Cold Fusion

UnCritical · June 2005

<a href='http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html' target='_blank'>http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/200...25s01-stss.html</a>

Got this off <a href='http://digg.com' target='_blank'>Digg.com</a>

You've all probably heard about cold fusion and how scientists have tried in the past and although they managed to pull it off, it use huuuuge pieces of equipment that needed loads of energy to run. So it was pointless.
Well it seems someones managed to do it with something the size of a bread box, and not much energy (comparativly) at all. Win.

I hope they manage to pull this off and get a real working fusion reactor. It would change the world a great deal.

Comprox · June 2005

All they have done is shrunk it:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>For the time being, don't expect fusion to become a readily available energy option. The current cold fusion apparatus still takes much more energy to start up than you get back out, and it may never end up breaking even. I</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hopefully that can be fixed up in the near future <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Status_Quo · June 2005

You'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical until I have this confirmed from other sources. Not only because this is the first time I've heard of this which is more than a little strange since fusion would be the solution to every energy problem on Earth, but I have my doubt about anything posted by something called "The Christian Science Monitor".

Edit: Ah, nevermind. It doesn't work. No news there then.

UnCritical · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Comprox @ Jun 7 2005, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> All they have done is shrunk it:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>For the time being, don't expect fusion to become a readily available energy option. The current cold fusion apparatus still takes much more energy to start up than you get back out, and it may never end up breaking even. I</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hopefully that can be fixed up in the near future <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yeah but the distinct impression I got was that compared to the old experiments the energy requirements are alot lower. Not low enough yet, granted, but still a big step <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Aldaris · June 2005

Er, it says right in the article that this will never be an energy producing model, so no need to celebrate.

Oh, and I knew I had read this somewhere else. Unfortunatly, you can't get access to the whole article. I'll post it anyway.

<a href='http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18624974.100' target='_blank'>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam.../mg18624974.100</a>

CommunistWithAGun · June 2005

Same thing happend with Fission, it always took more energy to split the atom than what was released upon splitting. Then they chained it by firing neutrons at the atoms

Just give them time, sometihng will come about making it possible.

My brother said "How come fusion is always hot, why don't they just put ice cubes in it <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /> "

Yeah, He's an idiot.

ZeroByte · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Status Quo @ Jun 8 2005, 04:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>...I have my doubt about anything posted by something called "The Christian Science Monitor".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Christian Science Monitor is an international newspaper published daily, Monday through Friday. Started in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, the paper does not use wire services and instead relies largely on its own reporters in bureaus in eleven countries around the world. Reporters at one time were drawn largely from church members but this no longer holds true.

Despite its name, the Monitor was not established to be a religious-themed paper, nor does it directly promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. <b>Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisors who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.</b></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You the man, dawg!

CommunistWithAGun · June 2005

Today's Christian Scientist:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Success! We have finally figured out cold fusion, by putting ice on one of the 5 elements, (Earth, in this case) We were able to fuse it with Water making a new element! MUD!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Cereal_KillR · June 2005

If cold fusion is mastered, that means Alchemy is real. Meaning more gold <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

Status_Quo · June 2005

FYI, I've read their disclaimer about their religious involvement (or lack thereof), but I don't really care. Anything that publish scientific material while at the same time associate themselves with religion (or any sort of philosophical belief for that matter) is a questionable source to me. That little incident involving science and Christianity that resulted in a couple of centuries of decline known as "the dark ages", combined with a healthy dose of overzealous modern fundamentalists kinda made me question the concept of mixing science with religion.

DOOManiac · June 2005

Neat.

Nemesis_Zero · June 2005

Quo, there was no such thing as a scientific method at the beginning of the Dark Ages (Ever read a Greek philosophical debate? It's all chrystal clear and logical until you realize the guy tries to prove that the brain's only use is to cool the body's blood.), and while I'm certainly not a big fan of the Church's doctrines around the time, one has to acknowledge that the engineering practices, which later became a major foundation of the englightenment (Stonemasons, anyone?), experienced drastic improvements during the period.
Many of the first real scientists were naturalist Christians, Newton was a devout (though quite strange) believer, the first great purporter of geology undertook his excavations in priest's garb (which he was entitled to), and there are few bigger supporters of astronomic research during the 19th and early 20th century than the catholic church.
I believe the track record proves that I am by whatever deity you happen to believe in no Bible thumper, but disregarding the whole of Christian faith over the currently swelling tide of idiocy that purports itself under the label does not exactly show a scientifically open attitude in itself.

pardzh · June 2005

Cool... now, how long until we can make this technology into a weapon?

Gwahir · June 2005

If the radiation can be easily contained after they've made it give a positive output, it probably means small powercores for assault vehicles. They'll be able to mask infrared signatures better and generally make our vehicles much more effective, especially since I bet that it'll take far less fuel and go a lot farther.

Status_Quo · June 2005

I know there wasn't a scientific method by modern standards (that is based on some stuff written/compiled by Galilei, if I remember correctly), but that's not all. There was this whole burning people for suggesting that perhaps something wasn't how people thought it was, such as the world being round or the Earth revolving around the sun, because anything like that was apparently heresy.
And yes, there were certainly certain improvements during the medieval ages, but you have to remember that most of them were essentially invented so we could kill each other more efficiently. (Funny how God never seemed to have a problem with us slaughtering each other, while fairly harmless suggestions were horrible. Then again, I have no doubt that God did very little talking during the medieval ages.)

In any case, I have no problems with religious people in general (though as in any social group, there's a fair share of morons. Religion will in those cases only serve as an excuse for the stupidity). What I don't think is a good idea is mixing two things that a) historically speaking are not the best of friends, and b) one being based on objectivity and the other on subjectivity. Many religions, or at least certain parts of them, are traditionally anti-scientific. Not all are, I know, but there's still enough of them for me to question the objectivity of any organization that associate themselves with them. I'm quite sure there are many scientific magazines with religious people working for it, and that's fine, but I get shivers down my spine when they explicitly state that they are a <i>religious</i> scientific paper. If they are objective enough for their religious association not to matter, why do they even need to point out that they are religious?

Nemesis_Zero · June 2005

This is going to sound so extremely mean, but what else was new?
Execution on grounds of heresy has been the par of the course in nigh to any extant culture for all of mankind's history but the last 500 or so years.
Sure, most of medieval progress was based on warfare, but looking at stellar and <i>peaceful</i> achievements such as, say, atomic energy, space travel, or the internet, more secular times have not achieved significantly better results. Sure, blaming the Christian (or any) church for those two pieces of misdemaneour is certainly not unjustified, but it's a bit like calling the kettle black.

Is it difficult to 'fuse' faith and science? Doubtlessly. But why in god's and gravity's name does that fusion have to happen? There are, as you say, scientists who practice religions, there are religious institutions supporting scientific progress. Both might well be mutually exclusive, but that does not mean that they can not exist parallely in the same entities, out of the historical and social traditions I cited earlier. Seeing the founding date and the backing of the newspaper in question, I honestly don't really see the point in those shivers <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

TommyVercetti · June 2005

Just read this myself right before checking the forums. Looks neat, but I'm still waiting for the discovery that will justify having it as a magical power source in all my sci-fi.

Also, it would be pretty cool. Get it? Ha ha. No.

Status_Quo · June 2005

Perhaps not, but I question the source all the same. I question the source on everything, but mixing two things that traditionally are opposites makes me question it just a little bit harder. In this case, it's simply because my experiences with people who go around an announce that they are religious for no particular reason are fairly poor.

Nemesis_Zero · June 2005

Absolutely agreed, but wouldn't we question a scientific newspaper even more if it was funded by a church and didn't let slip on that in the least? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

Status_Quo · June 2005

That too, but I'm suspicious by nature. In any case, I would still question their articles regarding things the church has been involved with (such as if an article states that the medieval ages is just a conspiracy by the devil to make the church look bad), but I would probably be a bit more open to other articles. Unfair and probably stupid of me, but that's how it is.

OttoDestruct · June 2005

Cold fusion intrigues
me with promises of a
better power source

TommyVercetti · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (OttoDestruct @ Jun 7 2005, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Cold fusion intrigues
me with promises of a
better power source  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
S'that a haiku? THEY ONLY WORK IN JAPANESE, FFS!

Cold Fusion

Comments