Slashdot Mirror


College Freshman Builds Fusion Reactor

Aiua writes "The Deseret Morning News is reporting that a Utah State University freshman has built a nuclear fusion reactor and compares how the student is similar to Philo T. Farnsworth (the inventor of the television and designer of the plans for a fusion reactor)."

680 comments

  1. Um.... by Kedisar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is his name Dexter by any chance?

    1. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but he does have a rival named Mandark.

      HA... HAHA... HA... HAHA...

    2. Re:Um.... by xeeno · · Score: 0, Troll

      "deuterium ion plasma, a prerequisite to fusion"

      As impressive as this is, it isn't fusion. Don't you guys read these articles?

    3. Re:Um.... by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you think this guy is brilliant, take a look at this guy's page. He built a CYCLOTRON(!!!) when he was in his senior year of HS! (he's now doing grad school work at Fermilab, what a shocker)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:Um.... by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 5, Funny
      Somewhere in D.C......
      Sir, we've finally found those weapons of mass destruction. They were in a dorm in Utah.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    5. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the /. editors got suckered on this one - if you RTFA you'll see that it isn't actually a fusion reactor or reaction at all. What it is is a deuterium ion plasma generator. While not actually fusion, Deuterium ion plasma holds some promise for fusion research. However, it is - as the article states - useful as a neutron radiation generator. That's mostly what this kid has accomplished - NOT fusion..

    6. Re:Um.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Informative

      As impressive as this is, it isn't fusion. Don't you guys read these articles?

      "The ball is, literally, a small sun, where an electric field forces deuteron ions (a form of hydrogen) to gather, bang together and occasionally fuse, spitting out a neutron each time fusion occurs."

      Yes.

    7. Re:Um.... by Wolfrider · · Score: 0

      > ...compares how the student is similar to Philo T. Farnsworth

      --Let's just hope the inventor doesn't turn out to be similar to a certain role played by Keanu Reeves...

      http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    8. Re:Um.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      I remember reading a while back about a high school student who wanted to build a reactor. He went to junk yards and shopped on the internet for things like smoke detectors that contain tiny bits of radioactive materials. He bought lots of old glow-in-the-dark clocks which contain radium.

      He managed to produce some really nasty radiation. The shack he was using gave off a glow visible from the street. Haz Mat had to clean it up.

    9. Re:Um.... by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the fact that you're able to ask this kind of question is what differentiates us from the other animals (oh, and we have less hair, by and large, unless you consider fish and reptiles). Humans seem to have acquired the ability to think really really big thoughts. And I mean, big!

      I wonder if 'meaning' is really a meme, or is it for some reason part of our brains? I mean, did someone start searching for meaning, then other people started catching on, until we're all asking the question? I'm inclined to believe that the need to ask that question is part of our genetic makeup. I see evidence of this in the fact that everyone, throughout most of their life, seems so obsessed with this subject, and often go into despair when they can't find the answer to this question. It's almost as if the need for meaning is a fundamental need, as fundamental as the need for survival.

      My two cents' worth. I really enjoyed your writ (especially the comment that most people's primary meme is "WTF?" -- I feel like that a lot of the time myself), and if I had any karma points I'd mod you up.

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
    10. Re:Um.... by Hadlock · · Score: 0

      it was a boyscout of sorts, in so.cal, if i recall correctly. he was using the americanium out of smoke detecors (used as a mass spectrometer)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    11. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Harper's article, right? It smacks of bullshit, but there are enough names given that it'd be interesting to see if there's something to it.

      It made a good read, regardless.

    12. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But will he be able to have kids in the future. Perhaps he should have worn a lead shield.

    13. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    14. Re:Um.... by einTier · · Score: 5, Informative

      I remembered this, so I went looking for it. Amazing what you can pull up on google. The shed did not glow. He did however, make a makeshift breeder reactor and enough radioactive material to be detected from five houses down.

      The tale of the radioactive boyscout

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
    15. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His friends are /. members, and vouch for him every time its mentioned. Search /. for the article on it.

    16. Re:Um.... by Dr_Cornholio · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes I did. It explained things quite well. Did you read the article???

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the monkey spanks you!
    17. Re:Um.... by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
      Anonymous Coward wrote:
      if you RTFA you'll see that it isn't actually a fusion reactor or reaction at all.
      If you RTFA you'll see that it emits four neutrons per minute above the background level. If you're claiming that those four neutrons aren't the result of fusion, pray tell where they are in fact coming from?
    18. Re:Um.... by tuba_dude · · Score: 1

      Good question, one that he probably won't need to worry about. Then again, this guy is *so* geeky that it might actually make him cool enough to get into parties.

      --
      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    19. Re:Um.... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      q.)Whats a Cyclotron?

    20. Re:Um.... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 4, Informative
      RTFA you'll see that it isn't actually a fusion reactor or reaction at all

      If this guy truly built a Farnsworth fusor, then you're wrong - the fusor really is capable of creating nuclear fusion. People building these things have measured the neutrons to prove it.

      The heart of the machine is some kind of electrode which uses energy from the fusion reaction itself to reinforce the electric field which is used to trigger the reaction (I guess by picking up energy from the energetic alpha particles & electrons between blasted out in all directions at really high energy levels from inside the electrode). Unfortunately, the reaction is not sustainable - the same effect which can force the deuterium together strongly enough to create fusion also prevents any _new_ fuel from entering from the outside of the field, thus causing the collapse of the reaction once all the fuel is consumed.

      Farnsworth really was a genius at manipulating electric fields. It's too bad he died early, or he might've been able to figure out how to make his fusor practical.

    21. Re:Um.... by Theory+of+Everything · · Score: 0

      I work with his college roommate (when the two went to U Chicago). They built a fission breeder reactor in their dorm room as part of the on campus "scanvenger hunt" contest.

    22. Re:Um.... by fruey · · Score: 1
      Did he change his name from David Hahn to Craig Wallace after this experiment?

      The two stories do not seem to be the same people.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    23. Re:Um.... by aXis100 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The heart of the machine is some kind of electrode which uses energy from the fusion reaction itself to reinforce the electric field which is used to trigger the reaction

      Nope. It's basically two electrodes - an outer and inner spherical or conical system. By applying a high voltage, electrons or positive ions are attracted towards the inner elecrode, where they get trapped, collide, or overshoot.

      In simplified terms, some of the ions flying through/near the centre can have enough energy to undergo nuclear fusion.

      As far as ive read, one of the big problem is the occasional collisions with the wires that form the electrodes. This wastes energy and causes decay. Future research involves "virtual" electrodes or magnetic sheilding.

    24. Re:Um.... by ashridah · · Score: 1

      nevermind that that wasn't fusion, they were creating hydrogen, using water as a fuel.
      they'd worked out an energising frequency that caused the bonds of the water molecule to break (supposedly) without wasting energy.

      i did mention supposedly.

      it was supposed to be self-sustaining... except no-one thought to turn off the laser? what gives? :)

      ashridah

    25. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      For your sake, it is tokamak.

      I find it annoying when people spell words as they hear them. Wich works in german, but not at all in english. Especially if you have a thick american accent.

      As far as LTFS, you might want to ask yourself how on earth the neutron might come out of the fusion reaction :

      H + H + energy -> He + energy.

      See, no excess neutrons. However,

      H + energy -> p+ + n + e-

      Not that this reaction is possible also :

      H + H +energy -> He +n +energy

      In which case one excess neutron is liberated, but I do not know which reaction is more likely.

    26. Re:Um.... by hey · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see he's smart enough to know when to use duct tape.

    27. Re:Um.... by hplasm · · Score: 1
      > ...compares how the student is similar to Philo T. Farnsworth

      So this is to fusion as Philo T. is to John Logie Baird?

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    28. Re:Um.... by KDan · · Score: 1

      That's actually a good question. Anyone know which reaction is being used there? Surely not the pp chain?

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    29. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... Fusion doesn't produce neutrons. Fission does.

    30. Re:Um.... by danila · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it annoying when people spell words as they hear them. Wich works in german, but not at all in english. Especially if you have a thick american accent.

      Especially when the word in question is Russian. The term is a contraction of "TOroidal KAmera with MAgnetic field". "Kamera" is Russian for "chamber".

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    31. Re:Um.... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "Neutrons don't come from nowhere you know."

      Depends on how you feel about the event that created the universe in the first place, so it's one of those fundamental questions that so far remains unanswered. Oh, you meant in this case?

      "They come from fusion."

      More notably from fission because in fusion you're after the energy release from fusing atoms rather than the release caused by slamming fast neutrons into atoms. Fast neutrons are bad(tm).

      There are other ways to liberate neutrons, but the vast majority involve shitloads of what people like to call 'energy'.

      "Thats one of the main ways we know when we DO achieve fusion, both in little IEC reactors like this and in big TOKOMAKs like the JET Torus."

      As opposes the vast energy drains, blinding bright torus of plasma, hellishly high temperatures and seriously big magnetic fields? BTW, the last 'T' in JET means 'Torus'.

      "Perhaps if you RTFA and then LTFS [learn the fucking science] you might not look like the typical clueless slashdotter."

      Indeed. Do you know the difference between laughing with and laughing at?

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    32. Re:Um.... by taliver · · Score: 2, Informative

      More specifically, you mean to write:

      (1) H-2 + H-2 -> He-4 + gammas

      Or,

      (2) H-2 + gamma -> H-1 + n (We'll ignore the electrons)

      And the alternate one you discuss is either:

      (3) H-2 + H-2 -> He-3 + n + gamma

      or

      (4) H-2 + H-3 -> He-4 + n + gamma

      (I believe this is the one the tokamak project is using. I'm inevitably wrong on this.)

      His reaction, from the article description, is probably:

      (5) H-1 + H-2 -> H-1 + H-1 + n

      I have no evidence to back this up, other than the fact that they never spoke of Helium really being produced, and the lack of tritium in the discussions. By the way, we can also do a some calculations, to determine the Q-value of these reactions: (using This chart of the Nuclides Table .)

      Q=(m_init-m_final)c^2 =>

      (5) Q= -2.2 MeV In other words, These ionized atoms would have to be travelling quite fast. (It is endothermic after all.)

      What about the ones that release energy? How fast do they have to be moving?

      Well, from this page we're talking the temperature would have to be between 4 x 10^7 and 4 x 10^8 K, which is kinda hot. You may be able to make a lot of assumptions about the occasional fast moving particle using temperature distribution graphs.

      --

      I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!

    33. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      I find it annoying when someone slams the spelling of another poster and then misspells words themselves. And it's "which" not "wich". :-)

    34. Re:Um.... by DocJohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Farnsworth really was a genius at manipulating electric fields. It's too bad he died early, or he might've been able to figure out how to make his fusor practical.

      If by dying early you mean that 65 years old is "early," then sure... But for someone who conceived the principles of television at 13 years old and holds 300 U.S. and foreign patents, I'd say he did pretty good for himself in his lifetime. If only people spent more time thinking and inventing and less time reading /....

    35. Re:Um.... by ultrasound · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting question, IANAP but i think:

      Fission = H + energy -> p+ + n + e-

      Fusion = H + H +energy -> He +n +energy

      I would guess that the fusion is less likely, and would require more energy because it requires smashing two H atoms together at sufficient force to overcome repulsion, whereas fission just requires sufficent energy to be absorbed by a single H atom.

      But I'm probably totally wrong - anyone with some more physics out there?

    36. Re:Um.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      I remember something about a glow visible from the street. There may have been more than one article about it...

    37. Re:Um.... by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      Actually, fusion can produce neutrons. A deuteron hits a deuteron, and can produce Helium-3 + a neutron. It also can produce Hydrogen-3+proton, or Helium-4 + gamma radiation.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    38. Re:Um.... by Rand+Race · · Score: 1

      I believe that's 186,000 MPH tape.

      --
      Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    39. Re:Um.... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 1
      Actually, from the patents and picture records I have seen, Farnsworth actually *did* build a reactor with virtual electrodes, which also overcame the problems of injecting matter into the core.

      From what I have read of the patents, the fusor does work on the electric field, which can be directly extracted as electricity (assuming you break even, of course...) or used to reinforce the field.

      It never ceases to amaze me that, with all the people interested in IEC fusion, nobody has tried to reproduce Farnsworth's more advanced reactors, staying with this dual-grid contraption instead.

    40. Re:Um.... by Spellbinder · · Score: 1

      this only works with Swiss German
      because there are no spelling rules at all
      but Standart German is as bad as English with spelling and accent

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    41. Re:Um.... by djarb · · Score: 3, Informative
      The article also reveals that there are only a few fusion reactions occurring per minute. The glow probably results from the energy being put into the system to encourage the fusions, rather than from the energy output of the fusion reactions.

      The article misrepresented the situation; that is not a small sun. Suns emit more energy than they absorb, until they run out of exothermically fusable elements.

      --
      -- Out of cheese error! Redo from start.
    42. Re:Um.... by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      IANAP either, though I did a year of it at university before dropping it for maths...

      Of the things you describe, the second is fusion, and I'm not sure what the first is. (Essentially, in the first you are describing a neutron being formed out of the energy and the hydrogen atom being ionised.)

      Fission involving H and He nuclei would look something like

      He + energy --> D + D

      where D is heavy hydrogen. In such a reaction energy is absorbed in order for the helium nuclie to split. (This is to do with needing to overcome the binding energy.)

      Commonly, fission refers to the nuclear reactions that occur with heavy elements (only ones heavier than iron can liberate energy by fission.) Essentially some large and unstable nuclei like uranium or plutonium absorbs a neutron that happens to be flying past, plus its kinetic energy, and the resulting mix cannot hold itself together, to it breaks into two (or more?) smaller neuclei. Energy is released in this process because the binding energy of the smaller nuclei is greater than that of the original heavy element (more binding energy == more missing mass ==> energy left over).

      Binding energy, in a nutshell, is the energy of the missing mass in composite nuclei. Basically, an atom such as Carbon-12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons in its nucleus, but the mass of the nucleus is slightly less than that of 6 protons and 6 neutrons. The missing energy (given by the famous e=mc^2) is given out when the nucleus is formed, and must be put back in order to break it apart again.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    43. Re:Um.... by hal9000 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    44. Re:Um.... by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It said that was the plans he found from Farnsworth that got him started on building his reactor. It told of the further advances he made with it that achieved a fusion reaction. Don't YOU read the articles???

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    45. Re:Um.... by kbonin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you take a look over at fusor.net, there are actually a bunch of us working towards just that. The main problem with the Farnsworth's team later designs is that they require very complex ion guns - the type that uses a gas pressure significantly higher in the guns than in the main chamber they fire into, requiring two sets of vacuum gear and more plumbing. We're still working on homemade ion guns.

      Actually, some list members have recently figured out how (in theory) to use something called a wakefield accelerator to get many orders of magnitude more powerful ion guns than anything Farnsworth could ever build, and these toys are buildable by the amateur machinist.

      Many list members (including myself, although I still a month or so away from "first plasma" in my first fusor) are building this hardware right now.

    46. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO Mod up, please!

    47. Re:Um.... by TecDragon · · Score: 1

      Well, i'm not really sure how he gets a neutron from just H-2. But it might be that there are trace amounts of of Tritium (H-3) present, and fused with H-2 to create the neutron. that is:
      H-2 + H-3 = He-4 + n
      However, i'm not sure whether or not Tritium occurs naturally
      H-2 + H-2 = He-4
      It could end up being that he is imparting the necessary 1.5 or so MeV needed to split the deuteron nucleus into normal H and a neutron...i dunno...i'm only a sophmore nuke E, but we just went over this in class...

    48. Re:Um.... by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 1

      More exactly : TOroidnaya KAmera MAgnitnoi Katushki [toroidal] [chamber] [of magnetic coil]

    49. Re:Um.... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      If by dying early you mean that 65 years old is "early,"

      Heh...I consider dying "early" to be before you got everything you wanted to get done in your life done. Needless to say, lots of people die "early".

    50. Re:Um.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1
      If you think this guy is brilliant, take a look at this guy's page. He built a CYCLOTRON(!!!) when he was in his senior year of HS! (he's now doing grad school work at Fermilab, what a shocker)

      Only a senior? I built 3 different types of particle accelerators: linear, betatron and a cyclotron in high school...but I was also the student that was delving into quantum mechanics, anti-matter, UFT, etc....my psychics teacher retired after all the questions I had for him...I joke about it now but it could very well be true. A friend and I have finally stumbled on the answer to a question that has puzzled scientists forever...how electrons can be particles and waves interchangeably. We're submitting our paper to the community in the next few months once we have all the angles covered.

      Business intelligence is just a nice way of saying "You're Out of Business".

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    51. Re:Um.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1
      I need to add that this is only ever been a hobby for me...I don't have the attention span to do it professionally..but I have the skill to do it well.

      Business intelligence is just a nice way of saying "You're Out of Business".

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    52. Re:Um.... by Cyclotron_Boy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The cyclotron was a lot of fun to build. My project went over a little better at the ISEF than that guy's Hirsch/Farnsworth Fusor. I also built a linear accelerator for the ISEF. In college I built a breeder reactor as a part of the U of C Scavenger Hunt. My reactor was somewhat like David Hahn's, but we quantified the amount of Uranium and Plutonium we made. I was also involved with D. Hahn's documentary. They used me as a science advisor- check out the credits. But the reason I'm writing this is that I am no longer doing research at Fermi National Accelerator Lab. Now I'm doing research and development in the private sector.

      -Fred

    53. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but he did come to school in a De Lorean...

    54. Re:Um.... by danila · · Score: 1

      To be even more exact: TOroidalnaya KAmera s MAgnitnimi Katushkami [toroidal] [chamber] [with magentic coils]. And actually my first variant "TOroidal KAmera with MAgnetic field" might be correct. One version is that originaly it was called TOKAMAG, but G was changed into K to avoid associations with magic.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    55. Re:Um.... by Delron+Da+Thugg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mrniell/KingnI.jpg Woah. Who's the terrorist in the picture?

    56. Re:Um.... by azav · · Score: 1

      Can I state that you rock?

      Your experience indicates that you seem able to answer my other question.

      This is freakin FUSION?! Why am I thinking this is one of the holy grails of physics?

      Is it?

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    57. Re:Um.... by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      Um... Fusion doesn't produce neutrons. Fission does.
      Once again, Anonymous Coward demonstrates his ignorance.
    58. Re:Um.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1
      Can I state that you rock?

      Your experience indicates that you seem able to answer my other question.

      This is freakin FUSION?! Why am I thinking this is one of the holy grails of physics?

      Is it?

      Nah, it's COLD fusion that's a holy grail.. Fission is a good runner-up if it can be done efficiently/safely(usually it results in a mushroom cloud). Fusion is how almost all reactors work...the think with this kid is that he's so young and did it all by himself(I assume).

      Business intelligence is just a nice way of saying "You're out of business!!"

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    59. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The full Harper's Magazine story on the "radioactive boy scout" is a great read, full of those technical details that mainstream publications usually leave out:

      http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/n1782_v29 7/ 21281407/p1/article.jhtml

      cheers,

      Steve Gaarder

    60. Re:Um.... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Informative

      The shed didn't "glow" to the naked eye. That was a misreading of the article, and now an urban legend. It "glowed" on radiation detectors. The government noticed when their methods normally used to search for rouge nuclear programs came up with a major source of radiation that was not registered. (Normally anything that might show up on such a scan has to be registered, so that the spy equipment doesn't issue panic alarms every time someone gets an X-ray done or a university runs a small physics experiment.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    61. Re:Um.... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Fusion is how almost all reactors work...the think with this kid is that he's so young and did it all by himself(I assume).

      Um, I thought all electricial nuclear reactors worked by FISSION, the breaking down of radioactive elements, not FUSION, where they are literally fused together, at usually extremely high temperatures and pressures.

      Even Mr. Burn's Yacht was named "Gone Fission".

      I mean, I am not physicist, but something is fishy about your explanation.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    62. Re:Um.... by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      And didn't he get a nasty case of Cancer for his efforts?

    63. Re:Um.... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      If that's your definition, then I'd say everyone dies "early".

    64. Re:Um.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1
      You're right that I misused the terms...it's an old habit that I learned from school(and media) I've been trying to unlearn for years. However a fusion reactor really isn't all that new of a thing by any means and isn't really close to cold fusion as a benchmark.. Now, if you're asking me if it's SCARY; hell yeah it's scary but it's not unexpected for someone to be able to do it at such a young age. Make the right friends and you can get access to the materials. I never pursued the idea beyond high school because I had a keener interest in quantum mechanics where there was real mystery but, well frankly, there was more money and chance of advancement in computer programming. I was young and needed the $$$..:) However, I do still ponder a few quantum mysteries..hence how my friend and I arrived at our conclusions about particle/wave theory.

      Security Awareness Training: to halt covert business intelligence.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    65. Re:Um.... by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      Playing the devil's advocate, H-2 could -> H + Neutron, if you whacked it with a bit of energy. It's actually not that stupid an assertion: To get fusion, you want

      E_0 + 2H-2 -> E_1 + He, where (E_1 > E_0).

      Since his plasma is at low pressure and temperature and E_0 is only rarely high enough to overcome repulsion (I'm guessing this is the obstacle), so this reaction is rare. Why couldn't the same collision be

      E_0 + 2H-2 -> E_2 + H-1 + H-2 + N, where (E_2 E_0)

      ? Here we're taking kinetic energy and breaking the proton-neutron bond.

      To figure out how likely either of these reactions are, you need to look at the energy needed to acheive fusion vs cleaving off the neutron.

    66. Re:Um.... by aled · · Score: 1

      That nothing. I built a doomsay machine and I'm going to turn it on right n@#$^&**....

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    67. Re:Um.... by giantsfan89 · · Score: 1

      An ad (or maybe just a link) on his front page sends you to " Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics.

      --
      Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!
    68. Re:Um.... by fiber_halo · · Score: 1
      You're right.

      This article is much more thorough and does say there was an "eerie glow" from the shed.

    69. Re:Um.... by Halloween+Jack · · Score: 1
      From the article:


      As she huddled with a group of nervous neighbors, though, Pease heard one resident claim to have awoken late one night to see the potting shed emitting an eerie glow.


      The neighbor in question, Dale Gribble, later moved back to Arlen, Texas, and opened a pest-control business.

      --
      I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
    70. Re:Um.... by PDAllen · · Score: 1

      It is fusion - that's where the neutrons are coming from. But at 4 neutrons produced a second, the fusion rate's not exactly spectacular. To get a significant number of fusion reactions per second you need a minimum temperature (ionised gas is just about within this) and a high pressure; increase either temperature or pressure and fusion rate increases. If you look at a Boltzmann distribution, what you have in this case is only those nuclei with energies in the top %small of the graph can fuse (large energy barrier to overcome due to electric repulsion between nuclei) and the probability of two nuclei with sufficiently large total energy colliding is small. If you increase temperature, the Boltzmann plot shifts and more nuclei have the required energy; if you increase pressure, the probability of collision increases.

    71. Re:Um.... by PDAllen · · Score: 1

      Your H's here are deuterium - if you want to use symbols, use D (and T for tritium). The first reaction is theoretically possible but unlikely; you tend to end up with either helium-3 plus neutron or tritium and normal hydrogen. The second is wrong: the electron shouldn't be there, as the gas is ionised and hence the electrons aren't associated with the nuclei. It's also very unlikely, as the energy input required to separate a small nucleus is large. Third reaction: correct and frequent. This is the cause of (most of) the neutrons produced. The rest come from T+D -> 4-He + n. However this only occurs because of tritium produced previously from D+D -> T + H, and hence it's unlikely to occur much (the energy barrier is lower, though, IIRC).

  2. Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Philo T. Farnsworth? Is he any relation to Hubert Farnsworth, inventor of the smelloscope?

    1. Re:Farnsworth? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      And the Fing-longerer.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    2. Re:Farnsworth? by UWC · · Score: 5, Informative

      In a way. In one of the episode commentary tracks on the Futurama Season 1 DVD set, it's revealed that Philo was the good professor's namesake.

    3. Re:Farnsworth? by Bobulusman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, he didn't invent that. He just wondered what would happen if he HAD invented it.

      Still, a man can dream. A man can dream....

      --
      Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    4. Re:Farnsworth? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      No, that was the fing-longer-er.

      He decided to invent the smelloscope, but then realized that he had already invented it (and submitted it to the Nobel prize club) the year before.

    5. Re:Farnsworth? by CracktownHts · · Score: 1
      Philo T. Farnsworth? Is he any relation to Hubert Farnsworth, inventor of the smelloscope?

      I know this is supposed to be a joke, but actually he's said by some to be the inventor of TV. Apparently the fusion thing came later on.

    6. Re:Farnsworth? by kgbspy · · Score: 4, Funny


      If he pulled the fing-longer-er out, he'd probably begin to wish he hadn't invented the smelloscope...

      --
      ~
      ~
      ~
      -- INSERT --
    7. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but there was another episode that showed him actually using it. It was the one where the crew was towing the tanker ship full of dark matter, and Bender wrecked it and spilled dark matter all over the penguin preserve on Pluto. When the professor was pointing out the route the tanker would take, he used the fing-longer.

    8. Re:Farnsworth? by demaria · · Score: 1

      Perhaps someone else invented the finglonger, and he was just disappointed that he couldn't get the patent rights.

    9. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Man, talk about beating a joke to death. Give it up already! FFS!

    10. Re:Farnsworth? by kgbspy · · Score: 1


      Dude, as long as it's got legs, it'll keep on running...

      --
      ~
      ~
      ~
      -- INSERT --
    11. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You must be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would've never guessed it.

    12. Re:Farnsworth? by gregmac · · Score: 1
      I know this is supposed to be a joke,

      well, it is a joke...

      --
      Speak before you think
    13. Re:Farnsworth? by SB5 · · Score: 1

      And now we have come full circle back to Slashdot and the issue of patents... I love this country...

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    14. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he was talking about the fing-longer-er. Click the "parent" link. :P

    15. Re:Farnsworth? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Philo T. Farnsworth? Is he any relation to Hubert Farnsworth, inventor of the smelloscope?

      No, you're thinking of Fartsworth.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    16. Re:Farnsworth? by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Informative

      BOllox - John Logie Baird invented television, though it relied on a mechanical contraption for projecting a picture. Philo Farnsworth invented the cathode ray tube, which managed to put a picture on a screen without the moving parts; but not until there was actually anything to display using one.

      Then someone had the idea of, instead of charging people for the privilege of watching TV and using the money raised to pay for high-quality programmes that would at once inform, educate and entertain, letting people watch telly for free but showing advertisements during the breaks between programmes, and using the advertising money to pay for programmes that ultimately would do little more than fill in the breaks between adverts. IMHO that was the disinvention of television.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    17. Re:Farnsworth? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      So HE's the guy responsable for all the penis enlargment emails lol

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    18. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, congratulations. You're a whining brit who thinks he's really interesting and smart. We always love to hear your opinions about the history of inventions.

    19. Re:Farnsworth? by csteinle · · Score: 0

      Moderation: -1 (Stating the bleeding obvious)

    20. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, touched a nerve there!

    21. Re:Farnsworth? by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Funny

      But the true ass-numbing potential of TV was realized with the development of the remote control. Anybody know who came up with that?

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    22. Re:Farnsworth? by basingwerk · · Score: 1

      Who is this Philo guy? I'm serious, is this Hollywood re-writing history again?

      --
      I stole this .sig
    23. Re:Farnsworth? by dunc78 · · Score: 1

      No, he is related to Bootsy Lee Farnsworth. Host of the "50 Dollar Sack Pyramid".

    24. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww.... bless....

    25. Re:Farnsworth? by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      Well, congratulations. You're a whining brit who thinks he's really interesting and smart. We always love to hear your opinions about the history of inventions.

      Here you go.

    26. Re:Farnsworth? by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Philo Farnsworth, along with (well, in competition to) Vladimir Zyorkin, invented television as we know it. Farnsworth himself invented the image dissector tube (video camera), and the CRT, as well as many of the high-power, high-frequency amplifier tubes required for television.

      Farnsworth was also the first to build a working electronic television, although Zyorkin had a larger corporate backing. (The legal fight between the two is quite interesting reading).

    27. Re:Farnsworth? by Exatron · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some sort of death clock.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    28. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then someone had the idea of, instead of charging people for the privilege of watching TV and using the money raised to pay for high-quality programmes that would at once inform, educate and entertain, letting people watch telly for free but showing advertisements during the breaks between programmes, and using the advertising money to pay for programmes that ultimately would do little more than fill in the breaks between adverts. IMHO that was the disinvention of television.

      In the US, there was already a broadcast advertising model well in place by the time TV rolled around. Not that I'd disagree about its effects on the quality of the programs...

    29. Re:Farnsworth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the first father that said "hey kid, turn those cartoons off and put the news on" without leaving the couch.

    30. Re:Farnsworth? by asscroft · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it was RCA, who first sold a remote control. It was a sound-wave or radio signal or something like that. It wasn't an infrared LED.

      Wait, no before that there was a remote with the wires still attached. you'd run the wires across the floor of your living room. ...Scratch all that. It was Zenith....Here read someone elses more accurate history

      http://www.modellbahnott.com/tqpage/ihistory.htm l

      Or

      http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blr em otecontrols.htm

      --
      because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    31. Re:Farnsworth? by asscroft · · Score: 1

      The guy credited by most with the invention of the TV remote control is Robert Adler. Now I've got one, who coined the phrase, "don't touch that dial"?

      --
      because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
    32. Re:Farnsworth? by Savatte · · Score: 1

      I think it was a guy named William R. Control.

    33. Re:Farnsworth? by Arctic+Fox · · Score: 1

      Nah.. that's "Bootan-ee Lee Farnsworth".... Bitches!

    34. Re:Farnsworth? by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      The first remote control that I am aware of was simply a flashlight in a trigger gun casing.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    35. Re:Farnsworth? by basingwerk · · Score: 1

      TeleVision means transmitting pictures via radio waves, so the Scottish invented it. The US lays claim to this because it made a refinement to the original invention, and when this is questioned, we get the flakey 'as we know it' response! But now we are going to flat screens, without a cathode ray tube, it'll be a Scottish invention again! Ha!

      --
      I stole this .sig
  3. Mr. Wallace please report... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    to your nearest FBI office where we need to ask you a few questions. You might need to come stay with us in a special facility affectionally known "Camp X-Ray".

  4. This guy will be rich by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 0, Troll

    deuteron ions

    Oh, cold fusion.

    Nothing to see here.

    1. Re:This guy will be rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the fucking ar.. oh wait, nevermind.

    2. Re:This guy will be rich by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      actually, he's doing hot fusion - but by his neutron output it's clear that not even a a couple dozen deuterium atoms per minute are fusing. So the energy distribution is such that ALMOST NO ATOMS in his device have the needed energy to fuse.

    3. Re:This guy will be rich by Frymaster · · Score: 5, Informative
      Oh, cold fusion. Nothing to see here

      maybe because you refuse to look? yes, cold fusion got a bad rap and may very well be a crock of... non-fusing stuff. but there are smart people who disagree:

      • "There's very strong evidence that low-energy nuclear reactions do occur. Numerous experiments have shown definitive results" -George Miley, who received the Edward Teller medal for innovative research in hot fusion and has edited Fusion Technology magazine for the American Nuclear Society

      • "Nuclear reactions can occur without high temperatures. Low-energy nuclear transformations can - and do - exist." - John Bockris, formerly a distinguished professor in physical chemistry at Texas A&M University and a cofounder of the International Society for Electrochemistry

      • "I am absolutely certain there is unexplained heat, and the most likely explanation is that its origin is nuclear." - Michael McKubre, director of the Energy Research Center at SRI International

      quotes cribbed (using Copy-n-Paste[TM]) from the wired magazine article on cold fusion

      give it a read.

    4. Re:This guy will be rich by qedigital · · Score: 1

      And the reason for all the above? Statistical Mechanics!

      When dealing with a characteristic of a substance, you're looking at a whole distribution (e.g. Maxwellian distribution of velocities in an ideal gas). So ya, there's a chance that pretty much anything can happen when dealing with huge numbers of particles.

      That's why water sitting on your desk evaporates. It's not because it's reached it's boiling point, it's because the distribution of velocities of the water molecules includes some high energy ones capable of escaping.

      --

      Rapidly approaching the Zener knee...

    5. Re:This guy will be rich by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      (obligatory skeptic's response to pseudoscience on slashdot) Cold fusion is not real. I'm sorry, but the universe dosen't care how much you want it to be real.(end obligatory skeptic's response to pseudoscience on slashdot)

      In the same way that the existance of a few scientists who don't believe evolution is real dosen't make evolution false; the existance of a few scientists who think cold fusion might not be a farce dosen't make it real. Wired magazine is a great source of interesting articles on all things geeky but a respectable source of science journalism IT IS NOT!

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    6. Re:This guy will be rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Indeed. Moreover, quantum science is a crock.

      "Der Herrgott wurfelt nicht."- Albert Einstein

      What more distinguished person could you quote? Newton?

      "I know whereof I write... For it makes gold begin to swell, to be swollen, and to putrefy, and to spring forth into sprouts and branches, changing colors daily, the appearances of which fascinate me every day. I reckon this is a great secret in Alchemy." -Isaac Newton

      He meant capital-A Alchemy, too, not just early chemistry. So distinguished people can be wrong, and especially a single statement taken from one moment in a distinguished person's life can be wrong. If these fellows were on the wrong track, we should look again at cold fusion because of a few unclear quotes out of context just because people with positions said them?

      I'm sorry, I'll wait until cold fusion babbling doesn't sound so much like the rest of the pseudo-scientific gestalt.

    7. Re:This guy will be rich by blincoln · · Score: 1

      What about the Navy? They believe it's real.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    8. Re:This guy will be rich by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Nope, I just checked with the universe (it took a minute to consult its Big Book Of Phisical Laws) and it said "No, I still don't care. Foolish people are everywhere even in the U.S. Government"(I know!! I couldn't believe it either!)

      N.B.: just one example of idiocy in high places; the CIA has wasted much taxpayer money on psychic remote viewing.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    9. Re:This guy will be rich by hughk · · Score: 1
      Not quite correct, muon catalyzed fusion reactions are known to be real. Take lots of muons and some D2 then you don't need to worry about heat and pressure.

      I agree that the Pons-Fleischmann cell is probably electrochemical energy rather than fusion, but don't let it make you discount the phenomenon altogether.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    10. Re:This guy will be rich by blincoln · · Score: 1

      How can you explain the Navy's researchers generating heat and helium-4 other than fusion?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    11. Re:This guy will be rich by pointbeing · · Score: 1
      "I am absolutely certain there is unexplained heat, and the most likely explanation is that its origin is nuclear."

      I think you've munged up a quote, Frymaster.

      I'm pretty sure the above is a Bushism.

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    12. Re:This guy will be rich by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      How can you explain the Navy's researchers generating heat and helium-4 other than fusion?

      The Rear Admirals were talking again.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    13. Re:This guy will be rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, cold fusion.
      Nothing to see here.

      DAMN YOU ALLAIRE!

    14. Re:This guy will be rich by MCZapf · · Score: 1

      Similarly, the universe doesn't care how much you want cold fusion to be fake. Obviously, we aren't sure yet if it can be done. For anyone to definitively claim one way or the other is pointless.

    15. Re:This guy will be rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same way that the existance of a few scientists who don't believe evolution is real dosen't make evolution false

      And conversely the scientists who believe in evolution don't make it true.

    16. Re:This guy will be rich by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      ?? um hello? muon catalyzed fusion still only occurs at millions of kelvin inside magnetic bottles. I think that's still pretty hot imho!

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    17. Re:This guy will be rich by hughk · · Score: 1

      If you have the Muons, it can happen at *much* lower temperatures (even 3K) as the muons shield the nuclei and minimize the usual repulsion so high pressure isn't required. Of course, the main problem is to get muons that survive long enough to be useful - so breakeven isn't exactly a possibility.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  5. fantastic by geronimo_jerry · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mr. Fusion! I wonder if he had any help from Doc and Marty?

    --
    Jerry Fletcher,
    Privacy Protection By:
    http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
    1. Re:fantastic by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      Didn't any of you moderators watch Back to the Future 2? jeez. No sense of humor at all on these guys.

      Mod parent up +1-5 funny.

    2. Re:fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -4 funny is a bit more than he deserves IMO. Didn't any of you moderators read the FAQ? jeez.

    3. Re:fantastic by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Didn't any of you moderators watch Back to the Future 2? jeez. No sense of humor at all on these guys.

      Hmm, you must've missed the first one, where Mr. Fusion made its first appearance.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  6. terrorist by derrith · · Score: 2, Funny

    obviously this kid has created the reactor in order to forward his terrorist agenda of underming U.S. society by blowing up SCO

    .

    --
    why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
    1. Re:terrorist by derrith · · Score: 1

      that ought to be underMINING

      --
      why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
    2. Re:terrorist by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, if you look carefully, you'll find that SCO invented the neutron. Honest. Check out the tiny copyright symbol on every neutron: "All your neutron are belong to us - SCO"

    3. Re:terrorist by joepeg · · Score: 1

      Surely you jest,

      but according to this (or this) :

      defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

      he _is_ a terrorist

      --

      ZEN is a prime number in base-36

    4. Re:terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Undermining? If he got rid of SCO, they'd give him a medal.

    5. Re:terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is that even close to being fucking funny? that's the lamest comment I've read this week. Here, while's your at it, throw in something about the RIAA to boot.

    6. Re:terrorist by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Well, he was using spare CDs to make the neutron modulator, whose to say there isn't an illegal copy of a Metallica CD in the reactor? The RIAA should definately subpoena it. It does get hot in there, he could litterally be burning CDs!

      Happy now?

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    7. Re:terrorist by ashridah · · Score: 1

      "obviously this kid has created the reactor in order to forward his terrorist agenda of underming U.S. society by blowing up SCO"

      Uh... I'm not sure you've thought that through.

      What exactly are you going to do with the byproduct of hydrogen fusion? you do know that that'll be helium, right?
      And that proceeding to continue fusion on the resulting helium will take more power, higher temperatures, and greater pressure?
      And if you keep right on going, you eventually start LOSING energy to the reaction, because the efficiency drops off past (from memory) carbon12 or so? (hrm. must double-check my chemistry, only been 5 or so years :) )

      He could float a giant air baloon around SCO's offices with a picture of Darl pulling his pants down, I suppose, which would be a perfectly good use of helium, but it's not going to go BANG. :)
      (see simpsons episode, regarding the comet)

      ashridah

    8. Re:terrorist by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      Let us apply a simple, logical test.

      Does McDonald's hot coffee have the capability to cause serious injury? -- YES.

      Does McDonald's coffee contain toxic chemicals? -- Well, one cup can destroy the ozone layer.

      I rest my case.

      By simple, geometrically-precise logic I conclude we must put Ronald McDonald in Guantanamo Bay NOW.

    9. Re:terrorist by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nevertheless, SCO cannot demand any money from the customers that use neutrons -- after all, they are free of charge.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    10. Re:terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does McDonald's coffee contain toxic chemicals?

      Easier than that; caffiene is a fatal poisen. Time to free the people of McDonalds from the evil dictatorship of Ronald!

    11. Re:terrorist by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      Boooooooooooo!

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    12. Re:terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. Are you positive?

    13. Re:terrorist by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1

      While we're on the subject of bad molecular puns:

      An atom walks into a bar and sits down. That atom looks very depressed.

      The bartender says, "hey, are you ok?"

      The atom says "I'm feeling down, I lost an electron today".

      The bartender says "are you sure?"

      The atom says "yeah, I'm positive".

      Thank you! Try the veal! I'm here all week! Don't forget to tip your waitresses!

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    14. Re:terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A neutron walks into a bar and orders a beer.

      "How much?" asks the neutron.

      The bartended replies, "for you, no charge."

      Ba dum boom.

    15. Re:terrorist by chl · · Score: 1
      Nevertheless, SCO cannot demand any money from the customers that use neutrons -- after all, they are free of charge.

      Actually, they have lots of charge -- only it all cancels out.

      chl

    16. Re:terrorist by ddimas · · Score: 1
      Nevertheless, SCO cannot demand any money from the customers that use neutrons -- after all, they are free of charge.

      That statement is a terrorist act. I say the PUNishment ought to fit the crime.

    17. Re:terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A neutron walks into a bar and asks for a beer.
      The bartender gives it to him and the neutron asks "how much?" Thr bartender says "for you, no charge."

  7. Mr. Fusion by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Funny

    With a fusion reactor, I could finally generate that 1.21 Gigawatts of power needed to travel back in time. I've always had this idea of betting on horse races in the past and.......

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Mr. Fusion by the+idoru · · Score: 1

      i think you meant to day Jigawatts.

    2. Re:Mr. Fusion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem now is that you will need an undamaged flux capacitor. It is well known that the only remaining example was damaged in the making of the movie "Back to the future part IV: hash, hash, and rehash" and there has never been another as the inventor was turned inside out in a freak accident involving the time-space continuum.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Mr. Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a clue - gigawatts was originally pronounced "jigawatts".

    4. Re:Mr. Fusion by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Better yet go back in time just before SCO started their FUD campagn and buy tons of stock. Then dump it just before the the handcuffs are put on darl and his buddies.

    5. Re:Mr. Fusion by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Isn't that "the aidoru"?

      --
      My other car is first.
    6. Re:Mr. Fusion by FluxCapacitator · · Score: 1

      I'm here!

    7. Re:Mr. Fusion by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I said undamaged ;)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Mr. Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least now we've found the face behind the goatse.cx guy!

  8. way too much time by rynthetyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    That kid obviously has waaaay too much time on his hands. I can't imagine doing that my freshman year.

    --
    Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
    1. Re:way too much time by peculiarmethod · · Score: 3, Funny

      there's more pot available in the midwest than there used to be.. given enough creative madness and todays mind altering coctail availability at universities, one would probably invent all manner of things, like time machines, super beer bongs, beer cooler mugs with wifi.. and so on, and so on..

      pm

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:way too much time by mbottrell · · Score: 2, Funny
      Wow - times have changed... When I went to uni it was all about:
      1. How much pot one could smoke...
      2. Many many times you were laid in a semester.
      Obviously he not undertaking the same major...
    3. Re:way too much time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      laid? this is slashdot dude. how about fragged?

    4. Re:way too much time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like someone on a sports scholarship.

    5. Re:way too much time by syrinx · · Score: 0, Funny

      here's more pot available in the midwest than there used to be.. given enough creative madness and todays mind altering coctail availability at universities, one would probably invent all manner of things, like time machines, super beer bongs, beer cooler mugs with wifi.. and so on, and so on..

      uh, you must smoke different pot than the pot my friends do.

      no one smoking pot is going to invent anything. they're going to sit around eating chips and playing video games.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    6. Re:way too much time by hashwolf · · Score: 0

      That kid obviously has waaaay too much money on his hands. I can't imagine doing that my freshman year.

      --
      - "They misunderestimated me."
    7. Re:way too much time by goatan · · Score: 0
      no one smoking pot is going to invent anything. they're going to sit around eating chips and playing video games

      Nah you do invent things and talk about all the cool ideas you had but will they ever get built.... no beacause your sitting around eating crisps playing computer games and inventing more things in your head

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    8. Re:way too much time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent much of my freshman year investigating two body fusion...

    9. Re:way too much time by ikkonoishi · · Score: 0

      Fusion bong? O_o

    10. Re:way too much time by McAddress · · Score: 1

      I was not able to do it until my Sophmore year. But thats what happens when you spend freshman year trying to figure out all of the features in emacs.

  9. Utah Fusion by tinrobot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Boy, it seems as though Utah has invented yet another way to do fusion... didn't a pair of scientists from Utah already invent fusion once before? What were their names? Pons and Fleischman?

    Oh yeah, I forgot... that line of investigation went cold.

    1. Re:Utah Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 from me, if I had any mod points

  10. Cool... by RIAAwakka_nakka_bakk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a great sign that not all kids and young adults have weak or corrupt minds. The ability of an American college freshman (or anyone else his age) to do this with the parts he used is simply amazing.

    On the other hand, wouldn't the FBI be looking hard at him now that has built something like this?

    1. Re:Cool... by Darth_brooks · · Score: 0, Redundant

      On the other hand, wouldn't the FBI be looking hard at him now that has built something like this?

      Why?

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    2. Re:Cool... by foxhound01 · · Score: 0

      This is a great sign that not all kids and young adults have weak or corrupt minds.

      Just wait until he reads his name on slashdot.

      --


      Linux is to the internet as Duct Tape is to the Universe.
    3. Re:Cool... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because like most Slashdot readers and unlike Homer Simpson, the FBI doesn't know the difference between fission and fusion. They just see the word "Nuclear" in front of it and add you to their teorrist watchlist.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Cool... by sys$manager · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or they could be worried that he may build a fusion bomb.

    5. Re:Cool... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i gotta be honest with ya - this kid is going to get a visit from uncle sam, but most likely it will be one of those: "Hello Kind Sir, We will pay you, and provide you anything you want, please come help us blow people up." Kindof a conversation... Come join the family, Poppy takes good care of his family.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    6. Re:Cool... by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes and he will go to work at Fermilab or one of the other national labs and get to play with more big toys then he could ever dream of. It won't be until he is much older that he will even really think about the consequences of his lifes work. The outcome of that self reflection seems to be evenly split between those who think they have done good for humanity and those who disagree.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Cool... by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

      see my sig.

      --


      The power of Christ compiles you.
      A Random Blog
    8. Re:Cool... by dreadnougat · · Score: 1

      We could destroy all meaningful life on earth with the weapons we have now. Therefore this is very unlikely to be bad, and at the same time very likely to be good.

      The weapons that the military wants are smaller but more precise ones. Not huge nuclear ones that they hope they never have to use.

      The consequences of his actions? Possibly providing cheaper, safer energy for billions of people around the world. Doesn't sound so terrible to me.

    9. Re:Cool... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, one guy out of 6 billion. My faith in humanity is totally restored!

    10. Re:Cool... by dumbunny · · Score: 1

      Nu-cu-ler." It's pronounced, "nu-cu-ler."

    11. Re:Cool... by GiantHaystacks · · Score: 1

      > unlike Homer Simpson, the FBI doesn't know the difference between fission and fusion.

      "It's pronounced nu-cu-lar!", Homer Simpson

      --
      No Sig for you!
    12. Re:Cool... by GiantHaystacks · · Score: 1

      D'oh!

      --
      No Sig for you!
    13. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry -- was someone suggesting that all kids and young adults have weak or corrupt minds? No offense, but where the hell did that come from? Who would be dumb enough to suggest such a hypothesis in the first place?

      And the FBI? Well, maybe -- if they're looking to hire a brilliant college grad a few years down the road, they might offer to shoulder his tuition in exchange for a promise. As a terrorist? I highly doubt it. The FBI might be evil, but I doubt they're as stupid as you imply -- an intelligent and enterprising college freshman does not trigger the same alarms as a third-world immigrant buying large quantities of fertilizer and diesel fuel while simultaneously applying for a trucking license. Being a WASP college student in an engineering program just does not spell terrorism.

    14. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nucular" honey, it's pronounced "Nucular"

    15. Re:Cool... by SmurfLord · · Score: 1

      My brother-in-law installs furnaces and air conditioning systems. At one point he had to take his work truck across the border into Canada, and they asked him what he had in the back. He said "Furnace parts". They said "like what". He said "ducts, blowers, thermocouples, ...". Ding ding ding! "Take your truck over there sir!".

      In the end he had to do a full, detailed inventory, and then could go. Turned a 90 minute job into a seven hour ordeal.

      People with way too much power, not enough knowledge, and a hair trigger for anything that sounds wrong: a bad combination.

    16. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's a sign that there are many, many week minds out there, and that some of them are at the university. if anything, this is less legitimate than the "cold fusion" scam. there's nothing special about a plasma, it's hot gas, the fact that it glows hardly implies fusion, nor do claims of neutron production, which is very, very hard to measure acurately and was a large part of that last bogus claim from this learned region....

    17. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people seem to think "nuclear" is pronounced "nucular". We have a pogramme to cure these people. Just step in the big white ambliance outside and we will whisk you away to one of our hostipals, and cure you.

    18. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How passe'

      Everyone knows that fission is soooooo 20th Century.

    19. Re:Cool... by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

      >They just see the word "Nuclear"

      That's a common error. Even our President knows that it's pronounced "NEW-ku-lar" :-)

    20. Re:Cool... by Schrodinger's+Mouse · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, wouldn't the FBI be looking hard at him now that has built something like this?"

      Nope. He's white, probably Mormon, and from Utah; he has nothing to fear from the FBI. They're only interested in you if you're brown, Muslim, or from someplace less thoroughly Republican.

      (Me? Bitterly sarcastic? Whatever do you mean?)

      --

      *****

      There are many people in this country who, through no fault of their own, are sane.

    21. Re:Cool... by Cowboy · · Score: 1

      that's pronounced nuke-yu-lar, of course.

    22. Re:Cool... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Oh, no. They'll put him on double secret probation for the rest of his life, but because he's not brown, Muslim or from a country with "istan" in its name, they won't throw him in a cage in Gitmo with no access to lawyers.

      Of course, all that can change if/when we find someone whose not a wild-eyed, foaming-mouth Muslim radical behind an attack or attempted attack. After all, it was only a couple years ago that the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the U.S. was supposedly those radical environmental groups. As soon as the profile changes, so will the heavy-handedness.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    23. Re:Cool... by Schrodinger's+Mouse · · Score: 1

      "Of course, all that can change if/when we find someone whose not a wild-eyed, foaming-mouth Muslim radical behind an attack or attempted attack."

      What about Oklahoma City? Or is that too long ago?

      --

      *****

      There are many people in this country who, through no fault of their own, are sane.

    24. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah like the satirist Frank J. said here.

      "I will remind you," Condoleezza Rice told Bush, "that we could spare some nuclear weapons. We have enough nukes to blow the world up eight times, but our computer simulations show that even in the worst case scenario we'd never need to blow up the world more than six times."

      So even if he did make some superweapons the only chance we would get to use them would be if some aliens attacked.

    25. Re:Cool... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I considered that. Actually, I'd say it is. No one talks about OKC hat any more. I've also heard numerous rumors that he had Middle Eastern connections, but I suppose that's either a complete non-story or they just don't want us to know that we were a victim or Muslim terrorism before 9/11.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    26. Re:Cool... by floydigus · · Score: 1

      The ability of an American college freshman

      We should not be amazed at peoples' ability simply because they are Americans.

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

    27. Re:Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, wouldn't the FBI be looking hard at him now that has built something like this?

      He's white.

    28. Re:Cool... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      They just see the word "Nuclear" in front of it and add you to their teorrist watchlist.


      Yeah, and don't forget, the President can't even pronounce "Nuclear".

      "We have to stem the treat of Nukular weaponry!"

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    29. Re:Cool... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      That's "Nucular", bubba.

      ;-)

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    30. Re:Cool... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      If it actually works, he's going to get a visit from the oil industry "secret police". Of course, they're under the ultimate command of the 'Oilman in Chief' Dubabya.

      "Sorry son, we have to confiscate your source of unlimited energy. It will disrupt our ability to fleece the public and indirectly generate terror as an excuse of robbing you of your liberties.

      It's completely inconsistent with our energy policy of controlling all your energy."

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    31. Re:Cool... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      Bill Maher has an excellent section in his book about this topic. How the American people deserve security services on par with the secret service.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    32. Re:Cool... by cschmidt · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "Nucular"?

      --

      Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon
  11. Cool you say? by Stigmata669 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out Fusor.net.

    --
    Yawn.
  12. Multi Purpose Machine by ryg0r · · Score: 1

    To me, that read something about TV a fusion re-actor in one. (must be that damn research at the English University) So I can get sweet reception while I'm banging up some burgers in my FusionOvenTV(R) Not only that, but I'm sure that it rips the pants of any plasma screen.

    --
    Karma whoring .sigs don't work
  13. Fusion reactor? by Harp3328 · · Score: 1

    The article makes it sound like a neutron detector. How amazing is this really anyway. I mean the kid has smarts, obviously, but he didn't make anything new, did he?

    1. Re:Fusion reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, no, its a neutron GENERATOR, which I'm sure you'll admit is much more impressive, the detector is just part of it. That neutrons are being released means it actually generates some nuclear reactions.

    2. Re:Fusion reactor? by frycarson · · Score: 1

      Well, if you consider following someone elses plans to make some pretty colors on a tv screen new he did. Just like when you make hamburger helper, it's new and unheard of. yep... new...

  14. Bigger Pics? by descentr · · Score: 1

    Why can't we get any bigger pictures of it? Those are too small to see hardly anything.

    1. Re:Bigger Pics? by nacturation · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why can't we get any bigger pictures of it? Those are too small to see hardly anything.

      descentr, you really should change your password. I think your girlfriend's logged in and is talking about you again.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:Bigger Pics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Wait! I'd love to know what this mysterious "girlfriend" thing is you keep talking about.

  15. Maybe he thought... by Ro'que · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Building it would get him older college chicks?

    1. Re:Maybe he thought... by QEDog · · Score: 4, Funny
      ..Building it would get him older college chicks?

      Fusion is hotter than an older college chick.

      --
      "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
    2. Re:Maybe he thought... by michaeltoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but I thought we were aiming for cold fusion?

    3. Re:Maybe he thought... by GreatOgre · · Score: 1

      I had a class my freshman year with a 56 year-old woman. Would she be considered an "older college chick?"

    4. Re:Maybe he thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck who cares, as long as it works.

    5. Re:Maybe he thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fuck who cares...


      I thought that was the point.
    6. Re:Maybe he thought... by pimpinmonk · · Score: 1

      yeah but dont try and stick your thingy in there.... baaaaaaaaaaaad things!

    7. Re:Maybe he thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, he likes 'em young.

    8. Re:Maybe he thought... by mbennis · · Score: 0

      I'm the older college chick named fusion !!!
      You insensitive clod !!!

    9. Re:Maybe he thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but older college "chicks" can be pretty cold.
      Maybe we can utilize them to create a cold fusion reaction?

    10. Re:Maybe he thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the 50yr old man-hating sociology professor?

    11. Re:Maybe he thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fusion is hotter than an older college chick.
      Fusion is hotter with an older college chick.
  16. Clever hoax? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $5 says this is proven to be a clever hoax soon.

    You think this wouldn't be all over the papers?

    1. Re:Clever hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on what Farnsworth did.

    2. Re:Clever hoax? by Little+Brother · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I accept your bet, and all of slashdot is witness. I say "soon" would mean within six months, but I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and we'll say a year. That sound fair, if this not proven to be a hoax by that time, or if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt NOT to be a hoax before that time I will email you an address to send the check, or you can pay via paypal. Likewise, if this turns out to be a hoax, email me (email address is listed correctly above, but make sure your SMTP server has the same domain name as what follows your @ or is a subdomain thereof) and I'll send you the money in your prefered (reasonable) fasion.

      Are We Agreed?

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    3. Re:Clever hoax? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Yup

      Where "hoax" is defined as the device not being a fusion reactor at all. Not necessarily that they guy in question tried to be deceitful.

    4. Re:Clever hoax? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Actually the first fusion reactor that produced more energy than it consumed was deployed in 1951 or 1952 (i forget) ... its called the Hydrogen bomb, you know, the big blasty thing who's father passed away recently.

      Now what we really want is a fusion reactor that releases more energy than it consumes ... in a controllable fashion.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    5. Re:Clever hoax? by uisqebaugh · · Score: 1

      No hoax. Laboratory scientists have been achieving fusion for years. So has this kid. The holy grail is not fusion, but achieving "breakeven," that is, the production of more power than was put into the device. This kid has never made such a claim.

    6. Re:Clever hoax? by Qeantk · · Score: 1

      "I don't think that word means what you think it means." You do know the defintion of hoax, right? yes, you put it in "'s, but iut sounds like you are trying to weasel out of your original claim.

    7. Re:Clever hoax? by Mwongozi · · Score: 1

      email address is listed correctly above, but make sure your SMTP server has the same domain name as what follows your @ or is a subdomain thereof

      Wow, that's the most anal SMTP server I've ever seen. You must not get much mail.

      Yeah I know, -1, off-topic.

    8. Re:Clever hoax? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you're going to be out $5 :)

      I read up on this design about a year ago. It's nothing new. Farnsworth came up with it about 50 years ago. The only really interesting thing about the story is that a "kid" slapped the parts together. It's useless for generating energy, but it does fuse maybe a couple of atoms per second.

      The design is pretty simple. Vacuum pump, high voltage transformer, let some hydrogen into the chamber, and you pretty much have it.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Clever hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good God, have you bunch of numbskulls never heard of a Fusor before? Seems kids today are too busy sitting around watching American Idol and picking their noses.

    10. Re:Clever hoax? by Little+Brother · · Score: 1
      I think not. Hoax would be an intentional deception on the part of the creator of the device, not the press not having the foggiest idea what they are talking about and the /. story submitter going for shock value.

      Basicly for this to be a hoax the device must turn out not to work in they its creator claimed.

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    11. Re:Clever hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      According to the Intel Science & Engineering Fair 2003 winners page, it's true:


      Physics - Presented by Intel Foundation
      Second Award of $1,500

      PH046 Nuclear Fusion Reactor Apparatus
      Craig J. Wallace, 18, Spanish Fork High School, Spanish Fork, Utah
    12. Re:Clever hoax? by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Indeed - and if it was so special as to achieve the break even point, I'm sure it would have gotten 1st prize.

      It's a fusor. Very cool for someone in highschool, but not the solution to the worlds energy problems.

    13. Re:Clever hoax? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      OK, OK... I admit it. I'm weaseling out. I am a weasel. I am Darl McBride.

    14. Re:Clever hoax? by Little+Brother · · Score: 1
      Stop flattering yourself Darl, Weasels are much superior life form than you. Want something better for a comparison try a criminaly insane protozoan. That's only slightly more evolved than you.

      I think this is obvious, but I'll state it here just in case: I'm talking about Darl, not whoever Infinite Wisdom really is.

      Ok, I'll let you weasel out this time... :)

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

  17. Wow. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I love is how the article is completely free of those "fact" things. All I see is a tv screen with some molecules on it. I wrote a program that put molecules on a tv screen when I was a freshman too.

    I don't know. If its real, that's excellent. But my BS-o-meter is screaming.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Wow. by descentr · · Score: 1

      Supposedly the picture is of a ball of plasma, not molecules, but of course the pics are too damn small that one can hardly tell.

    2. Re:Wow. by Basehart · · Score: 1

      He should swap the nuclear fission video with a SpongeBob video and see if the reporter thinks he's recreated Bikini Bottom!!

    3. Re:Wow. by davebo · · Score: 1

      One could check the records of the science fairs purportedly won, I imagine.

      Besides - from the article one gleans that it was based on a well-known, previously tested design. It's novel in the sense that he built it, not so much that it works.

    4. Re:Wow. by DeathPenguin · · Score: 1

      The experiment proving that the Itanium really doesn't suck.

      >>Wallace began winning contests - local, state, national - culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland.

      Kidding...

    5. Re:Wow. by InfoVore · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't doubt it is real. The fact that his machine only can generate 4 neutrons/minute above background makes it kind of wimpy fusor.

      I had a boss once who built a Farnesworth-style fusor from scrounged parts sometime back in the late 60's or early 70's. He told me he kept it behind his desk for years.

      At the time he ran the Nuclear Effects - Solar Thermal Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range (basically a BIG concentrating mirror for simulating the intense heat of a nuclear blast and its effect on materials). Frequently they would get VIP visitors dropping in from the Pentagon, major universities, etc. He would always take the visitors on a walking tour of the facility. He would flip the machine on ahead of time and turn on a geiger counter he kept next to his desk. At the end of the tour he would take the visitors to his office. Usually the visitors would notice the clicking sound after a few minutes of chit-chat and ask "what's making that sound?" He would then dead-pan "oh that's nothing, that's just the radiation from my fusion reactor" and wave the geiger counter back and forth across the machine, generating lots of above background clicking.

      The fusor was completely safe and the neutron radiation from it was well within safe limits, but frequently the visitors would require a bit of calming down after his little joke.

      I think at least one general thought he had created a fusion power source and wanted to classify the whole deal and immediately fund development. Don't imagine he was too happy when he found out it used alot of energy and produced only a few neutrons.

      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    6. Re:Wow. by bobobobo · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA. In addition to the TV display, he was also using a neutron detector he came upon. He didn't do anything new either, he copied the expeiment done by Farnsworth, and managed to dupliace his neutron generator. Fusion is being accomplished, but nowhere near the levels it needs to be, to be any kind of power source.

    7. Re:Wow. by bremstrong · · Score: 2, Informative

      The four neutrons/minute quoted would be the detected rate. Given that the detector efficiency is probably around .01%, factoring in the solid angle, he's probably generating ~40000 neutrons/minute.

    8. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He would then dead-pan "oh that's nothing, that's just the radiation from my fusion reactor" and wave the geiger counter back and forth across the machine, generating lots of above background clicking

      Err...fusion doesn't make ionizing radiation that would make a GM tube click. It makes neutrons, which are tough to detect. That's the whole reason it gets called "Safe" nuclear power.

    9. Re:Wow. by InfoVore · · Score: 1

      Err...fusion doesn't make ionizing radiation that would make a GM tube click. It makes neutrons, which are tough to detect. That's the whole reason it gets called "Safe" nuclear power.

      Knowing my old boss, I wouldn't have put it past him to have 'seeded' the macine with an old style radium-dial watch or somesuch just to get the effect he wanted for the joke. I do know he built the machine, because he described it to me in detail and I confirmed it with a couple of his former co-workers.

      Thanks for the info though. I will remember that.

      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    10. Re:Wow. by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Err...fusion doesn't make ionizing radiation that would make a GM tube click. It makes neutrons, which are tough to detect. That's the whole reason it gets called "Safe" nuclear power.

      First, just because neutron radiation is hard to detect, doesn't make it safe - the fallout from nuclear weapons is caused by neutron emmisions which are absorbed by the surroundings to create radioactive isotopes.

      Second, fusion power is not "safe" but "clean": this is because there are no radioactive isotopes left over at the end. A fusion reactor breaking down would not be funny.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    11. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'd have to say just the opposite. Neutron radiation is fairly safe. It's only dangerous when it causes other types of radiation.

      However fusion is considered safe because nearly all reactor designs to date have failsafe operation. If you lose containment the reaction stops, it doesn't become a fusion bomb. It definitely is not clean though. It irradiates the hell out of the reactor and many of the isotopes it produces are radioactive. You can try to then use fission to break the isotopes back down then fuse them back together again and again until you are left with a smaller amount of some less useful waste.

  18. Freshman 15 by casings · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... this puts new meaning into the words Freshman 15, 15 minutes of fame, 15 megawatts of Power, 15 years of trying to top this, 15 attempts at suicide, 15 divorces.

  19. So... not much, right? by KRzBZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, it's cool he could do this and all, but there's already 30 of these around the country, they don't produce any excess energy, other than that from what will soon be hundreds of little slash.fingers merrily typing away... Misleading intro to this story - I was all set for some kind of great breakthrough, and instead I get the equivalent of a SCO press staement - a story, some hot air, but nothing of real substance. Or am I missing some greater consequence of this?

    1. Re:So... not much, right? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeh, your missing it:

      some 18 year old kid was able to do it.

      thats pretty f'in impressive...

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    2. Re:So... not much, right? by Little+Brother · · Score: 4, Funny
      The origional poster was probably 12, and doesn't understand the difference between an 18 year old and a 45 year old, they're both "big people".

      I'm in rare form tonight, must have forgotten my meds.

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    3. Re:So... not much, right? by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      No, the story wasn't pointing to an amaizing scientific breakthrough, it was pointing to the fact that a college freshman did something spectacular for a college freshman. This kid made a ditrium fusion whaddyacallit his freshman year in college, whereas I was proud of myself for secessuflly discovering where most of my classes were held my freshman year in college.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    4. Re:So... not much, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      personally, i was discovering beer... :-)

      and now, i'm studying under one of the best minds in computing history. ...

  20. Energy input vs. Energy output by Allah · · Score: 0

    greater than or less than? Or is this another
    "tv show???????????????????"
    If this is just another hoax, how did it make the
    first page here?

    1. Re:Energy input vs. Energy output by Kphrak · · Score: 1

      If this is just another hoax, how did it make the first page here?

      Do we really have to answer that? We do? OK.

      --

      There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
    2. Re:Energy input vs. Energy output by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Um, for it to be a fusion reactor, the energy output needn't be greater than the energy input. It just needs to be non-zero. Now, a *useful* fusion reactor would have energy output greater than energy input, but jesus Christ we're talking about a college Freshman!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  21. ehh... by kaan · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess he's supposed to be a smarty (even though the article says he followed someone else's instructions on how to build the reactor), but I sure hope he knows what he's doing so his classmates won't have to deal with growing extra legs and stuff...

    1. Re:ehh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "While Wallace was in grade school, his mother got a flat tire while he was riding with her. He fixed it."

      I can change a tire too, wanna come play with my reactor?

    2. Re:ehh... by Little+Brother · · Score: 0, Troll
      Um, I think the article said (in english no less) that the reactor produced less radiation than the passenger on a commercial aircraft is exposed to. So yes, he "knows what he's doing..."

      Sour grapes much?

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

  22. Not cold fusion. Not terribly useful, either. by Rorschach1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, it's not cold fusion. It's been around for a long time, and it's been mentioned here before. See the wikipedia entry at:

    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_ Fu sor

  23. The vacuum of space by t0qer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This thing has a vaccum pump attatched to it, I wonder why?

    Either way, that would be one part you could omit if this were launched into space. Could anyone familiar with how this thing works tell me if it would run in space?

    1. Re:The vacuum of space by parkanoid · · Score: 1

      You generally want a vacuum for dealing with superheated gases and plasma.

    2. Re:The vacuum of space by Bame+Flait · · Score: 1

      Could anyone familiar with how this thing works tell me if it would run in space?

      It wouldn't, moron, there's nowhere to plug it in up there!

    3. Re:The vacuum of space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to achieve 'higher energy' matter states in low pressure. That's why you could painlessly stick your hand in boiling water on top of Mount Everest. Lower pressure means it's easier to make solids into liquids, liquids into gasses, and gasses into plasma. Remember PV=nrT?
      It would run fine in space, and you probably wouldn't need the vacuum generator.

    4. Re:The vacuum of space by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

      Air is an impurity, it contains lots of junk molecules like water that will interfere with your experiment

      any accelerator or (experimental) plasma device that you can think of works under vacuum

    5. Re:The vacuum of space by ultrasound · · Score: 1

      Wait until sunrise, you will see a nice demonstration of fusion in a vacuum.

      Its been running for 4.5 billion years without a sign of any problem :-)

  24. Second Place? by GSpot · · Score: 5, Funny

    He got second place in a science competition? It makes me wonder what project won first place. An advanced prototype of a nuclear fission weapon using kitchen grease as fissionable material? How manay days is it until April 1st?

    1. Re:Second Place? by computerlady · · Score: 1

      Go here and notice how hard it is to find him amongst the many, many "winners" at the Cleveland event. I don't see anywhere that he won "2nd place."

      --
      computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the /. world
    2. Re:Second Place? by computerlady · · Score: 1

      Oops! On second pass I found him again. First mention was on "Governmental Award Winners" but second mention is on "Grand Award Winners" where he *is* listed as a second place winner in Physics. My bad (very).

      --
      computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the /. world
    3. Re:Second Place? by pr0ntab · · Score: 5, Informative


      Scroll about 2/3rds down the page or search for "Spanish".

      He came in second in his category (Physics). He was beat by about 40-some-odd other students altogether, and tied with a hundred or so.

      What beat him?
      Phase transition in chaotic fluids,
      Identifying genes with neural networks,
      Investigation into geothermal activity on Venus
      Silencing cancer with RNA
      Novel asteroid distance determination technique
      Capstone: Brain-computer interface for the disabled.

      He may have not gotten as high marks because he wasn't really discovering anything new or pursuing a topic from a strange angle... it was a humoungous task of engineering, however, and this could not be overlooked.

      --
      Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    4. Re:Second Place? by twoslice · · Score: 1
      How manay days is it until April 1st?

      You must be new here. It is always April 1st on Slashdot!

      --

      From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    5. Re:Second Place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang... when I was a kid, people got high marks in science for creating a volcano from baking soda and vinegar.

    6. Re:Second Place? by DeusExLibris · · Score: 1

      Actually, the part that astonishes me, is that within his category (Physics), he was eaten by the following project:

      PH029 Is Eating Blueberry Pie Bad for You?

      Oops, did I say "eaten"? I meant beaten.

    7. Re:Second Place? by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

      The "novel asteroid" distance determination technique:

      If it's a popular novel:
      Under a hundred-thousand miles away...and on a collision course with Earth!

      If it's a science-fiction novel:
      Under a hundred parsecs away...and on a collision course with Terra!

      If it's a Carl Sagan novel:
      Over a billion, billion kilometers away...and even if it were to enter the solar system, it would probably be overcome by Jupiter's powerful gravitational field.

      --

      Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  25. First place? by iamsure · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Others thought it was cool, too. Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland. He's now beginning work on a USU physics degree."

    What in the name of all that is geeky won FIRST place??

    1. Re:First place? by iamsure · · Score: 1

      The answer would be here: http://www.intelisef2003.org/

      But sadly, that page is currently unavailable.

    2. Re:First place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, there were sevral other winners in the physics catagory alone. from: http://www.sciserv.org/isef/results/grnd2003.asp

      Intel ISEF Best of Category Award of $5,000 for Top First Place Winner
      PH053 Chaotic Fluids: An Examination of Phase Transitions in Taylor-Couette Flow
      Mairead Mary McCloskey, 17, Loreto College, Coleraine, Co Derry, Northern Ireland

      First Award of $3,000
      PH029 Is Eating Blueberry Pie Bad for You?
      Jennifer Anne D'Ascoli, 17, Academy of the Holy Names, Albany, New York

      PH053 Chaotic Fluids: An Examination of Phase Transitions in Taylor-Couette Flow
      Mairead Mary McCloskey, 17, Loreto College, Coleraine, Co Derry, Northern Ireland

      Second Award of $1,500
      PH005 The Effect of Salinity on the Production and Duration of Antibubbles
      Michael J. Pizer, 14, University School of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

      PH040 Magnetoplasmadynamics: Ionization and Magnetic Field
      Ray Chengchuan He, 19, Hempfield High School, Landisville, Pennsylvania

      PH046 Nuclear Fusion Reactor Apparatus
      Craig J. Wallace, 18, Spanish Fork High School, Spanish Fork, Utah

      PH054 Electron-Phonon Interactions in Carbon Nanotubes
      Edward Joesph Su, 18, William G. Enloe High School, Raleigh, North Carolina

    3. Re:First place? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Actually, lot's of other things, apparently. He only won second place in Physics. He shared that prize with 4 others, then there were 3 first place entries, and a grand prize entry, all in that catagory. On top of that, you had the 3 grand prize overall winners.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    4. Re:First place? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yeah one of the top prize winners was research into mRNA techniques to silence cancer. That is cutting edge stuff that is being covered in Science, Nature, and SciAm. Heck I built an Argon electical arc furnace for the production of Buckminsterfullerenes about 8 years ago as part of a senior year independant study in science (btw powering something like this is probably NOT in your schools electric budget, we had to ask a local manufacturer to donate space and electricity for the final product). Building stuff like this is fun but building it is not really science, that part was accomplished by the origional builder, but they are good tools to study some part of science.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:First place? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      What in the name of all that is geeky won FIRST place??

      "Pills to lose your virginity before you're 25"

      "Use human fat to power steam engine"

      Ok, I'm ot as funny as I thought I was. 'night.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    6. Re:First place? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      You have the coolest user number. I'm sure you've been told that before. But ever since I've started "the medications" I've seen a lot less "666" than before. So I just wanted to say, thanks.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  26. Wow, tough crowd! by yellowstone · · Score: 1, Funny
    Wallace [won] second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland.
    Jeeze. A home-built working fusion reactor is only worth second place? Waddaya gotta do to win first?!
    --
    150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
    1. Re:Wow, tough crowd! by Bob(TM) · · Score: 2, Funny

      Write a successful NSF grant proposal to do it.

      --

      The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
    2. Re:Wow, tough crowd! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first place guy is currently located somewhere in Cuba in a little cage.

    3. Re:Wow, tough crowd! by korielgraculus · · Score: 1

      Grommett won first place with his mechanical trousers

    4. Re:Wow, tough crowd! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see that boy wearing a brown nose and kneepads, do you?

    5. Re:Wow, tough crowd! by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      But seriously: I suspect he only got 2nd because he was just implementing an existing design. If he had created an original design or done original research, he probably would have won.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    6. Re:Wow, tough crowd! by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Grommett won first place with his mechanical trousers

      Erm, Wallace invented the trousers, Grommit was just the dog. (And a fucking PENGUIN used them to rob a bank)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  27. Don't fear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I, for one, welcome our new college freshman overlord.

  28. Ha! Ashcroft was right!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He always tells us that you terrorists are here in the US trying to get nuclear secrets! Now that you, Allah, have posted with your user name, I can report you to the FBI and have them stop you in your evil tracks! Evil-doer, you're going down!

  29. Re:Mr. Fsoiun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tnhik you mneat to wtire say.

  30. CDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs. "

    I guess we have a new winner for what to do with AOL CDs.

    1. Re:CDs by jimhill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me be the first NukeE to mention that the reporter didn't quite hear correctly -- it's a "moderator". Which raises the question of why the kid didn't just put a couple of Ziploc baggies full of water between the gadget and his detector.

      --
      Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    2. Re:CDs by stwrtpj · · Score: 1
      Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs

      Some people will go to incredible lengths to hide their illegally ripped MP3s from the RIAA.

      --
      Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
    3. Re:CDs by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Like the parent said... you've got to do something with all of those AOL CDs.

    4. Re:CDs by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Which raises the question of why the kid didn't just put a couple of Ziploc baggies full of water between the gadget and his detector.

      As a physicist who has worked a lot of high-voltage stuff in his time, it's because you can't spill a CD.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  31. D2O? by ejeetify · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My main concern is how he was just able to go somewhere and buy heavy water. That's not something you should be able to up and buy. Also, it's damned expensive, IIRC.

    1. Re:D2O? by Little+Brother · · Score: 1

      As far as the cost, it said how much it cost(although I don't recall if it said how much he needed/got). As for walking up and buying, I'm sure he had the university's seal on the request?

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    2. Re:D2O? by MisanthropicProggram · · Score: 1

      That's not something you should be able to up and buy.
      Why is that an issue? Can someone make a bomb or some other device that'll harm people - in a big way? I mean, you could buy a truck load of gasoline and do a shit of load a damage with that, and you can get that anywhere.

      --

      There is no spoon or sig.

    3. Re:D2O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My main concern is how he was just able to go somewhere and buy heavy water.

      All water is heavy, YIC; that cubic foot of water you lugged home in preparation for Isabel weighs 62 pounds!

    4. Re:D2O? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Because it's a major component of a nuclear device... minus the.. explosive stuff...

      *grins*

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    5. Re:D2O? by jimhill · · Score: 1

      It's not 1943 anymore, folks. Slightly better than one hydrogen atom in 7000 is deuterium and separating 18 from 19 by mass isn't hard to do. Water's a lot cheaper and safer to handle than hydrogen gas, which is why he could afford heavy water but not deuterium gas. And why shouldn't you be able to up and buy heavy water? It's not a chemical hazard, a biohazard, and so on.

      --
      Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    6. Re:D2O? by afidel · · Score: 1

      No, it's not, cryogenic hydrogen deutride was given up on VERY early in the development of thermonuclear weapons. The cryogenics couldn't be shrunk enough, the extra kick was too small, and solid lithium deutride was better at both. Beside the explosives isn't just a little bit of TNT, it's a fission bomb, THAT is the hard part to get.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:D2O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never ceases to amaze me. Why does everyone think nuclear bombs have to be complex. Didn't anyone other than I pay attention to the critical mass concept? The explosives and electronics and (most of) the sheilding are all secondary BS designed to prevent premature detenation and exposure to personel.

      All you need to make a nuke is enough purified material of highly unstable isotopes to reach critical mass. Put that mass together and BOOM. And that is the problem. It is next to impossible to get such material, much less in a sufficiant quantity to actually do something with. I would bet trying to would bring a world of hurt via US and/or Russian intelligence. Attempting to mine and purify it requires a large amount of resources and would attract attention. I'd explain things further, but I don't need the FBI/CIA/NSA/SS/ETC on my ass because I actually paid attention in my highschool science classes.

      Or am I missing something?

    8. Re:D2O? by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, if you just push a critical mass of decaying stuff together you don't get much of a boom. To get a real boom out of the bomb you have to have VERY precise timining and compression characteristics. Otherwise you basically have a compact HE dirty bomb. If all you want is a realitivly large explosion and some nuclear fallout it's easier to get a load of decaying but not capable of critical mass stuff and place it around a large conventional explosive like say a truck full of kerosene and fertilizer.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:D2O? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Deuterium laden solvents are commonly used in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance instrumentation. It's a rather basic tool, used in organic chemistry.

  32. Finally! A use for those AOL and MSDN CD's!! by stanwirth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.

    ...and I thought I was going to use them as reflectors for Christmas-tree lights. Now we can use them to power the Christmas-tree lights! Cool!

  33. Hello? by grungebox · · Score: 1

    Um...another "fusion" story from Utah, home of "cold fusion"? Excuse me while I fake interest :)

  34. Re:Just Great.. by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    How long before Islamic terrorists will use this as a weapon to kill innocent civilians, including women and children?

    (modded as 'troll' but I think the moderator missed the tongue in cheek.)

    Heck, if it works as advertised, it's already killed the secretary on the floor below and her 3 year old daughter who came in one afternoon when she couldn't get childcare - their hair will start falling out any moment now. It will also have killed the inventer, but such stupidity as voluntarily standing next to an unshielded fusion reactor exempts him from the label "innocent".

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  35. Just some of my insight by rzbx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He isn't a die hard nerd that sits around reading books all day, getting straight A's, and spending time doing various things the stereotypical nerd would do. It goes to show that we need to understand that people don't all see things the same, learn the same, and fit in the same model we believe works so well. This college student is more a mechanic than any typical scientist.
    I point all this to intellectual property. He was fortunately able to obtain most of his material cheaply and easily, but what about most hobbyists that want to fidle with new technology? Where do they get the money for new tools, machines, etc? If we applied an open source model to intellectual property and treated ideas not as property, but as what they really are, then we could accelerate scientific and technological progress greatly. What this college student did is quite amazing. The thing he built is only found in top notch institutions. I just think we need more plagiarism prevention, not patents. Btw, I'm sorry for being somewhat off-topic, but I feel that there is an important lesson to be learned here.

    --
    Question everything.
    1. Re:Just some of my insight by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      yes, lets all spend billions on ideas, then go bankrupt by giving away the knowledge for free for someone else to make money from.

      if the inventors can't benefit from their inventions, by at least recovering what it cost to develop the idea, all progress stops whether its open source or not.

      The thing he built is only found in 'top notch' instituitions because only they have the money to waste on a museum artifact like this.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    2. Re:Just some of my insight by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      what about most hobbyists that want to fidle with new technology? Where do they get the money for new tools, machines, etc?

      It's called a job. You know, where you do what someone wants or needs, and they pay you? With real money? That seems to work for most people.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    3. Re:Just some of my insight by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      What I want to know, is what the hell are you talking about? Now I am on both nyquil and dayquil right now and so any observation I might think I have made is highly suspect, but you appear to go directly from saying "where will people get money for parts" to "if we treat ideas as ideas science will go through the roof!"

      This reminds me highly of the underpants gnomes. How do you get from overturning IP laws to the 3. Profit! stage?

      It sounds more to me like you're talking about turning property into ideas. Which doesn't work well because they have mass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Just some of my insight by dasmegabyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. The lesson is that if you get off your ass you can do interesting things. I don't see where intelelctual property comes into it. In fact, one could just as easily argue that, since he did nothing more than cobble together the type of generator that has been done before, that he has not advanced "science" at all. Sure, he's advanced his own knowledge, it certainly is an interesting and awesome project, but science hasn't moved an inch. That's why he only got SECOND place for this project -- he's shown he's a really talenter tinkerer, not the next Heisenberg.

      As for applying an open source model to ideas...well, we already do that, stupid, it's called peer review. It manifests itself in the form of these cool, incredibly terse publications about the size of silver age comic books, with the words JOURNAL OF at the front of the title and a bunch of syllables at the end. This system is how we "know" cold fusion isn't real, or at the very least it isn't going to be easy. The methodology of experimentation is not prevented by intellectual property law. Patenting something doesn't mean nobody else understands how it works, or prevent you from improving upon it. Pantent law PROTECTS improvements. There is no DMCA for this sort of thing, no FBI agent will come to your lab. In the biotech field you can make as many AIDS cocktails as you like for research. Steal the recipe right out of the JAMA if you like. Shit, Glaxo wants you to. The more publications there are that back up their findings, the easier it is to get the FDA to lay off on them.

      All patent law does is assure that the first guy to come up with a brilliant new concept will be allowed to make money from technologies based off of it. That's how researchers live...selling ideas that can be made into profits. Taking that away from them doesn't help science, mate.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    5. Re:Just some of my insight by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      All property is theft anyway, man. Objects want to be free...that's why cars need parking brakes!

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    6. Re:Just some of my insight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your not aware of the power that the patent laws have had on stifling progress. Read the book "Owning the Future" by Seth Shulman. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/detail/-/0395841 755/103-2391883-8084649?v=glance

    7. Re:Just some of my insight by rzbx · · Score: 1

      First of all, your putting words in my mouth. I do not like it when people do this. I never said anything of sort "turning property into ideas." I said we need to treat ideas as what they are and not as property which can be owned and controlled. A patent is basically a monopoly on an idea. Now what do we all know about this sort of practice? It tends to make products more expensive, because they can control prices without worrying about competition. You might say, well now the company has money to invest in new technology. I have to disagree. A business operates to make a profit. A business will generally spend as much investing in technology as it needs to to stay competitive. The reason progress is made in many cases is because people are involved. In a business though, it is hard for a scientist/engineer to request time and money on something to mess around with that may or may not produce results. Businesses don't like taking high risks. Individuals do it much more frequently on the other hand. Also, what may cost millions to do in a business would cost a mere fraction for a hobbyist/engineer/inventor/etc. doing it alone. This becomes even more true when patents don't exist because now that same person has a variety of choices to chose his parts from, which now cost many times less than it would if only one company had control over that product.
      Treating ideas exactly as they are, what a concept.

      --
      Question everything.
    8. Re:Just some of my insight by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Your sig says to question everything, so I am. Saying that products are more expensive because of patents might be right, but it also might be true that it actually leads to further innovation rather than mindless copying, because people have to figure out new ways to do things. Or in fact, it might make both things true at once.

      As for making more profit leading to having more money for research, how can this not be true? You say yourself that "a business will generally spend as much investing in technology as it needs to to stay competitive" - so it's not patents or a lack thereof that drives this, it's competition. I would argue that patents provide incentive for companies to innovate. If there were no patents, every company would just sit around waiting for someone else to invent it so they could steal the idea, and research would drop off to nothing.

      As for "The reason progress is made in many cases is because people are involved", this is the most obvious statement I've seen -- even on /. -- in quite some time. Computers are not creative in spite of various attempts by many smart people to make them so, they still only do what you tell them to, and adding randomness doesn't make it creative, it just makes it random. Since people are the source of creativity, of course people have to be involved. The fact is that it doesn't matter if the ideas are patented or not, and whether the creative people work for a company or for themselves, people are always thinking, and creating. They will do this in the presence of money, or not. The difference when patents are involved is that they secure a certain amount of cash flow, and it's a fact that some research requires a certain amount of money.

      Now, some businesses don't spend enough on research, this is plain to see, but some do. IBM is the one that always springs to mind. They are the very picture of a company that recognizes the value of innovation, and they are responsible for so many of the advances that we take for granted in this age that we don't even notice most of the time. Remember how they built that STEM and we all got to ooh and aah over the little piles of atoms which said I B M? They've also been the major innovator behind many of our process improvements (including chip interconnects) and many of the advancements which have pushed the capacity of hard drives, things which affect all of us on a daily basis. Check out their almaden research webpage, they're into a lot of stuff that doesn't even sound like something IBM would do.

      The statement you make that I really take objection to is this one: "what may cost millions to do in a business would cost a mere fraction for a hobbyist/engineer/inventor/etc. doing it alone". That is a bunch of horse shit, plain and simple. The fact is that parts have a similar cost no matter where you purchase them; You can measure it in the number of digits involved between the beginning of the number, and the decimal place. A hobbyist might be more driven to pick up the parts as cheaply as possible, but outside of the exceptionally individually wealthy, a single person will not have the resources available to them that a company has. It's one person alone, who can only be in one place at a time, doing one thing.

      Sensible patents speed up the development of new ideas, because they give the people who can afford to develop them the incentive necessary to make them care about doing research. It's the stupid, obvious patents -- and to me, that includes every software patent that's ever been brought to my attention -- that are the root of the problem. Or put another way, the reviewers at the patent office.

      As for treating ideas as ideas, we do. Then we added something to law to protect unique ideas, to give people incentive to develop them. While invention will proceed with or without financial incentive, I believe that money motivates people who would otherwise just sit around playing video games.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Just some of my insight by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      I see your point but (and I'm not claiming that I can solve it either) there has to be some sort of trade.

      You cannot expect people to devote their lives or their livelyhood on a good idea and in the end have them walk away with a lot of debts beacuse everyone copied them and were better at marketing.

      Opposite, I don't expect countries plagued with aids victims to pay a lot of attentions to patents when their peoples are actually dying.

      There should be some kind off a balance, companies that spend a lot of resources on findig say, a cure for aids, and finding it, deserve to be rewarded for it. At the same time people with aids should not be extorted by these companies.

      It's a pickle and current IP laws in most countries are no help at all.

      P.s. I've used AIDS as an example because it is a pretty good example of what is wrong. AFAIK there is currently no cure for AIDS but there are treatments that will slow the disease and even, in some cases, halt it.
      Companies who have developed these treatments are (somewhat understandably) relunctant to give their IP away, since it is the only way they can make money off of it.
      Meanwhile countries that need these treatments most can't afford them and are more and more saying "screw you, people are dying here".

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    10. Re:Just some of my insight by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Hey, you're supposed to save up your IP ranting for the next big SCO release tomorrow. How do we know it will be tomorrow? There wasn't one today, and when was the last time more than 2 days went by without a press release from them? So don't jump the gun, and let us all find our analogies for why our side is correct. We need to maintain focus here, so we can have an event more like WWF Raw than a poetry reading.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    11. Re:Just some of my insight by rzbx · · Score: 1

      "every company would just sit around waiting for someone else to invent it so they could steal the idea, and research would drop off to nothing."

      Actually, think about that one for a moment. If everyone just stole all other ideas, then everyone would just use the best ones. Now how does one compete over another? They compete by innovating. You might counter that other companies would steal the ideas. Problem is, the original founder is already ahead of the other companies. Then there is service. Companies will need to provide good service to stay competitive.

      "That is a bunch of horse shit, plain and simple."

      According to this article, and also many cases in history, well, it isn't horse shit.

      Although businesses do have advantages, research communities and various institutions provide what businesses do and sometimes without all the hassle. Research data and various other information and tools are only available to a few people in the business to "protect" their "IP". The free flow of ideas is limited due to this. Also, politics is big in business. One has to go through a lot of hassle to get something approved or get some data or money or tools, or whatever. A monopoly almost always slows progress, would you agree? Would you also agree that a patent is technically a monolopy on an idea?

      "While invention will proceed with or without financial incentive, I believe that money motivates people who would otherwise just sit around playing video games."

      I'm glad you see that without financial incentive that people will continue to innovate; others don't seem to understand this. The second part of your statement I have to disagree, sort of. People are motivated to create better, faster, more efficient, cleaner, bigger, smaller, etc. creations. products, etc. A consumer is motivated to make money to buy new products. If a person is interested in something, such as many on slashdot who are hobbyists in something, then they will work on innovating what they work with. A person who plays games and works at a repetitive job that does not involve progress, is motivated by the money that they receive that will buy them that new game/toy/whatever. The great thing is you weed out all of this interested in simply making money from those that are truelly interested in making new things happen. Those with the ideas are the leaders. Those with an interest in making money work on helping those with the ideas. It isn't about who owns and controls what when patents don't exist, it is about the skills one has and how much work are they willing to put in. It is about credit where it is due and payment to those who work hard. It isn't about stealing, because those that steal still have to work hard at producing results and by then are behind. It's about sharing and working together. Money is an evil when one expects to receive it for nothing. Patents on ideas is exactly that. A scientist inventor is not respected for simply having an idea, they are respected and wanted because they have the ability to produce results. They can continue to create new ideas and provide progress. Patents do nothing of this sort but simply provide control which can lead to money without work.

      --
      Question everything.
    12. Re:Just some of my insight by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Money is an evil when one expects to receive it for nothing. Patents on ideas is exactly that. A scientist inventor is not respected for simply having an idea, they are respected and wanted because they have the ability to produce results.

      We show them that we respect and want them by giving them money. They enforce getting this money via their patents.

      Recognition and Fame are nice but they don't pay the bills. Look at all the famous musical acts over the years which have gotten the shaft by the music companies. Many of them died penniless.

      When we have a world in which you no longer need money, then all of your points will be correct. I hope we see that utopian ideal in my lifetime, but I sincerely doubt it. As long as you have to work for your basic needs to be met, and your work can be taken away from you, as long as governments can take your land away from you, and/or tell you what to do on it besides what is truly necessary to protect the public good, none of your wishes can come true. The fact is that we are all in or influenced by restrictive capitalistic societies and so money continues to be a very real issue.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Just some of my insight by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      How can you stifle progress? Progress is the advancement of technology...it has no set goals, so it can have no set rate. I think it's foolish to think that progress must occur as quickly as it possibly can...since there's no endgame, there's no reason to rush.

      Patents stifle creativity a bit...but it's the same patent system that fuels research, an essential element to science and technology that many futurists ignore. This isn't fucking star trek. Science costs money, a lot of money for uncertain goals. Once somebody's figured out the HOW of good science, and published his results, it's theoretically trivial to reproduce. That's risk, and without patents there would be little reason for private industry to engage in research.

      I do think patents are way too expansive at the moment...but patents didn't seem to hurt the CD, the microchip, or even MP3.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  36. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Beowulf cluster of these.

    You thought it, but I was brave enought to say it.

    1. Re:Imagine... by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      i do believe todays buzword for a group of these must involve the word 'grid'

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  37. This makes me sick by Bruha · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A kid can make a fusion reactor but our best scientists cant make one that actually works?!!

    However I think they can make ones that are power producers but companies and governments are afraid to release any sort of cheap energy, then they'd lose the power they have over economies across the world.

    1. Re:This makes me sick by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Scientists have built PLENTY that work. But they do not produce more energy than it takes to maintain the reaction. This one does not, either.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:This makes me sick by jensend · · Score: 1

      A kid can make a fusion reactor- one which outputs a very small number of neutrons and takes a lot more power to run than it could possibly put out. The same is true of the most advanced reactors, except there they are producing somewhere around 1/3 as much power as they're putting in while the USU Aggie frosh here isn't generating power, just neutrons, and could only get less than a thousandth of the power he put in back if he tried to use it as a generator. Ballpark numbers pulled off the top of my head for your convenience, somebody else may have the real numbers, apologies for gross inaccuracy.

    3. Re:This makes me sick by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      they are producing somewhere around 1/3 as much power as they're putting in

      My recollection is that the latest and greatest fusion reactors can now come pretty close to breaking even, due to years of tinkering and refining. This is promising but doesn't really put us that much closer to a clean energy source.

      I'm sure when fusion power becomes a reality we'll still have to deal with anti-nuclear folks who never bothered to learn basic science, though.

  38. Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by Myriad · · Score: 5, Informative
    Very cool... but not as cool as the breeder reactor this Boy Scout was cooking up.

    Good way to win a Darward Award while still living if you ask me...

    Blockwars: free, multiplayer, and with new features!

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    1. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by reiggin · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's a "Darward Award"? A prize for being a Retard Evolutionist?

    2. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by Pathwalker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dave's still alive and well - I talked to him a couple of weeks ago.

      There's a good documentary about him that was made earlier this year.

      You can get some info on it here.

    3. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

      The Darwin Awards honor those who improve our gene pool... by removing themselves from it. http://www.darwinawards.com/

    4. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen that article around several times. It is such a bunch of crap I don't even know where to start. Oh wait here's a good sample:

      Water would have sufficed, but David likes a challenge. Consulting his list of commercially available radioactive sources, he discovered that tritium, a radioactive material used to boost the power of nuclear weapons, is found in glow-in-the-dark gun and bow sights, which David promptly bought from sporting-goods stores and mail-order catalogues.

      Yeah right. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen (in other words: a gas). Quite different from water or heavy water.

      There's a ton of other stuff in that article that chalks it up to nothing more than an urban legend.

    5. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      The Darwin Award is an award for people who remove themselves from the gene pool in hilarious ways, and in the process demonstrate that their genes really shouldn't have been passed on to the next generation anyway.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    6. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "Very cool... but not as cool as the breeder reactor this Boy Scout was cooking up."

      Best quote from a TV article about that: "An Environmental team turned up in radiation suits, took his shed, and buried it in the Nevada desert..."

      Garden lights? No, my shed glows in the dark...

    7. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by reiggin · · Score: 1

      I know what the Darwin Award is. It's the "Darward Award" that I was inquiring about.

    8. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by mblase · · Score: 1

      the breeder reactor this Boy Scout was cooking up. Good way to win a Darward Award while still living if you ask me

      Is it irony that building a reactor that breeds can make the builder incapable of same?

    9. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by Kynde · · Score: 1

      Dave's still alive and well - I talked to him a couple of weeks ago.

      Actually, it's not necessary to die to be a candidate for a Darwin award. One only needs to be removed from the human gene pool as a result of one's own stupidity. That said, moronic behaviour that results in accidental sterilization and no sperm in bank will do just aswell as getting yourself killed.

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
    10. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      The prize for being an evolutionist is having to listen to the constant drole of religious purists who believe in literal biblical translation. It would be far easy to believe with them.

      The complete irony is that they are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. When Jerry Falwell learns how to read ancient greek and ancient hebrew, that's when I'll take him serious. Real biblical scholars (who can read ancient greek and hebrew) are a lot more reserved about "belief" (Thomas Aquinas aside).

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    11. Re:Cool, But No Breeder Reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real biblical scholars (who can read ancient greek and hebrew) are a lot more reserved about "belief" (Thomas Aquinas aside).

      Unfortunately, no. There are plenty of people who are able to separate their ability to understand concepts like manuscript transmission, translation issues, cross-influences from other religions (like Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Isis-mysteries, Neo-Platonism), etc. from whatever part of their brain makes them think that whatever might be responsible for the shape the universe is in actually gives a damn about whether or not they sing in a church on Sundays.

  39. The RIAA is currently investigating ... by fygment · · Score: 5, Funny

    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.

    RIAA: "They wouldn't be CD's with pirated music on them would they ??"

    Wallace: "No sir, Mr. RIAA-man. But you can have a look yourself. I keep them over there in that nuclear reactor. Fill your boots."

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:The RIAA is currently investigating ... by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      Actually I'd wager dollars to donuts that theyre AOL Cd's. Now you too can destroy AOL CD's at the subatomic level!

      --

  40. First place - NOT KIDDING!!! by iamsure · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is Eating Blueberry Pie Bad for You?

    And

    Chaotic Fluids: An Examination of Phase Transitions in Taylor-Couette Flow

    I can see the second.. but the first!?!?!?

    http://www.sciserv.org/isef/results/grnd2003.asp

    1. Re:First place - NOT KIDDING!!! by Bob(TM) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having participated as contestant and (much) later judge, the projects that always impressed me the most were the ones that demonstrated the use scientific method to address a question. The question itself didn't have to be one of earth shaking significance - it simply had to be one for which the answer was not necessarily obvious.

      A project I loved was one that sought the answer to the question of whether you get more wet running through the rain than walking. He built this chamber to simulate rain, attached a figure with absorbent material on it, and moved it at different speeds. Then, he measured the water collected on the material. The question wasn't pivotal but the project (the whole package - the examination of the details of the problem, the application of the scientific method, the consideration of errors and estimates of their contributions) demonstrated an honest attempt to look at a problem objectively and scientifically.

      Just like you can't judge a book by it's cover, you can't judge a science fair project by it's title.

      --

      The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
    2. Re:First place - NOT KIDDING!!! by hkfczrqj · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm shocked as you ... however, here is an explanation of the project (the second post). Blueberries aren't the cure for cancer, but it seems they are close to the same goal. Cheers

    3. Re:First place - NOT KIDDING!!! by iamsure · · Score: 1

      A monitor, showing active - provably working fusion in front of you, built from junk parts..

      And a book, movies, slides, and thousands of hours of research on.. BLUEBERRIES.

      Ladies and gentlemen, the choice is clear.

    4. Re:First place - NOT KIDDING!!! by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1
      Blueberries aren't the cure for cancer, but it seems they are close to the same goal.

      Which apparently is very important if you've been working on nuclear reactors for a while.

    5. Re:First place - NOT KIDDING!!! by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 1

      Not to denigrate the accomplishment of putting a working fusor together out of junk yard parts, what real new research was accomplished ?
      I mean, he's basically taking someone elses existing plan and finding novel ways of following it. It's a pretty damn cool demonstration of mechanical genius, and probably not something I myself would be capable of, but the first place winner has performed scientific experiment and analysis and documented this in a rigorous fashion to arrive at new knowledge.

      I can see how, in a Science Fair, this might warrant the greater reward.

  41. scrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They found a broken turbo molecular pump lying forgotten at Deseret Industries

    Those damn broken turbo molecular pumps lying around all over the place. Somebody needs to do something about that.

  42. Title is misleading by lommer · · Score: 1, Informative

    the /. editors got suckered on this one - if you RTFA you'll see that it isn't actually a fusion reactor or reaction at all. What it is is a deuterium ion plasma generator. While not actually fusion, Deuterium ion plasma holds some promise for fusion research. However, it is - as the article states - useful as a neutron radiation generator. That's mostly what this kid has accomplished - NOT fusion.

    1. Re:Title is misleading by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Funny

      " if you RTFA you'll see that it isn't actually a fusion reactor or reaction at all. What it is is a deuterium ion plasma generator."

      Errr, yeah; what kind of stupid bastard mistakes a deu... deuterium ... ion plas*cough*aarghph*cough* for a fusion reactor? Hey Rob, what kind of Mickey Mouse show are you runnin' here?

      *darts eyes back and forth*

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Title is misleading by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From the description I read, it is nuclear fusion. It's just on a small scale.

      Neutron generator tubes, that rely on deuterium-tritium fusion to generate neutrons, have been available for decades.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Title is misleading by pVoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, to be precise: the kid is fusing atoms, and hence has a fusion device. Which doesn't mean it's a fusion generator... He's probably - nay - he's definitely spending more energy than he is generating.

    4. Re:Title is misleading by The+Original+Atrox · · Score: 5, Informative

      But if -you- RTFA, you would note, he -did- actually acheive fusion in the thing. Albeit, only a few molecules a minute, way to low to ever be used as a power source, but the device -did- fuse Deuterium ions. Which does have the side effect of generating the neutron radiation, which is negligable, as the article mentiones, no more than airline passengers are exposed to (being up there with a little less atmospheric cover).

      Atrox

      --
      -Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    5. Re:Title is misleading by lommer · · Score: 1

      bargh, my bad for not RTFA closely enough...

    6. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it is is a deuterium ion plasma generator

      Does this make my shiny new flat-screen plasma TV obsolete?

    7. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      RTFA? RTFA? FTAR!! (fuck the article reading!)

    8. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RE: rearranging the middle letters of words and still being able to read them. This'll f-ck you up :)

      pmlasa genatoerr deuterium

      Don't tell me the first two words jumped out at you. And didn't the 3rd word appear obfuscated at first as well, just because the others are?

    9. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes indeed, he researched Fusion! Now he should finally be able to build Fusion Ball, and can begin research on Fusion Defense. All I get to do is make silly posts to find out how many moderators played X-Com.

    10. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that hit me first was that the third word WASN'T rearranged and the others were.

    11. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderation: +1
      30% Informative
      30% Overrated
      20% Troll


      There's too many things wrong with these numbers to list. Really, who does this math? CowboyNeal?

    12. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? This has been done many times. This is not news.

    13. Re:Title is misleading by mstorer3772 · · Score: 1

      But it has not been done many times by someone IN HIGHSCHOOL.

      So that's news.

      Ya crusty bastard.

      --
      Fooz Meister
    14. Re:Title is misleading by pasadena · · Score: 1

      Thanks for noting this--I googled Neutron generator tube to see what you're saying. This story is about a smart kid, but not much else to make news.

    15. Re:Title is misleading by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      The ball is, literally, a small sun, where an electric field forces deuteron ions (a form of hydrogen) to gather, bang together and occasionally fuse, spitting out a neutron each time fusion occurs.


      Well, the reporter seemed to think it was nuclear fusion. If he's doing it AT ALL with such a cheapo Junkyard-Wars apparatus, it has pretty serious consequences.

      Other fusion reactors are multi-million pieces of equipment using seriously powerful magnetic fields to keep the genie in the bottle. Effectively, they use more energy then they generate and that defeats the point.

      If he's found a novel way of doing it without expensive magnetic containment (or the device generates it's own containment in a novel way) then it could lead to practical nuclear fusion generators.

      Of course, it still needs to be seen whether the device actually DOES fuse hydrogen. Yeah, his detectors are measuring excess nuetron emissions (implying fusion) but he's using the detector that he found in a scrap heap. It may have been thrown away because it didn't WORK RIGHT!!!!!

      So I hope he actually accomplished what they think he did. Other scientists will have to vet the machine using their super-expensive (perhaps overworked) machines to see if it is indeed fusing hydrogen atoms. I really do hope the machine works the way they say it does.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    16. Re:Title is misleading by mstorer3772 · · Score: 1

      Dude. It's a Farnsworth Fusor that some highschool student and his dad threw together with parts they scavanged from various places.

      The only interesting thing about it is that it was made so cheaply by a kid.

      Farnsworth-style fusors have been well known for quite some time. If you'd read the fine article again, you'll note that these sorts of setups (at vastly higher efficency using much higher quality gear) are used in science and commerce for various applications requiring neutron generation.

      Not a new thing.

      --
      Fooz Meister
  43. Science and the science fair... by mooface · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was once an ISEF finalist/winner. "Second place" is a designation given to a substantial number of projects at the International fair. There are like 5-10 blue (first), 10-30 red (second), etc. The biggest winners are in a seperate catagory -- things like the, "BLAH T. BLAH SCIENCE AWARD" that includes a trip to Japan, or a trip to see the Nobel ceremonies, etc etc. Interestingly, building a project like this is really only a certain level of merit at a real science fair (like ISEF). I used to build devices like that -- and get awards like second place. The real thing the judges are looking for is scientific/research content. For instance, the kid may have built this and got it to work, but did he improve on the design? did he measure the efficiency of the system? did he use the device to study some effect X, Y, or Z? This may sound crazy, but at that level the high school students are expected to perform at the level of grad student researchers. The winning doesn't really matter, though -- the kid got a postiive experience that will stay with him for the rest of his life...!

  44. Re:Just Great.. by Enahs · · Score: 1
    I was just thinking to myself, "Hey, if this works, how long before government guys in nice suits come to visit him for a 'nice chat.'"

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  45. Not a fusion reactor, but he IS a kid by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    It's a plasma generator that emits neutrons if he just copied Farnsworth. The article doesn't mention any modifications. Not a true advance in reactor technology
    I think the main notable feature about this is that he's probably the youngest person to make one of these, and while it isn't a "fusion reactor" it probably is a good prototype research tool for physics departments with limited budgets.
    This reminds me of the furor 25 years ago more or less when a Princeton undergrad designed a nuclear bomb for his senior thesis. It wasn't so much that it had never been done, as that nobody expected an undergrad to be able to do it without access to classified materials.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  46. [sigh] Slight false alarm by GileadGreene · · Score: 5, Informative
    Not that it isn't cool that a college freshman managed to build this, but this isn't exactly the big news it sounds like. What Wallace built is essentially an Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) fusion reactor. IECs use the electrostatic field generated by charged concentric spheres to confine the fusing plasma - you can think of it as a mini-sun that uses electrostatic fields instead of gravitational fields. IECs have been around for a good long while (since the days of Philo Farnsworth, as the article mentions).

    Unfortunately, Wallace's IEC, like every other IEC ever built, doesn't get even close to break-even. Their primary utility is, as the article mentions, as a neutron source (and in fact that's what they're usually used for). There are some folks that are hopeful they can find a way to improve the efficiency of IEC fusion and exceed break-even (Robert Bussard, of Bussard ram-jet fame, for example), but no one's managed to actually demonstrate a working, energy-generating IEC yet.

    1. Re:[sigh] Slight false alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's just like what all the music execs say when signing a band.

    2. Re:[sigh] Slight false alarm by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      As a non-physicist (well, I did PHYS-101...) would it be fair to say the reason for a net loss is the energy required to generate the electrostatic containment field? Which suggests that research into other methods of containment should be pursued?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:[sigh] Slight false alarm by aXis100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are some folks that are hopeful they can find a way to improve the efficiency of IEC fusion and exceed break-even (Robert Bussard, of Bussard ram-jet fame, for example), but no one's managed to actually demonstrate a working, energy-generating IEC yet.

      Personally, I think these devices are far more likely to generate succes than the current breed of "tokamak" style reactors. They've had 20 years and upteen billion dollars, and still think it will take anotehr 20 years longer.

      I for one think it's lucicrous (to the point of conspiracy), and if fusion can be generated so easily through these devices, then it is certainly worth more funding/research.

      But then again, what do I know?

    4. Re:[sigh] Slight false alarm by GileadGreene · · Score: 4, Informative
      Actually, the bulk of the losses result from ions (or electrons) running into the inner electrode, which is a grid. The IEC consists of two concentric spheres, with a charge across them. The resulting electrostatic field accelerates ions or electrons (depending on the direction of the field) towards the center of the spheres, where fusion occurs. So ideally you want no grid at all, because you want the ions or electrons to zip through the inner electrode and directly to the center.

      That was Bussard's big breakthrough - he developed a way to use magnetic fields to protect the inner electrode from electron impacts, and thus increase the efficiency. Unfortunately, as far as I know, he never got the money to take it much beyond the concept demonstration stage (not as far as break-even). See "The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor: And How to Make It Work" for more details.

    5. Re:[sigh] Slight false alarm by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Interesting reading. That was 5 years ago though... and nothing has come of it?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    6. Re:[sigh] Slight false alarm by irimi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I worked for George Miley (referenced in "The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor: And How to Make It Work") in grad school and have a fair amount of experience working with these things. Of course I haven't touched one in ten years since I bailed out and went into EE, so take all this with a grain of salt. With that disclaimer, a few points.

      First, the dangerous output of these things is not neutrons, but x-rays. An ungodly amount of x-rays get pumped out in these things, so if you have a window you ought to shield it (the vacuum vessel did a good job of stopping most of the x-rays, only those headed toward the window needed to be shielded). We used something like a 1/4" of leaded glass.

      Second, the fusion that occurs in these devices, at least the ones we built, are beam-target interactions where the target is the background deuterium gas. What one would like to have is beam-beam interactions where the fast deuterons interact with each other rather than the background gas. This would be good for a few reasons, first the resulting fusion output would depend on the square of the input current, not linearly as is it does with beam target. This means that as you increase input power, you would approach and eventually pass break-even (assuming your grids didn't melt or somesuch). Second with beam-beam interactions, you can evacuate the device more thouroughly which helps avoid some types of loss, particularly charge exchange. Third , beam-beam interactions occur at up to four times the energy of beam-beam interactions, which is particuluar attractive for the exotic fuel combinations (D-He3, p-B11, etc). The problem is that it's easy to arrange for a fair amount of background gas to stay in the chamber, but to get high enough denisities for signifigant beam-beam interactions to occur you need some combination of very high input power, very high recirculation rates (see below) and very good focusing at the grid center. To the best of my outdated knowledge, no one has achieved this yet.

      Third there are two issues of loss in this type of device. First let's talk about break even. In order to break even, you need to be able to extract as much power out of the device as you put in. Assuming that you can convert about 50% of the energy coming out of the device into power (this may well be optimistic), your output power needs to be twice your input power, since half your power is lost as heat. In other words, you need to produce as much additional power from fusion as you put in as electricity. When we were working on this we were produncing something like .00000000000001 times as much power[1] from fusion as we put in as electricity. Far from break even. Going to D-T instead of D-D would probably up this by a factor of 10 or so, but still far from break even.

      The second loss factor involves losses of the recirculating D+ ions. One is grid losses, the star mode referenced in the above article helps a fair amount here. In our experiements, the grid was about 95% transparent, but because the discharge avoids the grid, we ended up with an effective transparancy of 99.5% or so. The background gas presents another big source of loss. A real killer is charge exchange: you invest 30 keV in some ion and then it grabs an electron from a D2 molecule in the background gas. Now your fast particle is not constrained, being neutral, and it goes crashing into the vacuum chamber wall and is lost.

      Even if you won't be able tomake one of these into a powerplant in the near future, there are some applications for a relatively simple neutron generator. One that I believe has been commercialized already is neutron activation analysis. In other words bombard some object with neutrons to make it radioactive (activate it), and analyze the type of radiation that comes out to see what the object is made of. Sounds scary, but your only making the object a tiny bit radioactive. Really.

      There's some slides from a relatively recent IEC confe

    7. Re:[sigh] Slight false alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be laughed at for being so easily excited. Hint: If a high school student builds a fusion reactor, you should assume it's of a type that is already quite well understood. Try not to be so gullible, McFly.

  47. Wait a minute by Bruha · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that the next generation nintendo?

  48. Isn't Ashcroft a shriner? by Allah · · Score: 1

    he prays to me in lodge meetings..........

  49. First place winner found.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78742&cid=6982 654

  50. ugg think about it by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is no hoax, its an effect that has been known for many decades. It's just that no one, not even this guy have found a way to produce excess energy from it (as in producing more energy that it consumes in triggering the fusion)

    This clever guy just happened to do it himself.

    Its no big deal, no huge discovery, just an interesting scientific device. - Something to make the ignorant masses wonder how there couldnt be enough power to meet the US's demands during the big black out when we mastered fusion energy years ago.

    The tinkerer deserves a pat on the back for making it work, however he deserves no prizes. He merely repeated well known science rather than doing something new.

    Heck, I'd be growing diamonds in my back yard if I could afford to buy the super huge vintage world war 2 press at an industrial site down the road from me ... but they'd just be an inefficient curiosity too.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    1. Re:ugg think about it by Little+Brother · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Heck, I'd be growing diamonds in my back yard if I could afford to buy the super huge vintage world war 2 press at an industrial site down the road from me ... but they'd just be an inefficient curiosity too.

      That is exactly why this kid DOES deserve a prize. He managed to make the device without a $10,000 research/developement grant. No he didn't create anything revolutanary, but he did accomplish an extraordinary acheivement. I'll drink to him tonight. (not that I really need an excuse)

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    2. Re:ugg think about it by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      Fine, give him first place in the national economics fair. If McDonalds needed a neutron source in each of their outlets he would get the McThrifty award for cutting costs in the fast food business, but what has that got to do with science?

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    3. Re:ugg think about it by Little+Brother · · Score: 1

      It shows that he understands it well enough to make the device and that he can improvise from plans. Let's not forget the prizes he's won are mostly science fair prizes. Many such fairs REQUIRE you to reproduce somebody else's research instead of doing completly origional work (to minimize risk and maximize the ability of a mediocre judge to know if the project is real) Should he win a Nobel? Hell no. Should he be granted an honory degree? Hell no. Should he get prizes in undergraduate level science fairs? Yes.

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

  51. Fusion does not free energy make by argoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I haven't RTFA'd it yet, but lets renember that making a fusion reactior is a lot different than making a fusion reactor that can generate more energy than is used to prime it. The former we've been doing for years, the latter - making one that outputs more energy than is put into it is the real trick.

    1. Re:Fusion does not free energy make by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Nuclear fusion reactors have been around for years, it's just that nobody has ever been able to make one that produces more energy than you need to put in to keep the reaction going (in addition to the fuel being expended). The reactor this kid built is clearly "useless" as an energy source - which the article is very clear about - and not even remotely novel, but it's a pretty bitchin' project for a high-schooler.

    2. Re:Fusion does not free energy make by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually some Tokamak designs have broken the electical break even point (at least in theory, the energy was not captured to make more electricity through steam). The problem is they are nowhere near doing it economically and the reaction can not be perpetually maintained.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Fusion does not free energy make by CrocOS · · Score: 1

      That's true. However I think you might find that the Tokamak reactors are still not quite up to commercial reliability levels, although they are definitely getting there.

      EG: http://www.pppl.gov/projects/pages/tftr.html

      My read on this one is it is ALMOST at the point where it can be used to 1) Power a small city and ALSO 2) cover the energy deficit created when gathering, processing and extracting the Deuterium and Tritium =)

      --

      I should really get around to creating a sig.... Nah - too lazy =)
  52. I don't think so by hubie · · Score: 1
    Well, nice story, but the three finalists were females.

    You can see here.

    1. Re:I don't think so by iamsure · · Score: 1

      No no no, there were a huge variety in 'prizes'.

      Read the other link I posted to the list of winners.. its extensive.

  53. Farnsworth and TV by sbszine · · Score: 4, Informative

    Philo T. Farnsworth (the inventor of the television... )

    The inventor of television is not necessarily Farnsworth -- there are several scientists with good claims on the title (including John Logie Baird, after whom the Logie television awards are named).

    --

    Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    1. Re:Farnsworth and TV by xoboots · · Score: 0

      It is ironic that the article you link which attempts to explain the true history of the invention of television passingly begins with:

      "Since Marconi's invention of wireless telegraphy in 1897," ...which shows that they don't know that the telgraph was invented by Morse (in 1835) and that precedence for the "wireless" goes to Tesla--not Marconi.

      I guess that's how historical myths get perpetuated.

    2. Re:Farnsworth and TV by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Informative
      They, of course, phrased that wrong - arguably, Philo T. Farnsworth is the inventor of completely electronic television. Until RCA and Sarnoff stole his ideas and ran. This resulted in Farnsworth dying "a pauper". Only recently was he reinstated in that role instead of RCA, ala court action, similar to the Tesla/Marconi debate, ENIAC vs. ABC, among others...

      See this site and this site for more details...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    3. Re:Farnsworth and TV by sbszine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Since Marconi's invention of wireless telegraphy in 1897," ...which shows that they don't know that the telegraph was invented by Morse (in 1835) and that precedence for the "wireless" goes to Tesla--not Marconi.

      Not sure if this is a very odd troll or not. Anyway, for the benefit of the public... Morse invented the wired telegraph, so he's got no claim on wireless telegraphy and is irrelevant to the issue. Marconi was transmitting Morse code in 1895, whereas Tesla started transmitting voltage in 1893. So yes, Tesla was transmitting wirelessly first, but it was in 100,000 volt discharges of electricity -- hardly the sort of transmission you'd like to receive in your headphones! And plainly not intended to be a telegraph.

      Tesla was a cool guy and invented lots of interesting stuff, but people have a tendency to get all cultish about him and ascribe all sorts of miracles to him. Rather than claiming Marconi's work as his, you'd do his memory a better service by honouring him for his own achievements (like AC power).

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    4. Re:Farnsworth and TV by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative
      Here's the real story:

      Farnsworth invented the Farnsworth Image Dissector, the first TV camera tube. Which sucked. The device required huge amounts of light to work, bright sunlight, and big optics. It required so much light because it didn't integrate over the entire frame time; only the light that came in during the scan of the specific pixel contributed to the output. But it had some light amplification; it works a lot like a photomultiplier. In fact, it's basically a photomultiplier whose viewpoint can be steered.

      Shortly thereafter, Zworklin invented the iconoscope. Which also sucked. That device required huge amounts of light, but for a different reason. The iconoscope has no light amplification, but it integrates the accumulated light over a frame time on a per-pixel basis as an electric charge. The accumulated charge is then read out by a scanning beam.

      After much litigation, RCA ended up owning both technologies, and RCA Labs spent many years developing the image orthicon, which combines the good features of the two technologies. The image orthicon is just what you'd expect from a big corporate lab. It took years to develop, it's incredibly complicated and expensive, requires a huge amount of support electronics, is difficult to adjust, and produces a good picture at reasonable light levels. It has the photomultiplier-type amplification of the image dissector and the charge accumulation of the iconosope. Only after the image orthicon was developed did TV broadcasting become commercially viable.

    5. Re:Farnsworth and TV by Henry+Pate · · Score: 1

      Actually Farnsworth won both patent lawsuits going against RCA, Sarnoff just pushed the engineers at RCA to work around the patents that Farnsworth had. RCA finally unveiled the television at the World's Fair in 1933 and claimed complete credit for it, despite the fact that they had in fact copied Farnsworth's method and just worked around the specifics. Sarnoff even sent his top engineer to Farnsworth's lab to look at the devices, Farnsworth belived it was out of intellectual curiousity, but it turned out to be an opportunity for RCA to steal the technology. The reason RCA was able to push forward with the television was because Farnsworth's patents expired just as television was become a viable medium and commonplace in houses.

      --
      Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
    6. Re:Farnsworth and TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Logie Baird first achieved success with his invention in Winter 1925, revealing it publicly in London, Jan. 1926.

      IIRC Farnsworth happened in 1927

      Joseph Swan/Thomas Edison debate... convergent ideas, etc...

    7. Re:Farnsworth and TV by isorox · · Score: 1

      Typical american, no mention of John Logie Baird or the BBC

    8. Re:Farnsworth and TV by xoboots · · Score: 1

      It is not I who abscribe Marconi's work to others--check the patents and you'll understand who has precedence.

      By-the-way, no need to refer to my message as a troll, particularly when you go and spread misinformation. Thanks for pointing out how interesting Tesla is and how cultish I am for pointing out a simple truth regarding him.

      Cheers.

    9. Re:Farnsworth and TV by sbszine · · Score: 1

      It is not I who abscribe Marconi's work to others--check the patents and you'll understand who has precedence.

      I'm happy to do so. Got some credible links for me?

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    10. Re:Farnsworth and TV by xoboots · · Score: 1

      You want credible, har har. Don't we all. As it happens, google can easily provide the information to you, but these two are just as good as the one you posted. I don't want to get into a pissing match with you because this is but a trifle and I'm more than sure that you are an intelligent and helpful person, but for the sake of conciseness, you can see a summary of the dilly here.

      http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html
      ht tp://www.mercury.gr/tesla/marcen.html

      By-the-way, transmitting voltage IS wireless technology. Adding words like telegraphy (which means writing at a distance) afterwards is much ado about nothing.

      Greetings.

    11. Re:Farnsworth and TV by sbszine · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, interesting. The links seem to say that Tesla invented (and patented) wireless transmission before Marconi, but that Tesla was concerned with transmitting power and Marconi was concerned with telegraphy (i.e. transmitting Morse code).

      I think we agree on the chronology and the intended purpose of the ideas, and the pissing match is basically concerned with whether wireless transmission of electricity also encompasses wireless telegraphy / radio, and whether Tesla had thought of this application before Marconi. In my opinion Marconi's work was sufficiently novel to make him the inventor of radio / wireless telegraphy, but I happily concede that he built upon Tesla's ideas of wireless power transmission.

      Nice talking to you, and sorry if I was a rude bastard earlier. Cheers.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

    12. Re:Farnsworth and TV by Mr.+Ophidian+Jones · · Score: 1

      This is a test.

  54. ...cuminating in second place...!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland

    Who took first? Oliver Wendell Jones?

  55. Wow, he can follow instructions by cybercrap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, this is just bs. First off anybody can build one of these, schematics and tips and even a forum on getting help from others can be found at www.fusor.net . And this guys wins a science fair for no original thought. I guess the judges didn't know how to use google.

  56. Farnsworth by Sivar · · Score: 1

    Actually, Philo T. Farnsworth was a resident of Idaho, he waw just born in Utah and moved when he was 11.

    --
    Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
  57. This toy is more than 40 years old... by kamog · · Score: 2, Informative
    Looks like what the article in the Deseret News describes is a variation of either the Farnsworth or Hirsch-Meeks fusor, which are indeed devices that can produce fusion. There is one catch, however - fusion in fusors releases less energy than the amount required to sustain it...

    A good fusor reference with some close-up pictures of a working device is available here.

  58. I mean, it's cool, but... by KRzBZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...this is a lot better effort by a kid (and a great read, too). I mean - this guy's doctoral thesis got classified Top Secret, etc... *and* he got to hang out with The Big Guys of Nuclear Physics and Weapons Making... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D068803351 2/thebrowsersbookwA/102-5759479-8637704 Like I said, I am not denigrating the kids work or his obvious smarts and the way he applied them - what I am getting at is the story title "here" was misleading. If the device was a Tesla coil, the headline would've claimed "Young Inventor Tames Lightning!"...

  59. In other news by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Bush Administration announced a military attack on Utah in order to destroy an incipient WMD program....

    1. Re:In other news by dwillden · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would not be a good Idea, even though they've been destroying them for several years, Utah is still home to a large stockpile of Chemical Weapons. We can and will retaliate. Oh plus Hill Field does critical maintenance on the Nations ICBM's and the B2 bombers. Bring it on. As I said we can retaliate, and not just with some wussy science project.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please take out provo then, or just leave them to defend themselves!

    3. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we can send Mormons to knock on your doors day and night wanting to talk about Jesus!

    4. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, and other leading democrats immediately announced the urgent need to tax fusion power. "We need $1.9 trillion dollars to fund our new No more machine guns in elementary school program."

      Hillary Clinton was later quoted, "There are too many rich people out there. Where are all of the jobs? My husband had everyone working! Look at the all of the dotcom jobs he and Al Gore helped create! At least we had full employment!"

      Democrat legislators later gave themselves a 4% pay raise by smuggling some boiler plate clause into a welfare bill.

    5. Re:In other news by dwillden · · Score: 1
      please take out provo then, or just leave them to defend themselves!
      Well I keep hoping for a major accident at the Deseret Storage facility (where the chem weaps are stored) as the prevailing winds would tend to push the toxins into Happy Vally!



      Note to any non-Utahs that read this: Happy Vally is a nickname for Utah vally where Provo is located.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  60. Sheesh .... by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 4, Funny
    They found a broken turbo molecular pump lying forgotten at Deseret Industries.

    I'VE BEEN LOOKING ALL OVER FOR THAT!

    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
    1. Re:Sheesh .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What they need to do is spiffy it up a bit ... put a second turbo on it ... chrome it ... put a rallye stripe on it.

      Don't forget the Type-R ...

  61. Power by phorm · · Score: 1

    First reaction: Cool. Incredibly frickin' cool

    Second reaction: How much does it take to power the operation of this thing (fuel, any input juice to get the process going), and how much power output does it generate? It doesn't seem too big, perhaps it might even be able to power a land-based vehicle or something similar? At the very least with a few regulators it should keep my PC's from running up the power bill, and with the existing low radiation a little lead shielding should make it safer than my microwave oven...

    1. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't produce any energy. Well, it does but it's less than it requires to keep it going. It losses energy. Check out http://www.fusor.net/ and read up on devices like this.

  62. But is it a cold fusion reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is from Utah, after all...

    1. Re:But is it a cold fusion reactor? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      Utah yes, cold fusion no. It's a high temperature plasma confined electrostaticly.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  63. I think this means something else by saitoh · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... he will never *ever* get laid. Ever. Period.

    --
    We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
    1. Re:I think this means something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he accidently gets hit by too many neutrons, he'll be sterile anyway.

    2. Re:I think this means something else by Aadain2001 · · Score: 1

      I work at a very technical oriented company (you all know them and either love them or hate them (no, not MS or SCO since everyone just plain hates them)), and most of the male geeks are married, some of them are the geekiest people I've ever seen. Most even have pretty attractive wives.

      My point? Once women get past their immature years (puperty to some time in college), they wise up and seek out intelligent, kind men. This kid probably has a very good chance of getting laid due to being intelligent, creative, and not the sterotypical geek.

      --
      Space for rent, inquire within
  64. Shabby chic fusion reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too poor to buy pricey deuterium gas, Craig bought a container of deuterium oxide, or heavy water, for 20 bucks and came up with a way to make it a gas and get rid of the accompanying oxygen by passing it over heated magnesium filings.

    And if the fusion reactor doesn't work, he can always make a fortune selling deuterium gas cheaper than anybody else :-)

    They found a neutron detector in an Idaho Falls scrap metal yard...They found a broken turbo molecular pump lying forgotten at Deseret Industries.

    Damn, I'm going dumpster diving in Idaho Falls.

  65. Read the article by gotan · · Score: 2, Informative

    It says that there are about 30 such reactors around. The special thing about this one is, that is was made from scrap parts. Please understand that there's really not all that much fusion happening here, definiteley not enough to get any energy output from it, you have to put energy in to heat the stuff up.

    It's probably all really simple: every once in a while a deuterium core will tunnel into another deuterium core and cling to it (the actual process to get to He is probably a bit more complicated). That's fusion happening, only the odds are very bad. Create deuterium plasma, cage it with electromagnetic fields to apply some pressure and raise the energy high enough so the odds will get better. Aparently they get it to a few neutrons per minute (they measure 4 per minute).

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  66. Breeder? by Natchswing · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but is it a breeder reactor? He should at least wait until the scavenger hunt starts.

    1. Re:Breeder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I still think tactical control of Madeleine Albright would be cooler.

  67. Required materials by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

    If I recall, the fusion bomb requires a good amount of nearly pure U-235 or weapons grade Plutonium. In addition, the equations for 'critical mass' and the 'implosion vectors' for the fission "trigger" for a fusion bomb are TIGHTLY guarded. Those are the limiting factor in building bombs.

    It's not too hard to make things radiate. VERY hard to make them go BOOM.

    Stewey

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:Required materials by sys$manager · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering they figured this stuff out on slide rules in the '40s and '50s, it can't be that hard.

    2. Re:Required materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it isn't. If you just put enough U-235 together in the same place, it'll go BOOM all on its own.

      A fusion bomb is just a fission bomb surrounding a dense deuterium/tritium core. Typically spherical to provide an even "squeeze" on the D/T mix. Blast plates push the plutonium together (of which the ciritcal mass is already widely known). It goes boom, crushing the D/T core with force beyond that found even in the sun. The core has nowhere to go, so it immediately fuses a good portion of its mass. The resulting secondary blast is even bigger than the fission explosion and gives us a really big boom.

    3. Re:Required materials by gfody · · Score: 2, Funny

      also, things get easier with the more cocain you snort. snort enough cocain and you'll think you can build just about anything.

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    4. Re:Required materials by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      It actually is pretty hard to make an implosion-type bomb work. They didn't work out the designs using slide rules, but actually cobbled together what was a hell of a lot of computing power for the day. I don't remember if they actually built any general-purpose electronic computers, but at least some of the work was done by large teams of workers using single purpose calculating machines. One machine would could add, another multiply, etc. and the system was "programmed" by coming up with a specific order in which IBM cards containing the information being processed were run through the system. Richard Feynman discussed a lot about this system in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!". Admittedly the average mobile phone these days probably had enough processing power to do those calculations, but the Nobel Prize winning minds in charge of the project had a lot more to do with its success than the raw processing power.

      FWIW, you can learn far more than you ever wanted to know about nuclear weapons by reading the Nuclear Weapons Archive. When you understand everything in there, you can start thinking about building bombs.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    5. Re:Required materials by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      The implosion calculations were done on banks of IBM mechanical calculating machines.

    6. Re:Required materials by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it isn't. If you just put enough U-235 together in the same place, it'll go BOOM all on its own.

      If you don't put together just right, it will just melt and vaporize. "Right" means with sub-millisecond timing.

    7. Re:Required materials by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      A fusion bomb is just a fission bomb surrounding a dense deuterium/tritium core. Typically spherical to provide an even "squeeze" on the D/T mix. Blast plates push the plutonium together (of which the ciritcal mass is already widely known). It goes boom, crushing the D/T core with force beyond that found even in the sun. The core has nowhere to go, so it immediately fuses a good portion of its mass. The resulting secondary blast is even bigger than the fission explosion and gives us a really big boom.
      You sound very knowledgeable but infact you're just repeating a popular simplified model of how a fusion weapon works. Read that howstuffworks.com article linked a couple of posts up and you'll see that your idea of how these things works is not very close to the reality.
    8. Re:Required materials by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      which, given todays processing power, is what?

      seriously, some kid probably did a shitload of interpreting declassified texts, and drawing some pretty astounding conclusions on his own.

      it is a little easier to do when you know that the target is doable, and repeatable.

      but, its still an amazing feat.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    9. Re:Required materials by eatdave13 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, no matter how much coke you hoot, it'll never make you able to spell it.

      --
      "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
    10. Re:Required materials by Basje · · Score: 1

      Hard, yes, but not impossible. The hardest part is making it small enough to be able to transport it to a target.

      A terrorist doesn't have that problem. They can buy a 2 storey house, near a target, build a multistorey bomb, and set it off. The hard part for them isn't the design, but the availability of some materials.

      I doubt any terrorist will bother. If they do that, a house full of fertilizer and petrol will do the trick. Of course, the psychological effect is much more severe when a nuclear device is used.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    11. Re:Required materials by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The physics of the matter are pretty easy; any college physics student could figure them out. What is hard is the fluid dynamics required to make an implosion type device work. Remember, the hot gasses of the chemical explosives are described by the Navier-Stokes equations, which are highly non-linear, and thus incredibly nasty to work with.

      This is not only a physics challenge, but also a materials science problem. The explosion of the chemical explosives around the plutonium pit must be absolutely precise. If not, the explosives will simply blow the plutonium apart, rather then cause a nuclear detonation. The explosives must burn at an exactly even and known rate and they must be initiated from enough points around the device to make the explosion travel inwards in a spherical shockwave

      In reality the Manhattan project was about two things: the chemistry to extract the plutonium needed for the bomb, and the fluid dynamics required to make the explosion actually work and detonate

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    12. Re:Required materials by elvum · · Score: 1

      Our nuclear physics lecturer told us the critical mass of U235...

    13. Re:Required materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. fission bomb explodes.
      2. the heated plasma compresses deuterium to insane density, ready to fuse.
      3. the fusion is started using another fission reaction.
      4. the actual fission explosion reaches the deuterium prematurely preventing 2 & 3 taking place.

    14. Re:Required materials by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Compared to a basic TI calulator they were a drop in the bucket.

      But compared to slide rules and pencils, the IBM machines were at least an order of magnitude faster.

      The problem with nukes is that, with enough money and gear, a basic device is not that hard. It's not easy, but can be done.

      San Diego will probably be a glowing crater soon...

    15. Re:Required materials by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      That's true for fission bombs, but thermonuclear bombs are a lot harder. A lot of the research data you would need remains classified to this day. In fact, it's one of the reasons that most of the Project Orion documents remain classified. The interactions between the bomb and the shield at the back of the spacecraft are very similar to the interactions that make the "secret" work in the H-bomb.

      Of course, all bets are off if you can get a hold of someone who already has designed a few. Say, a starving Russian physicist with an axe to grind. You just won't be getting instructions off of the Internet any time soon.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    16. Re:Required materials by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Fission, fussion, does it really matter?

      Just a bigger glowing hole...

    17. Re:Required materials by terrymr · · Score: 1

      That sounds more or less ... backwards I believe that actually the fusion reaction is triggered first releasing masses of neutrons which trigger the fission reaction in the PU surrounding the core.

      And a neutron bomb is the same thing without the pu.

    18. Re:Required materials by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      It does matter. There's an upper limit (H-bombs are also relatively "clean," unless you choose to make them dirty, which compromises their yield. The hole could be bigger but glow a lot less and for a much shorter time.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    19. Re:Required materials by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Yeahhhh. Read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman". The most powerful computers of the time were at Los Alamos, with Nobel prize winners writing the programs.

  68. Just a question.. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Honest question here....

    If there is no fusion going on, where are the neutrons coming from?

    1. Re:Just a question.. by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Son, it all starts when a man loves a woman...

      --
      sig?
  69. The Intel Science Fair by ob1ivion13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    As someone who participated in this science fair. I spent much of my time working in labs, contacting professionals, ensuring safety in the lab, as well as thorough and detailed demonstration of the development of such research. My endeavor lasted three years, with much frustration in recieving materials, gathering funding (mostly personal), as well as balancing an accelerated education with my projects.

    While his project is surprisingly complex and I am sure safe and well thought out, it is quite difficult to demonstrate such an accomplishment in a concise and easily acceptable form. There are limitations given to contestants involving time to present, space, and strict rules regarding what projects are allowed to be running during the interview and booth judging.

    As far as who has actually won first place in the physics section of the fair, following is a list of the overall, first and second place winners, as taken from the intel science fair website:

    Intel ISEF Best of Category Award of $5,000 for Top First Place Winner

    PH053
    Chaotic Fluids: An Examination of Phase Transitions in Taylor-Couette Flow
    Mairead Mary McCloskey, 17, Loreto College, Coleraine, Co Derry, Northern Ireland

    First Award of $3,000

    PH029
    Is Eating Blueberry Pie Bad for You?
    Jennifer Anne D'Ascoli, 17, Academy of the Holy Names, Albany, New York

    PH053
    Chaotic Fluids: An Examination of Phase Transitions in Taylor-Couette Flow
    Mairead Mary McCloskey, 17, Loreto College, Coleraine, Co Derry, Northern Ireland

    Second Award of $1,500

    PH005
    The Effect of Salinity on the Production and Duration of Antibubbles
    Michael J. Pizer, 14, University School of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

    PH040
    Magnetoplasmadynamics: Ionization and Magnetic Field
    Ray Chengchuan He, 19, Hempfield High School, Landisville, Pennsylvania

    PH046
    Nuclear Fusion Reactor Apparatus
    Craig J. Wallace, 18, Spanish Fork High School, Spanish Fork, Utah

    PH054
    Electron-Phonon Interactions in Carbon Nanotubes
    Edward Joesph Su, 18, William G. Enloe High School, Raleigh, North Carolina

    --
    OBLIVION!-
    1. Re:The Intel Science Fair by DZign · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what's the answer ?? Is Eating Blueberry Pie Bad for You?

  70. Boy, That Sure Is A Fancy DVD Player... by Mnemennth · · Score: 1

    My Sucker Detector is presently pinging at about 300 clicks a minute...

    Mnem
    "I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public."

  71. Understatements... by Simkin1 · · Score: 1

    "...a neutron detector in an Idaho Falls scrap metal yard...." -- Idaho metal yards are coming up in the world... used to just be able to find metal... now you can find whole particle accelerators!! Woohoo!!

    "Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs." -- Thank you AOL for your endless contributions... I was just thinking, maybe later I'll build my own neutron modulator... have to finish my scramjet engine first though... oh yeah, and walk the dog. But I'll get to it after that. :D

    "They found a broken turbo molecular pump lying forgotten at Deseret Industries." -- OH! I wish you had told me you needed one, I was just down at Radio Shack pricing turbo molecular pumps... Had one in my hand this morning, turned it over and it said -- Made in North Korea.

    "Too poor to buy pricey deuterium gas" -- Again... I have endless supplies of gas it seems. Might have been useful, for both of us.

    "Craig bought a container of deuterium oxide, or heavy water, for 20 bucks and came up with a way to make it a gas and get rid of the accompanying oxygen by passing it over heated magnesium filings." -- Craig, do you keep your magnesium filings dry? Mine tend to attract water. I would love to be a fly on your wall come Christmas time... nothing like a Helmholtz coil and Oscilloscope hanging out of your stockings when you come down the stairs!

    Seriously... What address do you live at? I'd like to take your dad out back and whoop him for raising the bar... now all my kids are gonna want to build their own fusion devices. "So honey how about doing a solar system for a science project?" -- "No thanks dad, my friends and I are going build our own sun instead."

    Hope you enjoyed this... it was meant in good humor!

  72. Why not? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Why should you not be able to buy it?

    It's not radioctive. It's not all that useful for much. It is interesting chemcially.

    It's not that expensive, though certainly much more expensive than normal water... but compared to other chemicals, it's not that pricey.

    The "Heavy" in heavy water refers to the fact that it is heavy, not that it is full of dangerous radiation, metals, or anything else.... You could drink it.

    1. Re:Why not? by Myrv · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could drink it

      You could drink it, but you wouldn't want to drink a lot of it. Heavy water in concentrations of over 50% apparently inhibits mitosis (cell division) and would lead to eventual death if not reduced. The symptons are similar to radiation poisoning/chemo with bone marrow, the stomach lining, and hair growth suffering the most damage since these tissues/process are dependent on high cell division rates.

      You would have to ingest fairly significant amounts of D2O over serveral days to do this though. A concentration of 25% heavy water or less is most likely safe.

    2. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not want to know how they tested that 50% DT is bad for you...

  73. second place by pyrrho · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Others thought it was cool, too. Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland. He's now beginning work on a USU physics degree.


    who got first place?

    --

    -pyrrho

  74. Bloom County by chill · · Score: 2, Funny

    This reminds me of an old Bloom County strip where Oliver Wendell Jones built a nuclear bomb for his class science project. The teacher asked him where he got the fissionable material and he said he scraped all the glowing stuff off thousands of watch dials...

    "Attention students! Fire drill!"

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  75. not fusion... not yet? by lingqi · · Score: 1

    From everything I have read about farnsworth fusors, it really says that it is a nutron generator up to a certain threshhold, up to which point the fusion process is self-sustaining - of course, that is if the static electric containment field holds during that time.

    there is an account whereby farnsworth bypassed this threshhold and the neutron generation rate went off the scale and continued for 30 minutes after he turned off the machine (stopped feeding deutrium? i forgot).

    so, maybe it's not sustained cold fusion right now, but doesn't mean it can't be with more tuning.

    I mean, if nothing happens, he has at least 4 years in college for this!

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  76. Are there rubbish dumps like this outside America? by RichardY · · Score: 2, Funny

    "They found a neutron detector in an Idaho Falls scrap metal yard. Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs. They found a broken turbo molecular pump lying forgotten at Deseret Industries." Did they find this stuff next to the broken particle accelerators? Or maybe under the old cray supercomputers?

  77. "Dubya" M D's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Bush is off, halfway around the world, stretching our military thinner than the artist's cut in an RIAA contract, while here at home some college freshman is building nuclear reactors.

    How is this supposed to prevent terrorism?

    Looks like we need to kick Dubya out of the White House and replace him with an M.D.

  78. easy way to get rid of sco by moojin · · Score: 1

    drive to sco parking lot with reactor and have nuclear accident. i guess parking across the street would suffice.

    --
    Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
  79. Nope, he's discovered something really useful ... by elfuq · · Score: 1

    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs. .. a use for AOL CDs

  80. Yeah yeah yeah by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    So the kid is smart. Big fat hairy deal. His fusion reactor still doesn't generate more energy than its input. Thus, it works no better than the one I built last night with beer bottles and styrofoam cups.

    Wake me up when someone builds a real working fusion reactor.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  81. Wow, very smart kid by tsvk · · Score: 1

    College Freshman Builds Fusion Reactor

    For a freshman, that's rather smart. He'll probably be successful in his studies.

    I mean, not everybody can build a fusion rector in his freshman year. I'm finishing my master's thesis and even I cannot get the reaction running properly yet.

    1. Re:Wow, very smart kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you're an idiot

      I was building reactors when I was 10. I've realized that there is nothing to them and nothing really great about them, so I got a life, a girlfriend and got laid finally

    2. Re:Wow, very smart kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, well i built a reactor when i was 3, so eat shit.

      and by 'girlfriend' you mean, "female human(hopefully, i can tell you aren't choosy) kidnapped from blind school" and by 'finally' you mean, "i am a fat, harry, 34-year old man"

      fucking wanker

  82. Re:Just Great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then the US government will probably sell it to them. Isn't that how things have worked in the past?

  83. conflicting posts by TWX · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some posts are saying that he'll never get laid, while others are commenting something about a 'breeder'. C'mon folks! Which is it?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  84. Neutron... Generator / Detector / thingy by brindafella · · Score: 1

    I say "Good on him." When did any of us do this kind of thing. I couldn't care less that it doesn't blow up the universe or his room at the university. He got off his ^*$# and did something that not many others would attempt let alone achieve. Did his father help? Sure; but, the father didn't do it, either! What an achievement.

    --
    Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
  85. Mod parent down "-1 Curmudgeon" by Durindana · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's of consequence cause a high school grad/college freshman cobbled together a low-energy neutron generator from junkyard parts. This is like building a B1 bomber from the crap on Junkyard Wars.

    And it's uplifting, neato and entertaining. A rarity.

  86. When Cold Fusion finally works... by glwhatever · · Score: 1

    Reporter: ...All we know right now is that there is a really big hole in the ground and the University is no more. It looks like a nuclear reaction occurred, but there's no radioactive fallout.

    News Anchor: Bob, are there any theories about what might have happened?

    Reporter: The only thing that appears to be a possibility is that the Cold Fusion Dreamers club was meeting tonight to try out some new ideas. Other than that we have no information...

  87. I'm no science-type person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but if deuterium fuses into helium couldn't you watch the increase in helium atoms in the near vacuum instead of monitoring neutrons which may or may not be coming from outer space? Helium is after all not that common in air and even less in a vacuum.

    This would seem to be a more appropriate test of whether fusion has been achieved or not. Maybe the equipment costs more than what is being employed though and it factored in the decision of what to include into the system. Maybe somebody can setup a paypal system for this guy and we can get him a helium detector.

  88. Aah! My fusion reactor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not supposed to get jigs in it!

  89. Steps to create cold fusion by Micro$will · · Score: 1

    1. Get some deuterium (or heavy water and magnesium filings)
    2. ???
    3. Fusion!

  90. Weapon of Mass Destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better watch out mate, the secret service might be after you for building that Weapon of Mass Destruction.

  91. why are all the /.'ers soo hard to please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i read the article, the kid is awesome, not because what he built is new (it isn't), but because he accomplished something many would have thought to be impossible. he built a homebrew neutron generator.. i figured while reading the comments i might see some awesome insight, related stories, or really funny jokes, but instead all i see is people griping about the article. no where in the /. blurb is "cold fusion" mentioned, if you honestly assumed that a college freshman building any type of device that relates to fusion built a reactor capable of cold fusion without any mention of that being the case then congratulation! you're an idiot! meanwhile i know one college freshman who won't be struggling with a lack of job opportunities when hes done gettin his macguyver-style learn on.

    btw... where exactly do you go to just buy a little heavy water?

    1. Re:why are all the /.'ers soo hard to please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      btw... where exactly do you go to just buy a little heavy water?

      Ice cubes are heavy, ice cubes are water.

    2. Re:why are all the /.'ers soo hard to please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ice cubes are heavy, ice cubes are water.

      Your head is light, your head is empty.

  92. Re:Just Great.. by pythonisman · · Score: 1

    It would probably help if you read the article.

    It is not exactly a large scale reactor churning out stray atomic particles.

    I for one commend him on his effort, and challenge all the people who bag him to do any better or the same.

    Keep up the good work, mate!

  93. How Long.... by buford_tannen · · Score: 1

    before Mr. Fusion Home Energy Generators are available?

    (See uid if you don't get it...)

    --
    Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
  94. Only second place? by wombat_of_doom · · Score: 1

    Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland.

    Anybody know what beat a WORKING FUSION REACTOR in a science fair?

  95. Re:Finally! A use for those AOL and MSDN CD's!! by jigyasubalak · · Score: 1

    Are you thinking what I am thinking...
    Well, obviously, a beowulf cluster of nuetron modulators, what else ;)

    --
    The best planning can be done after the project completes.
  96. Re:Finally! A use for those AOL and MSDN CD's!! by cjsnell · · Score: 1

    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.

    Apparently, my mother's computer is not the only thing an AOL cd can slow down.

  97. Know Your Audience by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90% of the people on /. are too young to catch your reference.

  98. A nagging question... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    "Too poor to buy pricey deuterium gas, Craig bought a container of deuterium oxide, or heavy water, for 20 bucks"

    Forgive my ignorance, but exactly where does one come across a container of deuterium oxide for $20??? Discount Nuclear Supplies R' Us?

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:A nagging question... by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

      Forgive my ignorance

      You are forgiven

      but exactly where does one come across a container of deuterium oxide for $20??? Discount Nuclear Supplies R' Us

      Heavy water is not radioactive and is only mildly toxic upon ingestion.

      It occurs naturally, but rarely, in nature. It can easily be seperated from regular water. You could put together the equipment to produce heavy water for well, well under a million dollars.

    2. Re:A nagging question... by technos · · Score: 1

      Naw.. Call a couple uni labs, call a couple big-name chemical houses, call a few DoD research facilities. Tell em you're a college student looking for some heavy water to use in your independant study physics course. It's not a verboten compound and is widely used in physics courses. Somebody is going to have some. And you only need a little.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
  99. talk about uninformed by mOoZik · · Score: 2, Informative

    Farnsworth fusors have been built by the dozens by many amateurs. In fact, anyone with little knowledge of high voltages and some crafty skills can make one. It's nothing more than a chamber which turns deuterium into plasma and a pump to keep it going. Some additionally have a neutron counter. Many believe that pushing the Farnsworth fusor is the precursor to cold fusion, but many more disagree. Nevertheless, this is nothing to be excited about. It would probably be more challanging to put together an erector set.

  100. Whats the world coming too by mox_ll · · Score: 2

    Kinda makes me wonder what ever happened to the teenager than tried to make a nuclear bomb out of smoke alarms. Seriously, it is amazing what you can do with round the house items nowadays.

    --
    Come get some....
    1. Re:Whats the world coming too by forkboy · · Score: 1

      He does nuclear research for the navy. This link has his story..."The Radioactive Boyscout" he was monickered.

      http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.ht ml

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  101. [OT] Love your sig by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    Read me Dr. Memory?

    [I'm assuming your .sig is a Firesign reference.]

  102. Anyone else? by jvollmer · · Score: 1
    Is anyone else reminded of the "Outer-Limits" episode in which a failing physics student,
    while attempting to answer the test-question, "Prove that Cold-Fusion is impossible,"
    discovers that it's easy to build a low-yield H-bomb using off the shelf components,
    and proceeds to build one?

    If it's not Consolidated Lint, it's just fuzz.

  103. Obligatory Simpsons Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

  104. Re:Not cold fusion. Not terribly useful, either. by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

    Like it matters. When we finally do acheive cold fusion, here on slashdot everybody will argue how much better PHP is, anyway.

    --
    Hey freaks: now you're ju
  105. Re:Are there rubbish dumps like this outside Ameri by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 1
    It just goes to show what you'll find in American garbage dumps.

    American's are the leading experts in throwing things away.

  106. Slow news day by th3axe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's mostly a human interest story with a very misleading title. It's sort of like some kid creating a 4 bit microprocessor with a magnifying glass and a soldering iron. He wins the science project, but he didn't do anything really new. The cool factor is there, but ultimately, it doesn't matter too much.

    On the other hand, you can't deny the coolness factor. Wish I'd had that sort of support when I was a kid. My mom said I read too much science fiction and told me to go outside and get some exercise.

    --
    "It's real and we can touch it, so least we know where we stand." - Jack Burton
  107. Generating neutrons is easy by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't even need electricity for that. Just mix beryllium with a good source of alpha particles like radium. Beryllium 9 undergoes an (alpha,n) fusion reaction with an incident alpha particle, generating carbon 12 and a loose neutron.

    Beryllium 9 is great because it's essentially two helium nuclei held together by a loose neutron with a very low binding energy (1.66 MeV). It's almost the nuclear equivalent of an alkali metal. You can even pop the thing apart with a gamma ray if you don't want to bother with alpha emitters. For those who worry about berylliosis, boron 11 also works. The (alpha,n) reaction yields nitrogen 14.

    This was the setup that Chadwick used for detecting the neutron in 1932. Back then neutrons were referred to as "beryllium radiation" (sort of like how electrons were first called "cathode rays") and were wrongly thought to be some sort of strongly penetrating photons. Chadwick surrounded his beryllium source with wax and measured the energies of the protons that got knocked out by elastic collisions. Wax is a great moderator because it's full of protons, and the neutron slams into a proton in the wax and loses all its energy like a billiard ball. The neutron that emerges from the wax is a slow neutron. Slow neutrons are generally much more useful than fast neutrons because they spend more time in your fissionable material, and there is no Coulomb barrier that they need to overcome so they react with nuclei very easily.

    I shouldn't say too much more or else I'll get myself placed on the Bush Administration's new list of 100,000 maniacs. But if you're building a fission bomb, these reactions are really handy because your implosion doesn't last very long and you need to get hold of lots of slow neutrons in a hurry. If you're building a nuclear reactor for power generation, you're under less of a tight schedule and can probably wait a millisecond or two for neutrons from cosmic rays or spontaneous fissions to get your pile going.

    1. Re:Generating neutrons is easy by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You don't even need electricity for that. Just mix beryllium with a good source of alpha particles like radium.

      You're right, that is a simple way to generate neutrons--for those who happen to have radium lying around the house.

      Actually, I suppose some people do, and it's giving them lung cancer--radon is a decay product of radium.

      Finally, a word of warning about beryllium. The bulk material isn't terribly nasty--it's not particularly readily absorbed through the skin, and ingested beryllium mostly passes through the digestive tract. Powders can be quite harmful, however, causing--appropriately enough--berylliosis.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  108. with all the paranoia here in the states... by jlemmerer · · Score: 1

    ... it is a wonder the student actually said what he did. for now he is surely registered as a potential nuclear terrorist and propably also as producer of WMD's...

    --
    ".Sig Stealer" was here
  109. News Flash. by sinserve · · Score: 0

    Fushion Reactor job being outsourced to india. The Department of Energy expects to
    save 45% of the student's $100 weekly allowance.

    We will bring you the news as it develops.

  110. Whatever happened tothat Japanese project... by SifuDave54 · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering, whatever happened to the giant fusion reactor they were building in Japan, the one that had man-sized conduits with the three magnetic things spiraling around them, that was supposed to achieve fusion reactions on a large scale?

  111. Use #3458 For Those Annoying AOL CDs by BAPenguin · · Score: 1

    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.

    I knew I was collecting the AOL CDs for something.

  112. You slashdot nerds are all losers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stop bagging this guy out. he is better than you'll ever be. You're just end users waitin to be ownz. Mediocre programmers having your work outsourced to India.

    From your friendly patent attorney.

    1. Re:You slashdot nerds are all losers by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, the beautiful, beautiful irony. Please, tell us more about how much people who post on slashdot suck!

      --
      It's been a long time.
  113. Not so uncommon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Second place in the Intel Science Talent Search this
    year was won by a high school kid from Oregon
    Episcopal with a very similar device:

    http://www.sciserv.org/sts/62sts/winners.asp

    Check out the hottie who won!

    He actually built two at home, and then convinced
    NASA to let him trade up.

    From the article: "I bet I'm the only high school
    student that has one," Craig Wallace said.

    Guess again pal...

  114. Just like in South Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the episode when they go meet god and everyone else goes to hell, even if they were good people of other relgions and god said Mormonism was the Right(tm) religion.

  115. Don't count your angels before the pinheads hatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Classic /. People arguing about the consequences of Wallace's actions before he's even taken those actions.

    This little device? It's a toy. He found mechanical tricks to get the purity and the accuracy he needed. The main reason Farnsworth could make such a thing from Farnsworth's design is that in the 1930s none of the "junk parts" Wallace used were available. Hell, he got his deuterium from a twenty dollar can of heavy water. Farnsworth could only dream of that.

    If I were going to speculate on Wallace's future actions in any way, it wouldn't be one of these "atom bomb inventor" speculations. I expect his mechanical cleverness will save someone somewhere a great deal of money at some point. Cheaper missiles, cheaper shuttles or cheaper refrigerators, who knows.

  116. Fusion that GENERATES electricity by ThesQuid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually read quite a bit on these devices a few weeks ago when the cold fusion article came up on /.
    One of the things I came across was Fusor, which is essentially a site for people who do this as a hobby.
    The most interesting thing I found was a link to the work of a gentleman named Eric Lerner. He actually has a workable, scalable, power-generating reactor. His is based on "dense plasma focus". Thing is, he's already got the thing to 1 billion degrees - and he's going for the big time - the aneutronic p-B11 reaction. That only generates alpha particles - which can be directly converted into electricity. No nasty turbines or steam! Pretty amazing.

    1. Re:Fusion that GENERATES electricity by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative
      He actually has a workable, scalable, power-generating reactor.

      No, he doesn't. From the linked article, in the Objectives section.

      Lawrenceville Plasma Physics' objective is to achieve break-even (100% net efficiency) with focus fusion (as much energy out as fed into the plasma).
      [...]
      These experiments, which will take about a year once the equipment is ready, are aimed at achieving a number of goals essential to moving toward a focus fusion reactor.

      It's a pretty set of sketches and projections (right down to very detailed guesstimates at the income and return on investment for a hypothetical company who might want to fund this project) but it is by no means a working generator. He hasn't even achieved break-even yet. Don't hold your breath.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Fusion that GENERATES electricity by ThesQuid · · Score: 1

      Whoops, you're right. Strike "power-generating". What I meant was more along the lines of "a reactor that CAN be made to generate electricity", as opposed to electrostatic confinement fusors, which have fundamental problems with being used as a generation device.

    3. Re:Fusion that GENERATES electricity by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You know, reading that message, I wonder if you aren't just using all those large-ish words to make us small word usin' folk feel bad. :P

      --
      It's been a long time.
  117. The Radioactive Boy Scout by cribcage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone remember this story?

    crib
    --

    Please don't read my journal
  118. OT: rearranging by AllenChristopher · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good point. I think you've made an excellent foniillcoiunhiiicpcliaicatfin.

  119. I invent stuf too ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why, just yesterday I finished building my warp engine and as soon as I can collect enough beer cans to build the aluminum hull for my space ship, I'm going to Vulcan to visit Spock.

  120. "Deseret" Morning News? by richie2000 · · Score: 1

    My frist reaction was "My God, the Slashdot editors have started a real paper!". Anyone know why it isn't called "Desert Morning News"? Was the founder dyslectic?

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by shaldannon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Dunno why I'm answering someone who uses the word "frist" and then accuses someone else of being "dyslectic" (try "first" and "dyslexic"), but here's an attempt...

      It all goes back to shortly after members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as "Mormons") colonized Utah and the surrounding areas. At the time, the territory belonged to Mexico (and the Ute Indians). Brigham Young, leader of the church, petitioned the United States for admision to the Union. His envisioned territory comprised Utah, parts of Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, and was called "Deseret." He intended it to be the largest state in the Union, and drew the geographic boundaries in such a way as to maximize natural resources for the territory. The US liked the idea of acquiring the land, but weren't enthused about having a single large entity controlled by Mormons. So they carved out several states from Mexican territory...

      In any case, the word comes from a book of scripture used by Latter-day Saints. The word signifies the honey bee, and was chosen because Latter-day Saint people believe in being industrious.

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    2. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      Dunno why I'm answering someone who uses the word "frist"

      I thought it would be a funny tie-in with "deseret/desert" and the story the other day about re-arranging letter in words. "Dyslectic" was a real typo, coloured by the Swedish word for the phenomena (dyslektisk). Anyhow, thanks for the answer.

      Oh, and it's "admission", not "admision". (Hey, we're on Slashdot!) ;-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    3. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      richie2000 1, shaldannon 0 :)

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    4. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's actually 1:1. But what would Del Shannon think? ;-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    5. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Ya got me on that one :)

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    6. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      What's your Slash Rating?

      49. ;-P

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    7. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thanks for rubbing that one in (I see you checked both of us) :)

      That statistic (and page) is created by a friend and former co-worker of mine.

      By the way, noticed you have a Swedish email address...what's it like living in Sweden? (My great grandparents were Swedish immigrants to the US).

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    8. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      And how would you describe your use of "phenomena" for the singular? (Phenomenon is the singular, phenomena the plural - from Greek neuter 2nd declension noun, "thing that shows/displays itself.")

    9. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      (I see you checked both of us) :)

      I like to cover my bases. :-)

      By the way, noticed you have a Swedish email address...what's it like living in Sweden? (My great grandparents were Swedish immigrants to the US).

      What kind of question is that? What's it like not to live in Sweden? When you figure out how to answer that one, I'll answer yours. :-P

      Umm, no, wait - I've got an answer for you, sorta: It's like Canada. I've never been there, but my guess is it's pretty close, both in climate, socio-economics and general attitude. If you just want the climate and some of the attitude, try MN.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    10. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      Damn. Eh... There's more than one person suffering from it?

      OK, you get a point. :-D

      *mutters* I'll 'neuter' that smartass... Oh, is this thing on? *taps microphone*

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    11. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      *laugh*

      Fair question. Guess I'm curious how it compares in climate and culture to the US...people nicer? Politicians more honest? Economy better? I already figure it snows more and has less hurricanes and earthquakes :) (living in Raleigh, hurricanes are rather on my mind at present).

      Oh well, the closest I get is being 1/8 Swede and driving a Volvo :)

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    12. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      people nicer? Politicians more honest? Economy better?

      All of those vary a lot depending on who you talk to, where you are and what you do. Just like in the US. When I was over there (I worked for TenFour which had a US sibsidiary in VA, I spent probably 2-3 months on US soil in '96-97) all the people were very nice, the economy was booming and I didn't see a single politician. The closest I ever got to NC was a day in Virginia Beach. :-P

      (living in Raleigh, hurricanes are rather on my mind at present).

      I see. Complete the poll and GET THE FUCK OUT!!!

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    13. Re:"Deseret" Morning News? by shaldannon · · Score: 1

      I completed the poll (FEAR FEAR FEAR) (semi-serious), but that was when it was still a category 5. Now at Category 2, with expected winds of up to 40 mph, I'm staying put in my apartment.

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
  121. Well I'll be damned... by rune2 · · Score: 1

    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.

    Finally a use for all those AOL CDs!

  122. More evidence... by LuYu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just more evidence that the Internet is improving our lives. A science project such as this would have been barely imaginablie before the Internet.

    It is also probable that the boy's access to information would have been too limited to compelete such a task without the Internet.

    If corporations can be prevented from imprisoning this information for their short term profit, progress will be accelerated exponentially. It is essential that communication be kept free. Great discoveries are never made by old scientists (or should I say married scientists?). Therefore, young people need more access to information.

    It seems that the monopoly profit model no longer "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Access to all information needs to be guaranteed for the future for progress. Profits are secondary to access.

    Finally, if scientists are not tinkerers, what what is their purpose?

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    1. Re:More evidence... by IronicCheese · · Score: 1

      Don't overstate the power of the Internet.

      John Aristotle Phillips designed an A-Bomb on a lark without the Internet.

      His story is outlined here.
      Mushroom: Story of the A-Bomb Kid A fun read.

  123. LIAR!!! by DrMorpheus · · Score: 2, Funny

    (sound of uncontrolled sobbing)

    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
    1. Re:LIAR!!! by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm an insane geek and I married an insane geek wife. We geek squared all the time!

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  124. Now imagine the press coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    if a foreign student from, say, Pakistan had built such a device "from parts salvaged from junk yards and charity drops". Don't you think we'd see calls for a Junk Yard Security Management division of the DoHS?

  125. Ahem- John Logie Baird? by mistermax · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure John Logie Baird invented the television.

    1. Re:Ahem- John Logie Baird? by agentforsythe · · Score: 1

      indeed

      those damned yanks have a habit of overlooking that though.

      Edison wasnt the first to invent the electric lightbulb either...

    2. Re:Ahem- John Logie Baird? by ptheta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      John Logie Baird did invent the TV, and what's more he was one of the last lone scientists in a loft lab doing his own thing. However, his TV is nothing like the modern television (for which the Americans can reasonably claim credit for) it used a spinning disc with slits in it to selectively project an image on to various parts of the screen (the TV camera used the same system in reverse). In effect it was a mechanical TV, cool or what! In the UK dual signals were broadcast up until sometime in the 1940's I believe (don't quote me on that date I don't remember the exact one). Eventually, the signal for Logie Baird's TV system was switched off. One of the major prolems with his system was that the screen size of the TV was limited by the radius of the spinning disc - can you imagine a 36" widescreen version?!

    3. Re:Ahem- John Logie Baird? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Logie baird invented mechanical TV, not the electronic type we watch

    4. Re:Ahem- John Logie Baird? by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      And when we all have flat screen TV's with no CRT, will this mean you'll be acknowledging someone else as the inventor of TV as "Farnsworth invented CRT TV's, not the digital flat type we watch"?

  126. Re:Eat shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, get a life. You took that much time to type up something nobody is interested in? Sad fuck. Get a life. Now.

  127. How do they get such smart minds ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0



    I know I am dumb.

    Really dumb.

    That is why I am asking this question . . . . . . .

    How do they get such smart minds ?

    I mean, in my high school years, college years, post graduate years, I have read lots and lots of articles, but never in my (dumb) mind that I can think of doing the things (nuke fusion, cyclotron etc.) they do.

    I bet if someone know how to make people having smart minds (and use them too) we won't have osama bin laden running around anymore.

    I mean, there are so much more interesting to do than blowing up people, or crashing planes into WTC, or chanting "Allah the greatest" while slaughtering the innocent !

    Unfortunately, this world is filled with dumb people, like me.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:How do they get such smart minds ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be one fucking great country under god, don't you think?

  128. Some notes on implosion systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Manhattan Project put a huge amount of effort into making implosion work. They knew early on that 3D compression was wanted, but making it work was tough. Designing an implosive system was only part of the problem. Tens of thousands of chemical explosive tests were required. New explosives with consistent detonation rates had to be developed. A system for taking high-speed X-rays of an explosion had to be developed. Precision casting and machining of the explosive elements was required. Eventually they succeeded, but it was a harder problem than anticipated.

    The basic problem is that ordinary implosion systems are metastable. You're trying to pull something together, but the only forces available push, rather than pull. If the detonation front develops any asymmetry, the system blows apart, instead of producing the huge pressures of a perfect implosion needed to trigger a nuclear reaction.

    There are ways to get around the metastability problem. Many geometries were tried in the 1940s and 1950s. Exactly how it's done in more modern weapons is still classified. For a sense of current thinking, though, see A Novel Explosively Driven Flying Plate System. This recent paper from Los Alamos has both the simulated and actual results for a detonation system. This gives a sense of the development tools used.

    1. Re:Some notes on implosion systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or of course, you could just use a gun type design and throw two halves of a critical mass together and hope.

  129. Two cultures by panurge · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The British academic C P Snow spent a lot of time arguing that there are now two cultures which really do not interact: Liberal arts (favored by the people who have the power in society, by the way) and science/engineering. There is very little cross fertilisation. Part of the reason that scientists and engineers for the most part get screwed is that they have this boring addiction to things that are testable, and to objective standards of truth. People who are basically prepared to put spin on anything set off with a huge advantage.

    And why this apparently off-topic minor rant? Because we're seeing it here. The ones who probably can't even change a bicycle tire say "Oh that's easy, probably just followed the instruction book", not having the slightest clue about how difficult it is to make something from disparate parts. The ones who have got a clue or have been involved in projects like this have an idea of how difficult it really is, but actually they have no idea of how huge and insuperable the barrier is to 99% of the population - because they themselves are hardwired to know where to start.

    It's about disparate rewards. The same level of skill and application this guy showed, applied to basketball or acting, might get him a multimillion dollar income. Why don't we perceive someone who spends hours bouncing a little ball around as being sad and geeky and having too much time on his hands? Why does someone who pretends to be other people, often not very well, get paid so much more than an astronaut or a fighter pilot who does something really, really difficult and dangerous?

    Naive ramblings, I guess, but in the conversion of the human race from savannah apes to civilisation, it wasn't the actors and the basketball players that worked out how to bang the rocks together and how to get one stone to stick on top of another.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Two cultures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice post! You raise some good points.

    2. Re:Two cultures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job... society is (as you clearly understand) dominated by extroverted people from "soft" disciplines who have little patience for silly scientific rules 'n laws.

    3. Re:Two cultures by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      Very well said. Let me add one tangent to your observations ; while a basketball/sports player is just making the best use of his/her natural psycomotory talents, the actors have the unusual opportunity of being able to reach millions of people with messages thay may or may not contain relevant information. Unfortunately they often play scripts that they didn't conceive or write, but what if some good actor was also a decent writer and had something to say like "get rich quick schemes" are scams and are bad ? Add this will and skill to a geek armed with a decent PC and video editing skill and we may soon have an example of cross fertilization at work.

    4. Re:Two cultures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the feature of "free market"+"democracy" system the Western world is living in today.

      Most of the population are, basically, rather stupid, but it is them who decide what is good and what is bad. And as they do not care a hack about anythina else aside from fun&food it will be the pop-singers and the like, who will be millionieres, not the people who objectively are "better" and put their live on risk for the sake of others (who, normally, do not value or even notice that...)

      sad.

    5. Re:Two cultures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The overwhelming majority of people are only interested in maintaining the status quo. Those who we label as exceptional are the ones who ask how they can affect a specific problem.

      Another interesting point, each side of your split looks down on the other.

    6. Re:Two cultures by CKW · · Score: 1

      Very interesting.

      Here's an idea. It's the people who appreciate actors and basketball players that decide they would like more of "that thing" and as such divert their money to those people. If we want kids like this to become "scientific rock stars", then we the people that appreciate their accomplishments should be the first to divert *our* money to these people. Now the question is, how do we set that up? Send this kid and his thingie on a science-museum tour where we techies can pay $5 each to get a look at it?

      Or do you just want to take away the tens of millions of dollars that some actors and sports-stars make, seeing as there really is no good reason that Michael Jackson should have control of a half billion dollars worth of society's resources? AKA cap what they can gross?

      I'm cool with that.

    7. Re:Two cultures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's capitalism. People get paid what the market will bear. And there is a lot more money to be made in entertainment (which includes sports).

      I find it odd that you blame liberal arts for this, considering that liberal arts types tend to be further to the left on the socialism/capitalism continuum. It's also odd that you make a connection between liberal arts and those who hold the power in society. Those in power favor business, not liberal arts.

    8. Re:Two cultures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naive ramblings, I guess, but in the conversion of the human race from savannah apes to civilisation, it wasn't the actors and the basketball players that worked out how to bang the rocks together and how to get one stone to stick on top of another.

      As a basketball player that has recently discovered how to get one stone to stick on top of another, I take offense, you insensitive clod !

  130. Strange by turgid · · Score: 2, Informative
    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.

    In my day we called it a moderator. Why didn't he just use charcoal, coal or graphite?

    And another thing, I thought it was John Logie Baird that invented (mechanical) television and Marconi who invented magnetically-scanned television? Maybe in America, everything was invented by Americans independently of the rest of the world?

    1. Re:Strange by TeknoHog · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Maybe in America, everything was invented by Americans independently of the rest of the world?

      A European named Christopher Columbus found intelligent life in America in 1492. We're still waiting for Americans to do the same ;-)

      (OT, this brings to mind my favourite horror movies, Nightwatch (Danish) and Ringu (Japanese). Why the heck did the Americans need to remake these? Both of them rely quite a lot on the milieu, and I imagine the psychological horror effect is diluted if they are taken into a more familiar environment.)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Strange by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Here is a Canadian page listing the "inventors" of television. Perhaps because it originates outside of the USA it will have more authority in your eyes. Mentions that Farnsworth invented electronic TV in 1927.

    3. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why the heck did the Americans need to remake these?
      Why the heck did you find yourself compelled to watch them, then?
    4. Re:Strange by Canuckanuck · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Vikings were around a lot earlier than Columbus.

    5. Re:Strange by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
      Why the heck did you find yourself compelled to watch them, then?

      I have not watched them! Just the fact of remaking, which smells like a NIH* syndrome, is enough to infuriate me.

      (*NIH = Not Invented Here)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:Strange by turgid · · Score: 1

      ...and the Injuns (sic) were there first.

  131. Inventor of TV???? by sbryant · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would not necessarily call Philo Taylor Farnsworth the inventor of TV. Electronic TV, yes, along with transmission of TV signals (demonstrated in 1927), but Baird was the first to demonstrate a working "television" - a mechanical device, demonstrated in 1925. Farnsworth's used a scanning technique, much different in design to Baird's.

    I think Baird was the first to get colour working (in WW2). There were many others too, such as Zworykin (invented similar things, parallel to Farnsworth), Du Mont (invented the CRT), and Nipkow (invented the scanning disk in 1884, the basis for mechanical TVs).

    More info here and here.

    -- Steve

    1. Re:Inventor of TV???? by Lurch+Kimded · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah! Someoen noticed that Baird was the TRUE inventor of TV.

      Funny enough hes a scottish guy along with Alexander Graham Bell (telephone) and a bunch of other scientists who have helped mould the late 19th and early 20th century.

      --

      How can you say that civilisation's do not advance... in every war we invent new ways to kill you.

  132. Mass defect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anybody now the supposed mass defect involved in fusing two deuterium nuclei to arrive at a neutron and a tritium nucleus? The mass defect is carried away as a radiation of an energy related to mass. I would expect gamma radiation, so standing back is perhaps not such a dumb thing.

    1. Re:Mass defect? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, the energy is carried away as the kinetic energy of a fast neutron.

      These are bad, but a common part of environmental radiation.

    2. Re:Mass defect? by krysith · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, the two possible deuteron fusion reactions go like this:

      D+D -> T (+3.0 MeV) + p (+1.0 MeV)

      OR

      D+D -> He3 (+0.82 MeV) + n (+2.45 MeV)

      These reactions occur with approximately equal probabilities, depending on the input kinetic energy.

      I don't think you get gammas from the reaction itself, but you will get high energy X-rays when the product particles run into whatever you are using for shielding.

      Neutrons are actually much more dangerous than gammas.

      To calculate the mass defect, just use E=mc^2. So for the Triton generating reaction, mass defect = (3+1) MeV/c^2 = 4 Mev/c^2.

      Oh, and an MeV is equal to 1.6*10^-13 Joules, if you need it in metric. Why we don't just use metric for nuclear physics, I don't know.

      For further information, you might find the following link useful: NRL Plasma Formulary

  133. Re:Are there rubbish dumps like this outside Ameri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American proverb:
    What can be built once can be built twice for only double the money.

    Yes, I'm an American.

  134. can we please, stop paying for this utah "educ" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's not fusion, it's not even close. it's a plasma, there's one in every flourescent lamp. i seroiusly doubt neutrons were produced, neutron flux is notoriously hard to measure, which is why the morons (uh, i mean mormons) in utah thought they had done more than they had before. if fusion were occuring, energy would be produced, lots of it. any neutrons produced would be the hot high velocity kind, not the kind that blow in an open window and foil attempts by the incompetant to measure a change or thier actual production. please, please, can we cut all federal funds to utah, and especially to this university? is there a way we can throw these knuckle draggers out of the unoin? this is truly, truly pathetic, and the public should, in theory, realize that nothing true is ever reported in that particular state....

  135. Philo T. WHO??? by LardBrattish · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Philo T. Farnsworth (the inventor of the television
    And there was silly old me thinking it was John Logie Baird... Who's re-inventing history BTW? America or the UK?
    --
    What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
  136. Does anyone here has a clue about such projects ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I mean the title says nothing.
    This can be repeating well-known stuff from literature, scientific speculation or genuine scientific research.
    However what seems fishy to me is that some stuff needs expensive labs/devices. So it seems to me very unlikely that high-school students do this stuff without professional help.
    Take e.g. the "ident. genes with NN" stuff.
    This is either a bunch of worthless programs operating on some artificial test data or some professional institution provided them with test sets and probably even gave the starting point of the project.
    Same for the RNA, Venus and asteriod projects.

  137. wrong and wrong again .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUSor had a college student with his own fusor about 1 and a half years ago. others are listed in their discussion forum.
    the inventor of todays tv was, iirc a german named braun and radar? they did during the first world war not doppler of course but a range finder ..
    i just hate oold stuff in slashy 8) keep postin anyways :D

  138. Quick way.... by hashwolf · · Score: 0

    Junkyard
    Craig Wallace
    ????
    Profit!

    --
    - "They misunderestimated me."
  139. and I thought I was pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for building a MAME cabinet...

  140. Fusion doesn't have to be self-sustained! by TA · · Score: 3, Informative

    You didn't read the article either. It is fusion. It's just not self-sustained (only generating four neutrons a minute). It's still fusion.

    1. Re:Fusion doesn't have to be self-sustained! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Soviet Russian Fusion Reactors (tm) we have neutrons fuse and generate protons!

  141. Inventor of the television? by qui_tollis · · Score: 1

    Surely that was John Logie Baird, or is this some revisionist version of history taught only in the UK.

  142. Wesley? Is that you? by FrostedWheat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Craig built a neutron modulator

    Looks like Mr.Crusher has some competition!

  143. I think you are quite ON topic. by fleppir · · Score: 1

    Well, the underlying topic at least.

    Tinkering like this will advance science at some point. Most good inventions had an air of mishap about them, something besides what was being researched was the important discovery.

    It was extremely cool to go to the moon, a great feat of heroism and dedication. The most important technological advance made (for society) wasn't rocketry but probably how to aggregate large quantities of data.

    There are probably lot better examples of what i'm talking about. Got any? Use the reply link ;)

    --
    I am the Barber of Seville.
    1. Re:I think you are quite ON topic. by willtsmith · · Score: 1

      This is interesting because a truely completely focused individual would IGNORE that weird result that didn't further his goal. A truly creative person will abandon the world for a novell unique idea.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  144. Big deal by Craig3010 · · Score: 1

    I built a warp drive in jr. high, but you don't see my name up in lights. Leonard Nimoy does still have that restraining order out on me though.

  145. Only Second Place?! by Cereal+Box · · Score: 4, Funny

    Others thought it was cool, too. Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland. He's now beginning work on a USU physics degree.

    Wow, building a nuclear fusion reactor only gets you second place in Intel's science contest? What did the kid who got first place do, find a cure for cancer?

    1. Re:Only Second Place?! by thepacketmaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can find the results at http://www.sciserv.org/isef/results/grnd2003.asp Wallace was one of several Second award winners. First award went to two projects: "Is Eating Blueberry Pie Bad for You?" and "Chaotic Fluids: An Examination of Phase Transitions in Taylor-Couette Flow"

      --

      --

      Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.

    2. Re:Only Second Place?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! (read the article).

    3. Re:Only Second Place?! by iabervon · · Score: 1

      It didn't produce new results, and the design already existed. It's a great feat of construction, especially because he built it from spare parts, but not ground-breaking science or engineering.

      On the other hand, he should really be on Junkyard Wars.

  146. "Inventor of Television"? by BigBadBus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, thats a first. Has no-one heard of John Logie Baird?

    1. Re:"Inventor of Television"? by ausoleil · · Score: 5, Informative

      Baird was the inventor of mechanical scanning television.

      Q: How many of those are in use today?

      A: About 1x10^e-120 (okay, so it's a guess)

      Philo Farnsworth invented the electronic scanning system that you watch today.

      Vladimir Zworykin, who is often cited as the "inventor" of television said after his 1930 visit to Farnsworth lab that "I wish I might have invented it."

      Of course, Zworkin was in the employ of David Sarnoff of RCA. (as an aside: if you think that Microsoft is an anti-competitive monopoly, you should check out "Radio" of the 1920s. They had a portfolio of literally hundreds of patents that effectively denied entry in the radio marketplace unless you went first to them and paid licensing fees. And if Radio did not like you or wanted to own you, no license and no business for you.)

      Anyways, Sarnoff wanted RCA to dominate television the same way that they dominated radio. RCA tried for many years to discredit Farnworth and his invention, instead saying that Zworkin had invented the iconoscope in 1923. This, history shows us, was clearly a lie. It is a lie as grand as Apple or Microsoft claiming the invention of the graphical user interface for computing. Or that Marconi invented radio. Neither is true.

      History does show that on September 27, 1927 Philo T. Farnsowrth demonstrated the first all-electronic television system.

      Farnsworth was a brilliant man, and should be given full credit for all that he did.

      For more info: http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-who_inve nted_what.html

  147. you're sig is *really* offensive by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    so either "congratulations" or "fuck right off"

    I just can't decide

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:you're sig is *really* offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're (sic) English also is really offensive. And no, there is no chance for congratulations. It's fuck right off all the way.

  148. Have they fixed the supercomputer bug yet? by Mxyzptlk · · Score: 1

    "Hey Mike?"

    "Yeah, Gabe?"

    "We got a problem down on Earth. In Utah."

    "I thought you fixed that last century!"

    "No, no, not that. Someone's found a loophole in the physics program. They're getting energy out of nowhere."

    "Blessit! Lemme check..." "Hey, I thought I fixed that! All right, let me find my terminal." "There, that ought to patch it."

    (from Rec.Humor.Funny)

  149. Re:Does anyone here has a clue about such projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn straight - - that's why they're often called "Serendipity Labs." The junior biochemists are way less impressive than this guy.

  150. Utah is not the Midwest by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

    It is considered to be in the West, and more specifically, the Mountain West. Never the Midwest.

  151. So what? by cbmeeks · · Score: 1

    I built a flux capacitor when I was in high school, attached it to my Ford Pinto, and went back to November 5th, 1955. It was there that I met my parents.

    cbmeeks

    --
    Remember, licking doorknobs is illegal on other planets.
  152. CDs... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    Craig built a neutron modulator (which slows down the emitted neutrons so they can be detected) out of a few hundred spare CDs.

    I bet those were all AOL CDs, everyone has a few hundered of those lying around all the time.

  153. this kid builds one hell of a bong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome to college

  154. Words he will never hear... by gosand · · Score: 2, Funny
    Fusion is hotter than an older college chick.

    Words this kid will never hear: "Baby, you make me hotter than a Poisser plasma reaction."

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  155. Brilliant and Understandable by cluckshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This guy makes reading equations and calculations a rational exercise and easy! He is the kind of guy we need in Physics, not those who have died and been reincarnated as god!

    --
    Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  156. Not something you see everyday... by gillbates · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They found a neutron detector in an Idaho Falls scrap metal yard.

    Is it just me, or was this a lucky find? I mean, even before 9/11, finding nuclear devices was pretty hard.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Not something you see everyday... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that. I mean, if they were, how would we detect fires in our homes?

      --
      It's been a long time.
  157. Ya know.... by doppleganger871 · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...this kid builds a reactor, and M$ can't even build a reliable patch system for their OS'es. Well, for that matter, a reliable anything.

  158. I, for one,... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new nuclear fusion reactor-building freshman overlords!

  159. 3 2 nutrons a minute? Be still me beeting heart. by thbigr · · Score: 1

    Big deal, I have seen plans for this using all kinds of materials....

    Now generate more energy then you put in!

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  160. science fair by blitziod · · Score: 1

    ok if that won SECOND place, what project one the first place?

    --
    The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
  161. second place? by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 3, Informative

    So this kid builds this amazing thing and he wins second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland.

    What won first place, you might ask? According to Intel's page on it, there were in fact 3 winners. One developed a new method for determining the distance of asteroids from Earth, another developed a program that may one day enable a person with muscular disabilities to use brainwaves to control a computer keyboard, and the third set out to solve how to treat cancer patients effectively without destroying their healthy cells.

    --
    MORTAR COMBAT!
  162. Parental Involvement by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

    Looking at Farnsworth's plans for the first time, Craig and his father both had the same thought: Now there's a science project.

    This kid didn't do this all on his own. His father helped and supported him. To me, the big message here is: "Hey parents, pay attention to your kids and encourage them to do hard things. They can and will." Work with and help your kids excel at something, anything. Don't expect the public school system and day care to turn your kids into geniuses.

    There is a much longer rant wanting to be released, but I think you get the message.

    - Jasen.

  163. Better Obligatory Simpsons Joke by phillymjs · · Score: 1

    Martin: Behold, the power plant of the future, today!
    Burns: Yuchh. Too cold and sterile. Where's the heart?
    Martin: But it really generates power. It, it's lighting this room right now. [turns a knob, dimming the auditorium lights]
    Burns: You lose -- get off my property.

    From "Homer's Enemy" (the Frank Grimes episode)

    ~Philly

    1. Re:Better Obligatory Simpsons Joke by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      By the way, I did RTFA, and I am aware that the kid's reactor does not generate power.

  164. Atom bomb fun at home. by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    Who wouldn't want to light one off in the desert at night on the 4th of July wearing sunglasses and tanning lotion, sitting on a lawn chair with their honey and a 30 pack of beer?

    There's lots of stuff more radioactive than U235 and Pu239, there's Pu238 ( I could have the atomic wights wrong for Pu ) that they use to power space probes. It's much more radioactive than the stuff they use in bombs. U235 is less radioactive than Pu 239. The cesium they use to irradiate food is even more radioactive than the Pu they use in space probes. But you couldn't make a bomb with it. It is so radioactive that you couldn't hold a critical mass of it together long enough for it all to chain-react and blow up.

    If you want a nuclear boom, you need something that chain-reacts at critical mass slowly enough to stay together and make an efficient boom. U235 is the easiest thing anyone has found to make explode nuclearly. Shoot a U235 bullet into a slightly subcritical U235 nugget and kaboom.

    Pu239 is harder to detonate. You need to wrap it in precise explosives. An amateur would get caught testing the boom boom stuff, and would prollly mess it up anyway.

    Pu239 is prolly easier to come by than U235, but harder to blow up. Uranium ore can be mined by the amateur in most states and is easy to separate into the unenriched metal. This is not even illegal.

    An amateur could teach themselves how to make a lil' reactor out of unenriched uranium and get their Pu239. It would help them to know what they are doing to get it to produce the most Pu239. ( making reactors is illegal - don't do it )

    But an amateur will prolly never get a Pu239 bomb to detonate. They'd just get an embarrasing fizzle.

    Better for them to use U235. It takes over 100 lbs of unenriched uranium to make one pound of U235 ( enriching uranium is illegal - don't do it ). Back in the day, enrichment was more of a pain in the butt, but now, I believe it is within the reach of a determined amateur. Aside from gas diffusion, the famous method of enrichment of olde, ( zeolites might make this easier nowadays, I dunno ) there is a method using dye lasers to selectively ionize U235 and then seperate it using an electric field. The lazers you need are big and expensive and it takes expertise to use them though.

    There is one technique that seems within the realm of possibility for a garage fudderer. Like the Xenon Ion Drives NASA uses, unenriched uranium could be ionized and fired directionally. ( maybe an el-cheapo lazer that is not selective would work for ionizing ). If they built a vaccuum chamber around it, and had a target for the uranium atoms and an electric field to steer the uranium atoms, the most easily steered uranium atoms would be the U235. Maybe they could make a cascade of such things out of some old television sets and let them run for a few years to get the enriched metal.

    Then they could threaten to blow up an uninabited section of desert in which no endangered spiecies live, and the army would clear hikers etc from the dangerous area around the test site for them. They might call the newspapers too, so there is a big crowd around to watch. They wouldn't want to be the only one there, it would be suspicious. Plus the party atmosphere might be seen as a plus.

    Even though it is in the realm of possibility and would be very cool to see, don't do it. It is illegal, and you will probably die from radiation poisoning if you mess with nucular stuff. Plus it would take up all your time and money leaving you living in a junkyard with no friends and family, and a lousy job that you just have to pay for 'supplies'. You would start to become lonely and bitter and a bit crazy. If you ever did get your bomb finished you'd have no honey to drink beer with at the detonation. You might decide to use it on a more populated area in jealous spite. I might live there. I don't want to get blown up. So don't try to make a bomb. You would be happier and healthier and less likely to be in jail pursuing other more mundane things.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  165. Impressive scrounging Abilities by krysith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a little experience in this matter, and what really impresses me are the kid's scrounging abilities. A neutron detector in a scrap yard? A turbo-molecular pump from the DI? (FYI, Deseret Industries is the Utah equivalent of the Salvation Army or Goodwill). How in the heck? Jeez, do you know how much money that would have saved when I built ~my~ deuteron collider? I thought I was doing good by scrounging HV supplies out of a junked ion implanter. BTW, the Deseret News got it wrong - the CD's are a neutron MODERATOR not MODULATOR. In my experience, Paraffin Wax is probably better than CD's, and is cheap, but maybe he had too many AOL cd's lying around.

    Yes, I built a fusion reactor in college too. Seriously. It's on my resume. Of course, I was a junior by the time I got it built. I didn't want to go with the Farnsworth design though - everyone knows how it underperforms (although it ~could~ be improved). Mine was a beam collider, more similar to the works of Rostoker or Maglich. It produced a LOT more fusion - I had to limit my time near it while it was on, in order to keep my dose down to reasonable levels. Darwin Awards, I know. Seriously, I was careful, and received about a Rad or two in the years I worked on it (more from x-rays than neutrons). Lead is your friend, water and borax too. I wish my college professors had been as supportive as the ones at USU appear to be. They discouraged undergraduate research, thinking we didn't know enough to do anything real (of course, skipping class to go work on FUZZY didn't get on their good side).

    Yes, Farnsworth fusors are old news. I still think they are cool - the primary reason big science moves so slow is that it is so big. I don't know why more colleges don't build ones and let their kids play around with them. They're cheap! Get enough people messing with them and maybe something will come of it.

    Strangely enough, I grew up in Utah too. Must be something in the water...

    1. Re:Impressive scrounging Abilities by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Hey, can you put your beam collider plans online?

    2. Re:Impressive scrounging Abilities by krysith · · Score: 1

      Oh well, goodbye Internet anonymity!!!

      Serves me right for bragging in an open forum.

      They already are:
      US Patent number 5818891

      Do ~NOT~ try to build one unless you know what you are doing! High voltage electrocution, neutron irradiation, and likely bankruptcy all await you if you venture down that path. Trust me, I know, I am alive only through sheer luck and the help of my friends. Also, like most patents, the important stuff is left out, and I don't feel like posting it. And for those who criticize the design - yes, I know. I spent years working on that @#$%ing thing, I know.

  166. And he didn't even win! by siskbc · · Score: 1
    Others thought it was cool, too. Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland. He's now beginning work on a USU physics degree.

    What I want to know is, what the hell did the winner do? Build a cat starting with household chemicals?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:And he didn't even win! by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      ... ...

      Baking soda volcano.

      =Smidge=

  167. Hihi by Miqlo · · Score: 1

    "They found a neutron detector in an Idaho Falls scrap metal yard."

    Amazing! Same place I found a bunch of rusty old plasma conduits and tritanium phase converters!

    I just have to tell that poor old timetraveller who's stuck in our timezone to look up that metal yard for the parts he's missing for his Dimensional Warp Generator model Generation 3 52 4350A watch unit.

    1. Re:Hihi by bmantz65 · · Score: 1

      Maybe Iraq shipped their WMD's here to the USA. Bomb Idaho!

  168. Eeep, damn! by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 1
    Damn, I should be on that mailing list! *lol*

    What do you make of the report by Farnsworth's wife, in her memoirs, about the fusor going self-sustaining? If it's true, it would really turn the fusion world on its head.

    1. Re:Eeep, damn! by kbonin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh - it's the only site I read as religiously as slashdot. :)

      There are several physicists that have attempted to grab it all through patents (Miley, Bussard), and there are plenty of people who read the board and never contribute, only leach ideas to add to their own patent filings, but there are a number of people that still openly contribute VERY good ideas.

      On the self-sustaining account, a number people doubt it, but I don't... There are some really neat aspects to the fusor, and there are MANY unexplored operating characteristics.

      I bet that once we get a few amateur devices with pairs of synchronized wakefield accelerators firing into a reasonably designed virtual inner grid, with some rudimentary magnetic shielding of the grid and geometry optimized for recirculation, I bet we'll start seeing more accounts of self-sustaining reactions. Of course, theres the added problem that at those reaction rates the device had better be buried in a concrete bunker in the backyard...

      Raise the grid voltage, change your ion source from deuterium gas to laser vaporized boron, and we can start playing with the mythical p+B11-> 2 beta reaction, and start playing with direct conversion! That's just too cool... I'd be happy to get a few picowatts of DC out of the reactor, that's my personal goal.

  169. Actualy Yes , and the woman is from Canada ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ME092 Silencing Cancer With RNA
    Anila Madiraju, 17, Marianopolis College, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

  170. All That For Second Place?!? by GamezCore.com · · Score: 1
    Wallace began winning contests -- local, state, national -- culminating in second place in the International Intel Science and Engineering Fair last May in Cleveland.

    OK, OK, so it may not be a true reactor... but for jeebus sake what the hell did the first place winner make??? My freshman year was mostly occupied with beer and chicks, nuclear reactors came in a close third though.
    --

    www.GamezCore.com For Hardcore PS2 Gamerz : By Hardcore PS2 Gamerz
  171. Attenuation Coeffs by krysith · · Score: 1

    As Idarubicin pointed out, water and high voltage can make for fun sparks.

    However, I wonder where he found the attenuation coefficients for "AOL CD's". Its not in my Nuclear Handbook. When I did this in college, I used paraffin wax, because 1) it was cheap 2) it was a decent moderator 3) it had known characteristics, so I could use the results from attenuation experiments to show that my neutrons were 2.45 Mev +/- 0.1 Mev. It's nice to know that the neutrons you are measuring are actually from D+D -> He3 + n.

  172. Big deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    MacGyver's been doing this for years.

  173. Advantages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I hear about these "Intel science award" winners.

    It is just wonderful to hear about so many kids whose parents or teachers can hook them up with researchers at decent universities.

    And then I think back to high school, at a college-prep public magnet school no less, where there were no opportunities to work with professors or professionals to do research.

    I wanted to do research in physics, which I intended to major in. Ended up doing a project that was biological/sociological, because that was the only thing the teachers knew about, and no pleading resulted in any ideas about where to look for information or help on the physics project.

    There was no support for a student to do an independent project in something outside of the teachers fields.

    So yeah, I'm a little bitter when I hear about the winning science project built by little Johnny, whose 9th grade teacher set up a mentor relationship with Professor Nobel-Prize at the local Major Tier-1 Research University. Oh, those three and a half years of working together with the Professor and the grad students, carving out a research project to win the Intel science fair. It must have been so fun. If I hear another story about a kid with an engineer father getting to do two years of research with a professor at Cal Tech, I will throw up.

    Essentially, these "Science Fairs" are the outlet for priviledged students doing university-level work with excellent advisors and mentors.

    The same students in an environment (like mine) where the best support they are offered is "extra time in the library" will end up doing exactly what I did--finally giving in and doing a project that just makes the teacher happy and gets an "A". Why be creative when no one really cares.

    1. Re:Advantages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. Nobody should be allowed to get special help or mentoring. Let's dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. Come to think of it, everybody should used old, battered, obsolete textbooks since there are lots of inner-city schools that can't get new ones and that's not fair either. In fact, some kinds don't get to go to school at all so nobody should be allowed to go to school.

      So what did you do with YOUR 'A' grades? You didn't win the Westinghouse Prize, but neither did most of us. And remember that a few of these prize winners really are Cinderella stores. Anyway, stop whining.

  174. Re:Um......... by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 1

    I was just wondering - can this be considered similar to these "neutron detonators" used in fission weapons to increase the yield?

  175. Television invention by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 1
    The accepted inventor here is Farnsworth. He came up with the electron-tube concept in high school, in 1921. The first working model was six years later -- 1927. He had a nasty patent battle with (sp?) Zworykin, a Russian immigrant who worked for RCA. He won in court but lost in the real world: the U.S. government suspended commercial production of televisions during World War 2, to conserve resources (I believe for making radar units), and by the time the war was over Farnsworth's patent had expired.

    Farnsworth, like Tesla, died virtually penniless and unknown.

  176. Off topic by r_j_prahad · · Score: 1

    $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.

    That was the suggested retail price. In reality, the prices at local discount stores are likely to be:
    $665.87 -- K-Mart's price.
    $665.84 -- Wal-Mart's price.
    $699.99 -- Sears' price, but that also includes the extended warranty.

  177. So what DID he make? by badfish2 · · Score: 1

    What did this guy make, and how can it be used?

    --
    "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!" - a dog
  178. Here's one reason why not. by amacbride · · Score: 1

    Slightly offtopic, but interesting. I had always wondered why drinking lots of D2O might be bad for you, but it's wasn't immediately obvious to me. As it turns out, one difference between D2O and H2O is in hydrogen bonding; an amino acid chain in a deuterated environment tends to fold into a different shape. You can imagine how that would start to raise havoc, depending on the concentrations involved.

  179. Liberal arts? by DrCode · · Score: 1

    Not sure if I agree with Snow. Most CEO's I hear about weren't in the liberal arts; they were business majors. And most politicians started out as lawyers. I don't see writers and artists with any more power than scientists and engineers, and would guess that, as a group, they have less.

    I'd also dispute the common notion that tech-types have nothing to do with the 'softer' arts like literature and music.

    1. Re:Liberal arts? by panurge · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. Business and law are "Liberal arts". It doesn't mean writers and artists.

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  180. I don't believe it for a moment. by aussersterne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Go to your local university and get the funding figures. Average the budgets, endowments, etc. etc. for Humanities and Social Sciences departments in one column and then the same for Sciences and Engineering departments in the other column. Chances are that one is definitely better funded, and it is not the Humanities/Social Sciences column that I'm speaking of.

    Another way to check is to compare the stipends/scholarships/etc. given to graduate students in these respective divisions. Again you will typically find that the "hard sciences" are much better funded, much better respected, and even much better understood. Administration tends to favor the fusion project over the Durkhiem coloquium because they know what fusion is.

    Note that this has little or no bearing on the public economy, which really favors business (including the business of entertainment) since business makes a point of connecting and communicating with the populace at large in the most user-friendly, attractive ways possible. You will never find a physicist who is as popular as a movie star simply because the physicist does not have a publicist, a career strategist, a hair guy, a make-up guy and a plastic surgeon. News agencies and talk shows do not go around looking under rocks for people to put on their shows, they rely on press releases and phone calls from publicists for the bulk of their stories and/or guests.

    Any spare change the physicist encounters will usually go right back into his baby (a.k.a. current project), whatever that happens to be, rather than to making him famous and attractive.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  181. Just curious by rblancarte · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I know it is off topic, but why waste time (and Mod Points) moding up Anonymous Cowards?

    --
    It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
  182. Yea, but.... by rblancarte · · Score: 1

    What does a fission breed reactor get you in a scavenger hunt? Not much more than 3 points. I think girl's panties are worth 10, and they are quicker to get (well for some).

    --
    It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
  183. Oh no!!!!! by fooken_eh · · Score: 1

    The mormons have the bomb! Utah is doomed!

    Oh well, a world with legal polygyny in it won't be so bad, right?

    1. Re:Oh no!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer a world with legal polyamory. Equal rights, and all.

  184. If I may disgress.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real fallacy in all this is the all-too common belief that science and technology (or art, or society, or anything else for that matter) moves forward in single, discrete steps.

    Sure, sometimes a Newton or an Einstein, Darwin or a Lavosier comes along and does a bit more pushing forward than most others.

    But most of the time, things proceed very gradually.. and it is therefore very common that many people get about the same idea at the same time.
    In theses cases it's impossible to attribute the entire phenomenon to one single person, and will always be a fallacy to attempt to do so.

  185. Cool. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    But that's not really a reason to make it unavailable.. a lot of things will do a lot more damage to you a lot faster, and you can buy them at 7-11.....

  186. Un-American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment has been designated un-American and in violation of the Patriot Act, as well as several pieces of future legislation. As you wait next to your terminal for re-education, please burn the books that contain these blatant lies.

  187. Fusion wants to be free by photomic · · Score: 1

    Was this perchance a *copy* of an existing reactor . . . ? These college kids with their reactor-swapping has got to stop! -- "I'm sure, in the miserable annals of the Earth, you will be duly inscribed."

  188. Heh by skebe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    [In a shooting range, confronted with numerous menacing-looking targets, Edwards shoots a cardboard little girl.]
    Zed: May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?
    James Edwards: Well, she was the only one that actually seemed dangerous at the time, sir.
    Zed: How'd you come to that conclusion?
    James Edwards: Well, first I was gonna pop this guy hanging from the street light, and I realized, y'know, he's just working out. I mean, how would I feel if somebody come runnin' in the gym and bust me in my ass while I'm on the treadmill? Then I saw this snarling beast guy, and I noticed he had a tissue in his hand, and I'm realizing, y'know, he's not snarling, he's sneezing! Y'know, ain't no real threat there. Then I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, y'know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books? She about to start some shit, Zed. She's about eight years old, those books are WAY too advanced for her. If you ask me, I'd say she's up to something. And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it. Or do I owe her an apology?

    http://imdb.com/title/tt0119654/quotes

  189. He changed a tire!! by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "While Wallace was in grade school, his mother got a flat tire while he was riding with her. He fixed it."

    Wow, he changed a tire while in grade school!! Kid must be some kind of genius!

    Anyone suspicious that his only other accomplishment was changing a tire? Maybe I'm a pessimist, but it just seems strange he's never won any science fairs anywhere (or even placed), then suddenly builds a fusion reactor? "Craig and his father..." have to wonder how much work his dad put into this project.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  190. Idea for high-school science project in '98 by nebkor · · Score: 2, Informative
    From http://torsatron.tripod.com/fusor/fusor.html which is an article from Analog in '98, about the Farnsworth Fusor:


    I notice a few of you have gone glassy eyed on me. Trust me, this is easy. A Farnsworth-Hirsch machine is so simple it could be built as a high-school science project (though I caution that a knowledgeable advisor should be sought, and good safety practices must be followed). You will need to borrow, buy, or build some vacuum equipment, obtain a small supply of deuterium, and figure out some instruments so you can tell if it is working, but the actual reactor components are trivially simple to build, and will cost only a few cents!
  191. remotes by bob_calder · · Score: 1

    The first remote I remember was a pneumatic one that had a fish tank type of hose attached to it. It was not wireless by any means. You had to give it a hearty squeeze and it would advance only one channel at a time, of course.

    --
    Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
  192. BAIRD RULES!! by bob_calder · · Score: 1

    Baird got the idea about alternating scan lines. This was the real advance although it needed the axle to connect source and destination. ;-)

    Sending the scan lines electronically was derivitave. Boooo! Hisssss!

    Mommy, does that make me a troll?

    --
    Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
  193. Re:Are there rubbish dumps like this outside Ameri by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

    And non-Americans are experts at everything Americans suck at I guess.

    One of the parts was in a SCRAP YARD, NOT A DUMP! People go to scrap yards to BUY things that no longer serve their primary purpose but can still be used in some lesser or other capacity.

    The other hadn't even made it to the scrap yard it was still in the building! Yeah, that's the same thing as having already thrown it out...

    Or is it just fasionable to bash Americans the way it is fasionable to bash Microsoft?

    --
    Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  194. wahhhhh.... by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 1

    this makes no sense. I don't understand this Intarweb thing. AAAA!

    --
    Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
  195. Fnord!! by TheAvatar666 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think it's better if we just fnord everything about this...

  196. Re:Are there rubbish dumps like this outside Ameri by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 1

    I am American too, but I live in Sweden. So I'm allowed to bash them when they do stupid things like being extremely wasteful.

  197. Time value of money by mirnav · · Score: 1

    If the reward is a year in the future, it should be set at about (5*(1+1.5%)) = USD 5.075. That is called "time value of money" - i.e. USD 5 to be received a year in the future is not as valuable as USD 5 in your pocket here and now. The difference is what your USD 5 would grow to, given the current (admittedly pathetic) level of interest rates. Hate to see a fellow Slashdotter cheated...

    1. Re:Time value of money by Little+Brother · · Score: 1
      "He thinks to much, such men are dangerous"

      William Shakespeare, The Tragity of Julius Ceasar

      And no, I can't spell, why do you ask?

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

  198. Reactions used by krysith · · Score: 1

    Deuteron colliders use the following two reactions:

    D+D -> T( +1.0 MeV) + p (+3.0 MeV)

    OR

    D+D -> He3 (+0.82 MeV) + n (+2.45 MeV)

    These reactions occur with approximately equal probability. The neutron reaction is usually the easy one to detect, and can be used to find your fusion rate. If the kid's fusor had been generating a higher neutron flux, they could have used a thicker moderator as an attenuator to find out what the neutron energy was, in order to verify that the neutrons were actually from deuterium fusion.

    Oh, btw for the non-physicists out there (what, not everyone on /. is a physics geek?), T= triton (thats a deuteron with an extra neutron, or a hydrogen with 2 extra neutrons) p= proton (a hydrogen nucleus) n = neutron, and He3 is Helium-3, like a regular Helium nucleus minus a neutron. You might notice that the particles recieve energy in inverse proportion to their mass. This is usually the case in nuclear kinematics.

    The reaction is definitely not the p-p chain. The reaction cross section for p-p is much, much smaller than D-D. The difference between D-D and p-p is as great as the difference between your gasoline engine and D-D.

  199. Yu got it righ' by Jhonny · · Score: 1

    Copiewrite infrinjmint is gud enturtaynmint!

    --
    DUKEY!
  200. High school fusion.... by SirTreveyan · · Score: 2, Funny

    The only fusion I was worried about in high school involved a blonde with C cups.

    --

    SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

    0 rows returned