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."

15 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!

    2. 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?
    3. 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."
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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....
  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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."

  8. 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 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 =
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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!