Slashdot Mirror


Piston-Powered Nuclear Fusion

katarn writes "General Fusion is a startup proposing they can create commercially viable fusion using acoustic shock waves, triggered by 220 precisely controlled pneumatic pistons. Their approach is based on a US Naval research concept called 'Linus' and old research done by General Atomics. They feel we now have the high-speed, digital processing capable of pulling off this feat, where decades ago the technology was not available. I think we can hold off on the 'vaporware' claims for a bit; everyone is aware of the horrible track record for turning fusion concepts into reality, but they don't claim to be the first with the idea or that there are not substantial challenges in the way. If nothing else, it is a fascinating concept." Los Alamos National Laboratory has further details on this type of fusion, and longtime LANL researcher Ronald Kirkpatrick did an external assessment (PDF) of General Fusion's plans. Popular Science had a lengthy story about the company a while back. The reason they're back in the headlines now is that they've secured enough funding to begin work on a prototype reactor.

147 comments

  1. If the government did research that proved by Kotoku · · Score: 1

    If the government did research that proved it is possible... Why aren't they following up on it? I'll believe it when I see it.

    1. Re:If the government did research that proved by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it all got patented by the contractor, in exchange for reducing the price of the contract by 0.05%.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:If the government did research that proved by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Informative

      The vast majority of fusion research funds from US government flow through the Department of Energy. The senior guys at the DoE have a few pet approaches to fusion, and 99.9% of the funding goes into those. Innovative, small scale, low cost approaches like this, or IEC polywell fusion are left begging to the Navy for funds, but the Navy has far less money to spend on nuclear research than the DoE.

    3. Re:If the government did research that proved by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US govt does an incredible amount of RD that they never follow up on i.e. it is more Rd, rather than RD. The reason is money. Take the example of TransHab. Thankfully, Bigelow has been pursuing it. If we are VERY lucky, the Augustine commission will recommend that we buy one or two and attack to the ISS to help him alone.

      And this particular example, the Navy does a LOT of nuke funding. Have to. If we can create a reactor that is much smaller in size, it will change a lot of things for US. DARPA also has its fair share of black funding.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:If the government did research that proved by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      s/attack to the ISS to help him alone./attach to the ISS to help him out/

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  2. Steam punk angle? by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean, come on, this is just begging for some steam punk artwork!

  3. Gawd by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 2, Funny
    So a project code named "linus' makes the tag sharks think we are all idiots and can't read the article? This has a chance of working. It might be an off chance but anytime Los Alamos is involved you had damn well better put some stock in it. On second thought... Linus made linux, and this was code named 'Linus". Therefore we can now call it Fusex.

    Soon everyone will be asking hey.. Does that reactor run Fusex?

    I think you get the point

    1. Re:Gawd by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      when you actually get linux to work maybe fusion will happen as well, fags.

      That's good news, because Linux works quite well on my desktop computer, since 2001.

      fusion has been 10 years away for the last 10 years and the linux desktop has been next year for the last 10 years.

      So I can expect fusion in 2010.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Gawd by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, fusion has been 50 years away for the last fifty. Where did you ever get the idea that it was only 10 years away? Some hack reporter that couldn't count his own shoelaces? (hint: Two, not four).

    3. Re:Gawd by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      Christ, even night carts only had 50 pisstins.

      On the other hand, think how fast your fusion powered car would go, given 220 pistons!

    4. Re:Gawd by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      So a project code named "linus' makes the tag sharks think we are all idiots and can't read the article?

      You must be new here.

    5. Re:Gawd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it, can you make a car analogy please?

    6. Re:Gawd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furrsex :p

  4. OK, interesting by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Skimmed the article, they're planing to do with pistons what would be done explosives in a normal nuclear bomb.

    Wouldn't it be funny if it worked?

    1. Re:OK, interesting by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      Skimmed the article, they're planing to do with pistons what would be done explosives in a normal nuclear bomb. Wouldn't it be funny if it worked?

      I bet Osama is thrilled.

    2. Re:OK, interesting by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, if he was still alive. This could really mess with his funding.

    3. Re:OK, interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of muffler would a 220 piston fusion engine require? And I guess this means Mozdix will make a rotary version?

  5. So its a hydrogen bomb by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...with the fission component replaced by good old fashioned pistons? I bet it sounds great. There has certainly been a lot of modelling in this direction.

    1. Re:So its a hydrogen bomb by jpmorgan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Only in the vaguest sense. The secondary stage in a thermonuclear bomb is triggered by a fission primary, however the secondary stage in a thermonuclear bomb is not a purely fusion weapon. It's a multilayer sandwich. The secondary starts off with another fission reaction (the plutonium spark-plug), which helps trigger the fusion reaction (lithium deuteride), which in turn boosts the ongoing fission reaction in the spark plug, which in turn boosts the ongoing fusion reaction. Finally it produces a neutron flux which detonates and consumes the secondary casing (depleted uranium, U-238). Most of the energy in a thermonuclear bomb comes from the fission of the depleted uranium protective casing. Thermonuclear bombs do fission 'better' than purely fission bombs. For the record, this was discovered accidentally when Castle Bravo was a much bigger bang than the designers expected.

    2. Re:So its a hydrogen bomb by kohaku · · Score: 2

      Finally it produces a neutron flux

      Hah, yeah right! You're going to have to make up some more believable sounding sciencey words before we fall for THAT one. Why don't you just go reroute the flux capacitor through the deflector to invert a tachyon pulse while you're at it?
      Comedians...

    3. Re:So its a hydrogen bomb by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      which in turn boosts the ongoing fission reaction in the spark plug, which in turn boosts the ongoing fusion reaction. Finally it produces a neutron flux which detonates and consumes the secondary casing (depleted uranium, U-238).

      Dear sir
      I would like to personally thank you for helping us the great people of North Korea to finalize our procedures.
      Kim Jong-il

    4. Re:So its a hydrogen bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For the record, this was discovered accidentally when Castle Bravo was a much bigger bang than the designers expected."

      While probably what you say is true up to this point (I would agree a thermonuke is more efficient at fission than a straight fission), I don't think this last statement is entirely accurate. While the more efficient reaction gave Castle Bravo some extra blast, most of the extra oomph from Castle Bravo was from a poorly understood or overlooked reaction of one of the lithium isotopes--which is a fusion reaction, not fission.

    5. Re:So its a hydrogen bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The huge yield of Castle Bravo was more due to the unexpected reactions with lithium-7. It wasn't expected to react, but it does capture neutrons, then decays into tritium + a neutron. The tritium quickly fuses with deuterium and releases yet more neutrons. Much of the yield was from the uranium casing, but the reason was the extra high energy neutron flux from the lithium-7. And the secondary in a TU design has the fusion squeezed from both the spark plug detonation (plus a lot of neutrons) and the ablative pressure, on the tamper, from the primary. I'm going to guess that they used a larger amount of the lithium-deuteride because it was only partially enriched. Which meant a lots of unexpected extra energy and neutrons from the lithium-7.

      Mr. Burns: [over the hotline] Oh, meltdown. It's one of these annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus.

  6. In other news... by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

    Colonel Fission is pissed and has vowed to crush General Fusion's puny attempts at creating nuclear energy!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:In other news... by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      That's Mister Fusion to you!

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    2. Re:In other news... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I was so sad they named it General Fusion and not Mr. Fusion. SOOOO sad. Or maybe it was the whisky.

    3. Re:In other news... by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 2, Funny

      Auntie Matter will smooth the whole thing over with tea and crumpets.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    4. Re:In other news... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Oh, he might try but a colonel only commands a single regiment while a general commands at least two ;-)

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:In other news... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, whenever cold fusion reappears in headlines, Major Blunder usually appears on the scene to save the day (and JET tokamak investments).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:In other news... by EricTheO · · Score: 1

      Acme Atomics pwns them all.

      --
      -Eric
  7. Actively stabilized fusion by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's been some modest interest in actively stabilized fusion for a while, but this is the first mechanical scheme.

    The basic problem with fusion reactors is that the plasmas aren't stable. Most work to date involves trying to come up with some geometry that produces an inherently stable plasma. So far, nothing works, although some geometries almost work. But it's not that hard to build a small machine that has an unstable plasma. The original Stellerator, in 1951, did that.

    The instabilities occur on the order of milliseconds, not microseconds or nanoseconds. That's slow enough that some kind of active stabilization scheme to nudge the instabilities back in line might work. Something with a large number of sensors and actuators. But I'd been expecting electrostatic deflection plates or magnets, not physical pistons.

    1. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if this could be turned into a rocket engine? It has an EE Smith feel about it.

    2. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      So in order to maintain the fusion reaction they're going to physically shove the plasma into alignment whenever it develops an instability? Are you saying that Spider-Man 2 was actually correct about its physics? I'm not sure if this means i should be looking forward to flying cars in the near future or watching out for an attack by super villains.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    3. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by j-stroy · · Score: 1

      I've been waiting for this (acoustically contained/pumped fusion). Its just one more way to add energy, create confinement and maintain resonance. And whats with Sonoluminescence anyways? The whole tokamak thing seemed a little ill conceived when I heard how difficult it is to keep the vacuum from being poisoned and energy from leaking away from the desired chain reaction.

      Btw sound waves are observed>/a> on the surface of the sun.

    4. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Funny

      That might explain the spinny engine bits on the Serenity.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uhhhh, what are you talking about? The plasma parameters are not by any means, in so far as I can see, actively controlled in any way in this scheme. Their plan is to launch two colliding toroidal vortex rings of hot plasma into the vorticular void of a large sphere or rapidly spinning molten LiPb metal. Then, using pistons, they launch an imploding spherically symmetric shockwave into the metal to converge upon the merged spheromaks at the center of the setup. The TOTAL confinement time looks like it'll be measured in microseconds at most on this thing, no way is there time for active control of the plasma during a shot like that.

      As fusion schemes go, I am obligated to express my opinion that this one is way fucking wacky, however, it is significantly less wacky than a lot of other ideas out there (polywell, I'm looking at you) and it does not appear to have any immediate show stoppers associated with it which would allow me to dismiss it out of hand. I am not a physicist, but I did just get home from my job working on one of the nation's largest conventional (laser driven) inertial confinement fusion reactors and I have a very deep enthusiast's interest on these matters. On the laser fusion device that I work on, we have recently begun shooting MTF targets (we call it MIF or magneto-inertial fusion though) on our system as well, and the results are quite interesting. We use a centimeter scale, single loop Helmholtz coil setup with a conventionally laser-driven fusion microcapsule sitting at the center of the coils. The laser fires, compressing the D-T fuel to tremendous pressure and temperature (higher than in the sun's core) and just before the exact moment of maximum compression and fusion burn (bang time) the Helmholtz coils are fired with power from a couple hundred Joule capacitor bank, thereby producing a huge magnetic field in the compressed target capsule and hopefully increasing the plasma confinement time from a mere few picoseconds to several times longer (the Larmor radius of charged particles in a magnetic field of the intensity we produce is on the order of the size of the compressed capsule, it effectively suppresses electron thermal conductivity and confines the hot plasma within itself). Proton deflectrometry has been successfully used to validate the expected ~.2 megagauss magnetic fields in our setups. The work ahead of the guys with this piston driven shockwave idea is enormous, but the field of plasma and fusion physics is still rich with exciting discovery. I wish these gentlemen the very best of luck.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    6. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what's your opinion of Dense Plasma Focus Fusion then?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know what's scarier: that your post was so full of technical jargon, or that I understood all of it.

      I think I need to switch fields.

    8. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that Spider-Man 2 was actually correct about its physics?

      It was correct about everything else wasn't it? Why would the physics side of it be any different?

    9. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think magneto-inertial laser fusion would make for a better name...

    10. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I won't sugarcoat my thoughts on that one, I'd say it's nothing more than a fraud. The lowest of the low, vastly kookier than even Bussard's Polywell. I have followed discussions about Eric Lerner and focus fusion VERY closely on the wikipedia pages and I have little to no respect for that man's ideas about fusion or his tactics of argument. He does not have a PhD and he is not a physicist. His ideas about the "electric universe" are idiotic pseudoscience. I will refer you specifically to the plasma physicist Art Carlson's highly thoughtful and reasonable objections to unconventional fusion schemes in general on this issue, and his objections to focus fusion in particular (all on the wiki pages). His credentials and intellectual honesty in these debates seem, to me anyway, to be impeccable.

      Robert Bussard can be forgiven for his sin of the polywell. He was a really good scientist who achieved some truly admirable things in his career, but at the end I think he realized that he was getting old and would never live to see his dream of fusion power come true, and he started making wacky claims when things became desperate (like extrapolating his supposed observation of three -count em- THREE fusion neutrons from one of his setups to commercial scale power cost estimates, that's just pain nutty). It's unfortunate but entirely forgivable. Art Carlson's criticism of the polywell device as a non-starter due to its being classified as a reactor whose plasma is in thermodynamic disequilibrium (Todd Rider's MIT thesis on this showed that the bremsstrahlung losses are insurmountable) are highly convincing, and the waffling and flouncing about that the polywell supporters do in the face of these criticisms seem highly dubious.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    11. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by mako1138 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it's not that hard to build a small machine that has an unstable plasma.
      The original Stellerator, in 1951, did that.

      Uh, the advantage of a Stellarator is that it's a stable configuration... relatively speaking.

      And indeed it is not difficult to build a machine with an unstable plasma. The history of magnetic confinement fusion research is "oh I've got this great idea for a stable plasma configuration" followed by "we built it and found out that it's not stable enough."

    12. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by mapsjanhere · · Score: 2

      Personally I'm holding back on putting the 100k down on the Tesla 2020 with 220 cylinder fusion engine. But I wouldn't claim a University of Wikipedia education to condemn a new idea; I wouldn't want to make a statement on the workability without a Ph.D. in high energy physics myself. Compared to the billions spent on the confined plasma schemes, pulse set-ups are cheap to implement and see if you get excess neutrons or not. The one thing we learned from the cold fusion disaster, the claims don't last long if looked at seriously.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    13. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by quanminoan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Polywell more wacky than this? There are a number of things I can't see them getting right with this piston concept any time soon. Personally, I don't think they can make a uniform shockwave using pistons, but we'll see I guess. The plasma vortex rings sounds interesting. I guess my primary question would be using the lead lithium blanket next to the plasma. Invariably, you'll have some vapor in the plasma region, and these higher Z atoms should wreck havoc with Bremsstrahlung radiation. The polywell already produces neutrons from fusion, avoids Bremsstrahlung more than the original "fusor" concepts, and should be scalable. Granted, I actually feel that the more conventional schemes have a greater chance of success currently. ITER should break even...

    14. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Zobeid · · Score: 1

      Eh what? Please excuse my ignorance, as I have only been following this casually, but. . . .

      I thought it had been long shown that Todd Rider's paper doesn't address (i.e. is not applicable to) the Polywell device.

      I seems to me that most critics of Polywell go off track when they start describing the ions in the reactor as a hot plasma (as if it were a kind of tokamak), when it would be more apt to view them as a converging particle beam. The type of directed (as opposed to random) kinetic energy those particles possess is not heat at all, from a thermodynamic standpoint. It has to be analyzed differently.

    15. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

      The TOTAL confinement time looks like it'll be measured in microseconds at most on this thing, no way is there time for active control of the plasma during a shot like that.

      I see that. So what do they want all the compute power for? I'd assumed I was reading an oversimplified version, and all the compute power was to actively stabilize something. If they just need a simultaneous push, they don't need compute power. I'm missing something.

      There's work on active stabilization. See "Active-Feedback Control of the Magnetic Boundary for Magnetohydrodynamic Stabilization of a Fusion Plasma". That's a 2006 paper on a scheme involving 192 active feedback coils to stabilize a plasma. There's other work like that, and hope that one of the designs that's almost stable might be nudged into stability with active control.

    16. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is either scary?

    17. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since scattering is vastly more probable than fusion even at the ideal energy, even if you start off with a nice monoenergetic beam you either end up with a thermal distribution or lose your particles altogether. Restoring the monoenergetic distribution requires work (those pesky laws of thermodynamics).

      I'd like to know what magic the Polywell is supposed to employ to get around this.

    18. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it could. (IANARS, but I play one on /.)

      Not a ground to orbit engine, the assembly would be too heavy for the max thrust of current non-chemical fueled engines. But once in orbit the energy generated could run a VASIMR, conventional ion or water/steam based thruster quite well. With something like that Mars would be less than 6 month round trip, the outer planets and more importantly asteroids would be within practical reach. This kind of engine could be used to bring an asteroid into Earth orbit for mining or divert a rock on an impact trajectory.

      The more I think about it the more I think this idea is just crazy enough to work.

    19. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by Plekto · · Score: 1

      There's other work like that, and hope that one of the designs that's almost stable might be nudged into stability with active control.

      But there are practical issues to deal with, assuming that they even get it to be somewhat stable. Exactly how long can they maintain it before one of the pistons fails? What happens if one fails? How do they capture and utilize the energy created?(big one here) How much heat eventually will end up being radiated back into the machine itself and the surrounding area?(can't water-cool it and air will only absorb so much energy before it becomes saturated) (and on and on - it's a never-ending list of engineering scenarios and problems)

      I suspect that if they get it to work, it will appear to do so right until the moment something goes wrong and there's a very impressive "result".

    20. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by moon3 · · Score: 1

      Your laser compressed, ignited and magnetic flux stabilized fusion scheme looks more reasonable and promising than this (TFA) mechanical molten lead and piston driven foolishness, hopefully you guys will be able to produce some real word energy producing setup soon.

    21. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      I am in agreement with most of your thoughts except the polywell neutron claim. Have they published with statistically significant neutron yields? I'd like to read it if so. The General Fusion guys will definitely have to deal with severe Richtmyer-Meshkov instability when the shockwave breaks out of the molten metal into the plasma at the center, and then Rayleigh-Taylor instability when the plasma itself if compressed. Question is, how uniform of a shockwave will they need? Who knows. The CDX-U and LTX tokamaks at PPPL http://www.pppl.gov/lithiumtokamak.cfm have run, apparently with some success, using a liquid lithium limiter. But liquid lead? Yeah yikes, I'm not aware of any liquid Pb-using fusion experiments. The stated values for the vapor pressures of molten Li and Pb at their melting points are 1.63E-08 Pa and 4.21E-07 Pa respectively, I'm surprised that lead's VP is 26 times HIGHER than that of Li's. Scary. On the other hand, vortex rings can apparently be very stable and remain highly segregated from the medium they are propagating in over surprising amounts of time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJk8ijAUCiI

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    22. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't understand why they need the computing power either.

      here's work on active stabilization. See "Active-Feedback Control of the Magnetic Boundary for Magnetohydrodynamic Stabilization of a Fusion Plasma" [aip.org]. That's a 2006 paper on a scheme involving 192 active feedback coils to stabilize a plasma. There's other work like that, and hope that one of the designs that's almost stable might be nudged into stability with active control.

      Yes but that work was done on the reverse field pinch device called RFX-mod ( http://www.igi.cnr.it/rfxmod2009/ ). It's a tokamak-like magnetic confinement device so it probably has shot times measured in the multi-second range. Plenty of time for active stabilization but way different from this new MTF approach.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    23. Re:Actively stabilized fusion by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure you wouldn't just base your dismissal of a device on the reputation of the man building it, I'll ask you again, what's your opinion on dense plasma focus and its use in fusion research. If someone you found more reputable was doing the work, what respectful things would you say about what they are likely to find?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  8. Code Name: Penuts by Cidolfas · · Score: 4, Funny

    The research team's other concept, which created fusion by enticing atoms with footballs only to pull them all away at the last second, was named 'Lucy'.

    --
    I am become /dev/null, destroyer of data.
    1. Re:Code Name: Penuts by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Their approach is based on a US Naval research concept called 'Linus' and old research done by General Atomics.

      Yes, but does it run Linux?

  9. I've got an idea by ClosedSource · · Score: 5, Funny

    You could attach four smart mechanical arms to someone's brain stem (with an inhibitor chip of course). Those extra arms could make the millisecond adjustments to keep the instabilities in check. I have to admit this sounds familiar ...

    1. Re:I've got an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out scrounging for more venture capital after your last little incident, eh Octavius?

    2. Re:I've got an idea by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Or just have a most excellent project welder bring home the core component and play some music to figure out the secret acoustical sound. The story doesn't mention how upset some organiszations will be, willing to blow up lots of things to keep this technology secret.

  10. p11B by pitterpatter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perhaps if the D-T reactor does really well they can redesign it to handle a fuel composed of hydrogen ions (protons, in other words) and Boron-11 ions. The products of this reaction are helium-4 ions, which are not radioactive and do not induce radioactivity in their containment vessel if they are captured electrically. Electrical capture also avoids the losses associated with converting heat to electricity.

    I really hope General Fusion gets this to work, but if I had any money, my money would be on EMC2 Corp, which is working on inertial electrostatic fusion. This or this should get you started on a search for more information.

    1. Re:p11B by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you read the site, you'd see one of the tricks they have up their sleeve to deal with the radioactivity problem: they surround the actual fusion process with a working fluid of molten lead (and lithium) which not only transmits the shockwave from the pistons, but also absorbs neutrons. If the reactor does well, they shouldn't have to change the fuel at all.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:p11B by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

      I saw that, but since I'm talking out of the wrong orifice, I have to admit that I don't know what happens to lead or lithium when they absorb neutrons. I just "ass-ume" that they become radioactive isotopes and that this instability will get transferred to whatever is close to them.

      Would someone who knows tell me what happens to lead when you keep pumping it full of fast neutrons? As I recall, lead is pretty close to the bottom of the fusion reaction ladder, so any transmutation involving it winds up losing energy, but I have to believe it still transmutes, given enough provocation. Do I have the general idea sort of right?

    3. Re:p11B by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My guess is that 204Pb will absorb a neutron and transmute to 205Pb, which decays to a stable isotope of thallium, and 208Pb will transmute to 209Pb, which decays to nearly stable bismuth. The other lead isotopes look like they should just become heavier stable lead isotopes. I don't see any obvious waste problems here.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    4. Re:p11B by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oops, the half life of 205Pb is long enough to make it a problem. There won't be a lot of it, though, as 204Pb is only 1.4% of natural lead.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    5. Re:p11B by ivan_w · · Score: 1

      I would tend to think that, if it ever becomes a concern, they could easily reduce the amount of Pb205 in the mix.

      Using a centrifuge would seem to be able to do the trick (and multi-staging it eventually) .. But I'm no physicist nor an engineer, so I'm not even sure whether it's practical and/or even feasible!

      --Ivan

    6. Re:p11B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given they're going to be melting it anyway, would it be easier to separate out the 205Pb (I'm guessing it's slightly denser, so could be centrifugally separated) before the rest goes in the reactor?

      There's probably uses for relatively high-purity 205Pb, munitions perhaps?

    7. Re:p11B by ivan_w · · Score: 1

      Of course, I meant Pb204..

      --Ivan

  11. Interesting... by kabz · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder if this is related to the suspected fusion that occurs during ultrasound induced cavitation.

    --
    -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
    1. Re:Interesting... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      It's the same idea, essentially -- a shock focused from all directions onto a point in the middle.

      Ultrasound pumped into a resonant cavity is just a different way of starting the shock (and you get many shocks per second with a higher efficiency -- whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on what you're doing)

    2. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, while they're both acoustic, they seem to work with different phenomena. This system uses the tried and true method of squeezing hydrogen atoms together until they fuse, using pistons to create a shockwave that does the fusing. The ultrasound-induced cavitation produces high heat and pressure using a more complicated process[wikipedia.org]. This acoustic system is brute force; bubble fusion is using a weird chemical and physical phenomenon which might not produce fusion. I'd bet on this over bubble fusion.

  12. There is reason to be concerned. by reporter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article by "Technology Review" mentions that significant parts of the power-generation device remain to be researched and developed. That is a bad sign.

    Startups, by their very nature, do not succeed on a bet that the technology will be invented. Venture capitalists do not support fairytale wishes.

    Startups use existing, proven technology and package it in new ways to serve a need of the consumer. Startups are about commercializing a technology, not inventing it.

    What startup does breakthrough research? None.

    Research is the luxury of universities (with infinite time horizons) and monopolists like Microsoft .

    1. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's exactly that kind of short-sighted thinking that has driven nearly every commercial research and development laboratory out of the United States.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    2. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In his defense, a company can't exactly sustain itself without some type of income.

      Research is something an established company can afford to do.

    3. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by j.boulton · · Score: 4, Informative

      As someone who works for a startup, I cannot empathize how WRONG you are. Almost every aspect of what we do to bring our particular product to market is new and needs to be thoughtfully researched and developed. It isn't easy but the potential rewards make it worthwhile. We spend a lot of time 'proving' our ideas with prototypes to provide proof that we know what we are doing and that the risk for investors is reduced.

    4. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Research is something an established company can afford to do.

      Mod me flamebait, but from the amount of money the US government spends on securing oil, there really shouldn't be any problems with fusion research funding.

    5. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Startups, by their very nature, do not succeed on a bet that the technology will be invented. Venture capitalists do not support fairytale wishes.

      So very, very ill-informed. Betting on needed technology being invented is a risk and the very thing venture capitalists do is to take great risks expecting to reap in big profits. Profits that cover more than all their other risky investments that fail since they expect most to fail. That is the definition of venture capitalist.

    6. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod me flamebait, but from the amount of money the US government spends on securing oil, there really shouldn't be any problems with fusion research funding.

      Why flamebait? You are correct. I would also like to add the US military budget...

      The US has the means to fund this research. It has chosen not to do so.

    7. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by 955301 · · Score: 1

      One counterexample to your point is worth mentioning: Startups driven by ex-academics. There are case studies of successful ventures where researchers came out of the university and into the private sector to apply research to commercial problems. They are niche, but perhaps that's how you could clarify your assertion - by also mentioned niche solutions based on solid research.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    8. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want be flamebait at all, but maybe we have to define research before making this claim. I work part time in a university and part time in a startup and I think there are some differences between both types of research made by them. I thing OP has a point specially when talking about basic research.

    9. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      Well, the good news in their case is that they're not inventing most of the components so much as engineering them... steam pistons are not high-tech, and it's only a matter of adapting them to their system's needs.

      Also, I used to work with one of their principles - Doug Richardson (he was my boss at the time). He's just about the right mix of weird, brilliant, and stubborn to make this work. At least I can assure you they're not some crackpot garage operation - they have a solid basis for their design and think they have a good chance of pulling it off. If I had the cash, I'd be investing with them too.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    10. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean there's supposed to actually be a Step 2?

    11. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by arkenian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why flamebait? You are correct. I would also like to add the US military budget...

      The US has the means to fund this research. It has chosen not to do so.

      Ummmm. Just want to note that historically speaking the Department of Energy has funded nearly as much in research dollars as the Department of Defense, and that the amount of money spent on (failed) attempts at fusion is not insignificant by any means. You don't see all that much money going to fusion research these days because not many people have come up with NEW ideas that have any sort of solid backing in theoretical physics. In fact, most physicists would argue that its STILL way, way, too easy to get research dollars for purely ridiculous ideas of generating fusion. I will also add that there are still relatively substantial funds going into hot fusion and attempts to improve the energy balance from there. Finally, this whole point is irrelevant to the parent -- large government grants for basic research usually don't go to startups simply because there's no track record of research success etc. Instead they typically go to universities and other established research centers -- and I assure you that the average university has plenty of grants awarded for stuff pretty far out there. On the other hand the Small Business Initative Research grants from DoD etc. are actually a fairly impressive program. While there is definitely no such thing as spending too much money on research, so far as I am aware the US is still on the leader board in terms of research spending.

    12. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -Think of tanks powered by this energy, think of submarines, think of planes.
      -No... You must think big like the Americans, think of BOMBS!

      Oh, wait.

    13. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by lapsed · · Score: 1

      Most basic research is done in large firms and publicly-funded organizations. Schumpeter -- the economist who coined 'creative destruction' -- first pointed this out. R&D is risky; big firms have deep pockets and broad portfolios of technologies.

    14. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Government-funded research is just one form of funding-by-monopolist, which has already been covered. The only difference is that in the government's case the monopoly is established and maintained through the active and continual application of aggressive coercion, whereas most private monopolies are either natural--meaning the market will only support a single provider--or merely the result of good business instincts.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    15. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a bit curious as to why we haven't heard more about a fusion reactor based around Sandia's Z-Pinch.

      AFAIK, the Z Machine has experimental results showing that efficient fusion could be achieved using a similar technique. Why aren't we pouring all of our resources in this direction, given that we've got evidence showing that it will work? Tokamak designs seem to have a tendency to be outrageously large, expensive, and unproven.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    16. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Government-funded research is just one form of funding-by-monopolist, which has already been covered. The only difference is that in the government's case the monopoly is established and maintained through the active and continual application of aggressive coercion, whereas most private monopolies are either natural--meaning the market will only support a single provider--or merely the result of good business instincts.

      Yes, but we can petition our government, in the US, and the rules are for the most part clear and benign and corruption is reasonably low. Any "coercion" that occurs is gentle, but will escalate in step with one's response to the government after refusing to follow these rules. If you do not like this situation, Afghanistan and Somalia since the early 1990's are both a good examples of how things often work otherwise. If you have a gun and a few guys you can pretty much do what you want to whomever you want, regardless of the type of weapons held by the other guys. For that matter, the lack of current examples of large scale, functional societies with no or little government would seem to indicate that a fair amount of government is necessary in all cases.

      When it comes to monopolies, markets that truly can only support one provider in a given geographic regions are not really common and those markets could be restructured to allow more competition. While not always the case, monopolists that abuse their position in order to either achieve their position or to maintain their position are not exercising "good business instincts", they are just acting criminal and costing you money. Even if a monopolist is acting responsibly, the cost of that monopoly is too great and does affect the consumer. A monopoly in a market could be justified if there were high setup costs and high maintenance costs present, however, the government could also provide the same services with better oversight, less expensively, and at a better quality than a corporation. This assumes that a constant, consistent source of funding is set up and with Congress not attempting to micromanage the agency or gut its funding when ideologically it seems to be a good idea.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    17. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by smithmc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      -Think of tanks powered by this energy, think of submarines, think of planes.
      -No... You must think big like the Americans, think of BOMBS!

      Oh, wait.

      Right. 'Cause the US is the only country in the world with nuclear weapons.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    18. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      agreed, it'd cost far more than $1M per year to fund the smallest "blue-sky" research team consisting of only maybe two to-flight people and a research team in a small lab, meaning a commitment of over 10 M before you might expect even a vaguely commercial proposition

      To people like Microsoft, HP and IBM this is loose change they can find down the back of their sofas, but it'd be pretty hard to get a start-up off the ground doing something with absolutely no guarantee of relevant or useful results.

      Working in a start-up where we have to keep the VCs happy, to keep the money flowing, means we have to be quite focussed on the targets, and there's not a big scope for inventing new and imaginative technologies. Whilst we have to spend quite a lot on hardware (servers and networking) and datacentres, the dominant cost is worker's salaries, so wildly speculative activities aren't good for personal survival ;-)

    19. Re:There is reason to be concerned. by BoogieChile · · Score: 1


      So explain to me where the whole "Step 3 : ???" thing got started again??

  13. Pulse fusion, it looks like... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're not going to stabilize the plasma at all, if I understand this right (IANANP). It's a pulse fusion model: put your hydrogen in the middle, surround with a working fluid that they refer to as "liquid metal" (made of lead + lithium), fire off pistons to make a pressure wave in the liquid metal and make a burst of fusion in the middle, generating heat. This makes the molten lead even hotter, and it's circulated through a heat exchanger. The cool part, I thought, was that the lead also absorbs radiation so the casing and equipment doesn't fall apart after a few months because the neutron flux made it brittle. That's a neat trick.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One neat thing that they didn't mention: having lithium exposed to a high radiation flux will breed more tritium. It makes its own fuel.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    2. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by jamesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What happens to the lead when it absorbs the radiation? If it's fusion then there aren't a lot of neutrons let off but does it still remain stable (ie remain lead) over a long period?

    3. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      It's a shame it breeds more tritium and no di-lithium ...

    4. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      not if you reverse the polarity of the main deflector

    5. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      So it's a perpetual motion machine?

      I -knew- this sounded too good to be true.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    6. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by dkf · · Score: 3, Informative

      So it's a perpetual motion machine?

      What on earth gave you that impression? Converting lithium to tritium leaves less lithium behind, and the energy would be coming from rearranging nucleons. No perpetual motion there at all.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    7. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by physburn · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah the lead will absorb radiation, but when it absorbs those fast neutrons from the fusion reaction, it will split like uranium does in fission. Except some very nasty radioactive daughter products. With the lead, this is not be clean energy, it will rather dirty indeed.

      ---

      Nuclear Power Feed @ Feed Distiller

    8. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's one I didn't know, intensely cool. Also any fusion reactor produces Helium so the potential is to have a new renewable source of Helium. Helium is very useful and we are facing shortages.

    9. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by radtea · · Score: 1

      One neat thing that they didn't mention: having lithium exposed to a high radiation flux will breed more tritium

      And having lead exposed to a high neutron flux will breed all kinds of long-lived nuclear waste, which has generally been one of the advantages of fusion (looking past the whole "doesn't actually exist" thing.) That said, the waste will should still be more managable than fission products, and the production of long-lived actinides will be small, if non-negligible.

      Overall this looks like a really interesting concept, and even if they don't succeed it is wonderful (and typically Canadian) that they are taking on this high-risk project. Technological innovation tends to flourish in the penumbra of imperial powers. American culture has become too conservative to support an effort like this because imperial powers are far too sensitive to their image, and taking on something that is almost sure to fail is therefore rarely going to happen. That leave innovation to the peripheral powers who aren't afraid to fail because they have no image to live up to.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    10. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      If it works, it's still damn better than oil, which is dirty energy we have to buy from dirty people.

    11. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One neat thing that they didn't mention: having lithium exposed to a high radiation flux will breed more tritium. It makes its own fuel.

      It sounds more like its fuel is lithium. Which actually kind of sucks, because we have a lot more hydrogen (i.e. water) than lithium, and lithium is already in high demand for the Li Ion batteries they're putting into everything now.

    12. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that E=mc^2. A little bit of lithium will go a long, long way. 1kg of lithium burned at 5% net efficiency (after wasted lithium/tritium, generator inefficiencies, and the fact that only part of its mass becomes energy) is ~1.25 terawatt hours, enough to power almost 120,000 homes for a year.

      And really, lithium isn't actually that rare. That's a myth. It generally costs between $4 and $8 per kilogram of lithium carbonate (the commonly traded form). Not exactly hard to come by. We can get it for seawater for $22-$32/kg. Meanwhile, 1-2kg of lithium carbonate go into your typical li-ion battery, which costs perhaps $100 per kilogram in bulk.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    13. Re:Pulse fusion, it looks like... by smaddox · · Score: 1

      First generation fusion was always going to be dirty compared to wind and solar. However, compared to fission it is rather clean.

      The idea is that maybe we will eventually be able to achieve low neutron fuel fusion, such as boron+hydrogen. The difficulty is the order of magnitude (or more) decrease in fusion cross-section.

  14. Re:p11B - Better link by pitterpatter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps this is a better link for Polywell Fusion.

  15. They are already ahead of the government... by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about their fusion reactor, but as far as web servers go that startup appears to be way ahead of LANL.

    1. Re:They are already ahead of the government... by waferhead · · Score: 1

      Yes, slashdot has apparently DOS'd a guvmint lab.

      Expect the black DHS helicopters to arrive in 3,2,1... ;-)

    2. Re:They are already ahead of the government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who ISNT ahead of the incompetent, useless government?

  16. Well.. by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, it looks like they're finally going to hammer out fusion power.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  17. Few bad points by snikulin · · Score: 1

    1. A bit too colorful and garrulous website for a honest poor startup.

    2. Butt-ugly font at that.

    3. Relocation to Canada will be required. Are you kidding me?!!!

    1. Re:Few bad points by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Relocating to the Vancouver area is a bad point? What world are you living in? On Earth Vancouver is frequently ranked among the planets most livable cities.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  18. Fantastic Fiction by robbiedo · · Score: 3, Funny

    "General Atomics" Sounds like a company from a 1950's Robert Heinlein novel.

    1. Re:Fantastic Fiction by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a reason fifties novels sound like that. It has to do with art imitating life, not the other way around. General Atomics was real. So were General Dynamics and General Electric. So were companies like North American Aviation and The Aerospace Corporation. Some of them even still exist.

    2. Re:Fantastic Fiction by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Your thinking General Services from "We Also Walk Dogs."

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:Fantastic Fiction by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Was real? My office is just down the street from them. Sure they aren't doing that cool Project Orion stuff anymore but they're still here.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  19. Nice try by beej · · Score: 2, Funny

    But that's never going to fit on a DeLorean. Why don't these guys ever plan ahead?

  20. Who knew? by tchdab1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    that the Batmobile had a 220-cylinder engine?

    1. Re:Who knew? by NalosLayor · · Score: 1

      Actually, it had a 238 cylinder engine. Unfortunately, the name Orion was already taken.

  21. So, by Bu11etmagnet · · Score: 1

    It builds on work done during the 1980s by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, based on a concept called Linus

    ... does it run Linux ?

    --
    Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts.
    1. Re:So, by Entropius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably. If it's scientific and computer-y, it's probably powered by penguins.

      I just got back from a computational physics conference, and I doubt anybody there would have the slightest idea how to make a supercomputer run on Windows.

  22. VSE by epine · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've lived in the area for a long time, and never heard a good story about the VSE (RIP 1999), it's remains, but not the lingering stench, since composted into the CDNX.

    Wikipedia just provided me with a funny story about the VSE I didn't know, but find all too typical.

    The history of the exchange's index provides a standard case example of large errors arising from seemingly innocuous floating point calculations. The index was initialized at 1000 and subsequently updated and truncated to three decimal places on each trade. The accumulated truncations led to an erroneous loss of around 20 points per day. Over the weekend of November 25-28 1983, the error was corrected, raising the value of the index from its Friday closing figure of 524.811 to 1098.892

    Are these the same people who are proposing to solve the fusion problem with 220 synchronized penises? Good god, I hope not.

    For the record, here's what $500m typically buys you in British Columbia.

    Fast Ferry Scandal

    Amazing, just eight hours ago, a local newspaper is reporting that these vessels have been flipped for $20m.

    PacifiCat ferries resold overseas

    The Washington Marine Group sold the three ferries the company bought from B.C. Ferries for $19.8 million, to luxury yacht builder Abu Dhabi Mar.

    Four cents on the dollar. That beats the old VSE hands down. Vancouver has a world-class ethnic cuisine, has enjoyed some decent success in video games and film production, but has a terrible track record with anything that floats.

    Ballard Power being one of the more buoyant exceptions. I just did a search on "Ballard Power profit" and was pleasantly surprised to get a hit.

    Ballard Power reports modest profit in Q2

    I suppose if General Slammer raises $500m to build the commercial scale reactor, they'll use our excellent BC shipyards to fabricate them. We're good. We can weld aluminum into structures less valuable than the original metal.

    While I've never met a lumberjack I didn't like on a personal level, I have to say as voting collective, they're dumb as stumps. We inevitably get the government we deserve. Our big project always make work, but rarely make money.

    In rural areas of BC, it's easy to spot the people with jobs at the local mill or the local mine: they've got more equity sitting in the driveway than in their shit-box house (4x4 trucks, boats, campers, skidoos, jet-skis, ATVs, etc.) Big nature, eh? You can't govern in this province without earning this vote.

    We do have some nice mountains. Vancouver is planning a party to show this off. You might have heard of it. I think the plan is to lose a lot of money proving we're world class and shrewd at business.

    1. Re:VSE by Luxifer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, you're too bitter to be a Canadian by birth, and you didn't apologize once. So..er.. where you from originally?

  23. Re:Points 1 & 2 by rdebath · · Score: 1

    The website looks just like a startup's website to me. The copy has been written by the MD (or the MD's marketing friend) and the layout is exactly what you get from someone technical who can do html but does their best to minimise their contact with it. The fonts in particular are using the "verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" list straight out of "the manual" and the layout is a dead simple table layout copied from before everyone got conned into trying to do all the layout using CSS.

    As for 3, I imagine it's got something to do with the US having a sue happy population with stupid laws about anything with the word nuclear in it. You know like Nuclear magnetic resonance scanner ...

  24. New Idea? by Linker3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe we should just move all companies and their fusion experiments to one, single 'fusion science park', with each building next to each other in a ring. We then use large bulldozers to smash all the buildings towards the centre at the same time and see what happens?

    It's an idea? No?

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
    1. Re:New Idea? by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      whooosh

  25. Why why why... by mustafap · · Score: 1

    FTA : "half used to create steam that spins a turbine for power generation"

    Why do we still pursue solutions that end up relying on 19th century technology?

    It's like a space ship's hyperdrive being powered by coal. Even Douglas Adams wouldn't have put that in a story.

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    1. Re:Why why why... by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because it works.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Why why why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steam turbines are only slightly less basic than the lever, or the wheel. There's no reason to replace them, and there won't be until we come up with something better.

      Chances are, we won't for a long time.

    3. Re:Why why why... by michael_cain · · Score: 2, Informative
      Because it works.

      To expand on that point, because it's inexpensive, it uses common materials, and it scales. The problem of "I have an object here that produces lots of heat energy, I'd like to convert that heat to useful work, please" is harder than it sounds.

    4. Re:Why why why... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Why do we still pursue solutions that end up relying on 19th century technology?

      Even worse, we are still moving most of our stuff around on 5th century BC technology! This is simply inexcusable!!

  26. Re:Points 1 & 2 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Plus, if they blow up a sizable part of Canada, who cares? :)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. "vaporware" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "I think we can hold off on the 'vaporware' claims ..."

    Wouldn't this be plasmaware?

  28. acoustic shockwaves by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    a startup proposing they can create commercially viable fusion using acoustic shock waves...based on a US Naval research concept called 'Linus'

    In other news, Naval research has noted ongoing changes in dolphin behaviour, six days after Linus Torvalds shouted at Alan Cox.

  29. Re:Thermodynamic disequilibrium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All plasmas are in a non-equilibrium thermodynamic state. Different configurations just have different dissipative mechanisms, many of the most important ones poorly understood for typical magnetic confinement experiments. I used to be a plasma physicist, and got out after realizing that the anomalous transport made you something like 600x off in your theory predictions, and if you dumped in all the possible corrections theorists had imagined up to that time (never mind the conditions for most of these were in conflict with each other) you still wound up a factor of 50x off.
          If you wish to look into this you will find the problem is the Boltzmann equation--Boltzmann is simply wrong with his invariant measures for phase space in the case of non-equilibrium physics (hyperbolic measures are required then). Foundations of statistical mechanics stuff, nasty math, etc. Plasma physics was pretty hopeless 20 years ago and probably still is, unless you have "gravitational confinement" like the stars or build things big enough (ITER) that the losses are offset by enough gain. The laser fusion process can be fast enough to stay ahead of the losses with a smaller system than the magnetic confinement stuff (ITER), but would at that time still have to be large enough to supply half the North American continent with power.

  30. Using shock waves to compress things by davidwr · · Score: 2, Funny

    A series of financial shock waves squeezed my retirement plan into the size of a helium atom, so I don't see why sound waves can't do the same for a couple of deuterium atoms.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  31. Well done, Piston! by chrysalis · · Score: 1

    Nice to see that Piston finally gets the recognition it desserves!

    --
    {{.sig}}
    1. Re:Well done, Piston! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Nice to see that Piston finally gets the recognition it desserves!

      I see inanimate carbon rod has had its fifteen minutes of fame.

  32. This reminds me... by rogerdr · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of bumper stickers from the `70s. "Fusion Power by 1990". I'm not saying that this is more hand waving to mesmerize investors into another ten years of fruitless research, but...the track record for fusion power research is not that great.

  33. Noisy Neighbor by relaxinparadise · · Score: 1

    The NIMBY crowd would likely have reason to fear this one. There is lethal explosive potential. Even assuming that safety to an acceptable level enough not to blow up the neighbourhood could be maintained, can anyone imagine how loud this thing would be? 200+ pistons powerful enough to enable fusion calibrated to pop every second would have to make such a hell raising sound that you would likely hear it a kilometre away. Although it may make for a great rave, I guess there might be visuals as well.

  34. Steam punk angle? - Thermonuclear Diesel Engine!! by StCredZero · · Score: 1

    "Somebody described it as a thermonuclear diesel engine," Laberge says, perhaps undervaluing a potentially awesome marketing phrase. "We compress the fuel. It burns."

    Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel would be proud! Really, what human with a Y chomosome wouldn't want to drive a big-rig with a freakin Thermonuclear Diesel Engine!? Steampunk, but with 3 orders of magnitude more available enthalpy! We're talkin locomotive to the stars, here!

  35. Re:Steam punk angle? - Thermonuclear Diesel Engine by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

    I instantly thought steampunk too. Now you've got an image in my head of a master engineer with steampunk goggles pulling a lever, custom brass components whirring and chugging, and then a train silently roaring across the frame, occluding the stars, and disappearing in the distance toward Jupiter.

  36. Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh, I think so, Brain, but I don't think the octopus would be very happy with it.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  37. At last! A car that's powered by Hydrogen! by aqk · · Score: 0

    Only problem is, you need an atomic bomb to start (ignite) the engine every morning...

  38. Re:Steam punk angle? - Thermonuclear Diesel Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I instantly thought steampunk too. Now you've got an image in my head of a master engineer with steampunk goggles pulling a lever, custom brass components whirring and chugging, and then a train silently roaring across the frame, occluding the stars, and disappearing in the distance toward Jupiter.

    Shades of the old anime Galaxy Express 999, repurposed as the equally obscure laserdisc game Freedom Fighter

  39. Lots of difficult issues by Gazelle+Bay · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of really difficult issues with this one that they seem to be politely sweeping under the rug. First of all, they have to pre-heat this reactor core material to get it into liquid form. If the core is mostly made of lead, with a melting point of around 600 K or 330 C, then that takes a heck of a lot of heat. It's also pretty dangerous and difficult to contain that within a huge ensemble of actuating pistons. I'm not really sure how they plan on containing it so nicely, but it's not going to be a piece of cake. Second of all, they plan on compressing this liquid core with mechanical pistons? This is pretty incredible. Water, for example, is generally assumed to be incompressible, because it is so difficult to get it to decrease its volume under pressure. I could be mistaken, but I would assume that lead is also practically incompressible. So if they are relying on liquid lead compression, then their pistons will have to be enormously powerful and well balanced. That's no doubt why they seek to use so many pistons, but still it seems like it will be a massive engineering difficulty. It could be that they don't rely on compressing the liquid lead, and instead, they are just using the lead as a vehicle to transmit the acoustic compression wave. However, that's still pretty damn difficult because the lead is so dense and heavy and the pistons will have to move so fast that it will still act locally incompressible, to some degree. This is more speculation on my part, here. Finally, they also need to spin up all this reactor liquid metal, which seems like it will also be extremely difficult. There's no easy way to spin up some massive spherical tank of 600 K, heavy as hell metal, surrounded by a huge number of actuating pistons. Maybe they plan on using something clever like spinning the liquid up through some electrodynamic interaction, but this definitely won't be trivial, either.