too-open-minded Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How does it work? From what i understand it still uses the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I can see how it being colder would reduce the half-life and how the "energy" will not dissipate as fast because the molecules are closer together. But wouldn't it take more energy to produce enough cold air sinking to turn a turbine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How does it work? It doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 It doesn't. That depends on what you mean by "how does it work?" You looked at it from the perspective of those silly laws of physics. If you look at it from the perspective that there are lots of very rich people out there who love to invest in crazy schemes and who think that laws (apparently including the laws of physics) were made for little people, well, there's another business motto that applies to such people: A fool and his money are soon parted. Cold fusion has worked quite nicely as a scheme for some to get rich off of those rich but technically naive people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 Ok just because all of our energies are powered by harnessing kinetic energy doesn't mean we will never harness potential energy. When cellphones were being researched by colleges and the government, people said it was a waste of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Ok just because all of our energies are powered by harnessing kinetic energy doesn't mean we will never harness potential energy. When cellphones were being researched by colleges and the government, people said it was a waste of money It's not a technological problem; it's physically impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 It took the world 40 years to catch up to Einsteins math. Physics was rewritten. He won the nobel prize for one of his more simple theories. The future will never be grabbed if we cant see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Why don't you get an education in physics, and then tell us what you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 If you told somone 500 years ago their would be planes weighing it at tons that would fly through the air faster than sound can travel. What would they have said to you? Im starting college in the fall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It took the world 40 years to catch up to Einsteins math. Physics was rewritten. He won the nobel prize for one of his more simple theories. The future will never be grabbed if we cant see it Ah, yes, energy is not conserved. How could we not see this before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 lol you don't have to be a dick bro. I'm not saying all of the physicists who slaved away for proof of laws were wrong, at all. All I'm saying is people are subject to be wrong whether its their whole equation or a small part. Einstein made newtons gravity better, but was newton wrong? That is for you to decide, I say no. My point is that we need to keep an open mind and never close a door without looking inside the room, very thoroughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 If you told somone 500 years ago their would be planes weighing it at tons that would fly through the air faster than sound can travel. What would they have said to you? Im starting college in the fall Liberal arts I assume? Never mind, make sure you take Physics 101, and then get back to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Well, let's not all be too harsh. Some scientists have seen merit in it. Schwinger, perhaps one of the most prominent scientists of all time wrote eight papers on the subjects. There is of course no reason to think it is not possible. To date, it has drawn a lot of attention, on and off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) How do you propose bypassing the Coloumb Barrier at low temperatures? Edited June 24, 2012 by ydoaPs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) How do you propose bypassing the Coloumb Barrier at low temperatures? Who me? Such as would be found in the proton cycle in stars, such a barrier is penetrated by tunneling effects allowing the process to occur at much lower temperatures. So not all cases actually require extremely high thermodynamical transition phases. Edited June 24, 2012 by Aethelwulf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Who me? Protons are positively charged and the nuclear force is limited in range. This means that the closer protons get, the harder they repel, until they reach the point where the nuclear force kicks in and become bound. The potential right before the barrier is HUGE. How do you bypass it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Protons are positively charged and the nuclear force is limited in range. This means that the closer protons get, the harder they repel, until they reach the point where the nuclear force kicks in and become bound. The potential right before the barrier is HUGE. How do you bypass it? Well, I gave a demonstration that it can actually occur at lower temperatures using a tunneling processes. Certain stars work this way. For a more conventional answer, I don't have one, but we should keep our minds open for we do not know all the processes behind nature. Remarkable breakthroughs of similar nature by unlocking the secrets of the fundamental universe have been made in such ways. I'm a bit rusty on Schwingers work now, but he did work on latices for cold fusion http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 Well now that I have researched cold fusion and have talked to some knowledgeable people, I have a better understanding of how it would theoretically work. From what I understand, and please let me know If I'm wrong by correcting me instead of just saying I'm wrong. From what I understand, the term cold is used only to emphasize that we want to cause fusion without reaching the temperature of the sun? That in theory we would be harnessing potential energy instead of turning it into kinetic to harness it? If so I don't see it impossible, only far away. If it is simply far away, which some people in the navy seem to think so; then where are our first steps to achieving this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Well, I gave a demonstration that it can actually occur at lower temperatures using a tunneling processes. Certain stars work this way. For a more conventional answer, I don't have one, but we should keep our minds open for we do not know all the processes behind nature. Remarkable breakthroughs of similar nature by unlocking the secrets of the fundamental universe have been made in such ways. I'm a bit rusty on Schwingers work now, but he did work on latices for cold fusion http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html I think that calling the centre of a star "low temperature" is unrealistic. Certainly some tunnelling takes place in starts, and in theory two of the protons in my nose might fuse, but the rate of the reaction is, for all practical purposes, zero. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) I think that calling the centre of a star "low temperature" is unrealistic. Certainly some tunnelling takes place in starts, and in theory two of the protons in my nose might fuse, but the rate of the reaction is, for all practical purposes, zero. I said lower.... It was a feeble demonstration to show that the workings of physics may provide new ways into this science. Well now that I have researched cold fusion and have talked to some knowledgeable people, I have a better understanding of how it would theoretically work. From what I understand, and please let me know If I'm wrong by correcting me instead of just saying I'm wrong. From what I understand, the term cold is used only to emphasize that we want to cause fusion without reaching the temperature of the sun? That in theory we would be harnessing potential energy instead of turning it into kinetic to harness it? If so I don't see it impossible, only far away. If it is simply far away, which some people in the navy seem to think so; then where are our first steps to achieving this? Yes, it's something like that. If one can get over that obstacle, there would be no problem. Personally, I don't see it as ''being outside the realms of possibilities.'' Edited June 24, 2012 by Aethelwulf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 ! Moderator Note ACG52,Staff are beginning to get a little bit sick of your attitude with other members here. We have rules about being polite and treating others with respect and you'd do well to abide by them if you wish to continue posting here. too-open-minded, Calling someone a dick kind of falls under the same category. If you think someone has been insulting or is in violation of our forum rules, please feel free to report it using the button at the bottom left of each post. Additionally, if you have genuine questions about the physics (or lack there of) regarding cold fusion, then that is fine. That being said, you should recognize that just because someone doesn't agree with how you think things should work, doesn't mean that they are wrong. We have rules regarding soap-boxing and preaching, namely: Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. ! Moderator Note Essentially, if you've come here with no intention of actually holding an honest discussion, then you have come to the wrong place. If you have some viable reason to think that cold fusion is a possibility (i.e. if you have evidence to support it), then please bring it to the table. In the mean time, I'm moving this to Speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I think that calling the centre of a star "low temperature" is unrealistic. The temperature at the center of the Sun is about 15 million kelvin, and that is a low temperature -- for fusion. ITER, for example, is aiming for 150 million kelvin. Fusion occurs slowly in the Sun's core because of it's relatively low temperature. Per unit volume, the Sun's core produces about the same amount of energy as a warm compost pile. At Earthly temperatures, fusion just doesn't happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 The temperature at the center of the Sun is about 15 million kelvin, and that is a low temperature -- for fusion. ITER, for example, is aiming for 150 million kelvin. Fusion occurs slowly in the Sun's core because of it's relatively low temperature. Per unit volume, the Sun's core produces about the same amount of energy as a warm compost pile. At Earthly temperatures, fusion just doesn't happen. I know, it amazes people that the power output is so low. It's also just as well for us that it is so slow, or the sun would have burned out before we had time to evolve. However, when people talk about "low temperature fusion" they mean something other than what happens in stars. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 However, when people talk about "low temperature fusion" they mean something other than what happens in stars. Yep. They mean unicorn catalyzed fusion. There is one form of low temperature fusion that does exist, muon catalyzed fusion. However, muons are not the unicorns the cold fusion crowd is chasing. Muon catalyzed fusion is a net energy drain, not an energy source. That elusive unicorn is not platinum, either. There is no such thing as platinum catalyzed fusion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I believe the right sort of unicorns can only be caught in a trap baited with the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life. This won't stop people trying other methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aguirre Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Ah, yes, energy is not conserved. How could we not see this before? Maybe is out of question and nobody goes for it to observe. By the way energy conservation is a pure empirical law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now