Cold Fusion And Reactionless Drives

[Anonymous No.10158808]

>Russian scientists in 1992 imply their process is the same as that going on in 'Cold Fusion' and that 1kg of Iron can be made to release sufficient internal energy to enable an inter-stellar journey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucz0klUDsgk

[Anonymous No.10158856]

>>10158808
Russian bullshit to fuck with the US in thinking they did something cool as hell.

[Anonymous No.10158870]

>>10158856
>my pop-sci pope hasn't told me it's real so it isn't

[Anonymous No.10158968]

>>10158870
If you want to believe every wacky video out there then be my guest. Me, I'm just going to keep monitoring the news about fusion with the new ybco magnets.

[Anonymous No.10158982]

>>10158968
LENR is actually a proven tech using nickel-metal-hydrides and THz stimulation, NASA has confirmed as much. In fact, that tech could easily be commercialized with modern production methods since you can make a THz pump diode using quantum wells not unlike a LASER heat treatment system.
What makes that particular YouTube channel interesting is the guy is calling in all kinds of professionals to test some prior cold fusion research and has numerous analytical tests posted in other videos showing that fusion byproducts have been created in the samples. It's not just a "wacky video,' it's by one of the few people with credentials who is seriously looking at cold fusion technologies (same thing as LENR, just without the rebranding.)

[Anonymous No.10158984]

>>10158808
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10158998]

>>10158984
>>>/urmumsfatvaggo/

[Anonymous No.10159011]

>>10158808
>Iron can be made to release sufficient internal energy
Isn't iron already at the bottom?

[Anonymous No.10159015]

>>10159011
That's why this seems interesting.

[Anonymous No.10159067]

>>10159015
>that's why this sounds like /x/-tier nonsense
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10159073]

>>10159067
Science is about discovering new things by experiment. There is nothing wrong with the methods the guy is using for experimental data gathering, that makes it science. Why do you even bother browsing science boards when you just like pop-sci dribble that's so far past the experimental stage as to be well defined?

[Anonymous No.10159232]

>anything cold fusion related that can be understood by an illiterate normie (you)
Back to x

[Anonymous No.10159250]

>>10158808
impossible

[Anonymous No.10159253]

>>10159232
Look up nickel metal hydride LENR stimulated by THz radiation, you colossal faggot.

[Anonymous No.10159257]

>>10159250
>impossible
>when looking at someone presenting raw data
What we have here is a theist, not a scientist.

[Anonymous No.10159283]

>>10159257
Iron is the end of both nuclear fusion and fission. You cannot get more energy out of your material by fusion and fission if it's iron.
In that graph I provided, energy is released when you go up the y axis. iron is at the very top. It requires energy to fuse it or fission it.
I don't trust anything the government says, especially the CIA. If they say the sky is blue I'd double check just to be sure. If you're accepting something like this happened without actual proof then you're the theist here.

[Anonymous No.10159300]

>>10159283
>Iron is the end of both nuclear fusion and fission. You cannot get more energy out of your material by fusion and fission if it's iron.
I get that. Again, this is what makes this guy's research interesting.
>I don't trust anything the government says, especially the CIA. If they say the sky is blue I'd double check just to be sure. If you're accepting something like this happened without actual proof then you're the theist here.
It's not their report I find interesting, but the guy who finds it interesting. He's done a lot of very stringent work on cold fusion research (mostly published to his YouTube channel,) and takes a rather skeptical approach to it, only relying on analytical results. The guy isn't claiming to know some alternative nuclear physics theory, he's just reviewing some information in that video and comparing it with what he's observed in past experiments. In the video he actually seems to be skeptical of the report but finds the specific numbers cited of interest due to the contrast with his own work in replicating cold fusion research (but doesn't seem to grasp precisely what the theory he's reading through is saying beyond "something beyond standard nuclear physics" due to a lot of the jargon involved.)
I'm not saying what he's reading is true, just that it's damned interesting and for that reason I felt it was worth sharing. At this point it seems more like breadcrumbs than a sound theory of any sort, but breadcrumbs are where new theories start.

[Anonymous No.10159316]

>>10158808
To make cold fusion possible would require more energy than you would get out, in this universe.

[Anonymous No.10159327]

>>10159257
Even if they got something real going on there it can't be neither fusion nor fission and the whole paper is written in pure /x/-drivel without a single verifiable fact to back their claims. Nor it was published in an actual peer-reviewed scientific journal but rather in some 2-nd rate newspaper which alone says a lot.

>click random place in video
>"and now there's a project for an 850C superconductor and there's no reason to doubt that it too will succeed"
>this was written 25 years ago
ok

[Anonymous No.10159345]

>>10159316
>le pop sci trumps data
no

[Anonymous No.10159346]

>>10159327
>believing public information reflects the cutting edge of science
You do know the US black budget alone is in the trillions yearly and is dedicated to pure R&D, right?
What, did you think the civilian sector actually knew shit about science? lol

[Anonymous No.10159354]

>>10159346
Oh yeah, I heard that military Pi can reach values of 4 or even larger, but apparently that's classified data so it'll never get published in open sources.
>tfw have to stick to the stone age value of 3.14etc

[Anonymous No.10159362]

>>10159354
Imagine trillions of dollars a year added to the civilian research side of things. Now figure that over decades of time compounded, where they don't have to bother with the research the other civilians are already doing. That's where the black budget stuff is. To think it's not at least 50-100 years ahead of what we as civilians have access to is beyond absurd. About every advance since relativity and quantum mechanics is equivalent to how far ahead black budget tech is above civilian tech.

[Anonymous No.10159395]

>>10159073
>Science is about discovering new things by experiment.

Which there's no reason to believe has happened until it's reproducible

[Anonymous No.10159405]

>>10159395
>Which there's no reason to believe has happened until it's reproducible
This guy is literally reproducing work done by others. You, on the other hand, are trying to treat science like politics and taking the cowardly route in doing so by choosing the "safe" bet. You're fucking pathetic m8.

[Anonymous No.10159422]

>>10159405
>You, on the other hand, are trying to treat science like politics and taking the cowardly route in doing so by choosing the "safe" bet.

The fuck are you on. There's no stakes in what I believe. I don't accept sensational claim #432409324930 until there's a reason to be confident in it. It wouldn't matter which side I fell on, I'm used to disappointment. I just can't willingly anticipate outcomes that belong to a class that consistently fails to deliver.

And this doesn't just include "quack" science, there's a lot of technology that the mainstream and even *pop science* had confidence in that never bore fruit.

[Anonymous No.10159428]

>>10159422
>I just can't willingly anticipate outcomes that belong to a class that consistently fails to deliver.
You don't have to anticipate shit to not shout it down. You are deciding to be proactively anti-science, that's different than skepticism.
What I presented was a guy actively working to reproduce suspicious experimental results and taking every effort to do so precisely and without error. What you did was actively work to detract from what he's doing while doing nothing yourself of substance to validate or invalidate the research being done.
Nobody is asking you to believe shit, you don't have to believe something to not act like a cunt.

[Anonymous No.10159448]

>>10159428
>You don't have to anticipate shit to not shout it down. You are deciding to be proactively anti-science, that's different than skepticism.

I asked for reproducibility, which is now anti-science shouting. And you wonder why people take the piss out of you.

>What I presented was a guy actively working to reproduce suspicious experimental results and taking every effort to do so precisely and without error.
"Working to reproduce" is not "has reproduced". And even most shit that makes it there falls apart in peer review.

>What you did was actively work to detract from what he's doing while doing nothing yourself of substance to validate or invalidate the research being done.
I think you're confusing me with other people, but even the anon that scoffed at iron's energy release only did that, he didn't bully the faggot in your video reading a CIA report.

[Anonymous No.10159453]

>>10159428
>you don't have to believe something to not act like a cunt.

Also what was this supposed to be? Say something nice about the topic or don't speak at all? Are you turning 6 this year?

[Anonymous No.10159455]

>>10159448
>I asked for reproducibility, which is now anti-science shouting. And you wonder why people take the piss out of you.
That's literally what this guy is doing: reproducing existing research. You're deluded if you think you're taking the piss out of anyone by failing to contextualize things and getting confused.
>"Working to reproduce" is not "has reproduced". And even most shit that makes it there falls apart in peer review.
He's "working to reproduce" a LOT of different cold fusion experiments, he "has reproduced" several.
>I think you're confusing me with other people, but even the anon that scoffed at iron's energy release only did that, he didn't bully the faggot in your video reading a CIA report.
You're actively aiming to discredit someone who is doing exactly what you said needs to be done: reproducing potentially suspect experiments. How does that make you different from the other guy?

[Anonymous No.10159459]

>>10159453
>Also what was this supposed to be? Say something nice about the topic or don't speak at all? Are you turning 6 this year?
Are you? I'm not the one going on the internet talking shit about people doing experiments, I'm just sharing them.

[Anonymous No.10159484]

>>10159455
>You're deluded if you think you're taking the piss out of anyone by failing to contextualize things and getting confused.
In what context are "trying to reproduce" and "proven to be reproduceable" the same thing?

>he "has reproduced" several.
Well I'll recant if that's true

>You're actively aiming to discredit someone who is doing exactly what you said needs to be done: reproducing potentially suspect experiments. How does that make you different from the other guy?

I literally and categorically said "Which there's no reason to believe has happened until it's reproducible". You're lying to no benefit. That's not even a description of this man or his work, let a lone a discrediting description. Stop free bleeding in your own thread.

>How does that make you different from the other guy?
It doesn't because he didn't do that either.

>>10159459
>I'm not the one going on the internet talking shit about people doing experiments

Well, I'm not gay either

[Anonymous No.10159490]

>>10159484
>In what context are "trying to reproduce" and "proven to be reproduceable" the same thing?
In the context that we're discussing a guy who does multiple experiments, as experimentalists tend to do.
>I literally and categorically said "Which there's no reason to believe has happened until it's reproducible". You're lying to no benefit. That's not even a description of this man or his work, let a lone a discrediting description. Stop free bleeding in your own thread.
I'm not lying about shit, look at his other videos.
>Well, I'm not gay either
Now who's lying?

[Anonymous No.10159496]

>>10159490
>I'm not lying about shit, look at his other videos.
Except every time you accused me of discrediting someone I've never talked about.

>Now who's lying?
The OP who's pathologically defensive of another man

[Anonymous No.10159499]

>>10159496
>Except every time you accused me of discrediting someone I've never talked about.
You're ITT talking shit about someone researching as though it's junk science.
>The OP who's pathologically defensive of another man
Try again.

[Anonymous No.10159521]

>>10159496
>The OP who's shilling his own channel
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10159551]

>>10159499
>You're ITT talking shit about someone researching as though it's junk science.

Link the post where that happened or keep playing your faggot game a pretend

[Anonymous No.10159600]

>>10159521
Not my channel.
>>10159551
The first one you posted faggot.

[Anonymous No.10159606]

>>10159600
>The first one you posted faggot.

You can't link it because I've cornered you into willfully believing your own falsehood. I liked you better when you were just pathetic instead of desperately pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10159622]

>>10159606
You haven't cornered shit and you know damn well the post.

[Anonymous No.10159682]

>>10159622
>you know damn well the post.

>PLEASE believe in this imaginary event I conjured to protect my ego, even if it really existed I could just click the post and devastate you in oral argument

Declined lmao

[Anonymous No.10159689]

>>10159682
You're the only one here who seems to believe this is a debate.

[Anonymous No.10159697]

>>10159689
>PLEASE believe I didn't get blown the fuck out

One element of your imagination at a time, please

[Anonymous No.10159701]

>>10159697
>this is what retardation looks like

[Anonymous No.10159717]

>>10159701
this is what misuse of green text looks like

[Anonymous No.10159726]

>>10159717
Are you salty because you're alone on Thanksgiving or is this just your normal?

[Anonymous No.10159748]

>>10159726
I'm canadian

Why aren't you spending thanksgiving with your youtube boyfriend?

[Anonymous No.10159755]

>>10159748
>I'm canadian
Why aren't you on the leaf internet?

[Anonymous No.10159767]

>>10159755
leafnet goes down in autumn

[Anonymous No.10159794]

>>10159767