Hello Gerrit,

 >>> I was thinking about that, too. We'll have to see if anyone
 >>> else comes up with similar results during the following time.

 MvdV>> So we wait...

 > The setup seems to be quite simple. I guess we won't have to
 > wait for a long time.


I saw an article in this weekend's newspaper about it. There was a picture
of the experiment and that clearified a couple of things.

 >>> And even if that is the case it remains to be shown that you
 >>> can actually build something like a power station based on
 >>> this concept.

 MvdV>> I'll believe it when I see it.

 > I think even the inventors deny such a possibility. Their aim
 > is to build a table-top version of a neutron source for
 > applications like security checks at airports and so on.

Yes, that was cleared up too. It was ever ment to be a power source. It is
a source of neutrons.

I now no longer think this is a hoax. we still have to wait for
confirmation from an independent source though.

 >>> /Some/ fusion reactions take place in more or less every hot fusion
 >>> experiment nowadays... but break even is still not reached.

 MvdV>> Indeed. We are still a LONG way from practical application.

 > Well, given that politicians come to a decision where to build
 > ITER soon and sufficient funding is available for this
 > project, hot fusion reactors are in reach.

Foir this I still say: I'll believe it when I see it.

 > I won't cite the famous "in 50 years" here, because that's
what they're
 > saying since the 50s,

Indeed...

 > but I really think that the basic scientific
 > problems that arose (and that nobody had imagined when
 > research on that topic started) are solved. The remaining
 > factor to reach and outpass the break even can be gained by
 > "simply" scaling the reactor. Experiments like JET or ASDEX
 > Upgrade are already able to burn fusion plasmas for about 5s
 > today.

We will see. Or not...

 MvdV>>>> There we have it: Eenrgy isn't expressed in Volts!

 >>> Michiel, of course you can measure energies by means of a
 >>> potential in kV. Photon energies are often given in eV or even
 >>> in cm^-1, so what?

 MvdV>> eV, electron-volts, yes. Not just Volts, without the electron.
 MvdV>> Sloppy use of dimensions...

 > Not neccessarily sloppy. As I said above: Photons having an
 > energy of 10000 cm^-1 are correct and understandable in a
 > spectroscopic context.

I still say, it was sloppy. The article in the Ducth paper mentioned the
120 kV, but as the voltage that develeps across the pyrovoltaic crystal,
not as potential energy.

 >>> Well, you omitted a factor of 10^9 here... 25 V/nm = 25GV/m.

 MvdV>> Yeah, I missed that. See previous messaga.

 > This may be the usual unit in this field of research like
 > cm^-1 or Ae in optical spectroscopy. They're dealing with
 > small scales and nuclear processes there, so probably V/nm
 > gives a more convenient measure than GV/m, because a nm is a
 > scale that actually matters in such an experiment.

Yeah, I was too eagerly looking for signs of a hoax and in my eagerness I
overlooked the 'n' in 'nm'.


Cheers, Michiel

---