fusion power being picked up by US navy

[Chaigidel]

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comm...ussard_fusion/

this was a project on ice until the navy picked it back up, it shows promise to be a real cold fusion generator, which will change humanity radically if it is made effective.

[Simetrical]

The US government has been funding fusion power research for decades. I don't know why this is a big surprise.

[Chaigidel]

well this particular one was independent that showed the most promise, it lost funding a year or so ago-- and the fact that the navy has picked it up means the navy will likely have its fusion power very soon.

the only reason its special is because this generator is the best chance ever at actually attaining the goal of endless energy.

[Rhaegar1]

well this particular one was independent that showed the most promise, it lost funding a year or so ago-- and the fact that the navy has picked it up means the navy will likely have its fusion power very soon.

the only reason its special is because this generator is the best chance ever at actually attaining the goal of endless energy.

I don't now what the physical background of you guys is but cold fussion is an allthough very romantic, absurd idea.

About not-cold fussion reactions, I did a lot of research and followed a lot of lectures about this subject and trust me, none of us will see commercial fussion reactors supplying energy during our lifetime. The physics are largely known and masterd but we simply can't make the materials necassery to sustain the million of degrees temperature and bombardments of particles that come along with the reaction.

The number one reason why the US military is putting money in this kind of projects is that they can research the effects of nuclear explosions and what happens whithin such an explosion with the excuse that it's for energy research so the evade certain treaties that limit the amount of research in nuclear weapons.

[Sphere]

About not-cold fussion reactions, I did a lot of research and followed a lot of lectures about this subject and trust me, none of us will see commercial fussion reactors supplying energy during our lifetime.

There is a good chance of seeing a positive net power reactor though. The engineering is one or two iterations away. (although "iteration" means billions of dollars many years.)

[Simetrical]

According to its advocates. Obviously, not according to the ones who decided to stop funding it. Do you know of anyone who knows what they're talking about and says that "the Navy will likely have fusion power very soon"? Because that would be a pretty big claim to make.

[Rhaegar1]

yes that's the current estimation but since fussion was first researched in the 50's that was allways the estimation, in the 50's they said it would take 30 years to get effective reactors out of it but 30 years later in 80's that they where still saying 30 years, well we are now almost 30 years after that and they are still saying it will take 30 years. The problem with nuclear fussion reactors is that after researchers solve a problem they get 2 problems back.

Not that I am against the research of fussion, I think that a lot of knowledge is gained and research will result in a lot of young and enthousiastic scientists (interest for nuclear fussion was one of the main reasons for me to start studying Applied Physics). And if it ever gets so far that we have working fussion reactors it will be by far the highest engeneering/scientific achievement from mankind because we will litterally have created a sun on earth.

[Simetrical]

I don't now what the physical background of you guys is but cold fussion is an allthough very romantic, absurd idea.

It's implausible, but not necessarily impossible. We just don't know of a mechanism for it. No basic physical law would prevent it from happening, as far as I know. It's not like a perpetual motion machine.

About not-cold fussion reactions, I did a lot of research and followed a lot of lectures about this subject and trust me, none of us will see commercial fussion reactors supplying energy during our lifetime.

Probably not, but it's not totally clear. Fusion plants like JET have gotten pretty close to the break-even point. A lot of very informed people believe that ITER may well produce slightly more power than it consumes. Not remotely by enough to justify the cost, but we're seeing real progress, although slow progress. In our lifetimes, maybe not, but who knows.

The number one reason why the US military is putting money in this kind of projects is that they can research the effects of nuclear explosions and what happens whithin such an explosion with the excuse that it's for energy research so the evade certain treaties that limit the amount of research in nuclear weapons.

Nuclear fusion plants do not involve thermonuclear explosions. They only produce controlled reactions, not uncontrolled ones. All nuclear explosions are banned by international treaties anyway, not just weapon-related ones. The phrasing used is "or any other nuclear explosion".

[Rhaegar1]

It's implausible, but not necessarily impossible. We just don't know of a mechanism for it. No basic physical law would prevent it from happening, as far as I know. It's not like a perpetual motion machine.

Probably not, but it's not totally clear. Fusion plants like JET have gotten pretty close to the break-even point. A lot of very informed people believe that ITER may well produce slightly more power than it consumes. Not remotely by enough to justify the cost, but we're seeing real progress, although slow progress. In our lifetimes, maybe not, but who knows.

Nuclear fusion plants do not involve thermonuclear explosions. They only produce controlled reactions, not uncontrolled ones. All nuclear explosions are banned by international treaties anyway, not just weapon-related ones. The phrasing used is "or any other nuclear explosion".

It's true that reactors like the JET come close to the break even (Jet about 60 odd percent I believe) but the main problem is keeping the reactor on line for a decent time. I believe that JET isn't able to run for more then a few minutes. About ITER, as I said I fully support this project for the overall knowledge we will gain from it but there are so many problems involved in nuclear fussion.

For example I last heard from the head, chief whatever he's called of the energy research department of my university that one of the problems they are struggling with right now is that according to the current calculations ITER will eat away about 10 centimeters of he's surrounding wall every month it's running due to bombardments of particles and the tremendous heat. That means you'll need a very thick wall around the fussion material, problem with this is that you won't be able to extract most of the heat necassery to produce electricity. These kind of problems aren't really solved in a few years because we simply have to work with the materials nature have provided us with. We are talking about temperaturs 10 times higher then the surface of the sun.

About cold fussion, every expert in elementary particles or reactor physics I've ever had the pleasure of speaking discarded the notion of cold fussion as a 'fools dream'

[Morkonan]

The USN has also funded programs for teleportation, invisibility (not the Philly Experiment conspiracy garbage) and a host of highly technical and "strange" projects. Adding fusion to the list isn't unusual.

[Rhaegar1]

The USN has also funded programs for teleportation, invisibility (not the Philly Experiment conspiracy garbage) and a host of highly technical and "strange" projects. Adding fusion to the list isn't unusual.

haha good point.

[Simetrical]

It's true that reactors like the JET come close to the break even (Jet about 60 odd percent I believe) but the main problem is keeping the reactor on line for a decent time. I believe that JET isn't able to run for more then a few minutes.

Yes, that's true. We're a long way yet from anything useful, but it seems like we might well get there sooner or later. In our lifetimes, maybe not.

About cold fussion, every expert in elementary particles or reactor physics I've ever had the pleasure of speaking discarded the notion of cold fussion as a 'fools dream'

Yeah, I'm not saying it's likely.

[Sphere]

Inertial confinement fusion is the only real alternative to an ITER type reactor. However, ITER is now at the stage were the power production is largely sorted out, just the containment materials and heat exchange systems are the big stumbling blocks. ICF still hasn't really past the power production stage.