U.S. Will Give Cold Fusion Second Look, After 15 Years

NY Times ^ | March 25, 2004 | KENNETH CHANG

[punster]

The reaction is a copious source of neutrons. Furthermore, the reaction realeases about 17 MEV of energy, of which a significant portion will be gamma radiation.

[isom35]

does anyone remember Snake Plissken in Escape from New York? The President was carrying a tape talking about cold fusion, Snake played part of it in the cab, and the voice mentioned tritium. That's your Snake/fusion trivia for the day.

[Diogenesis]

"The reaction is a copious source of neutrons.
Furthermore, the reaction realeases about 17 MEV of energy, of which a significant portion will be gamma radiation."

Actually, it is NOT a source of neutrons at room temperature.
Off by a few MeV. The reaction are closer to 20 MeV, consistent with the excited nuclear state of helium.
Furthermore, the gamma radiation (which is technically forbidden, but IS observed at hot fusion temperatures)
does not occur near room temperature, which instead shifts the reactions to the infrared (think, skin depth).

[Nov3]

I don't think we'll see one that can fit a large family (and the ones in my church these days are forced to buy 15 passenger vans due in part to ever more obnoxious child seat rules.)

We had to give up our sedan for a minivan. I like the minivan - I just hate the reason we had to get it.

[CrucifiedTruth]

The funds invested are minimal. If nothing else, the educational value might be worth it.

This doesn't make sense. If it's cheap and there is potential, you can count on private business to fund and exploit it. Why are there no takers? On the other hand private business would love to build some nuclear plants but the the gov says No. This is all about leeching the tax payers.

[RightWhale]

Why are there no takers?

The way it seems to go for physicists is that they learn how to do something and then go off to form their own lab to conduct research or development on their own if they see business potential. None have done so. There is a clue there.

[neverdem]

I think the fact that they are still working on it means that there is a possibility -- emphasizing possibility -- there may be something to it.

It surely would be great if there were.

Even if there's something really here, I don't see any easily harvested pools of deuterium. There could be some useful applications of sono-luminescence discussed in the earlier comments.

[kingcanuteus]

They add that they have definitely seen fusion byproducts, particularly helium in quantities proportional to the heat generated

At last! A virtually inexhaustible inexpensive supply of party balloon filler.

[Lunatic Fringe]

The research is too preliminary to determine whether cold fusion, even if real, will live up to its initial billing as a cheap, bountiful source of energy

Of course it won't... because if it is found that you can generate energy by running electricity through water, the cost of water will skyrocket.

[delacoert]

Yuck! Politics

:rolleyes: Yup, it's a verifiable certitude that scientitists are immune to the human fioble of politics. "Hot fusion" physicists who investigated the implications of Pons' and Fleischmann's work never once contemplated the implications on funding for "hot fusion" research ($15 billion since 1950). /sarcasm

Who knows if "cold Fusion" research could ever lead to a commercially viable energy source, but scientific hyptheses are wrong more often than they are right. Good science embraces failure as valuable and learns from it.

The funding history for "hot fusion" research is something like $15 billion since the beginning. The funding history for cold fusion research is three orders of magnitude less. Apparently measurements of fusion products and energy production from cold fusion are now repeatable.

Continued research is a no brainer. God forbid that new theory be necessary to explain the results - where would that get us. (Oops, more sarcasm.)

[adiaireton8]

Exactly. If you're looking primarily to save money on gas, I think diesel is the way to go. If you're also looking to reduce emissions, current diesel engines can't compete with fuel efficient gas engines or gas-electric hybrids.

False. On account of their much higher miles per gallon, turbodiesels have *lower* emissions per mile. What you might be thinking of is the particulates (i.e. soot) in diesel exhaust. But with particulate filters, the gas coming out a diesel's tail pipe can actually be cleaner than the outside air. (We're behind Europe on this partly because they have removed the sulfur from diesel fuel.) This is why the Passat turbodiesel (with particulate filter) was recently ranked the #1 environmentally-friendly touring car with a high transportation capacity. See

Environmentally #1 Passat TDI with particulate filter

Green Diesel Technology

In this way you can have your cake and eat it too. My '98 TDI Jetta averaged 53 mpg over 7k, including highway and city driving. My best mileage was 60 mpg when I went from Saint Louis, MO to Syracuse, NY (906 miles) on 15 gallons. And that was burning 50% biodiesel made from soybean oil, with my wife and two children in the car, and the trunk stuffed with luggage and more biodiesel for the return trip. No way an Insight or even a new Prius can do that.

[ffusco]

Roads are like closets. The more you have, the more you put in them. Building more roads will not solve a traffic problem, only delay it. More roads lead to more development, as it has always been that way. Towns aren't built in the middle of nowhere.

I live near town and I sail past the gridlock on the in-bound lanes every morning. Millions of people who choose to live 30 miles from the job market is the problem.

[CrucifiedTruth]

The point was that CF is cheap. Cheap but no takers anywhere? Hot fusion is provably working but is expensive.Your sarcasm is misplaced. And you're right about the money wasted on hot fusion. Ask the politicians who signed the contracts and selected the teams. It's common knowledge that a lot of that was ... politics. Not research. If it was research we wold be there now.

[BMiles2112]

Thanks for the info. You're right, I was thinking particulates, which have always been a problem. If this filter truly does what it claims, that remaining barrier to widespread diesel use is gone, and I would expect a lot more new vehicles in the US to be available with a diesel engine. I assume these filters simply trap the soot in the exhaust and allow it to be burned by the exhaust gasses?
Where do you get the biodiesel? I've heard of it being used in diesels before, but wasn't aware of it being readily available.

[ffusco]

There is no evidense whatsoever that the world is running out of oil. The estimated proven reserves increase with each spike in the price of a barrel of oil. More money per barrel means it is economical to drill deeper and the reserve supply increases. The only shortage is in the low hanging fruit and reserves that are off limits due to regulation (ANWAR). 85% of the Earth's surface is under water and probably contains more undiscovered oil.

BTW: The amount of all the extracted oil since it's discovery would barely fill Lake Tahoe. Look at a globe. lake Tahoe is barely a speck.

[ffusco]

Did the emmisiions mell like freedom fries?

[fourdeuce82d]

if your ass can generate that much heat and pressure

given the reaming it was subjected to by various sgts...I supect it's compressive force is fairly low.

My point is, if "anything" is possible...shouldn't we be able to make it work? Even with just an eensy bit of compressive force?

I realize that is not exactly (i.e. "anything" doesn't mean "anything" that a nimrod with a loose @$$ sitting at a computer could dream up to mock your arguement) but that is what you wrote.

There's a really great book called "At the Fringes of Science" that deals specifically with this question- here's a link to a review: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/friedlander95.html

The author of the book discriminates between "Wierdo" ideas- i.e. "I might be able to turn coal into diamons using the compressive strength of my fundament" and "unlikely but plausible ideas."

I guess I just have a strong gut reaction against the idea that there are no rules...if that were true, why bother learning physics/material science etc. at all? Why not just make up your own facts?

[delacoert]

Your explanation makes it clear to me that my sarcasm was misdirected. I must admit that I was also irked by your initial comments about hot fusion versus cold fusion, but your second post on that also corrected my knee jert irritation.

I'm not willing to come right out and say that the money for research on hot fusion has been an out and out waste - even if the initial promise has been diluted by the develpoment of difficulties as time has progressed. My comment about the comparison between funding for hot and cold fusion research was simply context in reaction to those who posted about the supposed waste of funding for cold fusion research.

For a variety of reasons, I whole-heartedly support the renewed interest in cold fusion - not the least of which is my disgust at the unfortunate treatment of Martin Fleischmann (and his family) after the ineligant announcement of the preliminary results in 1989. I hope (perhaps in vain) for the vindication of Pons and Fleischmann.

Much more could be said.

Respectfully,
Dave Koert

[adiaireton8]

I get my biodiesel at Piasa Motor Fuels in Hartford, Illinois. I buy it pure (B100), and mix it with petrodiesel (although my last 1500 miles I have burned straight B100). For a map of public pumps, see the following:

Biodiesel retail fueling sites

And yes, the exhaust smells like freedom fries!

[CrucifiedTruth]

I hope (perhaps in vain) for the vindication of Pons and Fleischmann.

I'll be glad to see cold fusion work too. And I have to retract my initial opposition to funding research. It was shortsighted on my part. Anything that can give us clean energy is worth investigating. Even the slightest chance.