'Cold Fusion' Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source

Science Daily ^ | Mar. 23, 2009 | American Chemical Society

[FlameThrower]

ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — Researchers are reporting compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may promise a new source of energy.

[FlameThrower]

Science may be scientific, but is also, too often, a religion. As in belief in global warming or the disbelief in cold fusion.

[BenLurkin]

Aw Jeez....

[valkyry1]

Science may be scientific, but is also, too often, a religion

And it seems to have become much more in that way 

[Kevmo]

Maybe the cold fusion contract Intrade is a bargain...

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

Dr Yoshiaki Arata’s Cold Fusion Experiment

ARATA.COLD.FUSION.DEC09

Dr Arata’s experiment to be replicated in peer-reviewed scientific journal on/before 31 Dec 2009 M Trade

Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
3.5 11.0 4.0 111 0

[DManA]

“Low energy” tells me this is interesting only from a scientific perspective, not an economic one.

[mountainlion]

About a year ago I read an article that while the total reaction was slightly positive that there were small areas of much greater reaction. They were trying to find out what made local greater reactions.

[ClearCase_guy]

Although I didn't want the government to throw Trillions of dollars at anything -- if we simply MUST spend huge amounts of money, then a "Manhattan Project" approach aimed at making fusion power a reality would seem to be a reasonable choice, based on economic benefits as well as national security.

I guess that's why we aren't doing it.

[frithguild]

Now that stimulus money is out there...

[willgolfforfood]

Now THAT’S just plain funny, right there!

[sourcery]

The two sides typically talk past each other. One side focuses on anomalous energy production (where the cause is secondary). The other focuses on whether or not the cause could possibly be nuclear fusion (or any sort of nuclear reaction at all.)

But the question of whether or not anomalous energy production is occurring is separate and distinct from the question of whether or not any sort of nuclear reaction is involved. And whether or not the phenomenon could be economically used by society to produce energy is yet a third issue.

I've long felt that the name "cold fusion" is largely responsible for the controversy.

[r9etb]

“Low energy” tells me this is interesting only from a scientific perspective, not an economic one.

It depends. If we scale energy sources from "low" to "high," I think that "cold fusion" might well end up being on roughly the same level as the gasoline engine. "Hot fusion," by contrast, being a very high energy source.

[mamelukesabre]

I would sure like to see this riddle solved. Whether it really is cold fusion or whatever, I don’t care. Whether it is useful or not, I don’t care. I just want someone to once-and-for-all show me just what the heck is going on.

[dangerdoc]

Low energy compared to an H-bomb explosion or low energy compared to a light bulb? Scale would be an important descriptor.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Mr. Fusion?

[agere_contra]

Excellent post from you. Nothing else needs to be said.

[The Great RJ]

It is ironic that almost immediately after Pons and Fleishmann announced their “cold fusion” results the scientific community was skeptical because further experiments by others could not yield the same results or support their theory. Contrast this to the smoking gun “hockey stick” graph touted by Al Gore's “consensus of scientists” as veritable proof of man caused global warming, despite it never have been duplicated by others or found predictive with historic climate data.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Lettuce see watt happens.

(Some advances in science have happened when the mainstream view was wrong, many others have have occurred when the mainstream view was right. ALL have required ENGINEERING to succeed, and quite frankly, it is in the engineering and funding and detail design that most theoretical advances have failed.)

After all, the THEORY of rocket science was known in the 1920's based on "simple" equations of physics known since Newton's era. It took tens of thousands of man-years of effort to get to today's level of expertise - where NASA STILL blows them up on the launch pad, and has them fly to Mars and Venus - only to fail on re-entry in the last hundred feet. (Er, meters.)

[patton]

Feet, meeters - eh, one little boo-boo.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Next thing ya know, we’re gonna be up to our necks in neutrons! Then what? Eh?

[Robert A Cook PE]

Funny that the global warming crowd, the free-eco-everything-crowd, AND the energy-independence-at-any-price-by-conserfvation-mythology, AND the renewable-energy-by-mythology-future-technology-developments-if-Bush-were-not-in-the-WH crowd NEVER EVER even bring up the potentials of Fusion power.

Strange that, isn't it?

The one actual physically possible solution to EVERY one of their problems is NOT even discussed as a potential event.

But solar and wind power are deemed not only economical by 2050, but WILL be legislated into use for 50% - 80% of our power by 2050.