Build a Nuclear Fusion Reactor at Home 366
FridayBob writes "For those of you tired of waiting around for someone else to achieve the holy grail of physics, now's your chance to beat 'em all to it. All you need is some basic engineering skills, this site and the inspiration necessary to make your very own 'fusor' produce more energy than it consumes. Hopefully, you'll have more luck than its inventor, Philo T. Farnsworth, who first built it in the 1950's after inventing the television some 30 years earlier. If you run into problems you'll be able to count on a enthusiastic support group, as the contraption seems to have developed a cult following over the past few years. Okay, so I'm skeptical that this approach will ever really work, but at the very least it sounds like a really cool science project!"
Uh oh... (Score:2, Interesting)
But... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Farnsworth? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Danger(TV) Danger(Fusion Reactor) (Score:1, Interesting)
Personally, I like TV. I like getting news and seeing the video of events. I like being able to get great weather reports in the background that are up-to-date. Yes, I can get this through radio or other means. I like seeing shows like Horsepower TV or Trucks, and seeing something that I normally don't have the time or money to hobby around with. I like watching the History channel, HGTV, or TCL to see what new products are.
Put another way--TV was a little similar to the web/www. In it's early days, the "web" was great. It's still great. But there's a lot of porn, mischevious activity, boring blogging, etc. All in all, probably becoming more detrimental. But undoubtedly, there was places on the web that are great sources of information or at least a starting point to things that people can't even get from their local library or reading national news.
Personally, I'm glad for both. And I'd be rather happy if fusion came to some practical fruition.
Re:Safe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fusion is NOT the Holy Grail (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth is that wind power is all we need, and perhaps all we will have in just 30 years. [google.com]
Re:But,,, (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Fission is dirty. We're all familiar with this one. You get radioactive products and energy. Open and shut case.
2. Fusion can be done. We could do it all the time, and I'm talking about break-even fusion with power production. Why don't we? Because this kind of fusion is dirty. When you use Tritium as a reactant, you get radioactive products kicking around after everything is said and done.
3. Deuterium/Deuterium fusion is not "dirty". Deuterium is a non-radioactive isotope. This, however, is the kind of break-even fusion we're having a bit of trouble with. The problem here is that the energy required to get the Deuterium/Deuterium reaction going is a lot more than the comparatively simple Deuterium/Tritium one.
This is, from what I recall, more or less the problem in a nutshell. If anyone with a degree in physics who specializes in plasma physics or such would like to go into more detail, I'd be greatful.