Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cold Fusion

  1. Apr 27, 2003 #1
    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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 27, 2003 #2
  4. Apr 27, 2003 #3
    I suppose its theoretically possible
     
  5. Apr 27, 2003 #4
    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?
     
  6. Apr 27, 2003 #5
    No the usa power source is a cold fusion reactor the particle cannon is a weapon of mass destruction.
     
  7. Apr 27, 2003 #6

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?
     
  8. Apr 27, 2003 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, its theoreticlly IMpossible. Its an oxymoron in fact. Fusion requires energy to push two atoms together. Lots of energy.
     
  9. Apr 29, 2003 #8

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    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. :wink:
     
  10. Apr 29, 2003 #9
    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 nucleur warhead and flamethrowers and tesla coild etc which already exist!
     
  11. Apr 29, 2003 #10
    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
     
  12. Apr 30, 2003 #11
    How were they misinterpreting their data
     
  13. Apr 30, 2003 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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."
     
  14. May 2, 2003 #13
    What good would lying about results do in the long term?
     
  15. May 2, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  16. May 2, 2003 #15
    Its sad that physics discoveries are usually blighted by money

    Im the only English supporter of the eagles
     
  17. May 3, 2003 #16

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    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 wierd effects for each. I think it's
    just a matter of technology.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  18. May 3, 2003 #17

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  19. May 3, 2003 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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" - thats another form of energy. Still not cold fusion.

    Lurch, thats an interesting possibility, but I would think it takes some energy to quantum teleport a proton. I don't know much about it though.
     
  20. May 3, 2003 #19

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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).

    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.
    That's what's implied by cold fusion tech today.
    Nobody says it's totally "free" - it's
    not against the laws of physics.
    Of course it'll work. It's just highly
    unlikely and you'll need a very huge
    (and that's an understatement :wink:) tank
    to actually get some measurable amounts
    of energy this way.

    Live long and prosper.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2003
  21. May 4, 2003 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2003
  22. May 5, 2003 #21

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    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 :wink:), 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.
     
  23. May 5, 2003 #22

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, thats TEMPERATURE :wink:. 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.
    Thats STILL kinetic energy. Kinetic energy = temperature. Still not cold fusion.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2003
  24. May 6, 2003 #23

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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 ? :wink:

    Live long and prosper.
     
  25. May 7, 2003 #24
    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. Besides chemical reactions typically are much smaller in energy release than nuclear.
     
  26. May 7, 2003 #25

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    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.)
    ?

    Live long and prosper.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook