Cold fusion, or something, is back in the news.
The "or something" is a nod to the realization that what, if anything, is going on with the "E-cat" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrVng4ZxE80) experiment, it's not nuclear fusion according to our current understanding of how that stuff works. That realization is starting to force proponents to back off calling whatever it is "cold fusion", if indeed there's any there there, to a more vague identification.
There's some hand-waving about "lattice spacing" and "non-standard models of nuclear fusion" but that's really a tacit admission that the proponents don't really have a clue what, if anything, is going on.
All the qualifications I've thrown in, the "if anything" and "whatever it is", is a testament to the surprisingly difficult task of nailing down all the possible source of experimental error in these experiments.
Pretty good experimentalists have labored for years trying to address every valid objection to the accuracy of their experiments and maybe, just maybe, they've finally answered them all. If they have it may just be that something is going on that our current understanding of nuclear processes doesn't explain.
That's an extraordinary claim and, quoting the late Carl Sagan, would require extraordinary proof. Maybe we're on the edge of that "extraordinary proof".
Or maybe not.
Having been wildly enthusiastic about cold fusion back in the day, and having been skunked by the inadequate experiments that were performed, I'm content to let the science reveal itself. But I will say that I'm rooting for "yup, it's real" and not just because it would mean a drop in energy costs that would be revolutionary. It'd also mean that much of current physics is wrong and that we have to rethink and rebuild our ideas. That means we'd get a step closer to understanding how the universe really works and that's very cool.
Quote from: arpad on November 05, 2011, 09:57:44 AM
Cold fusion, or something, is back in the news.
The "or something" is a nod to the realization that what, if anything, is going on with the "E-cat" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrVng4ZxE80) experiment, it's not nuclear fusion according to our current understanding of how that stuff works. That realization is starting to force proponents to back off calling whatever it is "cold fusion", if indeed there's any there there, to a more vague identification.
There's some hand-waving about "lattice spacing" and "non-standard models of nuclear fusion" but that's really a tacit admission that the proponents don't really have a clue what, if anything, is going on.
All the qualifications I've thrown in, the "if anything" and "whatever it is", is a testament to the surprisingly difficult task of nailing down all the possible source of experimental error in these experiments.
Pretty good experimentalists have labored for years trying to address every valid objection to the accuracy of their experiments and maybe, just maybe, they've finally answered them all. If they have it may just be that something is going on that our current understanding of nuclear processes doesn't explain.
That's an extraordinary claim and, quoting the late Carl Sagan, would require extraordinary proof. Maybe we're on the edge of that "extraordinary proof".
Or maybe not.
Having been wildly enthusiastic about cold fusion back in the day, and having been skunked by the inadequate experiments that were performed, I'm content to let the science reveal itself. But I will say that I'm rooting for "yup, it's real" and not just because it would mean a drop in energy costs that would be revolutionary. It'd also mean that much of current physics is wrong and that we have to rethink and rebuild our ideas. That means we'd get a step closer to understanding how the universe really works and that's very cool.
Also from your link ....
Three new heavy elements named Periodic table gets heftier with addition of darmstadtium, roentgenium and copernicium
Elements 110, 111 and 112 have been named darmstadtium (Ds), roentgenium (Rg) and copernicium (Cn).
more @
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45171271/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/three-new-heavy-elements-named/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45171271/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/three-new-heavy-elements-named/)