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.

 

Scientists Say Their Giant Laser Has Produced Nuclear Fusion

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 





If ANY OTHER "new source of energy" had consumed the amount of money worldwide that fusion has and after 60 years is still "several years" away from being a viable technology we would all post here on ATS that it is a big giant con.


I think the same about alternative since it is the oldest form of energy we know.

From the windmills made famous by the Dutch, and the sails of the old time clipper ships.

It was not until fossil did mankind progress to the level it has. It created jobs, it created wealth. It created prosperity, and makes all those little things people love so much possible.

Hell even solar itself what most people recognize began with billions thrown at it by government agencies like Nasa.

Even picked up by politicans to push that led to solar panels being put in the White House over 40 years ago.

And it still doesn't deliever after all the billions blown on it.

The only reason fossils has ruled over the last 100 years is because it is cheap.




posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The only reason it's cheap is because the true cost isn't factored in.

War
Climate
Environment



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well that's definitely the goal with solar, what's needed more than anything is storage capacity efficiency.



Got ya covered.

I think they are on the brink


Amazing New System Harnesses Sun’s Energy For Use at Night



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


IT's true cost is factored in.

Governments make bucket loads of cash off the taxation of it, and the regulation of it, and other fines.

And the granting of 'leases'.

Nothing delievers the bang for the buck, and produces energy that cheap.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by crazyewok
 


You do realize that about 2/3 of the US is a tornado zone?

And thats a exucuse to give up on all R&D in solar and just stick with oil?



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Nice. There's lots of stuff coming down the pipe for solar. Graphene for one. Won't be too much long now I don't think, it's just simply going to be a matter of how fast can the world switch over. I still fusion is a worthy goal for science to working toward, but in the mean time there's no excuse for the amount of fossil fuels we burn through when solar and wind are great alternatives to be the source of most of our home energy use.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
What would be nice is fusion reactors powered by He3.

No pollution.

No radioactivity by products

No risk of meltdowns.

The true and only true form of 'green' power.
edit on 12-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

crazyewok

ketsuko
reply to post by crazyewok
 


You do realize that about 2/3 of the US is a tornado zone?

And thats a exucuse to give up on all R&D in solar and just stick with oil?


I didn't say that, but when you say just use it in non-tornado zones, you're basically saying that most of the US can't use it.


All of the Gulf Coast states and every state in a band from Texas to Montana are tornado states with slightly less commonality in the rust belt states.

The thing that kills me with wind power is that I grew up in Kansas which you would think would be a natural for wind generation given how windy it almost always is. The problem is that the average wind speeds in Kansas would almost always necessitate that windmills use their gas powered braking systems or be shut down entirely to avoid damage.

What good is an alternative power system that needs gas if the wind doesn't blow hard enough or needs gas if the wind blows too hard?

As for solar ... well I'm not against alternatives where they are practical, but I'm not in favor of government subsidies to force them to be practical.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Fossil fuel subsidies top 500 Billion/year. Renewable subsidies 88 Billion/year. The gas tax, which some people don't comprehend hasn't been raised in 20 years and is supposed to help pay for roads and bridges.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Fossil fuel subsidies top 500 Billion/year. Renewable subsidies 88 Billion/year. The gas tax, which some people don't comprehend hasn't been raised in 20 years and is supposed to help pay for roads and bridges.


I think you are confused on the difference between a "subsidy" and a "tax break." The oil companies actually manufacture/produce something in the country (unlike so many other large corporations) and because of this, they take advantage of the tax break offered to businesses that produce manufactured goods in the US. They get that because they refine oil into gas and other chemicals and directly employ American workers.

What the green energy businesses get is a straight, up-front check from the government in order to help make up the shortfall in their bottom line. And at least in the case of most solar, those panels are made in China by Chinese workers because it is cheaper than the tax break that the oil and gas companies take advantage of (you know, that evil tax break you mistake for a subsidy).

And I comprehend the gas just fine. The government makes, on average $0.40 to the dollar on every gallon of gas. The evil gas company makes on average about $0.10 on every dollar the last time I checked.

But, I suppose if you dislike companies employing American workers ... we can do something about this. Of course, if you pass a law against Big Oil, it will likely spill over into other sectors, too.

I guess it just goes to show that sometimes, it's all about the American workers working unless they're working at the wrong things.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I totally agree that we should be manufacturing solar panels here in the US.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Now if they could just figure out how to make it self sustaining.

Talk about free energy! Well...almost free. There will be the initial investment and maintenance costs, but as close to free as we can probably get.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

ketsuko

Kali74
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Fossil fuel subsidies top 500 Billion/year. Renewable subsidies 88 Billion/year. The gas tax, which some people don't comprehend hasn't been raised in 20 years and is supposed to help pay for roads and bridges.


I think you are confused on the difference between a "subsidy" and a "tax break." The oil companies actually manufacture/produce something in the country (unlike so many other large corporations) and because of this, they take advantage of the tax break offered to businesses that produce manufactured goods in the US. They get that because they refine oil into gas and other chemicals and directly employ American workers.

What the green energy businesses get is a straight, up-front check from the government in order to help make up the shortfall in their bottom line. And at least in the case of most solar, those panels are made in China by Chinese workers because it is cheaper than the tax break that the oil and gas companies take advantage of (you know, that evil tax break you mistake for a subsidy).

And I comprehend the gas just fine. The government makes, on average $0.40 to the dollar on every gallon of gas. The evil gas company makes on average about $0.10 on every dollar the last time I checked.

But, I suppose if you dislike companies employing American workers ... we can do something about this. Of course, if you pass a law against Big Oil, it will likely spill over into other sectors, too.

I guess it just goes to show that sometimes, it's all about the American workers working unless they're working at the wrong things.


Their profit tends to be more along the lines of 8 cents on the dollar.

But the corporations are evil! Pay no attention to the fact it costs the Saudis about $10 a barrel to get oil out of the ground and then sell it for what, $110? The corporations are evil! We should run them out of the country and then complain about jobs going overseas!!!

Oh...and btw...next time you buy that bottle of hooch. The govt taxes on that bottle make up 80% roughly the price you paid for it...but our govt is not greedy. Oh hell no. It's the corporations!



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   


Containment will be important, we have no idea what will happen if we can ever ignite fusion... the only example of ignited fusion we have is the sun. Aside from turning ourselves into a miniature star though fusion looks to be 100% clean.


Sure we know. It happens all the time. You could build a fusion reactor yourself, given money, space and talent. But what you could build is only a fraction of a percent efficient. There's no mechanism nor chance for "turning ourselves into a miniature star".



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I think I'm misunderstanding something, I thought the magnetics was just containment, not ignition and I thought lasers were the only way to ignite fusion. Confused now lol.


The majority of the output of a thermonuclear weapon comes from fusion. Even nuclear weapons generally use some small amount of fusion due to the boost gas, and a number of designs use neutron tube initiators which use fusion to produce neutrons.

Tokamaks fuse, but don't use lasers. Hirsch-Farnsworth fusors don't use lasers or magnetic confinement. The Sun doesn't use lasers. Nukes don't use lasers.

The trick to getting two nuclei to fuse is to overcome their Coulomb barrier in some way. Generally we do it with some form of heating, although that's not the case with a Farnsworth setup.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Nice. There's lots of stuff coming down the pipe for solar. Graphene for one. Won't be too much long now I don't think, it's just simply going to be a matter of how fast can the world switch over. I still fusion is a worthy goal for science to working toward, but in the mean time there's no excuse for the amount of fossil fuels we burn through when solar and wind are great alternatives to be the source of most of our home energy use.


Right now, even though wind is used in lots of places to generate electricity, it is still rather expensive and is not likely to get any cheaper. In Texas you have a choice whether to get your power from green sources or just a normal type contract. Dont get me wrong, all the electric comes from a single pool, so to speak. If you choose the green option then you pay the direct cost involved and the money goes directly towards the green producers. This also means you pay quite a bit more.

Not an option chosen by any but a very small percentage of consumers.

In order to be a viable option instead of an "OMG we need energy regardless of the price" option it has to be cheaper or at least as cost effective as natural gas. There is still a chance that solar cells may get there, virtually no opportunity for most other alternatives (mainstream alternatives as they are today) to get there. Fission is either too dangerous or is perceived as too dangerous under any circumstances is not a good option...too many negatives such as what to do with the waste.

That leaves Fusion as a best option provided we can ever resolve the problems and achieve a self-sustaining reaction that generates more energy than it consumes.

Then there is the unknown...maybe we will discover dark energy and will find out that it is easy to harness and safe! Yeah, well... maybe monkeys will fly out of my...ahem!



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   

neo96
What would be nice is fusion reactors powered by He3.


A very famous lab you've heard of is working on p-B11 fusion, which doesn't require any rare materials and has the same benefits. They're talking major smack, but it's classified and I can't get any solid details. Dammit.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I think some people that are working on a means to produce semi-sustained and isolated "ball lighting" are sitting on a viable means to a fusion device with a few key modifications. (Even some YouTube vids floating around with a group of Russian hobbyists that seem furthest ahead - but with a risky approach, so it appears the technology can be developed cheaply enough. Arc generating ballasts or flyback coils and magnetrons from a microwave seem to be key components, and it gets interesting once the arc loops and starts folding on itself.) I can even picture the device working with similarities to a Farnsworth fusor and principles akin to a miniaturized Tokamak. The key aspect would be the plasma flow that allows for pinching and self-isolating magnetic fields which the tokamak doesn't have. And you're not wasting a lot of energy on forcing random collisions, feedback also means less input power is needed to sustain. The only thing is that most of the guys able to sustain ball lightning for over a minute either don't know what they're sitting on, or just haven't approached that aspect yet. They use gases other than hydrogen that wont fuse, but I'm sure they're chancing getting a dose of UV or X-rays from high-voltage tube tech even if not other radiation from conditions that might cause fusion with the right medium. It might even be they're purposely holding off as they still need to get their isolation worked out, they often lose magnetic confinement with the ball lightning jumping to the side of the glass container or simply having the arc blow out.

And I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if the black projects are doing the same thing (with 1000x money behind it), but trying not to let the cat out of the bag - particularly considering how cheap it could be if that method has any merit. Microwave and EM based technology is pretty old-hat to them, and such fusors could be small and portable.

But hey, big expensive devices getting fusion is neat too. The more people learn about the process the better. They do have the advantage of having more controlled rather than ad-hoc experiments for gathering data. They're less subject to various random events messing up the data.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Shrink it down for effs sake.

3 football fields long.

500 trillion watts!


Here is an image of the computer when it started. Just one in the image



It also took 170,000 Watts.

Technology often stars this way. If we invest time and energy [pun?] into it we'll see more and more efficient iterations.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Lucid Lunacy

Technology often stars this way. If we invest time and energy [pun?] into it we'll see more and more efficient iterations.


NIF was never intended to be a production facility. It's for figuring out what's needed to do fusion on a commercial scale. Then, as you say, we'll see simpler, less generalized approaches. Right now, you need big flexible impractical setups like NIF to get the maths right.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join