News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Zeev Hed

05/20/04 10:43 PM

#247917 RE: osprey #247916

I think there is a big difference between the "infinite energy crowd" and the experiments going on in "cold fusion". One can argue whether there is "zero stage energy" or not, but one can surely agree, that if it is, its energy density (erg per cubic centimeters) is infinitesimal and thus one needs to harvest that "infinite energy source" from am infinite volume of space, not practical. However, fusion, we all know exists and produces vast amount of energy (exactly the mass difference between the fusing nuclei multiplied by c^2), how do we know, we see its (energy) extraction in the sun (what is called the Hydrogen/Carbon cycle), and of course we have seen it on earth in hydrogen bombs, We have even spent something of the order of $50 B on various schemes involving attempting to replicate the sun fusion process with high power lasers in the Tokamak. No question that fusing hydrogen/deuterium into helium is a source of energy. Can it be extracted without bringing the fusing nuclei to a million degrees and hundred of thousands of atmospheres pressure is the only question. Without going into too many details, 10^5 atmospheres of H2, does not require, necessarily, to have such "physical pressure" present. Other means can get you there.

Oh, as for Pons and Fleishman, they have demonstrated a strange effect (excess heat evolution, which in one case was so intense, the electrode bath boiled and the experiment essentially "self destructed"), similar strange effects have been (though, irreproducibly) reproduced at seven other labs that I know of. I know you'll laugh at "reproduced irreproducibly", but that is the nature of the beast, I spent a lot of time myself to reproduce some type of experiments, just to find out that they "die" on me and have to start all over again. These are intermitent effects, and it will take a long time to determine what are the optimal parameters (out of about 80 plus such parameters, count the permutations) that will yield the optimal conditions, and then, you'll find that the process itself changes some of those parameters making reproducibility a little difficult, but, not impossible, once one understands the role of each of those parameters.

icon url

phill

05/21/04 12:18 AM

#247930 RE: osprey #247916

The principal trouble with the proof is in the pudding is that it makes no sense.
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-pro1.htm
icon url

lee kramer

05/21/04 2:21 AM

#247946 RE: osprey #247916

Hi osprey: My background isn't anywhere as impressive as yours. But, I happen to have a cold fusiom machine. Bought if from a guy who happened to have it in the trunk of his car, along with a few computers, a few dozen watches. I got it for a Very Good Price. But, it came with no manual, nor batteries and I don't know how to use the damn thing. You can have it for $39.95...plus $5 for shipping and handling.
icon url

langostino

05/21/04 2:41 AM

#247955 RE: osprey #247916

osprey, zeev, etc. - energy / science

thx for a very interesting discussion. osprey, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would be fascinated and grateful for as many substantive thoughts on healthcare/drug/biotech/device companies as you're willing to offer under blanket of anonymity. obviously the bulk of the readership here is fast-trading, primarily on the basis of technicals, charts, and patterns, but some of us are actually interested in companies and fundamentals of businesses. :-) ruminate away whenever you can - there will be an audience. :-)
icon url

tantal

05/21/04 5:36 AM

#248003 RE: osprey #247916

Very well said, Osprey. I agree with your sentiments.