http://www.physorg.com/news67442282.html
We already HAVE Nuclear Fusion! It is available, safe, easy to harvest! The SUN is about as close as I want a reactor! Square MILES of solar cells over water or useless land can harvest the output of this reactor at less cost than the building and sustaining our own fusion device, and it would be a darn sight CHEAPER! Every ROOFTOP is usless space! Why must we do everything the HARD way! E.L.Earnhardt
ummm..... you must take into account the fact that though this is a pretty simple solution, it is not entirely feasible. The solar panels and everything that we have today are not efficient enough to produce the required amount of energy in a short time. And also, it is not economically advisable to set solar panels over square miles of property. It costs too much to maintain. They break easily, and are very cumbersome to fix. (Good idea tho..., people try it already, There are some cars that run on photovoltaic cells. One car, custom made of course, can be hooked to a solar panel and that is like "filling it with gas") but now imagine, if it breaks? and what about at night? will only half the world be powered at a time?
maybe if we can find a more efficient way...
maybe if we can find a more efficient way...
QUOTE (E. L. Earnhardt+May 23 2006, 02:26 AM)
http://www.physorg.com/news67442282.html
We already HAVE Nuclear Fusion! It is available, safe, easy to harvest! The SUN is about as close as I want a reactor! Square MILES of solar cells over water or useless land can harvest the output of this reactor at less cost than the building and sustaining our own fusion device, and it would be a darn sight CHEAPER! Every ROOFTOP is usless space! Why must we do everything the HARD way! E.L.Earnhardt
If you knew anything about solar power you'd know that they were far too ineffecient for what you suggest... about 3% effecient actually. A lot of other research labs ARE working on much higher effeciency solar design using stronger and cheaper materials (plastics). When this happens, we may all have solar panels on our roofs. Besides, learning to control fusion is an important step for man.
We already HAVE Nuclear Fusion! It is available, safe, easy to harvest! The SUN is about as close as I want a reactor! Square MILES of solar cells over water or useless land can harvest the output of this reactor at less cost than the building and sustaining our own fusion device, and it would be a darn sight CHEAPER! Every ROOFTOP is usless space! Why must we do everything the HARD way! E.L.Earnhardt
If you knew anything about solar power you'd know that they were far too ineffecient for what you suggest... about 3% effecient actually. A lot of other research labs ARE working on much higher effeciency solar design using stronger and cheaper materials (plastics). When this happens, we may all have solar panels on our roofs. Besides, learning to control fusion is an important step for man.
True, solar efficiency is no where near the point of being feesible, though it is just starting to get there with high energy prices. Walmart has even begun installing panels on its warehouses though it is probably government subsidized.
However, EL makes a good point, if we can get solar more efficient its the way to go. Why waste time looking for the holy grail of fusion while energy prices continue upwards? It makes more sense in my mind to pool our efforts towards solar. Nanotech should be able to solve the efficiency issue, its only a matter of time and funding, so spend the dollars and effort on it. Down the road we can play with fusion, undoubtably it will be needed.
However, EL makes a good point, if we can get solar more efficient its the way to go. Why waste time looking for the holy grail of fusion while energy prices continue upwards? It makes more sense in my mind to pool our efforts towards solar. Nanotech should be able to solve the efficiency issue, its only a matter of time and funding, so spend the dollars and effort on it. Down the road we can play with fusion, undoubtably it will be needed.
What are they going to do with all the helium? 
QUOTE (Mickey Mouse+May 23 2006, 06:53 PM)
What are they going to do with all the helium?
Obviously, they will inhale it and talk funny!
As for fusion, I agree its necessary to develop it, and no, solar will never be as affordable as fusion. Not only that, but fusion will be necessary in space exploration. A colony in Io or even Mars cannot run on the weak solar energy that reaches there. More: a fusion orion propulsion system is the solution for solar system and interstellar travel! How about reaching Mars in two days travel? Only with fusion orion!
Obviously, they will inhale it and talk funny!
As for fusion, I agree its necessary to develop it, and no, solar will never be as affordable as fusion. Not only that, but fusion will be necessary in space exploration. A colony in Io or even Mars cannot run on the weak solar energy that reaches there. More: a fusion orion propulsion system is the solution for solar system and interstellar travel! How about reaching Mars in two days travel? Only with fusion orion!
One form of Solar Energy that's quite efficient is Bio-Energy. Brazil is one country that makes use of this probably because of the relatively high price of oil and gas for them.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/
The rest of the world is way behind.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/
The rest of the world is way behind.
QUOTE
Deuterium is present in seawater, which makes it a virtually limitless resource
Wasn't oil a "limitless" resource a hundred years ago? Didn't it seem the atmosphere was a "limitless" sewer for CO2 emissions? The only limitless thing on Earth is human's greed. Given that, any resource that we can take from our planet will end up spoiled or exhausted. Solar energy and austerity are the ONLY short-term way to fulfill our needs with long-term sustainability. The problem I can see is that only energy technologies that can be BILLED to a mass of consumers are researched and developed. But since the SUN doesn't send us bills or invoices, then almost nobody is "interested". Watch that Simpsons episode where Monty Burns builds a giant Sun-blocking umbrella... that joke says a lot!
Why so much expensive research on nuclear fusion? What would be the resulting energy for? Just for feeding fancy air-contidioners or ineficient electric heaters? One points the matter of space travel. Yes, I also enjoyed a lot watching Cosmos, 2001 and other serious Sci-Fi movies, but given the growing and overwhelming problems over our planet's face I can't dream any longer, I'm sorry guys. Mars, Io, Europe... are just nice wallpapers for my oil-consuming computer.
I thought of square miles of solar cells many yaers ago, put them in the desert, on an umbrella type of construction, use the new solar cells with holographic concentrators. The umbrella construction doubles as a canope, if you only put 70 percent solar cells and 30 percent glas up there you could grow stuff underneath. The canope would create a lower temperature underneath wich would condense the available water available in the air, which would flow through the canope construction to a storage tank. I think you could create a garden full of food underneath. That is if you put them close to the ocean, like in senegal etc. I know this is by no means a finished plan, it's just an idea.
QUOTE (Chungalin+May 24 2006, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE
Deuterium is present in seawater, which makes it a virtually limitless resource
Wasn't oil a "limitless" resource a hundred years ago? Didn't it seem the atmosphere was a "limitless" sewer for CO2 emissions? The only limitless thing on Earth is human's greed. Given that, any resource that we can take from our planet will end up spoiled or exhausted.
Actually, to bring things back to a more scientific discussion, does anyone know how the deuterium came to be in seawater? Is it as a result of exposure to cosmic rays etc? Or even normal sunlight? Was it there from the time when the solar system formed?
At any rate, water is generated as a "by-product" of fusion, although I imagine it's depleted, in the sense that the hydrogen atoms are just hydrogen, with one neutron, not deuterium...
So, how is the deuterium created?
There will be so much helium, we will all have Alvin's voice. Major mutation is on the horizon. It'll be fun.
The helium? she let you laugh. so it will be a pretty humorfull world.
Deuterium is the way forward but not I think by tritium injection, JET were on this slope to long, the waste product helium may provide the source if time was spent.
Also sound frequency changes can have unusuall effects on fluxes near the torus inner wall. keep trying Gordon.
Also sound frequency changes can have unusuall effects on fluxes near the torus inner wall. keep trying Gordon.
"Nanotechnology" promises a lot of interesting things, but it is a little naive to suggest it will somehow make solar cells as efficient as they need to be to become a primary energy source. Solar cells absolutely have an important niche, but even at 90% efficiencies they will never be the worlds primary energy source
Fusion research is expensive, but the reason rational people are throwing so much money at it is that it essentially promises more energy than anybody can use for far less than anything available now. Societies are structured around energy resources, so this is a very big deal.
Fusion research is expensive, but the reason rational people are throwing so much money at it is that it essentially promises more energy than anybody can use for far less than anything available now. Societies are structured around energy resources, so this is a very big deal.
Hi All,
The fusion vs the solar panels debate... For a start Helium (which is basically harmless) will never "build up"... it escapes into space too easily. This is why helium was not found on earth initially and was first found in the solar spectrum. The cost of solar panels is always a very important aspect of the energy equation. The manufacture of the extremely high purity silicon required for the higher efficiency cells is an extremely energetic process and the energy to do this is not "trivial". It is a significant component in the cost of manufacture. There is also the end to end pollution aspect of solar panel production which is also not small. The real reason we make solar panels today is not because it is a source of limitless cheap energy but because it is often the only available source of energy in isolated environments. Faced with the choice of no energy or solar energy... solar panels are "cheap". But do not kid yourself that they are automatically a solution to mans energy needs.
The environmental impact of covering the earth surface with solar panels is a cost that will one day be seen as too high, we are talking of supplying industry with continuous power not just providing you with a hot shower at night. We need copious power for smelting metals and refining ores and running industrial machinery to make all those things you all want. I would also point out that an ever growing need and requirement for fresh clean water and this is provided by water desalination plants which are springing up around the world in the dry arid zones and areas most affected by global warming. Cheap copious non polluting power is the answer to prevent the adverse effects of global warming, the greenhouse effect and desertification. This will also provide the energy needs for electric vehicles of the future which are more efficient than present vehicles.
Another point is the limited energy density of tappable power. The amount of solar energy falling on the surface of the earth is strictly limited during even the brightest daylight and is less for most days where there is cloud cover and zero at night. This cannot be automatically increased without huge solar collectors which are expensive. The other point is the time where power is most needed is during the early evening when people come home from daily activities and start using air conditioners and cooking their food and having hot showers. Industry that are high users of power will automatically attempt to access the lower tariff off-peak night power in the early hours of the morning. So power acquired during the day must be accessed at night. There are ways to do this but they are usually quite expensive.
On the other hand fusion energy is cheap unlimited power since our solar system is full of hydrogen and a significant fraction of it is deuterium. There is a penalty of the reactor becoming radioactive but this is a short half-life radiation that is easier to manage as waste. All in all Fusion Power is the answer to mans future and to a final solution to global warming (in the long term). The longer this process is "put off" by the industrialists the greater the destruction to the earths most habitable areas and to the flora and fauna worldwide.
According to China's news sources the first Nuclear Fusion Plant is to be commissioned later this year.
The fusion vs the solar panels debate... For a start Helium (which is basically harmless) will never "build up"... it escapes into space too easily. This is why helium was not found on earth initially and was first found in the solar spectrum. The cost of solar panels is always a very important aspect of the energy equation. The manufacture of the extremely high purity silicon required for the higher efficiency cells is an extremely energetic process and the energy to do this is not "trivial". It is a significant component in the cost of manufacture. There is also the end to end pollution aspect of solar panel production which is also not small. The real reason we make solar panels today is not because it is a source of limitless cheap energy but because it is often the only available source of energy in isolated environments. Faced with the choice of no energy or solar energy... solar panels are "cheap". But do not kid yourself that they are automatically a solution to mans energy needs.
The environmental impact of covering the earth surface with solar panels is a cost that will one day be seen as too high, we are talking of supplying industry with continuous power not just providing you with a hot shower at night. We need copious power for smelting metals and refining ores and running industrial machinery to make all those things you all want. I would also point out that an ever growing need and requirement for fresh clean water and this is provided by water desalination plants which are springing up around the world in the dry arid zones and areas most affected by global warming. Cheap copious non polluting power is the answer to prevent the adverse effects of global warming, the greenhouse effect and desertification. This will also provide the energy needs for electric vehicles of the future which are more efficient than present vehicles.
Another point is the limited energy density of tappable power. The amount of solar energy falling on the surface of the earth is strictly limited during even the brightest daylight and is less for most days where there is cloud cover and zero at night. This cannot be automatically increased without huge solar collectors which are expensive. The other point is the time where power is most needed is during the early evening when people come home from daily activities and start using air conditioners and cooking their food and having hot showers. Industry that are high users of power will automatically attempt to access the lower tariff off-peak night power in the early hours of the morning. So power acquired during the day must be accessed at night. There are ways to do this but they are usually quite expensive.
On the other hand fusion energy is cheap unlimited power since our solar system is full of hydrogen and a significant fraction of it is deuterium. There is a penalty of the reactor becoming radioactive but this is a short half-life radiation that is easier to manage as waste. All in all Fusion Power is the answer to mans future and to a final solution to global warming (in the long term). The longer this process is "put off" by the industrialists the greater the destruction to the earths most habitable areas and to the flora and fauna worldwide.
According to China's news sources the first Nuclear Fusion Plant is to be commissioned later this year.
QUOTE (http://fire.pppl.gov/iter_industrialinfo_072005.pdf+)
China, while claiming access to the ITER project, is working on its own $24 million reactor, due for completion this year, the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokomak (EAST) prototype reactor. The project is based on forty years of development at sites in Sichuan province, which also has nuclear weapon assembly-disassembly, plutonium production, and uranium enrichment plants. In 1999, the People's Daily reported that an experimental nuclear fusion device, Tokomak HL-2A, was being built outside Sichuan's capital, Chengdu.
An official of China's Bureau of Basic Atomic Research was quoted by Xinhua news agency as saying, "The EAST is the prototype closest to the ITER and it will be unbeatable in at least a decade." The next test of the EAST reactor is aiming at an operational temperature of over 100 million degrees Centigrade and production of electricity for 1,000 consecutive seconds.
An official of China's Bureau of Basic Atomic Research was quoted by Xinhua news agency as saying, "The EAST is the prototype closest to the ITER and it will be unbeatable in at least a decade." The next test of the EAST reactor is aiming at an operational temperature of over 100 million degrees Centigrade and production of electricity for 1,000 consecutive seconds.
This reactor is coming on-line later this year in July and will produce "semi-continuous" power at the 3/4 GW level for industry. Nothing like this project exists in the West so far and also not for the short term future. This will provide a lot of useful data on the next generation of power reactor designs. Just thinking about this concept is having a number of these intermittent reactors on-line part of the time in a sequence providing smooth continuous power by dynamic load sharing.
Peoples Daily: China to build world's first "artificial sun" experimental device
Recently some exciting developments have been made in standing the fusion reactor reaction "off" the reactor walls preventing the rapid deterioration of the containment vessel. This is a big step forward. I would also point out Chernobyl like disasters will not be able to occur with fusion reactors since they are "intrinsically safe", at least for the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, it is expected that one liter of seawater could provide the same power as 300 liters of gasoline. The Fusion Reactor will cost the Chinese $24M (a miniscule amount compared with ITER the same development in the west not expected to come on line for 30 years) to build... and a fraction of this power could be used to recover its own fuel from seawater.
Wikipedia: ITER Joint Reactor Program
Cheers
Peoples Daily: China to build world's first "artificial sun" experimental device
Recently some exciting developments have been made in standing the fusion reactor reaction "off" the reactor walls preventing the rapid deterioration of the containment vessel. This is a big step forward. I would also point out Chernobyl like disasters will not be able to occur with fusion reactors since they are "intrinsically safe", at least for the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, it is expected that one liter of seawater could provide the same power as 300 liters of gasoline. The Fusion Reactor will cost the Chinese $24M (a miniscule amount compared with ITER the same development in the west not expected to come on line for 30 years) to build... and a fraction of this power could be used to recover its own fuel from seawater.
Wikipedia: ITER Joint Reactor Program
Cheers
Solar power is not cheaper than fusion power. In fact, fusion power at this point cannot even produce energy over the energy which is expended to start the toroid device. At this point a sustainable and financially solvent reactor does not exist.
Solar power will probably beat out fusion power for a number of reasons. New research into nanoscale material behavior will no doubt reduce the cost of collecting solar energy, as it already has significantly in the last decade. I will now systematically attack all the points that have been made so far.
Fusion for space exploration- A stupid idea. How the hell are you going to start the reactor when you get there? It takes a monumental amount of energy- It will be fission that powers extra planetary colonies, most likely. In some cases, H3 will likely be processed for energy.
Not enough energy for solar to be practical- Absolutely incorrect. A mad amount of energy from sunlight falls on this planet, enough to power all of the biomass in existence aside from animals that rely only on chemosynthesis. As for the stated efficiency of solar cells, you might want to look at the efficiency level of fossil fuels or even fission. As for night time, everyone is asleep. Not a whole lot of energy being used. Besides, we've got these things called capacitors and batteries that store energy.
And as for the idiot who suggested that nano-applications are not going to improve solar technology.. Well, you're an idiot. nano-science is going to improve a lot of things, and currently there are a number of nano-principle projects being used to collect light very effectively.
Solar power will probably beat out fusion power for a number of reasons. New research into nanoscale material behavior will no doubt reduce the cost of collecting solar energy, as it already has significantly in the last decade. I will now systematically attack all the points that have been made so far.
Fusion for space exploration- A stupid idea. How the hell are you going to start the reactor when you get there? It takes a monumental amount of energy- It will be fission that powers extra planetary colonies, most likely. In some cases, H3 will likely be processed for energy.
Not enough energy for solar to be practical- Absolutely incorrect. A mad amount of energy from sunlight falls on this planet, enough to power all of the biomass in existence aside from animals that rely only on chemosynthesis. As for the stated efficiency of solar cells, you might want to look at the efficiency level of fossil fuels or even fission. As for night time, everyone is asleep. Not a whole lot of energy being used. Besides, we've got these things called capacitors and batteries that store energy.
And as for the idiot who suggested that nano-applications are not going to improve solar technology.. Well, you're an idiot. nano-science is going to improve a lot of things, and currently there are a number of nano-principle projects being used to collect light very effectively.
Its always hard to tell what China is REALLY up to.
A full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, which aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy, will be built in March or April in Hefei, capital city of east China's Anhui Province.
Experiments with the advanced new device will start in July or August. If the experiments prove successful, China will become the first country in the world to build a full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, nicknamed "artificial sun", experts here said.
The project, dubbed EAST (experimental advanced superconducting Tokamak), is being undertaken by the Hefei-based Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It will require a total investment of nearly 300 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars), only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.
The new device will be an upgrade of China's first superconducting Tokamak device, dubbed HT-7, which was also built by the plasma physics institute, in partnership with Russia, in the early 1990s.
So according to this It WILL BE BUILT in March and April and EXPERIMENTS will start in July and IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL......
??????
Hard to believe they are going to start in April and have an operational Fusion Reactor by July.
Arthur
A full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, which aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy, will be built in March or April in Hefei, capital city of east China's Anhui Province.
Experiments with the advanced new device will start in July or August. If the experiments prove successful, China will become the first country in the world to build a full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, nicknamed "artificial sun", experts here said.
The project, dubbed EAST (experimental advanced superconducting Tokamak), is being undertaken by the Hefei-based Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It will require a total investment of nearly 300 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars), only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.
The new device will be an upgrade of China's first superconducting Tokamak device, dubbed HT-7, which was also built by the plasma physics institute, in partnership with Russia, in the early 1990s.
So according to this It WILL BE BUILT in March and April and EXPERIMENTS will start in July and IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL......
??????
Hard to believe they are going to start in April and have an operational Fusion Reactor by July.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 04:17 PM)
Its always hard to tell what China is REALLY up to.
A full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, which aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy, will be built in March or April in Hefei, capital city of east China's Anhui Province.
Experiments with the advanced new device will start in July or August. If the experiments prove successful, China will become the first country in the world to build a full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, nicknamed "artificial sun", experts here said.
The project, dubbed EAST (experimental advanced superconducting Tokamak), is being undertaken by the Hefei-based Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It will require a total investment of nearly 300 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars), only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.
The new device will be an upgrade of China's first superconducting Tokamak device, dubbed HT-7, which was also built by the plasma physics institute, in partnership with Russia, in the early 1990s.
So according to this It WILL BE BUILT in March and April and EXPERIMENTS will start in July and IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL......
??????
Hard to believe they are going to start in April and have an operational Fusion Reactor by July.
Arthur
Good Elf has done a great post with links on this subject. He seems to be very well informed I read it a couple of days ago. It was fairly recent if you go to it from his avatar.
peace...
A full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, which aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy, will be built in March or April in Hefei, capital city of east China's Anhui Province.
Experiments with the advanced new device will start in July or August. If the experiments prove successful, China will become the first country in the world to build a full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, nicknamed "artificial sun", experts here said.
The project, dubbed EAST (experimental advanced superconducting Tokamak), is being undertaken by the Hefei-based Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It will require a total investment of nearly 300 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars), only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.
The new device will be an upgrade of China's first superconducting Tokamak device, dubbed HT-7, which was also built by the plasma physics institute, in partnership with Russia, in the early 1990s.
So according to this It WILL BE BUILT in March and April and EXPERIMENTS will start in July and IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL......
??????
Hard to believe they are going to start in April and have an operational Fusion Reactor by July.
Arthur
Good Elf has done a great post with links on this subject. He seems to be very well informed I read it a couple of days ago. It was fairly recent if you go to it from his avatar.
peace...
Does it really matter? Truth is that Wind power is where it's at! Wind power is already cheaper than not only solar but also fission, to say nothing of fusion, Coal, and every other carbon based energy production system on the planet!!!!!
Who really cares if Iran is wasting their workers time and money on fusion (which will never work) when the Europeans are winning by getting on the road to converting to wind and we are hot on their tails!
Windmills in the Jet stream
Windmills don't have to clutter our landscapes and for some, myself included are actually beautiful. NIMBY???? not on your life! for me it's PIIMBY (Put It In My Back Yard)
The factories that produce the most technologically advanced windmills have orders for the next 2 years. The only thing slowing down the advance is that we need to build more factories to produce more wind mills. Once that happens, power costs will plummet and the Oil rich countries will no longer be a factor in the world of politics. Iran can waste all the time and money on fusion as they wish. No matter what they do, we will win the contest of efficiency because business only cares about what is cost effective and that is wind, only wind, nothing but wind!!! If we have tens of thousands of windmills, it won't matter if some of them are not spinning because the wind isn't currently blowing in their vicinity. There will be thousands more that are whether the sun is shining or not.
Who really cares if Iran is wasting their workers time and money on fusion (which will never work) when the Europeans are winning by getting on the road to converting to wind and we are hot on their tails!
Windmills in the Jet stream
Windmills don't have to clutter our landscapes and for some, myself included are actually beautiful. NIMBY???? not on your life! for me it's PIIMBY (Put It In My Back Yard)
The factories that produce the most technologically advanced windmills have orders for the next 2 years. The only thing slowing down the advance is that we need to build more factories to produce more wind mills. Once that happens, power costs will plummet and the Oil rich countries will no longer be a factor in the world of politics. Iran can waste all the time and money on fusion as they wish. No matter what they do, we will win the contest of efficiency because business only cares about what is cost effective and that is wind, only wind, nothing but wind!!! If we have tens of thousands of windmills, it won't matter if some of them are not spinning because the wind isn't currently blowing in their vicinity. There will be thousands more that are whether the sun is shining or not.
QUOTE (tikay+May 29 2006, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 04:17 PM)
Its always hard to tell what China is REALLY up to.
A full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, which aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy, will be built in March or April in Hefei, capital city of east China's Anhui Province.
Experiments with the advanced new device will start in July or August. If the experiments prove successful, China will become the first country in the world to build a full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, nicknamed "artificial sun", experts here said.
The project, dubbed EAST (experimental advanced superconducting Tokamak), is being undertaken by the Hefei-based Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It will require a total investment of nearly 300 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars), only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.
The new device will be an upgrade of China's first superconducting Tokamak device, dubbed HT-7, which was also built by the plasma physics institute, in partnership with Russia, in the early 1990s.
So according to this It WILL BE BUILT in March and April and EXPERIMENTS will start in July and IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL......
??????
Hard to believe they are going to start in April and have an operational Fusion Reactor by July.
Arthur
Good Elf has done a great post with links on this subject. He seems to be very well informed I read it a couple of days ago. It was fairly recent if you go to it from his avatar.
peace...
My Quote was from his link.
And from the quote that he included
"THIS YEAR" was 2005.
So unless you go to that PDF (not a link), its a TAD misleading.
Then following the other link to an article written in JAN of 06 about a Fusion reactor they say WILL BE BUILT in March and April and that EXPERIMENTS will start in July.
So, since its 6 months since that article and PAST time for it to be built I'd just like to see some more RECENT info.
Arthur
I hear Walmart has some cheap ballons.
A full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, which aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy, will be built in March or April in Hefei, capital city of east China's Anhui Province.
Experiments with the advanced new device will start in July or August. If the experiments prove successful, China will become the first country in the world to build a full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device, nicknamed "artificial sun", experts here said.
The project, dubbed EAST (experimental advanced superconducting Tokamak), is being undertaken by the Hefei-based Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It will require a total investment of nearly 300 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars), only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.
The new device will be an upgrade of China's first superconducting Tokamak device, dubbed HT-7, which was also built by the plasma physics institute, in partnership with Russia, in the early 1990s.
So according to this It WILL BE BUILT in March and April and EXPERIMENTS will start in July and IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL......
??????
Hard to believe they are going to start in April and have an operational Fusion Reactor by July.
Arthur
Good Elf has done a great post with links on this subject. He seems to be very well informed I read it a couple of days ago. It was fairly recent if you go to it from his avatar.
peace...
My Quote was from his link.
And from the quote that he included
QUOTE
China, while claiming access to the ITER project, is working on its own $24 million reactor, due for completion this year
"THIS YEAR" was 2005.
So unless you go to that PDF (not a link), its a TAD misleading.
Then following the other link to an article written in JAN of 06 about a Fusion reactor they say WILL BE BUILT in March and April and that EXPERIMENTS will start in July.
So, since its 6 months since that article and PAST time for it to be built I'd just like to see some more RECENT info.
Arthur
The fusion plant will sell off the helium to appoved buyers at a discounted rate.
Coal fired plants across the nation utilize gypsum in thier scrubbers to help clean out the pollutants (Eg..mercury, etc); that gypsum is sold off to appropriate parties that make wallboard with it.
Coal fired plants across the nation utilize gypsum in thier scrubbers to help clean out the pollutants (Eg..mercury, etc); that gypsum is sold off to appropriate parties that make wallboard with it.
I hear Walmart has some cheap ballons.
QUOTE (daveib+May 29 2006, 07:42 PM)
Does it really matter? Truth is that Wind power is where it's at! Wind power is already cheaper than not only solar but also fission, to say nothing of fusion, Coal, and every other carbon based energy production system on the planet!!!!!
Who really cares if Iran is wasting their workers time and money on fusion (which will never work) when the Europeans are winning by getting on the road to converting to wind and we are hot on their tails!
Windmills in the Jet stream
Windmills don't have to clutter our landscapes and for some, myself included are actually beautiful. NIMBY???? not on your life! for me it's PIIMBY (Put It In My Back Yard)
The factories that produce the most technologically advanced windmills have orders for the next 2 years. The only thing slowing down the advance is that we need to build more factories to produce more wind mills. Once that happens, power costs will plummet and the Oil rich countries will no longer be a factor in the world of politics. Iran can waste all the time and money on fusion as they wish. No matter what they do, we will win the contest of efficiency because business only cares about what is cost effective and that is wind, only wind, nothing but wind!!! If we have tens of thousands of windmills, it won't matter if some of them are not spinning because the wind isn't currently blowing in their vicinity. There will be thousands more that are whether the sun is shining or not.
I came here to mention the benefits of wind power too. You are doing a good job all by yourself....thanks.
Who really cares if Iran is wasting their workers time and money on fusion (which will never work) when the Europeans are winning by getting on the road to converting to wind and we are hot on their tails!
Windmills in the Jet stream
Windmills don't have to clutter our landscapes and for some, myself included are actually beautiful. NIMBY???? not on your life! for me it's PIIMBY (Put It In My Back Yard)
The factories that produce the most technologically advanced windmills have orders for the next 2 years. The only thing slowing down the advance is that we need to build more factories to produce more wind mills. Once that happens, power costs will plummet and the Oil rich countries will no longer be a factor in the world of politics. Iran can waste all the time and money on fusion as they wish. No matter what they do, we will win the contest of efficiency because business only cares about what is cost effective and that is wind, only wind, nothing but wind!!! If we have tens of thousands of windmills, it won't matter if some of them are not spinning because the wind isn't currently blowing in their vicinity. There will be thousands more that are whether the sun is shining or not.
I came here to mention the benefits of wind power too. You are doing a good job all by yourself....thanks.
Fusion is an inoperable boondoggle... it won't work because it can't work.
Particle scientists everywhere have forgetton the basics. Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy will always prevent the system from putting out more energy than is input. The funniest part though is that it will always seem like they're real close to a breakthrough because virtually all of the input energy is bounced back out!
"Look! It's working at breakeven Sven!"
"Yah! Vit juzt a leetle more juize ve can make it verk!"
They've been saying things like that for over half a century now. The reactors get bigger, the results are always the same.
Fusion Confusion
by Ubavontuba:
Fusion confusion, infusion and more
Funding required, greenbacks for sure
Hydrogen heated with lasers that cook
Energy forever, if they get it to work
Consumption presumption, gumption and more
Heat from a source, like from the sun's core
"It's coming soon." they assert once again
Here I am wondering, just when is then?
Conflagaration fiction, confliction and more
It passes from fact to myth then to lore
"Unlimited energy." I hear them yet say
Just burn the money, it'll cost less that way...
Particle scientists everywhere have forgetton the basics. Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy will always prevent the system from putting out more energy than is input. The funniest part though is that it will always seem like they're real close to a breakthrough because virtually all of the input energy is bounced back out!
"Look! It's working at breakeven Sven!"
"Yah! Vit juzt a leetle more juize ve can make it verk!"
They've been saying things like that for over half a century now. The reactors get bigger, the results are always the same.
Fusion Confusion
by Ubavontuba:
Fusion confusion, infusion and more
Funding required, greenbacks for sure
Hydrogen heated with lasers that cook
Energy forever, if they get it to work
Consumption presumption, gumption and more
Heat from a source, like from the sun's core
"It's coming soon." they assert once again
Here I am wondering, just when is then?
Conflagaration fiction, confliction and more
It passes from fact to myth then to lore
"Unlimited energy." I hear them yet say
Just burn the money, it'll cost less that way...
I guess the sun then works on magic because:
It cant possibly work on fusion...
QUOTE
Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy will always prevent the system from putting out more energy than is input
It cant possibly work on fusion...
QUOTE (Nessus+Jun 20 2006, 05:46 AM)
I guess the sun then works on magic because:
It cant possibly work on fusion...
HA HA HA!
The sun doesn't rely on momentum to achieve compression. Gravity does it neatly, bypassing any conflict with the conservation of momentum law.
QUOTE
Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy will always prevent the system from putting out more energy than is input
It cant possibly work on fusion...
HA HA HA!
The sun doesn't rely on momentum to achieve compression. Gravity does it neatly, bypassing any conflict with the conservation of momentum law.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 20 2006, 06:52 AM)
The sun doesn't rely on momentum to achieve compression. Gravity does it neatly, bypassing any conflict with the conservation of momentum law.
Of course you can get more energy out than you put in. By your logic, nuclear fusion bombs work by magic because they are triggered by purely compression formed high momentum interactions, not gravity.
It might take X amount of energy to force the particles together but then they'll release 10X or 100X of energy when they fuse.
Of course you can get more energy out than you put in. By your logic, nuclear fusion bombs work by magic because they are triggered by purely compression formed high momentum interactions, not gravity.
It might take X amount of energy to force the particles together but then they'll release 10X or 100X of energy when they fuse.
How does excatly does conservation of momentum prevent fusion (not using gravity as the means of acheving enough the right conditions) to produce more energy that is put in?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 20 2006, 10:27 AM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 20 2006, 06:52 AM)
The sun doesn't rely on momentum to achieve compression. Gravity does it neatly, bypassing any conflict with the conservation of momentum law.
Of course you can get more energy out than you put in. By your logic, nuclear fusion bombs work by magic because they are triggered by purely compression formed high momentum interactions, not gravity.
It might take X amount of energy to force the particles together but then they'll release 10X or 100X of energy when they fuse.
Not quite the same. These systems will enable only brief, uncontrolled moments of fusion.
Of course you can get more energy out than you put in. By your logic, nuclear fusion bombs work by magic because they are triggered by purely compression formed high momentum interactions, not gravity.
It might take X amount of energy to force the particles together but then they'll release 10X or 100X of energy when they fuse.
Not quite the same. These systems will enable only brief, uncontrolled moments of fusion.
QUOTE (Nessus+Jun 20 2006, 06:34 PM)
How does excatly does conservation of momentum prevent fusion (not using gravity as the means of acheving enough the right conditions) to produce more energy that is put in?
Nessus, that's a good question (even though it's poorly written).
The basic premise of hot fusion is that you suspend a bit of "fuel" in the crossfire of a bunch of bazillion watt lasers. The momentum of the laser photons is supposed to contain and compress the fuel while the kinetic energy is supposed to heat the fuel. Viola! The fuel reaches the correct pressure and temperature to begin fusing. However this method hasn't been able to sustain fusion and create enough energy to equal the input, much less have enough left over to run a steam turbine. Why?
The fault in the premise is two-pronged, mostly having to do with those pesky laws of motion and conservation that physics classes gloss over too quickly these days.
First, let's examine "inertial containment." This is the use of the photon's inherent momentum to apply force to the fuel to compress it. This sounds plausible (and it sort of works), but does it work as anticipated? No. Why?
The laws of motion state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basically, by pushing on the fuel, the fuel reacts by pushing back. Since its "back" is against the "wall" of another laser beam pushing on the other side, all of the momentum applied to the fuel to compress it must be realized as an equal and opposite push outward of the fuel to resist compression. Basically, you can suspend the fuel and compress it to a degree, but you can't compress it indefinately. Eventually you reach a limit of compression wherein the fuel is pushing back Just as hard as the lasers are pushing in. Essentially, it becomes a perfect reflector.
Momentum isn't the only story though. Containment must always be lost. Why? Because of the kinetic energy (not to be confused with momentum). Tremendous amounts of kinetic energy. A bazillion watts in the space of the fuel pellet.
As the fuel absorbs energy from the lasers, the photons are converted into kinetic energy within the fuel. Kinetic energy that compounds the effects of, and works in parallel with the forces of momentum trying to push the fuel's boundaries outward from the center.
In other words, the more energy you apply, the more energy you need for containment, so the more energy you apply, so the more energy you need for containment! It's a vicious cycle! Eventually, containment must be lost.
The energy levels of the fuel do rise to a point where fusion is obtained (reportedly), but it doesn't seem likely that the energy input to output will likely ever rise to utilitarian levels using this method.
The sun works because the pressure of gravity is not an externally applied inertial force. It's merely a compression from an internal force. The compression is suspended by the intense kinetic energy put out by the fusing mass, but it's a war of force that the fusion mass must eventually lose. Someday, the sun will likely explode and then collapse into a white dwarf.
Earthbound fusion is just the opposite. The war of energy between the lasers and the fusing fuel must be lost by the lasers. When this happens, containment is lost.
Another way of looking at it is to consider the explosive force. The lasers compress the fuel to the point of fusion and the fuel is super-energized by the fusion process. Suddenly, the lasers are pitifully weak in comparison to the burst of energy put out by the fusing mass. The pellet expands. Coincidently, the force of the lasers decreases by the square of the distance from the focal point. Therefore the more the plasma expands, the easier expanding becomes.
So ironically... the quicker containment is lost, the more successful the fusion process was to begin with!
Anyway, how'd you like my poem?
Nessus, that's a good question (even though it's poorly written).
The basic premise of hot fusion is that you suspend a bit of "fuel" in the crossfire of a bunch of bazillion watt lasers. The momentum of the laser photons is supposed to contain and compress the fuel while the kinetic energy is supposed to heat the fuel. Viola! The fuel reaches the correct pressure and temperature to begin fusing. However this method hasn't been able to sustain fusion and create enough energy to equal the input, much less have enough left over to run a steam turbine. Why?
The fault in the premise is two-pronged, mostly having to do with those pesky laws of motion and conservation that physics classes gloss over too quickly these days.
First, let's examine "inertial containment." This is the use of the photon's inherent momentum to apply force to the fuel to compress it. This sounds plausible (and it sort of works), but does it work as anticipated? No. Why?
The laws of motion state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basically, by pushing on the fuel, the fuel reacts by pushing back. Since its "back" is against the "wall" of another laser beam pushing on the other side, all of the momentum applied to the fuel to compress it must be realized as an equal and opposite push outward of the fuel to resist compression. Basically, you can suspend the fuel and compress it to a degree, but you can't compress it indefinately. Eventually you reach a limit of compression wherein the fuel is pushing back Just as hard as the lasers are pushing in. Essentially, it becomes a perfect reflector.
Momentum isn't the only story though. Containment must always be lost. Why? Because of the kinetic energy (not to be confused with momentum). Tremendous amounts of kinetic energy. A bazillion watts in the space of the fuel pellet.
As the fuel absorbs energy from the lasers, the photons are converted into kinetic energy within the fuel. Kinetic energy that compounds the effects of, and works in parallel with the forces of momentum trying to push the fuel's boundaries outward from the center.
In other words, the more energy you apply, the more energy you need for containment, so the more energy you apply, so the more energy you need for containment! It's a vicious cycle! Eventually, containment must be lost.
The energy levels of the fuel do rise to a point where fusion is obtained (reportedly), but it doesn't seem likely that the energy input to output will likely ever rise to utilitarian levels using this method.
The sun works because the pressure of gravity is not an externally applied inertial force. It's merely a compression from an internal force. The compression is suspended by the intense kinetic energy put out by the fusing mass, but it's a war of force that the fusion mass must eventually lose. Someday, the sun will likely explode and then collapse into a white dwarf.
Earthbound fusion is just the opposite. The war of energy between the lasers and the fusing fuel must be lost by the lasers. When this happens, containment is lost.
Another way of looking at it is to consider the explosive force. The lasers compress the fuel to the point of fusion and the fuel is super-energized by the fusion process. Suddenly, the lasers are pitifully weak in comparison to the burst of energy put out by the fusing mass. The pellet expands. Coincidently, the force of the lasers decreases by the square of the distance from the focal point. Therefore the more the plasma expands, the easier expanding becomes.
So ironically... the quicker containment is lost, the more successful the fusion process was to begin with!
Anyway, how'd you like my poem?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 21 2006, 06:58 AM)
mostly having to do with those pesky laws of motion and conservation that physics classes gloss over too quickly these days.
Yeah, they completely forget to bother with those, those scientists with PhDs in nuclear physics, plasma, magnetohydrodynamics and electrodynamics don't they?
While what you have said is valid (hotter plasma needs more energy to contain it) you'd not actually crunched any numbers. How do you know that the energy needed to contain the plasma increases faster than the energy output from the plasma? Sure, they both rise, but if the energy output rises faster than you'll reach a point where the output is sufficently high to power both it's own containment and a few million homes.
Just talking in vague terms doesn't make you right. The people designing fusion reactors are actually doing calculations on the energies and forces required for electromagnetic containment (you're only talking about using lasers and no magnetic confinement).
Yeah, they completely forget to bother with those, those scientists with PhDs in nuclear physics, plasma, magnetohydrodynamics and electrodynamics don't they?
While what you have said is valid (hotter plasma needs more energy to contain it) you'd not actually crunched any numbers. How do you know that the energy needed to contain the plasma increases faster than the energy output from the plasma? Sure, they both rise, but if the energy output rises faster than you'll reach a point where the output is sufficently high to power both it's own containment and a few million homes.
Just talking in vague terms doesn't make you right. The people designing fusion reactors are actually doing calculations on the energies and forces required for electromagnetic containment (you're only talking about using lasers and no magnetic confinement).
I agree with AlphaNumeric, not only does your explination not really prove your point (not that people like us can without the required math) but your not talking about magnetic confinement which is more likely to go past break even (consider the likely computed output of Iter at 500 MW for 500 seconds)
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 21 2006, 06:58 AM)
mostly having to do with those pesky laws of motion and conservation that physics classes gloss over too quickly these days.
Yeah, they completely forget to bother with those, those scientists with PhDs in nuclear physics, plasma, magnetohydrodynamics and electrodynamics don't they?
You'd be amazed how common this is. I'm not kidding. I've caught NASA guys, CERN guys and various university professors blatantly missing these basic concepts or misunderstanding the effects on their work.
No. The energy cannot be contained long enough to be practically utilized in this (or any other) fashion.
No. The energy cannot be contained long enough to be practically utilized in this (or any other) fashion.
Just talking in vague terms doesn't make you right. The people designing fusion reactors are actually doing calculations on the energies and forces required for electromagnetic containment (you're only talking about using lasers and no magnetic confinement).
Sure, and they originally predicted they'd have it working... a long time ago!
Magnetic containment is similarly plagued. If the scientists truly understand these problems, then they're selling us a bill of goods to conduct experiments for other purposes.
The proof is in the pudding isn't it? Billions of dollars for 500 seconds of light. Sounds like a deal!
It's a proof of concept reactor. Ideas are put into practice for the first time with hte ITER so it'll be more expensive than future reactors. The Manhattan project was fantastically expensive and took up way more resources and manpower than it does to make a reactor now, but that's because they were working things out as they went along.
You're completely ignoring the rate of increase of containment energy versus output and just assuming one is always more than the other. Can you show me the mathematics you've used to come to that conclusion or are you making the same kind of omitions you accuse people at NASA and CERN of doing?
Yeah, they completely forget to bother with those, those scientists with PhDs in nuclear physics, plasma, magnetohydrodynamics and electrodynamics don't they?
You'd be amazed how common this is. I'm not kidding. I've caught NASA guys, CERN guys and various university professors blatantly missing these basic concepts or misunderstanding the effects on their work.
QUOTE
While what you have said is valid (hotter plasma needs more energy to contain it) you'd not actually crunched any numbers. How do you know that the energy needed to contain the plasma increases faster than the energy output from the plasma? Sure, they both rise, but if the energy output rises faster than you'll reach a point where the output is sufficently high to power both it's own containment and a few million homes.
No. The energy cannot be contained long enough to be practically utilized in this (or any other) fashion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While what you have said is valid (hotter plasma needs more energy to contain it) you'd not actually crunched any numbers. How do you know that the energy needed to contain the plasma increases faster than the energy output from the plasma? Sure, they both rise, but if the energy output rises faster than you'll reach a point where the output is sufficently high to power both it's own containment and a few million homes. |
No. The energy cannot be contained long enough to be practically utilized in this (or any other) fashion.
Just talking in vague terms doesn't make you right. The people designing fusion reactors are actually doing calculations on the energies and forces required for electromagnetic containment (you're only talking about using lasers and no magnetic confinement).
Sure, and they originally predicted they'd have it working... a long time ago!
Magnetic containment is similarly plagued. If the scientists truly understand these problems, then they're selling us a bill of goods to conduct experiments for other purposes.
QUOTE (Nessus+Jun 21 2006, 02:00 PM)
I agree with AlphaNumeric, not only does your explination not really prove your point (not that people like us can without the required math) but your not talking about magnetic confinement which is more likely to go past break even (consider the likely computed output of Iter at 500 MW for 500 seconds)
The proof is in the pudding isn't it? Billions of dollars for 500 seconds of light. Sounds like a deal!
The proof is in the pudding isn't it? Billions of dollars for 500 seconds of light. Sounds like a deal!
You admit then that it will produce more energy than it gives out then?
Personally I doubt you understand as well as plasma physistists how fusion works, considering you made the statement that man made fusion cannot produce more energy than it requires, yet you dont prove such a huge statement.
You say:
Fair enough but what is the rate of INCREASE, does the energy need for confiment rise faster than the more energy you apply.
Is it really:
Energy to heat and confine plasma > Energy released from fusion of the plasma
for all values of temperature, pressure possible for pratical fusion generators at this time?
If it is then why are all the physistists wrong in saying ITER will produce power... where did they go wrong?
Personally I doubt you understand as well as plasma physistists how fusion works, considering you made the statement that man made fusion cannot produce more energy than it requires, yet you dont prove such a huge statement.
You say:
QUOTE
In other words, the more energy you apply, the more energy you need for containment, so the more energy you apply, so the more energy you need for containment! It's a vicious cycle! Eventually, containment must be lost.
Fair enough but what is the rate of INCREASE, does the energy need for confiment rise faster than the more energy you apply.
Is it really:
Energy to heat and confine plasma > Energy released from fusion of the plasma
for all values of temperature, pressure possible for pratical fusion generators at this time?
If it is then why are all the physistists wrong in saying ITER will produce power... where did they go wrong?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 22 2006, 04:25 AM)
The proof is in the pudding isn't it? Billions of dollars for 500 seconds of light. Sounds like a deal!
It's a proof of concept reactor. Ideas are put into practice for the first time with hte ITER so it'll be more expensive than future reactors. The Manhattan project was fantastically expensive and took up way more resources and manpower than it does to make a reactor now, but that's because they were working things out as they went along.
You're completely ignoring the rate of increase of containment energy versus output and just assuming one is always more than the other. Can you show me the mathematics you've used to come to that conclusion or are you making the same kind of omitions you accuse people at NASA and CERN of doing?
QUOTE (Nessus+)
You admit then that it will produce more energy than it gives out then?
I admit nothing. I just thought it was funny to spend 12.1 billion dollars (like that's an accurate figure) in the effort. I haven't a lot of confidence that it will work, but I agree with you that magnetic confinement systems have a greater potential for success.
It's predecessor (the JET) only had a Q value of 0.7. For ITER to achieve the hoped for Q value of 10 (with a sustained value of 5) seems like quite a leap. Maybe it'll work, but I won't hold my breath.
I don't need to prove it. So far it's proving itself. There are Q value claims of 1.25 but these are only caluculated values. No useful energy has ever been produced by a fusion reactor.
Do you have any idea how much energy might have been produced in the world if all the money invested in fusion had been put to alternative, proven concepts? We could have blanketed the Sahara with solar production facilities that would be producing energy today!
I don't need to prove it. So far it's proving itself. There are Q value claims of 1.25 but these are only caluculated values. No useful energy has ever been produced by a fusion reactor.
Do you have any idea how much energy might have been produced in the world if all the money invested in fusion had been put to alternative, proven concepts? We could have blanketed the Sahara with solar production facilities that would be producing energy today!
You say:
Fair enough but what is the rate of INCREASE, does the energy need for confiment rise faster than the more energy you apply.
That's a trick question. The goal isn't absolute containment. The goal is to sustain a fusion reaction at a significant Q value for a long enough time period to extract useful energy from the process.
Fair enough but what is the rate of INCREASE, does the energy need for confiment rise faster than the more energy you apply.
That's a trick question. The goal isn't absolute containment. The goal is to sustain a fusion reaction at a significant Q value for a long enough time period to extract useful energy from the process.
Is it really:
Energy to heat and confine plasma > Energy released from fusion of the plasma
for all values of temperature, pressure possible for pratical fusion generators at this time?
This is another trick question. There are no "practical fusion generators". So far though, this has been the case. Will it always be the case? I suppose we'll find out after ITER gets started. If they're unsucccessful there, I think it'll be a hard sell to convince people again that, "Vit juzt a leetle more juize ve can make it verk!"
I've already said but I was generally referring to inertial containment systems, not the tokamak systems. Tokamak systems haven't the same conflicts with the conservation of momentum law that inertial containment has.
I like tokamak systems because the plasma is supported by a magnetic field which in turn is supported by a real physical structure. I'm doubtful though of the ability of of the magnetic fields to hold on to the fusing plasma for the extended periods anticipated. Time will tell.
I agree, let them prove it with the biggest reactor to date. Problem is that if it doesnt work then it 'might' work for even bigger ones, but how would you know unless you build them?
I agree, let them prove it with the biggest reactor to date. Problem is that if it doesnt work then it 'might' work for even bigger ones, but how would you know unless you build them?
Do you have any idea how much energy might have been produced in the world if all the money invested in fusion had been put to alternative, proven concepts? We could have blanketed the Sahara with solar production facilities that would be producing energy today!
But if fusion works, and they can get commercial fusion reactors out there as soon as possible, that would pratically solve all out energy problems. And not only on earth, fusion would be highly useful for space exploriation and colonization.
The proof is in the pudding isn't it? Billions of dollars for 500 seconds of light. Sounds like a deal!
Sounds like a devil!
Wasn't oil a "limitless" resource a hundred years ago? Didn't it seem the atmosphere was a "limitless" sewer for CO2 emissions? The only limitless thing on Earth is human's greed. Given that, any resource that we can take from our planet will end up spoiled or exhausted.
Actually, to bring things back to a more scientific discussion, does anyone know how the deuterium came to be in seawater? Is it as a result of exposure to cosmic rays etc? Or even normal sunlight? Was it there from the time when the solar system formed?
At any rate, water is generated as a "by-product" of fusion, although I imagine it's depleted, in the sense that the hydrogen atoms are just hydrogen, with one neutron, not deuterium...
So, how is the deuterium created?
Hello and welcome to my opinion. I am after a fusion of deuterim in a Cumming Diesel motor using a medium such as a mixture of salt and an
oil that the deuterim does mix with. I have been using deuterim for some
time and it is almost impossible to purchase. I did not say I was getting fusion
but is is burning the d2. Now I know that is not impressive, but taken with a few modifications I will realize an explosion when I alter the fuel jets to accomodate
the pressure of fuel on the pistons.
Someone asked where did deuterim come from. My theory is that d2 acts in water as it acts in moderation of neutrons or signals and slows down the process of speeding viberations. Take the Sea Life that communicate with one another and
d2 makes for a moderator for the fish to send readable signals. Now you ask the question, why is it in fresh water? I think all forms of water are linked and if it flows from the glacier or mountain top, d2 is prepared to mix with any volumn or
body of water. Some places are lighter in d2 than others counting for the fresh water mix and other considerations.
I am convinced that d2 will be the answer to all energy needs. Physics that try to
incorporate confinement and high temperature in the solution is doomed to fail.
Because Edward Teller thought that a high explosive detonator and several other
tamper elements of fission bombs were needed to set off fusion does not indicate
that d2 is impossible to handle under normal pressure and tempature. The barrier
that holds d2 together and prevents a MARRAGE of atoms can be overcome if
substances are activated to counter the strong opposing attraction and allow atoms to smash together. Research is needed on a physical basis. Trial and error is
the answer. This is not as complicated and the media makes it sound. High beam
confinement has not proven to be worth the money or time.
The answer is in our brain, let's find it.
I admit nothing. I just thought it was funny to spend 12.1 billion dollars (like that's an accurate figure) in the effort. I haven't a lot of confidence that it will work, but I agree with you that magnetic confinement systems have a greater potential for success.
It's predecessor (the JET) only had a Q value of 0.7. For ITER to achieve the hoped for Q value of 10 (with a sustained value of 5) seems like quite a leap. Maybe it'll work, but I won't hold my breath.
QUOTE
Personally I doubt you understand as well as plasma physistists how fusion works, considering you made the statement that man made fusion cannot produce more energy than it requires, yet you dont prove such a huge statement.
I don't need to prove it. So far it's proving itself. There are Q value claims of 1.25 but these are only caluculated values. No useful energy has ever been produced by a fusion reactor.
Do you have any idea how much energy might have been produced in the world if all the money invested in fusion had been put to alternative, proven concepts? We could have blanketed the Sahara with solar production facilities that would be producing energy today!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Personally I doubt you understand as well as plasma physistists how fusion works, considering you made the statement that man made fusion cannot produce more energy than it requires, yet you dont prove such a huge statement. |
I don't need to prove it. So far it's proving itself. There are Q value claims of 1.25 but these are only caluculated values. No useful energy has ever been produced by a fusion reactor.
Do you have any idea how much energy might have been produced in the world if all the money invested in fusion had been put to alternative, proven concepts? We could have blanketed the Sahara with solar production facilities that would be producing energy today!
You say:
QUOTE
In other words, the more energy you apply, the more energy you need for containment, so the more energy you apply, so the more energy you need for containment! It's a vicious cycle! Eventually, containment must be lost.
Fair enough but what is the rate of INCREASE, does the energy need for confiment rise faster than the more energy you apply.
That's a trick question. The goal isn't absolute containment. The goal is to sustain a fusion reaction at a significant Q value for a long enough time period to extract useful energy from the process.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In other words, the more energy you apply, the more energy you need for containment, so the more energy you apply, so the more energy you need for containment! It's a vicious cycle! Eventually, containment must be lost. |
Fair enough but what is the rate of INCREASE, does the energy need for confiment rise faster than the more energy you apply.
That's a trick question. The goal isn't absolute containment. The goal is to sustain a fusion reaction at a significant Q value for a long enough time period to extract useful energy from the process.
Is it really:
Energy to heat and confine plasma > Energy released from fusion of the plasma
for all values of temperature, pressure possible for pratical fusion generators at this time?
This is another trick question. There are no "practical fusion generators". So far though, this has been the case. Will it always be the case? I suppose we'll find out after ITER gets started. If they're unsucccessful there, I think it'll be a hard sell to convince people again that, "Vit juzt a leetle more juize ve can make it verk!"
QUOTE
If it is then why are all the physistists wrong in saying ITER will produce power... where did they go wrong?
I've already said but I was generally referring to inertial containment systems, not the tokamak systems. Tokamak systems haven't the same conflicts with the conservation of momentum law that inertial containment has.
I like tokamak systems because the plasma is supported by a magnetic field which in turn is supported by a real physical structure. I'm doubtful though of the ability of of the magnetic fields to hold on to the fusing plasma for the extended periods anticipated. Time will tell.
QUOTE
This is another trick question. There are no "practical fusion generators". So far though, this has been the case. Will it always be the case? I suppose we'll find out after ITER gets started
I agree, let them prove it with the biggest reactor to date. Problem is that if it doesnt work then it 'might' work for even bigger ones, but how would you know unless you build them?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is another trick question. There are no "practical fusion generators". So far though, this has been the case. Will it always be the case? I suppose we'll find out after ITER gets started |
I agree, let them prove it with the biggest reactor to date. Problem is that if it doesnt work then it 'might' work for even bigger ones, but how would you know unless you build them?
Do you have any idea how much energy might have been produced in the world if all the money invested in fusion had been put to alternative, proven concepts? We could have blanketed the Sahara with solar production facilities that would be producing energy today!
But if fusion works, and they can get commercial fusion reactors out there as soon as possible, that would pratically solve all out energy problems. And not only on earth, fusion would be highly useful for space exploriation and colonization.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 22 2006, 01:41 AM)
Do you have any idea how much energy might have been produced in the world if all the money invested in fusion had been put to alternative, proven concepts? We could have blanketed the Sahara with solar production facilities that would be producing energy today!
Thanks for this statement!
How about harnessing wave energy, or how many wind turbines, would those billions have produced and made available ? these powers may turn out to be better than solar in the long run because of the by-products (toxic) created in the production of solar powered containments.
Thanks for this statement!
How about harnessing wave energy, or how many wind turbines, would those billions have produced and made available ? these powers may turn out to be better than solar in the long run because of the by-products (toxic) created in the production of solar powered containments.
QUOTE (Nessus+Jun 22 2006, 04:37 AM)
But if fusion works, and they can get commercial fusion reactors out there as soon as possible, that would pratically solve all out energy problems. And not only on earth, fusion would be highly useful for space exploriation and colonization.
The only reason science even considers colonization is because it's students see the potential need for it ( laughable to even think it can be done ) because no one does anything SMART about stopping the waste and degredation of this sweet little planet we already have full capacity to live and breathe upon.
Oh fools!
Just because one can put billions of dollars into something just because it works, that does not mean, that other things may not have the advantage over that working concept or entity.
Earths resourses are plundered daily, at so fast a rate, by the ignorant, we wont be here long enough to see the dreams of fusion fufilled.
The only reason science even considers colonization is because it's students see the potential need for it ( laughable to even think it can be done ) because no one does anything SMART about stopping the waste and degredation of this sweet little planet we already have full capacity to live and breathe upon.
Oh fools!
Just because one can put billions of dollars into something just because it works, that does not mean, that other things may not have the advantage over that working concept or entity.
Earths resourses are plundered daily, at so fast a rate, by the ignorant, we wont be here long enough to see the dreams of fusion fufilled.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jun 21 2006, 08:25 PM)
The proof is in the pudding isn't it? Billions of dollars for 500 seconds of light. Sounds like a deal!
Sounds like a devil!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
It's a proof of concept reactor. Ideas are put into practice for the first time with hte ITER so it'll be more expensive than future reactors. The Manhattan project was fantastically expensive and took up way more resources and manpower than it does to make a reactor now, but that's because they were working things out as they went along.
Sure. But they did it in only a few years time with quick and obvious success. How long have they been working on fusion now? (hint, the basic concepts were worked out during the 20th century's heydays of particle physics).
Touche'!
Sure. But they did it in only a few years time with quick and obvious success. How long have they been working on fusion now? (hint, the basic concepts were worked out during the 20th century's heydays of particle physics).
QUOTE
You're completely ignoring the rate of increase of containment energy versus output and just assuming one is always more than the other. Can you show me the mathematics you've used to come to that conclusion or are you making the same kind of omitions you accuse people at NASA and CERN of doing?
Touche'!
[FONT=Times]
There are real problems with alternative power sources such as wind and solar. They depend on the weather. Nobody has found an economic way of storing the power for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
The best solution I know of is to find a picturesque valley. You then evict the local inhabitants, tear up the nature reserve signs, and pump it full of water using surplus electricity. When you need the power back you use the water to drive turbines. Here in England I reckon we could get a good start by trashing Wales and Scotland.
Here in Europe open space is at a premium. Nobody is expecting to find enough acceptable locations for wind farms for more than a fraction of our power needs.
Given the limited winter daylight of northern countries (coupled with the need for winter heating) and long periods of cloudy conditions, solar cells are not likely to be a solution.
There is plenty of sunlight heating up various deserts but the problems of transferring power thousands of miles have not been cracked.
It seems clear that if you make a fusion reactor sufficiently large it will produce power, and lots of it. The problem is nobody knows how large, and finding out has so far taken decades and huge quantities of cash. It will probably take more decades and even larger quantities of cash to find out.
The problems involved are variously political, economic, environmental, or technical but they all have the same characteristic in common - their solution is at best uncertain.
In such straits Fusion is as good a bet as any. We have to go for them all and hope that one works out.
There are real problems with alternative power sources such as wind and solar. They depend on the weather. Nobody has found an economic way of storing the power for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
The best solution I know of is to find a picturesque valley. You then evict the local inhabitants, tear up the nature reserve signs, and pump it full of water using surplus electricity. When you need the power back you use the water to drive turbines. Here in England I reckon we could get a good start by trashing Wales and Scotland.
Here in Europe open space is at a premium. Nobody is expecting to find enough acceptable locations for wind farms for more than a fraction of our power needs.
Given the limited winter daylight of northern countries (coupled with the need for winter heating) and long periods of cloudy conditions, solar cells are not likely to be a solution.
There is plenty of sunlight heating up various deserts but the problems of transferring power thousands of miles have not been cracked.
It seems clear that if you make a fusion reactor sufficiently large it will produce power, and lots of it. The problem is nobody knows how large, and finding out has so far taken decades and huge quantities of cash. It will probably take more decades and even larger quantities of cash to find out.
The problems involved are variously political, economic, environmental, or technical but they all have the same characteristic in common - their solution is at best uncertain.
In such straits Fusion is as good a bet as any. We have to go for them all and hope that one works out.
QUOTE (Allison Newman+May 26 2006, 11:14 AM)
QUOTE (Chungalin+May 24 2006, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE
Deuterium is present in seawater, which makes it a virtually limitless resource
Wasn't oil a "limitless" resource a hundred years ago? Didn't it seem the atmosphere was a "limitless" sewer for CO2 emissions? The only limitless thing on Earth is human's greed. Given that, any resource that we can take from our planet will end up spoiled or exhausted.
Actually, to bring things back to a more scientific discussion, does anyone know how the deuterium came to be in seawater? Is it as a result of exposure to cosmic rays etc? Or even normal sunlight? Was it there from the time when the solar system formed?
At any rate, water is generated as a "by-product" of fusion, although I imagine it's depleted, in the sense that the hydrogen atoms are just hydrogen, with one neutron, not deuterium...
So, how is the deuterium created?
Hello and welcome to my opinion. I am after a fusion of deuterim in a Cumming Diesel motor using a medium such as a mixture of salt and anoil that the deuterim does mix with. I have been using deuterim for some
time and it is almost impossible to purchase. I did not say I was getting fusion
but is is burning the d2. Now I know that is not impressive, but taken with a few modifications I will realize an explosion when I alter the fuel jets to accomodate
the pressure of fuel on the pistons.
Someone asked where did deuterim come from. My theory is that d2 acts in water as it acts in moderation of neutrons or signals and slows down the process of speeding viberations. Take the Sea Life that communicate with one another and
d2 makes for a moderator for the fish to send readable signals. Now you ask the question, why is it in fresh water? I think all forms of water are linked and if it flows from the glacier or mountain top, d2 is prepared to mix with any volumn or
body of water. Some places are lighter in d2 than others counting for the fresh water mix and other considerations.
I am convinced that d2 will be the answer to all energy needs. Physics that try to
incorporate confinement and high temperature in the solution is doomed to fail.
Because Edward Teller thought that a high explosive detonator and several other
tamper elements of fission bombs were needed to set off fusion does not indicate
that d2 is impossible to handle under normal pressure and tempature. The barrier
that holds d2 together and prevents a MARRAGE of atoms can be overcome if
substances are activated to counter the strong opposing attraction and allow atoms to smash together. Research is needed on a physical basis. Trial and error is
the answer. This is not as complicated and the media makes it sound. High beam
confinement has not proven to be worth the money or time.
The answer is in our brain, let's find it.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.