OT: Scientists achieve nuclear fusion with giant laser

Page 2 of 3  
On 2/14/2014 7:17 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

No, I haven't really paid any attention since some work after the big furor did with EPRI for the electric utilities to determine whether it looked like they should be investing some R&D dollars there. (Conclusion was basically "no, just keep reading the headlines and it'll be soon enough for practical applications if a real something does happen.")
The problem at that time and in my mind remains one that afaik(+) nobody's been able to come up with a plausible theory for what actually _could_ be happening given current knowledge of nuclear structure/forces. W/O a working hypothesis it's pretty much alchemy.
Again, not to say shouldn't continue to dabble/explore; _sometimes_ experiment does lead to theory altho it's far more rare now than years ago when the limits of what theory covered adequately were far more constrained. The problem with this one is that it seems to me it will have to produce some whole new sub-area of phenomena that just haven't yet fallen out of any of the multitude of theories and that seems, at least to me, incredible they've not hinted at the likelihood. Then again, perhaps it's right there in front of us and its just not been recognized.
(+) That's based on last I did which is now approaching ~10 yr since. But, I'd think if somebody had come up with that theoretical breakthru it would've been _VERY_BIG_NEWS_ (tm) and that fundamental knowledge leap would have been front page news not just a continuing set of "maybe, maybe not" measurements at the limit of detectability for some excess energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:44:14 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

I pretty much agree. It's all over the map. On the one hand you have what appear to be very credible scientists at major universities, eg MIT, claiming they are able to get excess heat. And you have a couple of theories apparently based on sound physics that might explain what is happening, eg Widom-Larsen. And you apparently have NASA doing research, DOE finally providing some funding, but it's only $10mil. On the other hand you have scientists making claims that exceed what they can back up and they then have to retract them, making it hard to tell what's real and what's not. And outright frauds, IMO, like Andrea Rossi in Italy who "demonstrated" a 500MW E-Cat "reactor" and pretends he's taking orders for commercial units, has factories that don't exist, etc. And even that E-Cat circus has gotten a few real scientists involved that appear credible, where he's let them see limited demonstrations, etc. and then they attest to a least some of his claims.
Overall, I do think something real is probably going on though. It's hard to imagine that so many researchers over 25 years are all making mistakes in calorimetry. I guess the argument against it is that you'd hope by now even if the physics can't be explained, you'd have one experimental setup where whatever is going on it could clearly be demonstrated that you could put in 10 watts and get out 20W on a consistent basis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/15/2014 10:29 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

That's because we have "experts" that still think a transformer can convert single phase to 2-phase.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:06:05 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

Since you want to dredge that up again, perhaps you can answer this simple question, which no one else who wants to take cheap shots has answered:
I have what everyone agrees is a 3 phase system coming from a power plant. The 3 phases are 120 deg out of phase with each other. It gets stepped down via transformers and serves a building, 3 hots and a neutral. There are 3 phases there. Ok, now get rid of one phase. You now have two phases, correct? Now instead of those phases differing by 120 deg, let's make them differ by 150 deg. Still two phases present, yes or no? Now let's make them differ by 180 deg. Still two phases, yes or no? And if the answer to the that is yes, then if you set the voltage to 240V, it's electrically indistinguishable from split-phase 240V/120V going into a building. The electrons behavior, voltages, current, phase relationship, waveforms, are identical.
And if your answer is no, then explain the electrical miracle that just happened when we went from 150 deg to 180 deg.
Plus I have an IEEE paper, written by a power engineer with many IEEE papers under his belt, peer reviewed, delivered at a power engineering conference that addresses the very issue:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber4520128
"Distribution engineers have treated the standard "singlephase" distributio n transformer connection as single phase because from the primary side of t he transformer these connections are single phase and in the case of standa rd rural distribution single phase line to ground. However, with the advent of detailed circuit modeling we are beginning to see distribution modeling and analysis being accomplished past the transformer to the secondary. Whi ch now brings into focus the reality that standard 120/240 secondary system s are not single phase line to ground systems, instead they are three wire systems with two phases and one ground wires. Further, the standard 120/240 secondary is different from the two phase primary system in that the secon dary phases are separated by 180 degrees instead of three phases separated by 120 degrees. "
And these industry references, from electrical eqpt manufacturers that describe two phases being present:
http://www.behlman.com/applications/AC%20basics.pdf
"The two Legs, represented by Phase A and Phase B, are 180 degrees apart. Since they are 180 degrees apart, wiring them together with their relative polarities as shown will result in:
L-NVac x 2.00 = L-LVac
120Vac x 2.00 = 240Vac."
http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSp litPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
"The phase of hot leg 2 (Phase B) is in the opposite direction, ie 180 deg apart from the phase of hot leg 1 (Phase A)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2014 10:06 AM, Bill wrote: ...

Purely a choice of representation -- it's either two portions of a single phase with a delay or two phases at that same relative angle each.
The two representations are totally indistinguishable in their physical implications; choose whichever is more convenient for the task at hand.
It's no different than a change of reference from cartesian to cylindrical coordinates, say. The one is much more convenient when dealing with circular motion than the other but you can and will get the same net answer either way (assuming you do the algebra correctly, anyway).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:29:16 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

Actually I don't think it's an issue of representation with the folks like Bill. They just refuse to accept that the two hots in a 240V/120V split phase service have a phase relationship at all. That's why I used the example of morphing what everyone calls 3 phase, to two phase, then to what is identical to split phase, just by dropping one phase and changing the phase angle. At the wires entering a building, you can't tell the difference between them. So either something magical happens at 180 deg or else it's just a special case of two phases.
The power industry refers to 240/120V split phase as "single phase", because it originates from one phase of their primary distribution, as opposed to 3 phase power which uses all three. It's an easy way to refer to it and fits their perspective. But that doesn't change the overall definition of phase in electrical engineering, how you analyze it, represent it, etc. 180 deg phase difference is 180 deg phase difference, no matter how you create it. I'd also point out that even in the power industry, it's correctly called split phase. What happens when you split something? I can't think of a single example of something that gets split, and then you still have just one. And even in the power industry, it eventually matters as that IEEE paper delivered at a power conference shows. The author is clearly saying that to correctly model a 240/120V service, you have to treat it like what it actually is, two phases, differing by 180 deg.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2014 8:35 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I'm aware of that that they're simply ignorant...which is why _I_ used the geometrical interpretation instead of the physical.

Yabbut... :)
You _can_ get the same place in one coordinate system vs the other...it's just __much__ more complicated to carry around the phase shift (where "phase" means the delay angle, not the two legs in this case) between the two original taps as opposed to writing the two phases (here "phase" is each one of the two split legs) but in the end it all works out the same way (again, presuming the algebra is taken care of correctly which is a real pita to do the "wrong" way...
Again, for comparison the latter is like writing the equations of motion for circular motion in cartesian coordinates -- you can do it but it's a lot more of an exercise in futility than if one simply uses theta,r instead of x,y.
For the Bill's of the world that there are two common English uses of "phase" is, imo, much if not all of the problem. There are the separate generator "phases" and then there's the "phase lag" that is simply a coordinate shift of how to look at a time delay for a given physical phase. It's the latter that gives rise to the split-phase 240V from a transformer and the confusion of that use of the term "phase" with the physical leg from the generator that is the problem.
Like so many other colloquial terms, it should have been named differently from the git-go and that nomenclature used religiously and unambiguously and then the confusion could likely have been prevented. But, the two got called by the same name because it is such a convenient shorthand and isn't confusing to the "trained professional" :J) but leads to mass confusion in general usage as we see hear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2014 8:56 AM, dpb wrote: ...

--




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2014 8:56 AM, dpb wrote:

...
To clarify absolutely--I'm not saying one doesn't treat the two sides analogously to what your author is; only that it's mathematically possible (at least theoretically, the practical matter of actually solving the resulting mess aside) to write the system simply as a time delay (phase angle) of one compared to the other instead of as two phases.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/16/2014 09:35 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

When I had the furnace blower motor replaced they used a 240 volt 2-phase motor.
It was more $ but the furnace guy said a 2-phase motor is 20% more efficient so would save money in the long run.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2014 10:59 AM, Ed wrote:

Wouldn't happen to be in Philly, would you? That's the only place in the US I'm aware of that actually has any "real" 90-deg phase shift 2-phase power distribution still in the US and I thought it was only available in commercial locations in the center city.
I was also unaware there were any 2-phase motors other than stepper motors in production and a quick search didn't find any.
You sure it's not split-phase 240V (conventional US 240, not actually 2-phase)? AFAICT(hink) you'd have to have a Scott x-frmr or the like to generate the second phase at the 90-deg phase angle instead of the 180-deg of split-phase.
Can you double-check the actual motor nameplate easily? You got me intrigued as to what they actually did install... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/16/2014 12:40 PM, dpb wrote:

This is a standard single phase in and two phase out center-tap power transformer. The phases are 180 deg with respect to each other.
I'll let our resident engineer, Trader4, explain the scientific details of how it all works.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:49:22 PM UTC-5, Ed wrote:

He asked for the specifics on the blower motor you claimed to have installed. So, that isn;t an answer. If you have a two phase motor, name it. A typical 120 or 240 V residential HVAC motor is single phase. Hook up a scope and all you will see is one 60 hz sine wave. Has nothing to do with the 120V loads and their phase relatioship to each other. Hook up a scope at the panel and look at the two 120V legs and you will see 180 deg difference.
It's also likely that you and Bill are one and the same idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2014 4:16 AM, Ed wrote: ...

And now you're back to the same problem as outlined above -- a single _generator_ phase, but two separate outputs with a 180-deg phase _angle_ between them. Now you're back to the point of which way one wants to represent them as outlined above.
Meanwhile...<plonk>
--






Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:06:02 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

Some more references that agree with you and I:
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/ac_theory/transformers04.php
"Some common arrangements of audio transformer windings are shown in Fig 11 .4.2.
Example a.) shows a centre tapped secondary winding that can be used to pro vide a selection of different turns ratios. Some transformers may also have tapped primaries for an even wider range of ratios. In audio amplifiers, t he phase/anti phase of signals can be important and phase splitting transfo rmers with centre tapped secondary windings can be used to provide two anti phase signals. The dots near the windings on schematic diagrams indicate t he relative polarity of the signals on different windings, and in this exam ple show that the signal from the upper secondary winding (A) will be in ph ase with the primary signal, while the lower secondary winding (B) will pro vide a signal in anti phase with the primary signal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-phase_electric_power
See fig 2, which is the phasor diagram for what comes out of the center tap transormer. Note that there are *two* phases, 180 deg apart, shown.
http://engineering.electrical-equipment.org/electrical-distribution/centre- tapped-transformer.html
"As it can be seen from the figure that this type of configurations gives u s two phases through the two parts of the secondary coil, and a total of th ree wires, in which the middle one, the center tapped wire is the neutral o ne. So this center tapped configuration is also known as a two phase- three wire transformer system. In this way, half the voltage appears across one half of the phase, that is from line 1 to neutral, and the other half of the voltage appears across t he next phase, that is from neutral to Line 2. If the load is connected dir ectly between line 1 and line 2, then we get the total voltage, that is, th e sum of the two voltages. This way, we can get more amperes of current at the same voltage."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/16/2014 10:59 AM, Ed wrote: ...

Wouldn't happen to be in Philly, would you? That's the only place in the US I'm aware of that actually has 90-deg phase shift 2-phase power distribution still in the US and I thought it was only available in commercial locations in the center city. Way-back when (like around 1900 or even slightly earlier) the generators at Niagara Falls were 2-phase but over time it fell out of favor and 3-phase is de rigueur these days.
I was also unaware there were 2-phase motors other than stepper motors in production and a quick search didn't find any.
You sure it's not split-phase 240V (conventional US 240, not actually 2-phase)? AFAICT(hink) otomh you'd have to have a Scott x-frmr or the like to generate the second phase at the 90-deg phase angle instead of the 180-deg of split-phase.
Can you double-check the actual motor nameplate easily? You got me intrigued as to what they actually did install... :)
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/15/2014 9:29 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I've not tried to duplicate the paper in depth but--from what I have read and the descriptions thereof I see some real issues that to me aren't consistent.
First, they claim somehow the "heavy" neutrons are formed at essentially room temperatures and they're then absorbed and cause the fission. The difficulty is they haven't afaict tell explained how they can be both essentially zero-KE and exist at room temperature and hence have roughly the thermal energy equivalent of 2200 m/s, in which case a significant fraction would have to escape the sample and be detected.
OTOH, even if one assumes that somehow that hurdle is breached, when they're absorbed to give rise to the subsequent decay, where are the resultant tell-tale mutated nuclei in the sample and the associated radiation byproducts going? AFAIK, again, they've not postulated some new radioactive decay process that is different than what we know, only that somehow all these products are contained. If that were so, then it shouldn't be at all difficult to reproduce and measure yet nobody seems able to do so.
Whatever it is that is going on, I don't think there's fully credible evidence as yet that it is "cold fission". Unfortunately, scientists often are as gullible as anybody else in believing their own pet theories and then there's the impetus to publish and if somebody will write a grant to support whatever it is then there's that motive as well. In some ways it seems to me much like the rebranding of "global warming" into "climate change" to keep the gravy train flowing there.
I don't mean this to impugn the integrity of most of these (Rossi and his ilk excluded, of course) but simply that they're human and so invested they can't separate themselves from their belief system any longer. Just like the folks at PPPL and Rochester LLE I described earlier -- it was a nearly religious belief as well as scientific effort driving the program and doubters weren't much appreciated.
As a consultant for them, I just needed the work to pay the mortgage and keep "time sold" at the 80% billing point to a client to have a full-time paycheck. :) With "no dog directly in the hunt" so to speak as there were always other clients to go hassle, it was fairly easy to see the two forces at work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:35:13 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:

Why would they have to dissipate the fusion reaction energy in a laser? I would presume it was just released as heat. According to the link, the laser was 10^^15 watts peak, but each pulse only lasted 30 x 10^^-15 secs. Unless my math is off, that's just 30 joules, which ain't much energy. And the laser power is probably the raw laser power, not what actually hit the tiny frozen pellet, which would be substantially less. Something there doesn't add up in the math. I would think they would hit it with one massive pulse and that it would be a hell of a lot of energy. But whatever amount of energy they hit it with, apparently they got more than that out and I would think it was just heat, absorbed ultimately by the large vessel the whole thing is in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:35:27 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

That counts as dissipation.

Yes, I made a mistake there. Thought about it, then immediately forgot about it. Senior moment?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is, indeed.
I worked on one of the first experiments at LLNL back in the mid 80s. The Nova Target setup was an early attempt at nuclear fusion, via lasers, and was housed in the bldg adjacent to an older project where scenes from the original Tron movie were filmed. Nice to know they are still working at it and making headway, some 30 yrs later. Fusion, as opposed to fission, what makes atom bombs work, is how the Sun sustains itself. If we can improve on the "output greater than input" formula, we will have the answer to cheap sustainable power.
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.