Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Yet Another Method Of Achieving Nuclear Fusion 212

Posted by Zonk from the zap dept.
deglr6328 writes "Recent research has seen the use of the pyroelectric effect, the compression of bubbles using ultrasound and gas jet irradiation for producing nuclear fusion on small tabletop-scales. Yet another method can now be added to the list which uses ultraintense laser irradiation striking a borated plastic target to heat a plasma to billion kelvin temperatures and achieves aneutronic (clean) proton-boron fusion. (The PRL paper can be read online.) Though, like the other recently discovered exotic methods of attaining fusion, it does not look like a method which can be scaled up to ignition or even anywhere near break even, it still may have important use in the laboratory for the examination of such incredibly high temperature plasmas."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yet Another Method Of Achieving Nuclear Fusion More

Yet Another Method Of Achieving Nuclear Fusion

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds good... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mathiasdm ( 803983 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @02:45AM (#13419840) Homepage
    YAMOANF: Yet Another Method Of Achieving Nuclear Fusion

    Or in short YANF: Yet Another Nuclear Fusion

  • Other uses for fusion? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday August 28, 2005 @03:05AM (#13419890) Homepage Journal
    When I read things like this I have to wonder if there aint uses for fusion beyond the current power station paradigm. I mean productive uses, not research uses. Maybe there's medical uses for neutrino sources or remote sensing uses. And how about fusion rockets? Surely making leaky (but directed) plasma containment is adequate to make fusion powered rockets. You don't even need ignition.. supplying more energy than you get out is fine, as long as you supply the starting energy on the ground and reap the output energy whilst in the air.
    • When I read things like this I have to wonder if there aint uses for fusion beyond the current power station paradigm.

      The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is often used as a neutron source for various atomic experiments. Info [wikipedia.org]

      And how about fusion rockets?

      Meet Project Daedalus [wikipedia.org]. While it doesn't use anything as low powered as sonofusion, it is a true fusion rocket. The idea is sound, but I'm afraid that the technology is still beyond us. Or perhaps more precisely, there's no good lab to test a ship like this. It's rea
    • When I was reading I thought "Hey, where does the flux capacitor fit into this?"

  • Fusion sounds nice, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by krisamico ( 452786 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @03:31AM (#13419937)
    There is a lot of very interesting work being done out there, but consider the ramifications of producing energy, in general. Most of the time, when we are releasing energy with an exothermic process, we are changing one thing into something else, using some leftover energy to do work. Fusion really isn't very different.

    Let us assume for the sake of argument, that we have implemented a form of nuclear energy production that leaves something relatively harmless behind, such as helium. When this process is put into practice the world over, the effect on our environment could be Very Bad.

    No matter how we produce energy, we are doing so at the expense of the environmental balance that made sophisticated life on Earth possible to begin with. We threaten our own existence by producing energy. Perhaps we should be putting more research into ways each and every human can live happily while consuming *less* energy, rather than endeavoring to produce *more*.

    There is intriguing evidence available today that suggests that the comings and goings of living beings on Earth regularly brings about disastrous changes in climate, triggered by release and re-uptake of CO2, methane, and the like. Whether we are accelerating this natural process with our energy production is a subject about which there is much debate, but learning how we can require less energy to live certainly wouldn't hurt!

    • Re:Fusion sounds nice, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mattyrobinson69 ( 751521 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @03:59AM (#13419991)
      modern things in general do use less resources (as people would rather buy things that cost less to run).

      One i know of is modern toilets, they use a hell of a lot less water than they used to.

      Electric showers (vs the boiler)

      home insulation (subsidised by british gas in the UK, iirc)

      Either convince everybody they didn't really like that whole electricity lark anyway, or find a way to make more energy. The point of nuclear fussion is that its perfectly clean, and renewable.
    • Maybe the same can be said about the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Could it be they triggered a re-balencing of the Gia because they were so successful and lived for so many millions of years?
    • I donn't know if you've just stumbled onto this line of reasoning, but you've just participated in the greatest debate raging today. On one side you have the Bob Dole's of the world who believe the only way to keep living on earth for another 100 years is to stop all birth, and all economic growth until the population of earth has receeded to about a billion people and then conserve energy until we've exhausted what we have. Then we all die. On the other side we have the technologists, who believe that a
      • We couldn't support ourselves on this planet WITHOUT using technology.

        We can actually cause less damage if we use tech wisely, rather than early farming methods.

        Like making hamburgers out of eel instead of beef. Get rid of Pig and Cow raising and you would make a big dent on our impact.

        What we have to do is try all the approaches; scale back consumption, find alternatives for current wasteful practices, new technologies to reduce pollution and produce energy.
    • What do you do when you make a mess? Hopefully, you clean it up.

      This should be no different. If we want to use more energy, then we should do so responsibly. Any byproduct of any energy producing process would need to be monitored, and controlled.
    • Yes. Let's all live in grass huts and eat windfalls.
    • Fusion really isn't very different.

      Uh, yes it is. It's a nuclear process and not a chemical one.

      No matter how we produce energy, we are doing so at the expense of the environmental balance that made sophisticated life on Earth possible to begin with.

      A chemical balance. Not a nuclear one. Or do you care to explain how you think the ratio of helium-to-hydrogen was essential in creating life? Keep in mind that helium dissipatates from the atmosphere.

    • Re:Fusion sounds nice, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deglr6328 ( 150198 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @08:48AM (#13420612)
      "Let us assume for the sake of argument, that we have implemented a form of nuclear energy production that leaves something relatively harmless behind, such as helium. When this process is put into practice the world over, the effect on our environment could be Very Bad"

      Uhhhhhh......why? I really think the new agey "everything humans do besides sitting in a ditch poking berries up thier noses is UNNATURAL AND THEREFORE EEEEEVILL AND BAAAAAD" nonsense is really dangerous magical thinking. We can't go back to the stone age just to make sure every last chipmunk lives a happy healthy full life and its just ludicrous to think so. Just because something is not cuddlyfuzzycute doesn't mean that it MUST somehow harm the planet. Helium is not a greenhouse gas, it is not an ozone depleting gas and it is TOTALLY inert. There is a reason its called a noble gas. I think we CAN manage Earth's resources wisely and we CAN produce the vast energies that will be required for the next stage of human civilization on Earth and we CAN do it without destroying the planet if we just use our heads and rigorously apply the scientific method.
      • I really think the new agey "everything humans do besides sitting in a ditch poking berries up thier noses is UNNATURAL AND THEREFORE EEEEEVILL AND BAAAAAD" nonsense is really dangerous magical thinking. We can't go back to the stone age just to make sure every last chipmunk lives a happy healthy full life and its just ludicrous to think so.

        I think this is an extremely distorted viewpoint. --I have met thousands of different people from all walks of life and the, "Magical Hippie" only makes up a tiny, tiny
      • I don't think among the left that the belief that everything we do is bad is common.

        It has been a destructive "straw man" argument for too long. We are doing a lot of dumb things right now. We may not find perfect solutions, but not having a perfect solution is no excuse to continue dumb things.

        We need to start using more nuclear reactors. Look into low radiation nuclear power that can use the uranium we throw out from current reactors to produce energy. Nuclear waste regulation is kind of rediculous and tr
        • We need to start using more nuclear reactors. I agree. Just tell the anti-nuke lobby to shut the hell up then.

          Look into low radiation nuclear power that can use the uranium we throw out from current reactors to produce energy.

          Or we could just re-enrich the stuff or through it into a breeder reactor (ban on those was put into place bay Pres. Carter) this was in the original plan back in the 50s/60s, and toss it back in to our current reactors.

          Nuclear waste regulation is kind of rediculous and treats

        • Re:Fusion sounds nice, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by deglr6328 ( 150198 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:24PM (#13422515)
          Talk about hyperbole! Jeez glass houses an' all that. I find it funny and sad that responses to my post automatically assume that I must be some Rush Limbaugh loving anti-environmentalism dittohead jackass because I posted from a skeptical viewpoint and attacked illogical/fuzzyheaded magical thinking. Hint, I voted for Kerry (albiet grudgingly since I am more libertarian than democrat). I am fully for the reasoned and rational conservation and management of the environment so long as it is dictated very strictly by scientific knowledge and inquiry. What irritates me is when some unscientific Mother Gaia worshipping dolt goes on about how any technological progress beyond what we already have now is bad and wrong [greenpeace.org]!
          As a skeptic and a liberal I think it is sad that justified attacks on irrationality and anti-science nonsense are immediately seen as being synonymous with "an attack on the left". I hope it is not the case that "the left" has become so inextricably associated with the emptyheaded irrational brand of environmentalism that this is how it is seen by all other political groups, though judging from posts here, I fear this may indeed be the case. :(
    • > Let us assume for the sake of argument, that we have implemented a form of nuclear energy production that leaves something relatively harmless behind, such as helium. When this process is put into practice the world over, the effect on our environment could be Very Bad.

      Helium is chemically inert. Doesn't react with anything. (And I mean anything, not "mostly anything, but it can be catalyze other reactions like we found out the hard way with Freon and other CFCs". Helium is not merely "inert und

    • > We threaten our own existence by producing energy.
      > Perhaps we should be putting more research into
      > ways each and every human can live happily while
      > consuming *less* energy, rather than endeavoring
      > to produce *more*.

      If you have enough energy available, you can run a refrigerator to cool the earth and dissipate excess heat into space as EM. It's not a closed system.

  • I for one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28, 2005 @03:37AM (#13419945)
    ... am still waiting for my fusion powered flying car.

  • Farenheit 10^9 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tardibear ( 135254 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @03:43AM (#13419958)
    heat a plasma to billion kelvin temperatures

    When you're talking about billions of degrees the temperature scale is pretty irrelevant.

    • "When you're talking about billions of degrees the temperature scale is pretty irrelevant."

      "Is that fahrenheit, or celcius?"

      "First one, then the other."
    • When you're talking about billions of degrees the temperature scale is pretty irrelevant.

      Not so IMHO. There's a linear dependence between Fahrenheit and Celsius/Kelvin. While the constant term is meaningless with such high numbers, the ratio of 9/5 doesn't go anywhere. Fahrenheit 1e9 is roughly 6e8 Kelvin (or degrees Celsius).

    • As others pointed out there is a big difference between farenheit and celsius, however 10^9 celsius vs 10^9 kelvin is a difference of 293 degrees (ugh, my physics professors will hunt me down if I got that wrong but I'm too lazy to check at the moment)

      So the difference between celsius and kelvin is trivial in the plasma ranges, celsius and farenheit still has a difference, but no one in their right mind uses farenheit to measure plasma temperatures anyway.

  • Laser irradiation method (Score:3, Funny)

    by yppiz ( 574466 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:45AM (#13420062) Homepage
    Article: ultraintense laser irradiation striking a ...

    Tell me more about this laser-irradiated Borat [boratonline.co.uk].

    --Pat

  • Just how are most of these designs planning on transfering the energy to a steam turbine?
    • The point of anuetronic fusion is that they are *not* planning to transfer the heat to a steam turbine (who the hell wants a steam turbine - that's why current powerstations cost so much to build and maintain - and why they're so inefficient).

      In a neutronic reaction such as D + T -> He + n high energy neutrons are transfer their energy to water and a steam turbine takes a little bit of that energy back out and coverts a little bit of what it takes into electricity. This is very bad for the environment as
  • ...and someday we'll be using grapes [barnesos.net] as fuel!

  • "scaled up"? How about "scaled down"? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Sunday August 28, 2005 @11:12AM (#13421093) Homepage Journal
    producing nuclear fusion on small tabletop-scales...it does not look like a method which can be scaled up to ignition or even anywhere near break even

    Uh... if scaling the laser pulse duration down to picoseconds allows one to scale the power down to 10 joules and get fusion events not even dreamed of by the ITER project, then why would you talk of it being "scaled up"?

    It seems the next step is to scale down to femtosecond pulses to get the yeild up and the energy input down so you can approach break-even.

    Depending on the scalng laws, you could end up with micro optical electronics systems that produce net-positive energy.

    A p-B11 rocket engine might look more like a solar array producing a very bright light than a nozzle spewing mach diamonds.

Slashdot Top Deals

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Close