NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Though fascinating, I'm a little sceptical. How could we contain a reaction liek that with earthlly materials? Remember, this thing is supposed to get hotter than the core of the sun, and the only thing that shields us from that is millions of miles of gas and empty space, and you still get a sun burn if you stay outside to long. What is several feet of totanium composite, and concrete gonna do to protect us from the massive energy output? From what I hear, it's just super powered electro-magnets containing the reaction. That's why the the thing is shaped like a taurus. What happens if that breaks down? Sure the reaction will stop, but then you have 100 million degrees Celsius material. That would melt the taurus in a trillionth of a second! And if that crap gets out it could possibly cause a chain reaction destroying the surrounding area, if not worse.

Are we willing to risk that? Sure, the amount of energy we could get is attractive, but how can we be sure it will work? And we need to be sure, because it could have devastating consequences if it goes wrong.

If it'll work, I'm for it. I'm pro nuclear.

If it'll work, I'm for it. I'm pro nuclear.

Same here, but how can we be sure? The only way we have really ever used fusion is as bombs, and very little research.

Supposably a fusion reaction has enough radiation to kill all life on Earth. Would we want those spread throughout?

LOL well nuclear fusion will not be popular in Australia. People already hate having 1 nuclear facility.

There are better ways of securing energy. But I won't discuss that here.

How could we contain a reaction liek that with earthlly materials?

You cant. Kick ass Giant Magnetic Fields are used. And They have already been built. So It does work and is more or less provn safe. This will be the First Self Sufficient Fusion reactor, I'ts supposed to put out more than goes in. So It'll be able to be used as a commericial power supply.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

... best get an electric car. :P

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

Uhh, sorry, we're not *quite* ready to start sticking fusion reactors into cars yet. Until they develop really small fusion reactors or practical fuel cells, oil will still be necessary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

Uhh, sorry, we're not *quite* ready to start sticking fusion reactors into cars yet. Until they develop really small fusion reactors or practical fuel cells, oil will still be necessary.

You could perhaps just use the thermal energy of the reactor to produce mechanical energy (with a loss) and use that energy again to produce electrical energy (with a loss) and store that electrical energy in cells (with a loss) and then use that stored energy to drive with your electric car (again, with a loss)

You could perhaps just use the thermal energy of the reactor to produce mechanical energy (with a loss) and use that energy again to produce electrical energy (with a loss) and store that electrical energy in cells (with a loss) and then use that stored energy to drive with your electric car (again, with a loss)

You could, but it'd be more expensive than gas. Americans, at least, wouldn't go for it, in general.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

If you are referring to America...

The USA imports only 10% of its oil from the Middle East. America's largest oil supplier is Angola (a nation with a benevolent dictator - pro US of course :wink: )

This idea that the Middle East is dictating world oil prices is absurd. But, all the same I want to turn them back into a bunch of squabbling sand-dwellers as much as the next angered conservative. So...clean fuel it is.

You could perhaps just use the thermal energy of the reactor to produce mechanical energy (with a loss) and use that energy again to produce electrical energy (with a loss) and store that electrical energy in cells (with a loss) and then use that stored energy to drive with your electric car (again, with a loss)

You could, but it'd be more expensive than gas. Americans, at least, wouldn't go for it, in general.

i doubt your premisse that it is more expensive than gas. If you use a fusion reactor you need:

to start it:
-an expensive reactor
-a massive amount of energy to ignite it

and to fuel it:
-water

the result is that you can get a massive amount of energy out of water and therefor it can be cheaper than oil. (can, that does not mean it has to be cheaper)

How would the magnet be maintained? Would it run off of its own power supply, once a little help from wherever turns the reactor on? That way, I suppose, it would be foolproof, as the only way the field would turn off is if the reaction stopped. You'd have to be sure that it was a strong enough magnet, though.

I think its supposed to go in bursts. Not Continuous.

Keep in mind. This will also be an experimental reactor and will only create power in the 100's of megawatts range. Which might seem like a lot, but in terms of what fusion is capable of, its not a lot.

Also.. We've should have gone a long way since Fusion was first discoved. (in the 1940's issit?).

I always thought the best energy resource was to have all the people run on a treadmill at least 30 mins a day. That would solve overweight problems as well. (Not energy-feasible though).

You'd need to feed em.

This will be the First Self Sufficient Fusion reactor, I'ts supposed to put out more than goes in. So It'll be able to be used as a commericial power supply.

The Tokamak reactor was a self-sufficient fusion reactor for a time. It was in operation back in 1994. Apparently, the reaction needs a temperature of at least 400 million Kelvin to be self-sufficient energy-wise.

Are you sure the Tokomak was a self sustaining reaction. I thought it only generated a few kilowatts. An experimental reactor.

Yes, Tokamak was a self-sustaining reaction, at least for a short period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

If you are referring to America...

The USA imports only 10% of its oil from the Middle East. America's largest oil supplier is Angola (a nation with a benevolent dictator - pro US of course :wink: )

This idea that the Middle East is dictating world oil prices is absurd. But, all the same I want to turn them back into a bunch of squabbling sand-dwellers as much as the next angered conservative. So...clean fuel it is.
Not true. The US imports 17% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Second is Venezuela, with 13%. Even in Africa, Nigeria exports more to the US than Angola.

Though fascinating, I'm a little sceptical. How could we contain a reaction liek that with earthlly materials? Remember, this thing is supposed to get hotter than the core of the sun, and the only thing that shields us from that is millions of miles of gas and empty space, and you still get a sun burn if you stay outside to long. What is several feet of totanium composite, and concrete gonna do to protect us from the massive energy output? From what I hear, it's just super powered electro-magnets containing the reaction. That's why the the thing is shaped like a taurus. What happens if that breaks down? Sure the reaction will stop, but then you have 100 million degrees Celsius material. That would melt the taurus in a trillionth of a second! And if that crap gets out it could possibly cause a chain reaction destroying the surrounding area, if not worse.

Are we willing to risk that? Sure, the amount of energy we could get is attractive, but how can we be sure it will work? And we need to be sure, because it could have devastating consequences if it goes wrong.
Don't worry. They've felt confident enough to produce a similar, albiet smaller, reaction ten years ago at Princeton. However, I personally put more faith in the efforts of the University of Rochester, who seek to use a petawatt laser to fuse atoms together. Already, their Omega laser produces the second hottest spot in the solar system once every hour. Today, the city of Rochester still stands.

Yes, Tokamak was a self-sustaining reaction, at least for a short period.

Wait doesnt that just mean getting it really hot then leaving it alone and while it cools it still reacts till it gets too cool to do so?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

If you are referring to America...

The USA imports only 10% of its oil from the Middle East. America's largest oil supplier is Angola (a nation with a benevolent dictator - pro US of course :wink: )

This idea that the Middle East is dictating world oil prices is absurd. But, all the same I want to turn them back into a bunch of squabbling sand-dwellers as much as the next angered conservative. So...clean fuel it is.
Not true. The US imports 17% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Second is Venezuela, with 13%. Even in Africa, Nigeria exports more to the US than Angola.

Not so. Please do some research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

If you are referring to America...

The USA imports only 10% of its oil from the Middle East. America's largest oil supplier is Angola (a nation with a benevolent dictator - pro US of course :wink: )

This idea that the Middle East is dictating world oil prices is absurd. But, all the same I want to turn them back into a bunch of squabbling sand-dwellers as much as the next angered conservative. So...clean fuel it is.
Not true. The US imports 17% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Second is Venezuela, with 13%. Even in Africa, Nigeria exports more to the US than Angola.

Not so. Please do some research.
I did. It's in National Geographic, May edition. Perhaps we imported most of our oil from Angola at one time, but that's no longer the case. Besides, if we did, why isn't Angola flushed with cash?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

If you are referring to America...

The USA imports only 10% of its oil from the Middle East. America's largest oil supplier is Angola (a nation with a benevolent dictator - pro US of course :wink: )

This idea that the Middle East is dictating world oil prices is absurd. But, all the same I want to turn them back into a bunch of squabbling sand-dwellers as much as the next angered conservative. So...clean fuel it is.
Not true. The US imports 17% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Second is Venezuela, with 13%. Even in Africa, Nigeria exports more to the US than Angola.

Not so. Please do some research.
I did. It's in National Geographic, May edition. Perhaps we imported most of our oil from Angola at one time, but that's no longer the case. Besides, if we did, why isn't Angola flushed with cash?

Fusion is safe, clean, inexpensive to run and just generally good news for all things like sunshine and bunny rabbits. The problem is of course getting it to work. If it does though, it'll basicly be free energy for everyone forever.

Fusion is safe, clean, inexpensive to run and just generally good news for all things like sunshine and bunny rabbits. The problem is of course getting it to work. If it does though, it'll basicly be free energy for everyone forever.
That's why I want some form of an effort to succeed. It'll liberate the West from the shackles imposed on us by OPEC. It'll allow us to grow at a fast pace. And most importantly, it'll allow industrialized civilization to thrive and survive forever. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, it'll be a new morning for America.

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, it'll be a new morning for America.

I wonder what Monty Burns would say? :P

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, it'll be a new morning for America.

I wonder what Monty Burns would say? :P
Don't know. Who is he?

Fusion is safe, clean, inexpensive to run and just generally good news for all things like sunshine and bunny rabbits. The problem is of course getting it to work. If it does though, it'll basicly be free energy for everyone forever.
That's why I want some form of an effort to succeed. It'll liberate the West from the shackles imposed on us by OPEC. It'll allow us to grow at a fast pace. And most importantly, it'll allow industrialized civilization to thrive and survive forever. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, it'll be a new morning for America.And it'd probably be good news for those lesser, non american and european countries too, right?

Fusion is safe, clean, inexpensive to run and just generally good news for all things like sunshine and bunny rabbits. The problem is of course getting it to work. If it does though, it'll basicly be free energy for everyone forever.
That's why I want some form of an effort to succeed. It'll liberate the West from the shackles imposed on us by OPEC. It'll allow us to grow at a fast pace. And most importantly, it'll allow industrialized civilization to thrive and survive forever. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, it'll be a new morning for America.And it'd probably be good news for those lesser, non american and european countries too, right?
Of course. It's just that, I hate to admit, I'm too emotional over Reagan's death. I'm sorry, but expect me to say stuff like this for a few days. I'll be quiet after then.
Anyhow, I doubt it'll effect Europe as much as the US, as Europe uses less electricity, and far more people use mass transit. But I could be wrong.

Fusion is safe, clean, inexpensive to run and just generally good news for all things like sunshine and bunny rabbits. The problem is of course getting it to work. If it does though, it'll basicly be free energy for everyone forever.
That's why I want some form of an effort to succeed. It'll liberate the West from the shackles imposed on us by OPEC. It'll allow us to grow at a fast pace. And most importantly, it'll allow industrialized civilization to thrive and survive forever. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, it'll be a new morning for America.And it'd probably be good news for those lesser, non american and european countries too, right?
Of course. It's just that, I hate to admit, I'm too emotional over Reagan's death. I'm sorry, but expect me to say stuff like this for a few days. I'll be quiet after then.
Anyhow, I doubt it'll effect Europe as much as the US, as Europe uses less electricity, and far more people use mass transit. But I could be wrong.Well, I'll forgive you for that.

I don't think that America that will benefit the most. In fact, I'd say that the people most likely to benefit from cheap energy are the big population centres; China, India and Brazil. Cheap energy will allow them to industrialise at a much more rapid rate.

LOL Considering that the first wont even be built in the U.S
And I dont see how this will make things better, It will just be cleaner energy. Even If you had all cars running off electricity powered by this the grid would fail.

LOL Considering that the first wont even be built in the U.S
And I dont see how this will make things better, It will just be cleaner energy. Even If you had all cars running off electricity powered by this the grid would fail.You don't see how cheaper, cleaner energy is better?

It will be good But I dont see how it will make the world a magical happy land.

And keep in mind. In wont be cheap, frankly ever. I'd say it wont be Widespread for at least 30-50 years.

It will be good But I dont see how it will make the world a magical happy land.

And keep in mind. In wont be cheap, frankly ever. I'd say it wont be Widespread for at least 30-50 years.Well isn't that handy cos thats almost exactly how long we'll have before we run out of fossil fuels.

Fusion reactions don't give off any radiation except alpha particles. Which are only harmful if ingested directly.

You dont remember the old Energy Resource and Limitations thread do you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3735017.stm
As I'm a proponet of liberating Western civilization from fossil fuels, this article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not so much for the proposed project sites, but for the fact that it may happen.

Yes! Soon after this is done we will no longer depend upon those crackpots in the Middle East for oil!!

If you are referring to America...

The USA imports only 10% of its oil from the Middle East. America's largest oil supplier is Angola (a nation with a benevolent dictator - pro US of course :wink: )

This idea that the Middle East is dictating world oil prices is absurd. But, all the same I want to turn them back into a bunch of squabbling sand-dwellers as much as the next angered conservative. So...clean fuel it is.
Not true. The US imports 17% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Second is Venezuela, with 13%. Even in Africa, Nigeria exports more to the US than Angola.

Not so. Please do some research.
Mr Pheonix losing touch again? Shocking...shocking... :twisted: The USA imports only 10% of its oil from the Middle East.
Annual Crude Oil Imports, 2002 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/current/txt/table_21.txt) (1,000s barrels):
Persian Gulf: 807,640 - ~24%
Total: 3,336,175 - 100%


Latest Monthly Crude Oil Imports, March 2004 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_35.txt) (1,000 barrels):
Persian Gulf: 71,684 - ~23%
Total: 312,266 - 100%

America's largest oil supplier is Angola.
Saudi, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are by far the biggest exporters of crude to the U.S. Angola is only 9th on the 2002 list and 6th for March 2004.

This idea that the Middle East is dictating world oil prices is absurd.
Your ignorance is absurd. Middle East produce in excess of 30% of world's crude. If Middle Eastern oil exports are cut for whatever reason, oil price will rise worldwide, and a portion of exports from other regions (say, Nigeria) destined to the U.S. might be redirected to ME's erstwhile customers (China, for example), provided the Chinese are willing to pay a higher price.

It's Smeagol-Gollum in disguise! IGNORE Cannon Fired!

It's Smeagol-Gollum in disguise! IGNORE Cannon Fired!
Sadly, the facts cannot be. :wink:

It's Smeagol-Gollum in disguise! IGNORE Cannon Fired!
Sadly, the facts cannot be. :wink:

At least his comrade-in-arms. Therefore my IGNORE stands. You know conservatives have low tolerance levels. Mine has been reached for today (prior non NS events have left me rather tired).

Fusion reactions don't give off any radiation except alpha particles. Which are only harmful if ingested directly.

You are incorrect. Fusion reactions also give off gamma rays. I think that this is where the energy for the reaction comes from.

Just imagine: lots and lots of power, plus balloons for the kids.

It's Smeagol-Gollum in disguise! IGNORE Cannon Fired!
Sadly, the facts cannot be. :wink:

At least his comrade-in-arms. Therefore my IGNORE stands. You know conservatives have low tolerance levels. Mine has been reached for today (prior non NS events have left me rather tired).
"Pheonix",
The conspiracy extends even deeper than that: Smeagoll and I have discovered a secret passageway into your mind. It is we who make you post inanities to the General forum -- and we charge other folks a fee to come in and poke around. :twisted:

Ok...how much red cordial have you been drinking...really?

Anyone remember Cold Fusion?

Though fascinating, I'm a little sceptical. How could we contain a reaction liek that with earthlly materials? Remember, this thing is supposed to get hotter than the core of the sun, and the only thing that shields us from that is millions of miles of gas and empty space, and you still get a sun burn if you stay outside to long. What is several feet of totanium composite, and concrete gonna do to protect us from the massive energy output? From what I hear, it's just super powered electro-magnets containing the reaction. That's why the the thing is shaped like a taurus. What happens if that breaks down? Sure the reaction will stop, but then you have 100 million degrees Celsius material. That would melt the taurus in a trillionth of a second! And if that crap gets out it could possibly cause a chain reaction destroying the surrounding area, if not worse.

Are we willing to risk that? Sure, the amount of energy we could get is attractive, but how can we be sure it will work? And we need to be sure, because it could have devastating consequences if it goes wrong.
Don't worry. They've felt confident enough to produce a similar, albiet smaller, reaction ten years ago at Princeton. However, I personally put more faith in the efforts of the University of Rochester, who seek to use a petawatt laser to fuse atoms together. Already, their Omega laser produces the second hottest spot in the solar system once every hour. Today, the city of Rochester still stands.

That would be cold fusion, right? I've heard something about super chilled hydrogen atoms being smashed together by lasers. It's still being experimented with though, and has suposedlly been done once, though the experiment could never be repeated, and thus holds no scientific value.

Fusion is safe, clean, inexpensive to run and just generally good news for all things like sunshine and bunny rabbits. The problem is of course getting it to work. If it does though, it'll basicly be free energy for everyone forever.
That's why I want some form of an effort to succeed. It'll liberate the West from the shackles imposed on us by OPEC. It'll allow us to grow at a fast pace. And most importantly, it'll allow industrialized civilization to thrive and survive forever. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, it'll be a new morning for America.And it'd probably be good news for those lesser, non american and european countries too, right?
Of course. It's just that, I hate to admit, I'm too emotional over Reagan's death. I'm sorry, but expect me to say stuff like this for a few days. I'll be quiet after then.
Anyhow, I doubt it'll effect Europe as much as the US, as Europe uses less electricity, and far more people use mass transit. But I could be wrong.Well, I'll forgive you for that.

I don't think that America that will benefit the most. In fact, I'd say that the people most likely to benefit from cheap energy are the big population centres; China, India and Brazil. Cheap energy will allow them to industrialise at a much more rapid rate.
I didn't say the US would benefit the most. In fact, fusion may hurt us in the near-term, considering that a big sector of the economy are petroleum companies. But, Brazil, and especially China are gonna benefit bigtime. China will benefit because they can grow much quicker without overheating. Brazil would benefit, because it'd discourage the use of fossil fuels and other pollutants, leading it to use the world's most valuable peice of real-estate: the Amazon. Not clear it for farming, of course, but exploit it for medicines, minerals, and a variety of exotic plants. India I can never see getting past the point they are at now, though that's another story.

Fusion reactions don't give off any radiation except alpha particles. Which are only harmful if ingested directly.

You are incorrect. Fusion reactions also give off gamma rays. I think that this is where the energy for the reaction comes from.

Just imagine: lots and lots of power, plus balloons for the kids.

SKEET SKEET SKEET SKEET

Awesome

Fusion reactions don't give off any radiation except alpha particles. Which are only harmful if ingested directly.

You are incorrect. Fusion reactions also give off gamma rays. I think that this is where the energy for the reaction comes from.

Just imagine: lots and lots of power, plus balloons for the kids.
However, radiation is nothing new. We know how to contain it, anyhow. Besides, it'll give off far more power with less radiation, and since magnets will have to contain the heat, I bet they will also aid in containing radiation (though I really am ignorant about physics in general).

I think that they use the gamma rays to heat water, to produce the power.

Oh dear...

Whether or not fusion reactions emit gamma radiation is beyond me. Alpha particles COULD be emitted-I know that Helium is made-and there's a strong possibility that this has been ionised.

I know that fusion reactions DO emit neutrons-but these aren't much to worry about, really.

I have never heard of gamma rays being used to heat things-its is simply regular heat that these reactions produce (and light etc) and it is cause by the overall mass decreasing (use em=mc^2).

And magnets would do bugger all to gamma rays. Try bending light with a magnet.

Oh dear...

Whether or not fusion reactions emit gamma radiation is beyond me. Alpha particles COULD be emitted-I know that Helium is made-and there's a strong possibility that this has been ionised.

I know that fusion reactions DO emit neutrons-but these aren't much to worry about, really.

I have never heard of gamma rays being used to heat things-its is simply regular heat that these reactions produce (and light etc) and it is cause by the overall mass decreasing (use em=mc^2).

And magnets would do bugger all to gamma rays. Try bending light with a magnet.
Light can be bent with strong magnets.

I can't find the article unfortunately, but I have to say, even to those that aren't enthused with fusion, we need to keep trying, and here's why.
Usually, oil consumption in the US rises 2-3% every year. It has from January 2003 to January 2004. However, oil consumption has dropped due to high prices, and from June 2003 to June 2004, oil usage in the US climbed only 0.4%. Prices are affecting consumption, and the economy may be eventually stuck in limbo for this. And something tells me that oil prices won't dip below $30 a barrel, and when they do, it's gonna be few and far in between. Do we want such a shaky supply?

I can't find the article unfortunately, but I have to say, even to those that aren't enthused with fusion, we need to keep trying, and here's why.
Usually, oil consumption in the US rises 2-3% every year. It has from January 2003 to January 2004. However, oil consumption has dropped due to high prices, and from June 2003 to June 2004, oil usage in the US climbed only 0.4%. Prices are affecting consumption, and the economy may be eventually stuck in limbo for this. And something tells me that oil prices won't dip below $30 a barrel, and when they do, it's gonna be few and far in between. Do we want such a shaky supply?

Purly Euclid, I hope they are right. I'm sick of smelling the stink of fossil fuels. It's time we get out the equivellent of the energy "stone age" and move on to something else more effiecient. Although I'm still a big supporter of solar power, wind power and fuel cells.

I can't find the article unfortunately, but I have to say, even to those that aren't enthused with fusion, we need to keep trying, and here's why.
Usually, oil consumption in the US rises 2-3% every year. It has from January 2003 to January 2004. However, oil consumption has dropped due to high prices, and from June 2003 to June 2004, oil usage in the US climbed only 0.4%. Prices are affecting consumption, and the economy may be eventually stuck in limbo for this. And something tells me that oil prices won't dip below $30 a barrel, and when they do, it's gonna be few and far in between. Do we want such a shaky supply?

Purly Euclid, I hope they are right. I'm sick of smelling the stink of fossil fuels. It's time we get out the equivellent of the energy "stone age" and move on to something else more effiecient. Although I'm still a big supporter of solar power, wind power and fuel cells.
Well, I support fusion for different reasons than you, but I do hope it, or something close, is developed.
You know what I'm surprised about, however? The possibilities of antimatter. A droplet could power New York City for one day, as it is 300 times stronger than a fusion reaction. Sure, it's dangerous to work with, but what if we can harness it? They're working with it actively at CERN.

I can't find the article unfortunately, but I have to say, even to those that aren't enthused with fusion, we need to keep trying, and here's why.
Usually, oil consumption in the US rises 2-3% every year. It has from January 2003 to January 2004. However, oil consumption has dropped due to high prices, and from June 2003 to June 2004, oil usage in the US climbed only 0.4%. Prices are affecting consumption, and the economy may be eventually stuck in limbo for this. And something tells me that oil prices won't dip below $30 a barrel, and when they do, it's gonna be few and far in between. Do we want such a shaky supply?

Purly Euclid, I hope they are right. I'm sick of smelling the stink of fossil fuels. It's time we get out the equivellent of the energy "stone age" and move on to something else more effiecient. Although I'm still a big supporter of solar power, wind power and fuel cells.
Well, I support fusion for different reasons than you, but I do hope it, or something close, is developed.
You know what I'm surprised about, however? The possibilities of antimatter. A droplet could power New York City for one day, as it is 300 times stronger than a fusion reaction. Sure, it's dangerous to work with, but what if we can harness it? They're working with it actively at CERN.

Well, at least we are on the same side, yes? The truth is health and life are the most imporatant things to me.

I can't find the article unfortunately, but I have to say, even to those that aren't enthused with fusion, we need to keep trying, and here's why.
Usually, oil consumption in the US rises 2-3% every year. It has from January 2003 to January 2004. However, oil consumption has dropped due to high prices, and from June 2003 to June 2004, oil usage in the US climbed only 0.4%. Prices are affecting consumption, and the economy may be eventually stuck in limbo for this. And something tells me that oil prices won't dip below $30 a barrel, and when they do, it's gonna be few and far in between. Do we want such a shaky supply?

Purly Euclid, I hope they are right. I'm sick of smelling the stink of fossil fuels. It's time we get out the equivellent of the energy "stone age" and move on to something else more effiecient. Although I'm still a big supporter of solar power, wind power and fuel cells.
Well, I support fusion for different reasons than you, but I do hope it, or something close, is developed.
You know what I'm surprised about, however? The possibilities of antimatter. A droplet could power New York City for one day, as it is 300 times stronger than a fusion reaction. Sure, it's dangerous to work with, but what if we can harness it? They're working with it actively at CERN.

Well, at least we are on the same side, yes? The truth is health and life are the two most important things to me.

Oh dear...

Whether or not fusion reactions emit gamma radiation is beyond me. Alpha particles COULD be emitted-I know that Helium is made-and there's a strong possibility that this has been ionised.

I know that fusion reactions DO emit neutrons-but these aren't much to worry about, really.

I have never heard of gamma rays being used to heat things-its is simply regular heat that these reactions produce (and light etc) and it is cause by the overall mass decreasing (use em=mc^2).

And magnets would do bugger all to gamma rays. Try bending light with a magnet.
Light can be bent with strong magnets.

"Electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot interact directly with light photons since photons have no charge. EM waves do not bend light, at least enough that we can measure. If radio waves, for example, bent light appreciably then a transmitting radio station would look blurry. But stations don’t go blurry."

http://www.wonderquest.com/extinctions-safetyglass-magnetslasers.htm

So no it can't.

Oh dear...

Whether or not fusion reactions emit gamma radiation is beyond me. Alpha particles COULD be emitted-I know that Helium is made-and there's a strong possibility that this has been ionised.

I know that fusion reactions DO emit neutrons-but these aren't much to worry about, really.

I have never heard of gamma rays being used to heat things-its is simply regular heat that these reactions produce (and light etc) and it is cause by the overall mass decreasing (use em=mc^2).

And magnets would do bugger all to gamma rays. Try bending light with a magnet.
Light can be bent with strong magnets.

"Electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot interact directly with light photons since photons have no charge. EM waves do not bend light, at least enough that we can measure. If radio waves, for example, bent light appreciably then a transmitting radio station would look blurry. But stations don’t go blurry."

http://www.wonderquest.com/extinctions-safetyglass-magnetslasers.htm

So no it can't.
I guess I believe you. I was told by my science geek friends that light can be bent by electromagnets, but I guess that's wrong.
But it doesn't take much to stop light. Surround any fusion production center with a concrete wall, and gamma waves will stop dead in their tracks.

Oh dear...

Whether or not fusion reactions emit gamma radiation is beyond me. Alpha particles COULD be emitted-I know that Helium is made-and there's a strong possibility that this has been ionised.

I know that fusion reactions DO emit neutrons-but these aren't much to worry about, really.

I have never heard of gamma rays being used to heat things-its is simply regular heat that these reactions produce (and light etc) and it is cause by the overall mass decreasing (use em=mc^2).

And magnets would do bugger all to gamma rays. Try bending light with a magnet.
Light can be bent with strong magnets.

"Electromagnetic (EM) waves cannot interact directly with light photons since photons have no charge. EM waves do not bend light, at least enough that we can measure. If radio waves, for example, bent light appreciably then a transmitting radio station would look blurry. But stations don’t go blurry."

http://www.wonderquest.com/extinctions-safetyglass-magnetslasers.htm

So no it can't.
I guess I believe you. I was told by my science geek friends that light can be bent by electromagnets, but I guess that's wrong.
But it doesn't take much to stop light. Surround any fusion production center with a concrete wall, and gamma waves will stop dead in their tracks.

The only way that light can be bent, as far as I know, is not with magnets, but with a large gravity field, such as that of a galaxy. The effect is called gravitational lensing, and is used a lot in astronomy to observe distant objects.

Well, I support fusion for different reasons than you, but I do hope it, or something close, is developed.
You know what I'm surprised about, however? The possibilities of antimatter. A droplet could power New York City for one day, as it is 300 times stronger than a fusion reaction. Sure, it's dangerous to work with, but what if we can harness it? They're working with it actively at CERN.

It needs to be said that (At least as far as I know) they can play around with Anti-matter all they want, but the cant make it in any large quantities, and they cant store it. More or less as soon as they create it it destroys itself, or so I hear.

The only way that light can be bent, as far as I know, is not with magnets, but with a large gravity field, such as that of a galaxy. The effect is called gravitational lensing, and is used a lot in astronomy to observe distant objects.

Yes, that's the only way I know of too. However, it doesn't have to be as big as galaxies-the sun bends light to a degree.

And yes, a (thick) concrete wall would shield from most gamma rays.

Well, I support fusion for different reasons than you, but I do hope it, or something close, is developed.
You know what I'm surprised about, however? The possibilities of antimatter. A droplet could power New York City for one day, as it is 300 times stronger than a fusion reaction. Sure, it's dangerous to work with, but what if we can harness it? They're working with it actively at CERN.

It needs to be said that (At least as far as I know) they can play around with Anti-matter all they want, but the cant make it in any large quantities, and they cant store it. More or less as soon as they create it it destroys itself, or so I hear.
Well, I read Dan Brown's interesting prequal to The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons. He claims what he writes is true, but offers no bibliography. However, the book's opening scenes were at CERN. They made, and I know this is true, the Particle Accelarator, a tube 27km in circumfrence, and it makes relatively large quantities of antimatter. He did, however, have an interesting theory. Antimatter can be stored using an electromagnetic field. Even if it is fiction, the concept is worth expirementing with.

Any more comments about antimatter? Don't be shy to post. Tactical Grace, the energy pessimist across the pond from me, has gone to bed, and he won't give us his doom and gloom predictions.

C'mon, I want someone to post.

Please?

Sif He's a pessmist......ok well anyway.

I'll look this up but I think you'll find what is in the Davinci code is mainly Fiction :D

For a start relatively is still, Im sure, Really small. And If it were true then they would be using it to power spaceprobes by now.

Sif He's a pessmist......ok well anyway.

I'll look this up but I think you'll find what is in the Davinci code is mainly Fiction :D

For a start relatively is still, Im sure, Really small. And If it were true then they would be using it to power spaceprobes by now.
Dan Brown claims it's, as he said on the Today Show, "100% true", but he offers no bibliography. So I'm not sure whom to believe, but I'm confident the art history in both books is true.

Yes, anti-matter can be held by electromagnetism, but it would have to be in a complete vacuum.

He just trying to sell the book. Thats the point with storing Anti-matter. Its pretty much impossible to get a perfect vaccume. And I read a while ago that the Anti-matter they can make may not actually be Anti-matter but a cheapo equivilant. But Im not sure what became of that.

wooooeaw

*Grave Digging*

iLock

Stephanie
Game Moderator