Isn't it about time you built your own fusion reactor?

[gunug]

If this hadn't been in the Wall Street Journal I'd have been "very" sceptical but there are a small number of people working on fusion reactors in their homes:

QUOTE

Called fusors and based on a 1960s design first developed by Philo T. Farnsworth, an inventor of television, the reactors are typically small steel spheres with wires and tubes sticking out and a glass window for looking inside. But they won't be powering homes anytime soon -- for now, fusors use far more energy than they produce.

Fusion, which releases energy by forcing two atoms close enough together that they join to become a heavier atom, is the process that powers the sun and stars. Replicating that on Earth requires enormous amounts of energy. For decades, scientists have been experimenting with various methods to fuse atoms, including using magnetic fields and lasers. Even a nearly $15 billion multinational project to build a fusion reactor in southern France is only intended to show that fusion power is technically feasible, not to actually tap it.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121...5.html?mod=blog

Maybe this is really due to the new owner of the WSJ Rupert Murdoch!  

[Gregg]

I use a Gillette Fusion razor. It produces quite a reaction from my chin on occasion!

[MamaMoose]

Huh!! To get fusion (merging of two atomic nuclei), one needs  tens of millions of degrees (F or C) to make the reation occur. To do here on earth, one needs to create a "bottle" that has nowalls but confines the reacting nuclei, elcetrons, etc) within a finite space.

I say ogwash! This goes along with idea that one can get cold fusion, that is the fusion reaction occurs at room temperture. That caused considerable excitement years ago until the experimental error was dentified and the idea fell apart

MamaMoose

[tacit]

QUOTE(MamaMoose @ Aug 20 2008, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh!! To get fusion (merging of two atomic nuclei), one needs  tens of millions of degrees (F or C) to make the reation occur. To do here on earth, one needs to create a "bottle" that has nowalls but confines the reacting nuclei, elcetrons, etc) within a finite space.

That's only true if you want the reactor to be a source of power--if you want it to generate more energy than it consumes.

Fusion is actually pretty simple to do if you don't mind that the reaction takes more energy than you get out of it. The fusor discussed in the WSJ is a real device; it's used as a neutron source in physics experiments. A lot of college physics labs have one.

They're not too tough to make. Wikipedia has an article about their history here. There's an article by a guy who built one himself here; Wired has an article about a kid who built one as a high school project here. There's a highly technical discussion bout building one here.

Be aware that if you do decide to build a fusor in your basement, it will produce strong neutron radiation when it's operating. If you do not take proper precautions to shield yourself from it, you'll quite likely kill yourself. Also, neutron radiation can make other materials, particularly heavy metals such as gold, radioactive.

[gunug]

QUOTE

Be aware that if you do decide to build a fusor in your basement, it will produce strong neutron radiation when it's operating. If you do not take proper precautions to shield yourself from it, you'll quite likely kill yourself. Also, neutron radiation can make other materials, particularly heavy metals such as gold, radioactive.

This was my first thought about this which differs from the supposed "safety" that is talked about in the Wall Street Journal article.  So either this isn't "really" a fusion reactor or it's possibly not as safe as they make it out to be!

Later; I tracked down some of the references for this "home fusion reactor" and found this:

http://www.fusor.net/newbie/files/Ligon-QED-IE.pdf

This is talking about something built with high voltage vacuum tube technology and the author says this about
safety:

QUOTE

Regarding the presumed danger of building a nuclear reactor, the simple fact is that the proposed
machine would run at the very bottom end of the voltage required for fusion, and it will take some
skill and effort to even detect the neutron output.

[tacit]

QUOTE(gunug @ Aug 20 2008, 07:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE

Be aware that if you do decide to build a fusor in your basement, it will produce strong neutron radiation when it's operating. If you do not take proper precautions to shield yourself from it, you'll quite likely kill yourself. Also, neutron radiation can make other materials, particularly heavy metals such as gold, radioactive.

This was my first thought about this which differs from the supposed "safety" that is talked about in the Wall Street Journal article.  So either this isn't "really" a fusion reactor or it's possibly not as safe as they make it out to be!

Later; I tracked down some of the references for this "home fusion reactor" and found this:

http://www.fusor.net/newbie/files/Ligon-QED-IE.pdf

This is talking about something built with high voltage vacuum tube technology and the author says this about
safety:

QUOTE

Regarding the presumed danger of building a nuclear reactor, the simple fact is that the proposed
machine would run at the very bottom end of the voltage required for fusion, and it will take some
skill and effort to even detect the neutron output.

Heh. Think I'll still pass on building one. Neutron radiation makes me uncomfortable.