Fusion power? YOU BET! by Goshin - Page 5 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Fusion power? YOU BET!
Page 5 of 32
Thread Tools
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
81 - 02-01-2009, 19:25
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durak View Post
science is determined by consensus sometimes, for good or bad

publications are peer-reviewed and the facts and evidence presented with-in are deemed either credible or not
Consensus is the byproduct of the system. Science has never progressed because of consensus, but because of developing and critically evaluating ideas. Even if there was consensus, it would mean absolutely dick since only the tokamak idea has been in the sphere of public knowledge until recently.
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
Sponsored Links
Durak
VeteranXV
Old
82 - 02-01-2009, 19:26
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeIppon View Post
Consensus is the byproduct of the system. Science has never progressed because of consensus, but because of developing and critically evaluating ideas. Even if there was consensus, it would mean absolutely dick since only the tokamak idea has been in the sphere of public knowledge until recently.
you just described what i said
 
Durak is offline
 
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
83 - 02-01-2009, 19:43
Reply With Quote
You said its determined by consensus sometimes. This is not true. It is always determined by which ideas can be developed. Consensus naturally follows the ideas that can be taken further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durak View Post
nothing to show for it??

they've developed reactors that have already produced megawatts of power, more than what your dude is doing

look up JET as one reference

problem now isn't achieving fusion it's making it sustainable in terms of cost and energy in vs energy out
It looks like you didn't read any of the info on polywells or the experiments done on the 9th and 10th of november. Assuming the results of Bussard's experiment is correct, Tokamaks and Polywells are effectively at the same level of progress, and their next experiment for both is to achieve net power gain. The difference is the Tokamaks must still be made into something that is economical, while even the experimental polywell reactor can be economically reproduced.
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
84 - 02-02-2009, 00:59
Reply With Quote
a 100MW IEC reactor is 12 feet in diameter. To achieve net power gain using ITER's system, i read somewhere it would have to be 39 metersx39 meters. So there's that as well.

And as you scale the IEC reactor up, the net power it can create th erotically increasing in significant factors. I think a doubling of the size of the reactor gives it an additional power output x64 or x128.
 
Goshin is offline
 
Durak
VeteranXV
Old
85 - 02-02-2009, 01:03
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
a 100MW IEC reactor is 12 feet in diameter. To achieve net power gain using ITER's system, i read somewhere it would have to be 39 metersx39 meters. So there's that as well.

And as you scale the IEC reactor up, the net power it can create th erotically increasing in significant factors. I think a doubling of the size of the reactor gives it an additional power output x64 or x128.
not sure what the problem is with having a large reactor...? materials cost is higher i guess?? what do you mean by 39x39 meters?? it's a fricking torus not a 2d square

power out depends on volume. do u mean doubling the volume? if so that just doubles the power
 
Durak is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
86 - 02-02-2009, 01:12
Reply With Quote
39 meters is significant. All the materials, the cost, the wiring, more and more parts that can **** up. In a larger scale, the huge super collider was shut down for months because one tiny magnet on the 9th segment was short circuited.

Like i said, doubling the size of the IEC reactor increases it's power output by 64 or 128 times. I think in the first post there is mention of the scale factor of the IEC.

I'm kinda fried from studying so I'll get harder facts sometime later this week. With quotes and stuff!
 
Goshin is offline
 
Durak
VeteranXV
Old
87 - 02-02-2009, 01:16
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
39 meters is significant. All the materials, the cost, the wiring, more and more parts that can **** up. In a larger scale, the huge super collider was shut down for months because one tiny magnet on the 9th segment was short circuited.

Like i said, doubling the size of the IEC reactor increases it's power output by 64 or 128 times. I think in the first post there is mention of the scale factor of the IEC.

I'm kinda fried from studying so I'll get harder facts sometime later this week. With quotes and stuff!
i dont think you actually understand how fusion power works

if you double the volume of a fusion reactor it doubles the power out

i was also questioning your use of '39 meters x 39 meters' since toruses are in fact 3 dimensional
 
Durak is offline
 
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
88 - 02-02-2009, 01:26
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durak View Post
i dont think you actually understand how fusion power works

if you double the volume of a fusion reactor it doubles the power out
You should watch the video before talking. The expected energy increase of the Polywell reactor is x^7
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
89 - 02-02-2009, 01:38
Reply With Quote
you stupid ****

jesus

FIRST POST, 3 paragraphs down:

"The reactor is just a big sphere surrounded by electro-magnets. The main cost of the plant is converting the 2 million volts DC output to AC for local use. The direct 2 million volt output would be great for long distance transmission. Although the plants could be sited in just about any reasonably sized electrical yard since any required cooling would not requre a water supply. Air cooling would work fine.

The power generator is about 10 to 12 ft across for an output between 100 MW and 1,000 MW. Power output scales as the 7th power of size. Double the size and you get 128X as much power.

No thermal plant is required. Thermal plants - steam generators, turbines etc. - are long lead time items. They can take from 3 to 5 years from start of production to delivery. The Bussard Fusion Reactor output is direct 2 million volts DC. (a very large battery)."

Highlighted in the first post as well:
Why a full-scale demo? Because the system scales oddly: Fusion output goes as the 7th power of the size and Gain goes as the 5th power. Thus there is very little to be gained by building a half-size model; it is too weak to give anything definitive about power production or gain. And our tests were always at about 1/8 to 1/10 scale of the full scale demo. We told the DoD from the beginning that the real program would cost about 150-200 M, since 1987, and they all knew this. However, since the DoD has no charter to do such work, and the political realities were that a big DoD program would attract the ire and power of the DoE to kill it, it was never funded beyond about 1/8 the level required.

Dr. Bussard on his original idea of the Tokamak reactors (again in the first post):
Magnetic confinement fusion is a misnomer, as magnetic fields can NOT confine a plasma, only constrain its motion towards walls. The entire history of the MagConf program has been to reduce transport to neo-classical (not turbulent or instability-driven) losses. And THEN the machines are all inherently and inevitably huge and cost too much and make too much power to ever be economically useful --- as the utilities have been telling the AEC/DoE for 30 years. No matter, the global tokamak program provides jobs for hudreds of thousands of people in many countries, and is a safe place to put political pork funding, simply because it IS NO THREAT TO OIL - it won't ever work, but it sounds good to the untutored public..

Did you LOOK at my first post?


-----

Reading some post made by one of the researchers for Bussard's reactor, he is stating he can create a wb-100 for 35 million dollars.

Wether that is true or not, i have no idea. The 200 million dollar figure is for "a complete research project leading to proof of concept, multiple devices in a step by step approach. " Allegedly.
 
Goshin is offline
 
Azn_Essence
VeteranXV
Old
90 - 02-02-2009, 01:51
Reply With Quote
is this basically = the future?
electric cars, ETC.
 
Azn_Essence is offline
 
Nevearion
VeteranX
Old
91 - 02-02-2009, 01:53
Reply With Quote
Quote:
"There's nothing in there that suggests this will not work," Nebel said. "That's a very different statement from saying that it will work."
Very novel idea if it works, but it hasn't been demonstrated on that scale yet. I also would discard any notion of costs at this point besides saying it may be feasible. Every business person alive will tout their product as cost effective if they think it will get them funding. Let the physicists who are familiar with the project decide if the tech is reasonable and go from there.

This may be a solution, but don't think of it as the solution until it's been shown to work. I would also like to add most researchers are complete and utter failures at considering cost and utility of their products.
 
Nevearion is offline
 
Darkstrand
VeteranX
Old
92 - 02-02-2009, 01:54
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeRe-|WoLf|- View Post
My confidence in scientific research to yield the means to more efficient power production is roughly equivalent to my jaded belief that our political and civic infrastructure will remain corrupt enough that winter heat bills will continue to increase regardless.
 
Darkstrand is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
93 - 02-02-2009, 01:56
Reply With Quote
Well wb-7 produced plasma...so theres that i guess. Apparently the Navy has a data embargo on the team doing the new tests. This happened for 11 years previously as well, until 2006 when Bussard came forward with all this wonderful stuff to google.
 
Goshin is offline
 
Hazee Daze
VeteranX
Old
94 - 02-02-2009, 01:58
Reply With Quote
Larry Niven loved the Bussard ramjet. Used it a lot in his fiction: Bussard ramjet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 
Hazee Daze is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
95 - 02-02-2009, 02:04
Reply With Quote
i really like the name
 
Goshin is offline
 
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
96 - 02-02-2009, 02:14
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azn_Essence View Post
is this basically = the future?
electric cars, ETC.
Cross your fingers. IMO, its either this or Thorium Floride. IEC is better, but Thorium could work for us for hundreds of years.
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
ZOD
VeteranX
Old
97 - 02-02-2009, 02:21
Reply With Quote
We will find a way to kill this, probably by not funding it or by labeling it terrorism and arresting everyone involved.
 
ZOD is offline
 
Pengo
VeteranXV
Old
98 - 02-02-2009, 02:25
Reply With Quote
I don't understand. Where do you put the oil in?
 
Pengo is offline
 
Eggi
VeteranXV
Old
99 - 02-02-2009, 02:54
Reply With Quote
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 :P
 
Eggi is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
100 - 02-02-2009, 03:00
Reply With Quote
Then i have achieved at least something today Please read on eggi, knowledge is fun!
 
Goshin is offline
 
Page 5 of 32
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Fusion power? YOU BET!

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
chrisperger johnson , goshin , goshin fucks men , goshin is unhappy irl , goshin science lesson , shirtless fatty , shit thread shit poster , tokamak is best


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:35.