

Lightning Fusion And Other Hot News 232
DumbSwede writes "PhysOrg.com reports that according to calculations by B.M. Kuzhevsky, the head of the neutron research lab at Moscow State University, neutron levels far above normal background levels exist during lightning strikes. While only a small percentage of rainwater contains atoms of deuterium, the lightning still provides enough energy to create fusion events. Frequent Slashdot readers no doubt remember recent articles on Fusion induced by sonic compression and more recently by pyroelectric effect. Perhaps more controversially, and yet to be discussed on Slashdot, the NIF has possible plans for a hybrid fusion approach that uses not only deuterium and tritium, but uranium and plutonium as well in what amounts to a miniaturized version of how thermonuclear weapons achieve fusion. Fears are that this could lead directly to micro-H-bombs. This year has also seen the final selection of France for the ITER experimental Fusion Reactor site. With all the recent discoveries and developments in fusion research, my question for Slashdotters - are we on the verge of something big that will make fusion a practical reality in a much shorter time frame than the often quoted '30 years away, and always will be'?"
We'll never get fusion! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:We'll never get fusion! (Score:2)
Although I for one would rather mico H-bombs than full size ones... maybe then they'd be small enough to be useful.. save on munitions cost... yeah that's it... hey doc, what's that in your pock.... oh crudd
Re:We'll never get fusion! (Score:2)
That demands the obligatory George McFly:
"Are you oh-kay?"
Re:We'll never get fusion! (Score:2)
Your question can't be answered so simply. (Score:5, Insightful)
All the past discoveries looked just as promising as anything you see today. They didn't pan out yet. Today's look good today. They're worth following up on. But nobody can just tell you if these things will be workable in the end - that's what the years of research are for.
Re:Your question can't be answered so simply. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Your question can't be answered so simply. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Your question can't be answered so simply. (Score:2, Interesting)
There are numberous models for development of alternatives to the current system of fueling things. Some involve dramatic jumps in efficiency. Others involve recovery of system waste. Other models involve outside sourcing of the energy from "conventional sources" while still others involve unique technologies for using energy in the structure of matter and the universe. Probably improving efficiency is the front line for action at this time. All other methodologies probably take too long for immediate r
Why, yes. (Score:5, Funny)
"Why, yes, we are on the verge of something big that will make fusion a practical reality in a much shorter time frame than the often quoted '30 years away, and always will be', and we always will be!"
hmmm, yeah, doubt it. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't particularly trust anything at all I read on "physorg" unless it is also published somewhere else and this search is not [google.com] boosting my confidence in the article's validity. Other things which make me doubt the clam VERY VERY MUCH are the fact that lightning has a temperature usually not reported in the literature to be above 40-50,000 Kelvin [anl.gov] while virtually all fusion devices (which are in thermal equilibrium, as this would also be the mechanism here presumably unless they are proposing some super exotically weird non-equilibrium mechanism) need to attain temperatures in the MILLIONS of K range to even begin seeing neutrons. The fact that they are also claiming that this explains why they see "100 times the background" levels of neutrons during lightning storms is, I think, bordering on the ridiculous. There is a reason it took us until just 2 years ago to discover that lightning emits x-rays [space.com], and that is because uhmmm it involves studying lightning at very close range! Interference effects in sensitive electronic equipment caused by the insanely huge magnetic and electric field pulse very close by are extremely hard to eliminate. Until I read the paper, I'll very highly doubt this neutron/fusion "discovery".
Anyway, I think the following line in the submission needs some factual clarification:
"Perhaps more controversially, and yet to be discussed on Slashdot, the NIF has possible plans for a hybrid fusion approach that uses not only deuterium and tritium, but uranium and plutonium as well in what amounts to a miniaturized version of how thermonuclear weapons achieve fusion. Fears are that this could lead directly to micro-H-bombs."
This is a bit of a convoluted misconception. Firstly when NIF (if they ever finish the damn thing) compresses and ignites its DT capsules, they will theoretically produce a gain of something like a maximum of ~50. That is to say, they will release ~50 times more energy than was delivered to them by the lasers which are used to start the reaction and this will result in the emission of a neutron pulse and other thermal and electromagnetic energy in the 10s of megajoules range. This is exactly a replica of a thermonuclear bomb in the lab (without the primary). They ARE "micro-H-bombs", that's the whole idea of the thing. Secondly NIF want's to use uranium and plutonium as reported recently [insidebayarea.com] not because they will increase the fusion yield of the micro-bombs but rather because the megabar, megakelvin conditions achievable with NIF will allow the examination of these metals at the conditions which are found at the cores of imploding primaries [wikipedia.org] (and secondary "sparkplugs"). These are called "subcriticals [lanl.gov]" and they allow the examination of the equation of state" of these metals at energy regimes pertinent to A-bombs without having an actual chain reaction occur.
As for the question "With all the recent discoveries and developments in fusion research, my question for Slashdotters - are we on the verge of something big that will make fusion a practical reality in a much shorter time frame than the often quoted '30 years away, and always will be'"...
Don't count on it. There are lots of very promising [oemagazine.com] and very very exciting [mit.edu] ideas out there, but fusion on an economic (and laboratory; ie. not H-bombs) scale is just damn hard to do. The 30 year rule, sadly, still applies. T
Re:hmmm, yeah, doubt it. (Score:2)
"Hey, clams got mouths!" (With apologies to Johnny Hart)
Re:hmmm, yeah, doubt it. (Score:2)
Re:hmmm, yeah, doubt it. (Score:2)
Of course, it's nowhere close to break-even, but nonetheless it might help in fusion reactor design.
Re:hmmm, yeah, doubt it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless, of course, fusion reactions occur in the upper end of atom speeds when the mean is at 4 million Kelvins. I presume so, because otherwise the Sun would burn all of it's core hydrogen nearly instantaneously (every time two atoms collide - happens quite often at those speeds) and would consequently blow apart from the huge energy burst, and whatever remains would then go out because no hydrogen remained. Since Sun is still shining, I consider my interpretation likely.
In any case, fusion can occur in any temperature, because quantum uncertainty can always make two nucleus to appear close enough each other for strong nuclear force to bind them. Coming to think of it, what would happen if you froze hydrogen atoms near absolute zero - since the speed of the atoms would be very well known (close to zero, deviating less and less the lower the temperature gets) their position should become very uncertain, to the point of essentially occupying the same space; would this lead to fusion ? Would it be easier to cool a hydrogen pellet to low enough temperature to ignite fusion than to heat it up ? Would it get overclokcers processor cooling equipment outlawed as weapons of mass destruction ?-)
Neutron Storms (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Neutron Storms (Score:2)
First thing you know you tachyon drive begens to get glitchy and you loose communications.
then navigation goes and it's opps bang you stuck on some backward ass planet posting on some site about some primative form of power. What, where you guy like monkies until last week?
sheesh
Re:Neutron Storms (Score:4, Funny)
1.21 Gigawatts! (Score:5, Funny)
So... what the article is saying is that Dr. Brown used the electricity from the lightning strike, instead of plutonium, to generate the nuclear reaction to generate the electricity to power the fluxcapacitor?
It all makes sense now?
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
The estimate comes from..... (Score:4, Interesting)
My houehold, according to our power company, uses approximately 16 KW per month (That's assuming you don't run everything 24/7 like most geeks would, I actually turn off my lights/computer/stove/TV/microwave/mini-fridge when not in use.)
In my particular case, my estimate, according to MLGW (Memphis Light, Gas, & Water, which is powered by TVA, a hydroelectric plant, which may make electricity FAR CHEARPER than the region you live in) is still accurate, and Memphis doesn't consume nearly as much power as a heavy metropolitan area such as New York City.
My estimates are still feasible, by the lowest energy-consumption standards in the US. Even among Amish people, whom I've lived among for 14 months. They still use power, they just don't use technology.
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2, Informative)
1KWh is another way of saying the transformation of energy into waste heat (or maybe a useful form, but less likely) has occured at a rate equivalent to 1KilloWatt for one hour. The SI unit of energy is the Joule; not the Watt, which is expressed in Joules per second and means the rate of use or transformation of energy.
Just for reference 1KWh = 1000 x 60 x 60 Jo
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
Should have read supplying 75 w/hr * 24 hours.... or for the whole thing
75 w/hr * 24hr / 1000 * 30days * $.07= $3.78 or energy metered every 30 days at 7 cents a kw/hr if you leave a 75 watt bulb on all the time.
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
Let me start by saying that the following assumes that by "14 kW" you really mean "14 kWhr", because, as other posters have pointed out, 14kW is a meaningless term when it comes to analyzing monthly energy consumption.
If this assumption is true, then that figure of 14kWhr per month is WAY off. I would guess that 14kWhr per DAY i
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
We only use that much power per month. Our electric bill maybe, MAYBE, hits $110 a month in the summer, using the AC to compliment the swamp cooler. (It only costs an average of 30 grand to take a home off the power grid, BTW.) We use wood to cook food (tastes better IMHO) and we don't use
Re:The estimate comes from..... (Score:2)
Answer Equals Yes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Our actual usage, being careful, resourceful, and knowledgeable (We do run about 10% of our power from solar [water heater, air conditioner VIA a swamp cooler, etc.}) is probably a very small fraction higher than I'm estimating, since our power bill keeps rising every month. However, we're still paying about 1/2 as much as other richer households within 500 feet of our house, and they complain because we get a lower rate (because we use solar power to put energy back into the grid, instead of continually drawing it out.)
So odds are, you *ARE* using (maybe not 60X the electricity, but perhaps 10X {if you used 60x the electricity, in an area like NYC, you'd be broke unless you had millions of dollars}) more electricity than I'm using. Of course, I'm also using solar-powered chargers (Lots of things we have are battery-powered, like wireless headphones, wireless keyboard/mouse, a couple of speakers thanks to a couple batteries and a transceiver, guitar pedals [9 volts each] and more...)
Hell, I get on average 70 MPG with a greascar kit. Start with regular petroleum in diesel form, combust, use heat exchanger from engine to veggie oil tank, heat up veggie oil to make thin enough for combustion, get hellacious gas mileage in comparison to running pure diesel.
This is what the Radical Faeries are all about, man. And I'm one of them. Make way, or drown in the oil you're so dependent upon.
Uhuh. (Score:3, Informative)
End of the World (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to be that the way to keep the world safe from nuclear (or something else we may now uncover) holocaust is not to limit the technology that will be used as tools, but to increase the quality of life of any civilization desperate enough to commit mass-murder in an organized way.
Re:End of the World (Score:2)
Ugh. One world governement.
Re:End of the World (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with limiting study of subjects such as this (or stem cells, or anything else) is that there will always be someone or a group of someones who will not obey they limits.
I.e. Congress may pass laws to forbid US researchers from studying stem cells but foreign powers have no such problems and will push their scientists to pursue the goals. Net result is that the foreign powers have the potentially very powerful technology and the US does not. But we've held the moral ground, by golly!
In the case of fusion from anything, you can bet every nation on the planet with any kind of military force -and probably many private companies- will be looking very carefully at this, if it seems like it will work.
If a group of nations stands back and says they won't allow the research, there will surely be plenty of nations which will allow it, and the research will still go on no matter what.
In the case of stem cells, we have already seen dozens of countries jump in on this. There is far too much to be gained, and honestly, what the US says or does is of decreasing concern to many countries.
Yeah, I'm probably going to blow my karma saying that. It's not anti-American to state the facts as they are. Oh well.
Re:End of the World (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:End of the World (Score:2)
So destruction really can be the path to a better fusion future. Assuming we make it that far...
Re:End of the World (Score:4, Informative)
Not at all. After WWI ended the germans were forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles that severely crippled them economically. It was mainly through the level of dissatisfaction people had with their quality of life (which was caused by the Treaty), that Hitler was able to gain power.
Re:End of the World (Score:3, Informative)
Re:End of the World (Score:2)
I say nothing, nothing, and no, but feel free to draw your own conclusions here.
Re:End of the World (Score:3, Informative)
There is relative poverty, but there is also absolute povery, where one cannot obtain food
Re:End of the World (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm... How to put this. All plutonium in the universe decayed out to something else about a billion or so years ago. The reason we have it now? Well, there's this thing called breeder reactors. We usually start with uranium and make plutonium. However, there is no reason we can not start with Thorium (of which we will probably never run out of) and work up to uranium. Good luck getting rid of all the fisionab
Re:End of the World (Score:2)
Re:End of the World (Score:2)
Besides even if every one in the world has 3 meals a day, there will still be sufficent people to hate you simply because you
great... (Score:2, Funny)
Now 'ol george is gonna commit to a war against the wheather
Re:great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the next interesting thing to do would be creating artificial lightning in a heavy water atmosphere... maybe this even has practical (neutron generation) uses?
But someone must have done this already. I'm to lazy to google-research this. Are there any such experiments?
Re:great... (Score:2)
Fusion is the Future (Score:5, Interesting)
The development of fusion is more important than just about any other scientific project, as the abundance of cheap energy would enable other projects. And yet how much are governments/energy companies devoting to it? Less than what we spend securing a limited oil supply in an unstable part of the world. I wish we had more far-sighted, responsible leaders who are interested in more than lining their own pockets or winning the next election (pretty much the same thing).
There are numerous ways to skin the engergy cat (Score:2)
Re:There are numerous ways to skin the engergy cat (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of capitalist complaints against communism. They complain that a communist society offers no incentive for innovation. With advances in robotics and food technology, there would be no incentive for innovation if the wo
Re:There are numerous ways to skin the engergy cat (Score:2)
the earth already has too much energy (Score:2)
the amount of solar energy hitting earth is enormous and is more than we need, the "only" problem is to capture it, either directly with solar panels in deserts, or by tapping its effects:
- water power (sun transports water)
- wind power
i think with the billions needed to add even more energy from space to our system (bad idea) it should be possible to get a significant amount of energy from the earths deserts.
Re:Fusion is the Future (Score:3, Informative)
As for why the government
there is never enough energy (Score:2)
What will happen is that people will come to expect what we now consider "abundant" energy from fusion, and they'll go to the limit using that as well, until they hit environmental and engineering limitations.
Environmental and other problems related to energy are psychological and social, and they don't have technological solutions. We need to be satisfied with less than pushing our en
Re:Fusion is the Future (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the ITER people are willing to admit commercial fusion power is at least fifty (not thirty) years away, and companies just don't operate in those kinds of timeframes. As a shareholder, why would I care about profits that wont come un
Re:Fusion is the Future (Score:2)
Because as your shares in nuclear fusion inc. mature, so it will become apparent that the risk associated with what they're doing is reducing, and that the timeframe for the big payout is closing too. This will add value to the shares.
This is how the biotech market works, but fusion would just be on an (even) longer timeframe.
Dave
Re:Fusion is the Future (Score:2)
Hardly. The government reflects the interests of whoever paid to get them into office.
Of Course! (Score:2, Funny)
Uhhh... (Score:5, Funny)
And my answer for you, Zonk, as it frequently is for giant world-changing questions like these, is, "How the hell should I know? I'm a freakin' sysadmin."
Environmentalists Caused the Grenhouse Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The theory goes like this:
Environmental lobyists successfully made nuclear power unpopular. They did this by beating up the dangers of accidents, and the difficulties of storing the waste products until we work out what to do with them. 200 years at the outside, not the x million year half-life. By so doing, they stifled the development that would have lead to much safer, more efficient systems. As an example, the pebble bed systems being developed in China.
With nuclear power out of the equation, we had to turn to other areas. This meant the only viable scheme for baseload power generation: Fossil fuels. Mainly coal. No, do not talk about renewables. Solar is far too expensive and inefficient, wind would require so many turbines it would cause climate change, and, while hydro power has proved succesfull in countries that are geographically suitable, just you try damming a river these days!
Replacing nuclear with coal was thought to be a win, as it would be a decade or so before they gathered enough evidence to prove the Greenhouse Effect. So, we continue to mine, ship and burn coal, a procedure which, incidentally, kills Chernobles of miners every year. (maybe I exagerate: figures, anyone?)
So we reach today. CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by the gigatonne, the temperature inexorably rising, and the nuclear solution still a dirty word. Well done, Greenpeace!!
Re:Environmentalists Caused the Grenhouse Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
The founder of green peace is NOT anti nuclear. How ever he left as it becamme more about stopping corporation, and less about making them become enviromentally friendly. Which nuclear power is.
Caused & Greenhouse Effect (Score:5, Informative)
The destruction of natural gas wells and pipelines in the Gulf has now changed that. Yes, there could have been more nuclear plants built meanwhile, if nobody had cared about safety (which is expensive to build in), either in terms of potential catastrophe or radioactive releases. You can call the people who care about standards for such things "environmentalists" -- although in reality most of the restrictions are put there by our government because it by law covers the insurance for nuclear plants, and it doesn't want to be over-exposed to catastrophic loss (either to the plants, or cities downwind). Of course, if the government were sane it would have invested more in levees....
Re:Caused & Greenhouse Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
We've had one meltdown in the commercial reactors in the US that was due to not following procedure and about ~30 something things going wrong simultaniously. Radiation released to the public was about the amount you'd get on a couple cross country flights. We don't have a problem with this in the US.
There is no way for us to generate more plutoniam or uranium. Once it's gone.. that's it.
Only because Carter banned breeder reactors in the US. With them, we could refine and reuse what is currently defined as "nuclear waste".
But it was simple economics that stalled the nuclear power program.
Along with all the anti-nuclear bias floating around in the US that has been promoted.
Nuclear plants can be built more safely now than in the 50s and 60s, but up until just now they haven't been economically competitive with natural gas-fired plants. Industry makes its investments where it can make the best return.
See above. Idiot protesters can shut down/delay/hassle a program to make it un-economical as easily as anything else. Why should they try (although one group is trying to build one), when protest groups will delay it into oblivion. Industry will try best return with the least hassle. Natural gas just doesn't have the hassle that nuclear does, even though it produces CO2 and nuclear doesn't.
Yes, there could have been more nuclear plants built meanwhile, if nobody had cared about safety (which is expensive to build in), either in terms of potential catastrophe or radioactive releases.
Again, look at 3 mile island and all that led up to its problem. We have built them safley and 3 mile island is about the worst that can happen.
Re:Caused & Greenhouse Effect (Score:5, Interesting)
No, we have not had any meltdowns in the US. A meltdown is when the reactor core overheats, and you get molten fissile material burning a hole through the bottom of the reactor.
Three Mile Island was not a meltdown, it was a fairly small (intentional) release of radioactive gas*, done to avoid the possibility of an explosion of hydrogen that operators thought might have been generated by high-temperature steam that was released through a series of other problems and errors. Even if the operators hadn't released that gas, and there had been an explosion, it almost certainly still would not have lead to a meltdown. Unlike reactors designed by Soviet communist fools, American reactors do not operate in or near a regime with positive feedback. Canadian CANDU reactors are even safer, as the moderator required for the reaction to happen (heavy water, or D2O) is also the coolant. If something goes wrong, it boils off, and the reaction stops before anything gets too out of hand. Pebble bed reactors are even safer--as I understand it, they operate in a regime where Doppler broadening at high temperatures decreases the neutron capture cross-section enough to stop the reaction. The point is that Three Mile Island wasn't actually a very dangerous failure, and that it wasn't close to being a meltdown. It was bad, but probably also a worst case for a US reactor.
As others have pointed out, it is true that nuclear is more expensive than natural gas-generated power, however the cost of natural gas power depends primarily on the cost of natural gas (whereas uranium is a small portion of the cost with nuclear power). If you also include a reasonable carbon tax, nuclear can start looking pretty good. It's the only serious non-CO2 producing candidate for baseline electricity production. Wind and solar can effectively be used supplementally, but as a baseline source, you'd have to factor in the cost of storing power for use at night or during cloudy or calm periods, and that's going to be extremely expensive. Most reasonable proponents of wind power will tell you it's not ever going to make up more than 10 or 15% of US power, even in a best case. With solar, you can do some simple calculations based on the solar radiation flux and realize that the land area required for it to replace most or all of our energy needs would be absurd (as in, by a couple decades from now, we'd have to cover an area larger than California with solar). Hydro is great, but there are a fixed number of rivers around to dam, and it's very hard politically. There's no way, for instance, that Hetch Hetchy could be dammed today--in fact, that dam may eventually get removed for environmental reasons.
*the amount of radioactive material released during the Three Mile Island incident was such that, if you were standing immediately outside the power plant's outer fence during the whole thing, you would have received a dose equal to a normal year's worth of background radiation in the US, or about 3 months' worth of background in France. Background radiation varies subtantially by geographic region due to naturally occuring radioactive elements in the soil.
One more thing for the spelling Nazis who were picking on someone for spelling Chernobyl as "Chernoble": since Russia and the Ukraine use a different alphabet than we do, English translations of place names are just transliterations. For some names (such as Chebychev, aka Chebyshev, aka Tchebychev), there are several common English spellings. It may well be the case that Chernoble is simply a less common transliteration. I don't know, and I suspect you don't, either, so give the guy a break.
Re:Environmentalists Caused the Grenhouse Effect (Score:2)
Re:Environmentalists Caused the Grenhouse Effect (Score:2)
Re:Environmentalists Caused the Grenhouse Effect (Score:2, Informative)
well, them and anyone who wanted an a-bomb... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that fast breeder reactors are perfect for making weapons-grade Plutonium too.
So although I very much lament how poorly most people understand nuclear power and how they don't understand how much cleaner it is than any alternative (except solar), there are other impediments too.
I have to say I found it hilarious that North Korea demanded the US build them a light-water reactor. We suck at power reactors. They should ask the French to help them build one of their reactor types instead. Better yet, get the French to make you a pebble-bed reactor.
Re:well, them and anyone who wanted an a-bomb... (Score:2)
Two points.
If our military cannot adequately secure the transport of material between the commercial reactors and the reprocessing facilities, within our own borders, there's something wrong.
Thorium fuel cycles can also be used in breeders, pr
Coal mining-related deaths (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume you mean "Chernobyls". More than that, actually. Coal mine accidents killed about 6000 (six thousands) people in 2004, the enormous majority in China. China is also the main coal supplier of the USA. Is that why coal is considered "safer than nuclear"? Because only some Chinese die?
It should also be noted that coal's carbon structure is a natural trap for heavy elements, especially uranides (thorium mostly), which is why you register a significant radiation level downwind from a coal-burning powered plant. You can wash the combustion output, but then you have to dispose acidic, radioactive sludge. Naaah. See this article. [usgs.gov]
But most of the pollution is not even coming from coal-burning plants, as explained in this article. [minesandcommunities.org]. Excerpt: According to Stracher's forthcoming article in the "International Journal of Coal Geology," scientists have determined that coal fires in China consume up to 200 million tons of coal per year. For comparison, coal consumption in the United States during 2000 was just over one billion tons, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Since CO2 is formed by binding two oxygen atoms (molar wight 16) on each carbon atom (molar w. 12), 200 million tons of coal at 80% carbon form about 200* 0.8 * 16 * 2/ 12 = 427 million tons CO2. So when I hear well-meaning but clueless environmentalists worrying about cow farts while ignoring this huge problem, I know that whoever feeds them this disinformation has an agenda.
Re:Environmentalists Caused the Grenhouse Effect (Score:2)
Just....y'know...wondering about your bullshit claims.
Any references (from reputable sources, natch) to back that up?
Or did you just get modded +5 for spouting random crap. Oh, I forget, this is
-Nano.
wind turbines do pollute (Score:2)
Honestly though, wind turbines biggest enemy is themselves. Try as they might, it's really difficult to operate them effectively due to maintenance costs and low power output in general.
Wind is perhaps part of the solution, but a small part.
Re:Environmentalists Caused the Grenhouse Effect (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be no longer possible to even attempt to argue with any country that they should stop their nuclear research, no matter what Axis they are a member of. Basically, any co
It's not often I say this, but.... (Score:2)
though I thought the pebble-bed reactor was started by France in Southern Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong, PLEASE.
Frequent Slashdot readers (Score:5, Funny)
This obviously excludes the editors.
Thermonuclear war? (Score:2, Interesting)
Joshua: Shall we play a game?
David: Yeah. How about Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
David: Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.
*ducks*
The Fusion Prize Legislation (Score:5, Interesting)
The fair contest idea seems to have been picked up around that time by the X-Prize guys and taken to resounding success, for which we should all be grateful. The need for fusion prizes remains.
Ball lightning (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion Starter? (Score:2)
Not much of a surprise, (Score:2)
Re:Not much of a surprise, (Score:2)
The sun's surface is approximately 5780 K (See here [wikipedia.org]). That's not much, fusion usually needs on the order of millions of K.
Dumb question time! (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, there will be some engineering issues since pretty much anything that interacts with lightning gets burnt to a crisp, but fusion has some similar technical problems so this isn't totally left field.
(a) how much actual power does lightning provide over, say, the continentaly US?
(b) what kinds of structures could be built/flown to tap into the electric charges in clouds?
Venus & Jupiter (Score:3, Interesting)
FTA:
the same mechanism should also work in the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter where thunderstorms are also frequent and sporadic neutron streams should arise there.
Accordly to wikipedia, water in the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter are far lower compared to Earth's levels (.002% for Venus [wikipedia.org] and 0.1% for Jupiter [wikipedia.org]), so maybe observations of neutron emissions are not so affected by the "thundery" neutrons like the article proposes.
Reading the article about deuterium [wikipedia.org] at wikipedia, I found a bit strange that there's no known natural process to produce it... maybe some chemistry-geek could comment on that... the article says that there is 10^15 deuterium atoms per cubic centimeter on Earth's atmosphere, considering the 6800:1 ratio when compared to hydrogen...
Is only that 10^15 atoms per cm^3 seems like too much atoms without known origin for me... (other than the big-bang, like the wikipedia article says)
Re:Venus & Jupiter (Score:2)
Why are you asking on an IT site (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why are you asking on an IT site (Score:2)
Even with a political issues section in /., it becames obvious it's no longer what it was and the original poster's question make it clear. That's a politician's question. Something like, "I know you guys are researchers, but tell me what you will find if you want some funding, otherwise it will become very difficult to justify the expen
Re:Why are you asking on an IT site (Score:3, Funny)
Reminds me of that bash.org quote. (Score:4, Funny)
Bolts of lightning (Score:2)
Seriously though, there has been some research done about using lightning as an energy source... Namely, the University of Florida [ufl.edu] has built equipment that attracts lightning, and the results have been pretty impressive. That said, however, they are less than hopeful [weatherwise.org] of using it as a reliable power source.
Possible explaination for the Tunguska event? (Score:2)
Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor (Score:2)
Boring... :) Or am I missing something?
Of course we are! (Score:2)
Certainly! That time period is now down to 20 years away and always will be. See what progress we've made?
Predicting the technological future (Score:4, Interesting)
Financier Roger Babson had a chat with Edison, in which he observed that most of Edison's inventions grew out of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, and posed the question, what area of science did Edison think would be next to yield important technological developments. Edison's answer was, Einstein's theory of gravitation. So Babson founded an institute to encourage research in gravitation (which is still around) (by which I mean the institute; of course gravitation is still around).
At this point it's plain to see Edison was wrong. But if you look at what was known at the time, it was an insightful guess. It's just that, as progress marched on, people discovered reasons why it's going to be very hard to make handy widgets that work based on Einstein's gravity theory -- the primary reason being that, in practical terms, it's so much weaker than EM.
Giant leap! (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, from now on it will only (perpetually) be 20 years away...
You can have your fusion power (Score:2)
Lightning Fusion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If Only... (Score:3, Insightful)
News from the future (Score:2)
Then there's also the Matrix style human farms set up to gather methane as sponsorted by B&M Baked Beans.
Re:So much for -CLEAN- energy. (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)