[OT]Alternative fusion power plant

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...ve-world?page=

Did anyone read the article in Popular Science on that Canadian fusion
design? It's a little off-topic but nuclear power will probably be a
necessity for manned interplanetary travel in combination with a VASIMIR or
similar engine. I still think nuclear fission is the way to go since it has
been around for ages and can be made to work reliably. And even if it does
go awry the nuclear meltdown in space won't affect too many people.

Their design sounds plausible (according to experts) but risky. It's a bad
time to be investing so I'm not too optimistic they will get funded or even
that their scheme might work, since there are too many technical challenges
they need to solve..

P.S.: the thing I hate about PopSci is that all articles in the magazine (I
have a subscription) can also be read online for free. That begs the
question why one would need a paid subscription at all, although I admit
that it's pretty handy to be able send people an URL when you want to refer
to an article.

Legato wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...ve-world?page=

Did anyone read the article in Popular Science on that Canadian fusion
design?

Consider the source; anything in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics
has about as much chance of panning out as a Wallstreet investment
scheme you would find in a National Enquirer advertisement.
A couple of nights back, National Geographic Channel was running their
UFO programs.
If it makes a buck off of your advertisers by increasing your ratings
among your TV audiance, it's certainly okay to do.
"Well, it was a profit-making strategy at the time." ...will probably be
engraved on the United States' tombstone.
On this, the mythological anniversary of the birth of Jesus, we might
all want to consider the words: "For what shall it profit a man, if he
shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?":
http://bible.cc/mark/8-36.htm
That goes for nations also.
Meanwhile, back in the Holy Land, the Old Testament concept of "An eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" continues with its usual degree of
success in bringing lasting peace to the region:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...6068473.story*
The only type of lasting peace that concept is going engender is the
eternal kind.
This is what happens when people start identifying themselves and who
their inclusive group is...not by what they have in common and what they
love...but rather by who they aren't and who and what they hate.
If nothing else, that concept brings the Biblical statement: "Those who
yet live have not seen the end of war." into pessimistic truth as a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

* Here's two flip sides of that story BTW:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...023112133.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1049820.html
Pick your side...like in a football game...cheer for them, and boo the
other side.
It's very similar; except in this case, your side loses people, not yards.
But from the stands, it's all pretty entertaining, isn't it?


Pat

On Dec 24, 1:54*pm, "Legato" wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...ight-save-worl...

Did anyone read the article in Popular Science on that Canadian fusion
design? It's a little off-topic but nuclear power will probably be a
necessity for manned interplanetary travel in combination with a VASIMIR or
similar engine. I still think nuclear fission is the way to go since it has
been around for ages and can be made to work reliably. And even if it does
go awry the nuclear meltdown in space won't affect too many people.

Their design sounds plausible (according to experts) but risky. It's a bad
time to be investing so I'm not too optimistic they will get funded or even
that their scheme might work, since there are too many technical challenges
they need to solve..

P.S.: the thing I hate about PopSci is that all articles in the magazine (I
have a subscription) can also be read online for free. That begs the
question why one would need a paid subscription at all, although I admit
that it's pretty handy to be able send people an URL when you want to refer
to an article.

The ongoing demise of humanity is entertaining to Pat Flannery, so
don't bother with taking stalk in much if anything Pat has to say.

The He3/fusion (artificially controlled nova) is a wise energy
alternative. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of terrestrial He3 has been
wasted, and it's otherwise spendy to obtain locally.

You should have been asking William Mook, as there's hardly anything
that he's not the chief world expert at knowing all there is to know.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 24 Dec, 21:54, "Legato" wrote:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...ight-save-worl...

Did anyone read the article in Popular Science on that Canadian fusion
design? It's a little off-topic but nuclear power will probably be a
necessity for manned interplanetary travel in combination with a VASIMIR or
similar engine. I still think nuclear fission is the way to go since it has
been around for ages and can be made to work reliably. And even if it does
go awry the nuclear meltdown in space won't affect too many people.

Their design sounds plausible (according to experts) but risky. It's a bad
time to be investing so I'm not too optimistic they will get funded or even
that their scheme might work, since there are too many technical challenges
they need to solve..

P.S.: the thing I hate about PopSci is that all articles in the magazine (I
have a subscription) can also be read online for free. That begs the
question why one would need a paid subscription at all, although I admit
that it's pretty handy to be able send people an URL when you want to refer
to an article.

I'm soory to have to pour cold water on this,. There are a number of
points that spring to mind.

1) Fusion has in fact been achieved. No I don't mean an H bomb I mean
neutrons have been produced in Tokomacs, like ITER. ITER should get to
the break even point. So far neither he nor the mainstream have
demonstrated break even

2) For space He3 is required as Brad implies. This is Deuterium and
Tritium. Neutrons take away the energy and although the temperature
for DT is lower it is more difficult to keep hot than He3.

3) For DT you need a fair sized processing plant. Most of the energy
escapes from DT and neutrons have to be used for raising steam.

I don't know whether it works. Skepticism has been expressed about
Popular Mechanics in general. Personally I think it might work. It is
not too difficult to heat plasma to thermonuclear temperatures for an
instant which is what this appears to do. However reading the
mainstream literature you find concepts like density*confinement time.
I see nothing like this here.


- Ian Parker

On Dec 25, 2:02*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 24 Dec, 21:54, "Legato" wrote:



http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...ight-save-worl...

Did anyone read the article in Popular Science on that Canadian fusion
design? It's a little off-topic but nuclear power will probably be a
necessity for manned interplanetary travel in combination with a VASIMIR or
similar engine. I still think nuclear fission is the way to go since it has
been around for ages and can be made to work reliably. And even if it does
go awry the nuclear meltdown in space won't affect too many people.

Their design sounds plausible (according to experts) but risky. It's a bad
time to be investing so I'm not too optimistic they will get funded or even
that their scheme might work, since there are too many technical challenges
they need to solve..

P.S.: the thing I hate about PopSci is that all articles in the magazine (I
have a subscription) can also be read online for free. That begs the
question why one would need a paid subscription at all, although I admit
that it's pretty handy to be able send people an URL when you want to refer
to an article.

I'm soory to have to pour cold water on this,. There are a number of
points that spring to mind.

1) Fusion has in fact been achieved. No I don't mean an H bomb I mean
neutrons have been produced in Tokomacs, like ITER. ITER should get to
the break even point. So far neither he nor the mainstream have
demonstrated break even

2) For space He3 is required as Brad implies. This is Deuterium and
Tritium. Neutrons take away the energy and although the temperature
for DT is lower it is more difficult to keep hot than He3.

3) For DT you need a fair sized processing plant. Most of the energy
escapes from DT and neutrons have to be used for raising steam.

I don't know whether it works. Skepticism has been expressed about
Popular Mechanics in general. Personally I think it might work. It is
not too difficult to heat plasma to thermonuclear temperatures for an
instant which is what this appears to do. However reading the
mainstream literature you find concepts like density*confinement time.
I see nothing like this here.

* - Ian Parker

There are a few other semi-private and somewhat limited public funded
fusion research examples that'll more than suggest it's likely
doable. What's needed is a good affordable supply of He3, such as for
the ITER.

A controlled terrestrial slow-nova should be within our grasp. LHC
might even inadvertently demonstrate a terrestrial nova, as based upon
hydrogen, helium and fast moving protons of near black hole status
going postal.

Thankfully, India and China are planning on mining our Selene/moon for
He3.

~ BG