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

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#101

Post by imglorp »

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?

This tabletop research is orders of magnitudes cheaper than hot fusion. It's a huge reward for tiny risk.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#103

Post by greedo »

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…

I have a feeling that if Google is successful at something along the lines of cold fusion, most governments will ignore any patents. The genie will be out of the bottle.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#104

Post by toast0 »

usaphp wrote: post #36
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 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

Has Tesla started delivering repair manuals and replacement parts? I keep hearing about Tesla vehicles at the body shop for several months.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#105

Post by dhimes »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #99
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?

maybe free-fall? A bunch of them on a ferris-wheel like gizmo (but maybe more oblong up and down), some "active" while falling and others "inactive" while returning to the top?

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#106

Post by JumpCrisscross »

arxpoetica wrote: post #84

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 h…

> the Fleischmann–Pons experiments of the late 80s

I recall a talk given at an MIT club a few years ago in which a researcher claimed loading was insufficiently controlled in follow-on experiments. I think cold fusion and F-P is probably a fraud, but it sowed enough doubt in my mind so as to make a follow-up, if not reasonable, also not unreasonable.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#107

Post by Asooka »

dfilppi wrote: post #42

Next on the docket: turning lead into gold at room temperature.

Bah, that's trivial with modern science. You just bombard the lead atom's core with a precise beam of electrons until you knock out two neutrons and a proton. I have the schematics for a very elegant apparatus to do that, but this text box is too small to contain them.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#108

Post by aeternus »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #99
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?

Only if the spacecraft never accelerates.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#109

Post by Apocryphon »

wezen wrote: post #75
smt88 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alphabet doesn't seem to abandon moonshots as easily as it does consumer SaaS products like Reader. They still have massive, on-going investments in anti-aging and self-driving vehicles. I don't know of any moonshots they've killed yet.

> I don't know of any moonshots they've killed yet. Google fiber is mostly dead.

That one seems more like a fault of legal battles and rent-seekers.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#110

Post by jonas21 »

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…

You could argue that this is exactly the type of research that should be funded by private industry: high-risk, high-reward, and unlikely to get government funding.
Post reply on HN