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

Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

aviationweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 375 posts

Re: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

#41

Post by bkcooper »

cmsmith wrote: post #36

I'm not sure why this article is focusing on things like whether the reactor can fit on a truck, where you get deuterium, and how many coal power plants it can replace - instead of the actual question which is how they managed to produce a stable exothermal fusion reaction.

As far as I can tell from reading various articles (including the Aviation Week article linked elsewhere in the comments), they haven't. The expectation is that they will have a prototype in five years. For that reason, I wouldn't get too excited about this.

Re: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

#43

Post by ck2 »

sp332 wrote: post #29
ck2 wrote: post #26

Very cheap energy means cheap war and lots of it. This could be bad.

Cheaper and more plentiful resources means less reason to go to war.

This isn't Star Trek, this is the United States.

We always find a reason to go to war. Or it finds us and we return the favor.

Re: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

#44

Post by dyeje »

etiam wrote: post #9

> U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle. sigh To the extent this is true I suspect those "large fusion reactors" are tuned not so much for generating electricity and a great deal for annihilating whatever the carrying missile is pointed at. But never mind fuzzy thinking at Reuters right now. This is amazing…

I believe you're misunderstanding, those ships run on power generated by a nuclear reactor. A reactor is like when you think of a regular nuclear power plant, it's not part of a missile.

Re: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

#45

Post by seren »

Tloewald wrote: post #39
ck2 wrote: post #26

Very cheap energy means cheap war and lots of it. This could be bad.

Our main reason for war right now is scarce energy. Cheap clean electricity means no-one needs to care about the Middle East for starters — most of the fighting there is superpower proxy fighting — e.g. Assad would be gone if not backed by Russia and China, so no Islamic State. No Oil, no Iraq war x2. No oil, no Hugo Chavez for that matter.

I would only be cautiously optimistic : even if our energy problems are solved, the construction of reactors, for example the superconductors, might require some rare materials. The grab for energy could become a grab for minerals. It will probably involved other regions of the world though and change the whole dynamic.

Re: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

#46

Post by delinka »

etiam wrote: post #9

> U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle. sigh To the extent this is true I suspect those "large fusion reactors" are tuned not so much for generating electricity and a great deal for annihilating whatever the carrying missile is pointed at. But never mind fuzzy thinking at Reuters right now. This is amazing…

Unless I'm missing something, I think you're making a similar mistake.

Submarines and carriers run on a fission reactor. And it powers everything - drives turbines for locomotion, electricity...

Re: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

#47

Post by sipior »

delinka wrote: post #46
etiam wrote: post #9

> U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle. sigh To the extent this is true I suspect those "large fusion reactors" are tuned not so much for generating electricity and a great deal for annihilating whatever the carrying missile is pointed at. But never mind fuzzy thinking at Reuters right now. This is amazing…

Unless I'm missing something, I think you're making a similar mistake. Submarines and carriers run on a fission reactor. And it powers everything - drives turbines for locomotion, electricity...

At the risk of speaking for the parent, I believe their point was that the only fusion "reactors" on a nuclear submarine are the warheads it carries.

Re: Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details

#49

Post by nine_k »

phkahler wrote: post #14
ihnorton wrote: post #6

Content-free article, but presumably it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor This is not the first time they have gone public with this - Charles Chase gave a talk at Google X last year, recorded and publicly-available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY

I read the wikipedia link. How do they get the energy out? What are the byproducts? etc...

AFAICT, ²H + ²H produce ³H (which is the burned), H, ³He, and ⁴He, plus some neutrons and gamma rays. The latter must bring the energy out of the chamber, by heating some blanketing. Then it must be the same as with fission reactors.
Post reply on HN