"Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

"Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

After watching the 60 minutes report that Richard posted a link to, I discussed the topic over lunch with my son Tom, who is an undergraduate engineering student, when I suddenly realized what is happening, and where the excess energy is coming from.

In the video the scientists claim that they can measure excess heat energy and that the effect is not consistent, ie. it works sometimes but not all the time. They also claim that we will soon be able to chuck out our laptop re-chargers, as the batteries will come with a lifetime charge

This is what I believe is happening, the cold fusion apparatus is simply re-arranging the molecules in the system, in such a way that they occupy less space, and whenever this is done, the volume and therefore the potential energy of the system decreases slightly, resulting in excess heat.

This is the same effect we see, when pouring sulfuric acid into water. For those of you who know your chemistry, 1 liter of sulfuric acid poured into 1 liter of water makes a solution of less than 2 liters of diluted sulfuric acid + excess heat. In the chemical reaction, the molecules arrange themselves in a more space efficient way, causing the overall potential to drop to a lower level.

What I think is happening in the so called "cold fusion" experiment is, that during the electrolysis of the heavy water, hydrogen and deuterium atoms are absorbed into the lattice of the palladium, thereby causing a more efficient arrangement of the molecules, resulting in a tiny volume decrease of the final palladium/hydrogen mix, which in turn results in a drop in potential + excess heat.

Once the palladium has become saturated with hydrogen, there should be no further heat to be gained, and a new piece of palladium will be needed. One could probably outgas the hydrogen from the palladium by heating the metal again and gradually letting the hydrogen escape, ie. reversing the process by adding heat.


I propose a simple experiment, to measure the volume decrease (length contraction) of a palladium rod, by carefully measuring its length at a constant temperature, before and after saturating it with Hydrogen/Deuterium. If there is a length contraction, we can explain where the excess heat is coming from.

[edit April 22 2009
I stand corrected on the above assumption that palladium contracts as it absorbs hydrogen. As Wilfried and Richard point out below, experiments show that palladium expands as it absorbs hydrogen. Regardless of my misjudgment above, I maintain that the combined volume of the hydrogen and palladium decreases, even if the palladium appears to expand, and that this new arrangement of the molecules occupy a lower energy state. Thanks for correcting me on this point.]


Steven Sesselmann

Richards link again;
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7597#p54278
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Chris Bradley »

I've discussed my notion of 'configuration' to displace the conception of 'energy' before in other contexts. I claim 'energy' and 'force' to be second order experientially based macroscopic interpretations we make of the universe. We can be sure that 'configuration' exists, we can see it, but we can't see 'forces' or 'energy'. These concepts make the maths easier, but are concepts at the end of the day. So, personally, I agree it is a worthwhile thought process to go down. Whether that is [one of] the actual mechanism[s] is another matter.

Again, such observations are yet more support for Frank S.' experiment as the proper route for such analysis.
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Chris,

Frank's experiment will prove that energy is being produced, not what is producing it.

My experiment will prove where the energy comes from and explain why it is not fusion.


Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Chris Bradley »

Frank's experiment will establish if there is a real delta between two sets of otherwise identical kit running heavy water versus water. I'd really want to see that experiment before proceeding with the assumption that energy *is* being produced. If you start an experiment with an assumption (you are suggesting to presume there is energy production, so now look for it?) then you will surely find it!
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Chris,

My prediction is that both water and heavy water will produce some heat, and Frank's experiment will show that heavy water produces slightly more energy, but this is not proof of any fusion.

My experiment will demonstrate that there is a length contraction and therefore a volume decrease, in a deuterated palladium rod, thereby explaining the excess heat produced.

It will allow the "f...."word to be removed for good.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Dan Tibbets »

I don't think the decreased volume of water plus sulfuric acid compared to each seperatly is what produces the heat. When you add any acid to water heat is produced by a chemical reaction. Try adding alcohol to water, or consider what happens when hydrogen is loaded into a metal hydride like proposed hydrogen fuel tanks for 'green cars'. I've never heard of excess heat being a problem. If the crystal lattice of the palidium is distorted by deuterium (hydrogen should have the same effect) this might lead to something like the pizeoelectrical effect. Other than that I don't know what non nuclear reaction would produce this heat. Or what nuclear reaction might be occuring for that matter.

I also have never heard how anyone plans to scale a few watts of heat into practical power production (other than possibly powering a hand warmer of a few LEDs.

Dan Tibbets
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Dan,

Alcohol in water experiment described here;

http://chemmovies.unl.edu/Chemistry/DoC ... em070.html

decreased volume = exothermic reaction

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Wilfried Heil
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Wilfried Heil »

Actually the metals expand when hydrogen is dissolved in the crystal lattice. Beyond a certain point, the metal becomes brittle and cracks, when it changes it's crystal phase into a thermodynamically more favorable (larger) one.

I have a metal hydride storage tank for the D2 gas. It contains an alloy of mostly nickel and vanadium and gets quite hot when it is loaded with hydrogen. One has to either load it slowly or cool the bottle with water.

The heat generation is something very mundane, since the metal hydride has a relatively high binding energy.
I wonder how this has been taken into account in the energy balance calculations. It surprises me that anyone would interpret such a well known effect as the result of nuclear fusion.

The lure seems to be so great that some just get stuck in wishful thinking. They then create their own followers through the self enhancing crackpot multiplication process.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Richard Hull »

Some folks here fire at will with no great research. I have followed many of the papers since 1989.

First, Wilifried is correct. All palladium swells mightily as the hydrogen loading increases. There is a classic image often placed in many books of what was a cube of Pd that is attempting to look like a ball due to intense hydrogen loading.

Secondly, It is obvious that heat occurs as you load Pd electrochemically. In some cells and at certain key loading levels and it appears, in certain specific specimens of Pd, large amounts of extra energy suddenly appear far and above that expected at the chemical or molecular level due to any of the previously summed input energy to that point.

The idea that even, smooth, excess heat is produced as the cell is loaded is a myth. It can of course occur, but usually manifests as a sudden surge during loading. This is why a time averaged computer logged Pin-Pout graph over the course of the entire experiment is demanded.

In any number of papers, a cell has been loaded until it won't load anymore and suddenly runs away, boiling all of the electrolye out of the cell and even melting thins in the metal. There are several extremes like this that have been observed. What triggers such events during or even after loading remains unknown.....Back to the expanding lattice.....Some posit that particular, sudden, internal, grain boundary breaks trigger the excess heat release as a runaway process.

There is much evidence pointing to this being a totally surface lattice based and surface critical process.

Two major events related to what is called "heat after death" have occured. Spent Pd electrodes that actually produced a bit more energy in a cell over a period of time are removed and have been left either in water or on paper have evaporated water in non-powered cells or scorched paper brown over a weekend.

I have always said that if what these guys are doing is real and ultimately replicated, I do not see it powering anything viable at the gigawatt level needed by society, though the theory of what is happening when understood might lead to amazing energy advances. Folks within the nuclear physics community from 1900 until the mid 1930's generally poo-poo'd the idea of usable energy from the atom.

Why?

They did not know all they thought they knew about the atom then and probably still don't today. Science....It is always a work in progress.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Wilfried Heil
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Wilfried Heil »

Science is work in progress and also the current state of delusion.

I see no great miracles at work in an unexplained energy release from hydrogen loaded metals, unless there is other evidence suggesting that something new is happening. The observed energy bursts can probably be explained chemically or metallurgically, with no need to drag in theories about nuclear processes.

There may even be a very small amount of detectable fusion, due to electrostatic charges in the cracking metal hydride and yet to be demonstrated. Even if this coincides with the heat release, it is likely to be a consequence of the metallurgical changes rather than the cause of the "excess" heat.

Palladium or platinum absorb very large amounts of hydrogen and can heat up to ignition when exposed to air in this state. They could conceivably boil off the water in an electrolysis cell from this stored energy.
David Rosignoli
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:57 am
Real name: David Rosignoli

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by David Rosignoli »

Scanning some of the journal articles, I see that the reports of excess heat are for deuterium loaded cells. Whereas the excess heat is not seen for protium loaded cells. If that is true, then how can it just be an energy storage of the hydrogen in the lattice, or ignition exposed to air?

Different electrodes have been used - palladium, titanium, others. Liquids, gases, and solid electrolytes have all been used with some success. (Of course, repeatability is a huge problem here) It does appear to be a surface effect, not a volume effect.

Dave
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Wilfried and Richard,

Thanks for correcting me, by pointing out that palladium expands as it absorbs hydrogen, I was unaware of that fact, and I guess I was shooting from the hip. Had I thought about it more carefully I would have figured out that the volume of the hydrated palladium must of course increase, and that the volume of hydrated palladium is less than the volume of the palladium and hydrogen in separate states.

The fact still remains, that heat energy is produced during the hydration process, and I still think this and other metallurgical changes can explain the CF heat excess.

PS: I added a small snippet at the end of the first post in this thread, acknowledging my mistake, to prevent first time readers pointing this out again.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Brian McDermott
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 6:28 pm
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Brian McDermott »

I had the opportunity to attend the ICCF-14 conference this past summer and here's what I learned from the papers that were presented there:

The heat is produced *after* the loading process, which takes several weeks. The cell is run at very low current, and Pd in solution (Usually as Palladium Chloride) is co-deposited with D on the surface of the cathode. Once the loading is complete, the current is increased and that is when excess heat is typically observed.

Typical D/Pd ratios where the excess heat phenomenon is observed are often in excess of 0.95, a level that is very hard to obtain and largely the reason why many fail to replicate the experiments successfully. Experiments that meet or exceed this D/Pd ratio show a suprisingly high level of repeatability (~75% is the number that was presented).

It's hard to brush off a 3000% COP (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf) as experimental error or conventional chemical reactions. Having talked to many of the big names in LENR face to face (Miley, Nagel, Storms and others), they have clearly considered the alternative possibilities. They certainly aren't stupid, nor are they crackpots. In fact, the conference devoted an entire session to what could explain the observed behavior.

I used to be an adamant opponent of cold fusion. Now, having spent a week being immersed in the state of the art, I'm at the very least convinced there is some interesting effect going on here that we were previously unaware of. Pathological skepticism is just as bad (if not worse) as pathological science, so try to keep an open mind and look into it as you would any other field, interested but questioning.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Frank Sanns »

I would like to think I have a very open mind. I would like to believe in cold fusion. I would be inclined to believe that there indeed MAY be some new manifestation occuring. BUT I still think that people are making poor conclusions from the data.

For example in the paper that you site, the 3000% COP is the highest reported value for this configuration. It is one value. Was there an uncontrolled variable to account for this one result? What is the noise value so it can be determinded if this COP is significant or noise? If you look at the number of experiments there were 19 total with a reported 14 producing excess heat for a success rate of 74%. The reported excess heat experiments include some results that BARELY produce excess heat. All of a sudden the sucess rate is more like 30%. If you include those values in the noise floor, then only one of the 19 experiments is statistically significant.

This brings us back to my biggest problem with the CF approach. One factor at a time experimental design just does not work with such a process. Uncontrolled variables have the potential to play too big of a part. The excess heat was 0.2 watts! If somebody reached in and touched a coupling on the outside of the calorimeter to be sure it was tight, the heat could be conducted down into the calorimeter. What if the leads to the cell are intercepting a broadcast station or transmitter or power line? Look at any oscilloscope with a 1 meter lead. Line frequency is rampant. Remember that the report is fractional watts. Not much energy transfer is needed for that kind of number. The bigger problem though in this experment is the fact that even MORE energy is being input to the cell in the form of ultrasonics. One more place for unaccounted for energy to sneak in.

The crazing of the surface of the palladium and hence an increased ability to hold on to deuterium is a plausible explaination of the reduced rate of deuterium release but there are not many other conclusions that I personally could make from the report.

Still thanks for posting it as I contiue to wait for a SERIES of results through prudent experimental design that can convince me. Until somebody does put together a good system to reduce influence of uncontrolled variables and/or unintentional systematic errors, I shall wait, and wait and wait!

Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Thanks Brian,

I too read the Dardik et al. paper over lunch, and looking at the charts showing P-out vs P-in it appears that they get a temporary gain in P-out every time they ramp up P-in, the gain each time is short lived and reduces back to zero, this is consistent with the Palladium taking up more hydrogen/deuterium.

I notice that all the charts are truncated at the highest energy gain, and I think the measurements should continue after the power has been cut off, until desorbtion is complete.

Is it possible that desorbtion would cause the energy to go negative?

Going back to the sulfuric acid experiment referred to in my first post. If you do the experiment and pour concentrated sulfuric acid into water and measure the temperature until the heat reaches maximum, then stop measuring, you will assume that the reaction was purely exothermic, but if the experiment was allowed to continue until the water had all evaporated, leaving only the concentrated sulfuric acid, one would find that there was an exothermic and an endothermic phase, and that nothing was gained.

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Chris Bradley »

Brian McDermott wrote:
> The heat is produced *after* the loading process, which takes several weeks.
Ah! You mean, like a Joe Cell?!

> I'm at the very least convinced there is some interesting effect going on here that we were previously unaware of. Pathological skepticism is just as bad (if not worse) as pathological science, so try to keep an open mind and look into it as you would any other field, interested but questioning.
I also consider myself totally open minded but as Frank points out, we're talking about something unrepeatable here.

This is a conundrum for our modern age. So far, we've got to where we are (the moon, computer games, h-bombs, etc.) by stiff, strong repeatable science that works every time you do 'stuff' with 'stuff'. If we, humans, are now to progress down into more vague and capricious mechanisms that are not always repeatable, but yet we say an 'occasional' event is significant, then we are changing the paradigm of modern science. I am open minded enough to go down that route, but I need a strong cue to do that as it means we start having to accept miracles and other one-off events as plausible subjects for debate. Currently, my 'open-mindedness' extends to recognising when something unexplained occurs and a need to look for the reason within the context of what we currently know with a view to modifying that view if it is found inadequate. I do not think this view is therefore pathological skeptisism - but if it is then it is a feature embedded in modern science and forms a [presumably necessary] part of why we're now where we are.

So, within the paradigm of modern science, this LENR stuff is not yet adequate to render a view that current knowledge is insufficient, only that there are mechanisms not yet identified.
Wilfried Heil
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Wilfried Heil »

Brian,

I've read the article by Dardik, thanks for posting. The calculated excess heat is small, ~1W in most cases. What effect is the input power of up to 60W ultrasound likely to have? Calorimetric experiments can be tricky and I see no indication how this was calibrated here.

What strikes me, again, is the total lack of controls, as usual in this type of experiments from the humble beginnings. Is it taken for granted that the observed anomalies would occur only with deuterium?
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Richard Hull »

The history of this effort affords thousands of papers and reports over the past 20 years. Protium in light water with Pd, Ni, Ti and other metals has been tried hundreds of times without a single bizarre heat event. As things have advanced, the need for a protium control test isn't needed until you find a method with the D that seems more repatable.

Many folks here have no handle on the long history of this effort. For all our boasted effort and history with hot fusion what do we have?

A few hundreds of millions in today's Obama money thrown at CANR would be like putting the wieght of one more flea on a sinking saint bernard. We could do it easily. Mere millions of the money are 6 orders of magnitude removed from what is being actually placed on the table right now! We got it to burn folks! Let's light a little off in honor of CANR-LENR research.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
ajmoir
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:16 am
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by ajmoir »

Richard Hull wrote:
> A few hundreds of millions in today's Obama money thrown at CANR would be like putting the wieght of one more flea on a sinking saint bernard. We could do it easily. Mere millions of the money are 6 orders of magnitude removed from what is being actually placed on the table right now! We got it to burn folks! Let's light a little off in honor of CANR-LENR research.

A hundred million here a hundred million there, pretty soon you're talking real money.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Frank Sanns »

Richard,

I do not think CF is crop circles. If you can point to a source or two of the data where a rigorous evaluation is done that I am all ears but I have not yet seen anything that gives evidence without some doubt still in my mind. I actually do believe something is going on in these systems. I just have not seen the replications and actual noise analyses to believe it without the shadow of a doubt.

Frank Sanns
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Richard Hull »

The largest library of CANR-LENR papers is the main site for same quoted here in the past in many postings. It will point to even larger, more specialized repositories. You will find no papers that will satisfy beyond a shadow of a doubt for if they existed, the stuff would be in common use now.... or.....following in hot fusion's foot steps, billions would be being spent to make a KNOWN process of over unity power into a usable CF reactor.

Sorta' like real fusion......You know hot fusion......It ain't around yet either, helping us out on th' electrical grid or even in hand warmers. Lots of hot fusion experiments and experimenters, lots of real reports of hot fusion heat and real reported energy, but no useful form unless you are looking at nation busting.

We have always questioned hot fusion's input versus output energy in JET and certainly ITER's figures must be questioned, if it ever really gets going for more than 10 seconds.

The difference? One is pretty with history and billions of the money stacked up behind it, theory that backs it in the minds of the annointed and too much hyped around it to back out now.

Regardless, we do indeed have, at long last, an infinite source of funds on hand to do most anything we can imagine. Hot, cold or lukewarm fusion. Yes we can!

I have said it before...I do not believe cold fusion/CANR/LENR is what anyone thinks it is! Nor do I believe it is in the same class as N rays or Polywater. So I must wait and see just like hot fusion, it is all a lot of smoke and mirrors with carnival barkers, heros and villians and assorted hangers on.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Chris Bradley »

Richard Hull wrote:
> Many folks here have no handle on the long history of this effort. For all our boasted effort and history with hot fusion what do we have?
Your fondness for thinking well of LENR betrays your objectivity. What did hot fusion have after 20 years? A heck of a lot!! - measurable, repeatable, observable plasma processes (albeit unstable) that could be examined, watched, diagnosed, altered, mapped, graphed and extrapolated, that many people repeated the world over and got the same basic results and saw the same physics occurring - the generation of a very hot, unstable toroidal plasma.

In other word, what have you got with hot fusion?; consensus on the underlying physics, and it was gained very very quickly - there was consensus on the basic mechanisms of what would happen even before the experiments were bolted together.

So you can legitimately critique hot fusion for a) never demonstrating a useful reaction rate, b) never being stable, c) consuming lots of cash with [only] big, shiny buildings and kit to show for it, d) convinced everyone in mainstream science (for the first 20 years, at least). But in the same timescale, LENR has a) never demonstrated a useful reaction, b) never been seen, c) consumed lots of cash with only some glass bottles and burned out palladium electrodes to show for it, d) convinced only a minority who, on the whole, do not present their case with very much gravitas.

What do we have with hot fusion? Absolutely loads and loads of kit, physics, MHD knowledge, &c., &c., but admittedly still a burning question over whether it can feed the grid. But are we really at the point with LENR yet that we can ask the question 'could we seriously feed the grid with this'?
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14992
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Richard Hull »

Remember, I have always held we will never feed the grid with what is termed as cold fusion.

You are right, hot fusion is very solid, scientifically, and non productive as a usable, electrical energy source. We are all fully aware of what "real fusion" is and what it isn't. Real fusion is the energy of the future and always will be.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Wilfried Heil
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Wilfried Heil »

>Real fusion is the energy of the future and always will be. -"TM"-
All of our energy comes from fusion. Wind, water, coal, oil and even fission.
I'm optimistic that we can find the means to make use of it in a more direct way.
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: "Cold Fusion" don't chuck your laptop

Post by Dan Tibbets »

Or, going back one more step, all of the original fusion fuel was created in the first few seconds of the Big Bang. No, really I'm not stringing you on, though it's importance may be inflated. Now, if we could harvest that directly ....


Dan Tibbets
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”