Extreme DIY: Building a homemade nuclear reactor in NYC
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk
BTW the guy who invented television also invented a homemade fusion device 70 years ago, so this is actually not that cutting edge.
Try this copy/paste from the story: "He is the 38th independent amateur physicist in the world to achieve nuclear fusion from a homemade reactor, according to community site Fusor.net. Others on the list include a 15-year-old from Michigan...
Some experts are sceptical that all these people are producing fusion reactions, but when he demonstrates his device, Mr Suppes says a bubble meter placed next to the reactor indicates that a fast neutron, a by-product of fusion, has been produced."
I'm not impressed with the BS-checking of the BBC in this case.
As long as what they are doing is reasonably safe I would applaud these people for trying, it's not like they are taking billions of dollars from taxpayers to pay for this stuff.
Here's a simple explanation for non-phycisists: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-farnsworth-fusor.htm
" He was absolutely convinced that he had observed the fusion of deuterium into tritium and/or helium 3 in his equipment. "
from: http://itseasyto.com/farnsworth.htm
...it's a good source of neutrons.
Since Farnsworth Fusors are used commercially for neutron production, I'm sure those using them would be flummoxed to find that said neutrons are generated via hoax. :)
What irked me is this kind of hyped up story of "little guy in a workshop makes amazingly complex device and look, he's going to beat all these scientists supported by billions of $". It is way too common and, frankly, bad reporting. Neil Calder, quoted in the article, summed it up nicely: we look forward to your ideas, but good luck.
Not once did the BBC mention Farnsworth. It would have been a much better article if they explained a bit what the science was.
Also, go to Fusor.net and read a bit. For example, question 1 on the right hand side column near the top under "welcome newbies" has scientific gems such as "It is God's own way of powering the universe" and uses the word "impossible" (in quotes) often. It's the typical bad science writing that is too common these days, and IMHO the BBC shouldn't be supporting it.
So, not a hoax, but written up like one.
Having said that these are fairly safe toys that look cool and can get you written up in the paper. IMO, the really problem is simply bad reporting.
No argument there. Most science reporting appears to be done as "Find a narrative; look for a sciencey story that can be made to fit the narrative; write article".
I'm not impressed with yours. Producing fusion reactions is just an advanced backyard project. Getting a net energy gain is the hard part. Did you label this as a hoax because it "sounds" like one? Your filter needs refining, as it would seem to suffer from false negatives. (Or false positives, depending on which meaning you're giving to "positive.")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
It's a reasonably good neutron source with little chance of generating more power than it consumes to sustain the fusion process.
edit: And the classic NIMBY reaction is priceless.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1992078142/building-the-...
The guy also has a blog:
http://prometheusfusionperfection.com/
And a GitHub repo with Ruby code for generating .stl fabrication files, for those who want to follow along at home:
The reactions are: They don't understand WTF the guy is doing, and therefore think they got a nuke in the backyard. Or. Yay we don't need no stinkin' oil.
To nit pick however. An A-bomb and Chernobyl are also completely different. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor which means it does not have a negative void coefficient (unlike American light water reactors) but has fuel with about 5% U-235. An A-bomb requires about 90% U-235 to sustain a chain reaction. I can nit pick this a lot further but that's the general gist.