UCLA Researchers Produce Nuclear Fusion

Associated Press ^ | April 27, 2005 | Alicia Chang

[AntiGuv]

w00t! (gotta start somewhere)

[AntiGuv]

cold fusion ping!

[Doctor Stochastic]

...does not pose the safety and long-term radioactive waste concerns associated with modern nuclear power plants....

No, they pose other safety and waste concerns. (Neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel is one obvious problem.)

[chimera]

The resulting electric field created a beam of charged deuterium atoms that struck a nearby target, which was embedded with yet more deuterium. When some of the deuterium atoms in the beam collided with their counterparts in the target, they fused.

That's nothing more than a neutron generator that's been around for a long time. I was doing that as an undergraduate physics major in the early 1970s using a clunky old Crockroft-Walton linac. It makes a neat demo experiment for physics classes, but isn't anything new or exciting.

[Semper Paratus]

But the amount of energy produced was too little to be seen as a breakthrough in solving the world's energy needs

AP would qualify the headline:

"Cure for Cancer"
"But no breakthrough in sight yet against gout"

[PeterFinn]

Okay, who's got the picture of the 'Mr. Fusion' from "Back to the Future"?

[BostonianRightist]

Science ping.

[PatrickHenry]

SciencePing

An elite subset of the Evolution list. See the list's description at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[Holicheese]

(Neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel is one obvious problem.)

Obviously!!

[AntiGuv]

I find anything that has to do with nuclear fusion exciting. :p

I know it's not a huge breakthrough, but it's something.

[chimera]

(Neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel is one obvious problem.)

Anneal the damage out or swap out the vessel. I had a design on the books for a nuclear plant with replaceable components (including the pressure vessel). Nobody was interested because they thought it was too much of a (financial) risk.

[Waterleak]

Well its about time. So lemme guess, it should be 5 to 10 years before we'll see this used?

[chimera]

Point is, this is "fusion" of a kind, but not "the real thing", in the sense of producing large quantities of convertible energy.

[dljordan]

" (Neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel is one obvious problem.)"

That's the first thing I thought of too. :)

[Texas Federalist]

Fusion experts noted that the UCLA experiment was credible because, unlike the 1989 work, it didn't violate basic principles of physics.

In order to be credible, it can't violate the rules of physics? We needed an expert to tell us this?

[add925]

UCLA Lab Equipment for this experiment:

[Doctor Stochastic]

There's probably also contamination by neutron excitation of things just lying around, paperweights, beltbuckles, door locks, radiators, etc.

Nevertheless, it looks promising in about 50 years (same statement last year, next year....)

[AntiGuv]

Well, it would seem to have some potential practical applications and moreover others can build on the research and get us closer & closer to the 'holy grail'.. Speaking of which, do you know what the status is of that experimental fusion reactor that's going to be built somewhere? The last I remember seeing about that was that there was a rivalry between France or Japan as to where it would end up, but that was some while ago.

[inquest]

Is it possible to have fusion reactions without neutrons (by generating helium-4)?

[PatrickHenry]

I found another article on this, dated today, here: Fusion seen in table-top experiment.