Purdue Findings Support Earlier Nuclear Fusion Experiments

Science Daily ^ | July 14, 2005 | Purdue University

[Brilliant]

They apparently can't make up their minds whether they've got fusion from this experiment or not. Depends on who you ask. The DOE earlier questioned the results of the original experiment. But I guess they're not giving up.

[Red Badger]

Using sound waves? I believe it. Those BOOMING STEREOS in the cars around here probably will fuse nuclei!..........

[plain talk]

bump for later ponder

[cotton1706]

What do chickens have to do with it?

[hershey]

Of course they're not giving up. We get this going and Muslim heathens won't be able to give away their oil.

[grondram]

I don't want to reject this out out hand but this isn't the first time a research university has said they appeared to have some support for cold fusion. Georgia Tech got horribly embarrassed when they made a similar announcement and then peer review revealed they had forgotten to subtract a key component of background radiation.

It would be nice if it were true though.

[jbwbubba]

"Aye Captain the deuterium tanks are overloading, she can't take much more of this"

[ZGuy]

This is bigger news, if true, because this is the first time the results have been reproduced.

[logic]

"Then Dammit Scotty, turn down that rap music!!!!"

[logic]

and has the potential for small, inexpensive operation. As opposed to equipment required to bombard with neurons...

[grondram]

The Georgia Tech claims were a claim to have repeated.... but again this will be huge if true. It's just that activation energy for fusion is huge and difficult to envision at room temperature.

April 11, 1989 Claim of Achieving Fusion in Jar Gains Support in 2 Experiments By MALCOLM W. BROWNE, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES COLLEGE STATION, Tex. -- A recent claim by scientists in Utah that they had achieved nuclear fusion in a jar of water gained important support today from two independent research groups that repeated part of the experiment. Results reported by Texas A & M University and the Georgia Institute of Technology appear to have substantially strengthened the assertion by researchers at the University of Utah.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/041199sci-cold-fusion.html

[logic]

sorry that should have peen neutrons...

[logic]

what is wrong with my typing today!!!!!

[ModelBreaker]

I don't want to reject this out out hand but this isn't the first time a research university has said they appeared to have some support for cold fusion. Georgia Tech got horribly embarrassed when they made a similar announcement and then peer review revealed they had forgotten to subtract a key component of background radiation.

The control beaker pretty much takes care of that problem. The acetone without deuterium showed no signs of fusion. The acetone with deuterium did. To the extent you can tell from popular press, this looks like a well designed experiment that produced strong results.

[3dognight]

I'm thinking Mr. Fusion on my Delorean.

[ZGuy]

Yeah, those peen neurons are the worst! LOL

[pabianice]

Time for the Society for the Repression of Inventions to spring into action, a la "The Water Engine."

[CollegeRepublican]

http://www.infinite-energy.com/

See link for a magazine with more info on this topic.

However, this type of cold fusion, "sololuminense (sic)", is easier to understand from a physics point of view when compared to the metal loading type of cold fusion, AKA the Pons and Fleischman method. The cavitation of acetone creates tiny bubbles of superheated vapor we could allow fusion. The metal loading methods of cold fusion are harder for me to understand.

[grondram]

I hope you are right. I've just spent an awful lot of time in labs and I'll believe this when I see it in peer revied publications.... and even then I'd like to see a working model.

[Red Badger]

Neurons? Is this a new technology? Are they like Par-Mesans?.....