Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Science

Ultra-Dense Deuterium Produced 355

Posted by kdawson
from the big-if dept.
Omomyid was among several readers writing in about the production of microscopic amounts of ultra-dense deuterium by scientists at the University of Gothenberg, in Sweden. A cubic centimeter of the stuff would weigh 287 lbs. (130 kg). UDD is 100,000 times more dense than water, and a million times more dense than deuterium ice, which is a common fuel in laser-ignited fusion projects. The researchers say that, if (big if) the material can be produced in large quantities, it would vastly improve the chances of starting a fusion reaction, as the atoms are much closer together. Such a D-D fusion reaction would be cleaner than one involving highly radioactive tritium. Many outlets have picked up the same press release that Science Daily printed pretty much verbatim (as is their wont); there doesn't seem to be much else about this on the Web. Here's the home page of one of the researchers. The press release gives no hint as to how the UDD was produced. Reader wisebabo asks: "I can easily imagine a material being compressed by some heavy duty diamond anvil to reach this density, the question is: what happens when you let the pressure off? Will it expand (explosively one would presume) back to its original volume?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ultra-Dense Deuterium Produced

Comments Filter:
  • by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:18PM (#27927345)

    Woo-hoo, warp drive, here we come!

    Oh, only "cold fusion here we come"? Fine, lets just solve our enrgy crisis then. *kicks rock, wishes for holodeck*

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by snsh (968808)
      Is this Red Matter? Or is the thing you eject into the black hole at the end of the movie to cancel out the Red Matter?
      • by orkybash (1013349)
        Can't be Red Matter. I already got a bunch of that all over my floor when I stepped on the pen I use to grade papers with. I'm taking fire safety much more seriously these days though.
    • Bah! You want Deutronium!
    • by RsG (809189) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:47PM (#27927883)

      Hey, one thing at a time :-)

      If we want off earth for any length of time, we need a power plant that will sustain a manned spacecraft for a long journey. Fusion beats the hell out of fission in that department.

      So consider this one small step on the way to a future in which star trek looks antiquated. If it works, that is (I have my reservations upon looking at the claims in TFA).

    • If someone developed cold fusion or any other cheap/virtually free method for generating energy, the same people (big energy companies) would still sell the rest of us energy at whatever price the market would bear, with higher profits and less overhead for themselves.

      Follow the green energy dollars. They are heading the same direction as the rest of the old energy dollars.

      • by jeff4747 (256583)

        And the problem is.....

        Why should we care if our "green energy" comes from the same power company?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RsG (809189)

        While that would be a bad thing as far as fairness goes, it would still be an improvement over what we have today.

        Plus, in the long haul, all it takes is for the tech to miniaturize to the point where you can install it at home and go off the grid. Failing that, if the technology is cheap enough, smaller utilities might be able afford the start up costs and enter the market, which will introduce competition.

        That being said, "cold" fusion is very likely a pipe dream. Fusion power generators will almost cer

    • by StCredZero (169093) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @05:03PM (#27928173)

      Fine, lets just solve our enrgy crisis then. *kicks rock, wishes for holodeck*

      If we really wanted to, we could solve it quite easily. There's many centuries of Uranium and Thorium to burn in fission reactors, and nuclear waste is solved technically. (Again, the problem is political.) We haven't taken more than the first step to tapping the potential of wave energy, there's a lot more wind to harness. Solar Thermal could benefit from economies of scale and improved distribution, and there's tremendous potential untapped in the world's deserts.

      There's even a market for Orbital Solar Power Satellites -- namely for remote military outposts that would otherwise need to truck in fuel for generators. (An order of magnitude greater cost is acceptable in that case, but this would start the cycle of industrial innovation and reduction of costs from economies of scale, and would lead to widespread Solar Power for civilian use.)

      We could stop using fossil fuels right now, from a technical standpoint. It's just that we don't want to, for a variety of economic, political, and superstitious reasons.

  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:18PM (#27927349) Journal

    Sounds like the university of gothenberg should just go walk nibbler [wikipedia.org].

  • The press release gives no hint as to how the UDD was produced.

    Of course not -- they'll want to patent that method before they release the details. And why not? If it turns out to be exactly what we needed all along to make fusion commercially viable, they'll be set for life.

    • And why not? If it turns out to be exactly what we needed all along to make fusion commercially viable, they'll be set for life.

      s/life/end of time for them and all their descendants

    • Muon catalysis? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mangu (126918)

      If they replace the electrons with muons [wikipedia.org] the nuclei will be much closer together, therefore the matter will be much denser. That's the only way I can imagine this could work.

  • No problem. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:21PM (#27927403) Journal
    Twas asked:

    "I can easily imagine a material being compressed by some heavy duty diamond anvil to reach this density, the question is: what happens when you let the pressure off? Will it expand (explosively one would presume) back to its original volume?"

    Simple answer, known by all: Duct Tape.

    RS

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:23PM (#27927471)

    "Highly Radioactive Tritium" - I'm assuming they meant something concerning the very energetic neutrons produced in D-T fusion. Tritium by itself can't be considered highly radioactive by any stretch of the imagination. They put the stuff in my watch with thin glass for a shield, for Pete's sake!

    • by RsG (809189) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:56PM (#27928073)

      Thin glass is all you need. Tritium is a beta emitter - skin won't necessarily stop it, but just about anything else will. If it leaks out, it'll be as a diffuse gas that will react with oxygen to produce slightly radioactive water - with the quantities in your watch, that's no big deal. It is still somewhat energetic though (probably where they're getting "highly radioactive").

      I can see why the method from TFA, if it works, might not be wise to use on tritium. An ultradense block of material that, upon returning to regular atmospheric pressure, expands into a radioactive gas... not a great idea. Tritium, like human beings, is only mostly harmless :-)

      • by Goaway (82658)

        Actually, skin will likely stop the betas from tritium just fine. It's not just that it's a beta emitter, it's that it emits betas at 17 keV.

  • by master_p (608214) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:24PM (#27927487)

    Imaging putting a little bit of that in ones shoe...a great laugh!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:48PM (#27927895)

      Actually, it would probably be funnier to put it someone elses shoes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by supernova_hq (1014429)
      I'd rather drop a piece from the top of the Eiffel tower and see how big of a hole it makes!
      • by CopaceticOpus (965603) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @06:06PM (#27929065)

        Interesting idea. I found this terminal velocity calculator [nasa.gov].

        A 1 cm^3 cube of UDD has a surface area of 0.00107639104 sq feet [google.com]. (Actually, it would be a little more as it rotates in the air.) Unfortunately, the above calculator rounds values off too much to handle this. In fact, it can't really handle it because it isn't able to compensate for compressibility effects and shock waves as we exceed the speed of sound. (Using the Eiffel Tower's height of 1063 ft., it is returning a value of a little over a mile per second!)

        So let's try dropping a big piece, say a sphere with a cross sectional area of 1 sq. ft. This will have a radius of sqrt(1 / pi), and hence a volume of (4/3) * pi * (sqrt( 1 / pi))^3, or about 0.75225 [google.com] cubic feet. This yields an impressive weight of 6,113,486 pounds [google.com].

        The terminal velocity calculator is cutting us off at 10,000 pounds, but we can punch this out ourselves to get an answer. We just need a reasonable value for the atmospheric density. Through a little trial and error, I found that a value of .001697 gives about the same results as what the terminal velocity calculator returns for 10,000 pound weights. Running the calculation for our weight yields 101,000 ft/sec. [google.com], or about 19.2 miles/second.

        This is surely a ridiculous result, since we're still disregarding compressibility effects, and using dodgy math. Still, it was interesting, and this sort of speed is not impossible. The fastest man made space probe, Helios, traveled at over twice this speed, albeit in a vacuum.

        Let's accept the result for now, and compare this to the Chicxulub impact [wikipedia.org], which is "one of the largest confirmed impact structures in the world; the impacting bolide that formed the crater was at least 10 km (6 mi) in diameter." I don't see any estimates of the bolide's mass or impact velocity. However, we know the impact released 400 zettajoules of energy, or 4x10^23 joules.

        Our object would have a kinetic energy [wikipedia.org] of merely 1.3x10^15 joules [google.com], so it probably won't be destroying the earth. Still, with the force all directed at such a tiny area, something dramatic is bound to happen. I imagine it would burrow quite deeply, and then release energy upward and outward somehow.

        I have no idea how to estimate the hole's depth. If anyone thinks this ludicrous math is enjoyable, feel free to add your own calculations!

        • Correction (Score:3, Interesting)

          Running the calculation for our weight yields 101,000 ft/sec., or about 19.2 miles/second.

          Except that the Earth's escape velocity (from the Earth's surface) is only 7 mi/sec, so it cannot fall faster than that (into Earth).

    • by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @05:12PM (#27928321)

      But think how much heavier the Earth will be when they start making lots of this stuff. Won't that affect our solar orbit? Or the tide?

      It's like how sponges can hold 25 times their weight in water. Imagine how high the water levels would be if they became extinct!

      I don't know how people can sleep...

  • by Smidge207 (1278042) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:24PM (#27927493) Journal

    FIRST - there is no claim for an observable amount of matter in the D(-1) state. It isn't "microscopic amounts" - for "microscopic" means "visible in a microscope". Do the math, fellow NBF visionaries: 2.3 picometers ... if it were a lattice compound ... would be about 440^3 units per cubic nanometer, or 440,000^3 (about 85E15 or 85 quadrillion atoms in a cubic micrometer box. Nothing doing. They're measuring the energy (~600eV) spectroscopically, from the FRAGMENTS of the supposed union. This is not a union-of-deuterons lasting nanoseconds, or microseconds, or milliseconds, or seconds. No, these are the fragments that lasted just long enough for the D(-1) state to hold together in a laser beam for ATTOSECONDS. (That's what those little "as" annotations are on their viewgraph).

    SECOND, while it is nice to foster the conjecture that such matter IF microscopically attainable, IF stable enought to survives the time-of-flight from source to fusion reactor, IF the energy-cost-of-production is far less than the increased odds (and useful energy return) of the attendant fusion exists ... THEN it is a great and wonderful thing.

    THIRD, single D(-1) pseudonucleons may well exist for nanoseconds per KURT9's thesis, but again ... nanoseconds is very much too short for deeply sub-relativistic ballistic particles to traverse a source (the laser-and-"compression" chamber) to the fusion reaction chamber. Even if they only exist as single diatomic particles, lifetimes have to be raised at least into the microseconds. For practical energy production in the reactor proper (let's say, 250 MW thermal), 4.88E20 diatomic Rydberg nucleons would have to be created (assuming 3.23MeV per fusion of D(-1) to get to 4He) ... and remembering that 4He is the least likely product produced.

    FOURTH (per last part of Third), the 2D + 2D = 4He reaction is well known to be very improbable in a single step, since there are LOWER ENERGY intermediate products that bleed off the excited spin-state fusion reaction (one of the key 'first principles' of fusion physics). Per the excellent if brief article in WikiPedia,

    50% ... D + D = T + p
    50% ... D + D = 3He + n

    Researching further, D + D = 4He occurs about one in a dozen million fusion reactions nominally.

    FIFTH, summing goatse.cx guy's "facts" together and this looks like yet another fruitless (for fusion) avenues of research. There is only hope, and not a shred of evidence that the D(-1) Rydberg CAN be made in 1E20 nucleons/second quantities, no reference to the overall energy-of-formation, no evidence that the diatoms can exist for more than attoseconds, nothing but speculative wishes that such a material holds promise to D+D=4He reactions (which is just an uber-popular topic, anyway). Therefore, it gets a 3 star SnakeOil award, coupled with 2 stars for the actual science, the novelty of the discovery, and the fine department of Physics at Gothenberg for letting these two obviously talented, and quite frankly queer, researchers have their limelight.

    So, in summary, I have to say: "Sorry, dude, I just don't think it'll work."

    =smudge=

    • There need be no "time of flight" if the state can be achieved in situ in a target immediately before it is struck by the compressing laser pulses. Thus you might hit a structured target with a pulse designed to create some D(-1) followed immediately by a compression and detonation pulse (or even structure the compression pulse to create some D(-1). You also need not rely on a D-D reaction: driving tritium nuclei into a core of D(-1) should enhance yield.

      It's worth investigating.

    • OK, I don't know much about fission (just the nerd basics), and I'll trust (to a certain extent) that you know what you're talking about, and that the potential impact of this research as claimed i the press release, etc, is a crock of shit... but:

      and the fine department of Physics at Gothenberg for letting these two obviously talented, and quite frankly queer, researchers have their limelight.

      Seriously? WTF does their sexuality have to do with this? At all?

      I've now disregarded everything you've writte

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Chrutil (732561)

      So, in summary, I have to say: "Sorry, dude, I just don't think it'll work."

      Hang on.. your post was too long - were you replying to the guy who suggested duct tape?

    • FIRST - ... [science omitted]

      Hey! Enough with the science stuff. Frame your argument within a Star Trek or cartoon reference only, please.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @06:12PM (#27929147)

      No, these are the fragments that lasted just long enough for the D(-1) state to hold together in a laser beam for ATTOSECONDS. (That's what those little "as" annotations are on their viewgraph).

      You didn't specify what viewgraph you were referring to (there are none in the links in the summary). Presumably you are looking at one of their papers. E.g. Figure 2 from:
      S. Badiei, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, "High-energy Coulomb explosions in ultra-dense deuterium: time-of-flight mass spectrometry with variable energy and flight length". Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 282 (2009) 70-76. doi:10.1016/j.ijms.2009.02.014 [doi.org]

      Yes, that graph marks points along the curve with "as" meaning "attoseconds", but that doesn't mean that the UDD has a lifetime of attoseconds. That graph is describing the "Coulomb explosion" technique they are using to measure the bond distances in UDD. Briefly, they excite the ultra-dense deuterium with a laser pulse that ionizes some of the atoms, which causes them to fly apart (due to Coulomb repulsion) with great energy. By measuring the ions that result from this explosion they can calculate the bond distances. This high-speed explosion, however, was artificially induced to make it possible to measure the inter-atomic distances. If they had not purposefully excited the UDD with a laser it would have lasted longer.

      I'm not sure how much longer that would be, mind you. As far as I can tell from their papers, they have not yet measured the lifetime. So it may very well be a rather low lifetime. (Though some forms of Rydberg matter can have appreciable lifetimes [wikipedia.org].) If anyone has any actual data (with link) for the lifetime, I'd love to see it.

      IF stable enought to survives the time-of-flight from source to fusion reactor

      For Intertially-Confined Fusion, which typically uses lasers to compress the target matter, one could design a system where the UDD state is produced in-situ and immediately laser-compressed.

      single D(-1) pseudonucleons may well exist for nanoseconds per KURT9's thesis

      This is another statement whose source is unclear. Who or what is "KURT9"?

      There is only hope ... nothing but speculative wishes that such a material holds promise to D+D=4He reactions ...

      From the above-cited paper:
      "Due to the high density of the D(1) material, a factor of 2×10^5 higher than for H(1), the transport of energetic particles through the material is strongly impeded. In fact, the deuterons at 2.3pm bond distance are close to the nuclear barrier, and a kinetic energy of 630 eV may be sufficient to give d-d fusion by tunneling."

      I haven't looked into the theory enough yet to say whether their suggestion of tunneling [wikipedia.org] is correct or not... but if true this would indeed vastly increase the rate of fusion reactions. If nothing else, the extremely high density of the nucleons will make all kinds of many-body and multi-step reactions much more viable.

      he fine department of Physics at Gothenberg for letting these two obviously talented, and quite frankly queer, researchers have their limelight.

      Umm... what?

      =smudge=

      I guess you're trolling.

  • by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:26PM (#27927531) Homepage
    Out of curiosity I looked up the density at the center of the sun [wikipedia.org] and got an answer of "150,000 kg/m3 (150 times the density of water on Earth)" which to me is less than "100,000 times more dense than water" So my question then became how does this not spontaneously fuse?
    • by jbeaupre (752124) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:39PM (#27927741)
      The sun is much hotter. Fusion is a product of temperature and density.
      • by FudRucker (866063)
        dont forget mass, the sun is pretty damn big too compared to earth standards
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by T Murphy (1054674)

        Fusion is a product of temperature and density.

        That should mean we would get fusion if we turn up the thermostat at the Capitol building.

    • by RsG (809189) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:44PM (#27927805)

      The centre of the sun is less dense than you might think, owing to thermal and radiation pressure.

      The energy from the aforementioned fusion counteracts the pressure from the outer layers pushing in. This state is one of equilibrium; reduce the rate of reaction and the core contracts, speeding fusion, increase the rate of reaction and the core expands, slowing the fusion back down again. The estimated density of the sun is much, much lower than the density would be for a non-fusing body of the same mass. If anything, this discrepancy will be more noticeable in the core, where the temperature is highest.

      If no fusion reactions were occurring, which is what will happen when the fuel runs out, the core would contract until it became electron-degenerate matter, the material of a white dwarf star. With a more massive star, the contraction would continue past that point until neutron degeneracy took over (leading to a neutron star), or it passed the Swartzchild radius (leading to a black hole).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by radtea (464814)

      So my question then became how does this not spontaneously fuse?

      It would... given enough time. The rate of fusion in the solar core is quite sedate. The vast majority of hydrogen or deuterium in the solar core won't fuse for some billions of years to come.

      This stuff will have a huge spontaneous fusion cross-section, relatively speaking, but that could still be vastly lower than anything practically interesting. During the cold fusion flap Koonin and collaborators did a careful recalculation of the "stand

  • Metallic Deuterium ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mbone (558574) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:26PM (#27927541)

    There has been a long search for metallic hydrogen [wikipedia.org], which is supposed to be (once made under high pressure) possibly both stable and superconducting [aps.org] at room temperature.

    Given that metallic hydrogen is also supposed to be quite dense, I have to wonder if they haven't made metallic deuterium.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by John Hasler (414242)

      > I have to wonder if they haven't made metallic deuterium.

      No. This is something quite different (if it exists at all).

  • Ultra Dense Planet (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MozeeToby (1163751)

    Wasn't there an article a while back about an exoplanet discovered that was so dense the astronomers couldn't even begin to speculate what it was made out of? This would seem to be an interesting candidate for an answer.

    Really, stop and think about just how dense this stuff is. Fill a soda can with it and the can would weigh in at 35000 lbs! Even if all you did was burn it or use it in a fuel cell, the volume to energy ratio of this substance is amazing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AndersOSU (873247)

      I'm trying to imagine what would happen if you threw a 35000 lb soda can of UDD into the campfire.

    • by canajin56 (660655) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:39PM (#27927749)
      It's so dense that a single pound of it weighs over 10,000 pounds!
    • by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:47PM (#27927879) Homepage

      You're right -- just think of what a boon this will be to the mining and drilling industries.

      Because you know, that's all it's going to be good for. It's dense enough to fall through granite and limestone like they were tissue paper. I'm getting a figure of mechanical pressure that's about twice what hardened steel can take.

      Fill a soda can with this stuff and watch it shoot down into the center of the Earth, with nothing you can do to stop it. If it's any consolation, after that it will probably fuse and explode.

      I, for one, welcome our new swedish doomsday weapon.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Un pobre guey (593801)
      Burn it? It has no electrons, just nuclear particles held together very very tenuously. No electrons means no oxidation means no burning. This is an exotic state of matter whose existence is barely detectable. Too many posts here confuse it with ordinary fuels, of which it is not. It is not even similar to fuels in fission reactors, and as a few posts have pointed out its feasibility as a fusion fuel is not at all clear.
  • by rev_sanchez (691443) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:28PM (#27927573)
    I don't think they could do much better than claim a major breakthrough in Hot Double-D Reactions.
  • The Air Force (Score:2, Interesting)

    by moniker127 (1290002)
    Anyone want to start a pool on how long it will take for the military to want to tip missiles with it?
  • A cubic centimeter of the stuff would weigh 287 lbs. (130 kg).

    How surreal it would be to have an object the size of a sugar cube that would be so heavy!

    • by Dyinobal (1427207)
      Just imagine if such a substance existed naturally and wasn't deadly under normal conditions. Weight rooms and fitness equipment would be so much smaller, or the counter-balance of cranes would be relatively tiny. A large number of applications exist for ultra dense materials it's a shame something more mundane and naturally occurring doesn't exist(as far as we know).
      • Some weight rooms are already starting to use heavy-duty springs for some of their equipment. Not only are they smaller, but they weigh a LOT less than dead weight and are easier to move and swap out.
    • How surreal it would be to have an object the size of a sugar cube that would be so heavy!

      Tarrant: A neutron star?
      Avon: A microscopic fragment of one. It's the only possible explanation. It was unbelievably heavy.
      Dayna: So how could Egrorian have planted it aboard?
      Avon: He must have reprogrammed that automatic landing bay of his.
      Soolin: And you moved it on your own?
      Avon: I couldn't find Vila.
      Vila: I'm glad about that.
      Tarrant: Pity about the tachyon funnel, though.
      Avon: We had no choice.
      Vila: It's a trip I won't forget, Avon.
      Avon: Well, as you always say, Vila: you know you are safe with me.

  • by toby (759) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:35PM (#27927695) Homepage Journal

    The FA says a 10cm cube, i.e. 1000 cubic centimetres, would weigh 130 tonnes.

  • by canajin56 (660655) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:36PM (#27927707)

    Such a D-D fusion reaction would be cleaner than one involving highly radioactive tritium.

    Deuterium + Deuterium = Tritium + Proton (50%) or Helium 3 + Neutron (50%). Must be an unusual definition of "not involving".

  • get the Bussard collectors ready. We need to start storing this stuff!

  • each pound of which weighs over ten thousand pounds.
  • food saver

  • I strongly doubt you can make UDD in any large amount. The laws of QM dictates that electrons cannot reach closer to nuclei than Bohr's radius and hence they cannot cancel out the p-p electrostatic repulsion. In tiny amount, this may occur if somehow you can manage to create some external forces which adds in a right way, but at large scale, you can't do that. This is as bizarre as cold fusion and I refuse to believe it (I will believe it if they can make 0.01 cubic milli-meter of UDD with a mass of 1 gm an
  • by DynaSoar (714234) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:46PM (#27927865) Journal

    No clue here as to production, but possibly in the references below. Anyone have access to these?

    "A much denser state exists for deuterium, named D(-1). We call it ultra-dense deuterium. This is the inverse of D(1), and the bond distance is very small, equal to 2.3 pm. Its density is extremely large, >130 kg / cm3, if it can exist as a dense phase. Due to the short bond distance, D-D fusion is expected to take place easily in this material. See Ref. 179 below!"

    183. S. Badiei, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, "High-energy Coulomb explosions in ultra-dense deuterium: time-of-flight mass spectrometry with variable energy and flight length". Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 282 (2009) 70-76.

    179. S. Badiei, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, "Fusion reactions in high-density hydrogen: a fast route to small-scale fusion?" Int. J. Hydr. Energy 34 (2009) 487-495.

    178. L. Holmlid, "Clusters HN+ (N = 4, 6, 12) from condensed atomic hydrogen and deuterium indicating close-packed structures in the desorbed phase at an active catalyst surface". Surf. Sci. 602 (2008) 3381â"3387.

    176. S. Badiei and L. Holmlid, "Condensed atomic hydrogen as a possible target in inertial confinement fusion (ICF)". J. Fusion Energ. 27 (2008) 296â"300.

    I don't see the necessity for brute force compression. H can be highly compressed while trapped in metal crystal lattice, such as in H saturated palladium. The individual energies are still high but due to being already in close proximity much of the squeezing has already been done. Such a lattice that can then be removed, dissolved, etc. might leave high density H droppings.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I have access to the International Journal of Mass Spectrometry paper (the other journals are a bit outside of my field). The article is mostly about using mass spec to present the case that their substance really has a distance between deuterium nuclei of 2.3 picometers, but they touch briefly on production:

      Close to the center of the apparatus, a K doped iron oxide catalyst (a hydrogen atom transfer catalyst) is used to produce H(RM) and D(RM) from normal hydrogen (1.5% deuterium) or pure deuterium gas at

  • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Tuesday May 12, 2009 @04:47PM (#27927873)

    Please, please, please don't let them call it deuterium ore [wordpress.com].

Assembly language experience is [important] for the maturity and understanding of how computers work that it provides. -- D. Gries

Working...