Wayne, here's the headline...Crystal power Palmtop Nuclear Fusion Device Invented By Michael Schirber LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 27 April 2005 01:00 pm ET The nuclear reaction that powers the Sun has been reproduced in a pocket-sized device, scientists announced today. Researchers have for years tried to harness nuclear fusion to power the world. But its cousin, nuclear fission -- the breaking apart of atoms -- is the only method so far commercially viable. The latest invention is not in the same league as efforts to build complex commercial reactors. The new device creates a relatively small number of reactions, and requires more energy to operate than it produces. The Real Deal (AP) - Previous claims of tabletop fusion have been met with skepticism and even derision by physicists. In one of the most notable cases, Dr. B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University in England shocked the world in 1989 when they announced that they had achieved so-called cold fusion at room temperature. Their work was discredited after repeated attempts to reproduce it failed. Fusion experts noted that the new UCLA experiment is credible because, unlike the 1989 work, it did not violate basic principles of physics. "This doesn't have any controversy in it because they're using a tried and true method,'' said David Ruzic, professor of nuclear and plasma engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "There's no mystery in terms of the physics.'' -- Associated Press But the configuration is so small and simple that its creators think it may inspire unforeseen applications. "I certainly find it interesting that you can heat a cubic centimeter crystal in your hand, then plunge it in cold water and it will cause nuclear fusion," Seth Putterman from the University of California Los Angeles told LiveScience. Putterman's lay description greatly oversimplifies how the compact apparatus works. Specifically, Putterman and collaborators heat a pyroelectric crystal, lithium tantalite, from minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit to plus 45 in a matter of minutes. This generates an electrical charge -- 100,000 volts -- across the tiny crystal, which is housed in a chamber filled with deuterium gas, a heavy form of hydrogen. The high voltage is focused onto a needle-thin tip, which strips electrons from nearby deuterium nuclei and then accelerates them at a solid target containing deuterium. When two deuterium nuclei collide together at high speed, they fuse to form helium. The Sun also fuses atoms in thermonuclear reactions that create light and heat. The byproduct of the newly discovered lab reaction is a particle called the neutron. The scientists detect about 1,000 neutrons per second. Because neutrons are so penetrating, Putterman said that a hand-held neutron source might one-day be used to do geologic surveys or to look into cargo containers for nuclear devices. "Current neutron generators are extremely cumbersome," Putterman said. "They are about as big as a dentists X-ray machine, so you canÂt carry them into the field." Pyroelectric crystals could also provide a beam of ions for use as a microthruster in a miniature spacecraft. The research is described in the April 28 issue of the journal Nature.

Hi Yoda who uses a ruler, Not being familiar with your system, I can't give any suggestions as to what reasons there may be to have separate bank account for taxable and non-taxable assets. In Canada we have accounts looking toward retirement where deposits are tax-deductible and the income over the years is, as well ... but every dollar coming out is taxable, and, after about age 70, there are minimum amounts required to be withdrawn annually. They must be in different accounts, of course. When I borrow for regular living expenses, consumer loans, which I plan almost never to do, I have one line of credit that I use for that. I was a personal financial consultant for years and recommended to folks that they have 3 - 6 months' worth of income as a financial cushion, available when needed, and in recent volatile times in the economy am more inclined to suggest 9 months' equivalent to a year's worth of income available in case of need, emergency, layoff, or whatever. I didn't always have such myself, which I told a number of clients, having used much of that fund for investments ... but had a credit card which I rarely used, which could be used in case of emergency, or whatever (I was self-employed, so could usually see an equivalent to a "layoff" coming before it happened). I had a line of credit, fully secured by stocks/mutual funds, some of them that I'd purchased with the "emergency fund", at the bank or, preferably, credit union, which I could draw on in an emergency. I would make a loan using that consumer line of credit to pay off the amount owing on the credit card for the emergency, just after the first billing, to avoid paying their high interest rate (about 4 times the rate on the line of credit, or 6 times if it were a store-issued card: I don't have any of them!). Then I'd make extra savings strenuously for a time to pay off the loan on the line of credit. I don't like using someone else's money to live on now ... and having to pay it back, later ... with (non-deductible) interest. Sometimes, after a bad time in the stock market, when things began to improve, I might make a loan to make further investments, and, as the interest paid on most investment loans is deductible, I'd set up a separate line of credit for that use, using the investments that I'd purchased using the "emergency fund" (along with some others, as the financial institution will only loan about half of the value of the security held), so that the interest rate on the loan would be lower. That's a place where I keep my deductible and non-deductible financial issues separate. Good wishes as you plan your retirement .. and implement the plan: I hope that you have no/few unpleasant surprises. Which you can usually reduce by careful planning, preferably ahead of time. ole joyful

It doesn't matter if it's your first, second or fifth marriage, you have to look out for yourself because nobody else is. A second wife should not depend on a guy anymore than a first wife should. I agree that it's fair to be compensated when you put your career on hold to have children and take care of the family, but it's not fair to think you will walk away from the marriage with a better financial position than the person that is the higher wage earner. It's not fair but life's not fair. If it were, men would be giving birth, not us. Your advice KKNY to not get involved with a man with children and not expect him to provide financial and other support is good advice. I wouldn't date a guy that didn't see or support his children. I also wouldn't date a guy that talked bad about his ex. But, the flip side to that argument is that when you get divorced, you have to accept that when he gets remarried, he legally obligates himself to his spouse and possibly more children. His obligation to his first family don't go away and they shouldn't suffer because he remarries, but if he is able to support the new family by increasing his income, then it doesn't impact his first family. The problem is that when the ex wife sees his income go up (or the added income of his new spouse), then she wants her share to go up too. If his income goes up and he doesn't have more mouths to feed, then maybe it would be fair to give more to the first family. MAYBE. It also depends on the ex wife's financial situation. I agree with Ashley that an ex wife can't sit on her duff demanding increases because he's working his butt off to make more. She's not married to him, she needs to do for herself... how pathetic is that? My husband's ex has gotten spousal support for 12 years on a marriage that lasted only one year. (Well, she hasn't finalized the divorce, probably because the court may stop her spousal support) She will continue to get it until he takes her back to court to stop it. My guess is that he is afraid they will increase his child support and reduce the spousal support (which is tax deductible for him) and so he lets it go.

I especially liked this one of Hoover's: When we are sick, we want an uncommon doctor; when we have a construction job to do, we want an uncommon engineer, and when we are at war, we want an uncommon general. It is only when we get into politics that we are satisfied with the common man. Herbert Hoover Or worse, alas.