Cold Fusion

  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. I suppose its theoretically possible
  4. Greg Bernhardt

    Staff: Admin

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

    LURCH 2,507
    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?
  7. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, its theoreticlly IMpossible. Its an oxymoron in fact. Fusion requires energy to push two atoms together. Lots of energy.
  8. 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:

    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!
  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.

  11. How were they misinterpreting their data
  12. russ_watters

    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."
  13. What good would lying about results do in the long term?
  14. russ_watters

    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.
  15. Its sad that physics discoveries are usually blighted by money

    Im the only English supporter of the eagles
  16. drag

    drag 1,341
    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.
  17. LURCH

    LURCH 2,507
    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.
  18. russ_watters

    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.
  19. drag

    drag 1,341
    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
  20. russ_watters

    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
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?