What is Digg?43 Comments
- guyinjapan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Awesome. I thought science had abandoned the idea long ago, but it's good to know that they're still looking into the possibility. Even if there's only the slightest chance the rumors were true, we're talking about the Holy Grail of energy sources. It's definitely worth a little bit of our time and money to investigate.
- arunforce, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It's more real than that Orbo *****.
- guyinjapan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6A long time ago, people thought ideas like "flying machines" and "electricity" were purely works of fantasy, but look where we are now. You're being ignorant if you think that we've reached the pinnacle of science and technology yet.
- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6No, that is how science works. You MUST be skeptical about new, groundbreaking ideas; since everybody is, the new ideas have to go through a lot of confirmations before they're accepted. See, for example, quantum physics.
Now, the problem with cold fusion is that it seems... picky. An experiment works when made by a pro-cold fusion group, and doesn't work when repeated by skeptical groups. There is probably a factor we're still not seeing, which would explain all results. If we cannot explain this, we cannot "accept" it (just like we do not "accept" DAMA's measurement of dark matter which isn't confirmed by other experiments that should have seen something if the DM particle had those characteristics). - guyinjapan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You know, you have a right to be skeptical, because, yeah, it could just be complete nonsense. But that's not how science works. If it was, people would've brushed off ideas like "phones" and "motion picture machines" and "flying vehicles" a long time ago. It may be a wildly nonsensical idea, but there's also possibility here - and science is about just that. Possibility. Who knows what a few research dollars could find?
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The problem seems to be that they are focusing on empiricism instead of theory. It would seem that something sporadically reproducible is happening, but they have no good idea what. Until they know what or have a decent guess, they won't know what parameters to vary in their experimentation. This kind of focus on "results" vs. theory is a hallmark of quack science. I'm only guessing that this is the case, not having read any of the research papers on the topic.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Does it really matter if they never actually achieve cold fusion? They could have many breakthrus along the way that are beneficial to mankind.
- Mothrog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4http://www.lenr-canr.org/
Read up. There are a fair number of papers trying to explain the theory behind the reactions. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4What a load of crap. These devices don't work and are nothing more than pseudo-scientific bullcrap.
- MindTrigger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Keep working people, don't listen to the naysayers!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Guyinjapan: Although I understand what you're saying, science is meant to be skeptical but not closed minded. Anyone can claim anything but they must be able to support their claim with evidence.
Cold fusion has repeatedly fail to show it to be anything but pseudo-science. While we should be open to the possibility of cold-fusion, one can only cry wold so often before people start to doubt. - alphex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3heh.
If you like that, check out this... -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606 -- Quote -->
Google Tech Talks November 9, 2006
ABSTRACT This is not your father's fusion reactor! Forget everything you know about conventional ... all » thinking on nuclear fusion: high-temperature plasmas, steam turbines, neutron radiation and even nuclear waste are a thing of the past. Goodbye thermonuclear fusion; hello inertial electrostatic confinement fusion (IEC), an old idea that's been made new. While the international community debates the fate of the politically-turmoiled $12 billion ITER (an experimental thermonuclear reactor), simple IEC reactors are being built as high-school science fair projects.
Dr. Robert Bussard, former Asst. Director of the Atomic Energy Commission and founder of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2), has spent 17 years perfecting IEC, a fusion process that converts hydrogen and boron directly into electricity producing helium as the only waste product. Most of this work was funded by the Department of Defense, the details of which have been under seal... until now.
Dr. Bussard will discuss his recent results and details of this potentially world-altering technology, whose conception dates back as far as 1924, and even includes a reactor design by Philo T. Farnsworth (inventor of the scanning television).
Can a 100 MW fusion reactor be built for less than Google's annual electricity bill? Come see what's possible when you think outside the thermonuclear box and ignore the herd. - Mothrog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's not overly likely that cold fusion will have that much potential. The biggest problem with cold fusion is that most of the theories surrounding its underlying mechanism require it to occur within some substance, usually palladium. The reaction products that allow the most efficient conversion to electrical power, heavy charged particles, have a very small stopping distance in such materials, meaning few will ever make it out to be converted into useful power. You don't have that problem with hot fusion, and hot fusion can also be self sustaining. Hot fusion is the better bet.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That is a false analogy. Flying machines and electricity were unproven ideas that was took people time to finally accept as real and took even longer to show that is worked once evidence was provided.
Cold Fusion has completely failed to provide any evidence that is even is feasible. As long as they can provide evidence, we can believe them but they haven't or their results have proven fraudulent.
"One has to be open minded but not so open minded that our brains fall out" - Fairn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I remember stumbling onto the article about the table top cold fusion 2 or 3 years back when I used Slashdot. I thought it was the most amazing thing yet and I was actually wondering what happened with that a few weeks ago.
Now maybe if our tax dollars went into developing cold fusion instead of going places like Iraq, Israel, Iran, Bush's campaign pockets, or weapons production/development, then maybe we can have the futuristic and pleasurable lifestyle that many people predicted for the "future."
Scientists need the money, you can't just expect them to develop something world changing when they get the smallest percent of tax dollars. - guyinjapan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Steve, that's not really what I meant. Yes, we need to be skeptical. But we also shouldn't brush off those findings, say the concept is nonsense, and then abandon the idea. We need to look into it some more, and find out why there are some discrepancies, and work on the theory, and develop the science if we can. We need to investigate cold fusion, not abandon the idea outright.
- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"That *something* is occurring at the atomic level is incontestable. *What* it is that's occurring isn't clear."
At the atomic level? Possibly. At the nuclear level? Not that much.
You seem to ignore the fact that many, many other groups also repeated the initial experiment (and other experiments which claimed anomalous heat production), and couldn't reproduce the claims. It seems like the results are quite unstable, and there's still no theory involving nuclear fusion that can explain both the positive and negative results; but you can explain that by many other ways, even cosmic ray deposition could give you some heat in such an unpredictable way.
Cold fusion "believers" are the ones who need to propose an experimental setup that works for everyone, and a theory that explains all available results. Until then, there is no science in repeating the same measurements and claiming a signal no-one else sees anywhere else in the world. - Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Science means not clinging to ideas simply because you'd like them to be true.
- jo42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The reason Cold Fusion is so ignored is that it would butt-f*ck the oil industry out of billions of dollars of revenue. Why do you think we don't have 100% electric cars? Hint: No revenue for the oil industry...
- guyinjapan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Well, my point is - we don't really know its potential yet. It could have none, or it could surpass our expectations. It could turn out to be a very viable energy source in the end, but first we have to do a bit of research to explore its possibilities.
- Mothrog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Cold Fusion has completely failed to provide any evidence that is even is feasible."
Absolutely not true. There are hundreds of papers out there. Are they all wrong or fraudulent? Read through some of the research articles, particularly those done by physicists and not bone head chemists.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/ - arpad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Inasmuch as the mechanism responsible for the observed effect is still a total mystery, it's pretty tough to credit your bland assurances as anything but talking out of your ass.
For instance, palladium isn't the only material that's generated cold-fusion-type anomalous results. A variety of metals mostly but a couple of compounds have also exhibited similar results. Also, the Pons-Fleischmann eletro-cell setup isn't the only one that's been used to generate the energy anomalies.
There's definitely some there there but it's not clear what that there is. - scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3They just want some sucker to invest a bunch of money in their snake oil.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1People still use that ***** database?
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1cold fusion does exist, just not within the realm of the CIA & the UEC
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0slander on all those who debunk stephen mark
- Mothrog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Cold fusion won't be the holy grail of energy sources. The effect is generally sporadic and requires a fair number of expensive materials relative to the energy output obtained. The real holy grail of energy sources is hot fusion.
- Fairn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Due to grammatical errors, your comment does not count.
- Grizlas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0http://www.padrak.com/ine/SMARK.html
- CiXeL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i think a better example would be plate tectonics
- anrwlias, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Cold fusion is the 21st century's N-ray.
- Fairn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm sorry about my previous reply, imperium2000. I tend to jump the gun when I see an added word or minor typo. Now that I've actually read your comment I have to say that I do agree with what you are saying and I regret posting as I did. But I still believe that we need to give these scientists more to work with.
Again, I'm sorry about my poor reply. - arpad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1While extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, that's not the whole story with cold fusion. The Pons-Fleischman announcement was met not just with skepticism but vitriol and personal attacks.
It's not hard to see why.
The hot-fusion guys were getting all the bucks, there being no other place to spend research dollars if you were interested in understanding fusion. The notion that a couple chemists could bring down their international community generated a reaction more like that of an ant's nest that's been violated then the reasoned debate and review it should have. Pons and Fleischman were scientific saints compared to some of their critics who accused them of everything but child molestation.
Oh, Imperium2000, you might want to inform yourself before popping off as if you have.
Cold fusion's anamolous heat production, fusion byproducts and radiation have been found to be present in many, many experiments performed by scientists around the world since not long after the Pons-Fleishman annoucement. To suggest that all those experimenters are fools, frauds or mistaken puts the onus on you to provide proof of that unlikely assertion. I won't hold my breath waiting because I've noticed that promiscuous charges of fraud are supported by turning up the volume.
That *something* is occurring at the atomic level is incontestable. *What* it is that's occurring isn't clear. But scientists, the genuine kind that wait for evidence before forming a conclusion, will find out while the grant-chasing ass-kissers see to their careers. - Jesse, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6No, mainstream science did abandon this idea long ago. And rightly so.
- Jeffrsmall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I hope that guy's speaking at this year's Max conference.
- fixty, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Check out the picture - it looks like he's wearing some sort of night vision apparatus on his crotch... oh... fanny pack, nevermind.
- necroprancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I had no idea Wired was such a cheerleader for pseudoscience. What a sloppy piece of science writing. Conspiracy theories, ad hoc reasoning, confirmation bias... I'd expect this from unscrupulous major news networks, but Wired is supposed to demonstrate a modicum of expertise in this field. Buried as inaccurate.
- 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1YouTube has many examples of clean, cheap energy being generated using magnets. Yet a person who only reads and watches the MSM is unlikely to know such devices exist and have existed for decades (remember the other story on Digg today about who owns the media?).
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=free+energy+coil
Unfortunately established energy corporations have far more influence in deciding when a new generating technology can come to market than a group of well-meaning scientists. Still, I wish them the best of luck with their research. - CyberSally, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I made cold fusion in my pants one time.
- irvin666, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1FUUUUUUUUSION, HA! *ping*
I'm going to watch that, now. - moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0I need one of these in my basement to power my PC...
If it's 'cold' fusion, I should need fewer fans, right? - bwhite, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Damn .. I thought this article was going to be about Adobe, Macromedia and Allaire.
- maou, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2hay maybe next time they can get together and discuss perpetual motion or perhaps a super efficient engine that runs on water and DREAMS!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is