Popular Science has a new article about General Fusion's pneumatically assisted plasma fusion reactor concept. Their device design reduces input energy needs by relying on a mechanical piston based compression concept using a liquid metal, which also helps to shield the core. Some of their earlier designs and lab photos can be found here.
I can already see some excited college students adding a few mechanical engineering courses next semester :-)
[Update] I thought I would post a blog about the 60 minutes video piece that aired on April 19th regarding cold fusion. It was refreshing to see an interview by major US television show attempt to gently educate the public on some of the recent history of this field and shine a light of hope, instead of curse the darkness as some might prefer to do for whatever reason. As a blogger these past five years expressing my freedom of speech about a few links I see on the web, and magazine stories I read from across several industries (like multi-discipline engineers do these days), I try to help as I can. How many of you have done google searches on subjects that might impact this field like I have? I have both personally agreed, or disagreed with articles as I have stated in my disclaimer and about SAFETY First (Sometimes a Few Experimenters TEll You - First).
I'm essentially a peon ( or perhaps a bit of a boron? ) in this field, and proud of that fact. I'm not a skilled writer, but I try. I have no self interests, investments, or otherwise riding on this field and anything I do have(including many hours), I have given away long ago to help the field. I do try to help the best I can in my free time, because what we do with science and technology impacts not only this generation, but the next (and the next). If we fail to even try to manage science and completely close our eyes, or worse - fail to follow a societal code of ethics ( The IEEE code of ethics is one I admire, whether you are an IEEE member or not), what does that imply for our collective future in the strange internet connected world we all live in? Please forgive me, but if you see a spoof every now and then, I do try to label them as such ..(spoof) !!
We must all try our best to "manage what we measure." Comments, criticisms or otherwise, I think 60 minutes exhibited a good effort in that regard with their reporting on this subject. To those of you I admire, my best to your efforts and experiments. :-)
Update: There comes a time in ones life when you realize how the cards are stacked against you and some will try anything to stop you from exercising your rights. I mean, getting older certainly isn't fun, so you weigh the risks vs rewards going forward. Adding to that, when you see that some people refuse to play fair and you start to realize that you can't take on the entire US government, then it's time to use free speech for what it was intended for by our founding fathers.
What has this got to do with cold fusion science you may ask? That's what I asked myself recently when I stumbled upon something interesting in relation to a job situation I'm going through (and possible unemployment when my security clearance expires). Hopefully not. Perhaps I'll have some information soon that might explain in more detail and you can ask yourself the same questions like I did.
At least that's the way I decide when and what I should blog about. When deep down you think it helps the greater good ....Blog ! Hope you'll tune in. It just might be really interesting.
Illustration Copyright (c) New Scientist - Dec 2008
If you have a few moments during your 12 days of Christmas, you might like a new article by Michael Brooks, author of the book "13 Things that Don't Make Sense" in the December 2008 issue of the New Scientist (article is free to read). He essentially makes the case that has been echoed continually in this blog: scientists and technologists must find new ways to make science interesting to the general public who ultimately pays the bills to fund science in its various forms. As Brooks states :
Most lay people find it hard to accept that their taxes are used for research in which no one but the scientists involved can judge or even appreciate progress and merit. Of course, many or perhaps most scientists would find it unthinkable to let the public choose the research agenda. But that suggests people are not qualified to judge how their money should be spent." I tend to differ with Brooks' on his last comment. Letting the public increasingly decide the larger course of science funding, when 90% of the voting public doesn't even realize what science is anymore when they don't bother to stay educated on various subjects. Without such education, I"m afraid people will tend to vote for "science by virtual reality" instead of "science by reality." "Eye candy" as the saying goes, is hard to beat when compared to the discipline and patience of many years in a well funded lab that real science often takes to see science issues through to completion. Though it has its merits in many technology areas and serves as a means to educate, "science by virtual reality" can be deceptively easy trap to fall into if not careful to make sure that nature also agrees.
I've often wondered why it is that major media outlets can't mix more science content into their broadcasts and media publications to counter this trend. Even a few seconds worth. Afterall, is it too much to use a science buzzword when describing an antic of a hollywood movie star or to slip in a famous pertinent science quotation into a made for cable movie or TV show for adults or children to think about? I do see positive trends, but is it too politically incorrect to drop a short criticism of a special effect when the physics behind it seems totally implausible? I think if many writers, producers and critics made that effort, many movies and TV shows the public are drawn to for special effects might also paradoxically educate voters on science and funding issues along with it. Who knows? Maybe unanticipated debates might even be started where none existed before.
Without the seeding of a scientific thought in many media outlet streams, the majority of the public would never have any reason to even think about physics, or chemistry or stop to fathom just how important science and technology plays a role in the mass consumption of their daily lives. Is it any wonder then that the voting public later ignores any pleas to increase science funding? I have to admit that there have been recent trends in some science fiction movies that are quite encouraging written by skilled writers and producers who do understand broader science issues, but by and large most are too much virtual reality and not enough of what science is really all about.
Is it just me, or does anybody else also notice great science being buried in the random noise of everyday internet life? I'll also toss out this criticism to payed science journals, who all too often keep great articles on breakthroughs "off-line" and non accessible to a broader reading audience. Is it too much to ask to re-evaluate how you go about providing the right mix of 'on-line' and 'payed" content if a science story has significance that the general public should care much more about? I'de much prefer to see 20% of a story abstracted on-line rather than only 5% in some instances. That 20% might help better educate media professionals and writers who can't afford a full subscription price, while helping to educate public opinion on important issues. Overall, I'm glad to see Brooks raising awareness on this subject of better science visibility.
Sparking Curiosity is What it Really Takes Polywell Photo from EMC2 web site
For those with curiosity in science, there's an interesting follow-up over on MSNBC to a story done back in June on the late Dr. Robert Bussard's Polywell fusion approach, which seems quite promising.
After reading this article, I think that Dr. Bussard would have probably agreed with the following statement. "If you can't say anything nice Dr. Nebel, don't say anything at all." Well-put? Suggestion: Isn't it about time that cold fusion (nuclear condensed matter) scientists who have worked long hard hours and made many sacrifices for family and our nation and who have brought forward many interesting results over the last twenty years, finally deserve some mutual respect from DoE and the open science community that values free thinking and creative ideas?
As the article states:
Nebel is well aware of the naysayers. In fact, that's one reason why he's being so circumspect about the results of the WB-7 experiment. When I mentioned that he'd probably like to avoid the kind of controversy and embarrassment that came in the wake of 1989's notorious cold-fusion claims, Nebel laughed and added, "That's well-put."
Here's something to think about from James Orwell. "Whoever controls the past controls the future. The stories we tell about the past influence how we go about deciding the future"
The MSNBC article has an interesting link to a 2007 Google Lecture Series video by newly designated DoE Secretary Steven Chu. In this video he gives a lecture on climate change and makes some positive statements on alternative fusion approaches like the Bussard design.Sure, I was interested in hearing all of this science. Great stuff. But these days it's not science that matters in many instances, but how to gain interest and respect from the general public to new ideas that excite their imaginations. Because of this, what I found most interesting in this video of all things was Chu's introductory remarks about being swapped with Larry Page in a speaking appearance at an AAAS meeting and that some people might be "surprised". I found that very enlightening.
Good thinking Mr. Page. That might be one way to get a lot more networking and software engineers (who probably think they rule the world) interested in the physical sciences once again !!! A big issue I see going forward with any fusion approach. Skilled alternative energy engineers will have to come from somewhere...right?
[Disclaimer: Without quoting exact statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to some extent I feel we've now created a top heavy society where software engineers perhaps out number physical scientists 10 to 1 compared to past decades. In the past, there was no career called "software developer" until the PC took off and educational institutions across the US compensated and turned out many more software trained individuals. Now that PCs and software are increasingly made overseas and are becoming commodities, perhaps it's time to rethink educational skills and create incentives that invest in skills and jobs needed to build the energy industries of the future ]
I was happy to see that President elect Obama has recently selected as his new DoE chief, a condensed matter experimental physicist with lab experience. Dr. Steven Chu was honored with a Nobel in the cooling of trapped atoms in 1997, something by all accounts if you keep abreast of current trends has helped many breakthroughs in the last few years in several areas of physics.
The world of DoE certainly needs a science head that knows the experimental condensed matter world with it's broad impact on the future. His biology background is also a definite strength in my opinion given the huge role DoE plays in the genomics area along with many nanotechnology initiatives.
The Atomic Motor certainly wishes him all the best and will miss the hard work the current DoE Secretary Bodman has done for our nation in very tough and challenging times.
Holy beta particles Ironman ! I almost missed this one.
As a cold fusion energy believing dad, now I have absolutely no excuse from stopping my 11 and 9 year old sons from on-line gaming. When my sons showed this new Cartoon Network Universe site to me, my eldest son said "Dad - Look ..Fusion !! .. now you just have to let us sign up and play this one ! "
My response after a moment of thought was "OK, but you guys better do your math and reading homework first, or else I'll pull the plug on your network connection. While you're at it - try and learn something scientific while you game your friends on-line."
I posted some follow-up comments to the above post here, regarding ADHD, games and schools.
[Disclaimer, and about another subject: I'm definitely not a gaming, automotive or economics expert, but as a concerned US taxpayer I am seeing what oil addiction is doing to our world. It can be like cancer that goes in and out of remission and systemically causes a variety of issues.
I had a chance to watch the ESPN live coverage of the automotive hearings this past friday. The best technology idea that I heard mentioned after several hours of hearings was a shared R&D development approach among the big three. Hopefully this will also include DoE scientists working more closely as consultants and team members in whatever final form the auto industry government bailout package stipulates. Lord knows the US taxpayers don't deserve anything less]
I wonder what Einstein would have said to this past year's bad economic news and how bubbles create essentially the same outcomes over and over again throughout history. I thought the above comic appropriate, since collateralized debt driven by speculation and quants can now travel with the speed of light worldwide, something this internet experiment in complexity we are living in has made possible during this past decade or so. To me, this alone is a good reason for new thinking on what "internet enabling" our society really means from a financial point of view. Afterall, with the complexity of today's networks, can we really leave the world running 24/7 entrusted to computer networks designed in the 1980's?
Hopefully we'll have a better 2009, the world will be wiser and things will start to get back to normal again with some public works investment programs to help spur things along. On this Thanksgiving day, let's give thanks for what we have: friends, family and ideas to help create a brighter future once again.
My grandfather, who lived to be a ripe old of age of ninety six never saw the internet or the PC come of age. If he were alive today, he would have celebrated his 120th birthday on November 1st. I can't help but wonder what his vision of the future was like when he was a child and what inspired children of his generation who didn't have video games or television to distract them from keeping up with science earthquakes beneath their feet.
Just the other day I ran across an ad campaign from two fierce competitors in the computer industry that I greatly admire, and in fact a lot of what we call the internet was made possible by bold ideas from these two great competitive companies. Even in competition, I can see that they still have that American spirit of adventure and creativity going on.
Clever indeed, but nonetheless interesting to ponder. Do they see something that maybe the average couch potato doesn't see yet ?
During his lifetime, my grandfather saw the invention of the telephone, electric power to the home, automobile, airplane, radio, television, atomic power, spacecraft landing on the moon and the beginning of the computer age in the long century that he lived. New ideas became defined, redefined and reshaped and eventually changed many lives. Whew ..what a century that was !! In the past hundred years, new ideas came from places we couldn't even imagine and changed the technology landscape and everyday lives of millions of people worldwide.
Really now, has all this creativity suddenly gone away overnight? Or, is it just taking a generational break? Maybe a new synthesis is slowly emerging that many just don't see yet.
We now live in an internet enabled society, one that my grandfather only dreamed of that morphs and connects us in new ways with every passing year. The world of "unconnectedness" of the past is gone forever." As one bright person once said, "the future is already here, we just haven't noticed it yet." Or maybe the modern way of saying that statement should be "we just haven't Googled it yet".
Bit by bit, even though at this moment many seem to feel despair, in the long run America with it's mix of cultures from far and wide is still is the THE BEST incubator for new ideas anywhere on earth.
Exxon: World Will Use Fossil Fuels for Decades Photo Daniel Acker Bloomberg News
The NY Times ran an interesting story today on Exxon and the endless 'do-loop' we all seem to be stuck in regarding fossil fuels and mankind's inability to think outside the box.
As the article states, Exxon was essentially founded in 1870's by John D. Rockefeller, after the breakup of the original Standard Oil Company - who later by the way went on to found the University of Chicago. Ironic isn't it? This university was the place where the world's first Atomic Pile unleashed nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. I'm not 100% sure, but I think Enrico Fermi, even though he wasn't an oil economist, but a physicist - would have a few "choice" words to say about America's current oil addiction and those oil companies who supply this drug of choice to the nation's economy. Being fair, I suppose some may have the Exxon Valdez stitched into their minds like some still have Chernobyl radioactively etched into their prefontal cortex with the past mistakes of very poorly designed Russian nuclear reactors (they should stick to building world class rocket engines !). The New York Times does a half way decent job of explaining how difficult oil is getting to find these days, as it tries to explain why such a hugely profitable company as Exxon with vast numbers of engineers still can't seem to make headway into any other energy alternatives, even with all the brilliant minds the oil industry has at its disposal.
To make matters even worse for consumers, as a news reporter stated the other day some of the latest DoE EIA stats about oil and gas supplies rising this past summer were known at the time, but only recently seem to be making it to the news outlets in an effort to educate about the now declining gas prices. We might have avoided the huge price spike this past summer if they had been a bit more timely in disseminating that information don't you think?
As the article also states, "At Exxon, the engineers rule. From its very early days, the company has focused relentlessly on one thing: finding more ways to squeeze every penny out of each barrel of oil". After reading this NY Times article, I can definitely see why Exxon's engineers are stuck in an endless 'do-loop' finding and refining oil and making profits, while the world spins on. As a university professor interviewed for the article states "There definitely is an Exxon way"
Fusion Mentoring: Historical Analogy with Hans Bethe / Ralph Alpher Hans Bethe and Ralph A. Alpher
The recent issue of New Energy Times(NET) regarding the scientific controversy surrounding Bubble Fusion and Rusi Taleyarkhan and a student (all of it clearly not Taleyarkhan's from the perspective of this nano blogger) reminds me of a rejected editorial comment I tried to submit to NET back on October 11, regarding an editorial published in Physics Today (Sep 2008 :Alpha, Bethe, Gamow). The editorial comment was to illustrate how fusion scientists like the late Hans Bethe have tried to help others when championing new ideas. For historical clarification purposes, I'll excerpt most of it here:
As explained in a recent Physics Today editorial submission (Sep 2008, p 11-12) by Samuel Marateck of NYU recounting the story of Ralph Asher Alpher, father of the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory in astrophysics, Gamow was complicit in the fact that Bethe's name be added even though Bethe had no involvement in the original work of Alpher.
Alpher's college thesis advisor, non other than another famous nuclear scientist, George Gamow, recommended adding Bethe's name even though he knew nothing of Alpher's thesis at the time. This was done to "add" a name for marketing purposes it appears from the editorial comment, as an innocent play on the words "alpha, beta, gamma". Perhaps both Gamow and Bethe's famous spirit for science (and humor ) are trying to drop a few hints to "ease up" on Rusi, who was only trying to help an undergraduate experimentalist in a way that they both practiced with Alpher. The Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper later became one of the most cited astrophysics papers of all time.
The Atomic Motor is happy to see that NET and Physics Today have looked into more details behind this latest Bubble Fusion controversy. The fusion science field (scattered across DoE) is a very competitive field and some in their rush to claim credit, stomp on the good ideas and intentions others trying to help. Having a historical perspective from the grandfathers of the fusion field (the intent of the editorial comment) can sometimes be a guiding light for scientific ethos we should not ignore as new discoveries are made, while not forgetting the bigger energy issues we all face in the world around us.
===================================================== Atomic Power Plants for Your Neighborhood (No Joke) [ Los Alamos, NM ] A small atomic powered "battery" the size of a garden shed and able to power 25,000 homes (27 Megawatts) will be on sale within the next five years, say scientists from Los Alamos and a company called Hyperion.
According to an article posted on the Next Energy news site: “In fact, we prefer to call it a ‘drive’ or a ‘battery’ or a ‘module’ in that it’s so safe,” Hyperion spokeswoman Deborah Blackwell says. “Like you don’t open a double-A battery, you just plug [the reactor] in and it does its chemical thing inside of it. You don’t ever open it or mess with it.” Interesting statement. These mini reactors will be factory-sealed for safety reasons and contain no weapons-grade material apparently. They will also have no moving parts. The company claims they will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground. From the looks of it, it will be used in areas certified to power small neighborhoods, equipment facilities, or other power needs like oil extraction in remote areas of the world.
Being a nuclear engineer, I like the idea of a small portable atomic powered source, and it sure beats the energy density of any other comparable power source per square foot of real estate. However, if I had written the original press release for the above story as an engineer I think I might have consulted with a few internet savy software developers, and then added a few safety assurances and smart features like : "anti-tamper sensors to assure the device containment wasn't fooled with", "internet connectivity 24/7 with local safety monitoring" or even "ease of monitoring by neighborhood residents." Oh well, I don't work at Los Alamos, but I'm sure other engineers will improve on this idea. ===================================================== Team Invents Hand Cranked X-Ray Device Using Plastic Tape (UCLA Sonofusion Researcher Seth Putterman is author/co-inventor)
Ever since World War I, when the world's first primitive X-ray machines were taken to the front lines in Europe to help the injured by Nobel Laureate Marie Curie, X-ray devices have tended to be large and bulky and required a sufficient power source to accelerate electrons. True, modern devices are getting smaller now, but until now the possibility of a device that used no power other than a hand crank would have seemed like science fiction to some. Apparently not to the folks over at UCLA with their latest invention, which uses nothing more than off the shelf low cost plastic tape spun between two steel rollers on springs (moving at 3cm/sec) while in a vacuum. This team's device generated enough broad spectrum low energy x-rays to be nicely measured and to take a few photos of fingerbones.
Triboluminescence has been a phenomenon first reported in sticky tape back in the 1930's and over the past several decades remained a lab curiosity at best. This recent work by the UCLA team gets an Atomic Guitar Hero award for demonstrating that looking into a phenomenon that had almost been abandoned as a lab curiosity can often times lead to new flashes of insight and creativity that can not only further the field of physics and chemistry, but the field of medicine with the possibility of easily produced "hand cranked" (or even battery powered) X-ray machines. Who knows? May someday soon doctors in underdeveloped countries in areas with no electricity will benefit from these type of easy to produce low cost X-ray machines.
Atomic kudos to this UCLA team for taking a scientific curiosity into the light of day !
===================================================== Read/Write Quantum Memory Achieved Using Doped Si and P Isotope Quantum memory: links electrons to nucleons and back
A remarkable breakthrough towards the worlds first quantum computing(QC) memory was recently announced on the arXiv preprint server and published in Nature455, 1085-1088(23 October, 2008). This amazing development helps to prove the feasibility of one of quantum computing hardware's major remaining needs :developing a read-write quantum memorycapability. By utilizing electrons coupled to the nucleus, they have managed to extend the quantum coherence lifetime of experimental qubits to almost 1.7 seconds, and a read/write fidelity of almost 90% (at 5.5K), a remarkable achievement and one that a few short years ago would have looked like science fiction to many following this field. By this blogger's estimates, this is more than a thousand times greater coherence lifetime than reported in earlier successes. It's also an approach that appears to be attempting to "fuse" some common semiconductor processing materials, namely silicon doped with an isotope of phosphorous. Am I the only one noticing a new trend with this stunning announcement? Quantum computing breakthroughs in a number of areas required for making the various pieces of the first truly working QC processor have steadily made remarkable progress over the last few years and it appears that some of the major hurdles are rapidly being overcome much sooner than anticipated (in the opinion of this blogger based on literature trends and reported results of the last few years). If you follow this field closely a lot is happening worldwide, and some companies such as DWave claim their approach has already achieved some measure of success by making some bold claims and some demonstrations. Many appear to be skeptical of their early claims, perhaps for good reason. Who is ultimately correct? Where are the media experts we'll need who can judge where this field is headed? Physicist Seth Loyd of MIT is one of the field's early pioneers and is great at explaining this new technology. How will step by step progress in quantum computing be measured so that all sectors of the economy can clearly understand progress going on? Lord only knows, but if this is all starting to feel reminiscent of the early computing days of the last few decades you're definitely not alone. Technology went from simple semiconductor processors to Pentium chips in just twenty years and as Moore's Law is now tested at its physical limits, what will become the new Moore's Law for quantum computing as the lines start to blur with current processors as time marches onward and QC benefits from all the current technology base? Coherence lifetimes that double every five years? or maybe even go up by a factor of 1000(such as the recent breathrough)? Qubit processors that double the number of qubits (take your pick as to the type of qubit design) every 3 years? Year over year improvements in quantum bus approaches that allow vaster distances between N qubits locked together in synchronous quantum entanglement? or as some claim simultaneous multi-threading? It's certainly interesting to think about the many mind blowing possibilities going on here. I have a few questions for the QC experts and educators out there: Is it too early to start planning for all the software breakthroughs that will also eventually be needed to follow all these remarkable benchtop breakthroughs? Apparently a Microsoft researcher thinks not. As a nation needing to improve focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, where will we find all the quantum mechanically trained engineers, scientists and mathematicians needed for the next few decades as this field fully matures and measurably accelerates?
For the time being, Atomic Kudos to the quantum 'mechanics' of the computing world !!
Is cold fusion energy for real?? You decide. Join the web 2.0 world in possibility thinking. Want to help improve it? Great. I dedicate my free time to help bring SAFE cold fusion, and other nanotech ideas forward to help transportation and networked homes of the future. Thanks for stopping by.
