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?
Actually, its theoreticlly IMpossible. Its an oxymoron in fact. Fusion requires energy to push two atoms together. Lots of energy.Originally posted by Viper
I suppose its theoretically possible
Originally posted by FZ+
The key problem of cold fusion was always the lack of any decent theoretical backing.
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.Originally posted by Viper
How were they misinterpreting their data
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.Originally posted by Viper
What good would lying about results do in the long term?
I'm not sure what you mean but I believeOriginally posted by russ_watters
Actually, its theoreticlly IMpossible.
Its an oxymoron in fact. Fusion requires
energy to push two atoms together.
Lots of energy.
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.Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure what you mean but I believe I disagree...
Activation energy ?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.
That's what's implied by cold fusion tech today.Originally posted by russ_watters
You used the word "pressure" - thats another
form of energy. Still not cold fusion.
Of course it'll work. It's just highlyOriginally 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.
According to THIS site, a deuterium/tritium reaction requires 12.1KeV (the lowest) - but that corresponds to a temperature of 141 million K.Originally posted by drag
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).
No offense, but "heating a particle" is notOriginally posted by russ_watters
Since energy = temperature, you can't give a
particle energy without heating it.
Actually, thats 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.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.
Thats STILL kinetic energy. Kinetic energy = temperature. Still not cold fusion.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.
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.
Well, I believe the scientists try to useOriginally 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.
?Originally posted by sir-pinski
Besides chemical reactions typically are much
smaller in energy release than nuclear.