Nucleare, la fusione fredda funziona

[catholikos]

ottima notizia. speriamo che l'esperimento venga ripetuto al più presto.
da ignorante, mi pongo però delle domande:
-la matrice in cui avviene la diffusione va cambiata ogni quanto?
-l'ambiente riprodotto viene portato a 50 atm o è mantanuto a 50 atm?

butto dei valori:
un normale compressore a stantuffo funge da circa 1kW a circa 400 e produce una pressione di esercizio da 1,5 a 400 e qualcosa bar.
ricordando che:
1 bar è 100 kPa e 1 atm è 98 kPa.
inoltre 1 W*h sono 3600 J --> 1 kW*h = 3 600 000 J
l'esperimento ha prodotto 100 000 J, quindi ne mancano 3 500 000.

i miei sono solo i famosi "conti della serva".
non so se rimanendo in funzione per altre ore andava e recuperare il gap e iniziava ad evere un bilancio positivo.

resta comunque un esperimento interessante.

La finalità di questo tipo di esperimenti non è ancora "applicativa" e non vuol'essere la produzione utile d'energia (e prodotta> E utilizzata dall'apparato sperimentale), bensì lo scopo è lo studio e la caratterizzazione del fenomeno.

Per dirla semplice... questa è ricerca di base, il compito è studiare, comprendere e modellizzare i comportamenti e le proprietà delle reazioni nucleari in materia condensata. L'applicazione seguirà... e sarà materia ingnegneristica. Siamo agli albori.

Cmq se solo si volesse provare ad avere un bilancio migliore andrebbe usato più reagente a parità di pressione della camera. Ma non era questa la finalità.
In ogni caso ripeto che quando il processo verrà studiato, sufficientemente compreso ed ingegnerizzato la prima applicazione potrà essere qualcosa come lo scaldabagno a fusione fredda.

[bianconero (POL)]

Nessuno dice che era una bufala. Semplicemente si tratta di futuro nemmeno tanto prossimo.

[dDuck (POL)]

Nessuno dice che era una bufala. Semplicemente si tratta di futuro nemmeno tanto prossimo.

ciao
io dico che se il principio e' valido e si ha un teoria rigorosa, i tempi sono brevi, io mi domandavo sul bilancio energetico e sui costi !!!!

[Breiner252]

E' già un po' che dico che la scienza del futuro è già bella che pronta e che solo per motivi economici non viene ancora tirata fuori.

Guarda che tra "farla funzionare" e commercializzare un impianto funzionante c'è una bella differenza.

Mi chiedo che fine hanno fatto gli esperimenti dell'Enea...che sembravano molto promettenti...pare che il rapporto sia stato consegnato al ministero, e "dimenticato".
E pensare che i test erano costati poco più di un miliardo (di lire!)...

[Skepto]

[...]In ogni caso ripeto che quando il processo verrà studiato, sufficientemente compreso ed ingegnerizzato la prima applicazione potrà essere qualcosa come lo scaldabagno a fusione fredda.

Che figata! Lo voglio!

[Sheera (POL)]

L'applicazione è di là da venire, come per la più conosciuta fusione calda del resto.

Fusion reactor faces cost hike
ITER will also be delayed by up to three years.
Geoff Brumfiel


Money to burn: Extra magnets and earthquake protection are some of the factors making ITER more expensive.
ITER
A massive international nuclear fusion experiment planned for Cadarache, France, is set to cost up to 30% more than anticipated and be delayed by as much as three years, governments will learn next week.
Construction has not even begun on the ITER fusion reactor, which has been beset by political wrangling since its inception. Now its seven international backers are to be told they will have to come up with an extra €1.2 billion–1.6 billion (US$1.9 billion–2.5 billion) on top of its current €5-billion construction budget if the project is to be realized.
A report from a group of scientific advisers says the additional money is needed for critical design changes and for coordinating between the participant nations. And the experiment, already delayed, will not be completed until anywhere from one to three years after its current 2016 due date.
Critics expect more cost hikes. “Personally, I think the price will double before it’s done,” says Stephen Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, a research and educational foundation based in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
But ITER officials maintain that the new budget and schedule are achievable and that the review could not have come sooner because the ITER organization was only formed in 2006. “A good, rigorous review could only be done now,” says Neil Calder, a spokesman for the project.
ITER is designed to test the feasibility of fusion power. The machine will trap hydrogen isotopes in magnetic fields and heat them to around 100 million Celsius. At that temperature, the hydrogen will fuse to form helium, releasing neutrons and energy in the process. If it works, it could lead to a second major source of atomic energy besides fission.
The project was originally proposed as a US–Soviet collaboration in the mid-1980s. It has since added partners including the European Union, South Korea, Japan, China and India, and was redesigned in the late 1990s to make it smaller and cheaper.
When ITER was finalized in mid-2005, its anticipated budget was €10 billion over 30 years, with half of that going to construction (see Nature 435, 1142; 2005). Dean says that estimate was based on an incomplete design and that “some things were not looked at in detail”.
Over the past two years, scientists and engineers have been reworking the design. Researchers now want to add magnets to control a newly discovered instability (see Nature 452, 11; 2008). Buildings at Cadarache will have to be made earthquake-proof, something not included in the original blueprints because the site was undecided. And the addition of latecomers such as India and China will increase its overheads.
The new price tag must be approved by the ITER council, which oversees the project. “For all members, the cost issue is very sensitive,” says one Japanese government official familiar with the project. The changes will be presented on 17–18 June at a meeting in Aomori Prefecture in Japan, and a new budget decided at a meeting in November.
Dean anticipates that the new budget will ultimately be approved. “This thing has gotten a life of its own — it’s almost irrelevant how much it costs or what it’s for.”
See Editorial, page 824
CORRECTED: ITER's current planned start date is 2016, not 2018 as was originally reported in the online version of the article. The print version appearing in this week's Nature contains the correct details.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0806...l/453829a.html

[dDuck (POL)]

;

ronnie scusa come fa ad esserci un guadagno energetico senza una reazione a catena ?
cosi' bisogna sostenere la reazione in continuazione ?

[Driver]

nn tirate fuori il discorso ke erano le lobbies a nn volere la diffusione di tecnologie nuove, se una tecnologia nuova funzione, si diffonde comunque e le lobbies nn possono fare niente, se nn si diffonde vuol dire che e' una bufala, poi bisogna vedere anche il bilancio energetico

ma se la storia dimostra tutto il contrario

[Ronnie]

ronnie scusa come fa ad esserci un guadagno energetico senza una reazione a catena ?
cosi' bisogna sostenere la reazione in continuazione ?

guarda che la reazione non è detto che sostenerla ti costi più di quanto può produrre in quanto sostenuta, anche se non la sostieni fino al punto che possa partire e autosostenersi da sola, cosa che fai con una bomba all'idrogeno, particolarmente nel caso della fusione fredda, per cui -a mio avviso e solo a naso, perchè le ipotesi per spiegare la fusione fredda sono tante- la possibilità di superare i limiti della repulsione nucleare dipende dallo spazio in cui "condizioni ambientali" pongono i nuclei... Alzi la pressione, aumenti la quantità di microfratture (dimensione della matrice) e la massa di quel che ci fai passare, e così aumenta la produzione di calore derivante da eventi marginali di fusione crescenti, e forse così dovrebbe aumentare (dico forse, se esiste, perchè il punto è che sia il fenomeno che le spiegazioni sono praticamente ultracontroversi, compresa quella che ti ho proposto)

è proprio un concetto diverso da quello della fissione duck cmq

[Ronnie]

L'applicazione è di là da venire, come per la più conosciuta fusione calda del resto.

Fusion reactor faces cost hike
ITER will also be delayed by up to three years.
Geoff Brumfiel


Money to burn: Extra magnets and earthquake protection are some of the factors making ITER more expensive.
ITER
A massive international nuclear fusion experiment planned for Cadarache, France, is set to cost up to 30% more than anticipated and be delayed by as much as three years, governments will learn next week.
Construction has not even begun on the ITER fusion reactor, which has been beset by political wrangling since its inception. Now its seven international backers are to be told they will have to come up with an extra €1.2 billion–1.6 billion (US$1.9 billion–2.5 billion) on top of its current €5-billion construction budget if the project is to be realized.
A report from a group of scientific advisers says the additional money is needed for critical design changes and for coordinating between the participant nations. And the experiment, already delayed, will not be completed until anywhere from one to three years after its current 2016 due date.
Critics expect more cost hikes. “Personally, I think the price will double before it’s done,” says Stephen Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, a research and educational foundation based in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
But ITER officials maintain that the new budget and schedule are achievable and that the review could not have come sooner because the ITER organization was only formed in 2006. “A good, rigorous review could only be done now,” says Neil Calder, a spokesman for the project.
ITER is designed to test the feasibility of fusion power. The machine will trap hydrogen isotopes in magnetic fields and heat them to around 100 million Celsius. At that temperature, the hydrogen will fuse to form helium, releasing neutrons and energy in the process. If it works, it could lead to a second major source of atomic energy besides fission.
The project was originally proposed as a US–Soviet collaboration in the mid-1980s. It has since added partners including the European Union, South Korea, Japan, China and India, and was redesigned in the late 1990s to make it smaller and cheaper.
When ITER was finalized in mid-2005, its anticipated budget was €10 billion over 30 years, with half of that going to construction (see Nature 435, 1142; 2005). Dean says that estimate was based on an incomplete design and that “some things were not looked at in detail”.
Over the past two years, scientists and engineers have been reworking the design. Researchers now want to add magnets to control a newly discovered instability (see Nature 452, 11; 2008). Buildings at Cadarache will have to be made earthquake-proof, something not included in the original blueprints because the site was undecided. And the addition of latecomers such as India and China will increase its overheads.
The new price tag must be approved by the ITER council, which oversees the project. “For all members, the cost issue is very sensitive,” says one Japanese government official familiar with the project. The changes will be presented on 17–18 June at a meeting in Aomori Prefecture in Japan, and a new budget decided at a meeting in November.
Dean anticipates that the new budget will ultimately be approved. “This thing has gotten a life of its own — it’s almost irrelevant how much it costs or what it’s for.”
See Editorial, page 824
CORRECTED: ITER's current planned start date is 2016, not 2018 as was originally reported in the online version of the article. The print version appearing in this week's Nature contains the correct details.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0806...l/453829a.html

sheera tutto questo è secondario

finchè non fanno IFMIF e hanno risultati decenti non faranno MAI un reattore a fusione nucleare calda

http://www.frascati.enea.it/ifmif/