Skip to main content

Did a 13-year-old really perform nuclear fusion at school?

Another high school fusor in operation (not Jamie's)
There was a big kerfuffle in the UK media last week when a 13-year-old schoolboy apparently made a nuclear fusion reactor at school. Jamie Edwards built the device at the Penwortham Priory Academy in Preston.

I got several emails baffled by the TV news coverage, which was skimpy on details. So here's the home-brew fusion Q&A.

  • Could a schoolboy really build a nuclear fusion reactor? Yes, he could. We have to be a little careful about what we mean by a reactor. We're not talking a miniature power station, we're talking a device in which a very small amount of fusion takes place. Bear in mind that all you need to create a nuclear fission reactor in the same sense is a cardboard box with a lump of uranium in it. Fission will take place in the box. It's no use, but it will happen. It's the same here (though harder to make). This type of reactor dates back to the 1960s, devised by the magnificently named Philo T. Farnsworth, the hugely under-appreciated inventor who also came up with the electronic TV system (as opposed to Logie Baird's impractical electro-mechanical system).
  • Should a schoolboy be doing this? Isn't it dangerous? Someone on the news mentioned blowing up the school! Yes, he should be doing it. First, it's absolutely brilliant a 13-year-old should have the initiative to do this, and second it wouldn't blow up the school. There's a lot of confusion over, erm, fusion. It is the reaction behind the hydrogen bomb - but it only works like that with a conventional atomic bomb to trigger it. As a stand-alone reaction it is actually very difficult to keep going. It can't go critical or explode. It does produce neutrons, which are ionising radiation, so needs to be properly shielded, and involves high voltages, which need to be treated with care, but with those provisos, it is very safe.
  • How does it work? Fusion is the power source of the sun. When two small atomic nuclei are forced together very hard, they will fuse to form a new atom. They have to be very close to do this, as the strong nuclear force that holds the nucleus together only kicks in at very short distances - and that means overcoming a whole lot of repulsive force. If you do manage it, the new atom has less total internal energy than the original ones and the excess is released in the kinetic energy of the resultant particles. This is where the energy for the sun or a fusion power station comes from. In a magnetic confinement fusor (which is what Jamie's is), deuterium gas (hydrogen with an added neutron in the nucleus) is zapped with an electric charge, which strips off its electron, and accelerates it to a high speed. Some of those nuclei will collide, and some collisions have enough oomph to enable the charged nuclei to fuse.
  • If a schoolboy can do it, how come it has taken us decades and we still don't have a fusion power station? There are two important things to bear in mind. One is that a fusor like this needs a lot more energy in than is produced by the fusion reaction, so it's not a candidate for power generation. The other is that to take fusion up to the sort of scale required to produce around 1 gigawatt of power (a mid-sized power station) is nightmarishly complex. Fusion reactions are very difficult to get going and keep running on this scale, especially as the charged collection of nuclei (a plasma) writhes and wriggles like a living thing, and if it touches the walls of the vessel, the fusion stops. Current best estimate for the first working fusion power station is 2050 - but if we achieve it, this a brilliant source of energy - it's green, and uses readily available fuel. And it doesn't produce radioactive waste, except for the metal in the device which will gain a low level of radioactivity, but nothing like the problems of fission waste.
  • So was it news at all? Yes, I think it was. A good few people have made fusors, but Jamie was the youngest, and it's good to have interesting and inspiring science stuff in the news. if it encourages more teenagers to take an interest in science it's worth all the publicity. It's just a shame that the media reports were generally not very good at explaining just what was happening.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope