It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
More fear mongering paranoia with no basis. It truly is pathetic.
they can create this super hot plasma, yet do they inject that plasma with hydrogen fuel? Something to sustain the fusion process?
Originally posted by LeeTheDestroyer
When dealing with plasma, the main issue is that you are dealing with the single most corrosive thing in existance. Now, heat that up to a few thousand degrees kelvin and you have potential for a start of creating a fusion reaction.
Heating the plasma with electro magnetism is pretty cool, not very similar to using microwave radiation for heating
I do agree that you should be much more worried about the LHC, than about this dinky little fusion experiment.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by buddhasystem
I think that gravity needs to play a role because you are going to need so much mass of H in order for it to fuse into He that it's going to have a gravitational well.
Originally posted by whatukno
its because I don't know that I ask.
Whats odd about this is the new ITER project being constructed in France
en.wikipedia.org...
www.iter.org...
The temperatures here are astronomical, and the magnetic field generated is the scarry part. How do we know if that magnetic field won't warp Earths own magnetic field and completely disrupt the poles?
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
I think that gravity needs to play a role because you are going to need so much mass of H in order for it to fuse into He that it's going to have a gravitational well.
In 1968, at the third IAEA International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research at Novosibirsk, Soviet scientists announced that they had achieved electron temperatures of over 1000 eV in a tokamak device.
For comparison:
* ~624 EeV (600,000,000 TeV): energy needed to power a single 10 watt light bulb for one second. (100W = 100J/s = ~6.24x10^20 eV/s).
* 300 EeV (300,000 PeV) :[6] the so called Oh-My-God particle (the most energetic cosmic ray particle ever observed).
* 14 TeV: the design proton collision energy at the Large Hadron Collider (which has operated at half of the energy since March 30, 2010).
* 1 TeV: A trillion electronvolts, or 1.602×10−7 J, about the kinetic energy of a flying mosquito.[7]
* 210 MeV: The average energy released in fission of one Pu-239 atom.
* 200 MeV: The total energy released in nuclear fission of one U-235 atom (on average; depends on the precise break up).
* 17.6 MeV: The total energy released in the fusion of deuterium and tritium to form He-4 (also on average); this is 0.41 PJ per kilogram of product produced.
* 1 MeV: Or, 1.602×10−13 J, about twice the rest mass-energy of an electron.
* 13.6 eV: The energy required to ionize atomic hydrogen. Molecular bond energies are on the order of one eV per molecule.
* 1.3 to 2.1 eV: the photon energy of visible light.
* 1/40 eV: The thermal energy at room temperature. A single molecule in the air has an average kinetic energy 3/80 eV.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by LeeTheDestroyer
When dealing with plasma, the main issue is that you are dealing with the single most corrosive thing in existance. Now, heat that up to a few thousand degrees kelvin and you have potential for a start of creating a fusion reaction.
As a humble PhD in physics, I can only certify the above is inaccurate (and, in the eyes of some, potentially moronic).
As pressure goes up, so does temperature. Fusion requires a high temperature and pressure to occur.
My problem with fusion is that although I think we could eventually make it work it will take a huge amount of time and money to get there.
with that amount of money we could develop and implement technologies such as this that have most of the advantages of fusion.
Except for the problems of the Global Uranium Monopoly.
It wouldn't really matter if you expanded the cost of Uranium by a couple orders of magnitude because it wouldn't change the economics.
At these efficiencies it becomes economic to simply put filters in the ocean which collect uranium that is naturally in the sea.
Besides the starting charge (which could be provided by reprocessed spent fuel, or old nuclear weapons anyway), no enrichment is required either.
There would be no monopoly, and I am unsure of any monopoly that exists today given how cheap it is.