|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
 Posted - 05/30/2003 : 06:07:04 [Permalink]
|
| Are you talking about the Pons & Fleischmann experiment only? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
 |
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2003 : 11:58:48 [Permalink]
|
Fleischmann and Pons experiments were poorly handled, and even then, they were given the benefit of the doubt for many months. However, it must be pointed out that their experiment was conducted and then released to the press, not peer review. They didn't release their experimental methods immediatly, which hindered confirmation. Later, once the details were released, the expirment was repeated many times, without positive results. I also remember reading that Pons and Fleischmann, chemists not physicists, failed to account for normal backround radiation, which most likely skewed their initial results. Additionally, the energy byproducts of such a reaction would have been dangerous to human life, but no such high energy particle decay was detected.
After falling through, Pons and Fleishmann both continued their research for several years with corporate backing. However, after no positive results were achieved, their funding was discontinued. The dream for cold fusion lives, but the reality is it has yet to be found. There may be possible ways to achieve those results, but the Pons & Fleishmann method was bad scientific procedure which bit them in the butt. Further testing and outside attempts of conformation would have saved them alot of embarresment. |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2003 : 15:21:01 [Permalink]
|
| As far as I know, a very good summary of the Pons & Fleischmann experiment. I've read about other kinds of coldfusion experiments as well, that's why I was wondering. However, these other methods, muon-catalyzed fusion and bubble fusion doesn't seem to be very promising either at this point, I believe? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2003 : 22:21:03 [Permalink]
|
I don't know about the first type, but the second method you are talking about is still speculative at this point. There is an effect called sonoluminescence http://www-phys.llnl.gov/N_Div/sonolum/, which generates light when sound is coupled to small bubbles in water. Current physics is not sure about the exact reason for this effect, but the light emmited leads to the possibility that temperatures approaching hot fusion are generated for an extremely short amount of time in an extremely small space. However, the effect isn't completely understood. Even if temperatures and pressures are reached, and even if it could be used to generate micro levels of fusion, would be be practicle? Could it generate usuable energy? As far as I know, there isn't enough solid research out there yet, but it is being investigated. Even if it was achieved, it would not be cold fusion, it would be hot fusion, but on extremely small scales.
Currently, the best research so far is using magnetic bottles to contain fusion reactions. It can be done, but currently takes more energy than it produces, which makes the method unusable commercially. However, research is trying to hit the break even point and exceed it.
I would say that there are many possibilities for controlled fusion, but none of them are cold. I am dubious at best when I hear about such phenomena. Claims to the contrary are extrodanary claims, and thus require extrodanary evidence to support them. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
