Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The cold fusion horizon

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 198 posts

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#151

Post by isolate »

murbard2 wrote: post #150
yongjik wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To take one example, nitrogen was discovered in 1772. Haber process (which converts nitrogen gas to ammonia) was discovered in 1909, and was successfully industrialized in 1913.[1] In other words, when Haber process was discovered, the question was NOT "wouldn't it be great if we could produce fertilizer out of air?". The question was, "We know the air is full of substance that makes fertilizer. How can we make that…

>Honestly, I can't think of any important scientific discovery that was accompanied by "This is great! Think what it could do for civilization!" Radioactivity.

Fire.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#152

Post by Retric »

ScottBurson wrote: post #66
Retric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Producing even a little heat with fusion produces a lot of nasty radiation. As in kill everyone in the unsheilded room within a few seconds. Based on the amount of unexplained heat they produced fusion would have been extremely radioactive, however they did not treat there setup as an extreme radiation hazard. Which suggest they did not think there would be any fusion. PS: Here are some pictures for a device expected…

> Producing even a little heat with fusion produces a lot of nasty radiation. As in kill everyone in the unsheilded room within a few seconds. This is greatly exaggerated. The amount of excess heat they claimed to observe was really quite small, and D-D fusion produces a relatively weak neutron flux [0]. I'm not saying some shielding wouldn't have been a good idea, but instant death? No. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/…

100Mev+ X-Ray / Gamma radiation is not fun. There is some play in the numbers based on type of fusion, but ~1w is on the order of 10^12th reactions per second and flat out lethal. Sure, if a device is weak out 1 millionth of that then it's not a big deal, but nobody cares about 0.000001 watts / second.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#153

Post by mannykannot »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #99
paganel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know almost nothing about cold fusion and theoretical physics in general, but as a guy who has read some Popper and Hume I'll chime in with an obviously subjective opinion, and say that after reading all the HN comments and parts of the article the first thought that came to my mind was this: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Interestingly enough that exact quote is present in TFA, but in a man…

> "Whatever this guy writes about and whatever he believes in, it is not about science." You say that, but you're ignoring the thrust of his argument. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the results from Rossi's experiment seem somewhat dubious. Easy to dismiss a single flawed experiment, right? However, there have been at least four separate reproductions of the experiment results since then (article mentions repor…

> Let's say, for argument's sake, that the results from Rossi's experiment seem somewhat dubious.

You would not know it from the article, but 'somewhat dubious' is a mischaracterization that suggests the problems might merely be experimental difficulties. In reality, the demonstrations have shown a sustained pattern of concealment and other highly dubious behavior, and there are also significant purely scientific problems, such as the isotope ratios of the alleged by-product. That's before we get into Rossi's earlier activities in high-tech waste management, which led to at least allegations of fraud. You may want to check out the links several of us have provided in these comments, and then ask yourself whether Huw Price has accurately described the situation.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#154

Post by ZenoArrow »

jacquesm wrote: post #80
rdlecler1 wrote: post #77

The article seems to be lost on a large number of commenters who are asserting (or almost asserting) that this is a scam because (1) Rossi seems to have a dubious history (I'm only going by the comments, not my own investigation) and (2) Rossi is secretive (3) Rossi is not a notable scientist from a top-tier University (4) Rossi comes across as overconfident. This is what the article is pointing out. The author is sa…

The quick reflex is an optimization, if it is true the proof will surface on its own strength, until then you can safely ignore it. After all, unless he's actually discovered something you're wasting your time. The burden of proof is rightly on the one making outrageous claims, there is no burden of sufferance because the positive benefits are so high. They'll be there regardless of whether one believes, after all, i…

> "The quick reflex is an optimization"

That's not what's happening here. The optimal response in terms of saving time is to stay neutral until stronger proof arrives. What's happening instead is people being hostile to research being conducted in a way they disagree with, or by people they disagree with. That negativity takes energy.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#155

Post by aetherson »

murbard2 wrote: post #149
aetherson wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. It's a heuristic, not a logical proof. And, I mean, we can't get energy just by digging in the ground. We didn't just poof, start flying over the ocean. We don't produce fertilizer just poof out of the air. Also: we knew before the Wright brothers that heavier-than-air flight was possible (birds). We didn't go from nothing to oil-fired modern powerplants in one step. If someone had claimed to generate electrici…

We know from biology that nanoscale factories are feasible, we know from human intelligence that AI is feasible, we know from Newtonian mechanics that space elevators are feasible, we know from stars that fusion is feasible.

Yep. And if someone said, "I've developed a nanoscale factory that has output fundamentally similar to what a biological cell has," that wouldn't trigger my skepticism. People who imagine that in the next few decades, we'll have nanotechnology that is two or three orders of magnitude faster, less error-prone, more centrally controllable, and more versatile than biology do.

I didn't say anything about AI or space elevators.

I'm not skeptical about hot fusion the way in skeptical about cold fusion.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#156

Post by ZenoArrow »

mannykannot wrote: post #153
ZenoArrow wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Whatever this guy writes about and whatever he believes in, it is not about science." You say that, but you're ignoring the thrust of his argument. Let's say, for argument's sake, that the results from Rossi's experiment seem somewhat dubious. Easy to dismiss a single flawed experiment, right? However, there have been at least four separate reproductions of the experiment results since then (article mentions repor…

> Let's say, for argument's sake, that the results from Rossi's experiment seem somewhat dubious. You would not know it from the article, but 'somewhat dubious' is a mischaracterization that suggests the problems might merely be experimental difficulties. In reality, the demonstrations have shown a sustained pattern of concealment and other highly dubious behavior, and there are also significant purely scientific pro…

Do the links provided tackle the reproductions of the experiment, or just Rossi's experiment?

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#157

Post by murbard2 »

aetherson wrote: post #155
murbard2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know from biology that nanoscale factories are feasible, we know from human intelligence that AI is feasible, we know from Newtonian mechanics that space elevators are feasible, we know from stars that fusion is feasible.

Yep. And if someone said, "I've developed a nanoscale factory that has output fundamentally similar to what a biological cell has," that wouldn't trigger my skepticism. People who imagine that in the next few decades, we'll have nanotechnology that is two or three orders of magnitude faster, less error-prone, more centrally controllable, and more versatile than biology do. I didn't say anything about AI or space elev…

Well, you said you disbelieve these things on the ground of them being too good to be true.

I get that people are more likely to exaggerate the likelihood of success of some technology if it seems extremely promising, and thus one should be more skeptical of those... But given all the other information available, that's a very weak proxy. You can make your own opinion by looking at the science.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#158

Post by debacle »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #26
taberiand wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then realise, you never actually have to make it

See: the startup industry. You'll either die or get acquihired before your product will have to start to make some sense (in terms of being actually useful).

No real entrepreneur wants to be acquihired. It's a massive loss of freedom.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#159

Post by vinceguidry »

qubex wrote: post #146
vinceguidry wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also doesn't help that Rossi has been convicted of fraud for purportedly inventing dubious devices in the past. In particular, he "created" a system for turning toxic waste into oil, but this turned out to be just dumping the waste into the environment. I feel like if someone has done this once, anyone taking them seriously again, deserves to lose their shirt. What, he suddenly reformed and is now doing real sci…

As an Italian, I have to say that being convicted or found innocent of anything in the local legal system doesn't really indicate much.

Good point.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#160

Post by TeMPOraL »

debacle wrote: post #158
TeMPOraL wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: the startup industry. You'll either die or get acquihired before your product will have to start to make some sense (in terms of being actually useful).

No real entrepreneur wants to be acquihired. It's a massive loss of freedom.

Then most startup founders are not "real entrepreneurs". Most people go for startups because it's a get-rich scheme, and whatever product that startup does is a throwaway thing, means to an end.
Post reply on HN