0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: profoundThe ITER is a huge failure and will continue to be no matter what they do.The cost has ballooned to 40 billion...what a expensive joke.Australia is a fairly small country (population 24 million), but Australia is spending $50 billion (AUD) on submarines.The USA uses nuclear submarines, at about $5 billion each (not including the nuclear missiles).ITER is a consortium of at least 20 countries, totalling over 2 billion population. On a per-capita basis, ITER is very economical, and will do more for humanity than all the world's submarines.QuoteAs you can see in a spherical shape you cannot have these kinks but in a circular ribbon of plasma it's impossible to stop the kinking no matter how much you try.There is more to it than just the shape.- The JET project did manage to produce 16 Megawatts of fusion energy. This was with a torus-type design, but smaller than ITER.- There are devices called "spherical Tokamaks", but they still use toroidal magnetic fields- It is very hard to contain plasma in a sphere using magnetic fields - that is why most of the recent research has been based on the Russian Tokamak design, with a toroidal magnetic field.If you want to contain a plasma, you could imitate the Sun and surround it with 400,000km of insulating gas - but then it becomes impractically large for use near cities.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus#Future
The ITER is a huge failure and will continue to be no matter what they do.The cost has ballooned to 40 billion...what a expensive joke.
As you can see in a spherical shape you cannot have these kinks but in a circular ribbon of plasma it's impossible to stop the kinking no matter how much you try.
actually i have.
actually i have.in a sphere the particles only have 2 main DEGREES OF FREEDOM.... outwards and inwards.
in a sphere there can be no kinks..using a large number of external magnetic fields
HOW are they going to get any energy OUT of it bearing in mind how fragile the whole thing to even the slightest magnetic field imperfection???
the outward pressure gas radiation pressure is balanced by gravity.
Quote from: profoundactually i have.in a sphere the particles only have 2 main DEGREES OF FREEDOM.... outwards and inwards.I am afraid that "outwards and inwards" is only 1 degree of freedom (in a sphere, using radial coordinates).However, there are many oscillation modes you can get in a spherical plasma.- There are Alfvén waves in the body of the plasma- Wherever there is a magnetic field, you get the ions spiraling around the magnetic field lines Quotein a sphere there can be no kinks..using a large number of external magnetic fieldsThe pressure of a plasma is continually changing, based on all those oscillation modes.In a static magnetic field, when the pressure is momentarily higher than average, the magnetic field kinks out of the way, weakening the field in this area, which pushes more plasma into the gap, weakening the magnetic field - and immediately fails. It doesn't matter that these magnetic fields are organized in a sphere.The problem with "a large number of" magnetic fields is that there are "a large number of" gaps between the separate fields, where plasma can "leak out". The beauty of the toroidal fusion reactor is that the magnetic field has no "edges", so there are fewer leaks.QuoteHOW are they going to get any energy OUT of it bearing in mind how fragile the whole thing to even the slightest magnetic field imperfection???Getting energy out is actually fairly easy: The plasma radiates uncharged particles like photons (X-Rays and above) and neutrons. These are absorbed by the surrounding containment walls, where it heats the coolant, and the coolant can be used to drive a turbine (except ITER will just passively dissipate the power; it won't turn a turbine).Part of the problem is reflecting enough heat back into the plasma to keep it at the millions of degrees needed to maintain fusion. This is helped by keeping impurities out of the plasma, which reduces radiation with a line spectrum.One of the (many) challenges is actually extracting "burnt" fuel (Helium-4 ions) from the plasma, while retaining the "unburnt" fuel inside the plasma (Hydrogen-2 and Hydrogen-3 ions), while maintaining the plasma electrically neutral. Quotethe outward pressure gas radiation pressure is balanced by gravity.It is estimated that a practical fusion reactor would only have a few grams of plasma at any instant. So the gravitational attraction of the plasma is negligible.If you are talking about power stations on Earth, Earth's gravity will provide a small containment force for plasma ions moving away from the Earth, but no containment for ions moving horizontally, and will actually accelerate dispersion for ions moving towards the center of the Earth. Even for ions moving upwards, the velocity of ions at a temperature of millions of degrees will exceed Earth's escape velocity. So even Earth's gravity is insufficient to contain a plasma.You need a much stronger gravity field - solar power uses the Sun's gravity field to contain the plasma.
The Sun is not, in fact, spherical.https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun
ITER is never going to work and i will eat my hat on live tv if it ever does and produces net energy for 24 hours costing less than 0.1 pence per killowatt.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 14:20:01The Sun is not, in fact, spherical.https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesunAre you a lawyer who lets of murderers on a technicality?? who cares if its oblate slightly? ITER is not going to work i guarantee it.its a failure.
Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 21:58:17Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 14:20:01The Sun is not, in fact, spherical.https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesunAre you a lawyer who lets of murderers on a technicality?? who cares if its oblate slightly? ITER is not going to work i guarantee it.its a failure.No, I'm just a scientist who tries to point out things that are observed to be true.I doubt anybody cares, but it invalidates your implication that a reactor needs to be spherical. If it was oblate enough it would look a bit like a torus.Its not oblate enough.so there."ITER is not going to work i guarantee it."It already did, which gives us an insight into the worth of any guarantee you offer. (and also into your ability to make observations).it did not.so there."its a failure."That would still be wrong if you use the correct spelling of it's
Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 21:51:14ITER is never going to work and i will eat my hat on live tv if it ever does and produces net energy for 24 hours costing less than 0.1 pence per killowatt.ITER already works.It was never intended to produce commercial electrical power.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/09/2017 22:17:49Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 21:51:14ITER is never going to work and i will eat my hat on live tv if it ever does and produces net energy for 24 hours costing less than 0.1 pence per killowatt.ITER already works.It was never intended to produce commercial electrical power.it never will.in any case i have been proved right by others which i can show you.in other words others agree with me.
how will photons travel through opaque walls?
x radiation? how you turn it into heat?
what about the contamination of the walls from x ray radiation. the containment vessel will be contaminated.
you cant use any method at all because the containment is enclosed by coils WHICH CANNOT BE DISTURBED as the whole thing is so fragile.
Quote from: profoundhow will photons travel through opaque walls?They don't have to. To get the energy out, you just need to absorb a small fraction in the walls (and reflect the rest back into the plasma).The point is that photons easily travel through magnetic fields, without disturbing them - which contradicts your claim that you can't get energy out through the magnetic fields.Quotex radiation? how you turn it into heat?Like all electromagnetic radiation, X-Rays carry energy, and that energy is absorbed in anything that absorbs X-Rays (like the containment vessel), turning it into heat. This then heats the cooling fluid.Quotewhat about the contamination of the walls from x ray radiation. the containment vessel will be contaminated.High levels of X-Rays are dangerous to humans, because they are ionising radiation which mutates DNA. They will be much less dangerous to the carbon or metal walls of the reactor vessel.In fact, there is radioactive contamination, but it comes from the neutrons produced by the deuterium/tritium fuel, which reacts to produce helium-4 + a neutron. This is why all the early experiments will use Hydrogen-2 as the fuel - that tests all of the systems, but without producing the neutron flux.Once you start using tritium fuel, you must use remote-handling equipment for maintenance.Quoteyou cant use any method at all because the containment is enclosed by coils WHICH CANNOT BE DISTURBED as the whole thing is so fragile.I agree that the magnetic fields around a plasma are fragile.But in fact, the magnetic fields must be modified, because a plasma is so dynamic that it cannot be contained within static magnetic fields.So current research is aimed at monitoring plasma instabilities, rapidly detecting potential plasma break-out, and dynamically modifying the magnetic field to compensate and control the break out.
Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 22:31:03Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/09/2017 22:17:49Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 21:51:14ITER is never going to work and i will eat my hat on live tv if it ever does and produces net energy for 24 hours costing less than 0.1 pence per killowatt.ITER already works.It was never intended to produce commercial electrical power.it never will.in any case i have been proved right by others which i can show you.in other words others agree with me.It already did work. So you and the "others" are wrong.Your claim is just as silly as if you were saying that the atom bomb or heavier than air flying machines couldn't work.
how are photons going to travel from the plasma through the opaque containment vessel?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:31:38Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 22:31:03Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/09/2017 22:17:49Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 21:51:14ITER is never going to work and i will eat my hat on live tv if it ever does and produces net energy for 24 hours costing less than 0.1 pence per killowatt.ITER already works.It was never intended to produce commercial electrical power.it never will.in any case i have been proved right by others which i can show you.in other words others agree with me.It already did work. So you and the "others" are wrong.Your claim is just as silly as if you were saying that the atom bomb or heavier than air flying machines couldn't work.This is not an atom bomb or heavier then air machine.its a political and group boondoogle.it cant work to produce net energy because its the wrong shape.
It's the wrong shape.For it to work it MUST be a sphere.
Quote from: profound on 27/09/2017 20:59:30Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:31:38Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 22:31:03Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/09/2017 22:17:49Quote from: profound on 24/09/2017 21:51:14ITER is never going to work and i will eat my hat on live tv if it ever does and produces net energy for 24 hours costing less than 0.1 pence per killowatt.ITER already works.It was never intended to produce commercial electrical power.it never will.in any case i have been proved right by others which i can show you.in other words others agree with me.It already did work. So you and the "others" are wrong.Your claim is just as silly as if you were saying that the atom bomb or heavier than air flying machines couldn't work.This is not an atom bomb or heavier then air machine.its a political and group boondoogle.it cant work to produce net energy because its the wrong shape.Can you possibly get to grips with the idea that it's a research project and isn't meant to produce net energy?