FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
New Solenoid Experiment
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 32 [466 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 30, 31, 32 Next
Author Message
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:49 pm    Post subject: Re: The gauntlet has been dropped Reply with quote

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:d29j9h$nt1$1@news.iucc.ac.il
{snip}
Quote:

Are these the same Spzak and Mosier-Boss who appear (from previously
published work) to be unfamiliar with the concept of "ground loop"?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il

Not sure. They have been active in the CF field since the early 90's,
so I'd guess yes.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone else's}




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Back to top
Richard Tobin
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:47 am    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

In article <nji07115r0v7dd3bi66u6oddpjfq6khlbp@4ax.com>,
Traveler <eightwings2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
And did not the cold fusion critics always refuse to acknowledge that
fusion could be achieved on a table top device?

No. You're making it up.

Fine. I am willing to be educated. What was the objection?

The first objection is, and has always been, that the alleged cold
fusion results are not consistent with the theories that very
successfully predict other observed behaviour. And the experiments
are not consistent enough between themselves, they are not
sufficiently reproducable by others, and have generally not been
performed with enough care in areas like calorimetry, to justify
discarding the current theories.

In short, the object has always been to the theory and practice of
cold fusion, not the size of the table on which it is performed.

-- Richard
Back to top
JohnnyCJohnny
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:33 am    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

I know one thing. If the nuclear pathways that allow UCLA's version of
table top fusion to be explained are revealed through rigorous
experimental observation, then these pathways might also explain how
sono or cold fusion could possibly work as well.

Come on, stop looking at this with blinders on. This is an entirely
different form of fusion than the Billion dollar hot fusion programs.
Sure, it's not cold or sono fusion, but it is a table top fusion method
that was previously unthinkable. Now, they have to explain how fusion
can work in a table top device. When that is explained it might very
well reveal how cold or sono fusion can work as well. This is not an
entirely unrelated discovery. In the long run all these disparate
types of fusion might one day be tied together by theories that explain
how they work.
Back to top
JohnnyCJohnny
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:33 am    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

I know one thing. If the nuclear pathways that allow UCLA's version of
table top fusion to be explained are revealed through rigorous
experimental observation, then these pathways might also explain how
sono or cold fusion could possibly work as well.

Come on, stop looking at this with blinders on. This is an entirely
different form of fusion than the Billion dollar hot fusion programs.
Sure, it's not cold or sono fusion, but it is a table top fusion method
that was previously unthinkable. Now, they have to explain how fusion
can work in a table top device. When that is explained it might very
well reveal how cold or sono fusion can work as well. This is not an
entirely unrelated discovery. In the long run all these disparate
types of fusion might one day be tied together by theories that explain
how they work.
Back to top
Kirk Shanahan
science forum addict


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:38 am    Post subject: Re: Nuclear fusion on the desktop ... really! Reply with quote

"JohnnyCJohnny" <johnwc@patmedia.net: wrote in message
news:1114645662.794919.191140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

{snip}

: using tried and true techniques that are expected
: to generate far less controversy than past such claims.
{snip}

: Fusion experts said the UCLA experiment will face far less skepticism
: because it conforms to well-known principles of physics.

: "This doesn't have any controversy in it because they're using a tried
: and true method," David Ruzic, professor of nuclear and plasma
: engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told
The
: Associated Press. "There's no mystery in terms of the physics."

: In a Nature commentary, Michael Saltmarsh of the Oak Ridge National
: Laboratory said the UCLA process was in some ways "remarkably
: low-tech," drawing upon principles that were first recorded by the
: Greek philosopher Theophrastus in 314 B.C.
{snip}

: In the UCLA experiment, scientists placed a tiny crystal that can
: generate a strong electric field into a vacuum chamber filled with
: deuterium gas, a form of hydrogen capable of fusion. Then the
: researchers activated the crystal by heating it.

: The resulting electric field created a beam of charged deuterium atoms
: that struck a nearby target, which was embedded with yet more
: deuterium. When some of the deuterium atoms in the beam collided with
: their counterparts in the target, they fused.

: The reaction gave off an isotope of helium along with subatomic
: particles known as neutrons, a characteristic of fusion. The
experiment
: did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in - an
: achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.


So, it doesn't violate any known physics. This clearly means it is NOT
cold fusion.

: Commercial uses
: UCLA's Putterman said future experiments will focus on refining the
: technique for potential commercial uses, including designing portable
: neutron generators that could be used for oil well drilling or
scanning
: luggage and cargo at airports.
:
: The technology also could conceivably give rise to implantable
: radiation sources, which could target cancer cells while minimizing
: damage to healthy tissue. "You could bring a tiny crystal into the
: body, place it next to a tumor, turn on the radiation and blast the
: tumor," Putterman told MSNBC.com.

{snip}

If you look up 'neutron generators' on Google, you will find several
devices already available for this, so the UCLA folks seem to have
just invented a new source for these devices. Of course that may
improve the devices, but this is nowhere near to the level of claim
made by cold fusioneers.

---
Kirk Shanahan {My opinions...noone eles's}


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Back to top
Richard Tobin
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:35 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

In article <1114697504.868865.188970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

Quote:
Find me anyone who has said that "table top fusion" is impossible.

LOL! You can't actually be serious.

I notice that you haven't actually found anyone.

Quote:
At some point scientists start taking
the position you are taking with "table-top fusion" that we knew it all
along. Well that's baloney in this case. If they knew it all along,
why did they piss billions away on hot fusion?

You know, it's hard to believe that you are arguing in good faith.

-- Richard
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:32 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

Quote:
And did not the cold fusion critics always refuse to acknowledge that
fusion could be achieved on a table top device? And that one needed
extremely high temperatures, etc., etc...

First, electrostatic confinement is an easy way to generate fusion
neutrons in a table top device (at a much higher rate - up to ~10^8
neutrons/s in deuterium) that is not controversial at all. So no real
cold fusion critic has said that a table top fusion neutron generator
is impossible. Second, the accelerated deuterium ions in this latest
device ARE at very high temperature, so this is standard hot fusion. If
you can't understand these basic facts, then go spread your idiocy on
some alt. newsgroup, sci. newsgroups are supposed to be for those with
some basic grasp of science.
Back to top
Richard Tobin
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:42 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

In article <1114703562.046218.254060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

Quote:
1. Previous table top fusion announcments were scoffed at and
dismissed routinely in the past

No. Announcements of results whose explanations were inconsistent
with current, successful, theory were scoffed at, especially after
others had failed to reproduce them.

The very fact that scientists aren't scoffing at the UCLA result just
goes to show that they aren't prejudiced against experiments because
they happen to fit on a table. Physicists don't reject cold fusion
because it's "table-top" fusion, they reject it because it's bad
physics. If someone does good physics on a table, they don't reject
it.

You have still to come up with anyone who said table-top fusion is
impossible. You just made up that claim so that you could pretend
that scientists have changed their minds and are buying into the
cold-fusion hype.

Quote:
2. We have no idea where this latest table top fusion announcment will
eventually lead

You may not have any idea, but the articles mention several ideas
about where it will lead. A convenient source of neutrons is one, and
(more speculatively) "microthrusters" for small spacecraft. I haven't
heard anything to suggest either that it will lead to a large-scale
power source (though I don't know that it won't), or that it will
explain any alleged "cold fusion" results.

It's certainly true that we can't be sure where new results will lead,
but co-opting them to sustain your fantasies smacks of desperation.

Quote:
Look into the past and future of table top fusion I see this leading
somewhere. I don't know exactly where. But, we probably are at the
tip of a whole new iceberg of nuclear energy. It might take decades to
develop, but I believe it is slowly but surely coming togther.

If the Farnsworth fusor had been invented last week instead of several
decades ago, you'd be saying the same thing about that.

-- Richard
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:16 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

JohnnyCJohnny wrote:
Quote:
I know one thing. If the nuclear pathways that allow UCLA's version
of
table top fusion to be explained are revealed through rigorous
experimental observation, then these pathways might also explain how
sono or cold fusion could possibly work as well.

Come on, stop looking at this with blinders on. This is an entirely
different form of fusion than the Billion dollar hot fusion programs.

Actually, while this accomplishment represents new _engineering_ it
does not appear to represent any new _physics_.

It's a novel and clever way to accomplish fusion in the ways already
well understood by the big-hot-tokomak crowd, only using a nifty
miniature apparatus. It's really cool, but it's not revolutionary -
show someone with even a vague knowledge of the field a drawing of the
apparatus, explain what the pyroelectric crystal can do in terms of
generating a field, and the idea that it might work looks optomistic,
but not unreasonable. There's nothing unexplained going on, no
unproven theories in conflict with current understanding, etc.

And there's no clear path towards making it at all usefull for power
generation. It's a great way to demonstrate fusion, and might be
developed into a usefull pocket-sized neutron source, but it's not the
Mr. Fusion Home Energy Center.
Back to top
JohnnyCJohnny
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:43 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

Time will tell. I do have an idea where this latest table top fusion
announcement might lead.

Honestly, what difference does it make to me if cold fusion is actually
real or not. If another form of energy can pull us out of this current
rut of pollution and political instability, I'm all for it. I think we
could solve our energy problems right now without resorting to exotic
forms of energy like cold or sonofusion or zero-point energy.

My interest in cold fusion is just making sure science gets it right on
this one. I have serious doubt that cold fusion, even if proven beyond
a doubt, will ever lead to useful energy device. But, I do want to see
the record straight if it currently is not.

So, Kudos to the team from UCLA. Let's hope their discovery leads to
peace and prosperity for mankind.
Back to top
Richard Schultz
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 339

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:45 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

In article <1114700514.855769.112050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, JohnnyCJohnny <johnwc@patmedia.net> wrote:

: There were plenty of "scientists" who said just that when Pons and
: Fleischman made their cold fusion announcment in 1989. In fact it was
: this inherit bias that led many to dismiss P&F's claims out of hand.

Are you really that clueless, or are you now lying deliberately?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1oz.43q@world.std.com>
Back to top
JohnnyCJohnny
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:47 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

And there's no clear path towards making it at all usefull for power
generation. It's a great way to demonstrate fusion, and might be
developed into a usefull pocket-sized neutron source, but it's not the
Mr. Fusion Home Energy Center.

Well, you're jumping to a conclusion there. We'll have to see how it
plays out. It might eventually lead to much bigger things.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:10 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

Note: crystal fusion produced 800 deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions
per second compared to 50,000,000,000,000,000 deuterium-deuterium
fusion reactions per second in magnetic fusion (e.g., TFTR).
Back to top
Bruce Scott TOK
science forum addict


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:52 pm    Post subject: Re: How Did We Get The Elements After Iron (FE)? Reply with quote

|> I know how the lighter elements (Those below Iron) were synthesized
|> (Through nuclear Fusion in stars). But how were the elements above Iron
|> created? Doesn't the curve of the binding energy decrease after FE
|> (Iron)? Hence while fusing light nuclei up to FE release more energy
|> than it consumes, wouldn't fusing heavier nuclei that would have
|> atomic numbers above FE require more energy then the process gives off?

An answer with a little less detail:

Elements heavier than Li (or Be) were not made in the Big Bang because
the density fell off with proper time too fast, so...

1) elements up to Fe are made in stars... but it stops at Fe since it
starts costing too much energy to make heavier stuff

2) elements heavier than Fe are made by bombardment by a high flux of
neutrons ("r" or "s" process depending on how high)... this happens
mostly in supernovae but there are some other exotic scenarios;
supernovae are favored because both the density of matter and the
neutron flux are very high

The standard work on nucleosynthesis is still

Clayton, D, Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis,
McGraw-Hill (1968)

It is available I think with a second edition.

--
cu,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Back to top
JohnnyCJohnny
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:45 pm    Post subject: Re: New Scientist Coverage of UCLA Table Top Fusion Reply with quote

Orders of magnitude? LOL! OK, I got it, no free energy here, the
skeptics still have the upper hand.

But, it is interesting to think of the possibilities. This UCLA
discovery might even have a positive impact on the hot fusion research
arena. You never know. They might lift an idea or two from UCLA and
use it to make hot fusion work. That is the incredible thing about
science. One development in a specific area can have a big unexpected
impact elsewhere.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 32 [466 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 30, 31, 32 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:27 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Prine Number thought experiment robert.w.adams@verizon.ne Math 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:31 am
No new posts A Tale of Two Clocks: A Thought Experiment Titus Piezas III Relativity 7 Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:48 am
No new posts Help with atmospheric water vapor partial pressure experi... Dan Akers Chem 3 Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:40 pm
No new posts Two-slit experiment drspeg Research 37 Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:42 am
No new posts Liquid Nitrogen in a Swimming Pool - - - Experiment (2006) fufko@sbcglobal.net Chem 11 Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:37 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0292s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0046s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]