fusion energy source? really?

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

hint: there isn't a power supply system that first came in miniaturized form.

The first nuclear reactor produced a 'trivial' amount of energy.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by IROC

I probably shouldn't have been so dismissive. The eCat itself hasn't really been debunked, but their claims don't hold up to scrutiny, so it appears they've "made up" their story. Either that or the universe doesn't operate like we think it does.

Here's a good discussion:

The Physics of why the e-Cat’s Cold Fusion Claims Collapse – Starts With A Bang

Thanks, but that isn't in response to the report from a few days ago. I respect your knowledge on the subject matter but the report doesn't say it is cold fusion and cautions against it but they were not able to explains how it works either. Then again, the "inventor" was involved in the testing in some crucial parts which I found odd. Maybe they are all in cahoots.

[beepbeep]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/16/experts_skeptical_over_lockheed_martins_claims_to_ have_cracked_fusion/

"The search for fusion has been long and painful and a lot of people embarrassed about it," Prof Morse said.

The professor also pointed out a curious part of the Lockheed announcement: the frequent mention of the search for outside investors. If the technology is such a game changer, why isn't moneybags Lockheed prepared to put its own money behind it?

"Lockheed Martin had revenues of $45bn last year, and profits of $2.9bn, so why are they seeking external funding, he asked. "That's like Barack Obama asking me for a loan."

[Scuba Steve]

I thought he borrowed money constantly [/PARF]

[beepbeep]

By the way, I know a perfectly fine way of doing fusion reaction: Just collect 10^30 kg hydrogen and it'll lighten-up by itself!

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Not really. You just need a very large container where statistically all of the neutrons will be absorbed and the energy returned to the reaction. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!

Originally Posted by beepbeep

By the way, I know a perfectly fine way of doing fusion reaction: Just collect 10^30 kg hydrogen and it'll lighten-up by itself!

THAT is the correct size of the container...doesn't even need plastic wrap!

[IROC]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Thanks, but that isn't in response to the report from a few days ago. I respect your knowledge on the subject matter but the report doesn't say it is cold fusion and cautions against it but they were not able to explains how it works either. Then again, the "inventor" was involved in the testing in some crucial parts which I found odd. Maybe they are all in cahoots.

I think the problem is that the E-Cat's results (claimed results) don't make any sense. There are also people posting issues with the recent report (i.e. Rossi personally messing the reactor during the test), but in my mind the original objections still apply. How does one make copper from nickel without those pesky 511 keV gammas?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

By the way, I know a perfectly fine way of doing fusion reaction: Just collect 10^30 kg hydrogen and it'll lighten-up by itself!

What's a sunway?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by iroc

. How does one make copper from nickel without those pesky 511 kev gammas?

With PFM?

[Nevergrowup]

I'm doubtful. Even Doc Ock had trouble controlling it...

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by IROC

How does one make copper from nickel without those pesky 511 keV gammas?

Swepco?

[Jim Richards]

MFI baby! MFI!

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by IROC

I think the problem is that the E-Cat's results (claimed results) don't make any sense. There are also people posting issues with the recent report (i.e. Rossi personally messing the reactor during the test), but in my mind the original objections still apply. How does one make copper from nickel without those pesky 511 keV gammas?

Sorry, I didn't see the copper when I read through it and I admit a lot was over my head. I know they were avoiding calling it cold fusion but didn't understand the surplus of energy. I just thought it would be difficult to hoax 32 days of surplus unless the entire team was in on it. Which is entirely possible.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Sorry, I didn't see the copper when I read through it and I admit a lot was over my head. I know they were avoiding calling it cold fusion but didn't understand the surplus of energy. I just thought it would be difficult to hoax 32 days of surplus unless the entire team was in on it. Which is entirely possible.

Yeah. Until it's verified independently, it's in the realm of snake oil.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by M.D. Holloway

For the sake of argument - if this was true and in 5 to 10 years power generation as we know it would switch quickly from petro based to fusion based...while it would take awhile for the transition, do you realize just how many folks rely on the petro industry?

There is a part of me that thinks that it is not only possible but actually in use to some extent yet if broken to the masses it would lead to some serious economic collapse. Free is not good...

I have little concern or fear of an economic collapse... as Mr. Sammy sez we will continue to consume... it will just switch for petro base to electromotive (for transportation. We will still need petro for oodles of thing besides gas and diesel... and it will take years if not decades to phase out petro powered transportation.

And I have no fear that capitalism will be there to milk every penny... the internet should be free but it is not... ten years ago T-Mobile gave me a free flip phone just for signing up and I paid $40 a month for cell... We can stream free TV over the internet... but the networks block it.

[biosurfer1]

Why is LM looking for investors? The same reason hedge fund managers do. Why do it with your money when you can do it with someone elses.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by IROC

How does one make copper from nickel without those pesky 511 keV gammas?

Philosopher's stone?

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

The first nuclear reactor produced a 'trivial' amount of energy.

did you even read my quote?

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

The first nuclear reactor produced a 'trivial' amount of energy.

Actually, we went from splitting the atom in 1938 to the first chain reaction in 1942 to the first power generator (5MW) in 1954. In 1956 the first commercial reactor was 50MW. ~16-18 years

The idea of the fusion bomb was thought up in 1941. 1951 the first test of fission occurred inside an atomic bomb. First controlled fusion 1958.

Lots of development, ideas, attempts, etc. ~73 years later, no commercially viable fusion yet.

[nynor]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Actually, we went from splitting the atom in 1938 to the first chain reaction in 1942 to the first power generator (5MW) in 1954. In 1956 the first commercial reactor was 50MW. ~16-18 years

The idea of the fusion bomb was thought up in 1941. 1951 the first test of fission occurred inside an atomic bomb. First controlled fusion 1958.

Lots of development, ideas, attempts, etc. ~73 years later, no commercially viable fusion yet.

got it. fusion, on an economically viable, commercially viable level is several orders of difficulty more difficult. thank you for your post.