Kurt,
Shhh! I'd rather strap a BFR on a rocket and mine asteroids for valuable stuff. Don't ruin it! The dream is fragile enough sitting here on pins and needles waiting for news out of Santa Fe.
The technology will lead where it will, be it dead end or new industries.
Dr. Bussard thought the whole CF mess was dreadful. He suspected it was a nice little niche in physics that deserved some quiet study to see what it would turn up, but without the hype. He did not think it was actually anything new, but rather a corner of the cross section curves that was neglected due to the far more promising regions where useful power generating reactions live.
The most valuable thing, really, if the field does turn up something interesting, is a better understanding of physics, and thus our world. As I said way above, and Torulf has hinted at, a mechanism like this might tweak our understanding of why we have just the mix of elements we do. Where that would lead we can only guess.
If there is a pathway to build heavier elements, it will require pushing e=mc^2 the wrong way. It would take a lot of energy and it might not be particularly happy to go where we want it to. But if the present work does prove itself, I'm sure there will be no shortage of new alchemists ready to give it a try, with the same old gleam in their eyes that their ancestors had.
Cold Fusion Proven True by U.S. Navy Researchers
chris says:
There is replication of the effect (about 1/2 the time) from different researchers. And NOT replication by 1/2 the researchers . Half the experiments.
If I were to guess at this point I'd say that some impurity is catalyzing the reaction and that the impurity may range in the ppm to ppb levels.
What we have in this forum are hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with not enough evidence to decide.
There are published papers. (I have read a few and they seem sound)But I'm not "not looking at the evidence". What "evidence"? Stop accusing me of this, y'all.
There is replication of the effect (about 1/2 the time) from different researchers. And NOT replication by 1/2 the researchers . Half the experiments.
If I were to guess at this point I'd say that some impurity is catalyzing the reaction and that the impurity may range in the ppm to ppb levels.
What we have in this forum are hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with not enough evidence to decide.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I'm with you. I was in L-5 Society as a teen ager in 1980. I am still (and will always be) a big-time advocate of space settlement.Tom Ligon wrote:Kurt,
Shhh! I'd rather strap a BFR on a rocket and mine asteroids for valuable stuff. Don't ruin it! The dream is fragile enough sitting here on pins and needles waiting for news out of Santa Fe.
True. Its certainly not clear if anything will come out of it. I'm still a CF skeptic, you know. My point is, if the current CF stuff is real, it is as suggestive of transmutation processes as much as energy generation. After all, these are low energy reactions (compared to fission and plasma fusion).Tom Ligon wrote: The technology will lead where it will, be it dead end or new industries.
No doubt. But then conventional ore processing is quite energy intensive as well. Transmutation is ore processing on steroids.Tom Ligon wrote:
If there is a pathway to build heavier elements, it will require pushing e=mc^2 the wrong way. It would take a lot of energy and it might not be particularly happy to go where we want it to.
Nevertheless, assuming around 2030 to 2040 when we get most of our energy from fission (LFTR's, MSR's) or fusion (Polywell, FRC variants, etc) we should have plenty of power to pursue transmutation efforts. Of course we may have fusion powered space craft by this time, making asteroid mining (and space settlement) relatively cheap as well. If industrial transmutation is developed, its application is likely to be limited to the manufacture of Platinum-group elements and elements such as Indium. These are the only elements expensive enough to economically justify their manufacture by such an energy-intensive process.
What is obvious to me from the CF fiasco is that we still don't know much about nuclear science. It is possible that a whole family of nuclear reactions that remains undiscovered exists and that nuclear science could lead to whole new industries just like chemistry did starting in the late 1800's. I am not the only one who believes this may be possible.
Amen to that.What is obvious to me from the CF fiasco is that we still don't know much about nuclear science.
I'm not sure transmutation can be economically viable. The economics of ore processing work because ore is much much cheaper than the metals it yields. With transmutation, you're going from one refined product to another, and probably only moving a number or two on the periodic table.
I suppose it might work for some really rare/desirable elements that have abundant/undesirable neighbors that can be transmuted. So I guess the first step for Alchemy Inc. is to identify whether any such candidates exist. Could even make some lucky fellow a billionaire, if things fall out right, but seems unlikely.
I am sure that if you produced a mature transmuter you could find some very narrow markets where it would be profitable. Some aerospace applications like long missions or a moon base or creating some useful, but rare element. Over all, however, I would think that it is a fairly dead end tech. Mining the mantle or the core will be easier and more profitable for most things compared to mass transmutation. Not that I am saying that mining the mantle or the core is going to be easy or is going to happen anytime soon.TallDave wrote:Amen to that.What is obvious to me from the CF fiasco is that we still don't know much about nuclear science.
I'm not sure transmutation can be economically viable. The economics of ore processing work because ore is much much cheaper than the metals it yields. With transmutation, you're going from one refined product to another, and probably only moving a number or two on the periodic table.
I suppose it might work for some really rare/desirable elements that have abundant/undesirable neighbors that can be transmuted. So I guess the first step for Alchemy Inc. is to identify whether any such candidates exist. Could even make some lucky fellow a billionaire, if things fall out right, but seems unlikely.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.
Wrong side of iron, I'm afraid. How would cadmium get into an excited state? Palladium fusing with a deuteron would be endo-thermic.93143 wrote:Same reason carbon-12 does. Internal energy higher than ground state.chrismb wrote:...there are no cadmiun isotopes that are alpha emitters, so why would it decay with an alpha?
-
CharlesKramer
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm
There may be a bigger issue.kurt9 wrote:I still think "cold fusion" is an open mystery.
Whether "cold fusion" involves actual fusion seems to be beyond the point.
The reality is the phenomenon is so weak and so difficult to reproduce that it's existence is in doubt. Which also makes it of dubious significance.
Unless it can create dramatic amounts of measurable heat or other energy, it hardly matters whether it's "fusion" or something else.
The related problem is -- even if something is happening, it's not really understood. There is (AFAIK) not even a theoretical basis for "scaling up" or changing fuels or whatever to make the output of cold fusion warm enough to notice. Putting a match to a lump of coal has some obvious advantages.
CBK
(I didn't see that 'til the new post came up.)93143 wrote:105Pd + 2H -> 107Ag + 13.1MeVchrismb wrote:How would cadmium get into an excited state?
107Ag + 2H + 13.1MeV -> 109Cd + 26.4MeV
109Cd + 26.4MeV -> 105Pd + 4He + 23.8MeV
...I don't know whether that could actually happen, but the energy works out.
Hah! How throughly inventive!!!!
Well that'd certainly explain why cold fusion does next to nothing, with reaction activation energies in the >20MeV range!!
You've brightened up my day! I love crazies, really.
The phenomenon is weak - given that it is not understood. i.e. only small sections of the activating electrode participate in the reaction. This may be fundamental or it may be a function of our limited understanding.The reality is the phenomenon is so weak and so difficult to reproduce that it's existence is in doubt. Which also makes it of dubious significance.
Unless it can create dramatic amounts of measurable heat or other energy, it hardly matters whether it's "fusion" or something else.
i.e. similar to Lilenthal's invention of the FET in 1925. The first practical FET did not happen until around 1950. It was unpatentable. Prior art.
The phenomenon is no longer difficult to reproduce. It is difficult to reliably reproduce. See Lilenthal.
It makes measurable amounts of heat. Nuclear reaction? That is not certain.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
CharlesKramer
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm
I don't understand that distinction.The phenomenon is no longer difficult to reproduce. It is difficult to reliably reproduce.
Science = reproducible = a known set of variables always causes a predictable result.
Pons and Fleischman had their shot -- including the millions they got from Toyota during their 5 year collaboration in France.
Cold fusion is more like the opposite of a conspiracy story -- a weak effect given decades of attention and research money.
I understand it may one day lead to something -- I just think the effect is too weak to justify interest (well, my interest). Without even a theory about how it can scale to something big enough to make a difference, the attention given to it seems excessive. Maybe in the end it will be revealed to involve a nuclear reaction, and will stand for the proposition that nuclear reactions can be boring.It makes measurable amounts of heat. Nuclear reaction? That is not certain.
The reproducibility is a (unknown) function of the electrode.I don't understand that distinction.
It can be reproduced by all experimenters about 1/2 the time.
As opposed to very few of the experimenters in the beginning.
That is not true in the early stages of exploration.Science = reproducible = a known set of variables always causes a predictable result.
Was Lilenthal's FET transistor real if no one could make one? Was it science? Was it boring?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.