fusion energy source? really?

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

do you know why cavemen drug their women around by the hair?

If they drug them around by the feet they'd fill up with dirt.

I'm out.

Holy crap, Sammy.

That was a literal-LOL.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by flipper35

How about a different type of fusion?

Extreme Tech - Don't call it cold fusion

It's already been debunked.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by IROC

It should be mentioned, of course, that we do have working fusion reactors - they just require more energy than they produce. I think JET has gotten close with a ratio of around .7 or so (power output to power input).

As James mentions, there are many obstacles. Those 14 MeV neutrons are butt-kickers.

The last I read, the best the model reactors has done is 1.002. I think there was some sort of celebration to the fact that the reaction was self-sustaining. This doesn't count the start-up energy, just the steady-state. and 0.002 excess might mean a humongous reactor to make enough power to siphon off some to generate electricity.

Yes, the neutrons seem like a very difficult obstacle.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by IROC

It's already been debunked.

Sweet, how? Links? The report sounded convincing.

Report

[M.D. Holloway]

For the sake of argument - if this was true and in 5 to 10 years power generation as we know it would switch quickly from petro based to fusion based...while it would take awhile for the transition, do you realize just how many folks rely on the petro industry?

There is a part of me that thinks that it is not only possible but actually in use to some extent yet if broken to the masses it would lead to some serious economic collapse. Free is not good...look at any 4 generation welfare recip...

In the past any industrial advanced was tempered by limited (controlled) expansion due in part to communication and transportation limitations. If this is real that won't be the case. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

Smart folk like those in the medical profession can't even follow simple common sense when dealing with Ebola. You provide free energy and the world becomes filled with slugs...

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by M.D. Holloway

For the sake of argument - if this was true and in 5 to 10 years power generation as we know it would switch quickly from petro based to fusion based...while it would take awhile for the transition, do you realize just how many folks rely on the petro industry?

I'm sure all through history, paradigm shifts in a particular industry created dislocation. For example: the transportation industry as a whole, over the last 150 years.

Originally Posted by M.D. Holloway

There is a part of me that thinks that it is not only possible but actually in use to some extent yet if broken to the masses it would lead to some serious economic collapse. Free is not good.

I don't see how it could possibly be free. Sure, the energy itself would be exceedingly cheap, but the transmission infrastructure and start-up and maintenance of the generation facilities? A fission generating facility would look like a bargain. Even amortized over 50 years - 100 years - there is no way it's ever "free". And what about the investors that put up the dough to get these plants built? They aren't going to donate that capital - they are going to want to get a nice return on their investment.

No sir, that power is going to cost the end user money, never fear.

[M.D. Holloway]

I think of the world of communication, 25 years ago if you were to design and build the infrastructure and devices we have today back then - there would not be enough money to do so...but in a very short time frame the ability we have today for information retrieval as well as instant visual communication is almost free...close. And while it has taken big bucks to do so the costs were diluted out rendering it beyond affordable, basically essential.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

Yes, the neutrons seem like a very difficult obstacle.

Not really. You just need a very large container where statistically all of the neutrons will be absorbed and the energy returned to the reaction. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by M.D. Holloway

I think of the world of communication, 25 years ago if you were to design and build the infrastructure and devices we have today back then - there would not be enough money to do so...but in a very short time frame the ability we have today for information retrieval as well as instant visual communication is almost free...close. And while it has taken big bucks to do so the costs were diluted out rendering it beyond affordable, basically essential.

I agree. And processes have improved to make it cheaper and faster and better.

But it's not free. In fact, I pay more now for communications than I did before the internet existed. A LOT more. Even when adjusted for inflation. On a per-megabyte basis, oh yes, it's really cheap. Especially if I count my time as being worth something. But it ain't free. And never will be.

Now think about fusion power and the cost of each generation facility. As a comparison, look at the cost of installing a hydroelectric facility. IIRC, the power that comes from all those dams built in the 1930s and 1940s costs money. And the cost of those dams, even in 2014 money, would rival the cost of a fusion generation station.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Not really. You just need a very large container where statistically all of the neutrons will be absorbed and the energy returned to the reaction. Easy peasy lemon squeezy!

Maybe if the whole thing were in a big container of water, and the water was used to slow down the neutrons...

That would be a very large pot of water.

[island911]

Originally Posted by kang

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

+1

Well, except for AGW, of course.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by M.D. Holloway

For the sake of argument - if this was true and in 5 to 10 years power generation as we know it would switch quickly from petro based to fusion based...while it would take awhile for the transition, do you realize just how many folks rely on the petro industry?

There is a part of me that thinks that it is not only possible but actually in use to some extent yet if broken to the masses it would lead to some serious economic collapse. Free is not good...look at any 4 generation welfare recip...


...

Doesn't matter, we (they) adapt and go where the jobs are.

I started in solar/wind generation many moons ago but quickly saw it as the usustainable scam it was and switched to petro which was real. If this happens before I retire I'll simply switch hats.

Fusion reactors give off heat. Heat makes steam. Steam spins turbines. Turbines spin generators.
Someone has to supervise the building and installation and maintenance of those turbines and associated systems.
I'm an expert when it comes to steam turbines.

See how easy that was?

[gacook]

Originally Posted by M.D. Holloway

I think of the world of communication, 25 years ago if you were to design and build the infrastructure and devices we have today back then - there would not be enough money to do so...but in a very short time frame the ability we have today for information retrieval as well as instant visual communication is almost free...close. And while it has taken big bucks to do so the costs were diluted out rendering it beyond affordable, basically essential.

I tend to disagree about the cost of communication, Mike. Of the developed nations, we have one of the worst infrastructures in the world...and we pay more than almost anyone else to use it.

[island911]

Originally Posted by gacook

I tend to disagree about the cost of communication, Mike. Of the developed nations, we have one of the worst infrastructures in the world...and we pay more than almost anyone else to use it.

That makes no sense to me.

[island911]

India




I know that other countries have cheaper cell-data rates, but that is splitting hairs. (and collecting taxes here)

[gacook]

Originally Posted by island911

That makes no sense to me.

Not a ton of time on my hands to get into it, but this article gives a decent overview of the situation:

The Cost of Connectivity 2013 | New America Archives

Bottom line, we pay more for less here in the good ol' USofA.

[island911]

Thanks, Guy. I was focusing on "we have one of the worst infrastructures in the world"

What I see is providers throttling price/performance - IOW, it's not so much about the condition of our infrastructure as it is about maximizing profits.

[gacook]

That is certainly a piece of it; however, our infrastructure (especially outside the big cities) really is crap. Keeping my fingers crossed Google will fix that for us

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by porwolf

I say "show me". Those articles don't say how they are trying to accomplish useable fusion with their setup. After all fusion for power generation requires enormous plasma pressures and temperatures:

How Nuclear Fusion Reactors Work - HowStuffWorks

I hope it's not another "cold fusion" story!

Originally Posted by IROC

Unfortunately, Lockheed (or the article) doesn't mention anything at all about the methodology.

We (ORNL/ITER) have been working on fusion for a long time. Based on my understanding of the technical challenges, I am skeptical that Lockheed (sort of on their own) would come up with a workable solution where everyone else has failed.

Originally Posted by IROC

It should be mentioned, of course, that we do have working fusion reactors - they just require more energy than they produce. I think JET has gotten close with a ratio of around .7 or so (power output to power input).

As James mentions, there are many obstacles. Those 14 MeV neutrons are butt-kickers.

Originally Posted by kang

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

yup, the issue here isn't the small size, and the fact that they advertize that, makes me think scam off the break. because hint: there isn't a power supply system that first came in miniaturized form.

doesn't really matter how large the reactor is frankly. even if its much larger than a standard coal or nuc of today, as long as the plant produces more power than it takes to run (which is currently the issue with fusion power), it should be no problem justifying its construction costs.

yeah ... the more i think about this, the more i am thinking scam. advertizing the small size, rather than the actual issue, which is net power currently, thats pretty scam like.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by flipper35

Sweet, how? Links? The report sounded convincing.

Report

I probably shouldn't have been so dismissive. The eCat itself hasn't really been debunked, but their claims don't hold up to scrutiny, so it appears they've "made up" their story. Either that or the universe doesn't operate like we think it does.

Here's a good discussion:

The Physics of why the e-Cat’s Cold Fusion Claims Collapse – Starts With A Bang