Slashdot Mirror
More Evidence for Tabletop Fusion
heptapod writes "Researchers at Purdue University have statistically significant evidence that their tabletop fusion experiments were successful. Yiban Xu's experiment different from an earlier Oak Ridge experiment using a different and cheaper source of neutrons than Oak Ridge's pulse neutron generator. Surpassing break-even point still eludes the grasp of science."
Are they counting break-even as getting back more energy than needed to operate the ultrasound source ou they did count also the expense of producing the deuterated acetone and their expendable neutron source?
It reminds me of when people say hydrogen burning cars will solve all emition problems because they produce water. They don't count the emissions that may be needed to produce, compress and ship the hydrogen to the nearest gas station.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Breakeven is defined as the point at which the fusion gain factor equals 1. In other words where the ratio of the power output of the fusing plasma is equal to the energy needed to maintain the plasma in a fusing condition. Thermonuclear devices by definition reach breakeven and ignition with high gain.
If you are referring to the energy required to produce the plutonium and to separate the deuterium from water then they still VASTLY exceed in energy output the energy required to produce these things, as a typical fusion bomb is capable of releasing energies in the PETAjoule range (>10^15J).
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
It reminds me of when people say hydrogen burning cars will solve all emition problems because they produce water. They don't count the emissions that may be needed to produce, compress and ship the hydrogen to the nearest gas station.
The trick with this one is in the may.
Maybe someday we'll find a technology that's clean-burning and energy-efficient to the point where oil is no longer the most cost-effective way to make energy. Say, maybe nuclear fusion. Or maybe oil will eventually get so expensive that other energy technologies start to look not so bad by comparison. But if we ever reach this point, because of the massive installed base and economies of scale of oil systems, especially the ones in cars, we and our economies will still be dependent on oil. So it won't matter that the newer technology is better, we'll keep using oil anyway. That's bad.
Hydrogen may at first be ultimately dependent on "dirty" oil and coal to make the hydrogen in the first place, but because it decouples energy production from energy use, in the long run it gives us the capacity to move on to better energy sources. It's like a nicotine patch, okay, it technically doesn't address the addiction but the thing is eventually you get to take the nicotine patch off.
On top of this, there are situations where if you can't eliminate emissions, moving the emissions is a desirable second best thing. Like, of course we're not making advances in our contribution to global CO2 levels if all these cars in the city burning oil are replaced with a bunch of cars burning hydrogen [PLUS] one huge smoke-belching oil-burning hydrogen plant. But, well, if the city is Los Angeles, and the city is basically one huge smog-trapping bowl surrounded by mountains, and the smoke-belching hydrogen plant is on the other side of the mountains, then never mind the global CO2 levels, you've still made Los Angeles a significantly more pleasant place to live.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
So you're worried that this might lead to a technology that could devastate the earth? I guess you've never heard about Nuclear Weapons, some of which are in the hands of some not so wonderful people, such as Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Sorry bud, you're trying to close the barn door after the horse has already left, about 60 years to late I might add. On the other hand, if this were an easy way to make large amounts of U-238 and Plutonium then I might be worried.