Posted on 07/25/2005 8:33:29 AM PDT by Irontank
A widely criticized effort three years ago to create low-cost tabletop nuclear fusion could gain new support following an experiment at Purdue University.
Taking the basic apparatus used in 2002, two Purdue researchers refined the experiment and published new results that once again seem to prove that nuclear fusion was taking place. If it proves to be real, the new approach might lead to a genuine new source of energy.
An inexpensive, practical method of controlling nuclear fusion could revolutionize energy production, so any hint of a breakthrough in that direction generates high interest among both the technical community and the mainstream media. But hard-headed physicists have grown wary of "fusion in a jar" experiments.
The physics community was lukewarm to n approach to tabletop fusion that originated with Rusi Taleyarkhan at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2002. Using acoustic cavitation generated by ultrasound waves in a solution doped with deuterium, Taleyarkhan and his colleagues published results that they considered an airtight case for nuclear fusion. But criticism followed. When Taleyarkhan replied with a follow-up experiment to address those concerns, the reaction was muted.
The Purdue team began its work independently two years ago. "Sonofusion is thermonuclear fusion and is scalable," said Yiban Xu, who performed the experiment with fellow researcher Adam Butt. "However, much research and development needs to be done before reaching so-called energy break-even."
In the language of nuclear fusion researchers, break-even is the point beyond which a reaction produces more energy than it consumes, the minimal requirement for success. Xu, more concerned with proving that any nuclear fusion occurred, cannot say whether the reaction produces energy efficiently.
Xu said a small-scale apparatus like his experimental setup could have other important applications. "Neutrons seed cavitation in the test fluid, and so do the other nuclear particles. Therefore, in principle, cavitation occurrence indicates the presence of radiation activities if appropriate conditions are provided," he said.
Possible applications could be a simple and portable neutron source or a way to generate tritium, a helium isotope produced by the reaction.
Son-of-a-what?
So how long until we have a fusion coffemaker?
Son of a sound approach...
I think he is saying it works, and you can make it bigger if you want.
Someone please post a link to the picture of Dr. Brown's "Mr. Fusion" from Back to the Future....
What is your take on this? Real or bogus?
BFLR = bump for later reading
But what about nuclear fusion as a replacement for oil and coal-based energy? Is that something that scientists envision?
They appear to be using cavitation as a surrogate marker for fusion. Well, good luck to them - it sounds like quite cheap research and you never know what the spinoffs might be, even if (as seems likely) Cold Fusion is a dream.
""Sonofusion is thermonuclear fusion and is scalable," said Yiban Xu, who performed the experiment..."
cavitation? sonofusion?
Glad he's on our side.
How big and how heavy was the aparatus in which they created fusion?
Secondly, how much heat was generated by the apparatus?
Cavitation effects were proposed at the time as an explanation for the results obtained by Pons and Fleischman 15 years ago. All those bubbles on the electrodes.
What makes you think he is?
Bush and his 'oil buddies' will put a stop to this! They need to keep us dependent on oil so they can all get richer. Rove is hatching an eeeevil plan in his lair in the White House basement right now! /DUmmie
Bubble Fusion takes next hurdle
Uh huh.
This approach, if it works, would provide a method ANYONE could use to produce fissile material. Yikes!
Well, maybe, but I'm involved with a project that we took to the DOE (NOT fusion, something else), and they put us off by requiring more and more studies, papers, etc...
Their response to us was somewhat justified, I'll have to admit, but my point is, they ask other folks to conduct the studies, I think, and review the findings.
I don't see them using cavitation as a marker - sounds like they clearly (I know that word transgresses quantum physics, but you know what I mean) measured the emission of particles following cavitation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.