pete@basser.oz (Peter Merel) (05/10/89)
I've been following discussion in alt.fusion and sci.physics regarding
room temperature fusion. One thread of the discussions touched on the
possibility of living organisms using cold fusion, catalyzed by readily
available metal salts, as a power source. The example discussed was
some variety of mollusc. Some questions occurred to me:
If P&F&H fusion is real (and it seems, since the latest claims of fifty
times more heat out than in, and Lewis' acknowledgement that his cells
were not valid refutations, that it may be), then why have no organisms
evolved that can take advantage of it? It sure sounds easier and more
reliable than eating things. Probably better for your kharma, too :-)
If P&F&H fusion is real, then is there a reason why we can't genetically
engineer or re-engineer organisms to use fusion as a power source?
I imagine plants are a good first target for this sort of effort -
plants that can grow in the dark. Could end the reliance of agriculture
on weather.
Could it be possible to do this for humans, too? It would be nice to live
in a world without famine.
--
That is beyond your compression - Galaxy Being, Outer Limits. pete@basser.oz.AU
(pete%basser.oz.AU@UUNET.UU.NET) {uunet,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!pete
JANET: (POST) pete%au.oz.basser@EAN-RELAY (MAIL) EAN%"pete@au.oz.basser"rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (05/11/89)
Assuming that cold fusion is real, then I can think of several good reasons that it wouldn't have evolved as a power source for organisms: 1> Palladium & D2O are fairly rare (compared to all the hydro carbons out there). 2> Generating the energy necessary to start the fusion is farily prohibitive (ie. an organism would have to already have a system for producing energy). 3> Fusion generates radiation which is damaging to orgamisms. 4> Fusion produces heat energy and a system to utilize heat energy would have to evolve since organisms utilize chemical energy (usually stored in ATP) I'm sure I could come up with some more, but needless to say there is a LOT of problems... As for encorporating fusion into new/existing organisms, well you would have to solve all the above problems (plus some others I'm sure), and there is not a real need for it, ie it would be much simpler to have fusion powered lights for growing plants inside. As for adding fusion to people, bological systems are pretty complex, and we don't really have enough knowledge to do something that extensive... yet. In any case I'de really be very satisfied with Fusion powered cars, as they would run a lot cleaner and use less precious resources then gasoline cars. Is fusion real? Wait and see, once P&F actually publish the full specifications for a cell, then it will only be a short while before cold fusion is confirmed a fact or a fantasy. // Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu \\ \\ #include stddisclaimer.h // \\ "I never respected a man who could spell" // \\ -M. Twain //
rim@csadfa.oz (Bob McKay) (05/11/89)
From article <2060@basser.oz>, by pete@basser.oz (Peter Merel): > If P&F&H fusion is real (and it seems, since the latest claims of fifty > times more heat out than in, and Lewis' acknowledgement that his cells > were not valid refutations, that it may be), then why have no organisms > evolved that can take advantage of it? > It would require two independent developments .The ability to concentrate and deposit pure palladium .The ability to concentrate deuterium Neither of these is biologically impossible; but each is energetically expensive, so would be strongly selected against. Cheers -- Bob McKay Phone ISD: +61 62 68 8169 STD: (062) 68 8169 Dept. Computer Science ACSNET,CSNET: rim@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz Aust. Defence Force Academy UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!csadfa.cs.adfa.oz!rim Canberra ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA ARPA: rim%csadfa.cs.adfa.oz@uunet.uu.net
pete@basser.oz (Peter Merel) (05/11/89)
In article <1856@csadfa.oz> rim@csadfa.oz (Bob McKay) writes: >It [PFH fusion] would require two independent developments >.The ability to concentrate and deposit pure palladium >.The ability to concentrate deuterium >Neither of these is biologically impossible; but each is energetically >expensive, so would be strongly selected against. No. If these processes enable fusion, then they will produce more energy than they require. Remember, evolution is not hill-climbing - it doesn't get stuck on little hitches if it has a long enough period to operate over a large enough population. Jumping off cliffs is strongly selected against, but wings evolved anyway. Now if, as Jones asserts in his paper, cold fusion processes are commonly involved in energy production within the Earth, then evolution has had over four billion years to whip up some sort of fusion powered beasties. They might have begun as a kind of 'fusion parasite', just seeking out areas that are made warm by fusion processes. Evolution would then select for the parasites that did not destroy the 'host', or even better, prolonged and/or proliferated the 'host'. Fusion bees, I guess. Call them freebees. Eventually the freebees encapsulate fusion within themselves, and whacko the chook. But from this stage, I miss my guesses. If cold fusion is common, then there is no need for fusion based life to predate on anything, so I'm not sure what constitutes evolutionary pressure on the freebees. I can't see them interacting in a meaningful way with developing 'vanilla' life - I should think they'd be mutually poisonous. So maybe freebees exist, but remain in so primitive a form that we don't recognise them as such. Perhaps, for complex life to evolve, there can't be any such thing as a free lunch. But that wouldn't stop us re-engineering existing life forms to suit. Do we have the technology? -- That is beyond your compression - Galaxy Being, Outer Limits. pete@basser.oz.AU (pete%basser.oz.AU@UUNET.UU.NET) {uunet,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!pete JANET: (POST) pete%au.oz.basser@EAN-RELAY (MAIL) EAN%"pete@au.oz.basser"