I remember Fusion Energy - coming soon articles since the late fifties. Here is the current hype https://news.yahoo.com/fusion-energy-superconducting-electromagnet-172303204.html Fusion energy nears reality thanks to an ultra-powerful magnet Fusion energy just had its second breakthrough in as many months. Motherboard notes an MIT- and Commonwealth Fusion Systems-led research team has successfully demonstrated a high-temperature superconducting electromagnet producing a field strength of 20 tesla — the most powerful field of its kind on Earth. The technology could be the key to SPARC, a fusion device due in 2025 that could foster a plasma field producing more energy than it consumes. . . Tell Moi About It when someone does it! I'm done with decades of hype as well plating the desert with focused mirrors frying birds mid flight. I'm done with windmills too. DO YOU believe you will live to witness The Promise of Fusion? Also discuss All Things Fusion except explosive systems. Science. Technology. faith Moi Age: 73 Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
It's certainly unfortunate that some tech takes much longer than initially projected - especially when projected by media looking for great stories. But, what's your point?? Is this just a "downer" day for you?
Practical fusion has been right around the corner for 75 years. The problem seems to be the need to create a substitute for the extremely high forces of gravity that allow fusion in stars to occur. We can’t do it with mass so we are trying to do it with energy, and that is where it gets tricky.
I think that I will live to see Fusion power. But, I do wonder if far-future energy-generating technology will be invented before we crack fusion. Age: 38
Just like people lose faith in God because Jesus Christ hasn't returned yet. So, atheists have the same lack of patience in their faith in science as religious people do in God. Interesting.
LOL. There is absolutely ZERO comparison here. There is EVIDENCE (not "faith") in this technology. And, yes - people who understand our energy situation very much want this to be successful. But, that's not "lack of patience".
Ya, then what is it? Lack of patience. There have been so many false claims of fusion over the years. No reason other than God who can create fusion as he did with the stars. The lack of patience by secularist scientists is that God is still the only one who can do it. The comparison is a great analogy. Learn from it
No, you are just plain making up total nonsense. Engineers are working on fusion at a rate that is economical given our investment parameters today. Some of us would like to see more investment due to the importance of successful fusion power. That, too, has NOTHING to do with this impatience nonsense. It has to do with the size of the demand for energy. NO actions or decisions are being made based on "impatience".
And THE FUTURE is never today because it is the FUTURE after all. How about we stop thinking in terms of central production & distribution and more about small, local production such as No Naked Roofs. Or small, quiet, wind - electricity units contributing. Or solar hydrolysis, harvest the hydrogen, and fuel cell power. My Fav! Moi Don't Further ize
I'm VERY interested in that. The amount of roof space in America is huge. And, the uses for electricity are increasing. Depending on the grid to deliver everything we need doesn't hit me as rational. Besides, today there are companies that will put solar on your roof at NO COST if you will share the benefit with the company. Solar is at an efficiency level (and electricity is at a cost level) where it is cost effective to pay for the installation - even for some company to pay for your installation. However, we still need fusion power and other centralized power production.
Don't Blame Moi Germany does pursues no naked roofs at latitudes similar to How about "small scale" such as Tidal & Wave production. Small Wind Production. The Energy Interest prefer LARGE central production. They set the price. Of course I support a common "grid". Moi STOP
I don't know the issues with "small" wind production or wave production. I've see ideas for creating wind energy without gigantic blades, but they weren't "small" in other dimensions. Yes, wind energy and solar, too, are opportunities for big business. As I understand it, wind is the primary single source of electricity in Iowa. I'm fine with that so far, but we still need everything we can get. And, we absolutely do need a robust grid. There are far too many variables to assume we don't need a grid.
I'd like to be optimistic, but the real truth is that there is only one way to create sustained fusion.... A star. Jupiter is hot and has some fusion going on, but not enough to light it up. Gather enough matter together and fusion happens. The only way to "simulate" that much gravity and what it does to matter is to go inside a star and observe... Best of luck with that....
There are fusion reactors in existence and creating power TODAY. The catch is they are mostly tiny. The challenge has been in scaling them up to a size that makes a difference. As you point out, fusion has stupendous heat and control issues. A recent advancement in super powerful magnets may help, as they are important in strategies for isolating the fusion.
There are fusion reactors in existence today that generate more energy (about 40-60%) than the amount of energy that goes into them. The catch is this is still very much below the threshold of efficiency for being able to convert that radiation into usable electric power. You might think if they are that close, then it means they will inevitably be able to increase that efficiency level, but that would be ignorant reasoning. The type of reactor that can do this has an input energy that comes entirely from electrical potential. It is not the "self-sustaining" type of reactor. Meaning this concept, even though it seems to come so close, might just be a dead end.
Another form of fusion concept involves continuously injecting the fuel in in solid (or liquid) form. This can help increase the density of the reactants, since after the reactants are turned into a hot plasma they greatly expand and have a very low density, lower than even a normal gas. With the reactants being continually in the process of expanding, they can more easily reach densities higher than their temperature would normally allow for.
I'm not sure I agree with your definition of fusion. I think a lot of people lie about fusion to get government handouts. We successfully made a functional part fusion part fission H bomb. OK..... You say you can re created the inside of a star here on Earth with lasers and magnets. I say bull. I say you need a star sized mass to do that.
The natural world produces a environment for fusion by having major blobs of mass, thus using gravity to do the job. There is no doubt about that. However, that doesn't preclude creating similar pressures using methods other than gravity.
Jupiter is hot. Saturn is not. Somewhere between the mass of Jupiter and Saturn is the mass matter requires for fusion.
True. Are you suggesting that gravity is the only source of pressure of that magnitude that humans can apply?
Hardly I am claiming forces we do not properly understand are likely at work, and that is why lasers and magnets won't....
Well, labs in many places around the world do have working fusion systems. The problems have to do with scaling designs so they can be productive. While that is proving to be seriously difficult, I don't see anyone suggesting that it isn't possible to accomplish with technology that is within reach. I'm curious what forces you believe are not properly understood. I don't doubt that human understanding is limited, but I'm curious how that fact might apply to this case.
