Cold Fusion in a Breadbox Instead of a Bottle

rawbytes writes "For the last few years, mentioning cold fusion around scientists has been a little like mentioning Bigfoot or UFO sightings. After the 1989 announcement of fusion in a bottle and the subsequent retraction, the whole idea of cold fusion seemed a bit beyond the pale. But that's all about to change. A very reputable, very careful group of scientists at the University of Los Angeles (Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski, Seth Putterman) has initiated a fusion reaction using a laboratory device that's not much bigger than a breadbox, and works at roughly room temperature. This time, it looks like the real thing." From the article: "Scientists have gotten fusion to occur in the laboratory before, but for the most part, they've tried to mimic conditions inside the sun by whipping hydrogen gas up to extreme temperatures or slamming atoms together in particle accelerators. Both of those options require huge energies and gigantic equipment, not the sort of stuff easily available to build a generator. Is there any way of getting protons close enough together for fusion to occur that doesnt require the energy output of a large city to make it happen? The answer, it turns out, is yes."

Comments

Cautious but optimistic

[Eunuch]

The article clearly notes that this is nowhere near break-even. Yet, as it notes, there are many applications beyond positive energy production. If it is a good source of neutrons, then it is well worth the effort.

I am optimistic. We have a slightly-puritanical mindset that we have to work for everything. Well...we are coming upon an easy and elegant solution to our energy problems. Even fission needs to be explored more as we find newer ways to contain the radiation (nuclear batteries lasting years could come soon if we get over our hangups).

Re:I'll believe it...

[AKAImBatman]

I'm sure it's real. In any case, it's not the "Cold Fusion" everyone is looking for. We've got a host of "cold" fusion options today including the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor and Sonofusion. Neither one manages to produce positive net energy output. What was so striking about the original Cold Fusion experiments was that they produced more energy than was put in. *If* it's actually fusion (and not just a weird chemical reaction) and *if* we can make it regularly reproducable, then Cold Fusion could essentially change the world.

Imagine a car that only needs to be refueled every few months/years. Or a power system for your home that is independent from the Grid. Or ships that no longer have to rely on Diesel. That is the temptation of Cold Fusion. Unfortunately, our physics and engineering are not quite that good yet. But I'm sure it's only 20 years away... ;-)

Re:I'll believe it...

[Rei]

is now that the proof is out, doesn't that make it an engineering challenge?

No.

You could have said the exact same thing about any of the couple dozen fusion devices produced to date. Between bremsstrahlung losses and input energy requirements, most fusion devices are physically unable to even approach their input energy.

Not that there aren't interesting techniques to watch. ITER is almost guaranteed to work; whether it will ever be economical is a big question. Muon-catalyzed fusion is interesting because if you can stop the muon from sticking to helium so frequently (which some researchers claim to be able to do), you can have a single muon cause numerous reactions, and easily pay off the generation cost. Sonofusion is new, and relatively unexplored, so there's plenty of potential. Inertial electrostatic confinement is old and has only been making baby steps since then, but does keep on improving (I'd be interested in seing how some of the penning-trap gridless and magnetically-shielded grid designs work out), and has interesting potential to be scaled up to everyone's favorite, boron-hydrogen fusion. Focus fusion is another interesting highly scalable design to watch.

Re:I'll believe it...

[Rei]

As of the late 90s some calculations showed that ITER would be a failure. Simulations have gotten a lot more accurate since then, however, and they bode very well for ITER.

Basic Z-pinch is pretty dead as far as break-even attempts go - the plasma is just too unstable. Its closest living relative is the Z-machine, which really works quite differently than typical Z-pinch concepts (you use X-rays from the plasma of a sacrificial tungsten filament to compress the fuel). It is alive and kicking, and due for a big upgrade, :)