Magnetic behavior discovery could advance nuclear fusion

Mar 19, 2014
The top of this image shows how early in the heating, magnetic fields, drawn as black lines, prevent heat from flowing easily between the two yellow laser spots. Later in the heating, as depicted on the bottom half, the moving magnetic fields continually connect and provide a channel for heat to flow between the two laser spots. This newly discovered magnetic behavior could advance nuclear fusion. Credit: Joglekar, Thomas, Fox and Bhattacharjee

(Phys.org) —Inspired by the space physics behind solar flares and the aurora, a team of researchers from the University of Michigan and Princeton has uncovered a new kind of magnetic behavior that could help make nuclear fusion reactions easier to start.

Fusion is widely considered the ultimate goal of nuclear energy. While fission leaves behind radioactive waste that must be stored safely, fusion generates helium, a harmless element that is becoming scarce. Just 250 kilograms of fusion fuel can match the energy production of 2.7 million tons of coal.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get a fusion reaction going.

"We have to compress the fuel to a temperature and density similar to the core of a star," said Alexander Thomas, assistant professor of nuclear engineering and radiological sciences.

Once those conditions are reached, the hydrogen fuel begins to fuse into helium. This is how young stars burn, compressed by their own gravity.

On Earth, it takes so much power to push the fuel atoms together that researchers end up putting in more energy than they get out. But by understanding a newly discovered magnetic phenomenon, the team suggests that the ignition of could be made more efficient.

Two methods dominate for confining the fuel, made of hydrogen atoms with extra neutrons, so that fusion can begin. Magnetic confinement fusion uses magnetic fields to trap the fuel in a magnetic 'bottle,' and inertial confinement fusion heats the surface of the fuel pellet until it blows off in a way that causes the remaining pellet to implode. The team explored an aspect of the latter method through computer simulations.

"One of the concerns with nuclear fusion is to squeeze this very spherical fuel pellet perfectly into a very small spherical pellet," said Archis Joglekar, a doctoral student in nuclear engineering and radiological sciences.

To avoid pushing the ball of fuel into an irregular shape that won't ignite, the fuel must be exposed to uniform heat that will cause its surface layer to evaporate all at once. As this layer pushes off at high speed, it applies equal pressure to all sides of the pellet and causes it to shrink to one thousandth of its original volume. When that happens, the fuel begins to fuse.

Joglekar calls even heating "the biggest concern in terms of achieving inertial confinement fusion."

The heat comes from about 200 laser beams hitting the inside of a hollow metal cylinder with the pellet sitting at its heart. The trouble is that the light energy from the laser is converted to heat in the metal by way of electrons, and the electrons can get trapped in magnetic fields created by the laser spots.

When the laser light hits the metal, it turns some of the surface metal into plasma, or a soup of electrons and free atomic nuclei. The laser and the heat drive the electrons to move in a way that sets up a magnetic field circling the laser spot.

The acts as a boundary for the electrons—they can't cross it. But until now, researchers didn't know that the , in an effort to get to cooler areas, are able to push the magnetic fence outward.

The team showed that the flow of hot electrons could drive the magnetic fields around neighboring laser spots together, causing them to join up. Instead of forming a barrier between the laser spots, the joined fields open a channel between them.

"Now there's a clear path for the electrons to move into what would otherwise be the cold region," Joglekar said.

Designers of inertial ignition systems may be able to use this newly discovered feature to place the laser spots so that they heat the cylinder more quickly and efficiently.

"Essentially, what we found is a completely new magnetic reconnection mechanism," Thomas said. "Though we're studying it in an process, it might be relevant to the surface of the sun and ."

For instance, knowing that the flow of hot, charged particles on the sun can push magnetic fields around could inspire new theories about how occur.

Explore further: Fusion energy: NIF experiments show initial gain in fusion fuel

More information: A paper on this work, titled "Magnetic reconnection in plasma under inertial confinement fusion conditions driven by heat flux effects in Ohm's law," is published in Physical Review Letters. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/… ysRevLett.112.105004

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NRL Nike Laser focuses on nuclear fusion

Mar 20, 2013

Researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory have successfully demonstrated pulse tailoring, producing a time varying focal spot size known as 'focal zooming' on the world's largest operating krypton ...

A new clean nuclear fusion reactor has been designed

Jan 14, 2013

A researcher at the Universidad politécnica de Madrid (UPM, Spain) has patented a nuclear fusion reactor by inertial confinement that, apart from be used to generate electric power in plants, can be applied ...

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

11 hours ago

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014
I wonder of this knowledge can be incorporated into the ITER? AT the snail's pace that project is moving at, it seems to me it's not yet too late!
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014
I wonder of this knowledge can be incorporated into the ITER?

No, as ITER works by the other method (magnetic confinement fusion) and not via inertial fusion.
Eikka
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
fusion generates helium, a harmless element that is becoming scarce


Be realistic though.

2.7 million tons of coal worth of energy is a year's output for a large powerplant. The fusion of 250 kg of hydrogen would become slightly less than 250 kg of helium, so a single powerplant would produce only that much helium a year.

A typical MRI scanner contains 1700 liters of the stuff, and liquid helium weighs about 125 grams a liter, so it would take an entire year's production of helium from a fusion plant to fill just one machine.

If fusion was to be the only source of helium for humanity, it would still be in extreme short supply anyhow. You certainly wouldn't be filling party balloons or blimps with it.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
Eikka: yes I was troubled with that problem too. Also the implication that fusion doesn't have radioactive wastes. It will. Just maybe more manageable than fission is.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2014
Also the implication that fusion doesn't have radioactive wastes. It will.

The reaction chamber will be radioactive waste when the reactor has reached the end of its lifetime.
But the half life of the created radioactive substances in on an order that we can think about storing them safely (50-100 years) without totally going off into lala-land (like with fission where we're talking thousands of years)

And, of course, the fact that it's pretty impossible to make a nuclear fusion reactor go 'boom' and spread its radioactive contents - such as there are - far and wide is something that shouldn't be overlooked.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014
I wonder of this knowledge can be incorporated into the ITER?

No, as ITER works by the other method (magnetic confinement fusion) and not via inertial fusion.
From the article:

""Essentially, what we found is a completely new magnetic reconnection mechanism," Thomas said. "Though we're studying it in an inertial confinement fusion process, it might be relevant to the surface of the sun and magnetic confinement fusion."

-And no, I never get tired of doing that.
nevermark
5 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
I wonder of this knowledge can be incorporated into the ITER?


""Essentially, what we found is a completely new magnetic reconnection mechanism," Thomas said. "Though we're studying it in an inertial confinement fusion process, it might be relevant to the surface of the sun and magnetic confinement fusion."

-And no, I never get tired of doing that.


Otto, you are confusing magnetic effect with magnetic containment. They both have the word "magnetic" in them but are not the same thing.

The point of the article is that this magnetic effect occurs around the points where a laser hits a hohlraum of plastic. ITER which uses magnetic field containment (not lasers) would not be able to use this. However the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory does use lasers to explosively compress plastic hohlraums at described in the article, so they hopefully can use this effect.
clay_ferguson
1.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
The way to do cold fusion is this: Use quantum tunneling. Setup a system where a coherent matter waves (like LASER, but matter, not photons) of matter can make particles "jump into" the confinement area using tunneling effect, so that the confined area reaches critical temperature, before the matter can evaporate back out. The reason this will work is because tunneling is a 'free' way to relocate a particle without a 'pressure' having to be exerted on it. This will also end up being the energy source for advanced propulsion systems as well as antigravity. Of course mankind doesn't yet know how to control matter wave tunneling or even create LASERS using matter waves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2014
Otto, you are confusing magnetic effect with magnetic containment. They both have the word "magnetic" in them but are not the same thing
And you are confusing your modicum of knowledge with actually reading the article and thinking about what it says.

"Essentially, what we found is a completely new magnetic reconnection mechanism," Thomas said. "Though we're studying it in an inertial confinement fusion process, it might be relevant to the surface of the sun and magnetic confinement fusion."

ITER is magnetic confinement.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Don't see the point of this post clay ferguson - cold fusion can already be done, the problem is that the energy required to initiate fusion is more than the energy produced by the fusion.

As for the rest of your post - if you are already aware that it won't work due to technical limitations, why bother mentioning it in a thread about hot fusion?
Z99
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2014
I just can't get past the sentence:"Just 250 kilograms of fusion fuel can match the energy production of 2.7 million tons of coal." Its not true, and I am sure the author knows it is not true.
We don't live in Plato's ideal world.
-=-=-=-
As far as the amount of radioactive waste, and whether it is "manageable"...NIMBY.
dobermanmacleod
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2014
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr....fcol.pdf

"LENR has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation, without producing nasty waste." - Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center

"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

For those who still aren't convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusion...or-lenr/
dedereu
3 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2014
There exist real working solutions, needing no research over the next 50years to hope some day to find a working solution, using the fusion energy send by the sun since 5 billions years, very easily, efficiently, to heat all our houses, without any CO2, without any nuclear radioactivity, without any pollution, at use gratuitous and perpetual after installation, working really since 2007 at www.dlsc.ca simple working method, using the summer sun heat, lost on our roofs, to heat in winter, which can be developped anywhere, if we want it.
A working geothermy at shallow depth with recharging with the sun heat in summer to heat houses in winter , without any heat pump.
It is incredible that this simple working solution, gratuitous and perpetual at use, is so much ignored and disregarded.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
I just can't get past the sentence:"Just 250 kilograms of fusion fuel can match the energy production of 2.7 million tons of coal." Its not true, and I am sure the author knows it is not true.
We don't live in Plato's ideal world
What do you base this pronouncement on? Pretend knowledge?

"On a per mass, or per nucleon basis, fusion wins hands-down: one gram of deuterium results in 1012 J of energy, or 275 million kcal. Fission gives a comparatively small 20 million kcal per gram of 235U. So fusion is over ten times as potent. Keep in mind that chemical energy like that in fossil fuels is capped around 10 kcal/g. Note the conspicuous absence of the word million. On the energy scale, then, nuclear in either form is outrageously more potent than chemical energy. - See more at: http://physics.uc...I2Y.dpuf

-Seems pretty true to me.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
Otto, the guy in the article was only speculating that this idea might help experimenters in magnetic containment fusion. As of now, there's no direct connection of this with magnetic containment fusion experiments, so Antialias was correct.

We don't live in Plato's ideal world

What do you base this pronouncement on? Pretend knowledge?


Good lord otto, the figures cited in the article are ideal energy conversion rates, but no reactor is 100% efficient. As of now, in the real world, a single twisted up rubber band outperforms the net energy output of the most successful fusion test. If they can get half way between zero and the ideal energy output, it's still not anywhere near the number cited above, and the author surely knows that, but big numbers look great in press stories.

Why don't you go pick on the LENR guys. They're the ones polluting an otherwise good thread. Oh, I forgot, you're a cold fusion believer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
Otto, the guy in the article was only speculating that this idea might help experimenters in magnetic containment fusion. As of now, there's no direct connection of this with magnetic containment fusion experiments, so Antialias was correct
1) That wasn't aa and 2) the person who made the comment clearly missed the statement in the article which said "it might be relevant to the surface of the sun and magnetic confinement fusion." and 3) I worked at PPL FOR 6 years. I know the difference.
Good lord otto, the figures cited in the article are ideal energy conversion rates, but no reactor is 100% efficient
Correct. No coal fired plant is either. The statement comes from an official press release which appears in many news sources. And I found an independent source which supports the scale, if not the exact ratio, of the comparison.

And so the poster had no business saying it wasn't true, especially without refs to back him up. And you have no business supporting him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
Oh, I forgot, you're a cold fusion believer.
Whether thats true or not has no bearing on whether I was right to criticize the poster you refer to, or whether the info I supplied was valid or not. I was, and it was.

I'm sorry but anyone who posts unsubstantiated bullshit leaves themselves open to criticism. Including yourself. For instance your opinion of LENR was formed years ago and you have failed to keep yourself abreast of subsequent developments, in part because it's still fashionable and it makes points with your Scooby gang.

If you had made a halfway serious attempt at updating your knowledge base, you may be forced to adopt a more moderate position. NASA, the US navy, MIT, Mitsubishi, and Toyota among others are spending $$$¥¥€€ to investigate it.
http://www.e-catw...esearch/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2014
For instance you said
it's still not anywhere near the number cited above, and the author surely knows that, but big numbers look great in press stories
You CANT just make such statements without backing them up. I provided a ref which DOES support those figures. If you want to refute it then PROVIDE YOUR OWN.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
While you're at it you will need to address the apparent source.

"fact, a fusion reaction is about four million times more energetic than a chemical reaction such as the burning of coal, oil or gas. While a 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant requires 2.7 million tons of coal per year, a fusion plant of the kind envisioned for the second half of this century will only require 250 kilos of fuel per year, half of it deuterium, half of it tritium."
https://www.iter....ionfuels

-And just SAYING it isn't true is NOT refuting it, you do understand that don't you? You need to first understand how the ITER scientists arrived at these figures and then attack their methodology. You will at least need to visit the site and read through the entire section.

I know your compulsion to bombast certainly FEELS right and proper but without a little investigative work it's meaningless and misleading and irresponsible.
Jizby
Mar 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
whatever dude. TLDR. Nobody wants to see all that nonsense, and you're not any more right than you were before you posted that wall-o-text, whatever it says.
clay_ferguson
4 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2014
Don't see the point of this post clay ferguson - cold fusion can already be done, the problem is that the energy required to initiate fusion is more than the energy produced by the fusion.

As for the rest of your post - if you are already aware that it won't work due to technical limitations, why bother mentioning it in a thread about hot fusion?


@Maggnus, my speculation was about quantum tunneling's ability to 'relocate' particles 'magically'. If you can 'relocate' a large number of particles in a small enough space then you get 'high pressures and temperatures' for free. Therefore if we can control tunneling (like with a tunneling beam of some kind) then we can create high temperatures and pressures. I'm just wildly speculating of course, like 99% of the others posting here. Except of course the my ideas hold promise unlike most of the pointless banter here.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
Tunneling does not get to relocate stuff 'magically'. It's a probability distribution that gets very small the higher the barrier which you want to tunnel through. And the coulomb barrier is enormous - so the chances of anything as big as another proton tunneling that is almost nil.

Now you CAN throw gazllions of protons at that and one or so will tunnel through and actually fuse. But your input will be enormously higher than your output.

Therefore if we can control tunneling (like with a tunneling beam of some kind)

Tunneling is not something you can 'control' (or even 'tune'). It's a probabilsitic process. You can't cheat those.
clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2014
Tunneling does not get to relocate stuff 'magically'. It's a probability distribution that gets very small the higher the barrier which you want to tunnel through.


You are right for ordinary waves: Low probability for tunneling. I'm talking about "Stimulated Emission" (as in LASER) coherent matter waves which superimpose their probabilities. The probabilities add up. It would work. But only if there is a way to generate LASERS out of matter waves, rather than light waves. The wavelength of the emission would need to be 50% of the diameter of the containment vessel to create a large probability amplitude at the center of the containment (to set off fusion reaction).
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
whatever dude. TLDR. Nobody wants to see all that nonsense, and you're not any more right than you were before you posted that wall-o-text, whatever it says.
Ah. This explains why you would rather make shit up than do a little research. The google results page is TLDR.

I know your compulsion to bombast certainly FEELS right and proper but without a little investigative work it's meaningless and misleading and irresponsible.
katesisco
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2014
"One of the concerns with nuclear fusion is to squeeze this very spherical fuel pellet perfectly into a very small spherical pellet," said Archis Joglekar, a doctoral student in nuclear engineering and radiological sciences."

It should be obvious the larger Beetle Sun underwent this ---science is trying to copy it----when it created the inner rocky planets and became Sol by implosion. The magnetic wrap was such that it forbade the explosion into a nova.
perhaps the true history of Sol is this: after creation from the Beetle Sun, our magnetar was originally a monopole. As this magnetar rapidly shed energy it developed two opposite magnetic poles that reversed as a way of equalizing energy from the then unequal hemispheres. Altho at first the 100% monopole would be felt on Earth as an absence of gravity. As the sun became each cycle more of a two polarity and less of a monopole until we reach today where the only evidence of a solar monopole is a delayed reversal.
LastQuestion
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
"Ah. This explains why you would rather make shit up than do a little research. The google results page is TLDR."

:)
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2014
I know your compulsion to bombast certainly FEELS right and proper but without a little investigative work it's meaningless and misleading and irresponsible


Don't be mad. It's okay. You can disagree with me all you want, but getting mad at me doesn't make any sense. This is an internet discussion thread and we don't even know each other. If you think it's fun to grief/troll me, then have at it, but don't take it personally when I ignore you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
Great advice, GSwift7. You might try and tell that self-same advice to Captain Stumpy because he seems to have an 'highly emotional bee' in his silly troll bonnet. Or is your advice only for those that do not give you '5's like your incestuous troll gang does for each other? What a comedy camp you lot of trolls and pretenders make! You should take it on the road! LOLs! :)
Urgelt
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
Kate wrote, "It should be obvious the larger Beetle Sun underwent this ---science is trying to copy it----when it created the inner rocky planets and became Sol by implosion. The magnetic wrap was such that it forbade the explosion into a nova. Perhaps the true history of Sol is this: after creation from the Beetle Sun, our magnetar was originally a monopole. As this magnetar rapidly shed energy it developed two opposite magnetic poles that reversed as a way of equalizing energy from the then unequal hemispheres. Altho at first the 100% monopole would be felt on Earth as an absence of gravity. As the sun became each cycle more of a two polarity and less of a monopole until we reach today where the only evidence of a solar monopole is a delayed reversal."

I was tempted to say something snarky, but the emotion that won out was pity.
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
Great advice, GSwift7


Thanks.

Or is your advice only for those that do not give you '5's...


You can't really believe that. Let me ask; when you post your stuff on other sites, do you get pretty much the same reaction as you get here? If so, then what does that mean?

The lack of moderators here is a double-edged sword. In some ways I like the openness and sometimes it's fun to debate the merrits of alternative ideas. But giant space lightning bolts is a little hard to take seriously, so that's gonna draw some harsh criticism (I know that's not you, I'm just using an example that anyone reasonable would agree is absurd).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
GSwift7. :)
Or is your advice only for those that do not give you '5's...
You can't really believe that. Let me ask; when you post your stuff on other sites, do you get pretty much the same reaction as you get here? If so, then what does that mean?
Again, mate, 'beliefs' are for gullible suckers who don't do their own due diligence. Apparently you, for one.

And no. After internet experiments exposed troll-gangs/abuses, most of the forums previously 'infested' were cleared of most of the 'bad lot'; and 'clipped the ego/troll wings' of mods remaining. I now post without being sabotaged as in past; so reaction is based on the science not on person. Not yet perfect, but much much more conducive to discussion on science/logic merits than in past when 'source' and 'prejudice' and 'baiting' and sabotaging with collusion of certain mods was the preferred MO to frame, incite, sabotage a thread/discussion so the crooked mods used the excuse to close/ban. Better now. :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
GSwift7. :)

Again, mate, 'beliefs' are for gullible suckers who don't do their own due diligence. Apparently you, for one.

And no. After internet experiments exposed troll-gangs/abuses, most of the forums previously 'infested' were cleared of most of the 'bad lot'; and 'clipped the ego/troll wings' of mods remaining. I now post without being sabotaged as in past; so reaction is based on the science not on person. Not yet perfect, but much much more conducive to discussion on science/logic merits than in past when 'source' and 'prejudice' and 'baiting' and sabotaging with collusion of certain mods was the preferred MO to frame, incite, sabotage a thread/discussion so the crooked mods used the excuse to close/ban. Better now. :)


Really-Skippy for a person who seems to care so big for the talking about science, you sure don't have very much science stuffs to say. Is this all you talk about everwhere you go? How the other peoples talk about the science even though you don't?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
Don't be mad. It's okay. You can disagree with me all you want, but getting mad at me doesn't make any sense.
It does annoy me to see people like you who can't be bothered to research before they post, and I am gratified to be able to expose you time and again. These emotions cancel each other out.
If you think it's fun to grief/troll me
Naw I'm addressing your lazy, careless posting style with actual facts. This is obvious to anyone whose attention span is only a little longer than yours.

You've still to acknowledge these facts:

"a 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant requires 2.7 million tons of coal per year, a fusion plant of the kind envisioned for the second half of this century will only require 250 kilos of fuel per year"

-which renders your comment
it's still not anywhere near the number cited above
-bullshit. What do you have to say for yourself g?
chas3535
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2014
Is it really that important for Fusion to be efficient? Could it act as a battery to store solar energy during the day and release it at night?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2014
Great advice, GSwift7. You might blah blah blah take it on the road! LOLs
@RC
1-TROLLING
2-who said I was mad? I just dont like people posting unsubstantiated claims and claiming/acting the intellectual superior without evidence of either
'beliefs' are for gullible suckers blah blah blah Better now
TROLLING
Really-Skippy for a person who seems to care so big for the talking about science, you sure don't have very much science stuffs to say
@Uncle Ira
THIS pretty much hits the nail on the head
he TROLLED but left out the science
Is it really that important for Fusion to be efficient? Could it act as a battery to store solar energy during the day and release it at night?
@chas3535
the higher the efficiency, the better/more ability to utilize the power generated from it. Fusion is a method for creating the energy we need to continue, whereas a battery is a storage device for the energy created during the generation process. 2 separate things
inefficiency=wasted effort
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2014
Could it act as a battery to store solar energy during the day and release it at night?

I'm not sure how you mean that. Could you explain a bit how you would 'charge' this battery for later use?
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
Let me ask; when you post your stuff on other sites, do you get pretty much the same reaction as you get here?


lol, and you responded with a rant about moderators ganging up on you? That's just too funny. You MUST be clowning around with us. That could NOT have been a serious answer, was it? Either way, intentional or not, that's F'in funny. Good one!

which renders your commentit's "still not anywhere near the number cited above" -bullshit. What do you have to say for yourself g?


Let me correct that typo for you.

which renders your commentit's "still not anywhere near the number cited above" - absolutely correct.

Net versus Gross. Theoretical versus actual. You have no way of knowing if we will ever get a fusion reactor to yield large net power output on industrial scales, and be able to affordably build reactors that are practical for commercial use. You cannot really say, with any confidence, how fusion will compare to any existing power source.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
@GSwift7, Captain Stumpy. :)

So, you were given pertinent background information of proven troll-mod gang behavior resulting in MANY genuine people getting banned UNFAIRLY in the past on many forums, and you ignore it and default back to trolling idiocy and lies of your own again?

Yep, your 'professional objective scientist' material, for sure! No wonder the science mainstream is in a mess, if your kind of 'minds' and 'characters' infest their ranks. Sad.

Drop the feigned outrage and trolling inanities and move on from this, guys. You're only continuing trolling and inciting. Not a good look. :)

Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2014
Not a good look. :)


From the Really-Skippy in the corner with the silly looking pointy cap on his head? P'tit boug at least you have the sense of the humorizing, eh?

P'tit boug you laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy. Liken the Bugs Bunny say, "what a couyon".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2014
You cannot really say, with any confidence, how fusion will compare to any existing power source
Oh but I can. Lets go back to the original post you liked so much.
I just can't get past the sentence:"Just 250 kilograms of fusion fuel can match the energy production of 2.7 million tons of coal." Its not true, and I am sure the author knows it is not true
The author is speaking hypothetically, yes? We know the theoretical energy output of the different forms of fusion we hope to harness, and we can compare this to other energy sources, and we can set this as a realistic goal.

As for your statement
a single twisted up rubber band outperforms the net energy output of the most successful fusion test
Several fusion tests have exceeded Q. Rubber band output can never exceed input.
half way between zero and the ideal energy output, it's still not anywhere near the number cited above
Youre fucking GUESSING again g. Filthy habit. I gave you info which proved you WRONG.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2014
Net versus Gross. Theoretical versus actual
Well if you want to talk actual, you would have to consider that coal-fired plants are at the very best 45% efficient.
http://www.worldc...iencies/

-And as this is an industry website I doubt it includes the energy expended in mining, processing, and transporting the coal as well as dealing with the byproducts and long-term remediation. Did you include these in your guesstimations?
You have no way of knowing if we will ever get a fusion reactor to yield large net power output on industrial scales, and be able to affordably build reactors that are practical for commercial use
Nobody said anything about reactors g. Read it again:

"Just 250 kilograms of fusion fuel can match the energy production of 2.7 million tons of coal'

-We can see this happening every day in our sun.

Hey - 3 posts - sorry if I exceeded your attention span.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor poor poor Uncle Ira. :)

Poor poor poor Uncle Ira can't make any sense at all with all that cognitive dissonance floating round in the form of that haze of weed smoke and booze mist he's made all by himself. Lay off the puff 'n stuff, dude! :(
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2014
your 'professional objective scientist' material, for sure! No wonder the science mainstream is in a mess, if your kind of 'minds' and 'characters' infest their ranks
@rc-TROLL
are you stupid? I am NOT a scientists, I am an INVESTIGATOR. and given my mindset, you have produced NOTHING to refute the claims, nor anything showing that you are NOT a troll!
NADA!
ZIP!
ZILCH!
NOTHING!
without empirical data, your troll comments are every bit as legitimate as the comment "fairy farts cause butterflies in the stomach"
want to know what TROLLING is? see your last two posts here... the last one is even CROSS posted in several comment sections!

do you have ANYTHING to contribute to the article above? even chas3535 asked a legitimate question, which was answered... what did you contribute?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2014
Calm down, mate. An investigator shouldn't get so emotionally involved or personally abusive just because the truth has upset your 'faith' and 'belief' in the inerrancy of 'orthodoxy' and its continuing promulgation of failed BB/Inflation hypotheses via obvious 'confirmation biased' so-called 'work/papers' which are obviously 'publish or perish' motivated BS pretending to have any credibility now that the inbuilt 'cascade of flaws' resulting from past 'peer review' flawed literature/assumptions forming the citation/reputational basis for 'accepting' new so-called 'work/papers' based on past flawed aaumptions/interpretations biased by BB/Inflation which is obviously BS and has been 'passed and accepted' as THE model/basis FOR further 'peer review' decisions on 'validity' just because it 'complies with past passed BS'. No way to practice peer review or science or scientific method. Face it and move on, mate. Life's too short for trying to keep illusions like 'Santa Claus is real'. ok? :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.