Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Musings, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology > Is Controlled Desktop Fusion Possible?

Is Controlled Desktop Fusion Possible?

You might have heard many so-called “prominent scientists and experts” repeatedly tell their audience that controlled desktop nuclear fusion is not feasible as it requires extreme pressures and temperatures similar to those found near the center of stars. But is that really true?

Consider the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. This 1960-era device can fit on your desktop and generate neutrons with energy values consistent with those predicted for nuclear fission. Indeed, devices based on that principle are still used as a portable high-energy neutron sources.

Here are a few links about it’s rather peculiar history- The Farnsworth Fusor and Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. The basic design of such systems is well-known and has been successfully built by amateurs- fusor.net and here. Here is a video of one in action-

The biggest problem with current publicly available designs is that none of them put out more energy than you pump in them.. However the whole idea that nuclear fusion requires some exotic conditions found only in the core of stars or some super-powerful Tokamak machine is a big fucking lie!

And this brings us to the recent claims about the E-cat which supposedly fuses Nickel and Hydrogen to give Copper and Energy.

Ni-62 + Proton -> Cu-63 + Energy.

Nickel 62 is one the minor natural isotopes of Nickel and Copper 63 is one of two natural isotopes of copper. While the theory behind the E-cat does not quite add up, it does seem to work and that is all that matters. It is also possible that the guy behind it is a fraud. However what he is promoting is not as far-fetched as many “experts” would want you to believe.

We know that a device like the Farnsworth Fusor allows controlled nuclear fusion to occur under desktop conditions- albeit at low efficiency. Why is it so heretical to believe that somebody might have used similar or different design principles to design an apparatus in which the net process is energy positive?

Many so-called “experts” and “scientists” have been promising controlled energy-positive nuclear fusion for the last 60 years. They always claim that “it is 20 years down the road” but have nothing concrete to show for it after almost 60 years, thousands of efforts and billions of dollars. Maybe.. they are just clueless but too dogmatic and greedy to admit it.

So why not try something new and different. Why keep on building larger and more expensive versions of setups that just don’t deliver? Are the egos and careers of scumbags worth more than the potential discovery of controlled and energy-positive desktop fusion?

Comments?

  1. October 31, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    What is precisely E in that formula? Electrons, photons, quarcks?

    E = Energy

    • November 1, 2011 at 6:17 am

      I know. But is Energy supposed to contain?

      • November 1, 2011 at 6:18 am

        *what is Energy supposed to contain?

  2. November 1, 2011 at 12:08 am

    happy halloween dirty diablo!

  3. hoipolloi
    November 1, 2011 at 7:29 am

    @Nestrorius

    I guess energy contains photons. It has mass too.

  4. EvilOne
    April 20, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    I knew a guy who published a cold fusion journal and said Pons and Fleischmann were right. Given what other stuff I heard from him in other fields, I believe him.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: