Slashdot Mirror


Bubble Fusion Results Replicated by 4 Institutions

Trackster writes ""TROY, N.Y. - Physical Review E has announced the publication of an article by a team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Purdue University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) stating that they have replicated and extended previous experimental results that indicated the occurrence of nuclear fusion using a novel approach for plasma confinement." Here's another link in case EVWorld gets burned."

107 comments

  1. Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can hold off on buying the exercise-elliptical-stepper charger for my Zaurus?

  2. Can someone tell me by loadquo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are we allowed to get excited at the possibility of a new form of energy, or do we still have maintain an air of scepticism at this unorthodox fusion method? Also does anyone know why they used D + D fusion reaction rather than the more common D + T reaction? One of the quotes suggests that it is possible, and being more energetically favourable (from what I remember), I wonder why it wasn't used.

    1. Re:Can someone tell me by bhima · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think we're allowed to get excited by this possibility, because it was used in a crappy movie.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Can someone tell me by TwistedGreen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's because fusion has had a bad track record in the scientific community: there have been many "snake oil" cases where devices which claimed to be based on fusion--specifically, cold fusion--were in fact complete hoaxes. That researchers are being cautious is very understandable. Notice that nobody dares mention that this is "cold" (or at least "cool") fusion.

      Also, this isn't a new form of energy. It's just a novel and promising way of tapping the energy released by fusion.

      But this certainly does not look like snake oil, and it HAS been replicated several times as the articles report. So I think it's time to get excited!

    3. Re:Can someone tell me by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ... light photons...

      And I was so hoping for heavy photons!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:Can someone tell me by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally I think there's some interesting phenomenom in at least some of that "cold fusion" stuff (see the Wired article on it). Whether or not it is cold fusion, there's evidence that there's something interesting enough that's worth at least a few millions to be pumped in.

      The hot fusion folk have spent billions so what's a fraction of that to investigate something new and interesting?

      Sure Pons and Fleischman screwed up - but it seems like the scientific community was not very objective about it - rather emotional in fact.

      --
    5. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sure Pons and Fleischman screwed up - but it seems like the scientific community was not very objective about it - rather emotional in fact.
      I don't understand this statement. Consider just the facts that come immediately to my mind:
      • P&F bypassed peer review and had a hyped press conference, and then shut down their labs to investigation.
      • They then refused to release any meaningful details of their experiment.
      • Nobody could confirm their results in full (some confirmed one part, while another confirmed another).
      • When people starting questioning whether any effect existed, lawyers were brought in and threats of libel suits were aired towards anyone thinking of writing a critique in a journal or the popular press.
      Given this background, where did the scientific community come off as being not very objective?
    6. Re:Can someone tell me by Noren · · Score: 1
      Notice that nobody dares mention that this is "cold" (or at least "cool") fusion.
      From the article:
      Moving at about the speed of sound, the internal shock waves impacted at the center of the bubbles causing very high compression and accompanying temperatures of about 100 million Kelvin.
      If 100 million Kelvin is "cold" or "cool", I do not think that means what you think it means.
    7. Re:Can someone tell me by another_henry · · Score: 4, Informative
      D+D is easier than D+T, it requires less energy and the fusion cross-section is larger. You can get excited if you like but even if this news is correct (which would be pretty cool) power plants are many years away.

      Also, fusion is not the wonderous clean energy source it's made out to be, because any type of fusion that's realistically possible outside of a star also produces neutrons, which activate the reactor materials leading to significant amounts of radioactive waste. That said, the waste problem is not so severe as with fission plants because generally isotopes with short halflifes are produced.

      For more information about fusion in general and amateur efforts in particular - I'm building a tabletop reactor - check out http://www.fusor.net/

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    8. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One of their proofs that fusion occurred was the generation of tritium. They went from completely non-radioactive deuterated acetone to flashes of neutrons to a verified residue of tritum. If they had tritum already in the system the experiment would be a bit less convincing - important considering everyone's skepticism. Besides, if you can get it hot enough to fuse D-D, why not?

    9. Re:Can someone tell me by mlush · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your worried its going to be another Fleisch in the Pon ?

    10. Re:Can someone tell me by dbrutus · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's cold in the sense that you don't have to have huge containment systems to avoid heat death from your sonofusion experiment. You can run this stuff on a regular lab table.

    11. Re:Can someone tell me by another_henry · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Right. But "cold" in the sense of "cold fusion" means explicitly that none of these high temperatures and pressures are used. In the supposed cold fusion of the '80s, it was supposed to occur through some mysterious mechanism when electrolysing heavy water with platinum electrodes. Of course it didn't actually happen and there was no reason it should.

      In this case there is a viable mechanism since the bubbles potentially can generate the high instantaneous pressure and energy that is known to be necessary.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    12. Re:Can someone tell me by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Also, fusion is not the wonderous clean energy source it's made out to be, because any type of fusion that's realistically possible outside of a star also produces neutrons, which activate the reactor materials leading to significant amounts of radioactive waste. That said, the waste problem is not so severe as with fission plants because generally isotopes with short halflifes are produced.

      Would it be possible to shield the reactor with water? IIRC, neutrons + water tends to produce deuterium and tritium, which can be fed back into the reactor.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    13. Re:Can someone tell me by another_henry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Water is moderately (bad pun) effective at shielding neutrons and would probably be used anyway in order to provide steam to operate turbines. I don't see how n+H could give T, but it might produce some D. However the oxygen would no doubt get activated too and that's not much use to anyone. I think the plan, for Tokamaks at least, is to use a large blanket of lithium, and "breed" this into tritium for fuel use. In fact (not sure about this) they might use molten lithium as the working fluid instead of water.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    14. Re:Can someone tell me by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      That's the same issue as with fission - screening. There's enough expertise to the problem at this time to make small-sized, insulated fission chambers.

      And it's not so critical, either - neutron absorbtion won't activate everything undiscriminately - there are stability thresholds for isotopes and even then, all you get is a beta decay - gee, more electrons to the world(*) (unless, of course, the radiating nucleus happens to be insode your body, which can be annoying when in large quantities). You do have to ensure a low neutron escaping rate, but the that's usually what you want anyway, to have as much backscattering in the walls as possible. And neutrons don't have such a high penetration depth.

      (*)with the occasional gamma, depending on the decaying atom. Of course, neutrinos don't count ^_^

    15. Re:Can someone tell me by loadquo · · Score: 1

      One plus for fusion over fission is that, as it currently stands you cannot create a pure fusion bomb, so heavy water is not as dangerous as letting the world play around with Uranium and isotopes that can be generated from it.

      I am looking for something that will be able to replace depleting Oil and Gas reserves for power generation, in the developing as well as the developed world. And while pebble bed reactors look good from the non-proliferation and safety side of things, they are not so good on the re-processing side of things.

      So any positive fusion news is good news, well it means all we would have to worry about is the hypsithermal limit. Good luck with the reactor. I wonder how plausible it would be to build a sonoluminescent fusion device at home, something to look into....

    16. Re:Can someone tell me by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Given that background? Not very objective - that background isn't even _focusing_ on the scientific stuff, more on P and F.

      If some confirmed some parts and some other parts, it doesn't prove the phenomena isn't there.

      It just indicates that it might be difficult to reproduce.

      The scientific community did the equivalent of chucking the whole thing into the trash (including related stuff). Not objective.

      Heck on the same terms I could say man-made hot fusion has been proven not to be viable - given the difficulty of reproducing "breakeven". BILLIONS and decades spent.

      --
    17. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, D-T has a larger interaction cross-section by two orders of magnitude up to very high temperatures (~100 keV), so you would get a considerably higher yield for the same energy input. However, tritium is not as practical in a lab setting because:
      1) it's a beta emitter (thus more paperwork)
      2) it's more difficult to acquire

      Plus, it's easier to shield the 2.45 MeV D-D neutrons than the screaming 14.1 MeV D-T neutrons.

    18. Re:Can someone tell me by stevelinton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. D+T is easier, but produces neutrons. The neutrons need to be absorbed into a Lithium blanket to breed more T. This does however also involve spraying the inner parts of the reactor structure with neutrons, producing some medium-level radioactive waste (although far less per GW year than fission.

      D+He3 produces next to no neutrons, but there is no decent source of He3.

      I was told recently that D+D can be "discouraged" from producing neutrons by doing
      something clever with magnetic fields and nuclear spins.

    19. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It deserved to be chucked into the ashcan with the approach they did. When you announce you have a wonderful mankind-saving, world peace solution in a box, but you won't let anyone look in the box, well, the onus is on you, not me, to convince me. The world already has far too many in the form of Dennis Lee (free energy) and Randy Mills (hydrinos) running around.

      The scientific community as a whole acted entirely appropriate to what they were told and how they were told it.

      I don't understand your last point. I agree: hot (plasma-confined) fusion has not been proven viable. Yet. The difference is that nobody has claimed to have sustained it, and the one "break-even" result they had was open to scrutiny to all. They also are not claiming fundamentally new physics; it is a tremendously hard engineering project backed by very sound science.

      I suppose in your postmodern "every point is equally valid, and if anyone says elsewise then they are a bunch of close-minded elitists" attitude, the biomedical community was very unobjective about the Raelians successfully cloning a human. Everything is the same as with cold fusion: wild claims, and no one allowed to see either the experiment or the result. Or is the difference that the Raelians are seen as a nutty group and P&F are scientists? What about Dennis Lee and his free-energy engines that no one is allowed to look at, or Randy Mills and his "hydrinos" where he found a secret method to put ground-state electrons into an even lower ground state! These are Nobel-worthy, worldview-changing physics going on here (just like cold fusion), if only someone could confirm them (or even be given a demonstration of them).

      Just please don't tell me you are going to now jump on the halfnium bandwagon too (before those evil, narrow-minded greybeards shut them out). I understand there is an element of "rebelling against the man" in the cold fusion story, and that seems to be what draws its most vocal supporters, but hey, bad science is bad science.

      I really don't see how this is a statement about the scientific community. If P&F acted within the scientific process they would still have their reputations intact; it would have been a report of an observation that has not been repeated, which happens all the time in the scientific journals. Instead they grabbed for the brass ring and let it all get away on them.

      The bottom line is what your momma always said: if you want to be treated like a scientist, you have to act like a scientist. P&F didn't act like scientists, and time has shown that the scientific community acted appropriately (as in the Raelians, Mills, and Lee cases).

    20. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *groan*

      That was truly awful. Congratulations.

    21. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was so twisted that it was funny.

    22. Re:Can someone tell me by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "It deserved to be chucked into the ashcan with the approach they did."

      See, that's exactly what I mean by not objective.

      Others (including some reputable scientists) actually did claim to reproduce P&F's results or had at least some interesting results.

      But with the P&F screwup and mainstream science pissed off, many reputable scientists had to stop investigating especially the younger ones who had careers to protect.

      That's proof enough for me of nonobjectivity. I'm not really surprised it turned out that way, nor expecting it otherwise, just it's a bit of a shame and a waste - a pair of scientists may have discovered something interesting and screw up and delayed investigation of a possibly interesting area of science for years.

      It's just like this bubble fusion thingy. This wasn't handled that badly so it's OK, but it could have been worse (and imagine if it happened during the notorious CF times ;) ).

      I don't agree that every point is equally valid - in fact I'm more inclined to believe that most points are invalid.

      What I see is there's sufficient evidence (to me) indicating there is something interesting going on, and whether or not it is cold fusion is a different matter.

      I mean look at heatpipes - no new physics, but it actually ends up very useful. So even if you don't get more energy, someone could think up a use for it esp if people understand it better (and can make it more efficient/effective).

      --
    23. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'not sure what the question is...
      from the itallics, i assume that it's about how they would use the "...tritium produced... as a fuel..."

      the tritium is just a duterium atom (hydrogen+neutron {yes, I know that it's an isotope of Hydrogen... but let's not get pendantic}) that captured (was hit by) another neutron... which was produced by the D+D reaction. it[the Tr]'ll still hanging around, to react with surrounding stuff.


      reactions you can get with duteriuim fusion:


      D + D -> He[3] + n + 3.27 MeV
      D + D -> Tr + p + 4.03 MeV
      D + Tr -> He[4] + n + 17.59 MeV
      D + He[3] -> He[4] + p + 18.3 MeV

      so... once you reach "steady-state", your duterium fusion reaction will become something like:

      6D + Tr + He[3] -> 2He[4] + He[3] + Tr + 2p + 2n + 43.2 MeV


      where the Tr and He[3] are regenerated.
      note that the reactions with D+Tr and D+He[3] produce much more energy than the D+D reactions (which produce the Tr and He[3])...
      i believe that *that* was what they were talking[typing] about.
    24. Re:Can someone tell me by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      I don't understand this statement. Consider just the facts that come immediately to my mind:


      I do.


      P&F bypassed peer review and had a hyped press conference, and then shut down their labs to investigation.

      Thats a flaw of the magazine where they published.

      They then refused to release any meaningful details of their experiment.

      The released "what they did" and "what they found".


      Nobody could confirm their results in full (some confirmed one part, while another confirmed another).

      Uncorrect. the results where repeated at several institutes. Including the university where I studied at that tiem and a further university in my country. However, exactly like Pons and Fleischmann, no one found a suiteable explanaition, what it was.
      During that time (around 1989) also the ultrasonic sound experiment was "en voughe", and no one really had an idea what wass going on.

      When people starting questioning whether any effect existed, lawyers were brought in and threats of libel suits were aired towards anyone thinking of writing a critique in a journal or the popular press.

      I think it is common sense that: people did not start questioning but burned them on the stocke imediatly.

      Still today being compared with Pons and Fleischmann is a major insult for an Physicist :D

      Given this background, where did the scientific community come off as being not very objective?

      The scientific community is very rarely objective. You can read a lot about happenings where the ruling scientists put down innovative but not suiting ideas of competing younger scientists.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Can someone tell me by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      it was supposed to occur through some mysterious mechanism when electrolysing heavy water with platinum electrodes. Of course it didn't actually happen and there was no reason it should.


      Thats wrong.

      No one ever claimed that "electrolysing" would cause a "cold fusion".

      There are several cold fuson experimental set ups. A lot of them, e.g. myon catalized cold fusion works.

      You are reffering to the P&F approach where they thought this would happen: hydrogen (deuterium and tritium as well) get sucked up into a metal hydrid where the metal in this case is platinum.

      Metal hydrid is in our days a way to strore hydrogen. The idea/explanation P&F had/gave was that deuterium atoms could (probably) come close enough to each other inside of the metal hydrid to react in a fusion. That was in no way related to electrolysing.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:Can someone tell me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why am I not surprised that someone who believes in UML magic also believes in cold fusion? Some people will believe anything, because they never learned about the scientific method.

  3. Luckily by loadquo · · Score: 1

    I missed that crappy movie.

    1. Re:Luckily by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  4. Usefulness? by TwistedGreen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What the article doesn't mention is how useful this might be. It appears that they have devised a reliable way to trigger a fusion reaction, but is it feasible to use it for electrical generation, for example? I understand that the major problem with fusion reactor research is that they have always consumed more energy than they have produced, making them quite useless for actually generating energy. But since they are not inducing the reaction with high-powered electromagnets as has been done in the past, would this enable the possibility of a true fusion generator?

    1. Re:Usefulness? by AlXtreme · · Score: 4, Informative
      "We are not yet at break-even," Taleyarkhan said. "That would be the ultimate. I don't know if it will ever happen, but we are hopeful that it will and don't see any clear reason why not. In the future we will attempt to scale up this system and see how far we can go."
      From the ScienceDaily article, don't hold your breath just yet...
      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Usefulness? by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Oh, thanks, I didn't realize the ScienceDaily article was different.

    3. Re:Usefulness? by harrkev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Riiiight. Don't hold your breath.

      First, I am not a physicist, but I suspect that "break-even" is defined as the TOTAL power output of the system! The problem is that to be useful, you have to get USABLE power out of the system.

      If the energy comes out as heat, then you have to run a turbine, which is not terribly efficient. If the output energy is in the form of neutrons, then I do not know how you could get anything useful out of that other than a new and novel wey to irradiate and heat things.

      So, if a physicist says that they have reached "break-even," then they are still only halfway there!

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:Usefulness? by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To give you an idea of the scale here, the energy per neutron in any fusion reaction is a few MeV. This scale is set by the fundamental physics and can't be altered. 1 MeV = 1/1.6E-13 J. To produce 1 W you would therefore need to produce ~1E13 neutrons/s on a continuous basis. They are producing ~1E6 neutrons/s in bursts.

      Ergo, they need to scale up by about a factor of 1E7 to have a 1 W reactor, and 1E13 to have a 1 MW reactor (sufficiently powerful to supply the energy needs of a few thousand typcial North American homes.)

      These are not small numbers. Offhand, I can't think of any technology that has successfully spanned this many decades from proof-of-concept to practical reality. Even going from an early Chinese gunpowder rocket to a Saturn V booster didn't involve such an impressive scaling up.

      --Tom

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:Usefulness? by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I can't think of any technology that has successfully spanned this many decades from proof-of-concept to practical reality.

      How about The Marquand Logic Machine?

      That's a pretty impressive scaling up over the last 12+ decades.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    6. Re:Usefulness? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who says it has to scale up that much?

      What if the scale up is so you can have something the size of a mini fridge in your cellar that creates energy for just your house?

      Plus the reactors created thus far have been to study the principles, not attempt to harness them.

      Any production reactor is going to be designed to maximize it's efficency, not maximize the viewability of the reaction.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    7. Re:Usefulness? by RML · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, I am not a physicist, but I suspect that "break-even" is defined as the TOTAL power output of the system!

      All the energy put in comes out again (as heat, light, sound, etc), plus some additional energy released by the fusion. Since the total energy output must be greater than the input, but they haven't "broken even", they must be referring to the usable energy.

      --
      Human/Ranger/Zangband
    8. Re:Usefulness? by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      you do realise that 10^13, even 10^20 is a very small number in some comparisons (when 1g of most stuff contains about 10^23 atoms).

      by the same argument, fission should have never worked, as for instance U235 only produces about 180MeV per reaction (i.e. only about one order of magnitude more than a D fusion reaction).

      So it's all about the threshold of a self-sustaining reaction. Once you get that under reasonable conditions, scaling up is not so bad.

    9. Re:Usefulness? by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      most likely, break-even is defined as the total power GAINED from fusion is greater than the input.

      So if output = input + fusion
      then breakeven is implied by fusion > input

    10. Re:Usefulness? by michael_cain · · Score: 2, Informative
      What if the scale up is so you can have something the size of a mini fridge in your cellar that creates energy for just your house?

      For a commercial power plant, you need 10s or 100s of megawatts. For home, probably less than 10 kilowatts peak, less than that if I have a flywheel or other way to store power for peak demand periods? Call it 4-5 orders of magnitude saved. There are some additional potential savings in a distributed system; you can in principle do away with the transmission losses we suffer in the current power grid. Given that it's fusion, I do wonder about the point raised in other threads about how long it would take for my home fusion reactor to become a problem neutron source...

    11. Re:Usefulness? by Retric · · Score: 1

      True but I don't want to deal the radiation from backyard fustion. And I think it would be cheaper to do it on one huge device vs many small ones.

    12. Re:Usefulness? by isotropique · · Score: 1

      The break-even point is defined as an operational state where the energy given to the system to maintain its reaction is equal to the energy produced by the same system.

      To ignite the fusion reaction described in this article, they have to expose the canister to pulses of neutrons and generate ultrasonic waves. Both processes require a total energy Ei. The energy returned by the system is in the form of neutron emission. Those neutrons have an energy Ef. The break-even point is reached when Ef = Ei.

      P.S.: I am a physicist.

    13. Re:Usefulness? by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Yes, but total energy returned would be how much energy is released by the reaction, and would probably not include how much of that energy we could actually use. The two numbers are NOT equal.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    14. Re:Usefulness? by isotropique · · Score: 1

      You are right. The energy returned by the system needs to be converted in another form like electricity before we can use this process as an energy source. The efficiency of the conversion process is always lower than 100%.

      This is why the authors are now looking for applications which need a source of neutrons. Hence, they do not need to convert those in another form of energy.

  5. Not sure, but by blankmange · · Score: 1

    I will be the first to admit that I didn't understand the finer details in that article, but the premise is rather exciting.... in another 10 or 20 years. It is a great breakthrough, however, whether or not you understand the science...

    --
    ...we are from the government - we are here to help...
  6. We hear this all the time by FlyingJesus · · Score: 1

    We hear, every so often, that "nuclear fusion has occurred", and nothing ever comes of it. It either can't be replicated or is impractical for power generation.

    Would anyone care to enlighten me as to when we'll see anything come of this promising technology, and when people will stop pussyfooting around and just increase the scale a little bit?

    1. Re:We hear this all the time by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ever feel the warmth of the sun? Lots comes of nuclear fusion.

    2. Re:We hear this all the time by FlyingJesus · · Score: 1

      I mean our artificial nuclear fusion experiments (peaceful ones-i.e not H-bombs).

      Nothing comes of them.

      Although I agree a lot comes off the Sun :)

    3. Re:We hear this all the time by Bazzargh · · Score: 5, Informative

      We hear, every so often, that "nuclear fusion has occurred", and nothing ever comes of it. It either can't be replicated or is impractical for power generation.

      Would anyone care to enlighten me as to when we'll see anything come of this promising technology, and when people will stop pussyfooting around and just increase the scale a little bit?


      The trouble with fusion reactor experiments (of the tokamak kind) is that they are tremendously expensive and lengthy to build. After the previous generation of European experiments (JET) there supposed to be something like a seven-year gap before ITER would become available. IIRC the US pulled funding on their independent fusion programme, but eventually decided to join ITER too; its pretty much the only tokamak game in town.

      However, due to its cost, ITER has always been mired in politics (even the site hasn't been chosen yet - 5 years after the project was supposed to have started) and this leads to more delays and increased costs.

      Plasma theorists also have to find something else to do (and alternate funding) between each round of testing; seven years is a long time and people leave the subject, retire, etc, never too return. You'd be a very brave man to pin your career hopes on ITER being built on time. This then causes manpower difficulties for the project when it finally gets into gear, which then suffers more delays and overruns, etc, as postdoc researchers are trained up.

      In short; expect progress when ITER is build, but don't hold your breath.

    4. Re:We hear this all the time by R.Caley · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I mean our artificial nuclear fusion experiments [...] Nothing comes of them.

      The Tokamac people got to break even in 97(IIRC). So something, at least came of it.

      The problem I see with this bubble stuff is that they detect it by the emission of neutrons. Anything which gives out lots of neutrons is going to have many of the problems of fission - any plant big enough tobe useful will need shielding and will produce nasty waste makeing decomissioning expensive.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    5. Re:We hear this all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Tokamac people got to break even in 97(IIRC). So something, at least came of it.

      I know one Tokamac person and he said in order to break even, they had to damage the Tokamac. It was an old one being shut down. He just scoffed at the news.

      He also told me that metals, etc irradiated by neutrons are radioactive was like you said, but that the half lives are very short, so you only need to store it carefully for a few decades, then toss it in a landfill. This is currently done with lots of low level wastes, mostly from medical sources.

    6. Re:We hear this all the time by R.Caley · · Score: 1
      I know one Tokamac person and he said in order to break even, they had to damage the Tokamac. It was an old one being shut down. He just scoffed at the news.

      JET was 14 years old in 1997, It is still operational, so it was long in the tooth, but hardly at the end of it;s life.

      I beleive it's now basicly a testbed for technology for the proposed ITER project. ITER, if it ever gets built, is supposed to be big enough to run noticably over breakeven for sustained periods.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    7. Re:We hear this all the time by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      The problem I see with this bubble stuff is that they detect it by the emission of neutrons. Anything which gives out lots of neutrons is going to have many of the problems of fission - any plant big enough tobe useful will need shielding and will produce nasty waste makeing decomissioning expensive.

      ObOldJoke: Some years ago, a student paper allegedly proposed that the fusion reactor architecture most worth pursuing was a Gravitational Confinement design.

      The kicker is that he may be right (you could power a state with a solar farm the size of a medium-sized city, if you had cheap enough bulk power storage, while fusion plants are likely to be very expensive to build and maintain). We'll find out in 50 years or so.

    8. Re:We hear this all the time by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Anything which gives out lots of neutrons is going to have many of the problems of fission - any plant big enough tobe useful will need shielding and will produce nasty waste makeing decomissioning expensive.

      They have yet to get a Tokamac to break even for more than a single run; the complexities are too much. They say that as they scale up this will be less and less of a problem...

      As far as neutrons; the main problem isn't the waste material, it's transmutation of the reactor itself. They choose the elements used in building a tokamac very carefully to support the magnetic and physical forces. But in a few years of running, all those elements will be transmuted by neutron bombardment...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  7. Fusion, Cool! by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is bubble fusion a really cool concept?

    This is the kind of thing real progress comes from! Not the big nasty brute force machines we've been trying to coax a usable fusion reactor out of for decades, but a clever application of the laws of physics to get tiny pockets of fusion at much more sane average temperatures and pressures. Temperatures we can work with without having to contain them in giant magnetic toruses, temperatures we don't need petawatt lasers to generate for a fraction of a second.

    I can see this development panning out, but even if it doesn't I'm still in awe of it's elegance.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    1. Re:Fusion, Cool! by Goldsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's the same sort of thing people were saying 60 years ago.

      When physicists started doing fusion research, the plasma chambers were about 3 feet on a side, and very easy to use (comparitively speaking). Most people didn't believe it would ever amount to anything, but everyone was in awe of the compactness, elegance and exotic behavior of the experiment.

      The scientests working on it probably said exactly the same thing these guys are saying: we see some energy out, we're not quite at break even, but we'll get there.

      After working with fusion guys for a couple of years, I know that this stuff gets complicated really fast. This bubble fusion technique is at the point laser fusion was at 15 years ago, which means it's about time everyone started taking it seriously. In a few years we'll be debating where to put the new, mega-huge bubble fusion test reactor, which will bring us, again, one step closer.

      Sometime in the next 50 years, one of these methods will turn the corner. The magnetic field people will figure out what to make thier vessel walls out of, the laser people will figure out how to make and shoot perfect hollow spheres of frozen DT, or these guys will overcome whatever unknown problem is keeping them from producing energy.

    2. Re:Fusion, Cool! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      This is the kind of thing real progress comes from! Not the big nasty brute force machines we've been trying to coax a usable fusion reactor out of for decades, but a clever application of the laws of physics to get tiny pockets of fusion at much more sane average temperatures and pressures.
      Problem is, at the 'sane' average temperatures and pressures, all you get is low grade generalized heat, which isn't suitable for power generation. (Not to mention the fact that these sonofusion devices are about where the larger tokomak machines were thirty years ago.)
    3. Re:Fusion, Cool! by Justifiable_Delusion · · Score: 1

      This is one of the thing which I think will power the future (no pun intended).
      This particular unit though is in teh infancy of its scientific growth. In 20 years (maybe more or less who knows with certain technologies and random descoveries) everyone will have their own mini fusion reactor to power their own living units. "The power grid" will no longer make reference to homes but street lamps or something...if we are even in need of lamps being as how we most likely wont be controlling our vehicles.

      As with everything we need ot preach patience (especially things like fusion energy) but don't lose faith in technology and its promise...we really don't know how far away something like this is.

      --
      Mad, adj : Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence. Ambrose Bierce - The Deveil's Dictionsary
  8. And you will know them by the trail of tritium by jellyfish_green · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Desktop nuclear fission, eh? Sure the power generation is less than parity, but a portable neutron generating device could be used for so many things - medical scans, security scans, neutron vision goggles...

    and of course

    Shark-mounted Neutron Cannon.

    1. Re:And you will know them by the trail of tritium by jellyfish_green · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's "fusion", not fission. As in heavy-acetone ultrasound-modulated fusion.

    2. Re:And you will know them by the trail of tritium by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      As Jellyfish_Green observed, it's fusion, not fission. And tabletop neutron generators using fusion have been available for decades. See for example.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  9. RBFA by p3d0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Read both articles. The "burned" link talks about applications.

    It's actually the better link. Not sure why the submitter chose to relegate it to second-class status.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  10. Hot pants by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    At first I thought you said "giant magnetic trousers".

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:Hot pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a pair of those, but I could only walk North when wearing them...

    2. Re:Hot pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously they've gone wrong. I think I know just the team to fix them.

  11. Can someone tell me by bgins · · Score: 5, Informative
    A brief summary of the sciencedaily page:

    200 Hz pulses of neutrons and tuned ultrasound create cavities and grow bubbles in deuterated acetone which grow from 60 nanometers to 6 millimeters. At this point, they implode within nanoseconds, reaching estimated temperatures of 10^7 Celcius/Kelvin and 10^9 atmospheres (sea level) and releasing energy: tritium (hence fusion), light photons (sonoluminescence), gamma rays, and more neutrons. "Because the bubbles grow to such a relatively large size before they implode, their contraction causes extreme temperatures and pressures comparable to those found in the interiors of stars." "In future versions of the experiment, the tritium produced might then be used as a fuel to drive energy-producing reactions in which it fuses with deuterium."

  12. Why aren't there more comments?! by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I was curious to see everyone's response to this (well, everyone that has a better idea of the implications of this working, that is) and i'm surprised there aren't more posts!

    Is this a sign that we've stopped caring about "cold fusion"? Is the fact that this field has had a less-than-credible past hurt this discovery? Is this a discovery? Have movies like Chain Reaction spoiled us into thinking that this is a pipe dream?

    Somebody help me out.

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
    1. Re:Why aren't there more comments?! by 100lbHand · · Score: 2

      I think the problem is that not even the physicist really know what to do with this.

      That and it is Monday morning and the trolls haven't climbed out of their caves.

      --
      "I'm not high, just stupid" --JY
    2. Re:Why aren't there more comments?! by hplasm · · Score: 1, Funny

      This discovery has created ConFusion. *ducks*

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  13. Next Step - 1,000 Atmospheres by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the Business Week article, it looks like they're making stronger vessels to hold the liquids at very high pressures:
    "Since ordinary sonoluminescence delivers so much energy at pressures of only one or two atmospheres," he says, "you could hope that at 1,000 atmospheres, you'd be in fusion territory -- if the temperature also scaled up. But that's a really big 'if."'

    I'm also surprised that this isn't on the main page of Slashdot. When reading the previous article on the discovery, there was a lot of "let's wait for confirmation" messages. Now we have it and it seems an appropriate time to get excited.

    The coolest part about all of this is that it's relatively cheap, with the possibility of inexpensive and clean energy. The scary aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that it could be an good source of neutrons used to enrich uranium and make weapons-grade material.

    1. Re:Next Step - 1,000 Atmospheres by mstorer3772 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would think that at higher pressure, the bubbles wouldn't expand as much, so you wouldn't get any extra energy that way.

      However, at higher temperatures, things could get "interesting". And at higher pressures, water's boiling point rises, so I guess we'll see.

      Or they might try a liquid other than water, one that exists only at much higher temperatures... something like liquid Titanium. That's, what? 3500 farenheit? How hot does uranium have to get to liquify?

      Make that 3034 F... oh and apparently tungsten is way up there too, with a melting point of 6192 F. Yow. Oh, and according to webelements.com, uranium melts at 2070F, and boils at 7101F. Uranium gas? That sounds unpleasant.

      And I'm assuming that all that temperature data holds true at 1 atmosphere, piling on a couple thousand bars (or pascals or whatever) ought to drive those numbers up further.

      --
      Fooz Meister
    2. Re:Next Step - 1,000 Atmospheres by mstorer3772 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "with the possibility of inexpensive and clean energy"

      Eh... Fusion byproducts take decades rather than fission's centuries to loose their radioactivity, but I still wouldn't call it "clean".

      But who knows? Maybe this technology will hit over-unity at higher temperatures and pressures.

      I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

      --
      Fooz Meister
    3. Re:Next Step - 1,000 Atmospheres by PylonHead · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm also surprised that this isn't on the main page of Slashdot. When reading the previous article on the discovery, there was a lot of "let's wait for confirmation" messages. Now we have it and it seems an appropriate time to get excited

      I'm sorry. We prefer to keep the main page of slashdot for unconfirmed loony perpetual motion devices.

      --
      # (/.);;
      - : float -> float -> float =
    4. Re:Next Step - 1,000 Atmospheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that by the time it becomes practical to use it for creating uranium, oil will be obsolete, and no one will care about producing such weapons anymore, as resource scarcity will be obsolete too.

      And Bin Ladin can learn how to herd camels.

    5. Re:Next Step - 1,000 Atmospheres by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Or they might try a liquid other than water

      The problem being that bubble fusion depends on water. Basic physics here; Tin is the most stable element. Everything with an atomic level less than Tin is capable of fusing and releasing energy. Everything with an atomic level greater than Tin is capable of fissioning and releasing energy.

      Titanium, tungsten, uranium, none of them would support fusion.

      You know what the best element to fuse is? Hydrogen. The best isotope? Hydrogen-2. The liquid they are using? Deuterium ("heavy water"), which has one atom of Hydrogen-2, one of H, and one of O. And in the future they are looking at using Tritium, which is even heavier with 2 Hydrogen-2 atoms.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    6. Re:Next Step - 1,000 Atmospheres by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      It is generally stated that iron is the most stable element, not tin. I once read a science fiction story that made the odd claim that silver was the most stable.

      In high school, I did the calculations using CRC data, which implied that an isotope of nickle was even more stable than iron. It was a small difference, and perhaps I made a mistake. Or the CRC data might have been off.

      In any case, this is the first claim I have seen for tin being the most stable element, and I doubt it.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  14. Would this work better in microgravity? by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm too lazy to even try an order of magnitude estimate for this, but I wonder how much the symmetry of the collapsing bubble is distorted by the gravitational pressure gradient. A few nanoseconds isn't much time to develop distortions, but 6 mm is damn big for this sort of thing. When the bubbles collapse back to nanometer scales, any deviation from spherical symmetry will become quite apparent. The question is whether gravity is a significant contributor to such imperfections when compared to thermal fluctuations, momentum from the incident neutrons, and the like. If so, conducting the reaction in microgravity could get the system that much closer to break-even (not that I expect they'll be close anytime soon, but it's fun to think about).

    --

    Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    1. Re:Would this work better in microgravity? by Ayaress · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if it would work any better, but good luck getting the poloticians that run the major space programs to launch your inconvineiently large laboatory complex into orbit so you can try it out.

      Anyway, if it could work in microgravity, I'd have to wonder what it would matter? It certainly could power a large space station if we ever build one, but what about power on the ground? About the only way to get the power back down to earth would be something like microwave transmission, and I'm assuming that at least some of the aforementioned politicians have played SimCity, and won't let you run anything involving microwave power transmission or Godzilla in a populated area.

    2. Re:Would this work better in microgravity? by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

      You don't have to go to space for microgravity. Drop towers is one way to test it. I believe you can get a few seconds in a drop tower, which should be more than enough to test this

  15. actually JET in 1997 by mzs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I do not know about Princeton but the JET Experiment reached Breakeven in 1997. Spot-on about the neutron production issues though.

  16. It's actually not water by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    They're using a liquid called "deuterated acetone" as the liquid. From the science daily article:

    The acetone contains a form of hydrogen called deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, which contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. Normal hydrogen contains only one proton in its nucleus.

  17. Wouldn't it be funny if by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 2, Informative
    Wouldn't it be funny if eventually, the bubble-fusors DID reach break even, but could only produce a very low power density. For instance a huge plant being required to generate enough surplus energy to blowdry someone's hair.

    Wouldn't it be funny if the sheer acreage of acetone tank required to produce a watt o power makes it less economical than covering that same area with solar panels?

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  18. Movie. by ThetaPi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I remember something like this being the subject of a Keanu Reeves science fiction movie. I think some terrorists hijacked the thing and ended up destroying half of the city.

    I think the movie was called Chain Reaction.

    --
    "When God kisses Satan and the Incarnations applaud." "Death is dead. Long live Death!"
  19. Heavy nail polish? (n/t) by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

    N/T

  20. Heavy nail polish remover, that is by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

    My coffee's too weak.

  21. I've heard Taleyarkhan speak... by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was at a conference of the ASA a year or so ago, and those in the know at the conference stuck around in one particular room for a particular series of talks.
    First the internal review committe from Oak Ridge talked about how they couldn't find much evidence that Taleyarkhan and his group had actually produced bubble fusion -- this was pretty deadly in a scientific sense, since their OWN lab was very critical of their work. But then Taleyarkhan talked, and gave careful and convincing evidence to the contrary: His group actually HAD produced bubble fusion. It was a pretty tense afternoon, though everyone seemed to be of relatively good cheer. Fun times!

    I hope Taleyarkhan and his group actually do figure a way to produce and control -- and maybe harness the energies produced -- bubble fusion; since I'm in physical acoustics, this means more jobs for me to go into!

  22. No? by barakn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's an extremely lazy way to estimate it. Assuming the bubble collapse time is 100 ns (article only says "Within nanoseconds"), the top of the bubble will fall an extra 5x10^-8 microns during collapse, using the .5*g*t^2 formula. Even if I'm off by many orders of magnitude (and I'm guessing I overestimated), this is quite insignificant compared to the .06 micron size of the bubble at its smallest.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  23. Are you sure? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    I am looking for something that will be able to replace depleting Oil and Gas reserves

    Are you really, really sure about that? (-:
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Are you sure? by loadquo · · Score: 1

      Even if Oil and Gas are abiogenic, then I don't think they will replenish themselves as quickly as we are using them.

  24. Keanu Reeves discovers fusion?!?! by dvnelson72 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone see Chain Reaction? Sound waves help create fusion that looks likes bubbles in water?

    Anyone? Anyone?

    Did he patent it yet? Hurry Keanu, hurry!

    1. Re:Keanu Reeves discovers fusion?!?! by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Ok, yes, and Luke Perry was the Fifth Element...

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  25. Even cooler... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bubble-wrap fusion!

  26. Re:Can someone tell me - No. by jungd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work at Oak Ridge National Lab (although not in physics and I don't know these folks). A physics person I spoke to that has some inside perspective seems to think that it is legit.

    However, he doesn't think there are any ideas around about how it could be applied to exctract any positive energy budget at this stage (let alone any practical ones). Unfortunately.

    We can just hope that more people paying attention to it will increase the likelihood that some bright person will get some ideas in that direction.

    --
    /..sig file not found - permission denied.
  27. Re: I'm building a tabletop reactor by zo219 · · Score: 1

    . . .out of Legos.

  28. YU0 == T3H 5UXX0R! by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    "I'm sorry. We prefer to keep the main page of slashdot for unconfirmed loony perpetual motion devices."

    Goddamned kneejerk skeptic. RTFA - the phenomena has been replicated. There's definately something there.

    Now, any speculation about any purported wonderous applicaions of that phenomena could be treated as vaporware.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:YU0 == T3H 5UXX0R! by dr+bacardi · · Score: 1

      I think he meant this.

  29. Can someone tell me (etc...) by j_cavera · · Score: 1

    The DD reaction requries ~35 keV to initiate, while the DT requires only ~4 keV -- an order of magnitude less energy. So why did they use DD?

    I worked with Purdue's bubble fusion system for a bit. We used DD because of the near impossiblility of getting tritiated-acetone. The deuterium in the reaction comes from the acetone in which all hydrogen atoms have been replaced by deuterium atom. The generated heat is hot enough to break down the acetone an start the reaction.

    Deuterated acetone is hard to come by but possible. But try to find tritiated acetone on the market and you will come up empty.

    If someone were to make tritiated acetone, mix it with the deuterated acetone and put it into the reactor, the neutron yeild would certainly increase.

    --
    #include "humorous_pop_culture_reference.h"
    1. Re:Can someone tell me (etc...) by Magada · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or do the words "neutron yeld" have an ominous ring to them. Howzabout "cool fusion" based neutron generating devices - i.e. neutron bombs w/out the boom, just the killing power? You could sterilize cities like so many cans of shrimp.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    2. Re:Can someone tell me (etc...) by j_cavera · · Score: 1

      > neutron bombs w/out the boom, just the killing power

      Not possible. Generating that high of a neutron flux *requires* that amount of energy to be created at the same time. The neutrons are a by-product of the same boom-generating reaction.

      --
      #include "humorous_pop_culture_reference.h"
    3. Re:Can someone tell me (etc...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well... tritium has about a 12.3 year half-life... so you've pretty-much gotta` make it from scratch -- no H3 mines around.
      get on to makin' H3, in a reactor, and ye're competing with some of the bigger military projects, out ther (i.e. making "nukes"). i'll bet that a government will pay more for an "H-Bomb" than a research lab will pay for 1l of tritrated acetone...
      market dynamics, at work.

  30. Worth looking at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi all,

    well I have a PhD in plasma physics (experimental) from MIT where I worked at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center (www.psfc.mit.edu). I've also done my best over the years to keep an eye on the literature on picosecond sonoluminescence and related stuff (I've chatted in person with Seth Putterman at UCLA who is a top person in the area...) The thing that keeps one from dismissing this out of hand is the highly non-equilibrium state of the bubble implosion. It seems convincing from the work done to date that an incredible concentration of energy from the acoustic spherical wave in the liquid occurs in the bubble implosion. The light emission is attributed to the localized concentration of energy and resulting local temperature spike (though chemical processes play a role that was underestimated in the beginning of the research). This energy concentration might be enough for a very small number of low-cross section processes to take place including fusion reactions. That said, my understanding is that neutron measurements are an absolute nightmare of calibration and low signal-to-noise problems. (Not my field but this is what I gather from people I've talked to.) This is what kept Pons and Fleischmann (sp?) going for so long and what may be at issue here. Phys Rev. E is a good, reputable journal though and these folks are going the standard, peer-reviewed route and not trying to get patents, etc. and making everyone doubt their work... It may be for real... Stay tuned.

  31. I remeber this by dunedan · · Score: 1

    I heard about this a few years ago in popular (science? mecahnics?).

    They called it sonolumenecense or something like that. It didn't produce fusion at the time but they thought it might be a possibility

    Good to know some cool wacky experiments come to fruition.

    From 1998 check out http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/vol/34-2-128- 136.html

  32. Here's one obvious application... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could always use the neutrons to breed Plutonium for a fission reactor... ...just kidding.