Fusion Power Breakthrough Near At Sandia Labs?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fusion Power Breakthrough Near At Sandia Labs?

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 18, 2012 @07:41AM from the i'll-order-a-dozen dept.

An anonymous reader writes "An achievement that would have extraordinary energy and defense implications might be near at Sandia National Laboratories. The lab is testing a concept called MagLIF (Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion), which uses magnetic fields and laser pre-heating in the quest for energetic fusion. A paper by Sandia researchers that was accepted for publication states that the Z-pinch driven MagLIF fusion could reach 'high-gain' fusion conditions, where the fusion energy released greatly exceeds (by more than 1,000 times) the energy supplied to the fuel."

252 of 358 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Vaporwareized? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 07:44 · Score: 1, Funny

What do you call something that smashes things together but doesn't exist?
1. Re:Vaporwareized? by tnk1 · 2012-09-18 07:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Two flying cars?
2. Re:Vaporwareized? by slashmydots · 2012-09-18 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  What do you call something that smashes things together but doesn't exist?
  A headline! Juuuuust kidding, it's not a headline. It's a PR press release. Look how every sentence is phrased in the future tense and says might or will or could.
3. Re:Vaporwareized? by TemporalBeing · 2012-09-19 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  What do you call something that smashes things together but doesn't exist?
  Obama's budget and foreign policy?
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
great! by P-niiice · 2012-09-18 07:45 · Score: 2

so the 20-50 year estimate that never shrinks may actually get reduced some?
1. Re:great! by TheRealMindChild · 2012-09-18 07:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No, see as you approach feasibility, your likelihood of being bough by a competing producer to be extinguished (see gasoline) becomes multitudes greater. You will never actually reach production with things like this, for the same reason you will never reach a wall by moving in increments of 1/2. Tee short of it, there is too much money to be made to have something as valuable as energy become a low-cost commodity.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
2. Re:great! by tnk1 · 2012-09-18 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it will be reduced all the way to "twenty minutes into the future".
3. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Tee short of it, there is too much money to be made to have something as valuable as energy become a low-cost commodity.
  You mean like selling fusion energy at slightly lower prices than your competitors? Assuming it does cost less than other sources of power.
4. Re:great! by Abreu · 2012-09-18 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is there any evidence (real evidence, not YouTube videos of guys in their basements) of any "revolutionary, clean energy technology" being bought out and extinguished by the oil industry?
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
5. Re:great! by funwithBSD · 2012-09-18 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  Or
  Two Minutes to Midnight
  
  --
  Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
6. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 07:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Of course not, they buy out and extinguish the evidence, duh!
7. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  To kill the unborn in their woooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmb!!!!
8. Re:great! by LurkerXXX · 2012-09-18 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I made a working engine that ran off of tap water. Then the oil companies had me killed.
9. Re:great! by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 08:10 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  > No, see as you approach feasibility, your likelihood of being bough by a competing producer to be extinguished (see gasoline) becomes multitudes greater.
  I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but do you have a reference?
  My own suspicion is that as you approach feasibility, government grant money tends to increase, but if you *achieve* practical feasibility, grant money evaporates. Therefore, to maximize funding, you must asymptotically approach feasibility.
  But I'm willing to hear a different theory.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
10. Re:great! by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Irwin Allen notwithstanding, fusion reactors don't spectacularly detonate.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
11. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  No. This always get modded down everytime, but the truth is, we are extremely far away from any real source of fusion. Actually being able to sustain it is still a long ways away. Next is actually extracting that power. We've not even started there. Worse, most methods which hope to extract power rely on materials which don't even exist today.
  Most machines which create fusion today require hours, days, and even weeks between runs because so many components require replacement. Yet to sustain fusion, you need to be able to compress that cycle into tens per second - at a minimum. We've not even started here and its a very hard problem to crack.
  Realistically, we are at least 100 years away from any viable source of fusion which can provide power to mankind. That is, short of many miraculous breakthroughs in multiple science domains. The physicists whom I'm spoken to on this, and the articles I've read, all suggest these individual problems are roughly of equal magnitude of fusion itself. There are roughly a half dozen of such problems before we have an actual fusion power source. Some basic math says 20-50*~6; which makes for 120-300 years away. Many agree if we throw more money at it, the timespan can likely be reduced, but you're still looking at roughly 100 years before we can hope to have viable fusion for mankind.
12. Re:great! by Skarecrow77 · 2012-09-18 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  of course not. that's part of the conspiracy. that's how you know it's the truth!
  the only way it could be MORE truth is if there was evidence directly contrary to the conspiracy, because that'd have to be planted evidence. lack of evidence is just THEM being tricky.
  ow my head hurts.
13. Re:great! by na1led · 2012-09-18 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  No Profit, No Fusion! I think that's the case for just about every new advance technological idea that could benefit us all.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
14. Re:great! by cayenne8 · 2012-09-18 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Two Minutes to Midnight
  Is that you Eddie?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
15. Re:great! by boristdog · 2012-09-18 08:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You were lucky. The oil companies beat me around the head and neck with a broken bottle, sliced me in two with a bread knife, then danced around my grave singing "Hallelujah!"
16. Re:great! by sconeu · 2012-09-18 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  You're saying that Channel XXIII will buy them out?
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
17. Re:great! by Squiddie · 2012-09-18 08:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Some people would take that as a challenge.
18. Re:great! by ceoyoyo · 2012-09-18 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  Fusion research is most likely somewhat ahead of where predictions made in the 70's said it would be, given the funding (decreasing) it has received since then. The "always 50 years away" thing is a stupid meme.
19. Re:great! by h4rr4r · 2012-09-18 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  Large format NIMH batteries are the only one I know of.
  In short texaco helped kill the electric car by suing Toyota for the Rav4 electric. Toyota was losing money on the cars and did not want to lose even more by dealing with texaco.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
20. Re:great! by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  I don' care who you are, that's funny there.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
21. Re:great! by sumdumass · 2012-09-18 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  There is not reason to think something like this wouldn't be implemented by the competition. It's not like you are going to have a fusion reactor in your back yard. It would be a high energy device that transmits the electricity from point A to B through existing technology. The only difference might be the fuel a certain power generation plant uses.
22. Re:great! by Trails · 2012-09-18 08:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It's the same way God planted Dinosaur bones to test our faith...
23. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  While there are still quite a few issues to be worked out...
  
  Most machines which create fusion today require hours, days, and even weeks between runs because so many components require replacement.
  This isn't accurate. Smaller machines have cycle times of a few minutes just to wait for things to cool off and capacitors to recharge. Even the larger machines now can run at a cycle time of 15 minutes. After a few weeks of a data campaign, they might shut down for some servicing time of a few weeks or more depending on what work is being done. But this is hard to compare to a production machine at the moment, as in my experience, a large part of down time is dealing with repairs and upgrades to diagnostics used for research, but wouldn't be needed in an actual power plant.
24. Re:great! by anubi · 2012-09-18 08:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Sandia National Laboratories. Government funded?
  
  Doesn't that mean the people own the technology developed - so if anything does come of this - who is going to tell the taxpayer who funded this that he can't go build one for himself or sell the power he can make off of his unit?
  
  Or give him any authority to tell his neighbor not to do the same should his neighbor want to do likewise?
  
  --
  "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
25. Re:great! by sumdumass · 2012-09-18 08:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All they have to do to make profit is make it cheaper then current forms of electricity. This will not be back yard inventor stuff where every home is powered by one built out of spare parts. It will be something sitting on a large site with power transmissions lines coming to it that is selling the electricity on a market. If it costs more to make then current forms, it will not be used. If it costs less, it will be implemented.
26. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I made a working engine that ran off of tap water.
  Its only limitation was radius: the length of one garden hose.
27. Re:great! by tragedy · 2012-09-18 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  Some basic math says 20-50*~6; which makes for 120-300 years away.
  It's good to see someone being realistic instead of just pulling numbers out of the air.
28. Re:great! by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  Right, but like any long lasting memes, there is a kernel of truth, which, one might say, could be attributed to a number of factors, like, at first not understanding the difficulty, and later underestimating the pace of research.
  Also right, we're a lot further along now. We now have knowledge of many techniques that don't work, and a few techniques that *almost* work.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
29. Re:great! by inode_buddha · 2012-09-18 09:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There are patents that were filed by Henry Yunick among others in the early 1980's which had a working model Buick getting ~50 MPG's on the road. The patents were sold to GM which subsequently sat on them for ~20 yrs due to interlocking directorships with Exxon Mobil. They are now owned by a holding corp. I'll dig out the relevant patent numbers shortly, theyre around here somewhere...
  
  --
  C|N>K
30. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  And if you try and tell that to kids today, they won't believe you.
31. Re:great! by Algae_94 · 2012-09-18 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  hydrogen doesn't "pretty much spontaneously combust in air", unless by "spontaneous" you mean in the presence of a spark or flame.
32. Re:great! by UnknownSoldier · 2012-09-18 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  > for the same reason you will never reach a wall by moving in increments of 1/2.
  Why are you confusing the fact that the universe is digital, aka, quantized (see Planck Length http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length ) with take-overs?
  > there is too much money to be made to have something as valuable as energy become a low-cost commodity.
  False. There are 3 ways to understand money. At its highest level Money IS simply an exchange of energy. When the ENERGY *itself* replaces the token that we call money then our paradigm of "low-cost" will be forced to shift. Free-Energy will be the catalyst in this transformation. This will eventually happen within 50 years.
33. Re:great! by Lumpy · 2012-09-18 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Some of his designs are scary dangerous. I saw his 80mpg pontiac fiero, heating the gasoline that hot is insanely dangerous. It works but jeebus man that is some really scary tech considering how half assed low quality they build cars now days.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
34. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  The hot vapor cycle engine? AFAIK there's a remaining 'functional' prototype in Florida or somewhere, they had to use a new fiero for it though as the original was a GM test mule that had to be sent back to be destroyed.
  ~300 hp out of a carbuerated/turbocharged 4 cylinder(?) that superheated it's fuel before pumping it into the engine. Only problem with it was oil tech of the era couldn't handle it (Supposedly full-synthetics could, but at the time he was buying I think it was 90 dollar a liter(quart?) military grade lubricating oil in order to keep the engine operating smoothly.
  One of the great travesties of the 80s imho. Supposedly have much better emissions (other than some NOx) too.
  All of the abovementioned is hearsay from 3rd hand sources. Please find and interview the few remaining original sources for citation :)
35. Re:great! by phrackwulf · 2012-09-18 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yo, yo.. don't hate the torus, hate the game..
  
  --
  What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
36. Re:great! by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but I seem to recall that it combusts in a fairly narrow oxygen to hydrogen ratio.
  But in any case, mere combustion may be enthusiastic, but is nowhere near (by orders of magnitude) the energy of fusion. dgatwood says that fission reactors don't spectacularly detonate, and that is true. Fusion is much harder to achieve than fission, which makes it correspondingly more difficult to achieve a chain of events that would allow a reactor to detonate in the manner portrayed in bad fiction.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
37. Re:great! by Lumpy · 2012-09-18 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  " hydrogen pretty much spontaneously combusts in air, and does so rather explosively. "
  Where did you get your chemistry education from? Because I want to go and smack your instructor really hard in the nuts.
  Hydrogen takes a large amount of added energy to combine with oxygen to create an exothermic reaction (yes kids, a match is a LOT of energy). Saying that it will start spontaneous combustion with air is Todd Akin levels of stupidity.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
38. Re:great! by azav · 2012-09-18 09:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here:
  http://patents.justia.com/inventor/HENRYYUNICK.html
  U.S. Patent Number 5,645,368
  A race track is disclosed having a tri-oval banked, racing surfacesurrounded by a barrier support material delineating a race barrier support surface at a
  U.S. Patent Number 5,515,712
  An apparatus and a method for testing internal combustion engines aredisclosed. In the preferred arrangement the apparatus includes a test module supporting an electric
  U.S. Patent Number 5,246,086
  An internal combustion engine oil change system including an oil filtersupplied with a check valve fill fitting. During an oil change, new oil is
  U.S. Patent Number 4,862,859
  A method and apparatus for operating an electric ignition, internalcombustion engine that substantially improves the fuel efficiency by utilizing heat normally discharged to the
  U.S. Patent Number 4,637,365
  A method and apparatus for operating an internal combustion engine thatsubstantially improves the fuel efficiency by utilizing heat normally discharged to the ambient to
  U.S. Patent Number 4,592,329
  A method and apparatus for operating an electric ignition, internalcombustion engine that substantially improves the fuel efficiency by utilizing heat normally discharged to the
  U.S. Patent Number 4,503,833
  A method and apparatus for operating an electric ignition, internalcombustion engine that substantially improves the fuel efficiency by utilizing heat normally discharged to the
  U.S. Patent Number 4,467,752
  An internal combustion engine having a cylinder 16, a cylinder head 10, anda piston 12 slidably mounted within the cylinder for reciprocating movement towards
  U.S. Patent Number 4,068,635
  A valve is interposed between spaced valve seats of a conduit having end portions communicating with the ends of an internal combustion engine valve
  
  --
  - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
39. Re:great! by mark-t · 2012-09-18 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  hydrogen pretty much spontaneously combusts in air
  References, please. This is not my experience when I was working with hydrogen gas in Chemistry 12.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
40. Re:great! by radtea · 2012-09-18 09:47 · Score: 2
  
  You will never actually reach production with things like this, for the same reason you will never reach a wall by moving in increments of 1/2.
  You mean you won't reach production because you're too fucking stupid to realize that "an infinite number of intervals of diminishing size" is completely different from "an infinite distance", even after it's been explained to you dozens of times by multiple people over the course of more than 2000 years?
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
41. Re:great! by drinkypoo · 2012-09-18 09:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Search for any combination of "butamax gevo patent sue suit" etc etc.
  These guys are having to fight over obvious refinements of the ABE process for making butanol, you can look it up on Wikipedia or numerous other places.
  And when I say "these guys" I mean a company that wants to actually make and sell Butanol, a "green, clean" 1:1 replacement for gasoline with lower emissions versus Butamax, which is owned by BP and DuPont, who has sued them to prevent them from producing fuel.
  I hear it is theoretically possible to get a permit to operate a still for the purpose of producing fuel, and you might even be able to use it for road fuel if you're willing to pay the taxes on it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
42. Re:great! by rolfwind · 2012-09-18 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Is this close enough?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
43. Re:great! by Shompol · 2012-09-18 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  Is there any evidence... clean energy technology" being bought out and extinguished by the oil industry?
  You are welcome
44. Re:great! by fatphil · 2012-09-18 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  /Who Killed the Electric Car/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/ expands on what you mention.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
45. Re:great! by interkin3tic · 2012-09-18 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  But it goes both ways. I pointed out in the 80's that if they made cars huge and called them SUVs, they would eat more gas and americans would buy them like hotcakes. Big oil paid for a CRAAAAAZZY weekend in Vegas for that one.
46. Re:great! by SleazyRidr · 2012-09-18 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  When you acheive practical feasibility grant money may evaporate, but money from selling energy starts to roll in, so I imagine you'd still be doing alright.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
47. Re:great! by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-18 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't do a great deal for oil dependence, either. Oil is too expensive to make grid power, that comes mostly from coal and gas. Fusion would be great for reducing carbon emissions and the environmental damage from coal mines, and helping Europe with their dependance upon Russian gas, but it's not going to put petrol in the tank. Not without major advances in electric car technology, which is right now still in the 'just barely viable' stage.
48. Re:great! by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-18 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  Somewhere, Zeno is crawling out of his grave, and he looks angry.
49. Re:great! by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-18 10:40 · Score: 2
  
  It combusts in almost any ratio. Watch the Hindenburg burn. But it only *explodes* in a narrow ratio. That is why the Hindenburg just burned, rather than leaving a crater.
  
  I once filled a balloon with 2:1 hydrogen/oxygen mix, and applied a candle-on-a-very-long-stick. It's great fun. Not much of a flash, but one really loud bang.
50. Re:Great! by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see why they can't recycle the beryllium liner after the implosion. Maybe not in this device, but in a fully production model, if beryllium is really scarce.
  But since it costs $25 for a gram on Ebay, I doubt it's very scarce, since there's already a substantial demand from its other industrial and military applications.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
51. Re:great! by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-09-18 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like this one or perhaps this one? Or maybe this one?
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
52. Re:great! by elucido · 2012-09-18 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  No, see as you approach feasibility, your likelihood of being bough by a competing producer to be extinguished (see gasoline) becomes multitudes greater. You will never actually reach production with things like this, for the same reason you will never reach a wall by moving in increments of 1/2. Tee short of it, there is too much money to be made to have something as valuable as energy become a low-cost commodity.
  What about foreign countries?
  If the USA wont do it I'm sure another country will.
53. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. What we have is a lot of dogmas in the field that prevent non-"mainstream" (ie non-Tokamak) getting _any_ research funding, and politicians walking around saying we fund tokamaks to the tune of $500m per year and we get nothing, cancel all fusion.
  What we do know is that Tokamaks don't work.
54. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Someone asked for evidence, not patents. People have patented the stupidest shit in the world. Furthermore, if the patents are more than 20 years-old, it doesn't matter who is sitting on them, anyone can use them (and being patents, everyone can see and read them).
55. Re:great! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-09-18 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  With a cheap enough energy source you could pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and create liquid fuels. The process for doing this from more carbon dense feedstocks is well understood and has been used in the past to create various motor fuels. For referance I suggest seeing:
  1. The Fischer-Tropsch process
  2. Flash Pyrolysis
  3. Thermal Depolymerization
  4. Staged Reforming
  With really cheap (think you pay for your connection but it is all you can pull in) abundant energy lot of things are worth doing now that weren't before, like creating synthetic gasoline, synthetic liquid fuels, synthetic crude oil, water desalination from the ocean, rare earth metal extraction from the oceans, farm towers, irrigating entire deserts because we can,etc.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
56. Re:great! by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 11:51 · Score: 2
  
  > What we do know is that Tokamaks don't work.
  Agreed. So a way must be found to cut funding of things that have been proven over long periods of time to not work, and start funding promising new lines of research. Good luck with that. Another part of the catch 22 is that the longer something has been funded (and not worked) the more inertia the project has.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
57. Re:great! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-09-18 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  It is actually very combustible across a broad range of mixtures. I believe that the hydrogen percentage can be anywhere from about 5% to about 95% and it will ignite.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
58. Re:great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 12:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It will be sold, by the kindly government, on behalf of the people, for a ridiculously low price to a corporation who has spent the most money bribing politicians. The corporation will then sell it back to you for ridiculously inflated prices, and sue the shit out of any others who try to enter the market.
  God bless the free market.
59. Re:great! by Chuckstar · 2012-09-18 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  Early 80s?
  Awesome... then the patents are expired and cars using the technology will be coming out ten years ago.
  Or does every car maker in the world have interlocking directorships with Exxon Mobil?
60. Re:great! by CastrTroy · 2012-09-18 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how much energy one could garner from the water flowing out of the taps. I currently pay about $3 for 1m^3 (1000 litres) of water. Electricity costs about 10 cents / kwh. So if I could generate more than 30 kwh of electricity from 1 m^3 of water coming out of my tap, then I could get electricty for less than the cost supplied to me by the power company. You'd probably need to measure the pressure at the tap, and I assume it wouldn't be possible, but I wonder if anybody has ever ran through all the calcuations.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
61. Re:great! by Immerman · 2012-09-18 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, from what I've heard the state of fusion research has progressed pretty much as predicted in terms of progress-per-dollar; however, since the funding levels have also been falling steadily the entire time the projected years-until-success has only been holding steady rather than falling.
  It's an unfortunate situation, but may prove to be for the best if something like Polywell reactors manage to beat them to the punch, seeing how they have far more potential for achieving aneutronic fusion practically out of the gate, as well as being a considerably lower-tech (and thus cheaper) solution. In a world were Tokamak fusion had already achieved breakeven it might well be even more difficult for more sociologically promising alternatives to get research funding.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
62. Re:great! by DavidTC · 2012-09-18 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're probably better off stealing power from the phone company.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
63. Re:Great! by Immerman · 2012-09-18 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, since gold is going for ~$50/gram ($1600/oz)I'd say that $25/gram actually ranks up there pretty high.
  More to the point though, the current spot price for Berryllium is a much more reasonable $1/gram ( $30/oz), and that eBay seller is making a killing if they're finding suckers. Still not cheap compared to something like copper at ~$0.20/oz though, and there's phenomenal demand for copper, so I'm guessing it's still a fairly rare material.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
64. Re:great! by DavidTC · 2012-09-18 16:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And when did 50 MPG become some sort of incredible technological triumph in the first place?
  It's actually pretty easy to make a vehicle from the 1980s get 50 MPG via modifications. Machine the engine to incredibly tight tolerances, use super high quality oil, implement some stuff that modern cars already do via computerized fuel injection, strip out the emission controls, preheat gasoline (which is what appears to be done here)...50 MPG is impressive, but not some sort of impossible thing.
  In fact, a lot of the patents in that list appear to be carburetor tricks for creating air-fuel mixes. Anyone who thinks they are even slightly useful does not quite understand that a) we've moved past carburetors, and b) the fuel-injection systems we replaced them with already do many of those 'tricks', or don't need them. Fuel injectors are constantly adjusting based on engine temp and all sorts of things, and do not operate by by the crazy method of 'mixing air and gas by hitting a moving metal flap with gasoline' which required all sorts of odd tricks to make things work right.
  In short: The guy was right. By correctly varying the air-fuel mixture, much higher MPGs can be reached. It's how we went from 20 MPG in the 80s to 40 MPGs now. The problem is, while _he_ was working on stupid carburetor tricks, other people were inventing fuel injection operated by computers that do all this stuff magically.
  And the problem with the _rest_ of the changes, tightening tolerances and whatnot, is now you've made the car 10 times as expensive, as all that has to be done by hand...and the damn engine will blow up at the slightest piece of dirt that gets in, or when the oil pressure drops by 10%, or just rip itself apart when you run out of gas. And oil costs about fifty times what it should.
  Any idiot can get rid of a dozen 'inefficiencies' of an automobile engine that actually exist because the thing is designed to operate, and be maintained, and parts replaced, in real world conditions, not a damn clean room. Car companies do not sell cars like that, as they would not make it out of the two-year warranty.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
65. Re:great! by Ultracrepidarian · 2012-09-18 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  Just like Pharma.
66. Re:great! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-18 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Past fusion estimates were always dependent on funding remaining the same, which it didn't - it was steadily reduced over the years. The estimates were stretched out accordingly.
67. Re:great! by dgatwood · 2012-09-18 18:36 · Score: 1
  It spontaneously combines with oxygen, but at STP it usually doesn't do so at a rate that qualifies as combustion. That said, when you're working with high pressure hydrogen, sometimes it does combust, and sometimes it does so with no obvious catalyst or ignition source. Sources:
  
  http://conference.ing.unipi.it/ichs2005/Papers/100098.pdf
  http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/dryer/homepage/research/hydrogen-fire-safety/movies/Dryer_et_al_CST_179_2007.pdf
  Perhaps more curiously, nobody is really sure why, as far as I can tell. Either way, the point remains that you don't have to have an ignition source.
  BTW, even if you did need an ignition source, I think it's safe to say that the temperatures inside or near a fusion reactor of any significant scale would probably qualify as an ignition source....
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
68. Re:great! by dgatwood · 2012-09-18 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Come on. You guys should know by now that I'm prone to hyperbole. :-)
  The phrase you need to reinterpret is "pretty much". By that, I mean that it is relatively unstable, and that it doesn't take much to trigger an explosion. Not nothing, but not much. It could be anything from a spark to a sudden change in pressure to a catalyst like platinum to.... You get the idea.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
69. Re:great! by jedwidz · 2012-09-18 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  Now if only someone could come up with a highly profitable (and inconspicuous) use for large quantities of running water... hmmm...
70. Re:great! by jedwidz · 2012-09-18 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  You might also be able to save a bit on your home energy costs by buying fresh packs of meat during winter, freezing them, and waiting until summer before defrosting and eating them.
71. Re:great! by dgatwood · 2012-09-18 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  But in any case, mere combustion may be enthusiastic, but is nowhere near (by orders of magnitude) the energy of fusion.
  An explosion of a fusion reactor would almost certainly be caused by a breach of containment by what is presumably high-pressure, high-temperature hydrogen gas. Once it is outside the containment vessel/field/*, it doesn't matter that it isn't as hot as the fusion process; the containment vessel is no longer between it and the outside world. :-) Even if it didn't explode at that point, a mere fire in a power plant could potentially cause millions of dollars in property damage. And at those sorts of temperatures, I'd expect something closer to an explosion than a fire. Maybe not—I mean, I've never had the opportunity to heat hydrogen up to several thousand degrees and then release it suddenly, so I'm kind of out of my element here (pun intended). :-D
  
  ... which makes it correspondingly more difficult to achieve a chain of events that would allow a reactor to detonate in the manner portrayed in bad fiction.
  How do you define "detonate" in this context? Are we talking about a building-sized explosion here (which is what I was thinking of), or are we talking hydrogen bomb test? Because the former seems quite possible even if you're just working with high-pressure hydrogen without any sort of reactor. Just release a lot of hydrogen into the air so that the concentration is anywhere from about 4% to about 75%, then let someone shuffle his or her feet across the carpet.... The latter is, of course, obviously quite ridiculous.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
72. Re:great! by dgatwood · 2012-09-18 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  (yes kids, a match is a LOT of energy)
  It takes more than an order of magnitude less energy to ignite hydrogen than to ignite hydrocarbon fuels. A match isn't necessary by any stretch of the imagination. Rubbing your feet across the carpet can produce 10-25 millijoules of energy, which is somewhere around 600-1500 times as much energy as is required to trigger hydrogen combustion in a hydrogen-air mixture, given the right concentration of hydrogen. No flame needed. I don't consider a couple hundredths of a millijoule to be a lot of energy, personally. When you're talking about explosion risk, I consider a lot of energy to mean at least kilojoules, and I'm not entirely comfortable with stuff that explodes with fewer than megajoules. :-)
  
  Saying that it will start spontaneous combustion with air is Todd Akin levels of stupidity.
  What I said was that it "pretty much spontaneously" combusts. That wording, in English, typically means that it doesn't, strictly speaking, spontaneously combust, but that it is really close. And I maintain the correctness of that statement. I mean, we're not talking Things I Won't Work With here, but you have to admit that working with it in industrial quantities wouldn't exactly be the highlight of any sane person's day.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
73. Re:great! by BlackPignouf · 2012-09-18 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Fun fact : "clean energy" is an oxymoron.
  "clean" means you leave a system the way it was.
  "energy" means you change the state of the system.
74. Re:great! by tehcyder · 2012-09-19 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know how much energy there is in a cubic metre of water once we just get that cold fusion thingy sorted out?
  
  Me neither, but it's a LOT.
  
  I'm surpised no one has thought of using such a cheap and easily available source of almost limitless energy before.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
75. Re:great! by tehcyder · 2012-09-19 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Paranoid conspiracy theory.
  What a great band they were. I wonder sometimes what happened to them?
  
  (Yeah, like we don't all know...)
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
76. Re:great! by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-19 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  > What we do know is that Tokamaks don't work.
  Agreed.
  Says AC and roc97007 the fusion plasma physicist.
  There have been a huge number of successful experiments with JET (a 30 year old piece of kit designed for research not power generation), which has produced a fusion power output of 16 MW with a Q of 0.7.
  Basically, enough has been learned that people are now pretty sure they will reach Q > 5 for ITER.
  Basically, you have no idea whether or not tokamaks work.
  Also, see http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/04/11/0435231/mit-fusion-researchers-answer-your-questions
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
77. Re:great! by marcosdumay · 2012-09-19 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Do we realy know that?
  Tokamaks seem to work as well as theory predicts it will. And theory predicts that if you invest an absurd amount of money on them, you'll get something that works.
  Of course, it is better if we can get something that work without that absurd amount of money invested. That can only come from non-mainstream methods. But then, most of them have their own expensive problems that just aren't biting anybody yet because in a proof of concept machine you can run a single pulse and call it a day.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
78. Re:great! by dgatwood · 2012-09-19 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Otherwise, there is not enough hydrogen to cause problems unless something happens to the gas cylinder sitting somewhere in the back that supplies the fuel
  But that was kind of my point. Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas. In the absence of equipment to detect leaks, you wouldn't know that the hydrogen levels in the air had passed the 4% threshold. Then, a small spark can turn the whole building into a larger version of your high school demonstration. And even with equipment, it doesn't take very long for a building to become dangerous if you have pipes as big around as my head filled with pressurized hydrogen gas.
  As for ITER, that's a tiny, purely experimental test reactor. It is nowhere near production scale. Basing the risk calculation on the amount of hydrogen in ITER is like computing the risk of dying in a plane crash based on the frequency of engine failures in model RC planes. At some level, small-scale experiments have similar behavior, but in practice, the safety systems required for the full-scale systems are much more significant because the damage caused by a failure would also be much bigger. (That, and they don't let rank amateurs fly jumbo jets, but that's a separate issue....)
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
79. Re:great! by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-19 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  I was just about to post this. If not for this, electric cars would have taken off a decade earlier.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
80. Re:great! by DrStoooopid · 2012-09-19 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  They turned me into a newt.....
  
  --
  There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
81. Re:great! by roc97007 · 2012-09-19 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Right, we are asymptotically approaching practicality.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
82. Re:great! by tibit · 2012-09-19 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Pressure at the tap is, say, 2 bar or 200 kPa. I'd guess the flow at the entrance to my house is at least 10 gpm, or about 0.5 L/s (that should be very conservative). The hydraulic power is thus about 200kPa*0.5L/s = 100W. Assuming a decent turbine and generator, you could probably extract about 50 W.
  So, in an hour I trade off 600 gallons of water consumption for 0.05 kWh of electric energy. Nope, it won't work, not even close, even if my flow rate estimate was an order of magnitude too low. IIRC I pay about the same per gallon as per kWh.
  So yes, stealing power from the phone company, assuming you need to use the phone anyway, is probably better.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
83. Re:great! by tibit · 2012-09-19 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you obsessed with cold fusion? Hot fusion can be done easily in amateur conditions, although of course so far with negative energy budget, but it's not hard at all.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
84. Re:great! by tibit · 2012-09-19 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  The patents are expired by now, and you know, they are public knowledge. Go and build one yourself. Or better yet, stop spewing crap. Patent numbers or it didn't happen.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
85. Re:great! by tibit · 2012-09-19 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  How the heck will heating up gasoline improve anything? In a modern engine all of the gasoline is combusted, there's no need to heat it up. There's a misconception that somehow the gasoline droplets are too big and they don't all combust. That's bullshit. By the time the compression stroke is over, there's no liquid gasoline anywhere but perhaps on the cylinder walls, it's all gaseous. End of story. Whatever is on the cylinder walls will be reabsorbed by the oil and then will evaporate and get sucked back into the engine via crankcase ventilation system. That's like ICE 101. I'd have hoped everyone knows it by now...
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
86. Re:great! by toddestan · 2012-09-19 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  You joke, but I've known people to put jugs of water outside in the winter, let them freeze, then put them in their fridge so that it runs less.
87. Re:great! by Dabido · 2012-09-19 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  5 years away ... with our flying cars, hotels in space, warp drives, quantum computers, et hoc genus omne.
  
  --
  Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
88. Re:great! by ceoyoyo · 2012-09-20 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  There are reports from the 70s that gave remarkably accurate timelines given different funding scenarios. Since then we have funded fusion research at less than their lowest projections and have achieved a bit more, more quickly than they estimated.
  There is no kernel of truth, unless its regarding what journalists and uninformed critics say.
89. Re:great! by Lennie · 2012-09-23 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't be surprised if the government will fund the research for decades until it is almost done, then some large energy company will look at it, replicate what they've done and complete the last part and patent it.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
90. Re:great! by Lennie · 2012-09-23 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  That never happend, I don't believe poeple from oil companies sing Hallelujah.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
I know nothing of physics, but... by Abreu · 2012-09-18 07:46 · Score: 5, Informative

...I just want you guys to know that "Sandía" means "watermelon" in Spanish.
Oh, also: I hope this leads to a new, efficient and clean type of energy.

--
No sig for the moment.
1. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Now that watermelon gag in buckaroo banzai makes sense. They were working on fruit-based fusion!
2. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by chemicaldave · 2012-09-18 07:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The name comes from Sandia Base where the first labs were located which happened to be next to the Sandia Mountains, which, according to popular belief, got its name due to the reddish color of the mountains at sunset.
3. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by TheRealMindChild · 2012-09-18 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing new about fusion. Ask our friendly neighbor, the Sun. El Sol. Le Soleil. Die Sonne. La Suno.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
4. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by leromarinvit · 2012-09-18 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  So this new fusion tech is not only going to be green (at least on the outside), but also delicious? Sounds like a win to me!
  
  --
  Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
5. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by radiumsoup · 2012-09-18 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  I love it when people bring up that movie - it's one of my favorites in the SciFi genre, introduced to me by my NT4 MCSE instructor.
  Yes, it was one of the only practical things I learned in that class that I didn't already know.
6. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by crazyjj · 2012-09-18 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's because this project is green on the outside and in the red on the inside.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
7. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  "Why is there a watermelon there?"
  "I'll tell you later"
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
8. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-09-18 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  A new, efficient and tastier type of energy too.
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
9. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by rrohbeck · 2012-09-18 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh noes! The communists are everywhere!
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
10. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by TheInternetGuy · 2012-09-18 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  ...I just want you guys to know that "Sandía" means "watermelon" in Spanish.
  Oh, also: I hope this leads to a new, efficient and clean type of energy.
  I hope it will lead to highly energetic watermelons, might not be clean, but fun.
  
  --
  If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
11. Re:I know nothing of physics, but... by freeze128 · 2012-09-18 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  If not that, I hope it leads to a delicious summertime snack that is cheap and clean.
Great! by Type44Q · 2012-09-18 07:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Practical applications are now only fifty years away! :p
Energy Independence by Vintowin · 2012-09-18 07:48 · Score: 1

Only when fusion is realized will we gain energy independence... Very positive news..
1. Re:Energy Independence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Thus creating an internal energy monopoly. Somehow I doubt it'll be a win-win.
2. Re:Energy Independence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wait a sec.... so american "engineers" can manage to get 400 BHP out of a six liter now?
  Another few decades of practice and they might make a car worth owning.
3. Re:Energy Independence by zwede · 2012-09-18 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah given that nissan was making stock 2.0-2.6 liters that could to that in the late 80s early 90s :D
  RBs for the win :)
  Eeh, no. Top fuel engines make 1,000 hp per liter. Nissans made 100. That's, you know, a factor of 10.
  Top fuel FTW.
4. Re:Energy Independence by freeze128 · 2012-09-18 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  But then the terrorists would win.
5. Re:Energy Independence by prefec2 · 2012-09-18 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  I bet we can achive a sustainable energy supply without fusion or fission.
Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 07:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

All the previous vaporware and false claims about fusion are about "cold fusion". This is not the same thing. Accusations of being vaporware would only be valid if the word "cold" appeared in the summary, which it does not.
near end of 2013? by gl4ss · 2012-09-18 07:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

so uhh.. call us in a year if it works, ok? that the parts which are known to work do work isn't really news you know.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
can we do this again -- without the wordsmithing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 07:50 · Score: 1

The last sentence of the summary could be interpreted by a cynic to mean that the current state of the art is (1000 - epsilon), and they've just found a way to "potentially" increase by epsilon to reach 1000.
What is the current state of the art? How much more efficient is the new technique.
Repost the summary with the details everyone actually cares about.
Tubes Eaten Away by bazald · 2012-09-18 07:51 · Score: 5, Funny

How much energy goes into the production of the liner tubes, which are apparently eaten away throughout the course of the fusion reaction? Obviously this is all preliminary research, but I still think I'm missing something.

--
Insert self-referential sig here.
1. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by P-niiice · 2012-09-18 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Make the liner tubes out of used 20oz water bottles
2. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  We're saved!!
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by slashmydots · 2012-09-18 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, it's magnetic containment. That's kinda the point. It keeps the really hot particles from ever touching the tube. It takes a buttload of energy to run but compared to fusion, not that much.
4. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by Daetrin · 2012-09-18 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  Read the article. The liners are being crushed by the magnetic field. The whole point of this experiment is that they've found a thickness of liner that will last _just_ long enough to finish crushing the fusible elements together before being completely destroyed itself.
  
  And presumably they can construct the liners for less (both in terms of money and energy) than they feel they will eventually be able to get out of the fusion reaction. It's not like every other method of producing energy doesn't have some kind of upfront cost that needs to be paid. Just as one example, look at how much infrastructure it takes to get a train car full of coal to a coal plant
  
  --
  This Space Intentionally Left Blank
5. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by vlm · 2012-09-18 08:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Time for a world famous /. vlm engineering estimate.
  The tubes are vaporized by the magnetic crunch. Optimistically they're getting a thousand times the power out as in, or far more than a thousand times the power it takes to vaporize the tube (because most of the power is going into squashing the contents, otherwise whats the point...).
  I'm sure they're using beryllium because of its legendary stiffness, not because they love toxic dust. Lets say they use aluminum in a later model. Both light low Z metals of decent strength although beryllium is better. If beryllium oxides were not so toxic we've have airplanes made out of it, not just space satellites and the occasional exotic RF transistor ceramic heatsink. But I digress. Off the top of my head it costs about 5 KWh as an order of magnitude engineering estimate to electrorefine a pound of aluminum. It takes immensely more energy to vaporize a pound of aluminum. An hour in a 5 KW ceramics kiln might melt a pound aluminum... but vaporization is much harder. I'll estimate incredibly low and say you can vaporize a pound of aluminum with only 5 KWh. LOL this is probably 1 or maybe even 2 orders of magnitude low, but its best to be extremely pessimistic... I'm not counting the machining energy or transport, both of which will be much smaller.
  So I'd feel fairly confident that a pound or so of aluminum tube, costing about 5 KWh to refine, should generate about 5000 KWh when the deuterium inside the tubes gets squooshed. Not bad.
  Another crappy engineering order of magnitude estimate is you gotta burn a pound of coal to make a KWh. And you can earn a tidy profit burning coal to make electricity, for better or worse... WRT materials handling transport and mining/ore/coal processing and storage standpoint, those are not an issue as long as you can get more than one KWH out of a pound of the "stuff", since it's clearly no issue with coal at a pitiful KWh per pound. This thing is getting 5000 KWh out of a pound of aluminum tubes (well, once they're filled up with D2).
  No as a first approximation I'm not seeing any fundamental issues with the tubes. This isn't like using up 2 barrels of crude oil to grow and refine 1 barrel equivalent of ethanol. The tubes will be a substantial fraction of the operating expense. Not as significant as jetfuel to a airline, or coal to a powerplant, but more significant than say, the cost of in flight cookies to a airline.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
6. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by somersault · 2012-09-18 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  You should read the article. Passing such a high current through the tube causes it to ionise.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
7. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by Turminder+Xuss · 2012-09-18 10:16 · Score: 2
  
  They're using beryllium for the plasma facing walls at ITER because of its nuclear properties, as well as its mechanical stiffness. Plasma facing components are exposed to constant neutron bombardment resulting in formation of radioisotopes. Beryllium forms radioisotopes with a short half life (so obviously not 10Be, which is 2+M years, probably 8Be and 7Be) and which have manageable decay paths. The modular shields are replaced when they get too "hot". They are low level waste for 200 years, after which you can put them back in or do whatever else you like to do with beryllium (not breathing it's dust is good). Beryllium can also release a neutron under alpha decay, which is sometimes used in bomb trigger mechanisms. Not sure if that is useful in the tubes. Aluminum is so much cheaper that there would have to be a very good reason not to use it. Maybe it results in a lot of 26Al with a half life of 7.2*10^5 y.
  
  --
  You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
8. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by fatphil · 2012-09-18 10:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That was a fun estimate - thanks! I notice that it's much easier to melt aluminium than your wild stab in the dark. Aluminium's LHoF is only 399 kJ/kg and LHoV is 10,530 kJ/kg. Your 5kWh/lb = 5*3600*2.2 kJ/kg ~= 40000 kJ/kg. So you've not underestimated by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, you've actually slightly overestimated.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
9. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by slashmydots · 2012-09-18 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well how the hell did they do it at the LHC? Just build another one of those, lol. I know, I know, probably less particles involved but still, nothing ever touched the tube and they didn't crush (except once when it blew a hole out the side).
10. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by humanrev · 2012-09-18 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  [SCIENCE!]
  Prof. Farnsworth: "Yeees. I see. Something involving that many big words could easily destabilize liner tubes themselves."
  
  --
  Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
11. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by freeze128 · 2012-09-18 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  So they're using fusion to make cookies now? That's cool!
  
  Sorry, I didn't read the article, I didn't read the summary, and I just skimmed your post.
12. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by SecurityTheatre · 2012-09-18 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  The "liner" in this example is just a beryllium cylinder. It's essentially the "bullet casing" for the "slug" that is the fissile material.
  I don't remember if this article mentions it or not (and i don't really want to read it again), but they are hoping that the existing z machine will be able to handle a new "bullet" every 100 seconds or so. A theoretical practical reactor could do it once every 10 seconds or so.
  It's roughly the equivalent of firing a canon, with an auto-loading mechanism. Charge up the capacitors, pulse the equipment, get the output, discharged the spent cartridge (or what's left of its plasma) and move on to the next one.
  Cool idea, poorly described in this article, I think. Keep in mind they're hoping to use lithium or boron in the future, because those can be fused with light hydrogen in a reaction that does not produce stray neutrons. It's the neutrons that degrade the lining of the reactor itself.
  But apparently there is some confusion in the word "lining"...
13. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by SecurityTheatre · 2012-09-18 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  From what I"ve seen of the demos, the "liners" are about the size of a 50-cal bullet and produce on the order of megawatts of power.
  Seems alright with me.
14. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by CnlPepper · 2012-09-18 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the beryllium is primarily used for another purpose. It is a low Z material which means that when it gets into the plasma (via wall ablation) and ionises, it only has a few electrons to lose. Lots of electrons = lots of bremsstrahlung = significant energy loss. Also very high Z impurities which don't fully ionise lead to even more significant loses through line emission. High Z pollution of the plasma can lead to a radiative collapse of the plasma. For more info see here:
  http://www.carolusmagnus.net/papers/2005/docs/koslowski_operational_limits.pdf
15. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by Deliveranc3 · 2012-09-20 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  He was estimating how much energy would be needed to turn it into a gas. Not a liquid. I think you can agree it takes A LOT of energy to evaporate aluminum
16. Re:Tubes Eaten Away by fatphil · 2012-09-20 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Quite a lot, yes, but not as much as he imagined. That's why I made explicit mention of his LHoV estimate being too high. His ratio was quite accurate, but his starting point, the LHoF (or LHoM, if you prefer) was way too high.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Finally a chance to play god by partyguerrilla · 2012-09-18 07:52 · Score: 2

Take that, Sol! Now we don't need you for anything!
Betteridge's Law of Headlines by iamjonah · 2012-09-18 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no".
1. Re:Betteridge's Law of Headlines by esldude · 2012-09-18 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  A simulation shows that experiments scheduled for next year could work. And if they do work, they would maybe be a breakthrough. Yes, I think the proper answer to the query posed by the headline is clearly....NO! Get back to us with breakthroughs once you have actually done it for real one time.
2. Re:Betteridge's Law of Headlines by P-niiice · 2012-09-18 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  And it can't start with How or What
3. Re:Betteridge's Law of Headlines by maxwell+demon · 2012-09-18 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  I hereby introduce Maxwell Demon's Law of Headlines: Whenever a headline ends in a question mark on Slashdot, there will be no shortage of comments mentioning or implicitly referring to Betteridge's Law Of Headlines.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:Betteridge's Law of Headlines by Chris+Burke · 2012-09-18 08:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A simulation shows that experiments scheduled for next year could work.
  Not exactly. This was an actual experiment showing that previously done simulations were correct. They needed to figure out the correct thickness to make the liners to balance implosion speed with vaporization due to extreme current, the simulations said this was a sweet spot, and the experiment said that indeed this would work.
  Of course this is just one more step in the design - simulate - experiment cycle, but still, at least it is about a real result.
  Also, I'm just glad to be hearing about further progress from the Z-Machine folks at Sandia since I hadn't in quite a while. So even though it's not the final goal, it's still good news.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
5. Re:Betteridge's Law of Headlines by mister_playboy · 2012-09-18 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Are we trying to make a meme out of this?
  Or vagina?
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Ragzouken · 2012-09-18 07:54 · Score: 1

Even warm fusion has fun poked at it for being constantly "fifty years away".
Re:No? by bbecker23 · 2012-09-18 08:00 · Score: 1

captcha: thighs
I think you're doing that wrong.

--
cat /dev/random > sig.txt
Tubes? You mean the Interwebs? by stevegee58 · 2012-09-18 08:01 · Score: 1

Oh. Never mind.
The most beautiful science by conorpeterson · 2012-09-18 08:02 · Score: 5, Informative

The photos of the Z machine have to be seen to be believed, and even then, it is grade A sci-fi: http://www.sandia.gov/z-machine/ The "Z pinch" is an alternative method of containing the hot plasma. Tokomak reactors use magnetic confinement of a continuous plasma, while the Z machine uses inertial confinement for shorter lived plasmas. IIRC the web of lightning shown in Sandia's publicity photos is produced when thousands of tungsten filaments are vaporized in order to generate x-rays. The fuel pellet sits in the center and the X-rays compress it into criticality -- if it sounds like an H-bomb, that's because it probably is.
1. Re:The most beautiful science by TheSwift · 2012-09-18 08:30 · Score: 2
  
  The photos of the Z machine have to be seen to be believed, and even then, it is grade A sci-fi: http://www.sandia.gov/z-machine/
  
  Middle right photo - Pretty sure I've seen that room before. Shortly thereafter I was hitting head crabs with a crowbar.
  
  --
  "With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by i+kan+reed · 2012-09-18 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Which it hasn't really been for a decade now, and wouldn't have been like that if fusion had been receiving the funding it deserves. Of all non-service industries energy has the lowest research funding to revenue ratio, and super-majority of that has been towards fracking and ethanol.
This is a self-perpetuating myth if ever there was one. My money's on FocusFusion to beat sandia to net+ though.
obligatory xkcd by NikeHerc · 2012-09-18 08:03 · Score: 2

Go to http://xkcd.com/678/, pick your own time line.

--
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Re:Beryllium? by oodaloop · 2012-09-18 08:04 · Score: 1

Miners, not minors!

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Great! by 32771 · 2012-09-18 08:05 · Score: 1

Now I don't have to start becoming a farmer after all. Not that it is a bad thing but starting it at mid 30 seems late in the game.
Considering that factor of 1000 sounds like a great EROI should be possible, much better than this puny cold fusion stuff.
Now if they could get rid of this metallic liner they are talking about made out of a potentially scarce resource the whole thing
could look perfect once they get beyond the simulation stage.

--
Je me souviens.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by oodaloop · 2012-09-18 08:05 · Score: 1

That's really unfair. Warm fusion is probably only constantly 20 years away.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
And we should have it working... by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 08:05 · Score: 1

...in only 50 years.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:"breakthrough near" my ass by punker · 2012-09-18 08:06 · Score: 2

tell me when it's done
I expect you'll know when it happens.
Close, but no cigar by srussia · 2012-09-18 08:09 · Score: 2

You will never actually reach production with things like this, for the same reason you will never reach a wall by moving in increments of 1/2.
Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox has a resolution. This is more like the Rockefeller Contraction (apologies to Hendrik Lorentz).

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Scientific Breakeven, not Fiscal by rahvin112 · 2012-09-18 08:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Tokamak's have been scientific breakeven for more than a decade, ITER is supposed to achieve fiscal breakeven. What's the difference? Scientific breakeven means you extract more energy than you put into it, but you don't actually try to collect any of the energy. Fiscal breakeven is that added step where you actually try to collect the energy and use it.
See Fusion has this problem in that it's pretty easy to trigger fusion, it's not easy to keep it going and it's damn near impossible to collect any energy from it because all the stuff you have to start the fusion is in the way of collecting any of the energy and all the neutron and alpha particle emissions tend to destroy any materials you put in there to collect the energy.
This is EXACTLY the point of ITER, it's supposed to test the actual engineering of real world (not laboratory) fusion at an economic scale. This testing is costing a lot of money (US contributions are in the $2 Billion dollar range, total economic input from all the partner nations is 25X that amount).
1. Re:Scientific Breakeven, not Fiscal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Tokamak's have just reached Q~1 if J-60 were to switch from deuterium to a D-T mix. This is to say that the amount of fusion power being generated is on par with the amount of heating power applied. This is a little short of the "scientific breakeven" you describe, as it does not include power for magnets (and other equipment, but that is much smaller). A more useful goal is a Q~5, since the neutrons carry away about 80% of the power, a Q~5 is would mean the alpha particles left behind in the plasma will be providing about as much as heat as external sources. To account for other inefficiencies, a more practical Q would be a little higher.
  ITER's goal is to achieve a Q of 10 for shorter duration plasmas, and to get a Q of 5 for long durations that would be more indicative of a steady state reactor continuously running. These are all in terms of fusion power within the reactor vs. heat applied. ITER will not produce any electricity from the fusion power, it will not be a test of "fiscal breakeven" as you describe it. The plan would be for the successor to ITER, potentially DEMO, to actually produce electrical power and work towards determining economic feasibility and dealing production issues in an actual industrial, instead of research, setting.
2. Re:Scientific Breakeven, not Fiscal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Should have looked at preview more closely... J-60 should be JT-60, as in Japan's leading Tokamak.
3. Re:Scientific Breakeven, not Fiscal by rahvin112 · 2012-09-18 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hey it's possible the goals have changed since I last looked at the project, but when I did look last time it was clear that they intended to test (possibly not actively use) the heat extraction layers that would make up the power generating core. I know they haven't solved the main issue that the alpha and neutron emissions cause and the damage they will do to those layers nor how they can even get those layers working properly with all the magnetic containment.
  But it was my understanding that one of the project goals of ITER is to actually industrial test some of the theorized energy extraction methods to determine if they are even feasible or if the neutron emissions will destroy them.
4. Re:Scientific Breakeven, not Fiscal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  From what I remember, the plan for ITER to not produce electricity and for that tests to be done by the successor go back at least to the 90s, and that detailed specs and design goals of ITER were set just after 2000. Because of concerns ITER won't address some of the material science issues, another project, IFMIF, is also being constructed with a timeline to contribute to either ITER upgrades or post-ITER reactor designs. The only potential confusing factor I can think of and am not familiar with is that for a while the US considered building its own reactor before getting involved with ITER. That was canned before I got into the field, so I don't know many details about what it was planning to do.
5. Re:Scientific Breakeven, not Fiscal by ssam · 2012-09-18 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  $2 Billion is pretty small on scale of what the planet spends on energy. For rough maths a GW of power, for 1 year at 10c/kWh is ~ $1Billion ( http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+GW+*+1+year+*+(0.1USD+%2F+kWh) ).
  ITER is a prototype for a 0.5GW machine. Now first of their kind machines cost stupidly more than general production machines (R&D is not cheap). So the hope would be that you can one day build a 1GW reactor for something less than $10 Billion. Then it is cost effective even if you are paying interest at 10%. (for nuclear (and renewables) you can neglect fuel costs).
6. Re:Scientific Breakeven, not Fiscal by eriqk · 2012-09-22 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Party time".
The apparatus works by Hentes · 2012-09-18 08:13 · Score: 1

But why is that news? They tested it empty, fuel won't even be added until 2013, and analyzing the results of the actual experiment might take even more.
1. Re:The apparatus works by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Because they exceeded the breakeven point with fusion, which is the second most important achievement other than eventually achieving huge energy returns on energy invested. That's the biggest news in fusion since the hydrogen bomb generations ago.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
2. Re:The apparatus works by Hentes · 2012-09-18 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  RTFA, please:
  
  In the dry-run experiments just completed, cylindrical beryllium liners remained reasonably intact as they were imploded by huge magnetic field of Sandia’s Z machine, the world’s most powerful pulsed-power accelerator. Had they overly distorted, they would have proved themselves incapable of shoveling together nuclear fuel — deuterium and possibly tritium — to the point of fusing them. Sandia researchers expect to add deuterium fuel in experiments scheduled for 2013.
  “The experimental results — the degree to which the imploding liner maintained its cylindrical integrity throughout its implosion — were consistent with results from earlier Sandia computer simulations,” said lead researcher Ryan McBride.“These predicted MagLIF will exceed scientific break-even.”
  A simulation published in a 2010 Physics of Plasmas article by Sandia researcher Steve Slutz showed that a tube enclosing preheated deuterium and tritium, crushed by the large magnetic fields of the 25-million-ampere Z machine, would yield slightly more energy than is inserted into it.
  A later simulation, published last January in PRL by Slutz and Sandia researcher Roger Vesey, showed that a more powerful accelerator generating 60 million amperes or more could reach “high-gain” fusion conditions, where the fusion energy released greatly exceeds (by more than 1,000 times) the energy supplied to the fuel.
Just in time for the Warp drive by si3n4 · 2012-09-18 08:15 · Score: 2

it's all coming together http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/17/2229257/warp-drive-might-be-less-impossible-than-previously-thought I know when it finishes - about 10 min after I die . Oops - should have done this as anonymous
1. Re:Just in time for the Warp drive by Neil+Boekend · 2012-09-18 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  No the world will still end, but after we have left.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
I believe by mark99 · 2012-09-18 08:17 · Score: 1

because I am an idiot and a slow learner.
1. Re:I believe by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, you don't believe, because you're an idiot and a slow learner. Achieving breakeven is the watershed. If you don't learn to accept change now, it's probably too late for you.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Vintermann · 2012-09-18 08:17 · Score: 2

Nuclear energy research has been funded the same way the internet was funded, the usual way research gets publicly funded in the US (or for that matter, elsewhere): The promise of military applications.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Energy and..... defence? by gallondr00nk · 2012-09-18 08:19 · Score: 1

an achievement that would have extraordinary energy and defense implications.
Says a lot about the times we live in (or the short sightedness of TFA) when the second biggest benefit of a breakthrough in fusion would be fucking weapons.
I'd be looking forward to a revolution in energy usage and a massive increase in living standards for the entire planet myself, but hey.
1. Re:Energy and..... defence? by Iberian · 2012-09-18 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well once the population is reduced to 1/1000 of its current number your standard of living will be way higher*.
  
  *Standard of living increases are measured numerically and are not based on percentages. Individual results may vary.
Types of fusion and funding by Twinbee · 2012-09-18 08:20 · Score: 1

There are about 36 types of fusion being explored (of which "Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion" is just one), categorized roughly into 6 main types. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fusion_methods

'Unlimited' energy would be such an amazing thing (eclipsing even say lithium-air battery tech, 200" OLED screens, super conductors, or cheap-as-peanuts aerogel) by an order of magnitude or two. If a quarter of the money that went into the Defense budget went into fusion, we'd all be laughing by now.

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
1. Re:Types of fusion and funding by elucido · 2012-09-18 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  There are about 36 types of fusion being explored (of which "Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion" is just one), categorized roughly into 6 main types. Here's a list:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fusion_methods
  'Unlimited' energy would be such an amazing thing (eclipsing even say lithium-air battery tech, 200" OLED screens, super conductors, or cheap-as-peanuts aerogel) by an order of magnitude or two. If a quarter of the money that went into the Defense budget went into fusion, we'd all be laughing by now.
  What if China or Russia does it instead?
2. Re:Types of fusion and funding by Twinbee · 2012-09-18 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  That'd be great too. I don't imagine their defense budgets are so high, but I could be wrong.
  
  --
  Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
3. Re:Types of fusion and funding by Twinbee · 2012-09-18 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently not, and I have heard it asked at least twice in various places. Apparently, the amount of heat that the sun alone provides would dwarf anything we would ever give out.
  
  --
  Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Nope, False Alarm by phrackwulf · 2012-09-18 08:20 · Score: 1

This is actually the denoument of the final season of "Breaking Bad." An multi-million anonymous donation from a mysterious "Senor Heisenberg" leads to sustainable fusion research all to late to redeem the hapless Walter White and his family.

--
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
The key to Fusion has been right in front of us! by kybur · 2012-09-18 08:21 · Score: 1

You just need a series of tubes!
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Chris+Burke · 2012-09-18 08:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yeah, I remember when we had the MIT fusion research Slashdot Interview, and they showed the graph that was presented in the 70s showing how soon they could have fusion given various funding levels.
The saddest part was of the various scenarios like "fusion in 10 years", "fusion in 20 years", there was a "fusion never" line where funding was never sufficient to yield breakeven fusion, and then there was overlaid a new "actual funding" line which was significantly lower than that. :(
P.S. Personally my money is on Sandia, but that's just because the old Z-Machine was the most fucking awesome thing ever. EVER. I admit this is not a rational scientific argument, and that a working Z-pinch fusion device would not look like that at all, but come on!

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:No! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-09-18 08:24 · Score: 1

You know how it is...
20 years away?

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:Financing by jamstar7 · 2012-09-18 08:24 · Score: 1

Or a reaction to the upcoming budget sequestering.

Newton was right. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Not to worry, citizens, fusion is still $DECADES away!

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by swb · 2012-09-18 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

And how low cost will it be actually?
Let's assume that the Sandia technique/technology results in sustained net-positive fusion by the end of 2013. The results are so positive that a small-scale concept plant that will push to the grid gets built, by, say 2020.
This works well enough and there's enough refinement that a full-scale 8 GW plant can be built. By what, 2035? This plant is so successful that by 2050 there are maybe 4-5 more built an in operation.
So we have a lead time of 2050 for less than 50 GW of power. Considering total production is something like 1300 GW, it hardly seems like a threat to anything or a source of the vaunted "free" energy.
Even if you manage increase production by a factor of 10 to 500 GW capacity, what will fund the grid expansion to deliver all this free energy? Will the cost of electrically powered stuff go down -- or up, now that "everything" is made to run on electricity and the demand for rare earths, copper and other related materials goes way up?
1. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by Lumpy · 2012-09-18 09:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Large scale is very dumb. Make 25KW units and put thousands of them across the city. Cheaper, easier, and reliability of the grid goes up dramatically.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by rrohbeck · 2012-09-18 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the fact that by 2030 oil will be so scarce and expensive that major construction projects will hardly be feasible any more.
  That's the "energy trap."
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
3. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by fatphil · 2012-09-18 09:58 · Score: 2
  
  > Let's assume that the Sandia technique/technology results in sustained
  
  Stop right there!
  
  The word "sustained" appears neither in the summary or the article.
  
  Anyway, I think it's best to talk about the implications of their experiments only after they've been done.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
4. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-18 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  If they need the Z machine just to run the tests, you can forget about minaturisation. That is the most powerful machine ever constructed, with the exception of nuclear bombs.
5. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  That would only work if such small units were anywhere near as efficient as larger units. With pretty much every fusion technique reasonably demonstrated so far, there are massive economies of scale that make such a plan far from "cheaper and easier."
6. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-09-18 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  25KW is pretty useless considering that you can cheaply buy home gasoline generators that produce 6-7KW already. I have seen some larger construction site diesel generators that are in the 10-15KW range but even that is still pretty puny as they could easily be transported by a truck and often have a built in stick or wire feed welder and compressor. When talking thousands put into a metro area you will want generators in the 1-5MW range if not larger unless you want everyone to have their own generator in which case a 25KW one would power a few houses.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
7. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by chrismcb · 2012-09-18 13:56 · Score: 2
  
  Let's assume that the Sandia technique/technology results in sustained
  Stop right there! The word "sustained" appears neither in the summary or the article.
  Hence starting with "let us ASSUME ..."
8. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by SecurityTheatre · 2012-09-18 15:57 · Score: 2
  
  "Large scale is very dumb"
  Well, small scale units are just big magnets with a cold beryllium cylinder at the centre. They're not power plants.
  In order to get this type of fusion to work, you have to input a few dozen times the world's power output for a few nanoseconds, contain the core as it is heated to 6 billion degrees kelvin in under a microsecond, manage 2.7 megajoules of xray radiation, contain an atomic-bomb scale EMP, shape one of the strongest magnetic fields in the galaxy as it collapses and ensure that a neutron pulse doesn't destroy the reactor lining in the process.
  If you think you can design one to fit on your power pole outside, I encourage you to talk to Fermilab or Sandia, because they want to talk to you. :-)
9. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by flyingfsck · 2012-09-18 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  'fact' - haha, snort, uhmm, sorry... We have enough oil, gas and coal to last for hundreds more years of fusion research.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
10. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by Neil+Boekend · 2012-09-18 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but we aren't using it for fusion research, we're using it to pump in hummers and light our incandescent bulbs.
  
  Snarkiness aside: I don't know how much oil we have left. It's a bit fuzzy to me what's beneath that 10km thick layer of FUD and overestimating (or even boasting to increase share value).
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
11. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-09-18 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  Large scale is very dumb. Make 25KW units and put thousands of them across the city. Cheaper, easier, and reliability of the grid goes up dramatically.
  "Ye wanna put a nuculer bomb in my back yard?!" says the city-dweller. Good luck explaining the difference to a lay man.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
12. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by tehcyder · 2012-09-19 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Ye wanna put a nuculer bomb in my back yard?!" says the city-dweller. Good luck explaining the difference to a lay man.
  A good start would be to ensure full transparency about potential risks and benefits, and to ban any profit-making party from having anything to do with their construciton or maintenance.
  
  The reason that lay people mistrust nuclear energy so profoundly is because it was initially bound up entirely with the production of fuel for nuclear weapons, with the peaceful use just a cover (at least here in the UK). The resulting military levels of secrecy meant that any whiff of an accident was covered up under the guise of National Security, so that when the truth finally emerged, people knew they had been lied to.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
13. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by tehcyder · 2012-09-19 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  'fact' - haha, snort, uhmm, sorry... We have enough oil, gas and coal to last for hundreds more years of fusion research.
  Well thank the Sweet Lord Baby Jesus for that! And here was everyone worrying about things unnecessarily.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
14. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by Lumpy · 2012-09-19 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Because finding thousands of suitable sites is easy." The find millions of suitable sites for Power poles and Cable TV boxes. I think they will have zero problems with this.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
15. Re:But what's the timeline for "low cost" energy? by rrohbeck · 2012-09-19 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, of course there's infinite fossil fuel in a finite Earth.
  Available Net Exports or crude oil have been falling by 2% per year recently. Saudi Arabia will be an oil importer by 2030. The US passed Peak Coal in 1998.
  Whoever told you that "hundreds of years" lie was a fossil fuel company. Of course their stock prices hinge on these lies.
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:It's "MLIF", not "MILF" by vlm · 2012-09-18 08:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Although both terms are hot... one is several million degrees hotter than the other
Both take 40 years to begin production.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by i+kan+reed · 2012-09-18 08:33 · Score: 1

We got some VERY big bombs out of that deal.
Invader Zim by stevegee58 · 2012-09-18 08:39 · Score: 1

It's been bothering me all day but I finally remembered: this reminds me of Professor Membrane's Perpetual Energy Generator.
Headline: Is Betteridge's Law Always True? by cervesaebraciator · 2012-09-18 08:41 · Score: 1

Tune in tonight to find out.
Re:"breakthrough near" my ass by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 08:46 · Score: 1

"breakthrough near" my ass
I'd see a proctologist about that.
You think someone will buy Sandia? by Sycraft-fu · 2012-09-18 08:52 · Score: 2

Do you know who they are? The .gov address might give you a clue but it is Sandia National Laboratories. They are one of the DoE's research labs. It's where they do research relating to nuclear weapons, among other things. This isn't something the oil companies have any sway over or ability to grab.
1. Re:You think someone will buy Sandia? by kj_kabaje · 2012-09-18 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not oil companies... just Defense contractors... Lockheed, I think is the current major player running the show there.
2. Re:You think someone will buy Sandia? by tehcyder · 2012-09-19 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know who they are? The .gov address might give you a clue but it is Sandia National Laboratories. They are one of the DoE's research labs. It's where they do research relating to nuclear weapons, among other things. This isn't something the oil companies have any sway over or ability to grab.
  You appear to be unfamiliar with the term "military-industrial complex".
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
might, could, concept by slashrio · 2012-09-18 09:13 · Score: 1

"would have"
"might be"
"concept"
"might reach"

I rest my case

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Re:brain power by slashrio · 2012-09-18 09:15 · Score: 1

As in 'Reagan'? (No pun intended!)

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Re:No! by kelemvor4 · 2012-09-18 09:17 · Score: 2

As he said, the answer is no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_Law_of_Headlines
I don't see what is so difficult here. by conspirator23 · 2012-09-18 09:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Simply scale up the reaction to a level where it is self-sustaining on the ambient hydrogen in space, and then collect the resulting photon emissions with an array of photovoltaic converters.
1. Re:I don't see what is so difficult here. by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like PV panels orbiting the Sun? That's a terrific idea, and without having to build the fusor.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
for some values... by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 09:33 · Score: 1

...of "near"...

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Science by roc97007 · 2012-09-18 09:36 · Score: 1

> Hi, No, see as you approach feasibility, your likelihood of being bough by a competing producer to be extinguished (see gasoline) becomes multitudes greater.
I've seen this twice now. I'm not aware of any oil company buying out promising fusion research and killing it, but I'm always willing to entertain evidence. Do you have any?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Answer: No. by viperidaenz · 2012-09-18 09:56 · Score: 1

... why? because you asked the question as a headline.
It's a pulsed system by Animats · 2012-09-18 10:09 · Score: 1

This is a pulsed fusion system. That's technically interesting, but it's a lab apparatus, not a basis for a power plant.
1. Re:It's a pulsed system by SecurityTheatre · 2012-09-18 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  A practical system would be a rapid-fire pulse system, firing every 10 seconds.
  This has already been simulated, although there are plenty of practical issues, it seems pretty reasonable to me, and might even be possible to do without subjecting the machinery to neutron bombardment throughout the process.
Signs there are no news by Yvanhoe · 2012-09-18 10:11 · Score: 1

If your title has a question mark and your summary is written in the conditional tense, you can move along, there is surely nothing to see there...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
How to Make Deuterium? by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:13 · Score: 1

How much energy does it take to make the deuterium (heavy hydrogen) required for this fusion? Less than the surplus in the 1000x 60GA device? Maybe just the average energy to filter it from seawater? How much is that, compared to the fusion energy released from that deuterium?

--
--
make install -not war
1. Re:How to Make Deuterium? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  As a rough estimate: you can get deuterium gas now for about $1/L (although price varies a lot with purity). If all of the fusion power were extracted, you would get about 400 kWhr. So fuel would cost you about $0.0025 per kWhr, minus inefficiencies (which wouldn't really be captured by that 1000:1 power ratio they are talking about). Most fusion reactors would probably end up using deuterium-tritium reactions though, and the tritium is much trickier to get. However, tritium can be created by bombarding lithium with neutrons (from say a fusion reactor...) and the DT reaction produces almost three times as much energy as DD. So the price of lithium might be more relevant. Using half a liter of deuterium, you would then need only an eighth a gram of lithium, which even at $100/kh would only add a few more cents onto to 50 cents for the deuterium, while producing closer to 1200 kWhr of energy.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 10:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is the interview,, and Here is the graph.
Funding fusion power is probably the best thing we can do for the environment right now.
Re:Getting the energy out is still an issue by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:14 · Score: 1

No, it'll just heat water, pressurizing it, that'll turn turbines that generate electricity. Like any large power plant, nuclear or otherwise.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Science by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:18 · Score: 1

And that's why we don't have natgas cheaper than oil in this country. Wait...

--
--
make install -not war
The reason is... by Randwulf · 2012-09-18 10:20 · Score: 1

Early fusion research was performed there by Gallagher with his Sledge-O-Matic.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Chris+Burke · 2012-09-18 10:20 · Score: 1

Thanks!

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Slashdot take seems a little too forward lookin by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:21 · Score: 1

No, you're just equating Slashdot's "implications" to "end of the path". The implications are extraordinary, because the critical milestone is sustained production in excess of consumption, which seems to have arrived. The path from the breakeven milestone to the implied 1000x production rate is long, but far more certain than before breakeven is reached. Because breakeven is the threshold set by the laws of thermodynamics, the difference between just a big machine that's highly efficient, and a big machine that leaves more energy than when it started.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Muahhhh by Doc+Ruby · 2012-09-18 10:31 · Score: 1

1. This is a very major milestone.
2. Depending on what you mean by "soon" (10 years, after waiting 50, for a change that will affect the next 100-100 years?), it looks like it will.
3. "Change our lives soon" is not a necessary standard for "news for nerds".
4. The word is "blurb".
5. You are a fool.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-18 10:42 · Score: 1

Russia still had the biggest though. Not that it was much use - a bomb that heavy would pose serious difficulties just getting to a target.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-18 10:44 · Score: 1

I gather it doesn't do that any more. All those sparks were wasted energy, after some efficiency upgrades it stopped making them.
Just let me know by onemorechip · 2012-09-18 10:45 · Score: 1

when I can buy a Mr. Fusion.

--
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Re:In Soviet Sandia ( Score: +5, Helpful ) by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-09-18 10:46 · Score: 1

+5 helpful...wtf?

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Dense Plasma Focus by trout007 · 2012-09-18 11:08 · Score: 1

In case you haven't seen it
http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=80

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
1. Re:Dense Plasma Focus by SecurityTheatre · 2012-09-18 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's cool, but irritating when they show an animation of fission in a video about fusion...
2015 by mcswell · 2012-09-18 11:14 · Score: 1

Is this how Mr. Fusion works?
1. Re:2015 by mcswell · 2012-09-18 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  oops, someone beat me to it (I searched for "Mr Fusion", but he had a period after "Mr.")
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Chris+Burke · 2012-09-18 11:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, one of the last things I heard out of Sandia on the subject some years ago (maybe '08? Nope, actually all the way back in 2007) was them turning the electrical pulse circuitry into a "lunchbox"-size unit that could be stacked in parallel with others, and rapid fired. And it was like "yeah, yeah, road to economical fusion power blah blah blah where are the sparkies?"
I'd suggest that they should keep the old Z-machine running for tourists to ooh and ahhh over on tours of the production fusion reactor (it's not like they won't have the power to run it), but as the world's largest source of X-rays that's probably not a good idea either.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:No! by History's+Coming+To · 2012-09-18 12:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

40 years ago we could produce large amounts of fusion energy, just not in a particularly controlled manner.

20 years ago we could produce controlled energy from fusion, but it required a bigger input than output, and only lasted for milliseconds.

Now we can produce controlled energy from fusion, at ratios a little greater than unity, for tens of seconds.

~20 years from now (timetabled for 2035) we will hopefully have a proof-of-concept commercial fusion reactor feeding electricity into the grids.

There's an element of truth in the "power of the future, and always will be!" gag, and it has been a very long hard slog, but advances are being made, albeit slowly compared to the development of fission energy production. That said, the first steam engine was made in ancient Greece, but didn't become a large scale commercial venture until the industrial revolution, and compared to that fusion research has happened in the blink of an eye.

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
One critical line in the story by Grayhand · 2012-09-18 13:16 · Score: 3, Informative

"beryllium liners remained reasonably intact"
That line gave me pause. To make it it practical it would have to operate for at least 6 to 12 months before the lining was changed since you'd have to go into cold shutdown and be off line for weeks. It doesn't sound like they are even close to that kind of durability. This type of issue is what has kept fusion in the lab. They passed break even a long time ago but they only got slightly more power than it took to sustain the reaction so it'd be like building a nuclear plant to power a house. They've really got to get the durability of the liners to exceed 12 months and the lasers to last even longer or the amount of energy you get out won't justify the expense. I'm a big fan of fusion I'm just also a skeptic, I've been following since the 70s. One added benefit of fusion would be an attractive waste bi-product, Helium.
1. Re:One critical line in the story by SecurityTheatre · 2012-09-18 16:50 · Score: 2
  
  When they talked about "liners" they are talking about the material that is crushed by the magnetic fields. It's the "bullet casing" to the nuclear slug.
  I suspect they're talking about something like this:
  http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/100128-coslog-hohlraum-466px-10a.jpg
2. Re:One critical line in the story by phantomfive · 2012-09-18 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  It might not actually be a problem to be offline for a few weeks, depending on the cost. If you can get it cheap enough, you can build two side-by-side, and when one is in repairs, turn on the other one. If it ends up like Mr Fusion, well, then just buy a new one every few months, no problem.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Chuckstar · 2012-09-18 13:55 · Score: 1

I'm laughing really hard right now. How do they have any idea how long it would take to develop fusion power? Or how much money it might take? It's entirely possible that you could draw the "never" line on that graph at $100 billion a year. We just don't know.
Remember, at the time they thought we just needed to refine magnetic confinement. That's been an interesting scientific problem, but even more problematic than anyone expected. IIRC, it's now been shown mathematically that you cannot fully confine plasma into a toroid using magnetic fields. So you have to work the reactor design such that the leaks are confined to areas with extra shielding.
ITER will cost EUR15 billion, and maybe will lead to a much more expensive follow-on plant. The follow-on plant would still only be a commercial pilot plant (best case).
(In fainess, though, a nuclear aircraft carrier costs $10 billion, so we're still not talking about budget-breaking projects if the U.S. were to throw all-in.)
2050 by Joe_Dragon · 2012-09-18 14:13 · Score: 1

will come out in 2050.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by c0lo · 2012-09-18 15:35 · Score: 1

Nuclear energy research has been funded the same way the internet was funded, the usual way research gets publicly funded in the US (or for that matter, elsewhere): The promise of military applications.
Fortunately, the internet brought a thing called Kickstarter... anyone willing to start a campaign?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-18 18:04 · Score: 1

My little one-kilojoule capacitor bank for exploding fruit is quite capable of crashing a mobile phone placed nearby with the mini-EMP it produces. A problem that ruined a few recordings before I got a camera with a zoom. The Z machine must be quite a bit worse in that regard. Anyone with an electronic medical implant would have to be excluded from the demonstrations.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-18 18:11 · Score: 1

The saddest part was of the various scenarios like "fusion in 10 years", "fusion in 20 years", there was a "fusion never" line where funding was never sufficient to yield breakeven fusion, and then there was overlaid a new "actual funding" line which was significantly lower than that. :(
The saddest part to me is that their estimate for funds needed to do it in shortest terms possible is $80 billion - which is about one year of war in Afghanistan. Even if they're off by an order of magnitude, US alone could still fund fusion power to completion solely off the money it has pissed off into the wind in the last decade.
The real news by Neil+Boekend · 2012-09-18 19:12 · Score: 1

The most interesting thing is that they have found a way to do something useful with that massive defense budget.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
They better give it away..... by Desmoden · 2012-09-18 19:44 · Score: 1

If they sell it the run the risk of creating jobs...which the government is never suppose to do ;-)
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Vintermann · 2012-09-18 20:53 · Score: 1

I didn't say it was a false promise. The thing about the arpanet being able to function after a nuclear exchange, however, was pretty suspect.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:No! by galanom · 2012-09-18 22:06 · Score: 1

They did use steam engines to open large temple doors. It was a matter of priorities, and gods were given precedence.
That is the same with fusion. The first fusion bomb was made I think in late 40's or early 50's. They all said we'll be capable to have energy for civilian purposes in some 40 years. It didn't happen. Just because gov't (both American and Soviet, the latter produced a 200Mt bomb!!) preferred allocate funds for making bigger and bigger bombs (as if fission bombs were not strong enough) rather than producing clean energy.
I'm not pacifist, ok? But I'm pissed off when great discoveries are first given priority to the military rather to the well being of the people.
To infinity and beyond! by Julz · 2012-09-18 22:31 · Score: 1

Pair this with http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/09/17/2229257/warp-drive-might-be-less-impossible-than-previously-thought and we might just get the attention of the passing star cruiser ;-)

--
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Re:No! by yog · 2012-09-19 01:19 · Score: 1

But controlled fusion is quite different, and a lot more difficult than, uncontrolled fusion. Otherwise, we'd long since have fusion power plants up and running.
I do agree it's a shame that the first and foremost use of this power is military applications. But, it's the old story. If we didn't do it, they would, and then we'd be nothing but ashes.
We're making progress, at least. I wonder whether we could be making faster progress if we were throwing more money at the research. Perhaps. But there are only so many nuclear physicists out there, and only so many brilliant engineers who come up with these amazing systems for controlling and containing the fusion reaction.
Sometimes discoveries just happen randomly, too; you can't necessarily rush the process.

--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Re:Stop hating. "cold fusion" != "fusion" by Chuckstar · 2012-09-19 01:44 · Score: 1

Many a budget has been busted by orders of magnitude using those types of assumptions.
It's just around the corner! by Chiminea · 2012-09-19 04:35 · Score: 1

Oh yeah this means fusion power is just around the corner (again). Bitch has more corners than a broken Rubick's cube...
Re:No! by galanom · 2012-09-19 05:56 · Score: 1

That story reminds me our story in Greece. "Buy more weapons or Turks will invade you" arms dealers told us. And we bought tanks, airplanes, submarines, until we reached half a trillion dollars debt, we practically bankrupt and we became slaves of our lenders. Life became so unbearable that I had to emigrate.
Solution would be mutual agreements between the US, Russia and China for controlling weapons - both to cut down costs and to enable such great technology as nuclear fusion to be used in production for the good of the people.
Has Betteridge's Law of Headlines been overused? by Twisted64 · 2012-09-19 18:47 · Score: 1

n/t

--
Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.