[news] Extreme DIY: Building a homemade nuclear reactor in NYC

[drexx]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and ... 385853.stm
By Matthew Danzico
BBC News, Brooklyn, New York

Many might be alarmed to learn of a homemade nuclear reactor being built next door. But what if this form of extreme DIY could help solve the world's energy crisis?

By day, Mark Suppes is a web developer for fashion giant Gucci. By night, he cycles to a New York warehouse and tinkers with his own nuclear fusion reactor.

The warehouse is a non-descript building on a tree-lined Brooklyn street, across the road from blocks of apartments, with a grocery store on one corner. But in reality, it is a lab.

In a hired workshop on the third floor, a high-pitched buzz emanates from a corner dotted with metal scraps and ominous-looking machinery, as Mr Suppes fires up his device and searches for the answer to a question that has eluded some of the finest scientific minds on the planet.
[...]

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Uh boy. This one is going viral, Im getting all kinds of e-mails and phone calls.

Please direct any inquiries to me.

Thanks,

--PS

[Tidbit77]

Let's hope that the public and media don't bring out their nuclear-phobic side and start ranting that IEC reactors are terribly dangerous and pose a great risk to public safety. I say this because that is how about 1 out of 10 people react when I tell them what I am trying to do and what I do for a hobby. Although they usually calm down after a thorough explanation of why these reactors pose no threat to public safety, it may be harder to explain that to the media and general public on a wide scale.

Just my thoughts on this,
Will Jack

[Carl Willis]

"Many" might be alarmed to learn about a "homemade nuclear reactor?"

What a way to open the piece. I understand that nuclear safety is endlessly sensational, but this reporter in particular is going out of his way to manufacture an issue where there is none. Fusors are not nuclear reactors in the sense that almost everyone understands those words, and any alarm that might be directed toward hobby fusors comes from the same place as most distrust of science and technology: an overflowing reservoir of poor understanding.

I hope the fellow who got interviewed can keep experimenting in peace.

-Carl

[Richard Hull]

As you know, I was interviewed for this article. None of the science made it, of course, just the hype.

Typical...

And Paul, I did not tell the guy I originated the fusor.net. I told him I was the defacto moderator/hall monitor of sorts.

Anyway, I just talked with, yet, another reporter from the NY Post looking to do an article about their local boy. Again, about the fusor. I also fully explained Paul's role and gave him the perfesser's e-mail, exhorting him to contact him for another slant on things.

Let's hope this all is for the best.

Richard Hull

[Paul_Schatzkin]

>>>Let's hope that the public and media don't bring out their nuclear-phobic side and start ranting that IEC reactors are terribly dangerous and pose a great risk to public safety.<<<

Yes, well, when somebody takes issue with the "safety" issues re: home-made fusion, let's just show them some photos of the Gulf of Mexico, because, you know, off-shore oil drilling is PERFECTLY safe, right?

[Paul_Schatzkin]

>>>And Paul, I did not tell the guy I originated the fusor.net. I told him I was the defacto moderator/hall monitor of sorts.<<<

Oh, Richard, I know how the press works, too. So I knew that particular error would not have begun with you. No offense taken, I was just ribbing you when it mentioned it earlier.

I fully recognize that this site would not be half as valuable as it is without the contribution of all the regulars. Forgive me for not citing names, I don't want to leave any out.

And it's not like I've been all that active lately. You know, I've been a tad spooked re: alt-science of late, and it's not helping that lately the trolls have recently crawled out from under the bridge again...

<*sigh*>

--PS

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Does anybody know what handle Mark Suppes uses on the boards here? I've looked for his name in the member roles but don't find it.

I need to reach him re: additional media queries that are showing up here.

Mark, if you're reading this, e-mail me please (try blog@49chevy.com)

Thanks,

--PS

[Chris Bradley]

The Perfesser wrote:
> Does anybody know what handle Mark Suppes uses on the boards here?
famulus

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Got it, great, thanks.

Have you guys seen Mark's website?

http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/

It starts right out with requests for donations. I think that's a first. See screenshot below.

"Support open-source fusion research."

Gee, I wonder where he got that idea?

--PS

[Paul_Schatzkin]

Speaking of which, who knew "open source fusion" could be so lucative?

From http://twitter.com/famulusfusion :

[Paul_Schatzkin]

I better keep an eye on my Google alerts, this one is now on Gizmodo:

http://gizmodo.com/5570817/no-sleep-til-fusion

At least this one notes the critical issue:

"The problem with fusion has always been that we don't know how to get more energy out of it than we put into it. We know the energy is there. We know effective fusion is likely to take a lot of energy to jumpstart, but we don't know how (or if) we can ever get fusion going well enough to capture as much energy out as we put into it—the elusive break even point."

...instead of going off to wonder if the neighbors think it's safe.

--PS

[MSimon]

I'm tracking this and it HAS gone viral.

Eight or ten major traffic sites have picked it up. Secondary sites are starting to come in.

Most of the articles mention fusor.net

Expect a flood of inquiries. BTW some of the articles also mention Tom Ligon. I have given him and the New Mexico folks a heads up.

I expect to see a lot of VC interest in Polywell out of this. I get some of that attention and have (for a baseline) been getting an inquiry every three months or so. I expect that will pick up. Famulus, myself, and a physicist friend of mine did a proposal for a Euro group a while back. It is roughly documented on Famulus' site.

[Steven Sesselmann]

I'm surprised prometheus didn't get more than one bubble, considering how much energy came out of his fusion run

Steven

[Paul_Schatzkin]

A post on Famulus' site

http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/2 ... le-bubble/

...says

"in the end the bubble meter saw 4 bubbles in 2 hours and 40 minutes"

Can anybody interpolate what sort of actual neutron count that suggests?

Oh God, I hope this doesn't turn into another 1989-style "Cold Fusion" fiasco.

-PS

[Chris Bradley]

1000/s... maybe.

Statistics is fragile at this kind of rate.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Paul,

According to my online bubble calculator at;

http://www.beejewel.com.au/research/fus ... ulator.htm

I assumed a detector distance of 10 cm. it is around 198 neutrons per second.

Not going to power New York City quite yet....

Steven

Power input: 300 Watt
Neutron flux at detector: 1.58 e-1 n/s/cm2
Neutrons isotropic 1.98 e2 n/s
Total D+D fusion reactions 3.96 e2 fusions/s

Proton energy (3.02 Mev) 5.98 e8 ev/s
Neutron energy (2.45 Mev) 4.85 e8 ev/s
Triton energy (1.01 Mev) 2.00 e8 ev/s
Alpha particle energy (0.82 Mev) 1.62 e8 ev/s

Total fusion power 1.45 e9 ev/s
Total fusion power (converted) 2.32 e-10 Watt/s

Q = Energy out vs. energy in 7.72 e-13 -

[Starfire]

'Seen it all before' - I must be getting cynical in my old age - just like Richard - but can't criticize any effort.

[Richard Hull]

John,

You are not getting cynical, but just wising up to the limitations of amateur fusion at the first pass.

In spite of the science, it is still part art and craft to nurse a fusor into really fusing at a "no guess" level.... a level that is statistics free, unequivocal and in your face. That is when one has truly "arrived". After this, the next mountian to climb is activation which doesn't work at all until you are really blowing out the neutrons, (you get your cap and gown). Many in the neutron club never make it to this last stage before moving on to girls, college, or the rest of their lives.

Richard Hull

[Carl Willis]

It is not possible to infer the neutron source rate based on the provided information, for the simple reason that the source-to-detector distance is unknown. The sensitivity of the BTI detector is also unknown (i.e. could range from ~10-40 bub / mrem based on BTI's current product line). It's possible the guy put this information somewhere else on his site.

Four bubbles has a statistical uncertainty of +/- two bubbles. On the assumption that this BTI detector is 30 bub / mrem, then the detector received 0.13 +/- 0.07 mrem in 2.7 hours, or about 0.4 +/- 0.2 n / cm^2 / sec at 2.4 MeV.

Again, to actually finish this kind of calculation requires the source-to-detector distance and the detector sensitivity. 4 bubs is not particularly useful as a quantitative measurement anyway, although I think it is statistically in excess of natural background and substantiates the claim that the equipment "works" at its intended purpose.

-Carl

[Chris Bradley]

[The video appears to show...]

Carl Willis wrote:
> It is not possible to infer the neutron source rate based on the provided information, for the simple reason that the source-to-detector distance is unknown.
He appears to be leaving it on top of the chamber (6" tee?). I assumed 'within 30cm', so my estimate will be high. There appears to be no dedicated holder for it around.

> The sensitivity of the BTI detector is also unknown
24b/mrem

Also, if he has a turbo but starts backfilling at 10^-4 torr, is there a question to be raised about his lowest achievable vaccum (in reference to leaks)?

[Carl Willis]

Where's the video located?

[Chris Bradley]

..err... it is the link in the top thread, Carl.....

You can also see photos of the setup on his blog...also linked to in the Perfesser's posts in this thread.

[honickmonster]

On the topic of the news and media snowballing this has created. I received a call yesterday from a reporter from the AP who had found the article that my local paper ran back in January. She wanted to ask a few questions about this "guy in Brooklyn" (I had not yet seen the article so I was a little oblivious). I gave her the usual run down on the fusor, my (conservative) feelings on fusion power, and how it is completely safe and poses no public health hazard etc. etc. etc. She seemed to have a pretty good grasp on things, though I do wish the would put the science reporters on these stories sometimes, I know they have them.

Matthew

[Carl Willis]

Thanks Chris. I have not been following this project closely.

The BBC video in the top post does show an experiment (evidently not the same one that produced the 4 bubs pictured on the Perfesser's link) from which you can kind of make out the likely position of the BTI at 3:37. The blog http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/2 ... w-chamber/ says that the chamber has 8" CF flanges, which are typically bored for a 6" OD, so that would put the source-to-detector distance on the order of 3" and the emission rate at about 400 +/- 200 neutrons per second. Of course all of this could be complete nonsense because of bad inferences from a low-res video of a different experiment...the best plan for anyone sufficiently interested in the neutron source rate from this fusor would be to ask the guy directly.


-Carl