Fusion Reactors!
-
Lockheed Martin thinks they're close! Pretty cool!
-
Let me guess, it's only 5 years away. Like it has been during my entire lifetime.
-
By containing the power of the sun in a small magnetic bottle
This sounds like some Zelda shit right here.Really exciting if it's actually as close as they say, though.
-
Let me guess, it's only 5 years away. Like it has been during my entire lifetime.
@Article said:
we will be able to develop a prototype within the same five year timespan
So... yes.
-
Oh hey I literally hadn't even read the article and yet my pessimism wins again.
-
Oh hey I literally hadn't even read the article and yet my pessimism wins again.
Hehehe! It's always 5 years away. More realistic estimate is by the laser guys, who are saying like decades (even though they already broke the sustainability barrier).
-
As long as the first fusion power plants are being built sometime in the 2040-2060 era, I'll be happy. That's what SimCity told me would happen, and that's where I put my faith.
-
What about the giant robots?
-
-
Let me guess, it's only 5 years away. Like it has been during my entire lifetime.
I remember when it used to be 20 years away, so maybe we're genuinely getting closer.
-
Let me guess, it's only 5 years away.
I have always heard 20 or 50 years. I've never heard anyone seriously saying fusion was 5 years away.
I couldn't find anything on the page about how close they are to getting more energy out than they're putting in.
-
Skunk Works approach
I think I found the problem.
-
It can't be perpetually 20 years away, because that's when Peak Oil is. These things have to be carefully scheduled, you know.
-
It can't be perpetually 20 years away, because that's when Peak Oil is. These things have to be carefully scheduled, you know.
I thought that 20 years was drastic sea level rise.
-
I couldn't find anything on the page about how close they are to getting more energy out than they're putting in.
True, that's one heck of a car starter they're using. ;-)
-
The real question is, are they more or less full of shit than Andrea Rossi?
-
I couldn't find anything on the page about how close they are to getting more energy out than they're putting in.
Without being able to locally change the gravitational constant, I do not see how we will ever reach that point...
-
@Intercourse said:
Without being able to locally change the gravitational constant, I do not see how we will ever reach that point...
Two ways: The first is improving the efficiency of the energy-in processes, which is what Lockheed-Martin is claiming. The second is scale, which is where a lot of the rest of the fusion community is going. Specifically, energy-in varies by area(m^2), while energy-out varies by volume(m^3). The cube power always wins over the square power eventually, so long as your materials can stand being that big.
-
I think I saw they're trying to create 100 MW reactors. If they can scale them down to 200 - 500 kW, we'd have an excellent candidate for the first practical nuclear-powered cars.
-
Two ways: The first is improving the efficiency of the energy-in processes, which is what Lockheed-Martin is claiming. The second is scale, which is where a lot of the rest of the fusion community is going. Specifically, energy-in varies by area(m^2), while energy-out varies by volume(m^3). The cube power always wins over the square power eventually, so long as your materials can stand being that big.
You are still expending a shitload of energy on containment, and that problem only grows with scale. Second, you still have to raise the temperatures to millions of degrees, which still requires heating that same volume, no matter the scale. I am no physicist, and I would love to hear how I am wrong. As a layperson though, it seems like problems grow faster than it scales?
-
I think I saw they're trying to create 100 MW reactors. If they can scale them down to 200 - 500 kW, we'd have an excellent candidate for the first practical nuclear-powered cars.
-
@Intercourse said:
You are still expending a shitload of energy on containment, and that problem only grows with scale.
Yes, but containment energy grows with the area, while energy out grows with volume. When you grow the containment vessel, sooner or later the cube power always wins.
@Intercourse said:
Second, you still have to raise the temperatures to millions of degrees, which still requires heating that same volume, no matter the scale
Only on startup. Once you have the reaction started, it is self heating.
-
Normally I'd immediately dismiss this as either a publicity stunt or a bunch of crazies, but this is Lockheed Martin we're talking about, not just any random company. So I'm going to assume that they have actually made some important breakthroughs, which is great, even if it doesn't give us a working reactor within a decade.
-
I thought that 20 years was drastic sea level rise.
I'm pretty sure that's 7-10. Manbearpig[1] wouldn't lie to me!
[1]Algore.
-
-
So I'm going to assume that they have actually made some important breakthroughs, which is great
It is great if true but I'm going to assume they receive wads of federal cash for this and guess that there's some sort of spending review round the corner.
-
@Intercourse said:
http://joshblackman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/mr-fusion.jpg
If they can scale them down to 50kw we'd have the first practical nuclear powered 80's hair.
-
200 - 500kW1.21 Jigawatts
-
-
Except the other thread was created because of this post.
-
Except the other thread was created because of this post.
What makes you think I meant that thread?
-
Narcisism.
-
Narcisism.
Well, at least you can admit it.
Oh, hey, whoo-hoo, I just got the 2^11 badge! (@pjh, has that query been running every day? I would have thought I'd have gotten it several days ago, as I'm at 2200+ posts this morning.)
-
some topics, like the likes topic, don't count.
-
-
I have always heard 20 or 50 years. I've never heard anyone seriously saying fusion was 5 years away.
I couldn't find anything on the page about how close they are to getting more energy out than they're putting in.
About 20 to 50 years.
-
some topics, like the likes topic, don't count.
I know that. I don't post in the likes topic. IIRC there's three--PJH has posted the query in the past, and I don't think I post in any of them.
It's like you think I Must Be New HereTM. :)
-
new here, maybe havent read everything on the forume, maybe have read everything but do not have an eidetic memory, maybe i havent had my morning tea yet.
pick the one that makes you lol the most.
:-)
-
I'll take the second one because it's true, even though it's irrelevant.
I've accidentally wound up in the likes thread a couple of times. I wish, solely on principle, I could unread it. That way I could be more snooty when I say I don't read it.
-
well you could unlike it..... but unread, naw... that's Doing It Wrong.
-
Oh, hey, whoo-hoo, I just got the 2^11 badge! (@pjh, has that query been running every day? I would have thought I'd have gotten it several days ago, as I'm at 2200+ posts this morning.)
Up to 2^7 get run after every post, higher ones once a day.
Currently /t/1000, /t/1673, /t/3125, any topic with less than 4 posts and any post that requires logging in to view{1} don't count towards the total.
{1} Basically private messages, flags that generate messages and anything with the
fa-group
icon in the category list:
-
Hmm. I didn't think I've made almost 300 messages that don't count, but I guess it's possible. The lounge must be what done it.
-
[postgres@sofa ~]$ NAME=FrostCat sql_tdwtf 2n_posts # How many eligible posts have been made SELECT u.username, count(*) FROM badge_posts bp JOIN users u on u.id=bp.user_id AND u.username LIKE 'FrostCat' WHERE topic_id NOT IN ( SELECT topic_id FROM badge_posts GROUP BY topic_id HAVING count(topic_id) <4 ) AND topic_id NOT IN ( 1000, 1673, 3125 ) GROUP BY u.username ORDER BY count(*) DESC LIMIT 25 username | count ----------+------- FrostCat | 1814 (1 row) Elapsed: 0.756s Backup taken: 2014-10-14 10:45:30.353836
Removing the <4 requirement keeps it at 1814.
Reintroducing the excluded topics rraises it to 1885.That leaves only PMs, and categories with permissions aet.