/sci/ - Science & Math

because religion

>>5191513
we are spending money on
elections
war
military
more military
bullshit
more bullshit
even more bullshit

give up
there is no hope for actual useful scientific advancement

cell phones, we need better smartphones, iPad mini not enough, we need ipad in between mini and full size, and then ipad double mini to the power of 2 which is table sized tablet with 6G connectivity, and then a smartphones that you can stick up your ass and it will still work and then a smartphone that can.........................

It is because we have been bogged down with all this stupid shit like who can make the next I phone 5 instead of in the industrial revolution where people thought, "What if I could make a device to light my house efficiently" Also testla

Plus we have successfully fused deuteriums to create helium but it is highly inefficient to actually be useful at this current moment

>>5191532

Jesus says, fusing is wrong

So if we discovered fusion the westbrough baptist church would Pickett it

We've had fusion since the 50s.

>>5191534
>>5191535
This is why I like /sci/

My thoughts exactly, but I explain this stuff to other people and everybody just look at me like I'm crazy.

Come to /sci/ not only do other agree with me, but I don't even have to say it, other people here already know.

It's because it's complicated.
Don't worry America, once we finish it, you can piggyback all you want.

Mainly this.

>>5191513
Mainly this.

>>5191534
>>5191535
Because there is no science behind how we make smaller iphones?
Can you even into spintronics?
>implying better electronics doesn't benefit science all around

>>5191553
You people can whine about lack of money for fusion research all you want, but the fact of the matter is that practical fusion power would be a bigger nuclear weapons proliferation threat than any fission reactor.

>>5191513
>>5191535

We dont even many nuclear power plants (Something we are familiar with) because of ignorant common misconceptions about nuclear science...

Here's some examples

>Split only 1 atom and the Armageddon happens
The "nuclear explosion" is when a fission reaction achieves critical mass basically where it becomes a large nuclear clusterfuck of reactions
>Nuclear fallout would destroy our planet
Given that it isnt good to have radioactive material BUT in a nuclear we produce a small amount of radioactive Xe and Sr but since it is a small amount it can be stored easily, once we put time and effort into research
>Fusion is just as harmful as fission to the environment
FUCK NO it creates non radioactive He (safe) outta heavy water that is available in canada

the conditions for fusion are really hard to achieve in a lab

also this >>5191553

>>5191562
wat

>>5191562
>nuclear weapons proliferation threat
what does that mean?

>>5191562
Not really, there arnt any nuclear meltdowns in fusion because it uses non radioactive materials

Fusion does not equal Chernobyl

Worst case seriousness a fuck load of heat gets released on our planet... Not disastrous

>>5191562
Ignorant 12 year old straight out of middle school chemistry class detected

>>5191562
>practical fusion power would be a bigger nuclear weapons proliferation threat than any fission reactor.
lolwut

>>5191562
Not really.

Per event, Fission creates more energy

but per unit mass, Fusion is leaps and bounds ahead of fission

>>5191513
>implying we don't
>how do you think plutonium is manufactured

>>5191579

>Dumbass detected

If you force U 238 to beta decay it become Pu 238, NOT FISSION, a natural atomic behavior, fusion is fusing two atoms together not making nuclear reactions

Take high school chem plz and drink some of this

>>5191565
Transmutation is how you get plutonium. What you need are free neutrons.

A breeder (fission) reactor produces a small excess of free neutrons, allowing the fissile material in the reactor to be doubled in 10-100 years. Breeder reactors are frowned on as major weapon proliferation risks.

A fusion reactor can produce a large excess of free neutrons, accompanied by far less energy per neutron, without consuming any fissile material at all, allowing plutonium to be produced and removed for use in weapons at far greater rates.

>>5191583
>producing plutonium in tokamak reactors
Nigga I don't know what you've been reading but you should stop.

>>5191579

Damn forgot another point, Beta decay doesnt release very much energy plus Pu is REALLY fucking toxic to everything, impractical

>Be 16
>Be this anon
>Failed chem, goes on sci because smart
>Regurgitate something from chem teacher said, not sure
>Sees repercussions for smoking pot b4 class

>>5191583

IF you fuse 2 deuteriums ( H 2) and create He, there is virtually no neutron radiation but a shit load of heat produce, and its end result is heat so If you need a lil over view

2H + 2H --> 4He + Heat (Ideally)

>>5191563
this. the easiest way to harvest fusion is solar energy. Keep the reaction buried under megameters of hydrogen and helium so we can just harvest the light. Doing fusion in a reactor means we need to 1) sustain the reaction at higher temperatures since we can't keep the plasma as dense as the core of the sun 2) contain it and 3) deal with neutron flux, which damages everything it touches.

>>5191553
boy is that a depressing graph. It would be even more depressing if it included the yearly military funding

>>5191583

So you have a shit load of toxic weapon fuel + cheap energy Wat do?

Your logic

>>5191582
ah, no. you inject an alpha particle, also known as helium, with a particle accelerator. check your perodic table.

>>5191594
I can't believe people are ignorant of this.

All proposals for D-T tokamaks power plants are breeders. You have the fusion core, you have the neutron multiplier blanket (because the fusion only produces 80% as many neutrons as it consumes tritium atoms), and you have the lithium breeder blanket to make tritium.

Although there are proposals for beryllium or isotopically-tailored boron multiplier blankets, the best neutron multiplier blanket would be uranium, since fusion neutrons are sufficiently energetic to cause even U238 to fission, making a large excess of neutrons easily available, and also significantly increasing the power output of the station.

The most practical D-T tokamak design would be effectively be a fusion-fission hybrid and produce large amounts of Pu239, suitable for use in nuclear weapons, as a byproduct.

>>5191600

Particle accelerators speed up atoms to a tits load of speed (Creating heat... see definition of temp if you dont kno wat im talking about) Deuterium collide

Deuterium dont create a lot of neutron radiation, most of it creates He, so it would need to be tweaked to create little neutron radiation, BUT if we contain the radiation to a minimum it would be safe to react

Plus the idea of science is to figure out how to do what is thought to be impossible

>>5191513
We are almost here:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
https://life.llnl.gov/
https://life.llnl.gov/what_is_life/learning_center/index.php

>>5191600
>It would be even more depressing if it included the yearly military funding
Well over $600B annually. Next in line is China, which isn't even spending a sixth as much.

>>5191605
You were talking about nuclear transmutations not fusion BTW, alpha particles are not technically Helium because it is highly unstable bi product of transmutations

>>5191606
D-T reactors are god tier dont argue Pu reactors would create a toxic bi product

>>5191513
We are almost here:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
https://life.llnl.gov/
https://life.llnl.gov/what_is_life/learning_center/index.php

>>5191553
See >>5191618
We might be able to reach Fusion before the end of the year.

>>5191624
>We might be able to reach Fusion before the end of the year.
Just what exactly do you mean by that?

>>5191626
The NIF might be able to generate a fusion reaction that produce more raw energy than it cost to create it.

The commercial application of it, tough, might still take a decade or two.

>>5191598
>2H + 2H --> 4He + Heat (Ideally)
lolno

First of all, the initial fusion power plants will almost certainly be D-T, not D-D. But D-D is a far better neutron source than D-T, because you don't need neutrons to make deuterium, whereas you need to breed tritium from lithium. So it's just a "neutrons out" process with no "neutrons in" cost.

D + D never --> 4He

Only two D-D fusions reactions have to be seriously considered:
D + D --> 3He + n
D + D --> T + p

...and the one that produces tritium also goes on:
D + T --> 4He + n

(the 3He will also be consumed)
D + 3He -> 4He + p

So the total reaction by either path is:
D + D + D --> 4He + p + n

So D-D fusion is going to produce as many neutrons as helium nuclei. If you can do D-D fusion, you can REALLY crank out the plutonium.

>>5191631
Still for the Pu reactions, I realize that it actually is a D-T rxns (Sorry my bad a lil rusty on le subject)

Did you ever consider that Pu is deadly to all existence of life

and that it is highly fissionable, meaning if one of them pesky neutron bi products hit dat Pu your looking at an easy nuclear meltdown, plus that gives us murrikans more nukes and we all want that

So if you dont wanna make nukes id think you'd say put it in a fission reactor, but wat happens to the nuclear... i think its Sr and Bi for Pu fission? Sr is a bitch cuz it replaces Ca in molecules and unstable Bi that is pure cancer

>>5191641
The point was that fusion reactors would be usable for nuclear weapon production, and the technology is a major proliferation risk, not that it's impossible to use them without producing plutonium.

>>5191658

I thought we were talking about efficient energy creation techniques not weapon making

D-T reactions are best for energy creation

>Why do we still not have fusion?

>>5191661
We were talking about fusion technology and why it has received limited funding.

A consideration I brought up was that it would create a major proliferation risk.

>>5191672
I don't see how it would brought more risk than the civil use of Fission (who was designed to create bomb material at the same time) is already doing.

It wouldn't be a game changer in that area.

>>5191672

If we dont
>"Pump out the Pu"
We wont have this issue for proliferation, and besides fuck those people and their religious Jesus conservative views, who gives a fuck about stupid people

>we

>>5191678
I've pointed out why: you produce more neutrons per unit energy released, and you don't need to consume fissile material to produce fissile material.

There's tremendous potential to jump straight from no nuclear program to nuclear arsenal overnight.

>>5191685
The development of the technology enhances its availability to everyone.

>>5191606
Fusion-fission hybrids are the worst of both worlds.

>>5191633
Does NIF include laser efficiency? I suspect they don't. Even with their ongoing "ignition campaign" they haven't delivered.

>>5191672
Isn't U-238 already weapons material? If you need U-238 to get Pu then I don't see how this is a proliferation risk.

>>5191697
>Isn't U-238 already weapons material?
Uh... no. U238 is what's known as "depleted uranium".

>If you need U-238 to get Pu then I don't see how this is a proliferation risk.
All plutonium is produced from U238.

>>5191617
upwards transmutations are fusion. check the definiton of the word fusion. it's fusion. that's what fusion means and that's what happens. it's just not an energetic chain reaction.

>>5191710
Okay, I see. Well, in your view, then, any neutron source is going to be a proliferation risk. It's much easier to build a neutron source than it is to build a net-positive power fusion reactor so it's not like the risk is anything new.

>>5191697
>Mfw he thinks U238 is fissionable

The whole idea of fusion energy reactions are to not create nuclear waste products

>>5191713
Beta decay is not fusion, its when a neutron releases an electron from its nucleus, when can make an atom stressed to these conditions

Where did you see fusion in that paragraph

>>5191720
THe whole thing is if you cant research the technology and get substantial research that allows you to get rid of the neutron radiation anything is a proliferation risk

>>5191534
>>5191535
>>5191543

Do...Do you think people a hundred years ago were all slaving away in physics labs trying to develop lightbulbs? Because, you know, that's not true. Most people were thinking "oh man, electricity? that is such a dead end, i'll develop a cooler-looking oil lamp and make billions"

We're actually spending more resources on research now than we did way back then. Don't be an idiot.

Besides, we have "fusion". Fusion is easy. Cold fusion is hard.

>>5191748
>Besides, we have "fusion". Fusion is easy. Cold fusion is hard.
That's a dirty word.\ after the recent history fiascos. You mean "sustainable, net-positive-output fusion".

>>5191754
Takes so much longer to write, though.

>>5191756
Say "cold fusion" and you'll throw people off from taking you seriously. Sad but true.

Even now, there are cold fusion scams at the fringes of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

>>5191744
You're never going to get rid of the neutrons, though. I think some dastardly plan to set a cask of U-238 next to a Tokamak is just not realistic.

>>5191697
>Does NIF include laser efficiency
What do you mean Laser efficiency?

From what I know, Laser is at the core of the process they use to ignite fusion, so they'll most likely make sure that their Lasers are as efficient as possible.

>>5191774
I guess he's asking whether you're comparing "laser energy in to energy released", which is cheating, or something more useful like "total energy to power the equipment vs. total energy captured in a usable form).

>>5191772

Nothing is not realistic with science, given that your not an engineer... but I belevie there is a way to get rid of the neutrons, if coat the reactor with some fission able material we make that into a chain reaction and once it goes outta critical mass we take the excess nuclear material and just blast it off into the majesty of space.... using nuclear power rockets of course (It would not be as expensive as you think it would be... if you want you can achieve critical mass in your back yard)

>>5191798
>ake the excess nuclear material and just blast it off into the majesty of space
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

This stuff is an absolute RARITY in the cosmos and you're throwing it AWAY at a huge cost?

>>5191618
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/national-ignition-facility-mother-of-all-boondogg
les

>>5191774
>>5191781
The problem with the NIF lasers is that efficiency is abysmal, less than 1%.

>>5191781
I don't know if it is really cheating, it will still be a big step. So far, the only case where we have been able to create a Fusion reaction that released more energy than the cost of its ignition was with Atomic Bombs.

No controlled reaction so far have been able to generate an energy gain, even on the raw level.

Anyway, NIF is an experimental reactor. its purpose is to ignite a reaction that will wield more energy than it cost to do it.

It is not build to gather that released energy, but to measure it and study the reaction.

The LIFE reactor, on the other hand, that will be build on the basis of NIF's finds, will create the same reaction, but will be build to gather and use that energy.

So basically, if NIF is able to generate enough energy such as a LIFE reactor would be able to work on it, then it can be called a success.

>>5191823
>I don't know if it is really cheating
It's cheating if you pretend that your lasers on 100% efficient in your calculations on energy_in/energy_out.

>>5191818
They account the whole energy used by the laser, not just the one that would actually trigger the reaction.

>>5191831
Oh, I thought you were talking about the efficiency of exploitation of the energy produced.

Anyway, they don't. They account the full energy consumed by the laser.

>>5191812
Neverhteless, it has already found experimental use to study materials under very high Pressure. Something only the NIF can provide.

>>5191807

What the fuck are we going to do with unstable Xe, and unstable Sr (Which causes most radiation poisoning)

>>5191823
Your such a debbie downer

>>5191863
>debbie downer
What's that?

>>5191823
LIFE is a pure PR play. Everyone knows that direct-drive is the future for ICF.

Because we need to get back to the real elements like Fire, Air, and Water obviously -.-.....

>>5191893
Life was designed with the purpose of working with current, already mastered technology, with the exception of the ICF itself who is researched at the NIF, thus just requiring the ICF to be added to it to actually work.

Nevertheless, what is direct-drive.

>>5191543

>everybody just look at me like I'm crazy.

well, i wouldn't say "crazy". maybe "naive" or "fairly dull" or "hopefully not a product of the american university system because that makes me sad about humanity's future"

>>5191923
Dude, LIFE depends on all sorts of stuff that doesn't exist yet. Stuff like liquid metal has been talked about but is fundamentally untested. >1 Hz laser rep rates are pure fantasy at this point.

Direct drive is where you hit the fuel pellet directly with the laser. NIF uses a Hohlraum, which turns the laser energy into x-rays.

>>5191534
>Also Tesla
This make everyone else's argument invalid, well played sir, well played.

Actually, I just signed up for computer science because there is no money in physics. What I really wanted to do, and what I can make money on are two different things.

>>5191936
Doesn't the transformation into X-rays emissions provide a more homogeneous pressure on the pellet? I would believe this would have more chance of success.

>>5191936
But from what I can get, LIFE's design could work as well with Direct Drive as Hohlraum.

>>5191812
Oh my god. Who the hell writes these things?

>"lol hey these dumbasses are wasting money by shooting lazers lololol"

FUCK do they not understand how scientific research goes? It's fucking UNPREDICTABLE. That's the point. Pulling money out of basic research and development is the #1 way to destroy your economy in the 21st century.

>Comments: "Yeah fuck em!"

So there's part of your answer of why we have no fusion.

Because OP is a cock gobbler.

>>5191960
That's exactly what they argued when NIF was designed. But research on direct drive has come a long way, and the future ICF facilities (e.g. HiPer) are direct drive.

>>5191977
Sure, the concept is basically the same. The biggest issues are rep rate and energy extraction, which are unproven.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that LIFE won't work. I just think it's highly premature, and given the precarious funding situation, it's clearly a PR move.

>>5191994
and shit posting beins.. thank you underage

>>5191992
>more rage fuel
>for the rage fuel god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7quWDfGnYk

>>5192014
Rageworthy part starts 3 minutes in. Rage god, if you really exist, please kill her.

>>5191513
70% of thread is derp

I did some minor research, for a freshman college assignment

currently being tested in JET (joint european reactor) are the ingition protocols and other things

ITER (International thermonuclear experimental reactor) will be the next model up, will experiment a lot. will be built modularly so you can swap shit out. look up ITER site for more info

eventually, they will build a reactor called DEMO, it will be definitivebuild and know what ignition protocol to use etc.

extra facts: fusion is safe. even if a plane crashes into it theres no meltdown or anything relatable

deuterium is separated from ocean water
tritium is made by splitting lithium into tritium. (yes fission can take place in fusion plants)

>>5192075
cont.

ITER is being funded by a buttload of countries, while the fusion-by-laser project is purely USA IIRC. Its mostly a fallback in case fusion doesnt work out

these concerns are kind of legit because their plan up till now is taking normal hydrogen, heating it to a plasma state, using magnets to contain the plasma and stop it from touching the walls. Then, they shoot frozen pellets of tritium and deuterium where its needed from a sort of spud gun, at high enough speeds to penetrate the plasma. Produced helium is stucked off and stored

>>5192082
NIF will be repurposed to a publicly broadcast execution facility for terrorist and dissidents within two presidential terms.

>>5192082
Inertial confinement is not a US only endeavour. There are many on going facilities and the EU plans to build a large facility in the coming decade with much greater gains and far lower construction costs than NIF.

>>5192014
>"We will se pigs fly before..."
Considering how fast genetic manipulation is advancing this might be doable in at most a decade.

>>5192102
From what I get from the ITER project, they have to build 3 very large Tokamak, one after the other, using data from the previous one to make the next one. And they are still only building the first one. Even if ITER end up being a more efficient solution, NIF might succeed a few decades earlier.

They are still aiming fro a commercial plant in 2020.

I'm part of a large population that understands fusion isn't possible. Suns are too hot to hold on Earth guys, and it'll never be possible to build something to hold a sun.

>>5192129
I hope you are a troll.
But just in case, google Tokamak.

>>5192149
>Tokamak

Still doesn't address the heat issue that will destroy anything nearby.

>>5192171
It does, actually.

the heated plasma is contained magnetically, the Tokamak itself is completely emptied and has only void, which make that the plasma doesn't touch anything.

>>5192195

If we can control heat that why then why worry about global warming or even volcanoes for that matter?

>>5192200
Because neither volcanoes nor global warming are made out of a plasma that can be magnetically contained and whose neither can the quantity be carefully be controlled.

>that feel when india is building a thorium reactor

Fuck I love india, too bad they raped the ganges river but, hey it's theirs who am I to judge.

>>5192215

Sounds made up.

>>5192227
What?

>>5192235

Seems pretty convenient that a sun, the hottest thing in the universe, can be contained by man, but not something like the heat from a volcano. Seems made up.

>>5192238
Because this isn't actually the sun that is being contained, but something much much much more smaller.

A Tokamak doesn't actually contain the sun, but a plasma made of Hydrogen that is of a ridiculous small quantity compared to what the sun is actually made.

>>5192265

That doesn't sound like fusion then.

>>5192238
>>5192227
>>5192200
>>5192171
>>5192129
>I'm part of a large population that understands
>large population

>>5192280

What's funny is that there are people in the US that actually understand less than I do. Have fun on Mars though.

Most of these were trolls, but I did learn some shit from the posts that came after. Thanks guys.

>>5192272
But it is.
Fusion is the reaction that get Hydrogen to combine to become Helium, which wield energy.

The sun generate Fusion because of its high amount of hydrogen, it's its hydrogen's own weigh that force it to combine and create heat and light.

A Tokamak doesn't use gravity, but magnetic containment to force the hydrogen to fuse together.

In both case, we have a transmutation from hydrogen to helium. That is fusion.

To come back at an earlier remark, Fusion is manageable by men, because it's a small quantity (a few kg) in a small area.

Volcanoes and Global Warming are about very large area in huge quantity, which is to big to be manageable by men.

This is not a matter of too hot, it is a matter of too big.

Y'know I dont' come to Sci often due to my arithmetic qualifications being lost years ago.

But when I do, you brainy motherfuckers make the little nerd in me joyful.

>>5192238
The density of a tokamak plasma is about 10^6 times less then that of air.

>>5192449
I don't get it.
10^6 what less than air?
Isn't that like saying I am 3,000 less dense than you?

>>5192463
You could be 3000 times less dense than me, I don't see the impossibility of that. But I should've said number density, particles per volume.

Sorry, too busy compactifying mah 11 dimensions and I got distracted playing around with AdS black holes and CFT's that have way more particles than anything ever seen out there.

>>5192475
Sorry, it just makes sense as "1x10^-6 times as dense" to me.

>>5191532

>>5191553
according to that graph, a few billionaires could develop that technology by themselves.

holy shit Bill, what are you doing?

because the Green Party