# Alternative Scientific Theories (or alternative theories in general)



## mac1 (Jan 15, 2003)

It has become apparant that quite a lot of the people who post on this site have an interest in alternative scientific theorys.

Elsewhere on this site there have been some interesting post about the Nemesis Theory and the Niburu Planet.

I thought it might be worth starting a post on alternative theories (might even make a good board??) so we can investigate them further. If anyone knows about any interesting ones, post here so we can all research them for ourselves.

I'll start us off.


Something that has interested me for years is the possible existance of Cold Fusion. 

The story begins in Utah on the 23rd of March 1989. Two chemists at the University Of Utah (named Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons) found something quite interesting. They found that when they took a small glass of ethyl with heavy water and put it in water and then passed a current through a so-called electrochemical reaction, they found that in that particular kind of cell – which they created with heavy water and palladium as one of the electrodes, that they were able to get more heat out of it than was explained by the electricity going into the cell. There was so much heat produced infact, that they could find no other plausible explanation, but that it was some kind of Nuclear reaction. 

For those who don't know, and my knowledge is admittedly rather limited, what we called "Nuclear Power", is more technically Nuclear Fission. It is the same kind that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and is caused by the splitting of an atom, usually Uranium. In the case of Nuclear Fusion, or "Cold Fusion" as it has come to be known due to the temperatures at which it can alledgedly take place, heavy hydrogen in heavy water is the fuel. What is going on is the joining together of hydrogen. It is a particular kind of hydrogen in water, called heavy hydrogen. It's very abundant and this creates Helium which is stuff we put in kids balloons, it is absolutley non-toxic.

If it exists, and many still claim it does, then one cubic kilometer of the Earth's ocean's, through this process, would create as much energy as the entire of the Earth's known oil reserves put together.

Within days of the whole thing going public, there was what at least appeared to be a huge cover up. There were a number of statements made which ridiculed the situation, and then as far as I can see the whole thing was covered up, fading into obscurity untill the internet became widely available.

If this is true; and I am not saying it is or isn't; then this would of course be a terrible thing for anyone who profits from either war or the oil industry, and they would have good reason to supress it. If it does exist it would mean the creation of a safe form of nuclear energy using; for the most part; only water, whos only noticeable bi-product is Helium. Almost sounds to good to be true, hence my cynicism. What is interesting though, is that there have to my knowledge at least, been no attempts to recreate Pons and Fleischman's experiment.


----------



## nemesis (Jan 15, 2003)

It is not impossible that it could have been suppressed. But the whole experiment was detailed in public for the entire scientific community to see and yet no one has been able to replicate the neutron emissions claimed as demonstrative of cold fusion. If it were true then there would be a goldmine any company would look to exploit. The issue returned recently when it was claimed that collapsing bubbles could generate cold fusion. Although not agreed with it the issue has returned and is being more respectfully explored but not in the Pons and Fleischman method.


----------



## Survivor (Jan 16, 2003)

Cold fusion does exist, and has been documented in the lab, but not Pons and Fleischman's lab.  There were _thousands_ of attempts to duplicate their results, around the world, and the consensus was that fusion was not present in any of the attempted replications.  Pons and Fleischman never replicated the results either.  Furthermore, their recorded results did not account for any observed helium production or neutron emmisions,  which would have been a by-product of true fusion.  The amount of excess heat observed was slight, a variation that could have been the result of poor measurment technique (like measuring only the upper layer of water (any body of water subjected to consistent heating developes a thermocline unless it is mixed--and the mixing energy has to be accounted for as well) or even a fault in the climate control system.

The cold fusion that has been experimentally confirmed is a form of Muon induced fusion.  It works, and explains how fusion occurs within the Earth's mantle (which is where terrestrial deposits of helium come from--alone with a significant amount of the Earth's heat).  The problem is that it costs more to generate the muons than you get back (the muons have a limited life and take energy to create).  Thus break even is virtually (or even theoretically) impossible without a naturally occuring supply of muons.

Break-even is the key term here.  We have investigated a large number of fusion technologies.  Many of them actually seem to "work" in the sense of producing a fusion reaction.  But--aside from nuclear weapons--all these techniques are short of the "break-even" point, the point at which the usable energy you get back out is greater than the energy you had to expend to initiate the reaction.  The reason that nuclear weapons can achieve break-even so easily is because they rely on the principle of a chain reaction, where you use a low kilo-ton fission weapon as the initiating device and just add as much deuterium as needed for a high mega-ton yeild.

Aside from muon catalyzed fusion, a number of other cold fusion possibilities are currently being investigated.  But it is most likely that plasma fusion will reach the break-even point first.  Steady progress in increasing the plasma containment and energy density as well as advances in the electro-dynamics of plasma lead conservative analysts to believe that Tokamak fusion will reach the break-even point no later than 2040 if research is maintained, or possibly a decade or so earlier if research is increased.

I would tend to assert that it would be impossible to suppress the technology that  Pons and Fleischman used, since it was a very simple electrolysis arrangment with microporous pallidium as the only technically difficult element of the experiment.  And there is no evidence whatsoever that it was suppressed, all the evidence suggests that the bulk of the physics community lost interest after the results could not be replicated (and in light of the fact that there were improbable discrepancies in the recorded results).  Even so, a significant number of scientists continued work with more refined apparatus for half a decade at least, until continued failure led most of them to abandon electro-chemical cold fusion in search of better prospects.

However, the underlying theory of electro-chemical fusion still shows promise.  Rather than relying on a solution containing heavy water, it might be necessary to use deuterium in a gaseous form, near the plasma boundry, and some femto-engineered form of pallidium.  It may also be necessary to radically increase the electro-voltaic potential used, as well as...well, the long and short of it is that some time in the future, probably after Tokamak fusion becomes economically feasable, electrochemical reactors might be used for situations where mass and volume restrictions make larger reactors infeasable (like in personal vehicles).


----------



## mac1 (Jan 24, 2003)

Thanks Survivor.
Are you by any chance a physicist??  ;D


----------



## Survivor (Jan 24, 2003)

Cyberneticist.  All my physics information comes from others...I guess that's true of most physicists too, eh (excluding doctorates, and they get advisors for that...).

Break even Fusion is an important data point on calculating when the singularity point occurs (which I'm interested in as a Cyberneticist) so I keep an eye on it.  But I'm also investigating the senescence curve on the modern age in connection with certain phase limits that appear to be imposed by...stuff.  Not relevent to this discussion.  I could just as well mention that I'm a Taoist for all that any of the above matters


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 24, 2003)

Survivor, do you mean you have studied and trained as a cyberneticist, or that it's your main area of study from a lay perspective?

Darn maths teacher stopped my aspirations of ever becoming an astrophysicist. I could do the maths but she blocked my being able to take advanced maths at school, on account of simply having no faith in my abilities. Totally crippled my physics career before it ever began. Been to college a few times, but dropped the idea of taking on the maths and physics degree when they introduced student fees in tandem with the loans - I couldn't possibly have made my family live in debt for a full three years. But now...now I can have fun following the cosmological arguments and concepts, without being drawn into long boring periods of number crunching. Love high-energy particle physics too, but maybe it's a blessing I never had to get into the maths for that.  :


----------



## Survivor (Jan 25, 2003)

I have studied and trained as a cyberneticist, but Computer Science (specializing in Artificial Intelligence theory) is the closest thing to a publicly recognized field (which is why I got a degree in Computer Science before I realized how pointless recieving institutional recognition is).

From a lay perspective, probably...I'd say that most of my research focuses on Cybernetic issues, meaning anything to do with complex systems control (genetics, computers, neurophysiology, etc.).

I pretty much lost interest in pursuing math after vector calculus, though I try to track math when it appears in an argument.  Really, once you get to that level you're looking things up in reference books all the time anyway.


----------



## mac1 (Jan 26, 2003)

One major point of discussion that has been quite prominent in the media, especially in the mid-nineties, is the notion that the Apollo moon landing were faked. At first this notion seems rather daft, but there is quite a large body of evidence to support this hypothesis, even if some is a little presumptuous. Most who claim this say that all the evidence can be found in the photos on the moon, others have some scientific theoreys which claim that it is impossible.






Can anyone explain this picture?
It shows an astronaut standing on what appears to be a flat piece of ground (you can see him in the reflection), taking a picture of another astronauts head, with a camera attached to his chest! Surely to get this perspective he would have to be about 3 feet taller the astronaut he is taking the picture of.









These two pictures show astronauts engulfed in light, with their back to the lightsource (the sun), not lit by another lightsource. In all these pictures even where everything appears dark around them, the astronauts, the lunar lander, and the american flag always appear to be incredibly well lit, how is this? Surely on the moon, with your back to the light, you shadow should be almost (if not entirely) indistingiushable from your front (which I would image should simply be a silhouette). Can anyone explain this?





Area B - This shows a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, surely this shadow should have been quite considerably darker. 

Area C - This shows the surface of the moon fading off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon. (This point is one I disagree with. I think this is simply an optical illusion, similar in vien to that old saying "The grass is always greener on the other side". It is simply a case of the shadows looking more predominant in the background, as the angle of perspective becomes smaller. I will however say that it is unusually bright in the foreground, and once again on the astronauts front side.)

Area D - This could be anything. Many have speculated. It is most likely either a very bright star, or something the astronauts are throwing to each other, messing aroung in 1/6 gravity. I would not read too much into this.









This one is riddled with mysteries!

Area Q - The crosshair is actually behind the lunar lander.

Area S - This is a daft point, that states that to make tracks this defined, you need a mixture of a compound and water. This point (in my opinion) is wrong.

Area R - This is a very strage one. It would appear that the letter C is carved into this rock. Surely not a natural formation.

I could go on for ever analysing these pictures, but I wont. Does anyone have any explanations for any of these points. I find it hard to accept the notion that the Apollo Moon Landings did not happen, but there is something interesting about it all.

Also I once heard a scientist on TV state beyond all doubt that you could not leave the Van Allen Belt without at least 6 feet of lead surrounding your ship. Is this right? If so how did none of the astronauts not get radiation poisoning. Were they just lucky, or did that scientist have his facts wrong?

What Do You Think???


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 26, 2003)

I remember seeing for the first time these arguments in "Fortean Times", when I used to read it. Left me quite converted, but later on I read rebuttals of a lot of the points and felt quite silly for believing the "faked landings" idea.

Looking at what's posted now - it's hard not to be drawn into them to some degree (though you missed on some classic shadow positioning issues - such as one astronaut apparently having their shadow at a completely different orientation to that from a module (or the like)).

Now though - there's definite questions raised regarding some of the photos. But even considering disbelief against it ever have happened makes me feel a little silly - namely because I can only feel ignorant to the technical issues involved. I mean, a fraud on the scale proposed just has to sound preposterous. Doesn't it? And fixing the Apollo 13 mission would have been sooo convenient. But then again...

In which case I'd probably move to a neutral position, which I do when faced with two opposing theories - that there's probably degree of truth in both (or else that there's a third, unaccounted for explanation). 

However, there's always the danger that exaggeration and manipulation has occurred with _some_ photos - perhaps for cosmetic reasons, perhaps not (still, the crosshair's picture with the rock apparently labelled "C" would constitute a considerable failure in quality control.


----------



## nemesis (Jan 26, 2003)

I would first suspect someone using graphic editing software to remove cross hairs and add rock markers. Did Buzz Aldrin not talk of seeing strange lights and an alien presence on the moon and that NASA removed such from the tapes? Take your pick of conspiracy theories.


----------



## Survivor (Jan 27, 2003)

Okay, first off, it is a commonplace that all the pictures taken by the astronauts had to be subjected to a good deal of manipulation to make them...publishable.  Reducing contrast, enhancing darker areas while avoiding washing out overexposed areas, orienting the film perspective and so forth, all had to be handled in earthside photo labs.

Frankly, I don't discount the possibility that at least some of the more attractive shots actually _were_ faked outright, though it doesn't seem terribly likely.

One major issue is the whole "Sun is the only lightsource" blah blah.  They are on the _Moon_.  The full moon provides enough reflected light to see by (and even take pictures by, with the right film) on _Earth_, more than 200.000 miles away.  These guys are standing right on the surface.  The mistake always comes because photographers are used to thinking of our bright sky as being the main source of ambient light (the surface of the Earth has a much lower albedo than that of the moon).  On the moon, this is not the case, as the surface of the moon provides almost as much ambient light as a cloudy day, while the "sky" provides no significant illumination other than the Sun.  Meanwhile, the astronaughts are wearing _white_, not concrete gray, so the ambient light provides enough illumination to see even the portions in shadow (you'll notice that where they are in direct sunlight, their uniforms invariably appear overexposed and washed out).  As you can see from other objects (rocks, moon lander, lunar rover), non-white objects are deeply shadowed when not in direct light.

If you take a close look at the first picture, you'll notice that the guy taking the picture has head and shoulders _above_ the horizon whild the guy in the shot has the center of his head even with the horizon.  So by the evidence in the photo, the guy taking the picture really _is_ a couple of feet taller.  Probably he's just standing on higher ground or something (or the other guy might have knelt down for the shot).

And so on and so forth.  I have seen the pictures, and have never heard a criticism that was not easily explained.  By the way, you are right about the footprint thing.  In the lower gravity and with no atmosphere to perturb and "lubricate" dust, it can stack very nearly vertical.

The Van Allen point is the only valid one, and it doesn't prove anything.  When solar radiation is at its peak as a result of flare activity, you would indeed need either six feet of lead or 10 feet of water (guess which would be better for a spacecraft) to protect the astronauts.  We didn't begin to be able to predict such events until the 80's.  NASA was taking a very real risk in sending men to the moon without adequate protection against the possibility of a radiation spike.  It was a reasonably small risk, but it was a real risk.  All things considered, not as great a risk as putting three men on top of more than enough explosives to send them into high orbit, but still a real risk.  They decided to take that risk, since there was no way at the time to go to the moon without taking that risk.

The fact of the matter is that the Moon Rocks are real.  They really came from the moon and have been examined by thousands of dedicated scientists that have subjected them to test unimaginable at the time NASA first started making them available to the scientific community.  They got here somehow.  If NASA wants to claim that they sent some guys to the moon to get them rather than bartering with extraterrestrials (who's existence the Air Force would prefer to keep secret for the time being), then their other evidence holds up in court.


----------



## mac1 (Jan 28, 2003)

Survivor - I have to agree with most of your points. Your point about the manipulation of the pictures before they were published does clear up most of the lose ends. However that its just to easy to say that the C on that rock was added afterwards as was the crosshair. In the example of that crosshair, surely if it was not on the original print, and it was added last, then it would still appear over the lunar vechicle. If on the other hand it was not added last, then this surely means that the lunar vechicle (or at least its antenna) was added later. Let me make it clear that I don't neccessarily believe that the moon landing shots were faked, or that going to the moon in 69 was impossible, however the possibility that at least some of these shots were either tampered with or fabricated remains a possibilty to me, as ludicrous as that may sound. Another theory, and one for which there is almost as much evidence, is the so-called "Whistleblower Theorey". As I am sure you can guess this states that regardless of whether man went to the Moon in 69 or not, the pictures were faked (for one reason or another), and that any discrepancies within the photos were set their intentionally be a whistleblower. Brian has a point that perhaps these discrepancies are just "a considerable failure in quality control", but some of them are so blatant (that "C" for example) that it is not too hard to see at least some credance in the whistleblower theorey. Then again, it could just as likely be a joke by the NASA scientist who developed and manipulated the photo. If so he must be laughing it up now! Either way its still a facinating subject

Anyone else know of any interesting alternative theories (whether you believe them or not   )?? (Come on Survivor you must have heard a few in your line of work!  ;D )


----------



## mac1 (Jan 29, 2003)

Is anyone here familar with the work of Richard Hoagland?
If so what do you think of his theories about an apparent Avebury/Cydonia connection.


----------



## Survivor (Jan 29, 2003)

I had never heard of the Avebury part of that connection before.  I have heard of the Cydonia theories, and have never seen any convincing refutation of them.  On a provisional basis I accept it as probable that the US government, along with other governments, is engaged in an extensive and ongoing coverup relating to all phenomenon that could provide evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting the Earth.

I am not prepared to say whether this is because our governments actually know something about aliens (i.e. the X-Files, MIB) which they specifically wish to cover up or whether they simply realized in the early space age that speculation about extraterrestrials could lead to intense hysteria in the population (i.e. avoiding another _War of the Worlds_ incident).  Because many of the unexplained phenomena that were previously covered up later turned out to have nothing whatsoever to do with aliens, I suspect the latter, but I have no proof that nothing more sinister is actually going on.

In this case (that is, the treatment that Hoagland has recieved), I feel certain that the forces of "cover-up" are in full swing.  I also note that there is institutional resistance to giving him any more evidence to work with, which is crippling his efforts.  For the time being, I am prepared to accept that the government is actually doing the best they can, though I disagree with the philosophy being used in this case.  I also laud Hoagland for his efforts, whether or not he turns out to be right about the existence of an extra-solar origin for the phenomena he has called to the world's attention.

By the way, the C was _obviously_ added later.  As I said, I don't discount the possibility that some of the most artistic shots were faked outright, but I would guess that those shots should be the _least_ fake looking.  And if NASA want's to have photoartists do some concept "I really wish that our astronauts were better photographers" photos, then I don't have a problem with that.  They distribute artist's concepts all the time (it may be a little unethical for them to not admit when a really good shot is actually an artist's concept, but so far no one has challenged them on any pictures that look faked to me).


----------



## Survivor (Jan 29, 2003)

By the way, NASA and Boeing are investigating what most scientists think is a long shot, a putative grav shield that some Russian developed (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm).

If the effect exists as claimed, I would think that it must be some previously unforseen consequence of frame dragging, which most physicists provisionally believe in, though if it is, it indicates that new models of how mass and gravity interact.

So far, no one has managed to replicate the effect, and many scientists claim it is a waste of time to even attempt to replicate the experiment (I'm of the "wait for the results" school of science, a bias we experimentalists suffer from).

In any case, we'll know soon enough whether this Russian's claims are valid.  My feeling is that to get the device to work correctly, you would need a form of quark engineered neutronium spinning at a relativistic velocity, that's what I think.  But if Boeing can indeed replicate the result, then I won't argue with them.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 29, 2003)

Not too familiar with Hoagland - saw an article in "Fortean Times" a while ago on the issue, but the maths looked forced (like, find _any_ mathematical relationship between a few objects) onto a simulacrum. I mean, NASA took the pics just at the right moment for the shadows to fall in the correct alignment for the secret face to appear? Had placed it in the same dept as the Mars "Smiley Face", but feel free to post some info - any good links? Not enough time to surf much tonight.

Oh - as for the other experiment - personal feeling is that at best it's looking at an undiscovered relationship between electromagnetism and gravity. It's been hinted at recently in separate studies of Newton's "gravitational constant", where a similar idea was mooted as a cause for discrepancies between results. Once knew someone who was building such a device, on the assumption that he'd get millions from the oil industry to keep quiet. Refreshingly mad, but not seen him for a long time.


----------



## Survivor (Jan 30, 2003)

Yeah, well, Hoagland has a lot of really far out theories, but then he's devoted 30 years of his life to this.  It's really his entire career now.  And his results, while certainly not conclusive, have turned up some interesting things.

Check the NASA site to see the actual pitures.  NASA is just lying about it being a "trick of light and shadow", the most recent picture confirms that it really does look like a face, though either because the image was never symmetrical or because of erosion the shadowed side looks more like an animal than a human face.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm?list124425

The image that NASA took in 1998, and then "digitally enhanced" before releasing it to the public, looks nothing like a face, of course.  But the unedited '71 picture and the high resolution 2001 image, whether or not you accept that they are face like, are certainly more like each other than like NASA's "enhanced" photo, which tends to mark the enhancement as a failure (that's being generous, though, most independent investigators--i.e. not on NASA's payroll--have concluded that their enhancement technique was fundamentally flawed and removed and distorted details as a part of its design rather than simply having "failed").

Even if you don't grant that the structure is facelike (and some joker will probably start using it as an avatar if anyone denies _that_), there are some oddities.  Like the fact that there is a perfectly straight, level cliff on both sides of the mesa, and that they are perfectly parallel to each other and to their escarpments.  And the fact that the mesa follows a nearly circular curve around the bottom of the "face".  There is no reason for it to do that, by the way, since the curve does not circle around a cone, but around a level mesa top.  I think that the left side of the face (along with the tip of the nose) has evidently suffered some kind of collapse, I'm not really convinced by Hoagland's assertions that this is intentional.

Anyway, my point is that the thing really is quite face-like, and NASA has used badly distorted data to challenge this rather than accepting it as a face.  They claim that there are lots of other martian and terrestrial landforms that are similar, but they don't provide pictures, and when you do look at aerial photos of the landforms they cite as examples, there is no similarity.  No facial features, no straight lines, no parallel lines, no circular curves except those leading up to a well defined cone...nothing to make them comparable at all.

NASA is wrong on this one.  The thing is really unusual, and they haven't devised anything more plausible than "aliens made it" as an explaination.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 26, 2003)

Remembered the topic of the moonlandings as possible hoax when I found this site, which is dedicated to debunking the hoax claims.


----------



## Survivor (Mar 27, 2003)

Grrr!   I already debunked the moon hoax claims!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 27, 2003)

LOL! I mean that the site tries to be fully comprehensive with objecting to the objections to the moon landings occurring. Thr cross-hairs issue is a particularly interesting explanation.


----------



## mac1 (Apr 1, 2003)

If anyone is interested, the latest issue of New Scientist has a nice 8 page article on the previously discussed topic of Cold Fusion. I left the magazine at work, but here is a very brief summary of the article from memory. The article is about the american navy's research into Cold Fusion using the Pons and Fleischman method over the last few years. Realising that Pons and Fleischman were reputable scientists the navy decided to invest a million dollars a year into Cold Fusion reseach. They attempted to recreate the original "success". At first they had none, but after increasing the thickness of the Palladuim cathode they were using to a thickness of 6mm they found the reaction gave off more energy than was put in. Keeping in close contact with Martin Fleischman the whole time; Martin Fleischman himself being an ex-forces man; they repeated the experiment 100 times. They found that the energy given off from a Deuterium solution, was 5-30% more than was put in. When used with pure water, they found no such results. Other than Cold Fusion, no plausible theories for these results have been suggested. If anyones interested you should get the latest issue of New Scientist, if your in the UK then your local Sainsburys should have it, thats where I got mine. I might see if I can find the article online and post it here, but it seems unlikely so soon.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 1, 2003)

Ah, that's what I'd forgotten to post about! 

Glad you saw it, though - it's a good story - or freelance sceince occurring outside of commercial limitations.

It's all still a mysterious process, which for myself is the best part of the whole series of experiments - meaning experimental results not yet accounted for by theory.


----------



## mac1 (Apr 2, 2003)

Its was a great article wasn't it. What it didn't mention was the creation of new plastics and metals through the process of cold fusion. I read an article on the theoretical possibility of creating ultra-tensile synthethic compounds through the use of cold fusion, in an issue of Alien Encounters about 5 or 6 years ago. Do you happen to know if this was ever experimented with? A rough paraquote from that magazine was something like "In the future Cold Fusion could not only be used to fuel our spaceships, it could also be used in the construction of them". The article made suggestions that with cold fusion we could make all our current plastics without a need for oil. Does anyone know how this would theoretically work? It was such a long time ago that I can't really remember the specifics. Then again the magazine as a whole wasn't too taxing a read, its possible that specifics were never given. Anyway if anyone knows anything about this side of cold fusion, any info would be appreciated.


----------



## Survivor (Apr 2, 2003)

There _is_ a theory behind the Pons and Fleishman experiment, though.  The general idea is that because microporous pallidium can sort of "absorb" hydrogen, if you use a microporous pallidium cathode in electrolysis of deuterium enriched water, then the high density of positively ionized hydrogen adhering to the pallidium might induce a certain level of nuclear fusion reactions.

Measuring the level of energy in a electrolysis set up needs to be done very carefully, since heat isn't the only energy signature that comes out.  Different isotopes can react differently to ionization at times too.  Still, the results might be quite promising.

I think you need to provide a link or a direct quote for that business of fusion creating new types of plastic and so forth.  Fusion is a nuclear, not a chemical process.  It can create _elements_ that do not occur with abundance in nature, but it cannot produce new molecular structures directly.

We can already make plastics without the need for geological oil.  We can make many plastics from vegetable oil and other plant molecules.  Theoretically, you can make _any_ plastic from biologicals.  Fusion has nothing to do with it (unless you appeal to the fact that the Sun is fusion powered).


----------



## mac1 (Apr 2, 2003)

I realise that fusion is a nuclear process, that was what confused me about the possible creation of new synthetic fibres using it. I couldn't figure out how this would work and was hoping you might know, or possibly theorise. I did have a look on the net for something on the subject but found nothing, perhaps the theory was ridiculed and dismissed a long time ago.


----------



## mac1 (Apr 2, 2003)

In this link Arthur C Clarke suggests that with the discovery of molecules such as C60 (which I think is Buckminsterfullerine [possible incorrect spelling]) we could create new materials far stronger and lighter than anything we have today. Arthur C Clarke. 


> Sir Arthur also said he believed we were entering the Carbon Age. He prophesised that the discovery of molecules like C60 - the soccer ball-shaped cage of carbon atoms - would lead to extraordinary new materials.


The way I read the above, this is not through the process of Cold Fusion, but may have been misread as such. It is possible that this Arthur C Clarke quote was misunderstood by the writer of the Alien Encounters article. Having said that many websites refer to Cold Fusion (proabaly incorrectly) as a form of Alchemy. Could there be anything in the premise that cold fusion could be used to creating ultra-tensile materials be binding nanotubes. Is it just me or does none of it seem to make any sense? Or maybe there is a process I am not aware of?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 2, 2003)

Cold Fusion would simply be a power source - but as noted in New Scientist the output was never very large - scaleability has yet to be proved. Even still, power sources do not directly make materials, except in the case of certain nuclear reactors (fission, not fusion), which can enrich uranium and create plutonium as a by-product.

(it's late for me, so forgive if I get anything wrong...  )

As for the carbon age - big series of features in the same edition? Or was that another one?


----------



## Survivor (Apr 2, 2003)

Currently we manufacture C60 with a bunsen burner.  It doesn't exactly take a nuclear reactor.  Scientists have figured out how to get C60 molecules to string together into what is called a carbon nanotube.  Basically, you have a tiny clump of Nickel and some other metals which catalyzes the _chemical_ reaction in which a C60 (or buckyball) gets added onto the end of a growing nanotube (no molecular forumla, it can grow to macroscopic sizes with no fixed upper limit--like a diamond)

Anyway, this is no longer purely theoretical.  We are actually making these substances now(albeit still in small quantities).


----------



## mac1 (Nov 2, 2004)

Resurrecting this thread, as I think its relevant to the Moon Landing poll.


----------

