The cold fusion horizon • Hacker News Board

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#171

Post by kefka » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 4:02 PM UTC

mahranch wrote: post #137

XorNot wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no there is not. Because 100% of the time so far in cold fusion, no one has built a device that actually works or subjected it to tests which would prove it does. Rossi is a fraud. His public tests always mysteriously wind up involving him tinkering with the device, and involve people he has prior relationships with.

Yeah, I don't get this. To overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temp (source: http://zidbits.com/2015/05/how-does-fusion-power-work/ ) is akin to claiming you built something which goes faster than light. That's why the term "cold fusion" has such a stigma attached to it, it's literally on the same physics defying level as perpetual motion machines. Because of the stigma attached to the term cold fusion, they have no…

Well, let's look at the basic formula:

U(coul) = (1 / 4PI e0) ( q1q2 / r)

U(coul) is the stated coloumb barrier. e0 is the permittivity of vacuum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity q1, q2 are the charges of the interacting particles. r is the interaction radius.

So, if I want to lower U(coul), I either target q1 and q2 and make them smaller, or make e0 and/or r larger.

So, how do we do that? e0 seems like a prime area to do some math. The permittivity of water is 710. Are there higher ones? http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/db/d0006c.htm

Also, we know that high amounts of electricity strip the electrons off atoms. How does this change the coloumb barrier? Does it at all? At high enough electron densities, is it possible for an electron to hit a proton and make the next lower element at a different isotope?

It's also obvious that lighter metals are ideal, as they have less protons than heavier elements. Given that, which metals have a seemingly-valid energy path, IF the barrier can be surpassed?

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#172

Post by ZenoArrow » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 4:06 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #170

ZenoArrow wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "becoming a bit of a laughing stock when it turned out to be rubbish" The important thing here is to separate the idea from the implementation. Is cold fusion theoretically impossible? I'm no expert, but there seems to be at least some scientists indicating it's not impossible. If that's the case, why does the failure of the first experiment matter? It's sad that the scientific community is partly based on reputati…

I don't think the work can ever speak for itself; it is simply too hard to verify the data. Falsified data appears in science all the time even without anonymity and can take years to discover. With anonymity the world of science would quickly fill up with fake data generated by fossil fuel and pharma companies. Having your reputation at stake is an important control in behavior. Finally, anonymity precludes collabor…

> "I don't think the work can ever speak for itself; it is simply too hard to verify the data."

It wouldn't work in every case, however it is possible to have a reproducible experiment as part of a scientific paper. If the experiment can be reproduced (by publicly known scientists), then the identity of the author is not that important. The only time this wouldn't work is when experiments were too costly and/or time-consuming to reproduce.

> "Finally, anonymity precludes collaboration, the very basis of science. If I don't know who did something I can't call them up to extend their work, get their raw data, get help optimizing their method, etc."

Could go down the pseudo-anonymous route instead (similar to sites like HN and GitHub). That way the contact information could be specific to a single project, or could span multiple projects.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#173

Post by lmm » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 4:13 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #166

lmm wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misleadingly phrased. We have precise, verified models for quantum tunneling and at what rates under what circumstances it does and doesn't occur.

Based on those models, what circumstances are required for quantum tunnelling to occur?

Loosely the main points are that the rate falls off exponentially with the "width" of the barrier, and that energy is still conserved (you can say the particle "must have" had more energy at some point because it crossed the barrier, but you'll never observe it with more energy than it has). For more precise answers, just plug the potential you're trying to tunnel through into the Schrödinger equation.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#174

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

powera wrote: post #48

snowwrestler wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NASA EmDrive research is what I thought of, as well. I found the vehemence and personal nature of the attacks on those results to be surprising, disappointing, and beyond the bounds of typical rational skepticism. Sure, it will probably turn out to be nothing, but NASA is not trying scam us. Not every investigation of weird results is a scam.

If this is such a credible or important result, why are none of the articles about it ever from NASA or quoting NASA?

I didn't say it was credible or important, just that it's not a scam. There's a huge range in between those two extremes.

Here's an earlier comment about this research:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10497100

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#175

Post by jakejake » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #165

jeffdavis wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true as long as everyone is acting in good faith.

Most of science is not particularly good at handling people not acting in good faith.

I think that is how the "reputation traps" develop.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#176

Post by mannykannot » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #156

mannykannot wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You should read them yourself.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#177

Post by nkurz » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #132

intrasight wrote: post #103

I am confused as to the author's justification for seeming to give credence to a thoroughly discredited person. It would have been a better article if he had just stuck with "the science says it is possible just not probable" instead of discussing Rossi. And no mention of Pistol Shrimp - I am disappointed.

Why Pistol Shrimp? Other than them being cool as heck if the claims about them are true.

I can't find any high-quality single page that gives the history, but here's a low-quality one that explains the connection: http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/200...

Basically, pistol shrimp "attacks" produce a small burst of light (sonoluminesence). There was a theory that this was actually a form of fusion (sonofusion). There were some studies done that demonstrated this (Taleyarkhan, 2002). But there were lots of irregularities about the study (Naranjo, 2006), and like cold fusion it's been (mostly?) discredited.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#178

Post by nickpsecurity » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 7:22 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #177

nickpsecurity wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why Pistol Shrimp? Other than them being cool as heck if the claims about them are true.

I can't find any high-quality single page that gives the history, but here's a low-quality one that explains the connection: http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/200... Basically, pistol shrimp "attacks" produce a small burst of light (sonoluminesence). There was a theory that this was actually a form of fusion (sonofusion). There were some studies done that demonstrated this (Taleyarkhan, 2002).…

I like her writing style. Fun read. Never heard of sonofusion or thought about using sonoluminesence for it. Sounds like some potential albeit with careful measurements & checks. Something that odd & difficult to measure is likely to trip people up anyway. Just the nature of the thing.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#179

Post by ZenoArrow » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 7:42 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #176

ZenoArrow wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You should read them yourself.

If you've already read them, you could save me some time, a simple yes (they cover more than just Rossi's experiment) or no would be useful.

Re: The cold fusion horizon

#180

Post by yongjik » Wed, Dec 23, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

isolate wrote: post #151

murbard2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

"This is great! We can burn down Ook's village! He'll never know what hit him!"

"We can what down Ook's village?"