Table-top Fusion: Read Here for Latest Nature

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZapperZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fusion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a recent article in Nature regarding table-top fusion experiments utilizing pyroelectric materials. Participants explore the implications, technical details, and potential applications of these experiments, while also addressing some inconsistencies in the article's claims.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note a typographical error in the article, specifically the misspelling of "pyroelectric" as "pryoelectric".
  • There is a claim that fusion reactions were achieved, albeit at a low level, which raises questions about the conditions under which these reactions occurred.
  • Concerns are raised about the apparent contradiction regarding the use of pyroelectric materials at room temperature versus the heating required for their operation.
  • One participant questions the implications of neutron production and its potential effects on the surrounding environment, expressing skepticism about the safety and utility of such experiments.
  • Potential applications of the fusion technology are discussed, including uses in spacecraft thrusters, medical treatments, and as a neutron source, although some participants express doubt about the efficiency of the device for energy production.
  • Technical details are mentioned, such as the use of a 1 kV accelerating potential and the suggestion that higher yields could be achieved with a tritiated target.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some agreeing on the potential applications of the technology while others remain skeptical about its efficiency and safety. The discussion contains multiple competing perspectives and remains unresolved on several technical points.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of terms like "room temperature" in the context of fusion, as well as the implications of neutron production and the conditions necessary for achieving fusion reactions.

Engineering news on Phys.org
The article mispels "pyroelectric" as "pryoelectric". :biggrin:

It does seem they obtained fusion reactions, although at a very low level.

What is strange is the claim of using a pyroelectric material at room temperature, when the article also states "This material is pryoelectric, which means that positive and negative charges build up on opposite faces of the crystal when it is heated." So did they heat it or not? If they heated it, it's not exactly room temperature. :rolleyes:

UCLA's site - http://rodan.physics.ucla.edu/pyrofusion/
 
Room temperature relative to what is usually thought of when one hears "fusion". The heat flow seems to be incident from one side only.
 
why? why? why?

Wow! more neutrons! Ionizing one's, too. What Neandertal 'modern' means of energy transformation will be utilized to make 'electricity?'. or What? another terrorist device.
What happens to the immediate surroundings when these neutrons 'pollute' change deleteriously everything close by., 'researchers' inclusive.
perhaps a better pursuit would be to maybe ask "how many BTU's are contained in water vapor in the Atmosphere assuming that the atmosphere is 100 mi thick and all other elements within the atmosphere would extend only 1500 feet above the surface?"

refugee from the nuclear industry...
 
There is a writeup in the NY Times (Aarrggghhh!).

Potential uses (in answer to Why? Why? Why?):
While the device is probably too inefficient to produce electricity or other forms of energy, the scientists say, egg-size fusion generators could someday find uses in spacecraft thrusters, medical treatments and scanners that search for bombs.
And inexpesive neutron source.

Also, about have the reactions should produce T+p. Hmmm.

From the journalist:
In a surprising feat of miniaturization, scientists are reporting today that they have produced nuclear fusion - the same process that powers the sun
Well, not exactly. Yes the sun (and stars in general) use fusion to produce energy, but the sun is primarily p+p fusion with about 2% from the CNO cycle.

I posted a copy of the article with schematic at E-S: http://www.everything-science.com/components/com_smf/index.php?topic=6060.msg55160#msg55160

The cell uses an accelerating potential of about 1 kV, hence the low yield. The yield could be boosted using a tritiated target (with concommitant radiological issues) and a higher potential. However, the low potential means low energy input.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K