Build a Nuclear Fusion Reactor at Home

FridayBob writes "For those of you tired of waiting around for someone else to achieve the holy grail of physics, now's your chance to beat 'em all to it. All you need is some basic engineering skills, this site and the inspiration necessary to make your very own 'fusor' produce more energy than it consumes. Hopefully, you'll have more luck than its inventor, Philo T. Farnsworth, who first built it in the 1950's after inventing the television some 30 years earlier. If you run into problems you'll be able to count on a enthusiastic support group, as the contraption seems to have developed a cult following over the past few years. Okay, so I'm skeptical that this approach will ever really work, but at the very least it sounds like a really cool science project!"

Comments

Uh oh...

[handsomepete]

Before everyone gets started on their arguments about who invented television (thanks submitter!), please read through the comments on this article. Unless you have newly unearthed evidence, please leave it alone as it has been discussed to death. Ok? Thanks.

But...

[The Glory of Witty]

It seems making a nuclear reactor these days makes you an automatic member of the axis of evil. So now I can claim slashdot promotes terrorism!!!

Re:But...

[freeweed]

Strange, we up here in Canada have nuclear reactors, and haven't been named as members of the 'axis of evil'. I can't speak definitively for Europe, but I heard a rumor that many of the countries over there are in a similar position.

Re:Farnsworth?

[Penguin]

According to IMDb Trivia for Futurama, the "Farnsworth"-character is actually named after Philo T. Farnsworth:

Professor Farnsworth is named after the inventor Philo T. Farnsworth, one of the pioneers of television, whose invention was premiered at the 1939 New York World's Fair, along with the Futurama exhibit.

Re:Danger(TV) Danger(Fusion Reactor)

[Anonymous Coward]

TV was originally thought of as an educational and communication tool. It's a piece of technology that can go both ways in how people use it--good or bad. People tend to be idiots (see bad driving), veg out, and lazy as long as they have food, so the detrimental effects of TV probably better coincides with a nation's wealth. I would also point out that the increasing conglomeration of corporations controlling multiple networks (although, imnsho, oddly enough, AOL/Time/Warner puts out the better channels) has decreased the potential utility of TV, as it caters to the masses--the masses are more like cows and sheep or other animal husbandry animals than we like to believe.

Personally, I like TV. I like getting news and seeing the video of events. I like being able to get great weather reports in the background that are up-to-date. Yes, I can get this through radio or other means. I like seeing shows like Horsepower TV or Trucks, and seeing something that I normally don't have the time or money to hobby around with. I like watching the History channel, HGTV, or TCL to see what new products are.

Put another way--TV was a little similar to the web/www. In it's early days, the "web" was great. It's still great. But there's a lot of porn, mischevious activity, boring blogging, etc. All in all, probably becoming more detrimental. But undoubtedly, there was places on the web that are great sources of information or at least a starting point to things that people can't even get from their local library or reading national news.

Personally, I'm glad for both. And I'd be rather happy if fusion came to some practical fruition.

Re:Safe?

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

You should read "Brotherhood of the Bomb" and read how Ernest Lawrence worked with his cyclotrons at Berkly (SP?). They basicly set up shop in a wooden shack. They had no sheilding or anything for a long time. Pretty much anything sounds safer and more advanced than his early creations.

Re:Fusion is NOT the Holy Grail

[js7a]

We don't need fusion, fission, antimatter, or even our 200-year remaining reserves of coal -- God, do we not need that!

The truth is that wind power is all we need, and perhaps all we will have in just 30 years.

In 30 years world electricity requirements will be ~3,500,000 MW (nameplate). Wind is now increasing at the rate of ~4,700 MW per year (nameplate). The average increase per year for the last decade has been ~25%, and that rate is increasing. It will reach ~3.5 million MW in ~30 years. There are more than enough wind resources in North America, China, and Europe to power the entire world. Offshore wind resources in the North Sea could produce four times more energy than Europe consumes. Wind-poor locations and peak-demand generators can be served with wind-generated hydrogen fuel. The cost of wind generators is falling rapidly. Taking into account the hidden costs of fossil fuel, such as pollution and war, wind is already cheaper than any other source. There are no technical limitations that would prevent wind from meeting all demand for electricity.

-- Jed Rothwell

Re:But,,,

[Aerog]

Okay, I'm a little rusty on the exact fine details about this, but there are nonetheless a few things that need to be cleaned up. (pun intended)

1. Fission is dirty. We're all familiar with this one. You get radioactive products and energy. Open and shut case.

2. Fusion can be done. We could do it all the time, and I'm talking about break-even fusion with power production. Why don't we? Because this kind of fusion is dirty. When you use Tritium as a reactant, you get radioactive products kicking around after everything is said and done.

3. Deuterium/Deuterium fusion is not "dirty". Deuterium is a non-radioactive isotope. This, however, is the kind of break-even fusion we're having a bit of trouble with. The problem here is that the energy required to get the Deuterium/Deuterium reaction going is a lot more than the comparatively simple Deuterium/Tritium one.

This is, from what I recall, more or less the problem in a nutshell. If anyone with a degree in physics who specializes in plasma physics or such would like to go into more detail, I'd be greatful.