Will it work in a Delorean?
Posted on 07/25/2005 8:33:29 AM PDT by Irontank
Will it work in a Delorean?
If valid, I don't think it produces "fissile" material, only fusionable material, which is only a problem if one has fissile material to kick-start an uncontrolled fusion reaction.
But I read quickly, and am very willing to stand corrected.
'So how long until we have a fusion coffemaker?'
Until it costs billions in grants and research funding and can be expensively produced by big enegy intrests it won't happen.
How about an ethanol powered fusion generator? 99% free energy.
Lithium Deuteride is not "fissile." It's what undergoes fusion. H-bombs use a fission bomb for a trigger, however.
It is good to read that they used a well-designed experiment with a control to compare results. You have one deuterated acetone beaker and one acetone beaker. One produces high energy neutons and tritium and the other does not. The only difference is deuterium.
It seems that they did not rush to make news but started the experiments in 2002 and have changed researchers along the way, so there is less risk of data forgery. And then published in a peer-review journal.
Whether cold fusion is possible or not, I don't know. But it's evident that something interesting is going on, and it's also evident that the original cold fusion announcement was shot down without sufficient evidence to dismiss it.
The whole business seems extremely unlikely. But ground breaking new discoveries in science usually seem extremely unlikely, until the establishment has its faces well rubbed into the evidence.
Don't you mean the coffee-maker-sized "Mr. Fusion" (copyright pending) device used at end of Back To The Future I?
Sounds like Hardrock-o-fusion to me.. which has been generating incredibly primitive sound energy for decades.. and many doped with Opiaterium are generating it..
Dangerous, look what it did to Ozzy Osborn.. total burn out.. The dude has been cavitating for years to imaginary drummers.. Effected his whole family..
In any reaction, you put in more energy than you get out. The energy loss is due to friction or incomplete burning. This experiment could lead to something big if the apparatus could be used to convert water to steam in order to drive a turbine. On a small scale, perhaps it could generate electricity to operate a car or train. On a large scale, perhaps it could be an alternative to fossil fuel or nuclear fission. For cars, this depends on the energy output to size/weight ratio (i.e., it has to be powerful enough to do the job but small enough and light enough to be realisticaly useful on our infrastructure).
Deuterium is already the cheapest part of making a fusion bomb. Also, go look up the definition of "fissile material".
The fusion reaction is a tritium + deuterium reaction. The Lithim Deuteride serves as the source for the tritium by a Li + n reaction (n initially from the fissions).
True for an endothermic reaction but for an exothermic reaction you get more energy out than you put in.
If uranium were stable, it wouldn't be radioactive.
The Oak Ridge Boys wouldn't lie to us.
We'd stop buying their records.
"fellow researcher Adam Butt"
You said butt,
hehheh heh hehhehheh
butt...........
Like the boy scout who built a back yard breeder reactor.
He was making plutonium by bombarding gas lantern mantles with neutrons from radium he collected from old clocks.
If you doubt me google 'boy scout breeder reactor'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.