/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5512709
Here's the article:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/02/external-review-reaffirms-hurdles-for-nuclear-fusion-superlaser.html

>>5512709
Bumping for any breakthroughs concerning fusion.

Most of the articles I find are about failures.

>>5512709
and to think some journalist made her pose with the failure.

>explains her expression.

fusion works and has worked in the past, we haven't gotten cold fusion to work yet though

>>5512738
We know it possible, but feasible as an energy source? That's the major problem.

>cold fusion

gtfo, nigga

We haven't gotten an energy payout from fusion, that is estimated to be between 50-80 years before that becomes a reality. The USDOE and I think ITER are trying two different methods to may a full scale fusion reactor that would give energy, if that helps.

Why bother when the sun will work just fine at least as long as homo sapiens is relevant? We can go SimCity and just beam microwave energy from giant solar arrays in space.

>>5512753
>that is estimated to be between 50-80 years before that becomes a reality.
so every researcher and their predecessors are content in kicking the can down the road without progress?

Sounds like some budgets and grants need to get cut.

>>5512753
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iter
ITER is supposed to produce 10x imput power just ten years from now.

>>5512771
>thinks the progress is not happening/is too slow
>better cut funds
Well that logic is complete shit, also there is constant progress you are just not aware of it.

>>5512771
>"So you've got your multi-billion dollar fusion laboratory. How's the progress coming, Doc?"
"Progress? LOL, NO. We're all about our shortcomings here in the Fusion Lab. I've resigned the possibility that I'll make any actual break throughs, So I just buy shit and build REALLY expensive lasers that don't do anything. I just blame my interns if there's a fuck up, I'm retiring next year."
>"Wow, Doc, you're a complete self-serving dick who makes science look bad. You're a fraud."
"Yep, that's fusion, mother fucker!"

>>5512798
I think you should give funds to people who don't tell you "We'll figure it out in 50-80 years. Who gives a shit I'll be retired then dead by then."

>>5512818
Well good thing they are not giving funds to those people, instead they fund fusion at ITER.

Also
>implying spending money on research like that would even be nearly the worst thing governments spend money these days

>>5512831
I've never said anything about taxes or the government.

I implied "Don't fund jackasses who plan on no progress and dick."

If someone isn't willing to try some crazy shit and not give up before they start, they don't deserve the funds. Make them a lab tech.

>>5512709

well, you can assume fusion is impossible, or you can recognise that humans are just too stupid to crack it.

we need an einstein to do it. someone unconstrained by grant funding and all that other bullshit, who can create a concept and build it.

or, fusion might already be developed, and hidden from the public, in order to retain the military advantage fusion gives, for as long as possible...

>>5512970

We're making progress, ok?
https://www.efda.org/2005/12/50-years-of-lawson-criteria/

We'll never be able to make Urea only living organisms can do that

Feminists: Sex dolls will never have a market because they don't have souls!

>>5512751
>Has hasn't heard of muon catalysed fusion
>Not knowing the department of energy recommends research into pons fleichman type cold fusion

>>5513049
>doesn't know muons are shit-tier as particles and decay faster than his mom blows the mailman
>making the muon about as viable as his assumed father's semen

>>5512709
Not at these funding levels no, not for decades at least. The only reason the meme of "20 years away" has been continuing for 40 years is because funding for the damn project has been continually cut for 40 years. Here is a chat made in the 1970s that outlines the future of fusion research at different funding levels. I want to remind people that the fusion research projects have met or even exceeded every goal they have aimed for in the past 30 years, despite the shitty level of funding. So it's not like there has been no progress, it's just been at a snail's pace, but they still keep making breakthroughs, it would be at lightning speed if their funding was increased 10 times.

>>5512818
It's not so much figuring it out as it is getting the "Goldilocks Condition" for the reactor, which they estimate with enough trials would take that long. Also, loos like everyone keeps saying ITERs got this shit anyway, so who knows?

>>5512738
Yes it "works", but so far, it takes more energy than it can put out. Also, I don't recall any reactors running for any considerable length of time.

This isn't to say there hasn't been any progress. Current test reactors have yielded much better results than their predecessors. There are also more types of reactor designs than there were before.

>>5513128
Also, research, in the US at least is funded by the government. The problem is that the government doesn't want to throw much money at something when they won't see any returns for a decade or two. Especially if it's not a sure thing to begin with.

>>5512713
They oversold NIF, with the all too predictable results. NIF management didn't learn from magnetic fusion's PR mistakes.

>>5512709
The problem is all the progress is too technical for the layman, and magnetic fusion programs are careful not to promise too much. Just look at Alcator being cut from the budget: they framed it as basic research for the future, not about fusion power in ten years.

If you want the latest, read up on H mode (which is actually pretty old but not well explained) and advanced tokamak confinement modes. But you will need a lot of plasma physics and electrodynamics to keep up.

>>5512970
>in order to retain the military advantage fusion gives, for as long as possible...
Actually that is very probable.

But military research (as we know it) is excessively expensive, redundant and weak. If they "cracked it" I'd be amazed.

>have you ever seen them design an airplane or a tank? Fuckballs.

i got some hope for general fusion, they have a solid method to work from (magnetic target fusion)

>>5513064
>things will go faster if we give them more money
this generally works when it's one of those "we know what to do, there aren't any fundamental barriers, let's crack it"

fusion is "we have no idea what's causing these setbacks, or even how to begin to tackle them (chaotic nature of contained plasma, ect)"
where the more money = more progress association starts to break down.

MCF and NIF are both long term back-burner projects, it doesn't need huge amounts of cash, just time to develop theories about what's going on, and try lots of different things to get around problems.

>>5513380
Calling any fusion method "solid" is just asking for the universe to shoot you down.

>>5513384
>NIF
>doesn't need huge amounts of cash
Pick one. $5 billion dollars is hardly "back-burner."

>>5513391
well, there's no instance of "oh man we're within an order of magnitude", it's more like "NIF and ITER already surpassed what we need for this, five years ago"

what i meant was it needs to be back burner, since pumping more money into it will not result in an appropriate return, except possibly some cast-off research into high energy plasma and such, which we would get anyway with less money, albeit somewhat slower

again; "more money=faster progress" is a flimsy claim

>>5513618
I dunno what you're talking about; the Lawson criterion is a pretty good figure of merit, and we're getting closer to it as time goes by.

So what's the answer? Less money, faster progress? No, I didn't think so.

By bother about fusion when we got enough uranium and thorium to last for thousands of years?