Talk:Cold fusion
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>
Contents |
[edit] Silver
Apart from intermittent bombing from text-producing bioweapons, what stops this from going silver? - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fits the criteria, however physics isn't my forte (it's not even my pianissimo) so I don't know if there's anything blatantly wrong, or missing. My main criticsm is that it needs a drop more goat, it's a bit dry. SophieWilder 12:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone feeling intrepid enough to write up the Wikipedia cold fusion wars? I thankfully maintained no interest in them whatsoever at the time - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, that's what's missing. Wikipedia wars are always fun. Afterwards. SophieWilder 12:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- One line and two reference links added. So who feels like sewer-diving? - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As a participant, I could do it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is anyone competent to evaluate the "non-woo" section to check that it is, in fact, non-woo? It's an interesting topic but my own background is in biology and not physics. Doctor Dark (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- wikipedia:Muon-catalyzed fusion looks real. The production of huge nuclei at temperatures less than that of the sun is real too, but only cold fusion proponents try to claim it as being in any way in the same category as their fantasies - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Be it woo or non woo idk, the F. Celani experiment should be added somewhere. There is also a documented project going on which is reproducing that experiment. These links will do a better job explaining what I'm refering to than anything I could type here.Documented replication project. Video of Celani presentation in august. 49.50.248.2 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- wikipedia:Muon-catalyzed fusion looks real. The production of huge nuclei at temperatures less than that of the sun is real too, but only cold fusion proponents try to claim it as being in any way in the same category as their fantasies - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is anyone competent to evaluate the "non-woo" section to check that it is, in fact, non-woo? It's an interesting topic but my own background is in biology and not physics. Doctor Dark (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As a participant, I could do it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- One line and two reference links added. So who feels like sewer-diving? - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, that's what's missing. Wikipedia wars are always fun. Afterwards. SophieWilder 12:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone feeling intrepid enough to write up the Wikipedia cold fusion wars? I thankfully maintained no interest in them whatsoever at the time - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Ongoing research at NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864
Quote:
Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted,” according to Dennis Bushnell, Langley’s chief scientist, in an article he wrote for NASA’s Future Innovation website. This, he wrote, indicates that “when the conditions are ‘right’ prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released.” But it’s also an argument for the approach that the Langley researchers favor: master the theory first.
Another quote:
So what’s the hitch? It’s creating the right oscillation. “It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,” Zawodny said. “Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency.”
But solving that problem can wait until the theory is better understood. “From my perspective, this is still a physics experiment,” Zawodny said. “I'm interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it's all about. Then the next step is to develop the rules for engineering. Once you have that, I'm going to let the engineers have all the fun.”
And he is sure that if the Widom-Larsen theory is shown to be correct, resources to support the necessary technological breakthroughs will come flooding in. “All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works,” Zawodny said. “As soon as you have that, everybody is going to throw their assets at it. And then I want to buy one of these things and put it in my house.”
--Henk (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- The US Navy cold fusion device in the photograph wasn't a total waste of money. It has great potential as a bong. — Unsigned, by: 94.26.107.82 / talk / contribs
There's a video too:
--Henk (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] I just discovered how to make my head hurt
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cold+fusion+site%3Avixra.org - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Anyone feel like incorporating feedback?
I mentioned it on LessWrong and asked for feedback. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an extended critique, which was nice of him to bother doing. Anyone want to go through? The article could do with expansion in most areas and some reordering - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Reason
Is there a logical or coherent reason that the fringe element comes up with as motivation for the vast amount of people to cover up '"cold" fusion? It still wouldn't mean free or abundant energy. If it exists as claimed, I think it comes from adding paranoia with ignorance of terminology and methods used to produce scientifically valid data, the amount of energy produced and the rate it is produced wouldn't be applicable to very much. Scientists and government workers would generally receive incredible benefits from it as much as anyone else. It's not as if we live a rich lifestyle or something to be at all motivated to take on the insane project that would be needed to cover it up. — Unsigned, by: 71.226.196.247 / talk 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)