Cold Fusion possible with sea water?

[Xtrema]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n

hmm.... Alberta is fucked if they figure it out.

[Dehvee]

At least we have a decade if they do figure it out and commercialize it.

[msommers]

I'm sure the oil companies will assassinate all the scientists that know how it works. Isn't that usually how these things work?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by msommers
I'm sure the oil companies will assassinate all the scientists that know how it works. Isn't that usually how these things work?

No, they build one working vehicle prototype, then the government takes all the technology away, and tries to buy back the car, but it's some little old lady who refuses to give it up.

[msommers]

^^My bad!

Gonna sound like a giant nerd, but it's awesome to see people get excited about science haha.

[ZenOps]

I sure hope not.

Sustained fusion is almost no different from uncontrolled fusion. Uncontrolled fusion in a tank of water larger than a swimming pool has the potential to destroy the hemisphere.

Its also why I'm against the Hadron collider. If you know what they are doing, they are basically testing colliding lead particles together to try and add energy levels to eventually make a Plutonium 242 molecule from a Plutonium 240. That would enable fission nuclear weapons to have perhaps 10x more bang (or nuclear reactors to have 10x more output)

[yue]

interesting report...though completely trivial.

[b_t]

Originally posted by ZenOps
I sure hope not.

Sustained fusion is almost no different from uncontrolled fusion. Uncontrolled fusion in a tank of water larger than a swimming pool has the potential to destroy the hemisphere.

Its also why I'm against the Hadron collider. If you know what they are doing, they are basically testing colliding lead particles together to try and add energy levels to eventually make a Plutonium 242 molecule from a Plutonium 240. That would enable fission nuclear weapons to have perhaps 10x more bang (or nuclear reactors to have 10x more output)

STFU
Once again, somebody who has no idea what the LHC is for is saying its a doomsday weapon. Give it a fucking rest.

[TKRIS]

Whoa jumping to conclusions.
At best, they are observing an inconsistent anomaly that they don't understand and assuming it is cold fusion (which is a hell of a leap). It's "Fusion in the Gaps".
At worst, they're incompetent and obtaining incorrect measurements, which is very easy to do in this situation due to many factors, not the least of which the fact that the act of applying a current and measuring it may very well alter the constants being used to obtain the measurements.

Is this definitely not cold fusion? Of course that's impossible to say. But given the evidence provided and the nature of the studies, I'd say it's incredibly unlikely.

The assumption that an apparent anomaly, which may well not even exist, and is certainly not understood, must be cold fusion is an affront to Occam's Razor.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by b_t


STFU
Once again, somebody who has no idea what the LHC is for is saying its a doomsday weapon. Give it a fucking rest.

Its always up to humanities lowest denominator to misuse technology.

Einstein never intended his research to directly lead to the making of the fission bomb either.

There is always one weenie out there who will light a match to start a million acre forest fire. It happens every year somewhere on the planet. 99.999% of people might use fire for constructive purposes, but its the weenie who will end up using it for destruction.

And once a fusion reaction starts - there is no going back.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by ZenOps

Einstein never intended his research to directly lead to the making of the fission bomb either.


http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml


Originally posted by ZenOps
And once a fusion reaction starts - there is no going back.

Fusion has already started. Please refer to hydrogen bombs.


Originally posted by ZenOps
Its also why I'm against the Hadron collider. If you know what they are doing, they are basically testing colliding lead particles together to try and add energy levels to eventually make a Plutonium 242 molecule from a Plutonium 240. That would enable fission nuclear weapons to have perhaps 10x more bang (or nuclear reactors to have 10x more output)

:facepalm: Please refer to science 101 you don't have any idea... Next even if your conspiracy theory garbage science was true which it is certainly not seeing as it violates all our models of physics why bother with nuclear fission when we have fusion devices?

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by ZenOps

Its also why I'm against the Hadron collider. If you know what they are doing, they are basically testing colliding lead particles together to try and add energy levels to eventually make a Plutonium 242 molecule from a Plutonium 240. That would enable fission nuclear weapons to have perhaps 10x more bang (or nuclear reactors to have 10x more output)
But a 10x more powerful nuclear weapon is nothing compared to the Black Hole that will be created leading to the end of the solar system!

[ZenOps]

Sustained fusion is the primary goal. I'm not talking about fission induced fusion, or fusion of two particles in a very controlled environment.

Sort of like lighting a match in a forest - would be equivalent to starting a fusion reaction in a large body of water. If the goal is self-fuelling spontaneous fusion (sort of like combustion) and it is possible, then all someone has to do is drop their fusion experiment in an ocean - and the whole world will burn within a matter of minutes if not seconds.

Upside is - that it would happen so fast that noone would have the chance to say "Oh sh!t, the oceans are on fire!"

Until we have a real technological way to stop a fusion reaction first - it is totally irresponsible to continue researching the actual reaction. Fission can be somewhat controlled with tungsten carbide blocks - its still hella irresponsible most of the time though. Kim Jong Il looks to be the man to drop the match on California and Alaska...

[sputnik]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Whoa jumping to conclusions.
At best, they are observing an inconsistent anomaly that they don't understand and assuming it is cold fusion (which is a hell of a leap). It's "Fusion in the Gaps".
At worst, they're incompetent and obtaining incorrect measurements, which is very easy to do in this situation due to many factors, not the least of which the fact that the act of applying a current and measuring it may very well alter the constants being used to obtain the measurements.

Is this definitely not cold fusion? Of course that's impossible to say. But given the evidence provided and the nature of the studies, I'd say it's incredibly unlikely.

The assumption that an apparent anomaly, which may well not even exist, and is certainly not understood, must be cold fusion is an affront to Occam's Razor.

:werd:

Of course your comment will do little to calm some.

Should cold fusion never materialize it will forever be blamed on "Big Oil".

[qcp1]

Originally posted by kertejud2

But a 10x more powerful nuclear weapon is nothing compared to the Black Hole that will be created leading to the end of the solar system! :facepalm: if that wasnt sarcasm.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by sputnik


:werd:

Of course your comment will do little to calm some.

Should cold fusion never materialize it will forever be blamed on "Big Oil".

Yes. And you've brought up a pet peeve of mine.
The idea that "Big Oil", who has the capital, resources, distribution network, and, essentially has a monopoly on the entire energy sector, would spend their time and money trying to repress technological advances and hoping really hard that people won't find out.

Maybe they do, but it's a retarded assumption.
"Big Oil" is in the best possible position to reap the absolute most out of alternative energies, and has the most to lose if anyone else develops it first. Let me clarify that:
"Big Oil" has more of an incentive to be the ones to develop reliable alternative energies than anyone else in the entire world because of their existing infrastructure. Like everyone else, they have everything to gain. Unlike everyone else, if they're not first, they have everything to lose.

Everyone criticizes "big oil" as only being concerned with the bottom line, and only looking out for themselves. And in the next sentence, they accuse them of repressing technology; an act that both loses them money, and potentially puts them out of business.

Bunch of stupid people letting their perception of oil companies as evil, nefarious, unethical monsters destroy any logical thought.