I was thinking along the lines of nuclear power generating electricity to heat the fat to make the fission chips ...
Cheers, Chris
I was thinking along the lines of nuclear power generating electricity to heat the fat to make the fission chips ...
Gaaaaaaah! I just spent a small fortune having the faux-stone Masonite ripped out from the wall where the wood stove used to be.
Thinking about this again...
So these fusion-reactor releases are the same as every study by a post-grad, usually reported in a national newspaper, that ends with the stock phrase "More research is needed" as a thinly-disguised plea for funding.
Hmmm.ChrisGreaves wrote: ↑12 Dec 2022, 17:53...successfully produced a nuclear fusion reaction resulting in a net energy gain...
Which to my simple mind, means that there was not an "energy gain". Scientists are beginning to sound like politicians these days......although the experiment got more energy out than the laser put in, this did not include the energy needed to make the lasers work - which was far greater that the amount of energy the hydrogen produced.
Dammit. Get on with it.Leif wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 16:45Hmmm.ChrisGreaves wrote: ↑12 Dec 2022, 17:53...successfully produced a nuclear fusion reaction resulting in a net energy gain...
According to Breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy announced - BBC News:Which to my simple mind, means that there was not an "energy gain". Scientists are beginning to sound like politicians these days......although the experiment got more energy out than the laser put in, this did not include the energy needed to make the lasers work - which was far greater that the amount of energy the hydrogen produced.
... there is some text "And importantly, the process produces no greenhouse gas emissions and therefore does not contribute to climate change." which leads me back to one of my original points.Leif wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 16:45According to Breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy announced - BBC Newsn:
Or I could have mentioned the nuclear confusion going on ATM.ChrisGreaves wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 10:54I was thinking along the lines of nuclear power generating electricity to heat the fat to make the fission chips ...
Cheers, Chris
BobH wrote: ↑12 Dec 2022, 23:01IIRC the little I learned in high school physics class in the 1950s, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. Although, it may be transformed from one form to another. If my recall is right, I need an explanation of how the reaction created a net energy gain.
ChrisGreaves wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 19:08The argument quoted here is "no greenhouse gas emissions" reducing climate change, but surely simply using more energy (for our human lifestyle) leads to climate change.
Imagine all 8,000,000,000 of us deciding that since electrical energy is so cheap, we can all afford a 2,000w baseboard heater in every room of our house ...
Absolutely! I was really annoyed by the BBC News at 10 coverage of this 'breakthrough' because they did NOT mention that crucial fact.
I have that cure for you Chris. I'll try to get around to posting it in a few days or so.ChrisGreaves wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 11:19... One of these days I am going to seek a cure for procrastination.
Cheers, Chris
(1/2)(1+√5) |
PJ, this sounds like one of those "within the next ten or fifteen years" deals. Just how many billion dollars will this cost me?
I'll give you a "maybe" on that, but as usual the devil is in the details.ChrisGreaves wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 10:53Hi Jay; I may have tripped myself up here, but wouldn't an increase in the period of fusion lead directly (although maybe not in a linear fashion) to and increase in the amount of energy produced? I am thinking along the lines of "increase the period from five seconds to ten seconds and you have approximately doubled the amount of energy produced"?Jay Freedman wrote: ↑12 Dec 2022, 22:44The mention of "doubling" the previous record probably refers to the length of time that fusion could be sustained, not the amount of energy it produced.
Cheers, Chris
Hello Jay.Jay Freedman wrote: ↑18 Dec 2022, 03:42The net energy production from a single pellet is the amount of energy that reaches the outside of the chamber minus the energy used by the lasers (and anything else in the system that involves energy use). I assume that is a small but positive number of joules. The intention is to repeat that at a rate of thousands of pellets per second to produce a commercially viable energy source. There will be a lot of engineering needed to reach that goal.