Cold Fusion

  • Thread starter Viper
  • Start date
  • #1
53
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
108
0
  • #3
53
0
I suppose its theoretically possible
 
  • #4
18,145
7,654
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
53
0
No the usa power source is a cold fusion reactor the particle cannon is a weapon of mass destruction.
 
  • #6
LURCH
Science Advisor
2,549
118
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
Mentor
19,599
5,872
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.
 
  • #8
FZ+
1,561
3
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:
 
  • #9
53
0
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!
 
  • #10
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
 
  • #11
53
0
How were they misinterpreting their data
 
  • #12
russ_watters
Mentor
19,599
5,872
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."
 
  • #13
53
0
What good would lying about results do in the long term?
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
19,599
5,872
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.
 
  • #15
53
0
Its sad that physics discoveries are usually blighted by money

Im the only English supporter of the eagles
 
  • #16
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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 wierd effects for each. I think it's
just a matter of technology.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #17
LURCH
Science Advisor
2,549
118
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
Mentor
19,599
5,872
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" - 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
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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" - thats 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 :wink:) tank
to actually get some measurable amounts
of energy this way.

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
russ_watters
Mentor
19,599
5,872
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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 :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.
 
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
19,599
5,872
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, 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.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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.
 
  • #24
65
1
Originally posted by drag
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.
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.
 
  • #25
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
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.
 

Related Threads on Cold Fusion

Top