The authors of that document and their sources are given in the PDF, if I am not mistaken?
It does not give any sources. At all.
The author is an industrial engineering professor who lists his current focus as critical materials phenomenon, with past experience in aerospace. While he appears to believe in cold fusion, his name is connected to no other document I can find involving it. He references his critical materials phenomenon work in the document, but doesn't actually connect it to the subject of cold fusion, and there's no clear indication if cold fusion involves a critical point phenomenon or not.
The rest of the names are attendees in the discussion, which was one of many involved in a sustainable energy conference that several other recent documents on the EC's site are from. Most of the people listed (at least of the ones I could easily find) are not physicists, and of the ones who are only one appears to deal with fusion (and not traditional cold fusion but sonoluminescence).
Lot of actual real things in here, doesn't actually say anything outright impossible, but the only place it talks about hydrogen fuel cells is in the section where it talks about power production infrastructure - and hydrogen fuel cells work for storage, not infrastructure. It's possible to likely this is just poor sectioning and inattention to detail, but it's an example of my statement that the EC does not do the due diligence on these things, they do not evaluate the claims submitted to them, they simply compile and report what they receive from science and industry. As far as I can tell, the people that handle these reports don't even have a direct hand in determining the public funding of these things.
Would have gotten this up for you sooner, but I decided to actually look at the sources and author of that paper first.
That means that the scientists from the European bureaucracy are convinced that cold fusion, the effect first observed by scientists Fleischman and Pons in 1989, is real.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion )
After 1989, few scientists were able to reproduce the effect, so Pons and Fleischman were either called liars or ridiculed, as were all those who claimed they had confirmed it. Apparently, reliable reproduction is possible now.
And this would mean:
Cheap and very clean nuclear power doable in tabletop-sized reactors at room temperature with no radioactive waste, using resources that are abundantly available.
No it doesn't. Your PDF is a materials science conference brochure on "Oooh, this is cool" (pun intended). This is not a research paper; it does not give a materials and methods, results, conclusion or citations.
Nor can you take one materials conference brochure and conclude that "the European bureaucracy" is convinced of anything, save of trying to justify their pensions.
The only thing this brochure *does* say is - "Oooh, this is cool. We recommend that more study [preferably with someone else's money] is needed.
Spoken like a true scientist, and rightly so. However, if the claim is that one can make a hot fusion reactor work, and that claim remains unproven for decades, people who work to pay for all this have a right to ask "is it even possible?"
The basic fundamental science behind it is rock solid. Its doing things like creating materials which can withstand neutron fatigue, superconductors that operate at higher temperatures, vacuum chambers which have even few stray particles, etc thats the hard part. And you want to know something? All of those have other applications beyond merely creating a fusion reactor. So no, the money is not being wasted. They're not "researching nuclear fusion", they're researching parts that would create a net positive fusion reactor which also have myriad other uses.
It's what a guy from Athens told me some time ago. He was a pretty smart chap.
Was he able to explain why it worked? If not, then don't believe. Unless the person selling some fancy new science to you can actually explain whats going on, he might as well be selling magic.
It seems, to me, logically impossible to know that any given thing is impossible.
Unless you have mountains of evidence to the contrary. Newton's Laws, Thermodynamics, Relativity, Quantum Physics all say no, and they all have been proven right countless times (well, Newton's right at non relativistic scales).
massive jolt? i suppose pouring dilute sulfuric acid on some lead plates is enough of a 'jolt' to generate electricity eh? what some are referring to is a reproduction/man made fusion process that's known. hot fusion. requires the same forces that occur naturally to be reproduced artificially.
as with batteries, lithium ion, lead acid, nickel cadmium, etc. these do not occur in combination naturally. they are man made combinations, completely artificial. as with the cold (cold in this case being no where near the temp of the hot version) fusion, it's not something that naturally occurs. so the rules for hot fusion don't apply.
kinda like saying because you can stick 2 dissimilar metals in a potato and get some current that batteries are impossible without duplicating the potato >.>
as it's been discovered time and time again, all you need is the effect of the natural process. you don't need to entirely duplicate it if you can get the effect by another means. do they have that effect? enough of one that several persons are risking their reps on it. for so many self titled or apparent scientists here...some awfully tightly closed minds.
'it can only be done one way! everything else is BS!' is the common albeit paraphrased sentiment.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Seriously? Just because we do it colder means we can ignore the massive energy requirements to overcome the huge electrostatic repulsion of protons? You have no idea what you are talking about.
Its called "hot fusion" because the energy requirements would translate to 120 Million Kelvin. But at the quantum scale, there isn't such a thing as temperature. Hot Fusion is just a shortcut, layman's term.
Seriously? Just because we do it colder means we can ignore the massive energy requirements to overcome the huge electrostatic repulsion of protons? You have no idea what you are talking about.
Its called "hot fusion" because the energy requirements would translate to 120 Million Kelvin. But at the quantum scale, there isn't such a thing as temperature. Hot Fusion is just a shortcut, layman's term.
first part: yes, there might be a way around it that they've discovered, there are more than one way to do things. the universe isn't quite so simplistic. and particles...as i'm sure you're aware being such a great mind...don't always behave as they always have given different conditions to react in. or do they always behave identically? in every medium? environment? no they don't. get off your pseudo intellectual high horse for a bit and actually think.
second part...all this was mostly being discussed in layman's terms as you so elitely put it. why should i stray? and why would you wish to point that out except in an attempt to show your e-peen-o-knowledge? doesn't change anything, and is irrelevant. either layman's terms or accurate ones it still got the point across...you understood it >.> so pointing it out was just what i said...flexing. yes...i'm so impressed.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
first part: yes, there might be a way around it that they've discovered, there are more than one way to do things. the universe isn't quite so simplistic. and particles...as i'm sure you're aware being such a great mind...don't always behave as they always have given different conditions to react in. or do they always behave identically? in every medium? environment? no they don't. get off your pseudo intellectual high horse for a bit and actually think.
The Standard Model has never been proven wrong. If there was something that could circumvent the amount of energy required to bring 2 charged objects within 1 femtometer of each other, it would have been seen in the thousands of particle smashings we've done.
second part...all this was mostly being discussed in layman's terms as you so elitely put it.
You're assuming I'm being elite. I merely described that Hot Fusion is way of saying "Deuterium and Tritium require .1 MeV of non rest mass energy between them to fuse" without glossing over a random person's eyes.
layman's terms are accurate ones it still got the point across...you understood it
I got it because I knew the real definition it points to. You used it like it meant there's a Scientific difference in the way atoms behave. Which there isn't; I explained why that was wrong.
That means that the scientists from the European bureaucracy are convinced that cold fusion, the effect first observed by scientists Fleischman and Pons in 1989, is real.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion )
After 1989, few scientists were able to reproduce the effect, so Pons and Fleischman were either called liars or ridiculed, as were all those who claimed they had confirmed it. Apparently, reliable reproduction is possible now.
And this would mean:
Cheap and very clean nuclear power doable in tabletop-sized reactors at room temperature with no radioactive waste, using resources that are abundantly available.
21st century definition of the word "Cheap": Something that breaks easily.
Trust me, if and when the Oil companies, and their shareholders, who coincidently, are the same people who control the world economy, get onboard with this, it will be anything but cheap, as in inexpensive. What was all that claptrap about a plugin car, again?
Dude, if he can, without reasonable doubt, prove that his magic works
How is that different from being duped by the magic trick? If somebody is selling "science" and they don't show enough data that can be statistically analyzed, doesn't provide his method, and doesn't attempt to explain it, then he's not selling you science. This has happened to many investors over the years (the classic whipping boy example being perpetual energy).
Sure, we don't know everything. Probably never will. Be we know enough to state certain situations can't be possible. Such as overcoming an energy barrier. Even the Sun with its massive density (compared to earth based fusion research) needs to be 15 million Kelvin to have statistics on it side that some its hydrogen has enough energy to quantumly tunnel.
Which I don't know. But you don't either. You don't apply the scientific method. Why?
I do apply the scientific method. My advantage is there is already an unimaginable amount of evidence to the contrary.
*facepalm* oh...my...god. This is a waste of time.
Just like those "FTL" neutrinos last year, one data point does not equal a refutation. By the way, it since been proven the equipment that detected the neutrinos were calibrated wrong, and they really were going under the speed of light, just like we knew they were.
Actually, the claim we are discussing is that it has been proven wrong.
Nothing of the sort has been proven. FPE can't repeated accurately and it doesn't respond to control experiments. The very basic fundamentals of the scientific method have repeatedly shown this.
If it is true, then it is as different as it can be.
Apply the scientific method. The Standard Model is no religion.
I do apply the scientific method. I didn't do the experiments myself, but ONE Group claimed Cold Fusion ONCE, and everybody who tried to replicate them couldn't. That ONE group made no further claims. With NO evidence supporting it, The Scientific Method says "yeah, there's a near zero chance it actually happened".
You did? Then you are either much smarter or much dumber than the people who worked there.
Yes, I did know. Because if those neutrinos were going FTL, it would mean the physics (which has been proven right countless times) that makes our very existence possible was wrong. Also, many in the scientific community were very skeptical. Next time you hear about something science related that's earth shattering (in this case, it would have literally been earth shattering since it meant the Earth wouldn't exist), you should pay attention to scholarly sources instead of the mainstream news.
But that is not true. There are many people who claim it, as a quick google search tells me. There are even yearly summits about the subject, it seems.
Google sucks for scientific research. I can't do any real research right now since I'm not at my school (which has access to the subscription services that indexes and searches scholarly and academic papers, resources, etc).
Are you still saying that it is not possible to turn lead into gold? :eek:
Most likely not. Its very hard to convince something to spit up alpha and beta particles. And atom smashing it always results in it cleaving into at least 2 similar mass daughter nuclei (usually 3 or more with a lot of alpha particles).
Are you still saying that it is not possible to turn lead into gold? :eek:
The post I was referring to was inaccurately comparing electrochemistry with nuclear chemistry. If you had the least bit of understanding of science I would not have to make that distinction for you. Therefore that post applies to you as well.
Comments
It does not give any sources. At all.
The author is an industrial engineering professor who lists his current focus as critical materials phenomenon, with past experience in aerospace. While he appears to believe in cold fusion, his name is connected to no other document I can find involving it. He references his critical materials phenomenon work in the document, but doesn't actually connect it to the subject of cold fusion, and there's no clear indication if cold fusion involves a critical point phenomenon or not.
The rest of the names are attendees in the discussion, which was one of many involved in a sustainable energy conference that several other recent documents on the EC's site are from. Most of the people listed (at least of the ones I could easily find) are not physicists, and of the ones who are only one appears to deal with fusion (and not traditional cold fusion but sonoluminescence).
http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/materials-roadmap-elcet-13122011_en.pdf
Lot of actual real things in here, doesn't actually say anything outright impossible, but the only place it talks about hydrogen fuel cells is in the section where it talks about power production infrastructure - and hydrogen fuel cells work for storage, not infrastructure. It's possible to likely this is just poor sectioning and inattention to detail, but it's an example of my statement that the EC does not do the due diligence on these things, they do not evaluate the claims submitted to them, they simply compile and report what they receive from science and industry. As far as I can tell, the people that handle these reports don't even have a direct hand in determining the public funding of these things.
Would have gotten this up for you sooner, but I decided to actually look at the sources and author of that paper first.
No it doesn't. Your PDF is a materials science conference brochure on "Oooh, this is cool" (pun intended). This is not a research paper; it does not give a materials and methods, results, conclusion or citations.
Nor can you take one materials conference brochure and conclude that "the European bureaucracy" is convinced of anything, save of trying to justify their pensions.
The only thing this brochure *does* say is - "Oooh, this is cool. We recommend that more study [preferably with someone else's money] is needed.
Neither Sophic or Logical.
massive jolt? i suppose pouring dilute sulfuric acid on some lead plates is enough of a 'jolt' to generate electricity eh? what some are referring to is a reproduction/man made fusion process that's known. hot fusion. requires the same forces that occur naturally to be reproduced artificially.
as with batteries, lithium ion, lead acid, nickel cadmium, etc. these do not occur in combination naturally. they are man made combinations, completely artificial. as with the cold (cold in this case being no where near the temp of the hot version) fusion, it's not something that naturally occurs. so the rules for hot fusion don't apply.
kinda like saying because you can stick 2 dissimilar metals in a potato and get some current that batteries are impossible without duplicating the potato >.>
as it's been discovered time and time again, all you need is the effect of the natural process. you don't need to entirely duplicate it if you can get the effect by another means. do they have that effect? enough of one that several persons are risking their reps on it. for so many self titled or apparent scientists here...some awfully tightly closed minds.
'it can only be done one way! everything else is BS!' is the common albeit paraphrased sentiment.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Its called "hot fusion" because the energy requirements would translate to 120 Million Kelvin. But at the quantum scale, there isn't such a thing as temperature. Hot Fusion is just a shortcut, layman's term.
first part: yes, there might be a way around it that they've discovered, there are more than one way to do things. the universe isn't quite so simplistic. and particles...as i'm sure you're aware being such a great mind...don't always behave as they always have given different conditions to react in. or do they always behave identically? in every medium? environment? no they don't. get off your pseudo intellectual high horse for a bit and actually think.
second part...all this was mostly being discussed in layman's terms as you so elitely put it. why should i stray? and why would you wish to point that out except in an attempt to show your e-peen-o-knowledge? doesn't change anything, and is irrelevant. either layman's terms or accurate ones it still got the point across...you understood it >.> so pointing it out was just what i said...flexing. yes...i'm so impressed.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
I don't think you quite understand the difference between electrochemistry and nuclear chemistry (e.g. the reason you can't turn lead into gold).
21st century definition of the word "Cheap": Something that breaks easily.
Trust me, if and when the Oil companies, and their shareholders, who coincidently, are the same people who control the world economy, get onboard with this, it will be anything but cheap, as in inexpensive. What was all that claptrap about a plugin car, again?
*facepalm* oh...my...god. This is a waste of time.
Sure, we don't know everything. Probably never will. Be we know enough to state certain situations can't be possible. Such as overcoming an energy barrier. Even the Sun with its massive density (compared to earth based fusion research) needs to be 15 million Kelvin to have statistics on it side that some its hydrogen has enough energy to quantumly tunnel. I do apply the scientific method. My advantage is there is already an unimaginable amount of evidence to the contrary.
Nothing of the sort has been proven. FPE can't repeated accurately and it doesn't respond to control experiments. The very basic fundamentals of the scientific method have repeatedly shown this.
Please don't take me for a fool. I understand nuclear decay perfectly well. It's your knowledge of basic science that's in question.
...your repeated snarky attempts at ad hominum and circular reasoning not withstanding....
The post I was referring to was inaccurately comparing electrochemistry with nuclear chemistry. If you had the least bit of understanding of science I would not have to make that distinction for you. Therefore that post applies to you as well.
It was so wrong, it wasn't even wrong.