Cold Fusion

MathsIsFun · 2006-03-25 18:14:58

Cold Fusion is a controversial topic.

The idea is that you can get energy from a type of nuclear fusion using a small desktop device at near-room-temperatures (rather than requiring millions of degrees, billions of dollars and possibly some decades of research)

Well, the Cold Fusion people are still at it: http://pesn.com/2006/03/24/9600253_Flei … _D2Fusion/

Ricky · 2006-03-26 02:45:17

When duplicating the effect turned out to be difficult, the whirlwind of positive publicity quickly turned with a vengeance into a firestorm of negative publicity and ridicule, which continues to this day.

That was the first red flag for me. A common tactic among all pseudo scientists is to claim that someone, or everyone, is out to get them. And doing so in the opening paragraph is no good sign. Of course this doesn't mean that it's baloney, but it certainly smells like it.

And if memory serves me, it had nothing to do with it being difficult to duplicate. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann released diagrams of their cold fusion which weren't very clear and didn't specify certain parts. When people first started replicating the experiment, they thought they had observed cold fusion. Turns out later that they were mistaken, they never observed it. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann claimed that those who couldn't get it to work were not doing the experiment right, but no one could get it to work.

I have a distinct feeling we won't be hearing about this again.

Last edited by Ricky (2006-03-26 02:46:23)

Ninja 101 · 2006-03-31 01:01:35

Cold fusion sounds like a good use of govornment money, i mean we need more electricity and cold fusion sounds like a good way to get it. that and nuclear power.

Ricky · 2006-03-31 03:18:45

Cold fusion, while possible, is highly unlikely. We could better use that money for fusion or hydrogen research.

MathsIsFun · 2006-03-31 10:41:42

It still has me intrigued ...

Did Pons and Fleischmann make a simple mistake, and are too ashamed to admit it? Or did they really see some strange effect which they cannot duplicate because they don't know what caused it?

And yes, one does have to be wary of pseudo-science, and there does seem to be money involved now so one should be extra cautious, nevertheless it is still intriguing.

George,Y · 2006-03-31 14:24:50

Or did they really see some strange effect which they cannot duplicate because they don't know what caused it?
--Perhaps

Ninja 101 · 2006-04-03 00:14:54

maybe we should just stick to nuclear power?

Patrick · 2006-04-03 04:12:13

Imo you should never 'stick' to any kind of power source.. You should always look for better(be it enviormental or economical) sources of power. I'm not saying that cold fusion is the the right way to look for this new source, though.

Last edited by Patrick (2006-04-03 04:12:38)

Ricky · 2006-04-03 04:20:33

One reason to not stick to nuclear power is that we can't. That is, radioactive materials, specifically uranium, is an non renewable resource.

Patrick · 2006-04-03 04:28:54

True ricky.. Would you guys agree, if I said the best solution is a mix of solutions? As in different solutions, based on the local enviorment(be it rivers, mountains, many 'sunhours' per day, wind, etc, etc)..

Ricky · 2006-04-03 07:39:21

Well, that all depends. If we could find an engery source which was renewable, cheap, efficent, and available everywhere, then I would say no, a mix of solutions is not needed.

Seeing as we don't live in a perfect unvirse (otherwise I would be very rich right now), then I would say this energy source is highly unlikely, and thus, a mix is the correct solution. At least for the time being.

Patrick · 2006-04-03 07:54:00

Well, obviously such a 'perfect' source would be the best. but I don't know a source that is perfect... But as you(Ricky) said yourself, time will show

MathsIsFun · 2006-04-03 09:18:21

The Sun should last for a few billion years more, so that might work ...

Patrick · 2006-04-03 09:25:37

It is true that the Sun indeed is a great source of energy. If it would be efficient to power all the electrical devices on Earth, with solar power, however, I do not know

Ricky · 2006-04-03 09:59:54

If we could contruct solar panels in a halo shape around the sun, the net gravitational force would be neutral and these would get a heck of a lot of energy.

Patrick · 2006-04-03 10:10:23

How realistic is this though?(I'm asking because I have no idea myself).. Wouldn't there be quite a big chance of different kind of collision?

Ninja 101 · 2006-04-06 22:26:56

Ricky wrote:

One reason to not stick to nuclear power is that we can't. That is, radioactive materials, specifically uranium, is an non renewable resource.

true... seeing as uranium decays into lead after a few thousand/million years.

Ricky · 2006-04-07 02:17:42

Well, that, and also using it in nuclear power plants.

George,Y · 2006-04-07 03:07:32

He may not want his findings published so that he can make some money.

Sorry to say that, i guess i've seen too many movies.

MathsIsFun · 2006-04-07 11:38:29

Ninja 101 wrote:

seeing as uranium decays into lead after a few thousand/million years.

It does indeed! See: http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html

kimrei · 2006-04-08 07:46:36

That's how carbon dating works, you look at the average number of radioactive atoms in fresh carbon and compare it to the number in an older chunk, the more decay the older the carbon.

There's a comic series called transmetropolitan based somewhere in our future, in that series mankind had covered mercury in solar panels which supplied enough energy for the whole planet.

+ cold fusion would be great, radioactive energy is really dangerous (look up the Chernobyl reactor), but solar power is probably the way to go as the energy from the sun is either used or just beamed off redundantly into space and there's more than enough of it (for the next 13 billion years or so at least)

MathsIsFun · 2006-04-08 11:16:45

Also "hot" fusion could provide an enourmous amount of energy if we can master the engineering.

And apparently a lot safer than fission, because if the containment field is breached then it just "flames out" (it is very hard to keep the darn thing going in the first place).

Ricky · 2006-04-09 11:08:05

radioactive energy is really dangerous (look up the Chernobyl reactor)

It can be really dangerous, but Chernobyl was a learning event. Russian standards for nuclear powerplants were much less strict than that of Europe or the US. Also, since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, there have been more an more safe gaurds every year put in place to ensure the safety of the plants. In all of nuclear power history, there have only been two plants which have ever had a real problem, as compared to the hundreds which have been running prefectly fine.

The major problems with nuclear energy right now are disposal of radioactive byproducts and the limited supply of uranium. Safety isn't.

George,Y · 2006-04-09 12:35:49

but solar power is probably the way to go as the energy from the sun is either used or just beamed off redundantly into space and there's more than enough of it (for the next 13 billion years or so at least)

solar power really is a great substitude.

if a city is satisfied by solar power already, it won't seek for nuclear power.

still, that doesn't hold for a reason against exploring the cold fusion.
Human's need is endless

thinkdesigns · 2006-04-18 02:01:21

not really, because it requires large areas to capture this sunlight, and it is hardly realistic that we can capture even a small percentage of the sunlight that gets to earth, and anyway, we can replicate this energy in a much greater magnitude with fusion, it also has no radioactive waste and is an inexhaustable supply of energy, so though solar panels do have the potential, it would be impossible to harness even a small percentage of that.

Math Is Fun Forum

#1 2006-03-25 18:14:58

Cold Fusion

#2 2006-03-26 02:45:17

Re: Cold Fusion

#3 2006-03-31 01:01:35

Re: Cold Fusion

#4 2006-03-31 03:18:45

Re: Cold Fusion

#5 2006-03-31 10:41:42

Re: Cold Fusion

#6 2006-03-31 14:24:50

Re: Cold Fusion

#7 2006-04-03 00:14:54

Re: Cold Fusion

#8 2006-04-03 04:12:13

Re: Cold Fusion

#9 2006-04-03 04:20:33

Re: Cold Fusion

#10 2006-04-03 04:28:54

Re: Cold Fusion

#11 2006-04-03 07:39:21

Re: Cold Fusion

#12 2006-04-03 07:54:00

Re: Cold Fusion

#13 2006-04-03 09:18:21

Re: Cold Fusion

#14 2006-04-03 09:25:37

Re: Cold Fusion

#15 2006-04-03 09:59:54

Re: Cold Fusion

#16 2006-04-03 10:10:23

Re: Cold Fusion

#17 2006-04-06 22:26:56

Re: Cold Fusion

#18 2006-04-07 02:17:42

Re: Cold Fusion

#19 2006-04-07 03:07:32

Re: Cold Fusion

#20 2006-04-07 11:38:29

Re: Cold Fusion

#21 2006-04-08 07:46:36

Re: Cold Fusion

#22 2006-04-08 11:16:45

Re: Cold Fusion

#23 2006-04-09 11:08:05

Re: Cold Fusion

#24 2006-04-09 12:35:49

Re: Cold Fusion

#25 2006-04-18 02:01:21

Re: Cold Fusion

Board footer