w00t! (gotta start somewhere)
1 posted on
04/27/2005 12:18:10 PM PDT by
AntiGuv
To: PatrickHenry
2 posted on
04/27/2005 12:18:37 PM PDT by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: AntiGuv
...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.)
3 posted on
04/27/2005 12:21:15 PM PDT by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: AntiGuv
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.
4 posted on
04/27/2005 12:22:10 PM PDT by
chimera
To: AntiGuv
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"
To: AntiGuv
Okay, who's got the picture of the 'Mr. Fusion' from "Back to the Future"?
6 posted on
04/27/2005 12:22:44 PM PDT by
PeterFinn
(The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
To: AntiGuv
Well its about time. So lemme guess, it should be 5 to 10 years before we'll see this used?
12 posted on
04/27/2005 12:28:30 PM PDT by
Waterleak
(I pity the fool)
To: AntiGuv
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?
15 posted on
04/27/2005 12:29:43 PM PDT by
Texas Federalist
(No matter what my work/play ratio is, I am never a dull boy.)
To: AntiGuv
UCLA Lab Equipment for this experiment:
16 posted on
04/27/2005 12:31:54 PM PDT by
add925
(The Left = Xenophobes in Denial)
To: AntiGuv
The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough. The money line as they say. UCLA should give a call when they don't have to explain that the lunch is still not free.
To: AntiGuv
It's no less feasible than the alternative. (Converting the Arabs to Christianity...)
To: AntiGuv
A fusion experiment technical paper being submitted to "Nature" is most suspect.
Submission to the IEEE or other far higher academic resource would be taken seriously.
This reminds me of a lame brain biology instructor I had at VWCC who accepted the Mother Earth News as an acceptable academic, technical resource for inclusion in research.
32 posted on
04/27/2005 1:19:49 PM PDT by
Gary - Peters
(Kerry Insecure to relinquish Congressional Job.)
To: AntiGuv
But the amount of energy produced was
too little
to be seen as a breakthrough in solving the world's energy needs
To: AntiGuv
Electrostatic inertial confinement? I got yer electrostatic inertial confinement, right here:
To: AntiGuv
51 posted on
04/27/2005 3:41:51 PM PDT by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING: Contrails by Bauer)
To: AntiGuv
big deal.
the chile i ate two or three years ago and left in the back of my refrigerator has definitely begun to undergo nuclear fusion...
56 posted on
04/27/2005 4:10:56 PM PDT by
chilepepper
(The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson