Skip to comments.
Experiment Supports Controversial 'Fusion-In-A-Jar' Claims
Information Week ^
| July 22, 2005
Posted on 07/25/2005 8:33:29 AM PDT by Irontank
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
1
posted on
07/25/2005 8:33:30 AM PDT
by
Irontank
To: Irontank
"Sonofusion is thermonuclear fusion and is scalable," said Yiban Xu, Son-of-a-what?
To: Irontank
So how long until we have a fusion coffemaker?
3
posted on
07/25/2005 8:37:07 AM PDT
by
kharaku
(G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
To: ClearCase_guy
Son of a sound approach...
4
posted on
07/25/2005 8:37:43 AM PDT
by
trebb
("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
To: ClearCase_guy
I think he is saying it works, and you can make it bigger if you want.
5
posted on
07/25/2005 8:39:10 AM PDT
by
linear
(Repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics!!)
To: Irontank
Someone please post a link to the picture of Dr. Brown's "Mr. Fusion" from Back to the Future....
6
posted on
07/25/2005 8:39:45 AM PDT
by
Personal Responsibility
(Register to vote as a Dem! You get to vote in their primaries and it screws up their polling data!)
To: Irontank
I think the Department of Energy is probably quietly studying all the so-called claims of cold fusion and trying to find one that actually works when scaled up to a bigger device. That's because they want a cheap source of deuterium for the lithium deuteride fissile material used for regular replacement of fissile materials in our nuclear stockpile.
To: Mycroft Holmes
What is your take on this? Real or bogus?
8
posted on
07/25/2005 8:42:35 AM PDT
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Irontank
BFLR = bump for later reading
9
posted on
07/25/2005 8:42:36 AM PDT
by
Kevin OMalley
(No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
To: RayChuang88
That's because they want a cheap source of deuterium for the lithium deuteride fissile material used for regular replacement of fissile materials in our nuclear stockpile
But what about nuclear fusion as a replacement for oil and coal-based energy? Is that something that scientists envision?
10
posted on
07/25/2005 8:43:30 AM PDT
by
Irontank
(Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
To: Irontank
They appear to be using cavitation as a surrogate marker for fusion. Well, good luck to them - it sounds like quite cheap research and you never know what the spinoffs might be, even if (as seems likely) Cold Fusion is a dream.
To: Irontank
""Sonofusion is thermonuclear fusion and is scalable," said Yiban Xu, who performed the experiment..."
cavitation? sonofusion?
Glad he's on our side.
12
posted on
07/25/2005 8:44:08 AM PDT
by
cloud8
To: Irontank
How big and how heavy was the aparatus in which they created fusion?
Secondly, how much heat was generated by the apparatus?
13
posted on
07/25/2005 8:48:32 AM PDT
by
bobjam
To: Irontank
Cavitation effects were proposed at the time as an explanation for the results obtained by Pons and Fleischman 15 years ago. All those bubbles on the electrodes.
14
posted on
07/25/2005 8:49:33 AM PDT
by
buwaya
To: cloud8
What makes you think he is?
15
posted on
07/25/2005 8:50:48 AM PDT
by
em2vn
To: RayChuang88
Bush and his 'oil buddies' will put a stop to this! They need to keep us dependent on oil so they can all get richer. Rove is hatching an eeeevil plan in his lair in the White House basement right now! /DUmmie
16
posted on
07/25/2005 8:52:12 AM PDT
by
GaltMeister
(“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”)
To: Irontank
17
posted on
07/25/2005 8:52:22 AM PDT
by
ZGuy
To: RayChuang88
Uh huh.
This approach, if it works, would provide a method ANYONE could use to produce fissile material. Yikes!
18
posted on
07/25/2005 8:52:32 AM PDT
by
clee1
(We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
To: RayChuang88
I think the Department of Energy is probably quietly studying...Well, maybe, but I'm involved with a project that we took to the DOE (NOT fusion, something else), and they put us off by requiring more and more studies, papers, etc...
Their response to us was somewhat justified, I'll have to admit, but my point is, they ask other folks to conduct the studies, I think, and review the findings.
19
posted on
07/25/2005 8:52:38 AM PDT
by
HeadOn
(Strict Construction - otherwise, why bother?)
To: agere_contra
I don't see them using cavitation as a marker - sounds like they clearly (I know that word transgresses quantum physics, but you know what I mean) measured the emission of particles following cavitation.
20
posted on
07/25/2005 8:54:47 AM PDT
by
linear
(Repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson