Iran Fusion Program (technical discussion)
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Any CPians working in this or related fields?
Only to power my Delorean
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Any CPians working in this or related fields?
Only to power my Delorean
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
That can't be a regular DMC-12? The one I brought back from one of my time travels only needs a bit of lightning once in a while. Extremely economical it is, except for the coltran required by the flux capacitor, for which my Congo connections now provide. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
Physics was my main area of study at University and graduate school, though I now write software. This is my main understanding of the fusion scene. We have been failing in this area for quite a number of years. I believe that the main reason for this is that the base equipment used for fusion has not been up to the level needed. This applies to both of the major research areas. The first strategy is usually referred to as magnetic confinement. In this case the plasma (hydrogen ) is held in a magnetic field and then heated until the combination of magnetic pressure and temperature reach fusion levels. There are two big problems. The computations to needed to adjust the magnetic fields are complex and need to be done very quickly, but computers are improving at a fast enough rate that I would not worry about that. The second problem is that the magnets need to be superconducting in order to be powerful enough. Bad magnets are the big problem. However I recently read the following encouraging article Pseudogap' phase research could be key to room-temperature superconductivity. If this research pans out then magnetic confinement has a much greater possibility of success. The other method is referred to as inertial confinement. Basically a lot of lasers are focused on a small pellet of hydrogen. It gets zapped and fusion occurs before it gets a chance to expand. The main problem is the poor quality of lasers. This also appears to be changing. Raytheon's killer laser] At present I am quite optimistic about the future of fusion. I month ago I was not nearly as inspired. Ken
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
When a scientist says '20-30 years' they actully mean that if they can work out how to stop the frak-beam going phoom everytine they pass 1W, they've got a chance of making something happen. The real probability is welks chance in a supernova.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
Fusion research is one of those areas that follow the plan of we do this, and that and that and then magic happens and fusion! Should we give up? No, but I'd rather be dumping resources into improving batteries.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I'd rather be dumping resources into improving batteries.
Why? That just moves the pollution problems to somewhere else. At least fusion gives a chance at pollution free energy in commercially available quantities. (If it ever works)
Did you know: That by counting the rings on a tree trunk, you can tell how many other trees it has slept with.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
I'd rather be dumping resources into improving batteries.
Why? That just moves the pollution problems to somewhere else. At least fusion gives a chance at pollution free energy in commercially available quantities. (If it ever works)
Did you know: That by counting the rings on a tree trunk, you can tell how many other trees it has slept with.
OriginalGriff wrote:
Why?
Because battery technology stinks. Not only are they terribly inefficient, the batteries themselves are extremely polluting as is obtaining the materials to make them (something the "greens" never seem to factor in.) They could also be very useful for things beyond cars. There have been very promising leads with polymers, but they aren't commercially viable yet. (Then again, there were very promising leads in 1990 with holographic memory, but that never panned out either.)
OriginalGriff wrote:
At least fusion gives a chance at pollution free energy in commercially available quantities.
I'm not convinced a) that it will be pollution free and b) that it will work in our lifetime. I'm not against research, but there are finite dollars for scientific research and if we just look at power, I'd prefer the pebble bed fission reactors be more refined and commercialized. That IS technology that works very well.
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we?
Not really.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
if energy does become free, what would this do to the working class? wouldn't this affect the order of things in society? i think such things should be thought about side by side with advancing technology. on a lighter note, i think morgan freeman and keanu reeves have done this first.
---------------------------------------------------------- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
Interesting development of this string of news. Sounds like it would give more credit to the peaceful intentions of Iran in pursuing their programs.
You can't turn lead into gold, unless you've built yourself a nuclear plant.
-
if energy does become free, what would this do to the working class? wouldn't this affect the order of things in society? i think such things should be thought about side by side with advancing technology. on a lighter note, i think morgan freeman and keanu reeves have done this first.
---------------------------------------------------------- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
swjam wrote:
wouldn't this affect the order of things in society?
Well, IMO, the "order" is actually chaos, and "the order of things" is FUBAR.
swjam wrote:
what would this do to the working class
How would it be any worse than what is already happening to the working class? Oh crap. Politics! :-O Marc
-
Clickety[^] What struck me was this: "It takes 20 to 30 years before this process can be commercialized Personally, I'm not sure commercially viable fusion program is actually achievable. We've been trying over 30 years, haven't we? So, ignoring the politics (which is why I'm walking the razor's edge and posting this in the lounge) what's your take on the viability of fusion energy? Any CPians working in this or related fields? Marc
Not working on it, but watching developments with interest. Aside from the conventional approach (ITER) there are some interesting and simpler alternatives (e.g. NIF[^] and Polywell[^], the former using laser inertial confinement and the latter magnetic inertial) which so far seem to be showing promise. Polywell in particular is compelling because of the potential small size of reactors it could yield, but because of the source of funding (US Navy) information on detailed progress is a bit scarce. However, I suspect in a decade or so we'll have a far better idea of the true potential and tradeoffs between the different approaches being taken by research groups worldwide. Interestingly, if the performance of Polywell proves to scale as predicted, there could even be a 100MW commercial reactor (WB-9[^]) running by then.
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
-
Physics was my main area of study at University and graduate school, though I now write software. This is my main understanding of the fusion scene. We have been failing in this area for quite a number of years. I believe that the main reason for this is that the base equipment used for fusion has not been up to the level needed. This applies to both of the major research areas. The first strategy is usually referred to as magnetic confinement. In this case the plasma (hydrogen ) is held in a magnetic field and then heated until the combination of magnetic pressure and temperature reach fusion levels. There are two big problems. The computations to needed to adjust the magnetic fields are complex and need to be done very quickly, but computers are improving at a fast enough rate that I would not worry about that. The second problem is that the magnets need to be superconducting in order to be powerful enough. Bad magnets are the big problem. However I recently read the following encouraging article Pseudogap' phase research could be key to room-temperature superconductivity. If this research pans out then magnetic confinement has a much greater possibility of success. The other method is referred to as inertial confinement. Basically a lot of lasers are focused on a small pellet of hydrogen. It gets zapped and fusion occurs before it gets a chance to expand. The main problem is the poor quality of lasers. This also appears to be changing. Raytheon's killer laser] At present I am quite optimistic about the future of fusion. I month ago I was not nearly as inspired. Ken
-
My neighbor has a Ford Fusion. That's the closest I've come to it, personally.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001You should try Gillette Fusion for real close.
