Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Cold fusion and entropy — Parallax Forums

Cold fusion and entropy

LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
edited 2009-06-19 18:17 in General Discussion
Nuts and Volts is currently discussing 'cold fusion'.

Personally, I suspect the laws of thermodynamics exclude any reality to 'cold fusion' as useful fusion energy must be radiation in some form. In hot fusion, broadband radiation is likely to be the most available and used. My guess is that would be plain old heat.

In other words, to have a useful source of thermodynamic energy exchange we would need heat [noparse][[/noparse]not heatless fusion]. So the whole concept is rather absurd to me. Of course, if 'cold fusion' is cooling, it could be a valid energy source as the heat would just flow the other direction. But that isn't exactly what 'cold fusion' has touted to be.

Am I wrong? Why so?

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ain't gadgetry a wonderful thing?

aka G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse] 黃鶴 ] in Taiwan
«1

Comments

  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-06 10:17
    I think you misunderstand what they refer to as "cold fusion". It refers to a method of fusing hydrogen atoms and producing helium and energy at relatively low temperatures. That is low temperature relative to the millions of degrees Kelvin they are working with using machines like the Tokamak or laser/inertial confinement.
  • $WMc%$WMc% Posts: 1,884
    edited 2009-06-07 02:54
    cold fusion

    I Think cold fusion will act like cold fission. I think It will take more energy to fuse a molecule then the energy that will be recovered.

    How ever I feel theres another form of energy, And it just hasn't been discovered yet.

    ________________$WMc%__________

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    The Truth is out there············································ BoogerWoods, FL. USA
  • PhilldapillPhilldapill Posts: 1,283
    edited 2009-06-07 03:09
    WMc, I'm curious about what you mean by "another form of energy"... Do you mean in addition to the energy stored in the different forces? i.e. Strong, Weak, Nuclear, EM, etc. etc.?
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-07 04:20
    $WMc%, never heard of cold fission. Fission is the splitting of atoms of uranium or plutonium caused by neutrons striking the nucleus. This causes the nucleus to split and releases energy in the form of radiation, 2 smaller nuclei, and more neutrons to continue the chain reaction. Ultimately the energy is converted to heat which is used to heat water or some other medium that then turns a turbine.

    Cold fusion (if it exists) also produces energy in the form of heat. The reason it is called cold fusion is that the hydrogen atoms fuse at a much lower temperature than the millions of degrees required for thermonuclear fusion. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion for more details.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2009-06-07 10:23
    Okay. It seems 'cold' is the wrong word and used merely to create a buzz. I suspect it should be 'slow fussion' and 'slow fission'. Either process is uncontrolled in a bomb setting, but a productive reactor requires a sustainable while controlled process.

    My point is that it seems energy production is never cold. There is always some waste heat involved.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Ain't gadgetry a wonderful thing?

    aka G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse] 黃鶴 ] in Taiwan
  • $WMc%$WMc% Posts: 1,884
    edited 2009-06-07 20:01
    Cold fission

    A small group of Scientist in the mid-80s claimed to have split a Helium atom into two Hydrogen atoms.They chilled the Helium down to a liquid and ran some current through it. They too calmed to have measured heat energy above what the current alone would have produced.They never could duplicate this.

    ____________$WMc%_______

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    The Truth is out there············································ BoogerWoods, FL. USA
  • TeslaTesla Posts: 55
    edited 2009-06-11 07:20
    How about this thought. There is a kind of fusion reactor that is safe and powerful. It has been tested and proven to be a reliable source of energy. Its supply of fuel is extensive. Not only does it have all these great things it also transmits its power around the world without wires through electromagnetic radiation.

    What could this great power source be......?

    The Sun!!

    We all ready have the power source and ways to harness it. Just keep building more solar, wind and grow bio fuels. Ta da nature has all ready given us the solution.

    If you thing about it all of our cars are powered by oil? Oil comes from plants that have decomposed under great pressure and heat from within the earth in a oxygen deprived setting. These plants originally built these basic hydro-carbon structures that ended up being turned into oil from sunlight.

    If we put the same amount of money into building solar cells systems and wind farms as what goes into trying more ways to get more oil we could all ready have a huge part of the infrastructure in place. But things don't change that quick I know.

    But really all this free energy BS on the web. There is free energy walk outside and soak it up.
    equinoxprom_eit_big.resized.jpg
    768 x 768 - 160K
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-11 13:50
    $WMc%, I am not surprised the results from the cold fission experiments could not be duplicated. If you get energy from fusing hydrogen atoms into helium then I would expect that it would require energy to split the helium atoms. Conservatoin of mass and energy still applies.

    Tesla, basically I agree with you. We need to make much better use of the energy sources we have available. There are however some things which will require high power concentrated sources of energy that chemical and solar power are not suitable for. Space travel for one, and several earth bound applications as well. For those we need some form of nuclear energy like fission. fusion, or some other form of mass to energy conversion.

    By the way, did anyone see the recent news items about power from salt water? Both CNN and Fox were running stories about an "inventor" who discovered that applying an RF field to salt water made it produce a gas that would burn.

    Eureka, endless free energy from the sea.

    Yeah, right. Not one of the dim bulb reporters interviewing the "inventor" thought to ask how much RF energy went in and how much energy came out in the form of combustible gas. Anyone remember the electrolysis experiments in school where you put a current through water to separate the hydrogen and oxygen after adding a little salt to make the water conductive?
  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2009-06-11 14:33
    It's helpful to think of cold fusion as a catalyzed fusion reaction. In chemistry, some reactions that normally take a lot of energy or are unstable or produce undesired results are helped by the use of a catalyst that somehow facilitates the specific desired reaction at much lower energy than normal. The nuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium normally takes tremendous energy to do and it's believed that the nickel or palladium matrix acts as a catalyst so that the physical reaction takes place more slowly at a lower energy level than otherwise. This is not a strange idea nor is it inherent quackery. The publicity around it, pro and con, was and continues to be rabid. There certainly seems to be something unusual happening under some circumstances that is suggestive of some success, but there are all sorts of examples from physics and chemistry of reactions that are novel and striking, but commercially useless.
  • John R.John R. Posts: 1,376
    edited 2009-06-11 14:55
    Also keep in mind that often times concepts (like using RF energy to free combustible gasses from sea water) may not be viable in and of themselves, but are stepping stones to a more refined process, often involving some type of catalyst. Finding a useful reaction is just the first step. Then the "real fun" starts: Finding out how to improve the process, and commercialize it.

    Kind of like the guy who found 1,000 ways not to make a light bulb. Some folks thought he was a bit of a quack, but I think things turned out OK.

    We are far from understanding the secrets of the universe.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    John R.
    Click here to see my Nomad Build Log
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-06-11 15:12
    > We are far from understanding the secrets of the universe.

    " True Dat ! "

    And yet we can see quantum waves on the surfaces of metals, build The Bomb, and do all kinds of double-edge-sword stuff.

    What do you bet that the next serious and viable method of power generation gets weaponized first? No, I'm not a tree-hugger, nor against healthy defense of your own country. Just think it's a very interesting human phenomenon that we touch the stove *first* and then say, " Dang! That thing's hot! "

    - Howard

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Got Electrons?
  • mctriviamctrivia Posts: 3,772
    edited 2009-06-12 04:12
    Bio fuels where mentioned. This is not the answer. They product twice the green house gasses then gasoline and skyrocket food costs.

    In my opinion genetic modified algy to make hydrogen will probably be the future of solar technology.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    propmod_us and propmod_1x1 are now in stock. Only $30. PCB available for $5

    Need to upload large images or movies for use in the forum. you can do so at uploader.propmodule.com for free.
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-12 05:40
    I like Mike's idea of thinking of cold fusion as a catalyzed reaction. I hope there is something to cold fusion, but I am skeptical. I admit that it is possible there was some insignificant difference between the original apparatus and what was used to try and verify that experiment that made all the difference in the world, but it will probably take a lot more experimenting than perfecting the light bulb did.

    While we may be a long way from understanding all the secrets of the universe, until Einstein's theory of relativity, Newtons laws, and all the physics and chemistry knowledge we have accumulated to date are shown to be flawed I will have a very hard time swallowing power from sea water.
  • PhilldapillPhilldapill Posts: 1,283
    edited 2009-06-12 08:03
    Mctrivia, I agree with you about biofuels not being the answer, but your statement isn't quite true. Take a tree for instance - nearly all the carbon in the tree came from the absorption of CO2 from the air. When you burn the tree, most of that carbon goes back into the air as CO2, and some is left as ash. The idea is that by growing the tree(or whatever your source is), you are soaking up CO2, and emitting it back into the air, so in theory, it doesn't ADD to the CO2 in the air.

    Aside from that, it's just not a viable energy source.

    Next!
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-12 14:11
    I am not sure biofuels are the answer either, but their production is still in it's infancy. At the moment it does drive up the cost of food since the part of the plant we use for food is the same one used for biofuels. A few months back when I was in Edmonton I was reading an article in the paper about an Alberta company that had a patented method of producing fuel from any part of the plant. It was only a pilot plant, and the article was short on details, but it sounded very promising. As a bonus it would also provide farmers with another source of income.
  • sailman58sailman58 Posts: 162
    edited 2009-06-12 15:19
    Just a few comments here. Corn based biofuels are definitely not the answer, but there are other sources of biofuel (switchgrass) that would grow marginal areas and not take prime agricultural land out of production. One of the tests of a successful LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) test is excess energy.

    Ron
  • icepuckicepuck Posts: 466
    edited 2009-06-12 18:28
    Element 115 may be the answer?

    www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm
    -dan

    Post Edited (icepuck) : 6/12/2009 6:35:02 PM GMT
  • mctriviamctrivia Posts: 3,772
    edited 2009-06-12 23:08
    The problem with bio fuel is more then just co2. Co2 though talked about lots is one of the smallest problem. It has been found that the process of making and burning it produces other much worse gasses like no2

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    propmod_us and propmod_1x1 are now in stock. Only $30. PCB available for $5

    Need to upload large images or movies for use in the forum. you can do so at uploader.propmodule.com for free.
  • xanatosxanatos Posts: 1,120
    edited 2009-06-13 00:20
    I'm definitely in the camp that says there's SOMETHING to "Cold Fusion" but just not sure yet what is responsible for it. Palladium does a unique dance when it's exposed to hydrogen even under NORMAL circumstances.

    Also, recently there was an article from the NAVY's research facilities that said they ARE getting spurious neutrons from a "cold fusion" like LENR device they are testing, so even the Navy is admitting that something is going on, they're just completely unwilling - and wisely so at this point - to say what it is. I'm travelling at the moment but the story was either on CNN or the AP wire service. When I'm back frm my travels I'll post the link to the article if no one else has. It even had an image to go with it.

    Dave X
  • xanatosxanatos Posts: 1,120
    edited 2009-06-13 00:26
    Oh - found it anyway, here it is:

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/23/cold.fusion.rebirth.new.evidence.existence.controversial.energy.source
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-06-13 01:42
    Good reference Xanatos - if the American Chemical Society takes it (cold fusion) serious enough to publish papers on it, there must be something to it.

    from the link you provided:

    " American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting. It is among 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, "New Energy Technology," March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion. "

    Cold fusion nay sayers: read that link top to bottom - it is sound science.

    The other side of the energy problem is conservation - for us electronic types this is really interesting (at least I think so [noparse]:)[/noparse]

    http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/campaign/acs/full/10.1021/nn900503m?cookieSet=1

    - H

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Got Electrons?

    Post Edited (CounterRotatingProps) : 6/13/2009 1:48:02 AM GMT
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-13 07:00
    In spite of being a bit of a skeptic, I am keeping my fingers crossed for this one. I dream of the day I can tell the gas and electric company to take a hike.
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-06-15 21:59
    > I dream of the day I can tell the gas and electric company to take a hike.

    Kwinn, unfortunately, unless you can generate your own power, you'll likely not be telling them to go hiking any time soon. They'll figure out a way to grab that market *before* the little guy can.

    Let me give an example:

    here in Florida, reverse metering is allowed. So if you put up your own photovoltaic solar panels, or wind turbines, you can reduce your electric bill or have the electric company pay you if you generate an overage. And now the fine print:

    You pay retail for the power you consume, we pay you wholesale for the power you generate, but no more than $400 in one month.
    You may install panels only on a residence, not on your business.
    You may not install panels on an empty lot [noparse][[/noparse]even if every neighbor *wants* you to.]
    You may not install panels if it requires upgrading the line to your house.
    You may not yada yada yada.

    And, when the time comes:
    You may have a personal cold-fusion generator on your property,
    only if it generates under 50 watts and is for one-time-use by your
    first-born child as a Science Fair Project.
    (Fill out forms 34B3, 55D89X, and, if you supply
    left-orientated electrons, form 98A.3234-amended.)

    - Howard
    (saving his old Dry Cells)

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Got Electrons?
  • mctriviamctrivia Posts: 3,772
    edited 2009-06-15 22:25
    ya. i looked into generating power at my parents cottage. your better off to get rid of the power company and supply power for yourself only. Works out costs for the opportunity to get power even if you never use it was more then you could reasonably get back.

    Just use all the excess power to run an HHO generater and store the excess power in the form of hydrogen. You can reclaim it later on a cloudy day with a fuel cell or power your car.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    propmod_us and propmod_1x1 are now in stock. Only $30. PCB available for $5

    Need to upload large images or movies for use in the forum. you can do so at uploader.propmodule.com for free.
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-16 00:48
    Howard, I am certainly not holding my breath while I wait for the day. As for the rest of your post, bureaucracy and entrenched interests are probably the biggest obstacle to alternate energy sources. All for our protection and benefit of course.

    As strange as it may seem I find the GM/Chrysler debacle to be a hopeful sign. You can't fool everyone all the time. Decades of high priced ads pushing gas guzzling behemoths finally caught up to them. Sooner or later that will happen to the energy sector.
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-06-16 00:59
    > As strange as it may seem I find the GM/Chrysler debacle to be a hopeful sign.
    > You can't fool everyone all the time.
    > Decades of high priced ads pushing gas guzzling behemoths finally caught up to them.
    > Sooner or later that will happen to the energy sector.

    Well, said, kwinn!

    Reminds me of an old 60's hippie slogan:

    " Power to the people, right on ! "

    - Howard
    (an old hippie, who's still sloggin)

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Got Electrons?
  • sylvie369sylvie369 Posts: 1,622
    edited 2009-06-16 00:59
    icepuck said...
    Element 115 may be the answer?

    www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm
    -dan
    LOL.

    They definitely need to make it harder to get onto the internet.
  • CounterRotatingPropsCounterRotatingProps Posts: 1,132
    edited 2009-06-16 01:01
    Yeah Sylvie!
    When I went to that site, I 'bout levitated up out of my chair [noparse]:)[/noparse]
    - Howard

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Got Electrons?
  • sylvie369sylvie369 Posts: 1,622
    edited 2009-06-16 01:33
    Who doesn't love sentences like this one?
    Someone on the internet said...
    attachment.php?attachmentid=73712
    Or such convincing endorsements as this?
    Some blond said...

    “The most creative and well-thought approach to faster-than-light travel I have ever read.”

    --· Lorie Simms, Educator
    p815805-1.gif
    780 x 72 - 5K
  • kwinnkwinn Posts: 8,697
    edited 2009-06-17 04:24
    When I read this post I coldn`t help but think of a fellow I worked with years ago. His favorite expression was "If you can't blind them with brilliance then baffle them with bull(expletive)". One of which he quite often did.
Sign In or Register to comment.