test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Ladies and Gentlemen, the future of energy source is here, power up the starships!

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited March 2012 in Ten Forward
http://news.yahoo.com/nuclear-fusion-real-possibility-models-suggest-200610438.html

I just skimmed through the news but I have watched a tv episode where they actually testing nuclear fusion FOR REAL and it is doeable. The temperature of the generated plasma would exceed that of sun but it wouldn't melt anything since they tie the plasma on a circular magnetic rail. Something like that.

I just want to say it's looking AWESOME.

This might power a true starship!

SHIELD ON, lock on target!

Too bad I was born too early to see mankind's first true starship built. But FUSION is here! Unbelievable almost UFO like technology to mankind....I mean we still run primitive machines which run on flammable dead animal extract pretty much everywhere!
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Does anyone realize the possibility that comes with FUSION energy?

    FUSION source of power is water yes the abundant water AND it generates no harmful waste to the environment(no radioactive waste and no CO2 waste that could harm the atmosphere)


    FUSION is what is happening in STARS.

    Now the existing FUSION reactor is already capable of creating plasma hotter than the temperature of the sun! IMAGINE this.

    Remember Dr Octopus in spiderman? He said something about holding the power of the sun in his hands.
    http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/11/112584/2112854-1comicbaddies_gal_docock.jpg

    Now they can generate more output power than the power needed to start fusion so if they keep on improving this efficiency we may see FUSION reactor generator. :cool:. Hopefully sooner than later.

    That is just soooo cool.

    Now if say fast forward some 100 years after the invention of the first practical fusion generator we may see fusion engine powering up our automobiles.

    Forget about Ferrari or Bugatti. The [mini] power of the sun will power our private cars! :D I'd think tires will burst so we may have to fly instead rolling about on tarmac.

    That is we don't kill each other with FUSION weapon before
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I guess the STO players are more interested in the color of their EVA suit, or hair tec.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    That's because it's not fun to think about our future sometimes.
    This may be the only thing that could stop our inevitable post-oil collapse.

    Fingers crossed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I fail to see the sensation in this?

    Hot fusion tests have been running since decades ago. So far, even their proponents say that it will be costlier than present forms for energy production, simply due to the enormous amount of work and resources required to build a fusion reactor.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I guess the STO players are more interested in the color of their EVA suit, or hair tec.
    I'll be interested once they got an actual working fusion generator.
    So now I'll be raising one eyebrow and proclaiming "O rly?" at this... Erm... Test?

    Until then I'll direct my interest at limited edition mayonnaise since at least that is something real and tangible. :):p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I remember the whole, cold fusion debacle at the University of Utah back in the 80's, for about a week the whole scientific community was sitting on the edge of their seats. Now that would have been something.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Ithaqua wrote:
    This may be the only thing that could stop our inevitable post-oil collapse.

    Fingers crossed.

    EXACTLY. The 19th and especially the 20th century have been the golden age of oil. Everything(or almost everything) that we have accomplished is basically due to oil. Our industries, our economy and thus our wealth even our military.....

    Without oil I shudder to think how we are able to keep the luxuries that we are enjoying atm.

    Without oil our economy will collapse! and with it our social and political system...the resulting chaos global and local....the casualties.....the starvation and sufferings from lack of access to work and earning money due to collapsing economy.

    This fusion is that spark of light in a dark tunnel. That little hope to stay living as dignified and advanced civilizations that we are. The alternative is a long agonizing descends or a rapid one toward chaos. Without fusion we may be forced to rely on chemical energy(battery) which is very limtied atm and or a combination with bio-fuel. The latter will bring about starvation due to increased prices of food(staples).

    If one cannot be even just a little excited on the prospect of fusion I'm afraid the person may be apathetic or has lost all hope with the future.

    Of course there's fission still, advanced countries in the world are deciding to build more fission nuclear power plant to reduce their dependencies on oil. But fusion is clearly the superior choice of the two and a safer and friendlier one too. Just that it's still in infancy but it seems they are getting there.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    If one cannot be even just a little excited on the prospect of fusion I'm afraid the person may be apathetic or has lost all hope with the future.
    I simply prefer to get excited over more tangible things, like wave power or photovoltaic cells with better efficiency.

    Does that make me apathetic or losing hope in the future?
    Ok, sure why not, let's go with that carefully constructed observation! :p

    There is no need to be hircine over people not sharing your enthusiasm, no?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Chat wrote:
    I simply prefer to get excited over more tangible things, like wave power or photovoltaic cells with better efficiency.

    Does that make me apathetic or losing hope in the future?
    Ok, sure why not, let's go with that carefully constructed observation! :p

    There is no need to be hircine over people not sharing your enthusiasm, no?

    You don't get excited imagining man made plasma hotter than the temperature of the sun [core], moving,
    circling inside a dome by magnetic shielding?


    You don't?
    Then why are you playing Star Trek? What r u doing in STO? :D

    Don't say the gold pressed latinum you darn Ferengi :p

    But if u say Orion babes in underwear you are forgiven :D Hell my away team now looks like a Victoria secret show with guns.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    You don't get excited imagining man made plasma hotter than the temperature of the sun, moving,
    circling inside a dome by magnetic shielding?
    Fascinating sure, but to me as a person. Eh. Limited edition mayonnaise.

    But like I said, I'll care once they have an actual working reactor.
    Until then it's all very... How to say... You ever read The Onion? Yeah, like The Onion.
    Then why are you playing Star Trek?:D
    It's one of the few decent scifi MMO games out there.
    Yes I'm shallow like that. I play games to have fun. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Does anyone realize the possibility that comes with FUSION energy?
    Sure. That's why people are working on it.

    But don'T overestimate it - whether you use nuclear or fusion power, both could be used to fuel a spacecraft. Creating a "starship" in the sense of Startrek requires something else first - a theory on how to reach FTL speed that can be implemented in practice. The only remote theories that we have on that require exotic forms of energy and a ton of it -more than even a fusion reactor will likely provide.

    Startrek uses anti-matter annihalation for a reason...
    FUSION source of power is water yes the abundant water AND it generates no harmful waste to the environment(no radioactive waste and no CO2 waste that could harm the atmosphere)
    Not water. Hydrogen. The most common element in the universe, yes. It does produce radioactive waste, though, as the shielding for the reactor will be bombarded by radiation and will need to be replaced. The remains of the shielding will be radioactive, though presumably last less than other forms of nuclear waste.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    sophlogimo wrote:
    I fail to see the sensation in this?

    Hot fusion tests have been running since decades ago. So far, even their proponents say that it will be costlier than present forms for energy production, simply due to the enormous amount of work and resources required to build a fusion reactor.

    I believe the sensation can be seen better in the MSNBC repost of the article.

    It has a picture that ran with it. And this key quote from the writing (it's the same article in both the OP's link and the MSNBC repost):

    "At Sandia, they are testing a method called magnetized inertial fusion, in which two coils are used to generate a magnetic field. Rather than a solid container, this magnetic field confines the plasma."

    So what they're saying is their simulations suggest that it will not be costlier than present forms of energy production because their magnetized inertial fusion with coils could end up being a lot less work and resources required to build and maintain the fusion reactor.

    Whether that pans out or not, I'm sure we'll be updated on the progress.

    It's a pretty fascinating read for a press release.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    superchum wrote: »
    I believe the sensation can be seen better in the MSNBC repost of the article.

    It has a picture that ran with it. And this key quote from the writing (it's the same article in both the OP's link and the MSNBC repost):

    "At Sandia, they are testing a method called magnetized inertial fusion, in which two coils are used to generate a magnetic field. Rather than a solid container, this magnetic field confines the plasma."
    [...].

    ...which is the state of fusion research since, I don't know, the 1950's? ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    This is great news, still holding on to my excitement until we see this out and about but still great news.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Sure. That's why people are working on it.

    But don'T overestimate it - whether you use nuclear or fusion power, both could be used to fuel a spacecraft. Creating a "starship" in the sense of Startrek requires something else first - a theory on how to reach FTL speed that can be implemented in practice. The only remote theories that we have on that require exotic forms of energy and a ton of it -more than even a fusion reactor will likely provide.

    Startrek uses anti-matter annihalation for a reason...


    Not water. Hydrogen. The most common element in the universe, yes. It does produce radioactive waste, though, as the shielding for the reactor will be bombarded by radiation and will need to be replaced. The remains of the shielding will be radioactive, though presumably last less than other forms of nuclear waste.

    I'm well aware of the issue with space travel but I'd think fusion would have more potential to generate even more power than the usual nuclear fission. And the abundant source of water everywhere would make it more feasible too aside from the fact it is also safer(less radiation)

    So I think fusion would be the first feasible power generator much like Star Trek warp core power.
    The other things like efficient light years distance propulsion would still have to be figured out but that system would probably be able to be powered by fision. I know it's more about daydreaming now but the way I see it fusion is FAR better than all that we have at the moment. As the ability to generate even more energy becomes available so will the technologies that make use of even more energy than before.

    The foundation and benchmark of any civilization is its powering technology. We went from labor to fire(to cook, to warm, to run steam machines and ships, etc) to win(tallships) to oil(explosive) and now fission though the last is only applicable in limited numbers. Overall we're still an oil civilization. or oil with a minority of fission technology used by military and state.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    They're already building one. It's called ITER.

    Never trust tabloid news services for up-to-date info, peeps... They're usually well behind the curve when it comes to Sci and Tech.

    Trust me; I work for one. :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Koppenflak wrote:
    They're already building one. It's called ITER.

    Never trust tabloid news services for up-to-date info, peeps... They're usually well behind the curve when it comes to Sci and Tech.

    Trust me; I work for one. :p

    I know they have built one I mean I'm excited because there's already one working fusion reactor ;)

    it's not a theory anymore and they are able to generate more power than it consumes(at least Yahoo article suggested that though only in simulation), raising the possibility of fusion power plant, hence this thread. Still some time to that though but still we already have the ability to generate fusion the process which not long ago could only be observed in stars and our sun.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I know they have built one I mean I'm excited because there's already one working fusion reactor ;)

    it's not a theory anymore and they are able to generate more power than it consumes, raising the possibility of fusion power plant, hence this thread.

    They've been making progress on the "working" aspect of it steadily for about the last three years. They're getting close to a point where the energy needed to power the containment unit will be equal to the energy being produced in the reaction. (In fact I had heard suggestions that they'd already reached that point and were now working on returns, rather than generation)

    Either way, (point being) that was some months ago. I'm more amused that it's taken the Journalism majors at Yahoo this long to work out a way to report on it. :p:D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Koppenflak wrote:
    Either way, (point being) that was some months ago. I'm more amused that it's taken the Journalism majors at Yahoo this long to work out a way to report on it. :p:D

    Yeah :) Yahoo then again is not exactly a news agency and what journalism when it comes to Yahoo?:p
    They just copy paste stuffs from elsewhere. or link them directly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Does anyone realize the possibility that comes with FUSION energy?

    I took a course in Environmental Physics once. We were talking about long-term energy sources for the planet. We talked about how long any particular source could sustain us. There was a chart that showed how many years each source could last if it had to power the planet by itself. And I'm trying to recall these numbers from memory, so don't quote them to anyone. :p

    Fission was surprisingly low, it would only last about 30 years because fissible material gets to be impractically expensive to gather after that amount of time. Breeder reactors (there are several types, some quite safe) would extend that number by quite a bit, but they're no-no's because they can be used to make bombs.

    Natural gas would last about the same -- 30 years.

    Coal would last 100-200 years, assuming deposits kept being found.

    Solar/Wind/Bio energy of course would last forever, but the initial investment is very high.

    Fusion we didn't really pay too much attention to. It always seems to be one of those ideas that's always just a few years away. The fuel supply is very nice though. If you calculate the amount of deuterium estimated to be in the ocean, it could sustain the world total power output for 40,000 years. At time scales like that, it might replenish by itself for all we know. Definitely would be a day of celebration if they can get it working. It would ease the minds of many a men.

    But like I said, don't get too excited until it happens. Even if they reach the breakeven point, they'll have to improve it further before they can get a reasonable amount of energy out for it to be worthwhile.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    I know they have built one I mean I'm excited because there's already one working fusion reactor ;)
    [...]

    The article in the OP reports about computer simulations, not an actually working net-energy-output reactor.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    sophlogimo wrote:
    The article in the OP reports about computer simulations, not an actually working net-energy-output reactor.

    Yeah but I also wrote about seeing a RL fusion reactor in tv in my original posting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Yeah but I also wrote about seeing a RL fusion reactor in tv in my original posting.

    Yes, unfortunatly it only works for seconds at a time. Apparently, long term operation (more than a few minutes) can cause Neutron embrittlement into teh surrounding pressure structure and other parts, and the last thing ou want embrittled is the pressure vessel.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Yes, unfortunatly it only works for seconds at a time. Apparently, long term operation (more than a few minutes) can cause Neutron embrittlement into teh surrounding pressure structure and other parts, and the last thing ou want embrittled is the pressure vessel.
    We so excited!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Yeah :) Yahoo then again is not exactly a news agency and what journalism when it comes to Yahoo?:p
    They just copy paste stuffs from elsewhere. or link them directly.

    The article isn't from Yahoo. As stated, it's a repost. From livescience.com.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Chat wrote:
    We so excited!

    Much negativity?

    I'm still excited, I knew the fusion couldn't last long but it still happened in a controlled environment. That is the phenomenon u see in our sun happening in a controlled environment by our scientists. And the generated plasma is still hotter than the sun's core.
    superchum wrote: »
    The article isn't from Yahoo. As stated, it's a repost. From livescience.com.


    Yeah just like I wrote either Yahoo linked it or they just copy the article and posted it on their homepage.:)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    Yes, unfortunatly it only works for seconds at a time. Apparently, long term operation (more than a few minutes) can cause Neutron embrittlement into teh surrounding pressure structure and other parts, and the last thing ou want embrittled is the pressure vessel.

    This would be the next goal to work towards after getting a reliable energy surplus--finding ways to keep it operating for long enough to be useful as a permanent power source. We can live with having to shut down the reactor and refit its innards every few months--we already do that every few years with fission reactors.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    To the OP, we would me more excited about your link and the idea of Fusion reactors in general but your article is basic and bland and a second hand writ up that can be done with a quick look at Wikipedia.

    sure one could talk about it all day but few can actually say were we are in our progress. Now This Report from a fraternity brother of mine who is on the team is working on the same problem but with a different approach. I am no Rocket Scientist but even just reading the cursory info in the paper you can get a idea of where they are going with this.

    also to the posters about how we will never travial the stars, read this. My brother says that within the next 5 years they could have a system that could dilever somthing like 1.5 metric tons of Payload not including the mass of the rocket itself to mars in a month.

    now do i understand all the article, hell no. so i dont expect others to eather, im just posting it here so you can REALLY read about what the cutting edge of fusion engine is.

    just do as you would at a used car, pop the hood. go "hmmm interesting" kick the tires, and make small talk about it. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    -double-post-
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2012
    @Capt Busters the article isn't mine. :)

    The pdf is interesting thanks. I'd say that's no fusion engine but fusion powered magnetic engine? :p

    very interesting concept.....still a bit primitive engine but I guess warp kind of travel is still hundreds of year away :D


    We need to find the Vulcan fast so we can build our first warp core engine :D

    or little green man and have him waterboarded to give us the secret to interstellar travel...
Sign In or Register to comment.