Fusion power? YOU BET!
- Thread starter Goshin
- Start date
to myselfi didn't shut up
i just found it useless to argue with someone who didn't even take university general physics
a little knowledge in the wrong hands is pretty disastrous
i completely destroyed your lie about tokamaks not having any results to show and you conveniently ignored it. i doubt you even took the time to look through the the 3 pages of the pdf i linked
i just found it useless to argue with someone who didn't even take university general physics
a little knowledge in the wrong hands is pretty disastrous
i completely destroyed your lie about tokamaks not having any results to show and you conveniently ignored it. i doubt you even took the time to look through the the 3 pages of the pdf i linked
Why do you insist on throwing your weight behind outlandish and unproven technologies? Through every step of development nuclear has been touted as the free energy source of the future. IEC have not been built to scale and there certainly are critics of it. I won't say it won't work because it hasn't been tired. But I will say it's extremely naive to start considering options based on this scenarios at this time. Nothing scales perfectly. Especially when you are dealing with particle interactions. The higher the particle energy the higher the likelihood of dissipative collision events. This is a field with a very large number of unknowns and as the quote said before, even if we don't know anything that will prevent it from working, that isn't the same as meaning it will work.
Its naive to think tokamak fusion will ever be economical, even if it can provide net energy. Its also dumb to discount a different solution that solves or avoids many of the problems of tokamaks, especially when that solution was created by one of fusion's leading pioneers and it cost & complexity is a small fraction of ITER's. Better to use the money on a workable solution than to blow it on a white elephant.
http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2005/page_fusion051.pdf
You're missing the problem. I did not say discount it, I said don't rely on it. Support the development of these technologies if they're credible but don't get ahead of yourself. There are many ideas that will look good initially but lead to disappointment. This is what research is all about. The vast majority of ideas fail, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing them. What I am trying to get across is don't throw your weight behind a solution until it's proven. A good example of this is corn ethanol. Admittedly that may prove to be beneficial in the long run but for that to be satisfied there will be a lot of bankrupt companies and cellulosic ethanol must be made market ready.
No shit. The Feds are throwing billions at all sorts of random shit right now, and talking ceaselessly about creating jobs. Getting away from foreign oil is another hot topic. You'd think they'd come around to funding this project.
[MoM] Gort
Veteran XX
Nothing good can come of this...
If this is real, and it's your life's work, and it stands to have this enormous level of impact on humanity, you'd think people would find a way. Just find a fucking way to make it happen. You don't throw up your hands when the feds cut your funding. You don't just quit when your 6th iteration shows promising results and then spontaneously explodes. Who does that?
Unless it's all bullshit. Smoke & mirrors. Then it's "Oops, he died lol!"
Give me a break.
I want my flying car god dammit.
Exactly this.
so i may be discounting dr brussard's work, and i clearly know nothing about him, but my skepticism remains for the same reasons as i stated earlier. If his theories hold out to the scrutiny of the scientific community then that would be absolutely fantastic. world altering, assuming the fusion reactors would be scalable. but until that day, ill keep my skepticism.
i will have to read up on his design though as I am now curious
how can you scrutinize something you admittedly know nothing about?
The Internet empowers people in strange ways...
as long as your scrutiny has sources of merit...
for example i think string theory is more religion than science despite the fact that im not an expert because my stance rests merely upon the shoulders of prominent and credible sources that make this argument. i'd never take such a stance otherwise.
for example i think string theory is more religion than science despite the fact that im not an expert because my stance rests merely upon the shoulders of prominent and credible sources that make this argument. i'd never take such a stance otherwise.