Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments • Hacker News Board

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#81

Post by olooney » Tue, May 28, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #71

olooney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The skepticism is not about fusion power, it's about cold fusion specifically, as well role of proprietary IP and patents in scientific research. Tokamak[1] (and other magnetic confinement) reactors seem much more promising and have seen slow but non-zero improvements for decades[2]. Some reactors like JT-60 have come close to being energy positive[3] but are not yet self sustaining. Large ongoing projects like like…

So, you must think one of two things, then: 1. Google, with all of the subject matter expertise they can avail themselves of, is completely wasting their money on this research that has no hope of success. 2. It'd be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion, but Google made some money off of it. Is that right?

Google can do what they like, of course. Perhaps they'll even make some money off it and create some useful device. I doubt Google has any greater access to SMEs - which in this case would be academic physicists - than ITER or CERN. I do believe that a dollar invested in tokamak research is more wisely spent than a dollar invested in cold fusion.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#82

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

olooney wrote: post #58

peterlk wrote: post #46

The cynicism in this threads hurts. > “This is not just a chase for cold fusion,” says Matthew Trevithick, a research programme manager at Google in Mountain View, California. “If it were, I don’t think we would have maintained an interest of this calibre of team for so long.” Here's what I see: fusion power would be a step function in human civilization. Such step functions are pathologically hard to achieve, becaus…

The skepticism is not about fusion power, it's about cold fusion specifically, as well role of proprietary IP and patents in scientific research. Tokamak[1] (and other magnetic confinement) reactors seem much more promising and have seen slow but non-zero improvements for decades[2]. Some reactors like JT-60 have come close to being energy positive[3] but are not yet self sustaining. Large ongoing projects like like…

[deleted]

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#83

Post by trhway » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

lostmyoldone wrote: post #39

darkpuma wrote: post #2

> "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 th…

>at least as close as hydrogen molecules at roughly 2000 atmospheres, and maybe much closer,

it is just a liquid hydrogen density. If any cold fusion is there i would bet that it would be some play due to huge electron cloud of Pd.

Pressure/atom distance wise - the high pressure experiments using diamond anvil compress hydrogen up to 1M+ atm . That is still well below the Jupiter core though, and so naturally no fusion, yet one can make things interesting say by zapping that pressurized hydrogen with laser. Should get NIF style results with much less power or alternatively much better results with the NIF power.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#84

Post by arxpoetica » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

One of the most iconic images of my childhood is when my scientist-inventor dad attempted to reproduce in his own lab the Fleischmann–Pons experiments of the late 80s. He'd built (I think to spec) an exact replica according to the published designs. Of course, nothing ever came of it, but it still fascinates me to this day thinking of him laboring over that. (The long beard and unkempt hair lent well to my image of him as mad scientist.)

I asked him later about the results of those experiments, and his sort of retort sounded like an embarrassing admission, something along the lines of "nothing will ever come of that."

I still idol the awesomeness of those days though.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#85

Post by alach11 » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #71

olooney wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The skepticism is not about fusion power, it's about cold fusion specifically, as well role of proprietary IP and patents in scientific research. Tokamak[1] (and other magnetic confinement) reactors seem much more promising and have seen slow but non-zero improvements for decades[2]. Some reactors like JT-60 have come close to being energy positive[3] but are not yet self sustaining. Large ongoing projects like like…

So, you must think one of two things, then: 1. Google, with all of the subject matter expertise they can avail themselves of, is completely wasting their money on this research that has no hope of success. 2. It'd be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion, but Google made some money off of it. Is that right?

To me it sounded like olooney was arguing a third option:

3. Google will fail to achieve cold fusion but possibly get some patents which will make them money, but do little to advance overall scientific progress towards economic fusion.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#86

Post by tim333 » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:07 PM UTC

dumbfoundded wrote: post #63

I'd love to learn more about the actual methods they're pursuing. One I like and related to cold fusion is muon-catalyzed fusion. Theoretically, it should be possible and dramatically lower the temperatures required for fusion. Muons are like electrons but much heavier and less stable. When a muon replaces an electron, it allows nuclei to get much closer together, lowering the energy requirement for fusion. The pract…

There are also fusors which you can make at home http://discovermagazine.com/2010/extreme-universe/18-do-it-y...

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#87

Post by natechols » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #80

darawk wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you must think one of two things, then: 1. Google, with all of the subject matter expertise they can avail themselves of, is completely wasting their money on this research that has no hope of success. 2. It'd be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion, but Google made some money off of it. Is that right?

It would be a bad thing for the world if we got cold fusion and Google controlled the entire stack, yes. This is because in the long, long term, allowing a company to dictate how a technology this important is used could hamper our ability to build on it or improve it. Over a long enough timescale, it would be better if we delayed getting cold fusion so that we could get the same technology later in a less encumbered…

Those legally enforceable restrictions last for less than two decades; it's already been 30 years since the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#88

Post by technofiend » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #59

technofiend wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 I'm envisioning the Mr. Fusion in Back To The Future as a Google product. Surely it would fail the second it left that narrow 5-10 year window of support. Error: 403, Forbidden; the user is not aut…

Sorry for the pedantry, but you're confused. Mr. Fusion had little to do with time travel: it was a commercial device which Doc got in the future, and which simply generated power from whatever you wanted to pour into it. Doc's flux capacitor is what allowed time-travel, and it needed a lot of power. So before, he had to either use uranium or lightning, but after installing Mr. Fusion he didn't need either of those h…

I was simply remembering the end of the first movie where Doc drops a beer can, a banana peel and so on into the Mr. Fusion so he can take Marty and his girlfriend into the future and joking when Doc ended up in 198-whatever Mr. Fusion would refuse to work because it was out of support. I think you're interleaving the timelines of later movies?

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#89

Post by ChrisClark » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #43

usaphp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem with Tesla is when they take your money promising to deliver something, when they can't. Full self-driving capability is never, ever coming to the current-gen Teslas, no matter what Elon says - the sensory capability just isn't there. Google at least says "we can't support this profitably, so we won't" while Tesla engages in fraud.

Never? Even when we've already seen it working?

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#90

Post by v7p1Qbt1im » Tue, May 28, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

shadowtree wrote: post #52

microtherion wrote: post #9

This 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 ;-)

Which Google moonshot has paid off so far?

https://x.company/projects/

A couple of them. In terms of economic success they only really need one every 10 years too succeed as every one of them might be worth tens to hundreds of billions.

It‘s also a great way to find out what ideas don‘t work without too much risk.