Fusion In Sonoluminescence (Again)? 417
srhuston writes "According to a story at the NY Times (first born child req'd, yadda yadda), 'Scientists are again claiming they have made a Sun in a jar, offering perhaps a revolutionary energy source, and this time even some skeptics find the evidence intriguing enough to call for a closer look.' This has been covered here before (First, second, third) but it looks like they claim that the latest round of experiments, using better detectors, 'offer more convincing data that the phenomenon is real'." The scientists involved come from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Purdue University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Russian Academy of Science; here's their press release.
Re:Energy (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is right, it's great news. A new method of plasma containment (or usage thereof) is always good, if not for this project than others.
What am I missing? (Score:1, Insightful)
We all have a right to be skeptical about an energy source that proposes to produce energy out of an otherwise non-reactive substance. Either way, the science of collapsing bubbles sounds pretty neat and could probably be used in far more fields than just energy production.
Oils replacement (Score:3, Insightful)
But when will it roll out and effect the everyday Joe?
Just curious why we're always pushing the limit higher, when we haven't pushed the bar up.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a separate point, I don't entirely buy the "less radioactive waste" argument of this press release or the fusion community in general - I used to work in a physics lab, and one of the PhDs there made what I thought was an excellent point - In order for fusion to be commercially viable, ultimately the reaction has to turn a generator somehow, probably via heat generated by fast neutrons. He couldn't see how fast neutrons from a fusion reaction could be any less nasty than fast neutrons generated by a conventional fission reaction.
Am I off in the weeds here, or is this correct? Anyone out there with nuclear physics experience care to weigh in with an opinion?
Re:What am I missing? (Score:4, Insightful)
> equal what goes in...
Well you had better go take a physics course if you wish to understand this topic because the proposition is that a non chemical process (fusion) is at work.
> What is this solvent?
Who cares at this early stage. If the process proves out the race will be on to find the ingredients/processes that produce the holy grail of fusion research; a net gain in energy. Until that happens it is only a labratory toy, even assuming fusion is actually occuring.
Science by press release (Score:2, Insightful)
When scientists are sure of their data, the first thing they do does not involve a press release. I'll be more convinced once I've seen it in a reputable journal [aps.org]
reaim your horseshoes (Score:5, Insightful)
When fusion is industrialized, I expect that some processes will far exceed the fusion thresholds, for their own specific reasons. The threshold is not a bullseye, but rather a welcoming shore of a virgin territory. News of our drawing ever nearer is tantalizing, but not discouraging, as we prepare to colonize the territory.
Re:In other news, (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who remembers Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" initiative.
How do you think we acquired Russian Tokamak technology? During the Cold War itself, no less.
KFG
Re:Energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Important to note... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is.
The surrounding fluid within which the atoms being forced together is cold. The palladium rods which "contained" and "violently forced together" the atoms in "cold fusion" was cold.
In both cases the atoms being forced together were effectively (on the microscopic scale), hot. That doesn't stop us from calling both "cold fusion", to distinguish it from very large scale macroscopic super-heated environments.
Neither process has two COLD helium atoms merging together solely* due to macroscopic conditions.
I say "solely" as I think there may be a way of doing this using other atomic and subatomic particles. ex: merging a helium and it's anti-matter twin would be *REAL* cold fusion. I think there's a way of doing it with two normal-matter atoms using some other kind of "not found in earthly matter" particle, muons or something.
Re:Energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Voodoo Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a few questions for this type of fusion (Those of you who have read the book, or are up on the cold fusion controversy will get this):
1) Can I have a cup of tea?
2) How many neutrons are emitted over the background noise?
3) How is the health of the lab assistant? (Related to question 2).
Re:Oils replacement (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not in this case, but that is not generally the correct litmus test for the viability of a power source.
Portability matters. Batteries are horribly inefficient, yet they seem to keep me from stumbling around in the woods at night quite nicely. Similarly, the photovoltaics on a satellite, or on a water pump in rural Bangledesh, may take far more power to create than they will ever produce, and yet they are useful because we can't run an extension cord up to geosynchronous orbit, or run power lines for hundreds of miles through sparsely populated territories, (especially where the scrap metal value of the powerlines exceeds the yearly income potential of the local population, but that's an economic issue, not a matter of physics).
Now, given the comparative simplicity of the current prototypes, it's probably safe to say that the power input required to create the device is not a limiting factor. However, for arguments sake, let's say that a working design which sustains the reaction may well require a more precise fusion chamber, made of specific materials machined to tight tolerances, and perhaps involving active electronic control. All of these involve great expenditures of energy, to mine the materials, refine them, and produce the finished product. Could it be used to power our cities? Of course not. And yet, that product could still be the most efficient (well-to-wheel, so to speak) portable power source ever built. That alone would make the effort worthwhile.
If you make a revolutionary discovery.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Issuing a press release to the general public before peer review just reeks of pseudoscience. "Look what we did! It's so cool that the respected journal would have covered it up! In your face, respected journal!"
Sure, what they claim may be possible, but I'll be much less likely to believe it until I see it validated by other scientists.
Re:Oils replacement (Score:2, Insightful)
or you could burn the leftover mash (the stuff that did not ferment, and dry it of course) or run it through a methane digester, and run the still on the methane. Or scrap the alcohol alltogether and just run everything through the digester and sell methane!
My point is that there are plenty of sources of energy for this type of thing.
Re:Energy (Score:2, Insightful)
Aka.. Does it cost more to build and run than can conceivably be gotten out of it given near infinite working lifetime, if the math says your in the red constantly no matter if labor cost or counted or not then you're screwed.. Otherwise it's a viable method.
It is grossly inefficient to use fossil fuels to generate power on an energy in/out scale however the energy in is negligent as 99% of it was done millions of years ago. Currently you get a lot more power than it cost to mine and ship and burn it. So... currently it's a viable method of energy use.
ECT... ad nauseum.