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

Why Cold Fusion is a Stupid Idea

  1. Jun 7, 2004 #1
    Over the past year, I've evaluated my own research and observations and matched them up with some statements from a pair of friends. One worked on a nuclear sub, and the other worked on an aircraft carrier. Both worked in the nuclear engine rooms.

    As I've been refining the concept of thermodynamics, at least for my own research, I made this statement.

    If hot is defined as the trend towards plasma, and plasma is a trend towards aetheric fire (nuclear fission) and both have a byproduct of radiation emission, then we must assume the following:
    That cold is the absorbtion of radiation.
    That cold is the reduction of electron orbits, which may create a condensation
    If we follow this idea in aetheric physics, we may be bound to say that as the frequency of an electron merges with a lower frequency photon (higher energy/acceleration) then its acceleration would reduce on a quantum level, and the density of the electron would increase – it would become smaller. This would tell us that its frequency has increased, and its orbit has gotten smaller. If this is maintained further, the electrons would ultimately be in near contact with the nucleus of the atom. Although the original mass of the electron is very low, as it increases by 10 octaves, it would create, literally, a greater nucleus, proportional to the original electron count. And what of the nucleus, already 1000 times more dense than the electron, multiplied by its atomic mass (number of protons and neutrons) ?
    If we can express an atom, such as gold, we have the following:

    Au: Gold
    Atomic Number 79
    Atomic Weight ~197
    Number of Protons: 79
    Number of Electrons: 79
    Number of Neutrons: 118

    Mass of electron 9.1e-31 kg
    Mass of proton 1.6e-27 kg
    Mass of neutron ~1.6e-27 kg


    Now assuming the octaval jump of gold transitioned into super densities, the first 10 octaves would yield a new atomic weight of around 276, a substance far more dense and radioactive at normal temperatures than ununoctium (element 118) It would have an atomic number of around 158.
    More bizzarely, would be if the re-averaging “cold” effect were to also effect the nucleus, as while between the 10th and 11th octave the object’s electrons would resemble antiprotons, possibly seeking to merge and explode with the protons and creating an almost acidic effect dislodging the neutrons (creating a neutron radiation or explosion) the actual protons themselves could shift into some kind of Uber quark, a giant vortex, which itself, would technically occupy less space, with a greater magnetic field and a greater gravitional pull. The nuclear core, if following the principles of subatomic density- aetheric wave relationships, would reach 2e26 frequency each, with a “net aetheric disturbance” of 4.11e28...

    (what then followed was a long list of octaval differences between frequency and mass)

    ... I do not know if it will be accepted, however, the basic notation is that at between 10 and 11 octaves, a dense substance, such as gold, uranium, etc, can be made to create an aetheric fusion explosion with the side effect of large amounts of neutron radiation. (a cold fusion reaction, with a neutron bomb side effect, several times more powerful than other reactions previously experienced)

    ok, if you didn't notice, my main statement on any kind of "cold fusion" would depend on specifically targetting the electron fields, without altering the nucleus. Otherwise, you would slowly but surely turn the atom in question, into a black hole. (not for several octaves of increased frequency, but that would be the ultimate end result)

    Because of the nature of this research, I do not believe "0 kelvin" is a proper function of measurement, nor that absolute zero exists. Objects do not "freeze", they have atomic condensation.

    Also, very cold objects will release less random quantum particles, and less radiation of all categories. However, if you some how succeed in reducing the electrical field radius while increasing the field density, it will merge with the nucleus in a very bad way. It will transform the electrons into antirpotons, but the antiprotons will be in the same orbit as the nucleus, causing an antimatter explosion. I don't know what exactly will happen to the neutrons, but I assume that they might be "damaged" a bit releasing neutrinos, and if they remain intact, will create huge spray of neutrons flying out during the explosion.

    Cold fusion, in otherwords, is a neutron-antimatter bomb, which is highly unlikely to work. What's worse, is that it will NEVER be a power source.
    How does a nuclear reactor work ?

    As my physics professor used to say, and my military firends further illustrated
    its a big water heater, that spits out hot steam to turn turbines. The heater,
    is a giant liquid battery using the electrochemical reactions between rods and a sort of electroconductive goup, - like what those energy drinks pretend to be. Its not much more impressive than a car battery, and no real "nuclear fusion or fission" cold or hot, is taking place. The only thing that is hot is the rods, which boil water. Yay.

    How does a giant bomb turn into a water heater ? it doesnt. Plutonium and Uranium are just elements. Cold fusion won't ever work for anything except some rediculous NASA thrust experiment (since NASA specializes in using giant bombs for propulsion)

    - Shin
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 7, 2004 #2
    i thought cold fusion was more of fusion at normal earthly temperatures which is "cold" in comparison with the hot as freaking hell plasma level of hot that they use for normal "hot-fusion"

    i don't know anything about cold fusion as it would be in your description... i don't think anything at 0 kelvin could "fuse" or do ANYTHING because of atomic inactivity due to cold.

  4. Jun 7, 2004 #3
    within 10-20 years it should be fairly easy to find millions of new room-tempurature superconducting elements and compounds using the transfinite periodic chart of artificial programmable atoms made entirely from electron shells- http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/atoms.html

    "A final and critical difference between natural and artificial atoms is that nuclear forces limit the number of protons in a reliable atomic nucleus to 92, the atomic number of Uranium. Unfortunately, since protons and electrons are paired, this means that atoms containing more than 92 electrons have short half-lives - that is, they're radioactive and therefore annoyingly difficult to use for anything other than bomb and power-plant fuel. This is where the real killer app of artificial atoms comes in: Since they're not burdened with a nucleus, they can remain stable with hundreds or even thousands of electrons crammed inside, forming gigantic new orbitals classical chemists could never have imagined...

    ...Let's further suggest that, for maximum flexibility, each quantum dot is controlled by 16 electrodes with independent voltage sources. This means 16 separate conductor traces feeding into the chip for each of our several billion dots. That's a lot of wires, and a lot of independent voltage sources. Impractical? An obvious simplification is to break the grid up into smaller "tiles," say groups of 8 by 8, or 64, quantum dots. Each dot on a tile would be controlled independently of the others, but each tile of 64 would behave the same as every other tile. The 16 voltages controlling any given dot are also passed along to the same location in the neighboring tiles. Thus, only 1,024 different voltages (16 by 64) are needed to control a tile-floor chip of arbitrary size.

    This may sound like a limitation, but if each electrode can be set, for example, to 256 discrete voltages, each designer atom will have 256^16, or 3.4 x 10^38 possible states. Compared with the 92 states of the periodic table, this is a staggering number, and if we place three designer atoms together, the number climbs to 10 quadrillion googol, or 1.02 x 10^115 - higher than most calculators can count. So an 8 by 8 grid - more than 21 times as large - represents an absurd and downright spooky wealth in undreamed-of materials. Finding needles in that cosmic-scale haystack will be the work of lifetimes.

    Controlling the chip itself, however, is relatively easy: With only 1,024 signals to worry about, our only problem is splitting and routing these to the individual quantum dots.

    Laying a few hundred of these chips side by side will result in exactly what I promised earlier: a TV screen that changes substance as easily as it changes color. With minuscule power consumption, it could easily switch from lead to gold and back again, many times a second. And since it isn't limited to the 92 natural elements, it would be capable of taking on characteristics that natural substances can't. It's a reasonable bet that there'll be better superconductors than today's yttrium barium copper oxides, better reflectors than the mercury and silver we use today, better photoelectric converters than silicon. In fiction, I've even posited the existence of programmable matter "superreflectors" and "superabsorbers," which process light in a given frequency band with 100 percent efficiency. "


    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories

    Last edited: Jun 7, 2004
  5. Jun 7, 2004 #4
    The feasibility of fusion and fission is shown clearly by the binding energy curve. Fusion is ideal at low atomic number and fission is ideal at high atomic number. Both processes promise to generate extra energy for use in other processes.

    Cold fusion is feasible if there is a way of decreasing the random kinetic motion (heat) of the plasma (ionized hydrogen or deuterium or tritium atoms) so that the temperture and density needed to fuse protons into helium nuclei is not overwhelm by the random kinetic motion of heat energy.
  6. Jun 8, 2004 #5

    that is an amazingly intriguing idea. I'll need to read more about it (I just skimmed so far) and make sure there is no hocus-pokus about it, but if it passes that, well, awesome.
  7. Jun 8, 2004 #6
    except that there's nothing holding the atoms together in that configuration except what? magic?

    realistically to make these atoms you'd have to suspend them magnetically (or somehow) in a vaccum. then you'd have to bombard them with electrons and hope they stick in order to change their substance.

    i don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon, but it is an intriguing fantasy :D
  8. Jun 8, 2004 #7
    I could be wrong, but it sounds like you didn't read the article all the way, or didn't understand the concept of electron holes in doped materials.

    Edit: Upon reading the article, I have found nothing magical about it at all. Indeed, that is quite an ingenious idea for using quantum dots!!!
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2004
  9. Jun 8, 2004 #8
    ah i didn't realize there was more than that one page... was wondering where you were pulling those quotes from.

    read the first 5 pages then kinda skimmed the rest.

    the quantum "dots" have the electrical properties of the atom's they represent (according to their configuration) but they are NOT the actual atom, so no real alchemy is taking place.

    the usefulness of these things wouldn't be to CREATE atoms of a certain element, but rather to simulate the electrical properties of that element if it did exist within the dot matix (haha)

    which might lead to outstanding superconductivity, and possibly multi-state computing (no more binary!)

    but definately not screens that change from lead to gold. the dots still have to be contained in order for them to exist and exhibit their atomical properties.

  10. Jun 8, 2004 #9

    I think those were just terms of imagery invoked to get an idea of what it would be like. If we placed these simulated atoms on something and changed their properties, chances are we wouldn't be able to tell without instruments what they were. These dots can simulate atoms and do things actual atoms cannot. I find it most intriguing.
  11. Jun 8, 2004 #10
    Apparently, none of you guys recognize Bull**** when you see it!

    Have fun -- Dick
  12. Jun 9, 2004 #11
    leave it to DoctorDick to inject a little humor into the precedings
  13. Jun 9, 2004 #12
    the main engineering challenge is to build artificial atoms that are an eqivalent size/topology of our 92 natural elements so that artificial matter can freely interact with natural matter- [Buckyballs should reveal a lot of answers]- although with a tremendous mass difference-

    my crazy fantasy prediction is that we will only be using 2D quantum dots and hardware PNP junctions in the early days- it should be possible to create some kind of precise Venturi-like vortex/funnel arrays in charged plasmas to sculpt/build electrons into artificial atoms in 3d space and in real-time- so that we will be able to freely create/grow/generate any kind of material/object/system on demand [if we have the computational ability]- it would be total control over matter- forget screens!

    thing is- the way that plasmas can form complex filamentary networks that can behave almost like an ecology- http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994174
    it should be also possible to create a plasma system designed as an analog computer programmed to evolve life/intelligence- what would happen if a plasma system capible of evoving into intelligence ALSO incorprated the ability to freely generate/manipulate artificial matter with transfinte properties and able to interract with natural matter? I would call it "theogenesis"!


    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories

    Last edited: Jun 9, 2004
  14. Jun 10, 2004 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Gibberish, all of it.

    Buckyballs are just interesting shaped molecules of ordinary carbon. "Artifical atoms?" No such thing (if you want to discuss 100+ proton atoms, thats a different animal). Now I know why I don't subscribe to "Wired."

    edit: after reading some of the article - they are talking about a very real phenomenon but giving it a vastly misleading name.
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2004
  15. Jun 10, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Russ just a fast correction. Atoms with Z>137 are a different animal, according some. Or perturbatively, at least.
  16. Jun 10, 2004 #15
    that's show business

    "rubbish"? "misleading"?-no: MARKETING! when the budgets for corporate research are decided by the finance dept- or a science publication is choosing which project is going to get an article so that it can be seen by Humanity: "artifical atoms that realize some of the ancient human dream of Alchemy" is going to be a lot more successful than "a screen of electron arrays that can be set to mimic many properties of natural materials and many new properties"- both statements are true perspectives- it's just that the Alchemical perspective puts the technology in the proper historical/cultural light and demonstrates it's true potential MUCH better- it's all about marketing- winning ideas have pathos and vision- boring ones go to the dust-bin until someone rediscovers them and repackages them as something important and revolutionary- this is the REAL world of hype and global capitalism-


    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories

    Last edited: Jun 10, 2004
  17. Jun 14, 2004 #16
    cold fusion ?

    hmnn..i dug into that article, but I got a little lost in the sandwich example of quantum wires.

    if you consider the low temperatures of boiling water to be "hot" for a fusion reactor, then here's something you might like.

    About 1996 to 1998, or so, I came up with a theoretical device, based on my crude understanding of physics.

    I took a "plasma ionized" material, - that is to say, a material that was permanently set stripped of electrons, in a disk shape, functioning like a collector. I then stuck a wire through the middle of it,

    when the collection of electrons from a free floating "fluid" grew strong enough, they would trigger a small reaction which would send the electrical surge along the wire into the next disk, some how releasing the existing electron bundle into the next stream, and so on, and then it some how (its been years, sorry) recycled itself.

    back in those days, the idea of building as substance from plasmas was intriguing. You would have to some how combine a nucleus without electrons, which at the time, I thought was only possible with an emensity of gluons.

    While the original concept probably couldn't possibly work, I do see some similarities between that, cold fusion, and this strange WIRED article posted.

    - Shin
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Why Cold Fusion is a Stupid Idea
  1. Cold fusion? (Replies: 16)

  2. Cold fusion? (Replies: 6)

  3. Cold Fusion demo (Replies: 11)

  4. Cold Fusion (Replies: 8)