I like it. I don't believe they will achieve cold fusion, but who knows? If there's even a slim chance for it to work it's worth looking into by respectable scientists that will enable other labs around the world to replicate their results, unlike the dubious experiments we've seen in the past.
Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
31–40 of 162 posts
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#32[deleted]
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#33This kind of stuff makes me so happy to own Google stock. Even if it drives the stock analysts crazy.
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#34Is there an ELI5 of why cold fusion is so difficult to achieve?
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#35> "The Google team explored three experimental set-ups that have been proposed to generate cold fusion — two involving palladium and hydrogen, and one involving metallic powders and hydrogen. None found evidence of fusion. The results have been published across 12 papers over the past 2 years: 9 in peer-reviewed journals and 3 on the arXiv preprint server." It seems obvious to me that you can't achieve fusion using a…
They were thinking of quantum tunneling, which could, along with a lattice, allow protons to tunnel close enough together to fuse without having to cross the coulomb barrier. Or something. Some guy from a Berkeley LENR startup named Bloomsomething told me this tale once. Sounds vaguely plausible in a "quantum stuff is zany" way.
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#36This seems to be in keeping with Google's "Moon Shot" philosophy — investing in some projects with potentially high payoff, but low probability of success. If Tesla were pursuing a project like this, they'd probably announce that they were expecting all their cars to ship with cold fusion reactors by 2020 — and then start hiring a team ;-)
I know you are joking, but unlike Google, Tesla at least tries to finish whatever they start and actually deliver stuff, while google quickly jumps the ship if the thing does not work out and abandoned all their customers
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#37Fine with me. Maybe this will put an end to the conspiracy theories about suppression of of cold fusion experiments.
You may be underestimating the thought processes of conspiracy theorists. Google have admitted to spending multiple millions over a number of years on a cold fusion team yet the team are still only publishing negative results? No one does that unless there are results they're not publishing...etc etc.
In the article it points out that although the results are negative when it comes to cold fusion, they had positive results about connected themes like materials research.
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#38I like it. I don't believe they will achieve cold fusion, but who knows? If there's even a slim chance for it to work it's worth looking into by respectable scientists that will enable other labs around the world to replicate their results, unlike the dubious experiments we've seen in the past.
And even if they don't find a way to achieve cold fusion, the electrochemistry they're researching is still worthwhile to explore for other applications.
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#39> "The Google team explored three experimental set-ups that have been proposed to generate cold fusion — two involving palladium and hydrogen, and one involving metallic powders and hydrogen. None found evidence of fusion. The results have been published across 12 papers over the past 2 years: 9 in peer-reviewed journals and 3 on the arXiv preprint server." It seems obvious to me that you can't achieve fusion using a…
As far as I understand, most of the ideas concerning how fusion at low temperatures, and their relationship with eg. Pd is not because of chemical catalysis, but because it readily dissociates and dissolves hydrogen (and isotopes) into it's crystal structure.
This process brings the hydrogen atoms ( at ntp ) at least as close as hydrogen molecules at roughly 2000 atmospheres, and maybe much closer, if I punched in the correct numbers.
I believe it was (when cold fusion was, ahem, hot) speculated that the process of hydrogen solution/diffusion within the metallic matrix had somehow forced the hydrogen much closer together, while possibly creating local heating because of changes in the metallic structure at high hydrogen saturation, and that this was somehow both hot enough and close enough to create fusion.
Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
#40Is there an ELI5 of why cold fusion is so difficult to achieve?
In a nutshell, the reactants (small nuclei such as from deuterium or tritium) have to be brought into intimate contact, against electrical forces that tend to push them apart. The primary effort to achieve fusion has been to overcome those forces and increase the sheer density of nuclei in a way that is not more costly in energy than the fusion energy that can be extracted and used, and without the experiment obliterating itself and its surroundings.
Even on a small scale, lack of measurable excess heat is not necessarily a show stopper, because fusion should produce other signatures such as by shedding extra neutrons. The lack of neutron evidence is what generated strong doubts about early reports of CF.