You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Tech
Fusion seen in table-top experiment
2005-04-28
Physicists in the US have generated nuclear fusion in a simple, table-top device operating at room temperature. The device, built by Brian Naranjo, Jim Gimzewski and Seth Putterman at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), causes two deuterium nuclei to collide with each other and generate alpha particles, neutrons and energy (Nature 434 1115). The device could have applications as a portable neutron generator or in the propulsion systems for miniature spacecraft, but will not be useful as an energy source because it consumes more energy than it produces.
The experimental set-up consists of a centimetre-sized cylindrical crystal of lithium tantalate (LiTaO) surrounded by deuterium gas. This material is pryoelectric, which means that positive and negative charges build up on opposite faces of the crystal when it is heated. This creates an electric field that is high enough to ionize any deuterium atoms that stray near a tiny tungsten tip attached to the positively charged surface. These deuterium ions get repelled from the surface and are accelerated by the field towards an erbium deuteride target, where the fusion reactions take place.
The device currently emits about 900 neutrons every second, and the UCLA team say that it could be used as a "simple palm-sized neutron generator" if the output can be increased to about one million neutrons per second. Using tritium rather than deuterium in the target will increase the neutron yield by a factor of 250, says Naranjo, and optimizing the geometry and increasing the beam current should provide another factor of four.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#5  "If fusion is occuring then it certainly has the potential to be a net energy producer."
How do you figure that? How does the word "fusion" justify "net energy producer"? "Hot" fusion hasn't become a "net energy producer" in the U.S. in 54 years and $14 billion of research.

This is also a bit like ethanol. The "net energy" has to take into account the full cost of producing the materials required. I'll bet that when they say it "will not be useful as an energy source because it consumes more energy than it produces" they are not even considering the energy used to produce the required crystal of lithium tantalate, deuterium, tritium, etc.
Posted by: Tom   2005-04-28 9:09:58 PM  

#4  Can't wait till they start selling them at Sharper Image.
Posted by: DMFD   2005-04-28 7:05:26 PM  

#3  but will not be useful as an energy source because it consumes more energy than it produces. If fusion is occuring then it certainly has the potential to be a net energy producer.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-04-28 6:14:36 PM  

#2  tres cool - methinks these boys will have "special" passports in the future
Posted by: Frank G   2005-04-28 6:11:14 PM  

#1  Hmm... perhaps this could be used for my science fair H-Bomb project, which requires a neutron generator.
Posted by: Huparong Jaise2111   2005-04-28 6:05:31 PM  

00:00