Slashdot Mirror


Michigan Teen Creates Fusion Device

Josh Lindenmuth writes "The Detroit Free Press is reporting that Thiago Olson, a 17 year old Michigan teen, was able to create a small fusion device in his parents' basement. The machine uses a 40,000 volt charge and deuterium gas to create the small reaction, which he says looks like a 'small intense ball of energy.' The teen's fusion device is obviously not a self-sustaining reactor, but it still shows how fusion technology is becoming more accessible. Hopefully this points to a future where large scale fusion reactors are both economical and widely used."

460 comments

  1. What colour is energy? by k33l0r · · Score: 1, Funny
    'small intense ball of energy.'


    Could somebody please tell me what energy looks like? I really have no idea.

    1. Re:What colour is energy? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Take the back cover off of a really old TV and tap the tip of a screwdriver across the back circuit of the picture tube. A ball of energy should melt the tip of the screwdriver and/or throw you back 20 feet and/or turn your hair white.

    2. Re:What colour is energy? by k33l0r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was thinking that perhaps it is that sort of glowing blue that you get in movies. Or perhaps the glowing green that gets associated with radiation?

    3. Re:What colour is energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look between the legs of any alpha male...see those two wrinkled brown sacks?

      If you have a green ball in each hand, what do you have...? A hell of a hold on the Jolly Green Giant!

    4. Re:What colour is energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ask ross jeffries

    5. Re:What colour is energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, radiation should be linked with blue light due to Cherenkov Radiation.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

    6. Re:What colour is energy? by Marian3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on the materials. Fire is energy, and can be various colors, depending on what's being reacted (burned), as well as the oxygen mix, etc. (which is also part of the fuel). Energy can be every color in the visible spectrum, as well as outside our visual spectrum (we can't 'see' radiation, but it's a form of energy). As far as what color was seen with the 'small intense ball of energy' I would guess white light, because if it wasn't, you'd assume they'd describe it with the color (IE: "small intense ball of blue energy"). But it's just a blind guess based on the wording, not the type of fusion.

    7. Re:What colour is energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try lighting a fart.

    8. Re:What colour is energy? by Dorceon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or perhaps the glowing red that gets associated with COMMUNISM!

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    9. Re:What colour is energy? by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 4, Funny
      A ball of energy should melt the tip of the screwdriver and/or throw you back 20 feet and/or turn your hair white.
      ...and/or give you television-related superpowers (The Amazing Remote-Man(TM)? The Human Static(TM)? The Homeshopper(TM)?).
      --
      -- Language is a virus from outer space.
    10. Re:What colour is energy? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      As a child one of the TV repair men we got in (my brother used the TV as a climbing frame) did just that.

      No hair turning white but there was like a huge bang sound and he did literally get thrown back against the wall.

    11. Re:What colour is energy? by Barny · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hrmm, that gives me some great ideas for RP city of villains characters ^_^

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    12. Re:What colour is energy? by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      Couple of years ago, I did just that, but only with my bare hands. I didn't know back then that unplugged/broken tv had such a dangerous coils/condensators/whatever.

      Luckily, nothing happened, and I'm still in one piece.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    13. Re:What colour is energy? by RoboJ1M · · Score: 1

      It's so cool, it look exactly like it would in any pulp sci-fi TV series.

      It looks like this translucent blue glowing.. stuff.

      This picture shows it as pink, but I've only seen blue before

      I realise that this is not what energy looks like, because energy is an abstract concept. But finally, some future tech that looks like it aught to. :D

      J1M.

    14. Re:What colour is energy? by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
      Fire is energy, and can be various colors, depending on what's being reacted (burned), as well as the oxygen mix, etc. (which is also part of the fuel). Energy can be every color in the visible spectrum, as well as outside our visual spectrum (we can't 'see' radiation, but it's a form of energy).

      Isn't it true that the light itself that you "see" is radiated energy? So the color it appears to be depends upon the frequency (or wavelength if you're looking at it the other way round) of that radiation?

      In that respect, it's not so much that "energy is [some] color", it is that color is a specific frequency band of energy - specifically: wavelengths of radiated energy that are detectable by the [human] eye.

      Not trying to nitpick here - it's early (here) and I just found myself thinking "light is energy" while reading your post - and then questioned myself about it instead of doing the sane thing and getting some coffee (energY) - sorry...

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    15. Re:What colour is energy? by donut_ky · · Score: 1

      maybe he was meaning an intense ball of light, which is energy. If your asking which frequency of the electro-magnetic spectrum the fusion reaction generated well then ..just think of the Sun on a much smaller scale.

    16. Re:What colour is energy? by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't watched enough cartoons or played enough FPS's.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    17. Re:What colour is energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oxygen is part of the fuel? Really? So you can burn oxygen by itself? I always thought it was the oxidizer that enabled combustion, but did not itself burn.

    18. Re:What colour is energy? by darjen · · Score: 1

      Could somebody please tell me what energy looks like? I really have no idea.

      Apparently energy conforms to a small, spherical shape.

    19. Re:What colour is energy? by abenassi · · Score: 2, Funny
      Could somebody please tell me what energy looks like? I really have no idea.
      You obviously don't have children.
    20. Re:What colour is energy? by beavt8r · · Score: 1

      Or purple! Behold the power of the Radioactive Plum!!

    21. Re:What colour is energy? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I might be wrong, but isn't flame (if that's what you meant by fire) an effect produced by incandescence of soot particles from burning fuel, and/or glow of ionized gas molecules?

    22. Re:What colour is energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, reactor fuses you?

    23. Re:What colour is energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you've done it, I got all confused when you hit me with your brilliant red.

    24. Re:What colour is energy? by dbatkins · · Score: 1

      "A ball of energy should melt the tip of the screwdriver and/or throw you back 20 feet and/or turn your hair white." Don't forget that sweet sweet taste of copper.

      --
      I used to be with IT..now IT seems strange and scary to me.
    25. Re:What colour is energy? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1
      Fire is energy

      I pity the fool who says fire is energy.
      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    26. Re:What colour is energy? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      As a child of one of the TV repair men

      Fixed it for you.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    27. Re:What colour is energy? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      missed a Comma but thank's for trying. :p

      (made a few more to keep you happy).

    28. Re:What colour is energy? by Rei · · Score: 1

      And it's not even that simple, because our mind processes colors in some interesting ways. For example, why is the sky blue? The sky preferentially scatters short wavelengths down to you, so why isn't it purple? Well, it's because, while our perception of "purple" is partially activated by very short wavelength visible light, to perceive a strong purple signal, you also need some red in there, and almost no red gets scattered down by the atmosphere. So blue dominates.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    29. Re:What colour is energy? by runexe · · Score: 1

      Oxygen gets consumed as well as the 'fuel' - so yes, it is also burned, although depending on the context you don't normally refer to oxygen as the fuel (but the chemical reaction requires both - so I don't think its entirely incorrect to label oxygen as fuel - the reaction could not occur without it, and it also gets consumed).

    30. Re:What colour is energy? by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that energy is blue if you're a jedi, red if you're a sith lord, and green if you're a muppet.

    31. Re:What colour is energy? by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 1

      Generally it looks like Michelle Trachtenberg after the monks do that ritual thing.

      Come to think of it, if I were 17, I'd be wanting to create Michelle Trachtenberg in my basement too ...

    32. Re:What colour is energy? by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
      For example, why is the sky blue?

      Well, I was going to say: "The sky is not actually blue, we only perceive it to be blue, when in reality there is no such thing as blue; blue is only a concept that exists abstractly within the mind." - but I actually learned something from the answer your posted, so I'll refrain from being a smartass about it ... ;)

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    33. Re:What colour is energy? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's why you hook a ground the to screw driver.

      Jeez.

      What kind of moron waits until after they're thrown 20 feet across a room to learn that lesson....I mean, besides me.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:What colour is energy? by Unnngh! · · Score: 1

      Octarine. Duh.

    35. Re:What colour is energy? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You missed the joke. It wasn't a grammar flame, he was accusing your mother of banging the TV repair guy.

    36. Re:What colour is energy? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Did everything just taste purple for a second?

      Signed,
      Phillip J. Fry

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    37. Re:What colour is energy? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1
      while our perception of "purple" is partially activated by very short wavelength visible light, to perceive a strong purple signal, you also need some red in there

      Hrm. If this is true, then why do we see violet light in the rainbow created by a prism? The red light is all down at the other end.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    38. Re:What colour is energy? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      lol. doh!

  2. What's up with Michigan? by Quixote · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What is there in the water in Michigan? A few years ago a teen in Michigan created a nuclear fission reactor; now this guy one ups him and creates fusion ?

    1. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What is there in the water in Michigan?

      Deuterium, apparently.

    2. Re:What's up with Michigan? by kfg · · Score: 1

      And apparently damned little to do other than water the golf course or build a reactor:

      Oakland, MI

      KFG

    3. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look out for next years teen, who will be creating cold fusion.

      Honestly though, the girls aren't very hot in michigan, so the guys have more time to invent.

    4. Re:What's up with Michigan? by identity0 · · Score: 1

      It's not what's in the water, it's what's on the ground - snow. Tons of it. Enough to prevent football, hanging out at the mall, or cruising for chicks. And coop you at home with your parents. You gotta have something to do with that time...

      Plus, having a nuclear reactor in your bedroom gives more credibility to the 'Radioactive' and 'Do not enter' signs you put on the door to keep your mom out.

    5. Re:What's up with Michigan? by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      What is there in the water in Michigan?

      Apparently a rare element called violentium

      And we blame Ron Artest.

      Sincerely,
      The Detroit Piston Fan Association

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    6. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly though, the girls aren't very hot in michigan, so the guys have more time to invent.

      Well, its true that we don't have NEARLY as many fake boobed, nose jobbed, botoxed faced women as the folks out in CA do, so if you like all of your women to have the same plastic, expressionless faces and otherwise fake appearance, then I guess it would be true that Michigan girls aren't very hot. Otherwise, you are very wrong.

    7. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. My house is on that map, and even I didn't realize the extent of golf course sprawl. The green parts that aren't golf courses are really nice, though.

    8. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      You've apparently never had to live through a Michigan winter. Some people will do literally anything to keep warm. Or busy.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    9. Re:What's up with Michigan? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I lived in that general area a long time ago, and yes, the landscape consistes almost entirely of small lakes and golf courses.

    10. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> What is there in the water in Michigan?

      > Deuterium, apparently.

      *whoa* Heavy.

    11. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it one-upping. A Farnsworth Fusor is much easier to make than that reactor that the other kid built.

      The reactor that the other kid built wasn't worth much, but it would have been interesting to see how far he could have gotten if given more time (and if he had, say, the money of a real job). If he had managed to purify his pitchblende and/or optimized his thorium design, and greatly increased his scale, he should have gotten a relevant plutonium breeding rate. Of course, I'd seriously worry about that, given his safety record -- if he built something with it that had a positive void coefficient, well, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near him.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    12. Re:What's up with Michigan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is quite a bit of arsenic in Michigan water http://mi.water.usgs.gov/splan2/sp07800/dwiarsenic .php

  3. Biggest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Where did he get the Deuterium from?

    1. Re:Biggest question by hool5400 · · Score: 1

      i think united nuclear sells it in small quantities.

      --

      Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.
    2. Re:Biggest question by oddeirik · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can get Deuterium Oxide from http://www.unitednuclear.com/chem.htm (and probably many other chemical suppliers) from which you can make deuterium gas.

    3. Re:Biggest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is a by-product of charcoal filtered 'Unobtainium' - I hear the rus'kies have it for sale by the kilo...

    4. Re:Biggest question by Kangburra · · Score: 1

      Core, really?!

      --
      Common sense is not so common
    5. Re:Biggest question by crankyspice · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where did he get the Deuterium from?

      It's like this: You take two frisbies, a remote control toy truck, and a bottle of shampoo, and wait for a stormy night...

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    6. Re:Biggest question by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Mail order from Iran or North Korea. I hear that business is booming now that we are busy fighting terrorists in Iraq.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Biggest question by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I know the Russians have "upsidasium". Except Moose and Squirrel took it away from Boris and Natasha.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Biggest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should we worry ?
      How dangerous is it ?

      Can a large enough quantities cause harm to anyone ?

      Forgetting about any physics lessons . is it potentially dangerous or not?

      If so , Where are the laws restricting it's sale? Why can a kid obtain the stuff?

    9. Re:Biggest question by Attaturk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK if the word deuterium sounds too much like a physics lesson for you, does heavy water sound any friendlier? ;-)

      In case skipping down a couple of paragraphs is also too 'lessony' here's the bit you're after:
      Thus, it would take a week of drinking nothing but pure heavy water for a human to begin to feel ill, and 10 days to 2 weeks (depending on water intake) for severe poisoning and death.
      The kid can obtain the stuff because he's not afraid of physics lessons. =P
    10. Re:Biggest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> an ice cube made of Deuterium Oxide sinks in water.

      The ultimate geek joke: The sinking ice cube.

      I want one for Chrismas!

    11. Re:Biggest question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evacuation? Of who?
      The people.
      Oh, you mean New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Canada... those people?

    12. Re:Biggest question by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1
      Thus, it would take a week of drinking nothing but pure heavy water for a human to begin to feel ill, and 10 days to 2 weeks (depending on water intake) for severe poisoning and death.
      Why? According to our physics teacher, the only thing affecting chemical reactions (unless we're talking fusion/fission) is the number of protons and electrons. Unless the weight of the water somehow messes your body up, why does it poison you?
      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    13. Re:Biggest question by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Because your cells regulate the amount of water and salt in them via osmosis. If there's too much salt, draw water in...if there's too little, push water out. The barrier is very sensitive to the weight of the water. Heavy water weighs more than regular water because of the extra neutron in the hydrogen atom. This messes with the cell's water regulation mechanism. However, the good news is, the water in your system has to have a significant percentage of heavy water (something like 50%) to really have much effect. You'd basically have to drink nothing but heavy water for a week to really get any effect. It's not radioactive, and it's chemically the same as water (though heavier isotopes always react/move more slowly due to their additional weight). It's the osmosis mechanism that gets thrown off, our cells are adapted to use regular water for osmosis.

    14. Re:Biggest question by b00tang · · Score: 0

      Its just deuterium, you can get it from gas supply companies (usually welding companies). Buying tritium is where you start having challenges. Otherwise deuterium is about as dangerous as hydrogen. What is more impressive is that he was able to get his hands on a vacuum chamber, vacuum pump, high voltage supply, and high voltage feedthroughs. You can buy all of those parts without any trouble (or make many of them yourself) but that means he would either need a lot of excess money or a decent amount of vacuum experience.

    15. Re:Biggest question by pclminion · · Score: 1

      You can "make" deuterium in your kitchen by electrolyzing tap water. Deuterium occurs naturally, and there is some natural "heavy water" in your tap water. Because heavy water is, well, heavier than normal water, it will participate less in the electrolysis. Over time the water will disappear from the electrolytic cell (because it is being split into hydrogen and oxygen), you replenish this missing water slowly, such as with a slow drip. Over time, because the D2O diffuses more slowly than H2O, this leads to a buildup of D2O in the water in the electrolytic cell. It's not FAST but you can definitely concentrate deuterium in this manner.

  4. Becoming? by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Becoming more accessible? Electrostatic fusion was first demonstrated in the 20s.

    1. Re:Becoming? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      interesting! especially since Bethe/Oliphant/Atkinson/Houtermans et al. didn't work out that fusion could even happen until ~1930 and the first farnsworth fusors weren't built 'till ~1960....

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Becoming? by armblessed · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's an issue of accessibility. I think it's more of a measure of the ability of the general public to implement a certain level of knowledge that is available to them. For a example: The mouse has been around for nearly two decades and there are people who still have problems executing a double-click. :) Give it a few more decades. ;)

    3. Re:Becoming? by inviolet · · Score: 4, Funny
      [...] the first farnsworth fusors weren't built 'till ~1960....

      What, did the professor travel back in time 1050 years in order to plant a research seed?

      Farnsworth: "Good news, everybody! Today we go on a one-way trip back through TIME to stimulate the development of nuclear fusion!"
      Everybody: *sigh*
      Bender: "Do they have money in the past?"
      Farnsworth: "Yes. And they carelessly transport it in pockets, wallets, and purses."
      Bender: "I'm in." [burps and roars fire out of his mouth]
      Leela: "But professor, won't we be stuck in the past, only to live out the rest of our lives in the gruesomely primitive twentieth century?"
      Farnsworth: "Well, there is definitely a very slim chance that someone in the twentieth century will invent the electrostatic fusion device needed to power my Time ReturnoWhatsit to send us back home. Perhaps one of the local nerds will invent one in his parents' basement."
      Fry: "Yeah right. When I was in the twentieth century, I spent all of *my* time drinking beer, watching TV, and trying to pick up chicks."
      Amy: "That's *still* what you do here in the *thirtieth* century."
      Fry: "Oh yeah."
      Bender: "We're boned."

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    4. Re:Becoming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good. Except this is the twenty-first century. So they're boned.

    5. Re:Becoming? by tokki · · Score: 1

      Someone is jealous that he doesn't have a fusion in his basement.

    6. Re:Becoming? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it was Philo Farnsworth of "inventing television" fame... although maybe the Professor did that too.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:Becoming? by TheBitterRaven · · Score: 1

      And it became part of General Electric's show at the New York World's Fair in 1964: http://www.nywf64.com/genele08.shtml

  5. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    That looks good on a college application

  6. Deuterium? by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does a 17 year old come by deuterium? I mean the bush administration has a fit when Iran tries to buy some, and in this country you don't even have to be 18 to get it?

    I'm lost.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    1. Re:Deuterium? by taustin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dueterium is present in all water, and can be refined fairly easily with electrolysis. All that's needed is some electricity and some fairly common instruments.

    2. Re:Deuterium? by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      Considering its use in fusion devices as a source of neutrons... I'd hope he didn't buy it somehow. Meh, deuterium isn't actually that complex. One Proton and one Neutron. I'm sure there are ways to reliably make it. If such a way can't easily be found on the internet, create a conspiracy theory.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    3. Re:Deuterium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just order it from any gas supplier. They deliver. It's not radioactive.

      http://www.airgas.com/browse/product_list.aspx?cat ID=90&Keyword=deuterium

    4. Re:Deuterium? by Wavicle · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Okay, you do some electrolysis and now you have a container that has 99.985% hydrogen-1 and 0.015% deuterium. Now how do you get that deuterium?

      The old fashioned way is a series of super-centrifuges. Does he happen to have a gas super-centrifuge?

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    5. Re:Deuterium? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Meh, deuterium isn't actually that complex. One Proton and one Neutron.

      Don't forget the electron.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:Deuterium? by RuBLed · · Score: 2, Funny

      well, just remember to purge the exhaust manifolds afterwards, check the deutrium reserve levels and recalibrate the deflector dish. (the latter one is extremely necessary)

    7. Re:Deuterium? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You just tell the government officials that you're researching for the next Star Trek movie and drop a lot of hints on how wonderful the movie will be.

    8. Re:Deuterium? by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      I am genuinely greatly encouraged to see that there still are some genuine nerds (the term is not meant perjoritively in this context at all, so please do not take it as such) writing to Slashdot. Given the seemingly unending torrent of peurile, juvenile drivel that seems to have inundated the site recently, I badly needed such an event in order to restore my faith in it.

      Thank you.

    9. Re:Deuterium? by cinexero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's pretty easy to come by deuterium actually. You simply electrolyze heavy water. See this website http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/deuterium-e lectrolysis.htm for an example of heavy water electrolysis. He's a college student that has done much much more, check out HIS fusion reactor[s] http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/.

    10. Re:Deuterium? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Christ almighty, is a simple check on wikipedia too much to ask? Heavy water boils at 101.4 degrees celcius. Anyone with a flame and a flask can get it in nearly unlimited quantities without the government ever knowing.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    11. Re:Deuterium? by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can buy D2O, for example from sigmal aldrich, for moderate prices, compared to the rest of the equipment. I dunno the actual price, but i bougt 100ml high purity ND4OD, obviously harder to make, for 150$ for 50ml, so i guess 95% grade D2O schould be 50% for 100ml.

      Its a non hazard material, non radiative, and WAY to common for any kind of sale restriction to make any sense.

      Isotopic purification is dead easy if the weight ratio is 2:1, vs for example 235:239...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    12. Re:Deuterium? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when that fails, reverse polarity on the ion drives and switch to impulse while using the shields to create a negative graviton balance. It'll take split second timing, but it's our only chance.

    13. Re:Deuterium? by RsG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only is it not radioactive, it also isn't useful in non-thermonuclear fission weapons AFAIK. For a straight A-bomb, you really need enriched Uranium and/or Plutonium, but you have no need for Deuterium. Small quantities of Tritium can also be used in some designs, but I think that's a little beyond where Iran is today. It's only H-bombs that use Deuterium, and they're a lot more advanced than what we're talking about here.

      I don't know what source the GP has for the US "having a fit" over Iranian Deuterium, but it sounds fishy to me. Either the US government is being irrational (what possible harm could Iran do with Deuterium?), or the GP doesn't actually have a clue what Deuterium is.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    14. Re:Deuterium? by MsWillow · · Score: 1
      --

      Lemon curry?
    15. Re:Deuterium? by Metex · · Score: 1

      Forgot which chemistry book but if you dont care about have an extreamly pure source of deuterium 99.9% and up you just need to do electrolysis of something around 30 L for 1 ml of deuterium for a 95% pure deuterium water. I really wish I could give you the source with the exsact number but I have 8 more hours of homework ahead of me.

      --
      Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
    16. Re:Deuterium? by headLITE · · Score: 1

      It's not particularily dangerous. You can get it over in Canada.

    17. Re:Deuterium? by hung_himself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is actually reading the wikipedia too much to ask?

      Two liquids that close in vapor pressure are very difficult to separate (and requires expensive distillation equipment according to the wiki). As for the grandparent - electrolysis would work because the strength of the HO and DO bonds are different though according to the wiki this is not efficient either. But the principle is the same - unlike for larger isotopes which chemically are essentially identical (and require centrifuges to separate by density), hydrogen isotopes have different chemical properties that can be exploited in rates of reactions and one of these is given in the wikipedia for those interested.

      BTW as isotopes go it is very cheap to just buy heavy water (probably because it is relatively easy to obtain) and that is probably the source for this guy's experiment.

    18. Re:Deuterium? by norton_I · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't believe the US is worried about Iran having deuterium exactly, but the US is worried about Iran building heavy water (D20) moderated reactors. D20 is used in reactor designs that need a low neutron capture cross section, including ones used to breed plutonium. Note that heavy water reactors may also be used simply for power generation with unenriched uranium.

    19. Re:Deuterium? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Two liquids that close in vapor pressure are very difficult to separate (and requires expensive distillation equipment according to the wiki).

      As opposed to a fusor?

      I would think that if you can build a working fusor, it is within your grasp to build a still. Although I bet he actually just bought deuterium from a supplier.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    20. Re:Deuterium? by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      But the next film is odd numbered. They'll know you're lying!

    21. Re:Deuterium? by Weh · · Score: 2

      he gave them a bomb filled with old pinball parts in return?

    22. Re:Deuterium? by craagz · · Score: 1

      why don't we just go ahead and ask the chap where he got the deuterium rather than discussing how it can/cannot be done.

    23. Re:Deuterium? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      All that's needed is some electricity
      Some? Quite a lot, I'd think.

      When his mom gets the bill, he's going to be totally grounded, like, forever.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    24. Re:Deuterium? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > How does a 17 year old come by deuterium?

      I was wondering that too. It's not exactly the sort of thing you can get by the quart from any hardware store.

      > I mean the bush administration has a fit when Iran tries to buy some

      That's not because of the deuterium. It's because of what it implies about their uranium enrichment activities, and specifically about the motivation behind such. (We sort of already knew that, because as a major petroleum supplier they don't _need_ nuclear power, but the deuterium makes it even more obvious.)

      Deuterium is expensive and (somewhat) difficult to obtain, but it's not dangerous like weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. It's not like letting a Michigan teenager have some deuterium is really very dangerous, per se. If he'd had weapons-grade fissionable material that would be much more worrisome.

      But it does seem a little odd that he would know _how_ (or, perhaps more to the point, _where_) to obtain it. This is apparently not your garden-variety teenager. I lived in Michigan for three years, and I can assure you, normal kids up there are as unlikely to know where to get deuterium as normal kids anywhere else. This kid is functioning more or less at an adult level, intellectually. That's the only conclusion I can draw.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    25. Re:Deuterium? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      From all the details given here, and the advice flying around, I think that da man must be really bored these days, because he wants an actual nuclear incident to happen, because that gives him a great means of control by keep ing the population in fear. Ever since the cold war is over, where da same man could control people on both side of the fence by keeping them in fear from the other side, ever since that's over he's in desperate need of a new fear to provide everyone. It's like with antiviruses, that's super big business, everyone runs them. I have never run antivirus on my computer, I just don't need it, in case something goes wrong, I just wipe and reinstall, instead of putting a stupid backdoor on my computer letting the man snoop around where I even pay him to let him snoop around with a monthly subscription to get the latest virus fingerprints. No thank you. Windows update? No thank you. Redhat-update? Yum? Apt-get? No thank you - let me work out the dependencies by manually downloading each deb and rpm - and let me tell you, it's a joke how far they complicate the dependencies. What would happen to the antivirus cashcow and backdoor if there were no viruses? How would you extract money from millions of people then and monitor every breath they take, making sure they don't misbreathe, or complain about new oppressive measures you're instituting over them? What happens to da man claiming "safety" and "counterterrorism"arguments while stripsearching everyone when there are never any terrorist events? He needs and example, and needs it badly, so he can oppress you better.

    26. Re:Deuterium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it does seem a little odd that he would know _how_ (or, perhaps more to the point, _where_) to obtain it.

      It took me 3 seconds with google to find Deuterium for sale: http://www.spectragases.com/PureGases/d2/deuterium .htm

      Alright, they don't have an online ordering system but there are sales contacts for USA, Europe etc.

    27. Re:Deuterium? by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      (We sort of already knew that, because as a major petroleum supplier they don't _need_ nuclear power, but the deuterium makes it even more obvious.)

      Why does everybody assume that Iran's claim about civilian nuclear power generation is completely false?

      As a major petroleum supplier they don't _need_ nuclear power, but they might _want_ it for a variety of reasons.

      1. Less petroleum burned locally = More to sell
      2. Pollution issues
      3. If the reserves are getting low, they'd be the first to know (and probably wouldn't advertise it to they buyers who might panic and start looking at alternate energy sources)

      Now, I think it would be naive to think that Iran isn't interested in developing nuclear weapons. I'd say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle -- they want nuclear power for civilian applications, but if it can help produce nuclear weapons it kills two birds with one stone.

      Unfortunately, the most efficient type of reactor is also the best kind for producing weapons-grade materiel. Conventional designs use up uranium way too fast to be long-term viable.

    28. Re:Deuterium? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Is actually reading the wikipedia too much to ask?

      You're new here, aren't you?

      For this crowd, reading TFA is pushing it

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    29. Re:Deuterium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What of radiation during the discharge?
      Are we to believe that there was none ?

    30. Re:Deuterium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What have most theocracies done in History ?
      Made love? or Made war ?

    31. Re:Deuterium? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Not only is it not radioactive, it also isn't useful in non-thermonuclear
      > fission weapons AFAIK.

      Its primary use is in producing weapons-grade fissionable materials, given non-weapons-grade fissionable materials. For instance, you can take some mildly enriched uranium, run it through a heavy-water reactor, and get tritium and weapons-grade plutonium. Other types of reactors are more efficient (and/or safe) for producing power, but heavy-water reactors are desirable for developing a weapons program.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    32. Re:Deuterium? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Technically you have to be 18 to use a charge card to pay for deuterium oxide, some might question larger quantities like the 5L bottle for $2000.00; I'm sure that North Korea was trying to by much larger quantities than that.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    33. Re:Deuterium? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      Don't forget the electron.
      What's the point? It'll just give it to the first oxygen atom that comes along. Stupid atoms.
      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    34. Re:Deuterium? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      I buy my D20 at the hobby store....

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:Deuterium? by Preacher+X · · Score: 1

      Deuterium is widely available in lighting sources. It is not that hard once obtained to produce the gas form. A quick google will net the required information.

      --
      "And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
  7. Site is down, so no videos for now by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    His site: http://fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fuso r_images&key=1150855195

    Can anyone independently verify that fusion is actually occurring here? Is he really creating Helium in the chamber?

    1. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by neuro.slug · · Score: 1

      His ISP is going to need that ball of fusion to power their server after the /.ing you brought upon it.

    2. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by LoveMuscle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fusion is easy to verify: Deuterium-Deuterium fusion spits out a proton at a well know energy level (3ish MeV) and a tritium atom.
      Deuterium-Tritium fusion spits out a neutron at a well know enegery level (14ish MeV), and a helium. With the appropriate gear either the proton or the neutron are easy to spot/measure.

    3. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Well, is there any independent verification, then?

    4. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't claim nuclear fusion, AFAIR. He's talking about fusing the Deuterium with Oxygen and turning it back into water. 40k isn't anywhere near enough for nuclear fusion.

    5. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by julesh · · Score: 1

      I'd personally say that independent verification isn't really necessary here. The kid was using an established design that is well known to work, and all you have to do is crank up the voltage and look at the pretty glow.

    6. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      That works for me. It's impressive enough that the kid is 17 years old and built this, but with the article making the claim that he's got fusion working in his basement, you've got to admit to being a slightly bit skeptical.

      Is this cold fusion?

    7. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Think about it for a second. If it was cold fusion, methinks it would be mentioned a bit more prominently in the description/other 500 comments.

    8. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by PDAllen · · Score: 1

      No. OK, so the way fusion is known to work is this: you have nuclei which are moving fast, they smash together and fuse. This gives off energy.

      Now, the way this guy's done it (which is not original in method, but technically the guy's got to know what he's doing) is that you use an electric field to accelerate the nuclei. The problem with this is that you can't (easily, anyway) either accelerate large numbers of nuclei or keep the (vast) number which don't fuse from losing most of their energy to the environment. The result is that although the total energy out is larger than the total in, it's only by a very small fraction, and if you try to generate electricity from the heat you end up with less than you used to accelerate the nuclei. Generators aren't 100% efficient (per thermodynamics, they can't be even in theory).

      In the Sun, you have a whole lot of high energy nuclei (it's hot near the centre of the Sun), so that when a couple of especially energetic nuclei collide they fuse; when they miss energy isn't dissipated much because they simply bounce off other energetic nuclei. The result is that fusion keeps going without energy needing to be put in all the time. This is where we have a technical problem now: we can't keep fusion going without putting in vast amounts of energy, and until we can reduce the energy input (to at least a sensible percentage of the total energy output, like 50% instead of 99.9%) we won't have any fusion power stations.

      Cold fusion is different: the idea is that you can persuade nuclei to fuse when they don't have enough energy for the conventional method. This isn't impossible in theory, but in practice it hasn't been made to work even with lots of energy input.

    9. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      No, it's not cold fusion. As the grandparent post said, this is a proven design that either works or doesn't. If it's not just sitting there, it's fusing deuterium into helium.

    10. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation. I had the mental image of a fusion reaction giving off enormous amounts of heat, so an uncontained reaction in a glass jar would result in a burning house. Your explanation made a lot of sense.

    11. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the Fusor sites. That isn't true. A Fusor is capable of demonstrating all kinds of non-fusion effects. In the amateur community it is mostly used to generate non-fusible plasma. To prove you've got fusion you need to measure fusion products out, not just see a pretty glow.

      Personally I'm kind of hoping he hasn't got fusion. The product of D + D is a Trition T (plus a proton), and D + T may then occur, releasing a high-energy neutron. Without about 1m of water shielding those neutrons will shower the observers. TFA says there is "nothing but a few X-rays" coming out. If he has achieved sustained fusion there will also be high-energy neutrons. These neutrons will penetrate for a very long distance unless they meet something dense like water. The primary commercial use for Fusors is as neutron production devices.

      What's more, once he opens the device, radioactive Tritium will be emitted, so I hope he has good ventilation and scrubbing filters in his garage.

      Sure, these quantities may be small, but without proper lab test equipment there's no actual way to know how much fusion has taken place and how safe the household is.

      Frankly, this is the main reason I haven't pursued a D + D fusor myself. It's not safe enough. If you were to get a decent amount of energy out, you'd kill yourself with neutrons in a minute. The interesting reaction is Boron-11 plus plain Hydrogen - this produces very few neutrons and the gaseous reaction products are non-toxic - but it's not something you can get a fusor design for online.

    12. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that the fusor works under a vacuum. The temperature isn't really an issue due the small number of atoms involved.

    13. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Don't need one. He's using an enhanced design of the Farnsworth Fusor, a device that while it doesn't CURRENTLY produce more energy out than in, DOES produce honest to God fusion reactions with a solid neutron flux. Major manufacturers are building the things as reliable, pretty much instant on, instant off, reliable neutron sources for other things. The fact that a kid actually BUILT one out of simple parts is the interesting thing.

      However, I don't advocate just ANYONE building these things- the Fusor can produce deadly neutron fluxes readily and with the flip of a switch and a supplying of the Deuterium fuel.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    14. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by Khammurabi · · Score: 1
      With the appropriate gear either the proton or the neutron are easy to spot/measure.
      Awesome! Not only will the X-ray goggles I ordered see through clothing, I can spot protons and neutrons too! I can't wait for them to arrive!
    15. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      It's actually very difficult to create a fusion chain reaction. Pretty much impossible for an uncontained reaction to last longer than a few atoms (which wouldn't result in all that much heat). Just getting the fuel really hot isn't enough -- the atoms have to be close enough together. It works in the sun because that has its own containment field -- large amounts of gravity keep the pressure extremely high at the center.

      Here on Earth gravity isn't really an option, in order to get fusion working you have to pressurize the fuel somehow. Farnsworth fusors like this one use a strong electromagnetic shell to repel ionized gas and accelerate it into the center of a sphere. The effect is similar to aiming the electron gun of several CRTs at precisely the same point (actually Farnsworth worked mostly on television electronics, so the similarity is no coincidence).

      The worst that can happen if it overheats is that the equipment generating the EM field is damaged, causing the individual atoms of the fuel to repel from each other and the reaction to halt. Because fusion is so hard to keep going, it's a lot more fool-resistant than trying to build a fission reactor. It's also much much harder to extract a useful amount of energy -- it may not even be possible from this type of reactor because it takes so much to keep it running.

      An H-bomb achieves the necessary pressure and temperature by setting off a conventional fission warhead, fusing all the available fuel in one shot. You'd never be able to achieve that kind of uncontrolled reaction in a jar without an equally violent trigger.

    16. Re:Site is down, so no videos for now by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Hey, I didn't even notice that I was replying to BadAnalogyGuy! Well, to make a bad analogy, small scale fusion reactions are nothing like the Sun, despite what Spider-man 2 would have you believe.

  8. Re:Been done before by arivanov · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he really managed it, the real news will be when he manages to procreate. Those 14KeV fusion neutrons play very interesting games with DNA. That is if he really managed to get any fusion to succeed which I doubt.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  9. innovate in all branches. by cucucu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is good to see how the youth can innovate in any field.
    I always maintained that innovation for the young scientist will be limited almost completely to computer and software because of the ease with which you can buy a machine, connect to the internet and start hacking.
    Good that this young man proved me wrong. Perhaps we will start seeing innovations by high schoolers in all the branches of the sciences and engineering: biology, chemistry, aeronautics, space research, engineering, etc.

    No computer will be a better innovating machine than the one between our ears.

    1. Re:innovate in all branches. by massivefoot · · Score: 1

      If I understand correctly he isn't really innovating in the sense that the experiment is new or anything. But presumably he's done it on a relatively tight budget, and it could get other kids interested in science. Wish I'd had the get up and go to try and build a fusion reactor when I was 17!

    2. Re:innovate in all branches. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing! I had a non-self-sustaining fusion reaction in my Sony laptop battery recently. Well it was a pretty large energy release anyway, didn't test the residue for helium ;-)

  10. either that by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hopefully this points to a future where large scale fusion reactors are both economical and widely used.

    Either that, or it points to a future where large scale fusion reactors are widely used in parents' basements.

    1. Re:either that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't "economical and widely used" until some teenager puts "Mr." in front of "Fusion."

    2. Re:either that by k12linux · · Score: 1
      it points to a future where large scale fusion reactors are widely used in parents' basements.

      Shortly to be followed by a sudden unexplained explosion in availability of pot in the nations high schools.

      On a more serious note... do you think his parents had any idea he was creating a nuclear fusion device in the basement?

    3. Re:either that by el+jubilado · · Score: 1

      or the pot smokers will like this. No more getting busted for the mary jane farm in the basement because of the power bill for the heat lamps.

  11. national hysteria by macadamia_harold · · Score: 1, Funny

    He's on the cross country and track teams at Stoney Creek High School in Rochester Hills. He's a good-looking, clean-cut 17-year-old with a 3.75 grade point average, and he has his eyes fixed on the next big step: college.

    Little does he know, his next big step will actually be gitmo, and from there, the CIA torture camp in Syria.

    Good luck, little buddy!

    1. Re:national hysteria by o'reor · · Score: 1
      Dear sir,

      I actually liked your kind of flaimebait. Could you please give us some more ?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    2. Re:national hysteria by macadamia_harold · · Score: 1

      I would, but it's hard to type with electrodes attached to my testicles. Please try again later!

  12. He initially wanted to create a hyperbolic chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    but his mother wouldn't let him. Quite right too. There's way too much unjustified exaggeration these days. Far more dangerous than a glowing ball of energy.

  13. The hyperbolic chamber by ishmaelflood · · Score: 2, Funny

    From TFA his mother wouldn't let him build a hyperbolic chamber.

    Definition of hyperbolic

    exaggerated: enlarged beyond truth or reasonableness; "had an exaggerated (or inflated) opinion of himself"; "a hyperbolic style"

    1. Re:The hyperbolic chamber by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Obviously your definition is rather narrow, or you are mathematically uneducated.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:The hyperbolic chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he meant a hyperbaric chamber, meaning a chamber whose pressure is higher than atmospheric pressure. Not sure how that would be useful for creating nuclear fusion, but the words sound similar.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaric_oxygen_the rapy

    3. Re:The hyperbolic chamber by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 1

      A chamber with no eigenvalues on the unit circle? :P

    4. Re:The hyperbolic chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Perhaps he meant a hyperbollock chamber, meaning a chamber where your balls are huge. Not sure how that would be useful for creating nuclear fusion, but the words sound similar.

    5. Re:The hyperbolic chamber by querist · · Score: 1

      I think that was a typo in the article. I suspect that it was supposed to be "hyperbaric", which means at high pressure.

    6. Re:The hyperbolic chamber by zigziggityzoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe he really wanted to make this?

      --
      Zing!
    7. Re:The hyperbolic chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he just wanted to make his mom a nice salad bowl.

  14. Neutrons by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What did he use to shield the neutrons or did he just suck them up?

    1. Re:Neutrons by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

      This is what I want to know. If fusion had occurred (and I doubt it, but still...) then there would have been a burst of neutrons. If he was near enough to the experiment to see a ball of plasma then he's very lucky to be alive.

      One of the first skeptical reviews of Pons and Fleischmann's claims about cold fusion was noting that there was no heavy shielding around the apparatus. No shielding + P&F still alive = no fusion.

      --
      Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    2. Re:Neutrons by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is what I want to know. If fusion had occurred (and I doubt it, but still...) then there would have been a burst of neutrons. If he was near enough to the experiment to see a ball of plasma then he's very lucky to be alive.

      According to the wikipedia article, "neutron emissions can present a hazard if voltages above 40 kilovolts are used". Sounds like the kid was cutting it fairly close, but should have been reasonably safe. It sounds as though the associated X-ray emissions are actually more problematic.

    3. Re:Neutrons by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      I believe he was using a layer of asbestos tiling to protect himself from any harmful effects. His friend Bob down in the basement was the one that reported the results, and was absolutely beaming with excitement

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  15. How do we know it's fusion? by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally, if I put a dilute gas in a vacuum chamber, apply a voltage and see a small ball of fire, I think plasma. Why is this not just a plasma? How do we know it's fusion?

    And what is a "hyperbolic chamber"???????

    Note: creating a plasma at 17 years old in a garage would still be very cool. Maybe not slashdot-front-page cool, but still cool.

    1. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 5, Funny

      Note: creating a plasma at 17 years old in a garage would still be very cool. Maybe not slashdot-front-page cool, but still cool.

      He didn't do it in a garage, though - he created plasma in his parents' basement, which makes it more relevant to Slashdot readers.

    2. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by Articuno · · Score: 1
      --
      So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!
    3. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by orospakr · · Score: 1

      Actually, in TFA, he asked his mom if he could build a hyperbolic chamber first.

      Not quite the same thing as the "Dragonball Z" variety, but...

    4. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by Bueller_007 · · Score: 1

      This is a hyperbolic chamber: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30990

    5. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by jim_deane · · Score: 1

      Look for neutrons.

    6. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      The plasma should be easy, although I didn't try yet. You need a microwave oven, a flame and a cup, as far as I know.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    7. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is a "hyperbolic chamber"???????

      She means "Dolby", I mean "hyperbaric chamber".

    8. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Note: creating a plasma at 17 years old in a garage would still be very cool. Maybe not slashdot-front-page cool, but still cool.

      You must be new here.

      When Slashdot initially started, it was all about these kinds of stories -- folks somewhere doing something geeky and cool.

      As the age of that audience matured, so did the Slashdot content. Today, most of the folks from since then are in the corporate world, so articles now seem to reflect that.

      However, make no mistake - the spirit of Slashdot was and remains about the garage geek doing something cool.

    9. Re:How do we know it's fusion? by beyowulf · · Score: 1
      I hope that isn't this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_Time_Chamb er
      Doesn't everyone want a powerlevel thats over 9000?
  16. frightening by mwanaheri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, congrats that this seems to have worked. But a teen experimenting at home with 40.000 volt and Deuterium - am I the only one who thinks this is frightening?

    --
    Idha khatabahum lijahiluna qalu salaman
    1. Re:frightening by MBC1977 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps in today's 'lets assume every teenager who is not out trying to score nookie, or hang at the mall' society. But some of us do remember a time when experimentation was encouraged and nurtured. To be honest, I'll be surprised if some state or gov agency doesn't pop by his house and have a little chat or worse the next time he wants to fly any where, his name 'magically' now appears on the no-fly lists.

      What's really sad is that people are so frightened, that they would willingly give up personal freedoms and stifle overly creative children for some ill-perception of national security.

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    2. Re:frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. First he's playing with fusion, the next thing you know, he's building terrorist bombs! Let's ban Deuterium right quick "for the children". (End sarcasm)

      Your comment is symptomatic of a larger problem in society. We're scared of our own shadows. "Oooooh the evil scary nukular stuff is in the hands of the teens! Run for your life!!!" - Is this even slightly rational? He can't hurt anyone with electrostatic confined fusion (if you could weaponize that, the powers that be would have done so already). If he fries himself with X-rays or high voltage, then that's a risk he took for himself; his parents may have a say in what risks he exposes himself to, but it's not my concern or yours.

      Personally, I'm far more worried about what a government will do when given powerful toys than I am about what a lone teenager will.

    3. Re:frightening by Nicaboker · · Score: 1

      I'm foreseeing the Patriot Act being enforced on him in the near future.

      --
      So many choices, so little tolerance.
    4. Re:frightening by AWeishaupt · · Score: 1

      It's only frightening if you're one of these types that fears and doubts anybody experimenting with physics, high voltage electronics, chemistry etc in their basements.

      Deuterium is not a regulated material, and is available off the shelf (essentially) from scientific and industrial suppliers. It's no more dangerous than regular Hydrogen gas.

      Neutron radiation can be very nasty. And of course the 2.45 MeV neutrons produced in D-D fusion are the characteristic signature of such a reaction - if he has confirmed that fusion is occurring, then he has detected neutron radiation outside the apparatus.

      But if you understand what neutrons are, you understand the risks they pose, and you understand what you need to do to ensure safety in such an endeavour.

      Shielding, absorption and moderation of neutrons can all be easily accomplished with household materials, and having a neutron counter is a fairly important pre-requisite to being able to demonstrate D-D fusion. Neutron activation could be demonstrated without a counter, assuming that strict precautions are taken to shield or avoid proximity to the Fusor whilst it is operating.

    5. Re:frightening by VoidCrow · · Score: 0

      I replaced the HT transformer on my grandmother's television when I was 14. I'm still into electronics, I've had a career in IT, and now I'm doing a degree in physics. From my viewpoint, the 'frightening' argument is one that stifles the sense of adventure in children. All life incurs risk, and a boring spoon-fed pathologically protected life incurs a risk of suicide.

    6. Re:frightening by megrims · · Score: 1
      Perhaps in today's 'lets assume every teenager who is not out trying to score nookie, or hang at the mall' society.

      What are we assuming, again?

    7. Re:frightening by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I get the impression it's quite the reverse. At least here it is.

      The people who are afraid of overly performing students (there are a lot of them actually) are not the police, or national security or any such people but :
      1) the teachers (most are a) quite dumb b) don't like to be challenged when they screw up a theory c) don't really know the subject)
      2) fellow students (we've all watched the "nerd" movies)

    8. Re:frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you avoid proximity to the Fusor, and your neighbours get to rely on the 1/r^2 power law?

      The Fusor is not a useful energy-producing machine. It's a device for producing neutrons. They are manufactured and sold commercially for that very purpose.

      I think there are reasons to question whether or not high-energy neutron production in a residential basement is something that society should encourage.

      I can see the headline now:

      Teen creates first self-sustaining fusion reaction in basement
      Entire neighbourhood dead


    9. Re:frightening by AWeishaupt · · Score: 1

      It's in a basement, so there's already lots of concrete and earth shielding between the fusor and the outside world.

      By avoid proximity to it whilst it's operating, i mean don't stand right next to it. If the operator is sufficiently distant so as to reduce radiation exposure, what makes you think there would be any risk to someone in a house next door?

      Even without accurate neutron metrology, the neutron flux could be predicted fairly well, based on the knowledge base that surrounds amateur Fairnsworth-Hirsch fusor construction. It's quite a straightforward issue to shield the device.

      Construction of these devices in the garages and basements of physics geeks is nothing new, and nothing that poses an excessively grave danger to the knowledgeable people that peform it, and absolutely not to the community at large.

    10. Re:frightening by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***Right. First he's playing with fusion, the next thing you know, he's building terrorist bombs! Let's ban Deuterium right quick "for the children".***

      It's not just Deuterium y'know. Normal water contains about 1.5 parts per ten thousand Deuterium. Our security demands that we contain all supplies of water on the planet. I am informed that President Bush will, with heavy heart, be sending the 101st Airborne to bring the largest supply of uncontrolled Deuterium on the planet -- the Pacific Ocean -- to heel. My sources inform me that the US will lead a massive coalition of allies including Transylvania, Haute Volta, Monaco, and Pitcairns Island in this undertaking. The President's advisors anticipate no difficulties and project that the effort will pay for itself. Intelligence community advisors whose names are being withheld by request inform us that marine mammals are preparing garlands of flowers to drape over our brave liberting troops as they march into the surf at San Onofre.

      ===

      BTW. you're correct about your comments on fear of inappropriate things. Anyone smart enough to build a Fansworth-Hirsch Fusor or similar device is probably less of a menace to themselves and humanity in general than a softball team that has stopped off for a couple of beers after game. The kid might, I suppose, on a really bad day, manage to burn the house down -- but kids (and adults) do that all the time with low tech devices like cigarettes or candles.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    11. Re:frightening by metlin · · Score: 1


      Heh, I built my first Tesla coil in my 8th grade, and I was 13 or 14. I've always experimented with high-voltage stuff - and have built such things as plasma globes Van de Graff generators. I never got around building a Cyclotron, but hey.

      There is no better way to learn. In fact, it is sad the way people react ("Oooh, think of the children!").

      Frightening? Not really. Science cannot be done without experimentation, and there are always risks.

    12. Re:frightening by icedcool · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
    13. Re:frightening by westlake · · Score: 1
      First he's playing with fusion
      If he fries himself with X-rays...then that's a risk he took for himself

      It is also a risk he creates for anyone else within range. You'll excuse me, I trust, if I don't like the idea of living above this kid's basement.

    14. Re:frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can and has been weaponized as a neutron emitter/neutron bomb. It's just unlikely that he'll make that work in a basement, and keep from killing himself if he does. Just going to mention, everything can be weaponized. Diesel fuel and fertilizer is the most obvious common item 1 + common item 2 = terrorist device, but 'bleach and ammonia' or 'toilet cleaner and aluminum' come in as close seconds. Of course, there's always the 'more personal, less large-scale' baseball bat + face.

    15. Re:frightening by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I find it encouraging, not frightening.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  17. rofl by stonedcat · · Score: 0

    I hope this kid from detroit doesn't know the kids I know from detroit...I can just imagine the rolling party in his basement.

    "Wow I love you guys so much! Any of you kandi kids wanna see my fusion reactor? It gives the best light shows!"

    --
    You can't take the sky from me.
  18. Fusor by deischi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
    so really nothing new.

    1. Re:Fusor by atomicthumbs · · Score: 1

      Yeah,fusors are supposed to be relatively easy to make.

      --
      http://pinopsida.com
    2. Re:Fusor by Saikik · · Score: 1

      Yeah my parents just bought me one I keep it around for chicks.

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

      I stood in line for 18 hours at Best Buy for mine, then sold it on eBay

  19. Hydrogen, yes; Deuterium, no. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think you're confusing deuterium with plain old hydrogen. You can extract hydrogen from water with electrolysis, but separating the deuterium (representing a vanishingly small percentage of the liberated hydrogen) from that would still be, to put it mildly, less than trivial.

    IIRC, commercial heavy water plants do something that takes advantage of the slight difference in boiling point between D2O and H2O, and do a very delicate fractional distillation, over and over and over. The energy involved to do it is pretty immense, and it would be tough to do except under very carefully controlled conditions. Hydrogen sulfide may also be involved at some point in the process, as well, at least according to this WP article.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Hydrogen, yes; Deuterium, no. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      IIRC, commercial heavy water plants do something that takes advantage of the slight difference in boiling point between D2O and H2O, and do a very delicate fractional distillation, over and over and over. The energy involved to do it is pretty immense, and it would be tough to do except under very carefully controlled conditions. Hydrogen sulfide may also be involved at some point in the process, as well, at least according to this WP article.

      Very true - but so what? The OP is correct - deuterium can be refined from water by electrolysis. Electrolysis was the original method, which was later replaced with the fractional distillation method and chemical extraction processes.
  20. Re:Been done before by elerran · · Score: 1

    Have a look at this:
    Quote, from the article on BBC regarding the building of the experimental fusion reaction in France.
    The deal, to be finalised in Paris, follows years of talks between South Korea, Russia, China, the EU, the US, India and Japan.
    Seems like your government is involved in fusion research
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6165932. stm

  21. too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he couldn't create a way to beat ohio state

    1. Re:too bad by stonedcat · · Score: 0

      as much as I don't give a damn about either my local team or michigan, that was very funny and well placed

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
  22. Future of Fusion by Yahma · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hopefully this points to a future where large scale fusion reactors are both economical and widely used.

    I'm sorry... but while this teenagers work is certainly commendable and nothing to sneeze at (in fact, Large engineering firms such as Siemens seem to take an interest in him). His work does nothing to further research in the field. Non-sustaining fusion reactors have been around for decades, and its been widely known how to build one for at least 20 years. For most people, the cost is the limiting factor. Why would you want to spend $50k-100k on something that uses more energy than it produces?

    Now when we finally get a sustainable fusion reaction that produces more energy that it uses, that would be something to write about!


    Yahma
    ProxyStorm - An apache based anonymous proxy service.
    1. Re:Future of Fusion by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      "Now when we finally get a sustainable fusion reaction that produces more energy that it uses, that would be something to write about!"

      I agree and I think the more 17 year olds we have building stuff like this the closer we will come to realising that goal. Who knows maybe one of them will make a mistake and discover something unexpectedly useful, the less people you have experimenting the less likely you'll discover anything new.

    2. Re:Future of Fusion by cybereal · · Score: 1
      Now when we finally get a sustainable fusion reaction that produces more energy that it uses, that would be something to write about!


      Isn't this a violation of thermodynamics or is this a miss-statement?

      AFAIK nothing can produce more energy than it uses.

      I believe what you might have meant was that we seek a way to produce recurring fusion reaction that produces more energy than is required to fuel the reactor. However, we will never find an energy source that produces more energy than it consumes, unless the basis for most all physics is completely flawed :) The desireable fusion reactor will consume more energy than it produces because it will be consuming the fuel which is matter which is energy.

      To illustrate for others: reactors require power to begin and perpetuate the reactor (i.e. power coolant pumps and etc.) for regular nuclear (fission) reactors. This at first glance seems silly because the whole point is to generate electricity or power from the reactor. However, the combination of an incoming power source with the nuclear reaction results in a net gain of power. I'm not sure about modern reactors as I haven't researched it recently but I believe they can sustain themselves once the process begins and relies on grid power in case of self power failures?

      Just to remind you, combustion engines work in exactly the same manner. They require an outside power source to begin then usually perpetuate themselves via an alternator + battery source as they require an ignitor for the combustion to occur. Due to combining the original power input with the resulting explosion of fuel, you get a net gain. Of course, as soon as you factor in the massive loss of energy from the incredibly inefficient use of power and fuels you actually have a net loss. This is always the case with any machine. If it were not the case, it would be perpetual motion or better and that isn't possible according to contemporary physics.

      Anyhow, the problem with a fusion reactor is that the energy required to cause the reaction is greater than the energy released from the reaction because it does not perpetuate itself like fission. So your 100 gigawatts of input results in 10 gigawatts output or whatever the real numbers are and obviously that's not useful regardless of how scientifically cool it is :)

      Of course, IANAP, I just pulled all of that out of my ass. Does that make me a true slashdotter?
      --
      I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
    3. Re:Future of Fusion by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      It makes you a 'tard. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement "a sustainable fusion reaction that produces more energy that it uses", apart from the typo. Now, put the inhaler down, and repeat after me: I will not interrupt when grown-ups are speaking.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Future of Fusion by randomblast · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to spend $50k-100k on something that uses more energy than it produces?

      Just for the sheer fun of it?

      --
      ...these aren't my real teeth.
    5. Re:Future of Fusion by Barny · · Score: 1

      And the ones who really fuck up, well, natural selection deals with that ^_^

      a million monkeys at a million typewriters... ...internet disproves that one too :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    6. Re:Future of Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now when we finally get a sustainable fusion reaction that produces more energy that it uses, that would be something to write about!

      On the day that an international agreement to spend $12 billion is signed, the news is about what some kid is doing in his backyard. Sigh.

    7. Re:Future of Fusion by khallow · · Score: 1

      If it were a private energy producer investing $12 billion, I'd say frontpage it. But ITER and other government funded organizations have been working on this for a long time in a rather unproductive way. I'm sure that they'll eventually get the technology to the point where private industry can take over, but I'm not sure why another funding cycle would be considered news right now.

    8. Re:Future of Fusion by rcastro0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      AFAIK nothing can produce more energy than it uses.

      So we could say... Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
      Or... The energy of the world is constant. Or any of the other
      30 ways to state the first law of thermodynamics.

      But by bringing this up you completely miss the point of
      the statement you are trying to criticize.

      There are two meanings for "energy". There is the physical
      meaning, in which the 1st law applies. And there is the practical
      meaning, in which energy means useful energy.

      --
      Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
    9. Re:Future of Fusion by benzapp · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no idea how an atomic bomb works. Do you really think the 50 megaton hydrogen bomb required 50 megatons of energy to break the bonds of that hydrogen?

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  23. Too easily frightened. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any kid who ever built a Van De Graff generator has played with far more than 40kV... I mean, that's only a few centimeters worth of spark at STP. If you've ever gotten 3-4" sparks in dry air, you're playing with way higher voltage than that.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Too easily frightened. by mwanaheri · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm rather ignorant if it comes to Physics (No idea what a Van De Graff generator is) but when it comes to sparks and old tv-parts then I have probably played with more than 40.000 volt. Lucky me that I didn't know it. ;-)

      --
      Idha khatabahum lijahiluna qalu salaman
    2. Re:Too easily frightened. by tttonyyy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, when I was a teen, I built Tesla coils. The spark gap alone peaked at ~14kV with a lot of energy. And they routinely produced > 1MV (calculated) from the top caps.

      I did this in the back garden (hammering a steel pole into the lawn gives a good earth point). It seems the neighbours on one side didn't like or understand my odd looking machines, because they moved out shortly afterwards. Admittedly it interfered with every electric system in the neighbourhood, and there was a time whe I was experimenting with two industrial microwave transformers connected in antiphase (for the primary circuit, you understand), and powering them up would cause the lights to dim in every third house down the street, but hey...

      Some people just fear science, I guess. :)

      (And yes, I'm not dead, by some miricle, and I've had two kids since)

      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    3. Re:Too easily frightened. by IKnwThePiecesFt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah the classic misconception. Voltage doesn't affect kill-power, current does. If we were talking amps or say watts, then it would be unnerving.

    4. Re:Too easily frightened. by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      and I've had two kids since

      I bet they are both girls

    5. Re:Too easily frightened. by tttonyyy · · Score: 1
      I bet they are both girls
      You're correct - they are both girls. Your comment suggests that this may not be, as I assumed, by chance. Please elaborate, I'm all ears (figuratively speaking).
      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    6. Re:Too easily frightened. by Magada · · Score: 1

      Ahh.. The old misconception indeed. Neither voltage nor amperage affect "damage done" independently. What really matters, as always with destructive items or phenomena, is energy imparted to the target per unit of time. How to calculate that is left as an exercise for the astute reader with a solid background in high-school physics and chemistry (something which the inventors of the electric chair seem to have lacked).

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    7. Re:Too easily frightened. by HuguesT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The sex ratio of radiation workers' offsprings is often altered, in favour of girls.

      You can read this for example. Other studies show similar effects on (nuclear) submariners, etc.

    8. Re:Too easily frightened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you wouldn't have played with over 40 kV with old TV parts. Probably under 20 kV as higher voltages produce x-rays (no good for hours of entertainment).
      Now it is not my intention to come across as being rude, but I know I will. If you are ignorant of physics, stay away from speculating about the associated risks.

    9. Re:Too easily frightened. by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      I'm all ears

      You're quite a good typist for such a severe handicap !

    10. Re:Too easily frightened. by tttonyyy · · Score: 1
      You're quite a good typist for such a severe handicap !
      Fool, I type with my eighteen fingers (one of which is now raised in your direction!) ;)
      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    11. Re:Too easily frightened. by hey! · · Score: 1

      And you can get some pretty high voltages by walking across a polyester rug in winter. You need something on the order of 10KV to crate an arc over half an inch.

      What matters is the ability of the system you are playing with to deliver current, and for how long. When I was in high school, we used to wrap capacitor leads around their body, charge them up to 400v, and toss them at people, saying "think quick". We stopped doing this when somebody misread a capacitor rating that was in thousands of microfarads as being in farads, and the person who caught it literally got burned. They got literally 1000x the energy intended. It wasn't much of a burn, but it wasn't funny either.

      You have to look at the specific circuits to evaluate the danger, but generally speaking if you are running the circuit off a power supply that can power a significant load, high voltages should be treated with extreme respect. A Tesla coil is considered relatively safe because of the "skin effect" of the high frequencies generated. It is still possible a burn could result if the discharge point is small, and serious injury or death could result if the design allows 60hz to be present on the primary.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Too easily frightened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You've managed to provide a link significantly more interesting than the original story. Nice work.

    13. Re:Too easily frightened. by fritsd · · Score: 1

      He/she means van de Graaff generator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaff_generat or
      We had one in school; every school that teaches physics should have one IMHO.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    14. Re:Too easily frightened. by tttonyyy · · Score: 1

      True, it is all about power.

      As far as arcing in air goes, for 1MV at ~100kHz, there was a rule of thumb that for every foot of air corona could extend you'd need 500W of power on the primary (obviously varies with humidity, temp, pressure etc). For the primary and the spark gap on the line frequency side, the breakdown voltage rule was approximately 1kV per millimeter.

      Most coilers start off with Neon sign transformers (10kV RMS, ~300W) which is fine for small coils. And yes, you can arc the secondary to yourself (well, to something metal you're holding, otherwise you get burns at the point of contact). You couldn't feel anything once the arc was established, but when it was just starting there was a definite tingle. Low frequency components introduced as the load was applied, perhaps.

      Tesla coils have all sorts of hidden dangers anyway, such as getting an arc down to the primary (10kV @ 300W is still very likely to kill) and an arc to you - effectively creating an ionised path between the primary and yourself. Nasty - and why consciencious coilers put a grounded loop (with a little gap) just above the primary, to draw away any strikes that would otherwise hit the primary. The same goes for arcs down to mains.

      From what I remember, the industrial microwave transformers were 2.4kV @ 1.2A (two for a total of just under 6kW). They were truely fearsome, and melted (well, vapourised) every spark gap design I came up with.

      A very interesting hobby for geeks anyway. :)

      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    15. Re:Too easily frightened. by hey! · · Score: 1
      A very interesting hobby for geeks anyway.


      If it wasn't dangerous, it wouldn't be fun.

      It isn't really different, if you think about it, than something like extreme skiing, or free climbing. Risk is part of the attraction, but only outsiders admire people who are reckless. Insiders have more respect people whose skill, knowledge and attention to detail give them greater control over risk.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Too easily frightened. by E++99 · · Score: 1
      Ah the classic misconception. Voltage doesn't affect kill-power, current does.

      Like that other classic misconception that falling from great heights kills you, when really it's the sudden stop at the bottom. When I'm finally sentenced to the electric chair, I'll call you as an expert witness in my motion to have the electric chair configured for a very large current at 1.5 volts.
    17. Re:Too easily frightened. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ah, the classic meta-misconception. Current is determined by the minimum of current that can be provided and voltage divided by resistance.

      In this case, the former probably applies (maybe). In classic cases where people yell "voltage doesn't kill, current does!" the latter usually does. A car battery can supply several hundred amps -- a thousand times more than is sufficient to kill you -- but if you touch a car battery's terminals, in normal circumstances you won't even feel a tingle.

    18. Re:Too easily frightened. by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      It's the current you really have to worry about.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    19. Re:Too easily frightened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just discussing it with my coworkers. These days, if you do any of this stuff in public, you're almost certain to get a visit from the men in black. Kids who try the stuff we did as kids generally just end up arrested. You can't even moon your principal without joining the pedos and rapists on sex offender row. Hell, I was out sweeping my sidewalks one day and a cop comes up with his lights flashing, and wants to know if I "saw anything", turned out that some guy up the street had his house toilet papered and called the cops. When I was a kid, toilet papering a house got me dragged out by the scruff of the neck after dinner without dessert to clean the mess up.

      Everyone wonders what's wrong with the kids of today, where to begin?

  24. I like the way he worms out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of any legal trouble with any federal government agency:
    Someday, he hopes to work for the federal government -- just like his grandfather, Clarence Olson, who designed tanks for the Department of Defense after World War II.

  25. Fusion is no big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor . They are no big deal! Effectively it is like a vacuum tube, where an electrical charge is used to accelerate D+ ions until they smack into each other. No biggie! The energy levels needed for fusion are very small and can be achieved in a hand-held device. These fusors are used as laboratory neutron sources.

    So if fusion is so easy, and if it's such a great power source, why aren't we using it right now to generate power? The Fusor device can easily make fusion happen but, for various reasons, it is not energy-positive fusion. The energy you get out of it cannot be capture in a useful way to get more energy than was put into it. So they're great for neutrons but not much else.

    If someone could figure out a design that would be energy-positive then we would have something amazing but there's nothing there for that right now.

    1. Re:Fusion is no big deal! by zaguar · · Score: 1

      For those wondering, the Farnsworth in Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is a television star, with numerous appearances in the hit cartoon series, Futurama.

      --
      "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
    2. Re:Fusion is no big deal! by jsiren · · Score: 2
      As the saying goes in these parts, "some people go ahead and do things, others follow behind and criticize."

      Fusion, while obviously doable, is not something an average teenager would try. It's a commendable thing that this kid has the curiosity to experiment. Let's just hope he(?)'s taken the necessary precautions to avoid needlessly endangering his or other people's health and safety - and that goes with anything, even riding a bicycle.

      Besides, you have to start somewhere - the "hello world" program or any of its variants has been done millions of times, but it's nevertheless a good starting point to learning a new programming language. Maybe a variant of a known fusor is a good starting point to further exploration in fusion, and it's newsworthy simply because it's unusual for people to experiment with fusion at home?

      As to repeating tried-and-true research, there's the point that Richard Feynman made about not blindly trusting others' results...

      --
      Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    3. Re:Fusion is no big deal! by Briareos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right...

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    4. Re:Fusion is no big deal! by Placido · · Score: 1

      Simple. Gather enough D+ so that gravity and pressure force them together?

      --

      Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
      Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
    5. Re:Fusion is no big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are working on a farnsworth-esque device. 7 prototypes by energy matter conversion company led by Robert Bussard showed successive scientific proof. He is going to get his 200mil soon and hopefull we'll have a working fullscale device in 5 years http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 18/0616205

  26. kaboom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    dont forget to keep Dee Dee out of lab..

    1. Re:kaboom! by jamesshuang · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA fellow Chinese person! If I had mod points, you'd get a funny rating! :-D
      (for the unenlightened, dee dee = little brother)

  27. Re:Been done before by Madman · · Score: 2

    He's never gonna get laid anyway, so why should he worry about it?

  28. Re:Been done before by cptgrudge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Making a fusion reactor is relatively easy, albeit somewhat dangerous, like you said.

    From here:

    As with any nuclear-related project, safety must be taken into consideration.

    [...]

    * Radiation; this should be the least of your worries until about 15,000 volts of acceleration potential. At this point, x-rays start to emanate from viewports due to electron and ion bombardment of metals in the chamber. Always use a camera or mirror to peer into the viewport. X-rays can cause burns and lead to cancer. Above 40,000 volts, x-rays will start to come through the stainless steel chamber walls. At this point, you will need to use lead shielding. Neutron radiation is the most dangerous form of radiation known to man, but the fusor does not put out enough of it to be dangerous until about 45,000 volts. It can easily be shielded with water, wax or plastic. You can also minimize your exposure by standing well away from the fusor, or by operating it for only 20 minutes per week.

    More safety info.

    Really, it's that pesky part where we try to actually make it produce energy and break even that is stumping us right now.

    --
    Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
  29. Really? Me too! by Itsallmyfault · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm in the process of this very thing... on a much larger scale... in my dining roo+++NO CARRIER

  30. Re:Been done before by thekm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "This has been replicated over 300 times. Maybe 500. Old news"

    this is the statement of an asshole. Why make an almost asinine comment like this?... a 17 year old applied himself in a very unsual way that shows intelligence, aptitude, application, and determination. Researched, developed and built a remarkable machine. Sure, it's been demonstrated since the 20's, but you probably read about it in a book at best. Or looked up on wikipedia that it was first done in the 20's.

    Most people just read about things. Others do things. Knowing things and not doing is borderline redundant. Hearing of something being done for a long time and never even remotely applying yourself even within 1%, and then criticising and reducing the absolutely remarkable efforts of others is borderline criminal. Get a life, but more importantly, get some perspective.

    I'd love to see a picture of your fusion machine, or anything even remotely demonstrating the independent application of intelligence. People that make these kinds of comments rarely partake in anything of the kind.

  31. You are joking, aren't you? by Flying+pig · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Because somebody modded this informative. Anybody with a flame, a flask, infinite quantities of energy and infinite patience might be able to get some modestly concentrated heavy water this way, but it is going to be groaningly slow. Which is why the usual method requires differential electrolysis.

    Alternatively, he might have bought a small quantity from a scientific supplier. Even the Government is going to realise, especially if his teachers wrote in, that the size of fusion bomb you can build with a couple of grammes of heavy water and the tritium from a beta light is less of a threat to the US than one NRA member with a hangover and a grudge against his ex-wife.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:You are joking, aren't you? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      I know it's difficult. I was speaking of possibilities, not practicalities. I probably should have clarified that. I was responding to a poster who seemed to think the method was electrolysis of plain water.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    2. Re:You are joking, aren't you? by Jekler · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's just low. Most NRA members are responsible adults who just want the right to bear arms and protect themselves and their families. They're not crazy gun-toting lunatics with hair-trigger rifles and bad tempers.

      Hahaha, just kidding, yes they are.
    3. Re:You are joking, aren't you? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      I was already thinking, ESR, is that you?.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    4. Re:You are joking, aren't you? by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

      What do the hangover and the ex-wife have to do with this?

      --
      Trust me, I work for the government.
    5. Re:You are joking, aren't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a Flamebit. Go dunk your head.

    6. Re:You are joking, aren't you? by Himring · · Score: 1

      Don't knock a hangover and a grudge against your ex-wife until you've tried one....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  32. I love bylines! by M0b1u5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I love bylines! They're so incriminating.

    Like GINA DAMRON, the reporter who doesn't listen, and can not know the difference between a "Hyperbaric Chamber" and a [sic] Hyperbolic Chamber, which sounds oddly shaped, but unremarkable.

    Good on you Gina, keep up that keen reporting.

    I'm looking forward to your report on the Frictional Distillation process.

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    1. Re:I love bylines! by tjl2015 · · Score: 1
      Well, if he did create a hyperbolic chamber in his basement, I would find that more amazing then a mere fusion reactor. Maybe he's been watching too much DBZ??:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_Time_Chamb er/

    2. Re:I love bylines! by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      Naw... I think it would be more like this.

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    3. Re:I love bylines! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Fictional Destillation process?

    4. Re:I love bylines! by Control+Group · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hyperbolic Chamber, which sounds oddly shaped, but unremarkable

      Are you kidding? I made a Hyperbolic Chamber, and it's the greatest thing ever! Its better than a baseball player batting TWO thousand!! No one has ever even imagined anything as phenomenally revolutionary as my Hyperbolic Chamber!!! I can guarantee that my Hperbolic Chamber will solve world hunger and instantiate world peace!!!! It's as hot as the center of the sun, and as cool as intergalactic space!!!!!

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    5. Re:I love bylines! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sad example of the decline of science -- and critical thinking -- in our schools and society.

    6. Re:I love bylines! by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to exaggerate the greatness of my hyperbolic chamber!!!

  33. Radioactive Boy Scout by robbiedo · · Score: 1

    Well at least he didn't build a fission reactor in his tool shed, and create a EPA Superfund site.

    1. Re:Radioactive Boy Scout by cloudkiller · · Score: 1

      Isn't Michigan the best? First we had David Hahn and now we have fusion boy. It really makes me want to actually do something worthwhile in my Michigan basement or shed.

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this sig]
    2. Re:Radioactive Boy Scout by spiderbitendeath · · Score: 1

      I say we start a Michigan Amateur Research Society.
      These kids just make me proud to live in Michigan.

      --
      Sometimes when I'm working on projects things disappear, I suspect gremlins.
  34. Re:Been done before by buswolley · · Score: 4, Funny

    And people keep telling us that USA kids don't do science. Shit.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  35. Burning hydrogen perhaps? by syousef · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'd be much more likely to believe he'd managed to burn some hydrogen in a ball of gas and that his little vacuum chamber is less than perfect. Sounds like pseudo scientific horse shit (still steaming) to me.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Burning hydrogen perhaps? by RsG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please do some basic fact checking before commenting. This thing is a Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. The design is common knowledge, decades old and is proven to work. No pseudo science involved, period. Your comment would have potentially made sense if we were talking cold fusion, or if the kid had claimed to have made a toroidal reactor.

      Moreover, differentiating between a nuclear reaction and a chemical one is easy; the former is going to give off some highly recognizable forms of radiation (X-rays are specifically mentioned in TFA, and IIRC Fusors give off neutrons as well).

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  36. Relevant science fiction story: by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dechlorinating the Moderator by Charles Stross. Check out Scratch Monkey & Accelerando while you're there, too.

    Amazed that no one's posted this yet in a story about amateur physics ;)

  37. Commendable. by tute666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The FBI hasn't fallen on him like a ton of rectangular building blocks yet?

    1. Re:Commendable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah... they will find the way to incriminate somebody in Iraq for the deuterium. Like, it's a good pretext to invade Michigan and all... but... what would you want from Michigan anyways?

  38. Re:Been done before by Spunkee · · Score: 0

    What the kid did is amazing. All CF experiments are, and I'm happy to see any progress in the field. The "old news" part was a bit of a joke? Good god man.

  39. So what? by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0

    Philo Farnsworth did this ages ago. So what's the big deal? All of a sudden, just because someone does something that has a techy-sounding name, it becomes newsworthy regardless of the fact that it is NOTHING new?

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:So what? by Grench · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot could some 17-year-old amateur nuclear physicist create a fusion reaction in his basement, and still receive "Meh" as a response... :-(

      Good on him, even if it has been done before. I wasn't even allowed to burn white spirits in my chemistry set. Nuclear fusion was therefore totally out of the question.

      --
      He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
    2. Re:So what? by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0

      Look, I'm not trashing the kid, but people creating fusion in their basement is not new, or even remotely new. Philo Farnsworth did it a long time ago.. It's cool that he managed to do it, but it has been done so many times, the uniquness of the whole thing is non-existant. Anyone, pretty much anyone with a moderate knowledge of physics and electronics, not to mention a significant amount of free time, can do that.

      I'm not questioning has actions of actually doing it, because I think that it is a pretty cool thing to do, like the Boy Scout who built a completely functioning breeder reactor in his garden shed, all while being completely undetected. What I am calling into question is the unique-ness of the whole thing. Is it really news? Have other people done it before? Kudos to the kid who did it, but it really isn't new.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  40. Oh, crap, about the domain name... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Informative

    Forgot... No, it's not an anti-catholic site. It's supposed to be "autopope" but that got messed up in Internet pre-history.

    1. Re:Oh, crap, about the domain name... by rabel · · Score: 1

      Darn! I was about to mod you up just for the domain name.

    2. Re:Oh, crap, about the domain name... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      In fact, the word "antipope" has an actual, and historically interesting meaning. There have been several so-called antipopes in history, generally when there was a dispute over the legitimate papal succession in the Catholic Church which led to two separate popes being installed by different groups simultaneously.

      The most famous of these were the Avignon popes that arose out of the Great Schism in the late 1300s.

      The funny thing is that all of the antipopes generally considered themselves the legitimate popes, and it was really only after the fact that the Church and historians decided which ones were popes and which ones were pretenders, or "antipopes".

      So, there's your history lesson on "antipopes". So to anybody familiar with the actual meaning of the word, it's not particular anti-Catholic, though it may be generally suggestive of opposition to the official Church line.

  41. Um, who cares... by sirius+sam · · Score: 0

    ...about a bunch of niggers throwing a ball around?

  42. If I had a nickle... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    If I had a nickle every time I created fusion, well, I'd still be broke.

  43. Re:Been done before by Spunkee · · Score: 1

    Sensitive are we? It is old news. Good news. Interesting news. But nothing new. Jesus christ what's wrong with you people are touchy. Mod the post as flamebait no less.

  44. Aww Nostalgia... by REALLYTANGY · · Score: 1

    I don't know why, but the recurring theme in my head while reading the article was the similarity to Micho Kaku's experience in HS that he describes in his book Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension...I believe it's page 5-6.

  45. He built it WHERE? by Nitewing98 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that thinks he's an idiot for trying to construct ANY fusion device under his parent's house? Geez, what if he'd created a fusion reaction that was larger than he could contain?

    Who does he think he is, Elroy Jetson?

    --

    Nitewing '98

    Everything works...in theory.

    1. Re:He built it WHERE? by tttonyyy · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one that thinks he's an idiot for trying to construct ANY fusion device under his parent's house? Geez, what if he'd created a fusion reaction that was larger than he could contain?
      You're the only one. I think you've been watching too much Star Trek. Fortunately, non-idiots, such as that lad, know that a Robert Hirsch type fusor only ever consumes more energy that it produces. It'll never "run away" as such.

      Suggested reading for you:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor#Robert_Hirsch
      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    2. Re:He built it WHERE? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Geez, what if he'd created a fusion reaction that was larger than he could contain?

      Well, the energy output from the reaction breaks the reaction chamber, after which the reaction stops since there's nothing keeping it going anymore.

      Why, what did you think would happen ? A nuclear fusion explosion ? You do realize that those need a regular fission nuclear bomb to trigger, right ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  46. Mommy never lies! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    See. This is a very bright kid. His mother says so. By 5 he was playing chemistry sets, and by 9 was changing batteries.

    FOR FUCK SAKES PEOPLE: I know many kids, including myself & my own two kids who did simple chemistry set stuff at less than 5 and tasks more complex than changing batteries in cars long before 9, and explosives etc before ten.

    I doubt this is real fusion & will remain sceptical until somebody in a white lab coat and thick glasses confirms it. Sorry mom, your opinion doesn't count.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  47. Re:Been done before by Skrynesaver · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bizarrely enough, not only are they funding it (along with the rest of the developed world), they will sign the consortium agreement today.

    --
    "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
  48. Well done by jandersen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fus or reveals that this is a fairly simply, but clever experiment. He is a bright kid, and one day he'll most likely become a physicist. Or perhaps not - whereas the device is simple enough to build, I haven't been able to find a place to buy deuterium, unless you want to talk to a guy called Al (last name of 'Qaeda').

    1. Re:Well done by Elminst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I haven't been able to find a place to buy deuterium, unless you want to talk to a guy called Al (last name of 'Qaeda').

      Put away the fear-mongering, and learn to use Google. Deuterium is easily obtained from many places for *gasp!* science experiments.
      http://unitednuclear.com/hw.htm
      http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/displayproduct .cfm?prod_id=5267
      And the world's leading "producer" of Deuterium is Canada.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    2. Re:Well done by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      indeed, and what could AQ do with it anyway? nothing, that's what. More useful to such whackjobs would be high level rad waste or medical/industrial emitters.

  49. Points for technical ability, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Uh, let's write a story that make it look like he "creates" a standard Fanrnsworth-Hirsch Fusor (built for science fair projects, low level neutron sources, and just shits & grins for 50 years) and make the kid look like a genius.

    Technical skill? Yes. Advanced knowledge? Yes.

    But primarily, ability to follow directions available everywhere? Yes.

    He may very well be a genius, but it is as likely that he's a genius at self-promotion as anything. There are many high-quality science projects he could have done, but add the words "nuclear" and "fusion" and you attract a lot of media attention. He'll make a good string theorist...

    JD

  50. The lightssss by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    It burnsss ussss.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  51. Science fair suggestion for Olson by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    Experimentally test the model used by Todd Harrison Rider in his PhD thesis which Rider claims proves that inertial electrostatic fusion is not feasible due to the supposedly inevitable tendency of such systems to head toward a Maxwellian distribution so strongly that restoring forces require more energy than can be produced from the aneutronic fusion reactions.

    This was discussed a bit in the prior /. article about IEC.

    If he does, let's hope he publishes since there appear to be no citations of Rider's thesis a decade after it was published.

    1. Re:Science fair suggestion for Olson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No citations? It gets cited on t'internet every time the subject comes up.

      Personally I don't think the citers understand the underlying assumptions in that paper any better than I do, so whether or not it applies in any given case is unclear.

      But I do know that the paper does not rule out sustained inertial-containment fusion for any of the fusion reactions from Boron-11 down. It just says that it's going to be difficult to achieve positive power output because the efficiency will be somewhat lower than you might naively assume.

  52. Wishful thinking by Alioth · · Score: 1

    If any article deserves a 'wishfulthinking' it's this one. Making a desktop fusor is not anything to do with generating electricity or solving our energy problems - it won't even break even. It's like expecting Michael Faraday at the turn of the 1900s to suddenly invent integrated circuits.

    1. Re:Wishful thinking by tumutbound · · Score: 1

      "It's like expecting Michael Faraday at the turn of the 1900s to suddenly invent integrated circuits"

      What, like 33 years after his death?
      OMG zombie scientists!

    2. Re:Wishful thinking by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new zombie scientist... Aww, screw it.

  53. Re:Been done before by Spunkee · · Score: 1

    No shit. Well call me completely uninformed. I thought this stuff was still in the "it's impossible and you're crazy for saying it isn't" stage. Seriously.

  54. 152 comments and nobody has said it... by yanyan · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new teenage basement-dwelling fusion reactor overlords!

    1. Re:152 comments and nobody has said it... by Rockinsockindune · · Score: 1

      Damn you, I was going to post that, and I read down to the bottom to check if anyone else did first.

      --
      I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
    2. Re:152 comments and nobody has said it... by Barny · · Score: 1

      Save time, "display all comments" f3 that sucker and move on if its already taken, theres plenty of threads for everyone to have a go :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  55. Time to move? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    After the OMG Mystic Damascus Steel and things like this from the Zonk and Scuttlemonkey department perhaps it's time to move on. Anything else out there similar to Slashdot or are there just some filters I can try on this site to keep the psuedoscience down?

  56. OMG! Terrarist by danske+url · · Score: 1

    Surely we should be nuking this guy back to the stone age? Pesky axis of evil and their neuclear threats.

  57. Engineering by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

    From RTFA:

    "I was always interested in science," he said. "It's always been my best subject in school."

    From all I read he is more into engineering, iow applied science, not the science itself which is theoretical.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  58. Hmmmm by tannhaus · · Score: 1

    You think this is great? Wait until his parents get the electric bill. Then the excitement really begins.

  59. building massive energy devices in your baseroom.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... isnt this against the patriot act?

    TASER HIM!

  60. It's a good start by ruedesursulines · · Score: 1

    Now to figure out how to turn that ball of energy into Kelly LeBrock!

  61. What's He Building? by MisterSquiddy · · Score: 0

    Didn't Tom Waits write a song about this guy?

  62. Re:He initially wanted to create a hyperbolic cham by Dachannien · · Score: 1
  63. Chick Magnet.. by JohnnyOpcode · · Score: 1

    He'll being getting laid in quantity now, chicks dig guys with fusion reactors in their parents basement. Then again, you could score some if you have a PS3 also.

    1. Re:Chick Magnet.. by nlmille1 · · Score: 0

      I heard that you need a fusion reactor in order to power the PS3. Sounds like this guy is half-way there.

  64. 17 year olds should be doing other stuff ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The PS3 and Wii have just come out and this 17year old nerd still has time left to build a fusion reactor?

  65. Re:Been done before by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    This isn't cold fusion, as far as I can tell.

  66. give me a break you tards by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    he has to use 40,000v to create a small spark, how the fuck is that edging towards breaking even? looks like your still 40,000 volts from breaking even. this kid will probably die from cancer or something now.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:give me a break you tards by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You can rub a balloon on your sweater and use 40,000v to create a small spark - voltage on its own means nothing.

  67. Widely used? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
    Hopefully this points to a future where large scale fusion reactors are both economical and widely used.

    These fusion reactors produce net energy? I thought they didn't.

  68. Easy to find out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put a hose to the chamber and start sucking. If you get a high pitched squirrel voice, then you have successfully created helium

    1. Re:Easy to find out by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Heh. I thought his balls just hadn't dropped yet.

  69. Long live the cooks! by Aaron+Isotton · · Score: 1
    "I thought he was going to be a cook," Natalice Olson said, "because he liked to mix things."

    Now that is cool. Cook would have been my 2nd choice - now I'm working on my CS master. My mom would have preferred a cook though.

  70. Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently he made a plasma.
    Apparently he is an idiot.

    Fusion is the reaction which
    drives the SUN.

    IF he was able to produce an
    actual fusion reaction, he was
    incredibly stupid.

    What if it was self-sustaining?
    He never mentioned what he would
    do for containment.

    We would end up like the SUN,
    a really hot glowing ball in orbit.

    Making Global Warming seem tame.

    This guy is the same type of guy
    who thinks Star Trek transporters
    are possible. Hogwash.

  71. He's turning to starboard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well, assuming you're right handed, and zapped yourself pretty good when a lad, you probably dissipated quite a bit of heat in your right testis, which as everyone knows, is the male testis. Therefore, you're more likely to have girls.

    Either that, or he's shitting you. One of the two.

  72. Re:Been done before by x2A · · Score: 1

    Cue the standard response...

    "Why make an almost asinine comment like this?"

    You must be new here!

    Seriously this is slashdot, made of up some genuinly interested people, and a bunch of bitter never-gonna-get-laid boring suck-the-life-out-of-everything spiritless erm... well you get what i'm saying :-)

    I would say "best just to ignore them" but hell, they even get to me from time to time.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  73. Is that BBQ chicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there are women I've run into now that I'm an adult who'd go for that sort of thing; pity I hadn't met any of them in high school :-)

  74. Next step, find the DeLorean by billstewart · · Score: 1

    *Then* he'll have to move the Mr. Fusion from the basement out to the garage...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  75. Hes just a terrorist by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Arrest him please. He has forbidden knowledge.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  76. FUSION?? bad journalism more likely.. by kaysan · · Score: 0, Troll
    "Nuclear fusion -- when atoms are combined to create energy" People that stooopid shouldn't be allowed out of their house, much less write a column in a newspaper! That's called Chemistry you dumb bitch! Fusion is when nuclei are combined to form different atoms!!

    2 years in his basement trying to make something explode... maybe the kid just needs masturbation instructions.

  77. OT: NRA by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this is off-topic, but when I hear people refer to the NRA as overheated and overpoliticized gun owners, I sigh, and think, "They didn't used to be...."

    I remember when I was in Boy Scouts during the 1970's and I took the dreaded "Rifle and Shotgun" merit badge.

    Back then, the NRA was a gun safety and training organization. They struck everyone as being straight-forward and calm, more interested in making sure that people knew how to prevent gun accidents and how to responsibly own firearms.

    Then things changed, and they transformed themselves into a political organization - and now they're either seen as "the safeguard of the American way" or "crazy gun-toting fascists," depending on whose overheated rhetoric was heard last.

    Perhaps this should be seen as a warning to other groups - once you enter the political fray, you become a political animal. Or in the words of the Punisher, "The means always screws up the ends."

    --
    Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    1. Re:OT: NRA by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is just the non-profit version of CEO greed. There's greed for money, and there's greed for prestige. They both exist in the non-profit and for-profit sectors, in fact each kind of greed is instrumental for the other, but it's easier to pursue prestige as a primary aim in the non-profit world. I've seen this at work first hand, having worked over a decade in non-profits.b

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:OT: NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to get political until people try to take away your rights.

    3. Re:OT: NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too remember when the NRA was promoting gun safety and hunting.

      I also remember when the AMA (American Motorcycle Association) was promoting rider training, safety and competition. Both organizations started to fall victim to politics as early as the mid 1970s. I dropped from each in the early 1980s as I found my dues increasingly spent on lawyers and lobbyists and less on promoting the respective sport.

      I still own guns. I no longer own a bike. The kooks driving their cars while yapping on the cell phone and munching McCheezies scare me worse that the kooks with the guns. Ever see someone driving while playing the clarinet? Be very afraid.....

    4. Re:OT: NRA by Zabu · · Score: 0
      Then things changed, and they transformed themselves into a political organization - and now they're either seen as "the safeguard of the American way" or "crazy gun-toting fascists," depending on whose overheated rhetoric was heard last.

      Perhaps this should be seen as a warning to other groups - once you enter the political fray, you become a political animal.


      Exactly! I am a member of the NRA and I never carry a gun, and I don't even tell people they should own one. I see the mislabeling of NRA members for purely political purposes as a tragedy.
      Guns are important, but not as important as the safety and training required of responsibly owning them.
      --
      It's all good.
    5. Re:OT: NRA by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know this is off-topic, but when I hear people refer to the NRA as overheated and overpoliticized gun owners, I sigh, and think, "They didn't used to be...."

      Relatively speaking, they still aren't.

      Every time someone makes a point that the NRA is extreme, I like to point out that to many gun owners the NRA is a bunch of pussies. Compare them to The Second Amendment Foundation or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (I'm at work, so filtering prevents me from visiting their sites to gather URLs.) By that measure, the NRA is the voice of reason.

      Personally, I take a middle tack. The NRA is the only gun rights organization big enough to make a difference on a national scale, so I support them. However, they have majorly screwed up in more ways than I can count. First, there's PR. Back in the day (until the late 1980s) the NRA was the national governing body for international shooting sports. That meant that the road to the Olympics went through the NRA. The people that worked that program weren't political animals and they failed to defend their turf; the NRA gave up NGB status and let is slide over to U.S. Shooting. That was the single stupidest PR mistake I've ever seen. Almost no one can argue against gun ownership for the purpose of winning Olympic medals, yet the NRA can no longer use that as an example. Way back in the day, it was possible for an NRA rep to hold up a S&W M52 target pistol and say "This is the pistol that Ruby Fox used to win a silver at the L.A. Olympics. We are the organization that provided the infrastructure for that to happen. The assault rifle bill before Congress would ban this gun, thus proving that gun control is a bad thing." (Yes, the original Matzenbaum assault rifle bill, the grandaddy of all that sort of legislation, would have outlawed as "assault rifles" nearly all semiautomatic pistols and shotguns as well as rifles.) The NRA can no longer stand up and say they represent potential Olympians. I'm still shocked that they don't seem to realize what a powerful PR tool they lost when they gave up sanctioning authority.

      Another PR error? Here's one, drawn from your own post. You say the NRA has changed. It hasn't. The NRA is still a competition, safety, conservation, and training outfit. All the political stuff belongs to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. But does the general public realize that the organization that teaches Boy Scouts and the organization that lobbies Congress are two different things? Not really. The NRA has failed to differentiate, thus contaminating their functions that nearly anyone would agree are wholesome with the stench of their political activities. That's bad PR and I see no way to correct it.

      Second, they have wussed out at any number of innopportune times. Check the website of any "NRA watchdog" and you'll find instances when they backed down instead of going for the jugular, usually in the name of preserving future relationships. The earliest I can remember was the so-called "cop killer" bullets, a fiction dreamed up by anti-gun types that the NRA caved on. Now, the notion that there are teflon-coated pistol bullets out there that magically slide through bulletproof vests (and that those objects only exist because the NRA wants them to exist) is ingrained in the minds of most people who don't know any better. It's just crazy. Just this last week, in that Law & Order episode where the escaped con kills all the little schoolgirls, there was an obviously dubbed line thrown in about the bad guy having obtained a .45 with "teflon bullets." Argh! That kind of willful ignorance makes me crazy; if the NRA had done a better job back when they had the chance, such ignorance wouldn't be so common.

      Third, they've simply failed far too many times. How in the bloody hell did the machine gun ban get passed? I've seen the video of the voice vote. It wasn't even close to passage, yet the Speaker simply pronounced it p

    6. Re:OT: NRA by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I still own guns. I no longer own a bike. The kooks driving their cars while yapping on the cell phone and munching McCheezies scare me worse that the kooks with the guns.

      If you own a gun, why do you put up with it? I'm not suggesting you should put a cap in someone's ass for talking on the cellphone while driving, but a warning shot for first offense and a wing mirror shot for the second seems reasonable.

      Ever see someone driving while playing the clarinet? Be very afraid.....

      Actually, I take that back. You should put a cap in someone's ass for playing the clarinet.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:OT: NRA by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "Then things changed, and they transformed themselves into a political organization"

      That was right after the gun control advocates got organized. I'm all for "gun control" and for banning weapons. Government should lead by example. ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:OT: NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah thats why the NRA doesn't do safety training for kids anymore oh wait maybe they do.

    9. Re:OT: NRA by djh101010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Back then, the NRA was a gun safety and training organization. They struck everyone as being straight-forward and calm, more interested in making sure that people knew how to prevent gun accidents and how to responsibly own firearms. Then things changed, and they transformed themselves into a political organization

      Thing is, the NRA _still is_ that gun safety and training organization. Unfortunately, clueless legislators have made it necessary for us to also worry about the real risk of legislation making us all less safe by disarming us. The gun safety programs are successful; the training programs are successful - these things are still going on, probably as much or more than they were before. You won't hear about it from the press, of course, because they've got an agenda, and something as uninteresting as "The NRA's gun safety programs continue to work just as they have for the last many decades", just isn't newsworthy.

      It's always interesting to see someone telling what the NRA is "all about", when they just don't have their facts right. It's no different than any other topic, I suppose - you'll always have people disagreeing with (thing), and when you ask them why, they give reasons that aren't true. It shows that they disagree with the lies, not with the organization being lied about.

    10. Re:OT: NRA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There exactly the same as always, but they became an easy target to exagurate about.

      and yes, that pun WAS intentional.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  78. Re:Been done before by foobsr · · Score: 1

    ... made of up some genuinly interested people ...

    Starting to develop so much of ingenuity they even develop ways to leave out redundant letters, ... wait, probably reinventing 1337 speak?

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  79. Capacitors by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    TVs have very dangerous capacitors. The function of capacitors that you unhappily discovered is something like a temporary battery.

    See, a real battery can only push so much energy out per second (I think batteries are usually defined in milliamp hours (mAh)). So what you do is you start pushing charge (electrons) onto a capacitor, and then when you need a real big quick burst of energy (like, say, to shoot an electron at a TV screen) the cap can give you that high amount of current or voltage very quickly.

    Another use is to smooth power signals. You're getting sent AC voltage in the wall, which oscillates above and below zero volts. This gets rectified at the home so that it's either above or at 0 volts. Then, this gets filtered through a series of capacitors (and lots of other stuff, too; Zener diodes FTW) to provide (more) consistent voltage, instead of a rising and falling voltage. In essence, it's acting as a battery for us while the voltage is lower than what the circuit needs.

    Capacitors are also very important in analog filters and a lot of other Electrical Engineering voodoo.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Capacitors by Archimonde · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the informative reply. I kinda know what capacitors do (even though my knowledge now is pretty much too rusty;), but thanks for the refreshment anyway.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    2. Re:Capacitors by 0x0000 · · Score: 5, Funny
      TVs have very dangerous capacitors.

      There is no such thing as a "safe" capacitor! They are filled with SMOKE and that smoke is DEADLY. ALWAYS let the smoke out of the capacitors before attempting to handle them! This should only be done by PROFESSIONALS. Do NOT try this at home.

      Always assume a CAPACITOR is holding a charge. And: Capacitors don't kill people, it's the circuit of which the person is a part that is dangerous...

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    3. Re:Capacitors by finity · · Score: 1

      I've let the smoke out of a few capacitors. I especially like the ones that blow up when you do it.

    4. Re:Capacitors by mindwhip · · Score: 2, Informative

      mAh is the measure of how much charge they hold, a 100mAh battery could in theory throw out 1000's of amps for a very brief time tho most chemical batteries of the size you would get in a Walkman etc can't do this as the chemical reaction that powers them is for the most part too slow. These are the type of batteries I would put in the 'toy' category.

      Watch out for 'real batteries' that you get in things like cars and the banks of them that you get in forklift trucks etc... they are rated in 100's of Amps peak and can pack a huge whack of power if shorted or otherwise messed with.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    5. Re:Capacitors by idonthack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Modded Insightful? I guess it's not just intelligent people getting mod points.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    6. Re:Capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Or some real batteries, like what you would find in at an older telecom switch office.
      They are only 48 volt stacks, but the cells are huge. One cell would be about 18" in diameter and about 36" tall, and 24 of these are wired in series to produce 48 volts. The power flows out to the office over large copper bus bars, not wires. If anyone out there knows the peak current capacity of a typical wet cell plant like they had in the old 1AESS offices, could you post it here?
      Better yet, a link to photos? The individual cells where open top pyrex jars with the lead plates and insulators suspended into them from the top. It was a little weird seeing a room with that much lead and acid sitting out in the open like that.

    7. Re:Capacitors by torchdragon · · Score: 1

      I can't be the only one looking at the insightful and shaking my head. Oh well, guess I should go run my monthly NOSMOKE.EXE...

      --
      "Don't feel bad for me child; I'm the monster that hides under your bed."
    8. Re:Capacitors by toleraen · · Score: 1

      So thats why my college years are so hazy! I knew blowing up capacitors during electronics class was a little too much fun. Thank god it was the smoke from the capacitors, and not all that beer I drank!

    9. Re:Capacitors by erbbysam · · Score: 1

      "Capacitors don't kill people, it's the circuit of which the person is a part that is dangerous..." Capacitors don't kill people, I do.

    10. Re:Capacitors by jefu · · Score: 1

      To quote a very wise man :
      "Guns don't kill people, physics kills people." - Dr Dick Solomon

      Or in this case :
      "Capacitors don't kill people,... "

    11. Re:Capacitors by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Funny
      Capacitors don't kill people, it's the circuit ...

      Capacitors don't kill people. Capacitor manufacturers kill people. Capacitors are just the tool they use to do it.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    12. Re:Capacitors by Zordak · · Score: 1

      I once thought I had let the smoke out of a somewhat expensive (~$12) 12k uF cap when I accidentally grounded a 600V node (long story). But it turned out that I had just let the smoke out of the traceline on our board and vaporized the solder connecting it to the cap. We soldered it back on and our power supply worked just fine (it blew a hole in the middle of the traceline, but fortunately left the edges intact. And since the edges are where the current flows, we were in good shape).

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    13. Re:Capacitors by HansWurst · · Score: 1

      There is another dangerous capacitor in conventional TVs besides in the power supply unit the parent post describes: The CRT itself! The rectified voltage from the power supply is switched and transformed again with a special high voltage transformer and a diode ladder to serveral tenths of kilovolts to get the nessesary acceleration of the electrons which penetrate the phosphor on the front to make a pixel light up. Since this voltage is applied between the front and the back of the tube, the tube itself is a (although very low) capacitor. Remeber, energy in a capacitor is calculated by: E=1/2*C*U^2 , with the voltage in square, so thanks to the high voltage, this capacitor can be equally lethal. Plus, as a rule of thumb, about 1kV will sparkover at a distance of 1mm, so you just have to come close to get buzzed. In professional tv service, the tube is discharged with a suitable high voltage resistor at first. For the hobbyist, it might be enough just to the let the tv completely disconnected from any power source for at least one day get the crt discharged itself.

    14. Re:Capacitors by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2, Informative

      No you don't, it's Chuck Norris that kills people

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    15. Re:Capacitors by Ahuitzotl · · Score: 1

      Actualy the picture tube (especially in very large TV's) IS a capacitor. Quite a painful one too. I once was messing around with an old 26" monitor (the kind used at airports) and had dischargd and left disconnected the tube. Well I forgot to keep the HV anode grounded while it was sitting there and I came back several days later to a nasty suprise. Apparently picture tubes can re form the charge over time. I forget what the name for this is, but I have seen it in repair manuals and such, it seems to have to do with the fact that they are so large and have such a large surface area.

    16. Re:Capacitors by Jordan+Catalano · · Score: 1

      The function of capacitors that you unhappily discovered is something like a temporary battery

      And where can I find these other kind of permanent batteries? I hate having to keep recharging mine.

    17. Re:Capacitors by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      New to Slashdot, are we?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    18. Re:Capacitors by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny
      Wow.

      The only capacitor horror story I have involves an ancient PC AT type computer and a serial port ISA card. I plugged the card into the PC (correctly--antistatic procedures, power off, all that jazz) and powered up the system.

      My first thought was "Oh, how nice, they even have a neon pilot lamp on the card to let you know it has power."

      My second thought was "Wait? NEON? No way..."

      My third thought was "I didn't know tantalum capacitors would glow bright orange."

      My fourth thought was a continuation of the third: "...or EXPLODE!"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    19. Re:Capacitors by Creepy · · Score: 2, Funny

      yeah, yeah, rectifying mumbo-jumbo - nobody wants to hear about that. What you want to do is take one of those really big capacitors in an old TV, unsolder the leads and solder them in backwards. Then hook up the power.

      See, it's simple - Slashdot readers want to see shrapnel - and lots of it, not how to safely do stuff with electricity. Keep your education stuff in the schools.

    20. Re:Capacitors by networkBoy · · Score: 1
      since the edges are where the current flows, we were in good shape

      I'll assume you were not using DC then.
      -nB
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    21. Re:Capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. Maybe we're talking about the charge buildup on the tube itself, which can be very exciting indeed if not properly discharged. This is more like a giant, badass leyden jar - that 8th-grade science hazard which sends clasmates leaping - technically a cap, but containing no magic smoke, alas, only the several kilovolt force to throw one across the room even when grudgingly unplugged.

      Anyone who's worked on a first-gen Macintosh knows this. Oh. And TV repair people. You know. People who actually know what they're talking about.

    22. Re:Capacitors by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Oh the memories. Now that reminds me of another incident with the same project. The cap whose traceline I blew was a rectifier for a high-voltage power supply we were using to power a vacuum tube. So we had this old 1200V transformer we had pulled out of an old Hammond organ (hey, we were cheap students). We were using big, high-voltage rectifier diodes, but we started to notice that the output from the transformer was very erratic. It would fluctuate wildly. Then one time when we were running some tests on the thing, all the sudden it started making funny humming noises, and then one of our diodes blew itself in half, showering ceramic shards all over us. It was quite fascinating. To be fair, we knew that our output was a little over the reverse breakdown voltage of the diodes, but we figured there would be enough margin for us to be okay. Of course, the smart thing for us to do at this point would have been for us to get a new, stable transformer with a lower output voltage, but we were cheap and running up against a deadline. So we just went and found bigger, badder diodes. They held up through our in-class demonstration.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    23. Re:Capacitors by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Lacking something like a heart condition, the charge stored in a CRT's anode capacitance is very unlikely to be lethal in and of itself. A shock from a charged CRT is similar to a really strong "carpet shock" from touching a doorknob, or the kick you get from touching a spark plug wire on a lawnmower. Painful and memorable, but not really dangerous.

      Where a charged CRT can present a real hazard is when you go to pick up a tube and carry it across the shop. If you get "bit" then, you just might drop the tube, possibly smashing your foot and/or causing the tube to implode violently, throwing shards of glass and toxic phosphor dust everywhere. I know someone who was in the hospital for several days because of this type of accident.

      A CRT is a VERY low leakage capacitor, because it has a glass dielectric (similar to an old Leyden jar). Disconnected from the rest of the set, it can hold a charge for months/years in low humidity conditions. They are also prone to partially "recharging" due to dielectric absorption or "soakage". Whenever a CRT is removed from a chassis, it is good practice to leave a shorting wire connected between the anode cup and the outer aquadag coating to prevent this.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    24. Re:Capacitors by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Um. Maybe we're talking about the charge buildup on the tube itself

      Maybe you are, but I was just trying to share my knowledge of capacitors to the fellow who couldn't properly name the electrical component. I did, you know, name the subject of my post appropriatey.

      This is more like a giant, badass leyden jar - that 8th-grade science hazard which sends clasmates leaping - technically a cap, but containing no magic smoke

      There's no "technically" about it; a leyden jar is a capacitor.

      Oh, and I didn't say anything about magic smoke. I actually happen to know how capacitors are built and how they work. Hence why my post discusses the uses of capacitors, and not the high voltages needed to accelerate electrons towards a screen.

      You know. People who actually know what they're talking about.

      *sniffs*

      Is that a troll I smell?

      If you believe that I have mislead anyone in any manner by not knowing what I am talking about, then please (for my sake, and everyone else on slashdot) correct me where I am wrong.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    25. Re:Capacitors by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      Electrolytic caps will go off with a nice bang if put enough juice in them. I snuck into the high school electronics lab on the day we were to demo our projects for the teacher and soldered a small electrolytic to the on/off switch of my buddy's project.

      "Look Mr. Schmidlap, here is the Heathkit stereo amp I have spent the last year building. I'll just turn it on"....click..."KA-BANG"...flash of light...cloud of smoke.

      The amp was of course undamaged, but 20 years later he's still pissed about it.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    26. Re:Capacitors by douglips · · Score: 1
      it blew a hole in the middle of the traceline, but fortunately left the edges intact. And since the edges are where the current flows, we were in good shape

      If the current doesn't flow through the center, what do you think blew a hole in the middle of the trace?
    27. Re:Capacitors by mkiwi · · Score: 1
      mAh is the measure of how much charge they hold

      Capacitors are NOT batteries!!! My God, please use the correct unit of charge. You can use either the Coulomb or the Farad, they are slightly different. An amp is not used to measure capacitance, please do not confuse it with the real units.

      The main point I want to make is that capacitors are not batteries (Did I mention that?)

      1. Capacitors store energy in an electric field.
      2. Batteries store chemical potential energy and have electrons (kenetic energy) flowing from anode to cathode.

      Pay attention in Physics!

    28. Re:Capacitors by Zordak · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it was the little wire connected to the ground node of the DMM in my instrument rack that I touched to the middle of the traceline, but I could be wrong.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    29. Re:Capacitors by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      My God, please use the correct unit of charge. You can use either the Coulomb or the Farad, they are slightly different. An amp is not used to measure capacitance, please do not confuse it with the real units.

      *cough*

      1) A farad is not a unit of charge; charge cannot be expressed directly in terms of farads. In order to relate farads to coulombs, you need to use the equation

      1 farad = 1 coulomb / volt

      2) Are you sure an amp isn't a real unit? Last time I checked,

      1 ampere = 1 coulomb / second

      3) Charge can be measured in mAh.

      1 mAh = (0.001 coulomb / second) * 3600 seconds
                = 3.6 coulombs

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  80. The real question is... by phoopee3 · · Score: 1

    The real question is where is this video on YouTube?

  81. What's a hyperbolc chamber??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe you folks are so totally, utterly, abjectly disconnected from the literature!

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30990

    1. Re:What's a hyperbolc chamber??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad we anonymous cowards never get modded up!

  82. Hopefully not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > widely used

    But please not on earth. We have enough problems with radioactive waste. No need for more.

    Fusion is a nice technology we want to have until we try to fly to different stars. But for earth it is the wrong technology, we have this gigantic free fusion reactor directly above us, which keeps the waste far away form us, which allows many nice ways to get out energy like sunlight, winds, ...

    1. Re:Hopefully not by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Are U crazy? Using Sun and Wind as the resource would not provide us enough energy to Power up Las Vegas for even 1 full day in Daytime even if we harnessed it for a full week.

      Right now we (we as in World, not US) produce about 5,300 MW of installed Solar power capacity.

      Unless we drastically improved Solar Collectors and Converters by about 150 times, it's stupid to think about it.

      Am sure you were joking about the environmentalists... if you are not then you need to wake up.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  83. neutron generator by zufar · · Score: 1

    The kid is of course great. But the device he produced is usually called "neutron generator". This things were available commercially for decades. Just google for "neutron generator".

  84. Re:Been done before by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just not jaded enough, but I didn't interpret his statement to be directed at the 17 year old... his statement seemed to be directed at the ever popular "they". As in, this is old news, and if a kid can do it (albeit a very smart kid) then why the fuck aren't "they" doing it in larger scales, and why are "they" still burning coal and oil ffs?
    ... unless I missed the whoosh...

  85. Did you rip that off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't just go down to the cornerstore and buy deuterium.

  86. THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by justanyone · · Score: 5, Informative


    This is a Farnsworth Fusor. See Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor/ for info on this type of device, which is VERY OLD, reasonably well-characterized, and most definitely NOT an energy-generation device.

    Fusors use far more power than they generate. The idea is a pair of spherical grids charged to 50K volts differential. Deuterium gas is a welding supply item. Gas hits the outer grid, ionizes, and is propelled at ultra-high speed to the exact center of the grid.

    The drawback is the inefficiencies: There is no known design (and some theoretical work saying it is impossible to a achieve such a design) which does not have significant heat losses to impacts of the gas on the inner grid. This generates random gas, which impedes the movement of the ions, etc.

    It is also known as Electrostatic fusion.

    1. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by smilindog2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check out recent developments in Farnsworth rectors at the same site you posted. If true, we may be a lot closer to real fusion reactors than people think.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    2. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by quizzicus · · Score: 1

      So does this mean that man discovered fusion before fission?

    3. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by jdray · · Score: 1

      That doesn't reduce this kid's accomplishment. He's seventeen years old; he deserves his fifteen minutes.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    4. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by tacocat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll bet the Department of Homeland Security is giving him his fifteen minutes...

    5. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by dawnzer · · Score: 1

      Best. Science. Project. Ever.

      The closest I ever came to winning the top prize in a science fair was when I received 2nd in fifth grade for my solar powered hot dog cooker (cardboard covered in foil with a metal skewer for the hot dog - I'm in Texas, that was enough to cook with).

      This would definately take home a blue ribbon!

      --
      "Oh, say, can you see by the dawnzer lee light," sang Miss Binney
    6. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by icejai · · Score: 1

      There's a recent google talk about this very type of fusion device. The guy giving the talk addresses the problems with the grid design, and apparently, the grid design wouldn't work because the grids melt because they're not transparent enough to the ions and just absorb too many of them.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846 673788606&q=fusion+google+talk

      He goes on to talk about his work in replacing the grid with another mechanism to ionize the gas, which actually works. And the power output increases 7 orders of magnitude for each doubling of the reactor diameter (if I remember correctly. it's in the video).

      The video is 1.5 hours long, but well worth the time if you're curious about this stuff.
      You have to pay very close attention though, as he glosses over some important concepts really quickly.

    7. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by Rei · · Score: 1

      With his father's help, he built a vaccuum chamber with a grid of wire in it.

      (sarcasm)Oooooooh!(/sarcasm)

      Just because it has the word "fusion" in it doesn't make it impressive.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    8. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by jdray · · Score: 1

      I tried making one of those once, but I live in Oregon, and back in the 70s, there wasn't enough sun to do a decent job in any reasonable amount of time. OTOH, I drove two lines of 16d nails through a plank about four inches apart, wired one line to one leg of an extension cord, the other line to the other leg. I used hot dogs to bridge the gap between the two lines and plugged it in. The hotdogs all cooked in about two seconds. In hindsight, I should have put a rheostat in the circuit somewhere to control the current. A switch would have been nice, too, I think, to turn the thing off when the dogs were done.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    9. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by avronius · · Score: 1

      You really aren't being fair.

      While it's true that this teen hasn't discovered a new source of energy, when was the last time that you encountered someone of this age group with as much devotion to physics? Maybe you could build one at that age, maybe not. Did you?

      Most science fairs that I attended as a kid, and those that I attend with my son, are cluttered with simplistic displays - like model volcanoes, posters describing the water table or the properties of light, or simplistic pully conveyances. A device like this is a far cry from vinegar and baking soda.

      Sure, the kid did get some help from his dad. If my dad had been alive while I was in school, I suspect that he would have helped me to build my hydro-electric power plant. Neat design - used euclidean screws to harness waterfalls - didn't work though...

    10. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by CityZen · · Score: 1

      I hope he can put up with people calling him "Wesley" :)

    11. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by Rei · · Score: 1

      I spent my time programming 3d engines and artificial life simulations.

      There are many different kinds of geek in this world.

      --
      "Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    12. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Might be impressive for a 8 or 9 year old but he's 17.

      Especially nowadays when you are just a google search away from _existing_ plans for building such stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if some high school projects involved the building of one.

      So it'll only be impressive if he worked out a way to do more than "break even" - doesn't even have to build it - just have to come up with a viable design.

      OR, come up with a novel use for it, other than just making a glowing ball. Or becomes rich by marketing and selling thousands of them like that "lava lamp" fad ;).

      I recall a fair number of teenagers _inventing_ interesting/useful stuff. Those deserve their 15 minutes or more of fame.

      --
    13. Re:THIS IS AN OLD FARNSWORTH FUSOR! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That's a strong, bold post you made there.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  87. ...I'm not sure.... by shaneh0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not sure what alpha male you've been spying on in the changing room, but even with my limited knowledge of other men's packages, I can safely say that there's only supposed to be ONE "wrinkled brown sack." If yours come individually wrapped you should consider yourself a frea...unique snowflake.

    1. Re:...I'm not sure.... by freakmn · · Score: 1

      I don't know why, but I have a strange desire to say: Individually Wrapped, for Freshness!

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
  88. Well, at least... by solitas · · Score: 1
    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    1. Re:Well, at least... by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that the article failed to mention the thick metal tentacles that were accidentally fused to the young man's back when the device overloaded.

  89. Greater Great Lake by Nichole_knc · · Score: 1

    In the not to distant future... "Wow!!! Lake Chicago is really big mom...."

  90. Re:Been done before by x2A · · Score: 1

    Touché!

    Or do I mean, "touchy"?

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  91. Mom and Dad must be proud by VinB · · Score: 0

    I won't even let *my* kids go near the toaster for fear of them burning the f*king house down!

  92. create energy close to where you need it; it saves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Hopefully this points to a future where large scale fusion reactors are both economical and widely used.

    I hope not. Transportation of energy is not efficient. Bad for your wallet and bad for the air you breath.

  93. Now Wait a Cotton Pickin' Minute!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was this other kid who built a nuclear reactor in his mom's basement (I almost did the same thing back in the 70s until my folks found out and put a stop to it) and he got in huge trouble and his mom's property was declared a nuclear clean up site. So how is it that this kid did anything different by making what COULD have been a fusion reactor. If he'd succeeded, I imagine this wouldn't be "Well golly gee" news, he would have been "disappeared" to Gitmo, had a few gay marines sodomize him and General Dynamics would get a government contract from the Bush administration for their "innovative research" into fusion devices. Which would then be made very illegal and would take at least 50 years to make it to market while we drain every last drop of oil from the middle east.

    On that note, when the oil in the middle east eventually dries up and there's no more economic advantage to protecting our interests there, what do you want to bet that we just wind up nuking what's left? Of course, not until after we steal anything of value, rape the women and savage the men and kids as conquerors are wont to do. Trust me, the middle east is going to be a cinder once they've outlived their usefulness to the capitalist thugs.

  94. Hyperbolic Chamber by jdigital · · Score: 1
    Duh. Its clearly a chamber where one is exposed to extremes amounts of hyperbole:
    hyperbole /haprbli/
    1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
    2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity."
    You can read a review here. If you don't feel like jumping the link, then welcome to slashdot, the home of hyperbole.
    --
    :wq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
  95. Deuterium? by ferar · · Score: 0

    Where did he get the deuterium? Did he just buy it in the walmart?

  96. Re:Been done before by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Building your own fusion reactor in your basement isn't science - it's fraud. I call fake.

  97. Kick ass by phasm42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While there are a lot of comments about this being a well-known device for fusion, it seems the practical application of this is a neutron source. The experience of actually building the machine is invaluable. If you've ever built something complex, you know that simply knowing about how something is built and actually having built it are very different things. By building, he's likely gained a lot of practical knowledge that can be applied to future projects. He could describe the process, drawing from his own experience instead of just what he's read.

    Newsorthy? Not necessarily, but that's no reason to make it seem like what he's done is without merit.

    --
    "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
  98. I bet his parents were pleased by kbox · · Score: 1

    In related news: A huge explosion in Michigan destoyed 35 square miles of the city.

    This is cool news though. I mean, If a 17 year old kid can construct soemthing like this in his parents basement it really makes me start wondering why we are still using dirty fuels.

    1. Re:I bet his parents were pleased by Shadyman · · Score: 0

      It also makes you wonder how hard it really is for some people to get a hold of depleted uranium...

  99. Re:Been done before by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

    Correct, Farnsworth Fusors are "hot" fusion devices. They use intense electromagnetic fields to accelerate particles rather than lasers or other more fanciful methods, but the end result is the same.

  100. Woah! by fury88 · · Score: 1

    Are you sure they we're quoting an episode from Sliders?

  101. Re:Been done before by kabocox · · Score: 1

    Really, it's that pesky part where we try to actually make it produce energy and break even that is stumping us right now.

    I just had a vision of highschool physics teachers showing one of these things at the beginning of the school year and saying to the class: "Any one want a nobel prize? Figure out how to make this produce more energy than you put in, and you'll be in the running." I remember my phyics teacher. He would have done just for the class reaction and to see if anyone actually would try to improve it.

  102. Dupe - didn't we just have an article like this? by MCRocker · · Score: 1

    Didn't we just have an article about some guy making a Farnsworth Fusor in his garage last week? How's this kid any different?

    --
    Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
  103. Re:Been done before by kabocox · · Score: 2, Funny

    And people keep telling us that USA kids don't do science. Shit.

    Shh, you aren't allowed to tell anyone outside the US our secret. We've never stopped doing science. It's just that this kid won't be remembered and used as an example to follow by the student body. That sports team that once made it to state or actually won at state; those guys the teachers and students can name most of them off the top of their head. We still have lots of kids that do science and think that its fun, but you'll hardly hear about it except maybe on slashdot, because "science is boring" and we don't have half-time cheerleaders and a band supporting us.

  104. Hyperbolic... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Typically, the best hyperbolic articles are typed on a Comodore Amiga while in unsuspended animation inside a hyperbolic chamber, also known as "Mom's basement"...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  105. Why it's difficult by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    The interesting thing is why it is so difficult. The distillation of alcohol is fairly easy because the alcohol is the lighter component which boils off first (in effect, it is much more complicated in reality). The distillation of deuterium oxide is difficult because it is the heavier component and therefore you have to boil off almost all the lighter component to get any concentration at all.

    BTW I didn't mean to cause upset with my analogy. In general, you wouldn't expect NRA members to shoot their ex-wives because it would give ammunition to the anti-gun lobby. I was just looking for an example of a conflicted person in possession of a potentially dangerous device, since if anybody ever finds a male teenager without inner conflicts, he will have stopped breathing some time previously. It was meant to be light hearted, not an attack on the NRA. Since I stopped being a frequent visitor to the US a few years back, everything seems (from this side of the pond) to have become much more polarised.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Why it's difficult by networkBoy · · Score: 1
      everything seems (from this side of the pond) to have become much more polarised.

      only seems that way because it has...
      What are the rules to immigration over there?
      -nB
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  106. Re:Been done before (helicopter parenting) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The key here is that he had "some help" from his dad. I've seen this before, its so common. Parents completing 4-H projects, and sumbmitting them for the children. Boyscott dads completing wooden race cars for the kids, and submitting them as if the kid did it him/herself. I'm looking at this thing, and the amount of tools including metal milling equipment are beyond what most "children" have access to, let alone the ability to use them effectively.

    Sadly, this young man is being set up for failure, as once his dad is not there to help him, he will fall below average compared to those kids who do things on their own. This is the type of kid that ends up working at a gas station, stoned once highschool is over and he is sent out on his own.

    While I am impressed with the reactor, I am not impressed that it was built by his dad and submitted as if his son did it all. Not believing it for a second. As I said, seen it a millions times before, related to "helicopter parenting"

  107. Re:Been done before by foobsr · · Score: 1

    Or do I mean, "touchy"?

    Maybe "techy" would have made it as well (considering the general context :)

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  108. Are you kidding? by gillbates · · Score: 1

    Look it up.

    It's only the most amazing invention ever. Geesh!

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  109. Internet != peer reviewed publication by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    I was, of course, referring to peer reviewed scientific publication rather than simple mention in discussions on the Internet, when I said there had been no citation of Rider's work in its 10 years of publication.

  110. Re:Been done before by heinousjay · · Score: 1

    Envy looks good on you. I bet you wear it constantly.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  111. Re:Been done before by qsqueeq · · Score: 1
    If he really managed it, the real news will be when he manages to procreate. Those 14KeV fusion neutrons play very interesting games with DNA. That is if he really managed to get any fusion to succeed which I doubt.


    Being such a geek would probably prevent him from procreating before said fusion reaction.
  112. MY DEATH RAY! by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Someday, I'll build a death-ray! Then they'll all be sorry they laughed at me!

    Stupid coach."

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  113. Deuterium Gas? by y00st · · Score: 1

    Not in TFA: Where the heck does a 17 year old get hold of Deuterium?

  114. Neutron source by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Informative

    The main industrial use of the Farnsworth Fusor is as a neutron source. Anyone trying this at home needs to understand that the neutron flux near the reactor can be deadly. (Wikipedia says amateur Fusors generate about 3x10^5 neutrons / sec.) Fortunately, they escape in all directions, so the density falls with the square of the distance. Just don't get too close while it's running. It's a good idea to have a detector for ionizing radiation and be familiar with exposure levels humans can tolerate. (Any good links?) Remember the neutron bomb? Killed people - not things.

    1. Re:Neutron source by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      are neutrons ionizing radiation?

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:Neutron source by coolamber · · Score: 1

      Yes

    3. Re:Neutron source by LabRat · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Since the young lad from the article is still alive (having not perished from the effects of neutron irradiation), I can only conclude that he didn't create a nuclear fusion device, but rather a very complicated neon light. Nice project for the science fair, but nothing to get excited about for our future energy supply.

  115. I got him beat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think this kid's cool? I was putting DiHydrogen Monoxide into a pneumatic device and blasting it at passerby before I could walk!

  116. wtf by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1
    "Originally, he wanted to build a hyperbolic chamber,"
    You mean for ricochet juggling?
    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  117. It's hyperBARIC, not hyperBOLIC by querist · · Score: 1

    It was a typo or a lack of understanding by the reporter. I strongly suspect that it was a hyperbaric chamber, which means a high-pressure chamber. Those can be quite dangerous if not built correctly -- just imagine the thing blowing apart like a balloon, but with metal instead of rubber.

  118. Re:Been done before (helicopter parenting) by AgentPaper · · Score: 1
    Once upon a time, junior high and high schools routinely taught their students fairly advanced woodworking and metalworking skills, and allowed them relatively free access to industrial machining equipment to do so. I believe that class was called "shop." It also went along with a class called "industrial drafting," wherein these same kids were taught to create detailed, usable blueprints and diagrams of working mechanical equipment. Of course, nobody teaches that kind of class anymore.

    ...Oh wait, apparently someone still does. Description of classes at Andover HS, Bloomfield, MI

    --
    First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
  119. Re:Been done before by backdoorstudent · · Score: 1

    We can't do everything. Especially when there've been gangs of people building these devices in their garages for decades: http://fusor.net/ If he built himself a radio should it be in the news too?

  120. Mod artical troll by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    Why is this posted in /. ?

    Its not news. Its a toy. It generates a few neutrons. Big deal. It's not going to become a power source. So what is this "hopefully"? Hopefully I will live forever. I would love to believe in fantacy. Alas I have to slog it out in reality.

  121. His work IS important by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    His work does nothing to further research in the field.
    By getting into the headlines with this, he will encourage other teenagers to start experimenting. It will generate interest in fusion among a whole bunch of geeky teenagers. Encouraging experimentation and tinkering among teenagers is the best way to get good scientists and engineers down the road. So what he did is nothing new - don't tell the other kids that, let them have fun while learning all about fusion.
  122. Re:Been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whilst I am sure your son will be proud of such a stout defence, I think that even he may think you went a little overboard there..

  123. Only A Neon Lamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes. There's no difference between the kid's device and a neon lamp except the gas used! My hair solon does this experiment every day.

    This is a trivial experiment. Anyone with a supply of a pure gas and a high-energy voltage source can do the same experiment. The kid has good PR.

  124. You can't create a bomb with just heavy water by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

    Heavy water by itself would be totally useless for any type of bomb. It'd be about as useful as ordinary water. A fusion bomb requires a rather large fission bomb as the trigger, as there is no way to create a fusion chain reaction without a great deal of energy input.

  125. Millions of times every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We reproduce this experiment every day when we turn on the lights.

    The device is little more than a neon or fluorescent light with neon replaced by deuterium.

    C'mon, get a life. The kid's got good PR. He called it "fusion" and his family and town are merely promoting it.

    Ignorance is power. In first grade I held a vacuum tube in my hand and threatened a bully with it: "It's an atom bomb: hit me and I'll blow you up!" The bully backed down and never bothered me again. Power is an incredible rush.

  126. Why? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Do you think that the feds are telling you what they are interested in? Based on how the feds and our country has acted over the last 5 years, I am amazed that he is still living at home. Perhaps Nov. 7th has already changed a few things and brought a few back to reality.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Why? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      "the feds" ?
      "how our country has aced over the last 5 years" ? (please DON'T tell me you're thinking of the iraq war or some such, this is education)

      It's very easy to blame such a faceless evil as "the feds". If you can do better, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own, better, school.

  127. genetic projects in science fairs by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Many high school science fair projects perform some experiements they teach in college genetic lab classes. In not afraid of high school Frankensteins yet. But this is close to science fiction in my view. Sometimes I wish I was a kid again and had such access to technology at that age.

  128. Congrads and all.. I can see the letter by splatter · · Score: 1

    Dear Citizen,

    It has been noted that you have achieved nuclear ability. Congratulations on joining this ELITE club!

    Please note that you have been added to the axis of evil. You will be contacting shortly!

    USA

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  129. Lucky guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mom never let me build a nuclear reactor :(

  130. Philo Farnsworth and Futurama? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
    Actually, it was Philo Farnsworth of "inventing television" fame... although maybe the Professor did that too.



    Groening named the one in honor of the other.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    1. Re:Philo Farnsworth and Futurama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one?

  131. Shame on you reporter! This is plasma, not fusion! by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    I can make plasma with a carboned up candle and a microwave oven. I wonder if I can sell it to george W. bush as a
    nuclear fusion device.. HahahahahahhHa

    And.. my AOL CD incinerator.. .. I can tell George W. .. no it's a time machine.

    He just made an expensive plasma generator. I can do the same thing for much cheaper with an old microwave.

  132. mod parent up by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    A lot of people don't often say "thank you" when something has been done either, appreciation is only within themselves or as far as the arms can reach.
    Having appreciation of the quality what someone else can do (for you) is something badly valued...

    It falls under exactly the same category; try to be happy there are still people like you and me caring about how science (can better) work(s) for you.

    Do also mind almost all research which is sponsored by the government will have classified information towards the normal citizen; the corporate culture is being protected well as you can see with patents, laws and acts making a true innovation a lot more difficult in current society.

    Experiments which could be against such corporate greed -- errrr sorry, typo: society/government (based on fear, propaganda and protecting the "homeland" for "diccidents who think dangerously against such society") could also stop such research if we, the normal people, don't keep ourself busy improving our own back yard...

    I can only thank the parent poster for pushing forward this topic where you should really see this as an achievement of a young mind, where Einstein and lots others have been too when they where young before; not everyone can bake bread or create a Fusion Device (in a (fully) safe way, that's something I got my doubts about too) in his basement ...

    Still, Einstein lived in a time with other corporate ethics, when things in the mind couldn't be forbidden to think about unlawfully ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  133. Re:Been done before by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

    Look into some of the westinghouse winners of the past, young people who did independent research in new areas of science. Building a farnsworth generator doesn't even compare.

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  134. The abandoned Project by Wombat · · Score: 1

    From the article: "Originally, he wanted to build a hyperbolic chamber," [His mother] said, adding that she promptly said no.

    Now that would have been the best science project ever.

    Unless she meant to say hyperbaric chamber. Which is way less interesting.

  135. Before Olson there was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Craig Wallace. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/start.htm l?pg=6 I tried building my own once, but stopped about $400 in when I realized that I still needed another $600 or so. There is a fair bit of technical knowledge required, but if you search fusor.net you can find step-by-step instructions for everything from spot welding inner grids to diffusion pumping to machining your custom-made 8" conflats. It's all about how much money you have.

  136. Don't sweat the neutrons. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Don't sweat the neutrons. If you stand near an operating fusor of the hobbiest sort the X-rays will give you a to-the-core-sunburn long before the trivial neutron flux will do any worrisome harm.

    (Of course sitting for hours on a heavy steel vacuum chamber that can stop the X-rays but not be too worrysome to the neutrons isn't recommended. B-) )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Don't sweat the neutrons. by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1
      If you stand near an operating fusor of the hobbiest sort the X-rays will give you a to-the-core-sunburn


      So this is only true of the fusor that is hobbier than any other fusor? The hobbiest fusor?
      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  137. Well, DO sweat the neutrons, too. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Don't sweat the neutrons. If you stand near an operating fusor of the hobbiest sort the X-rays will give you a to-the-core-sunburn long before the trivial neutron flux will do any worrisome harm.

    Actually, it's not all THAT trivial so DO sweat the neutrons. (My post was intended to point out that the X-rays are a stronger and more immediate hazard. I worded it poorly.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  138. More background on Prof. Farnsworth by Namlak · · Score: 1

    Can be found here

  139. Re:He initially wanted to create a hyperbolic cham by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

    I read that and assumed that she meant a sensory deprivation or isolation tank--commonly associated with a hyperbaric chamber.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  140. video's up... by smitty97 · · Score: 1
    --
    mod me funny
  141. Philo Farnsworth "fusor" by heroine · · Score: 1

    This Philo Farnsworth device has been in the news for over 50 years. It seems to get renewed every 4 years, as new students discover it and old students give up on it. No-one has been able to go any farther with it.

  142. Wrong - RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was in the garage.

  143. More importantly by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    When will the IAEA be knocking on his door?

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  144. The Capacitor Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in high school electronics one of the rules was to always make sure that the capacitors were discharged before use. In our class it became a very good idea to follow. If someone went out to the bathroom, often we would take a couple of the capacitors that were on their bench and charge them up. FYI - these were small enough to not be truly harmful but they would hurt like a bitch. It was always fun seeing people scream, and talk about their hands being numb.

  145. You really don't want to by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    Small minded government bureaucracy, data insecurity, petty crime, and an economy funded by house price rises, immigration and "financial services". I live here because (a) I have family and (b) I've made enough to live on and (c) I have a house in a good part of the country, but where there are few jobs. I really feel sorry for the rising generation.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:You really don't want to by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      so, UK/US is SOS/DD?
      Canada is looking better every day...
      Family is the only reason I'm staying.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  146. Thiago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a new name.

  147. Bussard Google video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey people how bout the slashdot article here http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 18/0616205 from saturday night. Geez, how short is everyons attention span?

  148. well by geekoid · · Score: 1

    maybe this kid will be encourged to go into nuclear fusion. Maybe creating the first fusion generater with a surplus?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  149. TV repair people call that by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "A Damn funny lesson to behold."

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  150. Yes, but indirectly (not directly) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're indirectly ionizing radiation. They themselves are neutral, but they can cause things to emit high energy photons (e.g. x-rays) that can in turn ionize things (by knocking an electron off of some atom).

    Also, more troubling is neutron activation--neutrons absorbed by atomic nuclei can change the element into a radioactive isotope which will cause problems on its own.

    That said, you can still create shielding to manage all of these problems. The primary shielding materials would be water and boron to catch the neutrons, and metal to take care of any x-rays induced. Thankfully, the people who know how to build this stuff would (hopefully) know how shield things properly. Although, there was that one guy who made himself a neutron source ("breeder reactor") and went around irradiating crap in MI until the NRC found out and cleaned things up, so who knows...

    [Note: Most of the information above was gleaned from Wikipedia. If, for whatever reason, you actually try to build any of this stuff, please contact trained professionals for help. And a lawyer--for all I know some experiments are probably illegal.]

  151. I can't believe by geekoid · · Score: 1

    that no one has mentioned the Farnsworth Fusor...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  152. Re:Been done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Stephen Hawking can find a wife and procreate, and Bill Gates can, I'm sure this kid can.

  153. Fusor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I felt so encouraged to read about the work and enthusiasm for science of this 17 year old, until I reached the let-down in the story, "someday he hopes to work for the federal government".

  154. Get of your high horse buddy. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It is great to have a teenager doing interesting things, the bunny knows most of them should be doing so.

    But it really should not be newsworthy since so many other people are pointing out, it is something not really new.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  155. Re:Been done before by x2A · · Score: 1

    cool, am gonna write me that one down :-p

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia