High-performance plasmas may make reliable, efficient fusion power a reality

Nov 02, 2009
This is an artist's rendering of a tokamak plasma. The plasma is confined by the combination of strong magnetic field in the toroidal direction (around the hole in the "donut" as shown by the black arrow) generated by external coils (not shown) and the magnetic field from a large current flowing in the same toroidal direction. The plasma is held inside a sealed metal structure that is evacuated and lined with special material to keep the plasma pure and handle the heat exhaust. Credit: M.R. Wade, General Atomics

In the quest to produce nuclear fusion energy, researchers from the DIII-D National Fusion Facility have recently confirmed long-standing theoretical predictions that performance, efficiency and reliability are simultaneously obtained in tokamaks, the leading magnetic confinement fusion device, operating at their performance limits. Experiments designed to test these predictions have successfully demonstrated the interaction of these conditions.

These new findings will be presented at the American Physical Society - Division of Physics 51st annual meeting, November 2-6, at the Atlanta Hyatt Regency Hotel.

Nuclear energy has kept the sun burning for billions of years. When nuclear fusion occurs in a laboratory, power performance is determined by the temperature and density achieved by plasma, an ionized gas formed when hydrogen isotopes are heated to temperatures of over 10 million degrees Celsius. Because of these extreme temperatures, the hot plasma is confined by magnetic fields in a "tokamak" (Fig. 1), a donut-shaped device surrounded by powerful electromagnets.

Over the past decade, scientists have made tremendous progress toward realizing high pressures for increasingly long periods. A key element of recent experiments is the confirmation of theoretical predictions that one can rely on the walls of the tokamak chamber to improve plasma stability at high pressure.

Once plasma becomes sufficiently hot and dense, fusion occurs, producing large quantities of high-energy helium ions (known as alpha particles). For optimal efficiency, this self-generated heat must be well contained within the tokamak's "magnetic bottle." Models have predicted that the heat loss from the tokamak due to turbulence is quite sensitive to the exact details of the magnetic field configurations. Researchers recently found that turbulence is minimized in the same configuration necessary for achieving the highest pressures. Hence, performance and efficiency can be synergistic.

Interestingly, turbulent eddies in the plasma can also affect plasma heating by high-energy helium nuclei formed by the fusion of hydrogen atoms. Recent theoretical work suggests that these energetic particles not only feel turbulence differently, but can also stir up large eddies of their own.

While these fine-scale turbulent eddies are predicted to cause negligibly small transport of energetic alpha particles, the new large eddies can increase this transport substantially. As the alpha particles cool, their transport becomes similar to the background level.

For high reliability, a tokamak needs to sustain the hot and dense plasma for as long as possible. Recent work has shown that tokamak plasmas can be induced to exhibit the following relationships: higher pressure => more self-generated electrical currents that help control the plasma => less reliance on external controls => longer pulse (including potentially steady-state) operation => higher reliability.

After decades of effort to improve the behavior and output of fusion plasmas, scientists are discovering that nature may actually be so kind as to simultaneously allow high performance (lots of electricity!), optimal efficiency (affordable!), and high reliability (the electrical outlet will always work!) in the design of future power plants.

Source: American Physical Society

Explore further: Physicists unlock nature of high-temperature superconductivity

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

MIT tests unique approach to fusion power

Mar 28, 2008

An MIT and Columbia University team has successfully tested a novel reactor that could chart a new path toward nuclear fusion, which could become a safe, reliable and nearly limitless source of energy.

MIT, Columbia begin new energy experiment

Dec 06, 2004

Half-ton levitating ring is key to work MIT and Columbia University students and researchers have begun operation of a novel experiment that confines high-temperature ionized gas, called plasma, using the strong magnetic fields f ...

Twisted Flux Tubes Expel 'Wrong-Way' Ions

Apr 06, 2007

Physicists seeking to tame plasma have figured out yet another of its wily ways. Knowing how plasma escapes the grip of magnetic fields may help researchers design better magnetic bottles to contain it. Magnetic confinement ...

Recommended for you

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

16 hours ago

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Alizee
Nov 02, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
holoman
4.1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2009
.35 sec. sustained fusion not very good for 40 years, >$15 Billion and 500 physicist/20 countries.

Eddy currents increase in their opposition as magnetic fields are increased. Toroid (Russian Tokamak) has magnetic reconnection problems, wakefield, alfven, bernstein, and ponderomotive energies to mention a few that have not been able to be controlled by the very complex lat., long mag. fields controlling the plasma.

Magnetic reconnection fields of 100 million degrees can permanetly damage the vessel walls as
noted in June 2009 emergency shutdown of Tokamak.

A better fusion reactor design is needed.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2009
Alizee: All of the experiments you show at your link were attempted by others to verify them. None of the results were replicated because the originating techniques were wrong and the results were null. The reason that reasonable organizations don't waste money on cold fusion is that it does not work. If it did work, it would have a Nobel and there would be organizations all over the world working on optimizing the process (as they did when Pons and Fleishman announced their erroneous results decades ago). This just does not work.
otto1923
1.5 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2009
leading magnetic confinement fusion device
-Or at least 'leading magnetic confinement device.' As far as I know tokamaks can store more plasma for longer periods than any other device. Just the thing for keeping exotic materials in bulk like... Antimatter? So we bought the fusion hook and the other techs- polywell gthanks bussard for sitting on that one) and of course cold fusion and the others- were suppressed. And we now have a very expensive and very useful thermos which we wouldn't have paid for otherwise. That's the way it's done.
otto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2009
@thermodynamic
Your opinion is outdated:
http://en.wikiped...d_fusion
-Try to keep up, ay?
I read the history of this promising tech as one of obvious and concerted suppression.
PPihkala
1.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2009
I also think that hot nuclear fusion is with current tech too hard to manage. It might even be so that cold fusion has produced to date more energy, at least more energy per used money. The problem in cold fusion as far as I have it understood, is that there are no good theories about solid state reactions happening between palladium and deuterium. That combined with uncertain experimental setups makes up for unreliably repeatable experiments. But that does not mean that every experiment has been a failure. We just don't currently know the right recipe for 100% repeatable cold fusion. And 100% predictabtabily is needed for industrial applications.

Now if somebody claims that fission reactors are too big and expensive, then what are hot fusion reactors? They seems to be that times ten, at least. Cold fusion should be much better scalable and much easier to handle. Apparently it can explode in certain situations, but so can your car engine too.
Alexa
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2009
..all of the experiments you show at your link were attempted by others to verify them...
Can you prove it by single evidence? Can you show me some result of another attempt for infracamera observation or Arata's experiment? I know, there were many experiments concerning cold fusion - but I'm just talking about these two above linked.
Alexa
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2009
And 100% predictabtabily is needed for industrial applications
Not quite - for example the yield in production of microprocessors or laser diodes or complex chemicals doesn't exceed five percent in total. Many industrial processes works even without any theory at all on empirical basis.

But my problem is in different thing: the striking absence of documented attempts for replication of above experiments in mainstream labs & journals. You can call it my very private problem.
Alexa
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2009
How is it possible, when someone records video like this one, virtually nobody is interested about it? Where we are living? Or am I living on different planet? What we are expecting from Nature with such ignorance?

http://www.lenr-c...akIR.wmv
Alexa
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2009
..is that there are no good theories about solid state reactions happening between palladium and deuterium..
LOL, this is exactly, what the research is supposed to mean.

Albert Einstein: If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

Contemporary scientists are using theories as an excuse for their not quite rich, but safe life. They're building families like others, they're travel from place to place, they're organizing lectures and meetings and symposiums - but where the hell is the research? These guys fear of unknown phenomena, instead of being attracted by them.
rbrtwjohnson
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2009
There is a more advanced fusion reactor engineering:
http://www.crossfirefusor.com/

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2009
How is it possible, when someone records video like this one, virtually nobody is interested about it? Where we are living?


Becaues it is a sure sign of quack science when someone records a video instead of trying to publish his work in peer reviewed journals or tries to form a consortium with large tech companies in order to exploit the findings.

If the effect is as reproducible as all that then either should be easy.
Royale
4 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2009
That video could have been of anything. It was an IR camera shot of heat being produced. Do you realize that there are TONS of standard chemical reactions that produce high levels of heat? You could buy a home chemistry set and make the same video. As a matter of fact, Alexa, maybe you should. Video cameras have gotten much better over the past 15 years.
trantor
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2009
hot fusion is not a problem... the problem is the idiotic Tokamak and ITER, etc.

For reliable hot fusion, with no radiation, light, portable (portable inside a spaceship or aircraft carrier, that is) and simple, look no further than Bussard´s POLYWELL design!
Alizee
Nov 03, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2009
Now if somebody claims that fission reactors are too big and expensive, then what are hot fusion reactors? They seems to be that times ten, at least.

The main difference lies in the available ressources. Once we get fusion working there's enough for millions of years to come. Fission will work for some more generations only.
NameIsNotNick
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 03, 2009
Some people will never accept cold fusion in the same way, like some others will never accept evolution.


That claim is pretty ironic... I'll say no more!
Alexa
3 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2009
Look, I've a video and the apparent lack or attempts to replicate it - this is a fact. While you are just promoting way of thinking, which explains such strange situation. You're just supporting my theory of ignorance by providing explanation for it, don't you think?
Veritas618
Nov 03, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Veritas618
Nov 03, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JedRothwell
5 / 5 (1) Nov 03, 2009
The Arata experiment has been replicated by Kitamura et al. (Kobe U.) and the replication was published in Phys. Lett. A. More recently, it was replicated several hundred times in a row successfully by Kidwell et al. (NRL) and reported at the ICCF-15 conference (ENEA, Ital. Phys. Society and Ital. Chemical Society).

Someone wrote:

"Because it is a sure sign of quack science when someone records a video instead of trying to publish his work in peer reviewed journals . . ."

Szpak et al., who published that video, have published 40 peer-reviewed papers describing the experiments in major journals, mainly J. Electroanal. Chem.

"If the effect is as reproducible as all that then either should be easy."

It was not easy to publish the peer-reviewed papers but they were published. The effect is highly reproducible but it takes a great deal of expertise to reproduce it. The same can be said for Tokamak plasma fusion reactors, Intel CPU chips and other high tech devices.
JedRothwell
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2009
I wrote: "have published 40 peer-reviewed papers describing the experiments in major journals, mainly J. Electroanal. Chem." Excuse me, that should be 28, not 40. The others are in proceedings and papers published by SPAWAR. Scroll down the page with the video and you will see the list. It is out of date.

Cold fusion researchers have published ~3,500 papers, including ~1,200 in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. I copied the peer-reviewed papers from the library at Los Alamos. You will find the bibliography and ~1,000 full full text papers at http://lenr-canr.org

Comparing cold fusion to plasma fusion: cold has produced 300 MJ in a single run; plasma fusion 6 MJ. Cold fusion has achieved fully ignited, self sustaining reactions that continue for days; plasma fusion has never produced more output than input. Cold fusion is far closer to becoming a practical source of energy.
Royale
3 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2009
Look, I've a video and the apparent lack or attempts to replicate it - this is a fact. While you are just promoting way of thinking, which explains such strange situation. You're just supporting my theory of ignorance by providing explanation for it, don't you think?

To actually give a response to this would be wasted time. Are you even speaking English?
@Alizee - I totally agree with you on the evolution thing. It's crazy that so many people still won't see the facts staring them right in the face. But to compare that to cold fusion? Come on now.
I was watching the Science channel recently, and a gentleman found that mixing Aluminum and Gallium in an alloy actually stopped the aluminum from being able to oxidize. Without that layer of protection, putting it in water made the oxygen react with the alloy. This created heat and released hydrogen. This was shown as a possible solution for hydrogen creation/storage but made me think about what's even happening with the palladium.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2009
@Royale
Heres another epic thread on the subject:
http://www.physor...734.html
-There are other easier, cheaper ways of producing fusion power and I suppose each will have its own time. The Navy found neutrons- hard to explain away. Polywell and other electrostatic devices are finally getting some attention. Inertial confinement- laser fusion, Z-pinch configurations- will be useful in their own way.

Potentially disruptive tech will not be released before its time. Tokamak storage devices need to be developed now and no tech will be supported which will interfere with this. Obviously. Alizee/Alexa- they found unexpected stability at high amps, a good thing yes?
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2009
Hell, even this thing looks more viable than the tokamak for power production:
http://www.physor...833.html
-Simpler, cheaper, closer to reality.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2009
What could you manufacture in the plasma state? What would you want to combine in this form in a device like this which couldnt be done otherwise? Is there such a thing as plasma chemistry? There must be some reason besides plasma storage for these cash-hungry behemoths. By the by I worked at PPPL for many years and know a few things about the subject.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2009
.But to compare that to cold fusion? Come on now..
It's much worse, than that. Whereas every BS is published about mainstream research (every attempt for evidence of Higgs boson, LHC starting, stopping, etc.) - informations about achievements significant for human civilization future are simply ignored for years. As the result, most of people here are believing firmly, cold fusion simply doesn't work = they're manipulated like flock.
there must be some reason ..for these cash-hungry behemoths
Yes, it's politics: distributed sources of energy would remove the need and power of central government - i.e. things, which certain people cannot admit. We are supposed to destroy life environment by fossil carbon burning for keeping power of these people.
Slotin
4 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2009
..This was shown as a possible solution for hydrogen creation/storage..
Not in large scale, as the amount of gallium is large, and gallium is one of most expensive elements on the earth to produce. Expensive means non-ecological. In adition, economy of this reaction is nothing special, as the large amount of heat is evolved/wasted together with hydrogen.
Slotin
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2009
theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics
In 2007 radio-engineer John Kanzius observed splitting of water by polarized radiowaves in 13 MHz frequency range. During tests of his device he observed an evolution of hydrogen, which can be ignited by lighter. Experiments were confirmed and replicated by materials scientist at Pennsylvania State University.

We can observe the splitting of water molecules, requiring activation energy of about 1,3 eV by radiowave frequency energy density range (13 MHz) - i.e. 5.10E-8 eV). This is the same ratio of energy density, like inducing cold fusion requiring 10 MeV for activation by electrochemical potential 1 eV in palladium cell. I even suspect, both these phenomena have similar high-level mechanism due the presence of pycnodeuterium phase inside of free space in host octahedral palladium lattice.
designmemetic
not rated yet Nov 07, 2009
I'm confused. Is this article talking about a novel form or recipie for a high performance plasma to be used in a tokomak. Or is this describing a new analysis of existing type of plasma used. In any event, this article is good news, so i'm happy. Lets not spoil this happy day by complaining.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2009
Or is this describing a new analysis of existing type of plasma used.

That's what I understood. Plasma instabilities will be minimized with increasing plasma density.
Caliban
1 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2009
So, why the silence about replicability? I noticed while reading this thread that there were several of you that dismissed the process of cold fusion out of hand, and then once A rothwell introduced the link to just the sort of evidence that everyone was clamoring for, suddenly there is no further comment? I hope this is due to everyone hurrying to read for themselves.
Hot fission/fusion does have some useful functions- mainly that of research, and one could argue weapons, whether conventional nuclear, or some coming-generation of heavy-partical based weapons. But its physical vulnerability, expense, and long-term waste storage issues still make it a sub-optimal choice for global energy production.
Cold fusion, on the other hand, once proven safe, and especially if it is scalable down to the size of a village, or better still, an individual home is quite obviously the preferable option over ANY type of power producing technology currently in use.
Caliban
1 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2009
It is essentially non-polluting and the fuel supply(aside from the palladium) is virtually limitless.
The only real problem with cold fusion-again,especially if it can be downscaled to close to individual use- is that it might cause a massive and fundamental shift in the flow of money- and, more importantly, to whom it flows, and at the same time suddenly make it possible for millions, if not billions of people to live much more stable and healthy lives. It requires energy to spend hours every day, for instance to gather a few sticks of wood to heat food and try to stay warm with. This is the primary cause of desertification in many parts of the world.
This technology could provide heat, and how about safe(as in boiled)bacteria- and parasite-free drinking water? How about a lightbulb or two- or even three?
You're all more than intelligent enough to see where I'm going with this, - so I'll stop there.
....Too bad we'll probably never see it happen.
Veritas618
Nov 07, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Veritas618
not rated yet Nov 08, 2009
Focus-Fusion-1 Works! First shots and first pinch achieved October 15, 2009

Eric Lerner Receives Energy Research Award

The baby is born! After seven years of theoretical work and raising money, five months of design, five months of construction and assembly, and a week of testing, LPP now has a functioning dense plasma focus, Focus-Fusion-1. The first shot, using helium as the fill gas, was achieved at 5:29 PM, Oct.15, and the first pinch was achieved at 6:04 PM on the second shot. The fact that we achieved a pinch so soon was evidence of the soundness of our design. The shots were produced with a charging potential of 20 kV, a bit less than half the full bank charge of 45 kV. We will not know the exact current achieved until we reduce some instrumental noise in the next few days. It is probably around 0.9 MA and within 10% of our predictions.

http://www.lawren...ics.com/
JedRothwell
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
Regarding cold fusion Caliban wrote "....Too bad we'll probably never see it happen."

That depends upon the will of the public. Most experts agree that cold fusion could be made into a practical source of energy. However, funding is blocked by academic politics. Mass media such as the Washington Post, Nature and Scientific American ridicule the subject and accuse the researchers of being lunatics and criminals. The people writing these attacks know nothing about cold fusion, and some of them have never heard of x-ray film and do not know the difference between power and energy. (I have spoken with them and know this for a fact.)

There is more support in Europe, where the Italian ENEA (equivalent to the DoE), Physical Soc. and Chemical Soc. sponsored the conference last month, but there is still strong opposition.

Cold fusion will be funded if technically literate members of the public take the trouble to learn about it, and demand that it be funded.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2009
Cold fusion will be funded if technically literate members of the public take the trouble to learn about it, and demand that it be funded.

Depends what it means "to learn about it".
Listening to magicians who tell us what's happening in their black box?
Or getting a grip on a sound theory with falsifiable predictions?
JedRothwell
not rated yet Nov 09, 2009
Frajo wrote: "Depends what it means 'to learn about it.'"

It means you should read mainstream, peer reviewed journal papers on the subject.

"Listening to magicians who tell us what's happening in their black box?"

Cold fusion researchers are mainly distinguished scientists such as the former Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission.

"Or getting a grip on a sound theory with falsifiable predictions?"

Cold fusion is based on replicated experimental observations, not theory. There is presently no theory to explain it. That is also true of high temperature superconductiong and it was true of fusion in the sun until 1939, but no one rejected these observations because they could not be explained. The purpose of science is to find answers, not to deny the existence of phenomena that are not yet explained.
JedRothwell
not rated yet Nov 09, 2009
As Robert Duncan put it: ". . . [W]e don't fundamentally understand the process yet. But to say, because we don't fundamentally understand the process and that's why we're not going to study it, is like saying, 'I'm too sick to go to the doctor.'"

As Schwinger put it, "Have we forgotten that physics are empirical?"

More to the point, demanding "a sound theory" from experimentalists is absurd. They have learned how to replicate at high s/n ratio with high reproducibility. They have discovered the control parameters. It is now up to theoreticians to provide a "sound theory." You should not reject the data or belittle the research because experimentalists are not theoreticians.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2009
demanding "a sound theory" from experimentalists is absurd. They have learned how to replicate at high s/n ratio with high reproducibility. They have discovered the control parameters. It is now up to theoreticians to provide a "sound theory." You should not reject the data or belittle the research because experimentalists are not theoreticians.

I don't expect the experimentalists to come up with a sound theory. But as long as there is none I remain sceptical. Laypersons like me have been played tricks on just too often. And why are they calling a phenomenon "cold fusion" if they don't really know what it is?
Alexa
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
.. don't expect the experimentalists to come up with a sound theory..
This just a very strange and unscientific evasion. Do we have theory for HT superconductivity or turbulence for example - "sound" the more? Despite we haven't, these things are still perfectly real and usable. On the contrary - we should invest into research, just because we haven't good theory yet.

BTW Why we are calling such phenomenon "high temperature superconductivity", if we don't really know what it is? Does such question sound normal for you?
Alexa
not rated yet Nov 10, 2009
But as long as there is none I remain skeptical.
Yes, this is stance of many theorists: "until we haven't theory, then I'm not interested about this phenomena". A vicious circle, could be said.

This stance is too common not to have a deeper origin: for example the general ignorance of research of room temperature or various antigravity phenomena has the very same origin. The approach to cold fusion research is the failure of so called scientific method.
JedRothwell
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2009
frajo wrote: "I don't expect the experimentalists to come up with a sound theory. But as long as there is none I remain sceptical."

There are countless unexplained phenomena in nature, such as why different radioactive elements decay at different rates. Do you doubt that they decay at different rates? Do you assert they are actually all decaying at the same rate, and the instruments are wrong?

"Laypersons like me have been played tricks on just too often."

If you are a layperson and you have not read the experimental literature then I think you should not have any opinion about cold fusion. The only people who have played tricks on laypersons in this case are people who oppose cold fusion.

"And why are they calling a phenomenon 'cold fusion' if they don't really know what it is?"

It is fusion. Deuterons fuse to form helium and heat in the same ratio as plasma fusion. They do not know exactly how it occurs, although they know far more than they did a few years ago.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
.. don't expect the experimentalists to come up with a sound theory..
This just a very strange and unscientific evasion. Do we have theory for HT superconductivity or turbulence for example - "sound" the more? Despite we haven't, these things are still perfectly real and usable.

Superconductivity effects are not debated anymore; nobody denies them. But "cold fusion" is debated; there are experts on either side. The layperson has no means to decide which side is right.

BTW Why we are calling such phenomenon "high temperature superconductivity", if we don't really know what it is? Does such question sound normal for you?

Perfectly so. "Superconductivity" is an ugly misnomer as is each word with prefix "super". Of course there are lots of misnomers, "atom" e.g. means "not cuttable"; so this is not what I criticize. But you should not call a phenomenon "cold fusion" as long as it is not clear whether it has to do with fusion at all. It sounds like sensationalism.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
But as long as there is none I remain skeptical.
Yes, this is stance of many theorists: "until we haven't theory, then I'm not interested about this phenomena".

I didn't say I'm not interested. "Skepsis" is Greek and means "thought". A sceptical is not one who dismisses an idea but one who simply hasn't decided yet if he accepts an idea or not.
frajo
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2009
frajo wrote: "I don't expect the experimentalists to come up with a sound theory. But as long as there is none I remain sceptical."
There are countless unexplained phenomena in nature, such as why different radioactive elements decay at different rates. Do you doubt that they decay at different rates?

I have no reason to doubt and nobody else doubts.

"Laypersons like me have been played tricks on just too often."
If you are a layperson and you have not read the experimental literature then I think you should not have any opinion about cold fusion.

Exactly this is the case. I don't know who's right - I'm a sceptic.
Alexa
not rated yet Nov 11, 2009
I don't know who's right - I'm a skeptic.
This is what the agnostic is called.
QubitTamer
not rated yet Nov 12, 2009
look, if it really works and there is money to be made in it then some of these scientists just need to secure a little venture capital and put together an indisputable real-life demonstration with major mainstream media coverage of actual power generation running common household items
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2009
I don't know who's right - I'm a skeptic.
This is what the agnostic is called.

I prefer to use the term "agnostic" in metaphysical/religious contexts only.
JedRothwell
not rated yet Nov 13, 2009
QubitTamer wrote:

"look, if it really works and there is money to be made in it then some of these scientists just need to secure a little venture capital and put together an indisputable real-life demonstration with major mainstream media coverage of actual power generation running common household items."

The researchers are not stupid. They know that. This is like saying that people in 1910 should have just built a uranium fission reactor.

It will take hundreds of millions of dollars to bring cold fusion to that stage, according to experts in solid state physics. For now you are going to have to settle for devices that weigh a few grams and produce hundreds of megajoules of energy. If you do not see the significance of that, you do not understand basic physics and you are a lost cause -- along with a million other so-called skeptics.
Alexa
not rated yet Dec 02, 2009
I copied the peer-reviewed papers from the library at Los Alamos. You will find the bibliography and ~1,000 full full text papers at http://lenr-canr.org
Your effort is a big service for human civilization. Only fully informed and knowledgeable people like you can defeat human ignorance and stupidity at the very end.