Bubble Fusion Results Replicated

Anonymous Coward writes "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. Interesting stuff, read about it here."

Comments

Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[xophos]

again?

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[DikSeaCup]

Someone's already addressed the questions of "is it practical" - but the question I have is, if it is practical and we can get an energy surplus out of the thing, *when* will we see it?

Not to unduly don a tinfoil hat, but will it be surpressed by oil companies until there's a worldwide oil shortage? And if so, it wouldn't be so "cheap" when they released it.

Tinfoil hats aside, I doubt something like this will get the funding it deserves.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[klik]

whether it is suppressed or not, over the long term, if it works then someone will reproduce the results ( and given the basic research is available in the journals it will be easier for someone to rebuild a working system from basic principles ).

Basically what it comes down to, is that if this works, the cat is out of the bag.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[b-baggins]

Because of course, we all know that oil companies only want to make money off of selling oil, not other forms of energy, which is why when you see oil companies investing in wind, solar and fuel cell technologies, it is just your imagination.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[Niko.]

Good Lord, I hope you're not actually as gullible as that post makes you seem.

Oil companies like to be known as "energy" companies because it diffuses the appearance of their nearly-exclusive association with oil production. So, it's for PR purposes first off.

Much more important, investments in wind, solar, fuel cell and other alternative energy fields allow the oil companies some degree of control over the research in those areas (it happens fast, slowly, or not at all at their say-so).

Such investments give the oil companies control over people with extensive (and often unique) theoretical and applied knowledge in the field, and control of both developing processes and established patents.

Just as Microsoft "innovates" by buying up new entrants into the fields Microsoft considers its own, the oil giants' purchases and investments in alternative energy are their means to influence, if not dictate, the rate of "innovation" in global energy use patterns.

Finally, when oil eventually does become uneconomic as fuel, the oil companies will have long ago bought a lock on the now-essential alternative sources of energy, and will be able to maintain their revenue streams right on past the end of the Oil Age.

Slightly offtopic in that it's more about electricity than oil, but I think one can gauge oil companies' commitment to the public good WRT alternative energy by the degree to which they support decentralization of energy production (so far, little to not at all). Synfuels and wind and solar farms are being developed in an industrial mode that cements the importance of heavily-capitalized players, despite the greatest economic gains to the public being available in widely-distributed small-scale wind, solar and biomass production.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[LWATCDR]

Please remove your tinfoil hat.
I will give you a clue. Companies care about making money. I swear I wish the extreme left and the libertarians both would get a clue. A companies job is to make money. The governments job is to make laws to regulate companies for the common good. Consumers make the decision of how much the will spend for positive behavior. It is like the outcry about outsourcing. You do not want outsourced tech support? Then do not buy a $500 PC. The energy companies do not care if it is from oil, gas, coal, or burning tinklies. The reason that they do not push for small-scale wind, solar, and biomass production is frankly they suck. solar has limited value in many places. The northern area of North America is one. I would like to see more solar roofs in the south. I would like just a 100 watt panel tied to the grid be required on all new homes built in the south. Wind is noisy, ugly, and expensive. Biomass has some potential but will never be a major part of the energy picture in it's current state. Now that bio mass converter I read about a while ago if it works could be very cool.
As far as the big oil companies stopping this research no they are just not putting huge amounts of money into it. Even if they where stopping it in the western nations what about Japan? They have no national oil reserves at all. I doubt that Oil companies could stop Japan or China from developing those technologies if they where practical.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[cornjchob]

I swear I wish the extreme left and the libertarians both would get a clue

You /do/ realize how ridiculous that statement is, right? I can only assume that since you seem to dislike the 'extreme left' that you're a republican. Your poor grammar only further the hole you dug with your already ignorant statements, so I'll try to make this quick, because I have much better things to be doing right now.

You say: The governments job is to make laws to regulate companies for the common good

You're aware that's considerably more left than right, don't you? Democrats, socialists, et al think it's the governments job, while most on the right think the government should have the least amount of intervention as possible. And Libertarians think the government should have no intervention at all. Since that's the case, how did you group Libertarians with anybody except the extreme right, let alone the far left?

You also say: A companies job is to make money.

When a government's riding a company's back, they make less money due to regulation, and pass the price onto consumers. Those same consumers are the ones who decide who to support in the end, not the goverment. If a company's doing something you don't like, don't buy from them--you're right about that. Except you have absolutely no idea about any politcal philosophy, so after you amalgamate the philosophies of two wildly different parties into your own views after you said each respective party needs to "Get a clue", you go on some half-tangental diatribe to flex your obviously all-encompassing knowledge about the subject of energy. My only hope is that you've enough of an IQ to realize that "obviously all-encompassing knowledge" was sarcasm.

I mean seriously man, do you know anything about Libertarianism? Or even Democrats? Republicans, maybe? Your own party? You say: I will give you a clue. Thanks for the clue, captain dipshit--maybe I'll feel generous and give you a bar to remove my boot from your ass--hopefully you won't use it to remove your foot from your mouth.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[homer_ca]

"Since that's the case, how did you group Libertarians with anybody except the extreme right, let alone the far left?"

Libertarians have a naive faith in laissez faire economics. We tried that in 19th century. Some markets may settle into a healthy, competitive environment. Others are vulnerable to market distortions like cartels, oligopolies and various barriers of entry to competition. While the far-left does have noble goals with their agenda, they're equally naive about the economic consequences of their ideas.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[nathanh]

A companies job is to make money. The governments job is to make laws to regulate companies for the common good.

The government's "job" is to represent the will of the people. Only in Corporate America can you "consumers" be so brainwashed into believing the government exists to regulate the companies.

Wind is noisy, ugly, and expensive.

Wind turbines are quieter and more beautiful than a coal fired power plant, and less expensive than nuclear. The only people complaining about wind power are those with a NIMBY complex. I say stick a coal fired power plant in their backyard and see what they think about wind turbines then.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[R2.0]

Apples and oranges. The largest coal plants are still relatively compact in terms of square footage compared to wind turbines. So, although a single wind turbine may e less ugly than a single powerplant, the thousands of wind turbines necesary to equal the power output of your theoretical coal fired plant would cover an enormous acreage and affect far more people.

As for noise, I think you may be just flat out wrong about that; my experience at powerhouses is that there is almost no noise outside the fence.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[X43B]

"Wind turbines are quieter and more beautiful than a coal fired power plant, and less expensive than nuclear."

I'm not going to say you can't find some report some where that in a particular case wind power could be cheaper than nuclear. But in the many reports I have read nuclear has always been cheaper than wind power. Also wind power is not viable in all areas and is not constant. There are significant losses if you have to store a large amount of energy for times when the wind does not blow.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal plants are expensive and can be a real pain, back in the day we could hear noise in my house (indoors with everything closed) from the powerplant. I'm several km away (it's on the opposite end of the city).

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[nathanh]

Apples and oranges. The largest coal plants are still relatively compact in terms of square footage compared to wind turbines.

How much space do you think a strip mine takes? Don't forget to include the tailings dam.

the thousands of wind turbines necesary to equal the power output of your theoretical coal fired plant would cover an enormous acreage and affect far more people.

You can (and people do) use the land under a wind turbine for grazing and farming.

As for noise, I think you may be just flat out wrong about that; my experience at powerhouses is that there is almost no noise outside the fence.

You have got to be kidding me? Those things are incredibly noisy.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[_Potter_PLNU_]

Amen...preach it brother ;)

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[radtea]

Companies exist to make money, and they make money by being very highly specialized. Oil companies are only just beginning to make the transition to becoming "energy companies", and it is a sure thing that some of them will not survive the transition.

So energy companies certainly do care about where the energy is coming from, because they are currently highly optimized to generate power from oil and coal. It is harder for an oil company to switch to a new power source based on a completely different technology than it is for a small, high-margin, niche alternative energy company to grow. Ergo, it is in the interests of oil companies to put the brakes on alternative energy development as much as possible.

That said, some oil companies (notably Shell) are being fairly forward-looking about the changes they are facing over the next few decades. But even in that case they must recognize that rapid change is not at all good for them.

Finally, this is what makes some alternatives more attractive than others, and algae-derived biodeisel is particularly promising because it will utilize much of the existing supply-chain technology that the large, highly-optimized players have invested so heavily in.

--Tom

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[LWATCDR]

"Wind turbines are quieter and more beautiful than a coal fired power plant, and less expensive than nuclear"

The problem is that you have to have them in EVERYBODY'S back yard. You can not build a single 10mw windmill. I have to question the cost vs nuclear also. No new nuclear plants have been made in years so we have no real idea how much a modern reactor like a pebble bed would cost. Plus you have the problem of storing the power from the wind turbines. You can not just crank them up to make more power when you need to you are at the mercy of the wind.
Wind power is useful for some situations. It is great at pumping water at remote locations. It is great for charging a sailboats battery. It is not a replacement for power plants.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[LWATCDR]

I do not know if it worth the effort to help you but I will try.
No I am not a Republican. I am an independent. My wife is Democrat with a degree in political science. She seems to feel I have a pretty good grip on the political system.
Second Democrat does not equal "extreme left" unless you are a member of the extreme right which I am not. Some Democrat are moderate some are slightly left, some are extreme left, some are extreme right.
Frankly I have little use for the extreme left or right. As to the difference between Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians I think I have a bit more of a clue than you do since you thing all Democrats are the extreme left.
Now as to my grammar. Yes it sucks. I do not take the time to check it when I post on Slashdot. Frankly, from your post it would looks to me that you feel that as long as you have impeccable grammar that it is just fine to have the content and vocabulary of an angry 14 year old. I feel that content is more important than form.

As to your boot in my ass? Well isn't that so cute. I have not heard something like that in many years. One of the advantages of not having kids.

What you are raging about is what is called a moderate view point. I.E. That some government controls are good. That some profit motive is good. That some Republicans are good. That some Demarcates are good. That extremes are usually not so good. I suggest that you think about these things and calm yourself down.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[LWATCDR]

"How much space do you think a strip mine takes? Don't forget to include the tailings dam."

How much space does an oil/gas field take?
"You can (and people do) use the land under a wind turbine for grazing and farming. "
Ditto for the oil and gas field.

I have to second the the power plant comment. I do not know about coal plants but the oil and gas plants I have been around are almost completely silent. While the turbines I have been around and read about in HomePower have lots of noise and vibration. In one article I read about a home that used a small wind turbine it was mounted on the house and was so loud that the people could not sleep. It eventually vibrated off the pole and crashed through the roof.
They did fix it and mount it on a tower well away from the house.
Yes I do read Homepower. You can download it free from their website. It is a very good source for information about alternative energy. They tend to be way to optimistic but that is almost a requirement for people that want to be pioneers. After all how long did it take for the first micro computers and airplanes to be really useful.
Frankly I am a fan of small solar hooked to the grid. Wind is just too much trouble for wide spread use.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[smithmc]

The government's "job" is to represent the will of the people.

That's your opinion. In mine, the government's job is to protect the rights of the people. If the people want to express their will, I don't see why they need the government to do it.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[cornjchob]

First of all, let me say you've done a very good job keeping up with the myriad of replies under your post--that impresses me.

Moving on, I never said democrat equals extreme left. Anywhere. You said extreme left. Furthmore, my boot was a metaphorical boot whose origin stems in how hard you just got smacked around knowledge-wise. Proof is not only in the original ignorance of your statements, but also in the fact you spent more time describing your 'credentials' than defending what you originally said against what I'd addressed. The content this 'angry 14 year old' wrote had addressed specific inconsistencies within your original post, along with their corrections. And since you insinuated my vocabularly was that of an 8th grader, I'll just assume when you saw "amalgamate", "et al", and "half-tangental diatribe" you just skipped over them rather than look them up.

I was raging about the audacity you have to group together things that don't belong together--if you haven't noticed by my tone yet, there's not much moderate about me. I happen to think government control is an enema all of our colons could do without, republicans and democrats have become far too disillusioned in their own disdain for eachother to be even remotely worth anything, and that extremes are necessary every so often, and that other times good ol' fashion compromise works best.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[LWATCDR]

With out some government control the US and most other nations would spin totally out of control.
As one very bright person put it on slashdot once. "I hope the Libertarians are watching this. If people can not behave in the Sims On line what chance is there in the real world?"
In the real world you can only expect corporations to do what makes them money. You can not expect them to act morally. They are things. Things do not have morals. Individuals can act morally but Corporations have so many individuals that it often falls a part. You have to have government regulations of some kind. Even if it just a law saying that if you sell potato chips there must be potato chips in the bag. There must be enough regulations to protect society but not so much as to take away incentive.
I will give you one that drives my company crazy. State and county sales tax. Good heavens do you have any idea how much effort we have to go through for that? What is worse is that each county has a different tax rate. They change all the time and guess what. If we do not check and the county changes the rate guess who is in trouble? Even if they made it on a per state basis it would be simpler.
You are right that every once in a while extremes are needed but then again every so often an arm or a leg needs to be cut off. The problem is that right now the extremes are not helping. The Democrats lost because they have gone too far to the left. The sad thing is that some people in the party feel their mistake was that they where not far enough to the left. That they need to show a bigger difference from the Republicans. Frankly the Republicans have drifted to far the right and if the Democrats found a good moderate to run they would will.
I hate to say it but I doubt that it will happen. The Democratic party leadership shows all the skill of the Commodore Amiga marketing department.
As for the 8th grade vocabulary I know many 8th graders that know "amalgamate", "et al", and "half-tangential diatribe". The 14 year old vocabulary was not in reference to intellect but maturity level. The use of insults and vulgarity in your post. Notice I did not say a stupid 14 year old I said an angry 14 year old.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[ubera]

Wind turbines are quieter and more beautiful than a coal fired power plant, and less expensive than nuclear

Most studies I have read place the TCO of wind turbines at over 10p/kW compared to ~4p/kW for nuclear.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[bigtangringo]

You sir, are a sheep; an ignorant one at that.

Why do you think the US is a democratic republic?

We elect people who are suppose to represent us. Unfortunately the way government has been working for a long time, does not follow that paradigm. It has become "how much can we get away with" not "what do the people want?"

I think the paradigm shift occured around the first world war, until then the US was much like the EU is now. People were Texans and Virginians before they were Americans, allegiances were to the state.

So no, it's not the "job" of the government to protect the rights of the people. The "job" of the government is to do the people (as a whole) want them to do.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[nathanh]

Most studies I have read place the TCO of wind turbines at over 10p/kW compared to ~4p/kW for nuclear.

Provide a source, don't just pull figures out of the air.

Wind power ranges from 4 cents to 6 cents per kWh, compared to electricity from coal power at 4.8 cents to 5.5 cents per kWh, gas at 3.5 cents to 4.4 cents per kWh, hydro at 5.1 cents to 11.3 cents per kWh, biomass at 5.8 cents to 11.6 cents per kWh, and nuclear at 11.1 cents to 14.5 cents per kWh. -- http://www.lightparty.com/Light/ForcastForEnergy.h tml

Now you can dispute my source if you like, but I've provided one, so the ball is now in your court.

Also look at the practical data. Companies are building wind farms. That's because they are PROFITABLE.

Re:Cheap unlimited Energy for everyone!

[smithmc]

You sir, are a sheep; an ignorant one at that.

Don't bother calling me "sir"; after an insult like that, I'm certainly not going to call you "sir". I'd love to hear you say this to my face, when you're not wearing your "Slashdot muscles".

Why do you think the US is a democratic republic?

Do you remember how Jefferson defined "democracy"? I seem to remember something in there about "the rights of the minority". And we are each of us a minority. Democracy is not unlimited mob rule.

March

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I dislike "this isn't news" posts, well, this isn't news. The paper was published March 2nd. I was hoping this was yet another replication of the experiment, but it's just a replication of the story.

Re:March

[WhiplashII]

In fact, isn't this a dupe?

Re:March

[shrikel]

Wow, it's FUTURE NEWS!

Re:March

[Punboy]

and you must be on FUTURE CRACK! cause this news aint future, its past. waaaay past... like... april 19th 2004 past.

Any Immediate Application?

[Psion]

While these results are fascinating, and the research is worthwhile in its own right as pure science, I wonder if this is at all useful for generating power. Is there any way to capture the energy released? I'd imagine most of the energy produced would be wasted and difficult to extract.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst Einstein's equations are fascinating, and the research is worthwhile in its own right as pure science, I wonder if they are at all useful for generating power. Is there any way to capture the energy released? I'd imagine most of the energy produced would be wasted and difficult to extract.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Anonymous Coward]

If only you had a clue.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[klik]

This thing produces a flood of neutrons - ionising radiation. if these can be directed they can be focused on a flow of neutral atoms or molecules, ionising them and thus producing a flow of ions. flow of ions = flow of current which can be extracted by induction methods.

please feel free to berate me if i have got this wrong?

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Psion]

That's a cool idea, but what would be the efficiency of that process? Earlier experiments used a 14MeV neutron beam to generate microscopic nucleation points which sonoluminescent fusion expanded and collapsed, releasing 2.5 MeV neutrons. I'm not ready to say "bubble fusion" can't be used to generate power, but I think it's important to consider it an area for pure research at the moment without any immediate application. This problably will not lead to fusion power plants, unfortunately.

That doesn't, mean the subject should be ignored, just that folks shouldn't get their hopes up over this process. (Added for the benefit of clueless ACs who might have difficulty with reading and comprehension.)

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[klik]

what really is key, is whether the energy expended to produce the fusion is more or less than the energy produced. If there is an overall 'profit' in energy then its worthy, no matter how inefficient the extraction method.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[secretsquirel]

How do neutrons manage to ionize stuff though? Just don't see how they could let electrons free or whatever without having any charge, like can it "hit" an electron or is the neutron going fast enough to have enough gravity to shake them up or is it another one of those atomic forces or what?. I guess basicly all that I'm worndering is how the neutrons interact with the electrons?

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[b-baggins]

Neutrons have no electrical charge. They can't ionize anything. They can, however, create nuclear isotopes, many of which will be unstable and radioactive.

Having said that, it's actually not hard to imagine how energy can be extracted from this. The fusion will also produce heat. Your fuel is water, which, interestingly enough, is also the same substance used to turn steam turbines. Start your reaction, let the fuel get to superheated steam level, run it through a heat exchanger, and presto, electrical energy.

The nice thing about that is the neutrons releaed in the reaction are absorbed by the water to form more Deuterium or Tritium, which can continue to be used in the process.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Niko.]

Neutrons are definitely ionizing! However, it's not their (lack of) electrical charge that does it, but the high speed at which they smack into other atoms that knocks electrons off the target atoms' shells, thus ionizing them. 'Strooth.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[WhiplashII]

True, with one caviat - this approach to fusion requires the substance (acetone really, not water) to stay liquid. So you have to use the heat energy to boil some other working fluid. The only real hard part is that the acetone (at least at this point) needs to be cool. That can probably be fixed via high pressure, but the low temperature aspects may limit usefulness.

On the other hand, there are always alternatives. It can probably be used very soon in low temperature environments.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the goal is to capture the kinetic energy of the moving neutrons, which is turned into heat, which is then translated to mechanical motion, which turns a generator, which generates electricity, if the heat is not used outright on its own.

Even in a thermoelectric battery, powered by the heat generated typically from plutonium decay, the heat induces a potential difference between two different metals, which is then captured. You get the same thing if you take a chunk of the two metals and heat it with a torch.

Neutrons may be "ionizing" radiation, but that's because they might knock molecules or atoms into pieces. Gamma rays are ionizing radiation because they are at a high enough energy so that if a molecule absorbs a gamma photon, it has to get rid of that acquired energy somehow, so it splits. Gamma rays are so feared because they penetrate so deep into susceptible materials, like mammalian flesh. Neutron-decay stuff isn't so bad to the body, unless you ingest it somehow. Alpha- and Beta-decay stuff is relatively benign.

Because neutrons are 0 charge, they don't inherently create or induce electrical potentials in materials on their own by their motion.
Ion flow doesn't really happen, either. It's electron flow (really, electron "hole" flow) that is electricity.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Psion]

I don't think it's that simple. First, I believe this experiment used acetone for the liquid medium, and I'm not certain that it's behavior in a steam turbine system is satisfactory. Second, there is the question of energy density. Sure, they're seeing bubbles that exhibit sonoluminescence, but are they seeing enough bubbles to heat the fluid to the point that it can drive a steam turbine?

And even if they are, which I don't think is the case (the flashes last only 35 picoseconds), will the system be efficient enough to exceed break-even? I can boil water on my electric stove to drive a steam turbine, but not at sufficient power to run the stove.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neutrons generally slam into the nucleus of atoms, which then undergo a nuclear reaction with the existing nucleons to form protons and other stuff. The protons are positively charged, of course; ionization doesn't have to just mean electrons.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[secretsquirel]

Ahh I see. I was thinking that he meant ionization without the nuclear reaction part.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the goal is to capture the kinetic energy of the moving neutrons, which is turned into heat

That's what heat is. Fast moving little stuff.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[carpltunl]

Evidently not. The press release was issued last March.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[lachlan76]

I can boil water on my electric stove to drive a steam turbine, but not at sufficient power to run the stove.

That would be because of thermodynamics...all the energy is coming from the stove, and some is lost as a matter of course.

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[j_cavera]

A couple of things: as I said in response to the previous article, efficiency is negligible at this point. A few hundred watts of power are required to produce less than one watt of heat. Though this process may be scaled up, leading to greater efficiency, there is an issue with the experimental set-up needing to be cold. The deuterated acetone needs to be kept around 30 deg. F for best bubbling. Higher temperatures destroy the effect.

For commercial power generation, the heat generated will have to be removed fast enough to allow the acetone to remain cool. There are ways of doing this, though none are easy or particularly efficient. Thermal diodes, heat pipes and thermoelectric heat pumps spring to mind.

Right now, this is at the level of laboratory curiosity, though one that shows potential. Bottom line: Mr. Fusion is still a long way away.

- Jim

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[radtea]

The weirdest thing about the bubble fusion story is that acetone produces neutrons, but water (even heavy water) does not.

Presumably now that the neutron results in acetone have been replicated, researchers will investigate the role of different molecular properties in neutron production rate. Why there should be a coupling between atomic and nuclear phenomena in this case is far from clear, but it is pretty clear now (although one replication doth not a science make) that some nuclear phenomenon is occuring.

If most of the energy is coming out in neutrons (as appears to be the case) then it may be possible to convert the neutron's energy to heat in a jacket of absorbant material surrounding the liquid, so the liquid itself will remain (relatively) cool. The thermalization length for neutrons is typically ~10 cm, so this would limit the size of the configuration pretty tightly, but it appears that the neutron production rate is dominated by chemistry (which really is very weird) rather than any other aspect of the configuration.

--Tom

Re:Any Immediate Application?

[WhiplashII]

I hadn't thought of that - although at this point do we really know where the energy is going? (As in, do we know the energy of the ejected nuetrons, or just that there were nuetrons ejected?)

Either way, I think this is one of the most exciting areas of science at the moment.

mwr

[Renraku]

Probably a dupe, but its 'good news' so I don't mind hearing it twice. I mean, if this were TV, we'd hear it every fifteen minutes from every news channel.

Re:mwr

[SunPin]

if this were TV, we'd hear it every fifteen minutes from every news channel.

This story? In which country?

cmon guys...

[OneOver137]

How many times is this story going to be posted? I swear this was up here just a few days ago. No wonder he posted AC...

Re:cmon guys...

[secretsquirel]

Only once. Next time the headline will be "Bubble Fusion Re-confirmed!" And then after that there will be one that says "Bubble fusion experement turns out to be only the result of passing solar radiation." Then it will be discovered again a few months later and the cycle will just re-peat itself indefinitly.

Re:cmon guys...

[helioquake]

It was up on www.fark.com in the last week or so.

Test Tube Nuclear fusion?

[mlush]

Not In My Back Pocket!!!!

Re:Test Tube Nuclear fusion?

[ikkonoishi]

So you are saying that you don't want vast amounts of energy... in your pants?

Re:Test Tube Nuclear fusion?

[mlush]

So you are saying that you don't want vast amounts of energy... in your pants?

I did specify not in my back pocket!!!! I night on the Chillie beans can produce more than enough energy there

Bubble fantastic

[pg133]

Previous slashdot articles
Thursday January 20: Fusion Using Sonic Compression
Monday April 19 2004: Bubble Fusion Results Replicated by 4 Institutions

Just what I need..

[adeyadey]

for my flying car.

Old news

[darkjedi521]

The press release is from March, 2004. On the other hand, its going to be interesting to see if the campus links here can survive the slashdot effect.

replicated

[sigxcpu]

that's exactly what he meant when he said 'replicated'

Big deal, Wonkas had this for years

[secretsquirel]

This story always reminds me of the car in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory thats powered by soda-pop bubbles. Guess he turned out to be dead on when he said "few people realize what amazing power is contained in those bubles." (quote might not be exact, but its close) Now If we can just build a wonkavator.

Tritium Root Beer Float

[JumpingBull]

....And in continuing developments in increasing the density of the cavitation bubbles, it was discovered that root beer and a dollop of ice cream lead to an inhanced tritium user experience.

The research subjects were noted to leave with a glow on as well.

More news forthcoming from Slashdot.... -JB

Fusion is not enough.

[Pig Hogger]

Fusion has first been achieved more than 50 years ago. What is important is BREAKTROUGH, that is, more energy produced than has been poured in the system.

Re:Fusion is not enough.

[JoloK]

You should really try reading the article(s).

Re:Fusion is not enough.

[seletz]

fusion != fission

Re:Fusion is not enough.

[Jhon]

Never heard of a fusion bomb? Like where you use a fission bomb to initiate fusion? Kind of like a hydrogen bomb?

The guy had it right.

Re:Fusion is not enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a bright fellow, go here and learn a thing or two., please.

Thank you.

Re:Fusion is not enough.

[deglr6328]

I believe the word you are looking for is breakEVEN. If you're going to put a term in giant capital bold letters, at least make sure it's the the right one! Also, ignition is the point where a fusion reaction is energetic enough to sustain itself through the heating induced by the deposited energy from the alpha particle product of the reaction alone. It is uncelar at this time weather it is necessary to attain the ignition regime in order to make a reactor economically feasible.

Re:Fusion is not enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Never heard of a fusion bomb? Like where you use a > fission bomb to initiate fusion? Kind of like a
> hydrogen bomb [wikipedia.org]?

omfg rofl theres fusion AND fission dude
i'll guess this explains http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Re:Fusion is not enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be stupid. The first fusion bomb was blown in what? 1951? 1952? The GP was implying that the GGP was confusing fusion and fission when he stated that we first successfully created a 'fusion' reaction some 50 years ago. Clearly this was an accurate assessment by the GGP. The GP was wrong and the P was correct in pointing that out.

So you are either stupid or intellectually lazy. Either way, same result.

published

[Anonymous Coward]

See the same comment title in the same article
of last week for the Phys Rev E reference.

Not news

[photon317]

The quoted press release is from April of last year. Looks like someone's trying to get some hype for something.

Does the Sun do this already?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just speculating and daydreaming wildly here, but what are the sound pressure levels like at the core of a star? Could that sonic energy contribute to fusion or is it all accounted for by gravity?

Shrimps did it!

[arakis]

The press release linked doesn't mention it, but nature has an implementation of this phenomenon called the Snapping Shrimp. This tiny bugger creates a cavitation buble with a claw that actually stuns prey with the shockwave generated. I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I first saw video of this.

Maybe we will see the rise of genetically engineered shrimp that can live in the reactor and keep the system up for peanuts?

Here is a link on the shrimp How Snapping Shrimp Snap

Re:Shrimps did it!

[sjames]

This tiny bugger creates a cavitation buble with a claw that actually stuns prey with the shockwave generated. I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I first saw video of this.

Those are amazing shrimp. This sounds like serious B movie material. A tanker ship carrying heavy water sinks. Next thing we know, we're beset with nuclear snapping shrimp. An evil Beat poet reads something particularly inspiring to the shrimp and we lose the entire west coast...

100 Million K...

[twoes00]

Hot enough to produce _______watts of power...?

Re:100 Million K...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not enough info to solve, you'd need the know the mass heated to that temperature and its specific heat.

Yes its a dupe, but....

[TonyMillion]

Maybe if this story is duped enough times then there'll be enough of them to condense and initiate a fusion reaction!

News?

[ebmonroe]

It's news because the replicated findings are finally getting printed in a peer-reviewed journal, Physical Review E. The press release means that the authors say they did it, it means little until it get accepted by a journal. Do I think this is the wave of free energy? No but as far as a pure science aspect, it is interesting. Several assupmtions still need to be worked out anyways with the calculated temperature. Assumptions always need tested... Phys. Rev. E 69, 036109 (2004) http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v69/e036109doi:10 .1103/PhysRevE.69.036109

Only if.....

[Jiggily]

This will probably only work if they can develop inteligent mechanical snake-like arms that weld to a man's spine and incorporate some kind of neural-nanotechnology interface to help contain the Fusion Reaction.....