Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: William H Huebl who wrote (71386)	7/4/2005 8:36:48 AM
From: Real Man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 94695

I doubt it. One of these was done in the lab I am affiliated with (Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab). It involved the energy of collapsing bubbles, which supposedly triggered cold fusion. Only 10 orders of magnitude less than needed -g- That produced a lot of noise, and the Oak Ridge people are very ashamed of one publication under the name of the Lab. This was just incorrectly measured background radiation. I think, this is what the whole noise in cold fusion is about. This incident has lead to tougher internal Lab laws for outside folks using the name of the lab for publications. -g- Tokamak is likely the way to go. It's a shame this approach was closed - it came very, very close to running a controlled fusion reaction. I think that chart I posted is very optimistic. If the project were not shut down, by this time we would likely have had a working hot fusion reactor. Just use time extrapolation of this chart to see it fusedweb.pppl.gov Cold fusion is to blame, I guess! This stuff is too good to be true. Any chemical or mechanical energy involved in cold fusion is orders of magnitude smaller than needed to run a fusion reaction. Can't create something out of nothing -g-