Is Cold Fusion possible?

Is Cold Fusion possible? And if so, how would you destroy the world with it?

This thread should go in chit chat.

If cold fusion were possible, it would be happening randomly all the time. The forces required to condense two atoms close enough together that their nuclei fuse are massive. We're talking about overcoming the Strong Nuclear force, the strongest of the four forces, and it doesn't happen at room temperature.

Besides, why would you destroy the world? Then my current project would be worthless.

bob

Of course cold fusion is possible, every week i actively try to prevent cold pizza fusing to my carpet. On numerous occasions I have almost resorted to strong nuclear forces!

heheheheheh

Cold fusion is possible, i'm just working on an application with some API's that calls them self i an order that starts some coldfusion in the electronic circuits at R2D2C3P0 in the mainboard. Occasionally i blow up the computer too.

I agree with yu as well. Cold Fusion is possible, maybe in the near future we can prove it.

What exactly would you like to do? Blow up the world? If so, I don't want to help you. What I need to know is what's meant by "fusion". Is this the release of energy though two atoms combining? If so I think that squaring the force of the individual atoms's resistence would counteract their ability to split apart, but I don't know how you could make the shells envelope their selves.Thanks for letting me babble.

I am a scientist.

Well, not really. But I know enough.

The thing is that at Kelvin 0 (c. -273 degrees celsius)
all atoms stop moving.

The temperature for cold fusion to occur is below -273, but
since all atomic and subatomic movement ceases at -273 there
is now way to get colder, and therefore no way to have cold
fusion.

:o

Why does it have to be below 0 Kelvin?

There's no such thing as below 0 Kelvin, or do you mean a negative temprature (-ve tempratures are wierd quantum things that are actually very hot indeed), below zero tempratures is like saying bigger than infinity. (Gen-X leave it.) it just doesn't make sense.

0K is not the same as -273C, its -273,15... a Real constant
But in my computer it went below 0K

Is there any limit to the hottest temperature?

Nope as long as you can keep the heat pumping in.

heh :) I wonder how hot it was at plank time (A couple of seconds after the big bang)

Pretty Toasty

you could be fried in a second.

Another thought about cold fusion: It could help us
with our energy problems a lot!! We wouldn't have to
worry about nuclear wastes etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Megatron: Is there any limit to the hottest temperature?
Sam Finch: Nope as long as you can keep the heat pumping in.

---

Yes there is a limit, if we use all the energy in universe including all heat, movement, matter (E=MC^2), exactly everything to heat up something, and we take the smallest particle in universe, and see how "hot" it gets. Well that would be pretty hot i think, but you can't exceed that temperature.

Why does Cold Fusion produce less waste than Hot Fission?

I think because the joining of the atoms can cause the "waste" to be reused.

I'd disagree with that, we havn't even decided what atoms are best for cold fusion(or have we? I don't know about these things)

Probably Hydrogen, since 90% of the universe is hydrogen.

0% is of universe is hydrogen you mean, 90% of universe matter.

90% of matter is hydrogen :)

So what.

The thing is that i need to get more posts, youre way to close. When i wake up tomorrow youre long way up 700 posts, and thats unfair:(

don't worry, I'm still 17 posts behind.

What's this about Cold Fusion?

15 posts actually, but I was really afraid you would take over this night, batsam

Nobody stay up all night just to post (or do they...)

Yes, I am, and its your fault megatron, youre overposting this site, i got a bunch of 14 replies to, and guess what, they where all from megatron!

But it wasn't at night.

It is here, 24:00, and guess what, im going up 6 to work

You should get some sleep

any comments about cold fusion?

Oh yeah, I forogt what the whole point of this subject was!
Some posted, awhile back that the temperature has to be 0 Kelvin to achieve Cold Fusion. Why does it have to be that low?

Having looked at that again, That's stupid, cold fusion is aboud getting nuclear fusion at atainable tempratures. At the moment we use nuclear fusion in nuclear weapons, but you need a normal nuclear bomb to get the temprature hot enough to achieve fission.

It is stupid, 0 kelvin means that the atoms are absolutley still.

I don't know exactly how you're going to get them to fuse without them being able to move close to each other.

It doesn't have to be 0 Kelvin though. They can virtually stop wobbling at -250 C.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
:D:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):D
:D:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):D
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Edited by Sam Finch on 05-06-2000 at 12:35 AM]

Just make sure nobody knows

Actually don't bother, I think it's out the bag.

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):)
:):):):)
:D:D

Any one know what this is`?

yes, it's

:D:D
:):):):)
:):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

upside down

Hmm, we need the starter of this thread to delete this thread

It's turning more into a junky thread than a matter of wheather cold fusion is possible of not.

I hate raining on people's parades :(

Recent studies have shown that atoms do NOT cease to move when they reach 0 Kelvin.

In fact what they have found is that the atoms actually "oscilate" where they stand (very slight movements to each side), disproving the theory that ALL matter ceases to function at what is known as "Absolute Zero".

I dont know what the repercussions of this discovery is but what it does show is that ALL matter is continually moving and continually expending energy.

I think one of the "theories" was that if we could instantaneously freeze a human being at absolute zero then we could effectively have cryogenic stasis and revive the person in 200 years time and they would not have aged a day... Considering now that the atoms do still expend energy it means the possibility of suspendid animation is even less than previously thought.

Its the whole reason why the clone of Dolly is genetically 3 years older than the it should be... because while the genetic material was stored using liquid nitrogen at near absolute zero... "aging" still occured on that material.

I don't understand.

I thought the definition of absolute zero was that the particles weren't moving.

And what do you mean "Studies have Shown" that they are, I was under the impression that it was impossible to reach absolute zero as the wavelength of the particles becomes infinate and they need an infinately large container to set up the correct standing wave, which obviously means that they could be anywhere in this infinatly large container so they become hard to look at, plus in order to look at them you need to bounce some light off them, which warms them up.

Or are you saying that 0K is not infact absolute zero and we've got our scale wrong, or the scale is nonlinear at very low tempratures or something?

those particles you said oscilate at OK can't be at OK because there movement is energy and energy creates heat. Unless it bounces back and forth from OK then moves then goes back.Their study doesn't cut it!

You're right. We can never get Adsolute Zero. People have come close (0.0000001 Kelvin) but never 0 on the dot.

Absolute Zero Rules 0K.

I have an idea, how do you define temparature? Yes it's from a single point in space. The if you have no particles at one point(vacuum) you have 0K at that point.

I think you've missed the point Ked.

Temprature is technicly defined by the energy levels of electrons going round andividual atoms (I think Gen-X, this is something you might know?) I can't remember the details but you can technicly get a -ve temprature but not zero. I think the temperature of a group of particles is defined by the RMS (root mean square ie for a group of 5 particles

sqrt( ( T(1)^2 + T(2)^2 + T(3)^2 + T(4)^2 + T(5)^2 ) / 5 )

in clasical physics the tempature is the RMS of the Kinetic Energies of all the particles in a group of particles .

You can't have a temperature of a vacuum, there's nothing to take the temperature of.

That sounds about right Sam.

The word "Temperature" itself talks about how often particles touch each other.

"HIGH" temperature means high collisions and "LOW" temperate means fewer collisions.

Thus because there are no particles in what you call a classical "vaccum" temperate is irrelevant.

Funny thing is that people say the "vaccum" of space is really cold, but it certainly isn't absolute zero or else anything that moved INTO that space would freeze.

So I wonder if that means there HAS to be particles in what we call a vaccum... Obviously photons must be in there if we are LOOKing at this vaccum, or if we stand on other sides of it, or if we send ANY form of device into it to detect if it is a vaccum or not... and obviously the WALLS of whatever "contains" the vaccum are made of particles some of which must "leak" into the vaccum itself.

In fact... I am pretty sure that no matter WHERE I am in space, I can look in any direction and "SEE" stars. This means photons are hitting my eyes...

So is there really any such thing as a vaccum in space?

I wonder WHO came up with the idea that at -273.15 degrees below a thing we decided to call "celcius" because at 0 water froze, was something called "absolute zero"

Surely if the whole idea of the celcius scale being 0 - 100 (water boil and freeze) then absolute zero ONLY relates to water?

[Edited by Gen-X on 05-10-2000 at 10:22 PM]

Gen-X i'm shocked.

Quote:

---

I wonder WHO came up with the idea that at -273.15 degrees below a thing we decided to call "celcius" because at 0 water froze, was something called "absolute zero"

Surely if the whole idea of the celcius scale being 0 - 100 (water boil and freeze) then absolute zero ONLY relates to water?

---

It was my understanding that you were pretty good at physics. and had a degree in it, yet you don't seem to understand Boyles law, which is taught as GCSE level (exams for 15-16 year olds)

Boyles Law states (T+c) = kPV for an "Ideal Gas" in a box, where

T is the temprature in C of the Gas,

c is some constant,

k is another constant for what the gas is and how much is in the box,

P is the Pressure of the gas and

V is the Volume of the Box.

This describes a straight line for the graph T against PV.

We Can see that keeping the temperature constant If we reduce the size of the Box the pressure rises, and some other relationships you see in everyday life.

But what we see is that If T+c = 0 then for any finite sized box the pressure is zero, this must mean the particles are not moving.

c was worked out to be 273.15

wheather this holds at quantum level is debatable, as I mentioned before absolute zero can never be reached as the particles wavelength must be infinite and can not be contained. also this is a statistical law so at the low low temperatures needed for QM to be dominant ther'es no such thing as an Ideal gas.

Fusion comes from the sun. If we had fusion..we wouldn't need gas. Electric/gas heating. Or moving at light year speed. And flying cars :). That's why we can't explore much of space..cuz there just isn't enough gas! Fusion would be so much cheaper and prolly last longer than gas. But unfortunately..humans are still to primitive yet to acquire that kinda thing. Not totally. We acquire some fusion..the heat and energy from the sun in a way.

[Edited by Matthew Gates on 05-11-2000 at 04:06 PM]

We can do nuclear fusion, but only in bomb form, it's why we're looking for cold fusion, at the moment the conditions for fusion to occur need to be so hot that it takes a fusion bomb to reach them.

I understnad why it needs to be so hot for fusion to take place, but how does it work when it's cold?

If we knew that there's be less of a problem.

Read this. All of it. It's relevant and might stop some of the silly bickering.

There is something called Brownian motion, which is the continuous oscillation of atoms, but you have to wonder where it gets all the energy to move.

Also, "studies have shown" absolutely nothing because we can't get down to absolute zero. It has a little to with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, I believe. As soon as you attempt to measure something, you affect it. How do we measure if it is at absolute zero without introducing something that is warmer? For example, putting a thermometer in won't work because the thermometer is warm and it will heat everything up. Also, using a scanning electron microscope won't work because you introduce energetic electrons. Basically, you can't tell if it's at absolute zero without destroying the data. Ooh, this is Schrodinger's superposition! Long live the cat in a living/dead state, because if you open the box to see if it's alive, it's one or the other. As long as the box is closed, it's both alive and dead. I love quantum mechanics.

I'm worried I'm being a little over the heads of some of you, so back to the relevant matter.

Cold fusion does indeed have to occur at attainable temperatures, but that's very difficult. Do you remember high school chemistry when we talked about energy activation barriers? That is the amount of energy it takes to get a reaction to occur. If that energy is less than or equal to the amount of energy present, then the reaction will occur spontaneously. The trouble is that it takes a whopping amount of energy to counter the strong magnetic force that's keeping the atoms apart. Remember that + and + repel and - and - repel? try sticking two atoms together when first the electrons repel each other, then the nuclei. It takes a phenominal amount of energy, unless you can devise a catalyst that nullifies the strong nuclear force, in which case you redefine physics, win the nobel prize, and are assassinated by the entire physics community.

Eek my paragraphs are too long.

bob

More to the point...

Is Cold Fusion 3.1 possible on IIS 5?

I can't get it to work but I can't figure out why.
(Just to completely change the subject :p )