Skip to comments.
Cold fusion ‘breakthrough’ heralds clean nuclear power
The Sunday Times (UK) ^
| March 03, 2002
| Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
Posted on 03/02/2002 4:54:40 PM PST by aculeus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-251 next last
To: Willie Green
Conceding the extremely remote possibility that it's actually "fusion", there is one major hitch: COLD = LOW ENERGY
((((yawn))))
Ummm- not necessarily. Cold Fusion just means that the temperature at which the fusion is occuring is much lower than that traditionally expected. The fusion process can be used to heat something up - like say boil water to steam. (A nice conventional use.)
If this pans out - it's a very big deal. But I wouldn't sell that Enron stock just yet...
21
posted on
03/02/2002 5:17:16 PM PST
by
waspguy
To: aculeus;Energy_List;tech_index;seamole;Free the USA
To find all articles tagged or indexed using above index words
Go here: OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
and then click the topic to initiate the search! !
To: farmfriend;RightWhale
"The scientists are, however, extremely cautious at this stage, saying only that they have detected all the signs of fusion rather than categorically confirming it." If they're wrong, it's off to the Gulag!!
23
posted on
03/02/2002 5:19:06 PM PST
by
blam
To: Jhoffa_
Every time I hear the term "cold fusion" it's always followed shortly by "fraud" "dissapointment" and "let down"...and their auditors are Arther Andersen?
To: waspguy
The fusion process can be used to heat something up - like say boil water to steam. (A nice conventional use.)Well give me a ping when one of these cold-fusion researchers boils enough water to make a decent cup of coffee.
To: aculeus
I do not buy it.
To: Willie Green
COLD = LOW ENERGY Depends on your scale of "cold."
In this context, "cold" means significantly less than 100 million degrees C.
All you need to do is make steam at 3 or 400 C, maybe, without melting down your fuel cells or elements, and there's your power source.
That's as hot as we know how to make anything that makes steam, but still cold by traditional fusion standards.
27
posted on
03/02/2002 5:25:18 PM PST
by
Erasmus
To: Willie Green
"((((yawn))))"
And just what course in atomic physics taught you that tidbit of techno-babble? You really should study up on your fizix a bit better.
28
posted on
03/02/2002 5:27:07 PM PST
by
lawdude
To: aculeus ; Physicist
Let's ping da' Man
29
posted on
03/02/2002 5:27:25 PM PST
by
Ahban
To: blam
The science of acoustics is just beginning.
To: ironman
Don't think this is correct. The WWII bombs were fision bombs. H-bombs came later. You're right. The hydrogen bomb was tested in 1950, as I recall.
Hope the rest of the article is a little more accurate.
31
posted on
03/02/2002 5:28:41 PM PST
by
Ole Okie
To: Willie Green
Ctually...the "cold" references the differences in technique. The only previously proven way to attempt controlled fusion was in a "tokomak", basically a circular magnetic confinement system that contained a extremely hot plasma under great pressure. THile fusion has been attained, its still taken more energy to create the fusion than you get from it...no "break even".
"Cold" fusion is supposed to initiate at near room temperature, and the act of fusion generates great amount of heat. Theoretically, the heated solution would be passed through a heat exchanger/genorator system much like todays fission reactors.
Fusion is also supposed to cause NO radioactive byproducts, thus nuetering the anti-nuke whackos. Both the actual "hot" fusion and theoretical "cold" fusion models I know of are also NOT self sustaining, meaning no big BOOM in an accident.
To: aculeus
>>...Until now the only way to achieve fusion has been through nuclear weapons ...<<
I thought weapons used nuclear FISSION.
To: Ole Okie
"You're right. The hydrogen bomb was tested in 1950, as I recall." Edward Teller's baby.
34
posted on
03/02/2002 5:35:47 PM PST
by
blam
To: stands2reason
There's no fusion like cold fusion
Like no fusion I know
Everything about it is appealing
...
You take it from there.
35
posted on
03/02/2002 5:36:38 PM PST
by
aculeus
It's been 30-50 years away for the last 30-50 years.
36
posted on
03/02/2002 5:37:43 PM PST
by
mvpel
To: aculeus
Imagine...Arabs in the backwaters of the world, suddenly sitting on nothing more than useless oil. Saddam? Beat it, pinhead! Saudi Arabia? You are SOOOOO 20th Century!
I heard a few months ago that the crown prince of SA was advising his country to *diversify* their investments. That is secret code for "Before long, we are going to be swept into the dustbin of history."
Man, this is going to be sweet.
37
posted on
03/02/2002 5:38:09 PM PST
by
50sDad
To: stands2reason
I do not buy it. I do not sell it.
38
posted on
03/02/2002 5:39:00 PM PST
by
aculeus
To: Cicero
The first group from Utah couldn't replicate their own experiments. Other scientists were right to jump on them. If you can replicate these experiments, then this is science, not a hunch.
39
posted on
03/02/2002 5:44:44 PM PST
by
Hagrid
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Interesting thanks for the ping
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-251 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