NY team confirms UCLA tabletop fusion

scribble · 13th February 2006, 11:21 AM

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_te...ion_10017.html

Quote:

Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a tabletop accelerator that produces nuclear fusion at room temperature, providing confirmation of an earlier experiment conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), while offering substantial improvements over the original design.

Comments? Can anyone find a more technical writeup for us?

IllegalArgument · 13th February 2006, 11:35 AM

Here's the paper: http://www.rpi.edu/~danony/Papers/Ph...ccelerator.pdf

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 13th February 2006, 11:41 AM

Well, well, ain't that interesting? And it's called "crystal fusion," which has endless possibilities for New Agery.

~~ Paul

tsg · 13th February 2006, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

And it's called "crystal fusion," which has endless possibilities for New Agery.

I think we have a new replacement for "quantum" when the rest of the world figures out it means "bullsh*t".

Asolepius · 14th February 2006, 12:32 AM

So why has this not hit the headlines in the way Fleischmann and Pons did? And here we have peer reviewed, published and replicated data. I will be interested to see the correspondence this generates in the journal.

sionep · 14th February 2006, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by scribble

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_te...ion_10017.html

Comments? Can anyone find a more technical writeup for us?

It would be interesting to see if it violates any known physical laws .

The_Fire · 14th February 2006, 01:06 AM

My main concern, should this prove to be real, can be summed up in one question (allthough I suspect there will be more later):
Is the thing radioactive?

(Hey, it's nuclear after all).

Matabiri · 14th February 2006, 04:17 AM

Pretty funky, but if it's got any use, it's as a research technique rather than an energy source.

epepke · 14th February 2006, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by scribble

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_te...ion_10017.html

Comments? Can anyone find a more technical writeup for us?

From the given writeup, it looks like this doesn't release any net energy and so is not useful as a power source. Looks like it's mostly used for generating neutrons.

CBL4 · 14th February 2006, 10:44 AM

This may (may not) be related to some older work. One of the reasons P&F were given some credibility was that Steven Jones of BYU was also finding fusion in water. He never claim it produced energy but did show excess neutrons. From Wikipedia:

Quote:

In the mid 1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists demonstrated an interesting new effect related to the potential for harnessing energy from cold fusion, now also referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. The Jones process – not to be confused with the Cold fusion research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann – did not produce excess heat, and therefore did not provide a source of energy. The Jones process, through measurement of charged particles, demonstrated excellent validation that nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room temperature experiment.

Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source. A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones's much more modest findings.[2] The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

CBL

Jones never claimed more

13th February 2006, 11:21 AM	#1
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	NY team confirms UCLA tabletop fusion http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_te...ion_10017.html Quote: Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a tabletop accelerator that produces nuclear fusion at room temperature, providing confirmation of an earlier experiment conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), while offering substantial improvements over the original design. Comments? Can anyone find a more technical writeup for us?
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	__________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson "I was thinking about painting my house, but I was worried about how well the latex paint we bought would bond to the existing siding. So I got on the Interweb and searched for latex bondage."

13th February 2006, 11:41 AM	#3
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Well, well, ain't that interesting? And it's called "crystal fusion," which has endless possibilities for New Agery. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

13th February 2006, 11:44 AM	#4
tsg Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Location: Location: Posts: 6,771	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos And it's called "crystal fusion," which has endless possibilities for New Agery. I think we have a new replacement for "quantum" when the rest of the world figures out it means "bullsh*t".
	__________________ Being offended by someone questioning your beliefs is a sign that you should be questioning them. In the beginning there was nothing. And the Lord said "Let There Be Light!" And still there was nothing, but at least now you could see it.

14th February 2006, 12:32 AM	#5
Asolepius Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,166	So why has this not hit the headlines in the way Fleischmann and Pons did? And here we have peer reviewed, published and replicated data. I will be interested to see the correspondence this generates in the journal.
	__________________ No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) Blog - Majikthyse

14th February 2006, 12:39 AM	#6
sionep Scholar Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 103	Originally Posted by scribble http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_te...ion_10017.html Comments? Can anyone find a more technical writeup for us? It would be interesting to see if it violates any known physical laws .
sionep Scholar Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 103

13th February 2006, 11:35 AM	#2
IllegalArgument Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Reston, VA Posts: 1,757	Here's the paper: http://www.rpi.edu/~danony/Papers/Ph...ccelerator.pdf

14th February 2006, 01:06 AM	#7
The_Fire Unimpressed Female Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia Posts: 3,037	My main concern, should this prove to be real, can be summed up in one question (allthough I suspect there will be more later): Is the thing radioactive? (Hey, it's nuclear after all).
	__________________ If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable. "We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think." Stop Sylvia Browne

14th February 2006, 04:17 AM	#8
Matabiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,734	Pretty funky, but if it's got any use, it's as a research technique rather than an energy source.
	__________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy

14th February 2006, 05:52 AM	#9
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Originally Posted by scribble http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/ny_te...ion_10017.html Comments? Can anyone find a more technical writeup for us? From the given writeup, it looks like this doesn't release any net energy and so is not useful as a power source. Looks like it's mostly used for generating neutrons.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

14th February 2006, 10:44 AM	#10
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	This may (may not) be related to some older work. One of the reasons P&F were given some credibility was that Steven Jones of BYU was also finding fusion in water. He never claim it produced energy but did show excess neutrons. From Wikipedia: Quote: In the mid 1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists demonstrated an interesting new effect related to the potential for harnessing energy from cold fusion, now also referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. The Jones process – not to be confused with the Cold fusion research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann – did not produce excess heat, and therefore did not provide a source of energy. The Jones process, through measurement of charged particles, demonstrated excellent validation that nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room temperature experiment. Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source. A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones's much more modest findings.[2] The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones CBL Jones never claimed more
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349