Room-Temperature, Small-Scale Fusion at UCLA

gnuman99 writes "A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a pyroelectric crystal, a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals. When heated, such a crystal produces a large electric charge on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one side touches a copper disc. A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter. This field gradient is so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 neutrons per second was observed. This is 400 times the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used for things like microthrusters. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site." Reader richmlpdx adds a link to coverage at MSNBC.

Potential Uses

[Skyshadow (508)]

Quoth the MSNBC article:
...the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security

So what they're saying is that this technology just happens to have potential more or less exclusively in areas populated by companies/agencies that have a lot of money floating around for research grants, eh?

What a stroke of luck!

Re:Potential Uses

[mmkkbb (816035)]

when i was in school, every project final report had to mention possible military applications of the little robots or whatever that we had produced. remote-control car with programmable automatic navigation? reconnaissance, bomb-laying, etc.

Re:Potential Uses

[Anonymous Custard (587661)]

every project final report had to mention possible military applications

That's kind of depressing... why didn't they require that every final report had to mention applications that could improve life in underdeveloped areas or something?

Then students would pursue projects with this in mind, instead of developing with military applications in mind. Highly reliable and easy-to-repair water pumps, improved farming tools constructable from local materials, simple and effective water filtration devices, etc.?

Re:Potential Uses

[budgenator (254554)]

Then students would pursue projects with this in mind, instead of developing with military applications in mind. Highly reliable and easy-to-repair water pumps, improved farming tools constructable from local materials, simple and effective water filtration devices, etc.?

You say that like those aren't military applications, I think perhaps your out of touch with what modern military actualy does. Demonizing anything military is easy, and the people who do it the most are the people who don't realize that it's the military's infrastructure that make most humanitarian relief operations possible. Next time you think somebody needs 10,000 tons of relief supplies ask FedEx what the going rate is, and if they drop it off in a hostile fire zone.

I take issue.

[Grendel Drago (41496)]

You know, that's pretty simple-minded thinking. And the direct causes of native peoples' subjugation at the hands of marauding, murderous Europeans were swords, guns and terrible diseases.

But what made us turn from wild near-apes with rather large foreheads into what we are now was farming, which led to writing, political centralization, and the rest of civilization.

So, our ancestors (culturally, if not genetically) beat up everyone else's ancestors because, at the start of it all, they were better farmers.

And we're not even really evolved from predators! We evolved from small, squirrelish lemurs who, if I remember right, were pretty much omnivorous, certainly not anything like the species of Carnivora [wikipedia.org]. More recently, some of the Australopithecus apes were even vegetarian. Even when they hunted, our ancestors were much better gatherers than hunters, no matter what those cave paintings would have you believe.

But I suppose you were just making a point off the top of your head, which sounded good at first blush.

--grendel drago

Re:Potential Uses

[Mac Degger (576336)]

This is meant as a polite reply, but it will seem harsh. My appologies, but nonetheless:

Read my post. Read up on evolution. I've already agreed with you that agression has been a force in evolution, and in certain parts of the world (large tracts of africa, wherever there is conflict) it still is. In develloped countries it is actually a negative: the violent and aggressive get locked up (and don't make enough money to pay for surgery and other medical attention, further limiting the spread of his genetic heretige).

The guy who invents military applications recieves a steady paycheck, which grants him a small amount of status. The guy who owns the company who employs the aforementioned guy gets all the status, gets to fuck around with a large number of nubile women, and spreads his genetic seed the widest. Same goes for rockstars or rich people. Cynical? Yup....but too true. Geeks do not breed well. We don't contribute too heavily to the genetic pool. There is a big difference between agrression and the capability to think up new means to commit larger forms of aggression. Just look at Bush. He can be aggressive (as long as it isn't physical), but do you see him thinking up a new weapon system? But I bet he could have any Whitehouse intern he wanted.

I have to say I kinda agree with a lot of your post, but I remain convinced that Darwin and Gould will back me up on the way evolution works: it does not promote thinking of science as applied to military application, even though it might select towards application of military force (which is a totally different thing entirely).
Thus forcing kids to think of military applications is an entirely forced-from-above thing to do, not something which is somehow 'genetically enforced'. And it's still a horrible thing to force kids to do, IMNSHO, as it directly canals a childs thought processes into applications of agression. /ditto, but it's still an interesting aside nontheless :).

Re:Potential Uses

[Merk (25521)]

I just think it's funny that they try to limit the applications.

That's kinda like saying "The 'Internet' could have potential uses in communications, biomedical research and remote sensing."

If small-scale fusion that produces more power than it consumes is indeed possible, it could have implications everywhere in everything. Portable, standalone fusion power sources could (in time) change everything. ((Note to self: do not mention phasers and lose all credibility....))

Re:Potential Uses

[(54)T-Dub (642521)]

From the MSNBC article:

The reaction gave off an isotope of helium along with subatomic particles known as neutrons, a characteristic of fusion. The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than the amount put in -- an achievement that would be a huge breakthrough.

To me this was the most important part of the article and the summary would have benefited for it. The quote shows the reason why this only has limited applications.

Re:Potential Uses

[by Anonymous Coward]

This reaction is known to cause cancer in the State of California.

Re:Potential Uses

[cavemanf16 (303184)]

"While the energy created was too small to harness cheap fusion power, the technique could have potential uses in medicine, spacecraft propulsion, the oil drilling industry and homeland security, said Seth Putterman, a physicist at the University of California at Los Angeles."

And why is it that every new American invention these days has a "potential use" in homeland security? There must be plenty of money wasting away in that crappy program right now if every single scientist talks about it whenever they release new findings. I'm off to begin building my CompuMegaInterCorpHomelandSecurity company now... (I figure with a name like that, how can the VC's NOT trust me with googleplexes of money?!!)

Re:Potential Uses

[daviddennis (10926)]

I think that's what he meant.

1 Googleplex of money = the valuation of Google at this time.

D

Dilthium Crystals

[by Anonymous Coward]

Goes to show that sci fi is sci fact.

Pyroelectric?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Submitter is confusing "pyroelectric" with "piezoelectric." Crystals used for oscillators, filters, and speakers use the piezoelectric [wikipedia.org] effect.

Re:Pyroelectric?

[grmoc (57943)]

pyroelectric-- Converts heat energy into electrical energy

piezoelectric-- Converts kinetic energy into electrical energy

In this experiment, they heat up a (Lithium tantalate) crystal which reacts by creating a very high charge.. etc.

In other words, the crystal is a pyroelectric crystal, and not necessarily piezoelectric.

Re:Pyroelectric?

[deander2 (26173)]

In other words, the crystal is a pyroelectric crystal, and not necessarily piezoelectric.

from the wikipedia article linked:

All (known) pyroelectric materials are also piezoelectric, the two properties being closely related.

Re:Pyroelectric?

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN (609069)]

OOGG wish to clarify description of piezoelectric.

KEY ASPECT NOT CONVERT ENERGY. RATHER, RELATION BETWEEN mechanical strain & electric polarization, OR IN CASE pyroelectric BETWEEN electric polarization & thermal gradient.

EXPERIMENT USE pyroelectric CONVERT THERMAL GRADIENT into polarization = electric field.

http://www.cohr.com/Applications/index.cfm?fuseact ion=Forms.page&PageID=118 [cohr.com]

NOT NEED ENERGY CONVERSION FOR PIEZOELECTRIC APPLICATION. Cell phone filter (SAW=surface acoustic wave) USE COUPLING BETWEEN ELECTRIC FIELD & SOUND WAVE PROPAGATION FOR high-Q MICROWAVE/RF FILTER. NOT CONVERT ENERGY.

Yes, pyroelectric.

[GQuon (643387)]

They call the study "Observation of nuclear fusion driven by a pyroelectric crystal".

Unless the submitter is one of the researchers, the submitter was correct.

Thanks for making me learn about those electric characteristics of chrystals though.

Applied science

[empty drum (876694)]

Old and busted: Mini fuel cell power
New hotness: Mini fusion reactor power

Re:Applied science

[game kid (805301)]

It came with dark matter, but it kept getting pulled over.

Great Scott!

[1evilmonkey (837713)]

Next week they will place that bad boy on a flux capacitor.

Re:Great Scott!

[garcia (6573)]

Actually it would have been last week because they would have skipped over this week to arrive at exactly this moment in time.

25 billion volts per meter huh?

[Penguinoflight (517245)]

eh, too bad it cant stop a 26 billion hits per nanosecond... oh wait, this is slashdot.

Argh!

[by Anonymous Coward]

A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a pyroelectric crystal, a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals. When heated, such a crystal produces a large electric charge on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one side touches a copper disc. A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter. This field gradient is so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. The ionized deuterium atoms [are] then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 neutrons per second was observer. This is 400 times the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used for things like microthrusters. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site."

Do the editors even look at these things anymore?

Takes a lot more energy than it produces

[nokiator (781573)]

Going briefly over the available documents on this, it appears that this technique consumes orders of magnitude more energy than it produces. This would preclude energy generation as one of the potential applications, which is usually regarded as the most promising potential application of cold fusion. Most of the other potential applications mentioned in the articles use this as a neutron generator, but there are other well known ways of achieving that...

Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces

[jmv (93421)]

You would be right if this weren't a prototype (it's not like they're selling it). What they demonstrated is that it's possible to do fusion outside of a tokamak (or similar device). From there, you can always try making the thing work at a higher scale, with less energy.

Except you can already do that.

[JudasBlue (409332)]

You would be right, if there weren't already other ways of doing fusion without a tokamak or simlar devices.

Philo Farnsworth was doing table top fusion back in the 60's using tube techniques that were part of the outgrowth of his pioneering work in Television.

Check out fusor.net [fusor.net] for details on the technique.

Look around on the Net, and you can find more articles on the device in question, including people who have built them to play around with. To the best of my knowledge, there is no practical appliction for a Farnsworth device, except the not-inconsiderable bragging rights that you have built your own fusion reactor (a line sure to have the babes just lining up).

Re:Except you can already do that.

[0racle (667029)]

no practical appliction for a Farnsworth device

I dunno, I hear he had several doomsday devices.

Re:Except you can already do that.

[ERJ (600451)]

"Doomsday device? Now the ball's in Farnsworth's court! I suppose I could part with one and still be feared..."

--Professor Hubert J Farnsworth (Futurama)

Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces

[kebes (861706)]

The only other ways to achieve neutron flux (that I'm aware of) are to (1) use a particle accelerator collision to release neutrons (i.e.: spallation) or (2) to use a radioactive source (or running nuclear recator) and guide the flux of exiting neutrons. Both of these are quite large and not very portable.

Although this research is not going to give us energy production, it is the smallest neutron source I've heard of (palm-sized according to article). This in and of itself is quite exciting, and it would have numerous applications in industry. Neutron sources right now are used to image industrial materials (it can be used to map the internal stress distribution in pipes, aircraft components, etc... and it can get images through materials that would block x-rays). Having portable neutron-imagers would be useful to industry for doing stress analysis/imaging on components while they are in actual use. I can think of lots more applications, but I'll leave it at that.

For those interested, here is the abstract of the Nature article in question (the article is already available online, to subscribers, even though it officially releases in tomorrow's issue of Nature):
Nature 434, 1115-1117 (28 April 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature03575

While progress in fusion research continues with magnetic[1] and inertial[2] confinement, alternative approaches--such as Coulomb explosions of deuterium clusters[3] and ultrafast laser-plasma interactions[4]--also provide insight into basic processes and technological applications. However, attempts to produce fusion in a room temperature solid-state setting, including 'cold' fusion[5] and 'bubble' fusion[6], have met with deep scepticism[7]. Here we report that gently heating a pyroelectric crystal in a deuterated atmosphere can generate fusion under desktop conditions. The electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate a deuteron beam (> 100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a deuterated target, produces a neutron flux over 400 times the background level. The presence of neutrons from the reaction D + D --> 3He (820 keV) + n (2.45 MeV) within the target is confirmed by pulse shape analysis and proton recoil spectroscopy. As further evidence for this fusion reaction, we use a novel time-of-flight technique to demonstrate the delayed coincidence between the outgoing alpha-particle and the neutron. Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator.

Re:Takes a lot more energy than it produces

[kebes (861706)]

muon-catalyzed fusion would only viably occur in a particle accelerator setup, which I already mentioned (where else are you getting the muons from). In any case (as far as I know) no such thing is actually used today at neutron facilities.

For examples of neutron-beamline research facilities that exist today, I refer you to NIST [nist.gov], HMI [www.hmi.de], and the Spallation Neutron Source [sns.gov] (still being built).

Doomsday machine

[LemonFire (514342)]

Finally! That was the last missing part for my doomsday machine. Thank you guys...

-- This SIG was never meant to be.

LiTaO3

[The Fun Guy (21791)]

How can you possibly expect to get useful fusion reactions using a monolithium crystal?

Re:LiTaO3

[HtR (240250)]

I know! And what's with the erbium deuteride (ErD2) target? When I duplicated their results in my garage this afternoon, I found that you get much better results with a radium deuteride (R2D2) target. What were they thinking?

Shhh!

[alienmole (15522)]

Don't screw with the timeline -- they have to get through the monolithium phase on their own!

Not quite "Fusion" in the lay person's sense.

[Colgate2003 (735182)]

Yes, they are fusing particles, but this is not power-producing fusion. To call it fusion will mislead a general audience.

What it is -- which is still very cool -- is a particle accellerator the size of a toaster. High energy accerators fuse atoms, but we don't usually call them fusion reactors.

So, we should be talking about a small particle accelrator that could be used for medical imaging and treatment, sensing, or spacecraft propulsion.

Other contested fusion report

[kebes (861706)]

In 2002 there was a report claiming fusion due to cavitation. The article appeared in Science:
Science, Vol 295, Issue 5561, 1868-1873 , 8 March 2002 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1067589]

The method involves irradiating a liquid with sound. The acoustic waves can cause microscopic bubbles to form in solution (cavitation). When these bubbles collapse, their temperatures can become quite high. Done properly, in fact, these cavitations can lead to sonoluminescence (creation of light from sound). The creation of a plasma under these conditions has been confirmed. The Science article further claimed that neutrons were measured, indicating that fusion temperatures had been achieved. They were certainly not claiming this as a power source (yet), since energy input was much greater than output.

The interesting thing is the controversy that resulted, and, as far as I know, is still not resolved. Scientists worldwide are still split on whether or not fusion has really been achieved. It will take some time longer before we know for sure (altough the most recent reports I've read lean towards this really being fusion).

I'm bringing this up because it seems rather similar to what we have here. It is a high-profile announcement of fusion in a rather unusual setup. I anticipate that this will be met with much skepticism (rightly), and that it will take some time before we know "for sure" that it's really fusion.

Anyways, highly interesting results, and I'm looking forward for future confirmation/elaboration of these experiments. But I wouldn't get too excited, since these kinds of discoveries sometimes have subtle flaws (or mis-interpretations) that only become revealled when the full scrutiny of the scientific process is applied to them.

Re:Other contested fusion report

[khrtt (701691)]

Don't forget the good old pulse neutron tubes [lbl.gov].

Pulse neutron tubes are fusion-based neutron sources, most commonly used in circa 1970 atom bomb trigger mechanisms. They are also used for peaceful purposes, pretty much whenever one needs a 14 MeV neutron source. The vacuum tube uses very high voltage to accelerate deterium ions towards a target. Or something... In other words, achieving fusion at room temperature in a small apparatus is no big deal. The problem is that you always have to input way more energy into the device than you can get out. I don't see how any of these new advances in achieving fusion bring us closer to use of fusion as power source. Not to say that this new fusion neutron source is a wonderful scientific achievment, it is, it's just doesn't seem likely to be a potential power source technology.

Small-scale (server) fusion at UCLA

[Jurph (16396)]

gnuman99 writes "A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a Pentium, a type of silicon chip used in personal computers to generate heat. When charge is applied, such a chip produces a large thermal gradient on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a Pentium-based webserver so that one side touched a website called Slashdot. A tiny CAT-5 cable is then connected to the internet. When the website about fusion is visited by thousands of geeks at once, a very large large load is produced on the server, ~25 billion hits per hour. This traffic volume is so high that it strips the heavier "one" bits in the packets from the "zeroes". The ionized packets are then accelerated by this field towards the central processing unit (CPU). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 Kelvin was taken by an observer. This is way higher than the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used on things like Microsoft's website. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site contributing to the problem." Reader richmlpdx adds a link to coverage at MSNBC, in hopes that he can slashdot them too.

im sorry...

[patrick.whitlock (708318)]

but could someone put that through a babelfish and tell me what this guy said?

Re:im sorry...

[pdbogen (596723)]

Big electricity make little particle.

Desktop fusion is not new...

[MrKevvy (85565)]

The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor [wikipedia.org] has been around since the 1960's, and is so easy to build that it is sometimes seen in high school science fairs. It is commonly available as a neutron source.

What would be "new" would be a net gain in energy, but like the fusor, that doesn't seem to be happening with this new device.

Re:Desktop fusion is not new...

[kebes (861706)]

It is commonly available as a neutron source.

Can you provide me references on that, please? I use neutron sources in my research, and I'm not aware of a Fusor setup being used at any real neutron beamlines around the world. They are all either particle accelerators that produce neutrons via spallation (such as the upcoming Spallation Neutron Source [sns.gov]), or are radiological/nuclear reactors (such as NIST [nist.gov], HMI [www.hmi.de], etc.). Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone. As far as I know, the flux is much too low and the system not efficient.

Re:Desktop fusion is not new...

[thelizman (304517)]

Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone.

Diamler-Chrysler has commercially sold a fusor it calls "Fusion Star" for several years as a high-count neutron source. Fusors are in use at the University of Illinois, Brigham Young, and NC State. If you want references...google. Common knowledge shouldn't have to have a citation.

Useful for neutrons, not power (and it's hot)

[radtea (464814)]

What these guys have done is found a novel application of a relatively well-known means of generating extremely high electric fields. This is good, and may produce more compact, robust neutron generators than we currently have.

But it is clear from the article--and the basic physics--that this isn't a practical means of generating fusion power. This is just another hot fusion mechanism--it isn't "room temperature". The deuterium ions from the gas discharge are accelerated by the field and smash into the ErD surface with high energies.

The interaction cross-sections are such that virtually all of the D ions will slow down without fusing, and the energy that went into accelerating them will be only recoverable as heat, with the usual thermodynamic (in)efficiencies. The DD fusion cross-section just isn't high enough to overcome those losses.

Cool experiment, though.

--Tom

Build your own?

[TheSync (5291)]

Instructions for building your own electrostatic confinement fusion device (aka fusor) are here [kronjaeger.com].

Research Value

[knapper_tech (813569)]

Even if the technology is found to be unable to produce sufficient amounts of energy to be valuable in that role, it could still be a great platform for studying fusion in the lab, and it could yield useful information for controlling fusion in the large scale research reactors that may eventually lead to scalable, cheap, and abundant energy production.

Re:How well does it scale up?

[helioquake (841463)]

That's kind of what people said about electrons and X-rays...about 150 years ago.

So think about that.

Re:How well does it scale up?

[KillerDeathRobot (818062)]

It's a fun physics experiment, but I don't think it is much use in the economic driven world.

That's an interesting conclusion to come to without getting the answers to your questions.

Re:How well does it scale up?

[maxwells_deamon (221474)]

There might be some very economical uses of this. A small lightweight source of neutrons that does not contain or produce any radiation before being activated might have some very nice (money producing) applications.

Also they stated that the energy production in the Initial experiment was less than it took to generate the fusion. This does not rule out variations or even a scaled up version (I would guess that simple scaleing would not work)

Re:Still uses deuterium

[Waffle Iron (339739)]

Yet another fusion process that produces less energy than is input into it and requires a specialized isotope of hydrogen.

Deuterium is hardly specialized. The hydrogen in sea water is 1/6000 D. It is easily separated, and it's readily available by the truckload.

Any practical fusion process is likely to use deuterium rather than ordinary hydrogen because it's plentiful and far easier to fuse.