All in all, I enjoyed the video 8/10. Questions: How can you prove someone wrong without putting in at least the same amount of time/effort? How can you be sure that a neutron will be emitted at exactly the same nano-second as the production of light? Were compensations made in the measuring equipment to account for the difference in the speed of light and that of neutrons (or are we to believe that neutrons travel at the speed of light when nothing else can)? Were compensations made for the possible difference in processing speeds of the detection equipment used? I have to believe that those involved thought of all this, or at least I would hope so. I also realize this is an entertaiment only film, so such questions need not be answered, but one cannot be expected to believe without the whole story. Finally, the effort put into creating this form of fusion and the results thereby obtained don’t seem feasible for practical use (or is this just another piece not covered by the video?). Where do I get my answers?
I too agree with Teddy. Horizon put together a team to test a theory, the team used the method of close enough is good enough for a very complicated and not wholly understood science, then they claimed it can’t be reproduced.One might say reproduction of a human can be done in a test tube, and that we can even clone a human but they will almost never be completely the same, there is always a birth mark or even the exact count of hair foliaceous that will be different on even this, or at least every human is still an individual to a point in their state of mind. Therefore nothing this important can be overlooked as “we did it as close as we could and it was not fusion”. Nice video but I could make one just the same, would it have the same result. I wonder why or why not. We are too quick to judge before we understand. Fuck I hate docos that are purely only just interested in how to sell their crap instead of actually making a doco, the scientists who actually try and help this planet and people deserve better than this shit.
@Teddy, you probably won’t see this, but this will be good for anyone who comes across this doc. It’s more or less common sense that the neutron is emitted the same time as the light. The emission of a photon (or light) tells us that a reaction has took place. If the reaction was indeed a nuclear fusion one, a neutron would have to be emitted once the reaction took place (the physics tells us that it must). Therefore, the emission of a photon and a neutron would have to take place at the same time. Additionally, compensations would have been made for the detectors (obviously the photon will reach it’s detector before the neutron). The sonoluminescence theory has been pretty much given the boot as a viable method for nuclear fusion, but it’s still being researched to some extent today. Anyways, good doc, I enjoyed it.
Neutrons are much more massive. I think you are confusing them with neutrinos, a small nearly mass-less particle that is the resultof nuclear fusion. Bother particles cannot move at the speed of light due to their mass; the neutrino may come very close, but as long as it has mass, it cannot move at light speed according to the laws of physics
Neutrons are MADE during this reaction from protons. They are still held within the nucleus. Therefore, neutrons are not EMITTED. The strong force does not allow neutrons to be emitted unless they are part of a He atom, which is emitted during radioactive decay. The He atom is emitted, a photon is emitted, and a neutrino is emitted, all the result of radioactive decay. Neutrinos are nearly massless and therefore go unnoticed during experiment. The neutron is never detected b/c it never leaves the nucleus. I hope this is clear… if the documentary hints towards anything else being emitted during fusion besides energy as a result of a mass defect, there is an an error in their information.
Welcome to Full Documentaries! This site is committed to providing you with some of the most informative free documentaries online available. Feel free to browse our free documentaries and comment, rate and come back for more!
June 8th, 2010 at 2:33 am
All in all, I enjoyed the video 8/10. Questions: How can you prove someone wrong without putting in at least the same amount of time/effort? How can you be sure that a neutron will be emitted at exactly the same nano-second as the production of light? Were compensations made in the measuring equipment to account for the difference in the speed of light and that of neutrons (or are we to believe that neutrons travel at the speed of light when nothing else can)? Were compensations made for the possible difference in processing speeds of the detection equipment used? I have to believe that those involved thought of all this, or at least I would hope so. I also realize this is an entertaiment only film, so such questions need not be answered, but one cannot be expected to believe without the whole story. Finally, the effort put into creating this form of fusion and the results thereby obtained don’t seem feasible for practical use (or is this just another piece not covered by the video?). Where do I get my answers?
February 24th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
I too agree with Teddy. Horizon put together a team to test a theory, the team used the method of close enough is good enough for a very complicated and not wholly understood science, then they claimed it can’t be reproduced.One might say reproduction of a human can be done in a test tube, and that we can even clone a human but they will almost never be completely the same, there is always a birth mark or even the exact count of hair foliaceous that will be different on even this, or at least every human is still an individual to a point in their state of mind. Therefore nothing this important can be overlooked as “we did it as close as we could and it was not fusion”. Nice video but I could make one just the same, would it have the same result. I wonder why or why not. We are too quick to judge before we understand. Fuck I hate docos that are purely only just interested in how to sell their crap instead of actually making a doco, the scientists who actually try and help this planet and people deserve better than this shit.
March 4th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@Teddy, you probably won’t see this, but this will be good for anyone who comes across this doc. It’s more or less common sense that the neutron is emitted the same time as the light. The emission of a photon (or light) tells us that a reaction has took place. If the reaction was indeed a nuclear fusion one, a neutron would have to be emitted once the reaction took place (the physics tells us that it must). Therefore, the emission of a photon and a neutron would have to take place at the same time. Additionally, compensations would have been made for the detectors (obviously the photon will reach it’s detector before the neutron). The sonoluminescence theory has been pretty much given the boot as a viable method for nuclear fusion, but it’s still being researched to some extent today. Anyways, good doc, I enjoyed it.
April 11th, 2011 at 12:52 am
Neutrons are much more massive. I think you are confusing them with neutrinos, a small nearly mass-less particle that is the resultof nuclear fusion. Bother particles cannot move at the speed of light due to their mass; the neutrino may come very close, but as long as it has mass, it cannot move at light speed according to the laws of physics
April 20th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Neville,
Neutrons are MADE during this reaction from protons. They are still held within the nucleus. Therefore, neutrons are not EMITTED. The strong force does not allow neutrons to be emitted unless they are part of a He atom, which is emitted during radioactive decay. The He atom is emitted, a photon is emitted, and a neutrino is emitted, all the result of radioactive decay. Neutrinos are nearly massless and therefore go unnoticed during experiment. The neutron is never detected b/c it never leaves the nucleus. I hope this is clear… if the documentary hints towards anything else being emitted during fusion besides energy as a result of a mass defect, there is an an error in their information.