I have 3 days to answer a question thats very important.

reply to post by TedHodgson


It is and will be at some future point be able to have fusion on earth,although a dangerous test,and essntially ,yes a reactor developed in space would be more appropriate with supercooled magnets to contain the fusion process by frequency or ratio input from a normal thermal reactor,in reality the fluctuations of the thermal reactor feeding the magnets will allow the increase and decrease of the created sun to release its energy and flux continuely by starting and stopping the thermal reactor to contain the sun from increasing in size and density,whilst the energy being absorbed during fluctuations.if this device did not have the magnets the created sun would continuelly expand and envelope the earth,its in the making.the energy is absorbed during the fluctuations and is not constant burt will come in packets or quantas.

reply to post by gringoboy


If your diagreeing with me, Show me a sustained fusion reaction?

But it actually sounds like your agreeing with me completely and have just illiterated my post more

reply to post by TedHodgson


I`m agreeing ,and submitting that since all solar activity requires hydrogen extraction from the volume of space then its common sense it would be built in space as the effects to the hydrogen ,water balance on earth would become displaced causing a influx of hydrogen from space supercooling the planet and changing the thermal dynamics of the earth.has it already happened
its okay to disagree,just ETA is and other facilities attempting to create nuclear fusion which will extract hydrogen ,as our own sun does,and hydrogen is abundant in ...what? water so more water will become defragmented as hydrogen is extracted upsetting the balance of earth.

reply to post by gringoboy


It has Happend in nature many times i imagine, Also i think CERN are close to gaining the ability to possibly create such a thing, However i wouldnt mess with such a thing ever, Sevice to say its playing god

reply to post by TedHodgson


yeah it is like a old james bond movie but is actually becoming more fact by fat hungry PTB who want power from nothing and charge everybody as though its all still thermal and carbon technologies feeding the grid.

Yes and no. Technically if we could harness the right materials in space, and initiate fusion, it could work. Jupiter does not have sufficient mass to become a star, it could burn, but not self sustain. A star is a star (the sun is a star medium sized i believe) because it's a self sustaining, if limited, nuclear reaction.

right now I don't believe we have the technology, but the physics involved says sure we can.

With my limited wisdom and superficial education, my good half a brain seems to think that all planets begin as gaseous planets and slowly cool and solidify.

Man can create a sun...but only momentarily as there is not sufficient fuel to burn for sustained periods...

Planets too burn out, as do suns, eventually...

If I had to answer YOUR question I would say yes...and quickly walk away or turn in my paper without answering the followup question surely to be posed by the questioner ... Which is how LONG will it burn?

If you don't mind, I will now put my half brain to sleep and watch the scripted news which of late is positioning itself to mention not one but TWO suns in our solar system... zzzzzzz wake me when that one becomes newsworthy.

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


I was actually thinking about this recently, during a session of I love Katamari. In the one level, you roll up a bunch of crap, massive enough to make the sun.

Real world physics here, a star is formed by a crap ton of matter accumulating into a common gravity well, until the mass becomes so great, that it's total gravity pulls so tightly on the matter, inducing nuclear fusion. As such, it cascades throughout the mass, becoming a stable and sustained nuclear fusion process.

In short, if a scientist could feasibly gather enough material together, to create such a gravity well (remember, gravity is based on mass, so more junk=more pull), and keep a consistent stream of the necessary particles (ie, hydrogen), eventually there will be enough matter to induce fusion and create a star.

Is it possible? Absolutely, even at current technology levels. The problem is time. At current tech, it would take millions of years to accumulate enough matter. In the future, it could be made as easy as constructing a skyscraper.

My personal solution, propel a massive object into a nebula. There's your gravity well. Then, let nature take over. Eventually it will accumulate enough on it's own, as nebulae are reasonable nurseries for star formation.

reply to post by phishybongwaters


The thesis is there however you are correct the technology is not tryed and tested using helium3 as the fuel,it is a highly dangerous endevour but is on the horizon,because if it is not we will fail to meet our own energy requirements and ,well... no one will be able to comment on electronic media ,which would`nt be good now that would be too boring for some,especially posters who don`t contribute but only seek to control,thats nuts,can you report members for that.Mmmm..nanny state on ATS,curious,obviously to deep for some,sensiblethought,now that was`nt very sensible.

Originally posted by gringoboy
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

could be ETA is already running and caused some standing wave effect around the equator which...well join the dots,guess what if TPTB have done it then living in ignorance is a perfectly safe place to be,stay safe.notice the geological significance N.Korea-S-Korea,the ETA project is based where...S.Korea

edit on 20-1-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)

Listen, it's a neat idea, but you can't literally recreate what a star does on Earth without a significant amount of gravity being involved in the mix. These folks are going to create some sort of glorified nuclear chain reaction, and that will be the amount of it. I suppose what they are going to try and do is redefine what a star actually does. Like redefining the definition of life, or gravity. Remember the levitating frog a few years back? This is all a bunch of bunk in an attempt to fool the ignorant and naive. And a documentary covering the endeavor that uses some science world version of Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura does not lend it any real credibility. If someone such as Holly Gilbert commented on this experiment, stating that, it is a real possibility to recreate a star on Earth, I would be inclined to believe it, maybe. I would at least say, "Alright, maybe I'm overlooking something here?" But using goofy Brian Cox in hosting this documentary tells me right off the bat it's a harebrained venture. It's probably his documentary. The project itself is probably some elaborate research scheme.

Anyway enough said.

Originally posted by EdWard54
With my limited wisdom and superficial education, my good half a brain seems to think that all planets begin as gaseous planets and slowly cool and solidify.

Man can create a sun...but only momentarily as there is not sufficient fuel to burn for sustained periods...

Planets too burn out, as do suns, eventually...

If I had to answer YOUR question I would say yes...and quickly walk away or turn in my paper without answering the followup question surely to be posed by the questioner ... Which is how LONG will it burn?

If you don't mind, I will now put my half brain to sleep and watch the scripted news which of late is positioning itself to mention not one but TWO suns in our solar system... zzzzzzz wake me when that one becomes newsworthy.

Right, and if it did have sufficient fuel it would need sufficient gravity also to sustain the chain reaction for any prolonged period of time. About at minimum 20% more than Jupiter's.

Originally posted by geo1066

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
Is it any way plausible or possible for there to be born ,some super genius egg head scientist ,to come up with the notion that he/she can create, A SUN.

IS THERE ANY WAY POSSIBLE THAT THE SUN CAN BE CREATED BY A HUMAN ?

If so ,can you explain how its possible ?

Sitting here reading all of your responses and thinking "Boy, don't we have alot of intellectuals here at ATS or what". Then it dawned on me-

Intellectuals = 'eggheads'

Since you're not really able to devulge the reasoning behind this exercise, you allow one's mind to wander a little.

How about this-

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
Is it any way plausible or possible for there to be born ,some super genius egg head scientist ,to come up with the notion that he/she can create, A SUN[/i]... SON?

IS THERE ANY WAY POSSIBLE THAT THE SUN (SON)CAN BE CREATED BY A HUMAN ?

If so ,can you explain how its possible ?

LOL! Now by changing one letter and possibly going by all of your responses, I would probably have to lean towards the answer of "No".
LOL LOL LOL!

its funny that you said that because the son and the sun was acully the answer.