Inside Piston-Powered Nuclear Fusion Company General Fusion

quax writes "Slashdot first reported on the Canadian start-up company that is attempting piston powered nuclear fusion back in 2009. This new blog post takes a look at where they are now, and gives some additional behind the scene info. For instance, a massive experimental rig for magnetized target fusion in the US is currently underutilized, because ITER's increasing costs absorb all the public fusion research funding. Because this Shiva Star device is located in an Air Force base, security restrictions prevent any meaningful cooperation with a non-U.S. companies. Even if U.S. researchers would love to rent this out to advance the science of magnetized target fusion, restrictions make this is a no go."

Comments

What?

[wiggles]

That summary made no sense.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That summary made no sense.

You were expecting somebody with the job title of "editor" to actually act like an editor. On this site?? Oh. Yes I suppose you are disappointed. If I performed my job as incompetently as Slashdot's "editors", I would be fired. So would you and so would anyone who reads this (except the pissypants editor who uses his infinite mod points to mod it down).

Slashdot "editors" are editors the same way the garbage truck driver is a "sanitation engineer". In this job market, Dice Holdings Inc. could hire better more competent people and probably spend less doing it. Maybe that case could be made to their management?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, lets try it in English then.

There are some Canuks trying a specific type of nuclear fusion. Two other groups seem to be doing similar research, but one has been effectively denied funding because of a different project getting headlines, and the other is a military research so it has no headlines until the USAF decides to get some mass-produced.

Re:What?

[i kan reed]

Here's a new summary for you:

Tiny fusion project that's functionally pretty cheap wants more money, and publishes some promising, but uncertain results.

I could use that same summary for several different projects today.

Re:What?

[mrchaotica]

Slashdot "editors" are editors the same way the garbage truck driver is a "sanitation engineer".

Sanitation engineering is a real thing (different from driving a truck). Real sanitation engineers are civil engineers who design landfills, wastewater treatment plants and recycling facilities.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can never take these things seriously when the never present their results at meetings like

APS DPP
Sherwood
MHD workshop
IAEA

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was his point.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness, it captures the writing style of the article well.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is complaining that the ITER, an expensive experimental fusion reactor, is getting most of the fusion research money. This compares with the Canadian startup, and the Shiva Star, which don't receieve enough money to proceed as fast as they could.

Personally I don't think TFA's tone is useful. Sure, ITER is funded, but it should be funded; torus reactors (ITER is a torus reactor) are a well established line of research and it is important to follow that line of research until the end.

What should happen of course is that ITER should maintain its funding while other experimental fusion reactors should get more funding.

In-fighting among the fusion community is likely a sign that budget cuts are hurting.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real engineers drive trains (at least that's what people think when I tell them I'm an engineer). So it's logical that driving a sanitation truck would make you a sanitation engineer.

Re:What?

[i kan reed]

Well, I know what that published unprecedented energy density results in the journal of plasma physics. I'm not aware of any meetings they attended, though.

Re:What?

[quax]

They hold a couple of patents and published three papers (the rest in the list is references on their approach to fusion).

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The journal of fusion energy isn't a scientific journal. It's the news letter of a think tank. They'll be taken seriously when the publish in Nuclear Fusion.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

General Fusion has been at the last couple APS:DPP and ICC (or whatever it is called these days) conferences. Their talks and posters are always quite busy and full of interested people.

Re:What?

[TubeSteak]

Sanitation engineering is a real thing (different from driving a truck).
Real sanitation engineers are civil engineers who design landfills, wastewater treatment plants and recycling facilities.

Don't forget about the guy who designs the garbage truck!
It's a rather unique beast, since no other industry needs a design that's even remotely related.

General Fusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when's the people's Mr. Fusion model come along?

Re:General Fusion?

[noh8rz10]

I ran out of oil once in my car and my gasoline engine did piston fusion into a single block of metal

Re:General Fusion?

[TWiTfan]

If Robert Zemeckis is to be believed, in less than 2 years.

Re:General Fusion?

[netsavior]

but in the Zemeckis causality, a genius inventor with no regard for preserving the natural timeline traveled back to 1885, and then abandoned a highly sophisticated laboratory capable of refrigeration and probably other disruptive technologies. In other words, the 2015 we saw in Back to the Future, was heavily augmented by timeline disrupting technology injections in both 1885 and 1955... and 1985 for that matter. Chances are, most of that stuff could not be invented as early in our timeline, because in the BTTF timeline, doc brown and others saw the various technologies in action, years before they were duplicated/invented.

In my opinion this same phenomenon explains perfectly why the JJAbrams Star Trek is perfectly justified in having more advanced ships and transporters than the Roddenberry continuity. 8 minutes of sensor scans of a ship 129 more years advanced than anything ever witnessed would change the course of technology forever.

Re:General Fusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Refrigeration wouldn't be disruptive, there were commercial ice-making machines in 1855. Now, all the DeLorean/time machine parts lying around are another story.

Re:General Fusion?

[westlake]

8 minutes of sensor scans of a ship 129 more years advanced than anything ever witnessed would change the course of technology forever.

If and only if the scans expose the core technologies in ways that you can understand ---

If and only if you can reproduce the core technologies or their precursors on less than 120 years.

Doc Brown's refrigerator and telescopic sights were mid-nineteenth century tech. The really interesting possibilities open up only when you can build an air conditioner and have refrigerants safe enough for domestic use.

Re:General Fusion?

[alexander_686]

It has been a while since I have seen the movies, but was he building a vapor condenser?

I ask because while they were around almost nobody used them. Far more economically to harvest ice in the winter and store it for the summer. I mean today we have jet packs and space rockets but they are not “consumer grade”, like today’s refrigerators or the future Mr. Fusions.

Re:General Fusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

but in the Zemeckis causality, a genius inventor with no regard for preserving the natural timeline traveled back to 1885, and then abandoned a highly sophisticated laboratory capable of refrigeration and probably other disruptive technologies. In other words, the 2015 we saw in Back to the Future, was heavily augmented by timeline disrupting technology injections in both 1885 and 1955... and 1985 for that matter. Chances are, most of that stuff could not be invented as early in our timeline, because in the BTTF timeline, doc brown and others saw the various technologies in action, years before they were duplicated/invented.

In my opinion this same phenomenon explains perfectly why the JJAbrams Star Trek is perfectly justified in having more advanced ships and transporters than the Roddenberry continuity. 8 minutes of sensor scans of a ship 129 more years advanced than anything ever witnessed would change the course of technology forever.

this is the best post I have read on this page so far.I salute your attention to detail and inventiveness for explaining the total lack of a need to stick to a timeline to make the story line make any sense.Nope still does not tie the movies together.

Awesome

[50000BTU_barbecue]

It is my layman's barely informed opinion that this scheme has the highest chance at success in the next 10 years at achieving practical electrical output from nuclear fusion reactions.

Re:Awesome

[50000BTU_barbecue]

How is my opinion "over-rated"? I think GF has the most practical approach and isn't working on dead-ends or defense-type research reactors. They are progressing and are quietly moving along. I also like the fact they are Canadian, like me! And maybe there is some hope that Canada can still produce something besides sand.

Re:Awesome

[Immerman]

Better than Polywell fusion? They're still under a publishing embargo, but if the Navy progress report is to be believed they have managed to demonstrate p-B fusion last year which is practically the holy grail of fusion for electrical-generating purposes - no neutron flux from the primary reaction, no clunky inefficient heat engine necessary to generate electricity, and the main researchers seem to have mostly all jumped ship to found an energy-related company.

Re:Awesome

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Yes. The biggest problem of all the other fusion power approaches are the output part: how do you get electricity from fusion? Believe it or not, unlike Star Trek, we'll be using steam and turbines to spin a generator. Tokamak reactors need a complex thermal blanket on top of the complex plasma containment. GF has cleverly bypassed this by making the reaction occur in the thermal blanket.

Again, this is my opinion so it will be modded down.

Re:Awesome

[HiThere]

That's probably the best approach, but there are a few others. MHD might work.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, unlike Star Trek, we'll be using steam and turbines to spin a generator.

You say that like it's a bad thing. We've gotten pretty good at handling steam, even when it's slightly dirty as with PWRs. A fusion plant that outputs steam has a handy fringe benefit: if the reactor is small enough you can retrofit existing power stations.

Re:Awesome

[Immerman]

Not necessarily - using a turbine or other heat engine is only necessary it the energy has been thermalized - which yes, to the limits of current scientific understanding is necessary for any fusion reaction that releases the bulk of it's energy as fast neutrons, and may be the most practical route for reactions that release most of their energy as gamma radiation as well, at least until we develop high-efficiency gamma-radiation "solar cells" (gamma-voltaics?).

But p-B fusion is something special, it doesn't emit gamma radiation or neutrons along the primary reaction path - instead the resultant Carbon-12 atom is excessively energetic, and immediately fissions into three high-velocity Helium-4 nuclei, and there are far more efficient methods of converting the kinetic energy of charged particles into electricity than by using them to boil water. Especially if they just happen to already be at the bottom of a spherical high-voltage potential well. The only reason so few researchers discuss it is that the reaction cross section is 100x smaller than for deuterium fusion, and thus far out of reach of the energies available to most reactor designs being explored.

There's also another practical consideration - we haven't yet managed to developed any materials that can survive the combination of heat and neutron flux that would be present in a megawatt scale hydrogen fusion reactor for prolonged periods. The flux rate can easily reach 5x-10x the number of neutrons/joule as for a fission reaction (which release most of their energy as relatively harmless gamma radiation), and neutron bombardment does really nasty things to most solids - the few we know of that can survive the flux can't survive the heat. Sure we could replace parts on a regular basis, but that's dangerous, time consuming, and produces a stream of medium-high level radioactive waste that dwarfs that produced by a fission reactor. I haven't actually studied the GF solution in depth though, their website provides only the most vague description of the implementation details. If the reaction is occurring within a fluid neutron absorber then they've likely managed to bypass that caveat, a feat only to be envied by the particle-beam fusion projects. I would be most obliged it you could point me towards a clear and concise summary of the technology, I don't care to spend hours digging through dry scientific papers, nor "science news" articles/videos created by people with delusions of comprehension.

Re:Awesome

[Immerman]

The retrofit option is nice, and would also be an option for self-contained fission reactors such as...emc2's(??? formerly Hyperion) design.

But make no mistake, it's still a bad thing. A heat engine that's 50% efficient is something to be justifiably proud of, but that still means you're throwing away half of the energy you've generated, likely with rather unpleasant ecological fallout. (yes, thermal pollution is a thing, and its effects can be pretty ugly). If you have the infrastructure to capture and utilize the waste heat that's not necessarily a bad thing, but there's not really all that much demand for megawatts or gigawatts worth of relatively low-temperature heat energy, short of building a nuclear reactor in your basement and using the waste heat to for home heating.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

p+B fusion produces He4 instead of C12 by far, and still produces some neutrons, although about two orders of magnitude less than D+T fusion. This eliminates some of the neutron challenges as far as making the reactor out of functional materials, but will still require a mess of material handling and disposal as some research reactors even have to deal with now. And the issue with p+B fusion is not just its smaller cross-section, but much larger bremsstrahlung losses, such that in a thermal plasma it will be emitting energy and cooling faster than it can heat itself. Most projects deal with thermalized plasmas (whether they want to or not).

The goal of projects like GF would be to have reactors small enough that one can be taken offline for servicing while still having other ones running, as opposed to a monolithic one that needs long uptimes. Additionally, since they are using a large amount of liquid metal, it doesn't have the material concerns like displacement in other reactors, although other designs can mitigate most of the problems with careful choice of materials.

Re:Awesome

[quax]

This is not much to go on but slide 13 has a bit on the vortex development:

http://fire.pppl.gov/FPA12_Richardson_GF.pdf

This thesis though should hit the sweet spot:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~jgregson/images/JamesGregsonMAScThesis.pdf

Re:Awesome

[Immerman]

That's basically what I said - C12 is only an intermediate stage on a subatomic timescale, you're not going to find any in the final products. And you get 0 neutrons from the primary reaction path - p+B = 12 nucleons = 3 * He4, though it is definitely worth drawing attention to the fact that their are also side reactions going on that prevent neutron flux from falling below a certain level, at least in a plasma. (We also seem to be accumulating a growing body of evidence for the existence of solid-lattice fusion, but AFAIK we don't yet have any solid theories as to the physics involved and can't reliably repeat the phenomena)

Regardless, yes, even p+B fusion produces neutrons, and with them mid-level radioactive waste, though far less than for pretty much any other nuclear reaction - 100x fewer neutrons means that exposed widget only needs to be replaced once a year instead of every three days. . If GF can in fact keep their much higher neutron flux from reaching their widgets then they would indeed have an advantage on that front,

Re:Awesome

[Immerman]

Ooh, I like it. Eminently simple in principle, even if the piston synchronization looks to be a nightmare. Still, with enough high-speed adaptive control circuity I could see it potentially being kept within acceptable tolerances.

Thank you, you've opened my eyes to a new and promising fusion technology to keep an optimistic eye on.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

For now we just have to accept that figure. The proposals I've seen for direct conversion (those reactions that result in charged alpha particles) aren't significantly better in terms of efficiency and are somewhat more difficult in terms of re-using the 'waste' heat as compared to doing whatever with the low grade steam that comes out of a turbine.

Re:Awesome

[Immerman]

For now yes - not much point in developing efficient particle-decelerators until you have a reliable charged-particle based energy source. But the point is that a decelerator can theoretically approach 100% efficiency, whereas we've already taken heat engines about as far as is theoretically possible. Also - waste heat is only a mandatory concept if you are dealing with thermal energy - that is to say chaotically moving particles with a given average kinetic energy. If instead you are dealing with ordered kinetic energy - like alpha particles energetically leaving a small region of space with a very narrow range of kinetic energies, then you don't have to fall back on statistical thermodynamics concepts and all their ugly efficiency-sapping limitations.

Re:Awesome

[stoatwblr]

"Here's not really all that much demand for megawatts or gigawatts worth of relatively low-temperature heat energy, short of building a nuclear reactor in your basement and using the waste heat to for home heating."

Once you get away from high pressure systems (LWR, etc) then there's nothing stopping you putting the plant near civilisation and creating district heating schemes - which can then be leveraged to produce cooling systems as well, using a 21st century version of the 19th century Ammonia bubble pump freezer - http://solarfrost.com/en/en.html

Being able to directly leverage the otherwise wasted heat means slightly lowered electricity demand for heating _and_ cooling (bear in mind that current LWR plants dump 2/3 of the energy extracted from the fission process as waste heat)

Once you get away from low temperature systems (LWR, etc) then you don't have to use huge heatsinks to reject heat (rivers/oceans) and you can vastly increase the efficiency of your thermal plant, plus sell higher temp waste heat (for district cooling systems or provide process heat for industrial systems).

Having the "cold" side substantially above ambient and the "hot" side a lot higher than that means that you don't need to derate your plants quite much during a heatwave (The french LWRs have particular problems with this as they dump their waste heat into rivers and have to derate in order to prevent driving the water temperature up to ecologically damaging levels)

Of course there's nothing stopping "us" having multiple energy extraction methods - if economic. A high temperature system would allow thermocouples to be cost-effective, as a f'instance (the old "RTG in the basement" argument).

A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

Because this Shiva Star device is located in an Air Force base, security restrictions prevent any meaningful cooperation with a non-U.S. companies.

We have a problem with Canadians because of security restrictions? WTF - NORAD is a joint US-Canadian operation. The 2nd in command is always Canadian. If that's not giving Canadians access to important military operations (specifically USAF no less) then I don't know what is.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[Sarten-X]

Apparently you don't know what "access" is, in a government-secret sense.

We've built up a program as a joint effort. That's fine for that program. That does not mean there's a blanket trust for Canadians to access all programs at all locations. Military secrecy is handled on a need-to-know basis, and outside of NORAD, the Canadians do not need to know.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem, TFA did say "civilian Canadians"; the NORAD 2ic is not a civilian.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

Nobody is talking about giving them access to nuclear weapon or stealth research. Shiva Star hasn't been used for military research in almost 20 years. It's been re-purposed for civilian research, and happens to be located on an AFB for historical reasons. If this is anything like other civilian research in the US, it involves many foreign nationals whose allegiances are far more questionable than Canadians.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[Sarten-X]

It doesn't matter much what Shiva Star is used for. It's still on an Air Force base. What else is on that base that the foreigner can get to more easily because of his access to Shiva Star?

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ColdWetDog]

What else is on that base that the foreigner can get to more easily because of his access to Shiva Star?

Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, Mini Wal Marts and other hallmarks of American 'culture'. You want to be careful letting these things out in the world - they can cause amazing damage in the wrong hands.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

It's still on an Air Force base.

There are plenty of US military bases that just about any civilian can enter. I've done it myself on a number of occasions. Access is compartmentalized. Getting to the PX is a lot easier than getting to the nuclear weapons storage.

Ever visit the USAF museum? Anyone can go there, and it's sitting right on Wright-Patterson AFB, where lots of highly classified work is done.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

But Canada and everyone else will be buying their fusion power plants from General Electric and/or Westinghouse.

As designed and built in their Chinese facilities.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[Sarten-X]

...And which compartment is Shiva Star in? The anybody-can-access public space?

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ddd0004]

You can't let them in here. They'll see everything. They'll see the big board.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[jeff13]

Dude, it's the Pentagon. The Pentagon considers the US a foreign country. ;p

Re:A problem with Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we have a problem with Canada. China's been using them as a backdoor into US military secrets for years.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

If it's not in a separate security zone than weapons (nuclear or otherwise) or other purely military activities (e.g. intel) then they're got a serious security problem. There are loads of civilians on any military R&D project that are not authorized to come near purely military operations.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

Thank you Gen. Turgidson. That only applies to Russkies though - Canucks already get to see the big board at NORAD. They still haven't let us see their top secret battle moose battalions though.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[Sarten-X]

...American civilians? Or foreigners? Even without a security clearance, American civilians are allowed to work on export-controlled materials that foreigners aren't allowed to see. Some of that work is indeed done on military bases, regardless of whether or not there's an immediate military application.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

American civilians are allowed to work on export-controlled materials that foreigners aren't allowed to see.

Who said this was export controlled? As I mentioned, this hasn't been used for military research in almost 20 years. Also, if we're so concerned about sensitive things that should be export controlled, then why the hell are we letting GE teach China how to build better jet engines? At least Canada is an ally.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[ebno-10db]

Of course we have a problem with Canada. China's been using them as a backdoor into US military secrets for years.

I don't know why they bother with the back door when they just walk right in the front: G.E. to Share Jet Technology With China in New Joint Venture. Nor does it matter that it's supposedly for civilian applications - if ever there was a dual use technology it's jet engines. There's a reason why the three major Western jet engine companies (GE, Pratt-Whitney and Rolls-Royce) make both civilian and military engines. Also, all three of those companies have been in the business since the end of WWII, which shows what a barrier to entry there is in this field. It's also no secret that China's biggest stumbling block to making "all Chinese" high performance military aircraft is the engines.

Re:A problem with Canada?

[vandamme]

This post about "access" is complete bullshit. I've worked at the Air Force Research Lab since 1968 (slacked off a bit lately), and worked alongside visiting Canadian Forces officers. You people have watched too many movies about how the military works. That said, I got no idea what the real story is. And neither does the OP.

MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[peter303]

MIT Prof Peter Hagelstein, one of the rare true believers in battery-type cold fusion is teaching his cold fusion seminar again. Just about everyone else in academia does not believe him. Peter has done brilliant work in other subjects such as Xray lasers, so MIT tolerates him.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you went to MIT or teach there doesn't mean your smart. The most successful fusion researchers came from Madison WI.

There will never ever be cold fusion. Over coming the Coulomb barrier is an inherently thermal process.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

The most successful fusion researchers came from Madison WI.

Are you talking about D.T. Anderson, or someone else? I had him for undergrad electromagnetics, and he is an excellent professor. I still remember the two dumbed-down lectures he gave on his quasi helically-symmetric stellerator.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

There will never ever be cold fusion. Over coming the Coulomb barrier is an inherently thermal process.

Oh really? This does not seem to be a problem for muon catalyzed fusion.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

Over coming the Coulomb barrier is an inherently thermal process.

This isn't logic. Overcoming the barrier requires energy, sure, but it doesn't have to be random.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

That is still thermal. It just lowers the barrier but the barrier still exists.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but cold fusion by definition cannot be all that energetic to be useful. You take megawatts of anything in a confined area and it will be HOT.

If they mean "cold" as in ... controllable....well, then how is that "cold" then?

Granted that's not dismissing "cold fusion" as a process. For all we know, it happens all the time, just on scales nobody cares about (kind of like natural fission in rocks).

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant the students they teach.

Re: MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[benjfowler]

I overheard this being put to a very senior researcher at the Joint European Torus since time ago.

He said that they've cracked the heating problem, and have done so for years. Also, muons are very expensive to produce.

Tokamaks work well. All the required technologies have been tested in isolation and have been shown to work. The issues now are engineering an economical, scaled up, integrated prototype. That's ITER.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[TeknoHog]

There will never ever be cold fusion.

Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

says someone that doesn't know the difference between you're and your, or that overcoming is one word...

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Ralph Wiggam]

The laws of physics are a lot more friendly to flying machines than contained and controlled fusion.

Fusion researches have told us that they were 10 years away from a huge breakthrough for 40 years. Is it possible that my home will be powered by a fusion reactor in my lifetime? Sure. But I would not bet a dollar on it.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws of physics are a lot more friendly to flying machines than contained and controlled fusion.

Sure junior. Show us your CV and what you've accomplished and maybe we'll take your word for it.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Ralph Wiggam]

I took Physics 101, which is all that is required to know that. Did they teach physics back when you were in school or just alchemy?

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[phantomfive]

The laws of physics are a lot more friendly to flying machines than contained and controlled fusion.

That's easy to say on this side of it. The path to controlled fusion was a lot more clear in 1980 than the path to controlled flight in 1880. See this graph and this story for an understanding of why fusion is taking so long.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

There will never ever be cold fusion.

Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Those two statements aren't even remotely close to being analogous. Heavier than air flying machines have existed longer than humanity itself, most commonly in the form of "birds".

- T

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold fusion has as much scientific validity as finding the either.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[TeknoHog]

It's a historical anecdote - Lord Kelvin, a renowned physicist is behind the quote about flight. A nice example of Clarke's first law.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

Says someone dosen't understand the sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a period.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[liquidrocket]

The point is, the statement was known to be false even when it was originially made, regardless of who made it. This is simply not the case with "cold fusion". In fact, most of the people who still insist on it are not even claiming that it's fusion anymore. Last I heard the current theory had something to do with the weak nuclear force instead, and there are still no published peer-reviewed results.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[liquidrocket]

This is simply not the case with "cold fusion".

That should, of course, say "is not the case with the criticism of "cold fusion".

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

While not a nuclear scientist, as an engineer I've taken undergraduate coursework in modern physics (e.g. junior level atomic physics). I think that trumps your tard physics 101. If you're relying on high-schoolesque physics you have no way to even appreciate what you're saying.

Re:MIT teaching COld Fusion seminar in January

[Anonymous Coward]

At the time that was said there were millions of biological versions in the skies. Has there *ever* been a single, verifiable instance of 'cold fusion' anywhere?

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has worked for a UK defense company - ITAR is more of a problem for the US than it's allies. The US has a nightmare contracting out work to european companies that have a technology/experience they need. You should see the time and money they waste, it is extraordinary.

Sounds Very Steampunkish

[cruff]

For what ever reason, "piston powered nuclear fusion" sounds like it belongs in a Steampunk novel or movie!

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[donscarletti]

ITER is an initiative 45% funded by the EU and 9% funded by the US, that Americans repeatedly complain about sucking away all of America's money, even though it was America's idea to build it in the first place, America gets an equal share of the knowledge gained and America only has to pay one 11th of the cost, despite having the largest economy out of the participants.

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[HuguesT]

Interesting, thanks, mod this up!

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[nojayuk]

Actually the EU has a higher GDP than the US, the usual marker for the strength of an economy. Mostly that's due to the greater population (505 million EU citizens compared to 310 million or so Americans) as per-capita GNP in the EU is a bit less since we don't have quite as much raw materials production (oil, gas, coal) which inflates the figures.

The US tried withholding its funding contributions for ITER during the run-up to the off-the-books trillion-dollar war in Iraq after most of the other participants in the project decided it should be built in Cadarache in France, home of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, instead of Japan. It didn't work, America decided to rejoin the project and they're pouring concrete this month in southern France for the reactor vessel's base.

you *do* realize...

[inode_buddha]

"piston powered nuclear fusion" sounds an awful lot like a technical description of an internal combustion engine.

Re:you *do* realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except of course for the nuclear fusion part of course.

Wait for it

[StripedCow]

Soon to be acquired by... Apple, Google or Facebook?

Re:Wait for it

[quax]

Try Amazon, after all Jeff Bezos already invested.

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[ebno-10db]

per-capita GNP in the EU is a bit less since we don't have quite as much raw materials production (oil, gas, coal)

Do you have figures that show that that's the main difference in GDP/capita? (GNP is not usually used these days).

As for "raw materials production ... which inflates the figures", by that standard the GDP's of Norway, Canada and Australia are even more inflated.

Brilliant Summary

[wjcofkc]

Slashdot has finally found a way to force people to read the article before posting.

In all seriousness, it's nice to see new approaches to the problem of creating a fusion reaction that produces more usable energy than it consumes. Between the National Ignition Facility (which unfortunately was largely but not entirely dedicated to military research at the first sign of success), going massive with ITER, and this piston powered approach, I believe we will one day get there. We may try and fail and try and fail, but ultimately there is no stopping humanity.

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[Anonymous Coward]

ITAR, not ITER.

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

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[nojayuk]

Yep, that's why Qatar's per-capita GNP is twice that of the US. Moving money around also inflates the GNP figures hence the appearance of Monaco, Leichtenstein and the Bermudas at the top of the world tables. Japan has virtually no raw materials it can export and it's not a financial black hole for rich people to hide funds from their national governments but it still holds up well in terms of GNP per-capita due mainly to its industrial base.

US vs EU GDP

[sjbe]

Actually the EU has a higher GDP than the US

Depends on how you measure it. The EU has a higher nominal GDP but a slightly lower GDP under PPP. Both are right around $16-17 Trillion in 2013.

per-capita GNP in the EU is a bit less since we don't have quite as much raw materials production (oil, gas, coal) which inflates the figures.

As for GDP per capita, it isn't even close. The US population is around 315 milliion versus 510 million in the EU. Since the GDP is roughly the same, the US GDP per capita is about 40% higher at around $52,000 versus $34,000 for the EU. The differences in GDP are not explained by energy production. The EU is the 7th largest energy producer and 2nd largest consumer) while the US is the 3rd largest energy producer and largest consumer (with China catching up fast). Both economies have services sectors that comprise around 68-69% of the economy. Both have similar sized manufacturing sectors and agriculture sectors. Frankly the US and EU economies are remarkably similar in many ways.

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[ebno-10db]

Yep, that's why Qatar's per-capita GNP is twice that of the US.

And your point is? Qatar does have a GDP/capita about 2x the US. Do you think that's fake money? Parties outside of Qatar seem to happily accept it.

While we're at it, you still haven't cited figures showing that most of the difference between the US and the EU GDP/capita is due to differences in raw materials production.

Moving money around also inflates the GNP figures hence the appearance of Monaco, Leichtenstein and the Bermudas at the top of the world tables.

Yes it does. I think a good chunk of that (including Wall Street and the City of London) is rent seeking and activities that should be banned, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's real money they get for it.

Canada should be jumping all over this

[Spy Handler]

"Canadian technology!" is going down the tubes now that Blackberry has failed. But this can put Canada back in the lead as the global technology powerhouse.

Don't look to the Americans. All they care about is making a quick buck. Their best and brightest minds are busy at work trying to figure out how to get more people to click on website ads, or how to make portable electronic gadgets a "magical experience".

Re:Canada should be jumping all over this

[Anonymous Coward]

'or how to make portable electronic gadgets a "magical experience".'

I'm sure vibrators are made in lots of places.

Re:New Slashdot paradigm...

[quax]

Could you explain the profit part to me? That'll be most interesting.

Re:HOAX ALERT II !!

[quax]

A hoax Jeff Bezos invested in. I'll take it you didn't bother to read any of the links.

They do present

[Anonymous Coward]

They always seem to give poster presentations at DPP and I've seen them at a few other conferences as well.

Effect of DeLorean parts in 1885

[Latent Heat]

. . . would be to set back the development of a reliable automobile by over a century! (ba-doom, boom)

Road to nuclear fusion piston-power P-51 Mustangs!

[leftie]

Even a small chance of this leading to nuclear fusion piston-powered P-51 NukeMustangs must be supported!

It's possible....

[Anonymous Coward]

You just need a couple of high-speed maglev trains with giant pistons on the noses coming at each other at full speed.
When the pistons are a micron apart, inject a little deuterium in between them and look really close for the flash....

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[Gothmolly]

So because America has more money, they should pay more?

Hint: that philsophical, political and economic system doesn't work.

Re: HOAX ALERT II !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor Mr. Bezzos

Re:HOAX ALERT II !!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take it you didn't bother to read any of the links.

Who has time to read anything when they're gunning for FP?

Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and here I was explaining the discrepancy by figuring it was the mid 1960s and Desilu Studios had fuck-all for special effects. Oh well.

Mr. Ed

[Anonymous Coward]

Of Course.

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[Anonymous Coward]

America gets an equal share of the knowledge gained and America only has to pay one 11th of the cost, despite having the largest economy out of the participants.

The US also gets fewer scientists and construction contracts out of it than if they ran it themselves. How much of that money comes back into countries or is contributed in the form of built stuff is a big part of the politics (and part of how the final location was determined via some trading of this). In this sense the US is getting the same return on its investment as other contributors.

Re:Sucks to be a foreigner

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]