Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
thebulletin.org
Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
1–10 of 222 posts
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#2Mmmh, some of the claims in that article are debunked in this neat video from MIT (though over 1h long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#3"In experiments to date the energy input required to produce the temperatures and pressures that enable significant fusion reactions in hydrogen isotopes has far exceeded the fusion energy generated."
Wrong. NIF and others have achieved Q>1, albeit in single events.
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#4What a Negative Nancy.
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#5"In experiments to date the energy input required to produce the temperatures and pressures that enable significant fusion reactions in hydrogen isotopes has far exceeded the fusion energy generated." Wrong. NIF and others have achieved Q>1, albeit in single events. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621
I think "sustainably" is implied, and the author's next sentence makes that a bit clearer.
> But through the use of promising fusion technologies such as magnetic confinement and laser-based inertial confinement, humanity is moving much closer to getting around that problem and achieving that breakthrough moment when the amount of energy coming out of a fusion reactor will sustainably exceed the amount going in, producing net energy.
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#6Mmmh, some of the claims in that article are debunked in this neat video from MIT (though over 1h long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
Which claims does it refute? I'm not able to watch the video, but I'm interested.
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#7It's weird to consider "parasitic" loss a problem. You just factor that into the total output. If it's high enough you're good.
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#8Mmmh, some of the claims in that article are debunked in this neat video from MIT (though over 1h long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
All his major claims seem correct to me, but my experience in fusion-related research was on the theoretical side. Is there a written summary of what is supposed to be incorrect?
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#9Mmmh, some of the claims in that article are debunked in this neat video from MIT (though over 1h long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk
I think someone needs to let bill gates know about this video. It's very promising and well planned and it really just needs a minimal investment.
Also someone needs to write this stuff up into an engaging article. It's hard to spread the word with an hour long video.
Re: Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
#10Dog bites man, film at eleven.