Cold Fusion

[jaysus]

atom core = nucleus

 

hot and cold fusion refer to the temperatures needed to fuse the cores

has nothing to do with metal or gas

 

laser weapons are kinda cheap the problem with them is that you need an awful lot of energy to kill somin with it and even then it more or less just emits a ray of heat... but to stop a person you need to stop its vital organs from working thus the (by the geneva convention prohibited) ammunition of hollow point... a laser beam would be similiar to FMJ ammo...

also all the ammo manufactures would loose their jobs...

 

anti matter if produces in high and stable quantities would be even more dangerous than any kind of nuclear fusion or fission as anti matter reacts with matter in a big bang...

but we wouldnt even need to produce it cause there are probably whole dimensions made out of it... probably even a 2nd earth... we just need to find it lol... kinda hard tho

[Tamujiin]

How the sun works.

 

The only way you can fuse 2 elements together to make one is at extremly hot temps. Cold fusion is the fusing together of two cool elements that are not gases but are solid at cool temps. like water and ice. metals ect. you cant fuse two gas elements like nitrogen or hydrogen because they disipate and are vaporized at the tempatures needed to fuse something together, only things like the stars can do that and it takes billions of years just to start that process, and the only reason a star can do it is because of its mass, the weight of the star does not allow anything to be vaporized, as in hydrogen into helium.

 

I'll try to draw you a picture of an atom with words. At the center of the atom you have the nucleaus. Around it depending on the element, you have positive and negative electrons and neutrons. When you make an atom bomb like the one they dropped on hiroshima, they split the atom, but not the nucleus. when you explode a nuclear weapon today, ( the big ones, not no dirty bomb, ) they split the atom right down the middle right through the nucleaus.

 

I could go off into positrons and and nutrino's and all that crap but my eyes would cross and i would just confuse everybody.

 

BUT LIKE I SIAD BEFORE I MITE BE WRONG ABOUT SOMETHINGS>>>>>>>DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING I ALREADY SAID BUT YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND>

 

Anti-matter wouldnt lead to other dimensions or whatever, Anti-matter is just the opposite of matter. But matter cancels out anti-matter because when they did create it ( do a search on anti matter ) if anti-matter was the dominate matter, it would have consumed our world in an instant. And to create anti-matter all you need to do is reverse the "stuff" that is matter. There is no massive explosion, like a big bang.

 

The energy released in the splitting of an atom or its nucleaus is caused by the forceful seperation of the COSMIC whatever that binds the atom together.

 

If i am wrong someone please explain how i am so my understanding can be fixed.

[delphinus]

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.

 

OT: I'm a bit worried about your good advices to militarized nations... My hope is that they finish their fuel as soon as possible, so they can put their freakin weapons into their *****, but it's just my humble opinion. :thumbsup:

[jaysus]

yo einhänder what do you wanna tell me? you have so many paradoxons in your text i dunno how to reflect on em...

 

1st ist not about fusing two elements to become one what happens in stars... stars create the whole periodic table out of just one element... namely hydrogen...

 

i mentioned in my first post that im talking about the atom CORE, which is the nucleus... you usually call the thing in the middle the core... no need to tell me 5th grade physics...

 

and NO hot temps are not the only possibility to fuse two elements... thats the whole point of cold fusion... just look it up on google for the sake of it or if you own somin like that a physical enzyclopedia... and it has nothing to do with cold matter like ice or metal neither lol cause that would turn to bloody gas too at very high temps...

 

hot fusion works with hydrogen cause it turns it into plasma and later on in helium and some exhaust... like every gas at very high temperatures... what do you think should happen with gas at high temps? vaporize (as you said)? lol its vapored yet... thats what happens in stars like the sun...

 

do the research yourself lol... i mean you even say you might be wrong and tell me that i should do research? lol paradox aint it?...

 

antimatter... physical theories state that there might be whole dimensions made of anti matter... since its basicly the same as matter just mirrored or however you might understand it... and cause our matter world exists there is a good possibility that the opposite exists aswell... is probably even needed to keep our world in balance

of course there is no big bang during the creation or harvesting of anti matter as the process eats energy... the whole point of the research is to gain enough of it so that they can collide matter and anti matter to gain much more energy than they put in to gain it in the first place which is still science fiction... we can get so much energy out of it cause it makes kabadabombooom! same principle with every energy source... then you use the heat to drive a turbine and voila you have electricity... or a bomb...

 

but thanks for enlightening me :wallbash:

[Kresselack]

You guys seem to say that cold fusion is unstable and not safe, and compare it to nuclear power, yet hardly show any differences. What I read about cold fusion, is that there is little to no chances of a meltdown.

 

Antimatter sounds like a science fiction term, because matter cannot be created or destroyed, but only broken down into smaller pieces. Think of a stone. That stone is broken down into pebbles. Those pebbles are broken down into sand. That sand is broken down into smaller grains. It cannot be destroyed, but divided even smaller.

[jaysus]

matter - antimatter - bigbang - release of energy... energy is slowed down matter... thus nothing is lost... and it has nothing to do with stones its the 1st thermodynamic law that energy is not lost but transformed...

matter on the other hand is lost in the process as it gets transformed to energy as with all energy gaining technologies

[Marxist ßastard]

I don't think any rational observer will have any trouble noticing that this thread is in a state where essentially every word represents a grave scientific fallacy. The same rational observer will likely note that the topic of discussion is, itself, trite pseudoscience.

 

Now this case study presents a dilemma: was this fact essential to the degeneration noted, or did it simply hasten the inevitable? To wit, was Prima responsible for creating a topic which cannot be discussed reasonably, or is Secunda at fault---when he was simply continuing the discussion with what little knowledge of the subject he had? Are some threads destined for failure?

 

Discuss.

[Kresselack]

Okay then... Why dont we give our sincere opinions on what we think about this fuel source instead of discussing the scientific data? Would you support the funding of it? Do you think it is possible that this will one day be used? Do you think nations with an active military should be allowed to harness this energy, or perhaps limited to its uses?

[Marxist ßastard]

Discussion part B:

 

Without looking any further into the case study, predict what effect this comment by Prima had. Do you believe the thread continued to exist in its degenerated state, or do you believe that the comment suddenly changed the outcome of the situation?

 

Support your assertions with points you made in the previous discussion part.

[jaysus]

without looking into the topic of this thread at all i just ask, for a mere consideration of liability and consious opinion, if, under the vow of selfjudgement and responsibility for mankind, the reflection of a topic of any interest to the people or even a sole person should or can or even be allowed to be answered by a person, an animal, a brick which indeed, under the impression of sunshine in the midst of october, might not be the owner of a water filled mass compiled of synapses, would be an irresponsible reaction to the fundamental laws of life?

 

:whistling: