NYTimes Columnist Thomas Friedman Discovers Fusion

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Unfortunately, he "discovered" it a the National Ignition Facility, which is generating some press because they managed to get their nearly 200 laser beams lined up once.

Friedman published this column in the Op-Ed section of today's New York Times:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/e ... ne=nyt-per

At the risk of generating more publicity than we really want around here, I've written Mr. Friedman and directed him to this post in the fusor.net blog:

http://49chevy.blogs.com/fusor/2009/03/ ... usion.html

I mean, if we really want a "paradigm shift," folks, there's a hell of a lot more potential of finding one in these parts than there is with a behemoth like the NIF. And I make that with the full understanding that nobody contributing to fusor.net is any closer to "break even" than the NIF. We're just... the same distance from that goal for a lot less money.

[Carl Willis]

Hi Paul,

Good luck getting Tom Friedman to listen to some hobbyists. More than anything, I sense that Friedman thrives on personal access to prestigious power players, which NIF is and which (let's be real now) the fusion hobby community is not. I haven't read Friedman's books, but I do routinely glance at his Times column, and I've gotta say the best critique of his style and substance that I've seen is here, by Matt Taibbi. It's not exactly a glowing tribute:

http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-fl ... -that.html

Enough about Tom Friedman though! Moving on:

>We're just... the same distance from that goal for a lot less money.

It is tempting to compare basement fusion projects to "big science" fusion research, to frame this as a David-and-Goliath matchup, but it is an idea to be careful with. A lot of hobbyists engage in playtime that is intellectually stimulating and enriching but doesn't contribute directly to the greater body of new knowledge in fusion. I think a more apt interpretation is that we are a farm team for the big leagues, cultivating interest and honing technical skills--both individually and collectively--that will ultimately benefit rigorous professional fusion research efforts. (Even this is barely justified, owing to the fact that hobbyists pursue fusors for various disparate and individual reasons that may have nothing to do with an end-goal of fusion energy.)

I think that unjustified internalization of the David-and-Goliath meme is THE etiological agent behind a lot of quackery and ill-informed jawboning we see around here from time to time. Statements like "I make more neutrons than the Z Machine," or "Our device has already done fusion faster than NIF ever will and costs a million times less" are perhaps justified in service of the limited point that fusion itself is easy (though it has been known as pretty easy since before the discovery of fission). But any suggestion that "we" compete with "them" on the science or are gonna kick their butt in the race to fusion energy is borderline absurd in my opinion.

Thanks for the link.

-Carl

[Richard Hester]

Our humble garage efforts have their place. Every university with a nuclear engineering department should have a fusor or six, so that students can learn first-hand about x-ray and neutron detection/dosimetry, neutron activation and other subjects without having a detested nuclear reactor in their back yard (lots cheaper, too). It would also give the grad students/TAs/post-docs something concrete to do. If the students were required to assemble their own fusors in a team effort, that would really be something.

[Chris Bradley]

Paul can speak for himself, but I think the sentiment is almost certainly right as it was NIF being discussed. The point being that neither NIF nor amateur fusors are off the starting blocks, in terms of approaching fusion power. Maybe they've walked, somewhat hopefully, up to the starting blocks looking for a race, but they've not been set running down the track yet (or they've both stumbled onto the floor when trying to get away - pick your own analogy!!). So in that sense it is so, they are equally distant from the 'finish line'.

Thermal plasmas are somewhat different, but the picture is also confused. Perhaps more so, because at least you can show that NIF has no chance with current understanding, whereas tokamaks *look* like they should work, but, for some not-understood reasons of stability, don't. This creates this 'hopeful' outlook which drives the money-pump.

I still think the "neutron/dollar" ratio is the most telling, and at the moment JET wins that by MANY orders of magnitude. If NIF starts showing up neutrons, then we can re-examine that calculation. Until then it does look to be as far off as a fusor.

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Thanks for the comments, guys. You're probably right, Friedman is probably more impressed with the institutional, behemoth whizbang gizmos than a small basement or garage experiment because of the deference such institutions are likely to show for his standing as a renowned author and NYTimes columnist. But I've never met or even talked to Thomas Friedman so I'll try to reserved judgment until such time.

As for the "David -v- Goliath" scenario, while that's certainly a story line I've always found compelling, I don't think that was the gist of what I was trying to convey to Friedman.

Chris Bradley wrote, "The point being that neither NIF nor amateur fusors are off the starting blocks, in terms of approaching fusion power."

I think that's the point, that "amateur fusors" are worthy of just as much attention as the NIF, since both are equal orders of magnitude from producing anything like meaningfully useful fusion as a viable source of industrial energy.

But, you know, a giant sphere with 200 lasers focused on a pellet of hydrogen, now THAT's impressive. A little bench-top gizmo that actually sustains a low-power fusion reaction? Apparently not so much.

--PS

[Richard Hull]

I have already commented on the home page item posted there.

The fusion systems like Jet, and the ITER are long pulse "bursters", incapable of actually running, per se, like a machine or a power source. NIF was built from the get go as a short pulse system. (Its main mission being stockpile stewardship).

The fusor is a true fusion machine, but as fusion power goes, turns 500 watts into not even enough fusion energy to push a paper clip a few feet.

A sorry state of affairs all 'round for a 24-7 grid starved populace.

Richard Hull