokamak company?
    Actually, I'm part of the Zionist Occupation Government. We're afraid that cheap energy will loosen our stranglehold on power. And discrediting Cold Fusion wasn't easy, let me tell you! We had to bribe, intimidate, or murder every single person who actually figured out how to design a generator using this process. Plus we had to secretly edit every relevent textbook and scientific paper so they'd use a physical theory that didn't allow fusion through chemical processes.

    If you know what's good for you, you'll shut up before our Men in Black grab you and shove you through the nearest Stargate!

  76. Troll, offtopic? by Teun · · Score: 1
    Could someone explain what's so trollish about my worry that powerful entities might bury such a technique? (if it would be possible at all)

    After all, I'm not the only one with this concern...

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Troll, offtopic? by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      Could someone explain what's so trollish about my worry that powerful entities might bury such a technique?

      It displays complete cluelessness about how the world actually operates. You might as well be asking 'could someone explain what's so silly about my fear that monsters live in my closet?'

      Perhaps you could start by explaining the mechanism by which these supposed powerful entities could do such a thing. Orbital mind control lasers, maybe? Remember, the explanation has to work globally.

  77. Like a fission powered light bulb . . . by plutocrat · · Score: 1

    Fusion . . . for home heating?? Bet it heats better than oil.

    Isn't this kind of like a nuclear powered light bulb? As in, totally out of whack to scale?

  78. What if... by jamesh · · Score: 1

    What if he's actually a scheming business genius too?

    What if the technology they proposed those years ago actually works perfectly and due to some deliberate obfuscation the instructions were flawed?

    Maybe, since the 'Pons Fleischmann' incident, he's been working with some secret business partners on bringing a product to market, comfortable in the knowledge that even if rumours did leak out, nobody's going to believe them anyway as he's a proven crackpot.

    <conspiracy>also, the oil cartels will just view him as another free energy loony so he won't need to worry about assasination attempts</conspiracy>

    Now, they're 12 months away from release, with a 15 year lead on any competition...

    1. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the technology they proposed those years ago actually works perfectly and due to some deliberate obfuscation the instructions were flawed?

      It doesn't work perfectly. It's difficult to get it set up properly and it doesn't work reliably. The electrodes wear out and have to be replaced. It's hard to recapture the heat for use as a power source.

      It's really not a question of whether cold fusion exists as a scientific phenomonon. It clearly does. The question is can you do anything practical with it. And so far the answer is no.

    2. Re:What if... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1
      It's really not a question of whether cold fusion exists as a scientific phenomonon. It clearly does.
      Hardly. The only cold fusion which actually existed is being destroyed by the Web 2.0 phenomenon.
  79. Cold fusion for heating, feh! by fbonnet · · Score: 1

    'nuff said

  80. The yeast company is branching out? by DaoudaW · · Score: 1

    How many slashdotters know of Fleischmann only as a yeast company? I understand that yeast has played a major role in genetic research, but fusion!? What the heck have they been smoking???

    1. Re:The yeast company is branching out? by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      Maybe they smoked powdered yeast, enriched in vitamine B-12, iron and follic acid. (I have seen expensive vodka made from soybeans in a nutrition/health store. Not making this up.)

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  81. There IS something to lose... by posterlogo · · Score: 1

    ...and that is the credibility of scientists everywhere. Anytime some crackpot like this comes along, it embarresses us all. Let's NOT give them the benefit of doubt just so we can cover our bases and say, "oh, well, maybe it might work, accidentally or something...um, yeah...i'm so open minded." we need to call this out for what it is, bullshit. this isn't some controversial research that failed peer review for political or ego reasons, this is flat out crap.

  82. Utah by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    Cold fusion coming from Utah is like $10 million dollars coming from Nigeria.

  83. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by eluusive · · Score: 1

    Everyone, unfortunately the read out is a bit hard to interpret. It comes once a month in the form of a bill.

  84. Emissions? by Captain+Entendre · · Score: 1
    Quoth the filing:

    ...two deterium atoms which are contained and constrained under solid state conditions fuse to form a single helium atom.

    ...goal is to produce heat and electricity at a fraction of today's cost with no emissions.

    I wonder what they plan to do with the helium.

  85. ...along with beachfront property in Kansas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they also have another partner, a prominent lawyer who is well regarded in the Beverly Hills liposuction malpractice suit community. Together, Fleichman's team will initially sell patents for their many ideas at cut rate prices. Using these profits they will then proceed to manufacture and market their products, investing in other industries as well, such as casinos in Indian reservations, yaht rentals, and adult entertainment.

  86. From slotcars to fusion reactors -- wunderbar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    From slotcars to fusion reactors -- wunderbar!

  87. fusion is real by phillip9 · · Score: 1

    hi all, small scale fusion projects have been being worked on for the last year. Do a google search, here is one article from the BBC from a year ago. MSNBC had an article 2-weeks ago. For some reason the news just isn't being pushed out to the public (most likely exxon and other oil companies are squashing the news). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4489821.stm

    --
    Thanks, Phill
    1. Re:fusion is real by Phys+Rev+fanboy · · Score: 1

      From the article:
      "What we have done is nowhere near the efficiency needed to use it as an energy source. What we have done is produce highly compact neutron generators which could conceivably be useful for handheld cameras or tiny X-ray sources that could be put into the body to deliver X-rays locally to destroy tumours."
      Tabletop fusion has been demonstrated before. The problem has always been getting it to give you more energy than you put into it.

  88. sensible conclusion, bogus sarcasm by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

    Genius. They can't detect any excess neutrons so obviously there's a new, radiation free, type of D-D fusion going on.

    Your sarcasm derives from the point of view of hot fusion; but hot fusion is limited strongly by a set of constraints that applies when you do fusion by smashing nuclei together at high temperatures. For cold fusions, we have no reason to believe that those mechanistic constraints apply; the only thing that we expect to be true is overall conservation laws: energy, charge, momentum, etc. That means that mechanisms like pure D+D->T+p, D+p->3He+g, and 4 p -> 4He + 2g + 2e+ might very well be at work if cold fusion is a real phenomenon.

    Whether cold fusion occurs or not is an experimental question; we all have our prejudices how likely it is to be true. But although I share your scepticism that P&F cold fusion occurs at all, your specific line of reasoning is bogus--you are extrapolating previous results to a domain where they simply don't apply.

    1. Re:sensible conclusion, bogus sarcasm by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      Your comment displays an ignorance of nuclear physics. In nuclear reactions such as these, the reaction goes through a 'compound nucleus' with properties largely independent of its origin. The compound nucleus, an excited state, is far more likely to decay by particle emission (in this case, a proton or neutron) than to an alpha particle and something electromagnetic.

      Moreover, the lifetime of the compound nucleus is so short that even if it could decay electromagnetically, it could not transfer energy to the lattice -- the atoms in the lattice are too far away. It could only emit photons (or, possible, energetic electrons/positrons), which would not only be trivially detectable, but actually dangerous at the putative rate of heat production claimed.

    2. Re:sensible conclusion, bogus sarcasm by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

      All of the reactions I listed occur commonly in nature (D+D->T+p is 50% of D+D fusion, D+p->3He+g is one of the main steps in solar fusion, and 4 p -> 4He + 2g + 2e+ is the overall reaction in solar fusion). So, your argument that these reactions don't occur is simply wrong.

      As for your other arguments, by your kind of reasoning, superconductivity and superfluidity shouldn't exist either, because, hey, we all know, currents are little particles that keep bumping into things, right? You're right to the degree that if the phenomenon is real, it can't be due to two deuterium nuclei fusing in splendid isolation; but there are many other possibilities.

    3. Re:sensible conclusion, bogus sarcasm by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      So, your argument that these reactions don't occur is simply wrong.

      Your counterargument doesn't even contradict what I wrote. Yes, D+D-->T+p
      and D+D-->3He+n are possible, These reactions work by the formation of
      an extremely shortlived intermediate excited state of 4He (more than 20 MeV
      above the ground state; this is orders of magnitude higher than the particle
      kinetic energy in fusion plasmas), which decays to either T+p or 3He+n.
      The decay time of this intermediate state is on the order of the time
      equired for a nucleon to cross the nucleus. Occasionally it
      will decay by emission of a photon, leaving 4He in a bound state, but this is
      extremely rare, since electromagnetic emission is a rather slow process
      on nuclear timescales. If there is a particle channel (as there is
      in d + d fusion) it will typically dominate. The d + p reaction
      you mention doesn't have a particle channel (except back to the intial
      reactants).

      'Cold' fusion is actually an old phenomenon: catalysis of fusion by muons.
      In this kind of cold fusion, the branching ratios are not significantly
      altered. So, no, creating the compound nucleus by some means other than
      the kinetic penetration that occurs in 'hot' fusion doesn't cause wild
      changes in branching ratios.

      What cold fusion can do is change the relative rate of reaction of different
      initial combinations. For example, p + d --> 3He + gamma could be
      accelerated much more relative to a thermal plasma than d + d would be.
      This doesn't save P&F results, though; gammas from this reaction
      aren't seen either.

      As for your other arguments, by your kind of reasoning, superconductivity and superfluidity shouldn't exist either, because, hey, we all know, currents are little particles that keep bumping into things, right?

      You shouldn't use gibbering non sequiturs like this in public. You come across as an idiot.

  89. cold fusion by howard_coward · · Score: 1

    WTF?

  90. Russ George by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    The person to pay attention to here is Russ George.

    He's the principle behind the business and is also behind another business with similarly profound potential: Planktos, which purports to be pursuing the use of iron fertilization to sequester carbon via oceanic autotrophism. I hope he's not a con-artist or kook but the odds are not high he is for real. This will require some serious due diligence for those venture capitalists who are frustrated with the poor returns now poisoning software systems.

  91. Here is one even crazier, but it is now... by iendedi · · Score: 1
    --

    It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
  92. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1

    True, somewhat. Install this, bill goes down -> success. Bill stays the same -> failure. Of course who's bill stays the same every month? I'm sure they're hoping to claim a modest enough reduction that it's within the bounds of the the month-to-month "fudge factor". I think of this as being like those magnetic doo-dads that you clamp around your car's fuel line to "align the fuel molecules for greater combustion efficiency" or whatever techno-babble they use.

  93. Cold fusion was noise by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It should be obvious to anyone that has been in a university undergraduate lab. In any poorly run experiment you can get impossible results. This does not necessarily mean that the impossible happened - it means you need to track down your sources of error and turn it into a well run experiment. Also, if you can never do it again (like the cold fusion thing) then you have to assume something was wrong with the experiment.

  94. Re:Back in 1945 someone was saying the same thing. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    I only know what I've read. Some searched here may provide additoinal information. If you read the various postings by others, you'll find that others are referencing the same articles. Wish I could be more helpful!

  95. No need to break even by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortunately, for "Cold Fusion" to generate useful heat, doesn't need that it actually be a source of energy. All it needs is to be an efficient means of converting energy into heat.

    So this seems a sensible first-application of a technology that was questioned on grounds of 'does it break even or not?'. Presumably if it was close enough to break-even that people thought it may break even, then it was efficient enough to use as an energy->heat conversion process and beat the arms off existing processes...

    ie, if it's undergoing some kind of fusion or wierd chemical process that may be mistaken for fusion, but uses more energy than it produces, even so, the released heat may be useful.

    I don't know if this is the case, but I'm just trying to point out that all the know-it-alls who have studied fusion from the comfort of their lounge chairs via the telepathic medium and the television and wikipedia may actually be missing some possibilities.

    In fact, the benefits may even be something other than heat-conversion efficiency, for example even if the efficiency is the same, but the Fleischmann heater is more portable, or lasts longer, or uses less-harmful materials ... that is an improvement that may result in sales.

    no-nothing

  96. DOESN'T SAY "FUSION" ANYWHERE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does it say fusion?

    I read this as a gas-powered combined hot-water unit and electricity generator, based on the well-founded Striling engine.

    A very very sensible idea, but not fusion.

    Who posted the headline???

  97. Still not convinced by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

    Good point but looked in wikipedia to check: sievert definition, radiation poisoning

    Looks like the Q value will prolly be Q=20. Alpha particles also have Q=20 but those dont really penetrate the skin much and neutrons do. (but very dangerous when they get into you)

    A thousandth a a degree sounds a bit little to die of, lets say that a kilo of people is raised 1 C by 10 J (rather high estimate i think) and that a the N value of the tisue is N=0.2 then N*Q*energy=0.2*20*10=40 Sievert/C.
    1.0 Sievert corresponds to mild radiation poisoning (according to wiki) that is 1/40=0.025 C quite some more then a thousandth.
    In total i still not sure wether if their experiments worked they would have died. I dont think they would, the wikipedia (rather heavily using that) article talks about cold fusion experiments only being in the watt-range, don't think this experiment will have much more power. Also the experimenters will be shielded by equipment round and of the experiment and will not be sitting right next to it that much.

    1. Re:Still not convinced by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      lets say that a kilo of people is raised 1 C by 10 J

      This is a gross underestimate of the energy required. It takes 4180 J to raise a kilogram of water by 1 C. Perhaps you confused cal and Cal (= kcal)?

    2. Re:Still not convinced by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

      Thanks, replacing those 10J with 5000J (~4180) we get 20 k Sievert/C
      for one sievert that is 5 10^-5 C, which would correspond to mild radiation sickness. Still dont know wether the neutrons have a long half-distance(distance that halfs their amounts) in our body, but suspect they do.
      I was soo wrong in my earlier reply (maybe i am still wrong somewhere).

      Still, the wattages of the experiments with fusion were very low, round a watt. And only very little of that is absorbed by the experimenters' bodies. I still think they would be alright, probably a higher chance of getting cancer though.