OT?: Some (potentially) good news for once.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Cold Fusion is coming along. Maybe life in the 2000's will have some upsides too.

Cold Fusion update

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999


In 1946, David M. Lillenthal (Director, Atomic Energgy Comission) said that we were on the verge of a new era of cheap and plentiful energy from the atom. Now where are we?

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

Obviously, those who profit from other energy sources, don't want to share their wealth...and perhaps lose a greater part.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), July 24, 1999.

Even if everything this article contends is true (highly dubious), it's a long way from there to a commercial energy source. Nuclear energy was well understood at the time they were talking about "electricity too cheap to meter". Nature tends to pose obstacles.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

Why is the content of the article dubious, Flint?

-- Typhon Blue (typhonblue@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

Current issue of Scientific American at newstand today had three articles on fuel cells. Details for personal cell phone, home and automobile applications.

As I recall, they project full market availability by 2003. Company names are mentioned and one as I recall is on the OTC. If Y2K <7, I hope to buy some of their shares say about 2nd qtr next year if they are still listed and in business.

Fuel cells are very effiecent run on hydrogen and emit water as byproduct.

I read the articles in the store - guess I'll have to go buy the issue or see if it is online...

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), July 24, 1999.


The post by Bill P should provide a clue. Many different energy alternatives are being openly investigated, at great expense. We know that our oil supply is not infinite, and that basing most of our energy requirements on oil has ominous ecological side effects. Why select any one possible alternative and conspire to quash it? If cold fusion is feasible, these positive results should be easy to replicate. The techniques for doing so should be published in sufficient detail to permit replication.

This article strongly implies a systematic (and successful) attempt at a coverup, yet no such attempt is being made against fuel cells, solar power, hybrid technologies and others. I'd like to see a cheap, nonpolluting form of energy as much as anyone. The power companies would love it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 24, 1999.

I see, so you're not taking issue with the science itself?

-- Typhon Blue (typhonblue@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

The article sounds ligit to me. Despite Paul Davis and Deckers comments to the contrary, cold fusion is very real. In fact, the technology has been licensed and sold in a few crude devices, more of a curiosity at this point than an actual viable energy source. But the effect is real, and will eventually be exploited fully, just as room temperature superconductors (remember those?) will eventually be revolutionary. When? Depends on how things shake out in the new few years...

-- a (a@a.a), July 24, 1999.

Flint, what I mean is this:

You raise an interesting point as far as the whole conspiracy element of cold fusion goes. It is paradoxical that the oil industry would suppress cold fusion and not fuel cells, solar power, etc. I am considering the idea that it may be a matter of scale, but I am not versed on the costs and expansion potential of fuel cell technology so I have, as always, no conclusive answer.

What I am asking about is the science itself Is it bad science?

Further on the conspiricy debate:

I can understand how the oil industry would recognize the finite amount of oil resources available to us, but, as several article's I've read point out, scientists apparently put the last barrel several hundred years in the future. I'm sure the oil industry would prefer to preserve it's profit margin now rather than suffer the emurgence of potentialy more versatile, less poluting, and cheaper energy sources. I can understand the motives behind waiting utill the last barrel is burnt. I can also understand shortsightedness in the face of momentary gain (after all, isn't that what this forum is about?). I also can see how they might allow some alternative-energy technology through especially when it is expensive in the case of solar, or enviromentally disruptive, in the case of hydro. These technologies are limited and can never have a greater then suplimentary role in energy production. However, if what the cold fusion scientists are saying is true, cold fusion has the potential supplant all conventional forms of energy. Imagine the change to the world, physically and economicly, if that happened.

I don't nessisarily believe this conspiricy theory but this is where my logic takes me. I cannot believe that oil companies if they were in the position to stop cold fusion, would simply sit by and let their profits vanish. The question is, are they in

-- Typhon Blue (typhonblue@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

hmmm... this cuttoff thing is really irritating.

My last line is:

The question is, are they in a position to do it?

-- Typhon Blue (typhonblue@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

hmmm... this cuttoff thing is really irritating.

My last line is:

The question is, are they in a position to do it?

And here is a line to be cut...

-- Typhon Blue (typhonblue@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ