quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
My question is: why are you hoping for such a thing to exist so badly?  Why are you taking a pseudo-scientific approach when better alternatives exist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Cold fusion, LENR for those trying to obfuscate matters, is a fraud. Fleischmann and Pons were wrong and their claimed result was not reproducible. Hacks keep working on it because governments keep providing them with grants but in 20 years they still haven't advanced beyond the same basic experiment and nobody has a working generator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
nuclear physics is actually pretty simple once you get some things down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what better alternative exists that you would suggest? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what data do yo uhave to support your position that it will not do what i expect it to do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what better alternative exists that you would suggest?

Why must there be a readily-available alternative to the conventional method?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

what data do yo uhave to support your position that it will not do what i expect it to do?

I can't provide you with data about the flaws of a system you haven't presented.  If you want me to show you the bug, just show me what you're planning.  I'm an Engineer- a good one, too, so I'm pretty well versed in any method of depiction and have access to applications for any standard type of CAD file.  You can just draw it up in any way you please, but it will need to have details.  (Putting a box with "nuclear reactor" written in the center isn't much of a description.)

I can, however, tell you that you've stated, in your orginial post, you're talking about a fusion reaction.  I can tell you that the energy and conditions required to start such a reaction are not found on Earth, nor are they readily reproduced, despite what cold fusion advocates may claim.  I assure you, they've yet to do anything scientificially verifiable nor do they have any math to support their ideas.

If you're..
-trying to produce fusion, as it's known today, you'll need a fission reaction to get it going.  An A-bomb.
-trying to use cold fusion, you're going to..
--find out it's bogus, not doing anything at all.
--be forced to realize, in the end, that even the effect that the "scientists" who claimed to have done it is not at all going to power your house.  It won't power a lightbulb for a 1/1000th of a second.  Hell, not even for a millionth or billionth of a second.  Assuming, of course, you could somehow turn it into electricity which, at such a miniscule level, would cost more energy to do than it could make in the next billion years.

Edit:



My entire point's just that you seem interested in things.  Curious minds soak up knowledge well.  I'm just hoping you'll give more realistic options a shot, even if they take a bit more work at first.

This whole project you talked about's never going to do anything, and it's going to end up costing you a lot of time and money if you go through with it.

I know you want to do something big, and I know normal science doesn't seem to be offering it so readily.  I wish life was easier, but it's not all that bad.  You just need to start down the right path so you get to somewhere.
If you follow these fake claims all the time, you're never going to end up anywhere.  Even a little progress in the right direction's better than none at all, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Alright, I give up.  Just disconnect your house from the powergrid without the slightest semblence of an idea of what you're doing.  Go on and enjoy it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's not "legitimate".. that PDF you linked me didn't have any content.  The experimenters open up with an acknowledgement that they don't really know what's happening and the aparatus is flawed.  Then they go on and say, "Hey!  The numbers were off!  Let's explain it, since this is remarkable.  Not like we were unsure of what we were doing in the first place."

I guess I just don't know how to explain this stuff.  Like, in that link you sent, they claimed they gained energy from "low energy fusion", transmuting elements above iron (Fe) into other elements- gold, among them, if you can appreciate the irony.
The problem explaining why this is just silly comes in that I don't think you know about bindng energies or how Iron's the ideal element when it comes to nuclear completion 'n such.  The "experiment" claimed to have transmuted up on the elemental scale while above iron, and to have released energy in the process.
Supernovas made the stuff that's above Iron on Earth.  They're claiming, though, that they did this in a tank of cool water.

Going up the scale above iron or down it below iron means creating mass from energy.  Remember (E=mc^2), (E==Energy, m==mass, c==speed of light = ~2.997*10^8 m/s).  The experiment claims to be producing mass and energy.  They also acknowledge flawed instruments, a lack of mathematical basis, and their microscope results are more than just slightly questionable.

But none of this answers just what the hell you think you're going to do to power your home.
I don't know why you're sticking with this story of yours so far, but, hey, at least I have something to distract me from homework.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Cold fusion, LENR for those trying to obfuscate matters, is a fraud. Fleischmann and Pons were wrong and their claimed result was not reproducible. Hacks keep working on it because governments keep providing them with grants but in 20 years they still haven't advanced beyond the same basic experiment and nobody has a working generator.

Interesting, i guess its only a fraud here in america since others have been able to reproduce, of course it may be the education level of americans in general since they lowered the sat scores to make us "look" better among those very same people who did reproduce it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Cold fusion, LENR for those trying to obfuscate matters, is a fraud. Fleischmann and Pons were wrong and their claimed result was not reproducible. Hacks keep working on it because governments keep providing them with grants but in 20 years they still haven't advanced beyond the same basic experiment and nobody has a working generator.

Interesting, i guess its only a fraud here in america since others have been able to reproduce, of course it may be the education level of americans in general since they lowered the sat scores to make us "look" better among those very same people who did reproduce it!

Actually it is a fraud everywhere and a widely acknowledged one by phsycists not milking some gullible governments grants.

Go out and find a real particle physicist and get him to explain that if fusion could occur at the low energy levels involved in cold fusion experiments that in the 14 billion years of the existence of the observable universe virtually all the hydrogen in the observable universe would have fused into helium. If you have a strong math background get him to show you the math that establishes that this would be true. Since this is at variance with observed facts fusion does not occur at low energy levels even in the sort of rig the cold fusion guys use.

BTW how the heck do you plan to get any power out of a cold fusion rig? Even if everything Fleischmann and Pons claim is true there isn't going to be any net energy. Fleischmann and Pons rigs ran for weeks on end and each cell only sporadically increased its temp to maybe 50C from 30C with the constant electrolysis reaction requiring continuous input current. That's still 50C shy of boiling water so a steam turbine is out. With that being by far the most efficient way to generate electricity from a heat producing event it is doubtful you'll be able to find a way to get enough power simply to power the cells much less net you any current for other uses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You're claiming an electrolysis reaction will be a net energy producer. So where is this energy coming from? Since you now admit it isn't a nuclear reaction that leaves chemical bond energy as the source. But bonds aren't being broken in electrolysis of this sort. They're being made which requires input energy. IOW no net power.