1. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    7913
    12 Dec '22 16:51
    Expect an announcement:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html
  2. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    7913
    15 Dec '22 08:57
    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/14/opinions/fusion-experiment-success-lincoln/index.html



    <On December 5, ultra-powerful lasers were fired on a pellet the size of a peppercorn containing a mix of deuterium and tritium – which are components of the fuel that powers the sun. The 192 lasers heated the tiny BB-sized object to temperatures hotter than the sun’s center, and for a fraction of a second, a tiny star was formed. ... This is a monumental step for science and a spectacular technical achievement. ... While the energy released in the process was 50% greater than the energy supplied by the lasers, this is just part of the energy budget. When all of the equipment powering the experiment is taken into account, the energy released in the fusion process was only about 1% of the total energy used. And there are major technical problems that still need to be solved before an energy-rich utopia is achieved. >

    So, uh, we're still 30 years away from fusion-powered cities.
  3. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    644924
    15 Dec '22 10:48
    @moonbus said
    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/14/opinions/fusion-experiment-success-lincoln/index.html



    <On December 5, ultra-powerful lasers were fired on a pellet the size of a peppercorn containing a mix of deuterium and tritium – which are components of the fuel that powers the sun. The 192 lasers heated the tiny BB-sized object to temperatures hotter than the sun’s center, and ...[text shortened]... n energy-rich utopia is achieved. >

    So, uh, we're still 30 years away from fusion-powered cities.
    That was the amount of time a professor gave, when I studied at Karlsruhe about 1990.
  4. Subscribervenda
    Dave
    S.Yorks.England
    Joined
    18 Apr '10
    Moves
    81791
    15 Dec '22 11:44
    @moonbus said
    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/14/opinions/fusion-experiment-success-lincoln/index.html



    <On December 5, ultra-powerful lasers were fired on a pellet the size of a peppercorn containing a mix of deuterium and tritium – which are components of the fuel that powers the sun. The 192 lasers heated the tiny BB-sized object to temperatures hotter than the sun’s center, and ...[text shortened]... n energy-rich utopia is achieved. >

    So, uh, we're still 30 years away from fusion-powered cities.
    It's amazing how projects can accelerate given the right amount of funding and attention.
    If the boffins say 30 years,I wouldn't be surprised if it was nearer 10
  5. Standard memberEndLame
    πŸ‘Œ
    Account suspended
    Joined
    29 Nov '22
    Moves
    5624
    15 Dec '22 12:541 edit
    @ponderable said
    That was the amount of time a professor gave, when I studied at Karlsruhe about 1990.
    Yep.

    No real tech advances at all lately.
    Just improvements on stuff we already had.

    I'm predicting this fusion thing will be like graphene.
    Great on paper but not feasible for some time.
  6. Standard memberEndLame
    πŸ‘Œ
    Account suspended
    Joined
    29 Nov '22
    Moves
    5624
    15 Dec '22 14:57
    Also, will they share it with the world? Or will that tech cause a war to get it?

    Can that fusion power increase weapons power?
  7. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    7913
    15 Dec '22 19:561 edit
    @booger said
    Also, will they share it with the world? Or will that tech cause a war to get it?

    Can that fusion power increase weapons power?
    There are already fusion weapons. The big advance will be sustainable controlled fusion. Whoever develops it first can become less dependent on burning fossil fuels, which will radically change geo-economics. The Saudis, for example, will be sitting on sand again, instead of black gold.
  8. Standard memberEndLame
    πŸ‘Œ
    Account suspended
    Joined
    29 Nov '22
    Moves
    5624
    15 Dec '22 22:23
    @moonbus

    Yes you're right.
    I'm just curious if that tech would be given to the world or wars fought over getting it.

    Imagine the jobs lost in all energy sectors that would become obsolete.

    Just thinking out loud is all.
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    16 Dec '22 02:21
    I used to think cold fusion was impossible, but it is possible. That doesn't mean cold fusion is the future though. Sabine will walk you all through it. Trust me, this is interesting.

    YouTube
  10. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    644924
    16 Dec '22 07:10
    @booger said
    Yep.

    No real tech advances at all lately.
    Just improvements on stuff we already had.

    I'm predicting this fusion thing will be like graphene.
    Great on paper but not feasible for some time.
    That is plain wrong. A lot of progress has been made in understanding that process. And the problem of plasma stability in connection to the composition (which is changing during the process)
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    16 Dec '22 07:34
    @moonbus
    According to their own announcement, they stuck in 1.21 megajoules and got out 1.25 something like that, it was 20% more not 50% but still, it was a first. I heard a report on BBC science the deal with the pellet, it takes 7 YEARS to make as pure as possible, each pellet and it is very expensive to do so.
    So even if it produced twice as much energy as it consumed it would not be enough to call it an energy machine because of the huge cost and did you see the size of the building holding the lasers? Imagine getting THAT beast down to the size of Mr. Fusion?πŸ™‚
  12. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2658
    16 Dec '22 18:45
    @booger said
    Yep.

    No real tech advances at all lately.
    Just improvements on stuff we already had.

    I'm predicting this fusion thing will be like graphene.
    Great on paper but not feasible for some time.
    No, graphITE is great on paper, dear rhinolith prospector.
  13. Standard memberEndLame
    πŸ‘Œ
    Account suspended
    Joined
    29 Nov '22
    Moves
    5624
    16 Dec '22 19:08
    @Soothfast

    Clever πŸ˜„
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    17 Dec '22 05:34
    @moonbus
    It turns out fusion is easier to do on a spacecraft for propulsion than here on Earth because you can basically make it a mile long accelerator and smash stuff together with no fear of radiation because you would be at the other end a mile away.
    The only thing more powerful than that Kg for Kg is anti matter conversion which is also on the drawing boards for space propulsion.
    Scientists have designed an anti matter collector, it turns out there is quite a lot of it floating around, atom by atom and they envision a kind of chicken wire sphere a hundred meters or more in diameter charged up to something line 100 million volts and special catchers directing any antimatter found into a magnetic trap so you can get a few milligrams of the stuff which is enough to lift the space shuttle and the boosters into orbit so on a small craft it would get to Jupiter in a day or so.
  15. Subscribermoonbus
    Über-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    7913
    18 Dec '22 14:481 edit
    @booger said
    @moonbus

    Yes you're right.
    I'm just curious if that tech would be given to the world or wars fought over getting it.

    Imagine the jobs lost in all energy sectors that would become obsolete.

    Just thinking out loud is all.
    Oh, I see what you mean. Certainly the parties which sustain themselves on burning fossil fuels, both nations and corporations, would fight tooth and nail to prevent the widespread implementation of fusion power. I doubt it would come to war though, as that would be in no one’s interest. If the USA were to offer the technology to the world’s worst fossil fuel polluters, it would be a grand gesture and possibly a game changer in averting climate disaster. As things stand, China is not going to stop burning fossil fuels on the grounds that they a right to catch up with capitalism, so offering China the tech would obviate that argument.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree