Cold Fusion- a non pollutive and harmless, source of energy that lasts a long time and is not subject to meltdowns.

Basically it is a dream fuel. Yes it sounds great, but is is possible? Scientists have found this energy but they are having a hard time converting it into fuel and power sources. Nobody wants to put the money into the research projects because they believe it is impossible. Oil companies oppose this project because it hurts their business or even economies that depend only on oil. This new technology could also help economies that cannot afford oil.

What do you think about the developement of Cold Fusion?

Is it a good idea or a bad idea?

Does it sound possible?

please add more opinions.

Cold fusion? Do you mean the difference between fission ( The spliting of an atom ) and fusion ( the slamming together of atomic particals into a different element? ) Fusion is the dream fuel, sorce of energy or what not. Its just the simple fact that if someone actually made fusion an economically sound idea someone would turn it around and use it for something stupid like making another form of Bomb. ( unless i am mistaken the hydrogen bomb is the fusion of two atoms of Hydrogen into one of helium right ).

in todays world no one person has the time to do whaqt needs to be done. We went over the edge and are going to fast. where we end up I only hope it is better than todays bull crap.

basicly a fusion and fission work the same way... the difference is that while for fission you just slam a neutron into an atom core which will make it burst whereas for fusion you slam a whole element in... both ways release another neutron which chain reacts on the surrounding matter and starts a chain reaction (you need the right matter tho)

the idea exists since the first nuke was build but up to day noone was able to make 2 cores actually fuse forcing em to release just energy but no radiation (dunno about area 51 tho who knows what they got there lol)
if i remember right during the 80ties the idea was finally put in a full fledged theory
some have claimed that they achieved it but many doubt it... could be one of the usual "lets not tell the masses" move again tho...

its possible imo and a good idea probably at least better than "hot" fusion...
but im quite aware tho that any tempering at molecular level can yield unpredictable results mainly because of the chain effect aspect of the whole thing... if that would be 100% controllable (unlike in normal nuclear reactors where for example a core melt can happen and vulk up the whole planet) id say give it a go...

What are your opinions? Do you support it or not? Would you suggest putting funds into the research?

Interesting topic. I haven't noticed it before. I'd like to have more knowledge on the subject to discuss it better, but the few things i know about is that cold fusion could produce clean and abundant energy, and that many reserarchers were unsupported and underpaid, or even stopped in their researches by lack of funds. I can imagine this was the desire of the oil companies.

If this energy is really clean and cheap as they say, of course i'd support the research and the use, but i'm pretty sure we'll have to wait for the "world crap" to finish before the world will switch to alternative energies.

Yes, its the oil companies from around the world that dissapprove of this energy. The country who invents it first might charge rediculous amounts of money if they plan to trade it to other nations. If, lets say, China developed it first, there is a slim chance of anybody else getting some, or atleast for a reasonable price. I think that nations with a highly active military, should be limited to this fuel. Wars cost fuel. Unlimited fuel, means an unlimited military.

Sorry Kresseleck, didnt state my opinion did I. After looking it up on the internet yesterday, Fusion is the FUSION or slamming together of 2 Atoms, as where the splitting or FISSION of an atom is the splitting of an atom. When you say NUCLEAUS or NUCLEAR, you are refering to the center of the atom and the splitting of the atom as a whole. When you speak of ATOM or ATOMIC you are speaking of the atom as a whole, But not nessecarily the nucleaus. Thats the difference between a nuclear ( high yield weapon ) and an ATOMIC bomb that might take out 5 miles and leave some radiation like Nagasaki or Hiroshima. ( i am talking instant Death area. not the residuale after effects. do some research. i did. )

An example of everyday FUSION. Look up at that big yellow thing on a bright sun shiny day. Every Second Trillions of the first element hydrogen are slammed together to make the second element helium. Thats whats science theorizes happens at the center of the sun. I would belive that would or could be considered "HOT fusion" obviously. I would think since nobody has explained it yet, COLD fusion would be the CONTROLLED fusion of 2 metallic elements as in most scientific "stuff" when you refer to cold you refer to a metallic element. Hot normally refers to gases.

Something to add also before i state my opinion. Anti-matter has been created, Science could only sustain it for like 12 billionths of a second before it collapsed. Research it as my short term memory fails me.

( as i say this hot and cold gases also exsist on the elemental table. )

The deal and my opinion is, if science could create and sustain a "controlled" fusion reactor, maybe 4 or five of them on each continent, we could solve our energy problems. The current nuclear reactors we have are fission reactors, as where you are basically controlling a nuclear explosion, and harnessing its power, Where as you may get the obvious meltdown, in fusion there would be no meltdown, And there would be roughly on a good day 100-1000 times more energy than a nuclear fission reactor. I have no idea what would happen if someone blew up a nuclear fusion reactor. But i could Imagine........

Anyway i support it. If it we can have control over it. But when you get crazy people like history has shown us, I think it would be best just not to have it. We have the power of the wind, of the sun, and of water, all in more ways than one, but we dont use it as the oil companys just always get in our pockets.

"all or some or most of the above statement may be actual fact, and all or most or some of it might just be plain wrong, if you have a problem with what i just stated ignore it please"

If / when it is discovered, I'd say that extreme efforts whould be made to see if the technology can be easily weaponized to a WMD. If not, release it to the world. If it can easily become dangerous, then keep it under wraps (or extremely tight control) until humanity proves it is more stable to the point where releasing something like this would not be catastrophic (decades / centuries). The last thing we need is the potential for garage geeks making WMD's.

Edit:
Also note: oil is not only used for energy... it is a vital source of chemicals too.

If and when............It exists and has been discovered, we just cant implement it with todays technolodgy.

Note. Most things in science fiction are science future, they start out with theorys based upon a scientific point of view. Anti-matter and laser weapons exist it just isnt finacially feasible to use that stuff. Money and technolodgy wont allow it.

Not to go off topic, but I want to thank you all for replying to this topic. It has been ignored for too long. I was originally wondering if people thought I was making things up or going mad. Again, I would like to thank those who have replied.

atom core = nucleus

hot and cold fusion refer to the temperatures needed to fuse the cores
has nothing to do with metal or gas

laser weapons are kinda cheap the problem with them is that you need an awful lot of energy to kill somin with it and even then it more or less just emits a ray of heat... but to stop a person you need to stop its vital organs from working thus the (by the geneva convention prohibited) ammunition of hollow point... a laser beam would be similiar to FMJ ammo...
also all the ammo manufactures would loose their jobs...

anti matter if produces in high and stable quantities would be even more dangerous than any kind of nuclear fusion or fission as anti matter reacts with matter in a big bang...
but we wouldnt even need to produce it cause there are probably whole dimensions made out of it... probably even a 2nd earth... we just need to find it lol... kinda hard tho

How the sun works.

The only way you can fuse 2 elements together to make one is at extremly hot temps. Cold fusion is the fusing together of two cool elements that are not gases but are solid at cool temps. like water and ice. metals ect. you cant fuse two gas elements like nitrogen or hydrogen because they disipate and are vaporized at the tempatures needed to fuse something together, only things like the stars can do that and it takes billions of years just to start that process, and the only reason a star can do it is because of its mass, the weight of the star does not allow anything to be vaporized, as in hydrogen into helium.

I'll try to draw you a picture of an atom with words. At the center of the atom you have the nucleaus. Around it depending on the element, you have positive and negative electrons and neutrons. When you make an atom bomb like the one they dropped on hiroshima, they split the atom, but not the nucleus. when you explode a nuclear weapon today, ( the big ones, not no dirty bomb, ) they split the atom right down the middle right through the nucleaus.

I could go off into positrons and and nutrino's and all that crap but my eyes would cross and i would just confuse everybody.

BUT LIKE I SIAD BEFORE I MITE BE WRONG ABOUT SOMETHINGS>>>>>>>DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING I ALREADY SAID BUT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND>

Anti-matter wouldnt lead to other dimensions or whatever, Anti-matter is just the opposite of matter. But matter cancels out anti-matter because when they did create it ( do a search on anti matter ) if anti-matter was the dominate matter, it would have consumed our world in an instant. And to create anti-matter all you need to do is reverse the "stuff" that is matter. There is no massive explosion, like a big bang.

The energy released in the splitting of an atom or its nucleaus is caused by the forceful seperation of the COSMIC whatever that binds the atom together.

If i am wrong someone please explain how i am so my understanding can be fixed.

OT: I'm a bit worried about your good advices to militarized nations... My hope is that they finish their fuel as soon as possible, so they can put their freakin weapons into their *****, but it's just my humble opinion.

yo einhänder what do you wanna tell me? you have so many paradoxons in your text i dunno how to reflect on em...

1st ist not about fusing two elements to become one what happens in stars... stars create the whole periodic table out of just one element... namely hydrogen...

i mentioned in my first post that im talking about the atom CORE, which is the nucleus... you usually call the thing in the middle the core... no need to tell me 5th grade physics...

and NO hot temps are not the only possibility to fuse two elements... thats the whole point of cold fusion... just look it up on google for the sake of it or if you own somin like that a physical enzyclopedia... and it has nothing to do with cold matter like ice or metal neither lol cause that would turn to bloody gas too at very high temps...

hot fusion works with hydrogen cause it turns it into plasma and later on in helium and some exhaust... like every gas at very high temperatures... what do you think should happen with gas at high temps? vaporize (as you said)? lol its vapored yet... thats what happens in stars like the sun...

do the research yourself lol... i mean you even say you might be wrong and tell me that i should do research? lol paradox aint it?...

antimatter... physical theories state that there might be whole dimensions made of anti matter... since its basicly the same as matter just mirrored or however you might understand it... and cause our matter world exists there is a good possibility that the opposite exists aswell... is probably even needed to keep our world in balance
of course there is no big bang during the creation or harvesting of anti matter as the process eats energy... the whole point of the research is to gain enough of it so that they can collide matter and anti matter to gain much more energy than they put in to gain it in the first place which is still science fiction... we can get so much energy out of it cause it makes kabadabombooom! same principle with every energy source... then you use the heat to drive a turbine and voila you have electricity... or a bomb...

but thanks for enlightening me

You guys seem to say that cold fusion is unstable and not safe, and compare it to nuclear power, yet hardly show any differences. What I read about cold fusion, is that there is little to no chances of a meltdown.

Antimatter sounds like a science fiction term, because matter cannot be created or destroyed, but only broken down into smaller pieces. Think of a stone. That stone is broken down into pebbles. Those pebbles are broken down into sand. That sand is broken down into smaller grains. It cannot be destroyed, but divided even smaller.

matter - antimatter - bigbang - release of energy... energy is slowed down matter... thus nothing is lost... and it has nothing to do with stones its the 1st thermodynamic law that energy is not lost but transformed...
matter on the other hand is lost in the process as it gets transformed to energy as with all energy gaining technologies

I don't think any rational observer will have any trouble noticing that this thread is in a state where essentially every word represents a grave scientific fallacy. The same rational observer will likely note that the topic of discussion is, itself, trite pseudoscience.

Now this case study presents a dilemma: was this fact essential to the degeneration noted, or did it simply hasten the inevitable? To wit, was Prima responsible for creating a topic which cannot be discussed reasonably, or is Secunda at fault---when he was simply continuing the discussion with what little knowledge of the subject he had? Are some threads destined for failure?

Discuss.

Okay then... Why dont we give our sincere opinions on what we think about this fuel source instead of discussing the scientific data? Would you support the funding of it? Do you think it is possible that this will one day be used? Do you think nations with an active military should be allowed to harness this energy, or perhaps limited to its uses?

Discussion part B:

Without looking any further into the case study, predict what effect this comment by Prima had. Do you believe the thread continued to exist in its degenerated state, or do you believe that the comment suddenly changed the outcome of the situation?

Support your assertions with points you made in the previous discussion part.

without looking into the topic of this thread at all i just ask, for a mere consideration of liability and consious opinion, if, under the vow of selfjudgement and responsibility for mankind, the reflection of a topic of any interest to the people or even a sole person should or can or even be allowed to be answered by a person, an animal, a brick which indeed, under the impression of sunshine in the midst of october, might not be the owner of a water filled mass compiled of synapses, would be an irresponsible reaction to the fundamental laws of life?

An intriguing response, though it could have been better worded. In your view, Prima simply created a thread with a topic that would interest people, and Secunda was right to reply because the thread indeed interested him. This outlook changes the question significantly: if neither Prima nor Secunda committed any wrongdoing, how could this turn of events have happened? Was it inevitable?

LOL

Cold is relative and no fusion comes without a cost.

The "cold" fusion is real but it is not free.

We have the technology to create molecular structures capable of "compression" of hydrogen in a solid crystal matrix. The key is to build the matrix in such a way as to allow for the precise application of "cold"( withdrawal of heat).

The Xtal structure would be such that impurities are added so that the density is accumulative. The structure would be pores to helium on one surface and increasingly non pores towards another. As the matrix reaches saturation "cold is applied" (heat is extracted forcibly and precisely) so that the molecular pressure cases fusion but then what...

Ha ha! Your ash becomes your new fuel and the heat extraction has to be very dynamic robust and accurate or the sheot hits the fan.