NUCLEAR FUCKING FUSION THIS MUST BE BUILT IF THE HUMAN RACE

File: 1291266859528.png (397KB, 539x765px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 539x765px

Now I'm gonna bump this with girls to get as many eyes, human, robot, code, ayylamo, or whatever, to see it!

File: 1464079736471.jpg (578KB, 695x900px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 695x900px

Also Griffith did nothing wrong

File: 1450816007450.jpg (134KB, 601x1300px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 601x1300px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIoILN_KrhU

JUST FUCKING BUILD IT

File: 7nTVGxY.jpg (981KB, 5616x2092px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 5616x2092px

>>8407373
tokamak design is flawed

l2fusion

>>8407381
these are not girls these are Japanese drawings

>>8407373
>wanting the human race to survive

*puts hand on hip and makes sassy face* oh honey...

>>8407373
Wait untill Volkswagen or Audi builds one just to brag about thier isolation materials

>>8407382
Dongovan is the real black swordsman

>>8407409
There are no girls on the internet. Just arrays of colored pixels.

>>8407373
>NUCLEAR FUCKING FUSION

This is a dead end, and will always be a dead end.

The best fuel is D-T, and releases 80 percent of its energy as neutrons. In other words, it's so radioactive it makes a nuclear fission plant look like a defective sparkler.

The best aneutronic fuel mix is boron-hydrogen, and that is ignition conditions and reaction conditions that are DAUNTING. I'd go so far as to say it's flat-out impossible, given that we've been trying to ignite D-T for sixty fucking years and failing miserably.

Oh, not to mention that boron-hydrogen has TERRIBLE energy density.

For any given amount of engineering effort, you will get much, much more power from a plain old fission reactor than you will a fusion reactor. Fission reactors are so easy to build the first one was literally a pile of fancy charcoal.

Stick with fission, kid. It just works, and it's not nearly as dirty or scary as all the propaganda makes it out to be.

Solar alone can provide far more energy than we need here. There's no pressing need for planetary nuclear fusion.

Now, once we're travelling interstellar distances, it might be a good idea.

But we don't need it here.

>>8407373
Taking fusion courses right now anon, we're trying. In a high level MHD class right now. We're close guys like maybe a decade away ;)

>>8409283
Nah man fusion is they way to go, you can't scale fission up as well as fusion. We're aiming for Dyson spheres, we need more than AP1000s if we want to git gud

>>8409339
>We're close guys like maybe a decade away ;)

Anon, I want you to remember this date.

October, 2016.

Remember it.

Because when you're old and gray in October 2056, and there's still no nuclear fusion plants, I want you to remember that I told you so.

Why am I so confident?

Because I'm old and gray, and I've been hearing this exact same optimistic bullshit since 1976.

"It's just a few years away, guys! Just wait!"

THE PHYSICS DOES NOT LIE

For any amount of engineering effort, you will get ten times the energy from fission as you will get from fusion.

Because fission is easy to ignite, and fusion is bitterly hard to ignite.

Sorry, anon.

>>8409283
>the best fuel is D-T
kek

the easiest fuel to fuse in a TOKAMAK is D-T because TOKAMAKs are fucking shit dead end devices and should be trashed immediatly

there are better fuels for fusion that dont produce neutrons

eg Helium 3
boron
lithium 6/7

>>8407373
>tokomak fusion
your an idiort

>>8409348
That was the joke, I'm glad you got it

>>8409356
>Implying any tokamak currently active is anything but an experiment to increase β by a perfect or two

>>8409356
>>the best fuel is D-T
>kek
>the easiest fuel to fuse in a TOKAMAK is D-T because TOKAMAKs are fucking shit dead end devices and should be trashed immediatly
>there are better fuels for fusion that dont produce neutrons
>eg Helium 3
>boron
>lithium 6/7

Jesus Fucking Christ anon, did you read the rest of my goddamn post?

He3 only exists in real quantities at fucking Jupiter, proton-lithium is shit compared to p-b11, and I fucking talked about how shit p-b11 is.

Wow, anon. Just wow.

>>8407373
We need a quantum energy borrowing machine that produces free energy but also creates particles of negative energy as a consequence. The particles of negative energy doubles as a way to make warp drives or as weapons.

>>8409368

> 'we need magic'

>>8409368
>>8409374
I think this is theoretically possible if Hawking is right about black hole evaporation. Because for Hawking radiation to work, the virtual particles that fall into the black hole must have negative energy in order to decrease the mass of the black hole and also to make the particle that escapes real instead of virtual. All we need to do is create an artificial event horizon somehow.

>>8409368
Haven't you heard? The John Podesta emails already revealed that the ETI are working to bring Zero Point Energy to Earth. But they will not tolerate any military conflicts if it is to happen. All we have to do is elect Hillary Clinton president.

>>8409328
>why want a surplus of energy
You can't be serious

>>8409283
so what about w7x using boron

>>8409283
>neutron radiation
>mattering at all.

Neutrons can be contained and are only an acute issue. The problem with fission is are the wastes products with very long half times that can bioaccumulate. Additionally the fuels for fusion are of low hazard. For a continuously fed fusion system, there should be a low working mass of radioactive material. Current fission systems operate on batch processes with inherently dangerous fuel. They are the epitome of crude and inherently unsafe design.
Finally, the wastes for fusion are quickly decaying or have velocities capable of being quickly dispersed and diluted. The vast majority of the waste is harmless and valuable material (He) too.

>>8409387
Fuck I wish this where true anon. I'd give anything to see unlimited energy and Saudi Arabia collapse in on itself in my lifetime

>>8407373
This will destroy our world.We need pure energy from nature like wind sun water etc

>we all will have it all, forever.
You're delusional, nothing belongs to us.

HURR

SUPER CHEAP SOLAR ENERGY

WE MUST HAVE IT

>implying wishful thinking leads to results

fuck off with your garbage thread. It's nothing new that people want fusion or solar.

>>8409345
You do realise that upscaling is one of the major problems of w7x reactor types? To have to make it about the size of an footballfield to even get more energy out of it then you put it (if you finaly get it to work). Hat that point all the rare earths needed to build the magnets make it completly uneconomical

>>8407373
>BUILD IT

you're being a real help there, kiddo
Are you helping research? I dont think so
Do you spread awareness? On /sci/? Heh
Are you having a seizure? Probably

>>8409374
Now that is what science is after all :^)

>THIS MUST BE BUILT IF THE HUMAN RACE IS TO SURVIVE

Why? There are many fuel sources out there.

>>8409967
Space based solar power is a great idea, the only problem is getting the damn things into space.
>ITS can launch 450 tons to mars, I wonder how many to GEO

>>8409766
>>>8409283 (You)
>>neutron radiation
>>mattering at all.
>Neutrons can be contained and are only an acute issue.

You are not thinking this through.

D-T releases eighty percent of it's energy as neutrons.

If you are running a five gigawatt reactor, that means only 1 gigawatt is released in a form that is usable at all, ie, heat.

4 gigawatts are released as neutrons, but not just any neutrons! These are HOT neutrons, running right around 14 Mev.

IE, they destroy pretty much all matter they impinge upon, especially at the ridiculous fluence levels of a fusion reactor. Can you say activation products?

The result is that DT reactors are Rube Goldberg contraptions that will breed fuel in lithium blankets, somehow filter out all that intensely radioactive tritium (can you say hydrogen embrittlement? with radioactive hydrogen?) and not have any activation products.

The only first wall material that has a prayer of a chance is SiC, and to be honest, you could put those same SiC components in a fission reactor and get ten times the power for half the money.

Why would anyone spend the money on a fusion reactor, when a fission reactor is so much cheaper and easier?

>>8411085

>(You)

son...

>>8407373
General Fusion's design is better for energy production. I just hope it works.

They need to build the full scale model already.

>>8411085
>Why would anyone spend the money on a fusion reactor, when a fission reactor is so much cheaper and easier?
With no plan for the nuclear waste, that statement is extremely stupid or at the least dishonest.

>>8407373
Last week I attended a lecture from one of the lead engineers of MIT's tokamak and I must say that those men will save the planet if their design isn't flawed.

Obviously I can't even begin to fathom the amount of calculations and predictions the multi BILLION dollar joint effort must require.

>>8411149
ITER will save the human race if it is successful

>>8411149
>>8411157
NO, U.

General Fusion.

>>8407407
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X

neat

A problem with standard reactors is particles on the inside are slower than those on the outside causing instability, this spirals them around so the speed is more even.

>>8407373
>THIS MUST BE BUILT IF THE HUMAN RACE IS TO SURVIVE

AGREED! The invention of a stable fusion reactor is second only to the invention of fire in the improvement of humanity

why not just build a self sufficient underground ecosystem and wait for the surface normies to die out? That'll delay the need to invent fusion by thousands of years.

>>8409878
>we need solar
>even though it cant provide for as little as 5% of our needs
fuckin hippies

>>8409376
>All we need to do is create an artificial event horizon somehow.
I mean, what could go wrong, right?

I don't understand why the vortex/ram design isn't being funded more. I feel like anything to do with hugely multiplying our energy production abilities should be more of a focused topic by nations than it already is.

Have you guys heard about the Lockheed Martin skunkworks reactor?

Supposedly they'll have something viable in the next couple of years.

And I agree, we need fusion desperately.

>>8412506
>Lockheed Martin skunkworks reactor?

just looked

absolutely beautiful

>>8411874
We all die.

But I doubt that would happen.

>>8409368
>Zero point energy.

The only way that would work is if we lived in a false vaccum

>>8410649
its can only launch 450 tons to mars with refueling

it's 350t to leo reusable, 550t expendable

>>8407373
What would you say if I told you that all fusion research was set up to fail by greedy petrochemical industries?

>>8409283
>The best fuel is D-T, and releases 80 percent of its energy as neutrons.


Not making thermal neutron shielding to extract thermal energy from the interaction of fast neutrons and shielding material.

Seriously guys?

it's 2016.

>>8409345
>We're aiming for Dyson spheres.
Who is "we"? I have heard of exactly zero people who have actually set out to construct such a structure.

File: LF-ScanningAnalysis.jpg (140KB, 704x570px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 704x570px

Guys, Fusion already exists, FFS.

pic related.. it's catylized fusion.

>>8409283
If we can develop breeder reactors and salf-fuel reactors we'll be good for the future.

I think helion energy will come through, those guys are fucking smart.

>>8409348
>fission won't ever be a thing
>too hard to ignite
>coal will always be the shit
>literally just a hole in the ground and a lighter

The sheer number of different groups attacking is problem right now is somewhat encouraging, but I think we need to remain mindful of extreme challenges posed by nuclear fusion.

the problem reminds me a little bit of the history of the development flight, in which a lot of wrong headed designs failing miserably strongly discouraged people for many decades until I significant breakthrough and understanding allowed to technology to finally actualize itself. To those saying fusion is many years away, what exactly is it we cant do now in fusion that makes it so hard?

>>8414852

We cannot sustain a fusion reaction once it is ignited.

And speaking of ignition, several experiments had a very difficult time achieving the ignition energies required to kickstart the process.

The NIF got close......

>>8414858

....and the net power output of the fusion process IS less than what it takes to ignite the plasma

>>8414862
Net power output implies you're gaining energy from the process while sustaining it.

>>8407407
How can tokamaks compete?