Cold fusion - explain please

[Crispy]

I've got an innate suspicion of carbon capture. Pumping CO2 underground, under pressure just screams 'short term bodge' to me. What's to stop it coming back out again eh?

 

[samk]

Isn't there a less obtrusive and more efficient way of harnessing the power of the wind?

Kites

Can reach higher altitudes where the winds are stronger, and doesn't need the concrete tower.

 

[camouflage]

We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The
problem is, we don’t know how to make the box.

​

S´ebastien Balibar, Director of Research, CNRS

Brilliant.

 

[camouflage]

Ahhh the Polywell.

This part makes me sex-wee -



Somebody give that man $200 million.

There must be a way to have our cake and eat it too, and £200 mil is pocket money in these things, a bored billionaire of mediocre standing could afford it.

All the same, full energy diversification must be a good thing. The landscapes going to be astounding anyway, eventualy.

 

[camouflage]

Ahhh the Polywell.

This part makes me sex-wee -



Somebody give that man $200 million.

That would imply they're generating enough to be self-sufficient and export electricity into the national grid - i.e. they generate more than they need.



Solar furnace style generation - 300sqkm in North African desert could power Europe BUT it's not energy independence; we'd still be reliant on importing energy, so the politics wouldn't change (altho personally I think it would tie NA into the EU and so be a very different proposition from getting oil from the ME).

Then you've got issues concerning transmission (altho again there are ways around it - build ships that are basically giant rechargable batteries that lug leccy around same as the supertankers today, super conducting cabling etc)...still, I reckon solar furnace style stuff on a huge scale is a good way forward.

Fields of solar towers, shining in the desert. It's the future maaan.

 

[Jonti]

Just to give the base line on solar energy -- each square metre of the UK receives between 900 – 1200kwh each year.

 

[Jonti]

I've got an innate suspicion of carbon capture. Pumping CO2 underground, under pressure just screams 'short term bodge' to me. What's to stop it coming back out again eh?

Yeah, the answer likely lies in sensible soil management and agriculture, not in macho mega-engineering projects.

Stuff like Carbon Char.

 

[madzone]

The landscapes going to be astounding anyway, eventualy.

In what way?

 

[madzone]

just screams 'short term bodge' to me.

That's how I feel about turbines

 

[Jonti]

I watched that documentary with the cute scientist but have to admit I'm non the wiser about cold fusion and what it actually is. He seemed to be suggesitng that it was the solution to our energy needs. Is it? If so why are people still sticking fucking turbines up in really beautiful countryside?

Reports of the death of cold fusion research have, it seems, been exaggerated. There's still plenty going on. There's no theoretical reason to reject the possibility, and a number of possible pathways are still being explored.

A Students Guide to Cold Fusion (2003) and a free e-book, Cold Fusion and the Future (pdf), are available from the lenr-canr.org site.

 

[Sunray]

nuclear fusion is what the sun does. it's very very hard to do, it involves temperatures of millions of degrees, the way they're currently trying to do it.
Cold fusion was a technique some guys 20 years ago thought they had for doing it at 'room temperature' with desktop equipment. it turned out to be bollocks.

If any sort of nuclear fusion can be made to work with a sensible cost, then it is the end of our energy problems, you can run them on (processed) seawater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

While not at room temperature, have you seen this form of thinking, its not too hot either, liquid lithium is pretty cold 180C, my oven at home could do that.

http://home.fuse.net/clymer/snf/

Might be interesting if anyone wanted to pursue it.

 

[DotCommunist]

Brilliant.

Originally Posted by spacemonkey
We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The
problem is, we don’t know how to make the box.

S´ebastien Balibar, Director of Research, CNRS

just a perfect explanation ennit?

Pray to the god you don't believe in that we will bootstrap ourselves out of fossil fuel dependancy, else we'll just end up as a curio, a thesis for some alien archivist.

 

[kyser_soze]

Re- wind turbines and they're impact on the landscapr...this news in from UK circa 1200...

'...andd another thynge; mafter Smyth, the smithee, haft plac't upon his land a perfidiouf contraption, a hellysh yngyne from the dutchys, called a wyndmyll. With thif 'wyndmyll' he blots out my view of the land. Heav'n help us all if more smythys and artifans are tyken with this idea, for the land wyll be filled with the darkeft shadows caft by these 'wyndmylls'...'

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Well solar on the rooftop is ok if you're a energy conserving ecohippie - forget your big fridgefreezer and dishwasher and bread machine and fan heater and so on.

Not so, as long as the building has been designed well and you have the right conditions. I know someone who has just done a massive barn conversion on Anglesey, it's got all "mod cons", but has been designed to be as energy efficient as possible - wind turbine, solar panels, ground source heat pump, properly insulated, rainwater collected and used for toilets and washing machine etc etc. The owner reckons he's going to get a cheque from the national grid each year as he's generating more power than the house is using, and that includes heating the swimming pool

 

[sus]

Less petrol etc because you don't have to travel so far to work and the shops and so forth. More efficient use of services generally because everything's closer together. Public transport is much more viable and therefore is available and gets used. Terraced houses lose less heat. Stuff like that.

Have a read of this for example - http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3757

If you're farming or something like that, then it's a bit different of course.

I'd love to see any technology do what bio-mass can do for us. That would be a pretty impressive machine. If permaculture knowledge (woodland gardening specifically) was applied to the landscape-reforestation, especially in conjunction with biochar from sustainably coppiced wood and charred waste products we'd be sorted for food, fuel, massive carbon reduction and massive and exponentially growing - literally - carbon sequesteration .. historic and continuing deforestation are also a massive addition to atmospheric CO2, as is soil erosion. Reforestation,woodland garden style on a massive scale would also help retain water in the places we need it to be useful to us - in the water table, soil and biomass(food) We could literally grow our way out of the shit here imo, starting with the soil. In other words start to re-grow the ecology in a permaculture way where everything planted is either food(human or fodder), green fertilizers, medicinal, pest/ disease control etc etc . It's possible to double the yield of a normal agricultural method with a woodland garden type of horticulture. Increase the biomass including the soil and produce more food into the bargain whilst burying carbon by the tonne and thereby improving the growth potential of the soil itself. The technology is here already.

 

[Crispy]

Yeah, but it'd cost a fortune in labour
(this is not neccesarily a Bad Thing, but it's the reason why it's not an option for our current leaders)

 

[sus]

labour (and land) is indeed the key, but it needn't cost a fortune.. ..depends how it's done. The beauty of woodlnd gardening is that after 10-15 years of ever decreasing work the wood pretty much maintains itself, and 90% of the work is harvesting, if that is in fact work?? is putting your hand out to receive your wages "work"? ..the land itself could save our arses here, which would make sense . original deforestation was probably the beginning of this problem

 

[sus]

Yeah, but it'd cost a fortune in labour
(this is not neccesarily a Bad Thing, but it's the reason why it's not an option for our current leaders)

They don't seem to be coming up any answers.

if they fail to come up with or impliment possible solutions to ensure our survival, then it's like the captain of the ships had a stroke or something.

 

[sus]

I've got an innate suspicion of carbon capture. Pumping CO2 underground, under pressure just screams 'short term bodge' to me. What's to stop it coming back out again eh?

carbon capture with biomass?

 

[camouflage]

In what way?

In alot of ways.

Probably by the time there are canyons where London is there won't be human beings around to say "Woooow!" though.

 

[spacemonkey]

Not so, as long as the building has been designed well and you have the right conditions. I know someone who has just done a massive barn conversion on Anglesey, it's got all "mod cons", but has been designed to be as energy efficient as possible - wind turbine, solar panels, ground source heat pump, properly insulated, rainwater collected and used for toilets and washing machine etc etc. The owner reckons he's going to get a cheque from the national grid each year as he's generating more power than the house is using, and that includes heating the swimming pool

Ground source heat pumps, PV, wind turbines....great stuff, but all that tech costs ££££. I'm sure he'll get a cheque each year but his payback period is probably huge!

When people think of renewable energy they tend to focus just on domestic energy use. The energy produced by a large renewable project is always quoted in terms of domestic properties. X wind farm will produce enough energy to power 57,000 homes. Sounds impressive!! Except there are 25,000,000 in the UK.

We never seem to consider all the other huge energy consumers that make up our civilisation.

 

[Jonti]

They don't seem to be coming up any answers.

if they fail to come up with or impliment possible solutions to ensure our survival, then it's like the captain of the ships had a stroke or something.

And should therefore be buried

Yes, the problems are technically soluble. No, we don't have the political and economic systems and structures to deliver a solution.

Yet.

 

[spacemonkey]

I'd love to see any technology do what bio-mass can do for us. That would be a pretty impressive machine. If permaculture knowledge (woodland gardening specifically) was applied to the landscape-reforestation, especially in conjunction with biochar from sustainably coppiced wood and charred waste products we'd be sorted for food, fuel, massive carbon reduction and massive and exponentially growing - literally - carbon sequesteration .. historic and continuing deforestation are also a massive addition to atmospheric CO2, as is soil erosion. Reforestation,woodland garden style on a massive scale would also help retain water in the places we need it to be useful to us - in the water table, soil and biomass(food) We could literally grow our way out of the shit here imo, starting with the soil. In other words start to re-grow the ecology in a permaculture way where everything planted is either food(human or fodder), green fertilizers, medicinal, pest/ disease control etc etc . It's possible to double the yield of a normal agricultural method with a woodland garden type of horticulture. Increase the biomass including the soil and produce more food into the bargain whilst burying carbon by the tonne and thereby improving the growth potential of the soil itself. The technology is here already.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

(only if you start using paragraphs)

 

[sus]

And should therefore be buried

Yes, the problems are technically soluble. No, we don't have the political and economic systems and structures to deliver a solution.

Yet.

well carbonising bodies would be better than just burning them off for sure.. the ultimate act of public service

depends how seriously the problem is taken. no-ones saying there's not gonna hve to be some BIG changes, tht doesn't have to mean a breakdown of society though. It would be possible to have a good handle on carbon cycling through biomass and the curve moving fast in the right direction within 10 years. Bi-products: Food, fuel, oxygen, building materials, somewhere to put a hammock etc etc . People could sort this... given the land

 

[spacemonkey]

Scientists have detected highly energetic neutrons from a LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction)

Steven Krivit, editor of the New Energy Times, said the study was "big" and could open a new scientific field.
The neutrons produced in the experiments "may not be caused by fusion but perhaps some new, unknown nuclear process,"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2QobOQnlULUZ7oalSRUVjnlHjng

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Scientists have detected highly energetic neutrons from a LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction)



http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2QobOQnlULUZ7oalSRUVjnlHjng

Chemists. A Physicist says "the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons".

I'll wager a fiver and pack of hobnobs that nothing comes of this.

 

[spacemonkey]

Chemists. A Physicist says "the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons".

I'll wager a fiver and pack of hobnobs that nothing comes of this.

I'll wager that the research results in a clean, limitless supply of sustainable energy within five years.

 

[Jonti]

An Interdisciplinary Science

Chemistry is, of course, a quantum science. Here's something about cold fusion theory.

The biggest obstacle thwarting the development of cold fusion as a clean energy for the future is THEORY, not EXPERIMENTS. It is a hesitation of the engineering and science communities to recognize that the quantum physics of metals can be applied to the reaction physics of nuclear science. The nuclear engineering and science communities know that cold neutrons can flow into selected uranium nuclei, energizing the nucleus in a manner that releases some 230 MeV of nuclear energy. But they see no way by which a positively charged deuteron can enter a nucleus at room or boiling water temperature. This is a problem since for cold fusion to occur, two deuterons must join each other to create a helium nucleus and release heat. Ironically, the theory disconnect is mainly due to the same specialization that has led to the rapid technology advance that has made present day society possible.

The technology that explains cold fusion is multiply interdisciplinary. Cold fusion seems most easily explained using the languages of chemistry and metal physics, but it also requires inputs from nuclear physics and other specialties. Chemistry builds on atom and molecular physics, while the physics of metals is part of material science and has a parallel in the astrophysics of white dwarf stars. All of these are part of quantum science and subject to its disputed interpretations and its mathematical languages.

 

[Jonti]

Cold Fusion: The Ghost of Free Energy

Ground Report have a great article just out ...

For the last few years [Richard Oriani] and other researchers have been experimenting with a transparent plastic known as CR-39, which can record the passage of charged particles as tiny pits in its surface. High-energy charged particles are strong evidence of a nuclear reaction. Oriani finds when he places CR-39 beside active cells it records a stippled pattern of pits, whereas in control cells it records next to nothing. He knows that the pits cannot come from any radioactive contamination because the undersides are pitted too, which means the particles must have been of particularly high energy. He knows that they cannot come from the atmosphere because those kind tend to produce tracks in the shape of rosettes. Indeed, Oriani has tried everything to explain away his results but can only conclude that the particles originate from some kind of nuclear reaction within the cells.

In 2006 a group led by Stainslaw Szpak of the US Naval Control, Command and Ocean Surveillance Center in San Diego [pioneered] a technique that creates electrodes on the spot. They deposit palladium and deuterium simultaneously on a wire and find that the resultant cauliflower-looking mass is able to generate excess heat and pits on CR-39 detectors again and again, on demand. After reportedly having their work rejected by three journals without peer review, it was finally peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the German journal Naturwissenschaften. Since then the results have been corroborated at several labs including the University of California at Berkeley.