Cold Fusion

[Kresselack]

Cold Fusion- a non pollutive and harmless, source of energy that lasts a long time and is not subject to meltdowns.

 

Basically it is a dream fuel. Yes it sounds great, but is is possible? Scientists have found this energy but they are having a hard time converting it into fuel and power sources. Nobody wants to put the money into the research projects because they believe it is impossible. Oil companies oppose this project because it hurts their business or even economies that depend only on oil. This new technology could also help economies that cannot afford oil.

 

What do you think about the developement of Cold Fusion?

 

Is it a good idea or a bad idea?

 

Does it sound possible?

 

please add more opinions.

[Tamujiin]

Cold fusion? Do you mean the difference between fission ( The spliting of an atom ) and fusion ( the slamming together of atomic particals into a different element? ) Fusion is the dream fuel, sorce of energy or what not. Its just the simple fact that if someone actually made fusion an economically sound idea someone would turn it around and use it for something stupid like making another form of Bomb. ( unless i am mistaken the hydrogen bomb is the fusion of two atoms of Hydrogen into one of helium right ).

 

in todays world no one person has the time to do whaqt needs to be done. We went over the edge and are going to fast. where we end up I only hope it is better than todays bull crap.

[jaysus]

basicly a fusion and fission work the same way... the difference is that while for fission you just slam a neutron into an atom core which will make it burst whereas for fusion you slam a whole element in... both ways release another neutron which chain reacts on the surrounding matter and starts a chain reaction (you need the right matter tho)

 

the idea exists since the first nuke was build but up to day noone was able to make 2 cores actually fuse forcing em to release just energy but no radiation (dunno about area 51 tho who knows what they got there lol)

if i remember right during the 80ties the idea was finally put in a full fledged theory

some have claimed that they achieved it but many doubt it... could be one of the usual "lets not tell the masses" move again tho...

 

its possible imo and a good idea probably at least better than "hot" fusion...

but im quite aware tho that any tempering at molecular level can yield unpredictable results mainly because of the chain effect aspect of the whole thing... if that would be 100% controllable (unlike in normal nuclear reactors where for example a core melt can happen and vulk up the whole planet) id say give it a go...

[Kresselack]

What are your opinions? Do you support it or not? Would you suggest putting funds into the research?

[delphinus]

Interesting topic. I haven't noticed it before. I'd like to have more knowledge on the subject to discuss it better, but the few things i know about is that cold fusion could produce clean and abundant energy, and that many reserarchers were unsupported and underpaid, or even stopped in their researches by lack of funds. I can imagine this was the desire of the oil companies.

 

If this energy is really clean and cheap as they say, of course i'd support the research and the use, but i'm pretty sure we'll have to wait for the "world crap" to finish before the world will switch to alternative energies.

[Kresselack]

Yes, its the oil companies from around the world that dissapprove of this energy. The country who invents it first might charge rediculous amounts of money if they plan to trade it to other nations. If, lets say, China developed it first, there is a slim chance of anybody else getting some, or atleast for a reasonable price. I think that nations with a highly active military, should be limited to this fuel. Wars cost fuel. Unlimited fuel, means an unlimited military.

[Tamujiin]

Sorry Kresseleck, didnt state my opinion did I. After looking it up on the internet yesterday, Fusion is the FUSION or slamming together of 2 Atoms, as where the splitting or FISSION of an atom is the splitting of an atom. When you say NUCLEAUS or NUCLEAR, you are refering to the center of the atom and the splitting of the atom as a whole. When you speak of ATOM or ATOMIC you are speaking of the atom as a whole, But not nessecarily the nucleaus. Thats the difference between a nuclear ( high yield weapon ) and an ATOMIC bomb that might take out 5 miles and leave some radiation like Nagasaki or Hiroshima. ( i am talking instant Death area. not the residuale after effects. do some research. i did. )

 

An example of everyday FUSION. Look up at that big yellow thing on a bright sun shiny day. Every Second Trillions of the first element hydrogen are slammed together to make the second element helium. Thats whats science theorizes happens at the center of the sun. I would belive that would or could be considered "HOT fusion" obviously. I would think since nobody has explained it yet, COLD fusion would be the CONTROLLED fusion of 2 metallic elements as in most scientific "stuff" when you refer to cold you refer to a metallic element. Hot normally refers to gases.

 

Something to add also before i state my opinion. Anti-matter has been created, Science could only sustain it for like 12 billionths of a second before it collapsed. Research it as my short term memory fails me.

 

( as i say this hot and cold gases also exsist on the elemental table. )

 

The deal and my opinion is, if science could create and sustain a "controlled" fusion reactor, maybe 4 or five of them on each continent, we could solve our energy problems. The current nuclear reactors we have are fission reactors, as where you are basically controlling a nuclear explosion, and harnessing its power, Where as you may get the obvious meltdown, in fusion there would be no meltdown, And there would be roughly on a good day 100-1000 times more energy than a nuclear fission reactor. I have no idea what would happen if someone blew up a nuclear fusion reactor. But i could Imagine........

 

Anyway i support it. If it we can have control over it. But when you get crazy people like history has shown us, I think it would be best just not to have it. We have the power of the wind, of the sun, and of water, all in more ways than one, but we dont use it as the oil companys just always get in our pockets.

 

"all or some or most of the above statement may be actual fact, and all or most or some of it might just be plain wrong, if you have a problem with what i just stated ignore it please"

[Sharkull]

If / when it is discovered, I'd say that extreme efforts whould be made to see if the technology can be easily weaponized to a WMD. If not, release it to the world. If it can easily become dangerous, then keep it under wraps (or extremely tight control) until humanity proves it is more stable to the point where releasing something like this would not be catastrophic (decades / centuries). The last thing we need is the potential for garage geeks making WMD's.

 

Edit:

Also note: oil is not only used for energy... it is a vital source of chemicals too.

[Tamujiin]

If and when............It exists and has been discovered, we just cant implement it with todays technolodgy.

 

Note. Most things in science fiction are science future, they start out with theorys based upon a scientific point of view. Anti-matter and laser weapons exist it just isnt finacially feasible to use that stuff. Money and technolodgy wont allow it.

[Kresselack]

Not to go off topic, but I want to thank you all for replying to this topic. It has been ignored for too long. I was originally wondering if people thought I was making things up or going mad. Again, I would like to thank those who have replied.