Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 


Will fusion be the revolution that fission wasn't?
Yes 60%  60%  [ 3 ]
No 40%  40%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 5

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

02 Feb 2011, 11:53 am

I don't know a tonne about the topic, but I'm just wondering about peoples thought about it.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Feb 2011, 12:38 pm

If you hold your breath until we have practical, controllable nuclear fusion to generate heat energy you will turn blue and die.

Nuclear Fusion has been the energy source of the future, for the last 60 years. One hundred years from now it will still be the energy source of the future.


ruveyn



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,725
Location: temperate zone

02 Feb 2011, 12:38 pm

Presumebly you mean "cold" fushion.
Is cold fushino possible? If so what would the societal effects be?

Both in nature, and in man made H-bombs nuclear fushion only occurs in conditions like those at the core of the Sun- humongous pressure-and humaongous ten million degree temperatures.

It takes an implosion of an atomic bomb ( imagine the Hiroshima mushroom cloud going IN ward) to create that combination of heat and pressure to cause hydrogen atoms to fuse.
Then you got yourself an H-bomb - which makes a bang a hundred times more powerful than than a fission bomb.

First we have to figure out to get that fusion of hydrogen atoms to happen at room temperature.
Then we have to figure out how to control the explosion and tame it in a way analgous to how current nuclear reactors tame fission explosions and make the energy usable.

We are still a long way from even the first part.

If cold fushion were doable and tamable then -yes- it would be a fantastic revolution.
Presumably it would be safer than fission because you wouldnt have radioactive wastes and you would get even more power.

But will cold fushion ever actually happen?
I dont think it will in our lifetimes.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Feb 2011, 12:42 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
r.

But will cold fushion ever actually happen?
I dont think it will in our lifetimes.


Cold fusion has been shown to be a pipe dream. The experiments of Pons and Fleischer were never properly replicated. Cold Fusion is for crackpots and people who do not understand physics.

If you want nuclear fusion then you must have a means over overcoming Coulomb repulsion of protons. Got any ideas? So far no sustainable fusion output has been achieved. This is been going on for over 60 years. I do not plan to hold my breath until it happens.

ruveyn



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

02 Feb 2011, 1:53 pm

cold fusion is the classic example of psuedoscience.

Quote:
If you want nuclear fusion then you must have a means over overcoming Coulomb repulsion of protons. Got any ideas? So far no sustainable fusion output has been achieved. This is been going on for over 60 years. I do not plan to hold my breath until it happens.


I thought they use ridiculously high energy magnets to overcome repulsion? I don't know, you know the maths for this sort of thing. I doubt it'll be around soon, but I am pretty optimistic myself, perhaps naively so.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,173
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

02 Feb 2011, 2:51 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yixhyPN0r3g[/youtube]

ruveyn wrote:
If you hold your breath until we have practical, controllable nuclear fusion to generate heat energy you will turn blue and die.

Nuclear Fusion has been the energy source of the future, for the last 60 years. One hundred years from now it will still be the energy source of the future.


ruveyn

I bet those crazy peoples wanting to built heavier than air flying machines will never succced.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Feb 2011, 3:04 pm

Tollorin wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yixhyPN0r3g[/youtube]

ruveyn wrote:
If you hold your breath until we have practical, controllable nuclear fusion to generate heat energy you will turn blue and die.

Nuclear Fusion has been the energy source of the future, for the last 60 years. One hundred years from now it will still be the energy source of the future.


ruveyn

I bet those crazy peoples wanting to built heavier than air flying machines will never succced.


Heavier than air flight was never a theoretical question. The birds are heavier than air and they fly just fine. There were two technical (not theoretical) questions:

1. Control
2. Delivering enough power to produce lift for a HTA flier.

The Freres Wright solved both problems in 1903. Lord Kelvin, one the the leading physicists said about 8 years before the Wright's succeeded that a power plant that was both light enough and powerful enough would not be developed any time soon. He was wrong. Kelvin had steam engines in mind, not internal combustion. Also in Kelvin's time Lilienthal developed HTA gliders and flew them successfully. Kelvin was referring to powered flight, not gliders.

The issue with fusion is related to the basic forces of nature. Electric repulsion presents a significant barrier. To make a sustained fusion reaction two things have to happen.

1. Atoms have to be forced close enough together so that the strong force kicks in. Coulomb repulsion of protons has to be overcome. Not only that it has to be done on a sustained basis so that some of the energy of the fusion reaction has to be funneled off to sustain the reaction.

2. Some means of collecting high speed neurons as part of the energy yield has to be developed.

As things stand now, no apparatus can both produce, and maintain the reaction long enough for useful energy to be harvested greater than the energy needed to initiate the reaction. The best efforts to date are short by a factor of ten.

The only energy source great enough to crunch light elements in a sustained fashion is to have a big enough mass of hydrogen gas crushed gravitationally. This has happened successfully. We call it the sun. The other way is to produce fusion momentarily and we do that too -- with H-bombs which have to be triggered by A-bombs. And H-bomb is a practical means of generating the heat from which we can make electric current.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Feb 2011, 7:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yixhyPN0r3g[/youtube]

ruveyn wrote:
If you hold your breath until we have practical, controllable nuclear fusion to generate heat energy you will turn blue and die.

Nuclear Fusion has been the energy source of the future, for the last 60 years. One hundred years from now it will still be the energy source of the future.


ruveyn

I bet those crazy peoples wanting to built heavier than air flying machines will never succced.


Heavier than air flight was never a theoretical question. The birds are heavier than air and they fly just fine. There were two technical (not theoretical) questions:

1. Control
2. Delivering enough power to produce lift for a HTA flier.

The Freres Wright solved both problems in 1903. Lord Kelvin, one the the leading physicists said about 8 years before the Wright's succeeded that a power plant that was both light enough and powerful enough would not be developed any time soon. He was wrong. Kelvin had steam engines in mind, not internal combustion. Also in Kelvin's time Lilienthal developed HTA gliders and flew them successfully. Kelvin was referring to powered flight, not gliders.

The issue with fusion is related to the basic forces of nature. Electric repulsion presents a significant barrier. To make a sustained fusion reaction two things have to happen.

1. Atoms have to be forced close enough together so that the strong force kicks in. Coulomb repulsion of protons has to be overcome. Not only that it has to be done on a sustained basis so that some of the energy of the fusion reaction has to be funneled off to sustain the reaction.

2. Some means of collecting high speed neurons as part of the energy yield has to be developed.

As things stand now, no apparatus can both produce, and maintain the reaction long enough for useful energy to be harvested greater than the energy needed to initiate the reaction. The best efforts to date are short by a factor of ten.

The only energy source great enough to crunch light elements in a sustained fashion is to have a big enough mass of hydrogen gas crushed gravitationally. This has happened successfully. We call it the sun. The other way is to produce fusion momentarily and we do that too -- with H-bombs which have to be triggered by A-bombs. And H-bomb is a practical means of generating the heat from which we can make electric current.

ruveyn


The highest speed neurons we have managed so far are in the bodies of astronauts and cosmonauts and they show no tendencies to cause fusion.