Futuristic visions make for great entertainment. Too bad about the physics
Cold Fusion and Bubble Fusion
B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann spun a tempest in a teacup in 1989 with their claim of room-temperature fusion in a bottle. The idea drew a coterie of die-hard supporters, but mainstream scientists have roundly rejected that variety of cold fusion.
Theoretically more plausible—but still experimentally contentious—is sonofusion. In 2002 Rusi Taleyarkhan, a physicist then at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, reported in Science that beaming high-intensity ultrasound and neutrons into a vat of acetone caused microscopic bubbles to form and then implode at hypersonic speeds. The acetone had been made using deuterium, a neutron-bearing form of hydrogen, and Taleyarkhan's group claimed that the extraordinary temperatures and pressures created inside the imploding bubbles forced a few deuterium atoms to fuse with incoming neutrons to form tritium (hydrogen with two neutrons per atom). Another group at Oak Ridge replicated the experiment but saw no clear signs of fusion.
Taleyarkhan moved to Purdue University and continued reporting success with sonic fusion even as others tried but failed. Purdue this year investigated allegations that Taleyarkhan had interfered with colleagues whose work seemed to contradict his own. The results of the inquiry were sealed— and with them another chapter in the disappointing history of cold fusion. Other researchers hold out hope that different methods might someday turn a new page on sonofusion.
The storied Enterprise starships fueled their warp drives with a mix of matter and antimatter; why can't we? The combination is undoubtedly powerful: a kilogram of each would, through their mutual annihilation, release about half as much energy as all the gasoline burned in the U.S. last year. But there are no known natural sources of antimatter, so we would have to synthesize it. And the most efficient antimatter maker in the world, the particle accelerator at CERN near Geneva, would have to run nonstop for 100 trillion years to make a kilogram of antiprotons.
So even though physicists have ways to capture the odd antiatom [see "Making Cold Antimatter," by Graham P. Collins; Scientific American, June 2005], antimatter power plants will never materialize.
Was this article helpful?
The solar Stirling engine is progressively becoming a viable alternative to solar panels for its higher efficiency. Stirling engines might be the best way to harvest the power provided by the sun. This is an easy-to-understand explanation of how Stirling engines work, the different types, and why they are more efficient than steam engines.