DescentBB

While you were sleeping at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory a historic breakthrough occured.
For the first time a net energy gain was achieved. For the slower types like ferno and vision, it means more energy came out than was put in. Clean, safe and limitless energy is now on the horizon. Wonder what they'll do with all the solar panels and wind turbines?

woodchip wrote:Wonder what they'll do with all the solar panels and wind turbines?

Generate power?

Yes, they actually got more energy out of the reaction than they put in and got a net gain, or ignition. But don't hold your breath. It'll probably be decades before we see viable production reactors that commercially produce electricity. So those solar panels and wind farms are going to be around for awhile woody.

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-major-nuc ... power.html

Only 20 years away.

Also I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time someone has gotten a net energy gain out of a fusion reactor, just the first time its been done in the USA.

Spidey wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:02 am Only 20 years away.

I'll be hopefully long dead by then. Meh.

Krom wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:17 am Also I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time someone has gotten a net energy gain out of a fusion reactor, just the first time its been done in the USA.

Doing a search, it appears this is a first world wide

So I watched a video where they described the process used to reach ignition and it shows that this is not really a method that would be useful for generating power. They basically use lasers to create the worlds smallest fusion bomb. If this counts as ignition, then it isn't actually the first time, the first time would be Ivy Mike which was detonated on November 1st 1952.

Basically the way this fusion works is they have this pellet of fuel suspended in this special tiny vial, then they have a ton of extremely powerful lasers come in from almost all directions and hit the inner walls of the vial (they don't actually hit the fuel), the amount of energy coming in is so high that the walls of the vial instantly vaporize and explode into plasma, but importantly because the lasers are evenly distributed they cause the walls to explode from all directions at once which compresses the fuel to an enormous degree causing it to implode and ignite. The whole process lasts a one tenth of a nanosecond and the vial is completely destroyed by the lasers and ensuing explosion. Which means they cannot sustain a continuous reaction using this method because the vial, which is essentially the core of the reactor, is destroyed by every activation weather it achieves ignition or not and has to be replaced entirely.

But can they turn it into a gun that fires purple blobs?

Asking the important questions.

It just proves that fusion on a viable scale to produce power is currently a pipe dream. In other words, current and near future human technology is incapable of containing what amounts to a small sun within a confined space on Earth. Any current attempt at scaling up this experiment will probably result in an uncontained thermonuclear reaction, or an H-bomb. BOOM.

Krom wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:33 am So I watched a video where they described the process used to reach ignition and it shows that this is not really a method that would be useful for generating power. They basically use lasers to create the worlds smallest fusion bomb. If this counts as ignition, then it isn't actually the first time, the first time would be Ivy Mike which was detonated on November 1st 1952.

Basically the way this fusion works is they have this pellet of fuel suspended in this special tiny vial, then they have a ton of extremely powerful lasers come in from almost all directions and hit the inner walls of the vial (they don't actually hit the fuel), the amount of energy coming in is so high that the walls of the vial instantly vaporize and explode into plasma, but importantly because the lasers are evenly distributed they cause the walls to explode from all directions at once which compresses the fuel to an enormous degree causing it to implode and ignite. The whole process lasts a one tenth of a nanosecond and the vial is completely destroyed by the lasers and ensuing explosion. Which means they cannot sustain a continuous reaction using this method because the vial, which is essentially the core of the reactor, is destroyed by every activation weather it achieves ignition or not and has to be replaced entirely.

As I understand it, using this technology would involve finding a way to quickly replace the fusion target and induce another "pulse." You'd transfer the heat generated by each pulse, and then reset for the next. So at least on the primary power generation end, this would be a different sort of mechanic than pretty much any other commercial power source, where the energy source operates continuously. (Well actually I guess you could almost compare it to solar or wind, only it's a predictable high-frequency on-and-off cycle.) One of the big engineering hurdles would be figuring out the method of heat exchange; I haven't looked into it much myself but I'm sure there are some concepts out there for it.

What gets me is that, while this is certainly an important milestone, the popular reporting over it has been absolute dogshit (as it usually is for science-related topics). The key point they keep glossing over is that, while there was a net positive output vs. the laser power input into the experiment, it cost substantially more energy to charge up those lasers in the first place, so it was still a net energy loss for the whole experiment. Even if everything goes well, it will still be decades before fusion becomes a viable commercial power source, and that's assuming the engineering issues can be successfully worked out.

Yeah, the video I saw mentioned that the lasers are like 1% efficient, absolutely horrible (because they weren't meant for power generation) and the whole thing was at a huge overall energy loss, but if they changed the lasers up to something about ~2/3 efficient then they would actually be at breakeven.

I frankly don't understand woody's excitement over this, unless he just hates the ideas of wind farms and solar panels in the meantime. We're so far away from an actual operating fusion reactor that both he and I will be long dead before they're even viable and operating in commercial power plants. I understand the baby steps in attaining this feat, but this is currently a very long term leap of faith to save the planet from burning fossil fuels.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:48 pm I frankly don't understand woody's excitement over this, unless he just hates the ideas of wind farms and solar panels in the meantime. We're so far away from an actual operating fusion reactor that both he and I will be long dead before they're even viable and operating in commercial power plants. I understand the baby steps in attaining this feat, but this is currently a very long term leap of faith to save the planet from burning fossil fuels.

At the end of WW11 we were flying around in prop. driven planes and the Germans were starting to use V2 rockets. 20 years later we were using the phantom fighter jets and sending men to the moon. In 1945 we unleashed the power of the atom. 10 years later we were putting nuclear power plants in submarines. In short do not underestimate the ingenuity of humans. Once we find out we can do it, it'll get done. Just look at what people were saying about flying...that it was for the birds. Then along came the Wright Bros.

Oh, make no mistake. This is groundbreaking. But it ain't going to change squat for either of us during the remainder of our lifetimes. There's still gonna be solar and windfarms. Meanwhile, we've already GOT developed and tested small efficient fission reactors, SMR's, from a local company called NuScale that can power a small city with far less waste. But the approval and rollout is slow and they've been fighting terrorism fear mongering to get this far with the project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power

An TC, the left hates nuclear.

And the right doesn't care about the toxic waste or where it has to be stored, for millennia.

woodchip wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 7:52 am An TC, the left hates nuclear.

No, it's the Green Party that does. Jill Stein was grilled repeatedly during her 2016 campaign by Democrats for her opposition to nuclear power.

However the fact is that it's the right-wing/libertarians who make nuclear power unworkable, as they're against government oversight and safety regulations, which is what leads to things like Chernobyl.

TC there is also a disposal problem with wind turbine blade and lets not forget wind turbines kill lots and lots of birds, some of them endangered :

https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/


So is it OK to fill our landfills and slaughter the bird or is it better to use liquid natural gas.

Wind farms directly killing some birds is bad, so we should use natural gas instead because it can indirectly kill all birds.

Lithium mining to make batteries destroys whole swaths of land, so we should just keep scraping the ground and destroy more habitat and kill more birds. And yes woody, I'm aware of the issue with turbine blades. They're not "clean" either and are disposed of in landfills when spent and made out of petroleum products to produce. This is one area I think "greenies" are deluded.

Krom wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:21 pm Wind farms directly killing some birds is bad, so we should use natural gas instead because it can indirectly kill all birds.

It's hilarious watching his mushbrain attempt to rationalize his nonsense.

Krom wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:21 pm Wind farms directly killing some birds is bad, so we should use natural gas instead because it can indirectly kill all birds.

I suspect you never read "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson else you would know what a real threat to birds was. Threat to birds now is habitat loss, bio diversity and city lights and human uncontrolled population pollution. Nowhere did I find that natural gas was a threat to birds.

For once we agree on something. But you forgot domestic cats. They kill countless millions of song birds and most cat owners still let them outside because they'd rather let them poop in their neighbor's yard instead of clean out a litterbox. In fact, even bird lovers are adverse to maintaining a litter box and keeping their pets inside. They'll resort to things like putting on a belled collar INSTEAD of making their cat an indoor only cat. Heaven forbid they subject them to indoor kitty prison. What a bunch of lazy morons.

https://pa.audubon.org/news/house-cats- ... -our-birds

woodchip wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:08 am I suspect you never read "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson else you would know what a real threat to birds was. Threat to birds now is habitat loss, bio diversity and city lights and human uncontrolled population pollution. Nowhere did I find that natural gas was a threat to birds.

Ah yes, Silent Spring. The book about *checks notes* the horrific effects of widespread pesticide usage on bird populations, which led to the banning of DDT and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. The same EPA that *checks notes again* Republicans have fought for decades to completely gut. Excellent point.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 10:35 am For once we agree on something. But you forgot domestic cats. They kill countless millions of song birds and most cat owners still let them outside because they'd rather let them poop in their neighbor's yard instead of clean out a litterbox. In fact, even bird lovers are adverse to maintaining a litter box and keeping their pets inside. They'll resort to things like putting on a belled collar INSTEAD of making their cat an indoor only cat. Heaven forbid they subject them to indoor kitty prison. What a bunch of lazy morons.

https://pa.audubon.org/news/house-cats- ... -our-birds

Ah yes, forgot about feral cats. Don't know how many I shot over the years, especially the ones that would sit by my bird feeders. Now I rarely see cats around my house.

Huh! Cat hater. Personally, I'd prefer to shoot every damn loose dog that wanders onto my property to do their duty before I would harm a cat. Although one time I kicked a neighbor's cat good and hard who was attacking my cat. If I lived in a rural area with livestock, I'd shoot any loose dog first and call it good. Cats I'd leave to eat the mice and rats.

I could never bring myself to hurt a dog.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 1:12 pm Huh! Cat hater. Personally, I'd prefer to shoot every damn loose dog that wanders onto my property to do their duty before I would harm a cat. Although one time I kicked a neighbor's cat good and hard who was attacking my cat. If I lived in a rural area with livestock, I'd shoot any loose dog first and call it good. Cats I'd leave to eat the mice and rats.

You forgetting about how they kill birds already? And I shot a dog chasing deer while deer hunting. Legal to do so in Michigan.

I don't hate cats or dogs. They are wonderful pets. But by extension, if an ★■◆● owner allows their cats or dogs to use my yard for a bathroom, I get the urge to permanently remediate the problem. It's more hate for the owner than the animal, but the animal's the easier target and unfortunately not legal to act on in suburbia. If I were a farmer, any loose dog going after livestock is fair game to get shot and most of the time, legal. Cats and dogs on a farm are useful in controlling vermin and for security. But when someone else's loose dog(s) goes on a killing spree on a neighbor's farm, it's target practice.