Miscellaneous News

SamuraiBlue

Captain
There's a long way to go from some heat releasing metal particles to powering vessels with a fusion reactor.
Yeah but look at the company name that is mentioned within the article that is running the show.
By the way notice the publisher of this article. It's not some kind of sensationalism fanboism.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Yeah but look at the company name that is mentioned within the article that is running the show.
By the way notice the publisher of this article. It's not some kind of sensationalism fanboism.
So what about the company name? He's not saying that it's not true; he's saying it's a long way off from materializing into application.

The title says, "Scientists get serious..."

And the quoted segment says, "...generate more heat consistently..."

Both of these sound like sensationalism to me. What does "get serious" mean scientifically? LOL And "... generate more heat consistently..." is very much a weasel claim because every experiment you can creep the results up a little each time but what does it mean? How much is needed to be useful? Have prototypes been built to harness the energy? These are things that reveal the applicability of the current state but they are not mentioned.

The paper itself mentions the data obtained in the experiment of course but does not even attempt to claim that it is close to usability; as a matter of fact, the final conclusion of the paper, that the excess heat could not be caused by chemical reaction, suggests that the research is in such an early phase that we are still generating questions about an observation not to mention mastering the answers for use. In other words, the paper merely observed a phenomenon and asked the question, "Where does this heat come from?"

I don't mean to discredit any scientific work as all basic science is the backbone to application science but it would be a mistake to confuse the two, a mistake that I'm not accusing the paper of but only its less-informed readers.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
So what about the company name? He's not saying that it's not true; he's saying it's a long way off from materializing into application.

The title says, "Scientists get serious..."

And the quoted segment says, "...generate more heat consistently..."

Both of these sound like sensationalism to me. What does "get serious" mean scientifically? LOL And "... generate more heat consistently..." is very much a weasel claim because every experiment you can creep the results up a little each time but what does it mean? How much is needed to be useful? Have prototypes been built to harness the energy? These are things that reveal the applicability of the current state but they are not mentioned.

The paper itself mentions the data obtained in the experiment of course but does not even attempt to claim that it is close to usability; as a matter of fact, the final conclusion of the paper, that the excess heat could not be caused by chemical reaction, suggests that the research is in such an early phase that we are still generating questions about an observation not to mention mastering the answers for use. In other words, the paper merely observed a phenomenon and asked the question, "Where does this heat come from?"

I don't mean to discredit any scientific work as all basic science is the backbone to application science but it would be a mistake to confuse the two, a mistake that I'm not accusing the paper of but only its less-informed readers.
For the first question; Have you even opened the article?
It's Mitsubishi Heavy Industry in bold.
As for how close we are watch the vid;


You'll see we are more close to realization then you would like to believe.
I believe it will be in commercial use within the next 10~15 years.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
For the first question; Have you even opened the article?
It's Mitsubishi Heavy Industry in bold.
As for how close we are watch the vid;


You'll see we are more close to realization then you would like to believe.
I believe it will be in commercial use within the next 10~15 years.

If we're actually 10-15 years to cold fusion or any commercially viable fusion the world would be putting hundreds of billions into it and try to get there in 5 years because it's a holy grail of science. The fact that we're not putting that much money into it and repeated failed 10-15 year predictions show that we're still a long way off.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
For the first question; Have you even opened the article?
It's Mitsubishi Heavy Industry in bold.
As for how close we are watch the vid;


You'll see we are more close to realization then you would like to believe.
I believe it will be in commercial use within the next 10~15 years.
I asked, "So what about the company name?" I didn't ask, "What is the company name?" Read English carefully. I know it's Mitsubishi; I don't care. It doesn't mean anything to me in terms of the quality of the research. I looked at the actual scientific article that these claims were based on and it ended in a question, a very basic question that suggests that this technology is still in its observation phase, the very first phase.

Your video is theory/concept video made in 2015. It also demonstrates how new we are in researching this scientific topic.

Your personal estimate is unsubstantiated and quite frankly weightless. If the technology becomes useful in 10-15 years, then they are moving very quickly; I'm not saying it's not possible or that I know how much longer it will take so I don't have a "belief" in the time-frame. But the conclusion here is that the scientific paper you posted, the backbone for all of these claims, is clearly (early) basic science, NOT application science.
 
Last edited:

JsCh

Junior Member
I would be a bit suspicious about the timing of this news, since the title say "It’s absolutely, definitely, seriously not cold fusion" and cold fusion just got debunked.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

NEWS * 27 MAY 2019 * CLARIFICATION
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments
Researchers tested mechanisms linked to nuclear fusion at room temperature — but found no evidence for the phenomenon.

Elizabeth Gibney
Since 2015, Google has been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— the theory that nuclear fusion, the process that powers the Sun, can produce energy in a table-top experiment at room temperature. Two scientists first made sensational claims about achieving the phenomenon — promising endless, cheap energy — 30 years ago, but their results were quickly debunked and the topic is now considered a scientific taboo.

Google’s project — revealed in a peer-reviewed Nature Perspective
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
this week — found no evidence that cold fusion is possible, but made some advances in measurement and materials-science techniques that the researchers say could benefit energy research. The team also hopes that its work will inspire others to revisit cold-fusion experiments, even if the phenomenon still fails to materialize.

...
 

solarz

Brigadier
I asked, "So what about the company name?" I didn't ask, "What is the company name?" Read English carefully. I know it's Mitsubishi; I don't care. It doesn't mean anything to me in terms of the quality of the research. I looked at the actual scientific article that these claims were based on and it ended in a question, a very basic question that suggests that this technology is still in its observation phase, the very first phase.

Your video is theory/concept video made in 2015. It also demonstrates how new we are in researching this scientific topic.

Your personal estimate is unsubstantiated and quite frankly weightless. If the technology becomes useful in 10-15 years, then they are moving very quickly; I'm not saying it's not possible or that I know how much longer it will take so I don't have a "belief" in the time-frame. But the conclusion here is that the scientific paper you posted, the backbone for all of these claims, is clearly (early) basic science, NOT application science.

Seriously, if this experiment means fusion reactors will soon be powering Japanese warships, then China's tokamak reactor means China will soon have starship drives.

It's not the article that's sensationalist, it's @SamuraiBlue 's interpretation of that article.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Seriously, if this experiment means fusion reactors will soon be powering Japanese warships, then China's tokamak reactor means China will soon have starship drives.

It's not the article that's sensationalist, it's @SamuraiBlue 's interpretation of that article.
Here is a 6 Years old article talking about the subject in which both Mitsubishi Heavy and Toyota is involved.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Here is a 6 Years old article talking about the subject in which both Mitsubishi Heavy and Toyota is involved.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Why did you bold the 6 year old part? It doesn't indicate the speed of progress since then and it certainly doesn't mean that it's mature technology.

The video you provided cited the first cold fusion in 1989. That's 30 years ago. What does that mean according to your logic? That we've come a long way or we're almost there or what?

In actuality, neither of these dates provides any indication of how long the wait would be before the technology can be harnessed; they are just points on a timeline that continues to grow.
 
Top