Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fusion In Sonoluminescence (Again)?

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the makes-a-poor-nightlight dept.

Science 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.

cancel ×

417 comments

Don't forget... (-1)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454229)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Energy (5, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454238)

So, the problem with extracting energy from this is still sustainability combined with total output right? The amount of energy invested in the system will have to be exceeded by the energy produced or else it is for naught. The things about traditional plasma fusion is that energy output is extensive, but the reaction cannot be sustained. Bubble fusion appears to be sustainable, but likely does not produce significant caloric heat......

Re:Energy (4, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454327)

It's not just sustainability, it's getting it to react. You need intense pressures, and the only ways to do this previously, require very large (read: industrial) bits of equipment, just for the proof-of-concept. Even then, the proofs have been lack-lustre at best, always with a big ol' helping of disclaimers :-P

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.

Well... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454334)

at least you are able to use thousands of dollars in education to look ever so smart to Slashdot. You know what else produces significant caloric heat? My butt.

Re:Energy (0, Offtopic)

br0ck (237309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454375)

They're close, all Keanu has to do now is find the right harmonic frequencies [imdb.com] and then, provided he can stay clear of the big industry thugs, hurrah, cheap power for all!

Re:Energy (4, Funny)

etLux (751445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454565)

The *real* problem is forgetting to hide the little battery in the bottom of the apparatus.

Without that, they usually don't work very well.

Re:Energy (3, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454633)

If this does produce fusion then it should also produce some heat. If the liquid is heated, then that should be harnessable as an energy source. That's when you can start to optimize the energy output vs. the energy input.

Bah (0, Funny)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454239)

Cold fusion is just around the corner, why would we need this?

In other scientific news: (-1, Offtopic)

jasonfncsu (735876) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454246)

JasonF, a scientist at NCSU, has created a perpetual motion machine!

...obligatory Simpsons quote (2, Funny)

Psyqlone (681556) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454342)

>>>JasonF, a scientist at NCSU, has created a perpetual motion machine!

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer S.

DUPE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454250)

Story is a DUPE

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03 /0 3/1833245&mode=thread

Try to PAY ATTENTION, TIMOTHY

obligatory.. (4, Informative)

hookedup (630460) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454251)


*cough*google link [nytimes.com] *cough*

also obligatory.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454426)

OMG YOU KARMA WHORE!! ;)

Well... (5, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454252)

All I want to know is when I can throw garbage in the gas tank of a DeLorean to fuel it.

Re:Well... (2, Informative)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454326)

But the DeLorean itself was still gasoline powered!

=Smidge=

Re:Well... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454421)

Only up to 88 MPH ...

Re:Well... (2, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454539)

Exactly. The "Mr Fusion" was to generate the necessary 1.21 gigawatts, not the 88mph :)

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454552)

Beautiful. Only on Slashdot could a comment about Back to the Future in a discussion about fusion be labeled "informative".

Re:Well... (1)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454422)

All I want to know is when I can throw garbage in the gas tank of a DeLorean to fuel it.

Only if you pour the beer out of the can.

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :
[Acetone] is found among the products formed in destructive distillation of wood, sugar, cellulose, etc., and for this reason it is always present in crude wood spirit, from which the greater portion of it may be recovered by fractional distillation.
To be precice, though, Acetone doesn't appear to be produced by brewing beer but by distilling spirits. So the good Doctor would have needed to pour in a can of, say, Jack Daniels Hard Cola [cnn.com] .

No, no, not sun in a jar (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454254)

Willow worked out a spell to make a ball of sunshine. This would allow Buffy to easily kill vampires... not that she needs help killing vampires.

Canned Sunshine (5, Funny)

tbase (666607) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454263)

This is news? We've had canned sunshine in our gift shops here in Florida for years!

Re:Canned Sunshine (1)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454379)

Wasn't that bottled moonshine ...

Re:Canned Sunshine (3, Funny)

tbase (666607) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454529)

They're related... only the people who have sampled the bottled moonshine actually buy the canned sunshine. :-)

A SUN in a jar? (4, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454266)

A SUN in a jar? If you think Darl is bad, just wait to see the look on Scott McNealy's face once everyone starts creating his server in their mayonaise jars.

double entendre (5, Funny)

Spyffe (32976) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454269)

they have made a Sun in a jar
In Soviet Java, Sun .jars YOU!

Re:double entendre (1)

addaon (41825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454347)

For such a bad joke formula, it's surprising how often it's mildly amusing.

SCO (-1, Offtopic)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454289)

Umm, when is Slashdot going to post something about SCO suing [groklaw.net] DaimlerChrysler? I submitted it over 2 hrs ago but sigh...

Re:SCO (-1, Offtopic)

emptybody (12341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454336)

See Here [slashdot.org]

"Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens, don't take it personally."

Re:SCO (-1, Offtopic)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454365)

I know, I know, but I have karma to burn. I think all of my submissions are rejected because of my opinion of Michael but oh well. I may subscribe once he leaves.

Re:SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454352)

this article was updated to include the DaimlerChrysler lawsuit http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/03/03/1322244.shtml

Re:SCO (-1, Offtopic)

emptybody (12341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454369)

It is already mentioned in the front page article summary:

SCO Names 1st Lawsuit Target: AutoZone [Updated] [slashdot.org]

Re:SCO (-1, Offtopic)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454432)

Missed that, eating humble pie now. Howev er it wasn't on there when I submitted.

Cold fusion will always be with us (5, Funny)

ChiralSoftware (743411) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454291)

It is the perpetual motion of the nuclear age. It works even better than zero-point energy [rcn.com] and has replaced the 200mpg carburetor. [onlawn.net] .

--------
Do you have Wireless-Enabled Hosting(tm) [chiralsoftware.net] ?

Except that this isn't *cold* fusion (4, Informative)

HarveyBirdman (627248) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454351)

The claim is that the bubbles create temperatures high enough to create fusion.

Sonoluminescence + Cold Fusion = 200mpg Carburetor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454447)

It's just that the fuel will be water instead of gasoline.

I'm just waiting for the time when I can plug a box into my hot water heater and power the rest of my house.

Weekly Schedule (5, Funny)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454305)

Well, at least this finally fills that ugly hole on Wednesday in the Slashdot weekly schedule:

Monday: Patch Windows
Tuesday: Stop SCO's latest plan
Wednesday: Invent Fusion
Thursday: Patch Linux
Friday: Watch LoTR while patching Windows

Since they got Fusion out of the way early today, I think I have a little time to go bash Infinium Labs some more. Tally ho!

Re:Weekly Schedule (-1, Offtopic)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454362)

my life is compleat, time to assend

Re:Weekly Schedule (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454481)

Wow. Only seven words, and you manage to screw up two of them, not counting the lack of capitalization and punctuation. Do you actually try to type, or do you just bang your head on the keyboard until something halfway intelligible comes out?

Re:Weekly Schedule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454659)

I think you missed at least six patches to Windows!

Lots of potential (5, Interesting)

overbyj (696078) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454311)

Without understanding all the physics here, I think there may be something to this. One of the reasons chemists are kind of intrigued with sonochemistry (chemistry facilitated by sound) is that ultrasound generates "bubbles" (for lack of a better word) where the local temperatures can reach into the thousands of degrees of Celsius. You can do some really amazing chemical syntheses using ultrasound all because of the extremely high local temperatures generated. The same idea extends to using microwave ovens for chemistry. You can do lots of reactions in a microwave because of the intense and neatly condensed amount of heat generated.

So, there may really be something to this. It would be great if it did work out.

Re:Lots of potential (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454353)

Seriously - the implications are massive. If not for fusion, someone else will definitely have a really good use.

Ain't plasma coooool? oh, wait...

Re:Lots of potential (1)

visgoth (613861) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454651)

Maybe Captain Sisko [thestartrekcontinuum.com] can finally be given his flying car? [dailywav.com]

I'll believe it when... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454317)

...people standing around said jar start dieing.

Sorry, thought this was an Episode 3 item. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454320)

I was so hoping this was an item about "the son of Jar Jar". My bad. "Meesa so sorry."

Eh (5, Interesting)

addaon (41825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454323)

I've done a bunch of work in sonoluminescence. It's deeply cool, don't get me wrong. But the highest temperature we were able to measure was about an order of magnitude too low for fusion. Even if our measuring had an error factor of two or three (not impossible, since we had to dope the water to get high enough brightness for using a spectrometer), I'm far from convinced.

Re:Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454477)

Yeah, and because you and your dope couldn't get it to work, no-one can right?

Maybe they just have better bud than you. ;)

Re:Eh? heh (0, Flamebait)

mveloso (325617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454507)

In other words, because you couldn't do it it's likely not possible? That's not the correct attitude if you practice the scientific method.

Instead of mouthing off, why not try and reproduce the results, then say what your results were?

Re:Eh? heh (3, Informative)

addaon (41825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454584)

Perhaps I should clarify. We got these results when attempting to reproduce these results, which is why I doubt them. Our results were also consistent with our earlier results trying to estimate the peak temperature possible by sonoluminescence in a given fluid (which is, theoretically, unique for any particular fluid); both results were roughly an order of magnitude smaller than needed for fusion.

Re:Eh (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454570)

Heck, I've played football (soccer) and I sucked. I don't look at the world cup and go "No way! that can't happen!"

;)

I wish these guys the best, and hope they've at least found out something cool to do with bubbles and sound :-P

reaim your horseshoes (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454573)

An order of magnitude too low is also within merely one order of magnitude of success. What actual quantity was in the range? Degrees Kelvin? Joules:m^3? Order of *decimal* magnitude, logarithmic, other? In a statistically distributed energy system, an average miss by 0.1% might mask hits in 1% of the material, balanced by farther misses in the other 99%. And if you were really only 33% off, considering a 2-3x error margin, might their experiment not have been more precise in efficiency, and in measurement, offering a hit at the threshold?

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:reaim your horseshoes (5, Informative)

addaon (41825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454646)

Our maximum temperature for sonoluminescence in water was about 280 kK (kilokelvin). Our maximum temperature for sonoluminescence in seeded water (water + hydrogen, for example, although we used water + argon and water + helium; both gave similar results) was around 100 kK. I'll readily believe the second number can improve to approximate the first, but the first just isn't close.

In other substances, nothing seemed quite as good as water. Glycerine and alcohol were both within a factor of two; everything else was lower. Lower molecular density seems to give higher maximum temperature (although I'd have to check the theory to verify this isn't just a coincidence), so trying liquid helium might be cute... but I can't believe it'll help much.

Re:Eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454657)

From your explanation in a post below, you used tap water. From the article, they used acetone. Might this account for the difference in results?

So... (0)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454328)

So it'll produce infinitesimal, almost undetectable, amounts of energy. Very handy. Will hardly lower gas prices, though.

What would happen if... (-1)

Stingr (701739) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454329)

it went supernova???

IANANP (nuclear physicist) but think about it. If our sun goes supernova it would mean the end of our solar system. According to the article this was the size of a large drinking cup. I would think that would be enough to vaporize a small chunk of North America at least.

Sir! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454390)

SIR, PUT THE BONG DOWN AND STEP AWAY PLEASE!

I know the stupid filter says "Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING" but I AM YELLING!

Re:What would happen if... (1)

plams (744927) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454404)

One thing's for sure -- if it DOES go supernova, your tin-foil hat wont save you.

Re:What would happen if... (4, Informative)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454433)

"Going Supernova" requires a certain amount of mass. Our sun is too small. For a star the size of our sun, the death is a gradual swelling of the outer layers and a contraction of the core, resulting in a nebula with a white dwarf in the middle.

A drinking-cup sized chunk of fusion wouldn't have much umph at all. Considernig the processes going on are completely different from the kind in hydrogen fusion bombs, I'd say the worst explosion is from overheating and overpressurizing of the chamber - something like a handgrenade.
=Smidge=

Re:What would happen if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454590)

a pagan or holy handgrenade?

In other news, (4, Funny)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454330)

In other news today, Hell has frozen over. Satan responded to the sudden freeze by noting, "Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Russian Academy of Science collaborating on nuclear research? Who would've thought it possible?"

Re:In other news, (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454605)

Who would've thought it possible?Who would've thought it possible?"

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

What am I missing? (1, Insightful)

addie (470476) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454340)

Yes, I did RTFA. I'm no scientist, but I've taken enough chemistry to know that what comes out must equal what goes in. What is this solvent? What is it made out of, and where is it produced? Isn't there a very good chance that a liquid this useful would be rare and/or toxic and dangerous? I have no idea, and the article doesn't address it.

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.

Re:What am I missing? (2, Informative)

M00TP01NT (596278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454381)

From the press release, "The research team used a standing ultrasonic wave to help form and then implode the cavitation bubbles of deuterated acetone vapor."

Deuterium to fuse, acetone vapor to help it form gas bubbles.

Re:What am I missing? (4, Insightful)

captainClassLoader (240591) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454462)

The liquid is deuterated acetone. AFAIK, this is essentially nail polish remover doped with deuterium. Probably as brain-rotting as normal nail polish remover, only a bit more dense.

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? (5, Informative)

zeux (129034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454492)

Actually after a while the walls of a tokamak have to be changed because neutrons makes them radioactive on the long run.

So yes this would produce radioactive material too, but a material less nasty and lesser material than a fission reaction.

Re:What am I missing? (3, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454465)

> ... but I've taken enough chemistry to know that what comes out must
> 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.

Re:What am I missing? (5, Interesting)

addaon (41825) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454517)

Our setup is presumably somewhat different than ours, but here's the summary of the five-minute do-it-your-self sonoluminescence kit:

Take a spherical flask, around 100ml or so. Bigger will mean lower frequencies but higher amplitudes needed. Fill the flask with water from the tap, up until the mensicus is just at the neck of the flask (that is, the water body is as close to spherical as possible). Attach on opposite sides of the flask two speakers, and somewhere else (we just put it between the two speakers, 90 degrees from each, but it doesn't really matter) a microphone.

Hook up a frequency generator to your speakers. Hook up your mic to a 'scope. You'll see the frequency being generated being picked up, slightly muffled and distorted, by the microphone. Tune your frequency until you get resonance; it'll be really, really obvious as the peaks of the mic output become much sharper than the input frequency. The actual frequency depends greatly on the water volume, and is very sensitive to temperature; for our particular setup 48kHz - 52kHz seems about right.

Turn off the light. Allow your eyes about 10 minutes to adjust. With this setup, you'll have light about as bright as a 5th-magnitude star. Any stray light at all will limit your detection. Slowly pump up the amplitude of your input. As the amplitude goes up, resonance frequency changes slightly, so tune as needed. The total amplitude needed is not very high, but it's probably going to be in the top half of a non-amplified signal generator's range.

The gas in the bubble, in this case, is a combination of (some) water vapor and (mostly) outgassed dissolved gasses. That's why we used tap water, above. Bottled water has much less dissolved gasses, so will be much dimmer. Also, water that sits there outgasses, so if you don't change your water it'll get dimmer over time. But we can exploit the fact that it's this added gas that glows, if we want.

Drill a very small hole (seven mil, for us) in the exact bottom of your glass flask. Attach a capilary of the same ID, or a bit more. Attach capilary to a gas canister, and input a low flow rate of gas while running the experiment as above. The idea is to have a near-constant flow of extremely small gas bubbles. If the bubbles are too big, nothing will happen at all; the temperature doesn't get high enough. If there are too many bubbles, you disturb resonance something awful. If the bubbles don't pass through the center, they'll be ignored. But if you get it just right, you'll get a nice burst of light (0th or 1st magnitude) when each bubble goes through, appearing as a constant point of light to the naked eye.

Argon works really nicely for this. Nitrogen works too. You don't want to use anything that dissolves too easily, because it will saturate the water; too much gas outgassing results in bubbles too big to glow. And you'll have to chance the water quite often, because everything will dissolve too much eventually (although helium seems to either dissolve less or just outgas from the top of the flask more quickly).

I presume what they're using in this experiment is hydrogen/deuterium gas, either fed in ordissolved in the water.

Since I should be studying for a midterm, I'll cut off my tutorial now, but feel free to ask more!

obligatore simpsons quote (3, Funny)

cur3 (514524) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454348)


Young lady, in this house we obey the second law of thermodynamics!

Re:obligatore simpsons quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454518)

Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Sonoluminescence? Fusion? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454356)

Fusion In Sonoluminescence

First the win a grammy for Best New Artist, and now they're experimenting with jazz. I, for one, welcome our new musically-experimental overlords.

Important to note... (5, Informative)

zeux (129034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454368)

... they squeezed tiny gas bubbles in the liquid so quickly and violently that temperatures reached millions of degrees and some of the hydrogen atoms in the solvent molecules fused, producing a flash of light and energy.

Please note that this is *NOT* cold fusion.

Re:Important to note... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454564)

Same principle, different name.

Re:Important to note... (2, Offtopic)

zeux (129034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454602)

No, not the same principle, cold fusion means fusion reactions *without* the need for a very high temperature.

Here we clearly have very high temperatures. Enough to create hot fusion reactions, the same we can produce in tokamaks and H bombs.

Re:Important to note... (2, Insightful)

CKW (409971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454653)

Please note that this is *NOT* cold fusion.

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.

Those car audio systems (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454371)

can now be used to power your car! :)

The only Cold Fusion I believe in... (1)

mark0 (750639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454372)

...is here [fusionclub.co.uk] .

But, if it is real, time to invest in jars.

So... (0, Redundant)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454376)

When can I get my "Mr. Fusion" for my DeLorean?

Key to the breakthrough (2, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454385)

It turned out that the secret to making this work was to use polywater as the liquid medium.

Link from a local paper (5, Interesting)

jkitchel (615599) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454392)

here's a link from a local paper [boilerstation.com] .

An interesting quote from the article:"Willy Moss has been trying to reach that brass ring for a long time, and he's had way more money than Taleyarkhan and way more facilities," George said. "And when Taleyarkhan said he had neutrons, (Moss) sort of chimed in and said, 'No, no you don't,' because he was hard on the trail trying to get there first."

Seems there is a bit of anonymity here. In the defense of the researcher(s):The evidence now is "far more compelling," he said. "This time around, before publication took place, I deliberately involved a series of highly acclaimed physicists to come down to the lab and review the experimental setup and the way we were obtaining data and look at the experimental data."

After receiving positive reviews from them, he took the findings to the management of Oak Ridge, which conducted its own internal review, making the forthcoming publication "perhaps the most peer-reviewed paper in the history of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory," Taleyarkhan said.

OT! how much hits dows /. get ? (-1, Offtopic)

demmer (623592) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454396)

i googled around for half an hour... but i cannot find inforation about how many hits slashdot gets a day... today...

is there a publich hit statistic or something?

thanks

Oils replacement (2, Insightful)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454410)

Don't we already have several technologies to replace oil? If this is working and could be used Great!
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.

New Campain promise (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454420)

"...a paycheck in everybody's pocket, and a fusion reator in every home!"

It'd be nice (3, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454429)

if this particular discovery bears fruit, it might be really cool, as the cost for implementing it appears much lower than other attempted fusion experiments. But, how much would a true power plant cost? Or, how much would a "home unit" cost, since distributing the grid would probably be a better long-term solution to our power needs.

Then come the obvious questions about environmental impacts, as energy = heat, and here is an energy source without effective limits, hence limitless energy, and limitless heat. Perhaps they can use some of this limitless energy to pump the generated heat out of the planet? (ie, big heat radiators? Energy recycling? Something totally out of my depth?)

Re:It'd be nice (1)

Sentosus (751729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454482)

I am no Expert...

But I would assume that compressed steam nuclear power plants would only need to replace the reactor with the new power unit since heat is still the product and steam would still be used to turn turbines.

Probably some structural changes, but we are not talking about having to tear down every reactor and build new ones next to them.

Wow (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454437)

$discovery is really cool. Once again, $scienceFictionAuthor was a visionary when he wrote about this concept in $book. I hope that we can come up with some practical applications using $discovery soon.

$wittySig

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454664)

$troll!

RPI?? (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454461)

In the words of the UPAC audience...

WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP!

(sorry, i'm a nostalgic alum)

"Sun in a jar" (3, Funny)

radiumhahn (631215) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454488)

I though Sunny Delight was "Sun in a jar"

Re:"Sun in a jar" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454615)

I bet Sunny Delight emits more neutrons.

Science by press release (2, Insightful)

chazR (41002) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454500)

Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't seem to find a paper submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and there's nothing on the pre-print servers [lanl.gov] .


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]

Re:Science by press release (1)

110010001000 (697113) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454660)

Hi, we will be publishing our findings an the Physical Review journal in an article entitled "Additional Evidence of Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation" this month. Look forward to it, it is exciting stuff!!!

Do you have the sun in a jar? (2, Funny)

Sarojin (446404) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454514)

Well, you better let it out! *click*

Hope it can be reproduced (2, Interesting)

menscher (597856) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454525)

When I was an undergrad at BYU, I had a friend who was working in this field. He worked under a mountain (less background radiation from cosmic rays). Made measurements while running, and compared to background when not running. Sadly, back then ('96 or '97) there was less radiation when running than when not (*very* disturbing). I told him he should change his project from "fusion generator" to "radiation absorber". Of course, the field has had 7-8 years to develop since then, so hopefully things are better now. Still, you have to wonder if it could scale up to a useful level....

Sonofusion Explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454530)

This process of sonofusion, you see uses sound waves to...

WHAT!!!!

I SAID IT USES SOUNDWAVES...

WHAT! WHAT!

Elementary! My Dear Watson! (1)

vierja (632250) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454535)

The research team used a standing ultrasonic wave to help form and then implode the cavitation bubbles of deuterated acetone vapor.

Elementary! My Dear Watson! ;-)

Finally! (1, Funny)

_bug_ (112702) | more than 10 years ago | (#8454589)

Now my ghost in a jar [the-ghost-in-a-jar.com] doesn't have to read in the dark.

But what will the guys at... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454600)

Halliburton [halliburton.com] think of this?

I bet that radioactive bubbly acetone... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454630)

...tastes better than Bud.

New York Times is pimping their articles again.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8454640)

submitting summaries with phony Slashdot userids. At least Salon is honest!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...