Slashdot Mirror


Fusion Using Sonic Compression

The Only Druid writes "Scientists have confirmed the use of sonic waves to create the necessary compression in plasma to achieve nuclear fusion, far more effectively and cheaply than any other method. Val Kilmer was unavailable for comment."

95 comments

  1. Keep your shirts on by Lonesome+Squash · · Score: 2, Informative
    TFA (a press release about the pending publication) is woefully short of the kind of info we want to see. It appears to be a nice confirmation of earlier claims of cavitation-induced fusion that were disputed due to imprecise measuring technique. I couldn't find anything about it on Phys Rev E yet.

    In any event, it's not Mr. Fusion. The amount of actual fusion is tiny, and well below any commercially or societally interesting level.

    --
    Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
    1. Re:Keep your shirts on by Retric · · Score: 1

      It's also from March 2, 2004. Looks like a repost from fark to me.

  2. Year old story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a very old story (the date on the press release is last spring...)? Does anyone know if anything new is happening in this work?

  3. Re:Interesting by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not supernatural. Just because no theory explains it fully does not mean it's not real. We still don't know how superconductivity works exactly, for example.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  4. Context: Old Article by meggito · · Score: 1

    This article is dated March, 2004. Hope that provides some context as the mentioned article should allready be published. Further, I imagine there has been more recent research into the field in the last year.

  5. Did it release more energy than it absorbed? by harks · · Score: 1

    I can't find in the article whether or not it released more energy than they used to start the fusion. I've heard this has always been a problem so far with using fusion practically.

    1. Re:Did it release more energy than it absorbed? by j_cavera · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Worked on this project for a bit. Yes, it does release more energy that it takes to start -- in theory. In the lab, you need about 100 watts of power to get a few milliwatts of heat. Bear in mind that this technology is in its infancy and may scale upward to the net-gain level. BUT due to temperature constraints in the apparatus (it likes cold), it will be difficult to get this up to power-generation level.

      - Jim

      --
      #include "humorous_pop_culture_reference.h"
  6. ITER by myukew · · Score: 1

    Does this make the bazillions we paid for ITER (http://www.iter.org/) useless?

    1. Re:ITER by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Without those bazillions, all those physics geeks would have been stuck living in the basement and leeching off their parents during their post-docs. I'd say that buying boxters for nerds is anything but useless. (Vrrooom, vrroom!)

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  7. aren't we forgetting someone? by ate50eggs · · Score: 1

    what does Keaneau Reeves have to say about this?

    --
    not everything is a science experiment!
    1. Re:aren't we forgetting someone? by myukew · · Score: 1

      "The Only Druid writes "Scientists have confirmed the use of sonic waves to create the necessary compression in plasma to achieve nuclear fusion, far more effectively and cheaply than any other method. Val Kilmer was unavailable for comment."

    2. Re:aren't we forgetting someone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they meant Keaneau since Chain Reaction was the movie that involved the use of sound waves not The Saint (even though both plots included fusion..).
      Get your damn crappy movie reference right next time!

    3. Re:aren't we forgetting someone? by roseblood · · Score: 1

      Uhm, V.K. was just some clueless spy guy...you really need to talk to Elizabeth Shue. On second though, I'll go talk to her and relate to slashdot what she had to say.

      no! no! I'm not stalking anyone! I'm trying to get a comment from Elizabeth Shue, for slashdot a big online news website, on the recent use of senic waves to create compression in plasma for the purpose of starting a nuclear fission reaction. What? you never heard of slashdot? of nuclear fission? plasma? No, I'm not talking about a television![while security drone with no neck and arms as big as my thighs throws me out into the street]

      --
      There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    4. Re:aren't we forgetting someone? by notsoclever · · Score: 1

      They may have been thinking of Real Genius. Which also didn't involve sonic fusion.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people: ones who understand ternary, ones who don't, and ones who think this joke is about binary
    5. Re:aren't we forgetting someone? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      The Saint did not explain exactly how the fusion was induced, so it may very well have been sonic.

      Good way to go in a movie, by the way - leave the science vague. That way you don't sound as dumb...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  8. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    electron coupling?

  9. mumbo jumbo by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

    "You don't believe in any of this cold fusion mumbo jumbo, do you?"

    I loved that movie. Mindless, flashy fun. That, and Elizabeth Shue is teh hottie

    --
    You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  10. Not really viable as an energy source by larkost · · Score: 1

    While this is a good piece of science, by itself it is not a step towards anything economically useable as they had to do a lot of work just to verify that there was energy released. In a viable fusion reactor this should not be difficult to prove. This might one day lead to something, but there is no obvious application at this point.

    1. Re:Not really viable as an energy source by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      However, we have pleanty of excess sonic vibrations to use with this method...this season of American Idol demonstrated that...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    2. Re:Not really viable as an energy source by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      That is such a moronic response! (Sorry, I really get sick of hearing things like that!)

      What you mean is that you cannot think of an application. I can think of several, some of which would probably work almost as is. For example, it could be used to heat interstellar probes above 4 K - you have to take all your energy with you because interstellar space has no energy sources available. It works best in the cold - perfect for some applications.

      Please, please do not assume that there are no applications just because you can't think of any!

      Sorry, this just drives me nuts! I'll be quiet now...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    3. Re:Not really viable as an energy source by JRIsidore · · Score: 1

      No? If this experimental results can indeed be confirmed this can very well be the next clean energy source. This experiment can basically be done with a table-top setup, so plenty of research facilities will hop on the train and try to extend the technology. Standing ultrasonic waves are nothing extraordinary.
      Other possible fusion reactors like ITER are huge plants which cost billions of euros and require an extensive amount of collaboration of many nations to build. Same goes for lasers, high-energy lasers which can provide the neccessary energy fill huge halls (like NIF). Another problem with such huge installations like ITER are politics, like is right now beeing demonstrated. Even a simple task like finding a site to build it causes extensive discussions over years.
      So, this new approach is very promising IMHO. I hope it turns out to be true.

      --
      :w!q
  11. Old news by Handbrewer · · Score: 1

    Its old news that its possible to use soundwaves to create extremely high temperatures, however controlling it has been very hard, i first read about this about 10 years ago. You need a bubble that is almost a perfect sphere via evaporation and then apply the sound waves, this causes the material to implode very aggressively. Its great to se a promising method have developed further, because the JET project (Joint European Torus) is not new at all, and with a proper "spark plug" hot fusion seems to be closer than ever.

  12. Not cold fusion! by Handbrewer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Please people, this is not for cold fusion use - its for starting a hot fusion process. That needs millions of degrees celcius, high material density and so forth. This is one promising solution for the hot fusion "spark plug". http://www.jet.efda.org/
    The key to hot fusion is material density and temperature, containing the plasma is extremely hard.

    1. Re:Not cold fusion! by Jackazz · · Score: 1
      Are you sure about that? I thought the difference between cold fusion and hot fusion was that hot fusion is started by a nuclear fission reaction? It doesn't have to do with the temperature of the reaction, it is just that the only way we have had of creating fusion is to use a fission bomb to compress and heat the fusable material.

      So to me this sounds like a step towards cold fusion because you are using sound to compress the material, not fission. I think the 'hot' refers to radioactivity.

    2. Re:Not cold fusion! by Zemrec · · Score: 1
      I thought the difference between cold fusion and hot fusion was that hot fusion is started by a nuclear fission reaction?


      You're thinking of the H-bomb, whereby a nuclear fission bomb is the trigger for the fusion reaction (just like a conventional high explosive is used to implode the fissionable core to supercritical mass.)

      ITER, for instance, and other torus reactors involve no fission whatsoever...there is no uranium or plutonium used. They operate by magnetic confinement of the plasma which is heated by radio waves I believe (maybe lasers too?)
    3. Re:Not cold fusion! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more - this isn't cold fusion, it's hot 'nano-fusion'. Let's start using the new name and see if it catches on.

      --
      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:Not cold fusion! by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Well, the term "cold fusion", if taken literally, can never be applied to any form of fusion we have imagined. On an atomic scale, the energy of a single atom is its "heat", and the 1 Mev or so required is extremely hot!

      Personally, I think it is fair to call anything that has an average chamber temperature below 100 C "cold fusion", because it is cold enough to make apparatus design safe and easy.

      Remember, cold is a relative term. Compared to a standard fusion reactor, the center of the sun is "cold".

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    5. Re:Not cold fusion! by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1

      Umm... considering that the center is where the fusion is occuring and that is a result of the crushing weight of 98% of the solar system, I would hazard a guess that a fusion reactor core has similar temperatures to the center of the sun.

    6. Re:Not cold fusion! by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      That's what is funny - it really isn't. Thermonuclear weapons are a lot hotter than the center of the sun - the sun is just under more pressure. The amount of fusion is related to temperature times pressure, so you can have either one. The sun uses pressure more, our bombs use temperature more. (At least as far as I can tell. No insider info here...)

      So in comparison to the only efficient fusion reactor we have (somebody sent us up the bomb), the natural reactors (stars) ARE cold fusion!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  13. Superconductivity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    We still don't know how superconductivity works exactly, for example.

    You don't? Here's a good article: "superconductivity is caused by a force of attraction between certain conduction electrons arising from the exchange of phonons, which causes the conduction electrons to exhibit a superfluid phase composed of correlated pairs of electrons." Check out Wikipedia sometimes, you will be surprised how many interesting things you can learn there.

    1. Re:Superconductivity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From your own link:
      There is currently no complete theory of high-temperature superconductivity.

      If I understand this correctly, electron-coupling does not explain the Meissner Effect.

    2. Re:Superconductivity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From that article:

      The explanation for these high critical temperatures remains unknown.(Electron pairing due to phonon exchanges explains superconductivity in conventional superconductors, while it does not explain superconductivity in the newer superconductors that have a very high Tc)

  14. And can it release it usefully? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Adding heat to a lukewarm bath of deuterated acetone is one thing. Even making bubbles in a truly hot fluid (such as water in a high-pressure boiler) is quite another. The bubble phenomenon appears to depend on there being a large enthalpy and density difference between the liquid and vapor phases; as you get toward the critical temperature and pressure, this difference decreases until it finally disappears. Supercritical = no more bubbles.

    High temperatures are important. You can't run an efficient heat engine off a small temperature difference; the lower the input temperature, the more of the total energy has to be discarded as waste heat. If you can't convert enough of your fusion energy to work, you can't power your ultrasonics and thus cannot even run your plant on its own output power.

    If you could form bubbles of deuterium vapor in a bath of liquid metal it might be something else, but that's a bit beyond what they're doing here.

    1. Re:And can it release it usefully? by WhiplashII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you say is true, but less true is deep space. Out beyond Jupiter or so, there is very little energy available. Everything is very low temperature, and radiation cooling very quickly gets you to extremely cold temperatures (40 K is reasonable, as I remember).

      Something like this could work as a Mr. Fusion for deep space probes - it sounds like a perfect match. Deep Space probes typically don't even need that much power!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    2. Re:And can it release it usefully? by j_cavera · · Score: 1

      It's not just a matter of creating the bubbles. By adding enough ultrasonic energy of the proper frequency, one can create bubbles in anything. The thing is that the bubbles have to collapse with a particular velocity. This is dependant on the temperature of the fluid. And, unfortunately, colder is better in this case. Yes, thermodynamic efficiency requires high temperatures. Yes, there are ways of extracting useful energy from small temperature differences (rubber-band heat engines, thermocouples, etc.) but all are low efficiency. There are methods of concentrating waste heat to increase the thermodynamic efficiency (heat-diodes), but at this stage in the research, the only goal is to increse the fusion yield. Power extraction considerations are still a long way off.

      - Jim

      --
      #include "humorous_pop_culture_reference.h"
  15. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scientific method is about the gathering of evidence of the processes occuring in nature, then understanding them. Please do tell me what part of the article conflicts with it.

  16. Val Kilmer? by Kosi · · Score: 2

    What has he got to do with physics?

    1. Re:Val Kilmer? by bhima · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a reference to a movie he was in: "The Saint".

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Val Kilmer? by Zemrec · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Is that ridiculous free iPod ponzi scheme over yet?


      Heh. No. I still need 2 more people to sign up. I don't really get the backlash its getting. Its not that bad and appears legit.
    3. Re:Val Kilmer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, then sign me up twice and go fuck off.

    4. Re:Val Kilmer? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > It's a reference to a movie he was in: "The Saint".

      Funny. I thought it was a reference to 'Real Genius'.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    5. Re:Val Kilmer? by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      Real Genius had nothing to do with fusion. It did involve lasers, however; and a cute hyper-active geek girl.

      --
      stuff
  17. Woah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um...

    Woah!? ;)

  18. Over my head... by keiferb · · Score: 1

    ...but could someone explain the Val Kilmer reference? I have a feeling there's a funny I'm missing. =)

    1. Re:Over my head... by Zemrec · · Score: 1

      It's not very funny. Val Kilmer and Elisabeth Shue were in The Saint http://imdb.com/title/tt0120053/plotsummary, where the lovely Elisabeth plays a physicist who develops a formula for cold fusion using something similar to what TFA is talking about (although TFA is talking about "hot" fusion, not Pons/Fleischmann cold fusion.)

      Its a cheesy thriller movie, very little science, just 2 good looking actors getting it on. Worth a Friday night though.

  19. I tried this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. place glass of water in front of ghettoblaster
    2. crank up the volume

    The only thing that fused, though, were the speakers...

    1. Re:I tried this... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Only if you had a woman with you...only then can you get REAL fusion going. Tisk tisk tisk.

      And if your lucky, she will be your breeder reactor too.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  20. The Saint by roseblood · · Score: 1

    Simon Templar[Val Kilmer] - a fictitious name a young orphan boy invented for himself in a Hong Kong orphanage years ago - is now a suave, debonair, international thief who needs to pull-off just one more exuberant heist to put him at the $50 million mark in his Swiss bank account (his goal amount for retirement). An easy job: simply steal Dr. Emma Russel's formula for cold-fusion, and deliver it to a Russian billionaire bent on sending Russia back to Communism - no problem, Right? Wrong! There's one thing Mr. Templar, master of disguise didn't count on ... falling in love.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120053/

    --
    There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    1. Re:The Saint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, dude. I would have replied earlier, but the movie sounds so boring that your post put me to sleep and now I forgot why my reply was going to be.

  21. The Saint by roseblood · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120053/

    As a young orphan, a boy[Val Kilmer] refuses to accept the name given him by priests and instead chooses to take on the name of Simon Templar after the Saint of magic. Speed ahead and the young boy is now a master thief in bidding wars with countries for his services. Using his skills of master disguise, he eludes all pursuers as he assumes names associated with the various Saints. In this role after stealing from a Russian industrialist, the industrialist hires The Saint to steal a formula for cold fusion being developed by a young female scientist. Cold fusion is said to permit a nation to heat its citizens with only a few gallons of water. However, on this case The Saint falls in love with the scientist placing him in a quandary of fulfilling his professional obligations or staying with the innocent young scientist. When she becomes threatened by the Russian Mafia, he has no choice but to go ahead with his job. However, she follows him to Moscow, setting off a chase across the City and through their sewers.

    --
    There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  22. I didn't watch it either... by Wampus+Aurelius · · Score: 1

    The Val Kilmer reference is from this movie.

  23. Idea for fusion confinement by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

    Here's my naive idea for fusion confinement. How about a giant container filled with some liquid. And this container is spinning in such a way that a bubble of hydrogen/helium whatever fuel is kept in the center. Could you then initiate fusion in the bubble and rely on the liquid around it to contain it?

    1. Re:Idea for fusion confinement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the liquid wouldn't stay liquid very long and it would conduct heat to the container anyway

    2. Re:Idea for fusion confinement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you add that the problem of containing the water that can contain the fusion...

  24. You mean Keanu Reeves by crmartin · · Score: 1

    ... you know, the movie where he outruns the shock wave on a motorcycle?

    Val Kilmer built a giant death-ray laser.

    1. Re:You mean Keanu Reeves by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

      That was the movie "Chain Reaction". I'm not sure the phrase "cold fusion" was used in that movie, but I did get the impression that something like that was what it was about.

    2. Re:You mean Keanu Reeves by crmartin · · Score: 1

      It's been a long time and God knows it was primarily memorable for things like the supersonic motorcycle, but I *think* they actually used the sonoluminescence hack as the explanation for making the fusion work.

    3. Re:You mean Keanu Reeves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Yes, the acoustic energy needed to cause sonoluminesence came from a Wyld Stallyns concert. San Dimas High School Nuclear Fusion ROCKS!

      Seriously, though, yeah, you're right about the sonoluminescence thing.

    4. Re:You mean Keanu Reeves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... you know, the movie where he outruns the shock wave on a motorcycle?"

      And people wonder why the last movie I saw in the theater was "Beavis and Butthead Do America"

    5. Re:You mean Keanu Reeves by jnik · · Score: 1

      Chain reaction made it *very* clear that the energy came from burning hydrogen--they demonstrate it with a match! Basically they built a perpetual motion machine--electrolyze the water into hydrogen and oxygen, burn the hydrogen (combining it with oxygen) to get water, lather rinse repeat.

  25. I think you mean... by centauri · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    1. Re:I think you mean... by stromthurman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, they mean Val Kilmer.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
    2. Re:I think you mean... by andersen · · Score: 1

      Nah, Val Kilmer was indeed what he meant.

      --
      -Erik -- --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
    3. Re:I think you mean... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      The plot vehicle in that movie wasn't fusion, it was cheap efficient hydrogen production. Of course, I can understand why you would be confused, the movie consisted of 1% science fiction and 99% running, shooting and "whoa"ing.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:I think you mean... by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, you're right! And all this time I thought it was fusion too. Now I'm really confused as to the source of that humongous explosion... I guess if a tank of water can emit enough hydrogen, all you need to do then is add the burning shell of a zeppelin and BOOM!

    5. Re:I think you mean... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Well there was a laser involved. You know it's gunna explode if there's a laser involved. If the rest of that movie had been as interesting as the first 5 minutes it might have been a cult classic with geeks. Now there's a movie that would be worth watching: physics genius invents ground breaking technology, world is transformed as a result. Of course, you'd need some freakin' master of a director to make it even remotely interesting.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  26. Re:Interesting by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Psuedoscience is inherently not reproducible in carefully controlled, well designed experiments. This certainly seems to be reproducible, hence is not psuedoscience.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  27. 50 comments and yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else find it really sad that about half of the comments on this important scientific discovery are about Val Kilmer, Keanu Reeves, and Elizabeth Shue? This is supposed to be News for Nerds and yet even we are obsessed with vapid celebrities. That's really pathetic.

    1. Re:50 comments and yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the discussion were in terms of Star Trek, you wouldn't have a problem with it. Go back to your convention and seek out Spock's autograph.

  28. published by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The paper was published: Taleyarkhan, R. P. et al. 2004, Phys. Rev. E, 69, 036109, with an erratum this month (2005) Phys. Rev. E, 71, 019901.

  29. Even deep space doesn't help you by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    Running a heat engine with a very cold sink temperature begs the question: what do you do for a radiator? Blackbody radiation scales as the fourth power of absolute temperature; cutting your radiator temperature from 300 K to 150 K multiplies the required size of your radiator by sixteen. The size of the heat engine goes up too, but not quite so badly. Eventually your probe's power supply takes over.

    There comes a time to forget the nuclear phobia and go with plutonium RTG's or even a small fission reactor. An RTG is also capable of handling small power requirements, and either will get the job done.

    1. Re:Even deep space doesn't help you by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Well, yes - but you could go further with this than an RTG (For the same mass, more energy available). It is true that the low temperatures would limit energy output, but one problem is keeping the spacecraft warm (well, near freezing actually). This could help with that, and provide a few watts of power. The radiator would be the spacecraft itself. Even at the fourth power, your spacecraft will be radiating on the order of 100 watts at 250-300 K. (Your example of 150 K is rather extreme - at that temperature you would get nearly 50% thermal efficiency - which means you would have to be ignoring other trade-offs)

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  30. Check the date by macemoneta · · Score: 1

    This last year's news.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  31. Could you? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    ... you could go further with this than an RTG (For the same mass, more energy available).
    Really? Consider total mission mass. A reactor or RTG can run its heat source at a fairly high temperature, and the power conversion hardware and radiators are not very large. A low-temperature heat source would require a very large and heavy radiator; unless you have a very long mission, the RTG and reactor can beat it by just adding more fuel.
    The radiator would be the spacecraft itself.
    Now you've added a requirement for the spacecraft to have sufficient area, thermal conductivity and the proper radiation characteristics to achieve the required low heat-sink temperature. What does that do to your mission mass? What else does it complicate?
    (Your example of 150 K is rather extreme - at that temperature you would get nearly 50% thermal efficiency - which means you would have to be ignoring other trade-offs)
    "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

    In theory, a 300 K heat source and a 150 K heat sink can yield 50% thermal efficiency. In reality, you're going to be lucky to get 20%. Consider the case of your typical steam-cycle electric powerplant. Its boilers run at approximately 1500 degrees R, and the condensers at around 540 R (depending on time of year). The Carnot efficiency limits you to 64%. What do you actually get? Try 33-35%, a bit more than half. In a small heat engine the consequent high conduction losses, plus the requirement to trade off efficiency for reliability, would hit you even harder.

    Then you've got the issue of breakeven, which fission and radioisotope power don't have. If the conversion hardware yields 20% when new and the sonic fusor gets a 6:1 multiple of its input power, your net output is (0.200 - 0.167) = 0.033, or 3.3% of the total thermal output. If the efficiency of either the fusor or the heat engine decays a bit due to wear or malfunction, the whole thing stops working. I wouldn't want to bet my mission on that.

    I could see something like a micro-proton accelerator generating high-energy neutrons (via spallation) to create fission in a chunk of depleted uranium (metal or oxide). It would be small, it would be relatively light, it would be harmless until launched, and it would be a lot easier to make into a working spacecraft than sonic fusion in acetone.

    1. Re:Could you? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      The total mass issue is a problem only for small spacecraft (basically you are assuming that fuel is a low proportion of mass, I am assuming a high proportion). We are both right for different assumptions.

      As for Carnot efficiency and such, I kept my post rather vague on that point intentionally. There are devices that achieve near carnot efficiency, and such devices tend to be low power as well. In your example you mention a steam generator - I think we both agree that it is unlikely that a steam generator would be launched. (However top of the line steam power plants are near 70% efficient, and so even that sort of goes against your point).

      The breakeven point is dead on, but I never said the technology would work as is. I was really saying that the technology shows a lot of promise, even if it doesn't seem likely to provide high power levels (or even work at room temperature).

      Your small nuclear generator design is interesting, but nuclear fuel tends not to last too well. Typically years, not decades.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    2. Re:Could you? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
      top of the line steam power plants are near 70% efficient
      Bull. Show me one. (Combined cycle hits about 60%, but that's not a pure steam cycle.)
      nuclear fuel tends not to last too well. Typically years, not decades.
      Every bit of nuclear fuel we have has been hanging around since the formation of the Earth, 4.3 billion years ago. True, Pu-238 isn't good for more than about 50 years (half-life ~90 years) but we make it and we only use it because our primary missions only run about 10 years.

      If the nuclear scientists were given the task of making a reactor which would put out X amount of thermal output continuously for a century, you can bet that they could do it. Say that X is 50 kW thermal, or 0.05 megawatt. Typical fuel burnups for pressurized-water reactors are running 50,000 megawatt-days per ton of fuel, so the same applied to a 100 year mission at 50 kW (36500 days * 0.05 MW = 1825 MW-days) would require 0.0365 ton of fuel, or 73 pounds.

      I can't see you making even the radiator for the sono-fusion system that light.

    3. Re:Could you? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Bull. Show me one...

      The particular one I had in mind was in a physical document, not online. Remember, that for space use you will spend enough to use top of the line parts no matter what method you choose. Online, the best I could find was in this link:

      http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical. asp

      It has a micro-turbine generator available that is 80% efficient. (I don't know where that came from, the highest I had ever heard of was 70%)

      As for the rest, we have never made any near a century life atomic batteries, and we have never tried to make a generator from this technology. It seems silly to argue about which would be better - at this point almost certaintly you would use an atomic battery, the other is not developed yet (R is done, D is not).

      I'm just saying that working on this is a good idea!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    4. Re:Could you? by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I notice that for some reason you do not include combined cycle plants? OK, if you throw out half the energy, then yes it would not be that efficient.

      My recommendation: Do not throw out half the energy.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  32. Oooh, this is recent.... by MagicDude · · Score: 1

    Did anyone notice this on the top of the page?

    FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE
    March 2, 2004


    Why wasn't this posted 10 months ago? More importantly, why is it being posted now?

  33. very old news! by symstym · · Score: 1

    There was an article on Slashdot almost a year ago pointing to this exact same press release (dated March 2, 2004).

  34. Val? What about Keeneu Reeves? by haplo21112 · · Score: 1

    Chain Reaction is much more replated to this story...

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  35. Bogus number by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    If you look closely at that page, you'll notice that the picture of that unit is from Capstone Turbine. The electric conversion efficiency of Capstone units is about 28% peak (see graph on page 3). They can claim 80% energy recovered, but that includes the heat captured as well as the electricity generated.
    (1) we have never made any near a century life atomic batteries, and (2) we have never tried to make a generator from this technology.
    You're comparing cherries and watermelons.
    1. We've made dozens of atomic batteries, both RTG's and reactors, and launched them into space. They work. Making one work for a century is just a matter of engineering.
    2. Making a sonic fusor get even to technical breakeven (let alone engineering breakeven) is uncertain and may not even be possible.
    Let's keep looking at the physics by all means, but it's not the time for bets. If I were in charge of NASA at the moment I'd be asking nuclear scientists for power technologies based on the micron-thick solar cells for inner-system missions and nuclear reactors for trans-Jovian missions. The only way to get a look at bodies like Pluto and beyond for more than flyby missions is with nuclear power and ion propulsion, and it's silly to think about sonic fusors until we have at least had something running in the lab for a few years. (Reactors had their engineering tests before the end of WWII - they're mature.)
    1. Re:Bogus number by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      That is pretty much exactly what I was saying, but obviously not what I was communicating.

      My only caviot is that while an RTG would probably be a good bet, current designs would not acheive the lifetime I was talking about - and simply adding more material doesn't help that much. After sitting around for decades, radioactive material must be reprocessed (as in repurified) before it can be used in the same reactor. As I said, any sane person would not bet on this technology yet - but people were discounting the research as useless. This is definately not useless!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  36. Clue time by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1

    Did you fail to notice the emphasis on the difference between the Carnot efficiency and the actual efficiency? Change the test case and the numbers also change. Heck, look up the combustion temperature of the UHT turbines used in combined-cycle plants and calculate the Carnot efficiency for that case yourself. Is 60% good or bad?

    1. Re:Clue time by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Um, nothing can do better than carnot efficiency, even with cogeneration... unless you are talking about heating water as useful energy or something.

      Cogeneration can mean that, but it normally (well, for some values of normally) means that the waste heat from one carnot based cycle is used on another one.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    2. Re:Clue time by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
      nothing can do better than carnot efficiency
      Thanks for evading the question. Is 60% good or bad for that particular high-side temperature? Is it a large (good) or small (bad) fraction of the theoretical maximum?
      Cogeneration can mean that, but it normally (well, for some values of normally) means that the waste heat from one carnot based cycle is used on another one.
      You've just proven that you do not understand "Carnot cycle". Go take a course in thermodynamics and clear some of those misconceptions out.
    3. Re:Clue time by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Wow, you sure are abrasive...

      You can get within 90% of carnot efficiency with Stirling engines. Steam engines probably approach 80%, but I have no data to calculate that.

      The quintessential example of the multiple cycle is a stirling engine (or thermoelectric pile) running on the exhaust of a turbine. Turbines are not efficient at getting the low temperature (under 200 C, say) energy out. No one uses a true carnot cycle, but most people do talk about heat engines as carnot engines. I suppose it is technically inacurate, but it tells you right away what the theoretical possibilities are.

      By the way, there are pretty much no "pure" large heat engines - it is almost always cost effective to put at least 1 regenerative cycle in.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    4. Re:Clue time by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
      You can expect people to be abrasive or dismissive when you presume to lecture them on things that they've studied in depth and you have no clue about. Example:
      Steam engines probably approach 80%, but I have no data to calculate that.
      And you said this shortly after I gave you proof that the typical figure is closer to 50%. The turbines can recover 80% or more of the available energy in the steam, but the availability is nowhere near 80% of the heat input.

      I suspect that you have no clue about the meaning of "availability" in the context of thermodynamics.

      The quintessential example of the multiple cycle is a stirling engine (or thermoelectric pile) running on the exhaust of a turbine.
      Show me one example of a commercial-scale system using either a Stirling or thermoelectric bottoming cycle with a gas-turbine topping cycle. (I speculate in advance that you can't, because gas turbines are inherently multi-KW to multi-MW devices, while Stirlings are piston engines and suffer from decreasing power/displacement as size increases. Thermoelectrics are just prohibitively expensive at large scale.)

      The pinnacle of modern powerplant efficiency is the gas/steam turbine combined cycle. Both sections use turbines, which produce high specific power with relatively low flow losses in sizes of 100 MW or more. In contrast, the largest piston engine currently built is a diesel producing approximately 80 MW.

      Turbines are not efficient at getting the low temperature (under 200 C, say) energy out.
      Now you're into territory where I have a reference (the next best thing to experience). Best of all, it's an old reference; you don't have any excuse for not knowing about it. In "Direct Use of The Sun's Energy" (Farrington Daniels, 1964) there is a cite of a paper by H. Tabor (pp. 267-268). Tabor made a 2 kW vapor turbine using monochlorobenzene as the working fluid and achieved 10-15% efficiency at a hot-side temperature of 150 C; 2 kW steam engines usually have efficiencies of 5% or less. The full cite is Tabor, H. and Bronicki, J. L., Small Turbine for Solar Energy Power Package, in U.N. Conf. on New Sources of Energy, E 35-S54, Rome, 1961.

      If you are going to talk thermodynamics you ought to know something about thermodynamics. This means it's time for you to log off Slashdot and do some studying. Learn how to use steam tables and work P-v and T-s diagrams. When you can support your claims with figures that you can prove are accurate, you'll be ready to discuss these matters intelligently.

    5. Re:Clue time by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Please read what I said. I was talking about available energy. To quote "80% of carnot..."

      By the way, your actions label you as a dork. Thats why I get paid 10X what you do, because I can discuss things with people that have less knowlege than myself without making them feel stupid. If I have less knowlege than you on Thermodynamics (hey, it is possible), then try to educate me. Don't try to show me how much smarter you are than me.

      However, I believe what is really going on is that we have both studied this from different perspectives - you are probably an power systems engineering student, and I am working in a related field. I don't care about terminology, because the engine is secondary to me. You do, because the engine is primary.

      Whatever...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  37. APS as arbiter of truth by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I couldn't find anything about it on Phys Rev E yet.

    Yeah, well Bob Park shat all over it when the experiment was first reported, as he's want to do for anything not involving big-budget tokamaks.

    There's a difference between being professionally skeptical and being openly hostile towards unexpected developments in science. I'm afraid APS/Park fall on the side of being high-priests of high-energy. A scientist must be both completely open minded and rigorously skeptical - those two qualities are not exclusive and if you lack one you're not really in it for the science, you're in it for your agenda.

    In this case he impuned the veracity of the ORNL group and was wrong about it.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  38. Bogus concept by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    Incidentally, the efficiency number claimed by Capstone is based on the lower heating value (LHV) of the fuel, not the higher heating value (HHV) which includes the heat of vaporization of the water. Thus, the energy input is understated and the efficiency is overstated.
    After sitting around for decades, radioactive material must be reprocessed (as in repurified) before it can be used in the same reactor.
    That's not true, and betrays a misconception. Reprocessing is required to remove fission products, which absorb neutrons and "poison" the chain reaction. You only get fission products if you have fission on-going, and they accumulate at the rate that atoms are fissioned (duh). If you run at a very high power level this will take a fractional second (think "very tightly confined atomic bomb"); if you run at a very low power level or intermittently you could run "intermittently for a million years or more."

    The material used in RTG's decays at a fixed rate. Confusing the two may account for your misconception.

    1. Re:Bogus concept by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Right, it is confusing to talk about both RTGs and standard reactors. I was talking about RTGs, because they would be mass competitive - a nuclear reactor would not have this problem but would weigh a lot.

      And, of course, what if you have a melt down (up?) in space? You might make it radioactive! ;-}

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  39. Re:Interesting by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Also, how the universe works is still wrapped up in a lot of hypothesis, dark matter etc. That doesn't mean that we aren't real, well maybe you, but I'm pretty sure I'm real.