quote:

---

"Nuclear fusion has been explored as a potential source of power, but we are not looking at this as an energy source right now," Danon says.

---

Isn't the whole point of cold fusion that it's an OMFG! power source that will completely change the world? I mean it's great that they can do things with crystals and whatnot, but without the power generation aspect, is this something to get crazy excited about?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Yes, because it could become an avenue to energy creation. Even if this particular process will always be energy-inefficient, it will be a source of additional data on fusion that may lead to new, energy-efficient processes.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
So I'm excited, but it's not the "coming of the messiah" excited that I'm prepared to do for practical, energy generating cold fusion.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
I thought that nuclear power plants created electricity by creating heat that drove other mechanisms like turbines and such. Am I wrong about that?

Because ... if you create COLD fusion, what aspect of the fusion reaction do you use to create electricity, since there's no outrageous output of heat?

Or is there an OUTPUT of heat, but just not a prerequisite of heat?
 

---

Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
 
Puppy,

Fusion is easy if you're somewhere sort of hot, like, for example, the center of the sun. At these temperatures, the average kinetic energies of atomic nuclei are sufficient that when they collide they can fuse and form a bound state.

The trick is convincing the nuclei to collide, and granting them sufficient energy to form a bound state, without operating at temperatures that are problematic in the lab. So, while your operating temperature may be above room temperature, it's still frigid compared to the solar core.

Hence the name.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
It's certainly a step in the right direction.

At any rate, reading that article felt like an episode of Star Trek.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Nah, there was no holodeck accident, and no poorly thought out time travel.

[Edit--in addition, the experiments that have produced this result didn't involve reconfiguing the deflector dish at all]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Geoff, check this link out, it discusses it in detail starting about half way down.


Basically, it involves fusion at or near room temp, but it produces a huge amount of heat during the reaction which can be used to power almost anything.


As it stands, giant amounts of energy are needed to create fission, where fusion would be much cleaner and produce even more energy...one gallon of regular water would be able to match the power equivalent of 300 gallons of gasoline.

quote:

---

Dr. Mallove: "One important implication of cold fusion is that there are, at least, 300 gallons of gasoline equivalent in every gallon of ordinary water. If you take the heavy hydrogen contained in one gallon of water, normal water that you drink, or get at the pond or the lake or the ocean, and fuse that heavy hydrogen into helium, which is what is happening in cold fusion. This gives you heat, and that amount of heat is the equivalent of 300 gallons of gasoline. That means that in only one cubic kilometer of ocean, we have the energy equivalent of the entire known oil reserves on Earth. And that means total energy independence from any localized supply of oil plus the environmental benefit of not producing CO2 and other noxious pollutants."

Dr. Swartz: "With cold fusion we get to transfer the use of petrochemicals and gasoline into making useful pharmaceuticals and plastics and perhaps even nanomaterials. Imagine using the atoms in gasoline to make new materials, rather than just burning it into carbon dioxide (CO2).
How important is this new form of energy production? For the United States alone, the potential economic benefits resulting from controlled fusion with the generation of safe helium-4 are somewhere between substantial and staggering."

---

 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
My favorite song that has nuclear fusion in it is They Might Be Giants' Why Does the Sun Shine?

I mean, it's not cold fusion, but it is a cool song, so that's something.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
What're they planning on doing with the byproducts (aka helium) from the reaction? Just curious.

edit: Don't say balloons, either!
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Is there a difference between cold fusion and crystal fusion? I'm confused by the article.

(Besides, everyone knows that cold fusion has already been created and classified by the government. Silly people.)
 

---

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
 
Kwea that link isn't good science. The cold fusion of the late 80's was not fusion in any sense of the word.
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
The fusion ye be askin about is fusion via a Tokamak Reactor where you use a doughnut shaped field to keep it dense enough for the reaction to work and utilize a laser to heat it up instantly to the point needed to work. The point is that the goal is to get a self sustaining reaction so that by using a heavy hydrogen isotope you can make a light isotop inwhich you can collect and refeed into the reactor thus self sustaining because it creates its own fuel. And because hydrogen is used its a very common element and thus infinit fuel if need be. There is a huge amount of heat generated yes but I'm certain that with the right technology you can redce the effects, say have the reactor in an underwater base or something.


I read this in an Asimov article so I'm a little fuzzy on the details but it sounded very logical.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Not linking to it for the pure science, per say, just to demonstrate what Cold Fusion is in concept.


I think we ALL understand that we have no idea about waht it will finally look like when/if it actually works out IRL.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Not only is that link bad science, it defies common sense.

quote:

---

By contrast, with cold fusion producing the same amount of power, that is a gigawatt that lasts for a day, that amount of energy production would require only one pound of heavy water containing deuterium to fuel the city's needs, and that cold fusion process would produce only 4 pounds of helium exhaust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morbo:
How 1 lb of heavy water can produce 4 lbs of helium is left as an exercise for the student.

---

Well, duh. Things that are weightless are, like zero pounds. And they aren't pulled by gravity because they don't weigh anything. They just kind of hover. Like those spacemen in outer space. Helium is very light. It doesn't just hover, like weightless things, it floats. So it has negative weight. So it takes, like four times more of it to weigh as much as something heavier.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Nuh-huh. Haven't you ever filled up a balloon? Four times more of it would just make it float more. You need four times less.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
With all due respect, Squick, you just don't understand pseudoscience.

Four times less, indeed!
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'll lay it out there for people. When you pump more helium into a balloon, does it go up or down? And when you drain helium from a balloon, does it get lighter and go up like Tante suggests or does it get heavier and go down like I'm saying?

Please. It's 4x less, which also fits with what they said with the 1lb -> 4 lbs. I don't think it could be clearer.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
A tank of compressed helium is rather heavy. Because it is full of lots and lots of helium. It takes that much to make it so heavy. Because it is so light. You airhead!
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Not so. The tank itself is made out of very heavy material. It has to be, otherwise all that helium would make it float away.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

edit: Don't say balloons, either!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Not so. The tank itself is made out of very heavy material. It has to be, otherwise all that helium would make it float away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
And that concludes this evening's performance of "It's like arguing with an ID proponent" theatre. Don't forget to tip your waitresses and bartender and drive home safe.

---

Bows and basks in the "Bravas".


How come no one is calling "Encore! Encore!"?
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
Please include the "pseudoscience disclaimer" with your "helium" posts ...

A.

PS: I really hope you're just making fun, and I'm unable to get it.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
With all due respect, Squick, you just don't understand pseudoscience.

---