/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11952121]

How far away are we from efficient nuclear fusion reactors?

[Anonymous No.11952127]

>>11952121
we can't even build an inefficient one yet

[Anonymous No.11952138]

>>11952121
About 20 blocks

[Anonymous No.11952148]

about 50 years

[Anonymous No.11952163]

>>11952121
unironically 30 years

[Anonymous No.11952173]

>>11952121
25-30 years

[Anonymous No.11952178]

>>11952121
They have problems with Quantum time lines. Every time the research progress 5 years further. The reactor jumps 5 years into the future.

There for its always 30 years and we need to solve Quantum-tunneling first.

[Anonymous No.11952183]

>>11952121
that shit is like 40 ft tall

[El Arcón No.11952193]

In 2011, I say the positive definiteness theorem for the 0-component of the universe's 4-momentum means that conservation of 4-momentum must require that two different universe left the big bang in different directions through time. There's theorem, the ADM theorem, and it says the 0-component of the whole universe is positive number in the convention where binding energy is negative. So, in the sense the universe has vanishing in 3-momentum due to all left/down/forward momentum being exactly offset by right/up/backward momentum, a universe moving the other direction through time is required for the big bang to respect to conservation of momentum. My idea isn't radical. Others' ideas that the big bang doesn't conserve momentum are radical. I build a whole model with negative time in it. In 2012, a quantum oprics guy, Rubino, said, "If there's negative time then there ought to be negative frequency since frequency is inverse time." He did a Fourier analysis and didn't throw away the negative frequency modes as per usual, and then he looked for them in his experiment. He found them, pic related.

>Negative frequency resonant radiation
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2689

[Anonymous No.11952206]

>>11952121
The idea of ITER is that if you build one big enough it should work, but we could see some surprises. Flow stabilized Z-pinches are interesting right now, because they can be made using much less resources than ITER. As in a university research project rather than a huge international effort.
>>11952127
NIF would like a word with you. They've found the most inefficient way to build a fusion reactor. ITER at least has the possibility of making more power than put in. NIF is hopeless.

[El Arcón No.11952210]

Later in 2012, Rubino et al wrote this paper:
>Soliton-induced relativistic-scattering and amplification
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0256
This is my understanding of the result: Lasers are monochromatic and in phase so laser physics is very simple compared to, for example, light bulb physics. Since laser beams are in phase, you can easily create phase structures inside the beams. I think they crossed a few beams to make a constant surface of E=0 inside the laser beam where E is the electromagnetic field. This is also the boundary condition giving the surface of a piece of metal in classical EM, and I think this surface of E=0 phase lock in the crossed beams is the relativistic inhomogenity "soliton" where the solitonic character follows from the E=0 condition. I think they observed the negative frequency resonant beam shooting out of the piece of virtual metal as a free energy beam. I call it stimulated emission from the vacuum such that it is more or less like stimulated emission in atomic physics except at the level of second quantization rather than atomic first quantization. This is what led to "golf rumors" and this is the reason Lockheed suddenly announced "truck-sized" fusion reactors in 2014. They are small because all you need is an optical table and a boiler. There is no fusion. If there is free laser energy without nuclear reactors, there will be little reason to pursue commercial fusion.

[Anonymous No.11952213]

>>11952206
Ah yes Big Bang heresy. Better watch you self you might become suicidal.

[El Arcón No.11952217]

Also, I solved the problem of classical electrogravity in 2013, pic relared.. Electrogravity is the theory needed to develop UFO-style tech which would make Jetsons-type flying cars possible. If you can have a free energy Jetsons car, then they won't be able to fool anyone with the fake version of the USA they built in Antarctica so they want to make sure free energy flying UFO cars never get here. Also, the oil cartel's vice grip will fall off of the figurative testicles of mankind and they don't like that either.

[El Arcón No.11952219]

JT's sons

[El Arcón No.11952229]

Sometimes I get excited and don't proof read at all.

In 2011, I said the positive-definiteness theorem for the 0-component of the universe's 4-momentum means that conservation of 4-momentum must require that two different universes left the big bang in different directions through time. There's a theorem, the ADM theorem, and it says that the 0-component of the momentum of the whole universe is a positive number in the convention where binding energy is negative. So, in the sense that the universe has vanishing in 3-momentum due to all left/down/forward momentum being exactly offset by right/up/backward momentum, meaning that the big bang conserved 3-momentum, a universe moving the other direction through time is required for the big bang to respect conservation of 4-momentum. My idea isn't radical. Others' ideas that the big bang doesn't conserve momentum are radical. My idea is that the big bang is normal, not special, and I built a whole model with negative time in it so that a big bang could conserve 4-momentum. (Actually, I question the existence of the big bang at all but positing such an event motivates my argument for negative time.) In 2012, a quantum optics guy, Rubino, said, "If there's negative time then there ought to be negative frequency since frequency is inverse time." He did a Fourier analysis and didn't throw away the negative frequency modes as they usually do in quantum optics, and then he looked for them in his experiment. He found them.

That should read much better :)

[Anonymous No.11952240]

>>11952121
About the same time that the JWST will launch.
Just around the corner

[Anonymous No.11952343]

>>11952183
>40 ft
how much is that in racoon noses?

[Anonymous No.11952383]

>>11952121
Until we reach godhood and can bend the laws of physics themselves, never. There is no free energy. Entropy rules all.

[Anonymous No.11952415]

Fusion is impossible, it will never be done

[Anonymous No.11952614]

>>11952121
~15 years.

[Anonymous No.11952763]

>>11952415
Stars do fusion all the time

[Anonymous No.11953040]

>>11952121
The saying for the past 40+ years is 20+ away from stable fusion.

[Anonymous No.11953064]

ARC

[Anonymous No.11953183]

>>11952138
1 block = 1 meter FYI

[Anonymous No.11953471]

>>11952121
i have a question.
all this energy generation is all about transformation of potential.
Coal > generate heat > steam > motion > electricity
nuclear fiction > generate heat > steam > motion > electricity

does nuclear fusion follows the same path?
Fusion > generate heat > steam > motion > electricity

[Anonymous No.11953532]

>>11953471
>does nuclear fusion follows the same path?
Yes. There are some theories/ prototypes that use direct energy conversion but we're already really, really good at getting the energy out of hot water so thats what the first generation of fusion reactors will use.

[Anonymous No.11953550]

>>11953471
actually nuclear is special because most of the time you want to use electricity to create light, but radioactive material already produces light!
so instead of going:
Fusion > generate heat > steam > motion > electricity > light
you can skip all that and go:
glowing rock > light

[Anonymous No.11953556]

>>11952121
Just wait two more decades bro

[Anonymous No.11953569]

>>11953550
light?
but all equipment and machines uses electricity to run.

[Anonymous No.11953576]

>>11953569
You can use the radiative heat of a mass of material, like Pu-240, to directly generate heat. Like a Peltier device, except backwards. It’s not very scalable, but RTGs are small and work well enough.

[Anonymous No.11954100]

>>11952383
Fusion isn't free energy though; you need a steady supply of hydrogen, and fusing it into helium basically moves it into a lower energy state; you would have to input the same amount of energy to split the helium back into hydrogen.

>>11952415
We have been able to create fusion reactions with net positive energy release for more than 60 years; unfortunately effectively containing and using nuclear bombs for energy would both be expensive & a bitch of engineering problem. We have been able to do contained fusion reactions for just as long (see the Farnsworth Fusor); but sadly so far these reactions take more energy to sustain than they produce. The hard part is doing it in a contained, energy positive way.

[Anonymous No.11954106]

Is it true that fusion power is "only" four times more efficient than fission power?

[Anonymous No.11954119]

>>11952121
god damn it you idiots stop talking about meme energy. is it nice that people are working on it ? yes. is it a good solution? not really.

the plasma is contained by magnetic fields preventing it from burning everything. guess what that means that what isnt held by the magnetic field inside the chamber is a vacuum. heat doesnt like being transmitted through a vacuum it sort of likes stuff to be present much like sound. light can bypass this as a conduit but then your not harvesting all that heat just the heat generated by the light which would be less than 1% of the yield from the plasma

you cant dump water on the plasma. the damn thing has a critical problem with thermal transfer due to the fact that you dont want it melting anything. otherwise you have to pulse the magnetic fields which germany was adamant about staying with permanent magnets. dissimilar metals layered over each other with cooling on the other side gives you electricity but its all this mind numbing bullshit where you need to keep the plasma contained but cant harvest heat really with it contained because you just had to fuse atoms

[Anonymous No.11954152]

>>11952415
Anyone with high school science can build a fusion reactor.

[Anonymous No.11954161]

>>11952178
based department?

[Anonymous No.11954217]

The biggest hurdle with usable fusion is achieving ignition, right? Bringing the fusion reaction to the point of heating itself, so little or no artificial heating is necessary. The only time this has been achieved so far is in nuclear weapons, by first detonating a fission primary. Couldn't this principal be used for igniting a fusion reactor as well? Obviously not talking about some setting off some multi-kiloton warhead, but rather a very small fission charge on the order of a couple grams to kickstart the fusion reaction.

[Anonymous No.11954656]

>>11952121
How about this: we could make a huge internal combustion engine with h bombs going off inside the cylinders.

[Anonymous No.11955309]

>>11952121
about tree fiddy

[Anonymous No.11955332]

>>11953576
rtgs are inefficient af m8

[Anonymous No.11955349]

>>11953183
>t. Hillbilly country millennial

[Anonymous No.11955383]

>>11954119
You don't know what you're talking about. Around 80 percent of the energy from fusion is carried by outgoing neutrons, which are absorbed by the tokamak walls, converting that energy to thermal energy.

[Anonymous No.11956322]

>>11952121
Infinitely far. The sun is not a thermonuclear reactor.

[Anonymous No.11956342]

LFTRs could be developed for a fraction of the cost.

[Anonymous No.11956551]

>>11954119
you're clueless

[Anonymous No.11956553]

>>11952121
150 million km

[Anonymous No.11956566]

>>11954106
Each D-T fusion event releases 17.6 MeV (2.8 x 10-12 joule, compared with 200 MeV for a U-235 fission and 3-4 MeV for D-D fusion). a. On a mass basis, the D-T fusion reaction releases over four times as much energy as uranium fission

[Anonymous No.11956701]

>>11952343
about tree fiddy

[Anonymous No.11956923]

>>11956322
EU schizo faggot get the fuck off the board already.

[Anonymous No.11956925]

>>11956553
HA

[Anonymous No.11956959]

>>11952121
About 93 million miles
Gawd is vry1 on /sci/ fukin stupid?
An y'all thin us dah future of dah wurl
Bunch of needle dik kornholers

[Anonymous No.11957007]

>>11954106
>efficient

[Anonymous No.11957019]

>>11954217
Not achieving but sustaining. Ignition has already been achieved but for only few tens of seconds.

[Anonymous No.11957029]

3-5 years. Prepare your anuses.

[Anonymous No.11957068]

>>11957029
With modern superconductors it might be feasibly that close, but realistically it's unlikely to actually get implemented that fast. In the real world, shit moves kind of slow.

[Anonymous No.11957187]

Nuclear fusion is the energy of the future, even in the future.

[Anonymous No.11957195]

>>11957068
>>11957068
Won't need superconductors.

[Anonymous No.11957201]

>>11957195
inb4 electric universe schizo

[Anonymous No.11957329]

>>11952219
What's the point of having a bubble if the kid is just going to stick his arm out of it?

[Anonymous No.11957373]

>>11952121
50 years from now
add one year to now every year

[Anonymous No.11957378]

>>11957373
No.

[Anonymous No.11957415]

>>11954217

Ignition's as simple as an H-bomb, the challenge is in containing and controlling the plasma then harnessing electrical power from it. It's a materials science challenge revolving around magnets, that the Japanese and Americans may have solved.

[Anonymous No.11957709]

>>11952121
>efficient
this will never happen