nuclear fusion or cold fusion

[fire_mat99]

There is much talk on the news with are energy problem and some talk about nuclear fusion or cold fusion is this where we use water not oil? So nuclear fusion or cold fusion use water or plasma not fossil fuel?

 

And if nuclear fusion or cold fusion is a answer to are energy problem how long will it take to we have it 20 years or 30 years?

 

And would there be H2O nuclear fusion cars in 20 years? This most be cutting edge technology?

[SkepticLance]

Nuclear fusion is a technology that seems to be always 20 years away. So today we look forward to having nuclear fusion by 2027. In the year 2027, we will look forward to having it in 2047.

 

The technology seems to have promise, but there is no way of predicting when we will have it.

 

Cold fusion is probably a crackpot idea. If anything comes of it, it would be wonderful, but the data so far makes it seem probable that cold fusion will never happen.

[Rocket Man]

i'm not sure it's 20 anymore, i heard that asia is collaborating to make a commercial tokamac based on european tests

[Klaynos]

The main reason it's been 20 years for the last 10 years or so is because there's been an argument about who will fund and where it'll be built over ITER...

 

The JET tests seem to have been reasonably successful, but ITER is required to test materials and the feasibility of commercial reactors.

 

I'm not going to comment on cold fusion

[calbiterol]

ITER's made some progress. At least they know WHERE they're going to build this thing - Cadarache, France.

 

Here's the proposed timeline.

[losfomot]

There is much talk on the news with are energy problem and some talk about nuclear fusion or cold fusion is this where we use water not oil? So nuclear fusion or cold fusion use water or plasma not fossil fuel?

 

And if nuclear fusion or cold fusion is a answer to are energy problem how long will it take to we have it 20 years or 30 years?

 

And would there be H2O nuclear fusion cars in 20 years? This most be cutting edge technology?

 

Its funny that nobody has cleared you up yet on what fusion is... probably everyone thinks it is a simple enough question that you should do a little simple research for yourself, and they are right. Anyway, it does not involve water, except that water is a source of the hydrogen that you could use for the fusion.

 

Put simply, fusion is taking two atoms (like two hydrogen atoms) and forcing them together, using lots of heat and pressure... the result is one heavier atom (like helium) and some leftover energy that is quite substantial. It is a way of turning mass into energy, and there is a lot of energy in a small amount of mass.

 

Cold fusion is accomplishing the same thing, but at room temperature and normal pressure.

 

Wikipedia is a great place to check things out for yourself.

[Klaynos]

Its funny that nobody has cleared you up yet on what fusion is... probably everyone thinks it is a simple enough question that you should do a little simple research for yourself, and they are right. Anyway, it does not involve water, except that water is a source of the hydrogen that you could use for the fusion.

 

Put simply, fusion is taking two atoms (like two hydrogen atoms) and forcing them together, using lots of heat and pressure... the result is one heavier atom (like helium) and some leftover energy that is quite substantial. It is a way of turning mass into energy, and there is a lot of energy in a small amount of mass.

 

Cold fusion is accomplishing the same thing, but at room temperature and normal pressure.

 

Wikipedia is a great place to check things out for yourself.

 

Appologies I meant to do this when I got home yesterday, but that didn't really happen, things have not been normal around here.

 

Yes some basic research on what fusion is would be good to understand the above posts...

[master01]

The cold-fusion story began in March 1989, when two scientists from the University of Utah reported they had integrated an isotope of hydrogen called "deuterium" into a palladium rod and, running electrical currents through it, produced nuclear fusion in a jar. Several leading researchers around the United States, however, failed to replicate the results and soon pronounced cold fusion debunked, kicking the entire field to the sidelines of mainstream research.

[pioneer]

The irony is regular fusion, with 1000 times the resources, investigated for a much longer period of time, hasn't even got one good result. Yet nobody is saying this approach needs to be given the same boot. To add to the irony, the only fusion that has been demonstrated (h-bombs) starts with chemicals and uses 1940's physics or modern nuclear chemistry.

[Klaynos]

The irony is regular fusion, with 1000 times the resources, investigated for a much longer period of time, hasn't even got one good result. Yet nobody is saying this approach needs to be given the same boot. To add to the irony, the only fusion that has been demonstrated (h-bombs) starts with chemicals and uses 1940's physics or modern nuclear chemistry.

 

This site is slowly turning into a comedy site. JET achived MASSIVE amounts of science... As will ITER hopefully.

[pioneer]

I wasn't discounting the science that has been done, but was only addressing fusion, where the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

 

But on the other hand, how do we know we are not creating synthetic matter in these huge physics facilities? Synthetic can be every useful, but the theories coming from synthetic may not reflect natural. For example, we can make pure Titanium in the lab. But one needs to be careful about assuming it occurs as a pure material in nature simply because we can make it in the lab. That is not to say that further investigation will not lead to better methods for making pure titanium, but these will bring us further away from knowing how this exists in nature.

 

If we come back to fusion, all this theory has not led to fusion results. It has generated a lot of data, but how do we know this is not synthetic?

[SkepticLance]

pioneer

 

We can 'make' titanium if we begin with ore that contains titanium and simply extract what is already there. If anyone has come up with a method for making titanium (or any other metal) from other elements, in useful quantities, the revolution has begun.

[Reaper]

pioneer

 

If anyone has come up with a method for making titanium (or any other metal) from other elements, in useful quantities, the revolution has begun.

 

And it would take a stupendous amount of energy to achieve every single time. We already have a way to turn lead into gold via nuclear power. But as we all know it is not economically feasible.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Cold fusion right now is in the fringes and is comparable to snake oil.

[Guest026]

did u know ford tried to make a nuclear powered car?

[SkepticLance]

I always thought that a nuclear battery would be the ideal one. Sadly, to make it small enough, efficient enough, and safe enough is currently beyond us.