|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2002 : 20:33:30
|
This isn't a real poll, but I would be curious to know which of the following statements people think is the best description of cold fusion?
1) Cold fusion is pure pseudoscience and has no basis in reality.
2) Cold fusion is a real phenomenon, but can be best explained by conventional chemical means.
3) Cold fusion is a real nuclear phenomenon, but will have little practical value.
4) Cold fusion is not only a real nuclear phenomenon, but it will also prove to be an important technology one day.
Thank you for your replies.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2002 : 21:35:20 [Permalink]
|
I think you have slightly different conception of what the term 'Cold Fusion' means.
From the way you are stating your 'poll' options, it looks like you are not really asking us wether we belive if Cold Fusion is theortically possible, but more like you have an specific and actual phenomenon in mind and merly asking how to lable it. If you have seen something descibed as Cold Fusion then it most likely was just some hoax or trick to get to your money. No known Cold Fusion device exists.
People claiming to have build one are to be treated with almost the same level of skepticism as people claiming to have build perpetum mobiles or free energy generators.
|
 |
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 07:42:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you have slightly different conception of what the term 'Cold Fusion' means.
From the way you are stating your 'poll' options, it looks like you are not really asking us wether we belive if Cold Fusion is theortically possible, but more like you have an specific and actual phenomenon in mind and merly asking how to lable it.
Then let me clarify this issue.
In science, you must have a phenomenon to study before you can determine the theory that best explains it. As such, a phenomenon is either real or it isn't; there is no such thing as a "theoretically possible" phenomenon. If it isn't real, the question of how to explain it is rendered moot; if it is real, then it is a fact, not a possibility, and the theory simply explains how and why it works.
By cold fusion I mean the observation that certain experimental devices, using deuterium and one or more noble metals and some form of power input, produce more heat/power than is put into them, as well as neutrons, tritium, and helium. My poll then asks three questions:
1) Is this observation a real phenomenon or simply the result of errors or fraud?
2) If real, can it be explained by conventional chemical means or does it require a new form of nuclear reactions?
3) Is it likely to be practical?
The questions concerning possible explanations and practicality are moot if there is no real phenonmenon. Likewise the question of practicality is moot if the explanation is conventional chemistry and not some sort of solid-state nuclear process. As such, my poll questions were meant to gauge the level acceptance for this idea by the members of the network.
No, I am not asking these questions because someone is trying to sell me a cold fusion generator. Lahrs is correct that there are yet no commercial devices. There are, however, experimental devices that are being used to study the phenomenon in an attempt to understand it and explain it; practical considerations will then come later.
My own position in this poll is somewhere between question 3 and 4. I accept that cold fusion is a real phenomenon and that it will be explained by some new form of solid-state nuclear process, but I am not yet convinced it will have any practical use.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
Edited by - echthroi_man on 07/26/2002 07:43:03 |
|
|
|
seb
New Member
France
40 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 10:03:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By cold fusion I mean the observation that certain experimental devices, using deuterium and one or more noble metals and some form of power input, produce more heat/power than is put into them, as well as neutrons, tritium, and helium.
Could you give some references concerning this kind of experiment, like scientific papers, reviews of experiment...
If I could get to bed a bit less stupid tonight it would be great. 
thanks.
Seb |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 10:30:04 [Permalink]
|
I read a couple articles about a researcher that claimed to have done this but he himself could not reproduce the experiment. His release of findings he could not himself reproduce, like other cold fusion claims before it, is premature at the very least if not irresponsible.
That being said I have to go with #1 until we see something that can be reproduced even once.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 11:10:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By cold fusion I mean the observation that certain experimental devices, using deuterium and one or more noble metals and some form of power input, produce more heat/power than is put into them, as well as neutrons, tritium, and helium.
What observation? As far as I know, there has never been a reproducable experiment that exhibited such features. Ever since Fleischmann and Pons have first presented their theories, scientist have tried to reproduce what the two claimed to have observed. Nobody has manged to do so. From time to time somebody comes up with elaborate theories or variations of the original experiment, but nobody has manged to come up with anything that works.
If there is some new scientific research going on that I am not aware of, there might be some observations to be made, but lacking that there is nothing there observe.
|
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 11:55:37 [Permalink]
|
In point of fact many labs were able to reproduce Fleischmann and Pons results, as were they themselves. Many people still do cold fusion research, but quietly, so as not to raise the alarm of scientitic vigilantes. They are getting very reproducible results as they continue to do experiments.
Tonight I will giveb the URLs for two websites, both of which give bibliographies of recent data. One will also have essays explaining the state of cold fusion research, including what we know and what we still have to learn.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 12:09:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
scientitic vigilantes
What the hell does this term mean? It sounds like a slur but I am guessing it applies to scientists that adhere to the scientific method...
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2002 : 15:26:12 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Victor Stenger explains some very minor results termed as 'cold fusion' in his book Timeless Reality. However, the results are no more than expected and produce no energy levels considerable enough to be measured except by the most sensitive equipment. This is a process of the most basic nuclear phenomena and well understood by particle physics. And the cause is no more than statistical analysis requires.
We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart. |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 09:44:37 [Permalink]
|
My apologies for the tardiness of this post, but family business came up Friday night and I only just now resolved it. Anywho, here are the URLs I promised.
The first is to Edmund Storms' website. Dr. Storms is a retired nuclear physicist who used to work at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He has done extensive work on cold fusion which he continues in retirement. Despite being a "believer" (ie, he accepts that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that deserves serious scientific study) he is also very candid on the state of the science at this time. His website has various essays that describe thorough evaluations of various aspects of the science, detailing both what we know and what we still need to learn. His critiques of certain aspects of cold fusion research, though scientific rather than personal, are as harsh as those of any cold fusion debunker. Though I doubt his arguments will change any minds, the only people who will not appreciate his insight and information are those convinced that cold fusion is fantasy and have no desire to be confused by the facts.
<http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/index.html>
The second URL is to a comprehensive bibliography of cold fusion literature. Starting in 1989 and extending into the present year, this bibliography includes books, journal articles, conference proceedings, unpublished material, patent requests, and more. For those who wish to read the literature for temselves this is perhaps the best resource available.
<http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/index.html>
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 10:13:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
scientitic vigilantes
What the hell does this term mean? It sounds like a slur but I am guessing it applies to scientists that adhere to the scientific method...
Neither, I'm afraid. It refers to a small, but vocal, minority of scientists, science writers, and scientifically literate laypeople who have taken it upon themselves to decide what subjects are worthy of scientific study and which are not. They make this determination based on an unquestioned acceptance of the authority of the existing scienfific worldview; they enforce their determinations by vehement condemnation of any deviations from this perceived orthodoxy. Through the use of public ridicule and scorn they frighten other scientists into abandoning lines of research they deem inappropriate; through the use of private influence they arrange for funding to be cut off and for papers to be denied publication. Though not as successful as they would like, they have been at least partially successful in that any public announcement that he or she is willing to pursue research in any of these forbidden subjects is enough to ruin or severely damage a scientist's career. Only those scientists who themselves have the political clout to survive such attacks are capable of pursuing meaningful work in some areas, and even they have trouble attracting students and assistants or acquiring funding.
As a scientist I am very much aware of what constitutes "adherence to the scientific method", and at no time does this mean unquestioning acceptance of current scientific orthodoxy. In fact, the scientific method demands that researchers challenge scientific orthodoxy whenever the data demands it. Unfortunately the vigilantes believe that any empirical result that challenges scientific orthodoxy is pathological science and should therefore be stamped out before it corrupt science as a whole. As such, I consider the vigilantes far more dangerous than the crackpots. Under normal usage of the scientific method the crackpots will always be exposed and their ideas discarded while legitimate new ideas will have a chance to prove themselves and become accepted, even if in the end they change the current orthodoxy into a new orthodoxy. Under such circumstances sciences grows and improves itself, even if some pathological ideas must be treated seriously for a time.
But if the vigilantes have their way, only those ideas that fit into the current orthodoxy will be accepted as legitimate science; any new idea that challenges the current orthodoxy will be forced out, regardless of whether it is true or not. Under such circumstances science can only stagnate, because no new ideas can be accepted as a consequence of keeping science "safe" from pathological ideas.
As a scientist I am no more supportive of pseudoscience than any other of my colleagues, but as a scientist I would rather have a scientific community that tolerates pseudoscience as the price for discovering new ideas that advance science, than a scientific community that squelches any new idea out of fear of pseudoscience.
Thus endeth the sermon for today.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 06:38:14 [Permalink]
|
First, I have to disagree with the statement that science requires the phenonmena first, then science explains it.
We've never seen a black hole. In fact, there is no absolute proof of them. Black holes were postulated to explain a phenomena we couldn't otherwise explain. (yes, I believe black holes exist-I'm just making a point)
As for cold fusion, I'm no scientist, but I know of no example of natually occurring cold fusion. Stars are a product of very hot fusion. Why nature would allow for two kinds of fusion, yet only utilize one, doesn't seem useful.
Educate me: if normal fusion releases a huge amount of heat energy, what form of 'cold' energy are they hoping to harness instead of heat?
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 07:33:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First, I have to disagree with the statement that science requires the phenonmena first, then science explains it.
We've never seen a black hole. In fact, there is no absolute proof of them. Black holes were postulated to explain a phenomena we couldn't otherwise explain.
In science there is never absolute proof for anything, but we have identified at least four black holes so far, so I think we can say they exist.
What you said above is exactly the point I was trying to make. First science recognized a phenomenon, then science studied it and tried to explain it. In this case the explanation science came up with was black holes.
quote:
As for cold fusion, I'm no scientist, but I know of no example of natually occurring cold fusion. Stars are a product of very hot fusion. Why nature would allow for two kinds of fusion, yet only utilize one, doesn't seem useful.
Steve Jones, the co-discover with Pons and Fleischman of cold fusion (though in fact he was one of their harshest critics), claims that cold fusion is operating in the mantle or core of the earth, and there is some evidence to support this claim, though it is by no means conclusive.
quote:
Educate me: if normal fusion releases a huge amount of heat energy, what form of 'cold' energy are they hoping to harness instead of heat?
There are several possible answers to that question, but as yet no clear evidence indicating the correct answer. The short answer to your question is that the solid-state environment of the electrode acts as a catalyst that can overcome the coulomb barrier that otherwise prevents subatomic particles from fusing. Exactly how that works is as yet unknown, but that it happens is undeniable.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 07:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As for cold fusion, I'm no scientist, but I know of no example of natually occurring cold fusion. Stars are a product of very hot fusion. Why nature would allow for two kinds of fusion, yet only utilize one, doesn't seem useful.
Well I don't belive in CF either, but I don't think that this argument counts. Take normal nuclear fission for example. It would be very hard to find this phenomenon occuring naturally, but we still use it. There is a lot of stuff that is possible, but does not occur very frequently and obviously in nature.
You could as well argue that wheels are a bad idea since the problem has naturally been solved by using legs.
The ohter problem I have with your post is that you anthropomorphize nature by using terms like allowing and utilizing. There is no overall intellect steering the behaviour of the universe. That might have been just a bad choice of words, but sometimes people honestly expect the universe to make 'sense' in such a way.
quote:
Educate me: if normal fusion releases a huge amount of heat energy, what form of 'cold' energy are they hoping to harness instead of heat?
Well I don't belive that it is possible, but from what I understand, the commonly term reffers to nuclear fusion at room-temperatur. This process is supposed to be emitting energy in the form of heat it just is expected to do so at much lower temperaturs then those in the Sun. Cold is I guess also supposed to be taken relative here. An environment of boiling water would still be considered 'cold' comapred with the normal temperature range.
|
|
|
|
Wiley
Skeptic Friend
68 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 11:03:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
As for cold fusion, I'm no scientist, but I know of no example of natually occurring cold fusion. Stars are a product of very hot fusion. Why nature would allow for two kinds of fusion, yet only utilize one, doesn't seem useful.
Well I don't belive in CF either, but I don't think that this argument counts. Take normal nuclear fission for example. It would be very hard to find this phenomenon occuring naturally, but we still use it. There is a lot of stuff that is possible, but does not occur very frequently and obviously in nature.
I understand your point, but I'm not buying it just yet. Nuclear fission does occur in nature; natural radioactivity and the Oklo reactor are prime examples. Fission is rare in the universe, but fission also requires heavy and unstable elements, which are rare in the universe. Hydrogen is by far the most abudant element in the universe. If cold fusion were possible, we should see it somewhere. Also consider, if cold fusion were possible, the universe would have probably burnt itself out a several billion years ago.
quote:
quote:
Educate me: if normal fusion releases a huge amount of heat energy, what form of 'cold' energy are they hoping to harness instead of heat?
Well I don't belive that it is possible, but from what I understand, the commonly term reffers to nuclear fusion at room-temperatur. This process is supposed to be emitting energy in the form of heat it just is expected to do so at much lower temperaturs then those in the Sun. Cold is I guess also supposed to be taken relative here. An environment of boiling water would still be considered 'cold' comapred with the normal temperature range.
[/quote]
Yep, this is exactly right. Currently the only way we have creating fusion is by duplicating the conditions at the interior of the Sun. Heating plasma to a few million degrees is a difficult and expensive process. The term "cold" in this case means really means anything below, say, a few thousand degrees.
|
|
|
|
Wiley
Skeptic Friend
68 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2002 : 11:32:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In science there is never absolute proof for anything, but we have identified at least four black holes so far, so I think we can say they exist.
Not quite. There are different theories, for instance, gravitional condensate stars: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0109035
The standard method for "finding" a black hole is mass. If it is too massive to be a neutron star, we say it is a black hole. One of the defining characteristics of a black hole is the event horizon. Other condensed matter stars like a neutron star or a white dwarf have hard surfaces, but the event horizon is not real surface. The energy characteristics of inflowing matter should be different between a hard suface and a non surface. Only in the last two years have we been able to get results on this, so the jury is still out. See http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0204080
Of course, how string theory and black holes relate is an open question ...
quote:
What you said above is exactly the point I was trying to make. First science recognized a phenomenon, then science studied it and tried to explain it. In this case the explanation science came up with was black holes.
This statement is false for black holes. In 1916 Schwarzschild found the solution to Einstein's general relativity for a single spherical body. This solution predicts the existance of black holes. It was more than fifty years later before any observational evidence for black holes was found.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
