Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Star in a Bottle

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 162 posts

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#41

Post by BigWorm »

jackgavigan wrote: post #9

As a child, I read Friday by Robert A Heinlein, which portrayed a future in which energy needs are addressed by energy storage devices called "Shipstones", which are described as a way to pack more kilowatt-hours into a smaller space and a smaller mass than any other engineer had ever dreamed of. To call it an "improved storage battery" (as some early accounts did) is like calling an H-bomb an "improved firecracker."…

I know they usually take some liberties, but the movie was nothing like the book.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#42

Post by lmm »

ryanklee wrote: post #15

> will stand a hundred feet tall, and it will weigh twenty-three thousand tons—more than twice the weight of the Eiffel Tower. This is a strange sentence. (1) Notice Height of object-A; (2) Notice Weight of object-A; (3) Compare Weight of object-A to Weight of object-B where object-B is known more for its property of Height than of its Weight. The sense here (I think) is that the Eiffel tower is significantly taller…

Given a lot of the article is about how they're having to reinforce the floor and so on to bear the weight of the thing, I think it's emphasising how dense the core is going to be.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#43

Post by dTal »

tempodox wrote: post #17
ryanklee wrote: post #15

> will stand a hundred feet tall, and it will weigh twenty-three thousand tons—more than twice the weight of the Eiffel Tower. This is a strange sentence. (1) Notice Height of object-A; (2) Notice Weight of object-A; (3) Compare Weight of object-A to Weight of object-B where object-B is known more for its property of Height than of its Weight. The sense here (I think) is that the Eiffel tower is significantly taller…

You are easily confused.

This is unfair - he (I assume ryanklee is a he) merely said it was confusing, not that he was confused, and spent the entirety of his comment explaining why it was so (and I agree, it is an odd comparison). If you disagree, rebut him instead of condescending.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#44

Post by parasight »

benjamta wrote: post #7
XorNot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite memory of being in France a half year back was visiting the ITER site. Partly because we misjudged how to get there and trekked 3km up the highway from the bus stop in the middle of nowhere to get to it. It was still just a hole in the ground then - they were getting ready to put in the seismic dampeners for the base layer of the Tokamak structure. Since then I've had it liked on Facebook so I can see the…

It's fascinating seeing it progress (albeit from afar), true cathedral scale engineering.

I can't seem to find any current pictures using Google. Can someone provide a link or is it prohibited to take pictures of the construction site.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#45

Post by leoedin »

ryanklee wrote: post #15

> will stand a hundred feet tall, and it will weigh twenty-three thousand tons—more than twice the weight of the Eiffel Tower. This is a strange sentence. (1) Notice Height of object-A; (2) Notice Weight of object-A; (3) Compare Weight of object-A to Weight of object-B where object-B is known more for its property of Height than of its Weight. The sense here (I think) is that the Eiffel tower is significantly taller…

The article's full of fairly silly elaborate descriptions. My favourite so far (3 pages in):

> Some in the field believe that a working machine would be a monument to human achievement surpassing the pyramids of Giza.

Which suggests that the pyramids of Giza are a monument of human achievement that hasn't yet been surpassed. You only need to take a look at almost any 20th century bridge, skyscraper or even ship to know that that isn't really true. Certainly the pyramids of Giza are a monument of ancient Egyptian achievement, but the last few centuries have completely and utterly surpassed that.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#46

Post by pygy_ »

sp332 wrote: post #26
ck2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this to make some sense to me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Reactor_overview I had fears that fusion could become fission but seems like that is not possible.

The elements involved are some of the lightest that exist. It's nearly impossible to get them to fission in the best of cases.

See http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gDm9siHIwrI/TXgaS3FfA7I/AAAAAAAAAX... for an illustration.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#47

Post by tnorthcutt »

Flammy wrote: post #34

Obviously the tech is really awesome, but I was curious how the projected power level compares (500 megawatts) Comparison to existing powerplants: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=500+megawatts TL;DR: We already have significantly bigger plants. ('average' coal and nuclear plant produces about twice as much power)

Well, yes, but this is a test reactor. It wouldn't make much sense to build a "production scale" reactor just for (initial) testing.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#48

Post by eli »

ryanklee wrote: post #15

> will stand a hundred feet tall, and it will weigh twenty-three thousand tons—more than twice the weight of the Eiffel Tower. This is a strange sentence. (1) Notice Height of object-A; (2) Notice Weight of object-A; (3) Compare Weight of object-A to Weight of object-B where object-B is known more for its property of Height than of its Weight. The sense here (I think) is that the Eiffel tower is significantly taller…

I think you're overanalyzing it. 23,000 tons is hard to visualize. Eiffel Tower is easy to visualize.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#49

Post by pilom »

ck2 wrote: post #19

a cryogenics plant, which will produce liquid helium Wait, they are manufacturing helium? Thought that wasn't possible? Or just converting gas to liquid?

Helium exists in 2 parts of this plant. In the plasma toroid (the hot part) hydrogen will be converted into helium but in incredibly small quantities (X grams/hour).

In the electromagnets, there will be liquid helium. This is to keep the wires in the electromagnets cold enough to be superconducting. This liquid helium is mined from the earth and then cooled to a liquid in the cryogenics plant.

So overall, they are "manufacturing" cryogenically-cooled-helium by taking helium from the ground and cooling it. They are also "manufacturing" helium atoms at a very small quantities by fusing hydrogen atoms together.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#50

Post by pilom »

Flammy wrote: post #34

Obviously the tech is really awesome, but I was curious how the projected power level compares (500 megawatts) Comparison to existing powerplants: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=500+megawatts TL;DR: We already have significantly bigger plants. ('average' coal and nuclear plant produces about twice as much power)

For those curious, the Three Gorges Dam in China is the largest powerplant in the world and has a maximum power rating of 22,500 MW (22.5 GW).
Post reply on HN