Deceleration of runaway electrons paves the way for fusion power

June 21, 2017
Although the vacuum chamber in the British fusion reactor JET has a wall made of solid metal, it can melt if it gets hit by a beam of runaway electrons. It is these runaway elementary particles that doctoral students Linnea Hesslow and Ola Embréus have successfully identified and decelerated. Credit: Eurofusion

Fusion power has the potential to provide clean and safe energy that is free from carbon dioxide emissions. However, imitating the solar energy process is a difficult task to achieve. Two young plasma physicists at Chalmers University of Technology have developed a technology model that could lead to better methods for decelerating runaway electrons that could destroy a future reactor without warning.

It takes high pressure and temperatures of about 150 million degrees to get atoms to fuse. Additionally, runaway electrons wreak havoc in the fusion reactors that are currently being developed. In tokamak reactors, unwanted electric fields could jeopardise the entire process. Electrons with extremely high energy can suddenly accelerate to speeds so high that they destroy the reactor wall.

It is these runaway electrons that doctoral students Linnea Hesslow and Ola Embréus have successfully identified and decelerated. Together with their advisor, Professor Tünde Fülöp at the Chalmers Department of Physics, they have effectively decelerated runaway electrons by injecting so-called heavy ions of neon or argon in the form of gas or pellets.

When the electrons collide with the high charge in the nuclei of the ions, they encounter resistance and lose speed. The many collisions make the speed controllable and enable the fusion process to continue. Using mathematical descriptions and plasma simulations, it is possible to predict the electrons' energy—and how it changes under different conditions.

"When we can effectively decelerate runaway electrons, we are one step closer to a functional fusion reactor. Considering there are so few options for solving the world's growing energy needs in a sustainable way, fusion energy is incredibly exciting, since it derives its fuel from ordinary seawater," says Linnea Hesslow.

She and her colleagues recently had their article published in the reputed journal Physical Review Letters. "The interest in this work is enormous. The knowledge is needed for future large-scale experiments and provides hope for solving difficult problems. We expect the work to make a big impact going forward," says Professor Tünde Fülöp.

Despite the great progress made in fusion energy research over the past fifty years, there is still no commercial fusion power plant in existence. Right now, all eyes are on the international research collaboration related to the ITER reactor in southern France.

"Many believe it will work, but it's easier to travel to Mars than it is to achieve fusion. You could say that we are trying to harvest stars here on Earth, and that can take time. It takes incredibly high temperatures, hotter than the center of the sun, for us to successfully achieve fusion here on earth. That's why I hope research is given the resources needed to solve the energy issue in time," says Linnea Hesslow.

Facts: Fusion energy and runaway electrons

Fusion energy occurs when light atomic nuclei are combined using high pressure and extremely high temperatures of about 150 million degrees Celsius. The energy is created the same way as in the sun. Fusion power is a much safer alternative to nuclear power, which is based on the splitting (fission) of heavy atoms. If something goes wrong in a fusion reactor, the entire process stops and it grows cold. Unlike with a nuclear accident, there is no risk of the surrounding environment being affected. The fuel in a fusion reactor weighs no more than a stamp, and the raw materials come from ordinary seawater.

Explore further: Small-scale nuclear fusion may be a new energy source

More information: L. Hesslow et al, Effect of Partially Screened Nuclei on Fast-Electron Dynamics, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.255001

Related Stories

Small-scale nuclear fusion may be a new energy source

September 25, 2015

Fusion energy may soon be used in small-scale power stations. This means producing environmentally friendly heating and electricity at a low cost from fuel found in water. Both heating generators and generators for electricity ...

Catching tokamak fastballs: Controlling runaway electrons

November 11, 2011

a leading design concept for producing nuclear fusion energy—can, under certain rare fault conditions, produce beams of very energetic "runaway" electrons that have the potential to damage interior surfaces of the device. ...

A new clean nuclear fusion reactor has been designed

January 14, 2013

A researcher at the Universidad politécnica de Madrid (UPM, Spain) has patented a nuclear fusion reactor by inertial confinement that, apart from be used to generate electric power in plants, can be applied to propel ships.

Recommended for you

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

New imaging technique peers inside living cells

November 16, 2017

To undergo high-resolution imaging, cells often must be sliced and diced, dehydrated, painted with toxic stains, or embedded in resin. For cells, the result is certain death.

85 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2017
As yet, fusion reactors have not been able to produce more energy than they are supplied.


Yes and no. Fusion reactors have produced more power than needed to sustain them, but then the instabilities in the plasma shut it down before it manages to make more energy than it took to prime the system.

It's like a car engine that starts and runs, but sputters out before it manages to recharge the starter battery.

Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2017
"It takes high pressure and temperatures of about 150 million degrees to get atoms to combine"

The hottest the Sun (it's corona) gets is roughly 2 million degrees spawning fusion. Seems like they're missing something.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2017
The timing belt and point system needs tweaking....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2017
The hottest the Sun (it's corona) gets is roughly 2 million degrees spawning fusion

Fusion happens in the core of the sun (at roughly 15 million degrees) - not in the corona.

What they mean is that they need 150 million degrees on Earth (because the fusion reactors we have can't replicate the immense pressure)
Basically you have to fulfill the Lawson criterium (which depends on temperature AND pressure)
katesisco
1 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2017
What a history! And null results. Stepping off into the wild blue, if our Earth history is different from what we have been told, that at a point in our deep past we actually had an atmosphere of high pressure and magnetism that was destroyed by an inexplicable event, we could be the survivors in an environment totally different from what our origins were.
In other words, we could be clams learning to live exposed to the sun. Everyone now understands the pyramids were efforts to preserve a electrically alive and magnetically charged environment in a minimum way to preserve life. Again, such effort! And so little result.
antialias_physorg
Jun 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
4 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2017
Everyone now understands the pyramids were efforts to preserve a electrically alive and magnetically charged environment in a minimum way to preserve life.


You are without a doubt delusional!
I don't believe that, so that makes your statement a lie from the get go.
And I could not find anyone personally that believes that. I have talked to my neighbors and family and none of them believe that.

Fusion is just around the corner. And it will be fun pointing it out to all of you that renounced fusion based on vapor ideas.
rderkis
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2017
Everyone now understands the pyramids were efforts to preserve a electrically alive and magnetically charged environment in a minimum way to preserve life


The only thing good about your belief is that it sounds like you don't believe it just to make yourself sound smart. Many on here try to be rebels because they think that makes them appear/sound smart. I find that particularly true of the atheists on here but there are many others.
Zzzzzzzz
3.6 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2017
rderkis, you don't sound very smart yourself.....mostly delusional. The other fool has simply invested in a delusional belief system different from the one you bought.....other than that, you are twins
Merrit
5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2017
Maybe they need to find a way to introduce pressure to allow fusion at a lower temperature. The extreme temperature is why these electrons have so much energy.
rderkis
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2017
Maybe they need to find a way to introduce pressure to allow fusion at a lower temperature. The extreme temperature is why these electrons have so much energy.

I think they are trying that with the fusion reactors that use pistons.
Myself I believe they will achieve it with the principles the ITER is using. The trouble with the ITER is it is trying to use old technology. An example is the superconductor magnets can be built almost twice as strong now which means a reduction in size of 90% and a exponential reduction in cost.
Which translates to much faster turn around time in perfecting it.
This is what MIT's SPARC and ARC will use. check out their youtube videos.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2017
Maybe they need to find a way to introduce pressure to allow fusion at a lower temperature

They are doing this already. There's several ways to get the pressure/temperature criteria fulfilled. In tokamaks and stelllarators it's done via magnetic confinement (shaped by huge amounts of current in supecooled wires or the plasma directly ) . In laser fusion systems it's by shooting lasers at fuel pellets from all sides which sets up a shockwave that increases the pressure in the center.
Both have their advantages and drawbacks. Using magnetic confinement pressure is not nearly as strong as with a laser induced shockwave. however stellarator confinement designs can be used for continuous power generation (which is sort of the main goal). Tokamaks also use magnetic fields but they aren't strong enough for continuous operation because they use the plasma to conduct the electric power instead of superconducting coils- which limits the current)
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2017
The surface of the Sun is 6000 degrees, the corona (outer) is 2 million, but of course internally it's 15 million. Makes sense right? Huh? Makes no sense at all.

Just like requiring a big bang, that makes no sense at all. "The beginning" an impossible question, foolish to make so significant.

And fusion does happen in the corona (too if you insist). I'm aware of the theory, too bad you're missing 2/3 of the neutrinos required in a fusion reaction that size.

Theses are the exceptions which make astronomers look stupid. Sorry just my opinion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2017
Maybe they need to find a way to introduce pressure to allow fusion at a lower temperature
General Fusion is doing it with hydraulic pistons
http://generalfusion.com/
rderkis
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2017
The surface of the Sun is 6000 degrees, the corona (outer) is 2 million, but of course internally it's 15 million. Makes sense right? Huh? Makes no sense at all.

Just like requiring a big bang, that makes no sense at all. "The beginning" an impossible question, foolish to make so significant.

And fusion does happen in the corona (too if you insist). I'm aware of the theory, too bad you're missing 2/3 of the neutrinos required in a fusion reaction that size.

Theses are the exceptions which make astronomers look stupid. Sorry just my opinion.

Why do they look stupid, unless perhaps they are calling someone else stupid? :-)
Astronomers, theoretical physicist even some branches of math are based on theory.
As long as they don't try to present their theories as facts they don't seem stupid. Are you telling us you know the facts?
rderkis
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2017
'm aware of the theory, too bad you're missing 2/3 of the neutrinos required in a fusion reaction that size.
Theses are the exceptions which make astronomers look stupid. Sorry just my opinion.


You know a couple of things that surprised me when I heard them. Both came from a different group of scientists that were at prestigious conferences and since no body took exception or were surprised, I imagine they are true.
1st. The large hadron collider and the other colliders smash particles together at the energy level of two mosquitoes colliding head on in flight. :-) Amazing!

2nd one at a conference on fusion. The energy density of the sun is about the same as your compost garden at home. It's just so large with so much mass, that ends up being a lot of energy.
Merrit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2017
It might also just be the case that fusion will never be a practical source of energy. With better technology renewable sources will be all we need. Part of the problem, however, is on our energy use side. We are terribly inefficient with most of our technology. A good example is iridescent lights versus LED lights. Also, our computers use much more energy than they theoretically need to. We are all focused on energy production, but we could also just lower or energy use to go green.

Fusion also has the problem of turning hydrogen into heavier elements. If fusion does become mainstream, then we could likely upset our elemental balance over time. Could be even worse then global warming.
rderkis
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2017
I am confident Fusion will happen soon and it will be the answer to all our current energy needs. But I am even more confident that a yet undreamed of energy source will be developed, in the not too distant future.
Why am I so confident? Because we will soon be enhancing the WHOLE human races intelligence level by steps.
First maybe only 10%, but 10% is a lot spread over the whole race. And that will give us the boost to know how to take it to 20%. .. AND ON AND ON..

Quote
". If fusion does become mainstream, then we could likely upset our elemental balance over time.


Key words here are "over time."
We will be well beyond that before "over time" happens.
dirk_bruere
not rated yet Jun 22, 2017
Tokomaks are an engineering nightmare and even if they eventually produce a functioning reactor the cost of electricity from them will be atronomical
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2017
With better technology renewable sources will be all we need.

I dunno. Windfarms don't work particularly well in space. Neither do solar panels once you go further out in the solar system.

We need fusion in any case. If we can also use it on Earth as an additional source - all the better (e.g. for ocean-floor settlements where wind and solar aren't available).

If fusion does become mainstream, then we could likely upset our elemental balance over time.

What is this 'elemental balance' supposed to be?

Fusion also has the problem of turning hydrogen into heavier elements.

The heavy element that fusion generates is helium - which isn't a problem. Also the amount of fuel is very small. A 1.5 GW reactor would use about 1kg of fuel per day (60/40 mix of tritium and deuterium)
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2017
Thorium reactors, safe fission still best idea of all.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2017
It seems that scientists in Tokamak do not know what they are doing.

Of course they don't know what they are doing, it is all theoretical and has never been done before.
Old_C_Code
Jun 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2017
Thorium isn't ready (much less the infrastructure to build a lot of them). It's a DOA tech that came too late.

China and India are trying out a few reactors, but that's about it. They aren't economical (and they aren't as safe as they're cracked up to be)
Dingbone
Jun 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
not rated yet Jun 23, 2017
Japan physicists replicated http://lenr-canr....sion.pdf

Cold fusion :-)

Personally I think cold fusion is probably possible. It's just that they have no idea how to do it. I am hoping with the emergence of quantum computers and their ability to do truly advanced simulations, they will show us how. :-)
But for now that is not anything but hope. :-)
Dingbone
Jun 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
not rated yet Jun 23, 2017
It's just that they have no idea how to do it
Once you can repeat something with 100% reproducibility, then you should have some idea, how to do it - don't you think? Not to say, that even computer processors aren't manufactured with 100% yield - and their production is already understood well.

When I say "how to do it" I am talking about not just repeatability but output to. We could probably harness fireflies for energy but that does not mean it's practical. I have heard it said many times "if only we had the fusion of the sun". But the sun's energy density is no greater than your backyard compost pile. In other words even if you can produce cold fusion it would not mean there is enough energy density to do anything with it.
Dingbone
Jun 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lex Talonis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2017
The reactor chambers are the wrong shape for starters...

Idiots.
rderkis
not rated yet Jun 24, 2017
The beginning of every technology is modest, the cold fusion or tokamaks aren't no exception. But both energy, both power density of cold fusion is https://coldfusio...-chart/. It's not about the fireflies at all: if the Sun would produce energy with such an power density, it would explode immediately.


So your telling us harnessing fireflies for energy is practical? It is just a modest beginning right now?
Look, if what you're saying about cold fusion is true within 6 months it will be powering our homes not hidden somewhere with skeptics. Unless of course your a conspiracy theorist, in which case your not a rational human being and there is no hope for you.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
not rated yet Jun 25, 2017
coldfusion finding 90 years and room superconductivity finding by 45 years


I am sure your joking or if really believe that in which case I feel sorry for you.
Please tell me your joking or you will be the first person I ever ignored/muted because they are just plane crazy and living in their own reality.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2017
noncompetitive in my eyes in comparison to cold fusion.

I think I did not make myself clear. I believe cold fusion is possible. I just don't believe much in conspiracies.
And I don't believe cold fusion has ever been done at least not in such a way that it could produce a useable amount of energy. I think they are going at it all wrong but I have no answers.
I do believe once the true power of quantum computers is achieved it will show us the way to usable cold fusion with simulations.
There are probably many many ways to produce fusion and the quantum computer will show us the best way.
If you know how to produce cold fusion do it and became wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. If not I put it in the same filing cabinet as gas engines that run on water.
Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2017
If it's possible, why the mainstream scientists are ignoring its research? It has many advantages as I mentioned above...


I don't think they did ignore it, they checked the research and experiments out and dismissed it as not feasible in the manner they are currently trying. I think it's probably possible but it's just we have no idea how.

Of course the idea of cold fusion has even more advantages than you and I can imagine, but that does not make it feasible.

We have 2 maybe 3 technologies that we are on the edge of, that are going to change everything and bring about a utopia on earth. None of the 3 are really science fiction since we are doing them but we are still in the first generation.

Dingbone
Jun 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2017
Umm, why not to start finally with replication of this ninety years old experiment?


Why don't you and get rich and famous? :-)
Just think you can heat and cool your home for free! :-)
Myself I will believe the people that are much smarter than me, that looked at it then moved on.

rderkis
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2017
I was watching a talk by Michio Kaku. When asked whether Pons and Fleishman were producing fusion he said "Since by definition fusion releases neutrons they would both have died of radiation poisoning, if they had produced fusion with no shielding."

I am 70 and get things mixed up but that was the just of it.
Dingbone
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EnricM
not rated yet Jun 26, 2017

The heavy element that fusion generates is helium - which isn't a problem


Not a problem at all!!! I just hope they produce enough for practical uses such as Zeppelins!!!
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2017
At 1kg of fuel use per day for a decent sized powerplant... It's gonna take a while until you get enough to fill a blimp.
(Read: No. It's not going to be a relevant source of helium)

Just for giggles:
A back-of-the-envelope calc* for the HAV-304
https://en.wikipe...ander_10
gives me about 7000kg worth of Helium to fill 'er up.

*for some reason the makers of airships don't post any numbers on how much helium they need

Also note that the helium is produced as bare helium nuclei. (Read: alpha radiation). It's not up for collection from the chamber.
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2017
Please forgive me Dingbone but at this point logic dictates that I believe one of the leading physicists of our time (Michio Kaku). I would hope that he is wrong and you are right. But hope does not take us far in the scientific world.
Dingbone
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SEM-fusor
not rated yet Jun 26, 2017
I am confident Fusion will happen soon and it will be the answer to all our current energy needs.


In my computer simulation both electrons and deuterium ions stay confined in a (small) vacuum chamber up to speeds larger than needed for fusion, with a magnetic field of about 1,5 tesla and a couple of charged rings and spheres of +/- 200 kV.

It seems to be a new idea (and no patent, free to use for everybody) and perhaps an "easy" way to achieve fusion ?

See sem-fusor.com

Please copy this information here into your computer (I just saw the movie "Chain Reaction" :).

Or check my calculations and tell me if there is something not correct, or it isn´t a new idea.

Thank you.

rderkis
not rated yet Jun 26, 2017
proponent of string theory, which has been disproved by recent experiments

proponent? I think he was co-founder.
Please tell us which well recognized, major theories you have founded, even if they proved not to be true. Was Einstein ever wrong? Yet if he made a statement that I decided was wrong, would you side with me, just because I said so?

I don't pretend to understand fusion but if its a atomic reaction and energy is given off, doesn't that energy have to be electron, proton, or neutron? And a close proximity without shielding which one can not hurt you?
Dingbone
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
not rated yet Jun 26, 2017
who did work with it just a bit seriously is a co-founder of some branch of it.


Does that list include either you or I as recognized work?
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jun 27, 2017
by definition fusion releases neutrons they would both have died of radiation poisoning
This is not true - the https://en.wikipe..._fusion. But in reality all hot fusions release some neutrons as a byproduct and even if the amount of neutron will be just one promile of theoretical yiled, it still represent a serious threat and it makes reactor radioactive by neutron absorbtion. So that only cold fusion at low temperatures (bellow 1000 °C) is completely free of neutrons.

Don't you really mean free of "free" neutrons...?
It appears "cold fusion" just includes resident neutrons AND protons in the fusion process...
This would really mean - rearrangement(relaxing) of forces binding (strong weak, EM) the nucleon particles together to allow for additional particles...
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2017
So let me get this straight cold fusion is a source of virtually unlimited free power, that gives off no energy that could hurt a human cell, no matter how close(with no shielding)?? No heat, no radiation of any kind, no electrical energy, etc?
Sure doesn't sound like energy we could use. To be honest it does not sound like energy to me at all but it does sound like the con they use to fuel cars with water.
Just out of curiosity, please tell me you didn't buy into that hocus pocus.
Dingbone
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cortezz
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2017
The paneth and peters "cold fusion" is just a joke: "In the late nineteen twenties, two German scientists, F. Paneth and K. Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen is absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. These authors later acknowledged that the helium they measured was due to background from the air. " It has been calculated and tested in many reviewed papers that the atoms on the surface are actually futher apart than they are in gas form. So no fusion there.

Nowadays, we can nanostructure surfaces and make them have massive amounts of more surface area but still no one have reported anything like that.

You seemed like a smart guy but your credibility just vanished when I actually looked some of these things up.
Dingbone
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cortezz
not rated yet Jun 27, 2017
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/4t8x5l/nickel_the_ultimate_substitute_of_coal_oil_and/dbac4il/ which consists of thousands of articles, reports and conference proceedings.

I'm no cold fusion skeptic, just a general skeptic. And I do know stuff about surface chemistry even though I'm no expert of fusion and physics. I randomly checked few papers which seemed good from the link and I'm not fully convinced.

First of all, why all the papers are from the 20th century? Hasn't anybody done reseach in almost twenty years on the area? Also, most of the "publications" are from conferences or from low impact factor journals (or in wrong languages). Yet, there seems to be findings of excess heat and helium. I wonder why no one has build actual generators to use this power if it is so simple. Just throw electricity into a rod immersed in heavy water.
Dingbone
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2017
...
First of all, why all the papers are from the 20th century? Hasn't anybody done reseach in almost twenty years on the area? Also, most of the "publications" are from conferences or from low impact factor journals (or in wrong languages). Yet, there seems to be findings of excess heat and helium. I wonder why no one has build actual generators to use this power if it is so simple. Just throw electricity into a rod immersed in heavy water.

Since Fleischman-Pons(?), cold fusion has been considered a career suicide research event...
That, in and of itself, can have a pretty chilling effect...
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2017
First of all, why all the papers are from the 20th century? Hasn't anybody done reseach in almost twenty years

There's still people looking into it, Though you won't find it under the name 'cold fusion'. Currently the term is LENR (low energy nuclear reactions).

I wonder why no one has build actual generators

Plenty of people have claimed to have built one. Turned out to be a scam in each case (no surprise, there).

Physics is just that way. You can't cheat the Coulomb barrier that easily - no matter how hard you wished you could.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2017
Plenty of people have claimed to have built one. Turned out to be a scam in each case (no surprise, there)
Actually none have yet proven to be scams. Where'd you get your info? Here?
https://www.youtu...ODin2Uy0
Dingbone
Jun 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cortezz
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2017
We have thousands of peer-reviewed http://lenr-canr....enu.php. To call them scam is simply ridiculous attitude. What could lead people into such a proclamations?

That's more convincing. Someone should do a show like mythbusters but with very hard science content. All kinds of theories and devices could be tested with appropriate experts on the field. I think it would get views.
rderkis
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2017
I disagree that MOST cold fusion research and claims are scams. I think most of their proponents are sincere people who have gone in a direction that is counter intuitive the same way conspiracy theories look at conspiracies. No matter how logical a counter conspiracy facts are they can't see it. The people supporting cold fusion are just as fanatical without feeling they are being fanatical.
Those people swear they are being totally logical.

This is the thinking of the people that are so dead set against President Trump. People that would see our nation destroyed before they admitted they were wrong about a single issue.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2017
To call them scam is simply ridiculous attitude.

I didn't call the LENR research a scam. Researching this is perfectly fine.
I called those who have claimed to have already built a working generator a scam (because they somehow either never work when someone shows up or they are never presented to be tested...and the ones that have been sold - e.g. to the DOE - turned out not to work)
Dingbone
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cortezz
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2017
I called those who have claimed to have already built a working generator a scam
Which ones? The people who construced something like it are perfectly secretive about it and they don't want to sell their know how yet.

Don't these people know how to patent?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2017
The people who construced something like it are perfectly secretive about it

And yet YOU know all about it...weird, huh?

Yet another world spanning super secret conspiracy that some guy with an internet connection winkled out. What are the odds? You are certainly the Sherlock Holmes among Sherlock Holmes'.
Dingbone
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2017
So let's just sum it up:

You assert this stuff exists. But in the next post you assert that you don't know this stuff exists.

Ya know: You're pretty crazy.
Dingbone
Jun 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2017
And you're cold fusion hater

What a terrible thing to call someone!
Is that anything like a air hater? :-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2017
I called those who have claimed to have already built a working generator a scam
Which ones? The people who construced something like it are perfectly secretive about it and they don't want to sell their know how yet.

Waiting for the patent to run out...
Dingbone
Jun 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jun 30, 2017
I didn't call the LENR research a scam. Researching this is perfectly fine.
I called those who have claimed to have already built a working generator a scam (because they somehow either never work when someone shows up or they are never presented to be tested...and the ones that have been sold - e.g. to the DOE - turned out not to work)
aa enjoys blanket declarating, and watching people respond, and then ignoring the results. Makes her feel butch.

This is not a proper dialectic aa. If you challenge someone, you have the responsibility of acknowledging it when they prove you wrong.

I know it's not fun but it's the decent thing to do.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.