So you are saying the sun doesn't run on fusion?the energy required to create the appropriate conditions will always exceed the amount generated.
I'm less skeptical. Folks like LPP Fusion are making interesting progress and aren't really living fat on optimistic investment. The ITER project may be welfare for PhDs but there's only scraps for these smaller projects.I honestly don't think fusion will ever be a viable energy source (unless we're talking about solar power). Reason: the energy required to create the appropriate conditions will always exceed the amount generated. I even suspect that many researchers already know this but since there is so much money (grants and other funding) on the line, no one dares to bring that fact to light. Same thing you see with quantum computing; likely impossible, but just too profitable to justify pulling the plug on research.
I'm a lot less skeptical of fusion because we know it works until iron with positive energy generation. For heavier elements it needs external energy but that's usually from a massive suns gravitational energy during a nova stage.I'm less skeptical. Folks like LPP Fusion are making interesting progress and aren't really living fat on optimistic investment. The ITER project may be welfare for PhDs but there's only scraps for these smaller projects.
Quantum computing may be closer than you think.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...uter-test-shows-breakthrough-is-within-reach/
I think it's just about the lab. Fusion reactions are easy produced. But it always consumes more energy than it can be obtained.So you are saying the sun doesn't run on fusion?
Nope, covered by my disclaimer: "unless we're talking about solar power".So you are saying the sun doesn't run on fusion?
The materials used for fusion are in a stable state. This is a problem! Extracting energy from a low entropy system requires energy and that energy must exceed the output. Star formation skirts the issue by exploiting the fact that gravitational force is constant. It is, in a sense, free.I'm a lot less skeptical of fusion because we know it works until iron with positive energy generation. For heavier elements it needs external energy but that's usually from a massive suns gravitational energy during a nova stage.
The released energy from a fusion reaction like an H bomb comes from the binding energy of the nucleus when the elements were created (Big-Bang, stars, etc...) originally. In 1961, Soviet physicists detonated a 50-megaton bomb. That didn't take the equivalent of a 50-MT bomb of input energy to generate the fusion process and hopefully we will eventually be able to cross the break-even point with controlled steady state or pulsed fusion.Nope, covered by my disclaimer: "unless we're talking about solar power".
The materials used for fusion are in a stable state. This is a problem! Extracting energy from a low entropy system requires energy and that energy must exceed the output. Star formation skirts the issue by exploiting the fact that gravitational force is constant. It is, in a sense, free.
Hydrogen bombs require the assistance of a fission device to get going so not exactly a free lunch. You have to somehow raise the energy levels high enough to overcome the Coulomb force, so what sufficient input sources exist besides gravitation and fission?The released energy from a fusion reaction like an H bomb comes from the binding energy of the nucleus when the elements were created (Big-Bang, stars, etc...) originally. In 1961, Soviet physicists detonated a 50-megaton bomb. That didn't take the equivalent of a 50-MT bomb of input energy to generate the fusion process and hopefully we will eventually be able to cross the break-even point with controlled steady state or pulsed fusion.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50+megatons+of+TNT+/+c^2 Equivalent mass that underwent fusion from the total mass of the weapon.
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/tsar-bomba
The source is irrelevant. The trick is to release more energy via fusion than required to start it. Once energy out > energy in, you've won. The reaction need not even be sustained, as long as you can continuously restart it and repeatedly achieve the above result.You have to somehow raise the energy levels high enough to overcome the Coulomb force, so what sufficient input sources exist besides gravitation and fission?
We don't need a new principle, we just need a sufficiently efficient way to provide the conditions for fusion that will release more energy than it takes to reach those conditions, and it's been determined by many that the theoretical energy required to reach those conditions is much less than the fusion energy released.so unless we discover some completely new principle that would allow us to achieve that, fusion will probably always remain just out of reach...
Well that's true, maybe it really is just a matter of refinement. I'm just somewhat of an inveterate skeptic I guess...We don't need a new principle, we just need a sufficiently efficient way to provide the conditions for fusion that will release more energy than it takes to reach those conditions, and it's been determined by many that the theoretical energy required to reach those conditions is much less than the fusion energy released.
So you just need to improve the efficiency of achieving those conditions, not a new principle.
Of course achieving that has proved to be very difficult, but that doesn't make it impossible.
At the start of the last century, many said it was impossible for man to ever fly.
But all that was really needed was a properly designed wing along with a more efficient engine that had a better power to weight ratio.
I'd love you to point out exactly where in my post I discounted that.Source matters: lasers and electromagnets require electricity!
Just how much energy do you think these devices draw? We haven't even broken even at this point, thus a seemingly over-optimistic assessment could easily be construed as having discounted that fact.I'd love you to point out exactly where in my post I discounted that.
You seem to share -- like a few other members of AAC -- the propensity to read into posts things that aren't there. It's a bad habit. Lose it....a seemingly over-optimistic assessment could easily be construed as having discounted that fact.
Most Tokamak Fusion plant predictions are of a 'Q' of about 30 at 500GW where engineering breakeven for normal plant operational losses would be a Q of 5.Just how much energy do you think these devices draw? We haven't even broken even at this point, thus a seemingly over-optimistic assessment could easily be construed as having discounted that fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factorRecord for Q is held by the JET reactor in the UK, at 0.67
by Duane Benson
by Jake Hertz
by Jake Hertz