There are a couple of meanings. One of them is in reference to a particular claim; another is a more general (and much more widely accepted) term. First the particular: Two scientists in the 1980s, Pons and Fleischmann at the University of Utah, claimed to get excess heat out of a simple little electrochemical cell. Replicating their experiment seemed impossible and the current orthodoxy says they were deluded by temperature measurements that were done poorly. (Temperature measurements are frequently more difficult than they appear!)
They actually had a temperature spike which they 'assumed' to be from fusion in their equipment. Post analysis of the water in their cell indicated the presence of aluminum hydroxide. The problem is, there was no aluminum included in their experiment.
A laboratory assistant, tasked to watch the experiment in the evenings, later admitted he had accidentally dropped a small piece of aluminum foil into the cell. Aluminum introduced into an electrolysis cell will rapidly oxidize, generating excess heat and releasing large amounts of hydrogen gas. Their neutron detector just happened to record a neutron from spontaneous fission from natural uranium deposits in the earth at the same time the temperature spike occurred. These two errors together led them to believe they had discovered fusion at room temperature.
Nevertheless, this experiment has given rise to a whole field of scammers and true believers. A whole universe of cold-fusion literature exists on the internet. The other, more general, use of the term is to describe any kind of fusion that occurs at temperatures below millions of Kelvin. One such is muon-catalyzed fusion; there is little to no doubt in the scientific community that muon-catalyzed fusion is indeed fusion, nor that it can occur at room temperature or even below. It really is "cold fusion," though it isn't likely to ever be a power source unless an efficient low-energy way of producing muons is discovered. Unfortunately, due to the sensationalism of the Utah claim and the failure of a great many attempts to replicate the original Utah results, many people attempting to conduct serious research in the field are often dismissed out of hand (and this tends to lead towards a reluctance of such researchers to criticize other claims for fear of giving skeptics even more reason to dismiss it out of hand). What is cold fusion? : The answer above is incorrect. Cold fusion has been reproduced by over 1000 respected scientists in over 100,000 experiments. In 1989 alone, there are 90 referenced articles by different groups around the world that confirmed Pons and Fleichmens results. Only one MIT study claimed they proved Cold fusion does not work. It was found 4 years later that the MIT group falsified results and the groups was censured by the academic review board. Why would MIT and other Labs like MIT do this. They have Tokamak Hot fusion reactor, which is an enormous expense and big business. When Cold fusion exceeds thermodynamic break even, they will put hot fusion out of business, which I predict will never work.
Cold fusion is a hypothetical form of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature. It involves the fusion of atomic nuclei at low temperatures, potentially offering a clean and abundant energy source. However, it remains a highly controversial and unproven concept in the scientific community.
Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that occurs at or near room temperature. It involves the fusion of atomic nuclei to release energy, similar to what powers the sun. Despite decades of research, cold fusion has not been reliably demonstrated in a way that can be replicated and verified by the scientific community.
There is no specific form of energy called "cold energy." Coldness is the absence of heat energy rather than a separate type of energy. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles in an object or substance, so when something feels cold, it means that it has a lower temperature compared to its surroundings.
No, fission and fusion are two distinct nuclear reactions. Fusion involves the joining of atomic nuclei to release energy, while fission involves the splitting of atomic nuclei. They are not directly connected processes, so fusion does not lead to fission.
Cold is not the opposite of thermal energy. Thermal energy is a form of energy related to the temperature of an object, while cold is a subjective sensation caused by a lack of thermal energy. So, cold can be considered the absence or lower amount of thermal energy.
In the Fahrenheit temperature scale, 32 degrees is the freezing point of water. So, temperatures below 32 degrees Fahrenheit are considered cold.
Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that occurs at or near room temperature. It involves the fusion of atomic nuclei to release energy, similar to what powers the sun. Despite decades of research, cold fusion has not been reliably demonstrated in a way that can be replicated and verified by the scientific community.
No.
Nuclear fusion, yes. But that's not a chemical process.
An old cold star is called a brown dwarf. These are objects that are not massive enough to sustain nuclear fusion in their cores, so they emit little to no light or heat compared to regular stars. They are often referred to as "failed stars" or "sub-stellar objects."
There is one song that is called "So Cold" by Breaking Benjamin and there is also another song named "Cold" that is by Crossfade.
It is cold so I suggest that you were a pants and a sweater and something warm
No, the sun does not get cold. It is a massive star that produces heat and light through nuclear fusion reactions in its core.
We don't have nuclear fusion reactors. We have not been able to sustain a controlled fusion reaction for more than a brief moment in time, and of more than a small amount of power. Only the Sun and stars have controlled fusion reactions, and Hydrogen bombs have uncontrolled fusion reactions. The problem is in maintaining the extremely high temperature and pressure required to sustain a fusion reaction, while at the same time containing the plasma that results from it. It is so hot that no container will hold it. We can build magnetic "bottles" so to speak, but the enormous flux required to do that requires super magnets, and that requires super-conductors and super-cold temperatures. Placing a super-hot plasma flow within the boundaries of a super-cold magnet is just not something we have accomplished yet. We are working on it, but, barring any stupendous discovery, I think controlled fusion reactors are at least 50 or a 100 years away.
No, something cannot be simultaneously cold and hot. Temperature scales operate on a continuum where hot and cold are opposites. However, something can feel hot initially when it provides a sudden contrast to a very cold environment and vice versa.
A star generates energy through nuclear fusion in its core, where hydrogen atoms combine to form helium, releasing a tremendous amount of energy in the process. This energy in the form of heat and light is what makes stars shine brightly in the universe.
A hydrogen bomb is called so because it mainly relies on the fusion of hydrogen isotopes to release energy. The fusion process is what distinguishes it from an atomic bomb, which relies on nuclear fission.
No, cold is not a verb. It can be an adjective (It was so cold last night...) or a noun (I can't believe I still have this cold!)