Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know the equations for flight. Why didn't they just build a 787 in the 40s already? Oh, is it because the technology didn't exist and first had to be developed, in incremental refinements? Initial airplanes didn't even fly and half the people trying them died? Oh...
The basic equations of aerodynamics led people (like von Karman) to conclude that lighter than air craft would not be competitive. And so it proved. The basic physics of DT fusion reactors led Lidsky to conclude that any DT reactor would have poor power density. And so it has proved. Sometimes knowledge lets one rule out whole branches of the technology search tree.
Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
311–320 of 322 posts
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basic equations of aerodynamics led people (like von Karman) to conclude that lighter than air craft would not be competitive. And so it proved. The basic physics of DT fusion reactors led Lidsky to conclude that any DT reactor would have poor power density. And so it has proved. Sometimes knowledge lets one rule out whole branches of the technology search tree.
The basics of human history show that these kinds of predictions are sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and being too sure about them is usually the wrong way to do about things. We'd all still live in caves with that attitude.
For fusion, we have to ask why it's going to be an exception. The prior is that it won't be. If there's evidence it will be blocked, that's two (or more) strikes against it. Something very unusual is needed to come back from that far behind.
The continuing success of renewables, and their continuing progression down their experience curves, is bad news for fusion.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there's SLS which is tolerant of overhangs and other exotic features. Formlabs has a machine in the 5 digit price range, and I wouldn't be surprised to see competitors come out with a 4-digit one in the near future.
You could probably build a 4-axis FDM machine for less than that too, which might be better for average users(No powder mess)
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't really think in (visualize) 3d shapes, so I depend a lot on 3D geometry programs when I design things like for my microscope. A fair number of people I've talked to can visualize complex shapes in their head, rotate them around, do interference checking, etc.
What about those tests where they say to fold a piece of paper X number of times, and then punch holes in specific places. You then have to pick the image of what the paper would look like unfolded. Do these types of visualizations give you the same issue? I have known several people that just could not visualize these tests, and I'm curious if these are related.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basics of human history show that these kinds of predictions are sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and being too sure about them is usually the wrong way to do about things. We'd all still live in caves with that attitude.
The history of engineering shows that most approaches to solving problems fail. That's because, as in ecology, there's typically only one approach (in ecology one species) per niche (in the market or in the ecosystem). The winner drives the losers to extinction. For fusion, we have to ask why it's going to be an exception. The prior is that it won't be. If there's evidence it will be blocked, that's two (or more) str…
What "renewables" (with which I suppose you mean solar, hydro and wind) have going against them is their environmental impact. Sure it's not as bad as fossil fuels, far from it, don't get me wrong. But the area and materials needed for solar, the animals getting disturbed by wind turbines (birds killed, wales confused, ...) and the ecosystems that get flodded by dams are not nothing. Especially in the light that the energy demands of 8bn+ people are continuing to grow, and those 8bn will soon be 9bn and 10bn.
The promise of fusion tech is that you get much more bang for the buck, and with "buck" I mean resource use. That's not going to happen soon though, so until they we'll be stuck with solar+wind+hydro, but those are not really sustainable solutions in the long run (i.e. 100s/1000s of years ahead).
Of course, if you see fusion just as some crazy idea and know nothing else about it, then I can see how your "prior" makes sense. But once you know the details, it's quite different, since fusion is also continuing to progress down its experience curve. Tokamaks and stellerators in particular.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
They managed to handle what a fission reactor outputs every second in this experiment. I don't think that points to a commercial reactor whenever someone spends a few billions.
That's how research works. The first fission experiments couldn't power half a small country either. When you listen to the guys from this original article then you'd know that for 10-20bn USD you could likely build a real power plant with this tech within 5 years. It's obviously not without risk, which is why nobody is doing it. But the technical feasibility is there. They also point out that once the first-of-a-kin…
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/margraf1/
Fusion has been "a decade away" since before the turn of the millennium.
To say we should just throw $10-20 billion at a power plant and hope something comes out is not a good idea.
We should wait until one of the many multi billion dollar research plants is able to get even 10% of a reasonable to target energy output before even thinking about that.
Otherwise we would likely just sign the death of fusion in the public eye. Could you imagine the backlash if a $40 billion dollar project couldn't even produce power after two decades? (Going off how public works costs and timelines have been going is the reason for higher values)
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hint: solar on farmland does not interfere with use as farmland. Look up agrivoltaics. Solar on pasture is even easier, and protects livestock from weather extremes.
Farmland is literally converting solar energy into sugars. It's natures solar plants. Sure, you can get a bit of shade for your cattle. But the hundreds of millions of acres used for crops are directly competing for sunlight with your solar cells.
In fact, most plants can only use sunlight for a few hours a day, and must then endure the heat for the rest of the day. A few crops -- wheat, corn -- offer slightly reduced yields when shaded, but many others -- particularly peppers -- yield better with partial shade. Even where yield is reduced, the extra year-round revenue and radically reduced water loss may even the score.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
*its. ugh.
his, hers, theirs, its. No apostrophe. It took me 30 years to see this pattern.
Apostrophes are already tricky for English as a first language, it must be hell for English as a second language speakers.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
In motion. Yes it is perpetual motion. The same thing can be observed in superfluids.
It is my understanding that electrons on a curved trajectory will lose energy to electromagnetic radiation. Is that not the with electrons in a superconductor?
If you have a hypothetical continuum of charges moving in a circle, and you use Maxwell’s equations, you’ll find that given a constant charge density, no EM radiation will be emitted.
If you have a superconductor, you should really be using quantum mechanics to understand it. If you can imagine that an electron can “orbit” a nucleus without emitting EM radiation, then you can imagine that current can flow in a loop without emitting EM radiation. The behavior cannot be explained by thinking of the behavior of a single electron, but must be explained by considering the behavior of many electrons in a quantum mechanical system.
Also note that the actual speed of electrons (the “drift velocity”) moving around a loop of wire is extremely low, so if you treat electrons as point charges and ignore quantum mechanics, and you calculate the amount of EM radiation that should be emitted by a typical loop of wire, you will get an extremely low amount EM radiation emitted, which would be very difficult to measure.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
The history of engineering shows that most approaches to solving problems fail. That's because, as in ecology, there's typically only one approach (in ecology one species) per niche (in the market or in the ecosystem). The winner drives the losers to extinction. For fusion, we have to ask why it's going to be an exception. The prior is that it won't be. If there's evidence it will be blocked, that's two (or more) str…
Hm, you are obviously not following what's going on in the fusion space currently. They are continuously churning forward towards a viable design. What "renewables" (with which I suppose you mean solar, hydro and wind) have going against them is their environmental impact. Sure it's not as bad as fossil fuels, far from it, don't get me wrong. But the area and materials needed for solar, the animals getting disturbed…
So, if we stipulate your environmental argument rules out renewables, it also (to a much stronger degree) rules out agriculture. This is obviously absurd, so your argument cannot succeed.
As for recent "goings on"... I do follow them rather closely. You are likely misled by a common cognitive failing. That is: if we have a set of steps needed to reach some goal, then if one of these N steps is achieved, it's natural to think that we're 1/Nth of the way there. But this is only true if the steps are equally difficult. This cognitive blind spot is exploited in those collectable coupon games you sometimes see at grocery stores or fast food outlets. The # of winners is controlled by the number of a particular rare coupon; all the others are just noise.
For fusion, the immediate steps have been plasma confinement, stronger magnets, and so on. But none of these matter if there's a later showstopper. And for DT fusion, there is. That showstopper is the inability of DT fusion reactors to achieve adequately high volumetric power density. None of the recent DT reactors are promising in that respect, and there's good reason to think this obstacle is generic. Lawrence Lidsky (and Pfirsch and Schmitter in Germany) in the 1980s pointed this out. The implication of poor volumetric power density is that DT fusion will be more expensive than fission -- and fission itself cannot compete with renewables.
(I view current work on DT fusion as "making good progress toward a dead end.")
(If Pfirsch's name is familiar, it's because he, with Schlüter, discovered Pfirsch-Schlüter currents, which are important in stellarators.)
The only effort I see that has any chance is Helion's, which does not use DT, because they can evade this showstopper (by not producing their output as heat, allowing them to potentially save on the cost of the non-nuclear part of the plant.)