Is Cold Fusion a Viable Energy Source for the Future?

[Viper]

Having read my Command and Conquer Generals book I have seen that the USA use Cold Fusion. Is this theoretically possible and could it be done in the future and if so how would it work?

 

[Jack]

This is a hotly debated topic in physics but as yet there is no conclusive evidence to support it.

This recent new scientist article may help- http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991234

 

[Viper]

I suppose its theoretically possible

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Viper, I don't think it's cld fusion. In C&CG they have a weapon called a particle cannon, is that what you mean?

 

[Viper]

No the usa power source is a cold fusion reactor the particle cannon is a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[LURCH]

Another important question to be asked is, even if we do come up with a way of fusing atoms together without giving off a bunch of energy as a byproduct, how usefull would it be as a power source?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Viper
I suppose its theoretically possible

Actually, its theoreticlly IMpossible. Its an oxymoron in fact. Fusion requires energy to push two atoms together. Lots of energy.

 

[FZ+]

Yeah... Other examples of C&C pseudoscience include the chronosphere, the "iron curtain", the ion cannon, tiberium... You get the point. I heard Einstein's family sued westwood for polluting Albert's image or something.

The key problem of cold fusion was always the lack of any decent theoretical backing. Proponents suggest that the metal electrode could act as a sort of nuclear catalyst, but that is very doubtful. Still, some of their results seem interesting, so no consigning to the loony bin yet.

 

[Viper]

OK THEN OUT OF EVERY SINGLE CANDC WEAPON EVER MADE WHICH ONES COULD WORK,

I think the prism towers, concentrating the light enough and the particla cannon could work,
Whos gunna be the clever one and say nuclear warhead and flamethrowers and tesla coild etc which already exist!

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by FZ+
The key problem of cold fusion was always the lack of any decent theoretical backing.

Oh there was plenty of post fabricated theory during the cold fusion hype. The problem is that there was no reproducible experimental evidence, and upon close investigation, it was found that the original experimenters were simply misreading their data.

eNtRopY

 

[Viper]

How were they misinterpreting their data

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Viper
How were they misinterpreting their data

Timeframes. They input energy at a slow rate for a long time, then got a high output for a short time. In analyzing their results they ignored the time when there was no output so they only compared that small input rate to the large output rate. Oops.

That's if I understand it correctly - I'll look it up tonight, I have a good book on it called "Voodoo Science - The Road from Foolishness to Fraud."

 

[Viper]

What good would lying about results do in the long term?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Viper
What good would lying about results do in the long term?

In the short term they just screwed up. In the long term [speculation] they lied because they didn't want to deal with the fact that they were wrong. They figured it was better than admitting their mistake - a common human flaw.

In the book it talks about how mistakes turn into lies or fraud. Sometimes its so subtle the people don't even know they have turned that corner. But other times, they start out with the intention to decieve - usually for money.

 

[Viper]

Its sad that physics discoveries are usually blighted by money

Im the only English supporter of the eagles

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by russ_watters
Actually, its theoreticlly IMpossible.
Its an oxymoron in fact. Fusion requires
energy to push two atoms together.
Lots of energy.

I'm not sure what you mean but I believe
I disagree...

There is no scientific proof that cold fusion
is impossible. I think it's just a matter of
chemistry and physical-chemistry - can we find
a material that will be able to trap hydrogen
isotopes or other energy effectively fusable
elements and somehow, through diffent effects
like piezoelectric ones for example, create
the necessary pressure on them to make'em
fuse, in an energy effecient manner for the
whole process ? That doesn't sound like
a simple yes or no question to me, there are
so many existing and possible materials and
so many weird effects for each. I think it's
just a matter of technology.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LURCH]

As an example of what Drag is talking about: Someone in PF2.0 once suggested that quantum teleportation might be used to cause two protons to "materialise" in close proximity to one another, thus getting them within range of the strong nuclear force without using heat to drive them together. I'm not saying it would work ('cause I just don't know), but it certainly is a clever idea and shows how something other than heat energy might initiate fusion.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure what you mean but I believe I disagree...

The oxymoron is in the word "cold." Cold implies it requires very little energy. IE, you can catalyze it like a chemical reaction to require less activation energy. But there is no way to catalze a nuclear reaction. One way or another, you need to use ENERGY to force another neutron into an atom - lots of energy. There is a specific and unavoidable amount of activation energy in fusion. You used the word "pressure" - that's another form of energy. Still not cold fusion.

Lurch, that's an interesting possibility, but I would think it takes some energy to quantum teleport a proton. I don't know much about it though.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by russ_watters
Cold implies it requires very little energy.
IE, you can catalyze it like a chemical
reaction to require less activation energy.
But there is no way to catalze a nuclear
reaction. One way or another, you need to
use ENERGY to force another neutron into
an atom - lots of energy. There is a
specific and unavoidable amount of
activation energy in fusion.

Activation energy ?
We are limmited by their electrical
repulsion and the relevant electerical
potential energy (if we just consider
the nucleuses). But that's not too high
(4 KeV for two deutirium nucleuses if I
remember correctly, for example).

In addition, I think that by using certain
molecular structures you could bring
them relativly close without directly "paying"
for it - as a part of the internal potential
energy dynamics and then add just a bit of
energy if at all - to make'em fuse. Which
I believe is essentialy what cold-fusion
is all about - using the internal potential
energy shifts of an appropriate meterial.

Originally posted by russ_watters
You used the word "pressure" - that's another
form of energy. Still not cold fusion.

That's what's implied by cold fusion tech today.
Nobody says it's totally "free" - it's
not against the laws of physics.

Originally posted by LURCH
Someone in PF2.0 once suggested that quantum
teleportation might be used to cause two
protons to "materialise" in close proximity
to one another, thus getting them within
range of the strong nuclear force without
using heat to drive them together.

Of course it'll work. It's just highly
unlikely and you'll need a very huge
(and that's an understatement ) tank
to actually get some measurable amounts
of energy this way.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Activation energy ?
We are limmited by their electrical
repulsion and the relevant electerical
potential energy (if we just consider
the nucleuses). But that's not too high
(4 KeV for two deutirium nucleuses if I
remember correctly, for example).

According to THIS site, a deuterium/tritium reaction requires 12.1KeV (the lowest) - but that corresponds to a temperature of 141 million K.

Since energy = temperature, you can't give a particle energy without heating it.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by russ_watters
Since energy = temperature, you can't give a
particle energy without heating it.

No offense, but "heating a particle" is not
a sensible statement russ. Heat is the average
energy of a large amount of particles in
close proximity to each other.

There are 3 ways of containing a sustained
fusion reaction:
1. Gravitational confinement (like the Sun).
2. EM confinement (tokamaks and most other
current attempts).
2. Enertial confinement (particle beams,
current attempts include fusion using ultrasound).

Cold fusion is NOT dealing with a sustained
reaction, though it may and must indeed - in order
to really be useful to us(beyond basic
research ), be self-sustaining in terms of
energy for the whole system.

Now, think of a room of plastic explosives
stacked up together and some hydrogen/deutirium/
tritium in the middle. We blow it all up - we
use the potential chemical energy of the explosives
in an appropriate chemical reaction. Possibly, some
of the explosion's energy will force some
particles to fuse (this is an EXAMPLE, I have NO
idea what will really happen - except a small
earthquake of course ). Also, think of our
current sources of energy - we use the potential
chemical energy of essentialy - dead plants to get
some free energy for our use. So, cold fusion is
partially similar - we put some fusable element/s
in an appropriate material and trigger the
appropriate chemical reaction that will have
a strong enough effect to fuse the above element/s.
There is nothing theoreticly impossible about it,
as far as I can see.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
No offense, but "heating a particle" is not
a sensible statement russ. Heat is the average
energy of a large amount of particles in
close proximity to each other.

Actually, that's TEMPERATURE . Temperature = kinetic energy. So its not a stretch to call the kinetic energy of a single particle temperature. Its not quite the same, but its pretty damn close.

So, cold fusion is partially similar - we put some fusable element/s
in an appropriate material and trigger the appropriate chemical reaction that will have a strong enough effect to fuse the above element/s. There is nothing theoreticly impossible about it,
as far as I can see.

Thats STILL kinetic energy. Kinetic energy = temperature. Still not cold fusion.

 

[drag]

Greetings russ !

Look, I understand what you mean. But,
cold fusion is not about free energy
as you implied above when you supposedly
explained the word "cold". It's about
achieving fusion without taking a whole
large bunch of atoms and heating them,
its more selective and targeted and what's
more important is the fact you can use
some sort of chemical reaction in a material
instead of direct prior self energy input - which
wouldn't be that effective. Anyway, scientists
are not that stupid to seek free energy,
wouldn't you agree ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by sir-pinski
The problem with the idea of a chemical reaction
is that they usually only involve
electron-electron interactions. In fact I have
never heard of a chemical reaction which
involves the nucleus directly. I think it
would be difficult if not impossible to think
of a chemical reaction which would enable
fusion to take place.

Well, I believe the scientists try to use
some additions like EM and kinetic energy (sound
waves) additons. For example, if you can produce
a molecule where two hydrogen nuecleuses are very
close together, their repulsion is masked by
some electrons and the inner molecular balance,
and they can move even closer provided you
supply some additional forces, then you
can get relativly cheap fusion. You see, the
activation energy of fusion reactions of hydrogen
isotopes and the resulting energy differ by factors
of hundreds to phousands. The fusion reactors
we have today are so pathetic that they
can't even nearly sustain their own ops.
Cold fusion may prove to be a viable alternative.
(btw, I'm really no expert so I'm not sure
about the real current and past attempts to
achieve cold fusion, I'm just guessing how
and why it mught work.)

Originally posted by sir-pinski
Besides chemical reactions typically are much
smaller in energy release than nuclear.

?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Viper]

Do you know what this is?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
A very tiny blurred almost unrecognisable
picture of a light?

What's wrong with your vision ?
It's clearly a snapshot of a missile
launch from some PC war game.

 

[Viper]

Ill give you a clue. Its a weapon from the newest version of a long running Real time stratergy video game.

 

[FZ+]

Hmm... it's called scud.gif...

Maybe that's a clue?

Oh, it's obvious, it must be a patriot missile array!

 

[Viper]

No its a gla weapon, oops

 

[Viper]

Heres it a bit bigger

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The oxymoron is in the word "cold." Cold implies it requires very little energy. IE, you can catalyze it like a chemical reaction to require less activation energy. But there is no way to catalze a nuclear reaction. One way or another, you need to use ENERGY to force another neutron into an atom - lots of energy. There is a specific and unavoidable amount of activation energy in fusion. You used the word "pressure" - that's another form of energy. Still not cold fusion.

Russ what about the use of a fission reactor to create isotopes of substances like cobalt, therein the neutron is being inserted into a nucleus simply by the speed of it's release from the radiating materials.

As for chemical nuclear reactions, the only one I could think of (quickly) 'off-hand' would be the capture of electrons, by protons, that then become neutrons, (a form of 'fussioning') in certain chemical processes.

Russ I think that the reason that they used the word 'Cold' was simply in reference to the extreme (difference in) temperature that was seen as needed to cause fusion, as compared to the temps that they thought they had used to achieve fusion.

Saw an excellant TV program that told of the "testing" researchers having moved the line (on the graph) to dis-prove Flieshmans and Ponds results.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ what about the use of a fission reactor to create isotopes of substances like cobalt, therein the neutron is being inserted into a nucleus simply by the speed of it's release from the radiating materials.

Thats still a ton of energy. And maybe we covered this before, but I think fusion requires protons, not neutrons. If you add a neutron to an atom, you get a new isotope, not a new atom.

Russ I think that the reason that they used the word 'Cold' was simply in reference to the extreme (difference in) temperature that was seen as needed to cause fusion, as compared to the temps that they thought they had used to achieve fusion.

Yes, that's correct. The goal of "cold fusion" was to make the reaction occur near room temperature instead of at a few million degrees.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats still a ton of energy. And maybe we covered this before, but I think fusion requires protons, not neutrons. If you add a neutron to an atom, you get a new isotope, not a new atom.

Yes, that's correct. The goal of "cold fusion" was to make the reaction occur near room temperature instead of at a few million degrees.

Yes, I had mentioned that there is a chemical pathway that has protons capturing electrons as to generate neutrons.

Adding neutrons should have effects upon the atoms, more then just the radioactivity, aside from which, the reason that I make the note of it is that it does demonstrate that the effects of atoms, and atomic nuclear arrangements, have opportunites to function in manners that we have yet to have discovered.

Scale counting for so much, there is a possibility that some kinds of atomic arrangements might just be able to fuse under conditions that we have yet to see/figured out, scalar conditions.

The idea that it is a "Ton of energy" sort of wants to state that it is impossible under other circumstances, yet it can occur for 'isotopic' function in much less of an energetic environment then the 'ton of energy' one.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Actually, its theoreticlly IMpossible. Its an oxymoron in fact. Fusion requires energy to push two atoms together. Lots of energy.

this is obvious. the point of cold fusion is that one could create this energy without ionizing a gas into a plasma, thus creating a "cold" fusion reaction. massive eneergy will be the byproduct, not the egnition.

 

[emanon]

Interesting thread.

Cold Fusion is fusion caused chemically rather than by using plasma's.

I remember a New Scientist article back in the Early Eighties inwhich they used the sticking probabilty of proton's to attach them to nuclei.

I forget the two elements that were mixed and heated, but the reaction relied on a metal catalyst, which was honeycombed. I think it was in 1983-84 as I remember writing something on it for course work.

Basically Cold Fusion relies on merging particles onto atoms, rather than creating a soup and bashing the things onto the atom.

It therefore has low reaction rates and so will require large amounts of material to produce significant energy.

however, what is wrong with using a sea of reactants to power a city or country? it is no worse than hydroelectric power?

The reason why money has not been spent on research into FUSION is because stupid politicians wasted our money on FISSION, so they could blow each other up, over something or other.

 

[emanon]

Protons sticking to nuclei is a known phenomena.

The problem is the reaction rates are low. This is why they used a catalyst.

There is a low reaction rate due to the electron shell barrier. I am guessing that the catalyst disturbed the electron shells alongside the other reactant, allowing protons to tunnel into the necleus during a slow breaking and re-bonding of the atams electrons.

Fission was indeed developed for primarily military purposes. You need to go back to school if you think otherwise. And learn a bit more about the history of the Cold War.

If you think it was developed because it was a nice clean means of generating electricity. You are blind in both eyes and have failed to understand that politcal fear drove most of what happened in the 20th Century.

It is the duty of all scientists to understand what uses for the technology they develop. Otherwise like Einstien they run the risk of becoming a liability to the human race. Rather than a great scientist.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by emanon
The reason why money has not been spent on research into FUSION is because stupid politicians wasted our money on FISSION, so they could blow each other up, over something or other.

Actually, most of our bombs are fission-fusion. Very few are fission only. The reason they put money into resarch is there is no compelling political reason to do so.

Cold Fusion is fusion caused chemically rather than by using plasma's.

And this is precisely the problem chemical processes can't do this becuase they only involve the electons not the nuclei.

By definition.

Fission was indeed developed for primarily military purposes. You need to go back to school if you think otherwise. And learn a bit more about the history of the Cold War.

If you think it was developed because it was a nice clean means of generating electricity. You are blind in both eyes and have failed to understand that politcal fear drove most of what happened in the 20th Century.

The two cannot be separated, but it is not correct to say that it was developed for "primarily military purposes."

 

[emanon]

FUSION is a nucluei process by definition, but it can be initiated through chemical reactions, what is your point?

All you need to do is allow heavy particles access to the nucleus, the method is irrelevent.

The term 'chemical' is used to differentiate the process from plasma FUSION reastions.


Who funds research?
What drives research?

FISSON was developed out of fear as a weapon. Harnessing the energy was an after thought for the military, who drove the initial development of the nuclear research.

The scienetists saw FUSION as the clean inexhaustable power source, since it is FUSION that drives the Sun. When the Sun eventually dies, it will of only used up 10% of it's mass. That is pretty efficient.

Not only that but it's waste is not dangerous once the reactions have stopped, unlike FISSION.

FISSION is a poisonous form of generating electricity and more dangerous that fossile fuels. In the long term.

Whoever sold FISSION as a clean energy source needs to be sued and then made to clear it all up.

I am guessing it was the United States and United Kingdom governments.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

One of the best reponces that I have heard, to date, on "Cold" fusion, was that the reaction was not 'sustainable'.

This is NOT to state that the reaction cannot/did not occur, just that as a conmmercial enterprise, if it is not sustainable, then it does not yet have a commercial usefullness, hence no further research funding.

That a micro environment of energy levels sustaining the possibility of a 'fusile' event, could be possible, but the sustaining of it might really be what the problem with it is, as the event might just have parameters of consequence that require elemens of timing that we are, as of yet, unaware of.

That is what I meant about an 'isotopic' environment, the same throughout, briefly, in a very confined space. One, or two, atoms worth of space, briefly!

 

[emanon]

'sustainable' is a funny statement. No fusion reaction is self sustaining. Even the Sun relies on an external power source, gavity.

The more likely reason for not investigating it further was the idea that plasma fusion was the way forward. At the time it was estimated that the first Fusion reactor would be online this decade. Which is currently unachieveable.

I would suggest that given modern techniques and understanding, that this form of fusion may well be cost effective and achieveable relatively quickly, given that the only real machinary will be heat extraction and catalyst replacement.

It would truly be a safe source of energy.

Remember at the time wind power was considered a ridiculas form of energy generation for the national grid.

How times have changed.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Actaully EMANON, fusion in the Sun is somewhat self sustaining as the fusion of matter generates higher density matter, which increases the gravitational pull, which fuses more higher density matter, which generates more gravity, and so on, and so on, and so on...till it changes, Nova's or shrinks and explodes, or runs out of fuel, etc. etc.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by emanon
FISSON was developed out of fear as a weapon. Harnessing the energy was an after thought for the military, who drove the initial development of the nuclear research.

FISSION is a poisonous form of generating electricity and more dangerous that fossile fuels. In the long term.

All of this is quite simply WRONG. Fission was a strictly civilian research project until Einstein wrote his famous letter to Roosevelt advising him that he should develop a nuclear bomb before the Germans did. And nuclear reactors predate nuclear bombs. The "Chicago pile" in 1942 looked very much like the type of reactor now used for generating power. It produced a sustained and controlled reaction.

Fission is NOT more dangerous than fossil fuels. This has been addressed in the thread on alternate energy, but BOTH fossil fuels and fission create waste - the difference is the waste in fission is contained. If contained correctly (the US has a near perfect record for this) it NEVER reaches the environment. In the US there has NEVER been a confirmed civilian death from nuclear fission. There are thousands a year from fossil fuel power via air pollution.

'sustainable' is a funny statement. No fusion reaction is self sustaining. Even the Sun relies on an external power source, gavity.

Gravity provides a FORCE, not a power. The reaction itself is self-sustaining as Mr. Robin Parsons indicated - it is contained by its own gravity. And a fusion reaction in a power plant can be self-sustaining too. Right now the problem is containment.

One of the best reponces that I have heard, to date, on "Cold" fusion, was that the reaction was not 'sustainable'.

Where did you hear that? In fact, NO cold fusion reaction has ever been confirmed to have taken place - much less be "sustainable."

It would truly be a safe source of energy.

Fusion is still a nuclear reaction. It still produces particle radiation and high energy EM radiation.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Russ_Watters

Where did you hear that? In fact, NO cold fusion reaction has ever been confirmed to have taken place - much less be "sustainable."

Television, if I remember it properly it was a PBS program, perhaps Nova?(?)