Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
To put it as simply as I can, I believe that fusion energy, either cold or hot, is the energy of the future, and always will be. _________________ Beware the Grooooooooove!
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
DrillBites wrote:
To put it as simply as I can, I believe that fusion energy, either cold or hot, is the energy of the future, and always will be.
If that's your own - quite excellent.
If you're repeating it - still very good. _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
Cashmere wrote:
DrillBites wrote:
To put it as simply as I can, I believe that fusion energy, either cold or hot, is the energy of the future, and always will be.
If that's your own - quite excellent.
If you're repeating it - still very good.
I really wish I could say I was that I am clever enough to have thought of that saying, but I am not. I also wish I could remember where I heard it so I could give credit where credit is due, but once again my cleverness fails me. Oh well. _________________ Beware the Grooooooooove!
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 3068 Location: The Urban Village
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
DrillBites wrote:
Cashmere wrote:
DrillBites wrote:
To put it as simply as I can, I believe that fusion energy, either cold or hot, is the energy of the future, and always will be.
If that's your own - quite excellent.
If you're repeating it - still very good.
I really wish I could say I was that I am clever enough to have thought of that saying, but I am not. I also wish I could remember where I heard it so I could give credit where credit is due, but once again my cleverness fails me. Oh well.
I think I first heard Ken Deffeyes use that phrase in regard to shale oil. But he may have been paraphrasing someone else.
That Torus fusion thingy sure does look futuristic though
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
[quote="Zero-point"]
DrillBites wrote:
If you're going to make a statement like that then it won't mean anything unless you know the science behind the theory including quantum mechanics.
No, all I really need to know is that the very first patent for a fusion reactor was granted in 1946 to Sir George Paget Thomson and Moses Blackman and after 62 years of effort fusion energy is STILL the energy of the future. The rest of what I said is only my opinion and I am entitled to speak that as I please.
However if you really want I will spend the next ten pages cluttering up the forum with complex explanations of fusion processes proving that I have at least basic knowledge, but that just seems like a waste of time to me. _________________ Beware the Grooooooooove!
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
[quote="DrillBites"]
Zero-point wrote:
DrillBites wrote:
If you're going to make a statement like that then it won't mean anything unless you know the science behind the theory including quantum mechanics.
No, all I really need to know is that the very first patent for a fusion reactor was granted in 1946 to Sir George Paget Thomson and Moses Blackman and after 62 years of effort fusion energy is STILL the energy of the future. The rest of what I said is only my opinion and I am entitled to speak that as I please.
However if you really want I will spend the next ten pages cluttering up the forum with complex explanations of fusion processes proving that I have at least basic knowledge, but that just seems like a waste of time to me.
I wont talk endlessly about how fusion is practical and economic and how to build a reactor that would be viable. Instead I'll simply point out that we wont need fusion for the next several hundred years at the least, as fission is just as good, cheaper, and far more developed. If we stumble upon some magic technology that somehow is far far cheaper then that changes the game (Polywell perhaps), but I'm not holding my breath.
His argument was that that it simply took too much power to contain the the protons and that the high energy 14Mev neutron produced by tokomak fusion was simply too difficult to harness as an energy source.
It sure is neat. Unfortunately I still have no idea how they make up bremsstrahlung losses which inevitably show up in any fusion reactor. Oh I know the supposed argument is its non-maxwellian and that it doesnt thermalize, but they still show up and rob serious energy from the plasma. That and the 'experiments' showed some four whole neutrons in several milliseconds before the machine blew up, so I'm inclined to believe its wishful thinking and measurement anomolies.
I sure as hell would like polywell to work, but I really doubt it has a future.
Joined: Nov 24, 2007 Posts: 140 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
Dezakin wrote:
That and the 'experiments' showed some four whole neutrons in several milliseconds before the machine blew up, so I'm inclined to believe its wishful thinking and measurement anomolies.
I believe the time was on a scale of nanoseconds, rather than milliseconds, which was the entire problem. The device could only be active for very very short periods of time before it overheated (large devices will not have this problem - they simply couldn't design the required cooling system into such a small size) and the neutron detector has a sampling time that is quite a lot longer than the running time of the device, so it's surprising that it managed to register anything at all.
Also, the polywell is merely a refinement on previous types of fusion reactors which have been shown time and time again to produce fusion and neutrons: teen creates fusion in basement. The only reason the older devices don't work is because of the problems inherent in their design - they can achieve fusion, but they cannot be net-energy generating because of losses due to the reactants slamming into the device itself.
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
Lanthanide wrote:
Dezakin wrote:
That and the 'experiments' showed some four whole neutrons in several milliseconds before the machine blew up, so I'm inclined to believe its wishful thinking and measurement anomolies.
I believe the time was on a scale of nanoseconds, rather than milliseconds, which was the entire problem. The device could only be active for very very short periods of time before it overheated (large devices will not have this problem - they simply couldn't design the required cooling system into such a small size) and the neutron detector has a sampling time that is quite a lot longer than the running time of the device, so it's surprising that it managed to register anything at all.
Also, the polywell is merely a refinement on previous types of fusion reactors which have been shown time and time again to produce fusion and neutrons: teen creates fusion in basement. The only reason the older devices don't work is because of the problems inherent in their design - they can achieve fusion, but they cannot be net-energy generating because of losses due to the reactants slamming into the device itself.
Its not just losses to the grid, its bremsstrahlung losses. I fully believe its possible for polywell to be a neutron generator, just like the farnsworth fusor. It might even be a useful neutron source, just like the farnsworth fusor. Possibly, someday, a useful method of plasma confinement.
But the notion that they can overcome bremsstrahlung losses is a bit much for me. Which means that even if you can achieve break even, you're stuck with deuterium-tritium interactions rather than the covetted P-B11 aneutronic reaction. Then you have the same problems of a tokomak. I dont expect it will even get that far. I expect this is wishful thinking run amok.
But it is fun to daydream about what you could do with 100MW powerplants that run for years that you could fit on a plane. It would kickstart the global economy into a higher gear and open up the solar system. Somehow nature seems to work against space opera however.
"The moon is once again a popular destination, as several space-faring nations are talking about setting up bases there. One reason would be to mine fuel for future fusion reactors.
The fuel in this case is helium-3, a lighter isotope of the helium used in balloons. In high energy collisions, helium-3 fuses with other nuclei to release more energy and less waste than the reactions in traditional nuclear reactors....
...Such a mining operation would retrieve 300 times more energy than it uses (including all the energy to fly to the moon and back), Kulcinski estimates. In comparison, mining coal returns 15-20 times the energy put in. His team has estimated that it might cost around $800 million to bring back each ton of lunar helium-3. "
"The moon is once again a popular destination, as several space-faring nations are talking about setting up bases there. One reason would be to mine fuel for future fusion reactors.
The fuel in this case is helium-3, a lighter isotope of the helium used in balloons. In high energy collisions, helium-3 fuses with other nuclei to release more energy and less waste than the reactions in traditional nuclear reactors....
...Such a mining operation would retrieve 300 times more energy than it uses (including all the energy to fly to the moon and back), Kulcinski estimates. In comparison, mining coal returns 15-20 times the energy put in. His team has estimated that it might cost around $800 million to bring back each ton of lunar helium-3. "
He3 from the moon is by far the most ridiculous justification for space travel I've ever heard. You're trying to feed an industry that doesnt exist a fuel with dubious benifits over tritium that you can synthesize far more cheaply on earth by neutron bombardment of lithium. Where his ludicrously optimistic cost of $800 million per tonne came from I cant guess. Perhaps its that cheap after they have cities on the moon or full scale AI controlling economies of scale in some pop-sci fantasy. By that point it'll be far cheaper to use solar power satellites or some other never-born technology of the future.
Platinum group metals from the asteroids I'd believe maybe if I hope hard enough, but not He3 from the moon.
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
Dezakin wrote:
But it is fun to daydream about what you could do with 100MW powerplants that run for years that you could fit on a plane. It would kickstart the global economy into a higher gear and open up the solar system. Somehow nature seems to work against space opera however.
1 GW generators and you can choose whichever reaction fits the problem. Problem is most people including most here think inside the box in a system designed to keep people dependent on energy sociopaths that own the oil resources.
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:23 pm Post subject: Re: What about fusion energy?
Dezakin wrote:
He3 from the moon is by far the most ridiculous justification for space travel I've ever heard. You're trying to feed an industry that doesnt exist a fuel with dubious benifits over tritium that you can synthesize far more cheaply on earth by neutron bombardment of lithium.
Agreed. Furthermore, what I never understood about this idea was why we should not simply mimick moon in the lab and produce He3 here anyway. It's not exactly black magic which takes place on the moon.
Personally I don't know if Bussard was right or if he was exaggerating the potential of his idea but I feel that at $200 million the Polywell design was worth developing.
I thought the Bussard Polywell reactor and its experimental history were really fascinating.
I can't fathom why Bussard had so much trouble coming up with a mere $200 million which he needed for the next set of experiments.
For that matter, I can't see how we can spend so many billions per month in Iraq and spend so little on such a tantalizing experiment.
Frustrating.
This is the kind of subject that I wish were available on The History Channel or the Discovery Channel - instead of all those brain-dead shows on crab-fishing or prison-life. _________________ "May you live in interesting times"
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
