Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on March 05, 2014, 05:12:57 pm
-
Beats previous record of 14 years old.
http://m.cnet.com/news/13-year-old-builds-working-nuclear-fusion-reactor/57619940
-
*sigh*
It's not a fusion reactor.
-
Based on the article, it sounds more like a deuterium-fueled helium factory that operates via nuclear fusion; fascinating school project, though (beats baking soda volcano).
-
Ah, uses nuclear fusion, but not a reactor, right?
-
Yeah, calling it a 'fusion reactor' is more than a bit misleading. It is producing fusion reactions, (and is pretty awesome), but it is not extracting usable energy from the process.
-
Hmm, I was under the impression that even our best experimental fusion reactors use so much energy in containment that they aren't practical for anything besides research. Yes?
This thing isn't a reactor because it's not self sustaining, I'm guessing? I just skimmed the article.
-
Hmm, I was under the impression that even our best experimental fusion reactors use so much energy in containment that they aren't practical for anything besides research. Yes?
This thing isn't a reactor because it's not self sustaining, I'm guessing? I just skimmed the article.
iirc we are more at the point where the net yield is not practical for commercial use
-
someone get Klaustrophobia up in here
-
Hmm, I was under the impression that even our best experimental fusion reactors use so much energy in containment that they aren't practical for anything besides research. Yes?
This thing isn't a reactor because it's not self sustaining, I'm guessing? I just skimmed the article.
iirc we are more at the point where the net yield is not practical for commercial use
... Isn't that what I just said? :p
-
It is producing fusion reactions but it is not extracting usable energy from the process.
Is exactly what I thought when I read the title. So maybe not that misleading.
-
I hereby knight thee Sir Tony Stark.
-
why is it that every idiot who can put together a farnsworth fusor is a "nuclear physicist". seriously you can buy kits now (vacuum chamber and capacitor bank sold separately).
thats said, it is a fusion reactor. in that it is a machine that has produced a fusion. what it is not (and what it will never be, because farnsworth) is a breakeven reactor. breakeven is not a requirement of a reactor. for example the chicago pile. its a fission reactor, not that it ever produced a watt of electrical power.
-
Hmm, I was under the impression that even our best experimental fusion reactors use so much energy in containment that they aren't practical for anything besides research. Yes?
This thing isn't a reactor because it's not self sustaining, I'm guessing? I just skimmed the article.
iirc we are more at the point where the net yield is not practical for commercial use
... Isn't that what I just said? :p
no, you said that they draw more power than they produce. Im saying is that we know how to build a reactor that can produce more power than it uses (still building the test reactor) but even once thats built the output iirc wont be enough able to produce enough energy to cover running costs for a while which is an end goal of test programs under construction now.
-
someone get Klaustrophobia up in here
yo.
i haven't in-depth read any of the 5000 articles on this kid yet, but based on the headlines and hearing people talk about it who did read articles/watch news clips, nuke pretty much said everything already. the first headline i saw simply called it a "nuclear reactor" which i took to be implying small-scale fission reaction and immediately called bull****. then i read enough to see it was a farnsworth fusor and i calmed down. same thing my team built for our senior design, and that annoying kid from the summer camp is building just because. but it causes a fusion reaction. so yeah, it's a fusion reactOR.
i hate to go all negative nancy, but it's really not something to get excited about. vacuum chamber, inner grid, deuterium (i'm assuming if it actually was a fusion reactor and not just a pretty ball of plasma), and a ****load of voltage. the hard part is turning this into something with practical applications other than science fair.
-
I never realized just how (comparatively) simple it was to start fusing deuterium...and that Philo Farnsworth of all people developed that particular design. The More You Know.
-
its the same guy who invented tv, if you didnt know.
-
its the same guy who invented tv, if you didnt know.
Depending on what you define as first, and television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird) of course. :p
-
I see nothing here that should create a mess of a reaction from commenters in both that site and here.
He made a simple reactor that does some nuclear fusion reactions. The very tone of the article is shouting "how cute look at him". Why people immediately assumed this was on par with high tech stuff like ITER or whatever is beyond me.
-
This just shows that people don't understand scientific terminology. Fusion reactors are moderately commonplace scientific instruments, yet for a common man, it equals "fusion power plant". Similarly, a nuclear reactor isn't necessarily a big, concrete-domed, power-producing beast, but that's what people usually think when they hear that. In fact, it also takes a particularly inventive boy scout to build one of those things, though the main use for such small devices is "breeding" unstable elements (transuranics, notably, which are hard to come by otherwise), for research and the like. You probably couldn't get a whole lot of power from a garage-built breeder, and running a fusion reactor will in fact net you a huge power bill.
In fact, if you're willing to forgo precision allowed by "serious" instruments, you can replicate a surprising amount of scientific equipment like that at home. Feynman built a cyclotron in collage (IIRC, a betatron), so you could even have your own particle accelerator with enough dedication.
As an aside, "reactor" is also used in chemical parlance to describe a vessel in which the reaction occurs. While it's usually used in context of industrial-scale equipment, your garden variety Erlenmeyer flask theoretically is one, too.
-
as i understand it a reactor is just any device that contains some kind of reaction.
its the same guy who invented tv, if you didnt know.
Depending on what you define as first, and television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logie_Baird) of course. :p
perhaps invented was the wrong word. innovated would be better. another might be "made the damn thing not suck".
-
Realized? Economized? Feasible...ized?
-
perhaps invented was the wrong word. innovated would be better. another might be "made the damn thing not suck".
I won't deny his version was better. :)
-
I think stories like these make the headlines because your average 13-year-old doesn't even have the patience to make the baking soda volcano work properly. Lord knows I didn't.
-
thats where you go to home depot and get some industrial strength muriatic acid. fun stuff.