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.

 

Triple-threat method sparks hope for fusion

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   


The experiment yielded about 1010 high-energy neutrons, a measure of the number of fusion reactions achieved. This is a record for MagLIF, although it stillfalls well short of ignition. Nevertheless, the test demonstrates the appeal of such pulsed-power approaches to fusion. “A substantial gain is more likely to be achieved at an early date with pulsed power,” says nuclear physicist David Hammer of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who co-wrote a 2013 US National Research Council assessment of approaches to fusion energy.

Triple-threat method sparks hope for fusion

OK I'm not a big conspiracy nut but there is something going on here. Why is everyone All of a sudden interested in broadcasting news for fusion. First France starts building a reactor, then California goes public about it's progress, then New Jersey, now New Mexico

They are preparing us. They know ignition is about to be hit. They keep saying they produce this many neutrons and they need that many but this and that keep getting closer without giving us an exact number on what that is. And that may be decreasing too.

The news is going bananas and nuts over this monkey business of fusion and leave it to the squirrels to scurry it up. I just wanted to type that.

My question is when we do have self sustaining ignition and nuclear fusion that gives more energy then it requires, what happens to that kid who made a reactor in a trashcan? dot fusion startup?




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ChefSlug
 


If by "self sustaining ignition" you mean it keeps running, you won't ever get that with holraum designs like maglif or NIF, because they burn capsulized fuel. The capsule should fuse and when done, it's gone, and you fire the next one. ITER is more a continuous process.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Because they final achieved unity so everybody is hopping on board now that they know it can be done.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I mean fusion that provides more energy then it costs to fuse. "Ignition"

Whether they reuse holograms or whatever they are called I could care less, maybe they make nice charms for bracelets, or pendants.

Why did everyone jump on board though? What exactly is the "ignition" point. How many neutrons do they need? I've never heard an exact goal. They just keep getting closer. Well the closer you get to the speed of light the fatter you get.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ChefSlug
 


They've gotten more energy out than they put in. That is the determining factor. They are not factoring in the trillions they've spent up to this point trying to make it work or the hundreds of billions it will cost to scale it down into something practical.



edit on 30-12-2013 by dainoyfb because: I felt like it.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

ChefSlug
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I mean fusion that provides more energy then it costs to fuse. "Ignition"


Ah. Quite a few ATSers seem to think pellet based reactors somehow "light up" and then are fusing continuously.



Whether they reuse holograms or whatever they are called I could care less, maybe they make nice charms for bracelets, or pendants.


Hohlraums. It's what they call the little pellets. You also use the term for the secondary in a nuke. There's not much left after.




Why did everyone jump on board though? What exactly is the "ignition" point. How many neutrons do they need? I've never heard an exact goal. They just keep getting closer. Well the closer you get to the speed of light the fatter you get.


Well, they haven't really just jumped on, this has been going on since the 50s. I think a lot of systems sort of finished up about the same time for this round of stuff. Most of them, including NIF and the Z pinch setups aren't production reactors and aren't really ever going to make any energy per se. What they're trying to determine is, just how hard IS this and what do we have to do to optimize it. A lot of other systems designers thought they had enough ass on the problem to get fusion and were wrong. NIF is supposed to be bigger than it can possibly need to be, but we'll see about that, I suppose.

I have some hope for a number of systems, ITER will be interesting, there is a Japanese torus that might work and maglif has a long way to go before it's tossed. However, there is a loud persistent rumor that Navy broke even with AGEE, and Bussard felt that he had passed breakeven briefly with the AGEE Mark I setup before it met a sad and abrupt end, he died before it was rebuilt.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

dainoyfb
reply to post by ChefSlug
 


They've gotten more energy out than they put in. That is the determining factor. They are not factoring in the trillions they've spent up to this point trying to make it work or the hundreds of billions it will cost to scale it down into something practical.



edit on 30-12-2013 by dainoyfb because: I felt like it.


It would be worth nearly all the wealth on the planet if they got it to work. Price is irrelevant when it comes to an energy solution for the world.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ChefSlug
 


Humans will fail in quest for bountiful cheap energy through fusion anytime soon (no hope in next 1000 years).

Earth Humans' current model of atomic particles is only partially correct. Humans do not have the means to correct the model.

The earth is sliding towards war and chaos, rather than solution to energy problem and peace.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join