Fair enough, although I don't know why you'd think that it's funny. Aren't standard nuclear processes achieved inside a closed containment?
How is this any different?
What is funny is that is the description of a perpetual motion machine.
In Japan, they are doing it on the outside. Although not by choice.
How is this any different?
"Standard nuclear processes" or fission reactions are powered by transuranic elements like uranium or plutonium (fuel) which are naturally unstable and emit neutrons. Under the proper conditions the neutrons emitted strike the nucleus of other fuel atoms, causing them to split into two lighter elemental atoms, releasing a fraction of the binding energy that held the heavier nucleus together as heat and emitting still more neutrons. You can see how this continuing flux of neutrons may become self sustaining and provide a steady power output. Under the proper conditions the neutron flux can grow exponentially 2 become 4 become 8 become 16 ... until all have split, releasing a great deal of energy in a very short time. This uncontrolled chain reaction is a nuclear bomb.
Fusion, as opposed to fission, is the forcing of two light elemental nuclei (hydrogen) together to form a heavier nucleus (helium). It takes a great deal of energy to force two hydrogen nuclei together (remember that "binding energy we got when a heavy element split? well you have to put that in to fuse two nuclei together). Once the helium nucleus is formed (fused) it is slightly lighter in mass then the two hydrogen nuclei that made it up. This loss of mass is released as energy. The amount released is governed by Einstein's famous E = M x C2 where E is energy, M is the amount of mass converted, and C is the speed of light squared. The actual mass converted is very small but the speed of light is a very large number and it is "squared" meaning that even a tiny bit of mass can yield a very large amount of energy.
Fusion reactions occur in nature, it is the process that powers the sun and all of the other stars in the heavens. The huge mass of a star generates an enormous gravity field which crushes the hydrogen nuclei together providing the binding energy to form helium and release the relativistic energy from the lost mass. We mimic the sun on earth by using an fission bomb to compress hydrogen to that same point of fusion, liberating the vast energy of the hydrogen bomb. We literally bring a piece of the sun down to earth.
The goal of "cold fusion" is to bring about the fusion of hydrogen without depending on enormous gravity or the heat and pressure of a fission bomb. The article is basically about an inventor's claim to have found such a method using "catalysts". Catalysts are used in chemistry to encourage a reaction between two or more reactants to form a third substance. Catalysts do not enter into the reaction itself, nor do they become part of the end product. Chemical reactions are not nuclear in nature, hydrogen burned in oxygen produces water made up of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom as a water molecule. Water molecules may be broken apart to yield back the separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The energies involved with chemical reactions are no where near providing the binding energy needed for fusion reactions.
In a nut shell, The man's claim needs close scrutiny, I for one do not believe he has found the holly grail of cold fusion. Why do we care? Because the worlds oceans are two thirds hydrogen, with cold fusion we would have solved the "green energy" problem for eternity (or close enough as not to matter).
Regards,
GtG