What satellite companies and energy providers should I be prepared to short in the event we are expecting another solar storm of this magnitude?
Solar storm of 1859
41–46 of 46 posts
Re: Solar storm of 1859
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realise that the laser's inherent inefficiency was the main loss in laser fusion, though it would make sense.
Laser fusion is not over-unity because lasers are horribly inefficient. If lasers were significantly better we could generate fusion power by repeatedly laser-imploding pellets of D-T fuel. We can already generate fusion this way but it takes more power to run the lasers than you get from the fusion (after conversion losses).
That's interesting. So effectively, laser fusion shifts the problem domain into making a better laser, rather than all the tedious mucking about with plasma confinement.
Will be interesting to see which problem is more tractable in the long run. Efficient lasers presumably have many more commercial applications than good plasma confinement does, though I could be very wrong about that. Given that the universe appears to have a sense of humour, efficient lasers will probably require progress in good plasma confinement.
Re: Solar storm of 1859
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laser fusion is not over-unity because lasers are horribly inefficient. If lasers were significantly better we could generate fusion power by repeatedly laser-imploding pellets of D-T fuel. We can already generate fusion this way but it takes more power to run the lasers than you get from the fusion (after conversion losses).
That's interesting. So effectively, laser fusion shifts the problem domain into making a better laser, rather than all the tedious mucking about with plasma confinement. Will be interesting to see which problem is more tractable in the long run. Efficient lasers presumably have many more commercial applications than good plasma confinement does, though I could be very wrong about that. Given that the universe appears…
Yes, though there are some other problems too. Laser fusion basically gives you a series of small thermonuclear blasts. There are ways of confining these (like doing them underwater) and extracting heat/power, but a real power plant would probably take some engineering and might have to be rather large.
You could think of such a power plant as something like a thermonuclear internal combustion engine with laser spark plugs. Actually I wonder if giant pistons similar to the huge diesels built by Wartsila and others for container ships could work. Put some water in there with the fuel pellet and the water would be flash vaporized by the fusion yield. You'd be talking about a pretty massive engine bore, probably much larger than those monster diesels. Might be worth doing for sheer awesomeness. :)
I don't know the numbers but my guess is that lasers would have to be dramatically more efficient than they are today for this to be a practical and economical way of generating power.
Re: Solar storm of 1859
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Potentially off-topic, but you how do you know so much? It seems that from law to physics to computer science, you have an absurd level of detailed knowledge. It's incredulous that someone can talk at such great depth about an obscure topic from the top of his head.
What amazes me even more is that John spends so much time here on HC chatting with us hoi polloi.
I’m delighted that such a wide variety of people find this community thoroughly enjoyable.
Re: Solar storm of 1859
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's interesting. So effectively, laser fusion shifts the problem domain into making a better laser, rather than all the tedious mucking about with plasma confinement. Will be interesting to see which problem is more tractable in the long run. Efficient lasers presumably have many more commercial applications than good plasma confinement does, though I could be very wrong about that. Given that the universe appears…
Yes, though there are some other problems too. Laser fusion basically gives you a series of small thermonuclear blasts. There are ways of confining these (like doing them underwater) and extracting heat/power, but a real power plant would probably take some engineering and might have to be rather large. You could think of such a power plant as something like a thermonuclear internal combustion engine with laser spark…
>Actually I wonder if giant pistons similar to the huge diesels built by Wartsila and others for container ships could work.
You just reminded me of this mental steampunk fusion design I read about a while back - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/414559/a-new-approach-to-...
Re: Solar storm of 1859
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
What amazes me even more is that John spends so much time here on HC chatting with us hoi polloi.
I’m delighted that such a wide variety of people find this community thoroughly enjoyable.
Me too, but the amount of time John spends here is truly incredibly.
I have been watching his rise up the HC karma list and he is now in 11th. Everyone else around him on the list joined in 2007 while John joined in September 2014. He is a rocket roaring past the crowd :)