Researchers take big step to develop nuclear fusion power

Jun 08, 2012
Researchers and staff at UT's Magnet Development Laboratory prepare the central solenoid mockup for the vacuum pressure impregnation process. Credit: University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Imagine a world without man-made climate change, energy crunches or reliance on foreign oil. It may sound like a dream world, but University of Tennessee, Knoxville, engineers have made a giant step toward making this scenario a reality.

UT researchers have successfully developed a key technology in developing an experimental reactor that can demonstrate the feasibility of for the . promises to supply more energy than the used today but with far fewer risks.

Mechanical, aerospace and biomedical engineering professors David Irick, Madhu Madhukar and Masood Parang are engaged in a project involving the United States, five other nations, and the European Union, known as ITER. UT researchers completed a critical step this week for the project by successfully testing their technology this week that will insulate and stabilize the central solenoid—the reactor's backbone.

ITER is building a fusion reactor that aims to produce 10 times the amount of energy that it uses. The facility is now under construction near Cadarache, France, and will begin operations in 2020.

"The goal of ITER is to help bring fusion power to the commercial market," Madhukar said. "Fusion power is safer and more efficient than nuclear fission power. There is no danger of runaway reactions like what happened in nuclear fission reactions in Japan and Chernobyl, and there is little radioactive waste." Unlike today's nuclear fission reactors, fusion uses a similar process as that which powers the sun.

Since 2008, UT engineering professors and about 15 students have worked inside UT's Magnet Development Laboratory (MDL) located off of Pellissippi Parkway to develop technology that serves to insulate and provide structural integrity to the more than 1,000 ton central solenoid.

A tokamak reactor uses magnetic fields to confine the plasma—a hot, electrically charged gas that serves as the reactor fuel—into the shape of a torus. The central solenoid, which consists of six giant coils stacked on top of one another, plays the starring role by both igniting and steering the plasma current.

The key to unlocking the technology was finding the right material—a glass fiber and epoxy chemical mixture that is liquid at high temperatures and turns hard when cured—and the right process of inserting this material into all of the necessary spaces inside the central solenoid. The special mixture provides electrical insulation and strength to the heavy structure. The impregnation process moves the material at the right pace, factoring in temperature, pressure, vacuum and the material's flow rate.

This week, the UT team tested the technology inside its mockup of the central solenoid conductor.

"During the epoxy impregnation, we were in a race against time," said Madhukar. "With the epoxy, we have these competing parameters. The higher the temperature, the lower the viscosity; but at the same time, the higher the temperature, the shorter the working life of the epoxy."

It took two years to develop the technology, more than two days to impregnate the central solenoid mockup and multiple pairs of watchful eyes to ensure everything went according to plan.

It did.

This summer, the team's technology will be transferred to US ITER industry partner General Atomics in San Diego, which will build the central and ship it to France.

ITER—designed to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of —will be the world's largest tokamak. As an ITER member, the US receives full access to all ITER-developed technology and scientific data, but bears less than 10 percent of the construction cost, which is shared among partner nations. US ITER is a Department of Energy Office of Science project managed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

More information: More information on the ITER project can be found at: www.usiter.org and www.iter.org .

Related Stories

Fusion technology: from ANU to the world

Jun 30, 2005

Technology pioneered at ANU that could see the future of power generation become clean and green has come a step closer today with the announcement of an international development to harness fusion technology. Australian sci ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

Aug 28, 2014

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 103

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jibbles
4.7 / 5 (27) Jun 08, 2012
viva international scientific collaboration!
Origin
Jun 08, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
4.6 / 5 (39) Jun 08, 2012
Why do you think there is some widespread conspiracy involving all physicists? Do you know how ridiculous that is?

First of all, if cold fusion worked, SOMEONE would be making a FORTUNE doing it. Saying that these things really work but no one is doing them because they want to suppress them is the same as saying that people aren't really concerned about becoming billionaires...
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (32) Jun 08, 2012
If only the trillions squandered on windmills had been spent on real research like ITER and LENR etc.
Origin
1 / 5 (37) Jun 08, 2012
Why do you think there is some widespread conspiracy involving all physicists? Do you know how ridiculous that is?
This is not ridiculous, because A) I'm not talking about conspiracy, but about widespread stance B) you seems to be a supporter of this stance too, so you're actually confirming my opinion about it.
..if cold fusion worked, SOMEONE would be making a FORTUNE doing it.
I hope, Andrea Rossi will make such a fortune just with it. It just needs a thorough preparation, because at the moment, when you throw such a technology at the market, everyone will try to copy it and you get nothing from it: all your investments will be wasted.
is the same as saying that people aren't really concerned about becoming billionaires
Such a things are quite common in contemporary research, where all interesting results are simply censored with government and companies involved:
http://www.newsci...-us.html
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (20) Jun 08, 2012
One kilo of Helium-3 burned with .6 kilo of deuterium yields 19 megawatt years of energy. It's doable and perfectly safe. In fact, although the reaction is technically a nuclear one, it could be construed as a perfect chemical reaction. The money spent on the ITER project to date could been invested in a lunar expedition to extract H3 from the lunar regolith and return it to Earth. At least that is a sure thing. The jury is still out on whether ITER will actually live up to its expectations. The sad truth may be that it will not, and all that money would have gone toward teaching us a very expensive lesson.
Job001
2 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Sounds like you are both correct and incorrect. LENR still needs research, engineering and marketing and is only recently(last year or two) showing commercial yields, LENR isn't cold fusion. More likely than heat production for commercialization is the CIHT electrochemical fuel cell. Fuel cell energy produced as electrical power does not need a heat engine and generator, reducing cost and complexity and improving marketability.
gopher65
5 / 5 (23) Jun 08, 2012
baudrunner:
Unfortunately Helium-3 fusion is much more difficult than D-T fusion. It's harder than Boron-11/hydrogen fusion, but without the benefit of being aneutronic (plus Boron-11 is widely available on Earth, and Helium-3 isn't).

The reason why all these experiments concentrate on D-T fusion rather than something more useful like B11-H fusion or D-D fusion is because D-T fusion is the low hanging fruit on the fusion tree.

1) D-T releases much more power per unit of fuel input than He3-D or D-D or B11-H (those are the other main types of fusion being researched). That makes it easier to maintain the reaction.

2) D-T requires temperatures of 150 million Kelvin. B11-H, as an example, requires 6 BILLION Kelvin. It's hard to design a largescale reactor that can take 150 million, never mind 6 billion.

In short, D-T reactors like ITER (though not necessarily Tokomaks) are just easier to build than other types of reactors. So they'll come first, then others will be built.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (25) Jun 08, 2012
@baud

Are you aware of the extremely low concentration of H3 there is on the moon. estimated at 1 - 50 ppb, that equates to needing to mine 1 billion kg to 20M kg to get 1 kg of H3. In an environment with no infrastructure or refining equipment -- then blast off and get the refined product back to earth. Seriously ?? did you think through that comment? there is not enough gain truly for that investment at this date.
gopher65
5 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
El Nose: I agree. Growing He3 stores will be a side effect of mining Luna, not the main reason to do it in the first place.
holoman
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2012

So high temp. crazy glue is the solution.

Funny, if it weren't costing so much and jeopardizing other programs.
Origin
1.8 / 5 (22) Jun 08, 2012
D-T reactors like ITER (though not necessarily Tokomaks) are just easier to build than other types of reactors. So they'll come first, then others will be built
My qualified guess is, the ITER will never be built because lack of money. http://f4e.europa...arge.jpg

Helga Trüpel, a German MEP, described ITER as a "fiscal black hole".
El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2012
Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3--enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year.

Read more: Mining The Moon - Rare Minerals - Helium 3 - Popular Mechanics


http://www.popula.../1283056
SincerelyTwo
4.1 / 5 (23) Jun 08, 2012
Origin is the new dumbest commenter on this site. This painfully naive mentality is becoming more common every year. Give this website another 5 years and the only people leaving comments will be YouTube users.

What the hell is wrong with people like you? Can't think anything through carefully even if your gd life depended on it.

Read a list of 100 positive effects of a theoretical technology and you think you're smarter than everyone else. You don't even give a damn at the costs of bringing these technologies online, or the kind of technology it requires ... especially technology we don't even have yet. Why are people like me forced to constantly remind morons why their thoughts are incomplete and poorly considered? Why can't you idiots do this for yourselves ... ?
Scottingham
5 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
I wonder how this epoxy will perform under a heavy neutron flux.
Origin
1.3 / 5 (20) Jun 08, 2012
Only the ones created by cold fusion.
Andrea Rossi claims 40 days of continuous operation for a 10 kilowatt Energy Catalyzer at 600° celsius

Langley is funding LENR research at NASA as an initial, exploratory study lead by Dr. Joseph Zawodny. The average yearly cost for the approximately 3.5 years of the research thus far is about $222,000 for a total of about $778,000. The research is ongoing, and another $212,000 is budgeted for the remainder of FY 2012. http://e-catsite....inquiry/
With compare to it the ITER project consumes one and one third billions of Euros every year.
fmfbrestel
4.6 / 5 (24) Jun 08, 2012
B) you seems to be a supporter of this stance too, so you're actually confirming my opinion about it.


And this is why even engaging these trolls is a waste of time. Any attempt to discredit their belief will only serve to reinforce that same belief.

of course, that only serves to further distance those trolls from the rest of the scientifically literate population, because science requires falsifiable claims for testing.

And so the loop of distrust is self-reinforcing.

And so the maxim: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

Origin
1 / 5 (20) Jun 08, 2012
What the hell is wrong with people like you? Can't think anything through carefully even if your gd life depended on it.
The careful and long term thinking is just a problem of long-term acceptance of ITER project.US Military Preparing for Major Energy Shortage, LENR Could be Vital to National Defense. It should be pointed out, the first 1 MW cold fusion E-Cat unit has been sold has been delivered and is working in a military facility. What's known is that the customer is American and that is a military establishment, and they might have ordered 11 more plants.
krundoloss
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
If scientists would work together to pursue the best solution, not just THIER solution, the world would already have an alternative energy source. Greed is rampant and permeates all levels of society, from the lowliest individual to the largest government or corporation. We must do things to benefit everyone, not just ourselves or our beliefs.
Origin
1.3 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2012
We must do things to benefit everyone, not just ourselves or our beliefs
This is exactly the approach, which I'm missing at the contemporary society of physicists (only the "beliefs" word should be replaced with "beliefs in impossibility of cold fusion"). Why the twenty years old Piantelli & Foccardi finding was never ATTEMPTED to reproduce in respectable peer-reviewed journal? It seems, the contemporary physics is not capable to handle such a reports at all.
SatanLover
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2012
Cold fusion is impossible, Satan told me so. The only true path to become one big soul is to condemn many souls to eternal flames, where they fuse as one big soul.
boater805
1.8 / 5 (17) Jun 08, 2012
The whole idea of these planetary based fusion reactors is nonsense. Fusion is NOT what powers the stars, it is the BYPRODUCT of what powers the stars, namely gravitational collapse. The collapse due to gravity is what exerts the energy to cause the fusion of nuclei. The funding governments have been sold a myth that we can achieve fusion pressure without using gravity and still achieve sustained net energy output.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2012
@origin

you do realize NASA is approaching LENR as one solves a math problem, or tries to develop a proof. ITER is building a reactor to see how efficient it is. They got grants for land, paid for electrical generators to run power out to the site, and they just broke ground. They have paid for the manufacturing and reasearch of already known problem pieces of equipment like the one the article talks of.

ITER is investing in a manufacturing project, that will produce a machine, NASA is paying a few guys to meet weekly and ask each other if they have come up with an idea yet that seems reasonable.
wiyosaya
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2012
While this may be a step forward, I much more near a "giant step forward" if the researchers were reporting break-even.

While I understand the significance of this, break-even is still the holy grail. Fusion researchers have been saying that they'll have a fusion reactor in 20-years for decades. If that is still the projected timeline, then I cannot help but think that this may be a waste of money.

By all means, vote me down; however, I think the hard reality of a fusion reactor is that we still have a long way to go.
danlgarmstrong
4.6 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
Boater: Gravity acts on the large mass of a star to produce the temperature/pressure needed to produce fusion. The scientists have mathematics that prove they can reproduce these conditions on Earth. In fact, these conditions have already been achieved in the form of a hydrogen bomb. In those a nuclear bomb is exploded in a certain way as to cause an implosion of a spherical volume of hydrogen, causing it to fuse into helium thus releasing the differential energy in the form of a greater explosion. The scientists are spending the money to develop technologies to reproduce the necessary condition in a controlled manner so as to capture and use the released energy for constructive rather than destructive purposes.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2012
The collapse due to gravity is what exerts the energy to cause the fusion of nuclei. The funding governments have been sold a myth that we can achieve fusion pressure without using gravity and still achieve sustained net energy output.

Pressure is pressure - however you achieve it. Stars do it with gravity and scientists here on earth do it with magnetic confinement or by smashing stuff together. That we can achieve fusion in a controlled manner with a tokamak design has already been demonstrated long ago (the first were Soviet scientists in 1968).
Husky
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2012
My bet is on pulsed reactors anyway, maintaining Lawson criterium in a continious form is pretty damn hard, seizing the small nanoseconds of oppertunity that a pulsed burst of laser/ions/z-pinch etc can provide looks more attainable. Wish them all good luck though, because its about damn time this pipedream starts to pipe some current to our wallsockets...
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2012
you do realize NASA is approaching LENR as one solves a math problem, or tries to develop a proof.
IMO the most realistic role of NASA in cold fusion research program is described here.
ITER is investing in a manufacturing project, that will produce a machine
This project should produce energy, not a machine.
rbrtwjohnson
3 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2012
Wisdom instead of brute force.
Step by step, aneutronic fusion reactor is ever closer to the practicality. It is the most well-designed reactor and can demonstrate its technological feasibility with simple and consistent calculations.
http://www.youtub...-QYqqxzM
aroc91
5 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
Origin, do you realize how FUCKING RIDICULOUS you look citing "e-catsite.com" and "crazyperson4985.blogspot.com" as sources? Jesus Christ.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
The ITER is the huge waste of tax payers money only. Cold fusion is the much more perspective and cheaper source
Hot fusion research worldwide is teaching us what we need to know about creating, confining, manipulating, and transporting plasmas in bulk and for indefinite periods of time.

This knowledge base is of incalculable importance to the future of a technological civilization such as ours. And it absolutely NEEDS to happen NOW.

It requires 100s of billions in research money and decades of commitment by thousands of researchers. It is important enough that it be sold to the general public by whatever means necessary, for them to support it. It is important enough to suppress the development of alternative methods of creating energy, which would prevent this research from happening.

Dont worry. You will get your alternative methods of energy production when the Time is right for them. And not before.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
D-T reactors like ITER (though not necessarily Tokomaks) are just easier to build than other types of reactors. So they'll come first, then others will be built
My qualified guess is, the ITER will never be built because lack of money. http://f4e.europa...arge.jpg

Helga Trpel, a German MEP, described ITER as a "fiscal black hole".
You might be right. Sufficient knowledge might be gained in planning and preparation, to achieve the next step. SSC was cancelled wasnt it? Oddly enough the head of the SSC program, paul reardon, was also head of TFTR at PPL.
jade39339
5 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
Helium-3 is not a fuel you can use in any sense of the word in a feasible fusion power system and just getting D-T to fuse is extremely hard in of itself. What these guys have done is said they can create the insulation used in the solenoid used to contain the plasma. Its these little small steps that in the end add up to the giant leap. Try to keep things in perspective.
boater805
2.7 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2012
danlgarmstrong: Gravity acts on the large mass of a star to produce the temperature/pressure needed to produce fusion. The scientists have mathematics that prove they can reproduce these conditions on Earth. In fact, these conditions have already been achieved in the form of a hydrogen bomb.
Sure, fusion energy is not difficult in bombs & has even been momentarily achieved in a tokamak, but those are not sustained reactions. The key is that gravity provides the energy to drive the fusion reaction in stars. The fusion in them is not releasing net energy, its taking the gravitational energy and using it to produce the fusion. Take away that gravitational energy at any time and the fusion in the star will instantly halt. Likewise, we can use energy to produce a confining field for a fusion reactor but will never get enough out to equal that needed to continue to drive the containing pressure. Fusion is not a chain reaction like fission is. The fusion reaction is not self sustaining
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
You will get your alternative methods of energy production when the Time is right for them. And not before.
The Nature actually provides us the way for our future survival rather kindly and in time. The cold fusion of deuterium in palladium was hypothesized and patented in 30's of the last century, the cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel was observed before fifty years already. But the people apparently want to check all other alternative ways of their survival first, before they choose this optimal one and before they destroy their life environment nearly completely. I just hope, the global nuclear war doesn't belong into these testable strategies too, because it would shrink the human population significantly. Such a war would accelerate the development of the cold fusion pretty much, because the western world would remain isolated from the remote sources of oil for long time.
boater805
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Antialias:
Pressure is pressure - however you achieve it. Stars do it with gravity and scientists here on earth do it with magnetic confinement or by smashing stuff together.
No, some pressure you get for "free" as the stars do with gravity and some pressure you have to spend energy to create, like plasma confining by huge artificially sustained electromagnetic fields for the containment. Hence I spoke of NET energy in vs out. Tokamacs have never produced one watt of net energy or even close to output equaling input energy. Heck, A steam turbine produces energy too, but not very efficiently and neither does a non gravitationally confined fusion plasma.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
No, some pressure you get for "free" as the stars do with gravity and some pressure you have to spend energy to create, like plasma confining by huge artificially sustained electromagnetic fields for the containment. Hence I spoke of NET energy in vs out.

You need pressure and you need heat. Fusion produces heat. Part of the heat from the fusion reaction goes on to sustain the fusion reaction. Part of the energy gained form the escaping neutrons will be expended into maintaining the magnetic constriction. The energy for Q greater than one is there. The tricky part is to get this in manner so that it can continually work. If you do the math then a Q factor of between 5 and 10 is feasible with the current ITER design.
SatanLover
1.6 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
Satan already revealed to me cold fusion does not work. That is why he lives in the eternal flaming hell he is fusing his souls into one big soul using hot fusion, he discovered the fusion weapon and revealed it to me.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Atomic Fission has been found around Uranus.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2012
boater805:
The key is that gravity provides the energy to drive the fusion reaction in stars. The fusion in them is not releasing net energy, its taking the gravitational energy and using it to produce the fusion. Take away that gravitational energy at any time and the fusion in the star will instantly halt.
Gravitational potential energy is converted into the heat of the nucleons, yes; but there IS excess energy yield, in the form of mass conversion during the fusion reactions. This keeps the star expanded against gravity while energy is being shed to space; otherwise the star would just slowly contract and cool off throughout its existence.

Take away the gravitational OR magnetic energy and the reaction will stop. No substantive difference there.
Gino
1.7 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
Nuclear fission reactors are a well developed and very safe way of producing power compared with other means of power generation why do you guys pretend they don't exist ?
Silverhill
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2012
(antialias)--Stars do [pressure] with gravity and scientists here on earth do it with magnetic confinement or by smashing stuff together.
(boater805)--No, some pressure you get for "free" as the stars do with gravity
A star has to be assembled, at the cost of concentrating a great deal of energy. This is done for us, by Nature, but it still requires the expenditure of effort somewhere.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2012
Eh. I'm not seeing how this superglue constitutes a breakthrough. At this point, it's untested... and it's only one of the many problems that must be solved to produce a commercially-viable fusion plant. There's a long, long way to go, if it's even possible. It will be good to find out if it is.

To those who are *still* fooled by cold fusion claims: Wise up. Science operates through peer-reviewed publication and independent verification of results. Scammers don't bother with any of that. Learn to recognize the difference.

This is your lesson for today: if they won't let you peek in the box, then it's your ignorance, not your knowledge, they wish to cultivate.
sirchick
5 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
Nuclear fission reactors are a well developed and very safe way of producing power compared with other means of power generation why do you guys pretend they don't exist ?


I'm guessing you didn't read the article... i will quote for you:

" Nuclear fusion promises to supply more energy than the nuclear fission used today but with far fewer risks. "

To some up for you - we are not talking about Fission on this article...re-read the article dude. Stay on topic.
Pkunk_
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Don't expect the greenies to keep quiet for long.
When the ITER is done and fusion is proven to work , they'll suddenly discover that it is call "nuclear" fusion. Since it starts with the word "nuclear" it is by definition bad for the greens.
Also even a fusion reactor , esp. D-T will cause some nuclear waste (yeah it's waste of a low half life) , but it is "nuclear" waste none-the less.
And they'll be out in force in the streets protesting that we humans don't deserve so much energy. Why we'll misuse all that energy which doesn't fit their long term plan of us reduced to cave-dwellers.
PhotonX
4.6 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
...the first 1 MW cold fusion E-Cat unit has been sold has been delivered and is working in a military facility. What's known is that the customer is American and that is a military establishment, and they might have ordered 11 more plants.

So is there any chance that the working prototype might go to MIT or perhaps Stanford, for verification of these amazing claims?
I hope, Andrea Rossi will make such a fortune just with it. It just needs a thorough preparation, because at the moment, when you throw such a technology at the market, everyone will try to copy it and you get nothing from it: all your investments will be wasted.

I would like to think that, were I capable of inventing a paradigm-shifting new technology that will save humankind for all time, I might be thinking of saving the planet first, and my pocketbook second. Of course, if I were a con artist hoping for a suitcase full of cash before I go into hiding, I might want the $$$ up front.
Terriva
1.7 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2012
So is there any chance that the working prototype might go to MIT or perhaps Stanford, for verification of these amazing claims?
MIT developed its own prototype of cold fusion - but its further research was canceled. In addition, MIT and Standford has access to all publications, on which the E-Cat is based, but so-far they didn't attempt for any replication published in peer-reviewed press. Most of Standford/MIT researchers have their own projects dedicated to various methods of energy production/conversion/transport or storage (batteries) and the cold fusion research is the direct competition for them and their grant sponsors.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
Don't expect the greenies to keep quiet for long.

the 'greenies' are, on the whole, more educated than the proponents of fossil/fission. So don't expect a big protest movement against fusion.
SatanLover
4 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Even if fusion will not work, the research trying to achieve it is still worth it. For example we could use more efficient fusion reactors to produce certain elements. And the technology can be applied in other fields. And every step closer to >100% efficiency is worth it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
The Nature actually provides us the way for our future survival rather kindly and in time. The cold fusion of deuterium in palladium was hypothesized and patented in 30's of the last century, the cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel was observed before fifty years already.
Indeed it does seem to be feasible, as surface plasmon polariton LENR at least.
But the people apparently want to check all other alternative ways of their survival first
Civilizations must have Priorities just like individuals.
before they choose this optimal one and before they destroy their life environment nearly completely
Don't worry. EVERYTHINGS UNDER CONTROL.
Satan already revealed to me cold fusion does not work
Satan lies, don't you know that? It is his forte. This is why he actually appears to us as a long-haired, soft-spoken, sandal-wearing lovegod. And also a bearded Arab with a turban that looks like a bomb. Satan is not stupid you know. You are.
gopher65
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
Don't expect the greenies to keep quiet for long.

the 'greenies' are, on the whole, more educated than the proponents of fossil/fission. So don't expect a big protest movement against fusion.

I've seen environmentalists protest against wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric (both dam and in river). Attacks on wind (which is the cheapest, most practical, and greenest of the renewables) are particularly vicious and undeserved. When asked why, they say "Solar is the only form of power we'll support".

They're quite literally against everything that isn't solar power. They have some kind of weird fantasy about solar power being the perfect energy source, and in their eyes anything that isn't solar is not just a waste of time, but an active conspiracy against solar.
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
Don't expect the greenies to keep quiet for long.

the 'greenies' are, on the whole, more educated than the proponents of fossil/fission. So don't expect a big protest movement against fusion.


Not true when it comes to fission. Fission proponents are on average more educated.

http://www.gallup...rns.aspx

But in the end, fission is green, so "greenies" vs. "proponents of fission" is kind of a false dichotomy.

BikeToAustralia
2 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
Getting upset at each other is proof we are not suitable fuel or components for this nuclear fusion manufacturing project. Be a valued team member on this unofficial ITER cheering/marketing research/brainstorming team.

Research and development of theories are priceless. Proving a method to reach a goal viable OR not viable is a step toward that goal. Humanity's journey of discovery has barely begun. We are like infants who have not yet learned crawl - we can only explore what it within reach and we have very limited understanding of that. But, like infants, we can easily make a mess of things, even a very big mess.

Black holes could teach us a lot about nuclear engines. Is spinning of the pressurizing (gravity or magnetic) field or fuel essential?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
I didn't think much of ITER until recently. The problem is loss of neutrons that are needed to make trithium out of lithium in the DT fusion cycle. But it has been explained to me that they can use neutron-multiplying materials. The reason it is silent is probably because that should mean fissiles, further explaining why the reactor material from theses cycles still are medium active at worst.

On the comment thread: lay off the religion! Freedom of religion means keeping your antiscience magic belief, or not, private - especially on science sites.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
@ Origin: Your conspiracy belief is not shored up with data. Generally conspiracy theories are the least likely explanations by construction - conspirationists don't want to check real world data.

Cold fusion has been rejected. It would suprrise no one if welknown scammer Rossi, whatever his explanation is, is again scamming. The rigs that have been tested can all be explained by known heat sources (electric power combustible gas reactive metals), the rest is non-supervised.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
B) you seems to be a supporter of this stance too, so you're actually confirming my opinion about it.


And this is why even engaging these trolls is a waste of time.


Sorry, I missed that the first time around. Agreed, no troll feeding.

@ boater805:

Do you expect us to go back to flat earth ideas too? That gravitation wasn't sufficient to power the Sun was recognized way before fusion was discovered.

And the amount of energy liberated by fusion corresponds exactly to the power output. With no contribution from gravity since the radiation pressure counteract it to maintain hydrodynamic balance. That is why stars are ellipsoid by rotation and of near enough constant radius while on the main sequence, which rejects gravity as source as you can't get that out of it.

Loss of mass under fusion is the same process as loss of mass under chemical reactions, famously predicted by relativity.
savroD
not rated yet Jun 09, 2012
I'm surprised, or maybe just missed, that someone has not commented about the Bussard pollywell fusion device. The government is funding this as well. Last check, they are sti verifying the scaling paameters. So, I submit both cold fusion and ITER are probably losers; however, the science need to be done to show that. That science costs $$$$. Does ITER get a bias. Of course it does. All you ed to do and what scientists do in general is llook at examples in Nature. Last I checked, th sun is the best example of what one can do with Hydrogen under certain conditions. As for cold fusion, the notion that there is some alchemy that is so simple that we've missed it makes for great entertainment, but seems to me to rest on a lucky find. I prefer the approach represented by the pollywell device. I suggest people here familiarize themselves with it. It's rather simple; however, getting the technology to do what you want in a more refined way is the devil in the details!
savroD
not rated yet Jun 09, 2012
apologies for the spelling errors above.... I didn't edit before posting!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Bussard pollywell fusion device. The government is funding this as well.
This is a likely example of the suppression of dangerous science.

"In the early 1970s Dr. Bussard became Assistant Director under Director Robert Hirsch at the Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division of what was then known as the Atomic Energy Commission. They founded the mainline fusion program for the United States: the Tokamak. In June 1995, Bussard claimed in a letter to all fusion laboratories, as well as to key members of the US Congress, that he and the other founders of the program supported the Tokamak not out of conviction that it was the best technical approach but rather as a vehicle for generating political support, thereby allowing them to pursue "all the hopeful new things the mainline labs would not try"."

He left this position to work on polywell, which he sat on for 20 yrs, producing research at a snails pace with a pittance of funding while laser fusion and tokamaks received billions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Bussard, the celebrity ramjet progenitor, was employed to promote mainstream fusion. This is clear enough. But polywell clearly could have progressed far faster, and produced very significant results even by bussards own admission, had it been pursued with any sincerity.

If you examine the rinkydink gadgets that bussard spent a few decades working on, you wonder why such an accomplished physicist was wasting his time on such amateurish efforts.
http://en.wikiped...Polywell

And you begin to wonder if he wasnt in fact dragging his feet on purpose while big-ticket mainstream projects could explore all the NECESSARY methods of storing and manipulating bulk plasmas so the tech could be used for things like propulsion and the storage of antimatter.

You might even wildly speculate that ITER is being built very close to and directly south of the LHC, because of the possibility that some day it could be used to store whatever exotic and dangerous materials might be produced there.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Generally conspiracy theories are the least likely explanations by construction - conspirationists don't want to check real world data

This may be the reason, why no peer-reviewed study of hydrogen fusion at nickel exists, although there is a long line of replications. The denial of cold fusion has a long tradition in mainstream and it occurs even by now.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
I've seen environmentalists protest against wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric (both dam and in river).

That's a really small minority of those who want green power (which , I suspect, is the majority of the population). There will always be some extremists out there. But equating that small splinter group with all the people who want alternative power (or who are against nuclear) isn't warranted.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2012
I've seen environmentalists protest against wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric (both dam and in river).

That's a really small minority of those who want green power (which , I suspect, is the majority of the population). There will always be some extremists out there. But equating that small splinter group with all the people who want alternative power (or who are against nuclear) isn't warranted.


All environmentalists are extremists.

One of the great environmental cons is to fight against something like coal with the inference that they will stop at coal. But in reality the fanatics are against all forms of energy except for the stupid ones - wind and solar.

And if they get their way, they will split into two groups - one protesting wind and one protesting solar.

And then the winner will turn on its own supporters and try and kill off the last power source.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
Step #1. Sierra Club champions gas as transition fuel away from coal.

Step #2. Sierra Club takes a 26 million bribe from a natural gas company to fight coal

http://www.nytime...ate.html

Step #4. Natural gas is so cheap and plentiful it threatens wind and solar.

Step #5. Sierra Club decides its more lucrative to fight NG.

http://online.wsj...296.html

"The Sierra Club has deep pockets funded by liberal foundations and knows how to work the media and politicians. The lobby helped to block new nuclear plants for more than 30 years, it has kept much of the U.S. off-limits to oil drilling, and its "Beyond Coal" campaign has all but shut down new coal plants."

Evil.
aroc91
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Generally conspiracy theories are the least likely explanations by construction - conspirationists don't want to check real world data

This may be the reason, why no peer-reviewed study of hydrogen fusion at nickel exists, although there is a long http://nickelpowe...30-2011.


Here's a site cited by nickelpower.org, Origin/Terriva-

http://coldfusion...esearch/

It's just nested conspiracy sites all the way down. Absolutely no legitimate backing. You can't quote a nutjob blog as a source when that nutjob blog just cites other nutjob blogs as sources.

And here's a quote from one of the supporters of cold fusion-

"Are you saying Cold Fusion is unsubstantiated, Rossi is irrelevant, Cold Fusion is fact as are UFOs THE PLACEBO EFFECT etc. etc."

I wasn't exaggerating when I said cold fusion was associated with UFO conspiracy theorists. You're fucking insane.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
I wasn't exaggerating when I said cold fusion was associated with UFO conspiracy theorists.
So are george bush and billy bob clinton. Whats your point?
topkill
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Isn't there a moderator for this site? Why don't you get rid of Origin and his crap. He is either financially involved with all that "cold fusion" crap or he has mental and emotional issues.

Either way, the rest of us don't want to read his crap while we're here to keep tabs on what's going on in the scientific world.
PeterD
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Calling other people names is the last resort of those who can't produce any persuasive information.
infinite_energy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
OK so the energy will be extracted from the fusioning plasma via cooling liquid built into the tokamak walls. The cooling liquid will then generate steam that will spin a turbine that will spin an electrical generator.
The only problem left to be solved into this setup is the self-stopping of the fusioning process. Involved researchers still do not know why the plasma cloud currently collapses.
LordKinyambiss
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Attack of the science illiterates.. ITER has a high probability of powering the next Century. Cold fusion has the potential to power hits on conspiracy sites and blogs. Science v BS... Science wins..all day everyday.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
Attack of the science illiterates.. ITER has a high probability of powering the next Century.
-For that matter so does this - cheaper, faster, cleaner, much simpler:
http://www.generalfusion.com/

-As well as other alternatives.
Cold fusion has the potential to power hits on conspiracy sites and blogs. Science v BS... Science wins..all day everyday.
Surface plasmon polariton LENR appears to be a very real and very exploitable phenomenon, and is perhaps what Rossi is using. Google it.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
IMO you're all brainwashed and separated from reality... What will you all say, when Andrea Rossi will throw his technology on the market? The technology, which produces megawatts of energy was considered fraud both with educated experts, both with half-educated laymans as a single man. This is the sad illustration of the competence of the mainstream physics at the beginning of the 21st century...
ITER has a high probability of powering the next Century
But we need the energy way sooner. And I don't think, we will need such a centralized sources of power at the future at all.
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
He is either financially involved with all that "cold fusion" crap or he has mental and emotional issues
I could say the same about you and all opponents of cold fusion with the same relevance. It must be clear for everyone, IF cold fusion works with only 600% energy yield, as Rossi is claiming, then the every form of hot fusion research will be unable to compete both with TCO, both with ROI. The 300% energy yield was claimed with Focardi and Piantelli before twenty years already and mainstream physics never attempted to verify their experiments, despite they were published in official journals of Italian Academy of Sciences. So I've absolutely no reason to doubt Piantelli/Focardi/Rossi, but I've strong reason to doubt the competence of mainstream physics. I don't care, what you or whatever mainstream physicists thinks about cold fusion - I just want to see the experimental results - both positive, both negative. The claims without experiments are politics and religion only.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
The first observation of anomalous heat production during reaction of hydrogen and nickel was made before fifty years already. This observation was solely accidental, so it couldn't be motivated with financial or scientific interests - and therefore it's just shame, nobody of physicists attempted to replicate it. Try to imagine, how Fleming could discover his Penicillin if he would ignore his accidental observation or how. Until the mainstream physics has no peer-reviewed publication about alleged heat evolution at presence of hydrogen at nickel, I do refuse any discussions about frauds and snake oil, because it's just the mainstream science, who is cheating here.

What I really cannot understand is, that even the laymans don't demand the scientific replication of these findings. Their ignorance comes at very high cost for them by now - they're losing their jobs and homes in financial crisis.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
For example, there is list of European countries, which are most dependent on the prices of oil. The countries like the Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy which are most depended on the import of oil are the most indebted at the same time. This correlation is quite apparent: the source of financial crisis are the high prices of oil, nothing else. So when I face the distrust in the cold fusion, I can just think, I'm surrounded with mentally ill people. The belief in infallible power of scientific method and competence of mainstream scientists will not save you by now - now it's really important to follow every new discovery and really work on it.
gopher65
5 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
Terriva: Do you know what we'd all say if a cold fusion device went on the market that actually worked? "Weeeee! Hurray! This is awesome!"

It's not that we don't want cold fusion to work, it's that we understand the reasons why - in the real world - it ranges from difficult to impossible. Cold fusion would be awesome, but it just doesn't work.

You think I'm wrong? Prove it! Publish the blueprints to a working cold fusion generator. Not only will we all be blown away, but you'll win a Nobel Prize in Physics, worth 1.5 million dollars. Even if Big Energy steals the plans for your device for themselves, you'll still be a wealthy individual.

And to claim that 1.5 million is publish the blueprints (likely more, once the book deals, merchandising deals, and Hollywood blockbuster come into the picture).

If you can do that, I'll believe you have a cold fusion device. If you can't, you're a fraud. QED.
Terriva
1.1 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2012
Cold fusion would be awesome, but it just doesn't work. You think I'm wrong? Prove it!.
I'm just saying, the cold fusion is real. Do you think, I'm wrong? Prove it! I've experiments, you haven't. Blueprints to cold fusion generator were published with Piantelli and Foccardi before twenty years already with all details. These blueprints are replicable, because they were replicated many times. Everything else is just an evasion of politically motivated ignorance.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2012
Not only will we all be blown away, but you'll win a Nobel Prize in Physics, worth 1.5 million dollars. Even if Big Energy steals the plans for your device for themselves, you'll still be a wealthy individual.

This is a nonsense, as you're not competent to promise the Nobel Prize anybody here. You're just a liar and fraud.
wealthychef
not rated yet Jun 10, 2012
If only the trillions squandered on football and porn had been spent on real research like ITER and LENR etc.

There, fixed that for you.
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2012
Isn't there a moderator for this site? Why don't you get rid of Origin and his crap. He is either financially involved with all that "cold fusion" crap or he has mental and emotional issues.
Either way, the rest of us don't want to read his crap while we're here to keep tabs on what's going on in the scientific world.

they do on occasion. he just makes more names so lately they dont really bother anymore as its pointless. he's got a million other sock puppets anyway.
aroc91
5 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012
Origin/Terriva is still citing nickelpower.org and newenergytimes.com as sources. Big surprise.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
I'd like to cite the peer-reviewed studies from Science and Nature - but what I'm supposed to do, if these studies don't exist there? For example, the negative results of superluminal neutrinos or gravitational waves are presented there - so why not the negative results of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel? And frankly, I even don't expect the examples of cold fusion research suppression with mainstream science will be published at mainstream science journal.
boater805
1 / 5 (3) Jun 10, 2012

Take away the gravitational OR magnetic energy and the reaction will stop. No substantive difference there.


Exactly. Without gravitational collapse continually preserving the confinement of the plasma, stellar fusion stops ...thus gravitational energy IS NEEDED to sustain stellar fusion which besides your discussion of heat/pressure you forget to mention that very heat/pressure is constantly trying to expand the plasma and decrease its density below that needed to sustain fusion. IF gravitational collapse was not CRITICAL to SUSTAIN the fusion then removing it would not cause the fusion to cease.
Can other methods of plasma containment work? Who knows, maybe.. BUT the ITER and TOKAMAK were sold based on fusion powers the stars and as the above makes clear that is just not so. Gravitational collapse is the power, fusion is the by product. Remove fusion and gravity remains. Remove gravity and the fusion halts. YOU tell me which is the controlling energy in this.
aroc91
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
I'd like to cite the peer-reviewed studies from Science and Nature - but what I'm supposed to do, if these studies don't exist there? For example, the negative results of http://www.nature...-1.10249 are presented there - so why not the negative results of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel? And frankly, I even don't expect the examples of cold fusion research suppression with mainstream science will be published at mainstream science journal.


Same reason the closely related fields of astrology/crystal power/homeopathy/UFO/Sasquatch/zero point energy/chemtrails/water supply mind control/etc. don't need disproving.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nothing is stopping people from building cold fusion reactors and documenting them in places besides crackpot tinfoil hat blogs run by schizophrenics, but lo and behold, that's where they all gather and babble about UFOs in their spare time.
BikeToAustralia
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
I Will research Bussard-polywell and "Focardi and Piantelli" fusion. I prefer having all possible solutions being tested - wind, solar, fossil fuels, fission and fusion, using Less energy More wisely.

I pray we do not create our own mass extinction event. Or, at least that we survive it. Failing that, I hope those that inherit Earth do not repeat history and destroy their nest before they can fly away.

We are still alive. There is hope.

I learn from all of you; sometimes from your mistakes and missteps, sometimes your thoughts are seeds or catalysts that grow and encourage growth in my garden, sometimes your flashs of brilliance light my way.

@Terriva
"What will you all say, when Andrea Rossi will throw his technology on the market?"

I will prove my RossiFusion bicycle can reach the next inhabited planet without alien intervention.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2012
..nothing is stopping people from building cold fusion reactors and documenting them in places besides crackpot tinfoil hat blogs run by schizophrenics..
Of course, and this is the only reason, why the research of cold fusion still continues despite the hostile approach of mainstream physical community. But it definitely doesn't accelerate the research in this area. And I don't think, the people who are researching cold fusion are schizophrenics. After all, when the cold fusion will be proven right and functioning, then the situation will invert suddenly and the mainstream physicists will be suddenly considered as an ignorant schizophrenics, who cannot face the reality. This is a life.
Terriva
Jun 10, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2012
IMO the cold fusion mechanism has many aspects common with homeopathy and cluster medicine. The effects of water clusters can initiate the reactions, the energetic barrier of which is 10E8 higher than the energy density introduced into system. In brief, the splitting of water with radiowaves is as unfeasible from thermodynamics perspective like the initiation of cold fusion with electrolysis - so I presume, they do share the same fundamental mechanism. The thorough research of homeopathy and cluster medicine could therefore open the way for better understanding of cold fusion effects and vice-versa.
aroc91
5 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
Not all insights of astrology/crystal power/homeopathy/UFO are unsubstantiated.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2012
Imagine a world where the militaries of the world have access to fusion generators.

That aside, if you can generate 10 times what you use, couldn't you chain multiple generators together, so that the 1st uses some of the excess to power a few more, then those power a few more down the line, etc?

Seems like before you knew it, you'd be generating 1,000s of times what you use.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Terriva,
I could say the same about you and all opponents of cold fusion with the same relevance.
You can't be an opponent of something that doesn't exist.
gopher65
not rated yet Jun 10, 2012
Can other methods of plasma containment work? Who knows, maybe.. BUT the ITER and TOKAMAK were sold based on fusion powers the stars and as the above makes clear that is just not so.

Actually, you're kind of right, but for the wrong reasons.

A design like ITER could never manage stellar Hydrogen fusion. That type of fusion is just too difficult for a magnetic Tokomak and the reaction is too slow to easily sustain.

It is precisely for that reason that they abandoned the idea of stellar fusion decades ago and instead use a different fuel source and a different chain of fusion reasons (D-T fusion into He4 and neutron).

So you're right that stellar-type fusion is difficult without a massive gravitational field, but you're wrong in thinking that's what ITER is trying to do.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
You can't be an opponent of something that doesn't exist.
Tell it to people in NASA, MIT, Toyota, etc....
Silverhill
not rated yet Jun 11, 2012
(boater805) IF gravitational collapse was not CRITICAL to SUSTAIN the fusion then removing it would not cause the fusion to cease.
As I said, the same is true of magnetic confinement. You say nothing that is not already known here.
(You are overlooking one thing, though, that is a difference of kind, not just degree: we can easily remove the magnetic confinement, but gravity cannot simply be switched on and off.)

gravitational energy IS NEEDED to sustain stellar fusion ... you forget to mention that very heat/pressure is constantly trying to expand the plasma and decrease its density below that needed to sustain fusion.
I didn't forget the expansion; I took it to be common knowledge.

fusion is the by product. Remove fusion and gravity remains. Remove gravity and the fusion halts. YOU tell me which is the controlling energy in this.
Fusion is the "by-product" of ANY adequate set of conditions, all of which need concentrated energy of SOME kind to maintain.
Silverhill
not rated yet Jun 11, 2012
(boater805) you forget to mention that very heat/pressure is constantly trying to expand the plasma and decrease its density below that needed to sustain fusion.
I took the thermal expansion effect to be common knowlege, even for you, so I saw no need to reiterate it.

Gravitational collapse is the power, fusion is the by product.
Equally, then, you should say that electromagnetic waves are not the power that drives devices that are connected to a hydroelectric plant; the waves are just a by-product of the gravitational energy that is concentrated by the dam and released by the falling water.
Take heed: any fusion setup--or any other type of energy converter--requires SOME kind of concentrated energy to maintain/control it. This fact is more important than the exact type of applied energy.
Silverhill
not rated yet Jun 11, 2012
(unintentional double post there--the site's response time was so large that I thought it had not received my previous post)
Silverhill
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2012
(Terriva) IMO the cold fusion mechanism has many aspects common with homeopathy and cluster medicine.
There is an important difference: cold fusion might be possible, but such things as homeopathy are pure nonsense.
I remember reading about one of the homeopathic preparations whose level of dilution was "30C". This means a 100:1 dilution repeated 30 times, giving a solution strength of 10^-60. The claimed remainder of the "medicine" is equivalent to the mass of one nucleon in 280,000,000 Earth masses.
The molecules that dissolve from the walls of the container are present in far greater concentration--infinitely greater, in fact, since they are present and the "medicine" is not. Yet their effects (if any) are not mentioned.
Origin
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2012
There is an important difference: cold fusion might be possible, but such things as homeopathy are pure nonsense.
At first, you cannot achieve such a dilution simply with diluting of samples, because of adsorption of molecules on the walls of vessels uses. At second, I do presume the low distance structure of water clusters is substantially rigid and it cannot change its shape so easily, once some charge distribution is imprinted in it. At third, I do believe, it can affect with proteins electrostatically, not with action of individual chemicals. It's sorta quantum mirage effect, which was already observed at the case of some larger polar molecules, like the DNA.
Pkunk_
3 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2012

Take away the gravitational OR magnetic energy and the reaction will stop. No substantive difference there.


Gravitational collapse is the power, fusion is the by product. Remove fusion and gravity remains. Remove gravity and the fusion halts. YOU tell me which is the controlling energy in this.

Nonsense, how does a fusion bomb work then ? There is no gravity involved in a fusion/thermonuclear bomb , in fact they work just fine even in space as long as they are designed right.

There is clearly documented and "explosive" fusion taking place when one goes off , the kind that is impossible to ignore unlike "cold fusion".
Silverhill
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
Terriva:
At first, you cannot achieve such a dilution simply with diluting of samples, because of adsorption of molecules on the walls of vessels uses.
You can achieve any dilution desired, regardless of whether the container contributes anything.

However, homeopathic notions are based only on the principles of contagion magic and similarity (sympathetic) magic, not chemistry and physics. Since magic is not provably operative in this universe, it has no place in medicine beyond what can be achieved with the placebo effect.
(see http://en.wikiped...practice )

Secondly, demonstrate (via an impartial, reputable source) that water has icosahedral structures (or any other structure) in teh liquid state.
gopher65
3 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2012
Nonsense, how does a fusion bomb work then?

I agree with you, but I do have a small caveat to add.

Hydrogen bombs aren't fusion warheads, but are rather hybridized fusion assisted fission warheads. In most warhead designs only about 4% of the total energy release comes from fusion, while the other 96% is released by a fission reaction.

Basically (designs vary, but basically) a hydrogen bomb works like this:

1) Chemical explosive starts fission reaction
2) Fission reaction starts fusion reaction
3) Fusion reaction releases an ENORMOUS number of neutrons
4) Fission reaction goes absolutely crazy when hit by the neutrons, reaching levels of efficiency not otherwise achievable
5) Big boooooom.

So the fusion reaction isn't there to release energy as such, but rather is there to assist in the fission reaction. That means that a hydrogen bomb is a primary fission warhead, not a fusion warhead.

Still, your point is still valid. I'm just nitpicking:).
Pkunk_
4 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2012
gopher65 said -
Nonsense, how does a fusion bomb work then?

I agree with you, but I do have a small caveat to add.

Hydrogen bombs aren't fusion warheads, but are rather hybridized fusion assisted fission warheads. In most warhead designs only about 4% of the total energy release comes from fusion, while the other 96% is released by a fission reaction.

That means that a hydrogen bomb is a primary fission warhead, not a fusion warhead.


Read up on http://en.wikiped...ar_Bomba
I quote from the source(wikipedia is right on this one) -
approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created, generating a very low amount of fallout relative to its yield)


That was the biggest and meanest bomb ever made (or exploded at least) and it gave an output of 50 Megatons through fusion alone.
gopher65
not rated yet Jun 13, 2012
Yup. If you read the both that article and the Hydrogen bomb article though, you'll note that the bomb was nerfed before dropping. If dropped in its originally built state fission would have contributed a substantially greater proportion of the original 100 megaton yield. It was also an unusual design, at the time. (There is no publicly available information about the design of modern hydrogen bombs (if they're still being designed:P), so we can't say for sure what H-bomb designs from the past 40 years look like.)

Neat warhead though:).
Pkunk_
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2012
Yup. If you read the both that article and the Hydrogen bomb article though, you'll note that the bomb was nerfed before dropping. If dropped in its originally built state fission would have contributed a substantially greater proportion of the original 100 megaton yield.


That doesn't make a difference to the fact that you don't need gravity or "gravitational energy" to have fusion . As the "Tsar Bomba" proves , just temperature , pressure and a lot of neutrons is all it takes.
gopher65
not rated yet Jun 18, 2012
Yeah... I wasn't arguing that you needed gravity to have fusion. That was someone else;). I was arguing *against him*.