3 ms·

As you can see, the apparatus didn't evaporate while working, so, probably, temperature is much lower.

jacquesm 3y ago
It didn't evaporate because it is constructed carefully not to, but that doesn't mean it isn't blazing hot, just like the gas burner on your stove can be made out of aluminum which would be melted by the flame if it ever became mis-aligned. But that doesn't mean the flame has a temperature lower than the melting point of aluminum, it just means that whoever designed it knew enough to ensure that the aluminum is never exposed to more than that it can handle in spite of being in close proximity to something that is able to melt it instantly. The biggest factors there are flame shape, stand-off and cooling effect of the gas supply itself. Note that when you casually write 'plasma' that you are talking about material that is so hot that it has shed all of its electrons, it is just the nuclei that you're looking at and if it so much as touches anything at all it will waltz right through it as if it isn't there. See also: plasma cutters[1] for a nice demonstration of what happens when you use these facts to your advantage. But for things like plasma based fusion they are a very tricky problem because you have to maintain the plasma while simultaneously extracting energy from it. The device shown in the video is very, very nice and well engineered, it is amazing that they got it work as well as they did with such simplicity but the process is eminently unsuitable for energy generation as far as I understand this stuff, keeping the plasma stable and cooling the whole thing uses many kilowatts. It's an improvement over a linear accelerator or a tokamak for the production of short lived nucleotides it is not an energy generating device. [1] Plasma cutters also don't instantly disintegrate the cutting tip, that's because they blow copious air through the nozzle to keep the hot plasma away from the tip itself and to direct it onto the workpiece that you are cutting. But woe to you if your air pressure unexpectedly drops.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  Although the plasma cutter creates extremely hot flames, it operates at room temperature and does not require powerful radiation protection, except for protective goggles, and it is easy to turn on and off. This sets it apart from the blast furnace. Similarly, a cold reactor may require a source of high-energy particles with very high temperatures to start, but they operate at room temperature, are easily turned on and off, and cannot be used to create a bomb. Note that heat is the problem for an isotope breeder because the reactor will require more powerful cooling. It's not designed to generate heat or electricity. This doesn't mean that it's not possible to create a cold reactor that generates a lot of heat, but it also doesn't mean that such a reactor will be economically viable. We don't know. I mean that it is time to stop stigmatizing Cold Nuclear Fusion because a reactor for isotope breeding could have been created 30 years ago, saving many thousands of lives. The hating of Cold Fusion has cost many people their lives. It would be better to allocate a small fraction of a budget for other nuclear power plants and direct them towards CF, because the cost of CF iteration is orders of magnitude lower, and a few million dollars or euros could significantly advance science.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Can you explain why you continue to say things that make no sense after it has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people? It's a bit strange, normally you'd realize your mistake and adapt, but you seem to persist in purposefully misunderstanding what it means when people talk about 'room temperature fusion'. Let me spell it out once more and then as far as I'm concerned we're done here. Room temperature as a qualifier for a process means that the entire process operates at room temperature. Boiling an egg does not take place at room temperature, even if it takes place in a room. Superconduction - for now - does not take place at room temperature but far below it (this may change shortly, the jury is still out on that). Plasma, aka the fourth state of matter can in very extreme cases be created at low temperatures but we're talking about a couple of nuclei worth at best ( https://www.livescience.com/64422-plasma-cooled-with-lasers.html https://www.livescience.com/64422-plasma-cooled-with-lasers.... ) but normally only does so at thousands of degrees. This means that the term 'room temperature' simply does not apply. > This doesn't mean that it's not possible to create a cold reactor that generates a lot of heat You really should read that sentence again. Cancel out the double negative and see if it makes sense to you. > The hating of Cold Fusion has cost many people their lives. This is complete nonsense. > It would be better to allocate a small fraction of a budget for other nuclear power plants and direct them towards CF, because the cost of CF iteration is orders of magnitude lower, and a few million dollars or euros could significantly advance science. Science budgets are limited and tend to be directed to areas that are suspected to be fruitful. This makes it hard to get funding for what is - charitably - called crank science (or, more precisely, pathological science), which includes cold fusion. If you are a strong believer in the concept you should fund it yourself rather than to put the burden of your beliefs on others.
    - oneshtein 3y ago
      Temperature is statistics. Our bodies are penetrated by high-energy cosmic rays, but they do not change the room temperature. Cosmic muons can accelerate tens of thousands of nuclear fusion reactions in a deuterium-filled lattice, melting the metal, but it does not change the room temperature a lot. So, at what temperature do these reactions occur? On one hand, high energies are required to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and on the other hand, the reaction does not require heating of materials to 1MK or higher. I have used the term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (low relative to High Energy Nuclear Reactions in thermonuclear fusion). LENR allows for the creation of a cold fusion reactor, that can be started at room temperature and operated at low temperature, unlike thermonuclear fusion reactor. Please, see the difference between «nuclear reactions» and a «nuclear reactor». > You really should read that sentence again. Cancel out the double negative and see if it makes sense to you. Not a native speaker. It makes perfect sense in my native language. :-/ > This is complete nonsense. I mean that delay or absence of medical treatment caused lot of premature deaths in these 30 years. Progress saves lives. Delaying of progress reverses the process. > Science budgets are limited and tend to be directed to areas that are suspected to be fruitful. This makes it hard to get funding for what is - charitably - called crank science, which includes cold fusion. As you see, private capital is not afraid about loss of scientific reputation. IMHO, it will easier to get funding for LENR reactors when they break the ice. I was unable to find a funding for similar idea before the war. > If you are a strong believer in the concept you should fund it yourself rather than to put the burden of your beliefs on others. I will try that after the war. However, I may pursuit a different goal - a bluster (photon streams with watts of energy per single photon), to kick Russian drones out from the sky.
HideousKojima 3y ago
Ordinary fusion reactors don't melt either, despite even hotter temperatures, so I don't think you're making the point that you think you are.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

It didn't evaporate because it is constructed carefully not to, but that doesn't mean it isn't blazing hot, just like the gas burner on your stove can be made out of aluminum which would be melted by the flame if it ever became mis-aligned. But that doesn't mean the flame has a temperature lower than the melting point of aluminum, it just means that whoever designed it knew enough to ensure that the aluminum is never exposed to more than that it can handle in spite of being in close proximity to something that is able to melt it instantly. The biggest factors there are flame shape, stand-off and cooling effect of the gas supply itself. Note that when you casually write 'plasma' that you are talking about material that is so hot that it has shed all of its electrons, it is just the nuclei that you're looking at and if it so much as touches anything at all it will waltz right through it as if it isn't there. See also: plasma cutters[1] for a nice demonstration of what happens when you use these facts to your advantage. But for things like plasma based fusion they are a very tricky problem because you have to maintain the plasma while simultaneously extracting energy from it. The device shown in the video is very, very nice and well engineered, it is amazing that they got it work as well as they did with such simplicity but the process is eminently unsuitable for energy generation as far as I understand this stuff, keeping the plasma stable and cooling the whole thing uses many kilowatts. It's an improvement over a linear accelerator or a tokamak for the production of short lived nucleotides it is not an energy generating device. [1] Plasma cutters also don't instantly disintegrate the cutting tip, that's because they blow copious air through the nozzle to keep the hot plasma away from the tip itself and to direct it onto the workpiece that you are cutting. But woe to you if your air pressure unexpectedly drops.

oneshtein 3y ago
Although the plasma cutter creates extremely hot flames, it operates at room temperature and does not require powerful radiation protection, except for protective goggles, and it is easy to turn on and off. This sets it apart from the blast furnace. Similarly, a cold reactor may require a source of high-energy particles with very high temperatures to start, but they operate at room temperature, are easily turned on and off, and cannot be used to create a bomb. Note that heat is the problem for an isotope breeder because the reactor will require more powerful cooling. It's not designed to generate heat or electricity. This doesn't mean that it's not possible to create a cold reactor that generates a lot of heat, but it also doesn't mean that such a reactor will be economically viable. We don't know. I mean that it is time to stop stigmatizing Cold Nuclear Fusion because a reactor for isotope breeding could have been created 30 years ago, saving many thousands of lives. The hating of Cold Fusion has cost many people their lives. It would be better to allocate a small fraction of a budget for other nuclear power plants and direct them towards CF, because the cost of CF iteration is orders of magnitude lower, and a few million dollars or euros could significantly advance science.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Can you explain why you continue to say things that make no sense after it has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people? It's a bit strange, normally you'd realize your mistake and adapt, but you seem to persist in purposefully misunderstanding what it means when people talk about 'room temperature fusion'. Let me spell it out once more and then as far as I'm concerned we're done here. Room temperature as a qualifier for a process means that the entire process operates at room temperature. Boiling an egg does not take place at room temperature, even if it takes place in a room. Superconduction - for now - does not take place at room temperature but far below it (this may change shortly, the jury is still out on that). Plasma, aka the fourth state of matter can in very extreme cases be created at low temperatures but we're talking about a couple of nuclei worth at best ( https://www.livescience.com/64422-plasma-cooled-with-lasers.html https://www.livescience.com/64422-plasma-cooled-with-lasers.... ) but normally only does so at thousands of degrees. This means that the term 'room temperature' simply does not apply. > This doesn't mean that it's not possible to create a cold reactor that generates a lot of heat You really should read that sentence again. Cancel out the double negative and see if it makes sense to you. > The hating of Cold Fusion has cost many people their lives. This is complete nonsense. > It would be better to allocate a small fraction of a budget for other nuclear power plants and direct them towards CF, because the cost of CF iteration is orders of magnitude lower, and a few million dollars or euros could significantly advance science. Science budgets are limited and tend to be directed to areas that are suspected to be fruitful. This makes it hard to get funding for what is - charitably - called crank science (or, more precisely, pathological science), which includes cold fusion. If you are a strong believer in the concept you should fund it yourself rather than to put the burden of your beliefs on others.
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    Temperature is statistics. Our bodies are penetrated by high-energy cosmic rays, but they do not change the room temperature. Cosmic muons can accelerate tens of thousands of nuclear fusion reactions in a deuterium-filled lattice, melting the metal, but it does not change the room temperature a lot. So, at what temperature do these reactions occur? On one hand, high energies are required to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and on the other hand, the reaction does not require heating of materials to 1MK or higher. I have used the term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (low relative to High Energy Nuclear Reactions in thermonuclear fusion). LENR allows for the creation of a cold fusion reactor, that can be started at room temperature and operated at low temperature, unlike thermonuclear fusion reactor. Please, see the difference between «nuclear reactions» and a «nuclear reactor». > You really should read that sentence again. Cancel out the double negative and see if it makes sense to you. Not a native speaker. It makes perfect sense in my native language. :-/ > This is complete nonsense. I mean that delay or absence of medical treatment caused lot of premature deaths in these 30 years. Progress saves lives. Delaying of progress reverses the process. > Science budgets are limited and tend to be directed to areas that are suspected to be fruitful. This makes it hard to get funding for what is - charitably - called crank science, which includes cold fusion. As you see, private capital is not afraid about loss of scientific reputation. IMHO, it will easier to get funding for LENR reactors when they break the ice. I was unable to find a funding for similar idea before the war. > If you are a strong believer in the concept you should fund it yourself rather than to put the burden of your beliefs on others. I will try that after the war. However, I may pursuit a different goal - a bluster (photon streams with watts of energy per single photon), to kick Russian drones out from the sky.

HideousKojima 3y ago

Ordinary fusion reactors don't melt either, despite even hotter temperatures, so I don't think you're making the point that you think you are.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]