Free energy or hoax?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

I posted a slightly better link for that same story just 5 posts ago.

http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_F...ng_for_market/

But that was sooooo... Page-3.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

But hey, at least the Bolognese-boys published something ... Journal of Nuclear Physics, sounds impressive.

Well, "Journal of Irreproducible Results", "Annals of Improbable Research" and "Mad" were already taken ...

- - -

(Yes, I'm in a cheap-joke mood this afternoon.)

[Spherical Cow]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Well, "Journal of Irreproducible Results", "Annals of Improbable Research" and "Mad" were already taken ...

The publication* of which I am the most proud on my resume is in the esteemed "Journal of Irreproducible Results"; very tough to get published there, which is why the scientists discussed above probably defaulted to "Journal of Nuclear Physics".

Norm



*Serendipitous Discovery of a Macroscopic Manifestation of Quantum “Entanglement” in Office Beverages

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

The publication* of which I am the most proud on my resume is in the esteemed "Journal of Irreproducible Results"; very tough to get published there, which is why the scientists discussed above probably defaulted to "Journal of Nuclear Physics".

JNP sounds even more impressive (or perhaps just more like a famous bicycle race) in Italian: "Giornale di Fisica Nucleare".

(Or maybe the whole thing is just a matter of anagrammatical confusion, and they really published in the journal of Unclear Physics, which is "Giornale di Fisica Chiaro" en Italiano).

Sorry to post before looking up, Retina -but man, 5 posts ago, that's an eternity in Twitter/Facebook terms.

[retina]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

... -but man, 5 posts ago, that's an eternity in Twitter/Facebook terms.

You are right, so in that case you are forgiven.

Hey, but wait, #152 is a quote of my link and your post is #154 ... oh never mind, I still forgive you because you are a mod doing, no doubt, hyper-great spam fighting duties here that have gone unseen, and unthanked, by the unwasheds here.

But steering slightly back onto topic, I sometimes wonder how these people cope later in life after these nonsense claims have been well and truly discredited. How do they look themselves in the mirror? There must be a certain personality trait that just doesn't care. I guess if someone has an extremely poor memory, huge desire for attention and no conscience then it wouldn't matter to them what happens, just move on.

Which reminds me, I must go and have a look-see at what Steorn's latest handwavey-woo technology is ... brb

[davar55]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-...ion-video.html

If your first reaction was to blurt out, "Oh, baloney" - you'd be right.

So the question is: Is this for real, or another Steorn-style startup?

But hey, at least the Bolognese-boys published something ... Journal of Nuclear Physics, sounds impressive.

Is the theoretical energy source mechanism called
cold fusion or controlled fusion? I thought it was the latter.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

Is the theoretical energy source mechanism called cold fusion or controlled fusion? I thought it was the latter.

How many times do you see the word "controlled" in the article? How many times do you see the word "cold" just before the word "fusion"?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

How many times do you see the word "controlled" in the article? How many times do you see the word "cold" just before the word "fusion"?

I suppose it's alright to answer my question with two questions.

But while cold fusiion requires exactly a two-for-one (binary)
chain reaction to occur in nature, which I think is impossible,
(if it were so, exponential explosion would have occurred and
the sun would either never have formed or would have already
exploded), ...
...cold fusion can get by (when controlled, if the imaginary technology
I have in mind ever works out) on a 3-for-1 reaction (I have NOT
worked out the math or nuclear reactions).

So I'll answer ch....h..d's two questions, and add a third of my own.

(1) I don't know, I never read it. How many?

(2) I don't know. Again, I never read it. How many?

(3) Do scientists do the math or just defer it to mathematicians?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

But while cold fusiion requires exactly a two-for-one (binary)
chain reaction to occur in nature, which I think is impossible,
(if it were so, exponential explosion would have occurred and
the sun would either never have formed or would have already
exploded), ...
...cold fusion can get by (when controlled, if the imaginary technology
I have in mind ever works out) on a 3-for-1 reaction (I have NOT
worked out the math or nuclear reactions).

[RDS] This is physics gibberish[/RDS]

What is "exactly two-for-one (binary) chain reaction"? Why does cold fusion require it, presumning one exists, and hot fusion does not require it? I think it reasonable that we have the shared assumption that the Sun exists and that it now generates the overwhelmingly greatest fraction of its energy through hot fusion.

Cold fusion has been demonstrated through at least two well documented processes and no serious physicist now doubts its existence. The two best known examples are muon-catalysed fusion and acoustic inertial confinement fusion, informably known as bubble fusion or sonofusion.

A third cold-fusion mechanism is confidently expected to occur but no experiment has yet detected it and, I believe, it is most unlikely to be detected. This one relies on quantum tunnelling of one nucleus into another at low temperature. I can't now find the article but I'm sure I read a while back that deuterium-deuterium tunnelling fusion occurs at a rate of about 30Hz within Jupiter. It is this low rate which leads me to believe that it is unlikely to be demonstrated experimentally

Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by xilman

[RDS] This is physics gibberish[/RDS]

What is "exactly two-for-one (binary) chain reaction"? Why does cold fusion require it, presumning one exists, and hot fusion does not require it? I think it reasonable that we have the shared assumption that the Sun exists and that it now generates the overwhelmingly greatest fraction of its energy through hot fusion.

Cold fusion has been demonstrated through at least two well documented processes and no serious physicist now doubts its existence. The two best known examples are muon-catalysed fusion and acoustic inertial confinement fusion, informably known as bubble fusion or sonofusion.

A third cold-fusion mechanism is confidently expected to occur but no experiment has yet detected it and, I believe, it is most unlikely to be detected. This one relies on quantum tunnelling of one nucleus into another at low temperature. I can't now find the article but I'm sure I read a while back that deuterium-deuterium tunnelling fusion occurs at a rate of about 30Hz within Jupiter. It is this low rate which leads me to believe that it is unlikely to be demonstrated experimentally

Paul

My memory was faulty but I'm happy to post a correction. AIFC is still somewhat controversial, it appears, and that only some well respected physicists accept the results of the experiments. It is pyroelectric fusion which is well-established, not AIFC. I had remembered them the wrong way round.

So there are still three cold fusion mechanism which are generally accepted, as well as a few others which are more or less controversial.


Paul

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by xilman

So there are still three cold fusion mechanism which are generally accepted, as well as a few others which are more or less controversial.

So wait, what are those? The only one I knew of that was generally accepted is pyroelectric fusion, and if you're saying AIFC isn't then what are the other two?

-physics newb