If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Five reasons cold fusion is bunk   (news.discovery.com) divider line 38
    More: Sad, cold fusion, reasons cold fusion, nuclear reactions, fusion reactors, superconductivity, nuclear fissions, deuterium, laws of physics  
•       •       •

4137 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 May 2013 at 9:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-28 09:29:16 AM  
Should be 5 reasons why the E-Cat is bunk, considering that's all they're talking about.
 
2013-05-28 09:29:51 AM  
I really really hate when people unequivocal finalized statements like this. It's like a dare.
Humans are the premiere creatures of figuring out ways to mess with the universe. Just about the time someone puts something like "can't be done" into print is the time that someone else makes the discovery it can be done.
 
2013-05-28 09:35:27 AM  
 
2013-05-28 09:40:29 AM  
We know all the things. Science is over.
 
2013-05-28 09:45:52 AM  
Well maybe one day humankind will figure it out, but right now it seems up there with teleportation and warp travel that seem like cool things we sorta oughta be able to invent, but probably never will.
 
2013-05-28 09:49:01 AM  

indarwinsshadow: I really really hate when people unequivocal finalized statements like this. It's like a dare.
Humans are the premiere creatures of figuring out ways to mess with the universe. Just about the time someone puts something like "can't be done" into print is the time that someone else makes the discovery it can be done.


The mice would like to have a word with you.

/can't be obscure...really?
 
2013-05-28 09:52:00 AM  
Got the text for the slide ready, Johnson? Good, and just in time. We go to press in a minute.

Fusion reactions create heavier elements out of lighter ones -- but not just any heavy element.

Good start.

The evidence of real fusion is in the kinds of elements that come out of any machine. Rossi initially claimed to be making copper out of nickel.

Not bad... Throw in some science.

But the addition of a proton to nickel to make copper requires so much energy that not even dying stars that are collapsing into themselves, aka supernovas, can do it.

Great. Now take it home.

The reaction in the universe that makes copper requires a neutron, a star that has collapsed and become extremely dense.

... uh, that's not right. Damn. Too late to fix it. Quick, finish it.

The only place they are found in abundance on Earth is near nuclear reactors or in radioactive materials.

Think anyone will notice?
 
2013-05-28 09:52:28 AM  
Here are five reasons that cold fusion probably can't work

You know, that would have been a better farking headline, you jackasses.
 
2013-05-28 09:55:34 AM  

Theaetetus: Got the text for the slide ready, Johnson? Good, and just in time. We go to press in a minute.

Fusion reactions create heavier elements out of lighter ones -- but not just any heavy element.

Good start.

The evidence of real fusion is in the kinds of elements that come out of any machine. Rossi initially claimed to be making copper out of nickel.

Not bad... Throw in some science.

But the addition of a proton to nickel to make copper requires so much energy that not even dying stars that are collapsing into themselves, aka supernovas, can do it.

Great. Now take it home.

The reaction in the universe that makes copper requires a neutron, a star that has collapsed and become extremely dense.

... uh, that's not right. Damn. Too late to fix it. Quick, finish it.

The only place they are found in abundance on Earth is near nuclear reactors or in radioactive materials.

Think anyone will notice?


For some reason, I read that as J.K. Simmons doing J. Jonah Jameson...and it made perfect sense.
 
2013-05-28 10:01:58 AM  

Mytch: Should be 5 reasons why the E-Cat is bunk, considering that's all they're talking about.


Some of that's the E-Cat, some of it's cold fusion itself.

Cold fusion isn't possible by physics as we know it. This doesn't make it impossible: its discovery would upend our understanding of physics, but that has happened before. It could happen again, though it seems unlikely.

But if it ever does happen, it's certainly not going to be because of the E-Cat. That thing is bunk.
 
2013-05-28 10:09:39 AM  
Hell, this doesn't even need a hidden DC power source. All it needs is an exothermic, non-nuclear chemical reaction to take place. I opened a vacuum sealed package of nanoparticulate cobalt a couple of months ago and I was astounded by how hot it became just from absorbing oxygen and/or water vapor from the air. I had to set it in a hood for a couple of hours before I could pick the jar back up with my bare hands.
 
2013-05-28 10:09:46 AM  
If only there was some other kind of readily available fusion power source our planet could utilize!
 
2013-05-28 10:12:08 AM  
The reaction in the universe that makes copper requires a neutron, a star that has collapsed and become extremely dense. The only place they are found in abundance on Earth is near nuclear reactors or in radioactive materials.

I read these sentence several times and couldn't figure out what the fark the writer was saying. And then, I realized that the writer had confused neutrons (particles used in fission reactions) with neutron stars (large celestial bodies made up mostly of neutrons). Neutron stars have NOTHING to do with the reaction the writer refers to.

I'm no physicist, but when I see errors like that, I have to question the author's credentials as a science writer.  If you want to examine the idea of cold fusion, there are better explanations of why it won't work that are written by actual scientists.
 
2013-05-28 10:13:57 AM  

Theaetetus: Got the text for the slide ready, Johnson? Good, and just in time. We go to press in a minute.

Fusion reactions create heavier elements out of lighter ones -- but not just any heavy element.

Good start.

The evidence of real fusion is in the kinds of elements that come out of any machine. Rossi initially claimed to be making copper out of nickel.

Not bad... Throw in some science.

But the addition of a proton to nickel to make copper requires so much energy that not even dying stars that are collapsing into themselves, aka supernovas, can do it.

Great. Now take it home.

The reaction in the universe that makes copper requires a neutron, a star that has collapsed and become extremely dense.

... uh, that's not right. Damn. Too late to fix it. Quick, finish it.

The only place they are found in abundance on Earth is near nuclear reactors or in radioactive materials.

Think anyone will notice?


Yea, that's where I stopped reading too.
 
2013-05-28 10:21:22 AM  

Tommy Moo: Hell, this doesn't even need a hidden DC power source. All it needs is an exothermic, non-nuclear chemical reaction to take place. I opened a vacuum sealed package of nanoparticulate cobalt a couple of months ago and I was astounded by how hot it became just from absorbing oxygen and/or water vapor from the air. I had to set it in a hood for a couple of hours before I could pick the jar back up with my bare hands.


Didn't that kind of ruin the contents?

Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time coming up with a purely chemical reaction that would generate this much heat over a period of days or weeks with such a small quantity of material. That's the point the "investigators" were making in the "paper" (such as it is).

To get the kind of results described in the paper, you need something more than a simple chemical reaction. You need to cheat. It looks like readers have come up with a number of possibilities that are a lot more likely than cold fusion.

/would love to be wrong
//willing to gamble exactly $0.00 on this particular horse, though
 
2013-05-28 10:28:19 AM  
Cold fusion types love to use the initial burst of energy to say that cold fusion works by confusing energy with power.
 
2013-05-28 10:35:40 AM  

Mytch: Should be 5 reasons why the E-Cat is bunk, considering that's all they're talking about.


Actually, the Coulomb barrier, Gamma radiation, and temperature are an issue with all of the "cold fusion" devices presented.

The "Catalyst" argument is complete crap.  Catalysts work on a molecular scale.  if you had a baseball represent the nucleus of an atom, the closest electron would be 1000 meters away (over 1/2 mile).  Explain to me how something 2000 meters away will affect whether a marble will bump into the baseball?

So, 4 of the 5 items there are debunked for ALL of cold fusion.  Number 5 was specific to eCat, but scammers always pull the same kinds of tricks to do their scams. So as long as 1-4 aren't addressed, you would find that number 5 is going to be common in cold fusion demonstrations.
 
2013-05-28 10:46:01 AM  

YodaBlues: For some reason, I read that as J.K. Simmons doing J. Jonah Jameson Cave Johnson...and it made perfect sense.


There. Now it makes perfect sense.
 
2013-05-28 10:55:32 AM  
#6 Because Keanu Reeves made movie in which he mastered cold fusion.  This is also why we cannot have time machines but this is also why there will never be machine overlords which enslave humanity.
 
2013-05-28 11:07:50 AM  
I'm completely convinced that we will have Cold Fusion in the future. Probably the very far future, but none of the reasons given are things that will forever prove to be impossible to overcome with enough effort or ingenuity.
 
2013-05-28 11:15:48 AM  
Has there been a discussion of the 'cold fusion' bomb at the beginning of Star Trek to neutralize a volcano?

I may have missed the exact wording (perhaps it' a volcano neutralizer that just happens to be cold fusion powered).  Had to explain to my wife that cold fusion is not an endothermic bomb.  Actually, they should have just called it an endothermic bomb without explaining how it works.  It would have been just as 'sciency' sounding as 'turbo lasers' without the head asplosion by anyone who isn't science illiterate.
 
2013-05-28 11:25:44 AM  

TheGogmagog: Has there been a discussion of the 'cold fusion' bomb at the beginning of Star Trek to neutralize a volcano?


http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/
 
2013-05-28 11:46:07 AM  
www.austinbrowncoats.com

I'll be in my cold fusion.
 
2013-05-28 12:17:36 PM  

jfarkinB: Tommy Moo: Hell, this doesn't even need a hidden DC power source. All it needs is an exothermic, non-nuclear chemical reaction to take place. I opened a vacuum sealed package of nanoparticulate cobalt a couple of months ago and I was astounded by how hot it became just from absorbing oxygen and/or water vapor from the air. I had to set it in a hood for a couple of hours before I could pick the jar back up with my bare hands.

Didn't that kind of ruin the contents?

Also, I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time coming up with a purely chemical reaction that would generate this much heat over a period of days or weeks with such a small quantity of material. That's the point the "investigators" were making in the "paper" (such as it is).

To get the kind of results described in the paper, you need something more than a simple chemical reaction. You need to cheat. It looks like readers have come up with a number of possibilities that are a lot more likely than cold fusion.

/would love to be wrong
//willing to gamble exactly $0.00 on this particular horse, though


In this case we were atomizing the cobalt with lasers, so the oxide layer on the outside wasn't too much of a concern. We only needed the presence of a small amount of catalytic atomic cobalt to evolve the reaction.

I didn't see that they were running it for weeks. That would take a substantial amount of fuel, unless you were trickling in reagents that had a reaction that was downhill by something absurd like 50 kcal/mol.
 
2013-05-28 12:27:47 PM  
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-ro s sis-cold-fusion/
I am convinced it is real, just not convinced it is "cold fusion"
 
2013-05-28 12:39:44 PM  

jeanwearinfool: Theaetetus:

Think anyone will notice?

Yea, that's where I stopped reading too.


I noticed.  I also noticed some typos - what I like to call "editorless-typing-detected".  If they ain't gonna pay no mind to the typos, why the heck look after the "science"?

--

On the topic at hand, I accept that many impossible things are called impossible because our current understanding of physics says so.  For cold fusion to work, some "new" physics would have to be discovered and I don't outright discount that happening.  I *do* outright state that Rossi is a liar, deluded or both.  He's had plenty of opportunities to allow proper measurements to be made on this demos, but he keeps tight grip on his ace-in-the hole.  I however, have figured out what his ace is - it's of the rare suits, the ace of shiat.
 
2013-05-28 12:55:24 PM  
So 3 reasons why cold fusion is less than likely possible and 2 reasons to doubt any claims for ecat.
 
2013-05-28 01:18:05 PM  
I'm still hoping Polywell Fusion will pan out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
 
2013-05-28 02:34:37 PM  
I will just leave this here:

The Gamow Factor or Gamow-Sommerfeld Factor, named after its discoverer George Gamow, is a probability factor for two nuclear particles' chance of overcoming the Coulomb barrier in order to undergo nuclear reactions, for example in nuclear fusion. By classical physics, there is almost no possibility for protons to fuse by crossing each other's Coulomb barrier, but when George Gamow instead applied quantum mechanics to the problem, he found that there was a significant chance for the fusion due to tunneling.
This probability increases rapidly with increasing particle energy, but at a given temperature the probability of a particle having a high energy falls off rapidly, following the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. Gamow found that, taken together, these effects mean that for any given temperature, the particles that actually fuse are mostly in a (temperature-dependent) narrow range of energies known as the Gamow window.
 
2013-05-28 02:36:14 PM  
gads.  i'd rather read 5 reasons why jazz fusion is funk.
 
2013-05-28 02:47:46 PM  
What's going on with that funky think around his neck?

Are they some kind of odd-ball reading glasses?
 
2013-05-28 03:01:26 PM  

pkellmey: Probably the very far future, but none of the reasons given are things that will forever prove to be impossible to overcome with enough effort or ingenuity.


media.tumblr.com

That is not how science works. Science is not research + time = anything you want.
 
2013-05-28 08:01:16 PM  

mark12A: I'm still hoping Polywell Fusion will pan out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell


I'm watching these guys:

http://www.generalfusion.com/

I haven't found anything major that says it wouldn't work, but it's not as efficient as one would like.

pkellmey: I'm completely convinced that we will have Cold Fusion in the future. Probably the very far future, but none of the reasons given are things that will forever prove to be impossible to overcome with enough effort or ingenuity.


How about FTL or time travel? I mean, if you're going to ignore physics, might as well ignore all of it. I mean, what do those guys know anyways?

albuquerquehalsey: That is not how science works. Science is not research + time = anything you want.


It is if you're raised on a diet of sci-fi and propaganda.
 
2013-05-28 11:27:15 PM  

albuquerquehalsey: That is not how science works. Science is not research + time = anything you want.


That's true, but science has shown time and again that it is very difficult to truly rule out possibilities. Our current model of physics provides a better approximation of how the universe works than the previous one did, and it has allowed for things that, under the old model, would have been considered patently impossible. Yet the old model was plausible enough to hold for hundreds of years, and it, too, was a better replacement for an older model which was itself plausible, and it, too, allowed for things once thought impossible.

One of the things our model does better is that it gives us a better look at what we still don't know and still cannot explain. There's enough of this that it seems likely that our current model will someday itself be overturned by something even better, which will allow for some things we currently think imposssible. There's no way to predict what that will be: if we could do that, we'd already be most of the way to discovering it. But I think it's safe to assume that the universe still has surprises in store for us.
 
2013-05-28 11:46:50 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: I haven't found anything major that says it wouldn't work, but it's not as efficient as one would like.


I've seen discussions that claim to prove that "not as efficient as one would like", in this case, means "nowhere close to positive energy balance". I hope they're wrong, but I certainly don't have the physics to confirm or refute the arguments.
 
2013-05-29 12:12:58 AM  

jfarkinB: Quantum Apostrophe: I haven't found anything major that says it wouldn't work, but it's not as efficient as one would like.

I've seen discussions that claim to prove that "not as efficient as one would like", in this case, means "nowhere close to positive energy balance". I hope they're wrong, but I certainly don't have the physics to confirm or refute the arguments.


GF claims that 50% the power output needs to be fed back into the device. It's early days yet, they seem to be progressing and building more pistons, but the whole thing looks like a giant Rube Goldberg contraption, but not beyond what's feasible. There were similar conditions in the Superphénix reactor. Which of course never really worked, but that's the French. Have you seen their cars? Anyways.

I'm hoping it'll work. It's too long to wait for ITER, and no one's gonna turn on the Tokamak in Varennes we had near Montreal decades ago...
 
2013-05-29 07:24:05 AM  
Quantum Apostrophe:pkellmey: I'm completely convinced that we will have Cold Fusion in the future. Probably the very far future, but none of the reasons given are things that will forever prove to be impossible to overcome with enough effort or ingenuity.

How about FTL or time travel? I mean, if you're going to ignore physics, might as well ignore all of it. I mean, what do those guys know anyways?


McFly, none of the reasons given were related to a flux capacitor or FTL unless if you know something about Cold Fusion that you aren't letting others in on.
 
2013-05-29 12:31:07 PM  

pkellmey: Quantum Apostrophe:pkellmey: I'm completely convinced that we will have Cold Fusion in the future. Probably the very far future, but none of the reasons given are things that will forever prove to be impossible to overcome with enough effort or ingenuity.

How about FTL or time travel? I mean, if you're going to ignore physics, might as well ignore all of it. I mean, what do those guys know anyways?

McFly, none of the reasons given were related to a flux capacitor or FTL unless if you know something about Cold Fusion that you aren't letting others in on.


Your philosophy of "none of the reasons given are things that will forever prove to be impossible to overcome with enough effort or ingenuity. " is what I'm trying to understand. So only for cold fusion? Time travel and FTL are not possible though, for reasons you take as being sufficient, right? THERE the physicists got it right? But cold fusion, you'll substitute faith for reason?

You might want to be more careful with your use of sarcasm, especially when you are as stupid as I think you are.

What I know about "cold fusion" is the same as anyone who's honest with themselves.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report