@moonbus saidI attended a lecture while studying chemistry (early 90's). It was called "The history of nuclear technology"
It’s only 30 years away now (again):
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/05/world/iter-nuclear-fusion-climate-intl-cnnphotos/
Prof. Gleitsmann supported the thesis that commercial fusion reactors always were and for the foresseable future will be away 30 years. He was right.
Oh and the 30 years represent one generation of reserachers, so young ones believe they will reach the goal, elders want at least to witness it.
Of course we learned a lot about a lot of topics on thew ay to the point we are standing on now.
@Ponderable
New work is proceeding both on engineering and fundamental findings. The latest is the result of tests showing plasma turbulence goes about ten times faster than heat traveling through the same plasma, which means new means of detecting turbulence
leading to loss of heat can now be predicted in enough time to modulate the magnetic fields used to confine the plasma.
@soothfast saidOnly if Jeff Beck is playing jazz fusion there, too.
There's a French Asian fusion restaurant less than 30 years from my house. Does that count?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@sonhouse saidOne of them is long dead.
@Soothfast
I think they are selling hotdogs on the corner of 5th and Vine.
@Shallow-Blue
There are still fringe groups trying to prove cold fusion works, strangely enough with no success.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-current-scien/
@bunnyknight saidI doubt it. The technology as it's developing would be nowhere near to being portable.
@sonhouse
So once this fusion becomes perfected and cheap, could it be easily weaponized?
Will any angry, frustrated teenager be able to vaporize a city with it?
Actually we already have "fusion bombs," otherwise known as hydrogen bombs or thermonuclear weapons. They work, I think, by using a nuclear fission chain reaction to subject deuterium or tritium (heavy forms of hydrogen) to a temperature and pressure sufficient for nuclear fusion to occur. The whole process probably happens in a fraction of a second, which is all that's needed for a big ka-boom, and we've had the know-how to do this for over half a century.
Fusion power reactors, in contrast, must maintain temperatures and pressures sufficient for fusion to occur in a continuous fashion, day in and day out. That's a real challenge.
@bunnyknight
What do you mean? The fusion thing is ALREADY weaponized, that is how you get megaton bombs.
The only thing we will get from fusion is electricity, not much of a way to weaponize a box that weights 300 tons or more🙂 Aircraft carriers have nuclear fission already, enough juice to run for months without stopping, don't think going to fusion would give them much more energy but if they can the end result will be much less dangerous ways to use in terms of nuclear waste.
@sonhouse saidIt's good to avoid making nuclear waste, but how would you get electricity from nuclear fusion? Nuclear reactors (fission) heat water that turns to steam that drive turbans that produce electricity. Does it work the same way with fusion? Would the energy created by fusion be used to heat water for driving turbans? If so how would you get the energy produced by fusion to the water?
@bunnyknight
What do you mean? The fusion thing is ALREADY weaponized, that is how you get megaton bombs.
The only thing we will get from fusion is electricity, not much of a way to weaponize a box that weights 300 tons or more🙂 Aircraft carriers have nuclear fission already, enough juice to run for months without stopping, don't think going to fusion would give them much ...[text shortened]... gy but if they can the end result will be much less dangerous ways to use in terms of nuclear waste.
Sounds like a daunting (perhaps dangerous?) task to control a fusion reactor.
Sure, no annoying radioactive waste material to deal with, but I wouldn't want to go anywhere near an operating fusion reactor... at least not until (and without a doubt) it is proven to be safe.