The History Channel had an eyebrow raising show on about two weeks ago* about the history of atomic weapons, plus Russia’s aging, failing satellite warning system which gave a false positive circa 2000. Anyway, they said the hydrogen bomb uses fission and then fusion to give off amazing amounts of energy.
Now, if this is true, then cold fusion is no biggie, right? Then, is this to say that the REAL problem with cold fusion is how to control a fusion reaction?
What’s the SD on this fusion vs. the cold fusion we seek to harness?
No, the real problem with cold fusion is that there’s very little, if any, evidence for it. It’s barely better than fringe science. The fusion we seek to control is not cold fusion–because, once again, there’s not much in the way of evidence for it–is the same thermonuclear fusion which occurs in the Sun and in hydrogen bombs. It requires a LOT of heat and pressure–the fact that a thermonuclear bomb requires a fission bomb as a trigger is ample evidence for that; likewise conditions on and in the Sun.
Cold fusion is a (probably mythical) nuclear reaction which requires very little energy to start but which produces a great deal of energy. The hydrogen bomb requires the detonation of a fission bomb to start the fusion reaction. While it produces a great deal of energy, it doesn’t qualify as “cold” fusion since it requires so much to start the reaction.
Work on fusion reactors is almost entirely devoted to standard or “hot” fusion, and the problem there is containing the reaction.
I don’t think the OP is getting the distinction between cold fusion and regular fusion. Cold fusion involves fusion reactions that are supposed to take place near room temperature and at normal atmospheric pressure. As **Q.E.D. ** says, fusion is only known to take place under conditions like those found in the core of the sun.