Slashdot Mirror
Team Confirms UCLA Tabletop Fusion
An anonymous reader writes "A team of New York physicists has confirmed that a tabletop contraption made at UCLA does in fact generate nuclear fusion at room temperatures, using pairs of crystals and a small tank of deuterium. But unlike less reliable reports back in the 1980s, there's no talk this time of producing endless supplies of power. Rather, the technology could lead to ultra-portable x-ray machines and even a wearable device that could provide safe, continuous cancer treatment."
From TFA: I'm surprised that the article didn't go into more depth on the explosives detection angle, as a neutron generator is an excellent method for detecting fissionable material, and I'm sure the folks over at Homeland Security would like a better way to guard against nuclear devices being smuggled into our country.
For more info on neutron generators and their possible application in fissionable materials detection, please look here (PDF warning).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Crystals and holy water?
It's quite an accomplishment. However, as the article noted, they don't mention even the remote future possibility of creating a self-sustaining reaction. So I'm assuming that there is no way even in principle this technology could be scaled to yield more power than it uses.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Our device uses two crystals instead of one, which doubles the acceleration potential," says Jeffrey Geuther
Yeah well, now I'm going to use three!
"application may come in the form of a battery-operated, portable neutron generator"
Wait, what? We finally got cold fusion, but 'batteries not included'?
Unpleasantries.
Also overlooked is the forthcoming businesses selling crystal pendants and key chains which "fight" cancer and provide other beneficial effects.
I will now take bids on licensing my screenname.
Its amazingly clear that not only have few of you RTFA, most have not even gotten past the title before you threw out a post.
Its a whole 4 sentences which make it clear that this is NOT a power source, and half the posts are talking about its potential as a power source.
Now if I could just find a way to bottle the power of human stupidity...
Darn, now I have to go sell my palladium stash that I have put away just in case someone actually made it work the old fashioned way.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But can it crank out 1.21 gigawatts?
Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Now THAT would be a keychain toy worth buying.
Is it just me, or did this article make the Renselaar folks seem like smug jerks? As in, "Yes, not only did we prove that it works, but we proved that we can do it a lot better than those toking, surfing, hippies!"
The paper.
IANAP (I am not a physicist), but I do know that nuclear fusion doesn't create fallout like nuclear fission does.
Fallout is caused by one of two events:
1. Excess nuclear materials not consumed in the reaction are left behind.
2. The neutron radiation from the event interacted with nearby materials (such as the dirt on the ground) to create new radioactive materials.
Nuclear fusion is "clean" in that there are no radioactive materials left over from the reaction. However, it does produce an incredibly strong neutron flux which can easily create radioactive fallout in nearby materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
Given how destructive neutron radiation is, I'm somewhat surprised that they'd be talking about strapping a reasonably strong source to someone's person.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The difficulty with small scale fusion isn't making it happen. That's been done many, many times. The difficulty with small scale fusion (and all fusion) is making it produce power (more power extracted from the reaction than put into the reaction).
That's where Pons and Fleishman got hosed. They claimed a 300% power surplus without experimental verification. This announcement is different from that for several reasons.
1) These guys are specifically not claiming excess power.
2) They're claiming to have lots of high-energy neutrons.
3) This is actually the announcement of a second group of scientists repeating the experiment and successfully verifying the results of the first group.
In short, this announcement is nothing like the cold fusion debacle of the late '80s.
Regards,
Ross
Ahem... or out of the country. Keeping tabs on one of the worlds largest nuclear stockpiles is a major, fulltime job and not one to be taken lightly.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
mod parent down, the movie sucked
To Hell with the Queen of England!
I never let science get in the way of a snarky comment.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Erm, producing neutrons implies some sort of nuclear activity. Either fission or fusion of some sort of decay process (spontaneous neutron emission). By ruling out fission and neutron emission via decay, which are possible to do by knowing the inputs, you're pretty much stuck with fusion as an explanation for the output.
You make it sound like shuffling some neutrons around is easy. It's not. Producing a source of neutrons is a pretty nice feat by itself. However there's a very, very large difference between producing neutrons via fusion, and plonking down a SimCity 2000-esque, pollution-free, "Fusion Power Plant."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And what are neutrons? Oh yeah, just one of the most penetrating and dangerous forms of radiation. Why else do you think that when they had to find a form of radiation that could kill tank crews inside their vehicles, the viable choice was the neutron bomb?
Pure fusion bombs create huge numbers of neutrons. If the explosion is near the ground, these neutrons can activate the debris that gets sucked into the mushroom cloud and create plenty of fallout. (Not to mention, most bombs use a natural uranium case to get a cheap energy boost when it's fissioned by the extra fusion neutrons. Most of total the energy output is often still fission.)
And any amount of emissions that's intense enough to kill cancer tumors isn't exactly "small".
Also: Nowhere in the article does it mention anything about breaking apart massive atoms and leaving behind radioactive isotopes that are chemically reactive in the human body; Which, I assume, is what you're so worried about.
Instead, you add neutrons to the the elements already inside your body, thereby turning them into dangerous radioactive isotopes where they sit.
> Are we talking x-ray laser sort of technology? Is 200,000 electron volts enough to do significant damage? Surface burns and radiation poisoning?
That's why we mount them on sharks' heads.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Another big difference is this team is announcing their results in a technical journal, not in a press conference.
It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Bottle the power of human stupidity? Sorry, you are too late. Look no further than the Vatican, Al Qaeda, or any other religions institution. Superstition, fear of death, and the promise of eternal life are all their tools, and with proper respect of their un-verifiable claims (faith), lack of reason, and willingness to submit you too can be their servant.
~Religion is O.K., as long as it gets you laid.
I think the point was that you don't even need to get to the inspections point...just blow it up while it's still on the ship. Accuracate placement is not a high priority with fission bombs.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Dr Ray Stantz: You know, it just occurred to me that we really haven't had a successful test of this equipment.
Dr. Egon Spengler: I blame myself.
Dr. Peter Venkman: So do I.
Dr Ray Stantz: Well, no sense in worrying about it now.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back.
That's where Pons and Fleishman got hosed. They claimed a 300% power surplus without experimental verification.
I think the more important difference between this and Pons and Fleishman's cold fusion is that this is clearly fusion, and P&F wasn't. The effects P&F observed were probably the result of a chemical reaction and/or bad experimental design. They didn't observe any of the characteristic radiation or products.
FYI, this isn't the first tabletop deuterium fusion discovered. See bubble fusion.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
I was a plasma physicist, and did some research on topics related to fusion before quiting to become a programmer.
Basically, you're right. The nice things about fusion (or some of them at least) are that there's no scope for a Chernobyl-style meltdown and the reaction products and reactants are safe.
The problem, as you say, is that it's an excellent source of neutrons. The generator and its housing have to be designed to absorb as much of that neutron flux as possible. This inevitably produces radioactive isotopes in these materials, which will eventually break down to the point that they must be replaced.
The nuclear waste associated with a fusion power plant isn't as bad as that for a fission one, but it still exists and still needs to be dealt with.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
[[Speedy particles smashing into each other have a lot of kinetic energy in the center of mass inertial system. This is nothing different than 'heat'.]]
/.'s groupthink and your post gets moderated higher than mine. ("He's louder so he knows better...") I infer from your arrogance that you probably have a PhD in theoretical physics - but you should've learned some communication skills, too :-)
Wrong. Heat is random motion.
Well, the 'smashing' part I explicitely stated accounts for the thermalization.
If simple kinetic energy was all it took to have heat, then any gas cloud out in space with a large velocity relative to us would be extremely "hot." But we all know intuitively that things do not change temperature just because they speed up. The air in a moving car is not hotter than the air in a parked car. Heat is the random motion of particles with respect to each other .
No, not 'respect to each other', in respect to the center of mass, as I wrote. Heat is the average kinetic energy of particles (in classical statistical mechanics).
The collision of a few particles doesn't qualify.
And why not? Care to explain?
When gas quickly depressurizes, it cools down. Ever wonder why? It's because as the gas escapes, the particles which are near each other tend to all move in the same direction (outward) and thus their random motions with respect to each other are decreased. Thus, the temperature drops.
Yes, the temperature drops. But the gas still carries the same amount of heat (transportation by photons excluded). Smash two nuclei, they interact, a hot ball of reaction products results and cools down as the particles move away from each other according to a law similar to pV=NRT.
The temperature drops, the amount of heat in this ensemble of molecules/atoms/particles stays the same.
Or consider how a rocket nozzle works by focusing the molecular motions in a particular direction (by forcing the gas through a small opening to increase the pressure and then into a cone to suddenly decrease it), thereby converting the high pressure and heat of the exhaust gas into directed kinetic energy.
What do you want to say with this paragraph?
Learn more before making these kinds of proclamations.
Sigh. Bold and derogatory statements like this activate