If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Live Science)   New fusion reactor formula using hydrogen-0, boron-11 instead of usual deuterium-tritium approach can result in three helium-4 nuclei, leading to direct electrical energy conversion from resulting charged particles. Isn't this amazing?   ( livescience.com) divider line
    More: Cool, spherical hydrogen-boron reactor, fusion reaction, energy, different fusion reaction, energy-positive fusion reactor, conventional fusion projects, new reactor design, useful fusion reactors  
•       •       •

2126 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jan 2018 at 9:33 PM (28 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-01-02 06:13:06 PM  
Pons and Fleischman are still laughing.
 
2018-01-02 06:15:56 PM  
Let me guess. With this news we're only 20 years away from a serious breakthrough.

Like every other year for the last 50.

/we'll get there some day
 
2018-01-02 06:20:42 PM  
Try explaining it to Trump in terms he might understand.
 
2018-01-02 06:28:02 PM  
Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?
 
2018-01-02 06:46:15 PM  

ArkPanda: Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?


hydrogen-0 (just a single proton with no neutrons or electrons)

Science! Yay!
 
2018-01-02 07:07:04 PM  

Redh8t: ArkPanda: Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?

hydrogen-0 (just a single proton with no neutrons or electrons)

Science! Yay!


I RTFA and then hit the Googles.  I didn't see any other references to hydrogen-0; it should be hydrogen-1.  Boron-11 and helium-4 are expressed the normal way in the article so I'll be charitable and say it was a typo.
 
2018-01-02 07:15:04 PM  
the new study, which was published Dec. 12 in the journal Laser and Particle Beams"

I want a subscription!
 
2018-01-02 07:21:28 PM  
I heard about this process about 15 years ago. So we're only 5 years away...
 
2018-01-02 07:23:34 PM  

PirateKing: I heard about this process about 15 years ago. So we're only 5 years away...


Er, not this specific process, to be clear. Boron-proton fusion in  general. I'm sure the laser and plasma technology that got it sort-of working is new and owes a lot to those 15 years.
 
2018-01-02 07:32:34 PM  
... the energy of the plasma could be converted directly into electricity without wastefully heating up water along the way, because the fusion's energy is released as a stream of electronically charged particles, which can relatively easily be turned into current in a wire.

... The lasers allow the hydrogen-boron plasma to reach temperatures of 5 billion degrees Fahrenheit (3 billion degrees Celsius) ...


So, all we need is some lasers, an economical source of boron-11, and a simple wire that can withstand 3 billion Celsius. Probably easy enough to assemble with stuff you can order from amazon and watching some youtube videos.
 
2018-01-02 07:58:50 PM  
So how many comments will this thread get before it's redlit?
 
2018-01-02 08:09:59 PM  

Redh8t: ArkPanda: Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?

hydrogen-0 (just a single proton with no neutrons or electrons)

Science! Yay!


So, protons then...
 
2018-01-02 08:11:47 PM  
reported:
So, all we need is some lasers, an economical source of boron-11, and a simple wire that can withstand 3 billion Celsius. Probably easy enough to assemble with stuff you can order from amazon and watching some youtube videos.

Boron 11 is pretty cheap and relatively easy to come by. You don't need a wire so much, the electrical energy you get from catching the alpha particles flying by in a double grid sphere around the outside.
 
2018-01-02 08:20:31 PM  
There are a number of groups futzing around with this. At one point the scuttlebutt was that the guys at the Skunk Works were considering it for their compact reactor, there actually was some action there wherein a patent or two got gagged late in the application phase.

Bussard, prior to his sad demise, was working on it. The Navy had also grabbed up his work and classified parts of IT. They really LOVE the concept of small p-B11 reactors, for subs, mostly.

It's not that it's totally aneutronic, there are side reactions that emit neutrons, so you still need SOME shielding, and the C12 that is the source of the energetic alpha production that provides you the power output also emits gammas, so you have radiation associated with a p-B11 reactor. But it's minimal compared to pretty much any other option.
 
2018-01-02 08:39:23 PM  
Lasers are cool. LASERS. pew
 
2018-01-02 09:21:49 PM  
Come on. I wanna
show you something.
By the time I finally got
this old mama to work,
it had a lot of parts.
The sucker got pretty heavy.
I can barely even lift it now.
It's the Orgazmorator.
I've made it work.
I could probably make
a more compact version,
but then I'd have to use cold fusion...
instead of the fission device
that's inside of it now.
But then if I could
figure out cold fusion,
I'd be a millionaire
 
2018-01-02 09:27:27 PM  

ArkPanda: Redh8t: ArkPanda: Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?

hydrogen-0 (just a single proton with no neutrons or electrons)

Science! Yay!

I RTFA and then hit the Googles.  I didn't see any other references to hydrogen-0; it should be hydrogen-1.  Boron-11 and helium-4 are expressed the normal way in the article so I'll be charitable and say it was a typo.


Yeah, likewise.
Nada..

Could be another Theranos.
 
2018-01-02 09:41:54 PM  

Redh8t: ArkPanda: Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?

hydrogen-0 (just a single proton with no neutrons or electrons)

Science! Yay!


That would be Hydrogen 1. The single proton is a dead giveaway.
 
2018-01-02 09:44:13 PM  

Gubbo: Let me guess. With this news we're only 20 years away from a serious breakthrough.

Like every other year for the last 50.

/we'll get there some day


People still don't seem to get it.  The reason it's advancing so slowly isn't because it's unrealistic.  It's because we'd rather fund refineries instead:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-02 09:53:11 PM  

erewhon: Bussard, prior to his sad demise, was working on it.


Would be really curious to take a look at that someday. I remember the ramjet idea ultimately becoming untenable due to bremsstrahlung losses; seems like this would have the similar problems.
 
2018-01-02 10:03:08 PM  
There are functional fusion reactors in operation and have been since the 1950s; scaling them to break-even and beyond takes a bit of cash. The Navy funded some development, starting in 2009, but $12 million only goes so far. About five years ago it looked like Google was going to fund Bussard's (EMC2) Polywell work, but they flaked out.

Lockheed is also working on fusion, although their original projections turned out to be highly optimistic.

Like better batteries for cars, someone will get this to work.
 
2018-01-02 10:10:08 PM  
H-0...   why not just say 'ionic protium' or ionic 1H or simply 'free protons'?

Denoting it as hydrogen zero breaks the nomenclature as also estimating the atomic weight.  Does ionized deuterium become H-1 because it has one more neutron than H-0?
 
2018-01-02 10:29:53 PM  
themoviescene.co.ukView Full Size
 
2018-01-02 10:31:42 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: H-0...   why not just say 'ionic protium' or ionic 1H or simply 'free protons'?

Denoting it as hydrogen zero breaks the nomenclature as also estimating the atomic weight.  Does ionized deuterium become H-1 because it has one more neutron than H-0?


Because handwaving it as "hydrogen" glosses over the problem of getting an immense supply of free protons without using so much energy you can't break even.
 
2018-01-02 10:33:39 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: H-0...   why not just say 'ionic protium' or ionic 1H or simply 'free protons'?

Denoting it as hydrogen zero breaks the nomenclature as also estimating the atomic weight.  Does ionized deuterium become H-1 because it has one more neutron than H-0?


You don't change h-1 to h-0 or h-2 to h-1 at the loss of an electron, only a loss of a neutron changes that notation.
 
2018-01-02 10:42:06 PM  
vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size

"Nobody doesn't love Molten Boron!"
 
2018-01-02 10:54:08 PM  

ncsu_wolfpack: Vlad_the_Inaner: H-0...   why not just say 'ionic protium' or ionic 1H or simply 'free protons'?

Denoting it as hydrogen zero breaks the nomenclature as also estimating the atomic weight.  Does ionized deuterium become H-1 because it has one more neutron than H-0?

You don't change h-1 to h-0 or h-2 to h-1 at the loss of an electron, only a loss of a neutron changes that notation.


Actually TFA doesn't discuss 'H-1' explicitly.  But it does describe H-0 as Hydrogen, isotope 1H, less an electron.

So ishiathe same as 1H or does it even exist at all.  Their description of Boron-11, the 11 is simply the mass number.  Seems like they call it H-0 because of the rule-of-cool, because its mass is not zero nucleons.
 
2018-01-02 10:56:16 PM  

reported: ... the energy of the plasma could be converted directly into electricity without wastefully heating up water along the way, because the fusion's energy is released as a stream of electronically charged particles, which can relatively easily be turned into current in a wire.

... The lasers allow the hydrogen-boron plasma to reach temperatures of 5 billion degrees Fahrenheit (3 billion degrees Celsius) ...

So, all we need is some lasers, an economical source of boron-11, and a simple wire that can withstand 3 billion Celsius. Probably easy enough to assemble with stuff you can order from amazon and watching some youtube videos.


And enough electricity coming out to power the lasers.
 
2018-01-02 11:12:16 PM  

natazha: The Navy funded some development, starting in 2009, but $12 million only goes so far. About five years ago it looked like Google was going to fund Bussard's (EMC2) Polywell work, but they flaked out.



What's interestingthere is that following a brief hiatus after Bussard's death, a project with the same funding code and the same officer as the POC for the Polywell project resumed activity at the same facility. With quite a bit more funding. From my experience with Navy projects, that would be typical behavior.
 
2018-01-02 11:13:32 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: ncsu_wolfpack: Vlad_the_Inaner: H-0...   why not just say 'ionic protium' or ionic 1H or simply 'free protons'?

Denoting it as hydrogen zero breaks the nomenclature as also estimating the atomic weight.  Does ionized deuterium become H-1 because it has one more neutron than H-0?

You don't change h-1 to h-0 or h-2 to h-1 at the loss of an electron, only a loss of a neutron changes that notation.

Actually TFA doesn't discuss 'H-1' explicitly.  But it does describe H-0 as Hydrogen, isotope 1H, less an electron.

So ishiathe same as 1H or does it even exist at all.  Their description of Boron-11, the 11 is simply the mass number.  Seems like they call it H-0 because of the rule-of-cool, because its mass is not zero nucleons.


Or, TFA screwed up.  Which it did (Unintentionally or not, it's still wrong)

Element-# always reflects the atomic mass to differentiate isotopes. Other notations can be more specific and designate ionic charges and all that.
 
2018-01-02 11:15:53 PM  
Just imagine all the solar and wind jobs that will be lost when this technology comes online
 
2018-01-02 11:19:09 PM  

Vaginosilicosis: [img.fark.net image 850x458]


Half of the comments sound like Star Trek techno babble. Which to be honest make this seem that much cooler.
 
2018-01-02 11:28:13 PM  

Redh8t: ArkPanda: Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?

hydrogen-0 (just a single proton with no neutrons or electrons)

Science! Yay!


All the great hydrogen taste but none of the calories.
 
2018-01-02 11:34:12 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-02 11:37:31 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-02 11:47:51 PM  

PirateKing: PirateKing: I heard about this process about 15 years ago. So we're only 5 years away...

Er, not this specific process, to be clear. Boron-proton fusion in  general. I'm sure the laser and plasma technology that got it sort-of working is new and owes a lot to those 15 years.


It's the fuel for a Farnsworth Fusor. One of a few lab-trick functioning fusing devices that are under unity dead ends.
 
2018-01-03 12:18:19 AM  
Futurama - Molten Boron
Youtube ghD5SHuR9mk
 
2018-01-03 12:25:54 AM  
I'm a little confused as to why this is referred to as "fusion."   Yes, a proton does fuse with the boron-11 creating carbon12 briefly before shattering into three alpha particles --  He4  which would be fission.

If I'm hitting atoms with a beam of protons and the net effect is splitting those atoms into smaller atoms, I'd think fission would be a more appropriate term.

If I hit U235 with a neutron beam so that a neutron fuses with U235 to create U236 which then splits into Kr92 and Ba141 plus more free neutrons, I don't call that "fusion."   It's fission.   So, why would using a proton beam be any different than using a neutron beam to create fission after an initial fusion creating an unstable atom?
 
2018-01-03 12:33:15 AM  
The Strong Fifth Element
Youtube 2IfCUsBpR-I
 
2018-01-03 01:05:28 AM  

KingRamze: If I hit U235 with a neutron beam so that a neutron fuses with U235 to create U236 which then splits into Kr92 and Ba141 plus more free neutrons, I don't call that "fusion." It's fission. So, why would using a proton beam be any different than using a neutron beam to create fission after an initial fusion creating an unstable atom?


img.fark.netView Full Size


Because U235 is on the boring end of the curve and B11 is on the fun end of the curve. Same reason that stars go kaboom after their cores are made of iron; no more energy to extract at Fe56.
 
2018-01-03 01:06:32 AM  

Vaginosilicosis: Gaddiel: Vaginosilicosis: [img.fark.net image 850x458]

Half of the comments sound like Star Trek techno babble. Which to be honest make this seem that much cooler.

Oh shiat yeah, if they tune the deflector array to emit a graviton pulse in the Graham-Zoltan resonance range we could cook a 24lb turkey in just under a parsec!


+1 for the reference within a reference.
 
2018-01-03 01:16:58 AM  

Wanebo: Laser and Particle Beams


Just 1587$(online only) a year if you're an institution, but individual subscription prices are available on request.
 
2018-01-03 01:19:05 AM  

Redh8t: ArkPanda: Hydrogen-0?  So, nothing?

hydrogen-0 (just a single proton with no neutrons or electrons)

Science! Yay!


In layman's terms, Hydrogen-ish
 
2018-01-03 01:21:37 AM  

Cpl.D: Gubbo: Let me guess. With this news we're only 20 years away from a serious breakthrough.

Like every other year for the last 50.

/we'll get there some day

People still don't seem to get it.  The reason it's advancing so slowly isn't because it's unrealistic.  It's because we'd rather fund refineries instead:

[img.fark.net image 620x426]


asd.gsfc.nasa.govView Full Size
 
2018-01-03 01:48:55 AM  

WelldeadLink: reported: ... the energy of the plasma could be converted directly into electricity without wastefully heating up water along the way, because the fusion's energy is released as a stream of electronically charged particles, which can relatively easily be turned into current in a wire.

... The lasers allow the hydrogen-boron plasma to reach temperatures of 5 billion degrees Fahrenheit (3 billion degrees Celsius) ...

So, all we need is some lasers, an economical source of boron-11, and a simple wire that can withstand 3 billion Celsius. Probably easy enough to assemble with stuff you can order from amazon and watching some youtube videos.

And enough electricity coming out to power the lasers.


Just need to figure out how to create a self sustaining chain-reaction like nuclear fission plants
 
2018-01-03 01:52:07 AM  

KingRamze: I'm a little confused as to why this is referred to as "fusion."   Yes, a proton does fuse with the boron-11 creating carbon12 briefly before shattering into three alpha particles --  He4  which would be fission.

If I'm hitting atoms with a beam of protons and the net effect is splitting those atoms into smaller atoms, I'd think fission would be a more appropriate term.

If I hit U235 with a neutron beam so that a neutron fuses with U235 to create U236 which then splits into Kr92 and Ba141 plus more free neutrons, I don't call that "fusion."   It's fission.   So, why would using a proton beam be any different than using a neutron beam to create fission after an initial fusion creating an unstable atom?


He4 fuses from the plasma created from the high energy. Kinda like Big Bang synthesis
 
2018-01-03 02:28:11 AM  
In case anyone cares to know what boron actually looks like :-)
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-03 02:36:22 AM  
Sounds pretty boron if you ask me.
 
2018-01-03 02:52:39 AM  
With all that extra Helium floating around, they'll be talking like chipmunks all day..
 
2018-01-03 07:40:38 AM  
1H+ != 0H

Fecking illiterates.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report