Slashdot Mirror


Thermonuclear Reactor To Use Coconut Shells

destinyland writes "A key component of a $10 billion nuclear fusion plant is vintage 2002 Indonesian coconut-shell charcoal. After a 20-year search, German researchers discovered that the coconut-shell charcoal is the best medium for 'adsorbing' waste byproducts sucked out of the thermonuclear reactor's vacuum chamber. In what will be the first fusion power facility that's commercially viable, magnetic fields will heat hydrogen isotopes to over 150 million degrees Centigrade. (Essentially, the super-hot plasma creates artificial stars.) As the article points out, 'It's not quite a Starship warp drive, but it does harness the power of the sun.'"

251 comments

  1. That's not a horse! by Tybalt_Capulet · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's not a horse, you're just bangin' two coconuts together!

    --
    Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?
    1. Re:That's not a horse! by grayshirtninja · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's not the power of the sun, you're just bangin' two coconuts together!

      Fixed that for ya

    2. Re:That's not a horse! by ProteusQ · · Score: 1, Funny

      How'd you _get_ the coconuts?!

    3. Re:That's not a horse! by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Hah! The mystery of how the swallow could carry the coconut finally got solved.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    4. Re:That's not a horse! by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Fusion powered swallows?
      Well shit, the waste from those is going to take a hell of a toll on car paintjobs. And chassis. And engine blocks. And the street beneath...

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    5. Re:That's not a horse! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Coconuts are good for so many things.

      For example, making the sound of horses, or even making soap!

  2. In related news... by syrinx · · Score: 5, Funny

    The head of the project, a former professor, was heard mumbling "Gilligan won't mess it up this time."

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:In related news... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The head of the project, a former professor, was heard mumbling "Gilligan won't mess it up this time."

      On one of those "rescued from island" TV movies, Gilligan comes over to the professor's new university lab to chat. As expected, he bumps a part and while trying to rescue it via a balancing act, he ends up trashing the whole lab. Skipper kicks Gilligan out and then apologizes profusely to the professor for bringing him. But the professor simply says: "Don't worry, this lab is a fake, [opens door] here's the real lab. I've lived with Gilligan long enough to expect that."
           

    2. Re:In related news... by d3ac0n · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wasn't that the same movie where The Professor was bringing out all of his various inventions he thought of while on the island...

      and every one of them was something that had already been invented?

      I think that was the same episode where Ginger was trying to get back into movies, but the kept getting offered adult movie roles. if I remember correctly, she was about to accept one because she thought that was the only kind of movies left, when Gilligan convinced her not to because he had just seen Star Wars.

      Don't ask me why I remember that.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    3. Re:In related news... by Sgt.+B · · Score: 1

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur

      Not quite everything. :)

    4. Re:In related news... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Because they couldn't use the original Ginger, in my opinion they should have cut most of her parts out. Without the real deal, it didn't feel right. I suspect they had a deadline to fit and thus didn't have time for any significant re-writes when the Tina Louise deal didn't work out. (It's my understanding that Tina felt the Ginger role typecasted her, harming her career, and thus wanted big bucks to compensate.)

  3. Even more interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...is the bamboo bicycle used to remove the atmosphere of the vacuum chamber.

  4. Yeah, I saw this episode by thomasdz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I remember this one. The professor made the Thermonuclear reactor with a bunch of coconuts, financed, of course, by the Howell's... but then Gilligan saw Ginger...got all flustered and tripped over the whole thing causing a meltdown and the Skipper's hair to glow... yeah, that's a classic episode indeed

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
    1. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by jspenguin1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like the Professor / He always saves their butts / He could build a nuclear reactor / From a couple' of coconuts
      She said, "That guy's a genius" / I shook my head and laughed / I said, "If he's so fly, they tell me why / He couldn't build a lousy raft"

    2. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was Maryann that always made my coconuts radioactive. Those shorts!!!!

    3. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did... didn't you see the movie? He was smart enough to realize that he has to stay on the island long enough so they have enough episodes for several seasons.

    4. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by dpilot · · Score: 4, Funny

      They once interviewed Russell Johnson, and he had quite the succinct answer : "If you were trapped on a desert island with Ginger and Mary Ann, and your male competition was Gilligan and the Skipper, would you want to get rescued?"

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by Abreu · · Score: 1

      I never understood why they never decided to just eat Gilligan and enjoy their island...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    6. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But what you don't understand is that Gilligan was really "the one" because he pokes and prods in ways Professor can't match.

    7. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Bob Denver was the driving talent behind the show, just like Tommy "the dumb one" Smothers is really the driving talent behind The Smothers Brothers.

      But in the words of William Shatner, playing himself on Saturday Night Live, "It was just a TV show!" Also in the same skit, "Get a life!" Two or three weeks after that SNL episode, some out-of-town friends invited me to their place, to go to a Star Trek convention. They had "Get a life" and "It was just a TV show!" T-shirts on sale, that soon after the SNL skit.

      Since it's just a TV sitcom, I don't *need* to understand anything.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You linked from Slashdot to TVTropes? How do you expect me to get any work done today?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      I hope they have enough limes, because uou put the lime with the coconut and //ducks

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    10. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But in the words of William Shatner, playing himself on Saturday Night Live, "It was just a TV show!" Also in the same skit, "Get a life!"

      But... but... that was his rendition of Evil Kirk! He said so!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Yeah, I saw this episode by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Did you ever see "Free Enterprise"?

      Shatner ... rapping ... Shakespeare

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  5. Fusion == boom? by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Read Robert Heinlein's "Blowups Happen".

    BTW I love coconut.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Fusion == boom? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      BTW I love coconut.

      Incidentally, coconut fibre (which I suspect might be what TFA might be referring to, rather than the shell) is a truly excellent material for producing an incredibly fine and pure charcoal (i.e. carbon) powder. The particles are so fine that they readily form nearly indelible stains on anything with which they come into contact. Especially on clothing. :-(

    2. Re:Fusion == boom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better - "Nerves" - Lester Del Rey (1942 short story expanded to 1956 novel)

    3. Re:Fusion == boom? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes, good ol' PAC (powdered activated carbon).

      Good for pranks, though... actually, this gives me ideas. Bad ones...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Fusion == boom? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Or H. Beam Piper's Day of the Moran.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:Fusion == boom? by russotto · · Score: 1

      "Blowups Happen" was about a fission reactor, not a fusion one. Heinlein, not having in 1939 the advantage of decades of human experience with nuclear fission, posited a reactor which required a huge amount of uranium and had to be run just below supercritical in order to produce a useful amount of power. Mess up the settings just a little bit, and you get a world-buster nuclear explosion sufficient to destroy life on earth.

      To make things worse, the stress of running the thing tended to drive the operators and management crazy.

    6. Re:Fusion == boom? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Ok.

      So now we have a fusion reactor which must be run just-below supercritical in order to produce a useful amount of power. Mess up the settings just a little bit, and..... boom.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  6. Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by johndiii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a fusion reaction. Just say that. No stars here, no power from the sun. Nuclear fusion.

    --
    Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
  7. Research was conducted by the Professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Gilligan's Island.

  8. Yea so? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Coconut shell charcoal is one of the best available for making filters. Charcoal filters are nothing new folks most fish tanks use them as do most water purifiers and even gas masks. And this "May" be a practical fusion reactor but they have been saying that since the 1950s but I am staying hopeful.
    Yet another light and fluffy pop science story with a funny little twist because it has coconuts in it... Yawn.....

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Yea so? by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Light and fluffy to the tune of 10 billion dollars this time though.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    2. Re:Yea so? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      LOL, I said the same thing (but I didn't notice your comment because you didn't mention activated carbon).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Yea so? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      It's a cocotokamak!

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    4. Re:Yea so? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The story is light and fluffy the reactor is interesting but the story was written at a lower level than I would expect from Slashdot. It is a big test fusion reactor that uses activated charcoal and may work really well. The reactor is the cool. The story was dull and uninformative.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Yea so? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yea I can see it now.
      Sea World uses activated carbon to save whales!
      Coconuts can protect you from poison gas!

      It is being used for a stinking filter folks just like charcoal has been used for decades if not centuries.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Yea so? by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      "We thought fusion power would save us after the oil ran out in 2023, but no-one predicted the coconut harvest failure of 2029 that threw the World's fusion reactors into darkness...."

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    7. Re:Yea so? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      >It's a cocotokamak!

      And it's tasty too!

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    8. Re:Yea so? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Cuckoo for cocotokamak? Who knew!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Yea so? by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      We need fuels that can provide massive net energy gains that are many times greater than the energy invested in creating them.

      Either that or we should be more frugal in our use of energy.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    10. Re:Yea so? by ikedasquid · · Score: 1

      This isn't news...the Nuclear industry in the US has been using charcoal based on coconut shells to filter particulates for awhile. This news is literally decades old.

    11. Re:Yea so? by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      Actually I got a quite different idea from reading that article. Burning coal, oil, and other hydrocarbons is going to look pretty silly a generation from now when you have the choice of rooftop solar, local or distant wind sources, and then possibly nuclear or fusion on top of that. It's going to be an orgy of electricity.

      How can you say that rooftop solar that produces enough energy to sell back to the grid is "pretty disappointing?" You think making money is a losing proposition?

    12. Re:Yea so? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      In terms of powering our progress I think that fusion or breeder reactors are the only viable technologies in the very long term.

      Nothing else comes close to the net energy that we get currently from burning up...

      You should probably hold your horses on that statement until fusion power actually produces any net energy.

      From what I've been able to find the best fusion reactor so far (also the biggest until ITER) has been the JET experiment, which was able to produce 65% of the power they put into it. Basically, the best so far in fusion power loses 35% of the energy put into it, which is obviously far, far less than the least efficient traditional or alternative non-nuclear option.

      Right now fission produces the most bang for the buck, even in the US where we are restricted to very inefficient use of the uranium fuel (for fear of producing weaponizable uranium). If we could pull our head out of the sand we could make fission many times more efficient and the spent fuel simpler to store.

      Then, in another 50 years or however long it will take to figure out controlled fusion power (they have been working on it for a long, long time now with nothing useful to show for it), fusion can replace fission as the cleaner and hopefully cheaper upgrade.

      In other words, unless the ITER is a monumental leap forward in fusion technology (and it doesn't sound like it is), don't expect stellar results out of it yet. If it can break even on power though, things will really start to move I think.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  9. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    What do you think stars are? Fuckface, they're balls of fucking FUSION. Without fusion stars would be blacker than your god damn heart.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:Use Coconut Shells? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1, Funny

    Laden or unladen?

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  12. Harnessing the power of the sun. by Spykk · · Score: 4, Funny

    My vintage Casio calculator harnessed the power of the sun. This, not so much.

    1. Re:Harnessing the power of the sun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But did it harness the sun using the power of coconuts? Exactly.

  13. Where can I buy that camera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The camera they used to take a picture of the inside of the Tokamak "during operation" at 150 million C

  14. Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by sh00z · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any editor discussing technology who still feels the need to put the word adsorb into quotes, as though it's not a legitimate English term, should be fired. If you're afraid your audience won't understand, then insert a sidebar on the mechanics of adsorption; don't act as though it's a term out of sci-fi.

    1. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      neutrons -- a neutron has no electrical charge and is unaffected by magnetic fields.

      Why he felt the need to explain what a neutron is to us is beyond me. I'm tired of these people pretending to do a scientific article but then explaining stuff like this as if it's being fed to kindergarden...

    2. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're afraid your audience won't understand, then insert a sidebar on the mechanics of adsorption

      Behold the power of the web; no need for a sidebar!

      BTW, I thought they quoted the word as an alternate form of [sic] .

    3. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Kuroji · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I just have to wonder why they didn't bother to correct the spelling as proper: ABSORB.

    4. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Splab · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because adsorb is proper spelling?

    5. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Kuroji · · Score: 1

      ...Right, actually different concepts. That'll teach me to post before I drink my coffee. Moving right along.

    6. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You two have so much in common. Here:

      *Tosses "condescending"*

      Put it in your vocabulary.

    7. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the author intended people to pay close attention and not subconsciously read "absorb". Because I did... I only noticed the difference after you mentioned something, even though I already knew what adsorption is

    8. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because adsorption and absorption aren't the same thing. They said what they meant; suggesting that they use the wrong word is not good advice.

    9. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd like that, wouldn't you? No chance, buddy. You're going to get at least 50 identical "absorb != adsorb" replies, each one more original than the last.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    10. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It was a direct quote lifted from TFA. You're lucky they even converted the double quotes to single quotes.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You inglorious sic basterd!

    12. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this your first time to Slashdot?

    13. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      For anyone who knows anything about activated carbon, it would have been exactly the opposite. I'd have known that it should be "adsorb" even if it had erroneously said "absorb".

      But then, I work with powdered activated carbon, so maybe I'm not the target audience. Best solution: just make it link to wikipedia, like someone suggested up above. Then your users look twice because it's a link, and if they're startled by what they think is a misspelled word they'll be able to click through and see that it is, in fact, correct.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Most journalists haven't had any kind of scientific education since they were 14 and feel the need to explain everything that they know. This just about covers the sort of things that anyone who didn't drop out of school or suffer amnesia at university will know. If they didn't explain neutrons, they'd have to explain something else, and they at least (more or less) know what a neutron is.

      In unrelated news, I'm a freelance writer with a PhD and I'd be interested in writing science and technology news. Anyone know of any openings?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And yet, advice so often followed by the technical press...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by thickdiick · · Score: 1

      I hate wikitionary:

      adsorption (plural adsorptions) The process by which a liquid or gas adsorbate is adsorbed by an adsorbent, forming a film on the adsorbent's surface.

      can someone please explain the difference! It's certainly not a common term in non-technical circles.

    17. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Webster has a better definition.

      Compare adsorption with absorb.

      An adsorbent gathers stuff (fine particles or even dissolved substances) on its surface via very small intra-molecular forces, similar to static cling. Thus, you need large surface area per volume (porous structure).

      An absorbent gathers fluids (liquids or gases) in its pores via capillary action. Thus, you need a porous structure for this too, but for an entirely different reason.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    18. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      adsorption (plural adsorptions) The process by which a liquid or gas adsorbate is adsorbed by an adsorbent, forming a film on the adsorbent's surface.

      You missed the part of the definition that would have helped you:

      Etymology
      adsorb + -ion

      Try looking up the root (adsorb). I've added in the link to the root for you above, just as they do on wiktionary.

      Don't hate wiktionary. Hate not knowing how to use a dictionary instead.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    19. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Best solution: just make it link to wikipedia, like someone suggested up above. Then your users look twice because it's a link, and if they're startled by what they think is a misspelled word they'll be able to click through and see that it is, in fact, correct.

      Well, I'm off to edit the article in wikipedia to say that adsorption is a little-used alternate spelling of absorption preferred in the nuclear physics industry.

      Or maybe to say that adsorption is the process by which viewers are influenced by subliminal advertising.

      Seriously... don't link to wikipedia in an article... you cannot accurately fact-check your reference prior to publication, since the reference can change after publication.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    20. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      bootiful, let's start ANOTHER off-topic Wikipedia debate on slashdot. I'll go first: When articles of that nature are edited with false information, they are corrected extremely fast. And if readers don't follow the given citations to confirm facts they read on Wikipedia, it's their own fault if they're misinformed. Weeee!

    21. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you are kidding, so I will answer you... Yes, yes it is.

    22. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good way of getting yourself banned from making Wikipedia edits.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    23. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      When articles of that nature are edited with false information, they are corrected extremely fast.

      It doesn't matter. The whole point of my post is that Wikipedia is a constantly changing thing... so it should never be used in a citation or as a reference, whether in a term paper, scholarly article, or journalistic article.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    24. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      um, you just reference it like youre required to reference everything else, with dates and revision/edition numbers. Books change as well you know, thats why we came up this solution a long time ago.

    25. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question?

      Protip: don't answer that. The correct answer is "yes, of course", but the correct response is "smile and nod, boys, smile and nod."

    26. Re:Thanks for finding me a tech website to ignore by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You don't know how to use the edit history feature? I mean jeez, they're even dated for you...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. What by sexconker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We have commercially viable fusion reactors now, yet the "news" is that it involves coconuts?

    In what will be the first fusion power facility that's commercially viable...

    Oh. I see. 3-5 years out then, just like LHC, battery breakthroughs, etc.

  17. Re:Wow, so they finally split the coconut atom by fractoid · · Score: 1

    Wait 'til you hear "roll and rock"!

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  18. MacGyver's turn by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    If this trend keeps up, we'll finally get our MacGyver flying car.

    1. Re:MacGyver's turn by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

      MacGyver didn't do the flying car, MANTIS did. and quite experetly as well. (off topic I know, but I'm sure that the doc could easily do it with one coconut and still have spare parts left over to improve the MANTIS)

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
    2. Re:MacGyver's turn by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Let's call it a split. MacGyver did build an ultralight-style plane out of I think bamboo, jackets, and lawnmowers. That half-counts.

    3. Re:MacGyver's turn by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      There was a MacGyver episode of Myth Busters - that particular plane dropped like a rock when they built the replica.

      I sure hope they aren't copying MacGyver's designs for a fusion reactor...

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  19. ARC Reactor??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or does that reactor bear a striking resemblance to the ARC Reactor in Ironman?

    1. Re:ARC Reactor??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think the arc reactor was modeled after?

  20. Re:Use Coconut Shells? by Adriax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heavily laden hopefully.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  21. Re:Nuclear Waste? by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

    Over time, the containment vessel will eventually become radioactive. The ratio of energy to waste should be pretty excellent though.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  22. Re:Nuclear Waste? by drerwk · · Score: 1

    Most fusion paths generate neutrons. The neutrons will make the walls of the reactor slightly radioactive for some value of slightly. Until we can do neutron free fusion there will still be a minor issue of waste.

  23. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Zenaku · · Score: 2, Funny

    It says the fuel is deuterium and tritium, how hazardous are those?

    Oh, EXTREMELY hazardous. Both substances have similar properties to a highly volatile chemical that has in past resulted in some spectacular explosions. OH THE HUMANITY! ;)

    --
    If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
  24. "Commercially viable"? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    In other words, because it was funded by outside sources from around the world, rather than the people of the region where it will provide power, it will be able to compete against alternatives in the region. Of course, that would also be true of anything else.

    I've got some excellent windmills I'd like to sell you for 50 cents each - I just need to get global funding to the tune of $10B first.

    1. Re:"Commercially viable"? by mea37 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, I don't know. To be commercially viable it also has to produce substantially more power than it consumes on an ongoing basis. A fusion reactor that can do that would actually be a pretty big deal regardless of how it were funded...

    2. Re:"Commercially viable"? by TimMann · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's just confusion by the writer of the story. This reactor is a scientific experiment, intended only to be the first to demonstrate getting more energy out of a fusion reactor than you have to put into it, not to be a commercially viable power plant. So it's just one step towards the long hoped-for goal of commercially viable fusion.

    3. Re:"Commercially viable"? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know. To be commercially viable it also has to produce substantially more power than it consumes on an ongoing basis.

      Well, obviously that's a given, but I'm talking about being capable of competing against alternative sources of energy on the open market. If, to make an energy source competitive on the market, the government must subsidize the industry with billions of dollars, it's only giving the illusion of competitiveness. In reality, everyone is paying thousands per person into one industry to have that industry be a viable choice against alternative industries. The question is, why?

    4. Re:"Commercially viable"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it also has to produce substantially more power than it consumes on an ongoing basis

      Lisa, In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

    5. Re:"Commercially viable"? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      You're confused. Every viable power plant produces more power than it consumes. That does not mean it's creating energy (i.e. violating thermodynamics); it means it is extracting more than enough energy from its fuel to power the plant itself.

    6. Re:"Commercially viable"? by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's just it - in the case of fusion, being able to do that is not a given. If it were, we'd have commercial fusion reactors on the grid. As I said, if they can be commercially viable excluding start-up costs, that's a huge deal even if it takes massive subsidies to get there.

      Why would you provide huge subsidies to fusion plants? Because, if they can be made commercially viable they will return more value than the initial investment. Many things you depend on daily would not be commercially viable if start-up costs hadn't been subsidized. That does not mean that they are not now - after having gotten over that hump - commercially viable.

      That also doesn't mean that all of them should have been subsidized. The artificial monopolies created through subsidy are dangerous and hard to regulate, and they try to avoid being regulated by hoping we'll forget how they wre created.

      So if you want to argue that the subsidies are harmful, that's possible. You ought to be able to argue it on more honest grounds than claiming that the project cannot be commercially viable if it started with a subsidy, though.

    7. Re:"Commercially viable"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. Nuclear fusion, as we all know, is still 20 years away.

      And always will be.

    8. Re:"Commercially viable"? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Well, obviously that's a given, but I'm talking about being capable of
      > competing against alternative sources of energy on the open market.

      Because unity gain in a fusion reaction is a fricking holy grail of the alternative energy scene. If they manage to build a reactor that can keep running more than a second or two and actually produce enough power out the steam turbines to actually run the darned thing with ANYTHING left over to push out onto the grid we will have won the battle for energy independence. Game Over.

      Because the energy to run the fusion reaction itself is huge and it would be expected that fine tuning and minor refinements can get at least single digit efficiency improvements, even if the initial installation is puny we should quickly be able to get huge outputs sufficient to make all other electrical generation methods obsolete. And TFA is talking about 10-1 out vs in. Yes that is probably pie in the sky but DAMN! To go from less than 1-1 to 10-1 would be awesome.

      Get fusion working and you can forget your gay little solar panels, your windmills, your biofuels, all that crap is yesterday's news. With virtually limitless electrical power we can either solve the battery problem for mobile energy or make a sustainable fuel. Hydrogen would be good if we can solve the storage problem or just synthesize some appropriate hydrocarbon that we can dump into our existing gas tanks. If we are making the gas from scratch instead of burning dead dinosaurs the whole loop can be carbon neutral and shut the warmers up. Bonus!

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    9. Re:"Commercially viable"? by spiracle · · Score: 1
      Yes, this statement is just wrong:

      "In what will be the first fusion power facility that's commercially viable".

      Even changing the 'will' to 'may' would be wrong.

  25. commercially viable? by sunking2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If that were the case they'd be popping up all over. This place will never operate in the black. Not saying it isn't a starting point and shouldn't be done, but lets not sell it for something it isn't.

    1. Re:commercially viable? by dpilot · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure it'll be producing cheap, abundant power.... in about 20 years.

      Just ignore the fact that we've been 20 years away from cheap, abundant fusion power for the last 50 years.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:commercially viable? by careysub · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it'll be producing cheap, abundant power.... in about 20 years.

      Just ignore the fact that we've been 20 years away from cheap, abundant fusion power for the last 50 years.

      Naah. The situation is much worse than that.

      When controlled thermonuclear research started in the early 1950s as part of the highly classified Project Sherwood it was expected that viable power plants were only 10 years away (the expectation of comparative ease of development is why it was so secret).

      Now, 55 years later, the official ITER schedule envisions that "Experiments with deuterium-tritium plasmas would begin in mid 2026, according to the plan, with high gain (Q=10), long pulse (15 min) operation in 2028". In other words, simply beginning to operate ITER like a power plant won't happen for almost 20 years, a full 43 years after the project's start, and 27 years after the acceptance of the detailed design in 2001. See: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-11125488/New-ITER-schedule.html.

      Any real power plant would be a new, even larger facility that would follow ITER and which is not even on the drawing boards. If we assume that a real power plant design will be available the day ITER starts full power operation with a D-T plasma (i.e. we have already learned all the lessons we need to learn), but that it take the same length of time to build and start it at full power, then we are looking at 46 years before the first fusion power plant starts producing power.

      The article's notion that fusion power will be around in 10 years, is astonishing ignorance (well, not so astonishing given science reporting standards). Evidently the reporter made this number up without asking anyone who knew anything about the subject. I haven't seen any prognostications by the tokamak community positing a prototype power plant (actually producing net electricity) before 2050 for years.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  26. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    No, even black holes give off some radiation. :P

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  27. Re:Nuclear Waste? by confused+one · · Score: 1

    deuterium is common in sea water. Tritium is somewhat active and has a half-life of 10 years, through beta decay. It's used, sealed in phosphor coated glass vials, for "self powered" illumination in watch dials, exit signs, gun sights, and so on.

  28. Are They... by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Big coconuts?
    Tahiti sweetie nuts?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chPeuuGn7o4

  29. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Points of correction for you.

    Fusion reactions, with almost no exceptions, will release fast moving free neutrons. The neutrons will in turn go on to radioactivate the containment structure around the reactor. So any fusion reactor we produce will generate waste, but it will be short lived and relatively easy to handle.

    You've probably drank deuterium in your water intake every day of your life. It's not hazardous. Tritium is radioactive, emitting mild beta rays (weak enough to be stopped by very thin glass).

    You are correct - no risk of meltdown. Stop the input of fuel, stop the reaction. It's damn hard to get a reaction going and keep it that way, let alone get a self-sustaining situation going. Takes something about the same size as the sun...

  30. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Plunky · · Score: 1

    It's a fusion reaction. Just say that. No stars here, no power from the sun. Nuclear fusion.

    necessary spin is necessary

    .. Nuclear ..

    "fear"

    .. power of the sun ..

    "safe"

  31. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that really depends on the neighborhood, talking like Mickey Mouse could be highly detrimental to your health in some. :)

  32. I just want to say... by martas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's so freaking cool that there's going to be something man-made that will reach temperatures similar to the core of the sun. It's just... too cool. Hold on to your hat, god, 'cause here we come!

    Ok, now back to mind-numbingly boring and disappointing reality...

    1. Re:I just want to say... by kyouteki · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool is, perhaps, the wrong word.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:I just want to say... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's so freaking cool that there's going to be something man-made that will reach temperatures similar to the core of the sun. It's just... too cool.

      Oh, the irony.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:I just want to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sandia Z-machine peak temperature: over 2 billion Kelvin http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/physics-astron/hottest-z-output.html

      Sun's core: 5800 Kelvin.

      Hotter than the Sun has been done for years.

    4. Re:I just want to say... by careysub · · Score: 1

      It's so freaking cool that there's going to be something man-made that will reach temperatures similar to the core of the sun. It's just... too cool. ...

      Umm, this would be much hotter than the center of the Sun, by a factor of about 11 fold. The Sun only operates at about 13 million K.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    5. Re:I just want to say... by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      A fusion reactor is quite a bit hotter than the core of the sun since we can't achieve anywhere close to the same density in the plasma. I ran into a guy working at the Join European Torus and he used to joke that he was working on the hottest thing in the solar system. Of course he had to stop doing that when he ran into a guy from CERN.

  33. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by batquux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fusion reactor? You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' em together!

  34. Right and wrong by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Informative
    Fusion proponents carefully don't mention the effects of the fusion by-products on the reactor itself. It's the same with conventional thermal plants: the radioactive waste from the fuel rods isn't so bad, but the radiation converts some of the steel in the containment to radioactives (including the steel rods in the reinforced concrete.)

    The solution of the Sun and other stars - spray the crap all over the Universe - is perhaps not the most environmentally friendly, but it's why we're here at all. We're basically standing (or sitting) on nuclear waste from a star that went bang.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Right and wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most dangerous radioactive materials produced in current fusion designs have half-lives on the order of years, which means after a decade or two, the background radiation is higher. Fission processes on the other hand have half-lives on the order of millenia or more.

    2. Re:Right and wrong by russotto · · Score: 1

      The solution of the Sun and other stars - spray the crap all over the Universe - is perhaps not the most environmentally friendly, but it's why we're here at all. We're basically standing (or sitting) on nuclear waste from a star that went bang.

      Actually, the sun and other stars have two solutions to the problem of secondary waste. One, there's no reactor chamber, thus nothing to become radioactive. And, they use aneutronic reactions, so there's no neutrons to cause things to become radioactive either. Even if the sun emitted neutrons, they don't last very long.

      It's only at end-of-life that a star spews the crap all over the universe.

    3. Re:Right and wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're basically standing (or sitting) on nuclear waste from a star that went bang.

      We *are* nuclear waste from a star that went bang. :-)

  35. Would this create a black hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's crazy speculation time!

    According to the Holographic Universe theory, it might be thought that a black hole comes into being not really because something weighs enough to punch a hole in the universe, but because the entropy in the area is higher than the capacity of the hologram.

    If this is the case, can someone tell me whether 150,000,000 C is higher or lower than any previously observed temperature?

    1. Re:Would this create a black hole? by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quite a bit lower. 150 million K (I'll use Kelvin here since it's basically equal to Celsius relative to temperatures of millions of either) is routine for thermonuclear bombs, which we've managed to test while avoiding complete destruction of the earth. The highest temperature of bulk matter ever recorded on earth was about 2 billion Kelvin, and took place in the Z Machine at Sandia Nat'l Labs. Elsewhere in the universe, supernova core temperatures are estimated to reach over 100 billion K; of course, sometimes this process does in fact produce a black hole, but observations suggest that whether this occurs is pretty strongly associated with the mass of the star- neutron star remants can exist at 100 billion K without further collapse. And while the statistical definition of temperature is arguably a bad fit when talking about subatomic particles, the average kinetic energies achieved by colliding particles (in terrestrial particle accelerators and moreso in cosmic rays) equate to temperatures in excess of 10^15 Kelvin or more, at least 7 orders of magnitude greater than ITER.

      Now, at some temperature, we could perhaps expect the kinetic energy of particles to be so high that the particles collapse into subatomic black holes. Whether this is physically realizable, and the temperature it would occur at, depend on which physics theory you subscribe to. A key element of the "holographic universe" idea is that many of the maximum and minimum possible values for quantities like distance, entropy, and temperature have constraints imposed by the observable universe being a projection from a lower dimension event horizon. By some interpretations, this might mean that the maximum possible temperature is about 10^17K, which is about 15 orders of magnitude lower than more conventional cosmology theories would predict.

      This suggests that the collisions of the highest energy cosmic rays in the universe regularly produce subatomic black holes. The Large Hadron Collider, whenever it is up and running, is also expected to produce temperatures in that range, so it might in fact make a black hole. You may have heard some news about this recently. So, a science experiment in central Europe in the near future may produce black holes, but it won't be ITER.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    2. Re:Would this create a black hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you didn't spend very long writing that, because making up total bullshit when you don't know any physics is not a very good use of anybody's time.

  36. Re:Nuclear Waste? by dmatos · · Score: 1

    Deuterium is a stable isotope of hydrogen, and often used in small doses as a tracer in human medical applications.

    Tritium is a beta-emitter, with a half-life of over 12 years. The beta particles can cause cellular & DNA damage in living tissue, but it can be stopped by a few millimetres of aluminum.

    --

    It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
    --Scott Adams
  37. Re:Nuclear Waste? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that this doesn't produce any nuclear waste at all, is that right?

    No. It produces neutrons, so the material of the reactor will gradually become radioactive.

    In addition, things will become more brittle, and thus more prone to crack under stress.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  38. I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There they are, all standing in a row.
    Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head!
    Give them a twist, a flick of the wrist,
    That's what the showman said!

  39. commercially viable ? by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 2, Informative

    without knowing anything else, highly sceptical - thought commercially viable fusion years away

    PS: all you guys jerking off over how "safe" fusion is - what do you know about the neutron flux, and radioactive embrittlement of the containment shell ?

    1. Re:commercially viable ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The 'containment shell' you are speaking of is called the thermal shield, and it is 10 inches of solid carbon steel (usually A36). First, the inside few inches may undergo embrittlement over the course of decades. There is still plenty of ductile material left to hold things together. Second, there will be literally no mechanical stresses in the thermal shield other than gravity... seems like 10 inches of steel ought to be able to hold itself up. It will see thermal stresses, but it is designed with expansion joints so that these to not convert into mechanical stresses. Finally, if these reactors follow any sort of conventional fission reactor design (they will), there will then be 6 feet of steel reinforced high density concrete surrounding the entire reaction chamber, called the 'bioshield'.

      There is a lot of information on reactor design out there if you just look and educate yourself instead of reading an editorial and jumping to conclusions. the DOE's websites have a lot of non-classified documents out for public use.

    2. Re:commercially viable ? by werfu · · Score: 1

      Fusion is still years away, but in a time frame much more reasonable than say an antimatter reactor. The first ITER estimate were talking about 2025. I think the last time I read about it, it was about 2034. We should be able to see it happens. Also the fusion CAN be safe. The containment shell radio-active decay last about a hundred years and is way smaller than the by product of nuclear fission. The fusion waste should be handled as safely than fission waste.

    3. Re:commercially viable ? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Safety is relative. In the case of power generation, safety is relative to worst case possibilities of a Nuclear Plant. Care to enlighten us as to how nuetron flux and radioactive embrittlement of the containment shell can result in the deaths and long-term health side-effects of the surrounding community for miles around and render the area uninhabitable for years as is the case with a worst case fuck-all-safety-mechanisms nuclear power plant disaster? Because I'm not sure you could pull that off here even if a Terrorist had the full support of the entire facility staff and two weeks to try to accomplish it.

    4. Re:commercially viable ? by kidtexas · · Score: 1

      A - ITER won't be commercially viable. Good science, probably, but not commercially viable.

      B - Even if it were commercially viable, it's still years away. I think the first deuterium-tritium experiments are scheduled 10-15 years from now.

      C - Yes it's not completely safe. The vessel will become activated, and tritium itself is radioactive. Never mind the health hazards of beryllium. Regardless, the waste should be a lot easier to deal with than fission products. I don't know the numbers for half lives, but from what I understand, it's 1-100s of years instead of 100,000s of years.

    5. Re:commercially viable ? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      I suspect it produces less waste per kilowatt-hour than nearly anything else in use. (Solar and wind might come up with less.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    6. Re:commercially viable ? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Are we talking WalMart or Neiman Marcus here?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:commercially viable ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know the numbers for half lives, but from what I understand, it's 1-100s of years instead of 100,000s of years.

      I know you stated that you weren't sure, but if you get a chance, try to remember this so others don't become misinformed:

      When you look at radioactive materials and how dangerous they are, you will want to break them down into three groups.

      1) short duration (half-lives of less than a few years)
      2) long duration (half-lives more than a few hundred years)
      3) medium duration (between 1 and 2)

      The short duration ones are the most dangerous in terms of radioactivity, but they also become less radioactive much quicker. These are the things that we store for a few dozen years and then safely dispose of because they have run out of stored energy.

      The long duration ones aren't dangerous in any radioactive sense. They may be chemically bad for you, but they aren't going to be near the levels of background radiation from the sun and elements natural to the earth. Depending on what they are, they may be safe as-is.

      The medium duration ones are the tricky bastards. They are the ones that we supposedly need to store for a few thousand years (possibly tens of thousands, but hundreds would be overstating the problem). Our existing spent fuel (fission products) falls into this category. Theoretically, the best way to deal with them is actually to send them back to the reactor until they become short-duration ones. Actually, "theoretically" is understating how far we are into solving the problem... it's more of an issue with politics than anything else.

      As far as where fusion products fall, I'm pretty sure most of them aren't medium duration (as they are typically called transuranics, which would be very difficult to produce from fusion), but then again, I don't know much about fusion.

      -A Nuclear Engineer

  40. Re:Wow, so they finally split the coconut atom by furby076 · · Score: 1

    And I was impressed when that Australian split the beer atom.

    Who?

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  41. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Megane · · Score: 1

    After many years of use, the lining of a Tokamak core is supposed to get mildly radioactive. And there is no risk of a meltdown because it's hard enough just to keep the thing going in the first place.

    But right now, there isn't much nuclear waste being produced by fusion.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  42. It's Just Activated Carbon... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Boooooooring!

    So they found the best activated carbon for their particular use comes from coconut shells. Why is this news?

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1. Re:It's Just Activated Carbon... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Because it was well known to Slashdot editors that coconut shells are highly prized for their special ability to precipitate Monty Python quotes and Gilligan's Island jokes.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    2. Re:It's Just Activated Carbon... by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Why is this news?

      Because it appears that it was Indonesian swallows, not African (or European.)

    3. Re:It's Just Activated Carbon... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Indonesian swallows

      Isn't that a porno?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  43. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Megane · · Score: 3, Informative

    Also, deuterium and tritium can be found in Dihydrogen Monoxide.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  44. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Dihydrogen Monoxide...the most hazardous substance known to man. It kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. We need to ban it quick!

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  45. Harness the power of the Sun by adisakp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe the term for harvesting the power of the sun is solar energy. And yes the Sun's energy is original from Fusion but under wildly different circumstances (crushing gravitational forces vs magnetic confinement).

  46. Don't piss off Milky Joe...... by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Or he will hunt you down and frickin kill you for using his friends as Nuclear Waste absorbers....

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Don't piss off Milky Joe...... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It's adsorb. Not absorb. If you're unaware of the difference between the two, absorb and adsorption are both in the dictionary.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  47. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theoretically they do give off Hawking Radiation. It's the objects falling into black holes that throw off radiation though, not the black hole itself.

  48. Article recap by pablo_max · · Score: 1, Funny

    For those of you who dont want to read the article..this is what I got out of it....

                [wind]
                [clop clop]
        ARTHUR: Whoa there!
                [clop clop]

        GUARD #1: Halt! Who goes there?
        ARTHUR: It is I, Christian Day, Scientist, from theKarlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany. King of the physicist, defeator of the Saxons, sovereign
                of all Germany!
        GUARD #1: Pull the other one!
        ARTHUR: I am. And this my trusty servant Lovelock.
                We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of knights
                who will join me in my court of Camelot. I must speak with your lord
                and master.
        GUARD #1: What, ridden on a horse?
        ARTHUR: Yes!
        GUARD #1: You're using coconuts!
        ARTHUR: What?
        GUARD #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin'
                'em together.
        ARTHUR: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this
                land, through the kingdom of Mercea, through--
        GUARD #1: Where'd you get the coconut?
        ARTHUR: We found them.
        GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut's tropical!
        ARTHUR: What do you mean?
        GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
        ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin
                or the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not
                strangers to our land.
        GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
        ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.
        GUARD #1: What -- a swallow carrying a coconut?
        ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!
        GUARD #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple
                question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound
                coconut.
        ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master
                that Christian Day of Germany is here!
        GUARD #1: Listen, in order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow
                needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?
        ARTHUR: Please!
        GUARD #1: Am I right?
        ARTHUR: I'm not interested!
        GUARD #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
        GUARD #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European
                swallow, that's my point.
        GUARD #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that...
        ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court
                at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany?!
        GUARD #1: But then of course African swallows are not migratory.
        GUARD #2: Oh, yeah...
        GUARD #1: So they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway...
                [clop clop]
        GUARD #2: Wait a minute -- supposing two swallows carried it together?
        GUARD #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
        GUARD #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a standard creeper!
        GUARD #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
        GUARD #2: Well, why not?

  49. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Gerafix · · Score: 1

    Tell that to someone who has skin cancer from sun exposure! Sol is anything but safe, even if it is rather convenient.

  50. Its adsorption, no absorption by starkadder · · Score: 0

    The activated carbon adsorbs the waste, which means it gets trapped on the surface of the carbon, which has about 400 square meters of area per gram because it has so many micropores.

  51. of course it's not warp drive.... by inerlogic · · Score: 1

    everyone knows warp drives are powered by matter/antimatter reactions.... not fusion...
    duh....

    the impulse engines are powered by fusion reactors, and those are limited to a speed of 1/4 c

  52. Report Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Trek Engineer: Ok! we're ready to fly...
    *New fancy Fusion drive- Check!
    *Purty lights are on- Check!
    *2000 pounds of Coconut charcoal.... uhhhhhh..Captain?!

  53. Where did they get the coconuts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical! Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

  54. Re:Old News... by Malenfrant · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't that the whole point of this site? It links to news stories from elsewhere.

  55. Across the ditch by rossdee · · Score: 1

    You know the guy that actually split the atom (Ernest Rutherford) was from New Zealand, not australia.

  56. How many times?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, for all the imperial measurers out there, it's Celsius, not Centigrade. It hasn't been Centigrade since 1948!

    AC

  57. Re:Nuclear Waste? by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

    Deuterium isn't much of a hazard at all. In the form of heavy water it starts to be a problem only if 25% of your total water is replaced by it and isn't lethal until around 50%. Essentially you'd have to drink only heavy water for about a week. The toxicity is due to deuterium inhibiting cell division. In it's gaseous form, it will simply dissipate harmlessly.

    It might or might not make a good diluent for breathing gas for deep diving except that it's way too expensive for that so has never been tried.

    Even with all of that, fusion reactors will have a net negative impact on deuterium since it is concentrated from large amounts of natural water but will be fused into helium.

    Tritium is a beta emitter, so is a bit more hazardous, but will also dissipate quickly. Modern radio-luminescent markers use a small vial of tritium instead of the old radium and are quite safe.

    The reactor hardware itself would become radioactive in use due to neutrons, but it's activity would be fairly short lived once the reactor shuts down.

    No meltdown risks at all, no dangerous radiation leaks. Whatever happens, the worst possible case is that a very expensive reactor is ruined.

  58. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since the by-product is helium, a reactor leak would only mean that any nearby residents would talk like Mickey Mouse for a little while. Which is better than radiation sickness.

    Until you get sued by Disney for trademark infringement...

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  59. Not Centigrade, either. by LordByronStyrofoam · · Score: 1

    It's 150M degrees Electron Temperature.

    --
    Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees /. it generates a warning about a badly formed comment.
    1. Re:Not Centigrade, either. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Electron temperature is a measure, not a unit. Degrees Centigrade is a unit.

  60. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1, Troll

    things will become more brittle, and thus more prone to crack under stress

    Kinda like Microsoft software.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  61. adsorbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Why is adsorbing within quotation marks, samzenpus? Didn't know that adsorbing is a word? Go steal a dictionary (your preferred way of obtaining things anyway) and start reading.

    1. Re:adsorbing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What's more, they're the wrong kind of quotes. Normally you use double quotes when indicating that a word is "upmade".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:adsorbing by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      They were double-quotes, in TFA, until the whole quotation was set inside double-quotes in TFS and then all the double-quotes changed to single-quotes because that's what you're supposed to do...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:adsorbing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are you saying samzenpus was right? That's unpossible.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  62. Re:Nuclear Waste? by kidtexas · · Score: 1

    A lot of people have responded to you and they have it mostly right. Deuterium isn't harmful, tritium is. The neutron flux is a serious problem, especially from a structural standpoint. The reactor will become slowly neutron activated, or radioactive, and will need to be treated as low grade waste. Also, once tritium is introduced into the system, people won't be able to go in the reactor for maintenance because of the tritium absorbed into everything, so remote handling will be required. This is a separate issue from the neutron activation of the reactor though.

    And no, no meltdown.

  63. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Informative

    What do you think stars are? Fuckface, they're balls of fucking FUSION. Without fusion stars would be blacker than your god damn heart.

    How do you think stars are formed? Do giant space storks bring them?

    Here's the executive summary -- Without fusion stars are just really big clouds of hydrogen gas. Gravitational collapse of gas clouds leads to internal heating and eventually drives the temperature at the core of the new star up high enough to start hydrogen fusion. Even before stellar ignition occurs these gravitationally powered stars can glow as brightly as their older, hydrogen burning main sequence cousins.

    So unless your god damn heart is glowing like a blackbody at two thousand kelvin, with strong absorption in the Lyman Alpha line, then stars without fusion are certainly not any blacker than it.

    To learn more about stellar evolution, T-Tauri stars, the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, nuclear fusion and spectroscopy, why not go to your local library or take an astrophysicist out to a karaoke bar? Either way you'll hear a lot that you may not be able to understand.

  64. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by gedrin · · Score: 1

    Yeh, you really do need to spin it. After all if they said "Bringing the power of a ball of nuclear fire the size of a million Earths to you!" they might never have gotten the project off the ground.

    --
    Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
  65. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    That is the best damn response I've read in a while. Too bad you're an AC.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  66. Destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "there's going to be something man-made that will reach temperatures similar to the core of the sun."

    Wake me when they can make a spaceship that can survive in the core of a star (long enough to refuel even)

  67. With apologies by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1, Funny

    You put the superheated hydrogen particles in the coconut, and adsorb it all up.

  68. Giant Brita filter? by loftling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So basically, they're using a giant Brita filter. (Brita filters are made from coconut shells) http://www.brita.net/uk/glossary_aquazine2.html?&no_cache=1&L=1&range=&lex=Activated+carbon

    --
    don't panic-- clowns can smell fear.
  69. harnesses the power of the sun? by hideouspenguinboy · · Score: 1

    Big deal - so does my calculator.

  70. Re:Wow, so they finally split the coconut atom by DrPeper · · Score: 1

    Yahoo Serious split the beer atom back in 1988, in "Young Einstien".

    Speaking of Yahoo Serious, I'm surprised he hasn't sued Yahoo because he clearly had the name before them.

  71. !sciance by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    Coconut based fusion has no time for the sciantific method

  72. What waste? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    So there's hydrogen isotopes in there like tritium and there's absolutely nothing else because it's inside a vacuum with magnets around it. They fuze those together and um...what does the charcoal have to adsorb or otherwise capture? Doesn't it fuse into like helium or something? First of all, that's a harmless gas, not a harmful liquid or solid and secondly, it doesn't need to be captured and stored by a carbon filter material because it's not toxic. They sure aren't fusing hydrogen into lead of something that would actually need to be captured instead of shot out of a coolant smokestack, right?

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  73. 20 years research to find vintage 2002? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    Just how many Pina Coladas is that?

    1. Re:20 years research to find vintage 2002? by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      Back in 1982, futuristic 2002 coconuts didn't exist yet! It took another 7 years for that hangover to clear and the paper to be posted here.

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
  74. 60's flashback by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    But, in the original Batman, when the thugs were rehydrated with heavy water, they vanished when struck! It's the end of us all! AAAAAAHHHHHaaaaaa.a.aaa.aa. mmm thorazine......

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  75. I'd like to see fusion power but.. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    The video on that site gives me a horrible feeling. The same feeling I had when I was sent to look for a scientist down in the bowels of a base just as all Hell broke loose. I'm stocking up on D cells and gas for the chain saw.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  76. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    Hmm...

    Mutations, cancer, and eventually, death.

    On the other hand. Being sued by Disney for eighteen billion dollars in damages, ruining your entire family, city and, possibly, state.

  77. Carbon shields used before, bad idea by caffiend666 · · Score: 0

    Carbon shields have been used before, was bad idea with bad consequences. The Windscale research reactors were built with a significant amount of graphite for absorbing neutron radiation. The graphite was great at it. But, the energy would build up and spontaneously release itself as energy, and/or fires. Sure, they had work arounds. But, the workarounds gradually stopped being useful and the entire thing went up in flames eventually. Cleanup has just now really started, after over 50 years. Granted, there might be a safe way to use carbon once and change it out. But geez, carbon dioxied waste is one thing. Nuclear/spontaneously combusting carbon waste is another....

    --
    Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
    1. Re:Carbon shields used before, bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The carbon in the Windscale piles was the graphite MODERATOR. It was not there to "absorb neutron radiation" but to slow the neutrons to thermal speeds in order to enable the nuclear fission chain reaction to proceed. In no way was the carbon here acting as a "shield".

      Quite a different matter entirely, putting aside the massive differences between a 1940s era fission reactor designed to make plutonium (not electricity) and a fusion demonstration reactor.

  78. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by johndiii · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you have to use magnetic containment to keep the reaction going, it's not a star. "Star" is not a synonym for "nuclear fusion reaction" - except in breathless news reports written at a primary school reading level.

    --
    Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
  79. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    How do you think stars are formed? Do giant space storks bring them?

    Yes. Yes they do.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  80. I found a radioactive waste "neutralizer." by bwogowly · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know if fusion has radioactive waste since it deals with light elements, but, I found a business (watertorch.com) that says its product neutralizes radioactive waste. Why would we want to turn Hydrogen into Helium anyway, we can't remake it because it takes too high of temperatures. Therefore, we should stick with fission and neutralize the radioactive waste with the Water Torch.

  81. You know what I love about slashdot? by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Informative

    The thing I love about Slashdot is that, apparently, no one actually reads the articles. TFA said that the carbon is being used as part of a PUMP to evacuate the waste helium (and some hydrogen, as well as dust created from the walls of the chamber gradually deteriorating from neutron bombardment) from the chamber and maintain vaccuum. They didn't say they were using this as shielding.

    1. Re:You know what I love about slashdot? by garompeta · · Score: 1

      Well I think that using coconut carbon to ignite the reactor is absolutely unethical!
      Wait, was this article about?

  82. 33 Tokamaks have never produced power. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slashdotters seem to be skeptical.

    ITER is a Tokamak reactor. There are 20 now in operation. Thirteen were operated before and are now shut down. None of them have ever produced more power than they used.

    1. Re:33 Tokamaks have never produced power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdotters are skeptical about the bamboo bicycle? Start your own fucking thread, you filthy hijacker!

  83. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    Nice.

    Off-topic: why do I only have mod points when I have no use for them, and why have they expired every single time I see a comment I really, really want to mod up?

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  84. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Sgt.+B · · Score: 1

    Great response. I hope this gives the anonymous toilet fodder something to think about.

    You would have made professor Kirchhoff proud!

  85. Re:Nuclear Waste? by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, at least TSA isn't letting you carry it through security anymore...

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  86. That Gilligan's Isle Thing.. by Njoyda+Sauce · · Score: 1

    Great, now I have "Isle Thing" stuck in my head. I know it's not nuclear, but still...coconuts.

    I like the professor
    He always saves their butts
    He could build a nuclear reactor
    From a couple of coconuts

    --

    You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
  87. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  88. Re:Wow, so they finally split the coconut atom by furby076 · · Score: 1

    Yahoo Serious split the beer atom back in 1988, in "Young Einstien".

    Oh I know - i was just trying to be funny - failed attempt on my part :)

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  89. Mentioned in the article by mbessey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a quote from the article, where they discuss this.

    The vacuum pumps suck air out of ITER and "adsorb" waste helium from the fusion reaction, along with other debris created when hot plasma smashes into the reactor wall.

    In a bit more detail:

    They need to remove the Helium because it gets in the way of the reactants. They also need to be able to filter out whatever small amounts of waste that are generated by the plasma brushing the wall. Presumably reactions between the plasma and the walls would produce metallic hydrides, which are toxic, and in some cases potentially explosive. Not only that, but after a while, the entire inside of the reactor will be radioactive, from neutron activation. Again, this is small amounts of material, but they can't just spew it out into the air. Besides, they'll want to analyze it and see what's in it, since no one has ever run one of these for an extended period of time before.

    1. Re:Mentioned in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one has ever run one of these for an extended period of time before

      No one on Earth.

    2. Re:Mentioned in the article by djnewman · · Score: 1

      So, they're not banging the coconuts together, they are rubbing them together. That makes much more sense.

  90. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off-off-topic: I haven't had mod points in like, three months. Before that, I got them every four or five days it seemed, and I used them all. Any idea why the point-granting algorithm seems so random? I have positive karma (though not "points to burn" amounts). Posted AC 'cause I feel like a dick at the moment, bitching about my status in life :)

  91. Just curious... by volt_man · · Score: 1

    Will the coconuts be provided by an African or European swallow?

  92. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by jitterman · · Score: 1

    You've got your spam reactor here, that's not got much spam in it.

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  93. MODERATORRRSSSSSS!!!!!!11ELEVEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up OR DIE (halloween reference! halloween reference!)

  94. Oblig. by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    1. Coconuts
    2. ???
    3. Nuclear Fusion!

  95. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No. It produces neutrons, so the material of the reactor will gradually become radioactive.

    That isn't necessarily true. The neutrons can be captured by something else (fluid barrier), or the inner jacket of the reactor can be composed of something that won't absorb neutrons (obviously they have to go somewhere, but that somewhere doesn't have to be structural) or that becomes something non-radioactive if it does absorb neutrons. Or the reactor could be designed so that the generated radioactives are something useful. The output of the reactor isn't necessarily radioactive free, but it can be "waste" free.

  96. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

    I think, the power of a sun would be a better thing to say. And also more badass, creating an artificial controlled sun.

  97. Activated Charcoal by jbengt · · Score: 1
    It's been known for years that activated charcoal made from coconuts is the best commercially available adsorption material for filters. Straight from the master construction specifications of a major airport:

    Media: (for both front/back access type and side-access type filters)
    1. The absorbent medium shall be natural grain coconut shell activated carbon meeting the following requirements. The contractor shall furnish a manufacturer's certificate that the carbon quality meets these requirements.
    a. Base material: Natural grain, coconut shell carbon
    b. Activation method: High temperature steam
    c. Absorption capacity: High efficiency and capacity for removal of typical odors in concentrations normally associated with the occupied spaces.
    d. Absorption capacity: 60% carbon tetrachloride, ASTM D-3467.
    e. Particle size distrib.: U.S. screen - particles will be of a 4 x 8 mesh, with a maximum of 5% remaining on the 4 mesh and a maximum of 5% passing thru the 8 mesh.
    f. Bulk density: 0.48 to 0.54 grams per milliliter (29-34 lbs./cu. ft.) ASTM D-2854.
    g. Total sulfur content: 0.1% maximum, by weight.
    h. Ash content: 5% maximum, ASTM D-2866.
    i. Moisture content: 5% maximum by weight, as packed, ASTM D-2867.
    j. Reactivatability: Can be readily reactivated.
    k. Packaging: The panel filling operation will utilize special equipment configured and fabricated to remove carbon fines and assure uniform packing density.

  98. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by negRo_slim · · Score: 1
    Wikipedia:

    A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In reality, the process is a quantum tunneling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon.

    Though it's debatable whether black holes truly exist, SciAm just ran a great article on Black Stars

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  99. Re:Wow, so they finally split the coconut atom by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    In August 2000, Yahoo Serious tried to sue the search engine Yahoo! for trademark infringement. The case was thrown out because Serious could not prove that he sells products or services under the name "Yahoo" and therefore could not prove that he suffered harm or confusion due to the search engine. The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) 22 September 2001

  100. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Further Off Topic: I too haven't been granted mod points in 3-4 months while before hand I was getting them at a rather good clip.

  101. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by johndiii · · Score: 1

    One factor is how much you read. If you read too much, you don't get mod points. I went four years between mod points, when I was reading Slashdot a lot. I don't read nearly as many pages as I used to, and I get mod points once or twice a week.

    --
    Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
  102. They are putting it in a DeLorean by bodland · · Score: 1

    Oh and it can use common household garbage too.

  103. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by daveime · · Score: 1

    Baked beans are off !

  104. Re:Old News... by daveime · · Score: 1

    It links to old stories from elsewhere.

    FTFY

  105. Re:Nuclear Waste? by daveime · · Score: 1

    So the aluminium foil helmets ARE a good idea after all ?

  106. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by jitterman · · Score: 1

    Ah. Well, I was the AC; that makes sense, 'cause I read quite a bit throughout the day. Thanks for the insight.

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  107. Commercially viable? by RealErmine · · Score: 1

    I assume that by "commercially viable" they mean that there is a net gain from the reactor. So what is the "coconut out" to "coconut in" ratio? Time to sell your stock in Dole!

    --
    Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
  108. Re:Nuclear Waste? by russotto · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that this doesn't produce any nuclear waste at all, is that right?

    No, unfortunately. The reaction produces neutrons, creating copious amounts of secondary waste.

  109. Overheard in Mooslevania... by DarthStrydre · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bullwinkle J. Moose: "Hey Rock, watch me pull net energy out of my tokamak"
    Rocket J. Squirrel: "Again? That trick never works!"
    Bullwinkle J. Moose: "This time for sure!"

  110. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that would be a horse.

  111. Best satay ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I usually cooked my satay (Indonesian/Malaysian kebab) using coconut charcoal. I am wondering what if I cook my satay on a Tokamak with that charcoal.. Yummy....

    1. Re:Best satay ever by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      I usually cooked my satay (Indonesian/Malaysian kebab) using coconut charcoal. I am wondering what if I cook my satay on a Tokamak with that charcoal.. Yummy....

      How neutricious would it be? *rimshot*

  112. I suppose ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the next thing they'll be telling us is that these coconuts were carried here by swallows.

    An African swallow maybe ... but not a European swallow.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  113. Re:Nuclear Waste? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    deuterium is common in sea water. Tritium is somewhat active and has a half-life of 10 years, through beta decay. It's used, sealed in phosphor coated glass vials, for "self powered" illumination in watch dials, exit signs, gun sights, and so on.

    My physics teacher in school once told me about someone that used to paint glow-in-the-dark material onto the hands of watches. He had a habit of cleaning his brush by licking it. He ended up with little tumors on his tongue.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  114. Yet More h+ Fiction by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    I don't expect there to be any worth while reading from this source, unless one decides to treat it all as fiction and therefore entertainment. As far as I can tell, it's all either fiction or facts being used to support the fiction.

    Last week clinical depression was a fun deficiency.

    Now an experimental fusion reactor that might break even over an 8 minute run is 'commercially viable'.

    The writers aren't just writing badly, they're making shit up badly. The editors can't tell or don't care.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  115. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > One factor is how much you read. If you read too much, you don't get mod points.

    Nah, that isn't the secret. I read almost every day (you have a higher achievement for days read in a row, but only by one) and I get mod points fairly regular. Almost never get an option to metamod though. Slashdot's system is truly inscrutable and capricious yet somehow it seems to work.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  116. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by fm6 · · Score: 1

    And the Sun is powered by what? Burning tires?

  117. The best charcoal.... by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...comes from cows. No, really. There are millions of cows in India, and observant Hindus consider it sacrilege to harm them. So they mostly die from old age, and there are no religious issues connected with recycling their remains. And it turns out that their bones, being extremely brittle, make excellent charcoal.

    I found this out from a newspaper story a few years back. It was in the news because a British water company was using cow charcoal in its filters. Local vegetarians were not pleased.

    1. Re:The best charcoal.... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That isn't charcoal. Charcoal is carbon; bone char consists mainly of calcium phosphate. It's referred to as "charcoal", but it isn't.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:The best charcoal.... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction.

  118. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    It's a fusion reaction.

    I'll never eat day-old sushi again.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  119. Re:Use Coconut Shells? by PDX · · Score: 1

    So that's where the Professor went to when he got off the Island. I'd always wondered.

  120. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    How do you think stars are formed? Do giant space storks bring them?

    For a second, I read that as:

    How do you think stars are formed? Do giant space dorks bring them?

  121. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by garompeta · · Score: 1

    When you eat a cupcake without the cup you still call it a cupcake, don't you?
    This level of discussion is of a primary school student.

  122. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by garompeta · · Score: 1

    Actually the only thing that keeps us safe from the sun is the atmosphere and the magnetic poles of the Earth.
    Anything outside our cocoon in space would kill us immediately.

  123. supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is how many swallows are needed to supply the reactor and are they European or African?

  124. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Well you might drown someone with it!

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  125. ITER: Tokamaks never worked; build a bigger one. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Yup. It looks like Slashdot readers are skeptical.

  126. Submitter's bias? by Dean+Edmonds · · Score: 1

    The article says that ITER "may" become the first commercially viable fusion reactor, but in his /. submission the submitter has changed that to "will". Given the number of contenders who will show first plasma before ITER even powers up, even if ITER does work as expected, it may not be the first.

    --

    -deane

  127. Re:Nuclear Waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's okay, you can still put the deuterium in your TSA mandated 1-quart ziploc bag.

    Just put a small bottle of saline in there to keep it from floating off.

  128. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by mshurpik · · Score: 1

    It's late, but reading that Wiki article 2 or 3 times has me saying "Bullshit." Basically what they are saying is that since normally you have infinite-density singularity, here is an alternative where some quantum phenomena pushes back and prevents that from happening.

    Problem is, there's no such thing as the type of singularity they are describing. I know that now. So the black star "alternative" that is the opposite of a dumb idea (singularity) is probably meaningless.

    Roger Penrose or whoever came up with the idea of a singularity inside of an event horizon was wrong. I'm not sure what you mean that black holes are "debatable," but if this is it, then we agree on that much.

    Event horizons are not very debatable, they make intrinsic mathematical sense, even if they are extremely odd. Asymptotes tend to be odd. I'm not sure that anyone has ever had the balls to view event horizons as asymptotes or *cough* as singularities in an of themselves. It seems a great deal of mathematical gymnastics have been performed to avoid coming to such a simple conclusion.

    There's more of course. I just want to be on record saying that Penrose is wrong and that Hawking is off his rocker. The best description I've ever gotten out of Hawking about the nature of the universe is that spacetime is like a closed system or loop, and that description is so vague as to be a dead giveaway that he's never come up with an actual, workable theory.

  129. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by johndiii · · Score: 1

    I still read every day, but my page count is down by probably a factor of ten. That's part of it, but not all. Commenting, and having your comments upmodded, seems to help. Doing M2 doesn't seem to make any difference. I never get the reminder, but you can always go to http://slashdot.org/metamod.pl. I hate the new form, though.

    --
    Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
  130. Re:Power of the sun? Artificial stars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir, owe me a keyboard.

  131. Re:Nuclear Waste? by confused+one · · Score: 1

    Radium dials. And the workers were referred to as Radium Girls. They often painted themselves with the radium paint for glow in the dark affects (lips, fingernails, etc.) That turned out to be a poor choice.

    Newer ones use tritium gas in small phosphor lined glass capsules. The beta (electrons) emissions never get out of the glass. IF you managed to break the capsule, well tritium IS an isotope of hydrogen... It will float upward toward the ceiling, and would rapidly dissipate into the air in the room becoming too diffuse to be concerned about.