Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Team Confirms UCLA Tabletop Fusion 354

An anonymous reader writes "A team of New York physicists has confirmed that a tabletop contraption made at UCLA does in fact generate nuclear fusion at room temperatures, using pairs of crystals and a small tank of deuterium. But unlike less reliable reports back in the 1980s, there's no talk this time of producing endless supplies of power. Rather, the technology could lead to ultra-portable x-ray machines and even a wearable device that could provide safe, continuous cancer treatment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Team Confirms UCLA Tabletop Fusion

Comments Filter:
  • has anyone seen... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by DRAGONWEEZEL ( 125809 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @01:42PM (#14708110) Homepage
    THE SAINT

  • Room temperature? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sploxx ( 622853 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @01:43PM (#14708126)
    Although the device as a whole may be at room temperature, the region where the fusion reactions occur is at a much higher temperature (10^6K or similar) - as it is needed for fusion.

    Speedy particles smashing into each other have a lot of kinetic energy in the center of mass inertial system. This is nothing different than 'heat'.
  • by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @01:54PM (#14708270)
    Everyone's overloaded on hearing about people blowing up airplanes. Hunting down terrorists is the depressing fact harped at us constantly in all directions. A two sentence mention in the article is about all that is really warranted, don't you think? Perhaps they should have said "nukes," or "fissionable material." Fissionable material doesn't really hit home for most people though. Nukes sounds outlandish. Explosives is a bit too broad.

    Not being a scientific paper, the details of the procedure aren't germaine to the article.

    Eh, it's close enough, right?
  • Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <.ten.yxox. .ta. .nidak.todhsals.> on Monday February 13, 2006 @02:15PM (#14708534) Homepage Journal
    Given how destructive neutron radiation is, I'm somewhat surprised that they'd be talking about strapping a reasonably strong source to someone's person.

    I think that's kind of the idea, if you were trying to kill a tumor with it.

    At any rate, I get the feeling that the 'cancer treatment' idea was probably just something that whoever gave the interview to the article's author pulled out of their ass when they were asked about 'possible uses.' It sounds good, and who knows, it might even be true.
  • by Temkin ( 112574 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @02:55PM (#14709098)

    Um don't you need protons for that also? Adding neutrons would just create isotopes...



    No. You have to overcome the charge of the protons to get them to enter the nucleus. If it were easy to get protons to enter a nucleus, we would have had fusion decades ago.... Of course the universe wouldn't exist as we know it, but that's not really germane to the discusison. Neutrons, having no charge at all, fly right in and collide, unimpeded by the electron cloud or the protons.

    If I remember correctly, there's a very unstable intermediate isotope of Uranium created that almost immediately emits a beta particle which converts a neutron to a proton.

  • by aminorex ( 141494 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @03:44PM (#14709669) Homepage Journal
    No, it does not require tons of U-238 to produce supercritical masses of Pu-239. Less than a ton will do very nicely. What it does require is a fair amount of Tritium. D-D fusion neutrons are too slow. D-T fusion neutrons are perfect for the production of Pu-239. Separating the Pu from the U is trivial. It is a purely chemical process. I did this with an IEC fusor using surplus DU from a 747 counterweight. Using the fusor it would have taken gigawatts of electric power to produce a critical mass in less than a decade, and the process was impractical for weapon production. I don't know enough about the new process to comment, but if it improved the electrical efficiency by a couple of orders of magnitude, it would result in a viable process.
  • Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @03:57PM (#14709801)
    I was a plasma physicist, and did some research on topics related to fusion before quiting to become a programmer.

    Basically, you're right. The nice things about fusion (or some of them at least) are that there's no scope for a Chernobyl-style meltdown and the reaction products and reactants are safe.

    The problem, as you say, is that it's an excellent source of neutrons. The generator and its housing have to be designed to absorb as much of that neutron flux as possible. This inevitably produces radioactive isotopes in these materials, which will eventually break down to the point that they must be replaced.

    The nuclear waste associated with a fusion power plant isn't as bad as that for a fission one, but it still exists and still needs to be dealt with.
  • by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Monday February 13, 2006 @03:58PM (#14709805) Homepage Journal
    There have been a number of discoveries recently about how to generate neutrons from fusion albeit at a large energy loss.


    What I'm wondering is whether this could be used to create a hybrid device that blast fissionable material with reaction initiating neutrons, rather than balance the fissionable material on the knife's edge of criticality. If so then fission reaction would stop immediately upon loss of initiating neutrons from the fusion source and you have a much safer nuclear reactor design. Could this also be used to burn our existing stockpiles of waste, and if not practical with these neutron sources, could future more efficient fusion reactors be used to extract additional energy from nuclear waste while consuming and disposing of it at the same time?

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...