Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - DrQuak

Pages: [1]
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Cold Fusion
« on: July 15, 2006, 03:50:14 PM »
For those of you who haven't heard of cold fusion, or who have and don't quite know what it is, cold fusion is the ability to create nuclear fusion (like what happens in the sun or the second stage of the Hydrogen (thermonuclear) bomb) at room temperature.

Fusion itself is simply forcing two nucleii together to form a larger nucleii, giving out energy. To do this they need to overcome a large repulsion from the charges in the nucleus. This is done by either giving the nucleii more energy (heating them up) or increasing the density (like what happens in the sun due to gravity), the longer a combination of these two are kept at the right amount, the more energy you get out of the system.

So as you can see, things need to get pretty hot or pretty big to get fusion. So if you want to make a fusion power plant it is going to be expensive. But if you can do it at room temperature it is going to be a lot cheaper. therefore Cold Fusion.

almost 20 years ago two scientest said that they had done exactly this (Fleischmann and Pons). However instead of releasing there paper to a science journal they went straight to the press (the reasons for doing so i'll talk about later). The two scientists were about to receive a quarter of a million dollars research grant, but When the paper was reviewed independently (by princeton) cited certain errors (such as the neutrons emitted by the process could have been caused elsewhere - very energetic neutrons are a sign of a nuclear interaction) and several other things being omitted.

Now the controversial parts. The reason that Fleischmann and Pons  released their findings to the press instead of to a journal (where it would be checked by there peers for factual errors) was because at the time they had no peers. All other Fusion research done on a large scale was in "hot" fusion - specifically in princeton. Therefore the "hot" fusion experts could not truely comment on cold fusion.

You may have noticed that i said that princeton was the leading light in fusion research at the time. when princeton was reviewing the papers, many key scientist from there fusion department had already denounced the work before considering it. and instead of being impartial they were more vindictive (whether it was because they felt insulted because Fleischmann and Pons  went to the press without consulting the science world, or because they may have felt there research grants being threatened).

There are still several labs that undergo cold fusion research, however none of them have anywhere near adequate funding.

Here are some websites about it:

first the habitiual wiki

here is something that talks about the reoccurence of Cold fusion as a research topic

and some more in depth websites if you have a science back ground:

Flat Earth Q&A / Shattering of the ice wall
« on: June 17, 2006, 08:29:54 AM »
I was unable to get a response to this on another thread so i thought i might post it again

volume of earth is 10^21, volume of water is 10^18

that is in meters, so in km it becomes Earth 10^12 water 10^9

one cc of water is 1 gram, so 1 cubic meter becomes 1000000 grams, 1000 kg, or a metric tonne

therefore there are 10^18 metric tonnes of water in the world.

now. lets consider the tensile strength of carbon nanotubes (the strongest material we have) which can theoretically go up to 300 GPa or 3x10^11 Pa, 63x10^9 Newtons per square meter. now the ice wall has circumference of 78225 miles, that is about 125000 km (using 1.6 km to the mile), lets assume that the water goes to the top of the wall, all 150 feet of it, 50 meters give or take (taking 3 feet per meter) so we have a surface area of 6.25 million meters squared, 6.25x10^6 meters squared. so lets divide the volume of the water by the surface area, rounding the SA up to 10^7 that gives us 10^11 meters of water affecting every unit area of the icewall. so using that F=ma, that water is going to give 10^12 Newtons per unit area (in otherwords 10^12 Pa. Therefore even a carbon nano tube ice wall would fail.

of course i have made certain assumptions, such that all of the gravitational force of the wate is being pushed towards the ice wall (and i'm meaning Gravitational force in the FE model too, water will be force outwards by the upthrust of the earth, and that tensile strength should be used for the icewall breaking apart (it should be compressive strength, however i have found not numbers for that - although compressive strength only affects when the crack forms, once the crack forms it is tensile strength that causes the crack to expand) however i also used a carbon nanotube, the strength of ice is mcuh less - steel is 4x10^8 Pa, water is 1.7x10^7 Pa

I have since found that the compressive strength for ice is around  10^8  Pa, so it turns out that tensile strength is a pretty good approximation.

It is important to not that the thickness which is important in these matters is the cross section, so for the icewall the thickness would be the surface area that it exposed to the water (so the depth of the water times the circumference) NOT the thickness of the ice sheet - the thicker it is the longer it would hold, but it would eventually crack and break down.

Flat Earth Q&A / If you flew in a straight line
« on: June 16, 2006, 05:21:45 PM »
If you flew in a straight line, with the very literal definition of it, on earth (considering it a globe) you would also "fall off the edge" as in you would be going into space. but then when you talk of a straight line on the globe earth you are still meaning going round in a circle just as the FE'rs do....

Flat Earth Q&A / Terminal Velocity
« on: June 15, 2006, 02:03:56 PM »
How does terminal velocity appear in the FE model?

Terminal Velocity is the fastest that an object can fall towards the earth, it has relation to the air resistance canceling out the pull of gravity.

However in FE you aren't falling, the earth is catching up with you. therefore there is not a cap on its velocity catching up with you.

Flat Earth Q&A / Free hanging pendulum
« on: June 15, 2006, 08:32:00 AM »
I have asked this a couple times in other threads, namely ones relating to people talking about toilets going one way or another. and you are quite right to say that you can make the water go whatever way you want in the toilet very easily.

So how about a free hanging pendulum (and this is an experiment any of you can do). If you start a free hanging pendulum swinging it will, over time, exhibit the corealis effect (this was orginially tracked by having the pendulum track through sand, but in these modern days it would be easier to demonstrate with a camcorder and using fast forward).

my question is one of why how and whereforth does this happen in the FE model.

Flat Earth Q&A / Please tell me
« on: June 14, 2006, 02:48:55 PM »
That this website is not for real

it quotes the ETHER THEORY as proof.


Flat Earth Q&A / Sun Fuel
« on: June 10, 2006, 04:18:31 AM »
What fuels your spotlight Moon and Sun by the way?

you have stated that it is a lot closer to earth than it is the the RE scenario, however you haven't stated how it supplies us with all this lovely sun shine.

Flat Earth Q&A / Doppler Shift
« on: June 10, 2006, 03:56:09 AM »
I was curious how you explain the Doppler Shift (something that is used plannetery for blood flow, and can be shown from cars passing you at speed) that indicates that certain stellar bodies are moving towards us, and away from us at certain speeds due to a blue or a red shift that is seen?

some stellar objects go from Blue to Red shift, therefore implying that they are going towards and then away from us, therefore they cannot have a constant "upwards" gravity that is suggested, yet we have not caught these stellar objects yet.

And if the FE theory gives a younger date of the Earth, how do you explain the radioactive decay of Uranium (Which dates the Earth rather exactly) and that we can see approximately 14 billion light years away (i'm guessing you don't beleive in the ether theory, and you agree that the speed of light is absolute)

Pages: [1]