Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml

I didn't catch the 60 Minutes episode he was on but I know a lot of people who are into Cold Fusion (Low Temperature Nuclear Effects).

What does everyone think about cold fusion, especially in terms of its validity?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml

I didn't catch the 60 Minutes episode he was on but I know a lot of people who are into Cold Fusion (Low Temperature Nuclear Effects).

What does everyone think about cold fusion, especially in terms of its validity?


Wow.



Thank you very much for sharing.



This is...amazing news.


I grew up reading, dozens of times, that Martin Fleischmann was a quack and a liar.


This...must be a huge vindication for Martin Fleischmann.

Research fusion was one of the things that attracted me to physics.


This is great news to me. Simply wonderful.



Even if they never make anything feasible from this, it still is a huge vindication Martin Fleischmann and Scott. (I forget his last name.)

very interesting stuff, but 20 years is too long to wait we need this technology yesterday.

Isn't it a pseudoscience that violates the laws of thermodynamics?

Cold Fusion has always been the fountain of Youth of Energy. Man, i can't even imagine how much the world would change if humanity could harness this endless supply of power. It's very inspiring to hear that they're getting closer.

Interesting stuff, but part of me keeps thinking the potential will get crushed again, perhaps for the real reason it was crushed the first time: by Big Oil, and for that matter, by anyone currently in the energy industry where profit depends on continuous buying (eg, oil, batteries). Just imagine what "unlimited" energy will do to these businesses...unless, of course, planned obsolescence is factored in.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Isn't it a pseudoscience that violates the laws of thermodynamics?

Yes

Originally posted by Mindship
Interesting stuff, but part of me keeps thinking the potential will get crushed again, perhaps for the real reason it was crushed the first time: by Big Oil, and for that matter, by anyone currently in the energy industry where profit depends on continuous buying (eg, oil, batteries). Just imagine what "unlimited" energy will do to these businesses...unless, of course, planned obsolescence is factored in.

How is big oil getting most of the scientific community to reject cold fusion?

Originally posted by Mindship
Interesting stuff, but part of me keeps thinking the potential will get crushed again, perhaps for the real reason it was crushed the first time: by Big Oil, and for that matter, by anyone currently in the energy industry where profit depends on continuous buying (eg, oil, batteries). Just imagine what "unlimited" energy will do to these businesses...unless, of course, planned obsolescence is factored in.


While some may not choose to acknowledge this, it would cause the loss of trillions of dollars. Why in the world wouldn't they want to interfere? It would be ludicrous if they didn't.


And once someone makes a break through, then people wiill poop their pants and bounce up and down on the turds...probably some of the poop will squirt out of the back of their pants at the top...straight in line with the buttcrack. And then, big business will spin the technology in a way that it makes them loads of cash. AHA!

I'm often skeptical about these things because it's not really different from when people say they have cars that run on water when they actually use expensive sacrificial anodes that are made of extremely rare metals

The same applies in this case...Yes Deuterium is abundant...1 in every 6000 hydrogen atoms is heavy hydrogen 2H...The problem is the Palladium componet which is quite rare and expensive. Although it's not a sacrificial catalyst in this case. Although I suppose it's feasible to replace it's current uses (jewelery, catalytic converters, surgical tools and many others) with other metal to free up Palladium to be used in energy creation.



I don't believe it would. Oil is still needed in manufacturing energy could still be supplied at a cost. While a lot of energy produced now costs more to do so because it relies on fossil fuels, that's not the be all and end all of costs to an energy production company. So called "cold fusion" generators would still require maintainence, It would still have administrative costs.

Not to mention that Oil companies can easily adapt to mining for Palladium and extracting Deuterium from water...and would charge accordingly.

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't believe it would. Oil is still needed in manufacturing energy could still be supplied at a cost. While a lot of energy produced now costs more to do so because it relies on fossil fuels, that's not the be all and end all of costs to an energy production company. So called "cold fusion" generators would still require maintainence, It would still have administrative costs.

Not to mention that Oil companies can easily adapt to mining for Palladium and extracting Deuterium from water...and would charge accordingly.


I think you missed this part of my post:




Originally posted by dadudemon
And then, big business will spin the technology in a way that it makes them loads of cash. AHA!


But, yes, if it really became a feasible technology, it would negate trillions of dollars in one area...but as I implied, it would transfer to the new technology, most likely.

And, no, "refining" water would not be nearly as profitable as refining oil. Not even close. Neither would be mining the Palladium which, BTW, shouldn't be the only fusion metal used like this. From what I gathered, other metals will probably work that have similar crystalline structures.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you missed this part of my post:







But, yes, if it really became a feasible technology, it would negate trillions of dollars in one area...but as I implied, it would transfer to the new technology, most likely.

And, no, "refining" water would not be nearly as profitable as refining oil. Not even close. Neither would be mining the Palladium which, BTW, shouldn't be the only fusion metal used like this. From what I gathered, other metals will probably work that have similar crystalline structures.

I think it may have more to do with the outer layer of electrons in Palladium which is unique in the Platinum metals group.

And the oil companies would still be refining oil...You can't make plastics out of Deuterium for example. The only aspect of the business you're taking away is energy and petroleum but oil is used for far more than that anyway.

Paints, lubricants, road building, waxes...the list goes on and on.

Originally posted by jaden101
I think it may have more to do with the outer layer of electrons in Palladium which is unique in the Platinum metals group.

And the oil companies would still be refining oil...You can't make plastics out of Deuterium for example. The only aspect of the business you're taking away is energy and petroleum but oil is used for far more than that anyway.

Paints, lubricants, road building, waxes...the list goes on and on. hmm



Could be.




hmm



Yeah, I'm only talking about Energy....
How much money, globally, is spent on energy?


What would a majority of that money translate to?


I'm quite sure it's in the Trillions of dollars.
The loss of trillions of dollars by big oil and other fossil fuel orgs would be detrimental...

Which brings us full circle to my original point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
hmm



Could be.




hmm

Yeah, I'm only talking about Energy....
How much money, globally, is spent on energy?

What would a majority of that money translate to?

I'm quite sure it's in the Trillions of dollars.
The loss of trillions of dollars by big oil and other fossil fuel orgs would be detrimental...

Which brings us full circle to my original point.

The energy would still need to be produced. Although, yes the energy companies would be hard to justify themselves charging the same for energy if their costs were lower. It's also the energy companies that get the money....Not the oil companies...Who would just be producing oil for different applications...It's still be needed...perhaps not in as high a quantity but it would last longer and so make the same money simply over a longer period.

Another problem though is that Palladium is subject to market forces like anything else. If the demand goes up for it and it's a finite resource then the price will go up for it.

Originally posted by jaden101
The energy would still need to be produced. Although, yes the energy companies would be hard to justify themselves charging the same for energy if their costs were lower. It's also the energy companies that get the money....Not the oil companies...Who would just be producing oil for different applications...It's still be needed...perhaps not in as high a quantity but it would last longer and so make the same money simply over a longer period.

Another problem though is that Palladium is subject to market forces like anything else. If the demand goes up for it and it's a finite resource then the price will go up for it.

Not just oil, but other fossil fuel organizations. Everything is so tied up in that, that everything from your fridge to your gas is in big oil and other fossil energy sources.


And, I think that energy sources like the sun will be a primary energy source in the future...if we can ever pull our heads out of our ass and work towards being a class II civilization. We already have an awesome source of fusion. awesome



And there should be recycling processes for Palladium, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure what the proper word for it is...by I thought I heard him say that the hydrogen could be removed...

De-hydrogen....but I know there's a word for that. Help me here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not just oil, but other fossil fuel organizations. Everything is so tied up in that, that everything from your fridge to your gas is in big oil and other fossil energy sources.


And, I think that energy sources like the sun will be a primary energy source in the future...if we can ever pull our heads out of our ass and work towards being a class II civilization. We already have an awesome source of fusion. awesome



And there should be recycling processes for Palladium, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure what the proper word for it is...by I thought I heard him say that the hydrogen could be removed...

De-hydrogen....but I know there's a word for that. Help me here.

You'd still need those fossil fuels for those uses though. Hence the reason Oil companies wouldn't be out of pocket to a huge degree. Their oil is used for far more than just producing energy and those needs can't be met by cold fusion

I believe they said the heavy hydrogen could be extracted from water easily enough (which it can) but as for recycling Palladium?...I must've missed that bit but it's also irrelevant anyway...Palladium is an even more finite resource than oil. There's only so much of it in the world. Once it's all mined then it's all used. It also has a lot of other uses in manufacturing. Not to mention there's then the massive enviromental cost of opening even more mines to extract it.

Palladium mining is also only profitable as a byproduct of mining for other minerals such as copper etc. It takes many tons of mined ground to produce 1 troy ounce of gold and done on it's own it wouldn't be profitable at all. So it wouldn't even be a case of finding a new source of Palladium but also one that produces something else to make the mining profitable.

Originally posted by jaden101
You'd still need those fossil fuels for those uses though. Hence the reason Oil companies wouldn't be out of pocket to a huge degree. Their oil is used for far more than just producing energy and those needs can't be met by cold fusion

I believe they said the heavy hydrogen could be extracted from water easily enough (which it can) but as for recycling Palladium?...I must've missed that bit but it's also irrelevant anyway...Palladium is an even more finite resource than oil. There's only so much of it in the world. Once it's all mined then it's all used. It also has a lot of other uses in manufacturing. Not to mention there's then the massive enviromental cost of opening even more mines to extract it.

Palladium mining is also only profitable as a byproduct of mining for other minerals such as copper etc. It takes many tons of mined ground to produce 1 troy ounce of gold and done on it's own it wouldn't be profitable at all. So it wouldn't even be a case of finding a new source of Palladium but also one that produces something else to make the mining profitable.

I know this. But energy is tied to so many things. If you replace the primary source of it, it eliminates a lot of profit that could be made. Do you think Exxon makes it's big bucks from the plastic bowls you and I eat out of? Profit is at the gas pump.

Also, Palladium shouldn't be the only metal that this works. Also, I think you're right. It has something to do with the arrangement of the attoms (crystalline structure) and how the hydrogen can interact with the electrons of those atoms.


However, they didn't go nearly enough into detail to even come close to to explaining it well enough.



And, yes, turning a profit would be a big deal.



And what is the chemistry term for liberating hydrogen from a used substrate?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And what is the chemistry term for liberating hydrogen from a used substrate?

Electrolysis?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Electrolysis?

No. I'm referring to a word such as "dehydration"...Except...oxygen isn't involved.


Electolysis would be a specific way to accomplish "this" task. (Phrased, just like Jeopardy question.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How is big oil getting most of the scientific community to reject cold fusion? I'm not sure such a move would be necessary. In any event, you get enough scientists on your side to make your side look "legit enough" + put out propoganda to discredit (or at least question) what the other side is saying. Didn't the cigarette business pull a fast one on the public, rationalizing its product as not being a definite cause of lung cancer, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not sure such a move would be necessary. In any event, you get enough scientists on your side to make your side look "legit enough" + put out propoganda to discredit (or at least question) what the other side is saying. Didn't the cigarette business pull a fast one on the public, rationalizing its product as not being a definite cause of lung cancer, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

They didn't fool the scientific or medical community except for a fairly small number of people they have on their pay roll. Cold fusion is questioned by physicists because it violates the "no free lunch" rule and is so horribly inconsistent as to come off as imaginary. If there were real solid evidence that cold fusion works the scientific community would be all over it, and in fact when they first heard about it they were.

I see the problem as wide spread scientific illiteracy and the simple complexity of things involved. The most ridiculous theories can be gives pages worth of equations that no one will ever be able to understand without multiple doctorates. Combined with people knowing fairly little about physics (to the point that quantum physics gets pretty much equated with magic) and the utopian sort of promises that come from cold fusion that's the perfect recipe for getting lay people on board.

Also, your entire post would be a pretty much perfect criticism of the cold fusion movement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They didn't fool the scientific or medical community except for a fairly small number of people they have on their pay roll. Cold fusion is questioned by physicists because it violates the "no free lunch" rule and is so horribly inconsistent as to come off as imaginary. If there were real solid evidence that cold fusion works the scientific community would be all over it, and in fact when they first heard about it they were.

I see the problem as wide spread scientific illiteracy and the simple complexity of things involved. The most ridiculous theories can be gives pages worth of equations that no one will ever be able to understand without multiple doctorates. Combined with people knowing fairly little about physics (to the point that quantum physics gets pretty much equated with magic) and the utopian sort of promises that come from cold fusion that's the perfect recipe for getting lay people on board.

Also, your entire post would be a pretty much perfect criticism of the cold fusion movement.

True. Although the "getting lay people on board" is specifically "getting funding by exploiting ignorance"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They didn't fool the scientific or medical community except for a fairly small number of people they have on their pay roll. Cold fusion is questioned by physicists because it violates the "no free lunch" rule and is so horribly inconsistent as to come off as imaginary. If there were real solid evidence that cold fusion works the scientific community would be all over it, and in fact when they first heard about it they were.

Even when embraced by the scientific community, sometimes I go "H'mm." Eg, dark energy. Part of me is still waiting for the other shoe to drop: that the accelerating expansion of the universe is only apparent, due to mismeasurement.

That would really screw up one of my short stories, if that were the case.

Originally posted by Mindship
Even when embraced by the scientific community, sometimes I go "H'mm."

True and if they make it sustainable that'll be great and I'll be happy to admit I was wrong, but this isn't necessarily a great direction to be sending money.

Of course, I'm still pretty much a lay person (if a handsome well informed one) and I really don't know what a good direction for funding is. By way of example the LHC is pretty much universally lauded as a step forward in particle physics but I bet if you polled a few hundred people the vast majority of them wouldn't have a clue what we can learn from it and even fewer know how we would benefit from that knowledge.

Actually, that might be more to the point. Cold fusion is popular because if it works the pay off is obvious and immediate unlike just about everything else in science.

Originally posted by Mindship
Eg, dark energy. Part of me is still waiting for the other shoe to drop: that the accelerating expansion of the universe is only apparent, due to mismeasurement.

That would really screw up one of my short stories, if that were the case.

Those must be quite the short stories.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course, I'm still pretty much a lay person (if a handsome well informed one) and I really don't know what a good direction for funding is. By way of example the LHC is pretty much universally lauded as a step forward in particle physics but I bet if you polled a few hundred people the vast majority of them wouldn't have a clue what we can learn from it and even fewer know how we would benefit from that knowledge.The less handsome, less informed need only observe one rule: Thou shalt not diss the LHC.

Those must be quite the short stories. Wait'll the movie comes out.

Originally posted by Mindship
Wait'll the movie comes out.

"Egads, Doctor, they're firing lasers at us."

"Quickly we must calculate the ships Delta-V and acceleration and then plot of course that will accelerate us up to full speed quickly but without harming us or burning too much fuel."

"But, Doc, won't we have to compensate the for the gravity wells of nearby planets and adjust for pull on us according to the inverse-square law?"

"Damnit, boy there's no time for that. We'll have to head away from the star system perpendicular to the equator and just pray they don't have pseudo-velocity drives!"


Am I close?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Egads, Doctor, they're firing lasers at us."

"Quickly we must calculate the ships Delta-V and acceleration and then plot of course that will accelerate us up to full speed quickly but without harming us or burning too much fuel."Not.

"But, Doc, won't we have to compensate the for the gravity wells of nearby planets and adjust for pull on us according to the inverse-square law?" At.

"Damnit, boy there's no time for that. We'll have to head away from the star system perpendicular to the equator and just pray they don't have pseudo-velocity drives!"


Am I close? All.

Aw . . .