Mikhail Liebenstein Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm This is why we have the push for electric cars, it looks like a major barrier to useable nuclear fusion is out of the way. So roll on cheap energy and a collapse in the Gulf states. Of course, we might find a shortage of rare earth metals is a new issue.
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm This is why we have the push for electric cars, it looks like a major barrier to useable nuclear fusion is out of the way. So roll on cheap energy and a collapse in the Gulf states. Of course, we might find a shortage of rare earth metals is a new issue. The National Ignition Facility. Now there's an auspicious name.
Dubai Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Fingers crossed, but I can't see this fitting under the bonnet.....
pl1 Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Fusion! The longest, most expensive, failed experiment in the history of Science. Let me guess. It's "ten years away"?
Scunnered Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Fusion! The longest, most expensive, failed experiment in the history of Science. Let me guess. It's "ten years away"? But Dr Glenzer is confident that with everything in place, ignition is on the horizon. He added, quite simply, "It's going to happen this year."
DeepLurker Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Fusion! The longest, most expensive, failed experiment in the history of Science. Let me guess. It's "ten years away"? Oh? I thought it was always 30 years away? Our level of technology seems hopelessly inadequate for the task at hand. For example, I quickly dug up that the laser used in this experiment can only be fired once every 5 hours. We're a very very very long way from anything useful and if - for example - photovoltaics improve at the same rate in the next 30 years as they have in the last 30, then fusion will be pretty much obsolete before even reaching the commercial stage.
Krackersdave Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Hmmm I suspect that the interesting bit for many will be this bit..... "Along the way, the experiments smashed the record for the highest energy from a laser - by a factor of 20." Now - who would be wanting a very powerful laser?
talksalot81 Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 To whom would you suggest the power is interesting? It is absolutely NOT of interest for the purposes of weapons.
talksalot81 Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 Fusion! The longest, most expensive, failed experiment in the history of Science. A little tip for you. Generally, people try to hide their ignorance, not volunteer it to the world.
Saberu Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 So many naysayers in here. From my rudimentary understanding of physics this looks to be great news. As for the "largest failed experiment in history" comment I don't have a big enough rolleyes picture to reply to that with. Someone mentioned that the laser can only be fired once every 5 hours and hence it's rubbish and we don't have the technology, but as far as my rudimentary understanding goes once ignition occurs the fuel cell will keep burning until it burns itself out..which will probably be a very long time as surely that's how the sun works but the sun is so big that it will last for millions of years. I don't think it's something that needs to be continually ignited over and over.
Krackersdave Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 To whom would you suggest the power is interesting? It is absolutely NOT of interest for the purposes of weapons. Really - why not?
DeepLurker Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 So many naysayers in here. From my rudimentary understanding of physics this looks to be great news. As for the "largest failed experiment in history" comment I don't have a big enough rolleyes picture to reply to that with. Someone mentioned that the laser can only be fired once every 5 hours and hence it's rubbish and we don't have the technology, but as far as my rudimentary understanding goes once ignition occurs the fuel cell will keep burning until it burns itself out..which will probably be a very long time as surely that's how the sun works but the sun is so big that it will last for millions of years. I don't think it's something that needs to be continually ignited over and over. You're right, your understanding is rudimentary. Before mocking other posters, you can start by reading a primer on the subject for example on wikipedia. In particular, you will note the following paragraph: For a true industrial demonstration, further work is required. In particular, the laser systems need to be able to run at high operating frequencies, perhaps one to ten times a second. Most of the laser systems mentioned in this article have trouble operating even as much as once a day. Once we have ignition, it will burn the rest of the pellet in the centre of the reactor... and that's it. You need to insert lots of pellets to get a continuous production of heat for the turbines, and so the lasers need to fire at a rate thousands of times faster than now. As for your criticism of pl1 and his "largest failed experiment in history" comment - well, commercial fusion is a few decades away, and has been ever since the 1970s. I find his suspicion more than justified. PS I'm no expert on this subject - in fact the Wikipedia article taught me stuff.
Dubai Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 Did anybody notice if the oil price did anything significant on this news?
DONKEY2409 Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I think this is an important piece of news. People are always talking about how the future world economic power belongs to the likes of Brazil, India, Russia and China: I've never really got that, I can't see how it would be sustainable as all four of those nations are actually quite dodgy...all are democratically deficient, all have huge social inequalities and massive corruption: no Western nation maintained a stable economy and society without (at least partially) dealing with these issues at some stage in their history be that through revolution, war or the creation of a vast welfare state: I do not see why the BRICs nations will be any different. The future world economic powers, then, will be those that recognise that we are coming to the end of the present oil-based economic model, that we are on the cusp of a new industrial revolution and that the nation/trading bloc that develops a new, cheap, reliable energy source will be able grasp a lead, and power, over other nations equivalent to that Britain had in its initial industrial revolution.
ken_ichikawa Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 I think this is an important piece of news. People are always talking about how the future world economic power belongs to the likes of Brazil, India, Russia and China: I've never really got that, I can't see how it would be sustainable as all four of those nations are actually quite dodgy...all are democratically deficient, all have huge social inequalities and massive corruption: no Western nation But you assume that those nations will be alpha nations forever, the thing is all empires fail, its just that they will have their time in the sunshine, while we fall into obscurity. Britain's time in the sunshine was probably mid empire. China's hegemony will probably last till 2030 or something.
DONKEY2409 Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 But you assume that those nations will be alpha nations forever, the thing is all empires fail, its just that they will have their time in the sunshine, while we fall into obscurity. Britain's time in the sunshine was probably mid empire. China's hegemony will probably last till 2030 or something. Its just a personal opinion (and it is a bit "out there" so I accept I could be proven totally wrong) but I think the whole BRICs thing will go wrong in about 5 years time: as well as having the unaddressed imbalances I mention, these nations economies are the children of globalisation...I think the banking crisis and the West's current indebtedness are the first signs that globalisation is also an unsustainable concept, thus the BRICs nation's time in the sun will be very short (well, unless its one of them comes up with something like nuclear fusion, then its game on....).
newbonic Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 ...... As for your criticism of pl1 and his "largest failed experiment in history" comment - well, commercial fusion is a few decades away, and has been ever since the 1970s. I find his suspicion more than justified. PS I'm no expert on this subject - in fact the Wikipedia article taught me stuff. I did a metallurgy degree in the mid '80s, and on the materials for nuclear reactors module the lecturer joked that 'practical fusion was probably about 30 years away, just like it was when he was a student in the early 1960s!!'. Well, 25 years later it's still 20 years away from commercialisation. There was an interesting Horizon last year though profiling the latest efforts, and the New Scientist did a good article (Fusion is a gamble worth taking) last Oct. So I'm mildly optimistic that a commercial fusion reactor will be up and running in the 2020s, or maybe 2030s. Although whether it would be better to spend the hundreds of billions of $$$$ on tapping fusion from the sun is another matter.
Sledgehead Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm ... electric cars, ... nuclear fusion..... ....we might find a shortage of rare earth metals is a new issue. Just to be clear, I would be right in thinking purple refers to red rather than blue ... ?
thod Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 It is a weapons system too. When any fool with some home-made hydrogen and a laser pointer can create a fusion bomb, the cities will become dangerous places to be. People will spread out and live across the countryside to avoid presenting a massed target to the homicidal loons. The reaction will sustain itself once initiated. However, I cannot see how further material could be injected to sustain a continuous reaction. The reaction occurs so fast and with such force that it is restricted to consuming only that which is present. If they increase the yield by starting with a larger mass, the energies must still be contained whilst not destroying the equipment. One obvious use is for spaceship propulsion. It has long been hypothesised that a good way to power one is to throw small nuclear bombs out the back which would explode against a plate (getting gradually thinner due to evaporation) thrusting the ship forward. A big problem is uranium is heavy and an explosion in the air would create a toxic aerosol. A ship throwing out small pellets of hydrogen ignited by laser would avoid these problems.
Sledgehead Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 One obvious use is for spaceship propulsion. It has long been hypothesised that a good way to power one is to throw small nuclear bombs out the back which would explode against a plate (getting gradually thinner due to evaporation) thrusting the ship forward. Hmmm..... In space there is no atmosphere, so there can be no shockwaves in the trad sense (caused by explosive expansion of gas). Presumably this therefore works in the same way as any rocket / jet engine. You need to detonate the stuff in a vented vessel that also contains a large quantity of gas whose subsequent heating and expulsion produces the actual thrust, no? (in which case you need a large quantity of liquefied gas) Otherwise, the only effect this can have is from the detonation-accelerated particles party to the nuclear reaction ... if these are actinides, there may be some mileage in this, but you'd soon run out of actinides. Moreover, they are difficult to get into space in any quantity, simply because they are so heavy .... yet ... A big problem is uranium is heavy and an explosion in the air would create a toxic aerosol. A ship throwing out small pellets of hydrogen ignited by laser would avoid these problems. ... but suffer from the fact that the He produced has a mass 1/50th of the accelerated actinides. It all sounds like half-bakery. Got any links?
Eric Blair Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 Hmmm..... In space there is no atmosphere, so there can be no shockwaves in the trad sense (caused by explosive expansion of gas). Presumably this therefore works in the same way as any rocket / jet engine. You need to detonate the stuff in a vented vessel that also contains a large quantity of gas whose subsequent heating and expulsion produces the actual thrust, no? (in which case you need a large quantity of liquefied gas) Otherwise, the only effect this can have is from the detonation-accelerated particles party to the nuclear reaction ... if these are actinides, there may be some mileage in this, but you'd soon run out of actinides. Moreover, they are difficult to get into space in any quantity, simply because they are so heavy .... yet ... ... but suffer from the fact that the He produced has a mass 1/50th of the accelerated actinides. It all sounds like half-bakery. Got any links? hmm, how about googling "space propulsion atomic bombs" ah yes, there it is: 1st result -- project orion
blankster Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 ' This is why we have the push for electric carsPartly. The push for electric cars has certainly gone mainstream in the last few years. Today I read that Tesla, who make a spectacular electric sports car partly based on the Lotus Elise, are going ahead with an electric saloon car to rival the BMW 3-series. For a long time the lack of range has been the only drawback to electric motoring, and it still is. Except that not everybody needs a long-range car, or possibly they might have another car for long journeys. So range is a limitation, but only if you need that range. In addition, a lot of the technology for electric cars is transferable to or from certain types of hybrid cars. So, maybe, in a few years time, we might see the model line up for a typical car in the Golf / Focus / Astra category as comprising: Manual gearbox petrol / diesel versions Manual gearbox petrol / diesel versions with mild hybrid to improve economy Diesel-electric hybrid, with drive by electric motor - effectively replaces the auto gearbox option for drivers who don't want to be bothered with gears - but with with an economy bonus in place of a penalty. Pure electric version. Not suitable for everyone but very good where long range isn't required.
pl1 Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 A little tip for you. Generally, people try to hide their ignorance, not volunteer it to the world. CERN or anyone else for that matter has not produced one extra watt of power, in however many years they've been gravy-training taxpayers for grants running experiments.
cells Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm This is why we have the push for electric cars, it looks like a major barrier to useable nuclear fusion is out of the way. So roll on cheap energy and a collapse in the Gulf states. Of course, we might find a shortage of rare earth metals is a new issue. The fuel might be cheap but it is worthless if the reactor system costs megabucks to build. Current nuclear fuel is dirt cheap but the reactor and builds are expensive. Hence overall nuclear is expensive. I don’t see fusion beings a simpler or cheaper reactor so even with free fuel it will be too costly to be useful.
cells Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 CERN or anyone else for that matter has not produced one extra watt of power, in however many years they've been gravy-training taxpayers for grants running experiments. Not true, a few hydrogen nukes have been built and used creating a lot of extra watts of power. I think the worlds biggest tested nuke was mostly fusion powered.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.