fusion reactors that make more energy than they consume

[Anonymous No.5955794]

I have read that getting the magnetic field to become the correct shape is quite difficult, but scientists have been working on this problem for years.

Why is this taking so much longer than fission energy did?

When do you think fusion will be commercially available and widely used?

[Anonymous No.5955805]

>>5955794
Fission:
>Piss off some neutrons to boil water

Fusion:
>create 100 million degree plasma reciprocating in a circle being controlled and held within a perfectly formed magnetic field, using the stray electrons in the plasma to diffuse into electricity by technology we don't have yet

Tokamaks are incredibly complex, but so far our best hope for sustainable fusion reaction

[Anonymous No.5955813]

>>5955805
>reciprocating in a circle
Your undergrad is showing.

[Anonymous No.5955825]

>>5955805
its a torus, not a circle.

and in all likelihood, they will be used to boil water as well..

[Anonymous No.5955839]

>>5955794
>Why is this taking so much longer than fission energy did?

Unlike in Starcraft, researching a new technology doesn't take a set amount of time.

[Anonymous No.5955843]

>>5955825
>acktshually.jpg

[Anonymous No.5955847]

>>5955825
I like to hope it won't

[Anonymous No.5955846]

>>5955839
So my thousands of hours clicking virtual space marines hasn't prepared me for the rigors of actually technology?

[Anonymous No.5955866]

Extremely simplified explanation:

Fission: Stick fuel rods in water. Water boils. Use control rods to keep shit from getting out of hand.

Fusion: Heat hydrogen to 100 million degrees Kelvin so it ionizes. Keep pumping in hydrogen while using a precisely formed magnetic field to keep it the from touching the walls and extinguishing itself. Oh and the heat generated boils water.

[Anonymous No.5955905]

Is plasma fusion more viable than laser fusion? - and I saw a google tech talk where some guy said he could do it using plasma in a different way, then disappeared

And what happened to Thorium?

[Anonymous No.5955979]

>>5955905
Thorium is still being looked into, but it's still fission, so it has a stigma. However it is the most promising fissile material tocreate energy from.

[Anonymous No.5957311]

Oh, a fusion thread. again.

>>5955905
Laser fusion is also plasma fusion. Just ridiculously wasteful.

And no, not every fusion concept produces heat to boil water. There are ICF concepts to directly harvest the alpha-particle energy by a charged exterior grid, inducing directly usable currents.

[Anonymous No.5958687]

Because its harder to make something than it is to break something?

[Anonymous No.5958692]

So why isn't there a way to directly convert the free energy into electrons in a wire to form a current yet?
Whatever the reaction, it's always channeled into boiling water.
Why can't we just turn the energy into electrons?

[Anonymous No.5958703]

you guys...what if we, like, run out of electrons??

[Anonymous No.5958716]

>>5958703

Photoelectric effect, nigger.

[Anonymous No.5958721]

It's just 50 years away.

It is... always... 50 years away.

[Anonymous No.5958740]

I seriously think once we get this fusion thing figured out, we'll be admitted to some type of space government.

[Anonymous No.5958748]

>>5958692

>Why isn't there a way to directly convert lead into gold?

[Anonymous No.5958751]

>>5958740
That's FTL drive, silly

[Anonymous No.5958765]

LOCKHEED TO THE RESCUE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor
http://www.fusenet.eu/node/400

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, IT WORKS SOMETIMES

[Anonymous No.5958766]

Did someone say "fusion"?

Perhaps I should introduce you to three models banned by the science establishment which complement each other perfectly. Another method of fusion that can simplify any reactor design to a tabletop size. The three models I am referring to are LENR, Accretion Solar Model, and Expanding Earth Model. Any questions?

[Anonymous No.5958768]

>>5958766
>el cold fushion conshipiracy face XD

[Anonymous No.5958785]

What does /sci/ think of polywell reactors?

[Anonymous No.5958803]

>>5958765
I think Skunkworks only does aviation stuff.

[Anonymous No.5958805]

>>5958803
Mostly, but they are the division working on the reactor.

[Anonymous No.5958813]

>>5958785
looks like art

[Anonymous No.5959059]

>>5958765

Just like they tackled and solved SSTO.

[Anonymous No.5959066]

>>5955794
because they had to invent plasma physics before they could build fusion generators and they under estimated how hard that was.

[Anonymous No.5959079]

>>5958765
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

so if this works we pretty much have cheap energy for the world?

[Anonymous No.5959080]

Fusion will only work when there is an abundance of gravitational forces to sustain the reaction.

It's impossible without it.

[Anonymous No.5959083]

>Fusion. No one mentions neutron contamination. High energy non-charged particles aren't easy to deal with.


>>5958748

You mean like the photoelectric effect?

>>5959079
What does gravity have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.5959084]

>Fusion. No one mentions neutron contamination. High energy non-charged particles aren't easy to deal with.

>>5959079
What does gravity have to do with anything?

[Anonymous No.5959086]

fission already solves the problem, fusionfags.

[Anonymous No.5959090]

>>5959086
too dangerous

[Anonymous No.5959094]

>>5959090
What is this, 1980?

[Anonymous No.5959095]

>>5959090

A matter of perspective. One man's danger is another man's acceptable parameter.

[Anonymous No.5959539]

>>5958765

I've been looking for more info on this for ages.

+1

[Anonymous No.5959566]

>>5958765
Well that's cool.
Is it actually an energy production solution or just a fancier hydrogen engine? This produces more energy than the hydrogen production line?

[Anonymous No.5959734]

>>5958765

inb4 it doesnt work and you never hear about it again