News Homemade Fusion Reactor

Yeah I remember seeing this a while ago. But I can't remember if I found the link here or somewhere else. Honestly until someone else mentioned it, I wasn't sure if I was just experiencing deja vu or what.

 

The reaction itself doesn't create any harmful by-products. Unfortunately, Neutrons are given off in the process (moderating and ultimately capturing these is how heat is captured from the reaction and used to generate electricitly - or at least will be in the long term). The problem is that Neutron bombardment of substances over a period of time causes them to be transmuted into other elements - and generally radioactive isotopes of these elements. Fusion reactors produce a tiny fraction of the radioactive waste that fission reactors do, but they aren't totally clean.

 

at least this is cleaner..... i hope someone cracks this and makes it feasible.

 

i guess he can use his new reactor as a 1mw psu. beat the OCZ and there 2kw PSU.

 

He made a Farnsworth reaction vessle. Check out www.fusor.net they show how to build one. He is one of a number of people who have, ( a few are high schoolers) this is just one of those slow newsday science stories. if you ask me.

 

I would assign the lack of other examples more to a lack of knowledge or interest, rather than difficulty. Sure, it's interesting, but people who know a lot more about it than me have decided it's not a viable area of research.

Incidentally , there are a lot of them about(way more than 18), but they're commonly just used as neutron sources in other experiments.


Really, If you have a high vacuum setup (though you can gt some interesting effects, but no fusion at lower vacuum levels), all you need is a bit of wire, a high voltage power supply, and some deuterium.


This isn't so much a case of incredible engineering, but a case of having a lot of spare money. If I could afford a vacuum setup with a diffusion/turbomolecular pump, I'd probably make one too. Unfortunately, I havn't several thousand dollars to spare.

 

yeah, i read this story in the most recent Popular Science, amazing stuff. it supposedly only puts out a few watts of power, but still awesome.

 

very impressive despite the lack of practical functions (hey I have never made anything with a practical use apart from a few amps).

 

To be completly honest, I have and always will believe that "Cold Fusion" or how ever you want to call it, a fusion reactor that is a usable energy source, has been completed for some time. Its just that it will be a long time before we ever know about it because when we do, the world WILL be in a chaos. Do any of you realize what the other countries will do to another if they aren't the first to "come up" with this technology?

Its the same thing as with "Clean fuel" cars. There has been a guy who started by making a blow torch that was powered by average everyday water and he then converted his car engine to run off the same type of fuel (Though he kept it as a "hybrid" provided he ran into any problems) Yet we still are paying an A**LOAD for gas.

It all comes down to politics and the "economy. The technology is already known, it just can't be "shown" due to the chaos it would cause.


Yes its rambling but I hope you see my point.

 

I completely see your point, and understand why it is so, that is why JET (Joint European Torus) and ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) both are not done by a single country (other than cost)
ITER will not generate power though, as it is just on big €10 billion experiment.

Cold fusion on the other hand has been done, but not in the useful sense. There are exotic particles called Muon's, these temporarily disable the electric force surrounding the proton so that they can come close enough for the strong nuclear force to take hold. This is no feasible for production of electricity as muon's are hard to come by and only last for 2.2μs. They can be produced by particle accelerators, but this is hardly an economical way of producing them for energy production due to the large amounts of energy required by the particle accelerator.

 

What I am trying to say that all the stuff that we "know" to have been done is only what we are "ment" to know. I would be willing to put a large sum of money on the fact that if we were ever "privey" to the government research labs and such, we would be in serious Awl and discust at the things that have already been created.

Its a well known fact that almost everything we use that has some sort of technological value is basically a "hand-me-down" of somthing that was supassed by better technology we havn't seen yet.

 

Why is it every time someone mentions "Cold Fusion" the conspiricy theorists start coming out of the woodwork?



I don't think you realise how difficult it is to suppress technology, particularly in this modern age. Besides, If th government had something that gave them an overwhelming technilogical advantage, don't you think it would have been exploited for wartime purposes already? Particularly given how trigger-happy america has been as of late.

Anyways, I'll believe it when I see it, or see physics equations that adaquately explain it, not before.

 

I am not a conspiricy theorist. I just know what I see/read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_budget

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm

Just a few.

Conspiricy Theorist? No.

Realist? Yes.