Fusion power? YOU BET! by Goshin - Page 6 - 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 6 of 31
Thread Tools
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
101 - 02-02-2009, 10:55
Reply With Quote
weekday bump
 
Goshin is online now
 
Sponsored Links
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
102 - 02-02-2009, 20:03
Reply With Quote
i like how durak shut the hell up

to myself

bye
 
Goshin is online now
 
Durak
VeteranX
Old
103 - 02-02-2009, 20:07
Reply With Quote
i 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
 
Durak is offline
 
Nevearion
VeteranX
Old
104 - 02-02-2009, 21:41
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeIppon View Post
Cross your fingers. IMO, its either this or Thorium Floride. IEC is better, but Thorium could work for us for hundreds of years.
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.
 
Nevearion is offline
 
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
105 - 02-02-2009, 22:18
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevearion View Post
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/s20..._fusion051.pdf
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
Nevearion
VeteranX
Old
106 - 02-02-2009, 23:00
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpeIppon View Post
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/s20..._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.
 
Nevearion is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
107 - 05-05-2009, 11:13
Reply With Quote
SO
update
For fiscal year 2009, the US DOD has granted the Polywell team 2 million dollars to continue on with their project.

Hopefully something cool comes of it
 
Goshin is online now
 
ruWank
VeteranXV
Old
108 - 05-05-2009, 12:03
Reply With Quote
 
ruWank is offline
 
Data
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
109 - 05-05-2009, 13:11
Reply With Quote
How long until we can see some results?

Sick of this "Oh, we're just doing a feasibility study," and you never hear anything. For 50 years.

Somebody man up and build the ****ing reactor so we can move on.
 
Data is offline
 
Waidan
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
110 - 05-05-2009, 13:17
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data View Post
How long until we can see some results?

Sick of this "Oh, we're just doing a feasibility study," and you never hear anything. For 50 years.

Somebody man up and build the ****ing reactor so we can move on.
No ****. The Feds are throwing billions at all sorts of random **** 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.
 
Waidan is offline
 
[MoM] Gort
VeteranXV
Old
111 - 05-05-2009, 13:17
Reply With Quote
Nothing good can come of this...
 
[MoM] Gort is online now
 
Waidan
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
112 - 05-05-2009, 13:19
Reply With Quote
Meh, if somebody had a gun Doc's reign of terror would have been short lived.
 
Waidan is offline
 
Data
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
113 - 05-05-2009, 13:28
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waidan View Post
No ****. The Feds are throwing billions at all sorts of random **** 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.
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 ****ing 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 bull****. Smoke & mirrors. Then it's "Oops, he died lol!"

Give me a break.

I want my flying car god dammit.
 
Data is offline
 
Senty
VeteranXV
Old
114 - 05-05-2009, 14:05
Reply With Quote
 
Senty is offline
 
RoboTek
VeteranX
Old
115 - 05-05-2009, 14:54
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevearion View Post
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.
Exactly this.
 
RoboTek is offline
 
Azra3l
TWS Champion++
Contributor
Old
116 - 05-05-2009, 15:08
Reply With Quote
fizzucks
 
Azra3l is offline
 
HaPpY
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
117 - 05-05-2009, 15:42
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggi View Post
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
how can you scrutinize something you admittedly know nothing about?
 
HaPpY is online now
 
Data
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
118 - 05-05-2009, 15:47
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaPpY View Post
how can you scrutinize something you admittedly know nothing about?
The Internet empowers people in strange ways...
 
Data is offline
 
Eggi
VeteranXV
Old
119 - 05-05-2009, 17:11
Reply With Quote
thats why i said 'scientific community'?
 
Eggi is offline
 
HaPpY
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
120 - 05-05-2009, 17:46
Reply With Quote
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.
 
HaPpY is online now
 
Page 6 of 31
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 11:39.