Linky

Pointing out that while it was a controlled fusion - more energy was still dumped into the process than what resulted.

But hey, you've got to start somewhere.

Edit: Physicsweb article

I love this:

Anyway, well done UCLA!

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Keep your fingers crossed.

It sounds like the process won't scale up. Keep in mind that tabletop fusion already exists (using IEC - inertial electrostatic confinement), but nobody has found a way to scale up the system beyond making it a useful neutron source. It sounds like this scheme might make for a smaller neutron source than an IEC reactor.

But, you never know. I keep hoping somebody will find a "trick" that will sidestep some of the problems with fusion. It is unlikely, of course ...

I've just put in my order to Amazon for a "Mr. Fusion" to put on the back of the DeLorean.


Hold your breath
Count to ten
Make a wish

Thanks for the heads up, Van Rijn. I found this link about the fusor very interesting (top Google hit on IEC ). It points out that the IEC was able to achieve billion neutrons/sec, or even as high as a trillion. Compare it with the UCLA design, which currently achieves only 900/sec, proposed to be able to scale up to a million with D-T and appropriate geometric designs. It was also interesting to note the similarity of a potential well between the IEC design(electric potential well) and sonoluminescence which prof. Putterman has been involved with (pressure potential well). The question then is: why such the hoopla about the UCLA design, when it seems inferior in output to the IEC designs (which came to within two orders of magnitude of break-even, if understood correctly).
I don't mean to belittle the achievements of the UCLA group, I'd just like to know more from experts about their achievement.

__________________
"Its full of stars!"