ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Fusion quest goes forward

Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:05 PM by Alan Boyle

Emc2 Fusion's Richard Nebel can't say yet whether his team's garage-shop plasma experiment will lead to cheap, abundant fusion power. But he can say that after months of tweaking, the WB-7 device "runs like a top" - and he's hoping to get definitive answers about a technology that has tantalized grass-roots fusion fans for years.

With $1.8 million in backing from the U.S. Navy, Nebel and a handful of other researchers have been following up on studies conducted by the late physicist Robert Bussard before his death last October - studies that Bussard said promised a breakthrough in fusion energy.

Nebel, who is on leave from Los Alamos National Laboratory, picked up Bussard's mantle at Emc2 Fusion Development Corp. in Santa Fe, N.M., and is trying to duplicate the results that were reported from the last machine Bussard built. The WB-6 device supposedly worked by setting up a high-voltage electrical field that was configured in just the right way to get ions slamming into each other, creating a fusion-fueled plasma.

Unfortunately, WB-6 was destroyed during one of its last scheduled test runs in 2005, and Bussard was never able to build another device. Fortunately, Nebel's five-person team has succeeded in building a new, improved device on a shoestring budget.


EMC2 Fusion
A test plasma using helium glows inside the WB-7.

"We're kind of a combination of high tech and Home Depot, because a lot of this stuff we make ourselves," Nebel told me today. "We're operating out of a glorified garage, but it's appropriate for what we're doing."

The Emc2 team has been ramping up its tests over the past few months, with the aim of using WB-7 to verify Bussard's WB-6 results. Today, Nebel said he's confident that the answers will be forthcoming, one way or the other.

"We're fully operational and we're getting data," Nebel said. "The machine runs like a top. You can just sit there and take data all afternoon."

So was Bussard correct? Will it be worth putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a larger-scale demonstration project, to show that Bussard's Polywell concept could be a viable route to fusion power?

No answers just yet
Nebel said it's way too early to talk about the answers to those questions. For one thing, it's up to the project's funders to assess the data. Toward that end, an independent panel of experts will be coming to Santa Fe this summer to review the WB-7 experiment, Nebel said.

"We're going to show them the whole thing, warts and all," he said.

Because of the complexity, it will take some interpretation to determine exactly how the experiment is turning out. "The answers are going to be kind of nuanced," Nebel said.

The experts' assessment will feed into the decision on whether to move forward with larger-scale tests. Nebel said he won't discuss the data publicly until his funders have made that decision.

For now, Nebel doesn't want to make a big deal out of what he and his colleagues are finding. He still remembers the controversy and the embarrassments that were generated by cold-fusion claims in 1989.

"All of us went through the cold-fusion experiences, and before we say too much about this, we want to have it peer-reviewed," he said.

At the same time, he can't resist talking about how well WB-7 is operating. "I've been very pleased, frankly, with the sorts of things we've been getting out of it," Nebel said.

High hopes for low-cost fusion
Nebel may be low-key about the experiment, but he has high hopes for Bussard's Polywell fusion concept. If it works the way Nebel hopes, the system could open the way for larger-scale, commercially viable fusion reactors and even new types of space propulsion systems.

"We're looking at power generation with this machine," Nebel said. "This machine is so inexpensive going into the 100-megawatt range that there's no compelling reason for not just doing it. We're trying to take bigger steps than you would with a conventional fusion machine."

Over the next decade, billions of dollars are due to be spent on the most conventional approach to nuclear fusion, which is based on a magnetic confinement device known as a tokamak. The $13 billion ITER experimental plasma project is just starting to take shape in France, and there's already talk that bigger budgets and longer timetables will be required.

If the Polywell system's worth is proven, that could provide a cheaper, faster route to the same goal - and that's why there's a groundswell of grass-roots interest in Nebel's progress. What's more, a large-scale Polywell device could use cleaner fusion fuels - for example, lunar helium-3, or hydrogen and boron ions. Nebel eventually hopes to make use of the hydrogen-boron combination, known as pB11 fusion.

"The reason that advanced fuels are so hard for conventional fusion machines is that you have to go to high temperatures," Nebel explained. "High temperatures are difficult on a conventional fusion machine. ... If you look at electrostatics, high temperatures aren't hard. High temperatures are high voltage."

Most researchers would see conventional tokamak machines as the safer route to commercial fusion power. There's a chance that Bussard's Polywell dream will prove illusory, due to scientific or engineering bugaboos yet to be revealed. But even though Nebel can't yet talk about the data, he's proud that he and his colleagues at Emc2 have gotten so far so quickly.

"By God, we built a laboratory and an experiment in nine months," he said, "and we're getting data out of it."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

please dont let some greedy party or organization get control of this. Let this be a blessing for mankind in general.
I don't think many realize how far Robert Bussard had taken this elegant design of his. There was an article in Analog a few years back that really explained the nuts and bolts. The system does fuse, the only question is how big one has to build it to get a positive energy return on energy investment (break even). This reactor model WB-7 was estimated to be on the bubble as far as break-even. If they have in fact got above the break-even point with this model of the reactor, it will literally change the world in just a few short years and make Broussard the next Tesla. It will also make a whole lot of people screwing around with Tokamak's look really foolish.
I have at least 50 more years to live (under normal conditions) and I am confident that I will get to see amazing things like this take shape and change humanity forever.
In studying Dr. Bussard's articles and patents, one can get a good idea of the physical principles. From this I was able to build a Polywell model in Second Life, but without the details that would be desirable. It would be a good thing if more detail about the WB-7 and the possible WB-8 were available, beyond those beautiful pictures on Emc2's website.

So,  Alan? How good are you, at wheedling physicists? If your next article had some more diagrams, it would be even better! Of course, hearing that the evaluation panel, with Dr. Hirsch onboard, has approved the engineering development, would be better in the long term, but, ...drawings??, .....sometime this summer???

Who?! Me?? Impatient????
Alan,

Thanks for covering this. High hopes indeed.

You can go here to get some background:

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/05/worlds-simplest-fusion-reactor.html

and here for discussion:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php

Alan thanks for the update.  What is it about this project that makes you want to cover it?  I don’t think you believe this is another cold fusion situation, otherwise I don’t think you would bother with it.  What do you see in it?
Very Glad to see this.  You People have a right to be proud.  Now just don't let big business buy it from you and lock it way somewhere.  Congratulations!
We've been on pins and needles waiting for news and hoping the silence the last few weeks was not due to a technical problem (I had a couple of WB machines cook their coils on me).

This is wonderful news ... "runs like a top"!
Great.another novel energy solution.
I saw a guy on the news that's running his car on water and giving any profits from his device to his ministry. How about that free energy machine on the internet or lets get the oil companies to give back the planes for those 100MPG carburetors that they bought and suppressed. Cheep fusion Ha Ha Ha!!! I'm adding that to my funny list.
I'm not anything close to a physicist, but Dr. Bussard had the credentials to at least give it some serious consideration.  Check out his video on Google.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=brusard&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#q=fusion&sitesearch=
Good to see someone's continuing on with his work.
Great news!  Thanks to Alan Boyle for the article and Dr. Nebel for the update.

"This reactor model WB-7 was estimated to be on the bubble as far as break-even."

Sorry, no, it's not even close.  Like WB-6, it produces something around .001 watts of fusion.  Still very promising though, esp. for what it costs.  
Gosh Peter, I bet you don't believe man-kind really went to the moon either now do you buddy?

Actually, for your information you CAN run a car by burning Hydroxy gas (OH and H mixed) which is made by electrolyzing water but not separating the gases. It burns VERY hot and very fast and there is a rust issue, but it is possible and dedicated people have in fact done it.  It isn't rocket science.  You might want to check your facts prior to opening your mouth or at least wash your foot since you will probably be chewing on it.

My educated opinion.
If I won the megamillions lottery tomorrow you would have a check for $10 million by the end of the week. I can't believe you cannot get more funding for this to see how much potential there truly is. You should have access to more resources and people immediately.

Thank you for doing this.
This fusion story has been going on for decades. We grew up with this. There is something very odd about it all. The physics of Bussard must have been known for at least the time of the tokamak. Which is a long time.
Thanks Alan for the update. Contrary to the naysayers this is merely another machine in a series of experimental machines that have shown promising signs of good ion-control and some fusion - real fusion, the kind that makes neutron detectors sparkle. Someone will someday get it right and change the world - I'm hoping it's Nebel and colleagues, and someone in the USA is the first to benefit. But I hope that first fusion fire spreads to the whole world - because we desparately need what cheap fusion can give us.
Lol, if this doesn't pan out I'm sure some will blame Big Oil.
Thanks Alan!  I definitely want to hear more updates on this experiment.
I can't tell you how excited I am that something new might be developed and implemented during my lifetime that doesn't involve phones, playing virtual solitaire, or television.  Workable, affordable fusion might even make up for the glaring absence of robot butlers and flying cars.
Dr Bussard's data suggested that commercial fusion was within reach.  But, if his readings were off just a little it would have a huge impact on the size the scaled up model would need to be.

If this model validates his research, aneutronic fusion would appear to be practical.  It would mean an almost limitless supply of energy at a fraction of current costs with no radioactive byproducts.

underWhelmed,

Hydroxy gas?  How long do you suppose OH and H, mixed, would remain as such before recombining?  What concentrations of OH and H can be generated in the gas phase, and what are their half-lives at those concentrations?  Why don't the H radicals combine to make H2?  What experimental evidence is there that "hydroxy gas" is actually a mixture of radicals, and not just the standard mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that you get when you electrolyze water?  Has its magnetic susceptibility been measured?  Should be paramagnetic as hell, if it's what the inventors claim.

Wait...never mind.  Don't bother answering those questions. Just answer me this:

Start with water.  Turn it into something else--doesn't matter, could be anything else in the world.  Now turn that back into water.  How are you getting energy out?

They're running the car off the battery, in a very indirect, Rube Goldberg sort of way.

Incidentally, if I believed that electrolysis could turn water into "hydroxy gas" on the basis of no evidence but combustibility, I'd be a little more careful before getting all condescending toward others.
I've been keeping track of this for years (Starting with Tom Ligon's article in Analog, and it looks like he commented just above!)

It is my every hope that WB-7 pleases the DOD enough for funding, and that WB-8 reaches breakeven. Good luck, Dr. Nebel!
To Underwelmed, sorry but no.  

Conservation of energy says that it will always take at least as much energy to split the water as you will get out of the hydrogen when you burn it.  In reality, you will get much much less, since the efficency of an internal combustion engine is somewhere around 25%.

You would be much better off just to run an electric engine directly off the battery that you're using to split the water in the first place.  If it worked like you say, I could set up a generator and an engine and get free power forever.
Please stay on top of this and give us regular updates.  I believe our reliance on oil and the mideast security problems that this generates for us, constitutes every bit as much of a national security concern, as existed when the Fission Manhattan Project was organized.  I believe there is a reason for the government to sponsor a Manhattan Project 2, which would focus as much attention and resources as the original project did.  I believe that if that were done, the needed breakthrough could occur, and the entire middle east could become largely irrelevant again.  With a plummeting price of oil, wealth would shift OUT of that region, as it becomes a group of consumer states, without the ability to sustain themselves above the level of "normal" second world countries... with this loss in wealth... their ability to threaten the west would be significantly reduced.  We NEED to focus national attention on the near-term attainment of cold fusion.  Please support that national interest.
Cant wait to see results of review later in the Summer -  Roll-On Dr Nebel & Co - please don't blow up this one! :)
"please dont let some greedy party or organization get control of this. Let this be a blessing for mankind in general."

Hey Vernon, you were born too late.  You missed out on the people's paradise that was the Soviet Union.
Well, underwhelm, anybody living on this planet knows that, with these honest governments of ours, they will be looking at their and their friends' pockets first (oil companies). We all know we wont be allowed cheap energy as long as they can prevent it. And they still can for quite some time.....

They would rather use taxpayers' money to buy these inventions and then discredit them after it's theirs or simply lock it away, but the technology exists.

It's so much better for them with the easily controlled oil prices where they can dig really deep into our pockets.
If this is possible I feel that the United States of America should keep this as a top secert source of power for ourself and our country. Let the oil rich nations blow to dust, for they NEVER did us any favories. Oil trading at $130 a barrel is draining all our wealth and man power and will most likely lead us to more wars in the near future. Russia, China, and the hatefilled neihbors in the near east can all choke on their high price oil.
It's fun to daydream, isn't it? And it's easy, too, as long as you don't know too much.

There's more reasons than you can shake a stick at that this won't work. For starters, you can forget about aneutronic fusion. It's not just the temperature, Bremstrahlung is almost to certain radiate more energy than you produce by fusion no matter how good your confinement is. Even if you somehow manage to get a decent power balance, for a given plasma pressure and fusion power, a p-B11 reactor would have to be about 1000 times bigger (and more expensive) than a corresponding D-T reactor.

The next thing to worry about is the electrons. The magnetic configuration has not only lines of radial field from the center to the edge, which is bad enough judging from the experience with mirror machines, it also has lines of *zero* field along which the electrons will gush out. The idea of recycling electrons lost through the cusps won't work because they will come out almost parallel to the field but hit the return cusp with a large perpendicular velocity component they picked up going around the bend.

And the ions? The device is conceived to utilize a bi-modal velocity distribution, which will be destroyed very quickly by the two-stream instability. The anisotropy of the velocity distribution is also know to be a big problem, again from experience in the mirror program.

We haven't even started to talk about energy loss to the grids, the consequences of tiny field misalignments, charge-exchange ion losses, energy coupling between electrons and ions, and whether the potential distribution envisioned is even possible at a non-trivial ion density.

Since they managed to sweet talk somebody into giving them money, let them finish and publish their results, but let's not stop looking for ways to save energy and trying to develop other, less sexy but more reliable energy sources.
Satan is in the specifics.  Very limited initial tests are encouraging, but there are fundamental properties of the principles they are trying to use that could preclude energy or economic break-even anytime soon.

For example, the magnets that surround and form the reaction area must use super-cooled superconductors.  But the magnet housings will have to absorb and drain off 20% of gross nuclear output as heat.  As rated output goes up, the heating problem increases exponentially.  

I'd say be hopeful that the science is possible to engineer, but the odds are still rather long.
This project deservers everyone's support, if not on the basis of proven merit at this point, then on the basis of its potential.  Good luck Richard and team - we are all counting on you...
The sooner we can get this working, the faster we can everyone in the third world less dependant on major countries like the U.S. for technology and some supplies and energy for development projects.  They can then compete for technology development projects and manufacturing plants from major companies.  This would also speed the devlopment of electric cars since we could run them off the electrical outlet from home.  
"Running like a top"
"... very pleased, frankly, with the things we have been getting out of it"
"We're fully operational and we're getting data"

Can those quotes be read any other way than that they are getting neutrons and he is please with the numbers?  

"please dont let some greedy party or organization get control of this. Let this be a blessing for mankind in general."

and...

"They would rather use taxpayers' money to buy these inventions and then discredit them after it's theirs or simply lock it away, but the technology exists."

Not to worry. Too many people know about it, and if it works, only a modest technical capability is needed to re-create it, not a Manhattan or Apollo Project.

Remember, the downside of 'hidden' technologies is that you can't fall back on patent protection if someone else independently discovers it, for a patent requires admitting it exists, and it eventually expires, anyway.

And even so, there are plenty of energy-hungry places that ignore intellectual property rights when it suits them. (China?)

Just a few comments for Mr. Carlson

1.  The theory says that you can beat Bremstrahlung, but it's a challenge.  The key is to keep the Boron concentration low compared  the proton concentration so Z isn’t too bad.  You pay for it in power density, but there is an optimum which works.  You also gain because the electron energies are low in the high density regions.

2.  The size arguments apply for machines where confinement is limited by cross-field diffusion like Tokamaks.  They don't apply for electrostatic machines.

3.  The Polywell doesn't have any lines of zero field.  Take a look at the original papers on the configuration. See :
Bussard R.W., FusionTechnology, Vol. 19,  273, (1991) .
or
Krall N.A., Fusion Technology. Vol. 22, 42 (1992).

Furthermore, one expects adiabatic behavior along the field lines external to the device.  Thus, what goes out comes back in.  Phase space scattering is small because the density is small external to the device.

4.  The machine does not use a bi-modal velocity distribution.  We have looked at two-stream in detail, and it is not an issue for this machine.  The most definitive treatise on the ions is : L. Chacon, G. H. Miley, D. C. Barnes, D. A. Knoll, Phys. Plasmas 7, 4547 (2000) which concluded partially relaxed ion distributions work just fine.  Furthermore, the Polywell doesn’t even require ion convergence to work (unlike most other electrostatic devices).  It helps, but it isn’t a requirement.

5.  The system doesn’t have grids.  It has magnetically insulated coil cases to provide the electrostatic acceleration.  That’s what keeps the losses tolerable.

6.  The electrostatic potential well is an issue.  Maintaining it depends on the detailed particle balance.  The “knobs” that affect it are the electron confinement time, the ion confinement time, and the electron injection current.  There are methods of controlling all of these knobs.
Art,

Thanks for an almost verbatim summary from IEC's hot-fusion critics. But, fortunately, most of your criticisms don't apply to this particular configuration - as Bussard and colleagues managed to show before his passing. So mock on... I hope you have a tasty supply of hats.
ALL the above comments about big business buying new technology and 'hiding away' when it could impact their current model is VERY REAL! My consulting firm has seen this happen more than once!  I hope you are able to remain immune to this threat.
"...Conservation of energy says that it will always take at least as much energy to split the water as you will get out of the hydrogen when you burn it.  In reality, you will get much much less, since the efficency of an internal combustion engine is somewhere around 25%. ..."

Geez I hate to see these kinds of arguments, it really shows how awful physics and math education is in the US today!

No, and I've heard these 'arguments' stated vehemently before.  here's a retort:  if what you were saying were true, then a fission bomb, the N bomb would take the energy of an N bomb to detonate, which is nonsense.

The conservation of energy law states that the total amount of energy in a closed system can't increase or decrease. It can, however, change forms.  Energy is a particularly dense form of energy.  We've proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt (for some anyway), that we can manipulate matter in such a way, that  we can get large amounts of energy out, much more than we put in, e.g. the N bomb.  

So, the same goes for hydrogen released from water.  Nowhere does the law of conservation state that the amount of energy you can get from burning hydrogen must be less than the energy it took to break the chemical bonds.  What it does state is that, the total energy in the system, which is very difficult to measure, must be constant.  So, you may transform H2 into some amount of energy, by burning it, and have to put in some energy to break the bond, and a little more energy to start combustion.    The amount of energy you get back from the combustion is not dependent on the strength of the bond (if it were, then an N bomb would not work, nor would a nuclear fission reactor).  

And it absolutely does not state that:
"You would be much better off just to run an electric engine directly off the battery that you're using to split the water in the first place.  If it worked like you say, I could set up a generator and an engine and get free power forever"

No!  You're mixing up several issues.  First, it takes energy to start the process. (Just like it takes energy to start a fission reaction).  Youget some energy out, more than you put in.  Then, the fuel is exhausted, and, well, the thing stops.   The issue of internal combustion engines efficiency is totally irrelevant to the "conservation of energy" discussion.



Re
"I've been keeping track of this for years (Starting with Tom Ligon's article in Analog, and it looks like he commented just above!)
It is my every hope that WB-7 pleases the DOD enough for funding, and that WB-8 reaches breakeven. Good luck, Dr. Nebel!"

You can be guaranteed that it will be classified and tossed into the vault if it ever does produce positive returns.  
"If this is possible I feel that the United States of America should keep this as a top secert source of power for ourself and our country. Let the oil rich nations blow to dust, for they NEVER did us any favories. Oil trading at $130 a barrel is draining all our wealth and man power and will most likely lead us to more wars in the near future. Russia, China, and the hatefilled neihbors in the near east can all choke on their high price oil"

We could just use less of it (oil), to start with, until something working comes out.  There's *absolutely* no reason to drain wealth from this country, except that the big oil companies want it that way.  
To everyone attacking what Underwhelmed said, I'd like to point out that he or she only said that the car successfully ran on hydroxy gas.  Underwhelmed didn't say anything about if the gas was made on-board the vehicle or not, and didn't say anything about if how energy efficient or economically efficient the process is.

To anyone talking about the oil companies with respect to this technology, this is going to be a large electrical generator if it ever becomes feasible.  It won't be a replacement for oil, it will be a replacement for coal, and to a lesser extent natural gas and uranium.  The big corporations responsible for electricity distribution wouldn't let a technology like this get surpressed, they'd welcome it.  Lower costs for them means an opportunity for better margins on the bottom line.
Being on this Earth with the likes of these forward looking geniuses of today....I can easily imagine a future so like science fiction of yesterday. I consider it an honor to have this forum to thank the scientists of this project for their work, which I am so sure will be the mainstay of energy for my children and their's. May the world have respect for the few, for without them, we would be doomed to live forever in the age of ignorance.
Riddle me this: Oil is 5-10 times as expensive as coal, 2-4 times as expensive as gas, 50-100 times more expensive than yellowcake(non-breeder); why on Earth are we using oil for transportation and not any of these other sources or electricity derived from them?

The answer seems obvious to me; gasoline is nice and portable with a high energy density; it is clean enough to be used in a city and the machinery required to use it is compact.

So why on Earth would "big oil" be worried about cheaper electric power? We'll be using oil for plastics, airplanes, cars and industrial feedstocks for many decades to come.

Ramping up production of batteries, syn-fuels(if I had to pick I'd say anhydrous ammonia looks fairly promising) or any other replacement will necessarily take decades; there's no way around that. And even if automotive users go away there's still plenty of people who want oil, not energy, for producing a vast assortment of plastics, drugs, pesticides, flavourings, solvents, glue and many other useful things. If anyone is worried it's coal miners.
Don't keep your hopes too high.

Dr. Bussard already spent more then $20M of government money and more then 20 years of his life trying to make this thing work.

After all that effort all he could get were only a few fusion neutrons. That was about 15 orders of magnitude short of break-even.

Presumably correct, Alex. Now, compare that to the time and money spent on 'mainstream' fusion approaches, for not much better results so far...

Even if it doesn't quite pan out, we will still have learned something useful, for a relative drop in the bucket.

Great to learn that Fusion R&D is moving Forward...
 In any nuclear or even water experiment you use a small amount of energy to release a form of energy from the sample that in turn sets off a chain reaction within the matter/gas whatever and if the reaction lasts long enough you get more power out than you put in.

The use of water to boost the energy output of a reciprocating engine is not new. The U.S. used water injection in fighter aircraft during world war two to boost engine horse power during emergency power needs but the engines didn't last long after the use due to the tempuratures and pressures within the engines. Water turns to steam making super heated steam and beyond.
Sounds like another crock of apple pie
in the sky to me. Just like visitors from
another world in a ufo. All the evidence
supporting either one would fit on the
point of the finest needle ever
If this works and funding is given the go ahead it would be great. A cheap and viable source for power instead of nuclear power. The space propulsion possibility's are also a very large plus
In the late 1950s I was given a book titled "PROJECT SHERWOOD - The United States Program for Controlled Fusion"

FIFTY YEARS AGO they knew about the Tokamak or torus confinment design.

If President Carter had instituted a "Manhattan Project" type program to create a fusion powerplant "within a decade", we would not be dependant on greenhouse gas fuels now.  President Bush could insure his (?) legacy (?) by doing this now.

I wonder how much of the resistance to Nuclear Energy and lack of funding for research has been fomented by the BIG Oil and Coal Companies ? ? ? ? ?
sorry but the water use in WW2 aircraft was injected to suppress detinion in the cyl due to to low of an octane for the compression ratio. no energy was used from the water.  KB


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1136887

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google