Cold Fusion: US Navy makes breakthrough?

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090324/ts_alt_afp/usscienceenergynuclear





    I guess we'll have to wait and see....

    Looks like it is being presented at the spring ACS meeting right now.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Don't hold your breath. USN science is mostly smoke and mirrors. I retired from a Navy lab.
     
  4. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    I can't believe the Navy is wasting their money on this!
     
  5. Is this a bad joke?
     
  6. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  7. berkeman

    Staff: Mentor

    Past tense? Is there a link to this paper?


    Well, except for all the energetic neutrons... :tongue2:
     
  8. Borek

    Staff: Mentor

    Last edited: Mar 25, 2009
  9. No joke. These are all the abstracts of the projects being presented at the ACS meeting right now by the scientist mentioned.


     
  10. Why not? It is just as good a way for the Navy to waste their money as any of the other ways the Navy wastes money. (All the Navy ever does with research money is to waste it.)
     
  11. Your tax dollars at work.
     
  12. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,529
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How much money has been spent on fusion research? The last time I checked we are at least 10 - 50 years from having anything useful.

    How much has been spent on cold fusion research?

    I am quite disappointed in the canned opinions. This is how science works. Get over it!
     
  13. Q_Goest

    Q_Goest 2,970
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I agree. When I was a kid 30 years ago, I kept hearing how fusion was just 10 or 15 years away. Seems there's been no change in that projection over the years. :frown:

    Regardless of the odds that some research may pan out, benefits should be weighed against costs. If the benefit is equal to trillions of dollars annually, then even if it's a million to one long shot, the payback is worth some minor research funding. (I'm sure there's some formal explanation of this, but I'm not the accountant... )
     
  14. mheslep

    mheslep 3,462
    Gold Member

    From a 'new free energy' perspective this would be disappointing. From a purely investigative scientific perspective these LENR reactions are interesting. There's been quite a bit of work showing what LENR is not, but there is still quite a bit of unexplained phenomenon here that also has been shown, I believe, to not simply be attributable to background emissions or trace counts. So from that perspective Pd/D whatever-it-is warrants continued investigation and small grants, which AFAIK is all it obtains. Throwing ITER size money at it is another matter.
     
  15. mheslep

    mheslep 3,462
    Gold Member

    There are none with these Pd/D experiments.
     
  16. Take a look at this:
    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/machine-might-save-world

    These guys say they can have net gain by 2012, if they have the funding....relatively soon compared to the 30+ years for ITER, and for much less.

    This can be done, but no one deems this as a priority. Fusion is a lot closer than most people think it is.
     
  17. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Healthy skepticism based on experience. Anything less on this subject is gullibility.
    Useful? That's a pretty big step above the current goal of cold fusion, which so far has not proven to even exist. We know hot fusion exists.
    No, this is how crackpottery, with the occasional Pascal's wager works. Real scientists tend to pick their research based on the merrits of the research topic.
     
  18. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    It's a variant of "Pascal's Wager" and it is the logic based on which a lot of people lose a lot of money in lotteries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
     
  19. Here is the link to the Navy publication where they claim "evidence" of LENR--fusion at low activation energy input.

    http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library2/2008/2008BossTripleTracks.pdf

    Edit: and see here news release of American Chemical Society presentation:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm

    ====

    Now, I would like to begin here a detailed analysis in this forum of the peer reviewed publication by the Navy. I would like to know the following:

    (1) Exactly what are the 'possible' hypothesis now on the table that explain how the Coulomb barrier was overcome to allow for any fusion to begin ?

    (2) The Navy explanation of the 3-pit patterns they show in Fig.1 is that Carbon-12 was split into three alpha ? Does this not mean Navy then suggests Carbon-12 isotope has preexisting within it three alpha ready to split ? Is this an accepted hypothesis for how nucleons arranged within nuclear shells for carbon-12 ?

    (3) What other explanations come to mind to explain the 3-pit pattern shown by Navy in Fig. 1 ? I think it good possibility each pit is a nucleon, either a P or N. So, why would my hypothesis be false ?

    ===

    Please, let us move this thread forward using science--not insult.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
  20. alxm

    alxm 1,864
    Science Advisor

    Could we move this thread forward .. to the Nuclear Physics section? I don't know what it's doing here.
     
  21. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?