Fusion Claim: New Data Supports Physicist's Experiment

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Guybrush Threepwood
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data Experiment Fusion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a physicist's recent claims of observing nuclear fusion in a beaker of acetone, supported by new data. Participants explore the implications of this claim, the skepticism surrounding it, and related concepts such as sonoluminescence and potential applications for Mars terraforming.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism regarding the claim of nuclear fusion, questioning the feasibility of sound waves carrying enough energy for the proposed effects.
  • Historical references to cold fusion claims are made, with participants recalling past skepticism from the scientific community and concerns about experimental errors.
  • One participant mentions the potential for using hydrogen-acetone bombs to create an atmosphere on Mars, suggesting unconventional methods for terraforming.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between sonoluminescence and the proposed fusion claims, drawing parallels to the Casimir effect and the production of Hawking Radiation.
  • There are suggestions about using ice asteroids to terraform Mars by melting the polar ice caps, highlighting alternative approaches to planetary engineering.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the fusion claims, but there is no consensus on the validity of the new data or the implications of the proposed methods for Mars. Multiple competing views remain regarding both the fusion claims and the terraforming strategies.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference historical skepticism towards cold fusion and the complexities of sound wave energy in relation to the new claims. There are unresolved questions about the experimental setups and the reliability of the data presented.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring nuclear fusion, sonoluminescence, and planetary engineering, as well as individuals interested in the historical context of controversial scientific claims.

Guybrush Threepwood
Messages
514
Reaction score
1
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/3/3

The physicist who claimed to have observed nuclear fusion in a beaker of acetone two years ago has published new data to back up his claim...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Met, IMO, with a healthy degree of skepticism by the scientists they cited in the article.

The main thing about this that puzzles me is how sound waves could possibly carry enough energy to do what is claimed: a collapsing bubble collapses at the speed of sound (in water).
 
As long as Purdue doesn't go to the extremes the University of Utah did in 1994, I'll be happy.
 
Originally posted by xeguy
As long as Purdue doesn't go to the extremes the University of Utah did in 1994, I'll be happy.
Agreed: like punching yourself in the face...
 
Fine!

Could we give Mars an atmospheare by bombing it's surface with hydrogen-acetone bombs then?
 
Not that this has much to do with this new bubble fusion idea--

I am so old (and decrepit, but we won't talk about that) that I can actually remember reading in the newspaper about the early claims on behalf of cold fusion. The funny thing, as I think back on it, is that some elderly big-name physicist who was asked to comment on the issue actually seemed to support it early on, at least to the degree of being quoted in the paper as saying that the possibility of cold fusion was not completely off the wall. It may have been Edward Teller, I can no longer remember. (Memory--that's the first thing to go. Or is it? Can't recall for sure.)
 
Last edited:
At the time of the cold fusion flap I was working in the Physics Department of Oregon State U. I listened in on, and participated in,(listened more then talked) the conversations of the Profs about this new Cold Fusion thing. None could understand how it could possibly be right. There were plenty of skepticism and no blind believers. Most felt that it would turn out to be experimental error.

(Believe it or not there are not many blind believers of ANYTHING among the Physics Profs I knew.
 
LOL - "Believe it or not there..."

Thanks for the personal reminiscence, Integral.
 
Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/3/3

I do recall the original paper detailing the experiment was refuted by other scientists who stipulated a high level of contanimation caused the data to be very unreliable.

Another line of inquiry has been ongoing as to the effects and causes of Sonoluminescence, the handwaving suggests that a Backreaction from the Bubble 'surface'(which is impregnated by infalling sound-waves) causes an internal Vacuum from the internal/underside of the Bubble-surface.

The similarity to the 'Casimir' effect for other Vacuumated energies, with plates for instance, shows that there are similarities with Micro-Blackholes?..and observed Sonoluminescence.

Sonoluminant energies are caused by the experimental set-up, we are 'seeing' the manufacture of Hawking Radiation.
 
  • #10
Bombing the Mars pools would perhaps reveal the core of Mars and warm the planets surface.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Sariaht
Bombing the Mars pools would perhaps reveal the core of Mars and warm the planets surface.

Whatever happened to good ol' ice-teroids? Not only do they contain volatiles necessary for the development of terraforming-genetic-bacteria, they are quite abundant in the relatively nearby asteriod belt. Give Mars new oceans: That's what you should do. There's plenty of CO2 at the south pole to initiate artificial greenhouse heating. Or, you could bombard the south pole with the ice planetoids. Since kinetic energy is essentially the same as heat, you could transfer the water to Mars and melt the pole(s).

Live long and prosper. \\//,
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
11K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K