Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Home fusion reactor! Makes news, no one arrested!

The_Davster - 16-8-2007 at 18:20

from: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/radioactive-boy-scout

Quote:

Radioactive Boy Scout
Teenager achieves nuclear fusion at home
by Stephen Ornes
In 2006 Thiago Olson joined the extremely sparse ranks of amateurs worldwide who have achieved nuclear fusion with a home apparatus. In other words, he built the business end of a hydrogen bomb in his basement. The plasma "star in a jar"—shown at the left—demonstrated his success.

For two years, Olson researched what he would need and scrounged for parts from eBay and the hardware store. Flanges and piping? Check. High-voltage X-ray transformer? Check. Pumps, deuterium source, neutron bubble dosimeter? Check, check, check. “I have cross-country and track, so during those seasons I don’t have much time to work on it,” says Olson, a high school senior in Michigan. “It’s more of a weekend project.” Last November the machine finally delivered the hallmark of success: bubbles in the dosimeter. The bubbles indicate the presence of neutrons, a by-product of fusion—an energy-releasing process in which two hydrogen nuclei crash together and form a helium nucleus. Fusion is commonplace in stars, where hydrogen nuclei fuse in superhot plasma, but temperatures that high are hard to achieve on Earth. Still, the prospect of creating all this energy while forming only nonradioactive helium and easily controlled neutrons has made harnessing fusion one of the most sought-after and heavily funded goals in sustainable energy.

Olson’s apparatus won’t work for generating commercial power because it takes more energy to run than it produces. But he has succeeded in creating a “star in a jar,” a tiny flash of hot plasma. “The temperature of the plasma is around 200 million degrees,” Olson says modestly, “several times hotter than the core of the sun.”

Robert Bussard, a nuclear physicist who has spent most of his career investigating fusion for both the government and private companies, applauds Olson’s ambition. “These kids are studying much more useful physics than what the country is spending billions on,” he says. “It causes them to think. They’re not going down the mainstream path to oblivion.” And, aside from using high voltage and emitting low-level radiation, the machine has been deemed harmless. “About a week ago, the department of health from Michigan called my principal,” Olson says. “They wanted to come over and inspect it. They did that, they were impressed, and it checked out.”





[Edited on 16-8-2007 by The_Davster]

Ozone - 16-8-2007 at 19:54

This thing is called a Farnsworth Fusor (the same Farnsworth that invented TV, IIRC and the namesake for the television cartoon Professor Farnsworth).

There have been several of these things made (and don't get me wrong, they are very cool, and really capable of fusion, it seems), but this guy just made the news with it.

I've been trying to get the stuff (and the time) to build one for a long time. The decent vacuum, spot welding and HV (and deuterium) are usually the hurdles for the amateur. All I can say is: regardless of novelty, Good for this guy!

That's mad science!

O3

Sauron - 16-8-2007 at 20:13

The Farnsworth tube was heart of the old WWII infrared snooperscope - early active night vision device mounted on M3 .30 carbine, which was just an M1 or M2 with the mount for the scope and filtered IR lamp.

Edmond used to sell the tubes I think.

The snooperscopes were not particularly effective, night vision did not really get going till Vietnam, and passive image intensifiers ("starlight scopes") which were big, heavy, and emitted a distinctive whine from an oscillator. The second and third generation stuff is much better, a lot of practical problems solved. But anyway Farnsworth was in on the ground floor.

I am not familiar with his role in the development of television.

The point of fusion as an enery source is lost when the fusion does not release vast amounts of energy...which a Fusor does not. If it makes He it is a neat trick, but He is a commodity, I sparge my HPLC solvents with He (and so does everyone else.)

Plenty of articles (and controversy) about the Fusor in The Bell Jar, q.v.

leu - 16-8-2007 at 22:29

Philo Farnsworth's patents:

* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 1,773,980 : Television system (filed 7 January 1927, issued 26 August 1930)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 1,773,981 : Television receiving system (filed 7 January 1927, issued 26 August 1930)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 1,758,359 : Electric oscillator system (filed 7 January 1927, issued May 13, 1930)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 1,806,935 : Light valve (filed 7 January 1927, issued 26 May 1931)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,168,768 : Television method (filed 9 January 1928, issued 8 August 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 1,970,036 : Photoelectric apparatus (filed 9 January 1928, issued 14 August 1934)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,246,625 : Television scanning and synchronization system (filed May 5, 1930, issued June 24, 1941)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 1,941,344 : Dissector target (filed 7 July 1930, issued 26 December 1933)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,140,284 : Projecting oscillight (filed 14 July 1931, issued 13 December 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,059,683 : Scanning oscillator (filed 3 April 1933, issued 3 November 1936)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,087,683 : Image dissector (filed 26 April 1933, issued 20 July 1937)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,071,516 : Oscillation generator (filed 5 July 1934, issued 23 February 1937)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,143,145 : Projection means (filed 6 November 1934, issued 10 January 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,233,887 : Image projector (filed 6 February 1935, issued 4 March 1941)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,143,262 : Means of electron multipaction (filed 12 March 1935, issued 10 January 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,174,488 : Oscillator (filed 12 March 1935, issued 26 September 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,221,473 : Amplifier (filed 12 March 1935, issued 12 November 1940)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,155,478 : Means for producing incandescent images (filed 7 May 1935, issued 25 April 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,140,695 : Charge storage dissector (filed 6 July 1935, issued 20 December 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,228,388 : Cathode ray amplifier (filed 6 July 1935, issued 14 January 1941)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,233,888 : Charge storage amplifier (filed 6 July 1935, issued 4 March 1941)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,251,124 : Cathode ray amplifying tube (filed 10 August 1935, issued 29 July 1941)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,100,842 : Charge storage tube (filed 14 September 1935, issued 30 November 1937)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,137,528 : Multipactor oscillator (filed 27 January 1936, issued 22 November 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,214,077 : Scanning current generator (filed 10 February 1936, issued 10 September 1940)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,089,054 : Incandescent light source (filed 9 March 1936, issued 3 August 1937)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,159,521 : Absorption oscillator (filed 9 March 1936, issued 23 May 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,139,813 : Secondary emission electrode (filed 24 March 1936, issued 13 December 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,204,479 : Means and method for producing electronic multiplication (filed 16 May 1936, issued 11 June 1940)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,140,832 : Means and method of controlling electron multipliers (filed 16 May 1936, issued 20 December 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,260,613 : Electron multiplier (filed 18 May 1936, issued 28 October 1941)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,141,837 : Multistage multipactor (filed 1 June 1936, issued 27 December 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,216,265 : Image dissector (filed 18 August 1936, issued 1 October 1940)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,128,580 : Means and method of operating electron multipliers (filed 18 August 1936, issued 30 August 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,143,146 : Repeater (filed 31 October 1936, issued 10 January 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,139,814 : Cathode ray tube (filed 2 November 1936, issued 13 December 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,109,289 : High power projection oscillograph (filed 2 November 1936, issued 22 February 1938)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,184,910 : Cold cathode electron discharge tube (filed 4 November 1936, issued 26 December 1939)
* Philo T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,179,996 : Electron multiplier (filed 9 November 1936, issued 14 November 1939)
* P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,221,374 : X-ray projection device
* P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 2,263,032 : Cold cathode electron discharge tube
* P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 3,258,402 : Electric discharge device for producing interaction between nuclei
* P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 3,386,883 : Method and apparatus for producing nuclear fusion reactions
* P.T. Farnsworth, U.S. Patent 3,664,920 : Electrostatic containment in fusion reactors

:P

vulture - 17-8-2007 at 00:38

Quote:

If it makes He it is a neat trick, but He is a commodity, I sparge my HPLC solvents with He (and so does everyone else.)


Eh, No. Helium is pretty fucking expensive and the last thing I'd want in my HPLC apparatus is He bubbles rising up in the column.

You surely must mean Argon.

Sauron - 17-8-2007 at 00:58

I own half a dozen Waters analytical (600E) and prep (LC 4000) systems and every one of them is He sparged.

But I will only operate one of each at any given time. I know for a certainty that the prep systems are He sparged. I think the 600Es are too, but will have to check th manual. Four systems are sitting downstairs, not set up yet. The two prep systems are online.

For that matter, in Europe, He is carrier gas for GC. In USA they use hydrogen, either from a cylinder or from a hydrogen generator. I do not have a GC as yet.

From "Precision in HPLC"

Helium sparging remains the best way to degas solvents, especially if the solvent reservoir can also be pressurized. The inert helium blanket helps preserve the longevity of the mobile phase (e.g., buffers or those phases with a trimethylamine modifier). However, its cost and inconvenience have promoted the popularity of on-line vacuum degassers. These devices use lines of semipermeable membranes in evacuated chambers to remove dissolved gases and produce precision levels comparable to those from helium sparging. For best results, analysts should make sure every line in the degasser is filled with solvent and the vacuum pump is functioning properly.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/tcaw/00/aug/dong.html

I recently moved my Waters manuals pdf's onto a CD but the above quote from Chemist At Work ought to suffice. Waters also makes inline degassers but those are intended to augment He sparging not replace it. And they are only for analytic not preparative systems, they cannot handle the volume of flow in a prep system (150 ml/min).

[Edited on 17-8-2007 by Sauron]

Ozone - 17-8-2007 at 14:52

I found out once that Ar does not replace He for sparging (degassing) LC eluents. Ar actually somehow entrains in the solution (it can't be formally in solution, it must be some thermodynamically favored intercalation) and *will* outgas if put under pressure and through a column or if a vacuum is pulled upon it.

Admittedly, in many countries, He is very expensive. This is why in places like South Africa they always use H2 or N2 for GC carrier.

Remember, He is mined, the result of aeons of alpha decay of naturally occuring uranium and thorium minerals. The price is, thus, extremely relative to location.

I have several 5890 series II mainframes, but cylinders are a pain in my garage:) and gas generators are dear (well, not so bad ~15,000US).

Cheers,

O3

For degassing on the older instruments, we sparge w/He, and/or pull a vacuum on the solvent whilst under sonication. All of our new instruments (Agilent 11 and 1200's) have in-line vacuum degassers (which kick ass).

Sauron - 17-8-2007 at 21:56

The Thai Army Special Forces train their parachutists using a balloon amd the balloon is He-filled. In fact I think they have two balloons for this purpose at Lopburi, Special Warfare Center and School.

I find it funny to talk about the cost of He for sparging. Everything about HPLC is costly. The capital cost of the systems, the columns, spare parts and maintenance/repair, HPLC grade solvents especially on prep scale. If you want to recycle solvents, a spinning band distillation setup. Costs beaucoup $$$, and He is a trivial component. Prep columns are hideously expensive and particularly in RP have a finite life, He extends their life and pays for itself.

vulture - 18-8-2007 at 01:37

Strange. I know that He is too expensive for that application here in Belgium. The main operating cost of the NMR spectrometers at our lab is the He consumption. But perhaps that's because we're near the worlds biggest Helium consumer, Geneve cyclotron?

unionised - 18-8-2007 at 11:20

Why would you think argon would be any better than He for an HPLC sysstem ?

vulture - 18-8-2007 at 11:45

Quote:

Why would you think argon would be any better than He for an HPLC sysstem ?


I'm not saying it's better. I'm just saying that He might be prohibitively costly when compared to Ar.

Sauron - 18-8-2007 at 20:00

O3 already related how he tried Ar and it failed.

He is not prohibitively expensive. Not for HPLC sparging. I will look up the flow rates involved and you will see. Sparging only is done during a run, you turn the He off afterwards. Analytical runs do not take long. Prep runs do, and a proportionately larger flow rate is used, but He is still less costly than the solvents for example.

My PrepLC 4000s take 50-150 psi Ultrapure Carrier grade He and uses 0 to 100 ml/min, programmable in 1 ml/min increments.

Waters recommends sparging reservoirs at 100 ml/min for 15 minutes minimum and then reducing He flow to 30-50 ml/min to maintain the solvents in degassed state.

And the 600E analytical systems use same 50-150 psi and same He flow rates as the PrepLC systems.

Waters states that their AF inline degasser's performance is directly proportional to the flow rate of eluents through the degasser. At 1 ml/min the final O2 concentration is less than or equal to 1%, while at 5 ml/min, it is less than or equal to 2.3%. They recommend He sparging in addition to vacuum degassing.

Degassing by sonification and vacuum is a good pretreatment prior to sparging, but is not used alone, and cannot be applied to prep HPLC - at least above a certain scale.

As Ar does not work, you can use N2 because it is O2 you are really trying to get rid of, but for best results there is really no alternative to He.

HPLC is expensive technology. No getting around that. But the pharm industry has demonstrated that prep HPLC is cheaper than multiple recrystallizations when time and labor are factored in.



[Edited on 19-8-2007 by Sauron]