Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Is this the Nuclear Fusion we are looking for?  (Read 25717 times)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: Is this the Nuclear Fusion we are looking for?
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2016, 09:21:26 AM »
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4129
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2414
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Is this the Nuclear Fusion we are looking for?
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2019, 07:02:44 PM »
Scientists Revisit the Cold Case of Cold Fusion
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-revisit-cold-case-fusion.html

In a $10 Million dollar 3-year study funded by Google, scientists from the University of British Columbia (UBC), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Maryland, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Google are conducting a multi-year investigation into cold fusion, a type of benign nuclear reaction hypothesized to occur in benchtop apparatus at room temperature.

Quote
... "We need a fundamentally new energy technology that can be scaled within the span of a human lifetime," says UBC chemist Curtis Berlinguette, principal investigator on the study. "This program provided us with a safe environment to take the long shot—given the profound impact this could have on society, we should remain open to it even if there is an unknown probability of success."

A progress report published today in Nature publicly discloses the group's collaboration for the first time.

Nature piece sums up the findings of Google’s investigation into cold fusion: there’s “no evidence whatsoever” the phenomenon exists.

For some, cold fusion represented a classic example of pathological science. This term was coined in the 1950s to describe a striking claim that conflicts with previous experience, that is based on effects that are difficult to detect and that is defended against criticism by ad hoc excuses. In this view, cold fusion joins an insalubrious list that includes the N-rays of 1903, the polywater affair of the late 1960s and the memory of water episode of the late 1980s.

Is that the final nail in the cold-fusion coffin? Not quite. The group was unable to attain the material conditions speculated to be most conducive to cold fusion. Indeed, it seems extremely difficult to do so using current experimental set-ups — although the team hasn’t excluded such a possibility. So the fusion trail, although cooling, is not yet cold, leaving a few straws for optimists to clutch on to.

--------------------------------

Google Revives Controversial Cold-Fusion Experiments
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01675-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01683-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01673-x
http://news.mit.edu/2019/3q-yet-ming-chiang-reopening-the-case-of-cold-fusion-0527

Google’s team was made up of 30 researchers who had no strong opinions on cold fusion. All had access to each other’s data and apparatus, and could review each other’s work.

The researchers pursued the three experimental strands that they deemed sufficiently credible. In one, they tried to load palladium with amounts of deuterium hypothesized to be necessary to trigger fusion. But at high concentrations the team was unable to create stable samples.

A second strand followed up on 1990s work by US physicists who claimed to have generated anomalous levels of tritium — another heavy hydrogen isotope, created only through nuclear reactions — by bombarding palladium with pulses of hot deuterium ions. Google’s analysis of nuclear signatures showed no tritium production from this experiment.


Pulsed plasma apparatus.

A final strand involved heating up metallic powders in a hydrogen-rich environment. Some current proponents of cold fusion claim that the process produces excess and unexplained heat, which they theorize is the result of fusing elements. But across 420 tests, the Google-funded team found no such heat excess.


Detecting excess heat at high temperatures.

But the researchers say that both palladium experiments warrant further study. The hypothesized effects in the tritium experiment could be too small to measure with current equipment, they suggest. The team also says that further work could produce stable samples at extremely high deuterium concentrations, where interesting effects might occur.

... This project was carried out in stealth. We didn’t want the fact that Google was funding research in this area to become a distraction. For the first couple of years, we didn’t even tell other members of our group the real reason behind the hydrogen storage experiments going on in the lab!

Our objective was to be scrupulously objective, and I think we have managed to avoid any form of “confirmation bias.”
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 826
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Is this the Nuclear Fusion we are looking for?
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2019, 09:06:29 PM »
Quote
Google’s team was made up of 30 researchers who had no strong opinions on cold fusion. All had access to each other’s data and apparatus, and could review each other’s work.

This was the very best part of the project.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4129
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2414
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Is this the Nuclear Fusion we are looking for?
« Reply #53 on: July 20, 2019, 07:16:24 PM »
Skunk Works' Exotic Fusion Reactor Program Moves Forward With Larger, More Powerful Design
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29074/skunk-works-exotic-fusion-reactor-program-moves-forward-with-larger-more-powerful-design

Aviation Week was first to report the updates on the Compact Fusion Reactor, or CFR program, including that Lockheed Martin is in the process of constructing its newest experimental reactor, known as the T5, on July 19, 2019. The company's legendary California-based Skunk Works advanced projects office is in charge of the effort and had already built four different test reactor designs, as well as a number of subvariants, since the program first became public knowledge in 2014.

The CFR program is built around new patented reactor design, which The War Zone has explored in detail in the past, that uses superconducting coils to more effectively generate a magnetic field to contain the heat and pressure of the reaction. Lockheed Martin's hope is that this will overcome challenges that have relegated nuclear fusion power generation to the realm of experimentation since the first concepts emerged in the 1920s.



Lockheed Martin says that the CFR design could eventually be small enough to fit inside a shipping container, but still be able to power a Nimitz class aircraft carrier or up to 80,000 homes. The patent documents suggest it might eventually be compact enough to even power a large aircraft.

The U.S. military, in particular, is becoming so concerned about meeting future battlefield power generation needs that it is once again considering building small, mobile fission reactors to provide that energy. A practical CFR would offer a much safer and efficient alternative.



When it first announced the project, the company said it could have a working prototype of the revolutionary power source as early as 2019

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: Is this the Nuclear Fusion we are looking for?
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2020, 11:24:12 AM »
This may be of interest https://aureon.ca/
"The model offers a key premise and makes a number of predictions. Using this premise the SAFIRE team designed and built a proof-of-concept bell-jar reactor and then a larger 44,000 part reactor. Both reactors were fired up and running as predicted within minutes of construction completion.

Many experiments were run. The model was thoroughly tested and revealed itself to be both viable and powerful. Everything predicted proved accurate. Even the numerous unexpected discoveries fit the model."

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2473
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1185
  • Likes Given: 1029
Re: Is this the Nuclear Fusion we are looking for?
« Reply #55 on: March 09, 2020, 01:27:12 PM »
And you can use it to clean up nuclear waste. Looks like an interesting project.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.