Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Basement Nuclear Reactor

cylonlover writes "If Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, is correct, the future of energy may lie in a nuclear reactor small enough and safe enough to be installed where the home water heater once sat. Using weak nuclear forces that turn nickel and hydrogen into a new source of atomic energy, the process offers a light, portable means of producing tremendous amounts of energy for the amount of fuel used. It could conceivably power homes, revolutionize transportation and even clean the environment."

368 comments

  1. One small problem by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    "But what about the terrorists?"

    Government: Approval Denied.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:One small problem by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      "But what about the terrorists?"

      I'm sure the CIA would love them to be developing bombs that have no net energy release. It makes givng them cupcake recipes look positively hazardous.

    2. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Warning: Tubgirl alert!

    3. Re:One small problem by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you RTFA you find it is not expected to produce objectionable byproducts like regular reactors. It says that unlike fission and fusion reactions that depend on the strong nuclear force for their energy this is drawing energy from the weak nuclear force. Like fusion though it appears to be mostly in the experimental stage and is years away from practical application. One difficulty they have is they need to generate vibrations in the 5-30 THz range which the researcher calls "the valley of inaccessibility".

    4. Re:One small problem by Knuckles · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess its practical application is 30 years away.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    5. Re:One small problem by symbolset · · Score: 2

      Believe it or not, the CIA has quite an active cupcake special interest group. They're not all trying to find ways to make their microwave mind control ways penetrate your tinfoil helmet. Well, not all the time anyways. Some members of the cupcake SIG might be working on that too.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    7. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's quite a difference between a girl and a boy. You'll find out one day

    8. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meh, I was so hoping to see tubgirl this morning too and instead he gives me goatse.

    9. Re:One small problem by hrvatska · · Score: 4, Informative
      I thought the one small problem was the one cited in the article.

      LENR is a very long way from the day when you can go out and buy a home nuclear reactor. In fact, it still has to be proven that the phenomenon even exists

    10. Re:One small problem by Colan · · Score: 2

      BUT, as the researchers go on to say, it's the 'valley of inaccessibility' only because “between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency.” What we should actually be worried about is whether the phenomenon actually exists. (Also according to the article.)

    11. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion is in the experimental stage. We understand fusion theory well enough. We're just trying to figure out how to make a reactor that works.

      LENR isn't even in the experimental stage. It's in the theoretical stage. All we've got now is a hypothesis. And it's a pretty shaky one at that.

    12. Re:One small problem by Moabz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the author of the story hasn't completely understood. The phenomenon exists, that's quite clear.

      Robert Duncan, Vice Chancellor for Research University of Missouri: "There have been great advances in this discipline over the last five years by research labs and private institutions around the world, and this work will be explored at ICCF-18. The Naval Research Lab (NRL), and many other excellent laboratories have confirmed that the excess heat effects reported by Fleischmann and Pons are real, and roughly one thousand times larger than can be attributed to a chemical process." http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/welcome.php

      Dennis Bushnell, NASA: "The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena. " http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html

      President of the Italian National Agency For Energy (ENEA): "In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process." http://old.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/volumi/V2008_16_ColdFusion.html (foreword of the book)

      What the phenomenon is, that is still unknown.

    13. Re:One small problem by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even go as far as theoretical stage, more like science fiction stage.

    14. Re:One small problem by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Narrow band. LENR is not real.

    15. Re:One small problem by Goaway · · Score: 1

      No, it is definitely not "clear". There are people who claim to have results, but there is definitely no conclusive proof as of yet.

    16. Re:One small problem by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But what about the terrorists?"

      I'm sure the CIA would love them to be developing bombs that have no net energy release. It makes givng them cupcake recipes look positively hazardous.

      In the UK its illegal for anyone to possess information that might be useful in commiting an act of terror. So that pretty much bans all knowledge

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    17. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the Slashdot Poster who moonlights as a nuclear physicist. Naw...more likely as an accountant.

    18. Re:One small problem by Down_in_the_Park · · Score: 2

      The AC Josephson effect (Wikipedia) With a fixed voltage across the junctions, the phase will vary linearly with time and the current will be an AC current with amplitude and frequency . The complete expression for the current drive becomes .... This means a Josephson junction can act as a perfect voltage-to-frequency converter. So if you can apply 30 V to a Josephson junction you would get 14 THz...

      --
      "People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

      B F
    19. Re:One small problem by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Informative

      But what about all those reactors that blew up or melted (in TFA)? Or were they cheating and just bombarding the nickel with slow neutrons? One would think that if they produced an exothermic reaction even one time and weren't complete Pons and Fleishman nutcases they'd be able to pick up the beta (if not gamma) signature of the events. I'm also a bit curious as to just where the energy produced "comes out". They assert that no gamma rays happen. They get electron and neutrino out. Presumably we're talking about order of MeV/event, so the reaction produces order of MeV electrons (we hope, as energy going into neutrinos is gone forever) and a certain amount of lattice recoil in the now-copper nucleus. MeV electrons seem to have enough energy to produce an electron-positron cascade and convert at least some of the energy into X-rays (ionizing radiation). Probably relatively easily stopped (as is the beta itself) but the process would likely not be "radiation free". Finally, those same electrons seem as though they have the right general range of energy to be captured by the hydrogen nuclei (or would, if they didn't scatter on the way in and if there was any sort of cross-section) leaving open the possibility that the electrons themselves would create the requisite electron excitation and some sort of chain reaction might be possible.

      Interesting idea, in other words, but TFA doesn't clarify the underlying physics to the point where it is really intelligible.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    20. Re:One small problem by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      So if you can apply 30 V to a Josephson junction you would get 14 THz...

      ...until the black smoke comes out.

    21. Re:One small problem by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      No, it will never see the light of day as all public utilities will show tv commercials with irradiated Japanese abortions all caused by nuclear power of any kind. Go government monopolies.

    22. Re:One small problem by tibit · · Score: 1

      You missed the key words:

      This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    23. Re:One small problem by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

      In the UK its illegal for anyone to possess information that might be useful in commiting an act of terror. So that pretty much bans all knowledge

      But it does explain a lot about Comprehensive Education.

    24. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In those ranges we don't have any "good" sources, but thanks to a big interest in research in the last ten years, there are a variety of sources of different quality and power levels that work in that range.

    25. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AC Josephson effect (Wikipedia)
      With a fixed voltage across the junctions, the phase will vary linearly with time and the current will be an AC current with amplitude and frequency . The complete expression for the current drive becomes .... This means a Josephson junction can act as a perfect voltage-to-frequency converter.

      So if you can apply 30 V to a Josephson junction you would get 14 THz...

      I guess you'd get a breakdown of superconductivity, at which point the Josephson junction ceases to be one.

    26. Re:One small problem by Down_in_the_Park · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know scaling a voltage on a Josephson junction might be difficult, but apart from those little technical problems ... ;-)

      --
      "People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

      B F
    27. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you ever seen a tankless electric hot water heater? Sure, they suck big floppy donkey dicks, but clearly what was meant is that this device would end up functioning as both an electricity generator and a hot water heater.

    28. Re:One small problem by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA you find it is not expected to produce objectionable byproducts like regular reactors.

      Right. It's entirely safe despite releasing "several million times more energy than chemical reactions". It does this through weak nuclear force interactions, which are 10 orders of magnitude weaker than the electromagnetic ones that drive chemistry. Despite energy output per event being millions of times greater than typical binding energy of chemical bonds (because one event is described as consuming one atom of fuel), no ionizing radiation is released. Oh, and it sounds like getting this thing to work even in theory requires creating a non-thermal energy distribution in the electrons of the fuel.

      I call bullshit.

      --

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

    29. Re:One small problem by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      In the UK its illegal for anyone to possess information that might be useful in commiting an act of terror. So that pretty much bans all knowledge

      Indeed ... armed with only Newton's laws of motions, I could come up with all sorts of dastardly things.

      And don't even get me started on gravity. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    30. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are a government monopoly, why do they need the commercials? If they need the commercials, why are they not running it now?

    31. Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah man, so long since I've seen tub girl

  2. Cool idea, but never happen... by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I think technically this is possible, IMO it will never happen. Imagine the following tagline:

    "Have enough electricity for 20 years"

    Do you really think any power plant company will want this? Of course maybe somebody will sell for 20 years, and 35K, thus making it not that useful. The only reason why we are not using our own generators right now is because they are too tedious and twiddly factor. If you could produce reliable energy without the twiddle factor we would not be in this mess we are.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago, I would have writtent this down to paranoid rantings, but the past few years show that corporations that lobby enough can actually write their own laws, and enforce them not only in the USA, but all over the world.

      So far we've only had the RIAA who are small and poor compared to the energy industry giants.

    2. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only reason why we are not using our own generators right now is because they are too tedious and twiddly factor. If you could produce reliable energy without the twiddle factor we would not be in this mess we are.

      Ummm... I recently installed PVes on my roof. Tedious? I don't think so. Expensive? It was 1.5 month worth of my wage. Warranty for 25 years, I guess they'll last at least 12 without degrading in performance too much. Reliable? Well, as reliable as the Sun is... would I be able to invest in an 15K buffer system, I'm sure I could live "off power grid" even in winter time (summer time, I'm pushing on the grid twice as much as I'm consuming).

      What point I'm trying to make? I'm less dependent know on the power producers than I was 1 year ago and I didn't need to sell my first born for it.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMO it will never happen. Imagine the following tagline:

      "Have enough electricity for 20 years"

      Do you really think any power plant company will want this?

      About 20 years ago a friend and I were discussing hard disks. My first PC had a 300 MB hard drive, and he had just gotten one with a 1 GB drive. I noted how capacity was growing, and some day we would have 1 TB drives. He said no, the hard drive manufacturers would never allow it. According to him, 1 TB was so much storage you could buy one and never have to buy another drive for the rest of your life. No way the hard drive manufacturers would ever sell something which put themselves out of business.

      Well, we all know how that turned out. If you build it, people will find a use for it. For energy, off the top of my head I can think of a few tremendously high-power applications which will probably become feasible with the advent of cheap power. You can desalinate all the drinking and irrigation water the entire planet needs. You can atomize toxic compounds like dioxins, decomposing them into their constituent elements. You can convert CO2 back into O2 gas and carbon (soot), reversing a century of greenhouse gas emissions. You can power railguns to launch large quantities of fuel and other supplies into orbit to construct spacecraft for manned interplanetary missions (currently the energy cost is $5k-$10k per kg put into low earth orbit).

      So the power companies may not be making as much money selling household power. But they'll certainly be making money selling power for other uses. Probably a lot more money than they're making now.

    4. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I doubt the "all over the world". China for instance is unlikely to bow to US lobby demands.

      So if LENR turns out to be real, I expect the following sequence of events to happen:
      1) Western energy industry giants badmouth the technology and lobby against it.
      2) China, Russia and maybe India will use it anyway.
      3) Above countries have considerable economic advantages, get stronger in comparison to USA.
      4) US politicians panic. Having LENR is declared a matter of national security, opposition from energy industry giants is overruled ;-)

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    5. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by somersault · · Score: 1

      1 TB was so much storage you could buy one and never have to buy another drive for the rest of your life

      So hard drives were presumably a bit more reliable back then? I've heard people saying that they have older drives that have kept going, but modern ones fail a lot faster. So maybe he was right?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by NalosLayor · · Score: 1

      Electric Utilites were quite happy to make their regulated profits selling more, ever cheaper power. It was really only a combination of the oil crises of the 70's, de-nuclearisation and government incentives to cut energy use that turned that tide. People today like to make fun of the old idea of electricity "too cheap to meter" but remember, your local phone bill is that way (wasn't in the past), and your internet access and water used to be that way too, until certain forces reversed the tide of history.

    7. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Nyh · · Score: 1

      If the US companies are stalling this development I bet soon enough some Japanese or Chinese companies think is is a great idea and start selling it all over the world. Just like electric cars, pv solar cells. US companies may even try to block import of those great power supplies and make the US into some backward country where they are still burning fossil fuels for energy while the rest of the world moves on.

    8. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by tbird81 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, newer HDD drives tend to be much more reliable.

    9. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only reason why we are not using our own generators right now is because they are too tedious and twiddly factor."

      But nailing cables to wooden posts on millions of miles is not tedious? And doing it again and again after each storm, tornado, blizzard, termite attack and whatnot? That comes out of your pocket.

    10. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, at current electricity rates of 24cent KwH, many would be interested in an old fashioned alpha decay emitter - uranium dioxide reactor. I'm sure the chinese can make on cheap enough. the downside: These must not go in normal scrap metal collections.

    11. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Rational · · Score: 1

      Quite the turnaround, to pin our hopes for the future on China and Russia.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    12. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Your friend was also correct: how many of those drive manufacturers are out of business now?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    13. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      You can power railguns to launch large quantities of fuel and other supplies into orbit to construct spacecraft for manned interplanetary missions (currently the energy cost is $5k-$10k per kg put into low earth orbit).

      Energy costs aren't the hurdle there.

    14. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also born of ignorance: conspiracy theories depend on every allegedly greedy company acting with surprising benevolence for it's community of allegedly greedy companies.

      They all fall down where they simply assume that all these companies unanimously feel they'll be better off if they collaborate and suppress something. They never manage to explain why every individual conspirator wouldn't be working as hard as they can to eliminate the others, which gets especially murky when you consider that the individual companies aren't companies but people, and people get concerned about things like legacy and principles and whatever (which simultaneously leads to good things - tech companies building spaceships - and bad things - the Koch brothers believing they're still fighting communism or something).

    15. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Bit errors per tb or whatever. Observing new hard drives don't last as long is also simply a product of the amount of physical atoms representing each bit getting smaller and smaller. There's a reason conspiracy theories die on Occam's Razor.

    16. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 years ago hard drives were still so new tech that most people had yet to suffer a hard drive death and consequent data loss. Today almost everybody has, but the quoted discussion took place in another context.

    17. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by deimtee · · Score: 1

      No, the energy cost is about $10 per kilogram. The $10,000/kg is for the infrastructure to get it there.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    18. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that this will never happen, but for very different reasons. It's the NIMBY's that will be the death of this, because NUCLEAR SCARY. I used to live near Indian Point, widely argued to be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in the U.S. I actually had a chance to tour the plant (if you have a chance to do this, jump at it, I'm sure most slashdotters would enjoy it) and see how it operates and all the safeguards. I'm also an engineer and I have a brain, so I understand the population density is a concern, but people have this horrible fear that it will explode or that it will kill fish. Yes, this is a real concern; the Hudson River Sturgeon may be at risk. If you're not familiar with the plight of the Hudson River Sturgeon let me put this in context: the Hudson River is so polluted that some government agency recommends you do not eat more than one fish per month from the river and no one is eating Sturgeon anyway. Why does this matter? It doesn't. Even if it did, the fish are not actually in danger, there is an extensive screening system around the water inlets that protects the fish. However, these are the kinds of arguments people come up with to combat something that they're afraid of. These people can't live without electricity, but refuse any and all forms of power generation. They don't want wind turbines because it will disrupt the landscape and kill birds. They don't want solar because it's too expensive. Why not put new technology into the old coal-fired plant? No. Too dirty. Drill for natural gas (even without fracking)? No. We don't want those big trucks driving all over. We have been reduced to importing electricity from Canada, but wait! Stop! I don't like that! There is a plan to run a large cable down the Hudson River to NYC (literally an extension cord from Canada). It will be underwater most of the way. For the small stretch it will have to come onto land it will be buried under railroad tracks. There are people fighting this because... well, I don't really know why. This is what I hear day in and day out. If some technology like this was allowed, I'm sure my local newspaper will create a map of people with nuclear reactors in their basement.

    19. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Yes, the power company would never want some of their customers to actually be producing electricity and putting it on the Grid where the electric company gets to set the price they pay for it. They would much rather be slaves to the price of coal and fluctuating demands of its customers.

    20. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar probably wouldn't run most Slashdotter's desktops, especially during the normal hours of use. This on the other hand...

    21. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When there is "billions" of dollars involved in the rental of those units how can you say that "companies" are altruisic, Biggest line since?
      Be realistic. Remember maslov needs. Remember your history. All is controled by the biggest beast. The biggest beast gets the girls that screw around the most because of maslov theories. What you want would be nice but you don't see humanity moving that way, they are forgeting their civilization and moving back to the woods. maslov wins again. Shows what happens in each pile of droppings. The uberwealthy are supposed to have a computer program that show the monitary desert for our future, they have rearranged the variables, from inputs to show what stocks and bonds to buy, to outputs to show where to aggregate wealth. Supposed to be from a bunch of family's that speciliazed in the maths of societies/probabilities in the 1930's. A leftover from another power trip.

    22. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's means it is

    23. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      da fuq would power companies be asked about it?
      that kind of bullshit is exactly that keeps free energy con men in bread, implying that we would have flying cars if it weren't for the evil Ford and GM.
      the reason we don't have this is that we don't know how to make it work - at all, in any scale.

      the reason we aren't running our own coal and oil generators at home(most of us aren't) is that it's stupid from logistics point of view and scale point of view.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    24. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's interesting. What exactly did you buy? How much did it cost? I'd love to learn more details. Maybe I can do the same on my roof.

      AU, Melbourne - your mileage may vary (see page 5. Melbourne is pretty shitty when it comes to weather); it also help to have a home rated to "5 star energy efficiency" - even if it not quite far out of the ordinary
      poly-crystalline, not the top efficiency but not the top price/kW installed either (I have enough roof space). $7800 for 4.5 kW installed power - they offered plans for finance running for 2 years, but the price was low enough to spare myself of extra loan fees. The guys seems to operate in US as well.

    25. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Nice trick there, telling us the cost based on your "wage" - which to us is an arbitrary number. How many monthly electricity payments did it cost you? How long before it pays for itself?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you only spent 1.5 months of your wage on your PV install you either didn't install a very large system, or, you make a tremendous amount of money (before tax rebates).

      PV panels begin degrading as soon as they're put into service. I'd imagine that, while your warranty is for 25 years, you really have something more along the lines of:

      Year 1 - 100% of output.
      Years 2-10 - 90% of output.
      Years 3-25 - 80% of output.

      Source - Me, I had a 6kw system installed last fall, to the tune of about $31,000 - pretax rebate. After all is said and done, it'll be closer to $13,000 out of my pocket. Still a pretty hefty sum of money.

      And for the record, it was tedious as crap. Dealing with an HOA who didn't know the laws, the inspectors, the installers, the neighors, it was a lot of freakin' work. And that's before the guys or the equipment showed up on site.

    27. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While I think technically this is possible, IMO it will never happen. Imagine the following tagline:

      "Have enough electricity for 20 years"

      Do you really think any power plant company will want this? Of course maybe somebody will sell for 20 years, and 35K, thus making it not that useful. The only reason why we are not using our own generators right now is because they are too tedious and twiddly factor. If you could produce reliable energy without the twiddle factor we would not be in this mess we are.

      Geez, the absolute worst that energy companies will be able to do is not produce it - geee, someone else will. I'd be more worried about the government - electricity from something like this will be nigh impossible to tax, and unlike solar it will actually make a noticeable impact on the budget. Add to this the fact that they don't even have to admit it's all about taxes and keeping the fat govts well-fed, they can just start scaremongering and pretending that they are protecting us from Chernobyl in your neighbour's backyard. Make no mistake, this technology will get banned and you'll go to federal prison for YEARS for using it - before it even appears on radar of some energy company.

    28. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Solar probably wouldn't run most Slashdotter's desktops, especially during the normal hours of use. This on the other hand...

      It runs mine, and they (2 x) are running day and nighr (I'm just too lazy to power them down) and are not a low down spec: AMD FX-8150, 32 GB RAM, 3 HDD in RAID 5. The video cards are not screamers, though.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    29. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes when nations do not like each other very much it increases economic competition. You can use that example of hard drives and how greatly they have improved as an example. But if all hard drives were made in the US you can bet the companies would conspire to keep prices high.
                                    And that issue will have real teeth in the area of energy. As power companies start to play hop scotch with lines passing homes to which they do not sell power the cost of power supply will rise. And it will rise a lot. think about being the last home on your block to use power from the power company. That easement still must be maintained yet where twelve homes on your block used to buy power now only you exist for billing purposes. It sets the stage for regulatory wars. Now imagine that you are the only remaining customer in your suburb. Think of the cost of power delivery. Will they still have night crews when black outs hit? If a storm hits and takes down power lines will it be a good investment to repair the lines? Will generating plants have to be knocked down to be replaced with smaller plants that are more efficient and making smaller amounts of power? This is ripe for sever social conflict.

    30. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4) US politicians panic. Having LENR is declared a matter of national security, terrorist nuclear material factories in China, Russia, and maybe India are blown up.

      FTFY

    31. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Nice trick there, telling us the cost based on your "wage" - which to us is an arbitrary number.

      For me, it's very concrete, believe me, but you don't expect to make public my payslip on /., do you? (all I can say, I'm not paid to the top of the industry, I enjoy a quiet life now).

      How many monthly electricity payments did it cost you? How long before it pays for itself?

      My estimations for the time to total RoI: between 5 and 6 years at the current rates on energy. But they do have a nasty habit to increase year after year in Australia so it may be shorter.
      (they say that's because of network maintenance: I reckon their insurance premiums went up)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    32. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      That is because you are dumb enough to put them on poles all over the place in the first instance. In other saner countries like the U.K. the vast majority of the local distribution network is underground.

    33. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interesting theory, and that may actually be the case.. however, lets look at the cable industry, specifically Comcast, in my neighbourhood.

      When FIOS was released, about 80% of the people in my little corner of the neighbourhood switched in an instant (for obvious reasons being service sucks, as does customer service and it was over priced). I live in a part of the area where we have around 30 or so houses, and no through street, around 25 or so of those houses now have FIOS.. the remaining few people all have Comcast, and its dirt cheep, they (Comcast) have been throwing freebies and discounted services at those few remaining customers, because if they switch, they lose their foothold in our part of the community.

      So in this instance, the exact opposite of what you propose would happen actually occurred. And they have similar costs when it comes to easement maintenance.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    34. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also have PV panels on my roof. Sure, the first step is to make your house use as little power as necessary by switching to LED lights and turn off appliances when you don't need them. I don't live in Arizona anymore, but I think they could live without building another power plant just fine out there if 90% of roofs had solar installed during the construction phase. It would have been seen as normal. But, even in Ohio, I make more power than I use March - October. And it still produces some power this time of year.

      My system cost 5% of my home's value or about $7500. It isn't that big, just 8 panels. If I didn't have a 2 story house and a bigger roof, I could have done it myself and doubled the size of the system for the same price.

    35. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Theoretically it's not possible. How in the hell do you leap to technically possible?

    36. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Source - Me, I had a 6kw system installed last fall, to the tune of about $31,000 - pretax rebate.

      Wadda? (Never mind, Americans must be nuts)

      Cheers, mates! Down here, the beer actually have taste, women glow, men chunder (used to plunder, but no more) and the PV-es are a bargain You'd better take cover.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    37. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      They'll last you longer than that. The house I am living in has a PV array on the roof. I don't know the exact specs since I am only renting, but I do have access to the power meters. The panels have been installed in 1994, so they are an even older generation. Yet still, I managed to draw nothing from the grid even now in the German winter on sunny days. That is with two computers, two fridges and two freezers running. I just moved in in December, so I haven't seen the summer performance yet - but I expect a LOW electricity bill this year. Happy independence!

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    38. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by pla · · Score: 2

      Nice trick there, telling us the cost based on your "wage" - which to us is an arbitrary number. How many monthly electricity payments did it cost you? How long before it pays for itself?

      Not really a trick. PV systems have come way down, particularly in the last two years (the US actually punished China for making them too cleap).

      You can get individual panels for $1.50 to $2 a Watt now. In bulk (such as a full pallet that you'd use for covering your roof), you can get them under a dollar per Watt.

      You don't need battery banks and charge controllers and all that crap unless you want to go purely off-grid. Most people going for a whole-house installation use a 5KW grid-tie inverter in the sub-$2k range (if you want to go with a smaller "toy" installation, you can get 1500W grid-tie inverters for a few hundred bucks).

      Payback time? Depends where you live, of course, but for me (in the cool cloudy high-latitude US Northeast), 3 years, realistically.

    39. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your tin foil hat is a little too tight. This article is pseudo-science at best. Rename it all you want... Cold Fusion doesn't exist.

    40. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      creating infrastructure costs energy. refining metals costs a lot of energy.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    41. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      In the past, groups of companies have shown a considerable degree of cooperation in trying to influence politics. Usually that takes the form of founding trade organizations which then do the actual lobbying. For instance the RIAA when it comes to lobbying for stricter copyright laws. No assumption here, simply observation ;-)

      For an example of suppression that has at least some evidence behind it, consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    42. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Well, I wrote "if LENR is real". Also, if NASA takes it serious enough to do research on it, it seems premature to claim it does not exist.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    43. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Source - Me, I had a 6kw system installed last fall, to the tune of about $31,000 - pretax rebate.

      Ah, I know now why the US citizens pay through their noses maybe 4-6 times more than the selling price including transport by fast courier... their govt needs taxes! (that's bonkers. A family that pays less on power bills will have more money to spend on something else)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    44. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Did you know that you can build a trans-dimensional teleportation device out of nothing but aluminum? Large corporations of preventing you from knowing of this remarkable technology.

      See, if you form a bowl-shaped structure from a thin sheet of aluminum and place it on your head then you will be instantly transported into a universe where corporations are organized enough to cooperate to prevent you from having free energy.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    45. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      In the past, groups of companies have shown a considerable degree of cooperation in trying to influence politics. Usually that takes the form of founding trade organizations which then do the actual lobbying. For instance the RIAA when it comes to lobbying for stricter copyright laws. No assumption here, simply observation ;-)

      For an example of suppression that has at least some evidence behind it, consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries.

      The RIAA is a legal organization that acts overtly. It also doesn't consist of a bunch of companies agreeing to intentionally limit their core business activities.

    46. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Wow, that IS a lot cheaper. Just 3 years ago, my co-worker installed a system that was 1/3 paid for by the state and 1/3 paid for by the feds. His payoff period is about 6 years or so. He has an all-electric house, so his use case was ideal. Did you also get a heavy subsidy, or have the panel prices really crashed so much?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    47. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      What's your payback period? That is, how much do you estimate it lowered your electric bill by such that you can recover your $7500?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    48. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one who mentioned your wage! :) Thanks for the more concrete numbers... ROI is far more useful than percent of your wage.

      That's an amazing drop in price. Just 3 years ago ROI was around 15-20 years in my area (PA) unless you were lucky enough to get the big government incentives.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    49. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      The RIAA is a legal organization that acts overtly. It also doesn't consist of a bunch of companies agreeing to intentionally limit their core business activities.

      I'm not suggesting that the energy industry would do anything differently. What I would expect is an alliance of companies that feel threatened by the new competition, lets call it the EIAA. Acting legally and overtly, it is not like lobbying is illegal in the USA.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    50. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by pla · · Score: 1

      Did you also get a heavy subsidy, or have the panel prices really crashed so much?

      The (federal) tax credits don't expire until 2016, so you can still get them. But the prices I quoted count as full retail, you can get them right off Amazon.

      You can even get "starter kits" in the sub-500W range to prove to yourself whether or not it will work in your situation. They come with 2-4 panels and a 500W "plug-and-play inverter (you literally just plug it into an outlet, though you do need to take care not to overload that particular circuit - 20A from the grid + 5A from solar means you could possibly draw 25A on wire not rated for it without blowing the breaker). You'll pay a bit more for that because of the small scale, in the $2-$3/watt range, but for a total under $1000.

    51. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by kwerle · · Score: 1
    52. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget you receive money from the grid for what you contribute as well as save on the bills you're no longer paying.

      5-6 years on something that will last 25 seems a fantastic deal.

    53. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they stopped that in California.

    54. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I used 15,000 kW-h last year. My area seems to get about 3.5 hours of sun on average. That gives me a panel size of around 15.7 kW. At $1/watt, that puts me at $15,700. Fed subsidy gets it down to around $10,000 plus install. Last year I spent $2392 on electric. Not too bad - 4 years return for the cost of panels.

      Realistically, though, most online calculators tell me that total cost after installation and tax rebates is more like $20,000... so my payback is more like 8 years.

      But hell, if costs keep coming down, maybe I'll be up for it the next time I need a new roof.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    55. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one who mentioned your wage! :) Thanks for the more concrete numbers... ROI is far more useful than percent of your wage.

      Percentage of wages supported my point of "didn't need to sacrifice my first born". I mean, everybody knows buying a tire factory in India is the way of tomorrow in term of ROI (wink) but who can afford it?

      That's an amazing drop in price. Just 3 years ago ROI was around 15-20 years in my area (PA) unless you were lucky enough to get the big government incentives.

      Unfortunately, for you it still is. I know now why.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    56. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Percentage of wages supported my point of "didn't need to sacrifice my first born". I mean, everybody knows buying a tire factory in India is the way of tomorrow in term of ROI (wink) but who can afford it?

      Ahhh, but you CAN still invest your money in an Indian tire factory via equities and bonds. That's why ROI for the panels is so important. If I'm tying up my capital for 15 years, I want to be sure it all works out! I have the money for an install, but right now it is sitting in equities earning over 10%... now, I don't expect to get that kind of return consistently, but I need to know what I'm up against.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    57. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Percentage of wages supported my point of "didn't need to sacrifice my first born". I mean, everybody knows buying a tire factory in India is the way of tomorrow in term of ROI (wink) but who can afford it?

      Ahhh, but you CAN still invest your money in an Indian tire factory via equities and bonds. That's why ROI for the panels is so important. If I'm tying up my capital for 15 years, I want to be sure it all works out! I have the money for an install, but right now it is sitting in equities earning over 10%... now, I don't expect to get that kind of return consistently, but I need to know what I'm up against.

      I see you are not risk adverse. Tell you what: if you can get around custom taxes (or have them at decent level), maybe you can try to import the panels for your own use (instead of for resale) and arrange for a local installer to put them up and running... maybe even get some rebates from feds or whoever.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    58. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, right now I'm fine with risk. Talk to me as I get closer to retirement :)

      Wow, will those panels really last 20-30 years on a roof? I'm picturing myself spending a lot of time up on the roof soldering replacement panels in!

      (And I AM risk averse when it comes to heights!)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    59. Re: Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also born of ignorance: conspiracy theories depend on every allegedly greedy company acting with surprising benevolence for it's community of allegedly greedy companies."

      Lol, so you think corporations are not led by greedy people? they just make all that money 300+ times that of their average employee because of ...charitable reasons?

      And yes, believe it or not Cpt Whitewash, corporations in specific industries DO INDEED organize to represent their own interests. Whether that constitutes a conspiracy depends on whether they are trying to do something illegal or immoral, and a lot of that is very subjective based on your position uphill or downhill from the industry.

    60. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Wow, will those panels really last 20-30 years on a roof? I'm picturing myself spending a lot of time up on the roof soldering replacement panels in!

      To be sincere, I don't know. Note they are actually "modules" (no longer individual panels to be soldered together) so they actually might.
      In Australia, without aberrant custom taxes, the "installation industry" really took off. The price is about $1.5-$1.6/W installed on your roof and dropping... the 25y warranty was offered to me by the installer (and most probably backed by the manufacturer).

      Here's an insight on what a mature "installation industry" has to do with the prices.

      And here's a site that seems to offer reasonable prices with the added advantage you can actually ask them about warranty conditions.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    61. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it scales downward nicely and produces decent power while being small enough to be portable, I wouldn't be too surprised if a company like Tesla Motors would start investigating the technology. It would be a huge selling point if your car's driving range changed from X number of hours on battery charge to X number of years of LENR reactor unit life. Something that could seriously change the industry if safe and reliable enough.

      Which leads to the next question, how soon until the petroleum industry attempts to buy out those developing the tech?

    62. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been reading up on the state-of-the-art today thanks to your post. The import duties are a factor, but it seems our installation is where things go really wrong. Those Chinese panels are still under a buck a watt, even with the import duty... but the installation is absurd.

      I read a lot of theories on the reasons behind this, and I suspect that it is our balkanized regulations. Every city, county, and state - perhaps even home owners association - is going to have different rules regarding solar panels. The paperwork alone is probably worth a couple of cents per watt!

      Anyway, the fact that we have gotten to the point where the price of solar panels is almost in the noise is just staggering to me. It's almost as cheap as asphalt roofing! And since the lifetime is similar, it makes me wonder if an all-in-one product doesn't make sense. I would gladly pay $15,000 for a solar-shingled roof than $10,000 for asphalt shingles plus another $10,000 for solar panels.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    63. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not commercially viable: 1.5kw*6hrs of sunlight /day*365 days/year*$0.1/kW.hrs=$328/year and installation would be $1.5/W*1500W+$1000(inverter and wire) = $3,250 based on your numbers thats a simple 10 year ROI, and excludes installation labor, which would typically double the cost. I know some of the costs may be lower / higher to make the ROI look better, but the critical factor is if you see companies installing them then it is worth the expense. If an ROI is less than 7 years its an automatic for most companies to procede with energy efficiency upgrades. At my company, we spec a fair amount of small site solar where grid power is not available, or viable to install.

    64. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Just 3 years ago ROI was around 15-20 years in my area (PA)

      But AU gets eight more hours of daily sun than PA. Check today's forecast and you'll see it's true!

    65. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not really a trick. PV systems have come way down, particularly in the last two years (the US actually punished China for making them too cleap)."

      No, what the US did was punish China for dumping them here. In this parlance, dumping means selling them for less than they cost to make in order to drive out the other producers and corner the market.

      But feel free to wear your tinfoil hat as tightly as you wish.

    66. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the NIMBY's that will be the death of this, because NUCULAR SCARY

      FTFY

    67. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      You forgot a whole possible path:
      Energy industry appears to embrace the new technology, builds reactors for countries nobody cares much about, and the flaws built into them cause notable problems. Energy industry points a finger and says "See? This isn't a safe technology after all! Now shut up and enjoy your coal!".

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    68. Re:Cool idea, but never happen... by ssyladin · · Score: 1

      Nuclear energy was supposed to usher in an era where electricity was too cheap to meter based on per capita consumption at the time. Not quite what happened, but use has exploded (http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/). Probably the same thing will happen if this approach ever takes off - people will continue to consume, either at home or via proxy in industry, transportation, and commerce, more and more energy to support 1st world lifestyles.

  3. Legitimate science, there are not alone by Moabz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There have been quite a few news reports about LENR lately. There seems to be a revival in legitimate scientific research into this area. University of Missouri is running a 5.5 million USD research project, and scientists at other institutes like Purdue, Illinois-UIUC, NASA, MIT, SRI, NRL are all looking into it.

    A couple of days ago the Nuclear Energy Institute was talking about it on their facebook page and the American Nuclear Society posted a similar story on their "nuclear cafe".

    The University of Missouri will host a cold fusion conference in July this year and George Miley from Illinois (UIUC) will discuss his research results in a talk at the upcoming "Nuclear & Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS-2013) organized by the ANS starting coming Monday. (http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/)

    On a ANS meeting in November 2012 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries reported about their transmutation experiment and successful replications of the experiment at Toyota lab.

    1. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      You guys change your story every week.

      So changing your opinion in the face of evidence instead of holding onto a blind belief is a bad thing?

    2. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There have been quite a few news reports about LENR lately.

      Unfortunately, this is largely the result of Andrea Rossi, who claims to have Megawatt power plants for sale. This is almost certainly an investment scam, but it has produced quite a bit of publicity.

    3. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This NASA article is citing the following paper:

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

      Any physicists here able to comment on the validity of this? It was published in a reputable journal (nothing to do with "new energy times")

    4. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      And yet no peer reviewed research published let alone reproduce-able results. It is not legitimate science.

    5. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by delt0r · · Score: 1

      What evidence? There is none. No good scientist are putting anything behind this, because there is no theory, no data that matched even the pie in the sky theory, and a crap load of experimental data that says its does not work.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    6. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Where does the neutron come from again? Why is there no decay from the resultant nuclei? This is not fringe, its plain bad science. Show me the data. Oh thats right the data they claim to have is not even consistent with the theory that right out of a star trek episode.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    7. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded Troll.

      No good scientist are putting anything behind this

      Who the fuck are you to pass judgement on any of the people working on this? You are just some stupid Slashdot poster parroting back shit you've heard and you have no fucking clue what the state of that research is.

    8. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Where does the neutron come from again?

      I skeptical about the proton + electron -> neutron thing, but lets set that mechanism aside. The end result is Ni + H -> Cu. I'd have to check the isotope tables again, but there are common and stable isotopes of Nickle that are one proton away from being a stable isotope of Copper. The mass difference offers more energy that plain hydrogen fusion. End result is nuclear fusion with no radiation. If (yes IF) this could work with deuterium, the number of starting and ending isotopes usable goes up dramatically. Then there's the whole set of possible reactions starting with Pd or other elements.

      There is nothing wrong with the high level physics. The problem is nobody really knows what causes these reactions to occur or how to optimize the process.

    9. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by jmulvey · · Score: 2

      Ha. The LENR research at University of Missouri is being performed by the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Rennaisance (SKINR). That makes it LENR-SKINR... like the band

    10. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by delt0r · · Score: 1

      There are no stable Cu+n isotopes. You get a unstable Cu that decays via +Beta decay. aka a positron is emitted. This in turn combines with another electron to produce two ~500keV gammas. When you run all the numbers a 1MW plant is producing kW of gammas with natural Cu.

      There is *so* much wrong with the high level physics its a joke. Protons and electrons do not spontaneously combine under the standard model like this. In fact this gives a results about white dwarf stars, and how big they are before they turn into neutron stars. The only other way is electron capture. This again is something that occurs close to the nucleus from the inner shell electrons and is a rare form of decay. The energies they claim are involved with not even get close to affecting the inner shells... let alone get a proton to tunnel in and somehow magically combine with a electron.......

      We have a lot of data and results on this sort of thing. There is nothing all that special about the conditions that they claim make this work. In fact there are lot of industrial process that reproduce the claimed condition's and we observe no such thing.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    11. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been a lot of scientists that tried examining or repeating such experiments and failed. If you are going to support or agree with a particular side in the mess, you will end up passing judgment on the opposite side that screwed up their experiments.

    12. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to all the physicists and institutes that spoke out against the experiments and their results? Obviously there is at least one set of physicists that are wrong.

      And yes, some physicists read slashdot and try to answer questions... although some of us end up stop bothering because of responses like this (among many others).

    13. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by gr8_phk · · Score: 2

      Nickel 62 and 64 are both stable. Add a proton to get Copper 63 or 65 which are both stable. The mystery is how such a thing can happen, but there is also no need for radiation to come out of it. Traditional physics doesn't deal with the conditions described where there is metal saturated with hydrogen. On the other hand, it's well known that nickel and others can hold a lot of hydrogen and it has been used as a storage mechanism without any crazy overheating. On yet another hand, batteries of similar construction do have thermal runaway issues if not charged properly.

      I really had a problem with the physicist rejecting "cold fusion" and claiming it had to be a chemical reaction - without offering any explanation of what that reaction might be. Of course the chemists were doing the same - saying it's fusion without indicating what the reaction may be. Now we're at the point where an overall reaction is claimed but the mechanism in a mystery, and so far it's more plausible than any proposed chemical reaction (since there aren't any proposed chemical reactions to explain it). The only thing left is to think that these folks can't do calorimetry - you know, chemists.

    14. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Ops.. was thinking it was copper. But also they claim to produce a neutron from Hydrogen and then that neutron gets sucked into Ni, ie otherwise there would be all this neutron radiation. Also the standard model does require some radiation for these reactions for the different quantum numbers to be preserved. The weak force often produces neutrinos. Neutron capture can produce gammas.

      Fact is that no reproducible experiment has ever shown net energy out, and for anything that they claim to be true the standard model must be very wrong. There is a lot of data pointing to the standard model being spot on so far. None of this passes even the most basic acid test.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    15. Re:Legitimate science, there are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traditional physics doesn't deal with the conditions described where there is metal saturated with hydrogen.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional physics" in this context. Physicists have certainly had to deal with interactions between metals and protons in many nuclear and particle physics experiments, and there is some pretty heavy modeling out there for experiments that are very sensitive to any the results of any reactions produced by the vessel they are contained in (usually because they are trying to avoid that and need to know what won't produce a reaction). I definitely know there are least ones involving high pressure hydrogen and copper, although I'm not familiar if any by chanced ended up using nickle in such a setup.

      Anyways, I think what many supporters are now trying to argue is not that it involves new physics, but that is the same traditional physics applied to a very specific situation. That would at least help explain why no other implications of such things have been seen in highly sensitive experiments under similar, but not quite the same conditions.

  4. Show me one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    just one single instance in which cold fu- i mean, low-energy nuclear reactions have EVER been publicly and transparently demonstrated to work.

    1. Re:Show me one by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      THANK YOU!

    2. Re:Show me one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Science is all about Dog and Pony shows.

      Oprah! Where are you? We have an experiment we want the world to see!

    3. Re:Show me one by careysub · · Score: 1

      It is all about verifiable, repeatable experiments - Oh Anonymous Moron.

      Tell me how those N-Rays are working out for you. (Google it.)

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:Show me one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or for a more recent example with more wide spread support, look at the mess surrounding polywater. It got several reproductions, although a lot of failures to reproduce, and even support from military agencies thinking it was too important to pass up. It turned out to be the result of bad experimental protocol: glassware not as clean as thought and incorrectly calibrated equipment. That allowed reproductions to show up when other people tried, but the more careful experimenters couldn't reproduce it.

      You have to be careful making comparisons to such historic cases, as it might not always be obvious which side is the more careful scientists doing things correctly and which are the ones being sloppy. But nonetheless, the arguments and fights between those that thought something had conclusively proven to be there and those that had not were incredibly similar to some of the LENR stuff (except maybe polywater was much more accepted, and backed by more institutes for a period of time).

  5. Tamper-proof? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

    It may be "safe" but is it secure against tampering? Once someone has physical access it is pretty difficult to secure anything.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Tamper-proof? by Issarlk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Absolutely, there will be copper inside that thing. Your fusion central heater will be stolen in no time.

    2. Re:Tamper-proof? by c0lo · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? Stolen with a copper inside? Can you imagine the thieves surprise when opening the box and getting arrested on the spot?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Tamper-proof? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Arrested because it's a "fusion" thing? What's the matter if it produces the same level of energy as a petrol generator? It's not like they can turn it into a H-bomb.

    4. Re:Tamper-proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrested because it's a "fusion" thing? What's the matter if it produces the same level of energy as a petrol generator? It's not like they can turn it into a H-bomb.

      A copper, two coppers - they usually don't fuse.

      Doesn' ring a bell yet? Spoiler

    5. Re:Tamper-proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, arrested because the Copper was inside, probably polishing his billy club.

    6. Re:Tamper-proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evenin' all... ...!

    7. Re:Tamper-proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copper. Arrest.

      C'mon, work with me here.

    8. Re:Tamper-proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooooooosh!

    9. Re:Tamper-proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrested because it's a "fusion" thing? What's the matter if it produces the same level of energy as a petrol generator? It's not like they can turn it into a H-bomb.

      The parent was humor: "Copper" is slang for "police officer".

    10. Re:Tamper-proof? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      They're talking about something you drop into your house, where your furnace/water heater/whatever else would be. Why would you want to be prevented from tampering with your own appliance?

  6. Like fusion. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

    Like fusion power, it sounds like this technology is 50 years away.

    1. Re:Like fusion. . . by azalin · · Score: 1

      The "future" from "Back to the future" had a Mr Fusion in less than 50 years from now. And flying cars! Where is my flying car dammit?

    2. Re:Like fusion. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "future" from "Back to the future" had a Mr Fusion in less than 50 years from now. And flying cars! Where is my flying car dammit?

      Your robot maid probably stole it.

    3. Re:Like fusion. . . by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Fusion is actually about 80 billion dollars away. Funding has asymptotically gone down since the 70s, so considering it in that context (i.e. a certain amount of equipment and researchers are generally needed to develop it) it's not surprising it's always 50 years away.

    4. Re:Like fusion. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like fusion power, it sounds like this technology is 50 years away.

      The difference is that fusion is well understood and universally accepted. It's "only" a very difficult engineering problem.

      Cold fusion ("LENR") hasn't been proven to even exist. There have been some interesting papers, but many of them are the result of poor measurements. In spite of what the LENR enthusiasts say, there is no compelling reason to accept that LENR is real.

      That's part of what Dr. Zawodny is trying to determine. AFAIK, he hasn't released any results one way or the other.

    5. Re:Like fusion. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get the people who made one a lot of money to make you one. Then you get a pilots license, and permission to fly it. Then get it registered and insured and inspected so that it can be driven on public roads... Then you get to have all the fun paying for the fuel!

    6. Re:Like fusion. . . by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      dont call me dammit, its pronounced 'Da-meet' accentuated on the 1st syllable, I-gor.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  7. This is stupid. by Barnett · · Score: 0

    If something can be done on a small scale, it can be done better on a large scale This is why we have power stations.

    1. Re:This is stupid. by mdenham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Three comments:
      1) Not everything scales up at linear-or-better rates;
      2) Better distribution of anything reduces the impact of failures; and
      3) Who the hell said anything about no more power stations anyway?

    2. Re:This is stupid. by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      If something can be done on a small scale, it can be done better on a large scale This is why we have power stations.

      ... and brothels?

    3. Re:This is stupid. by a_hanso · · Score: 0

      Quantum entangle me an apple.

    4. Re:This is stupid. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      There's benefits of small units to.

      Imagine a car or ship for instance.

    5. Re:This is stupid. by Chatsubo · · Score: 1

      Honest question: If it works on a small scale couldn't we just build lots of them all in one location? We already have the distribution network.

      That would give you economies of scale in maintenance on production, but you'd still sit with the maintenance of the distribution network, which you could perhaps eliminate if you rather sell individual units. I can also imagine that companies would not mind shifting the burden of maintenance cost onto the individual, even if it is more expensive overall. In fact maybe _because_ it's more expensive overall.

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    6. Re:This is stupid. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      4) Producing electricity far away from where it is used is inefficient since transporting electricity is quite inefficient.

    7. Re:This is stupid. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      True if you only consider power generation in itself, but there are other factors such as distribution. That's why we have power stations (and an extensive national grid), but we still have small individual power plants in our cars. If this technology scales down well (and works at all...), then large power stations could be a thing of the past. A more efficient setup could mean small, local grids at the town, neighborhood or even street level with a few small plants supplying power, and a few crossovers for redundancy. And for those living out in the sticks, a home power plant may well be the more economical option.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:This is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But but but 3D printed superconductors from space?

    9. Re:This is stupid. by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      I guess it would depend on the cost of maintenance. If those things are rather fiddly and need lots of maintenance, concentrating them in one place with maintenance staff on site might be most economical.

      If they are low-maintenance, individual units win economically.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    10. Re:This is stupid. by quenda · · Score: 1

      If something can be done on a small scale, it can be done better on a large scale This is why we have power stations.

      Many cities pipe hot water from those power stations to homes for heating and washing.
      I suppose you think anyone who has their own home heating furnace or water heater is backward and inefficient?

    11. Re:This is stupid. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      4) Producing electricity far away from where it is used is inefficient since transporting electricity is quite inefficient.

      Whereas transporting hydrogen is easy and loss free.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    12. Re:This is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you 3D print the hydrogen where you need it. DUH.

    13. Re:This is stupid. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Also from a self-funding perspetive: people are happier with buy-to-own then rent contracts, because it perceptually opens leeway for improvements in maintenance practice or cost-saving. At the very least it gives you a mark to aim for for "free" electricity.

    14. Re:This is stupid. by Grayhand · · Score: 2, Funny

      If something can be done on a small scale, it can be done better on a large scale This is why we have power stations.

      ... and brothels?

      In this country we call a large scale whore house Congress.

    15. Re:This is stupid. by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Actually pretty much every system has an optimum scale. Very few continue to improve indefinitely on scaling up. If your point was correct, there would be one very large power station somewhere in the world.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    16. Re:This is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question: If it works on a small scale couldn't we just build lots of them all in one location? We already have the distribution network.

      Actually, we don't. This is one of the reasons why electric cars still haven't taken off (so to speak.)

    17. Re:This is stupid. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      4) Producing electricity far away from where it is used is inefficient since transporting electricity is quite inefficient.

      Why? It doesn't weigh anything.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:This is stupid. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      Okay.. I'll bite (I seriously hope you are joking.. by transport, I am sure he transfer, although transport is a perfectly acceptable term when it comes to moving electricity around power grids).

      That said, if you are referring to transport in the physical sense, in actuality, it is extremely heavy, since you would require a storage container for the electrical charge before you can transport it. I believe we like to call such transport containers... Batteries. I know, its new, you may have not yet heard of such a thing. In bulk, to move megawatts of power, you need a metric shit ton of them.. and they weight quite a bit.... /sarcasm ... sorta..

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    19. Re:This is stupid. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Joking or dumb? Transfer of energy through wires incurs a rather significant loss.

    20. Re:This is stupid. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't they just ship nickel hydride in bulk?

      (It's just a shame this doesn't actually work.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    21. Re:This is stupid. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      If something can be done on a small scale, it can be done better on a large scale This is why we have power stations.

      ... and brothels?

      In this country we call a large scale whore house Congress.

      soo.. scaling things up doesn't make them better for the customer?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    22. Re:This is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over distances of up to hundreds of kilometers or more, transport and distribution of electricity is 95+% efficient, often getting closer to 97-98% efficient. It would not take much scale of economy to make a central power plant more efficient than a distributed system. The only reasons to push for personal power systems would be those that live away from distribution, independence from power companies, or an argument about reliability that would depend on the exact maintenance requirements of a commercialized system that we don't have yet.

    23. Re:This is stupid. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      4) Producing electricity far away from where it is used is inefficient since transporting electricity is quite inefficient.

      If you had to take a guess, how efficient would you say the U.S. power grid is? If you send 100 kilowatt-hours in at the power plant, how much reaches the consumers, hundreds or thousands of miles away?

      Would you believe 94%?

      The modern power grid is one of the most efficient machines ever invented. You can thank Tesla and Westinghouse for that.

      http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm

    24. Re:This is stupid. by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      The loss is almost negligible (about 6% for the U.S. electrical distribution system.)

      http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm

    25. Re:This is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although transport is a perfectly acceptable term when it comes to moving electricity around power grids

      Not really. With alternating current, the electrons just wiggle in the conductor. Nothing electric is transported, only the energy.

    26. Re:This is stupid. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      You are right, the Transmission & Distribution cost is about 6-8%. The total energy loss (difference in energy in the extracted coal compared to what comes out of the socket) is 65% or so, the majority lost in the production phase, not the T&D phase. My bad.

    27. Re:This is stupid. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

      If it was that simple, we would just run lines straight from the power station to peoples houses and connect them up in parallel. There is a reason why transmission lines use 200kV and up to transmit power. If there was no loss, then there would be no need, we could just cram 120 (or 240) volts down the line at 100 000A and be done with it.

      Instead, power is sent our of the station at high voltages, and stepped down to the appropriate power (for commercial, 380V 3 phase, for housing 120 to 240V) to account for losses along the way, amongst other reasons.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    28. Re:This is stupid. by cusco · · Score: 1

      Sure, you could do that. You could also install a dumb terminal in your house and do all of your web browsing on a virtual PC in the cloud. Sometimes that sort of thing makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. It remains to be seen if the final product needs regular maintenance , where it makes sense to put them all in one spot, or not, where it makes sense to eliminate the losses from the distribution network.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  8. good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by fantomas · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Good luck with recycling that, where I live it's hard enough to get rid of used auto oil at the local dump (municipal recycling facility).

    And if it's like any other "white goods" it's going to be upgraded, have parts replaced, newer model put in.

      Going to love what happens when your old nuclear powerplant goes past its warranty date and you want some new hoses, want to chuck out the old model for a bigger model etc. How does that work for the local recycling facilities? or if you want to knock down an old house and level the ground so you've got to dump an old nuclear reactor somewhere?

    I'm sure there's a simple answer, please enlighten me. Apparently some cities have mountains of discarded washing machines/fridges/other white goods, will we have the same of nuclear reactors?

    1. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by dam.capsule.org · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.

      So l do not really see a recycling/upgrading/replacing process.

      --
      What sig ?
    2. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if we get one of these in every home it will be a case of "deploy them all now to make immediate returns for the company and please the shareholders". They'll worry about disposing of them when the time comes and them some scheme will come in that will find some way (which might not be cost effective during deployment) that will reclaim resources from them.

    3. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0
      Ah, see, I knew there would be an ignorant enviro here to shit all over this new idea.

      Better stick to using coal, then.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by symbolset · · Score: 0

      In a world with Nuclear Boy Scouts I'm not comfortable with home appliances that create antineutrinos.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's a white good, and it'll be disposed of just like other white goods. Although considering that this is a cold fus... I mean LENR reactor, you may have to drain the snake oil first.

    6. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Good luck with recycling that, where I live it's hard enough to get rid of used auto oil at the local dump (municipal recycling facility).

      They found a way to dispose of radioactive smoke detectors. If they can get the radiation low enough, they can find a way to easily dispose of these new devices as well.

    7. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the article:

      This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.

      So l do not really see a recycling/upgrading/replacing process.

      Thanks for quoting that particular bit. This illustrates a point about trying to "dumb down" theories for the general public to understand.

      I love how they describe beta decay in the same breath as they say "without dangerous ionizing radiation" in that quote.

      More from TFA:

      Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water.

      A bit misleading there, since there may be no radioactive fuel sitting around, but they supposedly produce a radioactive nickel isotope in the process. (Nickel and copper are naturally slightly radioactive, but it's so weak I'll cut them some slack on that point) Still, I'd like to see some numbers to back up the idea that all slow neutrons would immediately react with the nickel, with none escaping into nearby materials.

      At this point, I'm thinking the author is trying too hard to simplify his explanation. Or I might be giving him too much credit since he seems to be whitewashing the subject just a little bit.

      Still more from TFA:

      In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted – showing that if it really works, it can produce an impressive amount of energy.

      Or, this could have nothing to do with LENR, and simply indicate that some LENR researchers are ignorant of the fact that nickel (along with palladium and platinum, if the LENR experiment used one of those instead) are commonly used as catalysts for reacting hydrogen with unsaturated molecules like oxygen, and promptly blew up the experiment by not removing/excluding said element from the apparatus.

      OK, forget what I said about the author oversimplifying this for the public. He's clearly either trying to share his kool-aid, or hopelessly ignorant. Probably both.

    8. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by captjc · · Score: 1

      Well coal is organic and all natural! That's all that matters, right?

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    9. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by Goaway · · Score: 1

      I struggle to think of anything in this universe that is less harmful than an antineutrino.

    10. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      Also, not sure where you live.. but pretty much any auto parts store in the US will take your used oil for free. I cannot imagine its that different in many other parts of the world... where auto parts stores exist.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    11. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a dilemma...a Slashdot Poster vs. a Reporter.

      Dumb and Dumber?

    12. Re:good luck with recycling/upgrading/replacing! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Sounds like you live in a pretty shitty town. I can dispose of used motor oil and filters at any number of auto shops, auto parts stores, or the county recycle center. They are all more than willing to take it as it has value, either to be reused for industrial purposes like with cutting machines, as fuel for heaters, or as base stock for new motor oil. The recycle center even has shelves of stuff you can take for free that people dropped off and because of this I haven't bought solvents, caustic cleaners (muritic acid especially), tung oil, polyurethane, shellac, or spray primer in years. Some times I get some really good finds like unopened containers of the deck stain I use or unopened containers of automotive fluids. Also white goods like you mention are easily recyclable as they are mostly metal and many contain a decent sized electric motor. There are places that will even pay me if I bring them in or they will come and pick them up for free because there is money to be made by recycling them. As far are repairing and replacing parts I recently got my dryer repaired (new drum seal) and it is the original one for the house that was put in 41 years ago. A couple years ago I needed to have the agitator in the similar aged washing machine repaired and that wasn't a problem. I doubt that there will be repairable problems with these reactors if they fall in the same category. Of course they may be like water heaters where the tank fails after a while and then you just replace the whole damn thing but even then it is still recyclable.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  9. Cold fusion again? by a_hanso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "...is called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions or Lattice Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). In the late 1980s, it went by the name of “cold fusion.”

    This claims you can harness the power of the weak nuclear force while turning nickel to copper without releasing ionizing radiation.

    And: "In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted".

    Seriously?

    1. Re:Cold fusion again? by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      But wait, there's more:

      "Zawodny says that the most logical first application of LENR is the home reactor..."

      Are we talking about the same type of logic?

    2. Re:Cold fusion again? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This appears to be the same technology Andrea Rossi claimed to have developed, and is trying to sell. Except he isn't using any kind of radiation. He claims to have some kind of "secret ingredient" he adds to the nickel and hydrogen.

      But both the Navy and NASA have been saying the basic idea might be workable. Is this Rossi guy just borrowing the buzzwords to put together a scam? Or are these other folks actually making him more believable?

    3. Re:Cold fusion again? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I would guess that's due to the hydrogen being used. I'd love to see this work and happen as the article describes, but I'm getting a little fatigued by all these "free energy around the corner" publications. Yes, I know, it's not actually free energy.

      Unfortunately this sounds a bit like the e-cat, which again would be great if it worked, but Andrea Rossi's demonstrations leave a lot to be desired.

    4. Re:Cold fusion again? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's a reaction and a purported mechanism that have been floating around in cold fusion circles for quite a while. It shouldn't be surprising that scam artists, deluded tinkerers, or serious researchers have all considered it.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fusion isn't free energy, but it's certainly a cut above hydrogen fuel cells. It's the difference between eating a cow's eyelash and getting to feast on the whole animal. You'll run out eventually, but significantly later.

    6. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this Rossi guy just borrowing the buzzwords to put together a scam?

      This.

      Rossi has refused to allow any independent confirmation that his device works since he "went public" in January 2011. He has presented a number of "demos" where he allowed witnesses to watch, and sometimes take limited measurements, of his device producing a small amount of steam. Note that he has to provide considerable amounts of electrical power to make his "LENR reaction" work, and it's not at all clear that he's producing more energy than he is putting in.

      Meanwhile, he has been caught in numerous lies about his "business". The most obvious is that for about 3 months he claimed to be "working closely" with National Instruments, and that NI was developing a controller for his device. NI spokesperson Julia Betts finally released a couple of emails categorically denying that NI and Rossi had done any work together. Rossi had approached NI about buying their equipment, but never actually signed a contract.

      None of this has stopped him from selling "franchises" to "every country in the world" for the right to resell his device. After more than two years, there is still no actual evidence that Rossi has anything real.

    7. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E-cat was working with the same technology. Unfortunately all the replications have pointed out the same thing - this is a very fickle reaction. If the conditions aren't just right it will simply not react. Commercialization is still years away.

    8. Re:Cold fusion again? by pla · · Score: 1

      This claims you can harness the power of the weak nuclear force while turning nickel to copper without releasing ionizing radiation.
      And: "In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted".


      "Ionizing radiation" doesn't necessarily melt windows and blow things up. It just has an annoying habit of ripping molecules apart (particularly those giant biological molecules that contain our blueprints), and of taking far too much effort to keep it on the "right" side of a given wall for practical home use.

      Releasing energy in the form of heat, however, can melt windows and blow things up. See: Torch, Dynamite, MOAB.

    9. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can believe labs have blown up because people that don't understand physics and chemistry but have a big budget can do stupid things.

    10. Re:Cold fusion again? by Eowaennor · · Score: 1

      You're correct this is the same approach as Rossi and others, altho the implementation details are probably slightly different. I think the goal of the NASA experiment is to find out what is actually happening (mentioned in a press release from the NASA Langley director which I can't seem to pull up at the moment) rather than throwing around some buzzwords and trying to sell a product.

    11. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted".

      Did the explosions release more energy than was put in?

    12. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a press release saying it is a NASA project, or was it the PR piece that about the one NASA researcher working in his free time, and only published by NASA due to a policy requiring PR pieces for employees' off-time project, regardless of NASA's involvement or support?

    13. Re:Cold fusion again? by tibit · · Score: 1

      If you're cash strapped, I don't see you exactly splurging on NI stuff. Microcontrollers with decent A/D and D/A converters are plenty cheap, same goes for discrete A/D and D/A chips, and all the other stuff you need for signal conditioning and digital control. Never mind who the heck cares what brand you use for control equipment? I think this guy is just trying to leverage familiar names to prop up his scam.

      Alas, his scam doesn't mean the idea is unworkable, or that the serious people who are producing reproducible results are faking it.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    14. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Navy and NASA are filled with scam artists.

    15. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked with, NI data acquisition systems, microcontrollers, and discrete ADC systems, there are some huge differences between them. While microcontrollers have become much easier to use and are cheap, they are frequently quite slow compared to the other two options when it comes to ADC, and have small numbers of channels. Additionally, making the front end to get a robust, high bandwidth measurements, whether with a faster microcontroller or with discrete ADC components, can take a lot of work and expertise. Short of having an engineer volunteer their time, and depending on what you are doing, it is often a lot cheaper to buy a complete NI system that works to spec out of the box and spend your time configuring the experiment instead.

      That said, NI is quite expensive in my opinion, but there are a lot of competing data acquisition companies that are cheaper, even ones that make NI compatible parts to expand already in place systems. And if you need something simpler, without the high speeds or many channels, the type of thing you could do with a microcontroller, there are a lot of premade systems out there for that too that maybe cheaper in the end depending on what kind of engineering staff and time you have.

    16. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My crank detector is beeping softly.

      I read the explanation.

      Electrons are supposed to get highly excited in the metal lattice. I call BS since typically electrons are thermalised and no explanation why and what energies are required.

      The electrons are supposed to combine with protons to form neutrons. I call double BS. In a hydrogen atom or molecule the electron density at the proton is already high, and we don't see spontaneous capture of the electron by the proton.

      I would also like to see verification of the nuclear reactions involved. I would not be surprised to see they don't work at all or have minuscule cross sections.

      .

    17. Re:Cold fusion again? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you misunderstood me. Rossi is trying to sell the product, not NASA.

    18. Re:Cold fusion again? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply that they were intentionally giving him support. I just meant that since NASA is pushing a similar technology, maybe -- just maybe -- it gives him a little more credibility. Whether his thing is actually a hoax, or real.

    19. Re:Cold fusion again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're cash strapped, I don't see you exactly splurging on NI stuff.

      Rossi never bought any National Instruments tools or equipment or engineering. He only approached them about it, then got them to release a press statement stating that he was intending to buy their products (which is all he wanted from them), then he walked away.

      Rossi then lied profusely about it for three months, until a spokesperson for NI (Julia Betts) sent out a couple of emails clearing up the story, and explicitly stating that Rossi was never a customer and that they had not done any work for him.

  10. Maybe NASA will let others play with it by Issarlk · · Score: 2

    Maybe NASA will let other scientists play with it to prove it's not a scam, unlike Rosi's device. We don't even hear about that one anymore, where's the mass produced fusion generator for every home ?

    1. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I don't know details, but it seems he's still moving forward with it.

      I guess he got an Italian patent on it. Does that mean anything? I wouldn't think that proves a lot.

    2. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Rossi is a fraud. Given his device's claimed output, it would be very easy to use it to generate the claimed input power, and make the whole thing self-contained.
      This would be proof it works.
      He absolutely refuses, claiming that you can't run the electronics with the power it generates, because of stability issues. If anyone persists in suggesting it, he throws a tantrum and storms off.
      So it has to stay plugged into the wall, but this handy-dandy little meter he provides shows that it's hardly sucking anything out of the socket. Certainly not enough to boil all that water.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    3. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Of course whether it's boiling "all that water" or rather just some of it is entirely up in the air,

    4. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Rossi is a fraud. Given his device's claimed output, it would be very easy to use it to generate the claimed input power, and make the whole thing self-contained. This would be proof it works."

      He might be a fraud. I'm not trying to say one way or another. But I've seen no evidence that he's a fraud... only lack of evidence that it's genuine. Those are 2 very different things.

      And no, being genuine does NOT mean he'd be eager to show it to the general public. History is full of examples of inventors who held things close to the chest until they could establish some kind of profit-making business model.

      Yes, that would tend to reduce his credibility in the eyes of most people. But it's not evidence that he's a fraud. A number of claims about why it is a hoax have been debunked.

      But again, maybe it's fake, maybe it's not. At this point I don't pretend to know.

    5. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by deimtee · · Score: 1

      He doesn't need to show how it works, just that it does.
      Use the steam to power an off-the-shelf generator, run it through an off-the-shelf power conditioner to get whatever levels of "clean" it needs, and then disconnect it from everything else. Discloses nothing of his technology
      If he would do that, and still get his claimed results he would get billions thrown at him.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    6. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Use the steam to power an off-the-shelf generator, run it through an off-the-shelf power conditioner to get whatever levels of "clean" it needs, and then disconnect it from everything else. Discloses nothing of his technology"

      That isn't just showing that it works. That's showing that it works the way YOU want it to. Sure, that would prove the technology to a lot of people's satisfaction. But that's not the same thing. (But by the way: while it still isn't proof of anything, there are reports that he has been working with Siemens AG on exactly that.)

      He has shown it working. Just not in ways that have been satisfactory to a lot of people. In order for skeptics to be convinced that it is actually working, without any trickery, many want to know how it works.

      Granted, his "demonstrations" have left a lot to be desired, and leave him looking like a quack. But he has stated reasons for that which could well be legitimate.

      So yeah, in summary, he looks a lot like a quack. And he might be. Or he might not. But there is simply no solid evidence one way or the other. I'll wait for that before making up my mind.

    7. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by deimtee · · Score: 1

      "Use the steam to power an off-the-shelf generator, run it through an off-the-shelf power conditioner to get whatever levels of "clean" it needs, and then disconnect it from everything else. Discloses nothing of his technology"

      That isn't just showing that it works. That's showing that it works the way YOU want it to. Sure, that would prove the technology to a lot of people's satisfaction. But that's not the same thing. (But by the way: while it still isn't proof of anything, there are reports that he has been working with Siemens AG on exactly that.)

      No, it would show it working exactly the way he claims. His claim is that it takes a small amount of input power to generate large amounts of heat in the form of wet steam.
      He refuses to isolate his machine and he also refuses independent measurement of the input power.
      He is either a crook or self-deluded to the point where he thinks faking the results is acceptable.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    8. Re:Maybe NASA will let others play with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two ways to prove claims like that and to confirm his claims are not wrong (and/or not fraudulent too). He could explain how his device works, so that others can run their own tests, replicating the result and demonstrating it works as he says. Alternatively, he can just give a black box demonstration that shows it works in a way no known methods could reproduce. Considering his claims about what he is trying to market are that it does things not possible with other technologies, that would be kind of central to confirming his main claims, regardless if his particular explanation of why it works is true or not.

      It would be nice if saying he had customers that are buying it after private demonstrations was enough to prove it worked... but after having done some equipment calibration as a side job earlier in my physics career, I've seen how bad some companies are at testing or checking the devices they buy actually work as claimed. That is especially so for things that are custom built or done with private demos for management or engineers from the wrong specialization.

      But the hard less in life from seeing some of that wasn't about how easy it is to fraud people with nonworking technical equipment, but how easy it was to get away with it. A couple cases involved pretty solid evidence that the company offering the equipment had did so fraudulently, but the victim company chose to drop the issue, either because they didn't want their customers to know they screwed something like that up, or because they didn't want to wade through the legal threats being made by the company that sold them the overpriced paperweight. And so they would go on to get money out of other companies, because it is hard to sometimes have any proof something is a fraud until it is too late, at which point you might not be able to tell anyone about it. That simply leaves red-flags to watch out for and some basic inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning...

  11. Science win by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    " In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted – showing that if it really works, it can produce an impressive amount of energy." I wanna play too.

    1. Re:Science win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted – showing that if it really works, it can produce an impressive amount of energy."

      I wanna play too.

      Blowing up? Sounds like a perfect target for MythBusters!

  12. Sorry, I can't help it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFA:

    "In past years, several labs have blown up while studying LENR and windows have melted"

    Must have been ME or something

    1. Re: Sorry, I can't help it by symbolset · · Score: 1

      If you want to see windows melt all you have to do is wait. If you're in a hurry, bypass the firewall.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  13. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by Stoutlimb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you read the article, the reactions only work if you subject it to THz wave EM energy. So damaging this type of reactor would only ever have one kind of effect... it would stop working and go back to being a big lump of inert metal. Assuming it works in the first place after all.

  14. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by DKlineburg · · Score: 1

    RTFA - There is no nuke waste. Oh this is /.

    --
    Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
  15. alchemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this turns nickel into copper. Call back when it turns lead into gold.

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

      Call back when it turns lead into gold.

      Yeah, but not for the reason you think. The only way to really profit would be to buy a lot of GLD puts the day before you demonstrate gold bars coming off a conveyor belt for $1/oz energy input.

  16. when can I order one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sound great - I want at least a couple to power my mainframe in the garage

  17. I can see the marketing slogan right now by CoolGopher · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Brought to you by the knights who say NiH!"

  18. Re:Legitimate science, they are not alone by Moabz · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was a colloquium at CERN last year, see http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379

    you will find the presentation about the Widom-Larsen-Srivastava that TFA talks about.

    you will also find the slides about the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries transmutation experiment (and the Toyota replication of it) http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=5&materialId=slides&confId=177379

    As mentioned above it was also presented at the American Nuclear Society's winter meeting in Nov 2012:

    "Replication experiments have been performed in some universities or institutes mainly in Japan. T.Higashiyama et al. of Osaka University observed transmutation of Cs into Pr in 2003[7]. H.Yamada et al. performed similar experiments using Cs and detected increase of mass number 137 by TOF-SIMS. They used a couple of nano-structured Pd multilayer thin film and observed the increase of mass number 141 (corresponding to Pr) only when 133Cs was given on the Pd sample [8]. N. Takhashi et al., the researchers of Toyota Central R&D Labs, presented that they detected Pr from the permeated Pd sample using SOR x-ray at Spring-8 and the detected Pr was confirmed by ICP-MS and TOF-SIMS [8]." http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf

  19. Rossi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word: bullshit. One name: Rossi.

    This is the exact principle of working of Rossi's device, the E-Cat, which is a hoax out of proportions. Even distinguished scientist here in Sweden have been fooled by that crazy italian. Just google for the evidence, or lack there of. Evidence rebuting the working of the actual device said to implement the theory are many.

    As for the therory, you cannot rule it out. Though, my bets are not on that horse. Solar power, not only through PE, simple, readily available, down to earth energy. Keep it simple stupid!

    Sidenote: Terahertz frequencies are generated when removing adhesive tape, with a broad peak around 18THz [citation completely missing]. /Oscar Campbell

  20. Chart of the nuclides by balsy2001 · · Score: 5, Informative

    All kinds of information nuclear reactions and decay is available in "Nuclides and Isotopes", a chart of the nuclides published by KAPL (Knowles Atomic Power Laboratory). I recommend the "chart" in book form as it comes with a bunch of nuclear physics discussion. Based on the description in the article Ni+n=Cu+e. There is only one stable isotope of Ni that has a chance of going through this process and resulting in a stable isotope of copper and that is Ni62. Ni62 is only 3.63% of naturally occurring nickle. The most abundant isotope is Ni58 (68.07%) and it will go to Ni59 with addition of a neutron and will beta decay to Co59. Ni59 has a 7600 year half life so you could continue to change it to Ni60 then Ni61 then Ni62, but all of this wouldn't happen instantaneously as stated in the article (I guess you could start an enrichment plant so you are only using Ni62, but that cost a lot of money and energy and would have to be factored into the energy balance of the final "reactor"). These types of reactions don't take place in nature because the stable isotopes are already at the bottom of the "valley of stability" (have a minimum mass or maximum binding energy, see pages 27-28 of the 16th edition of the "Nuclides and Isotopes"). I guess it is possible that the 30THz vibrations change the local laws of physics, but I will remain skeptical until there is more than speculation. The article states, "LENR is a very long way from the day when you can go out and buy a home nuclear reactor. In fact, it still has to be proven that the phenomenon even exists, but hundreds of experiments worldwide indicate that heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input do take place with yields of 10 to 100 watts." TFA states that they are not even sure if the phenomenon exists and it doesn't provide the total energy input to the system so you can't tell if 10-100W is noise or error in the measuring equipment (this is one of the things that was going on in the cold fusion of years past).

    --
    GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Stoutlimb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it looks like Dr. Joe Zawodny himself agrees with you that the extraordinary evidence to prove this even works has yet to be demonstrated:

      http://joe.zawodny.com/ That's his private blog, and an interesting read. Looks like he's into model rocketry too.

    2. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      What a wonderful counterpoint to the article. If I had mod points I would give them to you.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Chart of the nuclides by seanellis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nickel-64, at a natural abundance of about 1%, would be a better candidate, as neutron capture would result in Nickel-65 which decays to stable Copper-65 with a very short half-life of 2 hours. This is a "clean" beta-emitter with an energy of about 2.1MeV.

      The overall reaction seems to be p + Ni-64 -> Cu-65 + ve + anti-ve + 2.1MeV. This is at least physically plausible as a reaction. The electron (removed from both sides above) acts as a sort of catalyst, a way to get the proton through the coloumb barrier by transforming it into a neutron.

      Getting the neutrons to collide with Ni-64 nuclei rather than escaping implies a lot of Ni-64, and any escaping neutrons would irradiate everything else nearby, or impurities in the nickel such as the aforementioned Ni-62, or worse Ni-58 which would produce Ni-59, a positron emitter with a half-life of 76000 years.

      But to me, the real red flag on this is getting the hydrogen atoms to collapse into neutrons, a process which I've never heard of before. Even if it's possible, can you get a net gain? Does it take more than 2.1MeV? Slashdot - educate me!

    4. Re:Chart of the nuclides by balsy2001 · · Score: 2

      I missed Ni64, thanks. But it isn't obvious that it is a better choice that Ni62. Ni62 has a larger neutron cross section and higher abundance than Ni64. But who knows if cross section means anything in this scenario, especially after you hit this stuff with 30THz.

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    5. Re:Chart of the nuclides by HalfFlat · · Score: 2

      Beryllium-7 decays naturally (to Lithium) by electron capture, but obviously Hydrogen doesn't, without some sort of push.

      According to one of the presentations at the LENR symposium at CERN last year, the required energy deficit is on the order of 1.28 MeV, which in principle can be supplied by surface plasmons. The author states that observed neutron generation in lightning discharges and piezoelectric rock fracturing can be explained by this process.

    6. Re:Chart of the nuclides by jimbrooking · · Score: 2

      For the record, it's "Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory". I worked there for 15 years.

    7. Re:Chart of the nuclides by balsy2001 · · Score: 1

      I am used to just calling it KAPL (I worked in the "program" too) but got to typing quickly. Did you know the authors?

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    8. Re:Chart of the nuclides by seanellis · · Score: 1

      Master Control P (below) also points out that you need to supply the additional energy (about 0.78MeV) to account for the difference in mass between p+e and n. That sounds like "game over" to me.

      Since the ionization energy of hydrogen is around 14eV, there's nowhere near enough energy in a bound electron to do so, by a factor of 50,000 or so.

      Also, the photoelectric work function for nickel is of the order of 5eV, so I'm pretty sure that unbound electrons at 100,000x that energy would easily boil off the surface, at least until the nickel got charged up enough to prevent it. But then, this residual positive charge would attract lower-energy electrons from the surroundings, effectively cooling the electron gas.

      So, the remaining question is: can the THz radiation boost the energies of sufficient numbers of bound electrons to make the process work?

      The more I look at it, the more skeptical I get.

    9. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the reaction is p + e- -> n (ultra low momentum). The neutrons are moving so slowly due to the fact that the proton was locked in place during electron capture. Once you've got ulm neutrons floating around you will get all kinds of transmutations.

    10. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the link. It is fascinating how the blog and article leave this reader with a comet sly different impression.

    11. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Widom-Larson theory is that the latice (one way or another) is generating enough energy to excite hydrogen electrons into mesons, and then with a little pressure you get muon catalyzed fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

      Muon catalyzed fusion has been known since the 1950s but the net energy was the problem. Apparently, if LENR is valid, the heavy metal latice energize with electrical pulses, sonic waves, vibrations, or whatever is producing the muons at a very cheap rate and makes the muon catalyzed fusion a net gain of many magnitudes.

      Hope that helps.

    12. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My apologies, but the line 'generating enough energy to excite hydrogen electrons into mesons' should read 'generating enough energy to excite hydrogen electrons into muons'.

      I dont know why I keep confusing the two.

    13. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      But to me, the real red flag on this is getting the hydrogen atoms to collapse into neutrons, a process which I've never heard of before. Even if it's possible, can you get a net gain? Does it take more than 2.1MeV? Slashdot - educate me!

      Protons do become neutrons under high pressure/density conditions. Like in neutrons stars... It's not going to happen in a reactor in your basement...

    14. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Something sounds fishy here. Surface plasmons usually are more typically in the energy range of meV than MeV (mill-electron volts, not mega-electron volts). They can influence much higher energy processes when there is another source of energy, such as involvement in photo-emission of ions when a metal is bombarded by a high energy laser, but the plasmons themselves are more a result of improving a quality of the electric field supplied by the laser (and that particular process would be really efficient for driving a reaction with an intent to produce power).

      Piezoelectric effects in the right conditions, along with a few other material effects, can produce large electric fields that can accelerate electrons, particularly in vacuum. So far these are usually limited to 10s of keV in the lab. Work has shown it could produce energies and fields high enough for fusion of hydrogen. Although it is incredibly inefficient in terms of energy, and is instead being studied as a controllable neutron source for potential use in other experiments. Additionally, all of the results I've seen related to such work show such energies are achieved by accelerating electrons over a rather macroscopic distance, hence not directly connected to surface plasmons and something susceptible to a mess of problems and sources of inefficiencies if such a process is to be used in power production.

    15. Re:Chart of the nuclides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If muons were being produced, such a process should be easy to detect even if the production rate were pretty small. It would be pretty amazing to suddenly get 100 MeV of energy in one spot to create that muon, but even more amazing to get rid of the 100 MeV of energy with 0% of the normal decay effects of muons. Especially since there is a lot of study of the effects of materials on muon sources to better understand the materials, and detecting faint muon sources are really important to other research fields.

      Also, it doesn't help that direct conversion between an electron and muon without neutrinos is forbidden by the Standard model (an effect which has been pretty heavily confirmed to be true by experiment). Without some novel source of neutrino and anti-neutrino pairs (which can't be made by just a photon like electron-positron pairs can), you would need something more like the direct conversion of photons into muon and anti-muon pairs, which would require more energy than just the 210 MeV of their masses to be efficient, and would be even more detectable.

  21. Smells like bullshit. by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Looks like a rebranded version of cold fusion, from the same frothing, foaming-at-the-mouth fraudsters, weirdos and cranks.

    Slashdot editors and commentors are so credulous.

    1. Re:Smells like bullshit. by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, NASA Langley Research Centre, those famous cranks. While I really don't think it's true, it's certainly newsworthy that a NASA group of all people are proposing it.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Smells like bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And of course SRI International is just a bunch of cranks too.

      Obligatory link to Cold Fusion talk at SRI a couple of years ago.

    3. Re:Smells like bullshit. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      The article cites two people who work at NASA, not a NASA initiative. Big difference.

    4. Re:Smells like bullshit. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read the source articles:

      The next consideration is "What is real? What is happening?" For NASA Langley, the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory. It is currently under study and experimental verification (or not) at Langley.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Smells like bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There previously has been plenty of problems trying to keep straight what is an actual NASA project and what is just being done by an employee in their free time. Especially considering that NASA has policies to promote and advertise the latter category even if they don't support the research, and then the internet (and many reporters...) run with it and assume it is a full NASA funded project.

    6. Re:Smells like bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, Hansen is only one guy at NASA, yet all his proclamations and predictions seem to carry the full weight of NASA.

    7. Re:Smells like bullshit. by dublin · · Score: 1

      I know several very competent engineers and physicists working in this area. *Something* is going on here, we just don't understand what it is yet. The science and engineering that has been done is enough to show that there is something real behind the anomalous experiments that occasionally show the effect.

      "Cold fusion" is real. It's "global warming" that's B.S.... Funny how Cold Fusion is being rehabilitated as LENR now that there's a couple of decades of strong but anecdotal evidence that the effect really does exist, but yet despite the increasing weakness of the science behind the global warming theory, it continues to be undebateable. That's not how scientific inquiry is supposed to work - we are supposed to follow the *evidence* wherever it leads, and not assume that all of that evidence is correct, either...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    8. Re:Smells like bullshit. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Given that it's NASA saying that it's being done at NASA I'm pretty confident about this one.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  22. Currently used tech? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2

    After reading the article, it appears that the magic formula is subjecting a nickel metal hydride to T-waves. Perhaps all the existing NiMH batteries out on the market can be somehow re-purposed to last forever if someone can invent a portable terahertz wave generator.

    1. Re:Currently used tech? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Batteries generate current, this reaction generates heat, so you couldn't use them directly. Although it would certainly be convenient to just charge up a bunch of old NiMH cells, then use them as "fuel rods".

      (If this were true. I'm sceptical.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  23. NASA said it so it must be true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the story we were all laughingin 2011 when Andrrea Rossi announced his e-Cat units were now functioning?

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/10/06/1430210/does-italian-demo-show-cold-fusion-or-snake-oil

    1. Re:NASA said it so it must be true? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Cranks grab the nearest "mysterious" thing and claim to be exploiting it. It doesn't mean it can't actually do that, but they usually turn out to be devoid of the extraordinary evidence required to prove it.

    2. Re:NASA said it so it must be true? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Hey, wanna buy a bridge, cheap?

      Real estate transactions are very real but when they're too good to be true and you're not allowed to look too closely at the details, you laugh at them.

  24. Not sure if believe... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons to form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms, making them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.

    It does look like the process at least conserves baryon and lepton number, so it's at least prima facie plausible. Unfortunately, e+p is a full 782KeV short of the energy to make a neutron at rest which makes me doubt that this is actually going on.

    1. Re:Not sure if believe... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      there's about 7 quadrillion of those in one watt second of the incoming thz. which, at 10% absorption, means you get about 14x the power out that you put in.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Not sure if believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends heavily on what time scales each particle absorbs that energy versus releases the energy, potentially into a less useful form. If the release process is quick, you would end up with a vast majority of the incoming energy turning into heat. Especially considering if you are dealing with a particle in a bound quantum system, where without even spacings of energy levels, you would need multiphoton absorption, the efficiency of which goes down fast with the number of photons needed.

    3. Re:Not sure if believe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, something doesn't add up there. If you only got 10% efficiency in the transfer of power via THz to the reactions, it would take 7.8 MeV per reaction of energy. The various nickel to copper reactions only produce 4-7 MeV per reaction, you would be falling short of what you put in.

  25. For nickel-63, not feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A back-of-the-envelope estimate suggests you'd need almost 50,000 lbs of pure nickel-63 to generate 13 kW (assumed peak power consumption of your average home) of electricity. That's something like a 12-foot tall cylinder with a diameter of 3 feet. AND I'm assuming that somehow the inventor has overcome self absorption.

    Of course, TFA suggests some method for stimulating beta decay, which would increase the activity, but not the theoretical efficiency. That said, an order of magnitude of increase in activity would mean an order of magnitude decrease in the required mass.

    1. Re:For nickel-63, not feasible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a 6.75-foot tall cylinder with a diameter of 4 feet. Not much larger than the tank of a water heater.

  26. I would invest in this by Bruha · · Score: 1

    For once a scientist has possibly developed a system where were not boiling water. In reality we have never left the steam age as even our most technologically advanced fusion reactors are nothing but steam generators in the end. Here we have something that can finally produce direct electricity in usable currents (Yes there are beta batteries but they're radioactive).

    Airlines the the most doomed industry unless this is brought into commercial production, because eventually fuel will become too expensive and this may be the only viable alternative capable of producing enough thrust energy. Cause there's no way they will use nuclear reactors like the military tried in the 60's.

    1. Re:I would invest in this by IRWolfie- · · Score: 2

      Here we have something that can finally produce direct electricity in usable currents

      This cold fusion device has not been shown to produce any electricity.

    2. Re:I would invest in this by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Rossi's hot cat runs 1200C and can power a high-efficiency turbine generator. The peer review report is antipated in March: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/rossi-to-josephson-report-publication-probably-around-end-of-march/

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  27. It will still be radioactive by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the purpose of this post, I'll accept that they can convert protons to neutrons as described, although I'm very dubious about this.

    Here is a table of nickel isotopes.
    Here is the first source I found for neutron cross sections of nickel isotopes (pdf). (See figure 12, look at the left hand side of each 'destruction channels for ??Ni' plot for what low energy (thermal) neutrons will do.)

    Cross sections are in barns, and are approximate as I'm eyeballing them off a logarithmic scale.
    58Ni [stable, 68% abundant] (0.006 barn) -> 59Ni [-> 59Co, 76000 yr half life]
    59Ni [unstable but long lived] (0.02b) -> 59Co [stable] or (0.005b) ->56 Fe [stable] or (0.004b) -> 60Ni [stable]
    60Ni [stable, 26%] (0.006b) -> 61Ni [stable]
    61Ni [stable, 1%] (0.002b) -> 62Ni [stable]
    62Ni [stable, 4%] (0.006b) -> 63Ni [->63Cu, 100yr]
    63Ni [unstable] (0.001b)-> 64Ni [stable]
    64Ni [stable, 1%] (0.004b) -> 65Ni [->65Cu, 2.5 hr]

    None of the cross sections are hugely larger than the others, so all these reactions will occur with reasonable frequency. So irradiating nickel with thermal neutrons, you are going to produce radioactive 59Co (76000yr), 63Ni (100yr) and 65Ni (2.5hr). The 65Ni isn't a problem - turn off the reactor, wait a couple of days, and it will all be gone. The 59Co is only a bit of a problem - with such a long half life, it isn't very radioactive. The 63Ni however is nasty. Like 137Cs (30yr) from the Fukashima reactors, the half life is short enough to be quite radioactive but long enough that you can't just wait it out. Finally, the nickel won't be 100% pure, so you have to worry about what neutron irradiation will do to the impurities.

    The 65Ni means when you turn off your reactor, it will continue to produce residual heat for hours.

    The article gives the impression that weak nuclear reactions aren't dangerous, but this is not so. If it were, nuclear reactor waste wouldn't be dangerous.

    This reactor will be producing ionizing radiation when running (mostly gamma rays, some beta rays mostly from 65Ni decay, and a tiny amount of alpha particles from 59Co(n,a)56Fe.) This will require some pretty heavy shielding to stop it. (A good sized water bath should work, every 7cm of water halves the radiation and you want hot water anyhow. But concrete is less prone to leak away.) You'd also need to worry about stray neutrons, although I expect that can be fixed with a thin layer of something that has very high thermal neutron cross section and no dangerous daughter products.

    In short, I don't think I want this in my basement.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:It will still be radioactive by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2

      Oops, spotted an error. In the paragraph "None of the cross sections are hugely larger than the others..." read 59Ni for 59Co.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    2. Re:It will still be radioactive by HalfFlat · · Score: 1

      63Ni might have an annoyingly long half-life, but it is a pure beta emitter at a relatively low energy (max 67 keV). I wouldn't lick it, but it is a much more manageable risk than 137Cs, which produces a lot of nasty gamma.

    3. Re:It will still be radioactive by locofungus · · Score: 2

      On my reading of the article the only reaction that makes sense is 64Ni -> 65Cu.

      Either the neutron capture reaction they are looking for specifically targets that species of Ni (which would be as amazing as H -> n in the present of these same T waves) or they're starting with 64Ni (or at least depleted 62Ni Nickel)

      The other thing I wonder is whether this is not a thermal reactor - The beta decay of 65Ni could be directly generating an electric current (which would mean that although the reaction would get hot, it may not be allowed to get hot enough that there would be cooling problems when it shut down)

      So we could have something like low density 64Ni on a thermally inert substrate in an aluminium container with high pressure hydrogen directly generating electricity and, depending on the climate where your house was, the waste heat would either imply more aircon or less space heating needed in the house but no cooling of the reactor other than natural air circulation.

      Feels like bunkum to me though!

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    4. Re:It will still be radioactive by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      The process as pointed out is poorly understood. The anti-neutrinos got my attention. Not sure if they are theorizing their prescience or that they had been detected? They've known for a while now that lightning produces antimatter so there is reason to believe the process can work especially if they are getting anti-neutrinos. Also ionizing radiation is a lot easier to deal with although the need of shielding means you probably won't run a car with one, back to charging batteries. Excellent point about daughter products though. We don't want a new source of lung cancer from our home reactors. Radon is easy enough to shield from so I'm sure the daughter products can be addressed although it'd be a concern when servicing one of the reactors.

    5. Re:It will still be radioactive by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      Good summary, thanks.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:It will still be radioactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reactor will be producing ionizing radiation when running (mostly gamma rays, some beta rays mostly from 65Ni decay, and a tiny amount of alpha particles from 59Co(n,a)56Fe.) This will require some pretty heavy shielding to stop it.

      The article and NASA webpage make it clear that gamma rays are not produced in significant quantities. This is supposed to be due to their absorption by the plasmons. Obviously, the charged particles are trivial to shield.

    7. Re:It will still be radioactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is supposed to be due to their absorption by the plasmons.

      As someone who researches plasmonics for a day job, plasmons absorbing gamma rays sounds like a load of bunk, especially with any conditions similar to what they are doing (e.g. using materials known to mankind).

    8. Re:It will still be radioactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anti-neutrinos got my attention. Not sure if they are theorizing their prescience or that they had been detected?

      The process would violate fundamental laws of physics if those neutrinos would not be produced, so you can pretty much assume that if the rest of the process occurs, the neutrinos are generated, too.

      And I'm sure they didn't detect any neutrinos. Detecting neutrinos is very hard because they only very weakly interact with other particles. Unless you are specifically interested in neutrino physics, you won't build neutrino detectors.

    9. Re:It will still be radioactive by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Is this why there is so much emphasis on 137Cs in the Fukashima aftermath? Lots of nucleotides must have been released, but media reports only talked about two, and I've been wondering why that was.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    10. Re:It will still be radioactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also water-soluble and gets incorporated into the body. Most of the other stuff isn't water-soluble (so it stays where it is), or it isn't biologically active (so it goes in one end and out the other in a hurry), or it emits easy-to-shield radiation, or the half-life is too short or too long to be dangerous. 137Cs combines all the worst attributes of a radioactive material. (The other one you hear about, Iodine-131, has a much shorter half-life at only eight days, but is actively concentrated by the body.)

  28. And now the science.. by tiniebras · · Score: 2

    A nice link explaining the science which intrigued NASA: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Widom-Larsen.php

    1. Re:And now the science.. by IRWolfie- · · Score: 2

      Linking to a pseudo-scientific institute which supports homoeopathy and other nonsense is a good way to kill credibility.

    2. Re:And now the science.. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      There wasn't any credibility here anyway so nothing was lost by posting this link.

  29. Just try... by mbstone · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...getting the landlord to fix the nuclear reactor.

    It's hard enough to get him to fix the water heater.

    1. Re:Just try... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own 3 rental properties and when things break, I fix them immediately.

      Don't paint all landlords with such a broad brush, please.

    2. Re:Just try... by mbstone · · Score: 1

      I used to live in NYC.

      "Quit banging on the pipes up there. I told you, it needs a new uranium condensator and it's on backorder. Should be here by spring."

    3. Re:Just try... by axd1967 · · Score: 1

      darling, did you switch off the reactor when we left?

      --
      -alex-
  30. A Fucking SCAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stuff works because of "melted windows" or what ? Not because they can actually find the after-products of their fission/fusion/whatever.

    A Fine Example Of Your Taxpayer Money Being Burned.

  31. Quote Zawodny by IRWolfie- · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The first line of the article "If Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASAâ(TM)s Langley Research Center, is correct" is misleading. Zawodny hasn't stated that it works or that he thinks it's definitely a real effect.

    Let's look at what Zawodny actually has stated before:

    Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.

    http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/

    That he still holds this opinion is consistent with the quotes in the gizmag article:

    I'm interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it's all about. ... All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works.

  32. No such as 'man made global warming' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Please stop repeating that stupid meme.

    " You can convert CO2 back into O2 gas and carbon (soot), reversing a century of greenhouse gas emissions"

    Why would you want to?

    www.climatedepot.com

    1. Re:No such as 'man made global warming' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't green things do exactly that? but instead of soot, it goes into the mass of the green thing...? solution - plant more trees.

  33. Terraforming Venus by govt-serpent · · Score: 0

    This could be used for terraforming Venus. If someone can work out the decay chain, we can transform the extra abundant elements into Hydrogen, Nitrogen and O2. But what Venus really needs is a large moon.

    1. Re:Terraforming Venus by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      I have been mooning Venus (quite large I assure you) for some time now.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:Terraforming Venus by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Once we have infinite free energy, we can look beyond our own little Solar System. I predict that, within thirty years, we will be creating whole new galaxies.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  34. Sounds great... UNTIL IT EXPLODES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then, the terrorists come alive. And China hackers.

  35. Don't believe a word by physburn · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This device is never going to work, converting protons in neutrons in the metal isn't going to happen, the process requires nearly a MeV of energy that isn't there, (and Terahertz waves are no were near a MeV). This is a cold fusion under different name, cold fusion didn't work, and neither does this. Shame on NASA for supporting research so obviously wrong, and previously debunked.

    1. Re:Don't believe a word by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Completely agree!
      the article says that "he electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them" How??? How does the energy get concentrated at the required MeV level - that energy is WAY above anything involving lattice interactions. If you did have MeV electrons in the lattice they would scatter and create showers and loose that energy very quickly.

      The fundamental problem with all cold fusion type schemes is that nuclear reactions involve MeV scale energies, and chemical reactions involve eV scale energies. There just isn't a credible way to use chemical effects to get the energy concentration that is required. There can be bulk effects (pyroelectricity for example) that can produce energetic particles, but they are no more efficient that accelerators.

      Even if you did produce MeV electrons, very few of those electrons will create the reactions you want, most will just scatter back to lower energy and thermalize.

      Fission is a very special case because neutral particles (neutrons) mediate the reaction, chemistry really isn't involved at all

    2. Re:Don't believe a word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying, is because someone in the 1600s was wrong about what is possible (and there are many more recent examples of being wrong), therefore everyone who says something is not possible is wrong? Are you just saying this because someone is saying it about your pet interests? Or do you apply this universally in some sort of ultra-PC approach that we are not allowed to tell anyone that something they want to do is not possible?

      There are a lot of people who say something is not possible that should be ignored... but that doesn't mean everything is possible.

  36. I was excited until I read further down by paiute · · Score: 2

    "In fact, it still has to be proven that the phenomenon even exists...." When you see this in an otherwise-gushing piece, the bells should go off.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  37. Sounds promising by Grayhand · · Score: 2

    Cold Fusion sounds like snake oil but low energy fusion potentially could be real. People can debate energy and gamma releases all they want but for me if they are finding copper where there wasn't copper before the only way for that to happen is some form of fusion. The beauty of the system is if it works you just have to shield from the gamma release while the reactor is operating. Shutting off the reactor stops the release of gamma radiation. The bi-product when you reprocess the core is copper, a useful element. The problem seems to be creating stable reproducable conditions for a process that's poorly understood. Ironically they may be closer to LENR as an energy source even though hot fusion is far better understood. This could be one of those eureka moments when science changes through a single discovery. People forget such things were commonplace in the 1800s up through the early 1900s. Now the eureka discoveries have to come from more obscure things like LENR since most obvious discoveries have been made.

    1. Re:Sounds promising by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Low energy fusion has no potential of being real.

      Nature just doesn't leave large sources of energy lying around un-tapped. If low energy fusion was possible we would have seen lots of it in nature by now.

    2. Re:Sounds promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can debate energy and gamma releases all they want but for me if they are finding copper where there wasn't copper before the only way for that to happen is some form of fusion.

      Unless it turns out that the copper there is the exact same isotope ratio you would get if you just ground up a piece of copper pipe into the sample when no one is looking, as opposed to the ratio you would expect if you were bombarding nickel indiscriminately with neutrons, or if you were sticking only to the reactions that produce no radiation.

    3. Re:Sounds promising by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > Nature just doesn't leave large sources of energy lying around un-tapped.
      So true. If "Nature" did, we would be able to make fission piles. Oh wait...

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  38. Re:huh by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Funny

    what the fuck is gizmag?

    When I were a lad, we spelled it jizz mag, and we were happy.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  39. Re:It has been done around 2 years ago by ledow · · Score: 1

    Ecat is ridiculed because they cannot demonstrate it in any substantially useful way. They claim to get more energy out than is put into the system. They provide only "black-box" demonstrations that people aren't allowed to inspect the box - let alone what's inside - enough to verify it isn't just plugged into a wall somewhere.

    Demos are notoriously contrived and hidden and all the "quotes" are basically from shills saying they saw things that nobody else at the same demonstration (including people with some proper qualifications) saw at all. That's if you even GET a demo. Half the time they are just delayed, cancelled ("because of the naysayers") or never happen.

    The website STILL currently says, on the front-page, "During 2011/2012, ECAT.com will collect pre-orders and provide answers to inquires from potential customers. Due to the high expected demand for ECAT products, orders will be put on a waiting list and delivery is scheduled for 2012/2013 (depending on product)."

    As yet, there's nothing. And they won't answer if you're not a customer.

    If you want to prove you have something, why hide it? Hide the details, patent the process, show everyone. If you've invented "the next big thing", then you'll want to show it off.

    ECat is a complete con, from what I see. It certainly doesn't show that anything was "done" and certainly not "2 years ago".

  40. NASA now falls for transparent fraud? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Don't they know that LNER is just a rip-off scheme for the gullible? Andrea Rossi has been defrauding people with the E-Cat for years, with one laughably obvious faked demonstration after the other.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:NASA now falls for transparent fraud? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why you feel you need to bring Rossi into this. The weak nuclear force has not been studied anything close to what the strong has especially with respect to application. DoD learned that we could make things go boom in a staggering way by leveraging the strong nuclear force and that's where everyone charged off towards.

      There have been tantalizing glimpses into the potential of applying the weak nuclear force to work for us beginning with the research by Pons and Fleischmann. Unfortunately, the subject had been made taboo for lack of a foundational theory, charlatans and intransigent scientists who've made a career out of the strong nuclear force. Those that have worked in it did so in the dark, much as a caveman would with respect to voltaic cells. Now, a reasonable, (and more importantly) testable theory has been put forward through the efforts of Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen. Testing the theory is precisely what NASA research is aiming to do. The potential here would be incomprehensibly stupid to ignore.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:NASA now falls for transparent fraud? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      NASA article on LENR if anyone is interested.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    3. Re:NASA now falls for transparent fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The potential here would be incomprehensibly stupid to ignore.

      There are two parts to the potential. There is both the potential output, but also the risk/chance of actually getting the output. The former alone is not enough to justify any given research. Otherwise, I could claim to have a cure for all known diseases that I only need $100 to produce, and no further justification needed to get such funding. The disagreement is over the risk of spending limited resources on such research. While many people talk about those that claim to successfully have reproduced the amazing results, many also claim to be unable to reproduce the results. It is not just shortcomings on theory alone that are holding such research back, but problems with the experimental results too.

      And to talk about scientists as if they "made a career out of the strong nuclear force" or to divide people into some sort of strong force versus weak force camp is so messed and nonsensically, it seems to suggest to me that a person either has never actually interacted with scientists in such fields, or they are resorting to misleading rhetoric as some sort of cheap tactic to get support. Having worked with scientists doing both experimental and theoretical work in nuclear structure, the amount of ridiculousness in such a labeling, as if those scientists have something against the weak force or its effects (as opposed to them actually knowing it is there and needing to work with it...), would only further convince people in these fields to not pay attention.

    4. Re:NASA now falls for transparent fraud? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There are a lot more research items with possibly huge payoffs than the human race can fund or even work on. And many have very, very small probabilities to actually works out. So a pre-selection is always needed. This stuff sounds to much like the E-Cat, that fraud is a significant possibility. It also sounds way too good to be true, which again indicates it will not work out with high probability and somebody here is either incompetent or lying. As a consequence, this should be low-priority or no priority work.

      Just to demonstrate how broken you reasoning is: Playing the lottery has a huge potential payoff. Yet it is completely clear that doing it is a waste of money.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:NASA now falls for transparent fraud? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Cum hoc non propter hoc. Because of Rossi, it must be bogus... I suspect you are the one with a logical fallacy. I would refer you to the article by Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center for the rational behind studying the physics and application of the nuclear weak force.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    6. Re:NASA now falls for transparent fraud? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I have read the article. It is on the same level that Rossi et al. are operating, although a bit more honest.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  41. LENR is late to the party even if its comming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if LENR is real it is one step before hot fusion - we still need to remonstrate it happens

  42. Will never happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if it was clean and 100% safe, the big power brokers will not allow it to happen because it would be money out of their pockets.

  43. As seen in Maniac Mansion by big_e_1977 · · Score: 1

    Having a nuclear reactor in your basement is dangerous. Just think... A group of teenagers might break into your house, drain your source of cooling water (also doubles as a heated swimming pool), tamper with your fuse box, push a red button, and inadvertently cause a nuclear meltdown.

  44. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    If you read the article, the reactions only work if you subject it to THz wave EM energy. So damaging this type of reactor would only ever have one kind of effect... it would stop working and go back to being a big lump of inert metal. Assuming it works in the first place after all.

    Only after all the secondary products decay. According to another poster, this thing produces a product with a 100 year half life, that is only slightly less radioactive than plutonium 238 (88 years). How long do you plan on waiting for that to "go back to being a big lump of inert metal"?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  45. definition for all you basement dwellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A "girl" is like your mom, but not related to you.

  46. Capital Wasteland here we come. by lnlypaladin · · Score: 1

    Zawodny says that the most logical first application of LENR is the home reactor, which would produce heat and electricity for the home while charging the family electric car. Another area is in transportation, with the light, portable reactors powering supersonic aircraft and flying cars without the danger or radiation. It could even be used to power a space plane capable of reaching orbit without stages or external fuel tanks.

    The list of potential applications reminds me of the Fallout series of video games. For those of you who haven't played or read about the world in those games, technological philosophies stopped at around the 1950's - 1960's, e.g. once they had fission reactors they stopped looking for better methods. The games take place in the post-nuclear winter era after the inevitable global-thermonuclear war. Houses, cars and most other forms of transportation and structures all had their own nuclear fission reactors built in for generating unlimited power. Nuclear fallout shelters were placed just about every square mile and were actually just covers for running unethical scientific experiments on communities and population groups, though I suppose they did actually serve the shelter purpose as well in some cases.

    --
    Even those with good senses of humor, honor, and saintly intentions must occasionally require the use of a strong shield
  47. watch out, don't poison your bloodstream! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Experiments that failed too many times
    Transformations that were too hard to find

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  48. Dare I say Thorium fuel cycle by zaax · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle If it wasn't for some stupid Congressman Chester E. Holifield we would't have this problem with green house gasses; peak oil; and very expensive energy.

  49. It IS from the strong force by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Informative
    From TFA:

    The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons to form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms, making them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.

    So the mechanism to get the reaction to happen is thought to involve the weak force, the end result is Ni + H -> Cu which is just plain fusion. You can compute the energy output based on the mass difference of the inputs and outputs. The problem is that people are finally reproducing the old Cold Fusion work and getting a better understanding, but they face the problems caused 20 years ago. Problems like the DOE deciding it was all a crock and putting policy in place not to fund any research in that area. Problems like the physics community lashing out saying "it can't be fusion, it must be a chemical reaction" (saying that to chemists working with 4 elements in a jar). Now it has to go by the name LENR, but places like NASA and MIT and (allegedly) some folks in industry are working on this.

    1. Re:It IS from the strong force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but places like NASA and MIT and (allegedly) some folks in industry are working on this.

      Or more like: people at places like NASA and MIT. There have been a few proponents that worked at those places that worked on LENR in their off-time, that later in either PR or otherwise gets reported as NASA and MIT officially working on such research. Even in one case, one NASA research quite explicitly states several times in his blog that he is doing that as a side project completely unrelated to his job at NASA, but people continue to insist that his research is a sign of official support from the NASA organization. Unfortunately, a few case of being loose with the information, or even purposely changing information (a few scientists who don't work on or even support such work get their names attached to work without their knowledge...) results in a wave of misinformation that doesn't go away, even though that is something such a field needs to be really careful about.

    2. Re:It IS from the strong force by EdgePenguin · · Score: 1

      It is the weak force. Both reactions (electron capture and beta emission) are mediated by the weak force. Yes, nuclear binding energy changes, but the key element here (Nickel) is almost at the top of the binding energy curve, so its fission and fusion reactions produce very little energy. By that description, the useful energy comes from beta emission: a high energy electron is emitted from the fertilized Nickel, and cannot escape the lattice, so deposits its kinetic energy as heat (or electricity, if you are clever http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics )

  50. Re:Legitimate science, they are not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because touting "clean & cheap energy" gets you fat taxpayer funded research grants. This is the tonic salesman of 2013.

  51. Probabilities by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

    In the core of the Sun, where the temperature is many millions of degrees and electrons and protons are squished into degenerate matter, the probability that an electron and a proton will combine via the Weak Force to make a neutron is rather low --in spite of all the energy and pressure available to help. It is so low that a completely different reaction is described: two protons combine to make a deuteron (one proton becomes a neutron during that process, and a positron is emitted instead of an electron being absorbed).

    While I also know that certain unstable nuclides are quite willing to capture an electron and thereby convert a proton into a neutron, I have doubts that a stable nickel nucleus can be induced to do it. Furthermore, such a reaction would completely fail to explain how experiments involving palladium and deuterium have generated so much "heat" (not just controversy!), and have even been replicated, as reported in a major physics journal. Then there is also titanium, another metal that has interested various cold-fusion researchers.

    So I think a different hypothesis is needed to explain what happens inside those metals. Since the replication-experiments prove that something is indeed happening in there, the experiments need to continue, and the nay-sayers need to shut their yaps. Just remember that humans managed to extract metals from utterly non-metallic rocks for thousands of years before understanding the chemistry behind what they were doing. Knowing the chemistry allows more efficient extraction methods to be developed, and in this case a better hypothesis of cold fusion would lead to improved experiments. But lacking such a hypothesis, it is still possible to get useful results --it will merely take longer. It just doesn't need to take even longer than that, due to idiots who think that just because we don't understand what is going on, nothing can be going on....

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

      If you don't understand what is going on, it becomes much harder to figure out what conditions are necessary. And more importantly, it becomes more difficult to determine exactly how much measurements should differ between it working and not working in a given setup. Without that, you can get into fishing traps that mess up statistical significance of measurements, and make it much more difficult to tell with confidence that whether what is being seen is due to measurement error or not. Which seems to be rather important considering many of the results are quite subtle, and there have been at least a few cases later found to be measurement error that were touted as success.

      While human behavior would be getting in the way and slowing things down, there are such problems on both sides that are getting in the way of getting answers quicker.

  52. Ceres for Cererals! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    GREAT, now we have to worry about "peak nickel".
    Hopefully this will give us enough cheap energy that we can start strip-mining the asteroid belt.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  53. Re:huh by coinreturn · · Score: 2

    what the fuck is gizmag?

    When I were a lad, we spilled it jizz mag, and we were happy.

    FTFY

  54. Trackback Payment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope Slashdot got paid for posting this. The number of things NoScript and Ghostery together blocked is just mind-boggling, and there was still a popup that got through. I can only imagine how much money they made with a front-page Slashdot headline.

  55. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    IF it works as described it should produce 59Cu, which beta decays into 59Ni in about a minute, which beta decays into Co over tens of thousands of years. Both decays are beta so could be shielded with a piece of paper. And the second happens so slowly that it's essentially stable, particularly in the amounts that would be produced in one of these reactors.

    You wouldn't want to eat the waste products, but the metal poisoning would probably get you before the betas.

  56. Resource for anybody wanting more info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An exhaustive collection of published papers concerning low energy nuclear phenomena can be found at http://lenr-canr.org/

  57. Sounds Highly Dubious by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2
    There is another pretty severe mistake in there as well. From the article:

    This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous ionizing radiation.

    A proton and an electron moving with nuclear decay energies are precisely what "dangerous ionizing radiation" is. The used fuel from nuclear reactors is dangerous because it is rich in beta emitters which produce high energy electrons. High energy protons are even more dangerous because, for the same energy, they will move more slowly and so be more heavily ionizing.

    The article is also extremely vague about how the electric field forces the electrons and protons to convert in neutrons. Typically giving an electron more energy causes it to move into a higher energy orbital which have even less overlap with the nucleus. It is also exceedingly unlikely that they can give it enough energy that the nuclear cross-section is significantly enhanced. The mass of the W boson which mediates the reaction has an energy roughly 10 orders of magnitude higher than the electron energy (~10 eV vs. 80 GeV). Increasing the energy will certainly help to some degree but it seems unlikely that they can do this by the many orders of magnitude required to have a significant effect. So, if it does indeed work, there is going to need to be some research to figure out exactly how.

    1. Re:Sounds Highly Dubious by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Well i don't think there is much that doesn't fuse/disintegrate if we heat it up to 80GeV per nucleon!

      This whole LENR really don't have any credibility. They are popular in news papers and little else. Why? No data, and just plain laughable theory... They claim they produce neutrons but no neutron radiation? So these are what? Special unicorn neutrons with a new 6th force sucking them into Ni nuclei?

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    2. Re:Sounds Highly Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The penetration depths of MeV protons and electrons is on the order of microns of metal.

    3. Re:Sounds Highly Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of greater concern might be the generation of gamma and x-ray photons produced by pair production and Compton scattering as the charged particles are slowed...these would penetrate much father, but I don't know the intensities involved....still, maybe you can get away with a few mm of lead (or less).

    4. Re:Sounds Highly Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For 1 MeV electron, the expected stopping distance in lead is about millimeter, and a couple millimeters for lighter metals like aluminum. That is the average stopping distance, as it is kind of a statistical process, and in the end you get more of an attenuation than an absolute stopping distance. For some of the reaction rates needed to power a few hundred watts, you would want quite a bit more than just the average stopping distance.

      The protons mentioned by Roger Moore above are less relevant though, as it is rare for reactions to product high speed protons. However, some of the reactions being discussed produce not electrons, but positrons, that after they stop, produce gamma rays.

    5. Re:Sounds Highly Dubious by Jherico · · Score: 1

      Read it again. It says the nickel becomes copper, which means that the proton isn't ejected from the nucleus. The energy of it and the electron will end up getting distributed as thermal energy. I suppose you might get some beta radiation at the edges if electron escape the nucleus with enough energy, but that's nowhere nearly as dangerous as something like a fast neutron.

      --

      Jherico

      What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

    6. Re:Sounds Highly Dubious by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Read it again. It says the nickel becomes copper, which means that the proton isn't ejected from the nucleus.

      So in other words a neutron does not split into a proton and electron but rather a nickel nucleus decays into a copper nucleus because neither the neutron or the proton are unbound and so normally you would not describe it as such. However in this case they are describing nuclear beta decay which most assuredly does produce dangerous ionizing radiation.

    7. Re:Sounds Highly Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electron will only become thermal energy after depositing its energy through collisions, which isn't in the nucleus that generates it (... as with any beta decay). It can take a few centimeters to do that, especially with some of the reactions involving nickel and copper decays (or worse, if a positive beta decay, produce gamma rays after the positron comes to a stop). Yes, it does take less shielding than fast neutrons, but a strong beta source is a serious health hazard too.

  58. Different Names, Similar Promises by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

    It's nice that this area of research is getting increased and, it would seem, more legitimate investigation. However, statements like the following give me pause:
    "The former has been controversial for decades while the latter [referring to fusion] has been in the research phase since the 1950s, and is still as far away from practical application now as it was then.".
    followed by
    "LENR is a very long way from the day when you can go out and buy a home nuclear reactor. In fact, it still has to be proven that the phenomenon even exists"

    LENR may have promise as a safer approach to energy production, but I see no evidence in this article that LENR is any further ahead than (hot) fusion at this point in time in practical development.

    1. Re:Different Names, Similar Promises by aminorex · · Score: 1

      You can buy a 1Mw LENR reactor today. A 10 Kw that runs at 1200C and can operate a high-efficiency turbine is currently undergoing peer-review. http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/rossi-to-josephson-report-publication-probably-around-end-of-march/

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  59. How this Works, Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Widom LArson Theory is based on the Muon Catalyzed Fusion process that has been known since the 1950's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

    "Muon-catalyzed fusion (CF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. It is one of the few known ways of catalyzing nuclear fusion reactions.

    Muons are unstable subatomic particles. They are similar to electrons, but are about 207 times more massive. If a muon replaces one of the electrons in a hydrogen molecule, the nuclei are consequently drawn 207[1][2] times closer together than in a normal molecule. When the nuclei are this close together, the probability of nuclear fusion is greatly increased, to the point where a significant number of fusion events can happen at room temperature."

    So the electron is not 'forced into' the proton making a neutron, but rather the muon-proton pair is sort of disguised as a neutron due to the size and proximity of the muon to the proton. The source of energy that creates the muon (vibrations, electrical pulses, or sonic waves) also triggers the muon-hydrogen pair to be taken into the nickel nucleus and it then either collapses into a neutron or the muon is released and both cause net energy.

    This really is not as outlandish as many would like to think it is.

    1. Re:How this Works, Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If muons were being produced, such a process should be easy to detect even if the production rate were pretty small. It would be pretty amazing to suddenly get 100 MeV of energy in one spot to create that muon, but even more amazing to get rid of the 100 MeV of energy with 0% of the normal decay effects of muons. Especially since there is a lot of study of the effects of materials on muon sources to better understand the materials, and detecting faint muon sources are really important to other research fields.

      Also, it doesn't help that direct conversion between an electron and muon without neutrinos is forbidden by the Standard model (an effect which has been pretty heavily confirmed to be true by experiment). Without some novel source of neutrino and anti-neutrino pairs (which can't be made by just a photon like electron-positron pairs can), you would need something more like the direct conversion of photons into muon and anti-muon pairs, which would require more energy than just the 210 MeV of their masses to be efficient, and the decay products would be even more detectable.

    2. Re:How this Works, Re:One small problem by delt0r · · Score: 1

      This is incorrect. The protons, in particular the deuterons (you don't observe this in pure 1H) in a D2 muon molecule are close enough together to under go fusion via tunneling through the quantum barrier. There is no "looks like a neutron" anywhere.. except the real neutrons of course.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    3. Re:How this Works, Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appologize for saying that the WL theory is 'based on' Muon Catalyzed Fusion, I meant to say that it calls for a similar behavior with a muon and proton enabled to pass through the Coulomb barrier.

      You are, of course, talking about the more typical muon catalyzed fusion that is well documented, while I was only trying to point to similarities.

      The Widom Larsen Theory, if I understand it correctly in layman's terms, involves the generation of a muon sized electron, that is on a protium hydrogen atom. This condences the orbit of the muon to very close distances to the proton and the total charge is roughly neutral, a.llowing it to pass through the Coulomb barrier.

      My bad.

    4. Re:How this Works, Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is interesting and quite a bit over my head, thank you.

      But I am wondering if there is a plausible process where, instead of smashing protons, neutrinos might be generated in smal localities that become quite hot within the latice. I have read, though I cant find it, that within some nano sized holes, sometimes a plasma can be formed that produces some extremely high temperatures.

      http://documentarystorm.com/nuclear-fusion/

      "Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan claims to have achieved it using simple sound waves.

      "His breakthrough is based on something called sonoluminescence. It is a process that transforms sound waves into flashes of light, focusing the sound energy into a tiny flickering hot spot inside a bubble. It has been nicknamed “the star in a jar” by researchers in the field.

      "The star in a jar effortlessly reaches temperatures of tens of thousands of degrees, which is hotter than the surface of the Sun. It was able to do all this by simply focusing the energy of the sound wave into a tiny hot spot.

      "In order to get fusion, temperatures inside the bubble had to be in the region of 10 million degrees. It seemed improbable that the tiny hot spots could be this hot. But if they were – or if a way could be found to make them so – then a new route to nuclear fusion would be opened up."

      Sounds interesting to me, but is there any provision for this sort of thing in the Standard model? if so, then how can the Standard model not allow for other remarkable things? Forgive my speculation, but too many big players like seimens seems to be involved in this LENR research for there to be nothing to it, IMO. sounds more like institutional inertia and turf protection is making this sort of research so controversial and not the actual science of it.

    5. Re:How this Works, Re:One small problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've not seen any confirmed reports of temperatures over a few tens of thousands of degrees from sonoluminescence. I've even gone as far as building my own setup and not getting much beyond 10,000-20,000 K temperature range as measured spectroscopically (measuring temperature of high temperature plasmas was my day job at the time, and I had access to the equipment for such measurements).

      It is possible for processes to have non-thermal components that are easily capable of reaching fusion energies. There are plenty of hot fusion experiments out there that report neutron measurements, and that some fusion is happening, even though they are running more basic experiments at much lower temperatures than the targets of fusion research. The problem is it is a very small portion of the plasma that does so, and it would be many orders of magnitude inefficient to consider such reactions as a source of power. Actually, such non-thermal fusion neutrons were part of the start of the "fusion is just around the corner" meme when neutrons were measured in the ZETA experiment in the 50s. Only later, when they found it was not the bulk plasma that was reaching fusion temperatures, did they realize fusion power was going to be quite a ways off.

      That aside, such things don't have anything really to do with the Standard Model directly, and have more to do with basic plasma physics or fluid dynamics. And if there was some concentration of energy producing muons through known methods, it would be producing a huge source of other things too. Or if it was producing muons through some unknown method, by just being around, those muons would produce a notable signature.

  60. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, a sheet of paper would only stop the lowest of energy beta decays (usually a sheet of paper is the example given for blocking alpha particles). For normal beta decays of the energies involved (couple hundred keV to MeV), you would want a good centimeter or two of metal to stop some of it (but not all... depends on how strong your source is). In this case though, both of those are positive beta decays, i.e. positrons, so when they are stopped, they then release gamma radiation that would need another centimeter or two, potentially of lead, to stop.

    In the end, the source would have to be pretty strong. Assuming the thing was super efficient and you were getting several MeV of energy per reaction, you would need activity on the order of couple PBq just to get 1 kW of power. That is within a factor of 10 of the release of Cs-137 from Fukushima (although smaller than the iodine release), which happens to be a negative beta source.

  61. No battery bank? by swb · · Score: 1

    It strikes me that omitting the battery bank means you are tied to grid power whenever there's not enough sunlight, which in the northern part of the US would mean more than half the time in the winter and all night in the summer.

    I would think that battery banks would be a big benefit for ROI, especially if you got aggressive with conservation as you would be able to run with little grid power all the time, and especially at night.

    1. Re:No battery bank? by pla · · Score: 1

      I would think that battery banks would be a big benefit for ROI, especially if you got aggressive with conservation as you would be able to run with little grid power all the time, and especially at night.

      Not if your state requires net metering (43 currently do). In that case, you just generate more than you need during the day and feed it back to the grid; at night or on cloudy days, you draw power from the grid; at the end of the month, you only pay (or get paid for!) the net of the amount you used vs the amount you generated.

      Keep in mind, the biggest problem with batteries doesn't come solely from their (not inconsiderable) cost, but everything about them. They start off big and heavy and toxic in at least three different ways. To maximize their lifetime, you need to watch your power use patterns to even out your load, then you still need to condition them periodically. When they fail, they may simply stop working, they may act as a slow short and drain the whole bank, they may actually explode (rare but it happens) spewing acid and lead all over your basement. And finally, they do have a finite lifetime, so even under the best of conditions, you need to replace basically half your battery bank every three to five years.


      You would really only want to go with batteries if you wanted to go completely off-grid. And make no mistake, that has a lot of appeal, particularly considering that the electric utilities largely hate people making their own power (not because of the cost or lost sales, but because it stresses their poorly-designed distribution networks). But to go totally off grid, you either need a substantially oversized solar array and batteries to match, or a willingness to read by candlelight if you have a solid week of rain. :)

    2. Re:No battery bank? by swb · · Score: 1

      I didn't think of net metering, I guess that makes sense -- instead of storing (with loss) your overage, you just pump it into the grid and consider the utility power you use at night to be just the power you gave them earlier in the day (it's not, I know, I'm just making kind of a metaphor).

      I know batteries are a pain in the ass. My dad has a custom-bus conversion motorhome and he has a battery array/inverter/charger/generator setup and he's always griping about battery cost and maintenance. I think he should have put solar cells on the roof tied into the battery charging system; it would have given him a longer run time without generation, engine

      Have you heard of Iron Edison nickel-iron batteries? These look like a great alternative to lead and lithium chemistries for fixed installations. They can take a beating and have a 20 year lifespan. It might make sense to use this instead of others.

  62. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I were a lad, we didn't have magazines. We'd warm up the onions from our belts in some dying coals from the fire and go to town. The rings made them one-size-fits-all!

  63. More on the plus side of that news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone's homes will be built to resemble large missiles and won't that be a hoot for our enemies, not being able to detect the difference from the real ones!

  64. Mongo Like Candy by bdwebb · · Score: 1

    I have a general understanding of what you said but reading through your post and the AC response discussing Muon Catalyzed Fusion made me realize what my parents and wife feel like as I explain advanced networking principles to them. Well played...brain sad...brain cry now.

  65. Reaction costs energy for fusion above Iron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe fusion only produces energy up to Iron. After iron energy must be supplied to cause fusion. Fission works for elements above Iron. Their reaction should cost them energy. From the periodic table:
    Fe 26 Iron
    Co 27 Cobalt
    Ni 28 Nickle
    Cu 29 Copper

    1. Re:Reaction costs energy for fusion above Iron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is quite a bit of detail about what is meant when that iron (or more correctly nickel, depending the context) is said to be the most stable isotope. If you look at the masses of different isotopes, you will find that you can get net energy out by adding a proton to just about any nucleus, even some of the Uranium ones. It is because the single atom is in a lower energy state than the slightly smaller atom plus a proton. Splitting the atoms up into something closer to Iron or Nickel would be even lower energy state yet, but that might not be (easily) accessible with the combinations you have.

      For example, if you force protons and nickel atoms to interact one-by-one, so you don't have any proton reacting with protons, then you will get copper in a lower energy state. But if you had just a giant soup of atoms and protons, with any pair allowed to interact and an even spread of energy among the atoms (e.g. a thermal plasma) you will find that the protons interact with each other much, much more than the nickel atoms.

      In other words, if you had a giant pile of protons and neutrons to arrange as you see fit, you would get the most energy by arranging them into as many nickel atoms as you can. If on the other hand you had a very small pile, say with 30-40 some each of protons and neutrons, you will find you get more energy making one single atom, than trying to make a nickel atom plus some change.

    2. Re:Reaction costs energy for fusion above Iron by Krigl · · Score: 1

      Don't want anyone to prematurely push Hipster Alarm's button, but wouldn't that create Ironic Energy?

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
  66. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    I was referring to the 63Ni. However, I am not a nuclear scientist and since the time of the post I reference I see that others have chimed in suggesting different decay routes. I'm not qualified to give any more opinion on the subject.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  67. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    63Ni is also a beta decay process. Don't swallow it and you'll be fine.

    You're right that very short half lives aren't a problem because you just have to wait, and long ones aren't so bad because it means the isotope isn't very radioactive, but you also have to consider the type of decay. Beta decay means that you end up with an electron getting shot out of the nucleus. Electrons are technically ionizing radiation but they're very effectively stopped by pretty much anything so you can literally shield the source effectively with a piece of paper. Or skin.

  68. My fracking ass it is the future. by tyrione · · Score: 1

    You don't get pebble bed based nuclear reactors on regular scale but somehow we're going to get home based nuclear power and let the local electrician get new certification in stalling a nuclear bomb in your home? Sorry, but I'll take a mixed-use solution with Solar and Wind for a thousand, Alex.

  69. Re:We can't handle nuke waste in few central place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electrons are technically ionizing radiation but they're very effectively stopped by pretty much anything so you can literally shield the source effectively with a piece of paper. Or skin.

    You have beta decay confused with alpha decay. The latter can be stopped by dead skin cells and paper. Beta decay can take anywhere from a few millimeters to several centimeters of metal.

  70. cold fusion redux by dotmax · · Score: 1

    Hydrogen in a metal matrix. In the 80s it was called cold fusion. Progress in CF has been slow due to a pervasive and comprehensive conspiracy to suppress positive results in the field Funny, they're still at the F&P stage twenty+ years later... Whatever. Good luck with that.

    1. Re:cold fusion redux by aminorex · · Score: 1

      You're just ignoring all the results in order to pretend they're not there.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:cold fusion redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could be said of both sides... there are plenty of people who seem to ignore that their are claims of replication of the experimental results, and there are plenty of people who seem to ignore the claims of failed reproductions and tests of some of those results too.

  71. For more on LENR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For more on LENR check:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/

  72. Has NASA finally... by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    ...been bought by Aperture Science? I can't help read this article without hearing Cave Johnson say it.