Cold Fusion again?!?!?

LOL I thought this thread was that somebody was having trouble with a Ford Fusion when cold..:frusty:

 

It's an interesting premise and I would love to see *highly* detailed experimental data

Considering the source of this announcement faux news - I'm leery. This is the same "news" channel that, in a truly unfunny attempt at "comedy" very seriously insulted Canadian soldiers dying in Afghanistan

CTV.ca | Comedian on Fox News show apologizes to Canada

Yeah. That went over like a brick s*** house. Looks like Obama has an international incident on his hands

 

Not only could other scientists not reproduce their results, neither could Fleischmann and Pons. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means their method didn't work. The whole media circus and the poor way they handled releasing their results gave the concept of cold fusion a bad name. So much so that no one calls it that any more if they want to be taken seriously. The new name is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, or LENR. Research continues, but most scientists aren't hopeful.

Tom

 

The cautious observer would not yet conclude that this topic is settled:

'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source

 

The American Chemical Society is a reputable association. What I would like to see now is easily reproducible and verifiable results. Even if it isn't earth shaking, it could be useful for something

Who wouldn't like an unlicensed neutron source in their basement?

[insert evil maniacal cackling laughter]

 

I don't care what faux news says. It's just another 'entertainment' show.

 

I have always wanted to build a death-ray.

Tom

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is a case where extraordinary claims are backed by evidence so feeble a child would be skeptical.

Fusion is the melding of light atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei, and releasing energy into the process. Because all atomic nuclei are positively charged, it requires a tremendous amount of energy to overcome the electrostatic repulsion. This can be done by giving them a great deal of momentum (i.e. heating them up).

So far, nobody has demonstrated another way to do it, and there is no theory to explain how "cold" atoms could overcome their repulsion in order to fuse.

I'm not saying it will never be done. I am saying that some chemist speculating that F & P "might have been right" is unconvincing. Especially when the report comes on Fox nooz.

 

This is a long, old article from 1998 that shows just how things aren't settled:

Wired 6.11: What If Cold Fusion Is Real?

 

"What if?" is not a valid argument. And "Wired" is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

 

Wired is fun and all, but remember their echoing the Prius/Hummer 'comparision' in issue 17 No 3. Gawsh I have a long memory for insults

 

Yes you can't believe Fox News about anything, remember when they used a bomb to blow up a Ford truck gas tank because they couldn't get it to blow up during a crash and then there was the time they faked paperwork about George Bush and what an embarassment that was! Oops; wait a minuite that wasn't Fox! Oh well never mind.

 

Careful now, you can't just start spouting the cold hard facts and expect frail, simple minds to comprehend them.

I can see you're a troublemaker. What next? Expecting the average high school graduate here to test out the same as a grade school student in China?

Tsk-tsk ...

 

Actually, I have a B.Sc. in Computer Science, and a B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering. In the Army I was a 33W and a 98K. So I also understand a wee bit about combat, winning and losing battles, loss of life, all that neat stuff

I don't believe in a magical mystical friendly guy who lives in the sky, and I also don't believe in a sinister, evil, demonic guy with horns and a forked tail who lives in the ground

There is no such thing as santy claus, the tooth fairy, elves, fairies (The classical literary definition of that), ghosts, goblins, spirits, any of that nonsense

We're all alone here, it's up to us to figure stuff out. If we break it, we bought it (Sound familiar?). There is always the possibility of ET somewhere way out in space, but why the hell would he/she/it/they even bother with us? Except to inform us the planet was being demolished to make way for a new interstellar expressway

Getting back to scientific principles, the two fellows who originally announced "Eureka! Cold Fusion!" have had a lot of explaining to do. Did they discover "something?" Sure they did. But it probably wasn't cold fusion

If this latest thing turns out to be "real" cold fusion, and is peer-verified and publicly announced, I'll be singing the praises. Till then, I have healthy skepticism about this claim.

I don't accept things at face value, especially if i'm told NOT to question it. Eg: faith, you're *never* supposed to question it. Some folks claim you can hear the friendly sky guy talking in your head

Mister, if you hear voices in your head, seek professional help. NOW

 

Would you like the Graduate School definition instead? His definition is factually correct

 

I call shotgun!

 

Nothing wrong with asking "what if?" Dreams can lead to innovation, to discovery, to peer-reviewed and repeated discoveries.

So it's fine to get the ball rolling. But let's not get carried away until we can determine what we have. Otherwise it's no better than folks who claim Perpetual Motion at carnivals