Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Cold Fusion
      #5582325 - 12/21/12 11:31 AM

I am under the impression that two of the recent attempts to create cold fusion are called the e-cat of Andrea Rossi (ECat) and an attempt by Pons and Fleischman (PF).

For the sake of my questions which follow, let us assume that the ECat and PF were both successful cold fusion experiments. Operating under that assumption I have three questions:

For ECat:

1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?


For PF:

1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?


Otto

Edited by Otto Piechowski (12/21/12 11:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5582380 - 12/21/12 12:09 PM

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleischman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.

But the PF experiment has been internationally declared a dud, and Rossi, more than a year after declaring that his device worked, still refuses to let anyone look at it properly and there has been no evidence of a working device.

So let us assume instead what the current evidence offers, that cold fusion is not a reality. If any other evidence comes in, we can change our assumptions.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5582417 - 12/21/12 12:29 PM

If everyone here is agreed that PF is disproven, we can drop that from consideration.

However, because there are always two ways to disprove an assertion (by proof and by internal self contradiction), I ask that we continue to consider the ECat method.

Assuming ECat is a successful cold-fusion experiment:


1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?


Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5582474 - 12/21/12 12:56 PM

Quote:

Assuming ECat is a successful cold-fusion experiment:


1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?




Rossi claims the E-cat works by immobilizing hydrogen in nickel at high pressure, then triggering the reaction with either heat or some radio frequency (depending on which reports you read - he keeps the details a trade secret). You can read what little info there is here (wiki) and here (fan page).

So it is not natural, nor could it have happened in the early universe since there would have been no nickel around until after the first generation stars went supernova to generate heavy elements.

As for whether or not it is real, I hope it is because we could really use an affordable and clean source of energy. But, given that he has refused to allow inspection of the device or allowed the conclusive tests to be run to demonstrate that fusion has occurred, I doubt it. The simplest, most straighforward test to run would be to take samples of the nickel core before and after running the system, and measure the isotopes present by mass spectrometry. If heavier nickel isotopes and light copper isotopes appear and increase in the after sample, then nickel-hydrogen fusion occurred. If they don't, then nickel-hydrogen fusion did not occur. This is not a difficult or expensive test to run, and will answer the question without a shadow of a doubt (as long as he allows monitoring with enough transparency to ensure that no "swapping" of samples takes place).

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5582645 - 12/21/12 03:05 PM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

My personal opinion is that E-cat claim1 stretches credulity. No explanation of the mechanism? Secret military purchases without disclosure? Does the thing actually work without being plugged into a wall?

As for the FP effect, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR's) is actually gaining a bit of ground. No one really has a good clue as to how packing the latice of, say, palladium atoms results in fusion. Something does happen..sometimes...and it doesn't appear to be chemical. But right now the energy 'light off' is unpredictable and not readily reproducible and certainly does not lend itself to any practical applications at this time.

Combine this with the fact that you have a very financially invested 'hot physics' science group and you see the potential problem.

here is also the obvious problem that the reactions seen do not clearly result in the normally expected and understood fusion by products (neutron generation for one).

I guess if LENR reactions ARE nuclear fusion then we don't fully understand the underlying physics.

Pesse (shrugs) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5583191 - 12/21/12 08:53 PM

Thanks, Jarad.

What other examples do we have in science, of a fundamental aspect of the universe such as stellar fusion, which have been

1. replicated in nature by other methods after the fact

2. replicated by human inventiveness

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5583211 - 12/21/12 09:14 PM

Um, I am not sure what would qualify as a "fundamental aspect of the universe".

But in general, everything that humans have done is replicating something that is possible in nature. Whether or not it is "fundamental" is a bit of a judgement call...

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5583339 - 12/21/12 10:53 PM

Not to mention that everything we do is already "after the fact".

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5583508 - 12/22/12 01:50 AM

Quote:

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleishman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.




Ha! More likely, they would have disappeared mysteriously, and a series of unexplained black helicopters would have emptied their laboratories.

(Cynical? Moi?)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5583860 - 12/22/12 10:57 AM

I think your statement about what is or is not fundamental being a judgment call is correct.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5583913 - 12/22/12 11:29 AM

Quote:

Quote:

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleishman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.




Ha! More likely, they would have disappeared mysteriously, and a series of unexplained black helicopters would have emptied their laboratories.

(Cynical? Moi?)




No, there's a huge and immediate market out there for cold fusion. The demand is there right now. Those guys would have made Bill Gates and Steve Jobs look like back-alley shysters if cold fusion had worked. Tim Berners-Lee would have been off-line. Henry Ford would have been thrown under the bus. Alexander Graham Bell would have been put on the "Do not call" list. Thomas Edison would have been powerless. Einstein would have been a relative nobody. Even Newton would have missed the gravity of the situation.

Pons and Fleishman and perhaps Rossi would be selling powerplants to those black helicopters for a very pretty penny.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5584093 - 12/22/12 01:23 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleishman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.




Ha! More likely, they would have disappeared mysteriously, and a series of unexplained black helicopters would have emptied their laboratories.

(Cynical? Moi?)




No, there's a huge and immediate market out there for cold fusion. The demand is there right now. Those guys would have made Bill Gates and Steve Jobs look like back-alley shysters if cold fusion had worked. Tim Berners-Lee would have been off-line. Henry Ford would have been thrown under the bus. Alexander Graham Bell would have been put on the "Do not call" list. Thomas Edison would have been powerless. Einstein would have been a relative nobody. Even Newton would have missed the gravity of the situation.

Pons and Fleishman and perhaps Rossi would be selling powerplants to those black helicopters for a very pretty penny.




Hmmm. Maybe, on some planet where the status quo and the next quarterly profits weren't more important than doing the right thing. But not here, I don't believe.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5584122 - 12/22/12 01:40 PM

The quarterly profits for cold fusion would make oil look like a losing proposition. The race would be to patent and perfect it, not hide it.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5584153 - 12/22/12 01:59 PM

Well, I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Oil is certainly a losing proposition in the long run. If there are some forward-thinking people involved, maybe there's a chance.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5584325 - 12/22/12 04:19 PM

I am pretty confident that if someone figures out a way to make cold fusion work, it will get used.

I am lot less confident that it is possible at all. Still hope so, but not confident.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
star drop
Snowed In
*****

Reged: 02/02/08

Loc: Snow Plop, WNY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5584615 - 12/22/12 07:56 PM

Quote:

Rossi claims the E-cat works by immobilizing hydrogen in nickel at high pressure, then triggering the reaction with either heat or some radio frequency (depending on which reports you read - he keeps the details a trade secret).



Might there be a hidden radio frequency beam supplying energy to the device?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
seryddwr
Innocent Bystander
*****

Reged: 02/19/10

Loc: La-la land.
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5584626 - 12/22/12 08:03 PM

If it were possible, the real problem would be that the oil companies would buy it and sell products for 10 times what they are worth.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: seryddwr]
      #5585389 - 12/23/12 11:02 AM

The person to read about this is Jed Rothwell, a rare thing in internet science writing, that is, a completely sane and grounded person who is utterly reliable.

Don't want to argue about it but IMO what we have here is a new solid-state physics phenomenon involving nickel hydrides. No one would have believed in semi-conductors in 1900. In the year 2100, it will be hard to remember a world without nickel hydride energy production.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5585391 - 12/23/12 11:04 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Rossi claims the E-cat works by immobilizing hydrogen in nickel at high pressure, then triggering the reaction with either heat or some radio frequency (depending on which reports you read - he keeps the details a trade secret).



Might there be a hidden radio frequency beam supplying energy to the device?




No. Simple arguments remove all possibility of an external source. Read Jed Rothwell.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5585539 - 12/23/12 12:45 PM

I took your advice, looked up Jed Rothwell, and found his cold fusion web site/archive. His "introduction" to the site begins with these words, and I quote:

"Cold fusion is a nuclear effect discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in the 1980s. They announced the discovery in March 1989 at the University of Utah."

He does not mention anywhere that after this "discovery" was announced to much fanfare, an international investigation ensued, with the outcome that the "discovery" was rejected. (Let's not hear any conspiracy theories about this, shall we? The rejection was ecumenical.) Rothwell's exclusion of this essential information, while asserting the success (!!??) of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment, does not betoken reliability or objectivity on the subject.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 5114

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics