Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: profound on 16/09/2017 11:07:54
-
The European ITER has been given the vast amounts of money but has nothing to show for it after many decades of research.
Billions have been wasted on it and there is no end in sight.
The project was supposed produce limitless energy from fusion of hydrogen/helium isotopes,etc.
The researchers claim I.T.E.R. is simply to test plasma confinement for 90 seconds.
That is the Mission Statement. 90 seconds.
It has become a joke that fusion power will always be 30 years away ...just like a mirage in the desert.
Even Robert Bussard the inventor of the ITER torus concept admitted it was a dead end and yet this white elephant continues to be funded as nobody can admit that it is the wrong shape and will never work.
After looking at it in detail I can declare with full confidence that it will NEVER work because of a fundamental flaw in the concept and it should be shut down.
-
What do you see as a problem there?
-
After looking at it in detail I can declare with full confidence that it will NEVER work because of a fundamental flaw in the concept and it should be shut down.
Please provide the details of your analysis so that others may comment
-
ITER is not intended to produce grid power - it is for research purposes.
- Plasma instability has been a continual problem with all controlled fusion experiments.
- I heard two plasma researchers talking in terms that sounded like the plasma was alive.
- As a research project, ITER is intended to explore ways to manage plasma.
- The cost is enormous, but the potential gains are huge.
- The research into superconducting magnets and investment in production facilities will probably have spinoffs into MRI machines and other applications
It is probably more productive than a lot of military expenditure.
-
ITER is not intended to produce grid power - it is for research purposes.
- Plasma instability has been a continual problem with all controlled fusion experiments.
- I heard two plasma researchers talking in terms that sounded like the plasma was alive.
- As a research project, ITER is intended to explore ways to manage plasma.
- The cost is enormous, but the potential gains are huge.
- The research into superconducting magnets and investment in production facilities will probably have spinoffs into MRI machines and other applications
It is probably more productive than a lot of military expenditure.
I am afraid you are simply excusing failure AND a dead end.It's not going to work for energy production no matter much time and money is spent on it.
You failed to read the title and remember it.
Here is a clue.
Try to balance a pencil on it's point.
-
Still awaiting your claimed detailed analysis - or was that all of it??
-
ou failed to read the title and remember it.
Well, I remember it.
And I remember wondering what shape you thought it should be, and why.
And I remember you not bothering to say.
I also remember asking you a question.
And I don't remember you asking.
Did you forget?
I am afraid you are simply excusing failure
It's been quite successful.
-
ou failed to read the title and remember it.
Well, I remember it.
And I remember wondering what shape you thought it should be, and why.
And I remember you not bothering to say.
I also remember asking you a question.
And I don't remember you asking.
Did you forget?
I am afraid you are simply excusing failure
It's been quite successful.
Yes.your right.It's been successful at failure.
A insider tells me its a huge administrative and bureaucratic nightmare with all these different nations.Each and every great goal is divided into ever smaller incremental goals: anything BUT bold (the BIG is the Bold, not the result). Every modest goal, subdivided. Every larger project decimated.
The real goal of Big European Science is to PUBLISH and endless stream of papers. The ITER? It is definitely yielding huge results as a PAPER generator. Megasheets per year. Every test generates up to gigabytes of additional data, the likes of which is so complex that at least as much money is being spent now to make new instrumentation for it than was invested to produce the instrument itself.
Spend a million a year, and you get a handful of bosses. Spend a billion and you get a United Nations Subcommittee JUST to create National Science Foundation committees and chairs to oversee the oversight of the sightseeing professional pillbugs that run the joint. Deputy Sub-adjunct of the Department of Internationally Sensitive Foods and Toiletries.
Meetings - Oh, the meetings. The meetings to plan the calendar of meetings. The meetings to review the calendar of meetings and debate the authority to change the schedule of meetings. The director(s) - politically correctly chosen from participating nations that oddly enough fail to have much in the way of scientists, but a plethora of modestly well paid bureaucrats that insist that there is nothing more important that a well rounded calendar of progress, direction, budget, mandates-and-goals subcommittee plenary meetings.
Accounting. Every bean, stick of gum, replaceable HB 0.5 mm pencil lead, non-magnetic Torx-headed screw, every square inch of Internationally Sensitive Toiletries, every gram of commestibles, every milliliter of water, oxygen, hydrogen and especially replacement HPM filter pads must be accounted for. Accounted for, so that the costs can be proportionately subdivided by the participating nations. And for every employee and/or graduate student, professional, consultant, scientist and curator, to be divided by nationality, sêx, sexual preference, and Special Needs.
Revolving door leadership - In, eat the croissants, flap the jowls, check out the toilets and EXIT 1 to 2 years later.
Awards Everyone gets an award! Awards for getting the most awards. Awards for having the longest tenure. Awards for Continual Adaptation of the Crazy Experiment to rapidly changing geopolitical scientific mandates and direction realignment. Awards for showing up on time. For most papers printed. For showing extraordinary sensitivity in consuming the Canteens' Internationally Diverse Menu of Foods. Translated into 88 working languages and a few mythical dialects.
As I said to you folks before what shape is the fusion powered Sun?
I
-
ou failed to read the title and remember it.
Well, I remember it.
And I remember wondering what shape you thought it should be, and why.
And I remember you not bothering to say.
I also remember asking you a question.
And I don't remember you asking.
Did you forget?
I am afraid you are simply excusing failure
It's been quite successful.
Yes.your right.It's been successful at failure.
A insider tells me its a huge administrative and bureaucratic nightmare with all these different nations.Each and every great goal is divided into ever smaller incremental goals: anything BUT bold (the BIG is the Bold, not the result). Every modest goal, subdivided. Every larger project decimated.
The real goal of Big European Science is to PUBLISH and endless stream of papers. The ITER? It is definitely yielding huge results as a PAPER generator. Megasheets per year. Every test generates up to gigabytes of additional data, the likes of which is so complex that at least as much money is being spent now to make new instrumentation for it than was invested to produce the instrument itself.
Spend a million a year, and you get a handful of bosses. Spend a billion and you get a United Nations Subcommittee JUST to create National Science Foundation committees and chairs to oversee the oversight of the sightseeing professional pillbugs that run the joint. Deputy Sub-adjunct of the Department of Internationally Sensitive Foods and Toiletries.
Meetings - Oh, the meetings. The meetings to plan the calendar of meetings. The meetings to review the calendar of meetings and debate the authority to change the schedule of meetings. The director(s) - politically correctly chosen from participating nations that oddly enough fail to have much in the way of scientists, but a plethora of modestly well paid bureaucrats that insist that there is nothing more important that a well rounded calendar of progress, direction, budget, mandates-and-goals subcommittee plenary meetings.
Accounting. Every bean, stick of gum, replaceable HB 0.5 mm pencil lead, non-magnetic Torx-headed screw, every square inch of Internationally Sensitive Toiletries, every gram of commestibles, every milliliter of water, oxygen, hydrogen and especially replacement HPM filter pads must be accounted for. Accounted for, so that the costs can be proportionately subdivided by the participating nations. And for every employee and/or graduate student, professional, consultant, scientist and curator, to be divided by nationality, sêx, sexual preference, and Special Needs.
Revolving door leadership - In, eat the croissants, flap the jowls, check out the toilets and EXIT 1 to 2 years later.
Awards Everyone gets an award! Awards for getting the most awards. Awards for having the longest tenure. Awards for Continual Adaptation of the Crazy Experiment to rapidly changing geopolitical scientific mandates and direction realignment. Awards for showing up on time. For most papers printed. For showing extraordinary sensitivity in consuming the Canteens' Internationally Diverse Menu of Foods. Translated into 88 working languages and a few mythical dialects.
As I said to you folks before what shape is the fusion powered Sun?
I
That's the first mention of the word "Sun" on this page.
So this bit "As I said to you folks before what shape is the fusion powered Sun?" is even more obviously bollocks than the rest of your post.
Its design brief was to produce experimental data. And you seem to think that you should ridicule it for doing exactly that.
What were you expecting?
Unicorns?
-
what shape is the fusion powered Sun?
Roughly spherical, using gravitational containment of the plasma.
Unfortunately, we can't use gravitational containment for power stations on the Earth, as the power stations would implode.
So physicists have been investigating other methods, like:
- X-Rays: has been demonstrated, but only works if you don't care much about EH&S issues (Environment, Health & Safety)
- Lasers: Stresses the limits of our current laser technology
- Magnetic fields: Potentially feasible. Current superconducting magnets have sufficient average strength, but they also needs fast-acting measurement and control systems to temporarily increase the field where the plasma starts to break out, then return it to baseline once the breakout is contained.
The other aspect is just sheer size. Volume grows faster than the area, and you lose most of the heat through the surface area.
- It is said that some of our existing fusion reactor designs would reach "break even" if you only scaled them up physically.
- But this would not produce power competitively with nuclear fission, solar or coal
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
its a huge administrative and bureaucratic nightmare
Yes, international cooperation is a major logistical nightmare - but so is military development; and war is an even greater logistical nightmare (especially if you really cared about EH&S)!.
So I would rather have international cooperation over nuclear fusion than an international war using nuclear fusion (as some hot-heads are currently promoting).
-
what shape is the fusion powered Sun?
Roughly spherical, using gravitational containment of the plasma.
Unfortunately, we can't use gravitational containment for power stations on the Earth, as the power stations would implode.
So physicists have been investigating other methods, like:
- X-Rays: has been demonstrated, but only works if you don't care much about EH&S issues (Environment, Health & Safety)
- Lasers: Stresses the limits of our current laser technology
- Magnetic fields: Potentially feasible. Current superconducting magnets have sufficient average strength, but they also needs fast-acting measurement and control systems to temporarily increase the field where the plasma starts to break out, then return it to baseline once the breakout is contained.
The other aspect is just sheer size. Volume grows faster than the area, and you lose most of the heat through the surface area.
- It is said that some of our existing fusion reactor designs would reach "break even" if you only scaled them up physically.
- But this would not produce power competitively with nuclear fission, solar or coal
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
its a huge administrative and bureaucratic nightmare
Yes, international cooperation is a major logistical nightmare - but so is military development; and war is an even greater logistical nightmare (especially if you really cared about EH&S)!.
So I would rather have international cooperation over nuclear fusion than an international war using nuclear fusion (as some hot-heads are currently promoting).
If you read my original post carefully you will see i never mention gravity.
-
If you read my original post carefully you will see i never mention gravity.
No but in reply you did say:
what shape is the fusion powered Sun?
@evan_au was answering that question in relation to your reply. Just to explain what he is saying, the sun is spherical because of gravity and gravity is also the containment field.
After looking at it in detail I can declare with full confidence that it will NEVER work because of a fundamental flaw in the concept and it should be shut down.
If that is the full extent of your 'detailed' analysis other, deeper thinkers such as @Thebox will run rings round you.
So, do you have a detailed anaysis or not?
-
Vague, unsubstantiated, reference to “insider” information; a salmagundi of detailed criticism of administration, staffing etc; a distinct reluctance to answer questions directly; occasional “shouting”; could these things possibly be indications of trolling, one wonders?
-
If you read my original post carefully you will see i never mention gravity.
The trouble is that, if we read all your posts, we see that you never mention anything substantial.
Do you plan to?
-
If you read my original post carefully you will see i never mention gravity.
The trouble is that, if we read all your posts, we see that you never mention anything substantial.
Do you plan to?
If you read my original post carefully you will see i never mention gravity.
No but in reply you did say:
what shape is the fusion powered Sun?
@evan_au was answering that question in relation to your reply. Just to explain what he is saying, the sun is spherical because of gravity and gravity is also the containment field.
After looking at it in detail I can declare with full confidence that it will NEVER work because of a fundamental flaw in the concept and it should be shut down.
If that is the full extent of your 'detailed' analysis other, deeper thinkers such as @Thebox will run rings round you.
So, do you have a detailed anaysis or not?
i was really hoping you would figure it out yourself but sorrowfully you failed.So here is another clue.
Sun is a sphere of hot plasma...the other is a round ribbon of plasma which keeps kinking out of shape and hits the walls,loses energy and containment fails.
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.The slightest imperfection in the containment and it kinks out of shape,hits the containment walls,loses energy and POOF!!! its loses containment.
I hope that is enough of a clue but here is another its called D.O.F.
-
As you can see in a spherical shape you cannot have these kinks
As you see, you really can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
So, since you are plainly wrong, perhaps you would like to apologise.
-
As you can see in a spherical shape you cannot have these kinks
As you see, you really can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
So, since you are plainly wrong, perhaps you would like to apologise.
As you can see in a spherical shape you cannot have these kinks
As you see, you really can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
So, since you are plainly wrong, perhaps you would like to apologise.
that is beside the point as proved by the sun.also you forgot the 2nd clue.
in the sun fusion occurs at the center and any kinks simply encounter more plasma surrounding it.in a torus doughnut any kinks overcome the containment and hit the containment walls and lose energy and the fusion reaction fails.Even Robert Bussard disowned it.
The ITER is a huge failure and will continue to be no matter what they do.The cost has ballooned to 40 billion to pay all the bureaucrats and the date put off to 2054 now...what a expensive joke.
-
in the sun fusion occurs at the center and any kinks simply encounter more plasma surrounding it.in a torus doughnut any kinks overcome the containment
Do you not realise the contradiction there?
It's as if you haven't thought this through.
-
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.
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.
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.
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
-
in the sun fusion occurs at the center and any kinks simply encounter more plasma surrounding it.in a torus doughnut any kinks overcome the containment
Do you not realise the contradiction there?
It's as if you haven't thought this through.
actually i have.in a sphere the particles only have 2 main DEGREES OF FREEDOM....
outwards and inwards.
the outward pressure gas radiation pressure is balanced by gravity.
in a sphere there can be no kinks at the center.
in a doughnut plasma ribbon you have 6 degrees of freedom for any particle.this is why it keeps failing.
the particles from the circular ribbon can kink in any direction due to the slightest imperfection in the magnetic field.up down.left right.in out.
its like balancing a pencil on its point..the whole gizmo is unstable no matter what you do.
-
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.
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.
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.
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
A spherical shaped fusion reactor can be made easily and the electric/magnetic fields used to contain it by using a large number of external magnetic fields.They do it already using polywell test reactors.
ITER is totally useless and even if they get containment for 90 seconds (which i totally doubt by the way) 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???
There is simply no way you access the torus as the the containment coils must not be disturbed even slightly.
Have any of you thought of that?
-
actually i have.
Do you mean that you have spotted the contradiction?
I hope so.
Anyway, there are practical reasons for using a torus- it's possible to put energy into it easily.
I'm not saying you can't do that with a (roughly) spherical geometry.
I even hope to try it some day.- like this http://www.fusor.net/
But all you have done is come up with a flawed reason why something can't work- even though the experiments show that it does work.
You will have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone.
-
actually 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave) in the body of the plasma
- Wherever there is a magnetic field, you get the ions spiraling around the magnetic field lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron_radiation)
in a sphere there can be no kinks..using a large number of external magnetic fields
The 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.
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???
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.
the 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
-
actually 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave) in the body of the plasma
- Wherever there is a magnetic field, you get the ions spiraling around the magnetic field lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron_radiation)
in a sphere there can be no kinks..using a large number of external magnetic fields
The 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.
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???
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.
the 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.
i was referring to the sun when i mentioned gravity.
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.
you people remind of fans of star trek the motion picture which was so bad that the fans looked for any excuse to avoid saying how bad it was,
-
actually 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave) in the body of the plasma
- Wherever there is a magnetic field, you get the ions spiraling around the magnetic field lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron_radiation)
in a sphere there can be no kinks..using a large number of external magnetic fields
The 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.
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???
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.
the 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 entire point for a spherical plasma is to compress it by heating it and containing it by fields to enable fusion to occur at the center..CENTER CENTER CENTER...just like the sun.
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.
-
The Sun is not, in fact, spherical.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun
Are 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.
-
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.
ITER already works.
It was never intended to produce commercial electrical power.
-
The Sun is not, in fact, spherical.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun
Are 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.
"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).
"its a failure."
That would still be wrong if you use the correct spelling of it's
-
The Sun is not, in fact, spherical.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun
Are 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
i dont used apos/commas for speed.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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 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.
x 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.
what 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.
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.
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.
-
how 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.
x 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.
what 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.
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.
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.
Well no matter how many excuses you make for it it did not work for the last 50 years and wont work for the next 50 either...
its a white elephant designed to keep these 'scientists' in a job with nothing to show for it.None will admit its just a train wreck with no end in sight...
It's the wrong shape.For it to work it MUST be a sphere.
-
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.
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.
-
how 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.
x 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.
what 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.
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.
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.
'''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'''.
how are photons going to travel from the plasma through the opaque containment vessel?
just admit you are making excuses for a dead end engineering design which should be cancelled and replaced with a spherical containment fusion design.
-
how are photons going to travel from the plasma through the opaque containment vessel?
They don't need to.
They will reach it, be absorbed and warm it up.
Then you can harvest that heat, boil water make steam and turn a turbine to make electricity.
Perhaps you should
"just admit you are making excuses for a" dead end successful engineering design which should be cancelled and replaced with a spherical containment fusion design. upgraded."
-
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.
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?
-
It's the wrong shape.For it to work it MUST be a sphere.
Oh dear! the Sun just went out because it's not a sphere.
Oh! false alarm; it's just that Profound is talking bollocks.
-
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.
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?
Thais what I said.ITER will never produce net energy.
-
It's the wrong shape.For it to work it MUST be a sphere.
Oh dear! the Sun just went out because it's not a sphere.
Oh! false alarm; it's just that Profound is talking bollocks.
There are no torus shaped SUNS anywhere in the universe.Everyone is a sphere.SPHERE.
Ask an astronomer.
NO ITER shaped suns.That should give you a clue why ITER is a dead end.
-
how are photons going to travel from the plasma through the opaque containment vessel?
They don't need to.
They will reach it, be absorbed and warm it up.
Then you can harvest that heat, boil water make steam and turn a turbine to make electricity.
Perhaps you should
"just admit you are making excuses for a" dead end successful engineering design which should be cancelled and replaced with a spherical containment fusion design. upgraded."
heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.
in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?
-
Thais what I said.ITER will never produce net energy.
It was never meant to.
Your complaint is like saying it will never grow tomatoes.
-
I don't think it is possible to build a power fusion reactor producing more energy than what is at the input, for theoretical reasons, at least it is very unlikely. Fusion in the sun is produced from a constant high mass density and forces in all directions.
The H bomb is a fusion and fission bomb. The fusion is started and maintained by fission. The fission efficiency is augmented by the fusion energy. It is a mutual process. But in the end, the amount of energy produced is always lower than the full fission potential. A bomb with extra power over the full fission potential would tend to show that sustained fusion is possible on Earth. Fortunately and unfortunately, it has never been demonstrated.
There are still possibilities in directional fusion if the theory is developped way further, including microfusion. But sustained fusion power source might simply be impossible apart from solar energy.
Nuclear energy is fueled by gravity. In my theory, the strong force is gravity.
Seriously, profound has no valid arguments. Even though his conclusion could be right.
-
heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.
Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?
Why would I need to?
Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.
-
In my theory, the strong force is gravity.
In reality they are different. (Notably, they have different radial distributions and effective ranges)
If theory and reality don't agree, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
-
My theory works... The strong force is gravity and it is confined in particles because gravity is not produced from a point but from a circle. If you have two concentric circles with a distance of a planck length separating them, using wavelength as circumferences for mass energy and half charges separated by the diameter, you find that the ratio of the electromagnetic energy divided by the gravitational energy is the fine structure constant.
-
My theory works... The strong force is gravity and it is confined in particles because gravity is not produced from a point but from a circle. If you have two concentric circles with a distance of a planck length separating them, using wavelength as circumferences for mass energy and half charges separated by the diameter, you find that the ratio of the electromagnetic energy divided by the gravitational energy is the fine structure constant.
Not even a theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
never mind whether it works or not
(It probably doesn't)
-
It is just a small part of my theory. My theory is simple and it integrates gravity and QM.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34413.0
I should rewrite it because the theory evolved from the beginning and there are changes all along. Keep the latest conclusions. It worths a read I promise. Over 120 000 views is a good indication I think. I have a few very important findings to add.
-
heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.
Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?
Why would I need to?
Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.
You can't have cooling pipes as any fluid flow would disturb the very delicate magnetic fields.
See?
i have an answer for everything.
More bad news for you. Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber.
See? I win again.
-
heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.
Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?
Why would I need to?
Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.
You can't have cooling pipes as any fluid flow would disturb the very delicate magnetic fields.
See?
i have an answer for everything.
More bad news for you. Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber.
See? I win again.
"i have an answer for everything."
Yes, but it's the wrong answer, isn't it.
Because I can make a solution of something like ferric sulphate in water that has a relative magnetic permeability of exactly 1. That won't affect the magnetic fields.
As has been pointed out, all plasma systems are intrinsically unstable, so there will need a control system.
So any tiny influences from the cooling system will be dealt with by that controller.
"Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber."
That's not bad news for me.
Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons.
How are they going to add and remove power in an exactly spherically symmetric manner?
Because if they don't, you just shot down your own argument.
And, it may have escaped your notice, but others aren't.
"See? I win again."
It's not a contest, and you haven't won any argument.
You have pretended that ITER was meant to produce anything but data- it wasn't.
You have pretended that a reactor has to be spherical- they aren't- not even the sun.
You have pretended that extracting power from a very very hot thing is difficult- when clearly the real problem s stopping it losing energy.
-
you find that the ratio of the electromagnetic energy divided by the gravitational energy is the fine structure constant.
The fine structure constant was originally identified as the velocity of an electron in Bohr's atomic model* (exressed as a percentage of c), and has a value of around 1/137. It is usually described in relation to the electrostatic field only, with no reference to gravitation.
Gravitational forces are considerably weaker than electromagnetic forces (by a factor of around 1039).
So I think there is a flaw in your theory.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Physical_interpretations
The following website suggests that if there were a particle with the same charge as an electron, but exhibiting only the Planck mass, then the ratio of gravitational and electromagnetic forces would be around 1/137. However, the lightest known charged particle is the electron, with a mass around 1/2000 of a proton. The Planck Mass is around 10-19 of the proton mass (sorry - this should read 10+19 proton masses - thanks, BoredChemist).
The potential energy involved in creating an electric charge makes such a low mass charged particle unlikely.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-ratio-of-strength-between-electro-magnetic-and-gravitational-force.537569/
* We now know that Bohr's model of the atom had some fatal shortcomings, but it is still useful as a simplified explanation...
-
The fine structure constant is the ratio of the electromagnetic force or energy divided by the strong force. The fact that there is a simple solution replacing the strong force by gravity is not a coincidence. There is no strong force in the Bohr atom and an atom is not an elementary particle. QM does not give any more answers, it just gives a mathematical description involving probabilities with no explanation of how a spin is produced, entanglement, trajectory and other states...
I can tell you one thing, i am not an idiot... I am working on it since 2010 and it works, almost too well. If I could bet in the long term, like 30 years or so, I would gladly bet everything on it. But I am too old. The thing is you must read my theory and think about it for quite a long time to truly understand how many answers to unanswered questions there are in it. I can explain almost every unknown in Physics (Entanglement, neutrinos mass, Quantum tunneling, proton size, dark matter, dark energy and many more).
-
The Planck Mass is around 10-19 of the proton mass.
Actually the Planck mass is "huge".
"In physics, the Planck mass, denoted by mP, is the unit of mass in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is approximately 0.02 milligrams (roughly the mass of a flea egg[1])."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
I have weighed out stuff in smaller quantities in the lab (it's fiddly).
-
heat radiation is not called photons..that is normally reserved for visible light....you should have said heat or e - m radiation.
Much of the emission from the initial fusion reaction is carried by gamma ray photons, but thanks for making it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
in any case how are you going to wrap an heat exchanger around an container ALREADY encased by magnetic field coils which cannot be disturbed?
Why would I need to?
Spoiler alert:
The walls may already have cooling pipes.
You can't have cooling pipes as any fluid flow would disturb the very delicate magnetic fields.
See?
i have an answer for everything.
More bad news for you. Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber.
See? I win again.
As has been pointed out, all plasma systems are intrinsically unstable, so there will need a control system.
So any tiny influences from the cooling system will be dealt with by that controller.
"Some people actually listened to me a few years ago and are building a spherical containment chamber."
That's not bad news for me.
Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons.
How are they going to add and remove power in an exactly spherically symmetric manner?
Because if they don't, you just shot down your own argument.
Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.
The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.
http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html
Don't feel too sad.
-
Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.
The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.
http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html
Don't feel too sad.
"spherical tokamak" is a contradiction in terms. The word is a contraction of "toroidalʹnaya kamera s magnitnym polem" meaiing ‘toroidal chamber with magnetic field’.
Now, even if you overlook the fact that the word says it's torroidal, there's still the issue of the magnetic field.
The only way to get that spherical is to have a magnetic monople at the centre.
Did you understand the bit where I wrote this
"Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons."
-
Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.
The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.
http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html
Don't feel too sad.
Now, even if you overlook the fact that the word says it's torroidal, there's still the issue of the magnetic field.
The only way to get that spherical is to have a magnetic monople at the centre.
Did you understand the bit where I wrote this
"Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons."
Wrong again.START proved Peng and Strickler's predictions; the ST had performance an order of magnitude better than conventional designs, and cost much less to build as well. In terms of overall economics, the ST was an enormous step forward.
Moreover, the ST was a new approach, and a low-cost one. It was one of the few areas of mainline fusion research where real contributions could be made on small budgets. This sparked off a series of ST developments around the world. In particular, the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) and Pegasus experiments in the US, Globus-M in Russia, and the UK's follow-on to START, MAST. START itself found new life as part of the Proto-Sphera project in Italy, where experimenters are attempting to eliminate the central column by passing the current through a secondary plasma.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak
http://www.frascati.enea.it/ProtoSphera/Multi-Pinch_Status/index_Multi-Pinch_Status.htm
-
Well it seems people listened to me a few years ago when I posted in various physics forums involved in fusion research and they have built it.
The spherical tokamak has a number of advantages over the standard tokamak design. It offers the promise of achieving fusion with cheaper construction costs and lessened energy demands. Results achieved so far indicate it would be a good design for a fusion power reactor, still using conventional deuterium and tritium fuel.
http://www.ialtenergy.com/spherical-tokamak.html
Don't feel too sad.
Now, even if you overlook the fact that the word says it's torroidal, there's still the issue of the magnetic field.
The only way to get that spherical is to have a magnetic monople at the centre.
Did you understand the bit where I wrote this
"Spherical vacuum chambers are commonplace for obvious mechanical reasons."
Wrong again.START proved Peng and Strickler's predictions; the ST had performance an order of magnitude better than conventional designs, and cost much less to build as well. In terms of overall economics, the ST was an enormous step forward.
Moreover, the ST was a new approach, and a low-cost one. It was one of the few areas of mainline fusion research where real contributions could be made on small budgets. This sparked off a series of ST developments around the world. In particular, the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) and Pegasus experiments in the US, Globus-M in Russia, and the UK's follow-on to START, MAST. START itself found new life as part of the Proto-Sphera project in Italy, where experimenters are attempting to eliminate the central column by passing the current through a secondary plasma.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_tokamak
http://www.frascati.enea.it/ProtoSphera/Multi-Pinch_Status/index_Multi-Pinch_Status.htm
Twixt optimist and pessimist,
the difference is droll
the optimist sees the doughnut,
the pessimist sees the hole.
If you look carefully there are hints that the tokomak they label as "spherical" still has a hole in the middle of the plasma. Things like "The spherical tokamak is sometimes referred to as a spherical torus"
It's a torus.
When you have finished trying to argue, it will still be a torus.
Also, if I'm "wrong again" perhaps you can explain how you propose to have a spherically symmetrical magnetic field.
-
hydrogen + gravitational compression work (E) = xelijum !
There is no H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe + E
But goes H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe-E
It's such a simple theory! I.T. E.R. Is the wrong shape,and big mistake.
-
hydrogen + gravitational compression work (E) = xelijum !
There is no H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe + E
But goes H (deuterium, tritium) = Xe-E
It's such a simple theory! I.T. E.R. Is the wrong shape,and big mistake.
Do you realise that none of that made sense?
-
They have a sense.Very deep meaning.Let's go back for 100 years,from this blind street.
Or patiently wait (30-40 years) for ITER to fail.
-
Yet another fusion startup. This one tries to utilise plasma instability (and they aren't using a sphere either!).
ITER is pushing the boundaries of engineering capabilities. But trying a number of different approaches may yield advances in unexpected places.
See: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/startup-lppfusion-embraces-instability
-
Yet another fusion startup. This one tries to utilise plasma instability (and they aren't using a sphere either!).
ITER is pushing the boundaries of engineering capabilities. But trying a number of different approaches may yield advances in unexpected places.
See: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/startup-lppfusion-embraces-instability
But trying a number of different approaches may yield advances in unexpected places.
you mean the wallet of tax payers on this fools errand?
-
you mean the wallet of tax payers on this fools errand?
Every "point" you have made has been refuted. You keep going on about it.
Who is the "fool"
-
Yet another fusion startup....you mean the wallet of tax payers on this fools errand?
Startups only waste the money of the investors - but it sometimes pays off big for the investors.
More frequently, it might employ some people for a while, and if they are lucky, generate some patents or new ideas that other people will build on later (sometimes even the same people).
That's what risky, high-tech science involves.
Whatever happens, the engineering and international coordination involved in a large-scale project like ITER generates economies of scale in superconductors, develops new industries, and will generate many patents and scientific papers, even if it doesn't generate any electricity.
-
Yet another fusion startup....you mean the wallet of tax payers on this fools errand?
Startups only waste the money of the investors - but it sometimes pays off big for the investors.
More frequently, it might employ some people for a while, and if they are lucky, generate some patents or new ideas that other people will build on later (sometimes even the same people).
That's what risky, high-tech science involves.
Whatever happens, the engineering and international coordination involved in a large-scale project like ITER generates economies of scale in superconductors, develops new industries, and will generate many patents and scientific papers, even if it doesn't generate any electricity.
Well 3 years later and still no fusion....
I TOLD YOU SO.
-
OK
Two things.
One; it's not built yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Timeline_and_status
Two, it's three years on, and you haven't understood the "E" in ITER.
-
Well 3 years later and still no fusion....
I TOLD YOU SO.
Did anyone here claim that we would have fusion in three years?
-
Well 3 years later and still no fusion....
I TOLD YOU SO.
Did anyone here claim that we would have fusion in three years?
Just to clarify things, three years ago (when the thread started) the ITER was not scheduled to be built until 2025.
So crowing about it not working yet is absurdly illogical...
-
Well 3 years later and still no fusion....
I TOLD YOU SO.
Did anyone here claim that we would have fusion in three years?
Just to clarify things, three years ago (when the thread started) the ITER was not scheduled to be built until 2025.
So crowing about it not working yet is absurdly illogical...
it's been put further back and it will never work as it is the wrong shape. how many torus shaped stars can you point to....
exactly zero..
its a too big to fail gravy train.
can i make you eat your hat if it does not work which it will not.
remember its mission statement?
confinement for 90 seconds...
-
it's been put further back and it will never work as it is the wrong shape. how many torus shaped stars can you point to....
exactly zero..
That's like arguing that helicopters can't fly because they aren't shaped like birds.
-
it's been put further back and it will never work as it is the wrong shape. how many torus shaped stars can you point to....
exactly zero..
That's like arguing that helicopters can't fly because they aren't shaped like birds.
its not a heliocopter.
-
it's been put further back and it will never work as it is the wrong shape. how many torus shaped stars can you point to....
Well, if you think an fusion reactor is a star- and it seems you are that misguided,
I went to vist one when I was a student.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus
There are plenty of others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_experiments#Tokamak
-
its not a heliocopter.
And fusion reactors aren't stars.
-
it's been put further back
A lot of things have been delayed by COVID-19.
...of course, a lot of things will be blamed on COVID-19 that were due to entirely different causes!