What if Cold Fusion is Possible?!

What If Cold Fusion Is Real?


It was the most notorious scientific experiment in recent memory - in 1989, the two men who claimed to have discovered the energy of the future were condemned as imposters and exiled by their peers. Can it possibly make sense to reopen the cold fusion investigation? A surprising number of researchers already have.


Almost four stories high, framed in steel beams and tangled in pipes, conduits, cables, and coils, the Joint European Torus (JET) claims to be the largest fusion power experiment in the world. Located near Oxford, England, JET is a monument to big science, its donut-shaped containment vessel dwarfing maintenance workers who enter it in protective suits. Here in this gleaming nuclear cauldron, deuterium gas is energized with 7 million amperes and heated to 300 million degrees Celsius - more than 10 times hotter than the center of the sun. Under these extreme conditions atomic nuclei collide and fuse, liberating energy that could provide virtually limitless power.

Maybe.

High-tension lines run directly to the installation, but they don't take electricity out - they bring it in. For a few magic seconds in 1997, JET managed to return 60 percent of the energy it consumed, but that's the best it's ever done, and is typical of fusion experiments worldwide. The US Department of Energy has predicted that we'll have to wait another five decades, minimum, before fusion power becomes practical. Meanwhile, the United States continues to depend on fossil fuels for 85 percent of its energy.


Many miles away, in the basement of a fine new home in the hills overlooking Santa Fe, New Mexico, a retired scientist named Edmund Storms has built a different kind of fusion reactor. It consists of laboratory glassware, off-the-shelf chemical supplies, two aging Macintosh computers for data acquisition, and an insulated wooden box the size of a kitchen cabinet. While JET's 15 European sponsor-nations have paid about US$1 billion for their hardware, and the US government has spent $14.7 billion on fusion research since 1951 (all figures in 1997 dollars), Storms's apparatus and ancillary gear have cost less than $50,000. Moreover, he claims that his equipment works, generating surplus heat for days at a time.

Storms is not an antiestablishment pseudoscientist pursuing a crackpot theory. For 34 years he was part of the establishment himself, employed at Los Alamos on projects such as a nuclear motor for space vehicles. Subsequently he testified before a congressional subcommittee considering the future of fusion. He believes you don't need millions of degrees or billions of dollars to fuse atomic nuclei and yield energy. "You can stimulate nuclear reactions at room temperature," he says, in his genial, matter-of-fact style. "I am absolutely certain that the phenomenon is real. It is quite extraordinary, and if it can be developed, it will have profound effects on society."

That's an understatement. If low-temperature fusion does exist and can be perfected, power generation could be decentralized. Each home could heat itself and produce its own electricity, probably using a form of water as fuel. Even automobiles might be cold fusion powered. Massive generators and ugly power lines could be eliminated, along with imported oil and our contribution to the greenhouse effect. Moreover, according to some experimental data, low-temperature fusion doesn't create significant hazardous radiation or radioactive waste.

Most scientists laugh at these claims. "It's pathological science," says physicist Douglas Morrison, formerly employed by CERN in Geneva. "The results are impossible."

Yet some highly qualified researchers disagree.


George Miley, who received the Edward Teller medal for innovative research in hot fusion and has edited Fusion Technology magazine for the American Nuclear Society for more than 15 years: "There's very strong evidence that low-energy nuclear reactions do occur. Numerous experiments have shown definitive results - as do my own."


John Bockris, formerly a distinguished professor in physical chemistry at Texas A&M University and a cofounder of the International Society for Electrochemistry: "Nuclear reactions can occur without high temperatures. Low-energy nuclear transformations can - and do - exist."


Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International: "I am absolutely certain there is unexplained heat, and the most likely explanation is that its origin is nuclear."


Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer, futurist, and funder of Infinite Energy magazine: "It seems very promising to me that nuclear reactions may occur at room temperatures. I'm quite convinced there's something in this."

Statements like these prompt an obvious question: If nuclear fusion can be demonstrated in anyone's basement workshop for a few thousand dollars, and could revolutionize society - why haven't we heard about it?

We have. On March 23, 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced their discovery of "cold fusion." It was the most heavily hyped science story of the decade, but the awed excitement quickly evaporated amid accusations of fraud and incompetence. When it was over, Pons and Fleischmann were humiliated by the scientific establishment; their reputations ruined, they fled from their laboratory and dropped out of sight. "Cold fusion" and "hoax" became synonymous in most people's minds, and today, everyone knows that the idea has been discredited.

Or has it? In fact, despite the scandal, laboratories in at least eight countries are still spending millions on cold fusion research. During the past nine years this work has yielded a huge body of evidence, while remaining virtually unknown - because most academic journals adamantly refuse to publish papers on it. At most, the story of cold fusion represents a colossal conspiracy of denial. At least, it is one of the strangest untold stories in 20th-century science.


Link,

www.wired.com...

Very interesting...

But hey,

money = power
oil = money
thus oil = power

People have made cars that run on water, electricity, plants, ... for decades already...

The question is whether Chemical or Nuclear reactions are transpiring through cold fusion experiments. Since defining terms is critical one may assume that the distinction from one to the other is as uncertain as Heisenberg's principle. Whatever the precision of science in testing what happens through experimentation and laboratory technique, duplicating results, the true test for energy experiments centers upon more energy coming out than going in. In fact if one looks at some of the literature from the Department of Energy, that is exactly what it demands within a proposal for basic and applied research.

Perhaps all chemical reactions are technically nuclear but transpire on a quantum level at a lesser energetic level. We are still dealing with E=Mc2, however on a lower band of intensity. Cold fusion appears to cross a certain quantum level higher than most chemical reactions in that it produces measurable transformations from hydrogen to helium for example. Since the thresholding has been crossed, the sense is nuclear at a minimum level but still relying upon E=Mc2 just as any chemical reaction or any other reaction does. Is the distinction all that important? After all energy is energy, and a surplus of it is welcome in a world bound by the sociology of printing paper notes and charging interest on them as entopy rather than syntropy.

Apparently some notion of economic or social disruption of certain boundaries of monetary advantages is more critical than the actual pure science involved in political decisions regarding Cold Fusion. It is sad that we are still facing such obsolete paradigms of politics intervening upon even asking the right questions. The real question is whether we really want to waltz into the 13th century, while the Darth Sidious of politics and dogmatism uses every selfish internal hoarding of transformation into the year 3000 to everyone's disservice.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Hantam

Most scientists laugh at these claims. "It's pathological science," says physicist Douglas Morrison, formerly employed by CERN in Geneva. "The results are impossible."

Scientists have laughed at alot of technological advancements. Here are some quotes that show the arrogance of some, and will make you laugh.

INNOVATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"... after a few more flashes in the pan, we shall hear very little more of Edison or his electric lamp. Every claim he makes has been tested and proved impracticable."
[New York Times, January 16, 1880]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEROSPACE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Professor Goddard ... does not know the relation of action to reaction ... he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in our high schools"
[New York Times, January 13, 1920]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
[Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
[Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEMS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
[Thomas Watson, chairman IBM, 1943]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
[Ken Olson, Chairman and founder Digital Equipment Corp., 1977]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
[Bill Gates, 1981]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENERGY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time.
Nobody will use it, ever." [Thomas Edison, 1889]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
[Albert Einstein, 1932]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking
moonshine" [Ernst Rutherford, 1933]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASTRONOMY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied,
than that stones fell from the sky"
[Thomas Jefferson, on hearing the report of a meteorite fall]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDICINE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
[Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872]



[edit on 22-5-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

So, what do you guys think of sonofusion? This is a technique by which fusion-necessary heat is generated using ultrasound in deuterium or D3 and other types of fusion-ready material. It is all over the internet.

I have it on good authority that even more advanced work was done by seemingly obscure scientist circa 1955-1957 which will finally hit the press soon. This scientist claims a controled, sustained fusion reaction. There is no high tech here by modern standards and no Einstein. It is all quantum stuff.

It's my theory that cold-fusion will only work if the eletrons are stripped from their orbits and P-N-N is fired at a stationary P-N to aquire the fusing reaction at a "cold" temperature.

But you're talking about trillions upon trillions of nuclei to fuse to get any useful energy from these reactions.

Maybe one day nanotechnology will change all that.

EDIT: Had to add this. If it were possible for nanotechnology to force two nuclei together, the resulting energy would destroy the mechanism that created the reaction.

Thus, back to square one.

[edit on 24/5/05 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by Intelearthling
It's my theory that cold-fusion will only work if the eletrons are stripped from their orbits and P-N-N is fired at a stationary P-N to aquire the fusing reaction at a "cold" temperature.

But you're talking about trillions upon trillions of nuclei to fuse to get any useful energy from these reactions.

Maybe one day nanotechnology will change all that.

EDIT: Had to add this. If it were possible for nanotechnology to force two nuclei together, the resulting energy would destroy the mechanism that created the reaction.

Thus, back to square one.

[edit on 24/5/05 by Intelearthling]

It is all quantum stuff. How many trillions of nuclei you want to fuse depends on how much ultrasound you want to generate. Ultrasound is cheap and easy to generate. The problem is a sustained reaction. For this you need to inject lithium or boron into this maelstrom and you need monitoring equipment to tell you when to inject so everything is not destroyed. Fortunately, this was figured out in 1942---yes, 1942, in a house on someone's spare time at Suhl, Germany.

Quantum theory makes all of this possible - the only pitfalls being current technology.

As far as cold fusion, as I understand it, cold fusion takes place at absolute zero, when atoms have completely stopped moving, and with a subsequent collision and reheating, they release energy. The process described in the articles is something I have always heard termed as warm fusion - a reaction attained a room temperature. Hot fusion is the superheated variety of fusion that this lab in the UK is working on. Cold fusion is the least likely of all of these techniques, considering that we have never been able to actually achieve absolute zero (even open space is a few hundredths of a percent above absolute zero). Warm and hot fusion are both possible, though likelihoods of each are unknown. The reactions have been achieved to an extent, but never with the results intended. If the gentleman described in this article is actually on to something, I'd very much like to see his research data. I'm not a skeptic about the possibility of fusion, but given the years of attempts to harness this energy, I'm a little reserved, at best, as far as accepting it as truth.

Originally posted by obsidian468
Quantum theory makes all of this possible - the only pitfalls being current technology.

As far as cold fusion, as I understand it, cold fusion takes place at absolute zero, when atoms have completely stopped moving, and with a subsequent collision and reheating, they release energy. The process described in the articles is something I have always heard termed as warm fusion - a reaction attained a room temperature. Hot fusion is the superheated variety of fusion that this lab in the UK is working on. Cold fusion is the least likely of all of these techniques, considering that we have never been able to actually achieve absolute zero (even open space is a few hundredths of a percent above absolute zero). Warm and hot fusion are both possible, though likelihoods of each are unknown. The reactions have been achieved to an extent, but never with the results intended. If the gentleman described in this article is actually on to something, I'd very much like to see his research data. I'm not a skeptic about the possibility of fusion, but given the years of attempts to harness this energy, I'm a little reserved, at best, as far as accepting it as truth.

A similar, but less advanced, method is described all over the internet under the search word "sonofusion"

i hate to burst ur bubble but warm fusion is possible and has been since the 1950's. The inventor of the TV, Philo T. Farnsworth, invented a device called the fusor that uses a charged grid to accelerate the nuclei to the needed velocity's. And they could decentralize power. They are small, roughly the size of a monitor or so, and are relativley inexpensize. I read an article about a 17 year old building one from scavenged parts. He only had to buy a few parts so he only spent maybe 200 bucks on it. And there have been cases where they have become self sufficient. Farnsworth himself documented a case where they unplugged the power and it kept running, as it was in "star" mode, where it forms a ball of plasma at the middle of the machine. You can check it out at Fusor.net

Whats the difference between fusion and cold fusion?

cold fusion takes place at 0 kelvin, which is about -473 celsius i believe, and is absolute zero.

Originally posted by lonemaverick
cold fusion takes place at 0 kelvin, which is about -473 celsius i believe, and is absolute zero.

0 K is -273.15°C, which is about -460°F.

It will be possible...

Charlie Murphy, U just got a way above vote. You are absolutely correct.

It is an arguement I use alot in the debate of the reality of UFOs. People say it is impossible by the laws of physics to cross the distances of the stars. I say to them, 100 years ago, the idea of email was absurd and ridiculous (Nikola Tesla was the first to suggest the idea of electronic communications). I personally believe that the laws of physics as we know them can be bent, have been bent, and just cuz were too slow to get with the toilet training program, doesnt mean a superior spiecies hasnt.

I say the same thing with cold fusion. Let the powers that be mock and laugh. In one hundred years when we are driving around at 200 miles an hour in cars that consume garbage for fuel, we shall have the last laugh.

If man can dream it, its possible. We dreamed of flight, we now crowd the skies. We can talk to people thousands of miles away in but a milisecond. We shall someday bend space and time and explore the galaxies. And we shall someday have all the energy we need without waste and destruction.

Human ingenuity knows no bounds.