| From: Matt | 10/06/99
11:47:09 |
| Subject: Cold Fusion | post id:
17124 |
| What is it? Why is there not
research into it as with "Hot Fusion". What if any are the advances made
in this field of science | |
| From: Darryl | 10/06/99
11:56:02 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17132 |
| Firstly, fusion (to be very
simple about it) is the combining of two small atoms to make one big one.
This releases an awful lot of energy, and is the opposite process to
Fission, the splitting of one atom into two smaller ones, which also
releases an awful lot of energy. Fission is a relatively easy process to
start, all you need is enough unstable plutonium all in the same place at
the same time. Fusion is a lot harder to get started, and requires
temperatures comparable to that which you might find at the surface of the
sun. Currently the only way to replicate these temperatures on Earth is
with a Fission reaction (irony). So what cold fusion is all about is the
idea of starting a Fusion reaction without needing heat. At the moment
despite all the conspiracy theories to the contrary, it is not possible.
Add to that the fact that scientists haven't yet figured out how to limit
a fusion reaction once they get it started, and you have problems.
:-) | |
| From: Spun | 10/06/99
11:57:35 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17134 |
| Nuclear fusion normally needs
very high temperatures to start and the energy needed to reach these
temperatures is greater than the energy produced (at least in a controled
way - H bombs obviously produce a great deal of energy). Cold fusion is just nuclear fusion at near room temperature. Some researchers claimed to have acheived cold fusion a few years ago but has never been repeated. This experiment was alleged to release very slightly more energy than that pumped into the system. | |
| From: Matt | 10/06/99
12:18:46 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17159 |
| Further to what I asked, if
anyone is interested, there is an article
at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/technolgy/archive/1999/05/17/coldfusion.dtl apparently more scientists have had sucess with coldfusion, and this seems to explain quite a bit. | |
| From: Chris W (Plebeian) | 10/06/99
13:24:43 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17202 |
| That link should have been: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/technology/archive/1999/03/15/coldfusion.dtl and it is referenced from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/technology/archive/1999/05/17/coldfusion2.dtl. It makes a lovely conspiracy theory. Does anyone know details of the original experiment so that we have something to discuss? | |
| From: Dr Paul | 10/06/99
13:45:34 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17213 |
| Hi Matt, Pons and Fleischmann put heavy water (deuterated and tritiated water) into a thick walled chamber, into which was inserted two palladium electrodes. An electrical current was passed so as to generate electrolysis. Out of the chamber came heat and light much greater than the input of electrical energy. In addition, helium was detected as an output. If the experimental conditions were correct, the ONLY way to generate the Helium would be through fusion, termed Cold fusion. This has been both not shown and also repeated in many labs around the world. It continues (BBC did a great docco on it, but I was in the UK at the time) and in one of these labs a chamber exploded, killing the observer. My question is why are we spending Trillions of dollars over many decades on the Tokamak without reasonable expenditure on a very interesting and (what would be a more simple) energy generating device. That is what I remember of the experiment and the world at large's response. Paul | |
| From: Darryl | 10/06/99
13:58:06 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17222 |
| Dr Paul: Awesome stuff, I'd not
heard of that particular experiment before - do you have any other
references where I might be able to poke around? I might have to join the conspiracy myself. . . | |
| From: Dr Paul | 10/06/99
15:15:45 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17254 |
| Hi Darryl, I can not vouch for whether the fusion occurs, I have not done the experiment. However, as other labs have repeated the experiment, there must be some evidence for it. The non observation of the event does not discount whether the effect occurs. I am of the beleif that the conspiracy is to not fund and to hide this effect away from the public. Paul PS. I will look for refs and get back. {:~)} P | |
| From: BrianB | 10/06/99
20:04:22 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17329 |
| I am really sceptical about the
reality of cold fusion, but it is potentially so important, that it should
not be totally dismissed yet Anything that Arthur C Clark gets involved with seems to work in the end. | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe | 11/06/99
0:02:11 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17374 |
| Got some references for us
Paul? | |
| From: Cam (Avatar) | 11/06/99
10:18:39 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17394 |
| Hi Terry (&
others) Some pretty wild claims hand waving about cold fusion being the energy source of the future. After wading through some of the documentation last nite, there appears to be something worth pursuing, though possibly not as exciting as the initial hype would have us believe. There's a good review of cold fusion http://www.jse.com/storms/1.html . There's also a fair bit of info on the http://www.ozemail.com.au/~contact/links/slnk-c.htm#x16822 Skeptics web site. | |
| From: Darryl | 11/06/99
10:58:54 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17407 |
| Thanks for the refs Cam, they
made interesting reading. For now I think I'll leave this one in the same mental container that I put the water-engine in: "I'll beleive it when they go on sale". :-) | |
| From: Terry Frankcombe | 11/06/99
18:30:56 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17513 |
| This is a quote from the
(apparently non-refereed) article that Cam posted the link
to: Because only a few chemical compounds and metals are present in a cell, the number of possible chemical reactions is limited. As pointed out by Storms (1991a), any chemical reaction between a mixture of stable materials, as normally present, require energy. Such reactions, when initiated, will use energy supplied by the electric current, thereby causing an apparent energy loss. Heat gain will only be seen if the chemical products should return to their original state. I do hope that this is not the level of physical chemistry/thermodynamics/energy accounting knowledge applied to the rest of the analysis of 'cold fusion' experiments. For those of you who don't know what I'm on about, the statement in green (bar the first sentence and a particular interperetation of the second) is complete crap. | |
| From: bob s | 11/06/99
22:08:11 |
| Subject: re: Cold Fusion | post id:
17540 |
| I read the original announcement
of cold fusion. I was then and remain a total believer that it is NOT
possible. It is necessary to bang atoms together at very high speed ie
high temperature to get them to fuse. I have seen quite a number of
experiments which have resulted in totally false
conclusions. | |