2 ms·
Forgive me if I misrepresented fusion energy as a technology; my understanding was that the implication of "cold fusion" was simply "sustainable fusion." i.e. t
by keithwhor 6y ago
Forgive me if I misrepresented fusion energy as a technology; my understanding was that the implication of "cold fusion" was simply "sustainable fusion." i.e. the all-in energy cost is less than the energy output at scale.
I think that's most people's understanding of "fusion", generally, Matter -> Energy, but "cold" is the qualifier of, "we've created fusion reactions before. We just haven't sustained them in a net-positive fashion."
- the8472 6y agoCold fusion generally refers to a fringe research area, sometimes outright scientific fraud. Basing speculation on it moves you into space opera territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion What you're referring to is simply... practically useful fusion (beyond commercial breakeven). Which is obvious from the context and does not require an extra qualifier. The same way as fission isn't referred to "controlled chain reaction fission" in casual conversation.