Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Fusion vs Fission

Author Topic: Fusion vs Fission  (Read 193573 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #175 on: Sep 12, 2011, 03:22 »
We may not have hot fusion anytime soon, but we should have full scale cold fusion "energy catalyzers" any day now.  8)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html

http://sourceofrealnews.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/andrea-rossis-and-sergio-focardis-cold-fusion-reactor-status-update/

Justin

PS I was banned from a "prepper" website for refuting the claims of these "scientists." ;D
« Last Edit: Sep 12, 2011, 03:23 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Mounder

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Karma: 27
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #176 on: Sep 15, 2011, 08:22 »
Higgs is dead.

September 12, 2011 - McGill Daily - There's probably no God (particle) - During the International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics hosted in late-July at Grenoble, the latest data from the world’s most powerful particle accelerator was presented. After years of waiting for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to be built and brought up to operational levels, and after numerous frustrating technical setbacks, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) was ready to present its first tenuous conclusions about the Higgs boson. It was there that they dropped the bombshell: CERN had effectively ruled out its probable existence with a 95 per cent certainty rate.   The Higgs boson, popularly known as the “god particle” because of its supposed role in endowing all everything in the universe with mass, has been furiously searched for since the postulation of its existence in 1964. The Standard Model predicts a menagerie of subatomic particles, of these, the Higgs boson is the only one yet to be confirmed. As a scientific theory, the Standard Model is the most thoroughly tested in all of human history. It successfully unites electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force that keeps atomic nuclei together, and the weak nuclear force that controls radioactive decay under one theoretical framework. The Standard Model essentially says that all matter in the universe is composed of varying combinations of fundamental units called fermions of which there are two types: quarks and leptons. There are six flavours of quarks and leptons respectively, with antiparticles for each. The combination of these 24 different fermions is what gives rise to the matter in the universe. Particles such as protons are composite particles; those made from different quark combinations are collectively referred to as “hadrons”.

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #177 on: Sep 15, 2011, 02:17 »
Well then, I guess a name change is in order.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Rennhack

  • Forum Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9016
  • Karma: 4683
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #178 on: Sep 15, 2011, 03:02 »
« Last Edit: Sep 15, 2011, 03:02 by Rennhack »

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #179 on: Sep 15, 2011, 10:33 »

The Standard Model went awry!! No Higgs Boson!!  We need new Physics to Explain!!!  In the Rap.  It is funny and Acurate.

Start at 2:40 for Higgs-Boson Explaination.
« Last Edit: Sep 15, 2011, 10:38 by thenukeman »

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #180 on: Sep 20, 2011, 09:23 »
The thorium car 8 grams thorium 300,000 miles.   1 gram  for 40,000 miles approximately.    


http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/09/19/us-company-developing-radioactive-steam-powered-car-engine/



« Last Edit: Sep 20, 2011, 09:29 by thenukeman »

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #181 on: Sep 21, 2011, 09:29 »
With Thorium at 150 dollars an ounce or about 5 dollars a gram this will be equivalent to less than a penny per gallon. 

http://www.hobart.k12.in.us/ksms/PeriodicTable/thorium.htm Cost of thorium. Help!!!!! AIEEEEEEEEEE, The Gas Companies and  pipe line companies have captured me.    They are buying this up and putting it up on the shelf.  HMMMMMF they are putting a muzzle on ME HHMMMMMMMFFFF.
« Last Edit: Sep 21, 2011, 09:34 by thenukeman »

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #182 on: Sep 21, 2011, 09:47 »
It is cool to see people thinking outside the box, but alas, we are a long way away me thinks. From your article;

"Sadly, Kulesus hadn’t actually invented a thorium engine that worked – it was purely a concept, but one with some merit."

"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Content1

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #183 on: Nov 12, 2011, 03:29 »
I have to admit the naysayers were right.  The closer they get to fusion, the more the problems multiply.  I have cast off my hopes and realize it is another governmen bonndoggle at taxpayer expense.  I take back anything I said in all previous posts.

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #184 on: Nov 12, 2011, 08:31 »
I have to admit the naysayers were right.  The closer they get to fusion, the more the problems multiply.  I have cast off my hopes and realize it is another governmen bonndoggle at taxpayer expense.  I take back anything I said in all previous posts.

Here is an article you might enjoy, related to that same fusion-dark energy orthodoxy...

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qx7sc1r

Offline thenukeman

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1939
  • Karma: 1964
  • Elements Rule Battle , Elementis Regamus Proleium
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #185 on: Nov 12, 2011, 11:39 »
Karma  to you Content1 for coming to the realization that Fusion is not possible now.  I wish people would learn that about wind and solar, That it sounds good but is not viable large scale.  We need Coal and Fission for awhile until something better comes up.

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #186 on: Mar 27, 2012, 08:37 »
Jefferson Labs seems to think fusion could be commercially viable by 2040.  That sounds like a long shot, but time flies when you're having fun.

http://wwwold.jlab.org/intralab/calendar/phys_seminar/2011/111019%20MCZ%20JLab%20colloq.pdf

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #187 on: Mar 27, 2012, 10:36 »
Jefferson Labs seems to think fusion could be commercially viable by 2040.  That sounds like a long shot, but time flies when you're having fun.

http://wwwold.jlab.org/intralab/calendar/phys_seminar/2011/111019%20MCZ%20JLab%20colloq.pdf
Twenty eight years?  But it's unrealistic to drill for more oil when that product won't get on the market for ten years.
 Time drags when you're miserable, so if gasoline goes to $10 a gallon, we'll have all the time we need to perfect fusion.  Perhaps get it on a small scale so everyone can have their own in their backyard, car, bass boat, etc.!

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #188 on: Mar 27, 2012, 10:55 »
Twenty eight years?  But it's unrealistic to drill for more oil when that product won't get on the market for ten years.
 Time drags when you're miserable, so if gasoline goes to $10 a gallon, we'll have all the time we need to perfect fusion.  Perhaps get it on a small scale so everyone can have their own in their backyard, car, bass boat, etc.!

You're right on that one.  The longest sustained "big" fusion reaction I've been able to find was 17MW for about 5 seconds.  If the reaction itself isn't even proven self-sustainable yet how long would it be until we can generate electricity from it?  2040 seems optimistic and our energy consumption continues to expand (as it should in advanced civilizations).

Offline UncaBuffalo

  • Mostly Retired
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1819
  • Karma: 4598
  • "How Many Things I Have No Need Of" - Socrates
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #189 on: Mar 28, 2012, 02:52 »
...our energy consumption continues to expand (as it should in advanced civilizations).


PolySci?  ;)







(Full Disclosure:  As a Dyed-in-the-Wool Voluntary Minimalist, I do disagree with your statement...)

Modified to add disclosure...
« Last Edit: Mar 28, 2012, 02:59 by UncaBuffalo »
We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can’t think what anybody sees in them.      - B. Baggins

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #190 on: Mar 28, 2012, 07:28 »

PolySci?  ;)


Not at all.  Even if it's just for the simple economics of it, I actively work to conserve in my day-to-day life.  When I talk about expansion in energy consumption I don't believe for a second that we shouldn't all work for better, more efficient ways to make it happen.  I like to think of a 1957 speech from a young visionary in the world of atomic energy.  He moved on to become a legend in one leg of the nuclear industry.

Quote
...Possession of surplus energy is, of course, a requisite for any kind of civilization, for if man possesses merely the energy of his own muscles, he must expend all his strength - mental and physical - to obtain the bare necessities of life.

...A reduction of per capita energy consumption has always in the past led to a decline in civilization and a reversion to a more primitive way of life.
-H. G. Rickover
Full transcript: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151

As we advance as a civilization it only makes sense that we consume more energy.  Many innovations today allow us to consume the same amount of energy in increasingly efficient ways, but overall we're going to consume more as a species.  2040 is a long way from now, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to pursue fusion as a clean, abundant energy source with a small geographic footprint.  Discouraging fusion research, even with its staggering price tag, seems to me like telling Karl Benz or Enrico Fermi to back off because their results were too far off.
« Last Edit: Mar 28, 2012, 08:15 by withroaj »

Offline UncaBuffalo

  • Mostly Retired
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1819
  • Karma: 4598
  • "How Many Things I Have No Need Of" - Socrates
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #191 on: Mar 29, 2012, 03:20 »
...and our energy consumption continues to expand (as it should in advanced civilizations).
Many innovations today allow us to consume the same amount of energy in increasingly efficient ways, but overall we're going to consume more as a species.

If you were to revise your original statement to something along the lines of "...and our energy consumption continues to expand as our population expands", I would agree.

If you want to tie "advancing civilization" into the equation, I still believe PolySci is the right venue.  As you noted, efficiency needs to offset so-called 'advances'.  Your original statement makes me cringe, because it sounds like the manifest-destiny, consumption-oriented media that chaps my @%%.

...A reduction of per capita energy consumption has always in the past led to a decline in civilization and a reversion to a more primitive way of life.
-H. G. Rickover

Chicken?  Egg?  PolySci?  ;)




"...and who is this Rickover pinhead gentleman that says more-primitive-way-of-life like it's a bad thing?" asked the Voluntary Minimalist.  ;)

Modified to mellow
« Last Edit: Mar 29, 2012, 06:20 by UncaBuffalo »
We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can’t think what anybody sees in them.      - B. Baggins

Offline UncaBuffalo

  • Mostly Retired
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1819
  • Karma: 4598
  • "How Many Things I Have No Need Of" - Socrates
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #192 on: Mar 29, 2012, 08:17 »
 [hijack]

Sorry. 

Back to Fusion-land we go!   :)
We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner! I can’t think what anybody sees in them.      - B. Baggins

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #193 on: Mar 29, 2012, 07:48 »
Upgrade well taken.  I appreciate it.  Here's to fusion power by 2040!  [beer]

Offline Gamma Glue

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Karma: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • If you're not first, you're last!
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #194 on: Apr 02, 2012, 03:18 »
Anything new from Helion Energy? I can't find a lot about them. I thought they were supposed to have a working prototype by now?

Offline GLW

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • Karma: 2523
  • caveo proditor,...
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #195 on: Apr 02, 2012, 04:22 »
Anything new from Helion Energy? I can't find a lot about them. I thought they were supposed to have a working prototype by now?

everybody was supposed to have a working prototype by now,.... [coffee]

"In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production is still believed to be unlikely before 2050."

"Such a plan shows why it will be very difficult to commission the first commercial-sized tokamak before 2050."

http://web.archive.org/web/20061107220145/http://www.iter.org/Future-beyond.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925354.300-bubble-fusion-makes-a-comeback.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925432.900-are-days-numbered-for-bubble-fusion.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8827

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825280.100-fusion-fallacies.html

search for yourself, it's a never ending cycle of hype, followed by grants, followed by failure, followed by more hype, followed by more grants, followed by more failure, on and on and on,.... zzz

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #196 on: Apr 02, 2012, 04:51 »
But what about ITER?  They're dumping a ton of money into a TON of infrastructure to start up a big ol' Tokamak.  They seem pretty darn confident.

Offline GLW

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5494
  • Karma: 2523
  • caveo proditor,...
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #197 on: Apr 02, 2012, 04:57 »
Have you read this thread?!?!?!

They always seem pretty darn confident,...

I wish it were so,....

lots of old fission dinosaurs to be decommissioned should cheap fusion be just around the corner,.... [coffee]

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Gamma Glue

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Karma: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • If you're not first, you're last!
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #198 on: Apr 03, 2012, 12:56 »
But what about ITER?  They're dumping a ton of money into a TON of infrastructure to start up a big ol' Tokamak.  They seem pretty darn confident.

It'll never work. Do a search for "Should Google go Nuclear" and watch the video.

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Fusion vs Fission
« Reply #199 on: Apr 03, 2012, 04:19 »
It'll never work. Do a search for "Should Google go Nuclear" and watch the video.

As long as there are Tax Dollars available, the project shall go.   ;)

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?