Hey now, it gave us Tang, WD-40, and Velcro at only a cost of a few trillion...

And gold physical vapor deposition on the coated shields for IR absorption - which is used in precision "ear thermometers".

 

And the ever-popular Freeze-Dried Ice Cream plus the gas-filled ink cartridge write at any angle Space Pen...

 

And the ever-popular Freeze-Dried Ice Cream plus the gas-filled ink cartridge write at any angle Space Pen...

Meanwhile Russian astronauts used pencils.

 

How does the budget for fusion power which may yield huge benefits to the world compare with the budge for thing like space exploration which is interesting but maybe not of much practical value?

And I would wholeheartedly agree if there was indeed any sort of indication that a fusion reaction could actually be self-sustained. Can you present any such evidence?

I think they thought the light bulb was illusive. But finally we found success, among others some things have a way to becoming reality, finding what doesn’t comes first.

The simple fact that a wire glows when subject to sufficient electrical current seems like pretty strong evidence that a light bulb might be possible. Fusion power, on the other hand, requires nothing less than a leap of faith...

 

I would've thought that the simple fact that every star in the universe uses fusion power to shine would be proof enough of its feasibility ...

 

And I would wholeheartedly agree if there was indeed any sort of indication that a fusion reaction could actually be self-sustained. Can you present any such evidence?

The sun and stars do it all the time.
Naysayers like you won't be here to talk about it otherwise.

The conditions needed to achieve an overunity fusion reaction are well known.
It's just a very difficult technical problem to achieve that, not an impossible one.

 

I would've thought that the simple fact that every star in the universe uses fusion power to shine would be proof enough of its feasibility ...

The sun and stars do it all the time.

The center of a star is subject to a constant, intense pressure which initiates and sustains the reaction. That pressure is due to gravity which is itself a constant acceleration upon matter (thus a force). Remove that huge "gravitational well" and the reaction ceases.

We can of course recreate that pressure in many possible ways here on Earth, but there is a price-tag: work. In other words, excess energy input will always be a requisite for fusion reactions.

The conditions needed to achieve an overunity fusion reaction are well known.

It's just a very difficult technical problem to achieve that, not an impossible one.

Okay so specifically, which of these conditions leads you to believe that fusion power is feasible?

 

excess energy input will always be a requisite for fusion reactions.

And on what fact do you make that conclusion?

so specifically, which of these conditions leads you to believe that fusion power is feasible?

The temperature/pressure needed for the fusion reaction is well know.
It's just a technical problem to achieve that.

So I'll ask you: What leads you to believe that is this problem cannot be solved?

 

Lots of things are just "technical problems to overcome" but that in itself is not proof that it will ever happen.

In my opinion we should wait at least 100 years before we try to actually create controlled fusion, and that also goes for going to Mars as well.

 

We already have it! Just set up a boiler tank, and a concave mirror to focus sunlight on the tank, and there you have it.

 

And on what fact do you make that conclusion?
...
So I'll ask you: What leads you to believe that is this problem cannot be solved?

I have already laid that out my argument. The star's gravitational field itself provides the necessary "free work" necessary to ensure a self-sustained fusion reaction.

It's just a technical problem to achieve that.

The temperatures/pressures needed for the fusion reaction is not the issue. Those things have long since been achieved. The REAL problem is SUSTAINING the reaction.

And your reasoning?

We already have it! Just set up a boiler tank, and a concave mirror to focus sunlight on the tank, and there you have it.

Well that's a thought. Only question is, can we really sequester ENOUGH energy to get anything useful out of it?

 

Only question is, can we really sequester ENOUGH energy to get anything useful out of it?

I've been able to heat water for my tea with a solar reflector as described, so, yes.

 

I dry our laundry outside on a drying rack. Been doing that for 20 years. Where does the energy come from? I haven't received a bill for it yet.

 

And your reasoning?

My reasoning is that the technical problems to achieve an over-unity fusion reaction can be achieved.
You say it can't.
Neither of us can prove those suppositions.

But the world has always had plenty of naysayers so I'm sure you are in good company.

 

The same old, same old.

A working fusion reactor (tokamak magnetic confinement) is a very hard engineering problem today, not a basic science problem. The real problem is not will it eventually work. The question is, will it be competitive on the energy market of tomorrow with other energy technologies? The fusion reaction is not over-unity in each pair of nuclei reaction sites in the plasma fuel. We are burning a fuel like in a ICE engine, a tiny drop won't run a V8 engine. We simply need to confine sufficient fusion fuel, with sufficient heat, with sufficient time, with sufficient energy extractors to extract a net fusion energy (energy output above energy losses) in excess of what it took to create those burning conditions. So we need more than just self-sustaining Fusion ignition, we also need the reaction mass to be large for greater than breakeven.

 

My reasoning is that the technical problems to achieve an over-unity fusion reaction can be achieved.

You say it can't.

Neither of us can prove those suppositions.


But the world has always had plenty of naysayers so I'm sure you are in good company.

So "an over-unity fusion reaction can be achieved because it can"? That sounds a lot like circular reasoning. You haven't even addressed my arguments, aside from indirectly to label me as a "naysayer". Which I am not. I have simply stated the facts as I understand them.

As for yourself, I can only say that I feel great pity for anyone who has had to endure your toxic personality over the years.

I dry our laundry outside on a drying rack. Been doing that for 20 years. Where does the energy come from? I haven't received a bill for it yet.

LOL, I was actually thinking in terms of powering a fusion process via "free" solar power such that overunity would somehow be achieved.

A working fusion reactor (tokamak magnetic confinement) is an very hard engineering problem today, not a basic science problem. The real problem is not will it eventually work. The question is, will it be competitive on the energy market of tomorrow with other energy technologies? The fusion reaction is not over-unity in each pair of nuclei reaction sites in the plasma fuel. We are burning a fuel like in a ICE engine, a tiny drop won't run a V8 engine. We simply need to confine sufficient fusion fuel, with sufficient heat, with sufficient time, with sufficient energy extractors to extract a net fusion energy (energy output above energy losses) in excess of what it took to create those burning conditions. So we need more than just self-sustaining Fusion ignition, we also need the reaction mass to be large for greater than breakeven.

Well please forgive my lack of optimism, but at this point we haven't even achieved 50/50 on Q-total. I don't see it in the theory and neither have any of the experiments seemed to have proven as much. I guess we'll just have to burn through few more billion before we find out for sure...

 

Well please forgive my lack of optimism, but at this point we haven't even achieved 50/50 on Q-total. I don't see it in the theory and neither have any of the experiments seemed to have proven as much. I guess we'll just have to burn through few more billion before we find out for sure...

There are absolutely no physics show-stoppers on the way to net power output from a fusion reactor. If you think there are then please inform ITER about them so they won't waste those few billion.

 

You haven't even addressed my arguments,

What argument, other than saying it can't be done?

I can only say that I feel great pity for anyone who has had to endure your toxic personality over the years.

But you, of course, are a peach of a fellow.

 

​

 

Fortuitously, this one just popped up in my ycombinator feed:

Arguing: It doesn’t particularly matter what you think

One argument for running your manifesto past the person you disagree with is that maybe it’s all a big misunderstanding.


Maybe it is, but so what?


Say that somewhere in my brain I have a flawless argument that watermelon is bad. However, everyone who reads my Case Against Watermelon thinks I’m wrong. If they talk to me, I can clarify what I meant, and then they’ll often agree with me. But the writing alone never does it.


In this case, does it matter that I have a perfect argument in my brain? I don’t think so—most people will only see what I wrote.


The mistake here is seeing a counter-argument as being against a person, rather than as against a particular artifact. What matters is what’s out there.

That article really made me think about how I (over)reacted here. I am usually a pretty easy-going guy but in this case I let my temper get the best of me. I am sorry if I offended anyone.