Discussion about this post

User's avatar
chascates's avatar

Which disproves global warming!

bobbert's avatar

1. Since college (when fusion power was fifty years away for the first time), I've felt that the folks working in this area have always been a little over-optimistic because of the not-so-accurate parallel with fission power. That is, we have fission bombs and controlled fission reactors, and fusion bombs, so how hard can fusion reactors be? The problem, of course, is the "thermo" in thermonuclear. A fission reaction can be moderated by neutron-absorbing materials, and the resultant heat can be confined by physical materials. Neither of these things is true for fusion.

2. As others have mentioned, all actual examples of fusion have been "hot" (thermonuclear) fusion, in the sense that the Coulomb barrier is overcome by increasing the local temperature of the reactant nuclei. Even the kid's Farnsworth fusor increases the nominal temperature of the nuclei by accelerating them (admittedly, the concept of "temperature" for isolated nuclei is a bit abstract). The reasons why the Utah guys were rejected were both irreproducibility, and the fact that no one could come up with any possible explanation for what happened to electrostatic repulsion. As I recall, Pons and Fleischman proposed some mechanism having to do with lattice stress, but the math was pretty quickly debunked.

3. I am in favor of continuing work on fusion power, but I wish we would pay a little more attention to the fusion power source we already have available, courtesy of spherically symmetric gravitational confinement. All we need to do is improve our energy-conversion technology, in this case.

8 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?