«

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by ReamusLQ@Aug 13 2005, 09:47 PM
I thought cold fusion was the process of fusion, but figuring out how to do it without the massive amount of heat required...

That's right, because to start the fusion of atoms at this moment, you need huge amounts of enrgy in the first place (hidrogen bomb). You basically need a controled nuclear explosion to start the fusion. Cold fusion would be fusion without the initial explosion (Blastradius' method is the one that works in theory, but can not really be applied, that's why people are looking for other methods to achieve cold fusion).

[Toxik]

Originally posted by blastradius14@Aug 13 2005, 09:19 PM
And you just can't get colder than absolute zero. It is like going faster than the speed of light.

Well actually scientists managed to break the light-speed
i read that few months ago
they managed to speed up the light to go faster than in vacuum thus breaking the speed that nothing can break..reminds me of breakfast

[ReamusLQ]

Originally posted by Toxik+Aug 13 2005, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Toxik @ Aug 13 2005, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-blastradius14@Aug 13 2005, 09:19 PM
And you just can't get colder than absolute zero. It is like going faster than the speed of light.

Well actually scientists managed to break the light-speed
i read that few months ago
they managed to speed up the light to go faster than in vacuum thus breaking the speed that nothing can break..reminds me of breakfast [/b][/quote]
it was the same scientists that slowed it down to 38 mph wasn't it?

I remmeber reading, that they sent the light through the canister, and technically it was out the other end before it had even entered into it... :blink:

[Sebatianos]

Err... And where did you read about this?
The speed of light itself is a problem - faster then that is even greater problem. The thing is that the top possible speed would have to be the speed of pure energy - without mass (light is supposed to be that, but it actually has some mass - therefore the speed of light really isn't ultimate speed, but to go faster you'd need pure enrgy - without mass). The real problem is, that in order for something to exist in our universe (to have energy) it also needs mass (even if just one third of the smalles imaginable mass). So there's nothing in our universe that could reach the ultimate speed - it would simple have no mass - thus it wouldn't exist. Those are the limitations of our universe. If something would reach the ultimate speed it would leave our time-space continuum, just like if something would be pure mass without energy (absolute zero).

That's the two limits to our space (can't have pure mass and can't have pure energy).

[ReamusLQ]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Aug 13 2005, 01:02 PM
Err... And where did you read about this?
The speed of light itself is a problem - faster then that is even greater problem. The thing is that the top possible speed would have to be the speed of pure energy - without mass (light is supposed to be that, but it actually has some mass - therefore the speed of light really isn't ultimate speed, but to go faster you'd need pure enrgy - without mass). The real problem is, that in order for something to exist in our universe (to have energy) it also needs mass (even if just one third of the smalles imaginable mass). So there's nothing in our universe that could reach the ultimate speed - it would simple have no mass - thus it wouldn't exist. Those are the limitations of our universe. If something would reach the ultimate speed it would leave our time-space continuum, just like if something would be pure mass without energy (absolute zero).

That's the two limits to our space (can't have pure mass and can't have pure energy).

you can go faster than the speed of light in a car if those scientists slow it down to 38mph first like they did

[blastradius14]

We already have a fusion center here in the US, but it is very expensive to maintain. It uses Magnetic fields and various other things to stall the deterioration of the reactor, but it just isn't enough yet.

It uses the massive heat required.

The only other way to reduce heat is to increase pressure. This is also expensive.

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by blastradius14@Aug 13 2005, 10:08 PM
We already have a fusion center here in the US, but it is very expensive to maintain. It uses Magnetic fields and various other things to stall the deterioration of the reactor, but it just isn't enough yet.

It uses the massive heat required.

The only other way to reduce heat is to increase pressure. This is also expensive.

There's such a centre in Europe too (under the Alps on the French Swiss border. That's "hot" fusion - just not good enough.

[blastradius14]

No, "hot" fusion would be temperatures above 40000k. I say someone invent a pure energy making machine that is 100% (or better) efficient. Would be easier than blathering about nuclear power that even if discovered, won't be used for ages due to price.

[Danny252]

ok, whats your invention? go on. Im waiting for you to tell us what you discovered.
Oh, it wont be discovered for another 6 millin years? ok.
dont moan about what you cant fix..

[Sebatianos]

Well I will take less time then that Danny. The thing is, that science takes a lot of time. Already in the ancient times they knew about electricity, but were incapable of puting it to good use. It took people some 18 centuries before they were able to persue those researches again and it wasn't until Tesla that electricity really became widely available.