Researchers stunned by results of energy experiment using ultrahot plasma: 'We were totally shocked'
A team of U.S. scientists has made a surprising discovery that could help bring fusion energy, a long-hoped-for clean energy source, closer to reality.
In a recent experiment at the University of Rochester, researchers were stunned to find that heat in an ultrahot plasma didn't flow between materials the way they thought it would. At a scorching 180,000 degrees, heat seemed to get stuck between tungsten metal and a plastic coating, leaving that material surprisingly cool, as reported by Interesting Engineering.
"When we looked at the data, we were totally shocked because the heat was not flowing between these materials," said physicist Thomas White, who led the project alongside his former student, Cameron Allen.
The pair had set out to test heat transfer in materials subjected to ultrahigh temperatures but instead uncovered a new mystery.
This marks the first time scientists have directly observed this type of heat blockage in what's called high-energy-density plasma, the kind of matter found inside stars and advanced fusion reactors.
The culprit is interfacial thermal resistance, which acts like a wall that reflects electrons carrying heat instead of letting them pass through. In easier terms, it's like trying to pass a hot potato through a windowpane, and the energy just bounces back.
Understanding that quirky behavior could help scientists design smarter systems that better manage extreme heat.
Fusion energy, the same process that powers the sun, involves fusing atoms to release energy. If we can master it here on Earth, it could offer nearly limitless power without the dirty energy that comes from burning gas, coal, or oil. That would mean cleaner air, fewer health risks, and the potential for lower utility bills, especially in cities and communities where energy costs hit the hardest.
This discovery could ripple into how we design hypersonic aircraft, develop advanced medical devices, and make computer chips more efficient. It could improve everyday tech, health care, and even transportation systems.
"High-energy laser labs provide an essential tool," Jeremiah Williams from the National Science Foundation said, per Interesting Engineering.
Should the government be paying us to upgrade our homes?
Definitely
Depends on how much it costs
Depends on what it's for
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
According to the Rochester team, this unexpected heat behavior could help researchers build better, more cost-effective solutions for clean energy and beyond. Fusion's potential also supports the global shift toward diversifying clean energy.
Other trailblazing efforts are showing that sustainability can go hand in hand with saving money and improving lives.
South Korea's tungsten-lined plasma experiments aim to make reactors more durable and efficient, and a record-setting fusion test in the United Kingdom ran for five full minutes.
While fusion might still be on the horizon, the good news is that cleaner energy options are already here. The best way for consumers to take advantage of clean energy innovations is to install solar panels, which can bring the cost of home energy down to at or near $0.
EnergySage provides a free service that makes it easy to compare quotes from vetted local installers and save up to $10,000 on solar installations.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists May Have Finally Figured Out How Bats Avoid Cancer
Some bat species live surprisingly long lives for their diminutive size, and they might be able to teach us a thing or two about resisting cancer as we age. Cancer is the price we pay for living longer. As we accumulate genetic mutations from a lifetime of stressors, each cell division raises the risk that something will go wrong. But many bat species seem to cheat the system. Some can live as long as 40 years – almost 10 times longer than what would be predicted based on their body size. If humans had the same longevity, we might be regularly cramming 180 candles on our birthday cakes. A new study, led by researchers at the University of Rochester in the US, investigated how bats seem to avoid cancer crimping their extensive lifespans. It turns out that they strike a very careful balance between two competing forces. Several bats species have been found to possess multiple copies of a known tumor-suppressing gene called p53. Humans have just a single copy, while other cancer-resistant animals, like elephants, boast up to 20. Mutations in this gene are linked to more than half of all human cancers. But a mechanism that's too aggressive at killing cells is obviously not desirable either. Thankfully, bats compensate with an overactive enzyme called telomerase, which allows their cells to continue to proliferate. Again, in isolation too much telomerase activity would lead to increased risk of cancer, but the heightened p53 action mops it up. It's a remarkable balancing act that's hard not to envy. The cherry on top is the extreme efficiency of bats' immune systems, which seem to be able to kill off rogue cancer cells effectively, with little inflammation to show for it. At this early stage, it's hard to know how much of this could work in humans, but the team says that the study confirms p53's role in cancer prevention, which lends weight to the many drugs in development targeting the gene. The research was published in the journal Nature Communications. 'Off Switch' in The Brain to Stop Binge Drinking Discovered in Mice One Weight Loss Strategy Is 5x More Effective Than Ozempic, Trials Show There's a Shocking Reason Ticks Are So Dangerous (It's Us)
CBS News
a day ago
- CBS News
Trump administration's National Science Foundation research funding cuts blocked by judge
A federal judge has blocked President Trump's administration from making drastic cuts to research funding provided by the National Science Foundation. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston struck down on Friday a policy change that could have stripped universities of tens of millions of dollars in research funding. The universities argued the move threatened critical work in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, semiconductors and other technology fields. Talwani said the change, announced by the NSF in May, was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. An email by the Associated Press on Saturday to the NSF was not immediately returned. At issue are "indirect" costs, expenses such as building maintenance and computer systems that aren't linked directly to a specific project. Currently, the NSF determines each grant recipient's indirect costs individually and is supposed to cover actual expenses. The Trump administration has dismissed indirect expenses as "overhead" and capped them for future awards by the NSF to universities at 15 % of the funding for direct research costs. The University of California, one of the plaintiffs, estimated the change would cost it just under $100 million a year. Judges have blocked similar caps that the Trump administration placed on grants by the Energy Department and the National Institutes of Health. In a recent interview on "CBS Mornings Plus," Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors — whose organization sued the Trump administration over federal funding cuts to Columbia University — said examples of research that has been cut includes a research project that looks at discerning when AI is making fake videos or a project that examines when people start to believe lies that are repeatedly told. "We are losing all the critical research that helps us understand truth and fiction in our social media platforms, whether it's Facebook or X or any other platform," he said.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
US judge blocks slashing of universities' federal funding from National Science Foundation
By Nate Raymond and Blake Brittain (Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday prevented the National Science Foundation from sharply cutting research funding provided to universities in the latest legal setback to efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to slash government support of research at major academic institutions. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston invalidated a policy NSF adopted in May that limited the ability of universities to be reimbursed for administrative and facility costs that indirectly support grant-funded research, ruling that it was "arbitrary and capricious." Spokespeople for NSF and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. NSF, a $9 billion agency that funds scientific research, adopted the policy after having already canceled hundreds of grants out of step with the Republican president's priorities. His administration has also been freezing billions of dollars in government funding for numerous universities, including Harvard. NSF's policy, which was announced on May 2, set a cap on how much grant funding could go to cover indirect costs. NSF said funding for such costs could equal no more than 15% of the funding for direct research costs, regardless of what the costs actually were at universities. Historically, universities had negotiated with NSF and other agencies over the rate at which indirect costs could be reimbursed. The cap meant that for every $100 in funding going directly to a research grant award, universities would receive just $15 to cover overhead, such as the costs of maintaining lab space and paying for electricity and staff. The Trump administration said it sought through the policy to rein in spending on administrative overhead, which had grown to consume $1.07 billion of NSF's annual $4.22 billion grant-making budget for higher education institutions. That rate, though, is significantly lower than the indirect cost that many of the 69 research universities belonging to Association of American Universities had negotiated, which was often in the 50% to 65% range, the group's lawyers said. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said in her Friday decision that the administration's 15% rate was unlawful. The association along with two other academic trade groups and 13 schools sued in May to block the policy, after earlier convincing judges in Boston to block similar funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Energy. The association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Friday decision. Among the schools that challenged NSF's funding cuts were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Brown University, the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania. They argued that NSF's action, if allowed to stand, "will badly undermine scientific research at America's universities and erode our nation's enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation." The U.S. Department of Defense has since also adopted a 15% cap, which a judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked pending a hearing on July 2. He did so a day after a different judge in Boston ordered NIH to reinstate hundreds of grants for research on diversity-related topics nixed as part of the administration's purge of initiatives viewed as supporting "diversity, equity and inclusion."
