Slashdot Mirror


Cold Fusion Rears Ugly Head With Claims of Deuterium-Powered Homes

szczys writes: Ah, who can forget the cold-fusion fiasco of the early 1990s? Promises of room-temperature fusion machines in every home providing nearly-free energy for all. Relive those glory days of hype with this report of Deuterium-Based Home Reactors. Elliot Williams does a good job of deflating the sensationalism by pointing out all of the "breakthroughs," their lack of having any other labs successfully verify the experiments, and the fact that many of the same players from the news stories in the '90s are once again wrapped up in this one. I'm still waiting for the neighborhood E-Cat to arrive ...

43 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Just by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just get solar inexpensive enough and I'll be perfectly happy. It sure isn't there yet.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Just by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I think we can safely assume solar doesn't have the potential Deuterium does for warp drive applications.

    2. Re:Just by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Well, I think we can safely assume solar doesn't have the potential Deuterium does for warp drive applications.

      I seem to lack sufficient gold-pressed latinum for the warp drive, but the solar panel guys take cash, check and credit card.

    3. Re:Just by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just get solar inexpensive enough and I'll be perfectly happy. It sure isn't there yet.

      For me it would be, if the goddamn electric utility would set fair rules.

      If the utility is going to charge me a grid-tie fee, make that fee the same as all of the subscribers. IE, any house with approximately the same service type (200A 240V Single Phase with Neutral) should have the same grid-tie fee as I as a solar user would have.

      As a power producer, they should pay a reasonable amount of money for my power to them during peak hours. They should not be allowed to only reimburse me the rate they charge for middle-of-the-night lowest-demand time, which is something like 10% of what they charge during peak hours. I understand that I'm not going to get 100%, that's not the issue. I do expect to get more like 50%, especially if they itemize all power customers' grid-tie separate from their usage fees.

      As they want it now, they want to benefit from my power production when they have the most demand, and to charge me for the privilege of supplying them with that power.

      My argument in favor of my position is that during peak hours (I live in a hot desert climate) my production means that they do not have to supply as much power from on-demand power stations that are more costly to operate than their base-load power plants. They don't have to burn natural gas or propane or diesel to keep up with all of the air conditioners if enough solar customers are selling power back to the grid. The solar customers also put power back on to the grid locally, which reduces amperage across the higher current distribution portion as local power in a local section is being produced.

      As they have it now it's a racket, and there is no reason for it to be so.

      And yes, I am well aware of danger to linemen if there's a general outage and a residence is still supplying power. I would put in a transfer switch capable of intentional islanding and some form of intelligent grid AC resync and reconnect if I were to do this.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Just by gaiageek · · Score: 2

      Warp biking is much greener anyway.

    5. Re:Just by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Warning: People denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves.

    6. Re:Just by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Get yourself a Tesla Powerwall, and the utility doesn't even have to know you have solar. Instead of using the grid as your battery, you use you own battery as the battery.

    7. Re:Just by meglon · · Score: 2

      Time to pull out the Ogre.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:Just by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Hah! That's exactly what a people would say!

      No, wait...

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:Just by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

      Solar panels are going quite well. What would be nice is to see is battery capacity drop in price. Having charge controllers and inverters get cheaper, but still maintain the same level of quality and safety wouldn't be bad either.

      Batteries are the weakest link in the solar equation. We get banks that are reasonably priced for individuals, have a long life, can handle charge/discharge cycles, and can store a decent amount of ampere-hours, and that will go a long way in helping with energy issues.

      Of course, the ability to pull CO2 from the air and synthesize a fuel using solar wouldn't be bad either, especially if it were ethanol or a synthetic diesel. This would provide for long term storage in an energy-dense manner.

    10. Re:Just by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      I seem to lack sufficient gold-pressed latinum for the warp drive

      Dude(tte). Everyone knows you need a Beryllium sphere. Just check the historical documents. Jeeze.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    11. Re:Just by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just get solar inexpensive enough and I'll be perfectly happy. It sure isn't there yet.

      Bingo. Solar would go a long, long way to solving the energy demand if it was inexpensive enough and/or efficient enough.

      A solar cell with 50% efficiency would revolutionize the whole industry (I think 22% or so is the current record, and I believe that's still in an experimental stage as far as I know).

      A less expensive solar cell would be almost as good, maybe better in some cases. I think solar is now about ~$3 per watt installed, but bring that down to under a dollar and it would suddenly become waaaaaaay more attractive and practical.

      I love the idea of cold fusion but so far it still seems genuinely unobtainable. For all the research I've seen there's still no real, definitive example of it actually being feasible or even possible. (I know a lot of people will disagree with me, perhaps vehemently.) Quite a few claim to have done it, but I don't know of any indisputable examples.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:Just by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      Time machines? Pffft, there's no future in that.

      No need to get up, I'll see myself out.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    13. Re:Just by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fact, there's a solar installer that will happily sell you a PowerWall with your rooftop system...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    14. Re:Just by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Are you sure about that? It's inexpensive enough for roughly 30 million homes *right now*.

      http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/16...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    15. Re:Just by swb · · Score: 2

      I just don't get the righteous indignation. Why should the utility be required to buy your excess production at all? I get that in some kind of ideal world, it makes sense to pump excess residential generation into the grid but I don't know if that's much more than wishful thinking right now -- there's no coordination or management of reverse feeds, for the utility its a nuisance and could be a real headache in the future.

      At some point I wonder if this is really about being pissed off that the economics of a solar installation is dependent on excess power being sold back and their actual numbers aren't adding up.

      I guess my thought is, too bad. If you want solar, you should pay for solar. Asking other people (the other ratepayers) to subsidize your solar installation is kind of BS and no amount of moralizing about your petty 10kw backfeed keeping them from spooling up a gas turbine will make it otherwise.

    16. Re:Just by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Informative

      $1.82 installed. It will take my 7kW array 2.5 years to pay itself off.

    17. Re:Just by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Only when tax dollars are paying a big chunk of it...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    18. Re:Just by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      It's only afternoon here, you insensitive clod!

    19. Re:Just by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      And call it hydrogen fusion power.

    20. Re:Just by michael_rendier · · Score: 2

      Oh No...Not the Basilisk...everybody stop thinking...;)

      --
      There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count, and those that can't.
    21. Re:Just by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Batteries are the weakest link in the solar equation.

      The weakest link in the solar equation is the diffuseness of the solar energy. Yes the solar constant is 800 W/m^2 at North American and European latitudes. But you have to multiply this by the efficiency of the solar panels. Right now about 16% is standard, which would give you 128 W/m^2 (why these panels are usually advertised as 125 or 130 W/m^2). If you go with the higher 22% announced in a recent /. article, you get 176 W/m^2.

      Then you have to multiply that by capacity factor, which takes into account night, angle of the sun, weather, etc. For the U.S., that averages about 0.145, with the desert southwest hitting a max of about 0.185. For northern Europe (UK, Germany, France) it's about 0.11. So even using 22% efficient panels you're down to 25.5 W/m^2, 32.6 W/m^2, and 19.4 W/m^2 respectively of equivalent constant power generation.

      Then you have to multiply by the efficiency of the battery charge/discharge cycle. Typically this is about 0.6-0.85. If you go with the higher 0.85 figure, say half of your generated power is stored in the battery for later use, and try to replace, say, a 1000 Watt (1.3 hp output) generator, you need an average of 42.4 m^2 of panels in the U.S. on average, 33.2 m^2 of panels in the desert southwest U.S., and 55.7 m^2 of panels in northern Europe.

      If you use the lower bound of these numbers (16% efficient panels, 0.6 battery charge/discharge efficiency), these numbers are 67.3 m^2 of panels for the U.S. average, 52.8 m^2 of panels in the desert southwest U.S., and 88.8 m^2 of panels in northern Europe. Just to replace a relatively tiny 1000W generator.

    22. Re:Just by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I forgot to add:

      Of course, the ability to pull CO2 from the air and synthesize a fuel using solar wouldn't be bad either, especially if it were ethanol or a synthetic diesel. This would provide for long term storage in an energy-dense manner.

      These already exist, and their manufacturing cost is zero, or sometimes even negative (we pay money to get rid of them). They're called plants. They take sunlight and CO2 from the atmosphere, and convert it into sugar molecules which can be short (nectar, syrup, sugar), medium (starch), or long (cellulose). All of these can be utilized as fuel. The dream would be a way to easily convert waste cellulose into an alcohol fuel. Using manufactured solar panels in their stead to convert atmospheric CO2 into hydrocarbon fuel seems like a rather roundabout way to do it in comparison.

    23. Re:Just by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      If the utility is going to charge me a grid-tie fee, make that fee the same as all of the subscribers. IE, any house with approximately the same service type (200A 240V Single Phase with Neutral) should have the same grid-tie fee as I as a solar user would have.

      That sounds fair, but it actually isn't. Somebody who, at unpredictable intervals, will be feeding power into the grid requires a more expensive hookup than somebody who will only ever draw power from the grid.

    24. Re:Just by swb · · Score: 2

      My sense is that distributed power production won't work until you get a quantum leap in battery storage so the generators can use their own excess capacity. I'd cover my roof in solar tomorrow if I could have 100 kWh of battery in the basement to cover evenings and peak utilization.

      I don't think the idea of a random, unstructured network of spare residential solar over capacity is really what makes for a manageable grid. Maybe the existing grid could be redesigned to support a lots of local feeds in a manageable way, but it would be extremely expensive and I don't know that it's worth the cost, especially if its only to justify the individual generators personal solar economic choices.

      I don't agree with the monopoly obligation agreement at all. The concession made by utility monopolies is rate regulation -- they get to charge enough to meet reasonable costs and a fair profit margin. Stable, minimal markup pricing is the concession. By forcing the utilities to buy power they don't need under their current generation and management structure (and at high rates), you're basically forcing them to charge more to everyone else so that they can buy power they don't need from people who have invested in solar.

      I'm sorry, but I don't agree that utilities or other rate payers have a moral or any other obligation to subsidize the choice of putting up solar panels. Put up panels if you want, but your economic calculations should just include the power you don't buy from the grid, not the power you make the other rate payers buy from you. If that turns out to be a less winning economic decision, too bad. "Because solar" or similar isn't good enough.

      Think of it this way -- if I shop at one grocery store and buy food and then discover I have too much, I can't go to a different grocery store and make them buy back my excess food or give me a discount on the additional food I buy.

    25. Re:Just by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Side note: the guy that installed our new furnace a couple years ago said he runs solar in his home with no battery pack, at night he just switches over to the utility power (actually I think it switches automatically).

      Assuming that guy is doing the standard grid-tie configuration, it's not that the house "switches over" at night, so much as that all power generated by the solar array goes out to the local grid (and causes the electric meter to run backwards), and all power used by the house comes from the grid (causing the electric meter to run forward). The actual electric bill is therefore calculated by subtracting the amount generated from the amount used during each billing cycle.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  2. Forget about the neighbourhood e-cat by oobayly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm still waiting for an independently verified e-cat which measures the energy input/output properly rather than "look - steam - it's obviously working"

    1. Re:Forget about the neighbourhood e-cat by Jesrad · · Score: 2

      And I'm still waiting for one of the LENR/CANR dudes to blow themselves up mini-nuke-style.

      Any invention capable of producing enough useful energy in small enough a package can be, and will (accidentally or not), eventually turn into a bomb. It's the boom-threshold of power engineering.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
  3. Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, either Leif Holmlid is a lying, attention-seeking media whore ... or he's really made a revolutionary breakthrough.

    But if he can't demonstrate that it works in such a way as to be repeatable by someone else, then he must be a lying, attention-seeking media whore.

    I know which one my money is on.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a scientist, I actually have one more possibility - not overly likely, but still possible: He sucks at documentation.

      Part of the repeatability of an experiment lies in the proper documentation of the processes and procedures. It is possible (though not likely) that he left out something really important.

      Personally, I think he's mistaken or lying. I just wanted to make sure that we considered the reasonable alternatives.

    2. Re:Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      Personally, I think he's mistaken or lying. I just wanted to make sure that we considered the reasonable alternatives.

      I'm pretty sure in reading TFA there is little chance he could be "mistaken":

      The secret sauce seems to be ultra-dense deuterium, "D(0)" whatever that means. Looking through the author's other papers, it looks like he's claiming to have made metallic hydrogen, which would be a Nobel Prize right there. And it's starting to look a little bit suspicious that no other labs have replicated the work in the intervening eight or ten years.

      While metallic hydrogen probably exists inside the core of Jupiter, no lab on Earth has succeeded in making metallic hydrogen repeatably, although it's been postulated to be possible since 1935 and many have tried. Teams at Cornell and the French Atomic Commission have both given it a shot, and failed with pressures as high as 3.2 million atmospheres.

      Well, no labs except [Holmlid]'s. It must be true, though, because it's on Wikipedia! It says right there that the [Holmlid] lab made metallic hydrogen using "Rydberg Matter". We'd never heard of this stuff, so we followed that Wikipedia link down the rabbit hole, only to find some mumbo-jumbo that we didn't understand and citations of papers nearly exclusively by, you guessed it, [Leif Holmlid].

      If he can demonstrate this, then fine ... he's a super genius.

      But I'm sticking with my "if he can't demonstrate that it works in such a way as to be repeatable by someone else, then he must be a lying, attention-seeking media whore."

      It isn't up to the world to validate his outrageous claims. Put up or shut up.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Mr. Fusion announcement? by schmidt349 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think this announcement is scheduled for October 21, 2015. Just fire up your Pizza Hut rehydrator and make sure all your fax machines are clear for the announcement.

  5. Re:Not Deuterium but Tritium by nedwidek · · Score: 2

    If you want to lower the coulomb barrier energy to its minimum, it is with muon catalyzed D-T fusion (deuterium + tritium -> He4 + fast neutron). You still need insanely high temperatures to have it work. At room temperature you can get the random fusion events just from quantum tunneling, but that will happen so rarely that you'd better have good detectors to see that one rare fast neutron.

    --
    Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
  6. Re:why not try clean stuff that really works alrea by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it that Free Energy True Believers can barely produce a coherent sentence?

  7. Cold fusion works. I know it by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    I use the "I want five blades" Fusion.. It works even when rinsed with cold water. I have seen a Ford Fusion in Minnesota in dead winter. It is time to stop denying. Cold Fusion works.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Feel sorry for any scientist who looks into this by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Funny

    It must suck for any genuine scientist who might come up with an interesting idea as it relates to small scale or cold fusion. I can just see the grant request meeting:
    So you have filed a grant form on researching neutron production at low temperatures?
    Yes
    Isn't that cold fusion by another name?
    Not really but...
    You're fired, we are stripping your PhD, and we are having the art department make funny cartoons about how much of a loser you are.
    But I only asked for a $2 grant.
    We are also requesting retractions on all your papers including ones that have been lab verified by over 1000 independent researchers.
    But.
    We also just burned your house down and killed your dog.
    I don't have a dog.

  9. Conflict of Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The really sad thing is, cold fusion (LENR) was never really discredited. There were three primary groups involved here. One, the US government. Two, MIT. Three, CalTech. Then there is the many labs around the world which tried to reproduce.

    MIT was caught with scientific fraud. Their experiment actually recreated the experiment. MIT had a party celebrating the "death of cold fusion" before they even created their experiment. Once they conducted their experiment, they never checked their results. This according to one of the people involved in the research. When they were called on their fraud, they checked their research and confirmed they did find an thermal anomaly as predicted by Pons and Fleischmann.This can be observed in the graph they bury in their own paper.

    CalTech made an effort to reproduce the experiment. They were unable to do so. They were told they were not properly doping their material. CalTech was sure they were. CalTech now admits they were not properly doping their experiment. CalTech has now, years later, successfully recreated the experiment.

    Lastly was the government. They government had a conflict of interest in that the people voicing opinion all had vested interest in existing nuclear technologies. No one who offered opinion had knowledge of the details and simply said it was impossible because they said so. Period.It was a massive conflict of interest.

    The combination was the government, MIT, and CalTech all coming out saying it's impossible.

    Lastly we have various labs around the world. Many would not reproduce the experiment while some could. Turns out we now know why. There was two primary suppliers of palladium wire to these labs. The primary supplier had contaminated palladium which prevented doping. Which means all of these labs inadvertently recreated CalTech's failed experiment. CalTech simply failed to dope properly. The other labs had contamination which prevented proper doping. The labs which obtained their wire from the secondary supplier were largely able to reproduce the experiment.

    At this point LENR has been successfully reproduced in over 200 labs around the world; including some heavy hitters in particle physics labs. This also includes IBM and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. DARPA has two success LENR projects and one of them has successfully obtained funding for a second round. The basis for funding was, "increase efficiency of LENR effect." The National Academy of Sciences (IIRC, this is the right group) has recently changed it's policy and is now offering LENR grants because so many scientists have put pressure on them because of positive results in their own experiments.

    Long story short, we have been living in a post-fossil fuel world since the 1980s. The sad thing is, thanks to MIT's scientific fraud, the federal government’s conflict of interest, and CalTech's inept best effort, the world simply doesn't know.

    1. Re:Conflict of Interest by ledow · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not what Wikipedia etc. tell me.

      Not definitive research, obviously, but since 2004, there's been nothing of note that I can see, and most of it rehash / recheck of previous results.

      Yes, the field suffered a huge PR setback, but it recovered shortly after but is now more a discredited FIELD than a PR disaster. Nobody is able to reproduce even the early results, let alone come up with anything new.

      And although such science is worthy of investigation, there is still investigation ongoing. And none of it appears to be particularly productive.

      The crap about LENR being reproduced in 200 labs seems... well... bollocks to me. There's a big difference between an anomalous result and actual confirmed cold fusion and they almost all fall into the former virtually immediately.

      As with all things scientific and Wiki-related: citation required.

    2. Re:Conflict of Interest by SumDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Toyota had a dedicated lab in France that worked with cold fusion for two years! There are countless other groups that have done so as well.

      The biggest problem is that the results are not predictable. Many groups can get excess heat from water, but not consistently. We need to know how and why it works before it can be marketed. We need to know how and why it works so it can be reproducible 100% of the time. Even if we don't really figure out how/why, if we can get the numbers up to 90% reproducible...it can be marketable. But no one can.

      There is a huge missing piece that no one has figured out. Major companies and universities have invested a large amount of time and money into this. But I have a feeling this will come down to a group or individual having an eureka moment and discovering the missing part of the equation. The potential for energy is staggering. It would literally change everything.

      I hate the tone of the Slashdot article because it makes this seem like a stupid/lost cause/hoax situation when it's anything form that.

      Watch "Fire from Water." It's a bit sensational, but it's a decent documentary that does accurately portray the cold fusion debate.

  10. Re:Not Deuterium but Tritium by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    If you want to lower the coulomb barrier energy to its minimum, it is with muon catalyzed D-T fusion (deuterium + tritium -> He4 + fast neutron).

    I was just about to say that.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Cold Fusion? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    I thought everybody had moved on to Wordpress and Drupal years ago.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  12. Missing piece of a puzzle? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    I followed the link to the original paper. It's a bit sketchy. But on a skim I don't get quite as much of a "what did he do" as the author of that piece did.

    What it looks to me like he did is:
      - Made some "ultra dense" duterium - apparently by the same method as F&P: Using electricity to force it into palladium by electrolysis, with the solid palladium holding it at high density and in particular orientations.
      - Hit it with a laser.
      - Got muons out - with energies above those that could be explained by the laser excitation, and apparently with energy totalling substantially more than spent on the laser and the electrolysis drive power.

    Now if this is real, and can be repeated and engineered:

    1) High-energy charged particles, at well-defined energies, emerging from a well-defined location, and with adequate lifetimes to last through a few microseconds of the process, can easily have most of their kinetic energy collected as electricity by pretty trivial equipment.

    2) Muons catalyze fusion - at room temperature (or even liquid hydrogen temperature). They replace an electron in a hydrogen atom/molecule - but are heavy so the resulting muonic atom/molecule is much smaller, allowing the nuclei to come within fusion distance. The fusion kicks the muon off and it repeats the process. This has been known for decades: Just point a muon beam at some hydrogen and watch the fun.

    The problem has always been that it takes a lot of energy to make a muon and it has a tiny lifetime - long enough to do maybe four fusions before it decays. So muon-catalyzed fusion (using accelerators to make muons) would never approach breakeven. If this guy has figured out how to make muons in a simple cell, with the energy to make the muon coming from a fusion reaction, it could change the game big-time.

    Also: If muons manufactured by such a process were a step in the very sporadic, looked-like-fusion, effects seen by the people trying to do cold fusion, it could explain why the effects were sporadic - and understanding the process might lead to being able to produce it reliably and consistently.

    So maybe this is just another will-o-the-wisp. Or maybe it's something that could lead to substantial repeatable interesting physics. Or maybe it could lead to real energy-producing reactors on a less-than-tokamak scale.

    And just maybe it's a missing piece of a real room-temperature fusion process that led to the cold-fusion flap and might become practical. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Regardless, this just got published within the last month or so. If it's real it should be pretty easy to reproduce, and from there not too hard to figure out. So let's see what happens. Maybe nothing, maybe little, just the off chance of another roller-coaster ride. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Missing piece of a puzzle? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Looked it up:

      They replace an electron in a hydrogen atom/molecule - but are heavy so the resulting muonic atom/molecule is much smaller, allowing the nuclei to come within fusion distance.

      H2 (D-D, D-T) molecule.

      The fusion kicks the muon off and it repeats the process. [...] The problem has always been that it takes a lot of energy to make a muon and it has a tiny lifetime - long enough to do maybe four fusions before it decays.

      Actually the muon lasts a couple microseconds which is a LONG time at molecular and nuclear speeds. But in addition to decaying it has maybe a 1/2% to 1% chance of sticking to the helium and getting lost until it times out. So it only catalyzes maybe 100 to 200 reactions. You need somewhat more than 300 to break even for the energy used to create it in an accelerator (maybe times a factor of about 2.5 to make up for the accelerator efficiency).

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way