is cold fusion possible?
363951
theorically yes.   The problem is discovering and proving the right theory.   It maybe 500 years but we will eventually solve the cold fusion problem.
376519
Cryogenics is an exciting and important frontier that already has led to major discoveries...and holds much future promise. In the case of steel and its alloys, cryogenic treatment removes the built-in kinetic energy of atoms, which is the energy of motion. There is a normal attraction between atoms that makes them want to get together. But their energy of motion keeps them apart unless that energy is removed by low temperature cooling.
959853
The atoms of iron begin to move at a more rapid pace, causing the material to expand.  Once it expands enough there is so much energy that it can turn into liquid form, allowing it to flow freely so long as another force isn't standing in it's way.  The same thing happens to all matter when heated up.  You may even notice that the metal will begin to glow.  This is because of radiation in the form of photon particles.  It will also become highly ductile and maliable, which are two characteristics that iron have.  Heck, if iron were to be heated up far enough it could even become a gas.  However, I doubt you would ever be able to do it without both heat and compression with current technology.  You might even cause the gasses in the atmosphere around it to gain enough energy to start a fusion reaction, which could cause one yucky mess out of our atmosphere if they don't cool down.
128043
Nuclear energy is not "cold", I am not sure what you meant by that.  The whole principle of how muclear energy is used to generate electrcity relies on the fact that it gives off a lot of heat.\n\nIt is also not too clean either.  The depleted nuclear waste posses a problem of where to dispose of it.  It will stay radio active for hundreds of thousands of years, so whereever you put it it needs to be out of the way and secure.  Right now, the government is planning to store the stock piles of nuclear waste deep underground under Yucca Mountain (in Nevada I think), but there is a lot of debate over this.\n\nAs for sustainable, perhaps not in the long run.  There is only so much fissionable material on Earth, it will run out eventually just like fossil fuels.  A more long term nuclear energy sourse would rely on fusion, not fission, but this has yet to be practical.
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.
595862
I don't know what everyone else here is on but we've had fusion (hydrogen) weapons for decades. Fusion weapons are capable of destroying planets as there is no real limit to how powerful they can be. There are more powerful alternatives however. Matter-Antimatter reactions can be made vastly more powerful then fusion reactions since the masses are completely transformed into energy whereas only a small portion of mass is converted into energy in fusion reactions. The problem of course is that anti-matter is annihilated upon exposure to any matter so storing it is the biggest problem in making such an idea practical and it would probably never make it to bomb form let alone the problems people have making 1/1000th of a milligram of the stuff for any sustained period.
492501
From fusion of hydrogen atoms.
577412
Oh wow. Is that your experiment or what? Honestly, I don't think it's possible to convert carbon dioxide from a gaseous phase to solid phase by adding water followed by freezing.\n\nCO2 (g) + high pressure -> CO2 (s)\n\nYou need to have a high presure machine that would compact the CO2 molecules so tightly they bind the molecules together and become solid.\n\nCO2 + extremely low temperature -> CO2 (s)\n\nEither that (the abovementioned) or you gotta use very, very low temperatures to bring down the energy level in the CO2 molecules so much so that they only vibrate in position instead of bouncing all over.\n\nEither way, I see neither method stamped with a DIY. And what's this thing about carbon power concept? \n\nAnyway, I hope my answer has helped you to a certain extent c",) Happy Chemistry-ing!!!
205169
The greatest technological challenge of the 21st century is to meet energy demand in an environmentally sustainable way.  Nuclear energy is a carbon free energy; however, current fission technology leaves a deadly legacy - radioactive waste that is toxic for tens of thousands of years.  To put the energy demands of humans in perspective with nuclear energy, please see the lecture by Nate Lewis (California Institute of Technology).  In 2006, humans are consuming energy at a rate of about 14TW (14 trillion watts).  Using current technology, in order to generate 10TW of energy, we would have to build a new reactor every single day for the next 50 years.  This would be a monumental effort in stupidity and futility.  Furthermore, this would not meet growing energy demand, which is predicted to be ~28TW in the year 2050.  The clearest alternatives are wind energy and solar energy.  Practically, wind energy used globally can potentially provide ~2TW energy, meaning that solar energy is going to be our primary energy source.  The energy that strikes the Earth in 1 hour as sunlight is enough to provide humanity's energy needs for 1 year (~14TW).  However, this energy is diffuse, and we still need to develop low cost, efficient methods to convert solar energy to fuels and electricity. Research is progressing rapidly in this topic.  The world needs to committ massive resources to this right now.  \n\nThe second part of your question relates to cold fusion.  Interestingly, fusion is the source of sunlight, so using solar energy, is in a way, using fusion energy (we don't have to worry about the problems of containment and generating fusion pressures and temperatures).  There are a few research projects around the world that are working on finding useful methods for controlling fusion reactions for energy.  Perhaps the most well known involves a giant room with thousands of high energy lasers that are focused at a pelletized source of fusionable material.  In this scheme, the energy input from the lasers initiates fusion.  This technology is promising, but is far from being economical.  Research efforts should continue.
513289
To add to rya's answer: fusion doesn't leave radioactive waste, but we don't know how to do it yet.
9879
Q:What would be the soonest fusion power could be operable in Europe if funding were increased, and energy funding diverted from fossil fuel energy research, and finally, if the fusion research projects of the USA, EU, and Japan were combined, what is the soonest fusion power could be efficiently operated?\nA: The next step from JET (and the other tokamak research being undertaken around the world) is a device called ITER, an international tokamak project, 2-3 times bigger than JET, costing several billion pounds and capable of producing significantly more fusion power for longer periods. This will demonstrate the feasibility of the plasma physics and fusion engineering of a potential power plant and, given the present funding, is planned to be built in the next 10-15 years - an eventual commercial power plant probably being 30-40 years away. However, if the present international funding for fusion were increased, ITER could definitely be built more quickly and fusion power could be a reality much more quickly - in possibly half the time if the present funding levels were increased significantly.\n\n \n \n \nQ: What developments in fusion technology are likely to take place in the future, say 10, 20 years from now? \nA: The next step device following on from JET (called ITER) is currently being designed and should be operational in 2020. This will demonstrate burning plasmas (with Q ~ 10 where Q is the ratio of the output fusion power and the input power required to keep the plasma going) whereas JET has achieved Q~0.6. It is then anticipated that a working, electricity producing reactor should be
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
813772
So, heat of fusion ring any bells?
35367
I believe it will be possible. The first application of the development of such technology will be the transportation of mass amount of fluids, and solid materials from one place to another. Granted, these materials will probably be simple materials without complexed molecular structure but, it will be the place that other developement will continue from.\n  The technology is centries into the future if it is that soon. The general idea is simple. Breaking down atomic structure in a trasmitable format, transmitting, then reconstituting teh transmitted. It then is a matter of what atomic partical belongs on what part of the carrier wave of the radio/or microwave transmitter. Another additive to the  complexity, is actually getting the particals on the carrier wave. However, if modern modems can convert digital signals into anolog, and analog into digital signals, then other parts of a "transporter" is a matter of time.\nSide note on this: If it will require the power produced from anti-matter generators, then it should interest all that a few anti-matter atoms had been produced. It took more energy to produce those few anti-atoms then they could produce themselves, but it does illistrate that Star-Trek to Star Wars technologies are not entirely impossible.
177825
theoretically, at any temperature above absolute zero, a reaction can occur.  There are very few reactions that are likely to take place at that temperature, but none that are impossible.
619995
Cold fusion is a nuclear fusion reaction that takes place at or near room temperature and normal pressure instead of the millions of degrees and thousands of pounds of force required for plasma fusion reactions. The popular press sometimes use the term "cold fusion" incorrectly, to describe plasma fusion that occurs in table-top apparatus.\nCold fusion has two major lines of research: muon-catalyzed fusion and low energy nuclear reactions. "Cold fusion" is often used to refer to the latter. The former, initiated by Andrei Sakharov and F. C. Frank in the 1940s, and Luis Alvarez in 1956, is not controversial but it consumes more energy than it generates.\nLow energy nuclear reactions (LENR) — or chemically-assisted nuclear reactions (CANR) — were initially reported by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah in March of 1989. Because it was presented as a new practical source of energy, this announcement was front-page news for some time, and generated a strong controversy, but the debate abated quickly and LENR was rejected by the mainstream scientific community. [1]\nLENR researchers say that they have been shunned by the scientific establishment. They publish papers in scientific journals specializing in related fields, but none have published in major scientific journals such as Nature or Science after the initial controversy.\nThe latest mainstream review of research in low energy nuclear reactions occurred in 2004 when the US Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. The panelists were evenly split on the following issue: "Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid states sources". Two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence for low energy nuclear reactions, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced. The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposal for experiments in this field
442256
By cryogenic liquid, I'm assuming you mean something very cold, like liquid nitrogen, liquid oxygen, liquid helium, or liquid hydrogen.  And fissionable material is uranium or plutonium, so you're asking what happens when you make uranium cold?  \n\nRadiation is a nuclear process, not one that has to do with chemical reactions that are subject to fluctuations in temperature.  Whether the atoms are banging around with a lot of energy due to high temperature or very little due to low temperature, the nucleus's will continue to fission unperturbed.