Cold Fusion

[vindictive666]

hi all

just a post about Cold Fusion just interested in comments viable alternative yes no sort of thing ?

for power generation

[DobDobDob]

I assume you are not referring to the computer programming language :P

If you are, I left it and now use ASPX on the Dot Net platform.

[xelasnave]

Yes and No:D
or I dont really know:shrug:
Scotish Law provides 3 verdicts are available.. guilty, not guilty and unproven:lol: :lol: :lol:
In spite of my dreams of getting power direct from the Sun we must consider everything:eyepop: . We have nuclear power the secret is to imporve it I guess:) .
alex

[ispom]

during there is an international co-operation with the construction of an test power station in Southern France for the hot nuclear fusion,
one also should not neglect the cold fusion as an energy source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion)

I assume, this subject however is very secrecy.
2004 had invited the US energy Ministry 18 renowned scientists to a conference, in order to discuss this question. In the result the opinions of the participants were about the question „Is there compelling evidence for power CAN emergency attributed tons ordinary chemical or solvently states SOURCEs? “in equal parts splitted. By agreement however one suggested examining further
the characteristics of „deuterated metals “and the particles discharged by them; this under employment of more modern procedures and instruments.

There is a similar secrecy as at that time working about the Uranium nuclear fission.
I expect still large surprises on cold fusion…

[glenc]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Researchers at a US Navy laboratory have unveiled what they say is "significant" evidence of cold fusion, a potential energy source that has many skeptics in the scientific community.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090324/ts_alt_afp/usscienceenergynuclear

U.S. Navy Cold Fusion Research
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm

[Wavytone]

I'm fairly sure the hoopla stems from a very old mis-use of the term "fusion" that was in common use in tertiary chemistry texts from the 1920's to the 1960's, where "fusion" referred to the joining of two or more ATOMS to make a MOLECULE in a chemical reaction. The original perpetrators of this myth - Fleischman and Pons - are old enough to have been educated that way. In this respect "fusion" is constantly occurring at a frantic rate in a glass of water between OH- and H+ ions.

This is not "fusion" in the sense used in physics.

All the experiments conducted since have ben found to be flawed, mainly with respect to detecting background radiation in the lab and electronic thermal noise within the instruments.

High time this myth was buried, once and for all, along with "NASA faked the moon landings" and countless others.

[marki]

Perpetual motion comes to mind.

Fusion in the true sense of the word is not going to happen at room temp and atmospheric pressure. The extremes of a sun's core is needed. Cold fusion is a myth.

Mark