Cold Fusion again?!?!?

When a guy believes that the Bible is an authority on the origins of the human race, I'm pretty much not convinced by any other arguments he makes. And by the way Kow, while I consider Fox nooz to be pretty much unreliable garbage, my opinion of the rest of tv "journalism" is not much better. And press releases are not science. Wake me up when a peer-reviewed journal takes them seriously.

 

Gotta admit, you just answered a *lot* of questions I had regarding your personality, your thought process, belief system, etc. Mind if I ask what *your* background is

 

Right on, brother

All of the media is pretty much entertainment for the sheep-like masses. Now whether those sheep profess to be "liberal" or "conservative" or even "martian" is irrelevant. Gotta keep them entertained, fat, dumb, and happy

When the hell did we go off the rails with regards to serious critical thinking, education, and solutions to long term problems? One can blame the boob tube for a lot of it, various cable news channels too, but at a certain point you have no choice but to step back, say "Wth??" and wonder

 

I'd like to answer your question, but my reality show is starting and I don't want to miss any of it.

Tom

 

Sunday, bloody Sunday...
And it's true we are immune when fact is fiction and TV reality...
How long must we sing this song?

(U2 1983)

 

I confess some minds are beyond my ability to fathom: they accept uncritically that extremely implausible scientific "breakthroughs" like "cold fusion" announced in pop culture media could be possible, yet remain fiercely skeptical of scientific discoveries thoroughly and irrefutably proved by the global scientific community (such as evolution and global warming).

 

Most of this is simple atomic physics, and hasn't changed since I studied atomic and nuclear physics in college (that was a long time ago - there were only about twelve elements then ). Without taking sides, let me list a few facts:

All atomic fusion takes energy. How much energy depends on what you are fusing and how much of it. Compared to chemical reactions it takes a lot of energy.

Some fusion reactions give off energy, some don't. It depends on the type of atoms. Items lighter than Iron give off energy during fusion, heavier ones are a net loss. This is because of the translation of mass and energy in atomic reactions. As you squeeze the nuclei together, they fight to stay apart. If you squeeze hard enough you overcome the longer range repulsive forces and the shorter range forces win, causing the nuclei to snap together.

The mass of the resulting nucleus of the now fused atom will not be the simple sum of its constituents. In the case of elements lighter than Iron, the mass of the resulting nucleus will be slightly lighter than the sum of the constituent nuclei. The difference in mass will have been converted to energy. It's a very small difference in mass, but the conversion rate is specified by the now famous E = MC^2 equation. When you throw the speed of light squared into an equation you get a big number from a very small number. A small amount of mass yields a large amount of energy.

With heavier elements the resulting nucleus will be heavier than the sum of the constituent nuclei. This means that the resulting nucleus gained mass during the reaction, and therefore absorbed energy. Fusing heavy nuclei is a net loss in terms of energy. This is why heavy nuclei are used in fission reactions, where a nucleus is spit into two or more smaller nuclei. Since the total mass of the resultant nuclei is smaller than the mass of the original nucleus, energy is released.

It takes energy to get any of these reactions started. You have to overcome a force to snap the nuclei apart or together, after which they naturally reorganize. The amount of energy, and whether the nuclei are happy to stay together, all depends on the type of atoms.

Looking at fusion and fission reactions broadly, it's convenient to picture a roller coaster with a number of hills and valleys. Each stable nuclear configuration is sitting at the bottom of one of the valleys. To get it out of the valley you have to supply energy by pushing it up the hill. Once it crests the hill it will coast down into the next valley. Whether you gain or lose energy depends on the relative height of the valleys. Going up consumes energy, going down releases energy. Iron sits at the bottom of the lowest valley. Once you get to Iron it's going to cost you energy to get anywhere else. On the lighter side of Iron, fusion reactions release energy and fission reactions consume energy. On the heavier side of Iron, the opposite is true: fusion reactions consume energy and fission reactions release energy.

From a broad and simplistic view, that's all there is to it.

Tom

 

It is very interesting that some new people think that cold fusion, or whatever its new name is, is worth investigating. Super conductors were unproven fantasy long before they were established products.

I know many of you in academia promote the peer review process as the gold standard of reality. Unfortunately it is all too often simply an exclusive club of mutual back scratchers. Fraud makes its way past the peer review process. More frequently, it's more of an accurate misdirection that the non-expert accepts as something different than what is presented. Anything with big money or big egos involved is a breeding ground for less-than-even-handed treatment of facts. Peer review is just one of the stamps of approval used to promote the supposed accuracy of the presentation.

I'm rooting for the cold fusion investigators. It may still turn out to be another black hole (do those really exist?), but the potential is so great that it's worth chasing down any hint of the reality.

 

In the context of a potential new energy source, how does this help us? Yes, I am well aware of the process you describe, but when a process is purported to be a new energy source, it sort of helps to have a net *gain*

As a chemical engineer, thank you for reminding me about that

Yes, correct. In the context of a purported energy source ....

Oh, I could go on for hours regarding that statement. Eg: people I have known, who have died in foreign countries, based on a lie. Don't go down that path, you will *not* win

I bet you learned that fancy college word from Bill O'Reilly?

Hmmmmm. I'm the military veteran but I'm also a "libbie?" What, pray tell, is a "libbie?" Is that like a "con?"

In the grand scheme of things, republicans and democrats are virtual mirror images of each other. Both are populated by nuts, bible-thumper fools, and crooks who scam us for ill-gotten gains

The nice thing about trying to engage in a debate with you - a totally pointless exercise - is that you always claim you're right, no matter what. In a corner, you blame the "libbies" or "whatever" when you can't come up with a pithy (I learned that one from Bill O'Reilly too) remark.

So if even possible with you, let's try to remain on topic, hmmmm?

Chemist claims at American Chemical Society - BTW I'm a member - conference she has had interesting developments in LENR. Wonderful, let's investigate them.

I love the scientific process. Let's have every university on planet earth replicate LENR and let's figure out what it really means. In the meantime, let's not worry about National Enquirer style media releases that promise something that probably isn't that important

I pretty much know something isn't going to amount to much when talk of a mystical make-believe friendly guy in the sky, ufo's, government conspiracies, perpetual motion, and "free" energy enter the discussion

Now ... what precisely is your take on LENR? Don't shy away from calculus, fancy words, or theoretical constructs

 

Yeah I guess you already know my rant along those lines ....

 

These minds also firmly believe in mystical, magical, make-believe friends who live in the sky, along with sinister guys with forked tales and horns who live in the ground

Implausible "breakthroughs" like perpetual motion don't actually rock their boat, as it's something that must be accepted on faith and cannot be proven. Things that are easily proven/disproven are automatically rejected, due to the cold hard truth these logical trains of thought shine on faith and other vague things

You also note an irrational hatred of various perceived "threats" and the use of inflammatory words, like "libbie" or "demoncrat" etc. Interesting how a god of "love" can be twisted around to one of hatred

Although these folks purport an intensely strong "patriotic" belief, oddly enough the vast majority have never served in any branch of the Armed Forces. They certainly have *not* been in combat, had friends killed, etc.

Perhaps the one thing I truly do not understand about these folks is their irrational, hypocritical, outright contempt for those of us who are military veterans. It's one thing if you march off into battle, keep your mouth shut, and never talk about it

But if you enlist, march off into battle, reach the conclusion that all the various "isms" out there are nothing but one giant crock of s***, well .... suddenly you're labeled a traitor. Hmmmm.

Anyhoo ... LENR interesting, but with current research, probably not indicative of a new cheap, clean energy source

 

Of course, you're entirely correct. However, it's the best review process we have right now. Otherwise, you're stuck with the National Enquirer and reading about lustful space aliens impregnating cows and ugly earth women

Let's not forget perpetual motion, "beams" that control our thoughts, a mysterious underground race, the Nazi connection to the secret pyramids under the ice caps, etc

Oh, and how about those evil space aliens that actually run the planet and are plotting to wipe us out with bioweapons? They monitor us through our house cats, which is why our house cats stare at us for hours on end ...

I've always claimed that too. It applies to science, religion, politics, financial markets, big biz, etc etc

Yes! I fully support research in this area. LENR is fascinating stuff. So is research into safer potable water pre-treatment using various mixed oxidant species to remediate biofilm formation and eliminate disinfection byproducts - my little area that I concentrate on

 

I now have to take a break. My house cats have taken control of my mind and want to surf hot nasty cat porn sites

 

Sing along with me: "Just a friendly little cat..."

Tom

 

The context of this discussion was the claim that large amounts of energy can be produced cheaply with "cold fusion." Therefore, as Tom pointed out above, we are speaking of the fusion of light nuclei into heavier ones, specifically in the present context, hydrogen into helium.

In this context, "fusion" is indeed the melding of nuclei. Overcoming their electrical repulsion requires the input of a large amount of energy, and the end result is a release of a large amount of energy, which is why the sun works.

You seem intent on trying to argue the point by moving the discussion into definitions of "fusion" that release no energy. But think about it for a minute, Kow: If the whole point is to get energy, why are you even talking about processes that yield no net energy?

I don't know when it began. But it was already happening 2,000 years ago when a wandering Jewish preacher went around telling people the world was about to end, and to be saved they should repent their sins, give away all their possessions, and love everyone; and then after he was executed because the established ruling classes didn't like him, this Paul fellow comes along and convinces everyone to forget everything the guy said, and instead just "believe" that he was god, and god is one and god is three and god loves you so much that if you believe in the "wrong" god he'll torture you forever...

I'd say by that time logic, reason, and common sense had been pretty much eliminated from human affairs.

Folks like Galileo and Darwin and their ilk have been re-introducing reason, but the priests and the preachers are fighting tooth and nail against it. Belief in fantasies like cold fusion and god are the hallmarks of the movement to return us to the middle ages.

I blame religion. Threaten very small children with everlasting hellfire if they use their brains or ask questions, and the end result is they'll believe whatever the crook in the pulpit tells them.

 

I came to my senses nude, sitting in the snowdrift in my back yard. The cats were in the window laughing hysterically at me

Why I'm gonna clobber them ... [MINDLOCK ON]

I love my cats. I'll do anything for my cats. I'd KILL if my cats commanded me to [MINDLOCK OFF]

Huh? What happened?

 

I'm guessing its a tricky new debating technique to confuse the "libbies" whoever the hell they are

It may not be as bad as it was - say 6 years ago - but we're really only a few simple steps away from inquisitions, dunking (The waterboarding of the middle ages), brutal torture of innocent house cats, burning people at the stake for being a "witch," etc

I would have substituted the word "crook" with "pedophile with a lustful hardon for little boys" but that's just the mean SOB that I am

 

:focus:

Navy Scientists Zip Lips on Cold Fusion Tests | Danger Room from Wired.com

a new article.... enjoy..