does cold fusion work?
90283
asking if cold fusion works you must first ask if fusion works, as of yet the technology to meld two atoms together does not exist, however, it is expected that in the near future fusion will exist and possibly be a perfect, safe, and efficient from of energy. At presant the only type of nuclear energy avliable is fision, splitting two atoms apart
34851
We can already fuse hydrogen together. A hydrogen bomb, for instance, is a fusion reaction. In labs we have fused isotopes of hydrogen together, but so far, it's taken more power to do it than what comes out. So as a power source, we're not there yet, but from a scientific standpoint, we've already done it.
659958
sure- it's easy- the refrigeration system moves heat out of one area into another- and simple experiment for you to do, is take a can of pressurized spray whatever, and spray it- can gets cold from reduction in pressure, allowing molecules space to "slow down" because they quit "bumping" from being in a tight spot- making room for more heat- or "making" cold- with me so far? now just picture a system with a pump that packs the gas molecules tightly together, and on the other end has a spot for them to expand (making room for more heat)and then runs the "heated" expanded gas through a radiator (heat comes out) and then gets compressed (packed) again- round and round "absorbs heat- moves heat- loses heat" \n hope this helps- if you really need more help email me through answers and I can provide pictures of how it works.
469827
Hmmm...Magnet Therapy??\n\nSome people say this helps, but I don't think it has been proven.
501386
Muon Cataylised fusion would be called cold fusion and isn't crackpottery although it isn't likely to ever be useful for much.\n\nThe cold fusion that made the news though was not fusion but merely incompetance.  As far as I am concerned it's closed.
721125
fusion is when two elementary particles collide and combine or fuse to make -- even temporarily -- a new particle. In the graphic below, a form of the hydrogen nucleus -- Tritium -- collides with another form of the hydrogen nucleus -- Deuterium -- to form a new particle. (Deuterium and Tritium are isotopes of hydrogen -- a form of water.) The fused particle is not stable, and quickly decays via the split decay mode into a neutron -- moving very fast, i.e., "hot" -- and a helium neucleus -- also know as an "alpha" particle and energy.\nThe radioactive by-products from fission are undeniably bad. They last for tens of thousands of years and can cause untold problems, the worst of which is through terrosists using the waste products for weapons. The fast neutron from fusion can potentially interact with metals a cause them to become radioactive. This process can be minimized by have neutron shielding between the fusion burn and any metals in the reactor. However, the radioactive metals produced -- and any ash from the fusion burn itself -- is a low-level radioactivity that is not considered dangerous, with half-lives in the tens of years. There is no comparison -- radioactive waste from fission is very dangerous, radioactive waste from fusion is not very dangerous.\nIt is hard for most people to understand where this energy comes from, and how much it is. Most people have heard of Einstein's famous equation:\n\nE = mc2\n\nWhen the fusion reactions listed above occur, a small amount of mass disappears. The small amount of mass is converted into a large amount of energy. How much is large? A typical chemical reaction in which hydrogen and oxygen combine to produce water, releases about 1 eV of energy. The fusion process typically releases 1,000,000 times as much energy. Historically, when people talk about the benefits of nuclear fusion, they refer to how much fuel must be burned to equal to each other.\nNuclear fusion takes water, burns it, releases helium (and a small amount of radiation in the form of neutrons), and converts the missing mass into massive amounts of energy.
812363
In Oxford a fusion reactor has been going for many years with a large amount of energy being made. Unfortunately to keep the plasma contained the largest magnetic field generated anywhere has to be maintained and to reach the enormous temperature needed to initiate fusion requires more than ten times the energy extracted. The problems are technical construction rather than theory and with the new international initiative the scientists are confident that a viable fusion reactor can be made in a few decades.
452881
False, because the binding energy increases steeply till iron and again reduces. So I would require enormous accelerators to transmute the element with Z>20.
768061
Good question.\n\nI can't answer it here, it would take to long, but I suggest you go to this web site:\nhttp://www.iter.org/a/index_use_1.htm\nthen click the link to read more under intro to fusion.\nThen go to fusion as an energy source click read more, and then click how.\n\nThis page does a good job on explaining the basics of a plasma confinement. If you have more specific question feel free to ask.
472835
Cold fusion is a nuclear fusion reaction which its proponents claim occurs well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions (millions of degrees Celsius) in a relatively small "table top" apparatus. A variety of experimental methods are used; originally electrolytic cells. The idea was first brought into popular consciousness by the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989, which was front-page news for some time, and has been controversial ever since. Cold fusion is sometimes referred to as low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or chemically-assisted nuclear reactions (CANR).\n\nThe subject has been of scientific interest since nuclear fusion was first understood. Hot nuclear fusion using deuterium has the potential to yield large amounts of energy, uses an abundant fuel source, and produces only small amounts of manageable waste; thus a cheap and simple process of nuclear fusion would have great economic impact. Cold fusion is especially attractive because proponents claim that it produces very little nuclear radiation, and can be scaled down to small devices such as vehicle engines.\n\nThe existence of cold fusion has been a controversial issue. It has been dismissed by some as an example of pathological science, and an idea that would not go away, long after the majority of scientists in the field dismissed it as wrong. Despite this opposition, researchers continue to report results. While there is little mainstream acceptance of the field today, over 3,000 cold fusion papers have been published including about 1,000 in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Despite opposition and ridicule by mainstream journals, several peer-reviewed papers continue to be published every year.  Mainstream journals such as Scientific American and Nature have often attacked the subject, for example in March and October 2005 respectively, and most other journals reject papers on the subject without reviewing them. In January 2006, the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Guardian, and other major newspapers and magazines attacked cold fusion, claiming it was a "scientific misdeed" debunked in 1989. \n\nThe term "cold nuclear fusion" was first used in the scientific literature by Johann Rafelski and Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of what is today referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. This research was generally unrelated; however, the distinction was not immediately understood by the press in 1989. Consequently, the term "cold fusion" became associated with the Fleischmann-Pons experiment and with other experiments involving metallic catalysts (and particularly electrolysis).The idea that palladium or titanium might catalyze fusion stems from the special ability of these metals to absorb large quantities of hydrogen (including its deuterium isotope). The hydrogen or deuterium disassociate with the respective positive ions but remain in an anomalously mobile state inside the metal lattice, exhibiting rapid diffusion and high electrical conductivity. The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the nineteenth century. In the late nineteen-twenties, two German scientists, F. Paneth and K. Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen is absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. These authors later acknowledged that the helium they measured was due to background from the air.\n\nIn 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg said that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.On March 23, 1989, the chemists
6409
Yes, bombard it with neutrons and it will release energy...\n\nWill it be efficient.. NO. but you can do so.
390263
Nuclear fusion power. Look up the Tokamak Reactor.
6844
Plasma states exist when matter is so hot that electrons are stripped from atoms leaving them ionized.  If plasma can be made hot enough it may simulate the conditions of the sun's interior where fusion of hydrogen is the principle producer of energy.  Fortunately, plasma being ionized can be controlled or bottled up in a fusion reactor using magnetic fields preventing the hot plasma from reaching and melting the chamber walls.  Plasma is so hot that the particles are traveling at great speeds and therefore collisions may occur that can cause nuclei to approach close enough to interact resulting in fusion and the release of energy.  Energy is released because the "nuclear glue" holding the fused particle together is less than the glue that held the individual particles together.  The excess glue is converted to energy using Einsteins equation E=mc2, where the glue represents a very small quantity of mass that produces a relatively large amount of energy.
686501
It needs a massive amount of energy. Just to give you an idea, the lowest temperature at which one can occur would be 40,000,000ºK (Hydrogen into helium, as on the surface of the Sun).\nAs far as I know, the highest (controlled) temperature we've acheived so far is only about 3,000,000ºK using what's called a tokamak, and it does require A LOT of energy.
308950
In the Sun and stars, massive gravitational forces generate the conditions for fusion to occur naturally. The light we see from the sun is the result of tremendous fusion reactions that convert hydrogen to helium. On earth these conditions are much harder to achieve. Harnessing fusion power on Earth could be one of the best options for long term energy supply
779775
Nuclear fusion is the process of creating usable energy by fusing, or combining, the nuclei of two light atoms (like deuterium) into the nucleus one heavier atom (like helium). This is the process that powers the Sun.\n\nSo-called "cold" fusion was a claim (since widely doubted) that this fusion of nuclei could be done chemically, without the high temperatures and pressures that most physicists believe is necessary for fusion to occur.\n\nFusion is a nuclear process, but it is quite different from conventional nuclear power, which is a process called "fission." In fission, a heavy nucleus, like Uranium or Plutonium, is split into two lighter "daughter" nuclei, releasing energy.
1083262
I don't think it has been discovered yet.  Just recently a UCLA team has been able to produce "cold fusion".  It was not energy efficient, however it will be a good neutron generator.  This just as everyone was ready fo finally agree cold fusion does not exist.\n\nThen there is the whole nano tech revolution going on where new processes that do not work well in the large world work great in the small.  I read stories of ideas to link millions of tiny fuel cells together.\n\nThen of course you have my favorite, Dr. Chu's termite guts solution.  If we could figure out how the protoza in termite guts convert cellulose into ethanol we would have a fuel system to support mankind for thousands of years.\n\nSo, I think you'll just have to sit back and watch it all develop to get the answer to your question. In any case it will come from science.