What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
How Many Calories Are In Alcohol? view!
bing.com - Handy guidelines help you get your drink on and keep the weight off.
195 Comments
- sexybobo, on 04/20/2009, -25/+207Coldfusion doesn't work i should know i have had to migrate a lot of sites from it to php.
- SevenC, on 04/20/2009, -1/+110I think 60 Minutes did a good job at covering both sides of the issue. It didn't hide the fact that there's a lot to the process that's not understood, and the results are flaky. The following excerpts show how many resources they put into this piece:
60 Minutes asked the American Physical Society, the top physics organization in America, to recommend an independent scientist. They gave us Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri and an expert in measuring energy.
[...]
We asked Duncan to go with 60 Minutes to Israel, where a lab called Energetics Technologies has reported some of the biggest energy gains yet.
Duncan spent two days examining cold fusion experiments and investigating whether the measurements were accurate. - MaxxusFlamus, on 04/20/2009, -5/+92once upon a time, before digg was invaded by the libertarians, digg was a happy land of tech articles, science, and web development.
- tonmil, on 04/20/2009, -11/+63I'll believe it when I see it.
- edstate, on 04/20/2009, -0/+44Such a shame what they did to Fleischmann and Pons... we can be a brutal species sometimes.
- openthewell, on 04/19/2009, -4/+47... and what credentials do you possess to make these 'sensationalizing' comments of your own?
- inactive, on 04/20/2009, -3/+44brb, getting more palladium to brew my tea
- dizilbdog, on 04/20/2009, -3/+38We can get Val Kilmer to steal the secrets from Elizabeth Shue
- kemp34, on 04/20/2009, -3/+31Down with the corporatist oil oligarchy! Go cold fusion!
- elblinguino, on 04/20/2009, -0/+26Cold fusion: it works 70% of the time, every time.
- oriondr, on 04/20/2009, -1/+26People really aren't digging the web design jokes today.
- Suilenroc, on 04/20/2009, -1/+26Just finished watching this piece, and I was pleasantly surprised. I expected another "ZOMG T3H COLD FUSIONZZZ" report, but it wasn't. It was very measured, very objective, very data-oriented, and made sure to differentiate this so-called "anomalous heat" from the nuclear effect of fusion.
- inactive, on 04/20/2009, -4/+25They're getting excess heat 70% of the time.
- homefly, on 04/20/2009, -0/+20i've found that 60 minuites has some of the best reporting on television as far as standards go.
- tippmann1, on 04/20/2009, -0/+19that might work if the heat produced is enough to counterbalance the inefficiency of both the stirling engine and the electric generator not to mention the loss of electricity throughout the system (wires, resistors, capacitors, etc.). If what they're saying is true I doubt they have it efficient enough to make into a system like that yet. But someday yes that is more than likely how they will convert the heat produced into usable electricity.
- DrMic, on 04/20/2009, -3/+19One of the responses (not my own) to the text version on the site:
I found this story frustrating. They completely left off the reason most physicists remain skeptical...which is that there is no good explanation of how this fits into what we know about nuclear physics. If this is really interesting it has to be D2 fusing into Helium. D2-palladium fusion is much less interesting...we don't have enough palladium to use this way. And D2->He should give clear signatures in neutrons and gamma rays that should be much stronger than the hints that some claim to observe. The only meaningful content in the story might be that researchers are figuring out the experimental details that have caused these experiments to give such wildly unreproducible results. After they fix that, then they can do some good experiments to figure out what is really going on in there. Once they have an explanation, then it is time to put a story on 60 minutes. Right now they are just repeating the mistakes of 1989...hyping results in the popular press before anyone knows what is really going on. - plaguepony, on 04/20/2009, -20/+33Without verified duplicated results there is NOTHING.
- Hexxd, on 04/20/2009, -1/+13We need to embrace this phenomenon. Not being able to re-create the effect 100% of the time, is a pretty ***** reason to dismiss a very profound discovery. This energy source would be so abundant that it could change our world in amazingly positive ways. Let us not be led like fools, but instead demand research into alternatives that are not easily morphed into centralized supply we have to slave to pay for!
- japface, on 04/20/2009, -0/+12palladium
- inactive, on 04/20/2009, -0/+11I hear they are turning coldfusion over to rails. Does this mean we can get better public transport?
- inactive, on 04/20/2009, -0/+10Science has an extremely accurate set tools for measuring heat flow and temperature. It'd be silly and inefficient to use one of those things. If Stirling engines were somehow more accurate, then scientists would just build heat-measuring devices based on Stirling engines.
- KennMac, on 04/20/2009, -0/+10When asked about his findings, Duncan said he never thought he'd ever be considering the ability of cold-fusion again, but here he is.
- CaptainPanda, on 04/20/2009, -1/+11A source that says "Natural Health, Natural Living, Natural News" seems highly suspect and reminds me of homeopathy, herbalism, and mysticism.
- bipolarruledout, on 04/20/2009, -0/+10I walked away from this piece feeling the same way.... very objective.
- edstate, on 04/20/2009, -0/+9They always claimed it was the University that forced the press conference. Regardless, it was very very harsh what happened to them.
- sanman, on 04/20/2009, -5/+14that's what they said 7 years ago
- RockSlice, on 04/20/2009, -10/+19Here's an idea to put to rest the accusations of mismeasuring the energy:
Hook it up to a Stirling engine and generator, which is used to produce the electricity to keep it running.
If there's more energy being put in then heat being generated, then the whole thing will run down. If cold fusion actually works, it will keep running. - T8erT0T, on 04/20/2009, -1/+9I think they have good production values and have some interesting pieces. It's the one of the few news programs I can actually watch and not become angered by.
- bitcloud, on 04/20/2009, -0/+8time loop
- drewfer, on 04/20/2009, -3/+10"The potential is exciting" isn't it always.
- oriondr, on 04/20/2009, -3/+10It was there fault for releasing results before confirming they can reproduce it successfully.. although after watching the video it sounds like it was the University that forced their hand in releasing premature results.
- jzh1554, on 04/20/2009, -0/+7But how would we know how all the little paper squares are arranged? It could take....hours to figure that out!
- blueplanet, on 04/20/2009, -4/+10fusion is only 7 years away
- WasabiBomb, on 04/20/2009, -2/+8@oneoverzero- since fusion, even cold fusion, involves the conversion of matter into energy, your argument doesn't really hold water.
- ayeroxor, on 04/20/2009, -0/+6fabiosir - no, he CAPITALIZED it.
- terminal157, on 04/20/2009, -2/+8Because there are certainly no libertarians in the tech industry.
- ManUnitdFan, on 04/20/2009, -0/+6Dugg for the worst science ever in a film.
- plutonium28, on 04/20/2009, -0/+6nope
- TJ11240, on 04/20/2009, -1/+7I agree
Isn't the sun not available 50% of the time? - tomarocco, on 04/20/2009, -1/+7A manager here at work just spec'd Cold Fusion for a new project. I asked him if it was 1995 and got a blank stare.
- TJ11240, on 04/20/2009, -0/+5Just like Primer right?
- sinembarg0, on 04/20/2009, -1/+6assuming you have a 100% efficient generator and stirling engine. Good luck finding the 100% efficient generator, and I don't know much about stirling engines, so I can't speak to their efficiency.
However, if you could do that with both having high efficiencies, and it kept going, then you could conclude that this cold fusion works. - mhgrover, on 04/20/2009, -0/+5If by advances you don't mean "verified by many around the world including our own military" then no.. no advances at all.
- brundlefly76, on 04/20/2009, -1/+6The only relevant fact is that there are many labs which have been able to produce excess heat with a certain procedure, and no one knows why it happens, how to consistently reproduce the same results iteratively, or has been able to show that the findings are being mismeasured across labs.
Until we fully understand what is actually happening (or not happening) in these experiments, it is foolish to discard the research.
What is really disheartening is the sequence of public events which happened, which created a backlash resulting in most scientists today just 'assuming' that the experiement has been debunked, whether they have studied the experiment in depth or not (such as the scientist 60 Minutes had independently audit the Isreali experiment).
Either we don't understand how to accurately measure energy or this process works - either way, it unveils something really important we should *know*. - SpoonMSU, on 04/20/2009, -0/+5Actually fusion is 41 years away.
Microwave power plants should be available in 11 years though. - vladin, on 04/20/2009, -0/+5Shh.. Keep it down please.. The grown-ups are talking..
- Gregus1032, on 04/20/2009, -0/+5it's possible people saw this before seeing it on here?
- darkstar949, on 04/20/2009, -1/+6The segment on 60 Minutes actually discussed one of the reason that reproducibility might be difficult and a couple of the scientists thought it might be due to the purity, or lack there of, of the palladium. In a nutshell, the palladium is hard to purify and any impurities might interfere with the results. Since the actual cold "fusion" process is still unknown, they don't know if the impurities will affect a given experiment or not.
- oriondr, on 04/20/2009, -2/+7Unfortunately there are, I had to sit next to one for 8 months (I am a web app designer)
Actually he was pretty cool - just misguided. - sepelester, on 04/20/2009, -1/+5Sometimes I digg stuff I don't read to take up when I have more time to read it. I just go back to dugg items in my profile.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is