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

71–80 of 162 posts

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#71

Post by darawk »

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…

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?

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#72

Post by modzu »

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?

this is absolutely true, but, what drives experiments are hypotheses, not just wishful thinking.

a hypothesis is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

it's arguable whether "is cold fusion possible?" is a valid hypothesis, because currently there is no accepted reason, evidence, observation, or starting point for that investigation. only the hope, the wish: "what if it was..."

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#73

Post by criddell »

ars wrote: post #45
mikejulietbravo wrote: post #34

Is there an ELI5 of why cold fusion is so difficult to achieve?

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.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#74

Post by UnFleshedOne »

jayalpha wrote: post #61
magduf wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Why? What if you don't care about having your blood glucose data that quickly, and just want to see the overall trend, even if it is delayed an hour? This won't help people who really need to be able to see what their glucose level is…

If the lag is one hour, you still need to prick. If you want to see "overall trend" and don't care about any "lag time", just measure in Urine.

There is an enormous difference between ease of use of a contact lens sensor that you presumably wear most of your awake time and that gives you constant stream of measurements with 1h lag and urine test kit that you carry with you and with luck remember to use every few hours.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#75

Post by wezen »

smt88 wrote: post #49
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

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.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#77

Post by drewg123 »

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

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.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#78

Post by jayalpha »

modzu wrote: post #72
jayalpha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

this is absolutely true, but, what drives experiments are hypotheses , not just wishful thinking . a hypothesis is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." it's arguable whether "is cold fusion possible?" is a valid hypothesis, because currently there is no accepted reason, evidence, observation, or starting point for that investigati…

Well, trust me, what drives most experiments is not hypotheses but "this is strange" results.

"it's arguable whether "is cold fusion possible?" is a valid hypothesis, because currently there is no accepted reason,"

I am not a nuclear physicist, but my chemistry is good enough to know that it should not be possible.

But take into consideration that Fleischmann was a pretty good chemist. Possible he fucked up. Looking backwards likely. But discussion is possible only based on date. Not believes what should or should not be possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann%E2%80%93Pons_exper...

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#79

Post by jayalpha »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #74
jayalpha wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the lag is one hour, you still need to prick. If you want to see "overall trend" and don't care about any "lag time", just measure in Urine.

There is an enormous difference between ease of use of a contact lens sensor that you presumably wear most of your awake time and that gives you constant stream of measurements with 1h lag and urine test kit that you carry with you and with luck remember to use every few hours.

Yeah. As a non lens wearer sounds pretty comfortable to me.

But if you have money I can offer you a non-invasive glucose measurement start-up with peer reviewed publications.

Re: Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

#80

Post by danShumway »

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?

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 form.

If cold fusion is possible, and Google stops working on it, we can still get it through other means. Other people can pick up Google's slack. If Google manages to crack it, and as a result is able to put legally enforceable restrictions on how it's used, then that's it. There's nowhere to go from there.

Post reply on HN