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

Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 162 posts

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#91

Post by hguant »

criddell wrote: post #73
ars wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest answer is: It's not real. There is no such thing as cold fusion. It's not a matter of "so difficult", it's not actually possible. Are you asking, why is there no such thing as cold fusion? If so then in the simplest way I can explain it: Atoms are like little magnets that repel each other. To get fusion you need to get the atoms to touch - but you can't, they repel. So you have to press them together rea…

> Atoms are like little magnets that repel each other. Is that a good analogy? I wonder because the first thought that popped in my head is that magnets also attract each other.

Your edge case is correct, but I think it's a useful first order approximation for an 'ELI5" type answer. What's another common situation where two things physically repel each other because of an invisible force?

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#92

Post by stonogo »

ChrisClark wrote: post #89
Analemma_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You've been told you've seen it working. You have not seen full self-driving.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#93

Post by dr_dshiv »

They didn't look at sonofusion, though, did they? That involves room temperature apparatus, but extremely high local temperatures -- due to collapsing bubbles. (Similar to sonoluminescence)

I remember this from the late Robert Apfel's work at Yale -- because wouldn't it just be swell if bubbles could be the basis for fusion and clean energy? The problem was that bubbles need to be perfectly symmetrical for sufficient collapse power and that is only possible in zero gravity.

Here is a paper from Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002954930...

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#94

Post by lioeters »

jayalpha wrote: post #57
markrages wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An idea that violates physical laws is just wishful thinking, no matter how big the potential payoff.

You should study the scientific method. Nothing is set in stone, science is an evolutionary process. Even the scientific method itself. If experiments violate CURRENT laws of physics, the laws have to be revised. Guess how we came to our current atomic model from the plum pudding atom model?

Exactly! I think people forget that physical "laws" are mental models, working hypotheses that need to be constantly questioned, tested against reality and revised.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#95

Post by BinaryIdiot »

drewg123 wrote: post #77
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

As a Tesla owner, I have to say that I'm really looking forward to them delivering the Full Self Driving option that I paid for 18 months ago when I bought my car.

The worst part is, it doesn't seem like they'll be able to. I'm curious what happens if they ultimate need additional / different sensors to make it happen. Do they replace those parts for free?

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#97

Post by grandmczeb »

jayalpha wrote: post #44
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 ;-)

I am excited. Worth looking into. Even if it violates (current) physical laws. Potential payoff to big. But I have also seen google projects that did not look scientific sound to me. Measuring blood glucose with contact lenses? How? Lag time is around one hour for eye liquid. Your are dead and the sensor does not know it yet. Your need to be below 10 min lag time.

FYI that project was killed last year[1]. Also, like a lot of research projects, there was a lot of auxiliary research that could end up quite useful, even if the initial idea didn’t work out. For example, figuring out how to put an antenna into a contact, how to safely store power, etc.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contact_Lens

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#98

Post by AnthonyMouse »

natechols wrote: post #87
danShumway wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's also assuming they would do something untoward with the monopoly, rather than just building a thousand new power plants and then making ten trillion dollars by being the lowest cost provider of zero carbon power generation for twenty years.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#99

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #93

They didn't look at sonofusion, though, did they? That involves room temperature apparatus, but extremely high local temperatures -- due to collapsing bubbles. (Similar to sonoluminescence) I remember this from the late Robert Apfel's work at Yale -- because wouldn't it just be swell if bubbles could be the basis for fusion and clean energy? The problem was that bubbles need to be perfectly symmetrical for sufficient…

> The problem was that bubbles need to be perfectly symmetrical for sufficient collapse power and that is only possible in zero gravity.

Then wouldn't that work to power a spacecraft?

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#100

Post by anthonybsd »

ChrisClark wrote: post #89
Analemma_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You have? Care to share with the rest of us?
Post reply on HN