6 ms·
This looks to be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor and is a very common hobby fusion project. A very powerful electric
by petermcneeley 8y ago
This looks to be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor and is a very common hobby fusion project. A very powerful electric field drives the fusion. No positive energy output from this style of device has ever been reported.
- atemerev 8y agoIt is “common” (as in not unique), but assembling a fusor and getting actual neutrons from it is still a very big deal, especially for a 12 years old. I am a nuclear engineering enthusiast at 35, I know a lot about these devices, but I doubt I could build a fusor on my own at home. It is a big engineering project.
- agumonkey 8y agoYeah the age is probably the news here. I remember older teens (HS junior) doing the same.. but 12 .. that's young. Kudos to him. Hopefully mother nature decided he would be the chosen one to make fusion reactor net positive
- solarkraft 8y agoThen again: Why would he?; There are are thousands of very smart people working on this. While this is an excellent demonstration of his ability, I doubt he could actually outbid professional researchers.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- aaomidi 8y agoA lot of science has been dumb luck and doing some random thing at the right time. I mean I hope for all of us this is one of those cases.
- agumonkey 8y agoNothing serious man, part of me just want fusion energy to exist (although humanity will probably abuse it ..)
- coldtea 8y agoIt was just a kind comment to applaud his ingenuity at such a young age. It wasn't meant to be interpreted as a factual statement.
- mrob 8y agoNote that a lot of "fusors" are actually "demo fusors", i.e. they run at too low energy to produce detectable fusion even if you did fuel them with deuterium. A "demo fusor" just produces plasma that looks similar without doing real fusion. This article is about the real thing, which is substantially more difficult to build.
- Florin_Andrei 8y agoThe key is - does it make neutrons or not? If it does, it's fusing. If not, it isn't.
- mrfusion 8y agoThere’s really no reason positive energy output should be impossible though? I guess it’s just a really inefficient design?
- webkike 8y agoDoesn’t that answer your own question?
- hutzlibu 8y agoWell, you are free to provide a better design. Problems are many, mostly the very high temperature and pressure needed to achieve fusion ... no material can stand that so you need to have your fusion happening floating which needs energy etc.
- DennisP 8y agoIt'e been proven that this particular design can't achieve net power, but other designs probably can. Scientists are especially confident about the tokamak, for example. (And of course, thermonuclear bombs definitely achieve net power.)
- UnpossibleJim 8y agoThermonuclear bombs work on nuclear fission not fusion, just to clear up any confusion. Nuclear power plants also achieve power from fission, which is the breaking of nuclear bonds.
- Yetanfou 8y agoNo, thermonuclear bombs [1] are fusionbombs. Nuclear bombs can be of both types but the term thermonuclear specifically means (partly) fusion-powered bombs. These bombs always use a fission reaction as a starter for the fusion reaction, depending on the type of bomb the power output can be anywhere from mostly fusion to largely fission. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
- robotresearcher 8y ago
- mikeash 8y agoAnd to clarify, no net energy is expected from such a device.
- blackflame7000 8y agoApparently one of the problems with this device is that much of the energy is lost when the ions strike the inner electrodes and that got me thinking. What if there were a way to construct a sort of thin inert buffer on the electrodes with say a noble gas, to facilitate ion collisions over ion conduction?