Slashdot Mirror


Room-Temperature, Small-Scale Fusion at UCLA

gnuman99 writes "A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a pyroelectric crystal, a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals. When heated, such a crystal produces a large electric charge on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one side touches a copper disc. A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter. This field gradient is so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 neutrons per second was observed. This is 400 times the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used for things like microthrusters. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site." Reader richmlpdx adds a link to coverage at MSNBC.

448 comments

  1. Potential Uses by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Quoth the MSNBC article:
    ...the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security

    So what they're saying is that this technology just happens to have potential more or less exclusively in areas populated by companies/agencies that have a lot of money floating around for research grants, eh?

    What a stroke of luck!

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Potential Uses by mmkkbb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      when i was in school, every project final report had to mention possible military applications of the little robots or whatever that we had produced. remote-control car with programmable automatic navigation? reconnaissance, bomb-laying, etc.

      --
      -mkb
    2. Re:Potential Uses by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      So what they're saying is that this technology just happens to have potential more or less exclusively in areas populated by companies/agencies that have a lot of money floating around for research grants, eh?

      Um, the low-lying fruit has already been picked.

    3. Re:Potential Uses by Merk · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just think it's funny that they try to limit the applications.

      That's kinda like saying "The 'Internet' could have potential uses in communications, biomedical research and remote sensing."

      If small-scale fusion that produces more power than it consumes is indeed possible, it could have implications everywhere in everything. Portable, standalone fusion power sources could (in time) change everything. ((Note to self: do not mention phasers and lose all credibility....))

    4. Re:Potential Uses by mmkkbb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, no, it was the University of Rhode Island. Glad to know we weren't alone though. I always figured that the requirement was due to out close proximity to Raytheon, Electric Boat, the Naval War College, and the Newport Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

      --
      -mkb
    5. Re:Potential Uses by cavemanf16 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "While the energy created was too small to harness cheap fusion power, the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security, said Seth Putterman, a physicist at the University of California at Los Angeles."


      And why is it that every new American invention these days has a "potential use" in homeland security? There must be plenty of money wasting away in that crappy program right now if every single scientist talks about it whenever they release new findings. I'm off to begin building my CompuMegaInterCorpHomelandSecurity company now... (I figure with a name like that, how can the VC's NOT trust me with googleplexes of money?!!)

    6. Re:Potential Uses by Janitha · · Score: 1

      Jules? shouldnt that be JOULES...

      Or am I mistaken that there is infact a unit called Jules?

    7. Re:Potential Uses by demonbug · · Score: 1
      So what they're saying is that this technology just happens to have potential more or less exclusively in areas populated by companies/agencies that have a lot of money floating around for research grants, eh?

      What a stroke of luck!

      Hey, research funding has to come from somewhere.
    8. Re:Potential Uses by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      Well, since small-scale fusion that produces more power than it consumes is not being done here, the statement is not as ridiculous as you make it sound. Perhaps if you had bothered to glance at the article, you would know that. :-)

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    9. Re:Potential Uses by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From the MSNBC article:
      The reaction gave off an isotope of helium along with subatomic particles known as neutrons, a characteristic of fusion. The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in -- an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.
      To me this was the most important part of the article and the summary would have benefited for it. The quote shows the reason why this only has limited applications.
      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    10. Re:Potential Uses by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Googolplex, not Googleplex. One is a big big number (1 followed by 10,000 zeroes) and the other is where Google lives.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    11. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the low-lying fruit has already been picked.

      That's why these guys are going for the low-hanging fruit!

    12. Re:Potential Uses by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      What if you missed one or got one wrong?

    13. Re:Potential Uses by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      All part of the scam, my friend. All part of the scam. ;) (Don't tell the VC's!!!)

    14. Re:Potential Uses by circusboy · · Score: 1

      kind of like the textile requirement that RISD used to have..... (waaaay back when...)

      --
      -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
    15. Re:Potential Uses by daviddennis · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think that's what he meant.

      1 Googleplex of money = the valuation of Google at this time.

      D

    16. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "...the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security"

      These guys are smarter than I thought, looks like they're hitting all the current administration's keywords. Does it also reduce taxes and support the traditional definition of marriage?

    17. Re:Potential Uses by modecx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But hey, perhaps it might be a good helium generation technology, depending on how efficient it can be made... For those who don't know, the world is facing a shortage on helium. Most of the world's supply is found in Kansas, Texas and Wyoming mixed in with natural gas or oil. It's necessary for various industries and sciences, such as calibrating instruments and welding aluminium.

      I'd guess that lowering the temperature of Natural gas to -300F so that everything but He is liquified is pretty darn inefficient. Maybe it'll be a good source for pure He3 too--if indeed that's what it created--and by the fact that it gave off a neutron that's my guess.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    18. Re:Potential Uses by Merk · · Score: 1

      The article says "the technique could have potential uses in ...". The parent comment says "this technology just happens to have potential ..."

      Neither is talking about this particular implementation of the technology. It's no surprise that something in the lab can't produce more energy than it consumes. I'm pretty sure that creating energy is one of the goals of this process.

    19. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      every project final report had to mention possible military applications

      That's kind of depressing... why didn't they require that every final report had to mention applications that could improve life in underdeveloped areas or something?

      Then students would pursue projects with this in mind, instead of developing with military applications in mind. Highly reliable and easy-to-repair water pumps, improved farming tools constructable from local materials, simple and effective water filtration devices, etc.?

    20. Re:Potential Uses by misleb · · Score: 1

      Was that an excercise to help you remain aware of potentially "bad" uses? Or to help you find projects that might get funding?

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    21. Re:Potential Uses by igny · · Score: 1
      The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target.
      By definition, reaction of atoms with high energy can not be called cold fusion or room-temperature fusion.
      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    22. Re:Potential Uses by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      In which case the whole concept of cold fusion is utterly bogus as it is impossible to get *any* two atoms to fuse without input of large amounts of energy to overcome the Coulomb repulsion.

      On the other hand if it does not involve large magnetically confined plasmas at millions of Kelvin, huge lasers squezzing tiny pockets of gas, or nuclear explosions doing the same, but is taking place with relatively simple apparatus at room temperature we call it cold fusion.

    23. Re:Potential Uses by mparar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed. A lucky break for them. It's an amazing coincidence that I just finished reading "Bad Science : The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion" by Gary Taubes last night. It's a fast paced, light, extremely well-written book that'll put most thriller/mystery type books to shame. Especially for anybody remotely connected wth academia. He describes the events leading up to and following the great cold fusion sham in the late 80s and early 90s out of Utah U and BYU and quickly picked up by a bunch of people all around the world. It seems that 400 time background is peanuts. And that's an understatement. Any fusion reaction would be giving out about 20-40 orders more. Yes, thats 10^(20-40). 400 times is easily accounted for by cosmic radiation unless GREAT precautions are taken in measurement, by noise in the instrumentation. I have of course not broken tradition and RTFA. -mp-

      --
      -mp-
    24. Re:Potential Uses by Tharkban · · Score: 1

      I'm being anal but a googolplex is a lot bigger than that.

      10^(10^100)

      which is a 1 followed by a googol zeros

      Googolplex

      Now if only we could come up with a lame name for a very large number easily expressible in binary.

      --
      Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
    25. Re:Potential Uses by buro9 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but will it generate the 2.21 gigawatts of energy needed to Marty back to the future?

    26. Re:Potential Uses by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Jules: A measurement of the amount of BMFness in a given system. The amount in this system is very small, hency the tiny number.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    27. Re:Potential Uses by blincoln · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's kind of depressing... why didn't they require that every final report had to mention applications that could improve life in underdeveloped areas or something?

      We are evolved from predators. Weapons research is what allowed us to become what we are today.

      I don't think it's at all surprising that most of us tend to put things in terms of potential military uses. The primates who survived to become the ancient people who survived to became us were the ones who conquered and subjugated. Evolution selected their DNA sequences to be the ones that constructed your brain and mine.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    28. Re:Potential Uses by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Yah, the helium mines are almost empty out im Amarillo...not much helium ore left down in the mines these days. It's just as well, working way down there in the mines is dirty and dangerous.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    29. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This reaction is known to cause cancer in the State of California.

    30. Re:Potential Uses by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Your geek license is hereby suspended for 42 days. The correct number is 1.21 gigawatts.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    31. Re:Potential Uses by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

      Because their funding was from DARPA, no doubt. Underdeveloped countries did not provide any grant money to the university. It's all about the money, even in universities; professors who don't want to pay find themselves with no research funds.

    32. Re:Potential Uses by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This post shows a missunderstanding towards the theory of evolution which does not surprise me considering the creationism/evolution debacle as it stands in US education.

      To put it bluntly, what has allowed us to become what we are today has much more to do with hygene. Just look at third world countries, their hygene level and child mortality.

      Now I won't begrudge you that aggression features largely in the human male psyche, and that that has had an evolutionary effect. However, the way evolution works means that a single individual who comes up with military or hygenic applications does not mean that they have a larger chance of procreation: what matters to women is status, what matters to men is nubility. So it is the women who look like they can bear lotsa children and the men who have status (which is more usually the people who control the people who think up military/agricultural/hygenic applications, not the people who actually think up that stuff!) who contribute to the gene pool.

      "I don't think it's at all surprising that most of us tend to put things in terms of potential military uses"

      I do, very much. It's actually only since the first world war that military application of science has been pushed by those in power. Sure, you have Leonardo da Vinci et al, but usually in schooling the military was tactics etc, not application of science. But now we get grade shcool kids being pushed into a military mindset by the powers that be in the US. 'Cause this sure aint happening in the Netherlands, and I would almost say in Europe as a whole.

      When grandparent mentioned this was happening in school, of all places, it did make a lot of recent history make sense...in a very scary way. 'cos it isn't military power which is gonna bring peace to the world: it's people all over the world having a comfortable standard of living which is gonna do that.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    33. Re:Potential Uses by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      But what happens if they scale it up? You would get more massive temperatures, I'd recon.

      I'd hazard to guess that cold fusion is a misnomer anyway...fusion requiring high temperatures anyway (or at least high energy input). The only really usefull distinctions would be large/small and exothermic/endothermic selfsustaining fusion, as I see it.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    34. Re:Potential Uses by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't think you're cynical enough.

      World peace is only achievable through some form of population control - once everyone has a decent standard of living we either need to go to space or prepare for another population boom like there is in China / S. America. We don't have enough fresh water for another boom like this. We also don't have enough oil to run the food gathering process. Military power is going to become rather drastically important in the future if something is not done to curb our population problems.... I hate to say it, I hate to believe it, but it's becoming more and more true. Europe has managed to keep a moderately steady population, and more power to them, but they have enormous problems with a dozen things that are related to other people having bred more than them.

      And since major religions and governments aren't as peacefully minded as you are, you're completely wrong about how peace is going to come along. Look at the Catholic Church and their new pope.

    35. Re:Potential Uses by budgenator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then students would pursue projects with this in mind, instead of developing with military applications in mind. Highly reliable and easy-to-repair water pumps, improved farming tools constructable from local materials, simple and effective water filtration devices, etc.?

      You say that like those aren't military applications, I think perhaps your out of touch with what modern military actualy does. Demonizing anything military is easy, and the people who do it the most are the people who don't realize that it's the military's infrastructure that make most humanitarian relief operations possible. Next time you think somebody needs 10,000 tons of relief supplies ask FedEx what the going rate is, and if they drop it off in a hostile fire zone.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    36. Re:Potential Uses by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      i would imagine it was an excersie that took about 30 seconds for the teachers to come up with and little else.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    37. Re:Potential Uses by jdray · · Score: 1
      They'd stick you in

      "...a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas" (from the MSNBC article)

      and watch you squirm.

      But seriously, doesn't filling a chamber with something sort of nullify the whole vacuum thing?

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    38. Re:Potential Uses by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I think you under estimate the fact that the world as we had known it is forever changed, the mere fact that hydrogen fusion has actualy occured in an apparatus that isn't as big as a warehouse and at insanely high temperates and presures, is all it took.

      Sure maybe a few years to a decade to find the right combinations to get a net energy output, but now it is going to happen because now it's real.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    39. Re:Potential Uses by blincoln · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I disagree, politely of course.

      Hygiene was certainly an important factor. But animals don't develop that on its own. Humans needed it because they started clustering together into large groups, which meant that if everybody in the city used the river as a sewer, it was enough to make it unhealthy to drink.

      So why did we cluster into villages? To pool resources certainly, but also for mutual protection from other groups of humans. Castle walls and other heavy construction weren't invented to keep out wandering bears.

      Even now we are mostly driven by instinct and emotional reactions. If you or I were a monkey living peacefully in the rainforest, we'd have pretty much everything that those things tell us we want: food, a place to live, and one or more mates. Maybe if we got really hungry and couldn't find what we usually ate, we'd sharpen a stick to get some grubs out of the ground.

      There's no incentive for an animal in that situation to start using its brain and invent more advanced tools, society, or hygiene.

      It isn't until a threat is introduced that those animals would set the wheels of invention in motion. If there is a, I don't know, tiger infestation in the rainforest and the tigers are eating your friends, then you get together and come up with a club or stone knife to fight back with.

      Now you're back at equilibrium WRT invention. You've got all the things you wanted before, and in addition you can protect yourself from dangerous animals.

      It's not until various groups of people start competing and fighting with each other that there is a reason to keep inventing, because humans are constantly outdoing each other in terms of ways to inflict harm on their enemies.

      The humans that were better at that survived, and the ones that weren't didn't. Which brings us back to my original post.

      Do I like this idea? Not really. I already knew the human race was flawed, but thinking it over a few weeks ago made me think of something else: extraterrestrial civiliations.

      I liked to think that if there were any, they would be peaceful, or at least neutral. But I can't see any way for docile races to evolve into advanced societies.

      So now I think about the silence of the radio spectrum in our galaxy, and it makes me wonder if Drake's equation needs a 100% for the variable that describes the probability of advanced civiliations destroying themselves. /karma bonus removed for being offtopic.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    40. Re:Potential Uses by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      subatomic particles known as neutrons

      neutrons are subatomic????
      Atomic particles contain protons (positively charged particles), electrons (negatively charged particles) and neutrons (not having a charge but is still part of the atom).

      SUBatomic particles are below the atomic particles and are things like quarks and muons

      Am I right or did I forget my physics?

      The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in -- an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.

      I hope they're referring to a self sustaining process. I'd hate to think they're trying to make a perpetual machine.

      Obligatory simpsons reference:
      Lisa, in this household we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!!!!!!!!

    41. Re:Potential Uses by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative
      If all the atoms are moving with the same velocity, they will indeed have a low temperature. What characterizes a high temperature is the atoms moving every which way, with a particular velocity distribution, with the average velocity being zero and the average energy increasing with higher temperature.

      One good nitpick deserves another!.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    42. Re:Potential Uses by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      You forgot your physics. "Atomic particles" usually refers to atoms.

    43. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you had said this in 1945, you would have been a visionary.

      Well, except the part about Europe managing to keep a pretty steady population. In 1945, of course, you would be focussed intently on the results of one of the population control techniques you mention.

      Still, this is one of the more insightful comments I've seen about the future. This lucky planet was one thing - an egg. The white was inside the shell and the yolk was spread over the outside, but otherwise this analogy is apt. We had enough energy stored here to evolve, establish technology and find someplace where energy is more plentiful from which we could conduct our experiments into the true nature of reality, enjoy each other and build beautiful and awesome things. If we do not do this before we expend all the resources on Earth, humans die.

      This truth needs to be fully understood by every person on Earth, and all of us need to be working to solve the problem and move to the next level. If we cannot do that, humanity fails.

      Our "leaders" who are more interested in handing money back to their supporters (Santorum, what's up?) are guilty of the worst kind of subject-changing which puts our genome at risk. Until this sort of conversation does not sound crackpot, we as a whole are well and truly fucked. Have you ever heard a politician mention any of this stuff? Do you expect to? (That cynical enough for you?)

      -vvj

    44. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't mean that future setups won't yield a net gain. Remember, the first nuclear reactor wasn't designed immediately after the discovery of radioactivity. Besides, any new way to achieve fusion is big news in my book.

      Personally, I think bubble fusion is a more promising technique for controlled fusion, though.

    45. Re:Potential Uses by larkost · · Score: 1

      Boy am I glad that the schools in my area didn't do something similar... after all most of the research and development into the technologies behind advanced paper products (think feminine hygiene products) was done within 30 miles or so. Paper Chemistry was in the job title for about half my friends' fathers.

    46. Re:Potential Uses by Prune · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Small scale (inefficient) fusion has been around for decades. A Fransworth Fusor can be built for $500 according to Wikipedia, and is an often used neutron source.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostati c_confinement

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    47. Re:Potential Uses by gumbi+west · · Score: 2, Informative

      An atom is atomic (i.e. the gold nuclei that they accelerate at BNL are high energy atomic particles). Subatomic paricles make up atoms (protons, neutrons, and electrons).

    48. Re:Potential Uses by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Others could make the process more efficient, or happen on a scale that does better... keep in mind that all fusion generators opperating now have never broken q=1 or even close to it for more than a microsecond. And even that is a sort of budgeting slight of hand (i.e. it you hit it hard and then turn off the power and then get the energy out a few microseconds later and say q was superhigh for the later microseconds.)

    49. Re:Potential Uses by Mac+Degger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is meant as a polite reply, but it will seem harsh. My appologies, but nonetheless:

      Read my post. Read up on evolution. I've already agreed with you that agression has been a force in evolution, and in certain parts of the world (large tracts of africa, wherever there is conflict) it still is. In develloped countries it is actually a negative: the violent and aggressive get locked up (and don't make enough money to pay for surgery and other medical attention, further limiting the spread of his genetic heretige).

      The guy who invents military applications recieves a steady paycheck, which grants him a small amount of status. The guy who owns the company who employs the aforementioned guy gets all the status, gets to fuck around with a large number of nubile women, and spreads his genetic seed the widest. Same goes for rockstars or rich people. Cynical? Yup....but too true. Geeks do not breed well. We don't contribute too heavily to the genetic pool. There is a big difference between agrression and the capability to think up new means to commit larger forms of aggression. Just look at Bush. He can be aggressive (as long as it isn't physical), but do you see him thinking up a new weapon system? But I bet he could have any Whitehouse intern he wanted.

      I have to say I kinda agree with a lot of your post, but I remain convinced that Darwin and Gould will back me up on the way evolution works: it does not promote thinking of science as applied to military application, even though it might select towards application of military force (which is a totally different thing entirely).
      Thus forcing kids to think of military applications is an entirely forced-from-above thing to do, not something which is somehow 'genetically enforced'. And it's still a horrible thing to force kids to do, IMNSHO, as it directly canals a childs thought processes into applications of agression. /ditto, but it's still an interesting aside nontheless :).

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    50. Re:Potential Uses by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 0

      Mod parent informative goddamnit.

      --
      Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
    51. Re:Potential Uses by idantiva · · Score: 1

      Or would it be a one followed by the valuation?

    52. Re:Potential Uses by jacobrich · · Score: 1

      I know this is off-topic, but the easiest way to control population is to make sure there is easy access to birth control (i.e. The Pill, Vasectomy, etc...) I had a vasectomy in November 2004 and consider it the best thing I've done for myself (of course I already have my few kids). It is not painful and the rewards are awesome, I highly recommend it!!!

    53. Re:Potential Uses by jacobrich · · Score: 1

      Mod this parent up.. funny!

    54. Re:Potential Uses by peawee03 · · Score: 1

      Most likely, to MSNBC science editors, "vacuum" == "don't try breathing"

      --
      I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
    55. Re:Potential Uses by Jerf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      once everyone has a decent standard of living we either need to go to space or prepare for another population boom like there is in China / S. America.

      Evidence?

      This concern is out of date. Rich people have fewer kids; the evidence at this point is effectively incontrovertible, though one can yet debate the reasons.

      I'm not ready to panic about underpopulation yet, but if you insist on panicking, that's the way to go at the moment. Malthus was wrong; humans are the only known species to figure out reasons not to have kids.

    56. Re:Potential Uses by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Does the Internet have any use besides 'communications'?

      I mean, think about it. All the Internet does it provide instant and delayed communcation between two specific people, one person and the whole world, two computers, and various other random combinations.

      It doesn't do anything else.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    57. Re:Potential Uses by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Um, the low-lying fruit has already been picked.

      No, it's the honest fruit that gets picked. The low, lying fruit hangs in there pretending it's not even close to ripe yet and advises any pickers they'd be better off taking the juicy little number a couple of twigs over to the left.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    58. Re:Potential Uses by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      "Status" increases a males chance of passing on genes, in many, many species. The vast bulk of human evolution ocured in a tribal (or even pack) setting. It's not likely that inovations in personal hygine (or any other field) occured very often. As life expectancy was low, the greater pressure was survival.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    59. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like those aren't military applications, I think perhaps your out of touch with what modern military actualy does.

      Aw c'mon, speak English pal. The military might use a new kind of non-stick frying pan or a fancy new type of shoelace, but who would in their right mind would refer to those as "military applications"? The phrase is being used in the exclusive sense -- technologies primarily applied by the military. Agriculture and the like do not qualify.

    60. Re:Potential Uses by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Informative

      But seriously, doesn't filling a chamber with something sort of nullify the whole vacuum thing?

      Sure. But I suspect the important part was that the equipment could remove all the gasses (read, "impurities") from the chamber before they let in the deuterium gas. And provide a controlled method for disposing of the products (still nearly all deuterium) of the experiment afterward.

      For chemical reactions, deuterium is identical to hydrogen. So it's something whose disposal has to be controlled, not merely dumped into the lab. Don't want someone's flipping a light switch to cause a fire.

    61. Re:Potential Uses by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      once everyone has a decent standard of living we either need to go to space or prepare for another population boom...

      Ooh! Ooh! Can I be a Motie, too?

      (Sci-fi book reference. Let's see who gets it, and what I'm implying. :)

    62. Re:Potential Uses by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to remember that one. I'd use an highly appreciative acronym, but I'd get modded down for it.

      Thanks anyway. :D

    63. Re:Potential Uses by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      It still depends on a supply of deuterium which, while it can be distilled from any natural water source, is still rare and difficult to obtain.

    64. Re:Potential Uses by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, I'm not saying that militaristic scientists get all the girls =). I think we agree more than you realize.

      The people who develop weapons are a tool themselves. My point is that they're a tool that gets used and rewarded in small or large ways by the people in power, who *are* aggressive.

      So my hypothetical cycle is:

      1) Aggressive people get into power.
      2) Several groups like this conflict with each other.
      3) Those who do not fight, or cannot fight, are slain, or leave the area and are no longer a part of this particular genetic equation.
      4) The people in power find someone smart to invent a stronger sword or a thicker castle wall that helps them win the war, usually involving giving the researchers trinkets of some kind.
      5) The people in power take the conquered for their own and spread their aggressive DNA into the future.
      6) Repeat.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    65. Re:Potential Uses by coopex · · Score: 1

      Dear sir, I would like to travel to your world. There, I could learn about how most of Europe doesn't require mandatory military service. You see, in my world, the US does not require military service and the US does, while your world seems to be the opposite. I think we could both learn greatly from each other to make both our worlds more peaceful.

      http://www.answers.com/topic/conscription

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    66. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say that like those aren't military applications

      Just because the military is involved in getting aid relief to combat zones doesn't make a water purifier a military tool. Nor is a reliable water pump the kind of military applications the original poster's school had him think up.

    67. Re:Potential Uses by deblau · · Score: 1

      Did you, by any chance, attend Pacific Tech?

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    68. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military is not all combat related. Although, it seems the combat support is more and more being farmed out to contractors. But as far as heavy machinery [planes, tanks] there's more people maintaining them than using them for actual destruction. Though I'll admit that doesn't take the blame away from me just because I'm one step away from the process :-p

    69. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing I don't live in the State of California.

    70. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too had a vasectomy recently. But mine hurt.

    71. Re:Potential Uses by dcam · · Score: 1

      I have an engineering degree in Mechatronics. This is basically a degree in robotics.

      All of the people who graduated with me and are actually directly using their degree are working on Australian military projects in one form or another. I haven't spoken to some of them in a while but:
      - One was working on the Collins class submarine for the Navy
      - One was writing a simulation for a harpoon antiship missile for a consulting firm
      - Another was working with sonar also for a consultant firm
      - Another was at the defence laboritories in Adelaide

      Some had also gone off to do a phd. A lot were also working in other fields (eg I work as a straight programmer, others a project manager), but the majority of the work was with military.

      That is where the robotics jobs are, at least in this country.

      --
      meh
    72. Re:Potential Uses by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      The people who develop weapons are a tool themselves. My point is that they're a tool that gets used and rewarded in small or large ways by the people in power, who *are* aggressive.

      You know, the Von Braugn guy said he was willing to develop Hitler's missiles precisely because he felt the development would lead to spaceflight. Boy was he...ummm, I don't know, was he right or wrong?

      Anyway, the discussion is interesting but seems to ignore a few things.

      1. Human society sat at the stone age for thousands of years
      2. At the start of civilization, we were in the bronze age, no iron. Bronze was used as a tool for warfare (and other reasons) before agriculture (maybe there are exceptions, but I seem to remember the Mesopotamians having bronze weapons)
      3. For another few thousands of years, technological advance was slow and generally not war related, although each new was applied to war.
      4. At some point in the fairly recent past, technological innovation significantly increased, and has continued to increase dramatically.

      So, with all that in mind, here are my questions.

      1. At what point did humans begin developing technology specifically for war?
      2. At what point did humans begin developing technology to improve their daily lives? (agriculture, while the founding practice of civilization, is an application of several interesting technologies)
      3. Why was technological innovation so slow for so long?
      4. Why did technoloical innovation increase in pace?

      I realize that there are several historical factors, such as the printing press leading to widespread publishing, literacy, and education (which doesn't explain modern America, but ok). The technological innovation seems to have started a little before the rennaissance. Before that it was in spurts, but it seems to have been a pretty steady and increasing progression until starting in the 19th century it really began to take off.

      It's easy to look at *now* and theorize about how evolution brought us here, but "now" is only a snapshot. We need to look at what happened then and follow it through the years.

      Seriously, I don't know the answers to my questions, except I can probably dig up dates for them. Or rather, I don't know the reasons these things happened when they happened.

      Blah, I'm done.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    73. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dear sir, I would like to travel to your world. There, I could learn about how most of Europe doesn't require mandatory military service. You see, in my world, the US does not require military service and the US does, while your world seems to be the opposite. I think we could both learn greatly from each other to make both our worlds more peaceful.

      Exactly. They used to make us learn how to defend our country. But that had (and has) nothing what so ever to do with school. That's exclusively an army/navy/air force affair. Society as a whole is not militarised to the extent the US is. Not by a long shot.

    74. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, with all that in mind, here are my questions.

      3. Why was technological innovation so slow for so long? 4. Why did technoloical innovation increase in pace?

      Lack of access to cheap, easily-extractable energy, and access to cheap energy (first coal+steam, later oil) respectively.

    75. Re:Potential Uses by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Hang on...

      1x10^100 = googol
      1x10^100x10^100 = googolplex (a googol of googols)

      10^100x10^100 = 10^(100x100) = 10^10000

      therefore 1x10^10000 = googolplex?

      Or have I screwed up because I'm up early and haven't had 8 cups of coffee yet? Now I think about it that doesn't look right at all... my bad.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    76. Re:Potential Uses by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      To put it bluntly, what has allowed us to become what we are today has much more to do with hygene. Just look at third world countries, their hygene level and child mortality.

      Yeah. And that's why they have much slower population growth than Western countries. Oh wait...

      Man, I think you are severely confused about evolution as well. Evolution is based on differential gene propagation. It has nothing to do with our well-being. Poorer countries have much faster population growth than richer countries. Therefore, in terms of evolution, right now, third world countries are the winners. We are the losers. In the current environment, poverty is a selective advantage.

      Anyway, this is completely irrelevant. Poverty and modern hygiene are not genetic traits ! For a long period of time Asian nations had a much higher level of hygiene than the West. Besides, third world countries have a low level of hygiene, yet even that is significantly better than what people had in prehistoric times; in other words, over evolutionary timescales, modern Western hygiene is quite simply insignificant.

      it isn't military power which is gonna bring peace to the world: it's people all over the world having a comfortable standard of living which is gonna do that.

      It will certainly help. On the other hand, Bin Laden came from one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia, and almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were upper-class, western-educated professionals. Radovan Karadzic, mastermind of the Bosnian Serbs during the war in Yougaslavia, is a poet. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges were western-educated intellectuals.

      Modern Europe is a demonstration that development and integration can prevent "traditional" wars; but against fanaticism, keeping a big stick under your bed is still your best protection.

      Thomas-

    77. Re:Potential Uses by Alif · · Score: 0

      There is a small flaw in your arguments: Geroge Bush or any other rich mach has statiscticaly less children then the poorest slum dweller.

    78. Re:Potential Uses by Rattencremesuppe · · Score: 2, Informative
      But seriously, doesn't filling a chamber with something sort of nullify the whole vacuum thing?

      No. AFAIK, vacuum is defined as a gas pressure less than atmospheric pressure. There are several degrees of vacuum, low vacuum to ultra-high vacuum and whatever.

    79. Re:Potential Uses by grimen · · Score: 1

      http://animals.about.com/cs/evolution/a/aa090901a. htm

      Just like moth colors, it's back to evolution and survival of the fittest. In this case, more work has become "homeland security" colored/camouflaged becuase homeland security-related work has a competitive advantage when finding funding and people find a way to work it into their proposals :-)

    80. Re:Potential Uses by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Just because the military is involved in getting aid relief to combat zones doesn't make a water purifier a military tool.

      Quite right. The fact that the military wants soldiers to have man-portable filtration systems so they can drink from local supplies rather than relying upon supply lines is what makes them military tools.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    81. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Actually, most of this post is grossly inaccurate.

      This post shows a missunderstanding towards the theory of evolution which does not surprise me considering the creationism/evolution debacle as it stands in US education.

      I don't see how the creationism/evolution "debacle" has anything to do with hygenic advancements v. weaponry.

      However, the way evolution works means that a single individual who comes up with military or hygenic applications does not mean that they have a larger chance of procreation: what matters to women is status, what matters to men is nubility.

      These are two different statements. One is true, one is likely false. Yes, females seek alpha males. However, when discussing primitive weaponry, chances are that the person who develops the new weapon will become the alpha male. Its unlikely that primitive tribes kept thinktanks of engineers around, only to confiscate their developments and protect their status. You developed a new method for launching a spear at greater velocity? Guess who's gunna get to use it.

      which is more usually the people who control the people who think up military/ agricultural/ hygenic applications, not the people who actually think up that stuff!

      Again, this is ridiculous. Only in relatively recent history does the scientist think it up only to hand it over to someone else.

      I do, very much. It's actually only since the first world war that military application of science has been pushed by those in power.

      This is just wrong.

      Sure, you have Leonardo da Vinci et al, but usually in schooling the military was tactics etc, not application of science.

      You're missing the point. We're not talking about whether military schooling involved application of science for weapons design. We're talking about whether scientists/engineers are expected to develop things with military usefulness.

      But now we get grade shcool kids being pushed into a military mindset by the powers that be in the US. 'Cause this sure aint happening in the Netherlands, and I would almost say in Europe as a whole.

      Its unlikely that you can even speak to this with any authority. Most likely it depends on your field, where to practice, who funds you, etc. This is probably true here or in Europe.

      Now, is this a bad thing? No, not necessarily. War fuels innovation. It always has. Virtually every device you take for granted likely has roots in military technology, from your Microwave Oven (Radar), to your internet connection.

      'cos it isn't military power which is gonna bring peace to the world: it's people all over the world having a comfortable standard of living which is gonna do that.

      Perhaps eventually. In the meantime I'm not holding my breath for prosperity to solve all in those places with nuclear weapons.

    82. Re:Potential Uses by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      I suppose I should clarify. We had to think uses for our projects that directly involved either the user killing people or preventing other people from killing the user.

      --
      -mkb
    83. Re:Potential Uses by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      I'd go one further than the AC who replied: a mayor reason for lack of innovation (in the 'direct application of science' meaning of the word) was slave labour. When you have a large source of cheap, expendable labour, you don't need technology. Remember, the greeks (with their amber and glass rods) had a basic understanding of electricity...they just had no reason to apply it. It's no surprise that the industrial revolution happenen when it did: people started to think that ownership of another person was wrong.

      As for Q1 and 2: take a look at the (overly long) intro to '2001: A space Oddesy' :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    84. Re:Potential Uses by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

      Yah, the helium mines are almost empty out im Amarillo...not much helium ore left down in the mines these days. It's just as well, working way down there in the mines is dirty and dangerous.

      Is that why the dwarf characters in the Snow White story have high pitched voices and work as miners?

    85. Re:Potential Uses by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

      Sure maybe a few years to a decade to find the right combinations to get a net energy output, but now it is going to happen because now it's real.

      I'm already expecting to see the infomercials for Mr. Fusion (as in Back to the Future) so I can power my Cold Heat soldering iron forever.

    86. Re:Potential Uses by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      At the start of civilization, we were in the bronze age, no iron.

      Actually, we weren't in the bronze age at the start of civilization. We were still in the Stone Age. I realize that we can quibble about the "start of Civilization", but cities (the defining characteristic of civilization) existed for millenia before bronze was discovered. The Bronze Age in the Middle East, for instance, began around 3500BC. Jericho was a "city" as early as 7000BC. Catal Huyuk in Turkey is older - 8000BC or earlier.

      Bronze was used as a tool for warfare (and other reasons) before agriculture (maybe there are exceptions, but I seem to remember the Mesopotamians having bronze weapons)

      Bronze was used for weapons and stoneworking tools first. Why? Because it was expensive as sin, and was only used in places where the cost was justified (by thecomparative advantage over stone weapons, and the near impossibility of working large blocks of stone with stone tools).

      For another few thousands of years, technological advance was slow and generally not war related, although each new was applied to war.

      It was certainly slow. Whether technological advance was "war-related" or not is debatable. Some were, some weren't. Just depends on the motivations of the individual inventors, most likely.

      At some point in the fairly recent past, technological innovation significantly increased, and has continued to increase dramatically.

      Yep. More people in general, combined with enough wealth that a higher fraction of the populace had the freedom from starvation implicit in the job description of "scientist/inventor" means the rate goes up. And it feeds on itself - each new discovery/invention raises the standard of living to the point where still more people don't have to scrabble for something to eat.

      5000 years ago, 90% of everyone had to work full time at growing food, and starvation was still endemic. Now, 2% of us (in the "developed world") work full time growing food, and starvation is virtually unknown (again, in the "developed world", though even in the Third World, it is sufficiently rare that it makes the news - it used to be normal there as recently as 50 years ago).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    87. Re:Potential Uses by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      It's no surprise that the industrial revolution happenen when it did: people started to think that ownership of another person was wrong.

      Umm, no. Slavery still exists to this day. Check the UN Reports on "Human Trafficking" sometime. Or read the National Geographic article on same.

      Actually, what kicked the Industrial Revolution off was, rather indirectly, the Black Plague. It killed so many people that human labour became a scarce resource. This lack of people was exacerbated by the 30 Years War (which depopulated whole provinces in Germany), and by subseuent outbreaks of the Plague.

      This produced several results - the survivors were richer, since they had everything that existed before, divided into fewer pocketbooks, and the survivors had more value placed upon their labour (less labour, same demand, higher value to same).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    88. Re:Potential Uses by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      1x10^100 = googol

      Correct.

      1x10^100x10^100 = googolplex (a googol of googols)

      ...

      therefore 1x10^10000 = googolplex?

      1x10^(10^100) = googolplex.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    89. Re:Potential Uses by bentcd · · Score: 1

      Well, it _could_ be seen as a good thing in that it makes the students aware of the possible negative (i.e., military or violent) consequences of their inventions. This might make them more conscious to the possible abuses of their technology when they grow older and start building stuff that actually has real potential.
      Or it could be a conspiracy of the military-industrial complex, of course :-)

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    90. Re:Potential Uses by haagmm · · Score: 1

      Having studied Technological Development of Europe fairly heavily, The First World War was not the first Military Application of Science. In fact from the development of the Steam Engine, two Major industries that all technological development were Initiailly Textiles and Instriments of War (read the Military Industrial Complex). Consider the Technological Difference between the weapons used in the Revolutionary War, The Civil War, and The Spanish-American War. In the Later years, 1870 or so on, Petrochemicals became important (but this grew initially out of Textiles and synthetic dyes). This fed Poison Gas and the other Horrors of WW1. All of this was going on well prior to the War to End All Wars, it was simply the Culmination of 80 years of the Military Industrial Complex building on itself.

    91. Re:Potential Uses by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > The guy who owns the company [...], gets to fuck around with a large number of nubile women, and spreads his genetic seed the widest

      In the real world this is blatently untrue.
      Look around you.
      The CEO has 2.5 kids.
      My landscaper has 8 kids.

      The poor unwashed masses still have lots of kids. The affluent don't. Now who's genetic seed is going to spread the most?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    92. Re:Potential Uses by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > Why was technological innovation so slow for so long?
      > Why did technoloical innovation increase in pace?

      Because each technological improvement acts as leverage to make the next technological innovation come faster. If you graphed this process you will get an exponential curve. Google for "singularity" for an interesting extrapolation of this.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    93. Re:Potential Uses by misleb · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it had some specific motivation. Why not just ask the student to just think of ANY commercially viable use for the project? Why military?

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    94. Re:Potential Uses by Synn · · Score: 1

      It's actually only since the first world war that military application of science has been pushed by those in power.

      Huh? The entire face of history has ebbed back and forth due to military advancements. Bronze being superior to copper, iron better than bronze, Roman military structure, calvary, long bows, sea power, castles, gun powder...

    95. Re:Potential Uses by svyyn · · Score: 1

      As are you, though less so. We are the losers. In the current environment, poverty is a selective advantage. If genes determined fitness, this may not be true. And it all depends on what you mean by 'selective advantage'. If you mean 'more of these in the future,' then yes. If you mean, 'will control resourecs and mate with whom they choose' then absolutely not. Both are true when describing animal species, but it is only the second meaning that is useful. Humans are different than animals, because the most sucessful do not have the most numbers, because our genes do not determine our fitness -- our wealth and status do. And these things can be concentrated by having fewer offspring and thus having all of the wealth distributed among fewer individuals. Additionally, from a ecological point of view, evolution is caused by outside stressors, forces that cause selection. It thus proceeds slowly in stable areas. If an individual is sucessful in his current environment, then he is adapted to it (or in our case, have adapted our environment to us) and there are no forces causing him to change and evolve. A good example of this are crocodiles and sharks, top predators that have been stable for tens of millions of years. They are not losers simply for having hit on a winning strategy early on. As long as they (and we) preserve the ability to change in the future, we have not lost. For humans, the wealthy are stable -- they have access to medicines that cure the few selective forces left. The poor do not, as such they live and die more quickly and some genetic strategies for coping with the selectors are found (e.g. maleria and sickle hemoglobin heterogeniety). The poor are more volatile, are evoloving faster, but are not necessarily 'winners'. Simply having more offspring does not put one at an advantage. Only if your offspring are able to mate with others does it do so. If everyone mated randomly, then their genes would be the big winners. But that doesn't happen. Mating happens most along class lines. The poor marry the poor, and most often neighboring poor due to lack of money for travel.

    96. Re:Potential Uses by CarpetShark · · Score: 1
      when i was in school, every project final report had to mention possible military applications of the little robots or whatever that we had produced.
      Hmm. I didn't realise that Bill teaches kids...
    97. Re:Potential Uses by Retric · · Score: 1

      The military funds research into areas like this which have little to no known practical value if there is a chance that at somepoint it might be usefull.

    98. Re:Potential Uses by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      cute, but this was a solaris+xilinx shop mostly. bill happens to give lots of stuff to schools, very publically.

      --
      -mkb
    99. Re:Potential Uses by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Dude, read my post, and you'll note that what you quote isn't what I say drives evolution (and, 'cos you're such a pedant, I'll qualify that by admitting that evolution is a name we gave to something we've observed, an emergent quality, rather than a process which is 'driven', as such).

      Read further and you'll note that I specified agression and then status as mayor factors for male genetic proagation (and haven't limited it to those two alone, for there are many more).

      Happy now?

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    100. Re:Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only counting *legitimate* children.

      If the landscaper's wife were sleeping with the CEO, the CEO could have up to 10.5 kids, while the landscaper is busting his ass to raise 8 of the CEO's kids for him.

    101. Re:Potential Uses by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      "humans are the only known species to figure out reasons not to have kids."

      Not true: as a response to over-population, animals have many self-limiting strategies including, for a nice non-PC example, homosexuality.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    102. Re:Potential Uses by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      You're absolutelky right, but that's not what I claim. Yes, military advancement does change the face of warfare. But look at what you quote: I state that the military application of science is not something which has been pushed as a way of thought in education, and it's only since the first world war that the military application of science has been a goal in and of itself, instead of something which has occured incidentally. I even mention Leonardo da Vinci, who actually did apply science to military application, (and could even list quite a few Greeks and many others who did this), but it has been mostly incidental, not directly funded by DARPA-alikes or pushed on schoolkids...that is a modern devellopment.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    103. Re:Potential Uses by Jerf · · Score: 1

      In other words, as a response to external stimuli, they limit themselves. Humans are the only species to come up with reasons not to have kids, even when the environment supports it, they have the money, they could have the time, etc. No animal species fails to have kids when the opportunity arises, except humans.

      Not having kids when the opportunity isn't there is not the same thing at all.

    104. Re:Potential Uses by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Well, let's be honest. He gives stuff to schools so he can encourage the schools to teach MS-specific stuff at the expense of a well-rounded IT education.

  2. Dilthium Crystals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Goes to show that sci fi is sci fact.

    1. Re:Dilthium Crystals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually dilithium crystals were used to moderate the reaction of the antimatter/matter mixing.

      Worst post evar.

      Now off to get tacos and watch my set of Xena tapes.

  3. The problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They should have been useing DI-lithium crystals. Stupid UCLA.

  4. By far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The most technical summary I have ever seen. Did they finally replace the approvers with a monkey?

    1. Re:By far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, there is an obvious spelling error.

    2. Re:By far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Monkey spelling is far from perfect.

    3. Re:By far by Eric604 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Now we only have to replace ourselfes with monkeys and ./ will be #1 again. Oooka booka

    4. Re:By far by LastNickAvailable · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly. A single bit of technical data is unacceptable. At least they could have converted the units into something inteligible like library-of-congress-equivalent neutrons per football field.

  5. The Saint says: by lheal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You don't put any stock in this "cold fusion" mumbo jumbo, do ya?

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:The Saint says: by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Nah, but how about warm fusion??

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:The Saint says: by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Cold fusion can't be total BS if somebody is willing to bump off it's chief spokesperson.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:The Saint says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn Enron/government plots. Somebody should talk to them. These guys will get to the bottom of it, though.

    4. Re:The Saint says: by ed__ · · Score: 2, Funny

      you're right!

      sad, but true: 90% of murders committed in the US are cold fusion related. much fewer are the murders committed for motives such as robbery, revenge, rage, not paying back your bookie, or randomly.

      in fact the only explanation for current murder statistics is the success of cold fusion.

    5. Re:The Saint says: by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      I sense that I am being mocked.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    6. Re:The Saint says: by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see now. It makes perfect sense.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  6. Solar Sails by mfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A UCLA collaboration ... this technology could be used for things like microthrusters...etc

    I can see this being of use with solar sail vessels. But how close are we to fusion power stations?

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Solar Sails by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      What???? Was I the only one to read the article?
      It takes more power then it produces. It is not a chain reaction of any kind! HOW WOULD YOU USE IT WITH A SOLAR SAIL? As ballast?
      It is useful as a neutron source. There are a lot of uses for neutron sources in imaging the like. It is not an energy source.

      A remote possibility would be for a none chain reaction fission reactor. You could use the neutrons to maintain a none self sustaining fission reaction. The benefit is if you flick a switch the reaction stops. The question is would you get usable amount of power from it?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Solar Sails by mfh · · Score: 1

      Maybe now it takes more power than it uses, but alternative energy takes research and development in order to reach the break even point.

      That is the whole point of this breaktrhough. It's a step in the right direction. :-)

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    3. Re:Solar Sails by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Maybe now it takes more power than it uses, but alternative energy takes research and development in order to reach the break even point."

      And it always will take more power. There is NO chance for a break even with this. That is just now what it is for.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  7. Pyroelectric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Submitter is confusing "pyroelectric" with "piezoelectric." Crystals used for oscillators, filters, and speakers use the piezoelectric effect.

    1. Re:Pyroelectric? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 0

      If you would check the movie page, you would see that they use, "a pyroelectric crystal in a deuterated environment" for an experiment. So if anything, the submitter isn't wrong.

      --
      Sig
    2. Re:Pyroelectric? by grmoc · · Score: 5, Informative

      pyroelectric-- Converts heat energy into electrical energy

      piezoelectric-- Converts kinetic energy into electrical energy

      In this experiment, they heat up a (Lithium tantalate) crystal which reacts by creating a very high charge.. etc.

      In other words, the crystal is a pyroelectric crystal, and not necessarily piezoelectric.

    3. Re:Pyroelectric? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      RTFA, then Google if necessary. Here are some articles to help:

      There's a Wiki article, a
      product announcement, and
      this one even details how pyroelectric crystals have been used to generate X-rays.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    4. Re:Pyroelectric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He is wrong for saying that a pyroelectric crystal is used in cell phones to filter signals when it is not.

    5. Re:Pyroelectric? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 2
      the submitter isn't wrong.

      Not completely, but the section about "a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals" is not accurate. This would be an application of piezoelectric materials. Check the wiki page.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    6. Re:Pyroelectric? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      Sorry, meant to add that piezoelectric refers to materials that generate electricity when they change shape. Pyroelectric substances generate a charge when heated.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    7. Re:Pyroelectric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The piezoelectric effect is a different but related phenomenon. All pyroelectric materials are piezoelectric (but I'm not sure if the reverse is true).

    8. Re:Pyroelectric? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, true, my bad... /me hangs head in shame.

      --
      Sig
    9. Re:Pyroelectric? by wgaryhas · · Score: 3, Informative

      but heat is a form of kinetic engery, so piezoelectric is still correct, pyroelectric is just more accurate

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    10. Re:Pyroelectric? by deander2 · · Score: 4, Informative
      In other words, the crystal is a pyroelectric crystal, and not necessarily piezoelectric.

      from the wikipedia article linked:
      All (known) pyroelectric materials are also piezoelectric, the two properties being closely related.
    11. Re:Pyroelectric? by idontgno · · Score: 1
      "a pyroelectric crystal in a deuterated environment"

      True dat. The experiment uses a heat-activated crystal rather than a mechanically (pressure) activated one. Hence, pyro versus piezo.

      So if anything, the submitter isn't wrong.

      Well, maybe not completely correct either: "...a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals...."

      I thought that signal filtering was a piezo crystal application. But IANAEE, so YMMV.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Pyroelectric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention to the other replies. It's not as ravingly idiotic as you think it is, just unclear.

      The submitter did confuse piezo- and pyro-electric crystals, although he correctly stated that the study involved a pyroelectric effect.

      I agree about one thing though: You should usually see context in M2.

    13. Re:Pyroelectric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fucking moron," whatever, dude. Maybe the cell phones on your planet use pyroelectric crystals. The ones around here use piezoelectric crystals.

    14. Re:Pyroelectric? by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OOGG wish to clarify description of piezoelectric.

      KEY ASPECT NOT CONVERT ENERGY. RATHER, RELATION BETWEEN mechanical strain & electric polarization, OR IN CASE pyroelectric BETWEEN electric polarization & thermal gradient.

      EXPERIMENT USE pyroelectric CONVERT THERMAL GRADIENT into polarization = electric field.

      http://www.cohr.com/Applications/index.cfm?fuseact ion=Forms.page&PageID=118

      NOT NEED ENERGY CONVERSION FOR PIEZOELECTRIC APPLICATION. Cell phone filter (SAW=surface acoustic wave) USE COUPLING BETWEEN ELECTRIC FIELD & SOUND WAVE PROPAGATION FOR high-Q MICROWAVE/RF FILTER. NOT CONVERT ENERGY.

    15. Re:Pyroelectric? by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 0
      Maybe the cell phones on your planet use pyroelectric crystals. The ones around here use piezoelectric crystals.

      I hail from Candyland and the phones around here use Sugar Crystals. If you think people talking on their phones is annoying you should experience people *sucking* on them.

      --
      Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
    16. Re:Pyroelectric? by davidj0228 · · Score: 1

      mod parent down for being a dumbass, Kinetic energy in the piezoelectric sense is physical compression on a macroscopic scale, for example piezoelectric materials can be used as ultrasonic transducers (translated: speakers that make high frequency sound waves). Thus, this is actual movement of the material to vibrate and create sound in my example. Heat, is in fact a form of kinetic energy, but not the same type of kinetic energy. This kinetic energy is internal kinetic energy: that is, the movement of the internal molecules in the material. As an example, if you throw put a block of ice in a spaceship, it will not gain heat by going however fast the spaceship goes, however its kinetic energy is increased a great deal. But since there's no internal increase in the kinetic energy of the individual particles the ice block gains no heat from being accelerated. Keep your physics straight please

    17. Re:Pyroelectric? by cthulhubob · · Score: 1

      I wish there were a (+1 Famous Troll / Informative) mod.

      (Yes, I had mod points, but this post is too awesome not to reply to. LONG LIVE OOG!)

      --

      In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
    18. Re:Pyroelectric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, famous troll is http://slashdot.org/~OOG_THE_CAVEMAN

      OOGG not worthy to carry OOG's club, IMO.

  8. Still uses deuterium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another fusion process that produces less energy than is input into it and requires a specialized isotope of hydrogen. Is this even news?

    1. Re:Still uses deuterium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean: yet another?

      The only projects I have heard about were the big fusion machines: Tokamak etc... and the cold fusion that was claimed but never proved..

      This is the first room temperature fusion that has been proven to work.

    2. Re:Still uses deuterium by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Really? How about this device?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:Still uses deuterium by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Farnsworth aside, I won't be satisfied until we have a Mr. Burns-ish "atom mill" where little nanotechnical robotic arms shove hydrogen atoms together to create fusion!

      --

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

    4. Re:Still uses deuterium by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yet another fusion process that produces less energy than is input into it and requires a specialized isotope of hydrogen.

      Deuterium is hardly specialized. The hydrogen in sea water is 1/6000 D. It is easily separated, and it's readily available by the truckload.

      Any practical fusion process is likely to use deuterium rather than ordinary hydrogen because it's plentiful and far easier to fuse.

    5. Re:Still uses deuterium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the yield would be by using tritium instead?

    6. Re:Still uses deuterium by Arjuna · · Score: 1

      Um, I think "bubble fusion" has also been proven to work. where deuterated acetone gas bubbles are formed and collapsed in an intense ultrasound environment.

    7. Re:Still uses deuterium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the yield would be by using tritium instead?

      Not as much as using hytritium. But of course hytritium is too unstable to be moved by anything other than shuttlecraft, and even then can cause a deadly exlposion.

    8. Re:Still uses deuterium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhh.... The first mention of the Fusor ... is redundant??? MOC

    9. Re:Still uses deuterium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of what material do you propose we fabricate these "little nanotechnical robotic arms"? Remember, we aren't interested in shoving together atoms, but rather nuclei.

    10. Re:Still uses deuterium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of what material do you propose we fabricate these "little nanotechnical robotic arms"?
      Unobtainium, of course.
  9. How well does it scale up? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    How well does it scale up? And what would be the costs involved? Would profit and energy produiction of the pyroelectric cells themselves be more than the ofset of the cost of the deturium and other equipment?

    It's a fun physics experiment, but I don't think it is much use in the economic driven world.

    --
    Sig
    1. Re:How well does it scale up? by helioquake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's kind of what people said about electrons and X-rays...about 150 years ago.

      So think about that.

    2. Re:How well does it scale up? by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a fun physics experiment, but I don't think it is much use in the economic driven world.

      That's an interesting conclusion to come to without getting the answers to your questions.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    3. Re:How well does it scale up? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      Ture, I hadn't thought about that. Even the article does point it out. But the difference with this technology and X-rays, is that we know where the technology comes from and have a decent idea why the fusion is occuring. 150 years ago, with X-rays and electrons, we had almost no idea why they were there, only that they were.

      So I see this as more of a building on the basics invention, rather than something revolutionary.

      --
      Sig
    4. Re:How well does it scale up? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Obviously it scales up really well, but there is some point in which lithium tantalate no longer becomes effecient and "DiLithium" will be phased in as its replacement.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    5. Re:How well does it scale up? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      I was going for the slightly rhetorical, slightly leading effect, but I guess I did not come off as such to you.

      --
      Sig
    6. Re:How well does it scale up? by alanlke · · Score: 1

      Well if you RTFA you'll notice that the experiment cost more energy than it produced. As you "scale up", you produce a larger and larger net loss of useful energy.

      So no, it's of absolutely no use in this economic driven world unless you happen to value pure science and the technologies that *might* come from this sort of research.

    7. Re:How well does it scale up? by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      No, DiLithium is a strange material in which anti-hydrogen and hydrogen can flow, and thus can be used to controll a anti-hydrogen hydrogen reaction, in it's crystiline form it also acts to channel the resulting energy in a particular direction(s).

      This is fusion, a pittfully low power technology used in impulse drives, which can only propel craft to a few fractions of the speed of light.

      Hey you come to slashdot, you're gonna find a true geek :)

    8. Re:How well does it scale up? by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There might be some very economical uses of this. A small lightweight source of neutrons that does not contain or produce any radiation before being activated might have some very nice (money producing) applications.

      Also they stated that the energy production in the Initial experiment was less than it took to generate the fusion. This does not rule out variations or even a scaled up version (I would guess that simple scaleing would not work)

    9. Re:How well does it scale up? by alanlke · · Score: 1

      Yes. Of course you're right, and that's what the article said. However, the parent to my post seemed to be asking about the economic uses of this for the generation of useful energy. My reply was limited to that consideration.

    10. Re:How well does it scale up? by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 1
      "If I have seen further it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) from Letter to Robert Hooke, Feb. 5, 1675/76.

      Name one idea that wasn't just building on the basics.

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    11. Re:How well does it scale up? by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      He was actually insulting the guy he sent the letter to (he had a hunch back and was short IIRC). Though your meaning still stands.

    12. Re:How well does it scale up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that this is an insult by Newton as Hooke was small and they used to clash.

    13. Re:How well does it scale up? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I suspect that this technology will actualy scale up rather well, I imagine that they be made like computer chips, reaction unit photolithographicaly etched on to the Lithium Tantalate crystal wafer, they are all ready found in pyroelectric sensors ( they "see" heat and generate charge).

      The only tricky part would be figuring out the reaction unit density, too many you would get a thermal run-away and the thing would melt, too few and the heat output wouldn't be self-sustaining.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:How well does it scale up? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      As far as I understood it... it very badly scales up. Straight road to standard, hot fusion reactors there. But what is important, it perfectly scales DOWN. Nuclear-powered nanobots anyone?

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  10. Allow me to be the first to say... by deliciousmonster · · Score: 0

    What?

    --
    I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
  11. Re:First Post People Suck by selectspec · · Score: 1

    They heated up the crystal to about 100 degrees celsius.

    --

    Someone you trust is one of us.

  12. Applied science by empty+drum · · Score: 5, Funny

    Old and busted: Mini fuel cell power
    New hotness: Mini fusion reactor power

    --
    Creative Commons music that doesn't suck: emptydrum.com
    1. Re:Applied science by game+kid · · Score: 3, Funny

      It came with dark matter, but it kept getting pulled over.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:Applied science by Fyz · · Score: 1

      No no no. The formalism is:

      Wired: Cell phone fusion reactors
      Tired: Cell phone fuel cells
      Expired:Cell phone batteries

    3. Re:Applied science by coopex · · Score: 1

      1. Wired magazine because shiny things magazine for PHDs a few years ago. 2. Someone hasn't seen MIB2

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    4. Re:Applied science by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Or in the parlance of Wired Magazine:

      Wired: Fusion Cells
      Tired: Fuel Cells
      Expired: Dry Cells

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  13. Great Scott! by 1evilmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next week they will place that bad boy on a flux capacitor.

    --
    crap
    1. Re:Great Scott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it doesn't solve the gasoline crisis since the engine doesn't run on Mr. Fusion.

    2. Re:Great Scott! by garcia · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually it would have been last week because they would have skipped over this week to arrive at exactly this moment in time.

    3. Re:Great Scott! by Moocowsia · · Score: 1

      Just to make sure that fusion power is always 20 years away, no matter how many advances there are.

      --
      Moo!
  14. 25 billion volts per meter huh? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Funny

    eh, too bad it cant stop a 26 billion hits per nanosecond... oh wait, this is slashdot.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  15. Next month called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it said there were errors in the experiment and it in fact produced less energy than was added.

    1. Re:Next month called... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      "it said there were errors in the experiment and it in fact produced less energy than was added"

      Did anyone claim otherwise? This is a novel way to produce fusion, I don't see any claims of net energy production.

      I can build a Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor in my garage, too, and get fusion out of it. Just not 1/100 as much as I put in.

      This is another (interesting) avenue of experimentation. No one's saying it's going to be producing power any time soon.

    2. Re:Next month called... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Cold fusion thta takes more power than it generates is quite old news, going back to the 50s at least.

      The question is not whether this one experiment was producing net power, but whether this method is even theoretically capable of producing net power. What's the potential here for something valuable?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  16. tricky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But did they sufficiently charge the flux capacitor, in order to avoid warp coil degradation and field collapse in the Heisenberg compensators?

  17. Bad Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The authors also admit that on April 1st they pointed the neutrons at the South Pole and Amanda.

  18. Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a pyroelectric crystal, a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals. When heated, such a crystal produces a large electric charge on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one side touches a copper disc. A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter. This field gradient is so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. The ionized deuterium atoms [are] then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 neutrons per second was observer. This is 400 times the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used for things like microthrusters. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site."

    Do the editors even look at these things anymore?

    1. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do the editors even look at these things anymore?

      You mean they ever did to start with?

    2. Re:Argh! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      Anonymous coward was picking on spelling and grammar errors in the story, then wrote:
      There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site.
      What are you claiming to be wrong with that sentence? I'm not sure about the "s" after the apostrophe, since it would expand to "Angeles's", and I'm not sure about the rules spelling for possessives of abbreviations whose expansion ends in "s". I suspect that it is correct as written.

      But the word "the" that you highlighted seems to be correct spelling and grammar, even though it could have been omitted.

    3. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed: ...a very large large electric field is produced...

    4. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to correct: "a very large large electric field"

    5. Re:Argh! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Common mistake people make. Like referring to AIDS as "The AIDS", which is perfectly correct if you're using it as the acronym it is (e.g. The Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and not as the proper name that it has come to be.

      Same with UCLA. It's commonly used as a proper name, and you don't put a definite article in front of a proper name.

      On the other hand, the letters stand for something, and it is perfectly correct to put "The" in front of "University of California Los Angeles".

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

      There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site.

      It should be either

      There are pictures and movies on UCLA's physics site.

      or

      There are pictures and movies on the UCLA physics site.

    7. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that it's an either-or. That is, "the UCLA physics site" and "UCLA's physics site" are both correct, but not "the UCLA's physics site". At the very least it's not common style.

    8. Re:Argh! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      Your argument doesn't wash. "UCLA" and "University of California at Los Angeles" are both proper names, therefore you can't make the claim that a definite article should be used on one but not the the other on the basis of only one being a proper name.

    9. Re:Argh! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      There are pictures and movies on the UCLA physics site.
      "There are pictures and movies on the University of California at Los Angeles'" physics site. Both the definite article and the possessive form are used. Abbreviating it to UCLA doesn't change the grammar, though it might change the spelling of the possesive (add the missing "s").
    10. Re:Argh! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      I'm not arguing about common style; I'm arguing about correct grammar, since it appeared to be grammar (and spelling) that the O.P. was criticizing.

      It should have both the definite article and the posessive form for reasons I've given elsewhere in the thread. Abbreviation doesn't change the grammatical construction.

    11. Re:Argh! by altstadt · · Score: 1
      ... you don't put a definite article in front of a proper name.

      What about "The Donald"? Or is "The" his first name?

    12. Re:Argh! by altstadt · · Score: 1

      Three minutes after the article hit the front page of /., neither was true.

    13. Re:Argh! by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Just a piece of editor sociology... Taco (okay, a little off topic) gets mad when other editors correct his errors, he likes it that way. So this enables others. They think it is part of the site.

    14. Re:Argh! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      My point was that, though acroynms are NOT proper nouns, they represent proper nouns, and thus can gramatically have a definite article.

      In other words, the the is fine.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    15. Re:Argh! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
      I don't think UCLA is an acronym, since I've never heard anyone pronounce it as a word ("uck-lah"?).
      In other words, the the is fine.
      OK, maybe we're in violent agreement.
    16. Re:Argh! by owlstead · · Score: 1

      See dupe.

    17. Re:Argh! by skidv · · Score: 1

      Abbreviating it to UCLA doesn't change the grammar

      I'm not sure I agree, but I'm open to discussing your opinion. I think the abbreviation does make a difference.

      When I write, "I went to the UCLA," it sounds worse then when I write, "I went to UCLA." I think the "the" should be omitted.

      When writing "I went to University of California at Los Angeles," it sounds worse than "I went to the University of California at Los Angeles." In the non-abbreviated form, the "the" should appear.

      As I said, I'm open to discussing your view, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

    18. Re:Argh! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      Grammar isn't about how good it sounds. Many people find that sentences like "Save some cookies for Mike and I" sound better than "Save some cookies for Mike and me", yet the latter is grammatically correct while the former is not.

    19. Re:Argh! by skidv · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll buy that not all grammar is about user expectations of what sounds right, but a lot is.

      In the example you site, most people are over compensating for years of correction. They have been told not to start a sentence with the word me, so they assume (even if it sounds wrong to them) that "mike and me" is incorrect at either end of the sentence.

      I maintain that the abbreviation of the proper name changes the way articles and possessives are used in a sentence.

      I think that in the phrase

      "The UCLA website"

      The "The" refers to the website, not to the university. UCLA becomes a descriptor (not sure if it is an adjective) of the noun.

      In your example, I believe the "The" refers to the University, not to the website.

      Again, I'm still open to discussion. I think I'm even open to saying that both are correct (contrary to the original poster's opinion) in the absence of an Elements of Style reference.

      Thanks for the thoughful discussion.

  19. Takes a lot more energy than it produces by nokiator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Going briefly over the available documents on this, it appears that this technique consumes orders of magnitude more energy than it produces. This would preclude energy generation as one of the potential applications, which is usually regarded as the most promising potential application of cold fusion. Most of the other potential applications mentioned in the articles use this as a neutron generator, but there are other well known ways of achieving that...

    1. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by jmv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would be right if this weren't a prototype (it's not like they're selling it). What they demonstrated is that it's possible to do fusion outside of a tokamak (or similar device). From there, you can always try making the thing work at a higher scale, with less energy.

    2. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by sydres · · Score: 1

      I always wondered how cold fusion could be construed as a power supply in anything but scifi since at best cold fusion would produce nuetrons these don't have atendency to generate electricity
      and being its "cold" also implies that it is fusion at room temperature not generating the usual heat associated with a normal fusion reaction; H-bomb,tokomak,etc. its the heat of atomic fusion that has the potential to generate electricity

    3. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative
      The only other ways to achieve neutron flux (that I'm aware of) are to (1) use a particle accelerator collision to release neutrons (i.e.: spallation) or (2) to use a radioactive source (or running nuclear recator) and guide the flux of exiting neutrons. Both of these are quite large and not very portable.

      Although this research is not going to give us energy production, it is the smallest neutron source I've heard of (palm-sized according to article). This in and of itself is quite exciting, and it would have numerous applications in industry. Neutron sources right now are used to image industrial materials (it can be used to map the internal stress distribution in pipes, aircraft components, etc... and it can get images through materials that would block x-rays). Having portable neutron-imagers would be useful to industry for doing stress analysis/imaging on components while they are in actual use. I can think of lots more applications, but I'll leave it at that.

      For those interested, here is the abstract of the Nature article in question (the article is already available online, to subscribers, even though it officially releases in tomorrow's issue of Nature):
      Nature 434, 1115-1117 (28 April 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature03575
      While progress in fusion research continues with magnetic[1] and inertial[2] confinement, alternative approaches--such as Coulomb explosions of deuterium clusters[3] and ultrafast laser-plasma interactions[4]--also provide insight into basic processes and technological applications. However, attempts to produce fusion in a room temperature solid-state setting, including 'cold' fusion[5] and 'bubble' fusion[6], have met with deep scepticism[7]. Here we report that gently heating a pyroelectric crystal in a deuterated atmosphere can generate fusion under desktop conditions. The electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate a deuteron beam (> 100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a deuterated target, produces a neutron flux over 400 times the background level. The presence of neutrons from the reaction D + D --> 3He (820 keV) + n (2.45 MeV) within the target is confirmed by pulse shape analysis and proton recoil spectroscopy. As further evidence for this fusion reaction, we use a novel time-of-flight technique to demonstrate the delayed coincidence between the outgoing alpha-particle and the neutron. Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator.
    4. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by quax · · Score: 1

      The only other ways to achieve neutron flux (that I'm aware of) are to (1) use a particle accelerator collision to release neutrons (i.e.: spallation) or (2) to use a radioactive source (or running nuclear recator) and guide the flux of exiting neutrons. Both of these are quite large and not very portable.


      You forgot Muon-catalyzed fusion.

    5. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No fucking shit. If this was a compact room-temperature method to generate fusion power, it would be on the front page of the paper in 28-point type. I'm glad the completely obvious can get modded up as "insightful."

    6. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Reading the summary at least, this little thing seems like a replacement for the "Giant Laser"(tm) used to start more conventional fusion tests. Probably cheaper too.

      The problem with fusion has never been really how to start it; it's how to keep it going.

    7. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they refer to cold fusion, they aer referring to the temperatures needed to cause the reaction, not the final temperature of the material. A cold fusion device running in volume should be able to produce heat, it just doesn't need fission type tempuratures (like an H bomb does) to produce the reaction.

    8. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative

      muon-catalyzed fusion would only viably occur in a particle accelerator setup, which I already mentioned (where else are you getting the muons from). In any case (as far as I know) no such thing is actually used today at neutron facilities.

      For examples of neutron-beamline research facilities that exist today, I refer you to NIST, HMI, and the Spallation Neutron Source (still being built).

    9. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by sydres · · Score: 1

      I'll bite the so called cold fusion device created supposedly created fusion in a bath of heavy water I suppose you could get energy from such a system not much, that is under the premise that it actually worked it did not this system under disussion may very well work but more energy is going into it than extracted it after all takes a lot of energy to over come the vanderwahl force and nuclear repulsion their just is not a way around that aside from smacking a stream of raw nuetrons together which still would not generate any more than initiation energy so hot fusion is the only plausible way of getting energy efficiently from fusion

    10. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Maybe, maybe not. Not every technology is scalable. As another poster noted, there are other proven ways of doing fusion at room temperature. They just aren't practical for power generation and don't easily scale up.

      I've always been partial to muon catalyzed fusion, myself. Very cool. All you need is a cheap supply of muons and a way to keep them going longer. Someday, maybe...

    11. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by Prune · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded up? Tabletop fusion has been available for decades in a device that costs as little as $500 to build, according to Wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostati c_confinement

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    12. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by spworley · · Score: 1

      Mr. Edison, going briefly over your new lighting method, it appears your technique requires expensive and difficult manufacturing, and a hugely expensive "electricity" plant, plus new metal cables to be run to every house, and even generating the required electricity burns more fuel than the simple candle that your new "light bulb" replaces.
      This would preclude lighting as one of the potential applications, which is regarded as the most promising potentials of carbon filaments. Most of the other potential applications mentioned have other well know ways of achieving that...

    13. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by jmv · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. It's interesting because it's another way to do fusion, that maybe (of maybe not) will evolve into something useful. It may just end there, but at least it's another change we have of getting fusion power in the future.

    14. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Uh, first of all, a radioactive neutron source can be the size of the head of a needle and make more neutrons than you would want (Cf source that is). If ou want to be able to turn it off, there are already portable accelerators that make neutrons via acceleration. It isn't that hard.

    15. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by wagnerer · · Score: 1

      You're kidding right? DT tubes have been on the market for a long time now and many run off a 120 V circuit to produce 10^10 neutron's per second. Just take a look at http://www.sciner.com/Neutron/index.htm for some you can buy right off the shelf. Size is more of a cosmetic issue than anything else.

    16. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sarcasm doesn't work when it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. You're an idiot and you should stop posting on Slashdot.

    17. Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces by quax · · Score: 1

      Granted, for all pratical purposes you will need an accelerator as muon source. Trying this with cosmic muons will not get you very far.

      I mainly brought this up because it annoys me that this existing and well understood cold fusion process always tends to get overlooked.

  20. Lets see... by starseeker · · Score: 1

    If we can get his webserver to produce more fusion!

    I can see it now - "Slashdot - powering the world through mass action browsing."

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  21. Energy concerns by Veinor · · Score: 1

    Of course, this is only useful if the energy necessary to heat the crystal is less than the energy taken back, otherwise you just get an energy waster.

    1. Re:Energy concerns by Sairret · · Score: 1

      ...so then it could power itself. By George, I do believe you've figured out perpetual motion! Seriously, think about it. Wouldn't that make the efficiency greater than 100%?

    2. Re:Energy concerns by Veinor · · Score: 1

      No. There are different FORMS of energy. When the two nuclei combine, there is a slight mass loss, which therefore must be compensated by a release of energy. It's the same principle as the sun.

  22. Killer app! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could embed this is a cellphone to irradiate the brain tumors from the RF.

  23. Doomsday machine by LemonFire · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally! That was the last missing part for my doomsday machine. Thank you guys...

    -- This SIG was never meant to be.

    1. Re:Doomsday machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft. My doomsday machine was completed years ago.

      All I have to do is measure the mass of a Higgs Boson. It's 1313131313....
      ***oh Sh*t***

  24. Come on, guys by Kremit · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Slashdot admins, you know not to link to websites with 17MB videos and TIF files, that server is probably burning alive...

  25. Rightist bias of the MSNBC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As wild as it is, that's a conservative application,"

    What about Labour and LibDem applications?

    1. Re:Rightist bias of the MSNBC! by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 0
      What about Labour and LibDem applications?

      Unfortunately, none of those are practical.

      --
      Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
  26. LiTaO3 by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can you possibly expect to get useful fusion reactions using a monolithium crystal?

    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:LiTaO3 by HtR · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know! And what's with the erbium deuteride (ErD2) target? When I duplicated their results in my garage this afternoon, I found that you get much better results with a radium deuteride (R2D2) target. What were they thinking?

      --
      Have you tried turning it off and on again?
    2. Re:LiTaO3 by simcop2387 · · Score: 3, Funny

      of course you can get FUSION out of a monolithium crystal, its the Matter/Anti-Matter control that you can't get without a dilithium crystal matrix.

    3. Re:LiTaO3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are being funny. If not, you should have radiation sickness from handling that much radium.

    4. Re:LiTaO3 by Talinom · · Score: 2, Funny

      How can you possibly expect to get useful fusion reactions using a monolithium crystal?

      Duh! That what the fusion part is for; to fuse monolithium into dilithium (or even trilithium)!

      --
      "Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
  27. Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by Colgate2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, they are fusing particles, but this is not power-producing fusion. To call it fusion will mislead a general audience.

    What it is -- which is still very cool -- is a particle accellerator the size of a toaster. High energy accerators fuse atoms, but we don't usually call them fusion reactors.

    So, we should be talking about a small particle accelrator that could be used for medical imaging and treatment, sensing, or spacecraft propulsion.

    1. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well then the general audience needs to pay attention and fucking learn something for a change.

      Is there fusing? Then it's fusion. People need to learn that fusion != consumer power generation, and not be shielded from the hurty pointy owie truth.

    2. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by Colgate2003 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Before someone else points it out:

      How did I possibly manage to spell "accelerator" three different ways in the same post?

    3. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by UWC · · Score: 1

      The best part is that none of the three were correct! While I assume it's not all that rare, it's not every day that you see a triple misspelling, especially when the poster actually knows how to spell it, and especially when the rest of the comment is grammatically and typographically sound.

    4. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny
      How did I possibly manage to spell "accelerator" three different ways in the same post?

      Talent?

      On a slightly more serious note, not just any particle accelerator. A neutron accelerator. With a very simple input (heat), if this kicks out a high enough neutron flux density you could have a cheap-n-compact high-yield neutron source for all kinds of kind and nefarious purposes.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      You're overestimating the intelligence of the general population. Most of them probably think Fusion is a breakfast drink.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by alienmole · · Score: 1

      That neutron bombardment can't be good for brain tissue, is all I can think.

    7. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by refactored · · Score: 1
      ~25 billion volts per meter

      You can do quite a lot of accelerating with that. Ye olde E=mc^2 converts electrons into 511kev.

      ie. The mass of an electron undergoes total matter conversion into a packet of energy equal to the kinetic energy of an electron dropped through a potential difference of 511000 Volts.

      Ok, so I assume that field is over quite a small distance, the potential difference is probably a lot less than 25E9 Volts ie a lot less than 49000 electrons. Given that a neutron has a mass of 940MeV/c^2 the neutrons they are measuring are being created out of the kinetic energy.

    8. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      Yes, the potential is over a very small distance. Physics News Update 729 (where I got this in the first place) gives the number as 25V/nm. But you have to say that a gradient of 25 billion volts per meter sounds better!

      According to the source, the pyroelectric crystal produces a 120kV potential. The huge gradient is only at the end of the tiny pin (you have to look at the high resolution images. The MSNBC image is too low resolution to see the pin - a *critical* part of the setup! :)

    9. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by refactored · · Score: 1
      measuring are being

      Bugger! Where did that "not" go to. I know I meant to type "not being created out of kinetic energy".

      One of these days I actually use the preview button.

    10. Re:Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as we facilitate their ignorance by writing them off like that, yeah, they probably won't care what 'fusion' really is.

  28. Now that's news for nerds! by Pedrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, except for the minor grammar/spelling error with "observer" (which is just a typical miss for our dear old editors here), this was a quality post with quality information and no question, news for nerds! If Slashdot could maintain this sort of quality (and perhaps even correct the spelling and grammar errors), I would be a much happier reader.

    1. Re:Now that's news for nerds! by Jurph · · Score: 1

      They also misspelled (and didn't capitalize, but that's a religious debate) "Joule".

      But yes, this is what Slashdot needs more of.

  29. Not new by SWroclawski · · Score: 0

    Dylithium crystals have been used for years on Star Trek...

  30. Yes, pyroelectric. by GQuon · · Score: 2, Informative

    They call the study "Observation of nuclear fusion driven by a pyroelectric crystal".

    Unless the submitter is one of the researchers, the submitter was correct.

    Thanks for making me learn about those electric characteristics of chrystals though.

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
    1. Re:Yes, pyroelectric. by alanlke · · Score: 1

      electric characteristics of chrystals

      Did you mean to type "chrysales"? I'd bet that an electric chrysalis would yield a badass butterfly.

      :-D

  31. beo by 42Penguins · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used for things like microthrusters." ----------------- So, to get a good amount of energy, you'd need a beowulf cluster of these?

  32. Other contested fusion report by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative

    In 2002 there was a report claiming fusion due to cavitation. The article appeared in Science:
    Science, Vol 295, Issue 5561, 1868-1873 , 8 March 2002 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1067589]

    The method involves irradiating a liquid with sound. The acoustic waves can cause microscopic bubbles to form in solution (cavitation). When these bubbles collapse, their temperatures can become quite high. Done properly, in fact, these cavitations can lead to sonoluminescence (creation of light from sound). The creation of a plasma under these conditions has been confirmed. The Science article further claimed that neutrons were measured, indicating that fusion temperatures had been achieved. They were certainly not claiming this as a power source (yet), since energy input was much greater than output.

    The interesting thing is the controversy that resulted, and, as far as I know, is still not resolved. Scientists worldwide are still split on whether or not fusion has really been achieved. It will take some time longer before we know for sure (altough the most recent reports I've read lean towards this really being fusion).

    I'm bringing this up because it seems rather similar to what we have here. It is a high-profile announcement of fusion in a rather unusual setup. I anticipate that this will be met with much skepticism (rightly), and that it will take some time before we know "for sure" that it's really fusion.

    Anyways, highly interesting results, and I'm looking forward for future confirmation/elaboration of these experiments. But I wouldn't get too excited, since these kinds of discoveries sometimes have subtle flaws (or mis-interpretations) that only become revealled when the full scrutiny of the scientific process is applied to them.

    1. Re:Other contested fusion report by BytePusher · · Score: 1

      The other ones didn't produce neutrons at any detectable level. This is why they used deturium instead of hydrogen. The purpose of this is not to create energy, but to create neutrons. Neutrons are quite useful and neutron sources are generally expensive and dangerious. This is pretty cool. Using neutrons it's possible to detect explosives hidden in a suitcase by looking at the EM emissions from a neutron colliding with nitrogen.

    2. Re:Other contested fusion report by khrtt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget the good old pulse neutron tubes.

      Pulse neutron tubes are fusion-based neutron sources, most commonly used in circa 1970 atom bomb trigger mechanisms. They are also used for peaceful purposes, pretty much whenever one needs a 14 MeV neutron source. The vacuum tube uses very high voltage to accelerate deterium ions towards a target. Or something... In other words, achieving fusion at room temperature in a small apparatus is no big deal. The problem is that you always have to input way more energy into the device than you can get out. I don't see how any of these new advances in achieving fusion bring us closer to use of fusion as power source. Not to say that this new fusion neutron source is a wonderful scientific achievment, it is, it's just doesn't seem likely to be a potential power source technology.

    3. Re:Other contested fusion report by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Meh. It's all basic research. Just read up on Cold Fusion for about half an hour and heard it compared to the state of transistor research fifty-sixty years ago. Who knew then and who cares now are the important questions.

      Of course, there are probably a hundred failed technologies (read a Heinlein novel and you get yeast strips) for each successful one, but this is a good step.

    4. Re:Other contested fusion report by kebes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well firstly there are other applications for fusion besides power production (such as neutron sources for imaging, detection, etc.).

      Secondly, with regard to power production, every fusion experiment adds a piece to the puzzle, even if that particular device setup will never be used to generate power. Most large-scale fusion experiments that have been performed, in fact, had no intention of generating power. They merely wanted to push the boundaries of what was known about fusion, and what could be engineered with current technology. So I would say that experiments that don't directly involve power production are nevertheless useful in that they advance the state-of-the-art in terms of what is known about fusion processes.

      I don't see how any of these new advances in achieving fusion bring us closer to use of fusion as power source.

      That's science for ya: most of the experiments seem useless at first. Many of them are useless forever. But sometimes we discover something amazing, and sometimes the results of 100 experiments together finally get us some new technology or insight. We scientists don't know, at the outset, what will turn out to be the "next big thing"... so we just search and see what happens...

    5. Re:Other contested fusion report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a high-profile announcement of fusion in a rather unusual setup. I anticipate that this will be met with much skepticism (rightly), and that it will take some time before we know "for sure" that it's really fusion.

      The interesting thing is that this "unusual setup" looks pretty cheap. It's what, a penny's worth of copper, a broken cellphone, and the tip off a tungsten needle (Ok, ok, I'm sure that for scientific purposes, the purity required will cost extra). The hardest part is the Erbium Deuteride "target" though I'm sure scientists can get a hold of that somehow. Just add heat and some way to count neutrons, and see if you can replicate the process, then report.

    6. Re:Other contested fusion report by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      I go one step further: even failed experiments have a lot of use, if only to say 'this aproach didn't work, and this is what happened'.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    7. Re:Other contested fusion report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAP, but as I understand it, much of the controversy in the case of the bubble fusion experiments you referred to stems from the fact that a beam of neutrons was used to seed the bubbles, which were then rapidly expanded and collapsed by the ultrasound waves. Thus, if you are detecting neutrons, you can't be entirely sure if they are the product of fusion reactions or just reflections of the beam used for seeding the bubbles. In this case, there was no neutron source used (unless I missed something.)

  33. Cool, but something still missing? by DoubleDownOnEleven · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the MSNBC article:

    "The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in"

    So, how is this useful from a fusion / energy source standpoint?
    1. Re:Cool, but something still missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is useful because it shows that low temp fusion is possible. While the earlier cold fusion experiments were a failure and a big fiasco, this experiment proves that the idea of cold fusion itself is valid. Perhaps future advances in materials will make practical cold fusion a reality.

    2. Re:Cool, but something still missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea why anyone is calling this "cold fusion"... the ions are accelerated to high velocity and form a plasma. This is not cold.

  34. /.'ed already with helpful message by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

    just thought i would pass this along..

    Sorry, couldn't handle Slashdot effect.
    Here's a link to Nature's server:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434 /n7037/su ppinfo/nature03575.html

    naranjo@physics.ucla.edu
    Last modified: Wed Apr 27 20:37:46 UTC 2005

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
    1. Re:/.'ed already with helpful message by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      Wow, $30? That's some kind of deal!

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  35. Small-scale (server) fusion at UCLA by Jurph · · Score: 5, Funny

    gnuman99 writes "A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a Pentium, a type of silicon chip used in personal computers to generate heat. When charge is applied, such a chip produces a large thermal gradient on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a Pentium-based webserver so that one side touched a website called Slashdot. A tiny CAT-5 cable is then connected to the internet. When the website about fusion is visited by thousands of geeks at once, a very large large load is produced on the server, ~25 billion hits per hour. This traffic volume is so high that it strips the heavier "one" bits in the packets from the "zeroes". The ionized packets are then accelerated by this field towards the central processing unit (CPU). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 Kelvin was taken by an observer. This is way higher than the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used on things like Microsoft's website. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site contributing to the problem." Reader richmlpdx adds a link to coverage at MSNBC, in hopes that he can slashdot them too.

    1. Re:Small-scale (server) fusion at UCLA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i never knew all it took for a plus 5 funny was to italicize the entrite post and bold a few random usernames.

      kudos!

      this makes no sense

    2. Re:Small-scale (server) fusion at UCLA by Jurph · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, if you bothered to read it, you'd see that I had written a carefully-altered version of the post -- altered, in fact, for HUMOR purposes! (Laugh; it's funny!) But you didn't bother.

      Should I stick to humor that you don't have to read? No, for that way lies madness and goatse.

  36. Admit it! by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

    the crystal is subsequently heated...it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms...the atoms then accelerated...they collide with it...

    Who invented this thing? Rube Goldberg?

    Just kidding and no offense to the researchers, this is awesome work. I just got a "Mousetrap" vibe reading the description.

    It's late, I'm going home.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
  37. Macromedia by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1, Funny

    don't they already developed this technology ?

    1. Re:Macromedia by Enigma_Man · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh god it sucks so much. I have to use it at work, and I want to stab myself in the eye with a tree branch.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    2. Re:Macromedia by n0tWorthy · · Score: 1

      He's speaking English, I know it!

      I just can't understand him.

      --
      "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
  38. Look, I'm not a physicist, by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

    But when I read this in the summary:

    "The UCLA researchers placed a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one side touches a copper disc. A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter. This field gradient is so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 neutrons per second was observer. This is 400 times the background!"

    The first thought that ocurred to me was, "holy shit, isn't this how that little incident at the Black Mesa Compound got started?"

    1. Re:Look, I'm not a physicist, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats exactly what I thought too, and... Hey do you hear that buzzing noise?

      *looks behind him

      Holy crap, its a cute little snark? I'll call it Nibbles

  39. It's pyroelectric. But submitter was also confused by GQuon · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... as was I.

    Certainly, the research is about using the pyroelectric effect. The submitter was right about that.

    What the submitter was wrong about was this:
    "a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals."
    That is, as the parent post correctly points out, using the piezoelectric effect. So it is informative, although it should have pointed out exactly in what part of the write-up was wrong.

    (My other reply down as -1 Wrong. Sorry, Anonymous Coward.)

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  40. Is it real...? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    There was no explosion. Real fusion power should involved accidentally blowing up a neighborhood because it was tested in a warehouse (a la Chain Reaction). If there's no boom, it doesn't exist and no one will believe you.

  41. ooooo...room temperature....oooo...NOT IMPRESSIVE by milktoastman · · Score: 1

    Hey, they've had table top fusion devices that operate on charged particle acceleration to collide the nuclei. Don't cream over the "room-temperature" and "table top" buzzwords. This particular method is new, but the idea of room temperature fusion isn't. You see, the yield is still very low, it isn't anywhere close to breakeven needed to drive a power plant. And I'm especially entertained by the references to neutron "background." I think there is a little confusion here....neutron background had better be practically zero where people are working (neutrons are rare and aren't really part of the well-known background radiation that exists in the environment)...and you better get yields much greater than 400 times the background to get excited about it!

  42. Other uses for Fusion than power by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 2, Informative

    The reason these devices are interesting is the flow of Neutrons.

    There are several applications in materials science where you want neutrons, but you don't want to send your sample off to Oak Ridge, and wait, or go through the paperwork to try to build a research reactor. This device would allow, for instance, in-house Neutron Diffraction experiments, which is similar to X-ray diffraction except that Hydrogens show up. You can see hydrogen loading in containment materials, migration in batteries, and other minor structural changes which are invisible to other analytic techniques.

    The fact that they use fusion is nifty, but it's the neutron flux in a convenient package that makes this a way cool experiment.

    --
    the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
  43. Pretty much slashdotted by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    The original site appears to be /.ed.

    Extract says Conforming to Nature's copyright policy, we will wait until 2005 Oct 28 before posting the final preprint version on this site..

    Might as well wait for tomorrow's dupe.

    Extract also says Online supplementary materials to reside permanently on Nature's server Go pick on them ...

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  44. Just this morning... by Xx+Shinwa+xX · · Score: 1

    I woke up, jumped out of bed, shouted Eureka, and called my best friend and said, "Wouldn't it be amazing if we placed a lithium tantalate pyroelectric crystal so that one side touched a copper disc, and then subsequently placed a tiny tungsten probe at the center of the copper disc? Then we could heat the crystal and theoretically, a very large large electric field at the end of the tugsten tip, approximately 25 billion volts per meter, would be created!!! This field gradient shouldbe theoretically so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. Then, the ionized deuterium atoms then could be accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride. They theoretically should collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target!!!! It could be used for something like microthrusters!!!" He wasn't my friend anymore after that. Which is why I didn't carry out the experiment.

  45. Not viable for energy production by MontyApollo · · Score: 2, Informative

    New Scientist has a right up as well. The seemed to have written off the whole idea of using it to produce energy. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7315

    1. Re:Not viable for energy production by n0tWorthy · · Score: 1

      write NOT right

      --
      "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
  46. im sorry... by patrick.whitlock · · Score: 5, Funny

    but could someone put that through a babelfish and tell me what this guy said?

    1. Re:im sorry... by pdbogen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Big electricity make little particle.

    2. Re:im sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Get an education."

    3. Re:im sorry... by patrick.whitlock · · Score: 1

      I refuse to take educational advice from an anonymous coward

    4. Re:im sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big electricity make little particle.

      No, that was Confusious.

  47. Right now now excess power. Wait a minute.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, build a sphere 100 meters in diameter. Plate the inside with micromachined crystals, copper, and tungsten widgets. Put the target in the center, complete with deturium. Heat up the outside of the sphere so all the crystals get warm. Now, you've got millions of these things firing fast deturium ions. Fusion takes place, things get hot, and the whole thing becomes self-sustaining. The problem is keeping the thing cool, so one attaches a power plant to it to get rid of the excess heat. So, why isn't this a good idea? Even if they're off by a factor of 10^8, that's only a hundred million, and just how tiny can the emitters be made?

    1. Re:Right now now excess power. Wait a minute.. by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 1

      KEY POINT IS "whole thing becomes self-sustaining."

      PHRASE IS meaningless WITHOUT CLARIFICATION.

      FURTHERMORE, 10^8 TIMES large negative number IS even larger NEGATIVE NUMBER. MILLIONS OF GENERATORS with negative efficiency MILLIONS OF TIMES worse, not better.

      THIS THREAD BRINGING OUT ANONYMOUS MORONS in large quantities. UNFORTUNATELY, moronic thoughts ON SLASHDOT CAUSE self-sustaining chain reaction.

  48. Re:Allow me to be the first to recommend.... by alanlke · · Score: 1
  49. English Please? by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holy Crap, no matter how much of a nerd you are you realize there are always bigger ones. Dude ions and erbin-somethin's collide and holy cow they make 900 other-sumpthins that's like 400 times the back-doo-dad!

    That whole article could have been written in Esperanto for as much as I could get from it and I have a solid background in Compsci, EE, and sci.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    1. Re:English Please? by khrtt · · Score: 1, Funny

      Holy Crap, no matter how much of a nerd you are you realize there are always bigger ones. Dude ions and erbin-somethin's collide and holy cow they make 900 other-sumpthins that's like 400 times the back-doo-dad!

      That whole article could have been written in Esperanto for as much as I could get from it and I have a solid background in Compsci, EE, and sci.


      In other words, you're amazed that you're such a dumbass, despite your solid background, and you are proud of it at the same time:-). Man, you need a beer!

    2. Re:English Please? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Have you considered suing your "school"?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:English Please? by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure you were right there understanding each and every word of that post and TFA, right? Unless this article was about exactly your field of study I'm quite sure it didn't make a damn bit of sense to you either... sure I could get the gist of what was being said, but please.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  50. Hulk ! by zymano · · Score: 1

    Which one of these scientists will turn into the Hulk ?

    And who knew i was using this technology everytime I lit my cigarette !

  51. Desktop fusion is not new... by MrKevvy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor has been around since the 1960's, and is so easy to build that it is sometimes seen in high school science fairs. It is commonly available as a neutron source.

    What would be "new" would be a net gain in energy, but like the fusor, that doesn't seem to be happening with this new device.

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
    1. Re:Desktop fusion is not new... by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is commonly available as a neutron source.

      Can you provide me references on that, please? I use neutron sources in my research, and I'm not aware of a Fusor setup being used at any real neutron beamlines around the world. They are all either particle accelerators that produce neutrons via spallation (such as the upcoming Spallation Neutron Source), or are radiological/nuclear reactors (such as NIST, HMI, etc.). Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone. As far as I know, the flux is much too low and the system not efficient.

    2. Re:Desktop fusion is not new... by thelizman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone.

      Diamler-Chrysler has commercially sold a fusor it calls "Fusion Star" for several years as a high-count neutron source. Fusors are in use at the University of Illinois, Brigham Young, and NC State. If you want references...google. Common knowledge shouldn't have to have a citation.

    3. Re:Desktop fusion is not new... by Prune · · Score: 1

      I love to see posts like yours correcting someone talking out of their ass. Too bad the looser grandparent got modded up higher than you.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    4. Re:Desktop fusion is not new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, ha, Kebes, you narrow-sighted academic smartass know-all nothing ...

      step out of yer fscking cubicle and smell the glove.

    5. Re:Desktop fusion is not new... by kebes · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry if my original post sounded arrogant or accusatory. I'm honestly interested in knowing more about this technology. I'm happy to be corrected when I'm wrong, but it really helps to have sources to check.

      With regard to flux, as far as I can tell, no one has reported a Fusor-style setup with a flux higher than 1E8 neutrons/second or perhaps 1E10 neutrons/second (example, example). Assuming an operating distance of 1 m, that's less than 1E5 n/(cm^2 s).

      By comparison, modern reactor setups achieve 2E15 n/(cm^2 s) flux, and spallation sources can achieve 1E17 n/(cm^2 s) (see Fig 1 here). This is why I characterized a Fusor as "low flux." The flux of a Fusor is useful for some things, but for most applications of neutron beamlines, it is too weak. (Of course, more than flux matters: energy distribution also matters.)

      From what I know, Fusors are great for studying some aspects of fusion reactions and maybe conducting experiments on neutron properties. I've also heard of using it for neutron interrogation (example), where you irradiate a sample and see what happens (for instance for characterizing nuclear samples, material identification, bomb detection). So, yes, it is a neutron source. However, it is not competitive with high-flux sources, and is (I think!) too weak for neutron scattering, diffraction, and imaging experiments. This is why I claimed that a fusor was not a general-purpose neutron source.

      This is also why no Fusor sources are listed on any "worldwide neutron source" lists, as far as I can tell:
      http://neutron.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/links.html
      http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/nsources.html
      http://www.neutron.anl.gov/facilities.html
      http://neutron.neutron-eu.net/n_users/n_where_the_ facilities/n_worldwide
      http://www.sciner.com/Neutron/neutron_facilities_w orldwide.htm

      With regard to the universities you mentioned, it looks like the PULSTAR at North Carolina State is a reactor. The TRIGA at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is also a reactor. If those were not what you were referring to, then I apologize.

      To recap: I relent and agree that a Fusor is indeed a viable neutron source. However, I would like to point out that its flux is much lower than other sources, making it unsuitable for many types of neutron beamline experiments. If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me.

  52. Useful for neutrons, not power (and it's hot) by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

    What these guys have done is found a novel application of a relatively well-known means of generating extremely high electric fields. This is good, and may produce more compact, robust neutron generators than we currently have.

    But it is clear from the article--and the basic physics--that this isn't a practical means of generating fusion power. This is just another hot fusion mechanism--it isn't "room temperature". The deuterium ions from the gas discharge are accelerated by the field and smash into the ErD surface with high energies.

    The interaction cross-sections are such that virtually all of the D ions will slow down without fusing, and the energy that went into accelerating them will be only recoverable as heat, with the usual thermodynamic (in)efficiencies. The DD fusion cross-section just isn't high enough to overcome those losses.

    Cool experiment, though.

    --Tom

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    1. Re:Useful for neutrons, not power (and it's hot) by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      What's more, the scheme of 'accelerating deuterons and slamming them into a target' is only, what, more than six decades old?

      Hell, Scientific American had an Amateur Scienstist column on building your own neutron generator using a van deGraaf generator to accelerate deuterons down a glass vacuum tube.

      You don't see scientists getting excited about it because it cannot, even in principle, lead to net energy gain.

    2. Re:Useful for neutrons, not power (and it's hot) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What these guys have done is found a novel
      >application of a relatively well-known means of
      >generating extremely high electric fields.

      This article describes modern compact neutron
      generators:

      http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-6/p22.html

      and this article describes several patent pending
      compact neutron generators:

      http://www.lbl.gov/Tech-Transfer/techs/lbnl1764.ht ml

      You can see similarities in the way they all work,
      basically accelerating ions to slam them into
      a target; they all use the accelerator
      method to produce neutrons. So radtea is correct,
      all that seems really new here is using a
      temperature change driven crystal to generate
      the potential difference to produce/accelerate
      the ions which in other designs is supplied by a
      power supply or RF generator.
      I think that the reason none of these devices
      (all of which use fusion reactions to produce
      neutrons) are useful for producing power is
      that none of the energy is directable
      back to where the reactions are occuring. The
      Farnsworth Fusor differs in that respect, but it
      has the problem that introducing new fuel is
      possible only by stopping the reaction.

  53. 80 meter crystals by JCOTTON · · Score: 1

    Wow - what a find. Now I know why my 80 meter ham transmitter glows in the dark. Oh- wait - that's because of the electron tubes.

    1. Re:80 meter crystals by chipperdog · · Score: 1

      key up your 160 meter CW rig with a half-wave vertical at 1500 Watts....Every flouresent light within 500 feet will glow

  54. Scaleup? Who cares? Get George Lucas on the phone. by JonTurner · · Score: 1

    George baby, I've got a great idea for the next film. You sittin' down? Good. It's about a Robot named ErD2 (erbium deuteride, or "erb" for short) and he's powered by nuclear fusion. Now here's the good part: We take advantage of his name ("erb") and have him talk with an incredibly annoying urban slang. (That's "Erb" as in the word "urban". Get it? Get it?) Now, he wants to put the slap down the shizzle manizzle and be bustin' caps with his frickin' "laser beams". What up, dawg?
    [click]

    Hello? George, you there? Hello? hello?

  55. cold fusion by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    Is room-temperature fusion considered cold fusion or is that something else?

    1. Re:cold fusion by n0tWorthy · · Score: 1

      I think if it is less hot than the Sun's interior it is "cold".

      --
      "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
  56. Uses in homeland security? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is this the new requirment for getting funding for any project? " see it also can be used for homeland security ".. So can my damned shoes..

    What a farce.

    ( oh, great project.. good work guys )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Uses in homeland security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is.

    2. Re:Uses in homeland security? by benchbri · · Score: 1

      In the post-9/11 world, everything can be used for homeland security.

    3. Re:Uses in homeland security? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Sir, the bomb in my shoe is to protect against terrorism. Honest!!!

  57. Do I need to explain Everything to you?!! by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny
    You call yourself a nerd?

    You can't get a Delorean up to 88 miles an hour on electric motors that would fit in a Delorean circa 1985!

    --

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

    1. Re:Do I need to explain Everything to you?!! by zrail · · Score: 1

      You have no reason to be calling yourself a nerd, sir. If you had followed along with the movie, you would have come to understand that the Mr. Fusion reactor was only used to power the time circuits. Doc used the DeLorean's own engine to get the vehicle to 88mph.

      Of course, the fact that the DeLorean can't, in fact, make it to 88mph shall be left unmentioned.

    2. Re:Do I need to explain Everything to you?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to get bonus geek points, you'd also note that the steam-powered locomotive was used to push the DeLorean to 88mph by movie#3.

    3. Re:Do I need to explain Everything to you?!! by freqres · · Score: 1

      A Delorean can make it up to 88mph, you just have to dump out all the cocaine first.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    4. Re:Do I need to explain Everything to you?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh it can hit 88, it's just the speedo that stops at 85.

  58. Sonoluminescence by ciroknight · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

    There's been tonnes of this reported as fusion, but we can't prove/disprove it as of yet, and even if we could, we wouldn't know how to use it as a power source yet. Many people relate this to the fusion that's going on with Wintergreen LifeSavers if you bite down on them hard in a dark room.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  59. Free energy by squidsoup · · Score: 0

    While this technology has a negative ERoEI, there are others that don't and look very promising. Unfortunately we don't appear to have the wisdom to invest significantly in their development.

    1. Re:Free energy by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 2

      YOU HAVE LINKED TO one conspiracy theory journalist AND ONE pseudoscientific gibberish BASED ON ASSUMPTION THAT HYDROGEN ATOM NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD BY QUANTUM MECHANICS.

      OBVIOUSLY, CAN NEVER DISPROVE sufficiently elaborate CONSPIRACY. HOWEVER, hydrogen atom IS MOST BASIC PROBLEM SOLVED IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. HAS BEEN SOLVED FOR 70+ years NOW.

      blacklightpower.com ASSUMES ALL THAT WORK ABSOLUTELY WRONG. INVENTS GIBBBERISH "fractional quantum numbers." TRUST ME, HYDROGEN ATOM QUANTUM MECHANICS WELL VERIFIED BY EXPERIMENT.

    2. Re:Free energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  60. Not sure what's the big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about this work. I mean, electrically driven fusion in deuterium gas has been available in tabletop apparatus for quite awhile, and there has been lots of work using D ion bombardment of D-containing targets that showed fusion . It seems the only novelty here is the use of a pyroelectric crystal as a high voltage source for the electrostatic gradient needed to ionize the D2. This could be done easily with a COTS, miniature PMT power supply. I did RTFA, but I don't see why this is news.

  61. Re:PADME NEARLY SUCCUMBS TO FORCE CHOKE. DIES LATE by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Funny

    Could that have been prevented by room temperature, small scale fusion?

  62. Yawn... by gillbates · · Score: 1

    They had cold fusion back in the eighties. Personally, I'm waiting for the nucular powered cars - can't wait for the Chevy Trailblazer with a nuetron V8.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  63. The First Particle Accelerator Was Smaller by ninjagin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Not to burst any bubbles, but the first cyclotron particle accelerator was smaller than a palm pilot, and was built in 1929.

    You can see it here:

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom-smasher2.htm

    Anyhoo, while I find the experiment and subsequent discovery kind of interesting, it isn't anything terribly exciting.

    --
    .. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
  64. Input Energy Output Energy question? by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'm not a physics geek so excuse my ignorance.

    I was just thinking that this sort of fusion is not looked on as a great thing cause the input energy > than the output, but in countries where the temperatures are really high, can't this heat be used an another energy source to compensate for the loss of energy?
    Or say volcanic heat etc?

    Just some random thoughts.

  65. Another potential use: by airship · · Score: 1

    Ghostbusting!!!

    Dr. Peter Venkman: "Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back."

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  66. I can just imagine by infernalC · · Score: 1

    Just imagine a beowolf cluster of energizer bunnies powered by those... thump, thump, thump, thump...

  67. A new type of heatsink? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Even if it didn't work on the megawatt scale, if it could work on the hundreds of watts scale, it could convert the heat from a CPU/GPU back into power.

    1. Re:A new type of heatsink? by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      That's actually quite briliant... if they could find a stable way to do it. I wonder what the implications would be for quantum comuputing? Could we be looking at the future of tiny computers that are as powerful as mainframes in the future?

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
    2. Re:A new type of heatsink? by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 1

      THIS FUSION DEVICE NOT CONVERT HEAT TO POWER.
      Rather, CONVERT DEUTERIUM FUEL INTO POWER.

      Unless you wish FILL extra-expensive CPU/GPU heatsink with PURE DEUTERIUM GAS, device not FUNCTION.

      FURTHERMORE, PROBLEM WITH CPU/GPU is REMOVE POWER, not GENERATE POWER. FUSION REACTOR ON CPU/GPU cause HEAT PROBLEM, NOT SOLVE.

  68. Cool by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 0

    That's really great. Now all we need is enough to power the city >.>

  69. link to nature article by treebeard77 · · Score: 2, Informative
  70. Re:First Post People Suck by PKPerson · · Score: 1

    "Room Temprature"

  71. Use as death ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One possible use not mentioned:

    A beowolf cluster of these devices, used to produce a neutron flux death ray.

  72. Re:First Post People Suck by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Only if it's a room full of boiling water.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  73. lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) crystal is SO last year by n0tWorthy · · Score: 1

    They just need to rename it to "dilithium crystals" to make it more marketable.

    Maybe they should require a year of marketing classes to go along with that physics degree.

    --
    "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
  74. Makes remote determination of mass possible? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Sounds like this is essentially a scanner that will bombard a target with neutrons and then eventually analyze the ones that bounce back. If so, one of these babies on top of a missile makes it possible, theoretically, to discriminate between balloons and real warheads.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Makes remote determination of mass possible? by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      It is just a clever miniature linear accelerator. For a fusion-powered powerplant, building a reasonably energy-efficient particle accelerator is not the main issue, the problem is achieving break-even on the target.

      Warhead recognition: If you want a mid-phase warhead intercept, you have to distinguish the warhead from decoys - and also you have to hit it on the nose. Since the warhead is only about 5-6 ft long and itself is likely to be placed within a pretty large metalised balloon - maybe 50ft across (that looks just like the other decoys) - the kinetic kill vehicle interceptor will have to score a direct hit. For that, the interceptors will need to find where exactly in the baloon the warhead is, witheen 1 or 2ft. This all while moving at relative speed at about 2km/second.

      It is always the same with the proposed missile defense shield: any country that can develop a 3-stage balistic missile, build nuclear reactor+plutonium re-processing plant or manufacture enrichment centrifuges is going to be perfectly capable of defeating a mid-phase kinetic intercept. All you need for that is just an azide gas generator like in car airbag, electric heater and a metal covered plastic bag.

      The only workable antibalistic interceptor would have to be quipped with pretty large nuclear warhead itself so that it can blast the warhead with its decoys all together.

      Another alternative is a boost phase intercept (as no decoys are possible during the boost phase). But boost phase interceptors are doable only with small contries like N. Korea because the interceptors have to be positioned close to the launching site. Besides a country like N. Korea does not need to use balistic misile to hit US - a small rocket on a fishing boat moored 20 miles from San Francisco can deliver a nuke just as well.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    2. Re:Makes remote determination of mass possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, another option - just like the warhead splits into multiple decoys, the interceptor could contain multiple missiles to destroy all the decoys AND the warhead.

    3. Re:Makes remote determination of mass possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except interceptors are extremely expensive, heavy, and hard to engineer.

      Decoys, on the other hand, are extremely cheap, compact, light, and require such "high technology" as that involved in making Mylar balloons.

      The race is totally in favor of the aggressor.

  75. Obligatory question by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

    Will it run Linux?

    --
    I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  76. Earth shattering kaboom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!

  77. Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what we have here is the potential for a ray gun light enough to be carried by infantry, right?

    If so, these guys just guaranteed themselves grant money until they retire.

  78. Commercial Neutron Generators by flabbergasted · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So, it produced 900 neutrons/sec. What is the supposed advantage to this technique? You can buy commercial off the shelf neutron generators that produce 100,000,000 neutrons/sec already.

    http://vniia.ru/eng/ng/karotazh.html

    1. Re:Commercial Neutron Generators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a lame joke? Troll? Brain fart? What?

      The goal is not to produce neutrons, it's to produce energy!

      There are several ways you can produce neutrons. Most of them CONSUME energy. Fusion produces neutrons as "waste", but produces more energy than went into creating those neutrons.

    2. Re:Commercial Neutron Generators by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 1

      ADVANTAGE IS SMALL SIZE. YOUR UNIT more than 1 meter in length. HOWEVER, NOT IMMEDIATELY CLEAR IF SOLUTION can be scaled up WITHOUT COMMENSURATE larger size.

    3. Re:Commercial Neutron Generators by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're an idiot. The goal is to produce neutrons. This research, while expanding our knoledge of fusion and giving more researchers a fusion source, will never result in power generation.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  79. AC had it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    'The" would be appropriate if the sentence read:
    There are pictures and movies on the physics site.
    Or, if you prefer, the sentence could read:
    There are pictures and movies on UCLA's physics site.
    Inserting "the" before UCLA has the "the" referring to UCLA's, not to the physics site. Change "UCLA's" to "Joe's" and the error may be a bit more obvious.
    1. Re:AC had it right by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      What it said originally (though abbreviated) was There are pictures and movies on the University of California at Los Angeles' physics site." This is correct. The use of an abbreviation does not render the use of the definite article incorrect.

  80. You can do your own fusion as a science project by nietsch · · Score: 1

    Build a electrostatic fusor, as invented by Farnsworth (also invented tv). I admid it is a bit more involved science project, since you need deuterium, a big high vacuum chamber and several hundreds of kilovolts to start it, but you will get that geigerteller spinning.

    Alas no invention yet how to get this to break even for energy input/output.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  81. Re:Input Energy Output Energy question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermal dynamics.

    one the voice guys fror the Simpsons was on Letterman last nigh talking about how they were once waiting for Dr. Hawkins to show up for a read through and he was late adn one of the other voice actors without missing a beat said "doesn't this guy have any sense of time?"

    energy is neither gained nor lossed, it's just transformed form kenitic to potential and back. So what you would need is something that has a "butload" of potential energy that when inacted upon by a small amoutn of kenitic energy woudl release all of it's potential energy in a 'controlled' manner. I.E. the sun (massive ball of hydrogen {the potential engery} a spark{the small kenitic energy} this crystals haven't got the potential energy to make them worthwhile as a power source no matter howmuch heat you put to them.

  82. Take THAT Farnsworth!! by PsibrII · · Score: 1

    Yep, looks like the Farnsworth Fusor AND the conventional rasterscan TV are both going down in the same era.

    Not like they didn't have a good run as pretty much the ONLY kids on the block for each application.

    The king is dead, long live the king.

  83. Once again by doombob · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another one of those vague summaries with no real information...

  84. Re:ooooo...room temperature....oooo...NOT IMPRESSI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, and you can also use a laser.

  85. Except you can already do that. by JudasBlue · · Score: 4, Informative

    You would be right, if there weren't already other ways of doing fusion without a tokamak or simlar devices.

    Philo Farnsworth was doing table top fusion back in the 60's using tube techniques that were part of the outgrowth of his pioneering work in Television.

    Check out fusor.net for details on the technique.

    Look around on the Net, and you can find more articles on the device in question, including people who have built them to play around with. To the best of my knowledge, there is no practical appliction for a Farnsworth device, except the not-inconsiderable bragging rights that you have built your own fusion reactor (a line sure to have the babes just lining up).

    --

    7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

    1. Re:Except you can already do that. by 0racle · · Score: 3, Funny

      no practical appliction for a Farnsworth device

      I dunno, I hear he had several doomsday devices.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Except you can already do that. by JudasBlue · · Score: 1

      You sure you aren't thinking about Tesla? I haven't seen any fun conspiracy theories about my boy Philo. But I would love to if you can find some references. Can't help but love a good doomsday device conspiracy theory.

      --

      7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

    3. Re:Except you can already do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was referring to a different Farnsworth. One Hubert J., to be specific.

    4. Re:Except you can already do that. by ERJ · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Doomsday device? Now the ball's in Farnsworth's court! I suppose I could part with one and still be feared..."

      --Professor Hubert J Farnsworth (Futurama)

    5. Re:Except you can already do that. by SydShamino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aye, one of my college professors ran NASA's fusion program in the 70s, and created the EFBT (Electric Field Bumpy Torus) fusion reactor. I don't know if you would call it a similar device to a tokamak - it used electric fields to stabilize the plasma instead of magnetic - but it also worked well.

      I think any new method that could possibly draw money away from the tokamak model is a good thing. I think it is one of the reasons that fusion research has been so stagnant. When the Princeton TFTR was being built, the contractor dropped one of the tokamak's huge flywheels. To pay for its replacement, most other fusion research programs were cut entirely, such as the one at NASA Langley.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:Except you can already do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And don't forget about bubble fusion. Basicly, some researchers claimed they achieved tabletop fusion using ultrasound cavitation in deuterated acetone. Not everyone agrees that it was achieved yet, but the evidence looks pretty convincing to me.

    7. Re:Except you can already do that. by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. However, this new experiment has at least one clear advantage over the fusor: the heat of fusion helps and if I'm not mistaken could directly power the polarization; the cold side that sets up the gradient could be coupled to the working fluid used to extract power from the process. OTOH, some of the ways to directly extract electrical power from fast charged particles considered for fusors and plasma focus fusion don't sound as applicable.

      Which is one of the things that bugs me about the tokomak - if you're using supercooled magnets on all sides that are bound to be absorbing a substantial fraction of the heat of fusion and heating, how are you supposed to extract useful energy out of it? Nearly every thermal design I've ever heard of extracts energy from the difference between the hot reactor and the cool environment, not uses energy to cool a hot reactor.

      If they ever manage breakeven the setup could be modifed to use proton/boron-11 fusion which would produce few to no neutrons, instead of the D-D fusion they are using now. Of course detecting the neutrons is the easiest way to show it working for now.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  86. Unlike other cold fusion experiments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ... this one looks legit. The big indicator is that neutrons are given off.

    Neutron radiation is very hazardous. One of the problems with the Utah cold fusion fiasco was the "dead graduate student" problem. Given the amount of fusion that was allegedly occuring, a lot of neutrons should be given off, so many that given the lack of radiation shielding, there should have been a lot of dead graduate students.

    Since there were no dead graduate students, it was likely that no fusion was occuring.

    1. Re:Unlike other cold fusion experiments... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Why is neutron radiation so dangerous? By definition neutrons dont interact very much with normal matter - it's only chance that they colide.

      I would have thought alpha/beta sources were the worst, especially at close range.

    2. Re:Unlike other cold fusion experiments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is neutron radiation so dangerous? By definition neutrons dont interact very much with normal matter - it's only chance that they colide.

      Well, it's not just the neutrons per se. It is the velocity (KE=.5*m*v^2) and density of the neutron flux that really matters.

      An analogy: compare and contrast the experience of someone throwing a handful of sand at you and standing infront of an industrial grade sand-blaster.

  87. My god! Carl Sagan saw it all first!!! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2).
    In Contact (the book, not the movie), at one point, when they were assembling the Machine, they had some problem with ERBIUM DOWELS. Does erbium has some esoteric nuclear capabilities???
    1. Re:My god! Carl Sagan saw it all first!!! by Uncle+Jimmy · · Score: 1

      Well, it does have a nucleus...

    2. Re:My god! Carl Sagan saw it all first!!! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Well, it does have a nucleus...
      Nothing every esoteric, it seems... :)
  88. Shhh! by alienmole · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't screw with the timeline -- they have to get through the monolithium phase on their own!

  89. Re:ooooo...room temperature....oooo...NOT IMPRESSI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    neutrons are rare and aren't really part of the well-known background radiation that exists in the environment

    Actually, neutrons are rare but not unknown. Neutrons arrive from radioactive material in the ground, collisions of cosmic rays in the atmosphere, etc. Most comes from radon. The background flux is in fact detectable and has been carefully measured for all sorts of locations on earth. Neutron detectors are good down to single events, which means that each 'click' is a single neutron hitting the detector. So even though the background is low (a few events per minute), it is known. Over the course of a year, your body will absorb a bunch of neutrons, but this is much too low to lead to any kind of health risk.

  90. Whoopie... by suitepotato · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Our nuclear weapons have had this feature for years. We've known for a long time how to use electric fields to create neutron emissions for a long time. It has applications in forcing rapid decay of isotopes which otherwise left to themselves would take forever. The kick-start from high energy neutrons is why they use it in nuclear weapons.

    Read U.S. Nuclear Weapons by Chuck Hansen, which is out of print unfortunately. Good coverage of the massive amount of information declassified since the dawn of the atomic age, at least where weapons are concerned.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  91. Free Sources of Heat = Free Energy? by Dekortage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "...this technique consumes orders of magnitude more energy than it produces." ...because it takes energy to produce heat, right?

    What about sources of heat that we don't need to fuel? Like reflected sunlight in a solar chamber, or molten rock closer to the center of the earth (or to volcanos, etc.)? Could we set up crystals like this to be heated via these methods, then capture the energy output somehow? What about adding these to other fueling methods that already produce great heat (like a nuclear plant) as augmentation?

    IANAS (I am not a scientist), so this may be a stupid question.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Free Sources of Heat = Free Energy? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Well, fusion outputs energy in the form of HEAT. What you're suggesting would like plugging a big electric motor into the power grid, attaching a generator, and then running you house of of your home generator. If you have enough heat to power a device that outputs less heat, why not just use the heat directly?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:Free Sources of Heat = Free Energy? by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      See, I told you I wasn't a scientist.

      My thinking was, "they're measuring the output of this thing in terms of electricity, with the input in terms of heat, so...." But thanks for clarifying it.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  92. JESUS CHRIST YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where in the hell does slashdot come up with humorless morons like this? r2d2, like the fucking robot from the fucking movie, you piece of lamer shit. go fuck yourself.

    1. Re:JESUS CHRIST YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID by coopex · · Score: 1

      It'd be bad enough if the guy was humorless. But he's also a moron, as he is apparenly unaware that we've developed techniques to handle and protect ourselves hazardous substances like poisons and radioactive elements.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  93. Big-Foot-on-the-loose? McFly, hello, hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goes to show that sci fi is sci fact.
    Did you mean to say sci fagt?

    That'll be the day I watch Scare Tactics on the History Channel. The History Channel already shows a great ammount of proven UFO invasion footage; we are not alone! And History Channel is right below Sci-Fi; and better, below History Channel is A&E Biography, whereas just ten days ago I watched an orgasmic living bio given by Tracy Lords. Ngggggh, Mercy!

  94. a very large large field? a tugsten tip? by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

    "a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip"

    That must be really large if "very large" does not describe it adequately.

    "Tugsten"?

  95. Cell Phones Kill by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

    First, it was cell phones causing brain tumors. Now this?!? I feel soooo much safer about calling. . .

    ;-)

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  96. jules? by ginotech · · Score: 2, Informative

    you'd think people would stop confusing Jules with Joules

    1. Re:jules? by michaeldot · · Score: 1

      That leapt out at me too. What I'm surprised at is that you're the only one in the comments to mention it and you haven't even been modded up. Usually there are more science-minded folk on Slashdot. Oh well.

      For the record:

      Joule = SI unit of energy, equal to the work done by a force of one newton when its point of application moves one metre in the direction of the action of the force, equivalent to 1/3600th of a watt-hour, named after James Prescott Joule, 19th Centry British physicist who identified the First Law of Thermodynamics.

      Jules = first name of Jules Verne, 19th Century French sci-fi writer who wrote Journey to the Center of the Earth, 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, and other ripping yarns.

  97. Build your own? by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

    Instructions for building your own electrostatic confinement fusion device (aka fusor) are here.

  98. Room Temperature by Biodrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't heating the crystal by definition make the reaction not room Temperature?

    1. Re:Room Temperature by KD5YPT · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point is that they can maintain the whole system at room temperature, instead of conventional fusion system that require a massive coil to contain the superheated plasma.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Room Temperature by bloodbob · · Score: 1

      Ehh hows this any different you have gas discharges that contain super heated plasma?

    3. Re:Room Temperature by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      IANAP, but because in traditional fusion reactors, the superheated plasma must be held inside the reaction to keep it going. Here, this is not the case.

  99. Re:It's pyroelectric. But submitter was also confu by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    The original submitter has probably taken this from the
    physnews@aip.org news release:

    "The key component of the UCLA device is a pyroelectric
    crystal, a class of materials that includes lithium niobate,
    an inexpensive solid that is used to filter signals in cell
    phones. "

  100. BIG! by darknightroot · · Score: 1, Funny

    A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter.

    I can't wait until they come out with a very large large large electric field

  101. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fusion creates YOU!

  102. Not New At All by thelizman · · Score: 1

    What is notable about this device is that it can be practically mass produced. One problem with the FHF is that it's a rather complex beast and requires enormous input energy.

  103. Research Value by knapper_tech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if the technology is found to be unable to produce sufficient amounts of energy to be valuable in that role, it could still be a great platform for studying fusion in the lab, and it could yield useful information for controlling fusion in the large scale research reactors that may eventually lead to scalable, cheap, and abundant energy production.

    --
    "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
  104. Power Generation by dmyze · · Score: 1

    Ok so I don't know how this thing works, but could we use it in combination with a Nuke power plant? Nukes heat up water and spin a turbine, why can't we also use that heat with some of these crystals and increase the power output of a nuke power plant?

  105. What the hell does rant mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to go on a rant, here, but America's foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative defenestrates it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate...

    I feel like Peter when reading the story summary. :)

  106. This is not room temperature!!! by bloodbob · · Score: 1

    1. When heated, ...... so A) its not room temperature
    2. The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). B) Temperature is a measure of the average kenetic energy of the particle well I think accelerating particles would increase their temperature and in this case by heaps.

  107. Scotty by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

    So instead of dilitium crystals its pyroelectric cystals.

    Scotty must have revealed far more than he realized when he gave us that transparent aluminum.

  108. Re:PADME NEARLY SUCCUMBS TO FORCE CHOKE. DIES LATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if that fusion was used to heat up grits. The rest of the experiment is left as an exercise for the reader.

  109. Non sequitur... by shmlco · · Score: 2, Interesting
    World peace is only achievable through some form of population control - once everyone has a decent standard of living...

    Ah... missing the point here. Nations with a high standard of living tend to have flat, if not declining birth rates.

    Researchers have noted the phenomenon of falling birthrates in industrialized nations for many years, as children were no longer needed for manual labor on the farms, and and as woman acquire economic opportunities and access to birth control.

    So once everyone has a decent standard of living birth rates will drop on their own.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:Non sequitur... by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      So once everyone has a decent standard of living birth rates will drop on their own.

      Not as long as you have immigration from the poor areas with rising population to the areas with steady population size. Net effect is still an increase.

      The US population is expected to grow dramatically, despite it not yet being a poor country... all because of immigration.

      You would have to shut down all immigration to have the effect you speak of, and that has political consequences of its own.

    2. Re:Non sequitur... by shmlco · · Score: 1
      To quote, "So once everyone has a decent standard of living..."

      What poor areas?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:Non sequitur... by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      "So once everyone has a decent standard of living..."

      All 6-7 billion of us at the same time? This planet literally doesn't have the resources to support that. An ugly truth that doesn't get talked about, but its true.

      What poor areas?

      Just ask the hundreds who (try to) cross the Mexico-US border every day where they're coming from. They aren't all Mexicans.
    4. Re:Non sequitur... by shmlco · · Score: 1
      All 6-7 billion of us at the same time? This planet literally doesn't have the resources to support that. An ugly truth that doesn't get talked about, but its true.

      True? Or just an opinion?

      Either way, I dispute it, as the assumption at the core of it is that we're playing a zero-sum, finite-resource game.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    5. Re:Non sequitur... by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      the assumption at the core of it is that we're playing a zero-sum, finite-resource game.

      As long as we are trapped on this one planet, a finite resource game is *exactly* what it is. Full stop.

      The US is a small fraction of the global population yet consumes the biggest chunk of the world's gross product. Bringing everyone else up to that standard would mean an exponential increase in resources consumed and the industrial base to produce the products being consumed. The resources to sustain this for any length of time simply don't exist.

      The question many visionaries are wondering is whether humanity can get part of itself off this planet before an exploding population, demanding ever more resources for itself, prevents our escape by forcing all expenditures away from exploration and colonization beyond Earth to maintenance of a ballooning population here on Earth.
  110. di-Lithium crystals anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe no one has caught on to this yet. A mono-Lithium based crystal is used in a room temp fusion power generation experiment. The first thing that popped into my mind was the di-Lithium crystals in the Star Trek Enterpises warp core. Might good ole Gene been onto something and didn't know it?

    Geeze, I thought Slashdot was home of the geeks and trekkies? You should all be ashamed!

  111. Re:ooooo...room temperature....oooo...NOT IMPRESSI by milktoastman · · Score: 1

    I should have said, aren't a SIGNIFICANT part of background...I know there are a few of each of the non-exotic sub-atomic particles kickin' around everywhere...I just couldn't believe someone exclaimed "it's 400 times the background!" I mean, woo hoo, neutron background is pretty LOW, I hope they got several orders greater than that.

  112. Keep the horse before the cart by Cobblepop · · Score: 1

    Sorry, couldn't handle Slashdot effect. Perhaps you should give up on that whole room-temperature fusion thing and spend some time on your server, young man!

  113. I take issue. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know, that's pretty simple-minded thinking. And the direct causes of native peoples' subjugation at the hands of marauding, murderous Europeans were swords, guns and terrible diseases.

    But what made us turn from wild near-apes with rather large foreheads into what we are now was farming, which led to writing, political centralization, and the rest of civilization.

    So, our ancestors (culturally, if not genetically) beat up everyone else's ancestors because, at the start of it all, they were better farmers.

    And we're not even really evolved from predators! We evolved from small, squirrelish lemurs who, if I remember right, were pretty much omnivorous, certainly not anything like the species of Carnivora. More recently, some of the Australopithecus apes were even vegetarian. Even when they hunted, our ancestors were much better gatherers than hunters, no matter what those cave paintings would have you believe.

    But I suppose you were just making a point off the top of your head, which sounded good at first blush.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  114. Closer to Trek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lithium tantalate crystals....

    Close enough to dilithium crystals for me...

  115. Re:First Post People Suck by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

    Na-ah, only if its a room full of boiling water at water level! Remember the definition of 100 degrees Celsius now.

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  116. No, this is how you do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  117. Unfortunately... by Scud · · Score: 1

    It's often the military that creates these crisises in the first place.

    --
    I dream in binary.
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by Kineel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's often the military that creates these crisises in the first place.

      You should be moderated as funny or clueless, or perhaps both.

      In case you haven't been paying attention for the past couple of centuries, and apparently you haven't, governments create the crisis, the military usually just ends up having to clean up the mess.
      --
      -- Should there be smoke coming out of my CPU?
    2. Re:Unfortunately... by Scud · · Score: 1

      Your point about governments is well taken, I won't dispute that. But I'll stand by my military comment (armies across the world, not just one country in particular).

      --
      I dream in binary.
  118. What? by ShamanDave · · Score: 1

    No Ponds and Fleischman jokes?

  119. Potential Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you use that thing as an elephant gun?

  120. the point is rather simple though by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    some people are rather naive about conditions in some parts of the world and what is required to actually correct them

    in fact, most if not all problems in the third world can be traced to issues of:

    1. security
    2. education
    3. infrastructure

    other issues like freedom of the press, corruption, disease, etc. can almost be considered secondary to those big 3 issues

    and, more than that, you really can't improve #2 or #3 without #1 in place first

    i leave it to your imagination where security comes from

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the point is rather simple though by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      i leave it to your imagination where security comes from

      Long-term security comes from goodwill; the more people whose children you save from aids, hunger, and preventable childhood diseases, the more people who will stand up for America when someone tries to incite violence against us or blame us for the problems in their lives.

      Everyday Americans' caring and geenrous response to the Tsunami did more to combat terrorism than any war could have:

      "...support for Bin Laden and terrorism in the world's most populous Muslim nation has dropped significantly, while favorable views of the United States have increased... The poll shows that the reason for this positive change is the American response to the tsunami..."

  121. More info in summary? by Jason+Mitcheson · · Score: 0

    What we (the physics geeks) all want to know is how efficient it is. This thing sounds great if it can run on only heat and deuterium, but how much heat and deuterium is needed?

  122. Security comes from the junta. by protonman · · Score: 1

    Security comes from the junta.

    --
    The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
  123. Worldwide Splash by sterlingda · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because this development was featured in prestigious Nature, the world is taking notice. An Associate Press story is receiving widespread coverage by mainstream news organizations. Google News is showing major coverage by a wide range of news organizations worldwide. http://pesn.com/2005/04/28/6900088_UCLA_Cold_Fusio n/

    UCLA website http://rodan.physics.ucla.edu/pyrofusion/ credits SlashDot for overwhelming their server.

    "Sorry, couldn't handle Slashdot effect. ...Last modified: Wed Apr 27 20:37:46 UTC 2005"

    Also worth note: Cold Fusion Goes Back to School at MIT - Colloquium to be held on Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus May 21, 2005. http://pesn.com/2005/04/20/6900085_Cold_Fusion_MIT /

    --
    Tomorrow's news yesterday -- the bleeding, visionary edge.
  124. "a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas", derr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas" how does that work?

  125. Re:welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome to the world of humorless-troll a.k.a. clueless-troll. YHBT

  126. Thats not true at all by elucido · · Score: 1

    The slave masters were predators, the slaves were farmers and workers. As far back as you go in history, there has always been the warrior class and the farmer class and its not always true that war increases the chances of survival. In fact, warrior clans and tribes usually have shorter lifespans than farmers. Now I will admit, war is what this country is founded on, and it did work in America, but I don't think it promotes the long term survival of the species or the individual. War is something that you'll eventually lose. Rome fell, remember? So war is ultimately a never ending conflict between two sides in which no one really ever wins or loses and both sides eventually lose. If you win now you could lose 100 years from now when we have a nuclear war and everyone dies. Now I admit most of us may not be around 100 years from now, but your kids might be around so you have to think longterm.

  127. Stop saying we and say you. by elucido · · Score: 0

    This is your nature, your way of thinking, your opinions. Not every human believes in war, in fact the majority don't. The majority of humans are either starving to death in third world countries, or they are in peaceful societies. The only country that likes war is the USA and perhaps a few dictatorships around the world. The majority of people on this earth evolved from tribal societies not big cities. The Romans evolved from big cities but it's not like all of us evolved from Rome, in the the majority of us may not have evolved from Rome. Egypt, Rome, and perhaps China, are the 3 major civilizations. China built a wall to protect itself from the barbarians. Rome had war after war until eventually it fell apart. Egypt I don't know enough about the history of it, but they lost plenty of wars too.

    Basically every group of major civilization wins and loses wars and has been winning and losing wars throughout history. The reasons for this before were due to competition for resources. There was not enough food to feed the world so we had to fight for our food, but now we don't have that excuse. There is no reason to have wars now, we don't need to fight for food, oil, or anything else, yes we might want to because it benefits our economy but we don't have to.

    World War 2? You don't prevent World War 3 by building the weapons to help make World War 3 possible, so the USA builds all these fancy weapons which eventually will get into the hands of terrorists or whoever is the new enemy of America, and then at some point we will have World War 3. The way to end war is to simply give every country a share in the global economy.

    Economics are so sophisticated now that 99% of all situations can be solved through deals, contracts and trade, theres no reason for physical war at this point when you can have non physical war. Physical war is foolish in most cases. We beat the Soviets without having World War 3 and we should have learned something from this, but I guess we didnt.

    The way to win wars is to win the war of global influence, and to win the economic competition to gain that influence, it has absolutely nothing to do with physical war. We simply cannot afford to have another World War so building weapons for it is pointless. Why have thousands of nukes we know we can't ever use without killing everyone and everything on earth?

    You assume aggression is a part of human nature, its only a part of some humans nature. Perhaps 25% of all humans are aggressive, like war, and want to control everyone and everything, the other 75% of people just want to secure their own existance and going to war does nothing to secure your existance. If you want to invent something, instead of wasting 400 billion a year on figuring out how to kill people, spend 400 billion figuring out how to extend the human lifespan, figure out how to cure illness, figure out how to educate the world so the world can evolve to the level beyond physical expression and into the war of ideas, thoughts and mind sciences. If you want to control the world, figure out how to do it with your mind instead of with your sword, mind control is the most powerful military weapon, not bombs. If you learned anything from Hitler, Bin Laden, or any of these people, they didnt gain power just through force, they won people over mentally.

  128. This isnt always true by elucido · · Score: 1

    China and Japan have plenty of people, but they are less aggressive historically than Europe and the US. Before Africa was enslaved and ripped apart, it had plenty of people, before the USA was stolen from the natives, it was filled with people who werent very aggressive.

    I'll admit that the most aggressive people are on top, but this also means that they are the most hated. How do you think the Average native American, African American, etc feels about being oppressed by aggression?

    When you are aggressive towards others, even if those others arent naturally aggressive, over time it makes them become aggressive. This is the problem we have with terrorism. We attacked Iraq first, Iraq did not attack us first, so we just created millions of aggressive Iraqis who might have been passive if we had not expressed aggression toward them.

    When you project aggression, you usually get an aggressive response in return. When you treat your neighbors like the enemy they'll eventually act like an enemy. This is whats happening in the middle east. This happened with the Native Americans, this happened with Black Americans, now I admit, all these other groups lost the battle of aggression and lost the wars, but you have to think long term. Can the USA really win every war forever? If we don't stop being aggressive then how are we going to handle an endless stream of terrorism, or even countries like North Korea or China? Aggression won't help against every country because some countries have literally nothing to lose, more people, and an ability to be more aggressive than us. North Korea would have no problem nuking us simply because their people are starving to death and if we nuke them its not going to have the same kind of effect as if they nuke us. If we get nuked our entire civilization will crumble, if they get nuked then its one less dictatorship. They don't have much to lose, and its the same way in the middle east. People in the middle east have literally nothing to lose by blowing themselves up to kill 10 of us. They know that one life of theirs is worth 10 of ours, and what we seem to not be able to figure out is, we are completely outnumbered and can never win every war. There are a billion muslims, billions of Chinese, and millions of North Korean soldiers. It's simply impossible for us to think we can win in a war against these people, we couldnt even win in a nuking contest. The only reason China isnt getting into a nuking contest is because they are in the capitalism contest instead, but a physical war with China right now would do more damage to us than to China and they know this. They simply don't fear our aggression, and theres lots of countries which don't fear our aggression and which are economically cleaning house as well. China is a real problem if you think we can continue to be aggressive because China is going to eventually become the next superpower and why do they need us once that happens?

  129. This may change by elucido · · Score: 1

    Now that we are getting rid of social security, have as many children as you can.

  130. The truth is known and obvious by elucido · · Score: 1

    But most people are too old to care. Young people might care.

  131. Ah! by tjstork · · Score: 1

    But I'm thinking that if you could put one of these accelerators on top of a kill vehicle, it could sense, via neutron bombardment, which radar or infrared target was the real thing and which was the decoy.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Ah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you are close enough with a kill vehicle to sense with neutron bombardment what material a decoy or warhead is made of, you are too close to choose your target anyway.

      You have to make your targeting decision at a distance away over which your maneuvering system can still adjust your target.

  132. Re:"a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas", d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A vacuum chamber is just a pressure vessel for keeping the pressure of the atmosphere outside. If your deterium gas is at less than atmospheric pressure, then you need chamber to keep the air out.

    Vacuum is never absolute. I haven't looked it up, but I'd guess that they are operating with around 10^-3 to 10^-5 torr of deuterium (where 1 atmosphere is around 760 torr). That's a good range for ionizing and accelerating ions. That's around 10^-6 to 10^-8 of the pressure you have around you. Wouldn't you call removing 99.9999% of the air around you, a "vacuum"?

  133. Back to the Future here we come! by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We're one step closer to Mr Fusion -- now all we need is the time-travelling DeLorean....

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  134. Cannot produce excess energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in -- an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.

    To me this was the most important part of the article and the summary would have benefited for it. The quote shows the reason why this only has limited applications.


    I think you are implying that this only has limited applications because it does not provide more energy that was put in.

    If I remember my high school physics - getting out more energy than you put in is impossible. Engergy you put in includes the latent "energy" locked in the bonds of the deutrium atoms. No energy producing event on earth is even close to 100% effective, much less actually "creating" more energy than was put in.

    Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energ y
    1. Re:Cannot produce excess energy by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about a perpetual energy source, I'm talking about a viable one. Whether it be coal, gas or nuclear the amount of energy put in (usually in the form of heat) is less than the amount of energy put out (usually as electricity). Otherwise a power plant would only consume energy which sort of defeats the point.

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
  135. Re:"a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas", d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for educating my primitive monkey like brain kind sir!

  136. No luck, just like in the past... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I was reading serious scientific article linked from slashdot, link was redirected on to something harmless.

    Sorry, it seems to be yet another cold fusion story.

    You will not see that in your laptop, except if You make your LaTiO3 crystal and Tungsten wire for yourself.

  137. Definition of a googolplex by SirPavlova · · Score: 1

    Actually, a googolplex is the number written as a one followed by a googol of zeros, & a googol is the number written as a one followed by one hundred zeros. So it's 10^googol, or 10^(10^100).

    See these articles: Googol & Googolplex.

    --
    Yar.