Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,341
# 11
07-10-2012, 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
They don't claim it doesn't produce tritium - they do claim it produces a much higher ratio of He-4 (the cleanest and highest energy product of conventional fusion). F&P detected neutron radiation during the reaction and tritium after, and used tritium as the smoking gun that a nuclear reaction occurred. They acknowledged the production of tritium and tritiated water, they just claimed that it wasn't radioactive. After confirming its presence by its radioactive emissions.

It's kind of like saying you've developed a way to burn coal with zero carbon emissions, and proving it actually burned by its carbon emissions, and it's one of the reasons why there aren't many reputable scientists on board with it.
I think we are reading different "Theys" here. I am merely referring to the source linked in the OP. And that one does not claim anything but excess heat and no waste or radiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,630
# 12
07-10-2012, 09:59 AM
Fair enough, I'm using "they" to refer to Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons primarily, and by extension most low energy fusion researchers - tritium is almost universally the smoking gun product, being less likely to be lost and easiest to detect.

The link in the OP, though, does acknowledge tritium production. Page 25 under technical needs (right column), in describing the detection of reaction products in order to confirm the occurrence and nature of the nuclear reaction, it describes those products as, "mainly He and Tritium."

That is, the means of confirming the reaction (which leaves no radioactive product) occurred is done at least in party by the detection of radioactive product.

Last edited by hevach; 07-10-2012 at 10:05 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,341
# 13
07-10-2012, 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
[...]
The link in the OP, though, does acknowledge tritium production. Page 25 under technical needs (right column), in describing the detection of reaction products in order to confirm the occurrence and nature of the nuclear reaction, it describes those products as, "mainly He and Tritium."
Hm, but as a proposed way how to investigate and what to look for in further research. No claim that it has been found there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 14
07-10-2012, 11:29 AM
what exactly are the differences between nuclear and cold fusion? I know nuclear fusion is the process of combining hydrogen atoms with helium to make energy like how our sun works. Also what are the benefits of cold fusion over nuclear fusion?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 987
# 15
07-10-2012, 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj011 View Post
what exactly are the differences between nuclear and cold fusion? I know nuclear fusion is the process of combining hydrogen atoms with helium to make energy like how our sun works. Also what are the benefits of cold fusion over nuclear fusion?
To Fuse 2 Protons, you need a temperature of around 100 Million Kelvin. The temperature requirements are lower if you use the heavier isotopes of Hydrogen and isotopes of Lithium. Cold Fusion is trying to attain fusion at room temperature (which is to say, virtually impossible).
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,341
# 16
07-10-2012, 11:47 AM
Man-made hot fusion, if it is possible at all, requires giant and very expensive reactors, using technology that hasn't been invented yet, to contain plasma at temperatures almost unimaginable so that it produces a sustained hot fusion reaction. We have been researching at that for decades, making very, very slow progress at tremendous monetary cost.

These cold fusion experiments are essentially claimed to be a way to do small-scale fusion on tabletop devices for a few thousand dollars that produce excess heat which could be used for anything: Heating your house, moving your car, powering a deep space probe.

That is, if the European Commission (a rather conservative and cautious bunch of politicians and bureaucrats with lots of resources at their hands, including scientists of all fields) is correct and neither misled nor lying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 987
# 17
07-10-2012, 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Man-made hot fusion, if it is possible at all... using technology that hasn't been invented yet
Wrong. We've been fusing hydrogen in Tokamak Reactors for decades. They haven't yet produced net positive energy, however.
Quote:
That is, if the European Commission (a rather conservative and cautious bunch of politicians and bureaucrats with lots of resources at their hands, including scientists of all fields) is correct and neither misled nor lying.
They're not. The research you've linked to was debunked a few years ago, IIRC.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,341
# 18
07-10-2012, 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
Wrong. We've been fusing hydrogen in Tokamak Reactors for decades. They haven't yet produced net positive energy, however.
Which is exactly what I meant: Technology that hasn't been invented yet to produce more energy than consumed in triggering it.

Quote:
They're not. The research you've linked to was debunked a few years ago, IIRC.
I sincerely think that the weight of this claim by the European commission deserves more than "if I recall correctly". So if you know anything substantial about it, please share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 987
# 19
07-10-2012, 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Which is exactly what I meant: Technology that hasn't been invented yet to produce more energy than consumed in triggering it.
The Technology HAS been invented. Its only a matter of making it more efficient.
Quote:
I sincerely think that the weight of this claim by the European commission deserves more than "if I recall correctly". So if you know anything substantial about it, please share.
For one, the PDF you linked had barely any data.

Two, Finding any solid data on that particular research was hard the first time I attempted it a few years ago, so I don't have the links handy. I was trying to stay away from commenting on the actual research (oops); Also, I noticed that hevach did a good job of providing the necessary counter evidence.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,341
# 20
07-10-2012, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
The Technology HAS been invented. Its only a matter of making it more efficient.For one, the PDF you linked had barely any data.
Forgive me, but that is like saying the technology to fly across the Atlantic with human muscle power has been invented, "it only needs to be made more efficient". A hot fusion power source has not yet been invented, there are merely research paths that have been opened. Unfortunately. Especially as hot fusion is required for fusion rockets, which are our best chance to travel meaningfully fast in interplanetary space.

Quote:
Two, Finding any solid data on that particular research was hard the first time I attempted it a few years ago, so I don't have the links handy. I was trying to stay away from commenting on the actual research (oops); Also, I noticed that hevach did a good job of providing the necessary counter evidence.
No one here in this thread has, to my knowledge, provided any evidence for either of the two positions, apart from the theoretical conclusion that it should, under our current understanding of nuclear physics, not work at all. Yet apparently some non-lunatic, well-established people in Brussels and elsewhere believe it works anyway.

Doesn't that puzzle you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:59 AM.