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.

 

Building a second sun

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

an international team of researchers is building a machine to recreate the sun. It will take tens of thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete, plus a whole host of more unusual materials: beryllium, niobium, titanium and tungsten; frigid liquid nitrogen and helium. Oh, and a supply of burnt coconuts.

This eclectic mix of ingredients will be turned into ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor - the next big thing in nuclear fusion research. When completed in 2018, the reactor will fuse together two heavy isotopes of hydrogen to release vast quantities of energy. In theory, the result will be clean electricity galore with no carbon emissions and far less radioactive waste than today's nuclear fission reactors leave behind.



www.newscientist.com...


a source that is hotter then the sun, on the surface of the Earth?
What do you think, will they manage to do this without frying us all?




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GypsK
 


WOW I was just checking out SOHO images on a filament eruption last month and I was just musing over the power, beauty and mystery of the sun.

And now I find your thread. And human who think they can create one.


Sounds interesting though. Thanks for the link.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Hey, I've been following this for a while.


ITER is based on the 'tokamak' concept of magnetic confinement, in which the plasma is contained in a doughnut-shaped vacuum vessel. The fuel - a mixture of Deuterium and Tritium, two isotopes of Hydrogen - is heated to temperatures in excess of 150 million°C, forming a hot plasma. Strong magnetic fields are used to keep the plasma away from the walls; these are produced by superconducting coils surrounding the vessel, and by an electrical current driven through the plasma.


Source

This source also doubles as a link to their website. They go in depth about how the machine works and so on. This is work looking into! Take a look and tour the machine!

IMO I think this idea could go either way. Creating a star on earth could end up being some sort of doc octopus scenario, but then again it could go off without a hitch.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
This is great idea. But personally i would feel much more comfortable if those guys did it on some other planet. Any safety measure can fail, there was nuclear station meltdown. So you know - i am glad that Humanity can achieve this, congrats to scientists and engineers. But i am concerned that we would not be able to pull it off perfectly just yet.
There will be some major technological disaster this century. I am sure of that. Because we can do so many complex and powerful projects, without really understanding (yet) how universe/matter/energy really work.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GypsK
 


I hope they can pull it off! Even if it exploded for whatever reason, I don't think it'll fry us at all. We play with nuclear fusion bombs and we're all still here, thankfully. Fusion power would be great if we can achieve it.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


A tiny chunk of plutonium and a star are two totally different worlds. A supernova (of even a small star) would be very bad.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


It wouldn't be much different than a nuclear fusion bomb, the principles are the same except it's just scaled up more. Once it blows it's not going to be any different than the effects of a nuclear fusion bomb with the only major difference being a much larger blast radius. Certainly not going to be powerful enough to wipe out the entire planet, not even close to one percent of it.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GypsK
 


We have gone hotter than the sun already.


Scientists at Sandia National Laboratory generated temperatures of greater than 2 billion degrees Kelvin, hotter than the interior of the sun. To do it, they fired up their Z Machine accelerator, seen here in operation, to produce incredibly hot plasmas.

SOURCE:www.boingboing.net...



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   

A supernova (of even a small star) would be very bad.


You need at least 1.4 solar masses for a star to go supernova (which is why our Sun will avoid this fate), so a small man made fusion reactor on Earth certainly won't qualify.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Dr Octavian already toyed with that and it ended rather badly if memory serves me!


[edit on 14-10-2009 by MOTT the HOOPLE]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Once it blows it's not going to be any different than the effects of a nuclear fusion bomb with the only major difference being a much larger blast radius. Certainly not going to be powerful enough to wipe out the entire planet, not even close to one percent of it.


A much larger blast radius?? I doubt that seriously. The tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete I suppose isn't part of the nuclear fusion but to house the machinery. And besides, it will take far higher temperature and pressures to fuse heavy elements like steel than hydrogen or helium. Simply far too impossible to do with our current technology..

This I suppose will be part of the fusion and will be fed in controlled fashion as opposed to 'unregulated' in the case of explosions.



plus a whole host of more unusual materials: beryllium, niobium, titanium and tungsten; frigid liquid nitrogen and helium. Oh, and a supply of burnt coconuts.




[edit on 14-10-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GypsK
a source that is hotter then the sun, on the surface of the Earth?
What do you think, will they manage to do this without frying us all?


Europe already has an experimental fusion reactor in Oxford, UK that has been operational for around 25 years. ITER isn't the first. See EFDA-JET

A fusion reactor is a lot different to a fusion bomb. If the plasma touches the walls it dissipates so nothing to worry about here.

[edit on 14/10/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Are people here seriously not aware that there has been active research in fusion technology since the 50s or so? And that there have been fission-triggered fusion bombs since about then as well?

Are we so dense here that we look at the title of the thread and assume people are literally building another sun, and forgo any research at all in order to make alarmed comments?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Well we have a few billion years to worry about that. If the world dont get smashed by a astroid. BUt in a few billion years its gonna be someones problem for sure.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
This is a great idea , but in concept . I fear that in reality and our human "luck" , murphy's law is just waiting for this to happen so that the containment field can malfunction and all hell will happen.

Never the less it is great to see that humanity can accomplish something like that already .



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
I fear that in reality and our human "luck" , murphy's law is just waiting for this to happen so that the containment field can malfunction and all hell will happen.


I guess you didn't read my post above. The plasma will contact the walls during operation but the walls are built to deal with it. Even if it did escape the walls it is only going to be a problem for anyone near the reactor in the same building.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
Are people here seriously not aware that there has been active research in fusion technology since the 50s or so? And that there have been fission-triggered fusion bombs since about then as well?

Are we so dense here that we look at the title of the thread and assume people are literally building another sun, and forgo any research at all in order to make alarmed comments?


You have a good point that many of the comments here seem to show a lack of awareness of the history of fusion reactor projects on earth. This article is the next step. And aside from engineering challenges like finding the right materials and technology to deal with such extremes, the projects have all had one major flaw: They all require more energy input, than the energy output, so that makes for inefficient power generation! And I'm not sure if this 2018 project will have more energy out than in either, but that's always been a goal in fusion research.

But it is a little bit like making a small Sun on earth. I suspect it could be a dangerous place to work for the people working there if there were an accident, but I also suspect the accident damage would be confined mostly within the structure. Outside the reactor area, it's probably safer for the rest of us than a nuclear fission reactor.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
Are people here seriously not aware that there has been active research in fusion technology since the 50s or so? And that there have been fission-triggered fusion bombs since about then as well?

Are we so dense here that we look at the title of the thread and assume people are literally building another sun, and forgo any research at all in order to make alarmed comments?


First of all, yes it is called a hydrogen bomb, and yes I am well aware there has been work done in fusion research for a long time. In fact if you remember not too long ago it was costly and inefficient. I have not however heard anything about them creating a star on earth until a couple months ago (as you see I was the one that posted the link to their site). I understand it will be different than a star in the sky however any new deluge into nuclear sciences can cause some concern. I understood how it worked but not what the risks where. Sorry for my ignorance on this particular piece of fusion research but there is no reason to be a D*&# about it.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
Are people here seriously not aware that there has been active research in fusion technology since the 50s or so? And that there have been fission-triggered fusion bombs since about then as well?

Are we so dense here that we look at the title of the thread and assume people are literally building another sun, and forgo any research at all in order to make alarmed comments?


What?? You had to google that up?

seriously, no I was not aware that there has been active research in fusion technology since the 50s and that there have been fission-triggered fusion bombs since about then as well.

But guess what? I will look as smart as you when I repeat that previous sentence to my husband.

As for the title, well call me dense, but it was copied from the articles on newscientists (or are they dense aswell?)

And oh, one more thing:
usually, when an article like this one is posted on ats, it is the intent that people go discuss it, discuss the pro's and con's... the possible outcome, either good or bad, it's each his own thoughts and opinions...
(and it's prefered that they aren't googled)

thanks for your reply



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GypsK
As for the title, well call me dense, but it was copied from the articles on newscientists (or are they dense aswell?)


The staff at New Scientist certainly aren't dumb but they are prone to tabloid style headlines, which have caused many complaints. I personally don't care - they are a business after all and it's the quality of the copy inside that matters.

Thanks for the post anyway



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join