Bubble Fusion Inquiry Under Wraps 231
hubie writes "Purdue University launched an investigation last March into the questionable research behavior and actions by Prof. Rusi Taleyarkhan following his controversial claims of achieving bubble fusion. The investigation has completed but the results are being kept secret. The alleged behavior is remeniscent of another tabletop fusion incident from a number of years back.
Coincidentally, Purdue University has just secured Federal money to open up a new energy center. A more cynical person than I might suggest that there is a connection between the two."
An overwhelming urge (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An overwhelming urge (Score:2, Insightful)
Try to remember that fusion has always been said to be 10-20 years in the future, since the 1950s, for commercial use, and that cold fusion
Re:An overwhelming urge (Score:4, Funny)
Re:An overwhelming urge (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd either discredit it (as conspiracy theorists believe), or they'd grab all the patents on it and jettison it.
Sheesh. Exactly how are they supposed to "discredit" something that would (presumably) be demonstratable? How much were they able to stop people from trying the experiments when Pons and Fleischman announced their results?
Second, even if they could "grab" all the patents on it, what moron in charge of an oil company would just jettison something that would make them 100 times what they ea
Re:An overwhelming urge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An overwhelming urge (Score:3, Funny)
Re:An overwhelming urge (Score:2, Informative)
Are you talking about the EV1?
Do a little fucking research and you'll find out exactly what killed that.
One hint: It's exactly what everyone is still focusing on.
The batteries sucked ass. They were such high voltage the company was deathly afraid to let anyone near them, and to keep the weight down so it got what was still an absurdly low range of at most 150 miles (Most people didn't get that much, and that's the second version of the car, the first got 2/3rds that.), the recharger had to be installed
Re:An overwhelming urge (Score:2)
I think you'll get a better return if you invest in bubble tea.
I've noticed... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I've noticed... (Score:2)
Re:I've noticed... (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, but can you not also pop bubblegum?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does helium lower the pitch of your voice?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it raises it! It raises it!
VILLAGER #1:
Inhale the gas from the bubbles!
CROWD:
Inhale it! Inhale the gas from the bubbles!
BEDEVERE:
What also raises the pitch of one's voice?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A kick to the groin!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... the bubbles... hurt... the same as a kick to the groin,... they are made of helium.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
Fusion!
VILLAGER #1:
Fusion!
CROWD:
Fusion! Fusion!...
I reproduced their results (Score:4, Funny)
there is an audible release of energy.
Third independent result (Score:2)
There is an audible release of energy here too. It's now scientifically proven.
But no Texans will own it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was even remotely connected to the group that finally provides indesputable proof of cold fusion, I'd hide and keep running. The powers that be do not play by any rules, and anything or anyone who threatens their power are fair game. No doubt in my military mind about that.
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
Do you honestly think there is some conspiracy to squash alternative energy? Perhaps it hasn't replaced fossil fuels because:
A)Solar and wind don't provide enough power.
B)Hydrogen takes more energy to make than it produces.
C)Nuclear is dangerous, and has far more dangerous (though more manageable) pollution.
D)Hydro electric won't provide enough power.
E)Hot fusion isn't yet practical.
F)At this time, cold fusion hasn't been proven to be possible.
Rememb
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
Solar panels on house roofs would provide far more power than needed by the house (200m^2*200watts perM^2 at full power * 0.2 % average solar power (including day/night/cloudy etc) = 8 Kw....) , even at todays shitty efficiency rates, and I have no idea why you would say theres not enough energy in wind.
As to cost, solar is a tad expensive at the moment, though sliver cells might help with this, but wind is less than $1 per watt.... How muc
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
ie the cost of energy to produce a solar cell...
if it costs more in terms of energy to produce the cell than will ever be produced by the cell, there is no point. Maybe things have gotten better but that was were solar was a few years ago
your understanding of currency is stunningly idiotic. the dollar is universal irregardless of oil.
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
You mentioned this twice in your post -- It's not very clear what you mean. Watt is a measure of power (Power [in watts] = Voltage x Current [volt-ampers] -or- p=ie) Energy, on the other hand, is generally thought about in terms of how much power is used over time (er, watts per hour)
To clarify: Energy is Power distributed over time and Power is the rate at which energy is expended.
I'm going to guess that you mean to say that you can buy a wind-generator at a cost <$1
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to make a wild guess and state that, in all likelihood, nuclear power has killed or seriously or otherwise harmed far less people than fossil fuel per megawatt produced, even if you count the direct and indirect victims of nuclear weapons and weapon tests against nuclear power.
In terms of pollution, the very thought of comparing constant smog in every major city against a few tons of solid or liquid nuclear waste, buried beneath bedrock for the next few thousands of years at least, is ridiculous.
Uranium is dangerous. Breathing oil fumes is dangerous. Coal dust is not healthy either. Which is easiest to contain and handle, a solid metal, a highly flammable liquid, or a highly flammable powder ?
I'm really starting to hate the various enviromental groups that want to keep me from sucking up carsinogens and other poisons from coal- and oil-burning power plants, when there's a nearly completely clean alternative. All this because of the Chernobyl accident (the worst accident in the history of nuclear power (the kind of which is impossible with modern reactor designs) killed a whopping 47 people and is estimated to kill 4000 from increased cancer rates [wikipedia.org] - compare this to the 100 000 who are estimated to die in Europe from power plant micro-particle emissions alone (sorry, don't have reference for that)), the apparent inability to understand the difference between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb, and the strange believe that "God created the atoms and they weren't meant to be broken" (which is clearly nonsense since they uranium is a radiactive material and decays on its own without any human intervention - and yes, this is an argument that I've actually heard being used seriously).
Or, to be more exact: I support enviromentalism as in "Let's make sure we don't have to start wearing gas masks when we go out and can see plants and animals besides museums and zoos". The "enviromentalists" who are against nuclear power (and windmils, since they are "unnatural" and "spoil the view") are the biggest obstacle for meeting that goal, since it is not only illogical to simultaneously demand lessening pollution and demand that non-polluting power plants aren't built, and because such illogical demands make all enviromentalists seem like a bunch of hysterical idiots without capacity for clear thought.
Oh, and we need nuclear rockets to make cheap space travel a reality. Chemical rockets can't do that, the amount of impulse needed to reach orbit makes that certain.
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:5, Informative)
Since I stated that the waste is buried beneath the bedrock, I think it's safe to assume that I understand that it's stored underground ;).
The shielding is a few hundred meters of rock, so it will take a while to decay. And there is plenty of stable rock around the world - don't put the darn thing near a geologically active area. Finally, while bad things can happen with nuclear power, bad things are happening with coal and oil constantly, killing at the very least thousands of people each year - that's just from emissions, not from accidents.
Besides, even if some catastrophe tore open the burial place, we are still talking about heavy solid or liquid substances on the bottom of a hundred-meter chasm. They aren't going to fly out of there on their own, so you can simply reseal the chasm. Naturally you don't want to place a nuclear dumping ground underneath a habitated area, but neither do you want to place any other kind of dumping ground or power plant there.
A hundred meters of solid granite is surprisingly good at keeping water from getting to the surface. Especially if you make the walls of the burial chamber from rustproof steel or some other suitable matter.
Well, since a nuclear-powered rocket has enough raw power to make a powered landing, as opposed to dropping from the orbit like a meteor, and doesn't need to save weight everywhere it can, meaning that it can be built with lots of safety margins everywhere, I'd say that if the shuttle was nuclear-powered, Colombia would have landed safely and been carted to receive repairs - assuming it had been damaged in the first place, since, like I said, a nuclear-powered rocket could have a lot stronger structure - while the crew went to their homes.
Instead, Colombia was chemically-powered, and operating with almost no safety margin, so it blew up as soon as something went wrong, killing everyone onboard and spewing dangerous chemicals over the whole area.
Hmm... A few tens of kilograms of radiactive material, spread over millions of square kilometers. Not healthy, of course, but hardly something to get worried about either. And propably a lot less radiactivity than is released as a byproduct of mining each year, or created in the upper atmosphere by solar radiation, or simply background radiation.
Radiactivity is a natural occurence. Your body also has natural defenses against it. It is only when there's sufficient concentration to overwhelm those defenses when it becomes dangerous. It is good to take precautions if you have a reason to, for example if you are working in a nuclear power plant or using an x-ray machine in a continuous basis; but thinking that a single nuclear reactor is going to cause a significant amount of damage to either the US or the whole world is simply ludicrous.
Or you could simply use some of that increased weight envelope of a nuclear-powered spaceship to put a proper steel casing around the radiactive materials of the engine, keeping them from spreading anywhere. Colombia was broken, not powdered, in the accident.
And finally, you could simply locate the launch site farther from the densely populated areas. Si
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
Even then we are better off than with coal plants, which are spewing radiation into the air we breathe. You will absorb more radiation living next door to a coal plant than a nuclear plant. From a paper [ornl.gov] at the Oak Ridge National Labora
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? I think I'd publish EVERY LAST BIT of info I had, as far and wide as possible, making it utterly useless to harm anyone over it. Patents, for one, and immediately and fully accessible to the public.
But I guess I flunked my tin-foil hat class.
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
Not to mention your "Greed uber alles" seminar.
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
You just saw _Syriana_ too huh?
Scary. Very very scary.
Old conspiracy theory (Score:2)
Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
As far as I know, there has never been any evidence of "the powers that be" shutting down research on cold fusion.
2. Addresses an event or pro
Re:But no Texans will own it! (Score:2)
Conclusion? (Score:2, Funny)
My roomate works in that lab (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:2)
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:2)
You can't bias physics. Obviously the experiment is not completely understood or there wouldn't be such trouble with repeatability. They are producing a reaction. It's hard, not fake.
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:2)
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:2)
The first guys trying to build planes failed because their materials were too heavy, or too weak, or their designs did not create consistent lift. That doesn't mean that flight is impossible or that their broken limbs were subjective.
OTOH, guys making perpetual motion machines are subjective and/or frauds. Sounds like this guy's in this category.
OTOH, some kind of tabletop fu
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:2)
onelook.com will cure what ails ya (Score:2)
I don't think the word works here. The result, ("does the experiment work" or "does the experiment not work") is a fact, therefore not subjective.
But the results are not subjective, as they are not open to interpretation!
I would probably call the experiment touchy or finnicky rather than subjective.
Re:onelook.com will cure what ails ya (Score:2)
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:5, Interesting)
No. While it may be clear to people on the team that it "worked," it is not clear to anyone else that it "worked," ever, using the team's own data.
In fact, the team's own data is not consistent with the results they claim to have taken place. This is not merely a case of unreproducability.
Others attempts to duplicate the results with more sensitive equipment suggests that what is happening is "hopeful misinterpretation" of random events measured at the margin of error. Once one starts down this path and feels professionally commited it really isn't all that hard, for anybody, to go from "hopeful missinterpretation" into "panicked delusion," or, for some, dare I even say it, minor boughts of fraud.
In other words, it seems they've built themselves a very expensive N-ray detector.
i.e., the results are subjective. Only people who can see them can see them; and even they now express some puzzlement over what they believe they see, because they don't see what they think they're seeing.
See?
KFG
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:2)
Ouch.
Bonus points for the historical awareness.
Re:My roomate works in that lab (Score:5, Informative)
Stock market (Score:4, Funny)
If the startups merge and shed employees and energy, is that bubble fusion bubble fusion?
Sorry.
Re:Stock market (Score:4, Funny)
(Or two rival fusion researchers going bust: double bubble trouble)
Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Karl Popper argues that a scientific idea can never be proven true, because no matter how many observations seem to agree with it, it may still be wrong. On the other hand, a single contrary experiment can prove a theory forever false. Therefore, science advances only by demonstrating that theories are false, so that they must be replaced by better ones. The proponents of Cold Fusion took exactly the opposite view: many experiments, including their own, failed to yield the expected results. These were irrelevant, they argued, incompetently done, or lacking some crucial (perhaps unknown) ingredient needed to make the thing work. Instead, all positive results, the appearance of excess heat, or a few neutrons, proved the phenomenon was real. This anti-Popperian flavor of Cold Fusion played no small role in its downfall, since seasoned experimentalists like Lewis and Barnes refused to believe what they couldn't reproduce in their own laboratories. To them, negative results still mattered.
End quote.
This seems a grand failure of basic logic. Getting negative results does not mean that something (in this case, cold fusion) can not actually happen.
For instance, I make an announcement that I have tied a piece of string to an object, threw the object in the air, and it stayed up floating for over an hour. Seems impossible, but heaps of people try to replicate it. Some try tying string to a wooden table, and throwing it in the air. It comes down after a couple of seconds. Other try other objects with similar failures. However, someone tried attaching string to a sheet of paper, and it floated for over 20 seconds before coming down. A partial success perhaps? But most people look at the equations of gravity and acceleration, and say that nothing will stay up for more than a few seconds, depending on how high you throw it. The original announcement is written off as a joke.
A few years later, it is well known that if you shape paper over a frame of rigid sticks in a diamond shape, add a tail, and have an air flow of at least so many metres per second, the object will fly so long as the wind keeps blowing. It is now called a kite. So do the initial negative results mean that the positive result is false, even though there was currently no known theory??
I respect several people who work in my field of science and they are not idiots. I assume the same applies to other scientific fields. So when several top-class individuals (eg. McKubre, director at SRI) say after a period of time they have achieved worthy cold fusion experimental results, I assume they are not incompentent or idiotic, and have actually achived something worthwhile. Perhaps one could be wrong, but the if all of them are wrong, then we are talking mass hallucinations of a lot of previously highly respected and compentent (in their field) people.
Or I could believe the other side, who seem to all have multi-trillion dollar interests in keeping cold fusion passive for as long as possible (energy companies and high energy physicists eg. CERN).
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
This seems a grand failure of basic logic. Getting negative results does not mean that something (in this case, cold fusion) can not actually happen.
Quite the contrary... it would seem to my uneducated mind that if it works sometimes, but not reliably that this, in a very Popperian way, disproves the theory that cold fusion is a myth.
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:3, Informative)
Excuse me sir, but I must protest. I am a high energy physicist currently working at Fermilab (CDF). High energy physics today has nothing to do with fusion, except in that it might occasionally occur as a side effect of our collisions. Ah wait, there is one other regard in which we would be concerned with fusion, and it is the same as for everyone else: cheap, clean power. The electric bill here is in excess of 1 million USD a month. If cheap fusion power were available
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Actually, the fact that they are still alive proves they did not achieve it.
Cold fusion requires that virtually all of nuclear physics be wrong, and that virtually all of solid state physics be wrong.
This is why: cold fusion (DD) will either produce neutrons, gamma rays, or very fast moving 4He nuclei, although the latter requires magic to occur. To
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
OK, so I am willing to accept that the equipment is finicky and the process only works 0.1% of the time, even in the hands of the original researcher. That puts the burden on that original researcher to be very explicit in explaining how to do it (if he wants other people to replicate the results so he can be famous) or to be very close-mouthed (if *doesn't* want replicatio
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:4, Insightful)
That people failed to replicate your initial 'experiment' stems from sloppy description of the initial 'experiment'. The actual failure of logic is yours - because you shift frames of reference in mid-tale. In this case the flight of the kite is a false positive in the context of 'something floating' - because a kite does not float. (In any scientific usage of the word 'float'.)
'Mass hallucination' (as you so charmingly put it) is hardly unknown in science. Nor are false positives.
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Arguing semantics aside, replace 'kite' with 'balloon' and his analogy is true, AND meets your pedantic requirement of the definition of "float".
You are still correct that the problem of reproducibility stems from a poor description of the experiment, but playing devil's advocate for a moment, who's to say this is not what's plaguing
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Most proponents weren't -- and aren't -- quite that extreme. They argue that excess heat, neutrons, helium, etc prove that some phenomenon not explainable by conventional nuclear phy
two word (Score:3, Informative)
Fankly who modded that insightful ? It ain't even a good thougth experiment since the protocol would have inside "incredible when I add a piece of paper in such and such form now the piece of wood float in the air for a few second. And if in addition there is such and such wind condition it can stays in air for hours !" that is what experimental protocol are for : to enable other to reproduce under the same condition the experiment.
There are good reason to not ignore negative res
Re:two word (Score:2)
I used to work in "physics beyond the standard model", which is a cornucopia of negative results, and after a while got to telling people who measured non-zero phenomena, "Hey, don't worry--a postiive result is just as important as a negative result." The joke being that all of us who measured zero year after year got tired of being reassured that a negative result is j
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Your extremely poor (in science it would be considered dishonest, unprofessional and possibly fraudulent) experimental description aside, this is a standard line trotted out by defenders of irreproducible phenomena, and it actually has some merit.
I was involved in the 17 keV neutrino mess, wherein there was evidence from a couple of different experiments that t
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Not at all! But they do mean that the initial explanation of events lacked sufficient explanatory power and so were discarded in favor of theories that did not. Later on you get a better understanding (e.g. one that includes wind), and you can explain the results you got. You see now that you have a very specific set of data ("If you tie this paper-and-stick apparatus, weighing no m
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:2)
Re:Cold fusion failure of logic (Score:3, Interesting)
This is particularly true when an experimenter with much experience in one field reports observations in another field. The methods/materials section of a paper is going to leave out that which the author a
Not spectacular (Score:4, Informative)
From last semester's Intro to Nuclear and Particle Physics textbook, The Physics of Nuclei and Particles by Richard A. Dunlap, 2004: According to a plot in the book, magnetic confinement projects (tokamaks, stellerators, etc) have just barely entered the thermalized breakeven region. It is not clear from another plot where inertial confinement projects stand, except to say that they are still quite far from the ignition region.
Anyway, all that to say that even if the Purdue claims are correct, it isn't anything to get too excited about, merely yet another technique for producing extremely endothermic fusion.
Re:Not spectacular (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it is not necessary to have a self-sustaining reaction to have a viable fusion based power source. High power amplification (Q) of 50 or even 1000 would be suitable. In fact, from what I've recently read on ITER and plans for future machines they would actually prefer a finite Q since it introduces another method of control into the system. The actual Q required will depend on the plant efficiency.
You
Re:Not spectacular (Score:2)
Ah. Good point. Thank you for the correction, sir.
To add to that (Score:2)
It is crucial to achieve a controlled and/or contained self-sustaining reaction. If they ever get a self-sustaining reaction then it's also important that it be kept within tolerable limits. I've always wondered what would happen if some private individual manages to start a tappable fusion reaction, but isn't able to control it. You might think this unrealistic but I do remember reading a true story where a kid was
Re:Not spectacular (Score:2)
Not exactly. In fact thermonuclear ignition will occur in the laboratory in ~3-4 years in an inertial confinement device. That's why they call it the National Ignition Facility [llnl.gov]. all scaled implosions and 3d simulations are pointing to fusion burn and HIGH GAIN from the NIF once its complete in a few years.
What is it with this "Fusion"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that the only reproducable, controlled, fusion reactions mankind has managed to generate in a reproducable manner consume much more power than they generate, and are many, many years before becoming a source of power.
Regarding fusion by-products, the fact is that most fusion reactions produce deadly forms of radiation, weather "cold" or "hot", and the fuels required for a-neutronic reactions are not in infinite supply.
Granted that the idea of "Mr. Fusion" powering our automobiles on flat beer with helium, water vapour, and heat as it's only waste is captivating. Having a near infinite supply of energy would solve many of our and the world's problems (and I'm sure cause many of it's own as well).
We should not lose sight that there are real, proven sources of energy that are renewable, cleaner and longer term than fossil fuels, that also require our investment of research, money, time, and education. Although they are not a "Magic Bullet" like Cold or Bubble fusion, they are the reality we should be focused on.
Re:What is it with this "Fusion"? (Score:5, Informative)
Which fusion byproducts were you thinking of? Helium? Not particularly deadly or radioactive. Shielding from the radiation produced during the fusion reaction itself is trivial, and as I said, you don't really get much in the way of dangerous byproducts. d+t fusion gives Helium-4 (perfectly safe), and d+d fusion either gives Helium-3 (again, safe), or tritium. The tritium is radioactive, true. Most of it will likely be consumed in d+t reactions, and whatever is left over (if any) is enormously less problematic that fission byproducts. The halflife is ~12 years, compared to halflives in the thousands or millions of years for fission byproducts. Aneutronic fusion is not necessary. Desirable, perhaps. The aneutronic reactions produce significantly less energy than d+t, but on the other hand, it is much easier to capture and use. But certainly not necessary. And the fuels for neutronic reactions are available in enormously abundant supply. FUD.
Yes. Yes you would think that. For a very good reason. It is very nearly true. The danger is nearly zero (in an accident, the machinery necessary to sustain the plasma would be destroyed very quickly, and the remaining plasma would not last long enough to do nearly any damage at all.), the pollution is nearly zero (see what I said about byproducts and radiation shielding above), and the fuel is nearly inexhaustible (The sun is likely to go nova (thus ending the possiblity of, say, solar power...) before we use up the fusion fuel available in our oceans).
Re:What is it with this "Fusion"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is it with this "Fusion"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is this: alternative sources of energy are hard. As in really tough problems. They require a lot of effort, and investment of time, energy, and materials to solve. Almost all alternative sources of energy are like this. Large-scale geothermal power extraction (from areas not located on geologically active zones) is hard. Tidal power: hard. High-efficiency solar power: very hard. Fusion is likewise hard.
The other problem is that only a few of these sources could, by themselves, satisfy our demands for energy.
Given that as a civilization we have a basically limited amount of resources at any given time to commit to researching new energy sources, it's understandable that we tend to focus our attentions on the few sources that seem like viable wholesale replacements for our steadily depleting fossil fuels.
To put it bluntly, until it becomes clear that fusion simply won't work, it's going to receive most of the attention, because the possible payoff there is much higher than in any other avenue of research. Most alternative sources only make sense as aspects of a larger plan, consisting of a mix of sources. While this diversity is probably wise in the long run, it also represents a huge investment of time and effort into each source. And as the fossil fuels run out and energy becomes more expensive, the research becomes more difficult and our options more constrained. There is a risk, I think, of spreading ourselves too thin and not having a viable replacement for petroleum when its time is up.
It is a mistake to view fusion (or any other single source) as a 'magic bullet.' However, it makes a certain amount of sense to want to secure a source of energy that can replace fossil fuels first, and then research other alternatives in order to diversify our societal energy portfolio afterwards. To do otherwise might risk us not finding a replacement for our energy needs before the fossil fuels run out, which would be a disaster of unthinkable proportions.
Re:What is it with this "Fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:What is it with this "Fusion"? (Score:2)
ZPE as a power source is fiction, unless quantum field theory is quite wrong. A quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator, in its ground state (lowest energy that it can reach) still retains some energy. Field theory supposes a harmonic oscillator at every point in space (now, I'm getting a bit out of my league here. I haven't studied field theory, but I have studied vanilla QM). So, every point in space, even in the purest vacuum, retains some ene
They forgot to mention the secret component... (Score:2)
On a more serious note, this is more about psychology than physics. The ability of man to fool himself is unmatched.
remeniscent (Score:2)
If you can't spell, and even if you can, use spellcheck when submitting something to be read by upwards of a million people. Don't expect the editors to fix it.
resembles abiotic methane scam (Score:2)
One going on for twenty years was the claim by the recently deceased Cornell professor Thomas Gold (and some Soviet Union geologists) that oil or natural gas comes from primordial methane deep in the earth from original earth accretion rather from buried plant decay like most convential geologists believe. That would predict
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:5, Informative)
Fusion reactions take place in the vat because clusters of bubbles form and then violently collapse, explains nuclear engineer and team leader Rusi P. Taleyarkhan of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. A neutron or another energetic particle triggers a bubble to form in a low-pressure trough of the ultrasound waves, he says. Then, high pressure from the wave crushes the orb to an enormous density and temperature that fuse some atomic nuclei of the bubble's gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:5, Funny)
Well.. I had a vat of this matter, and I was thinking... I should bombard that bastard with ultrasonic waves.
And that was cool, we all laughed and then Dobie thought it would really put a party in that vat if we fired some neutrons through it.
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Actually, sonoluminescence was discovered [llnl.gov] in 1934. I believe the most recent batch of research may have been inspired by the observation that snapping shrimp [sciencenews.org] seem to be able to acheive it, and trying to understand what process could release a photon via such a relatively low power system. It seems that if it's not some form of fusion, then an entirely new set of physics, or at least chemistry, needs to be invented.
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
- sgage
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Did you do in the late 19th century it was legal for husbands to beat their wives as long as they used a stick no wider than their thumb!
"Can't do much damage with that now can we? Maybe it should have been a rule of wrist"
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Did you do in the late 19th century it was legal for husbands to beat their wives as long as they used a stick no wider than their thumb!
This is factually incorrect, derived from a series of misunderstandings; the phrase has nothing to do with wife-beating. Now you know. Please join the crusade against silly urban legends!
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html [straightdope.com]
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously it's not Cold Fusion, but beggars cannot be choosers
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Funny)
Usually, this only happens if the speaker is delivering a particularly boring lecture. The result is immediate releif for the audience.
Download the BBC Documentary (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd recommend getting ahold of the BBC documentary on this topic and this particular researcher: "An Experiment to Save the World" [bbc.co.uk]. The documentary does a reasonable job of explaining the concept. It's also pretty clear from watching this episode that this particular scientist knows deep down inside that he's a fraud but his conscious mind isn't allowing him to accept the reality that his career is over. He keeps saying stuff like "A have to believe the data" even though the show does a good job of explaining that his data is inconclusive and that the technology that would generate conclusive proof exists. The BBC ends up hiring a rival researcher to use the superior lab equipment to try to confirm bubble fusion. No dice. Of course, the original researcher then claims that he they weren't doing the experiment correctly, but refuses to help them redo the experiment with his special modifications.
Good documentary. It made me want to reach into the TV and strangle that asshole for wasting everyone's time. I hope he gets what's coming to him.
GMD
Re:Download the BBC Documentary (Score:2)
This is typical of these cases. There is a good book on hafnium isomer explosives, "Imaginary Weapons" [amazon.com], that goes into detail on the same pathology in another field.
Re:Download the BBC Documentary (Score:2)
Obviously, this guy is in the process of being "disappeared" in the modern
Re:What the hell is "bubble fusion"? (Score:2)
Re:Than I? (Score:2)
Re:in space? (Score:2)
Oh, and how do you plan on transporting the energy back to earth? Lithium ion batteries so huge, when they spontaneously combust, they destroy the earth? I heard GM is building some for the ecoHummer, so they shouldn't be too hard to get.