NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay here's a few questions. Given this scale:
MT = until 2020
PMT = 2020+

1. Are fusion reactors in a powerplant MT or PMT?
2. Are fusion reactors in ships/subs/etc MT or PMT?

MT ofcourse.

I'd say MT, according to that scale. The problem currently isn't a matter of building a Fusion Generator, it's a matter of efficiency, which could feasibly be corrected within 15 years.

You mean fusion plants that don't suck in more energy than they put out? PMT most definately, probably around 2040 tech.

Ha-ha-ha! A realistic fusion reactor is FT only, mates.

Efficiency in a Fusion reactor isn't going to be solved for a LONG time.

Right now, we have efficiencies that are, well, negative. A modern-day Fusion reactor generates 1/3 of the power it takes to run the damn thing.

Realistically, think MUCH farther in the future. The only way we can create a contained, safe thermonuclear reaction is with technology we have not yet discovered (nor really understand HOW we could discover it).

If you want a date, try 50+ years. Go with something like a more futuristic Breeder Reactor (they just came out with a new one, like, yesterday. Seriously. It's some new Breeder Reactor that uses fuel from normal Nuclear Fission Plants as fuel.)

Or, if you really want to, a plasma reactor is possible. Not very efficient either, but possible.

Ha-ha-ha! A realistic fusion reactor is FT only, mates.
.
.
.


That guy doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

The world fusion project (name anyone?) has got it pretty much figured out. It basically amounts to building a bigger reactor...but then, thats how the math works out. Funding is being sought right now, and the project (and others) will get it in increasing amounts as energy needs grow. All it amounts to now is an engineering problem.

As it stands, I think the first reactor is due to come online in 10-25 years. It will be ungainly and won't produce much power, but then, it IS a FIRST reactor. Moreover, it's purpose isn't to generate power, it is to try different engineering approaches to figure out the most efficient method. Other reactors are expected to come online as the process figures itself out.

As for the "breeder reactors," well, those have been around for a loooong time, and there are a fair few types. Certainly they are useful, but they have their own drawbacks too.

I suggest you check out wikipedia, do a search for "fission reactors" and for "fusion reactors." There is a LOT of information within those links that should be valuable for both pre and post 2020 nations.

Best of luck!

The name you're looking for is ITER. According to Iter.org they expect it for 2030 to have a working fusion reactor that puts out the same amount of energy that is put in, or maybe even more - claims are for 2050 for a very good fusion reactor. Pushka thinks differently and he's the resident nuclear expert; he claims it'll come out much earlier, so I'll leave the defense of fusion to him...him and I actually have a pretty interesting project coming up.

ITER's being fairly conservative I think, which in this case isn't a bad thing. Like I said, an efficient enough fusion reactor should be had by 2040. I think Tokamak can break even by 2030 (just five years of running time.)

What, are you worried Lay?

I'd much rather power my nation by the burning of fetid corpses but alas, not everyone goes obediently to the government designated "meeting places".

ICly, I salvaged fusion reactors from enemy spaceships that dropped from the sky but only in a limited capacity. I treat them as tempermental, bothersome beasts that our scientists are trying to work out the kinks. They are supposed to be hooked into the main power grid but you think they work all the time? Nope.

I don't know why, but I recall reading a slo-poke nuclear reactor that would be small and safe enough to power every household in the suburbs.

You could probably get away with fusion power stations in MT, if you treat them as a very new, very difficult technology that takes much funding and often suffers problems. But I can't see you getting away with a mobile fusion reactor on a ship until at least PMT.

I see some uneducated people making some rediculuous claims. They say that fusion reactors output less power then it takes to run them. That is in correct, once plasma starts burning it will output 10 times the amount of energy it takes to maintain the reaction. Fusion reactors are definetely MT, the technology to make them exists today, the only reason they have not yet become widespread is the fact that the world population for most part of the 80s and 90s was afraid of the nuclear power in general because of the misconceptions created by the media. Because of that research was limited, although still done, there are plenty experimental fusion reactors, JET for example and finances, people are only now starting to realize how efficient nuclear power is, it will take time for investors to follow the public. Fusion reactors are definitely MT, i might have had doubts if Lay set the mark to 2010, i doubt that by 2010 the investors will change their mind, but by 2020 its for sure, a made deal. Fusion power is realisitic in next 10-20 years i have seen no evidence stating overwise. Infact i seen a lot of evidence of the opposite for example that there are already several experimental working ones.

Also just because you imagine that they don't work all the time doesn't really make your imagination true.

ITER's being fairly conservative I think, which in this case isn't a bad thing. Like I said, an efficient enough fusion reactor should be had by 2040. I think Tokamak can break even by 2030 (just five years of running time.)

TOKAMAK is a container that holds the plasma using magnetic confinement, it has already been used on reactors such as JET and is yet to break. Why would it break? There is no reason for it to break. Inside is complete vaccum so the heat from plasma can not travel through the air, also there is no contact with the walls of the container since the plasma is literrary floating in the air. Please since you guys no so much, tell me what can cause this container to break?

That guy doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

The world fusion project (name anyone?) has got it pretty much figured out. It basically amounts to building a bigger reactor...but then, thats how the math works out. Funding is being sought right now, and the project (and others) will get it in increasing amounts as energy needs grow. All it amounts to now is an engineering problem.

As it stands, I think the first reactor is due to come online in 10-25 years. It will be ungainly and won't produce much power, but then, it IS a FIRST reactor. Moreover, it's purpose isn't to generate power, it is to try different engineering approaches to figure out the most efficient method. Other reactors are expected to come online as the process figures itself out.

As for the "breeder reactors," well, those have been around for a loooong time, and there are a fair few types. Certainly they are useful, but they have their own drawbacks too.

I suggest you check out wikipedia, do a search for "fission reactors" and for "fusion reactors." There is a LOT of information within those links that should be valuable for both pre and post 2020 nations.

Best of luck!

ITER will not be the first ever fusion reactor to come online, there were plenty that did before it. ITER will generate 1500 MeV of energy. That is not that little of the amount.

TOKAMAK is a container that holds the plasma using magnetic confinement, it has already been used on reactors such as JET and is yet to break. Why would it break? There is no reason for it to break. Inside is complete vaccum so the heat from plasma can not travel through the air, also there is no contact with the walls of the container since the plasma is literrary floating in the air. Please since you guys no so much, tell me what can cause this container to break?

I think what the guy meant by the TOKAMAK would 'break even', is that the generator would either produce the same amount of energy as was being put in, or it would generate enough money to counter the costs of running, fuel etc. Both amount to the same think really. I don't believe that he meant that the TOKAMAK would literally break.

Oh alright. Well Fusion reactor like ITER is supposed to produce 10 times the amount of energy it takes to run it. While the fuel for the fusion reactors is most abandant of all nuclear fuels. It can be derived from the world's oceans.

Post Modern Technology... afterall, the whole point of Post Modern Techology is to be able to play technology that arent' currently available to us but aren't too far away in the future. Fussion technology isn't too far into the future anymore, though I imagine it will be quite some time before we get something cost-effective enough to be used in military vessels so I'd keep it in the PMT period.

If we're going to call Post Modern Technology 2020+ then exactly how is it any different from Future Technology? Better to stick with the basic idea of post modern technology being from now to say, 2050? In all fairness it's not too much of a concern anyways as most of us will work out exactly what technology we are prepared to accept and what technology is too advanced to be in our timeline, the ratings are just there to help but everyone has their own view of what a rating could mean at the end of the day so it's down to the individual to work things out.

Somewhat related question: Would true artificial gravity and manipulation of gravitons - If they exits at all - as well as harnessing ZPE, and the regular production of megatons of antimatter, as well as the creation of wormholes for the purpose of faster-than-light travel - Without getting singularities like infinite energy/ mass, etc - not to mention using planck-scale engineering be modern tech if we define modern tech as being within a timeframe from now to five billion A.D?

Or would it still be (Slightly) postmodern?

Hello there. Both of these are most definately MT - pushing PMT on the second, but I'd allow it. And all of those who say otherwise, I'm afraid that you're wrong. There's already a design of Fusion reactor that puts out FAR more energy than it pulls in to get going (although admitedly it does take quite a bit of energy to get it going), but it is funded by the UN, and the four nations funding it: France America, Japan and Russia have wasted the last year bitching on where its going to be built. America and France want it in France, and Japn and Russia want it in Japan. However, this design is in place, and it's so powerful that 1 of them would power a 1/4 of France's power grid.

Hello there. Both of these are most definately MT - pushing PMT on the second, but I'd allow it. And all of those who say otherwise, I'm afraid that you're wrong. There's already a design of Fusion reactor that puts out FAR more energy than it pulls in to get going (although admitedly it does take quite a bit of energy to get it going), but it is funded by the UN, and the four nations funding it: France America, Japan and Russia have wasted the last year bitching on where its going to be built. America and France want it in France, and Japn and Russia want it in Japan. However, this design is in place, and it's so powerful that 1 of them would power a 1/4 of France's power grid.Yes... If you're merely bickering about who gets to build an experimental fusion reactor, and fantasize about its potential capabilities, then it's certainly modern.

Yes... If you're merely bickering about who gets to build an experimental fusion reactor, and fantasize about its potential capabilities, then it's certainly modern.

Well yes, but what happens if this is a great sucess when they DO build the thing and stop bitching about it? What if it has no realy major flaws in its design and is a flying sucess? Then why wouldn't it be reproduced in other nations who obtain the design for real use in the power grid. Also, the military has a habit of taking experimental things and tinkering with them. If an article came up about the military tinkering with such a powerplant I would not be suprised in the least. The government has already asessed the use of plasma weponry, for God's sake.

The energy output can be calculated by mathematical equations, also i don't know how super-pooper it will be, but it will produce a healthy 1500 MeV of power that is very good for an experimental reactor since the working fission reactors usually produce 1000-1200 MeV if that. 1500 would certainly not be enough to take care of 1/4th of France's grid, especially since its not hooked up to a turbine. Anyways, as said before this is not the first fusion reactor, they were built in the past, but it will be the most powerful one built to date. Anyways my point being, these things were already built for over 2 decades, how the hell are they PMT?

The energy output can be calculated by mathematical equations, also i don't know how super-pooper it will be, but it will produce a healthy 1500 MeV of power that is very good for an experimental reactor since the working fission reactors usually produce 1000-1200 MeV if that. 1500 would certainly not be enough to take care of 1/4th of France's grid, especially since its not hooked up to a turbine. Anyways, as said before this is not the first fusion reactor, they were built in the past, but it will be the most powerful one built to date. Anyways my point being, these things were already built for over 2 decades, how the hell are they PMT?
I'm taliking about a different design that powers (if I remember correctly) somewhere in the tens of millions of MeV. The UN hasn't even decided where to lay the foundation on this one yet. And I will admit, this plant is rather large, but that has more to do with the re-enforced concrete and lead barrier in case of leakage, although I don't know how much concrete and lead would help in stopping plasma that is more than 10+ times as hot as the sun...

From what i heard they finally agreed on France this past summer, thats for ITER.

10 mil seems a bit too much to be realistic, do you have any sort of a source?

you can't stop plasma, however if the source feeding it energy is cut it will cool down and disappear. However it will go through 10 meter thick block of concrete with the same speed as it will go through a 10 meter block of paper.

They did decide? Yay!
Oh, and source was (And remember, this was by memory, so I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure on that figure) Popular Science a few months back. Not the most reliable source, but better than most.

Well yes, but what happens if this is a great sucess when they DO build the thing and stop bitching about it? What if it has no realy major flaws in its design and is a flying sucess? Then why wouldn't it be reproduced in other nations who obtain the design for real use in the power grid. Also, the military has a habit of taking experimental things and tinkering with them. If an article came up about the military tinkering with such a powerplant I would not be suprised in the least. The government has already asessed the use of plasma weponry, for God's sake.Oh, then it would be MT, alright. The thing is, of course... This isn't the case, right now, meaning, the moment this will/ might happen lies in...

I'm sure you got it...

The future.

And now... Guess what MT isn't?

Oh, and I'd also note that you do not know if it might become a success or not. Neither does anyone else. Guess what? Because results will, once more, be unknown until some point in the...

Future

Note the term 'Future'. Not 'Present', but 'Future'. As in 'Future Technologies', quite different from 'Presently available, provably working modern technologies'.

They are presently available ITER is not the first Fusion reactor ever built, there were others. This technology is firmly MT, even without ITER existing right now, technology exists to make it work in RL the only problem is funding, on NS we don't have that problem.

You guys need some input from somebody who knows something about this subject. Fusion is very definitely PMT. There's no chance of it becoming a practical reality much before 2040, and that's an *optimistic* estimate.

Yes, the decision to build ITER in France has already been made. It's scheduled to start operation in 2016, but initially using only light hydrogen, not a tritium-deuterium mixture, so its power output will be zero. Some years later it will start using a T-D plasma, and then its fusion power output will be 500 MW (not 1500, not MeV which is something quite different.) And its electric output will still be ZERO. It's just an experimental reactor, intended to test whether we really know how to contain a plasma on that scale, along with various other things.

(And it won't be built by a mere 4 countries. The participants will be the whole EU, Japan, USA, Russia, China and South Korea. India is also thinking about joining.)

After that it will be necessary to build at least one demonstration or prototype reactor that actually produces electricity. That will involve several new sets of problems. Once some years of experience of that has been accumulated, it may be feasible to start building fusion power plants on an industrial scale. I see no prospect of that happening much before 2040, even if everything goes right.

And all the technical problems have *not* been solved yet. For instance, tritium handling is likely to be quite tricky.

I most certainly know about this subject.

Yes, the decision to build ITER in France has already been made. It's scheduled to start operation in 2016, but initially using only light hydrogen, not a tritium-deuterium mixture, so its power output will be zero. Some years later it will start using a T-D plasma, and then its fusion power output will be 500 MW (not 1500, not MeV which is something quite different.) And its electric output will still be ZERO. It's just an experimental reactor, intended to test whether we really know how to contain a plasma on that scale, along with various other things.

I must say i have not heard of that, there did you get that information from? Still i do not see this as a reason for fusion reactors to be considered PMT. There were other reactors before ITER and ITER technology is available for construction today. I never claimed that ITER would be an operational reactor, it will be an experimental reactor that will emit enough heat to theoretically create 1500 MeV of electrical energy, that i am certain off, I have very nice chart that shows each fusion reactor constructed and how much MeVs they would emit if the heat they create was ever converted. I know it doesn't create any electricity. Anyways the plasma containement has been tested on other reactors, why should it fail in ITER? The principle is simple, i really don't see a reason for it to be impossible. In addition this is NS, and since technology to make a fusion reactor practical exists today that means its MT on NS. Hey just so i don't have to look for my old notebook which one T-D or D-D reaction produces more energy?

After that it will be necessary to build at least one demonstration or prototype reactor that actually produces electricity. That will involve several new sets of problems. Once some years of experience of that has been accumulated, it may be feasible to start building fusion power plants on an industrial scale. I see no prospect of that happening much before 2040, even if everything goes right.

Once an experimental reactor is built and working a electricity producing reactor can be built rather quickly, i see no reason why it wouldn't happen before 2020, now massproduction would come in later, but technology exists to build it even today. I have plans on how a possible fusion reactor can work, it explains it quite well, i'll have to try to find them.

The principle is simple, i really don't see a reason for it to be impossible. In addition this is NS, and since technology to make a fusion reactor practical exists today that means its MT on NS.

Actually, there isn't really any rule which enforces people to use that view of Modern Technology. It all depends on your point of view... a fair number of players may agree that it's possible today and as such it's modern technology, but my own opinion of what is Modern Technology comes down to systems in common use today because it's much more stable then trying to work out what we could possibily have made today had we the resources to do so.

Personally, I like thinking of Modern Technology that way, it keeps it simple and makes it easy for everyone at modern tech to know exactly what they are playing against... start using experimental technologies for common use in your nation and the whole technology level will slide as everyone tries to claim their Modern Technology is more advanced (which is how alot of technology arguements end up).

Isn't the point of claiming your nation is Modern Tech to cap the technology level to a point that is common today? I could understand an MT nation RPing the developement of fusion powerplants for the future as that would be natural... but to have them in common use isn't required and makes your nation out to be more advanced then real life comparisons, which in turn means you are trying to be more advanced then other nations for your own little edge. It defeats the point of being MT.

But meh, I imagine alot of MT nations will continue to argue that their advanced technology is technically modern and that they aren't doing it just to get an edge over all the other MT nations. In my opinion though, its just like the Doujin, people didn't need a bigger dreadnought before it was designed, but once someone does it they can't stand the idea of someone trying to be better so they will build bigger themselves. It's human nature.

Thats my two pence on the whole matter.

Alright. Now fusion reactors are entirely possible in an MT setting.
There are just 2 problems with them:

1.) They're fucking huge. And I mean, they're BIG. They would never fit on something like a tank or land vehicle. Maybe a ship, but not a tank. Confinement technology is just too bulky and requires too much poewr.

2.) Positive power generation. As of right now, we can achieve something like 90% power generation. Which means that you have to put in 110% more power than the fusion reactor can generate in order to run it. Using fusion as power = big no-no.

yeah id consider it PMT and around about 2040's it become a viable power source although still not very relaible (imo) it would be producing a positive .

Alright. Now fusion reactors are entirely possible in an MT setting.
There are just 2 problems with them:

1.) They're fucking huge. And I mean, they're BIG. They would never fit on something like a tank or land vehicle. Maybe a ship, but not a tank. Confinement technology is just too bulky and requires too much poewr.

2.) Positive power generation. As of right now, we can achieve something like 90% power generation. Which means that you have to put in 110% more power than the fusion reactor can generate in order to run it. Using fusion as power = big no-no.

MassPW you are wrong, once plasma gets into the burning state it generates 10 times the amount of energy it takes to get it to that state, fusion reactors can be used to get power.

Indeed. The JET has demonstrated a net power generation of 16MW. ITER is designed to provide 400 - 500MW. Your other assertion is also incorrect. Fusion reactors are no larger than any other kind of reactor. This is a picture of the inside of JET:

http://monopole.ph.qmul.ac.uk/~jmc/EUni/JET.jpg

This is somewhat large, I admit, but I'd hardly call it "fucking" large, and it's certainly smaller than commercial nuclear reactors. Fusion is actually a much more efficient process than fission, so a fusion reactor (when the technology is fully developed) of the same power generation capacity will probably be smaller than a fission reactor.

The main problem with fusion power right now is that of the sustainability of the reaction. In order to generate a self sustaining reaction, you would need a 'Q' value of 1.0. So far JET has achieved a 'Q' value of ~0.7. Its impossible to know when we (if) will reach a 'Q' of ~1.0 in real life, and I would say that how long it takes us in RL is rather irrelevent to NS as NS nations would be willing to FAR more cash into it than real world governmnets. For the sake of RP and people not ignoring you, I'd say it's PMT, but certainly not FT.

is clean energy really needed in NS the sheer size of the pacific here should be able to handle the carbon estimating about 70% of NS is isolated pacific islands

the resources isn't an issue either since resource depletion is never RP'ed and most nations have enormous amounts of resources so really coal, gas, oil and nuclear are constantly decreasing in cost and scarcity

Though the fact that a scarily high number of nations divert environmental funding to the military, have huge industrial sectors and show little care for environmental issues such as Cfc’s (sp?) might work as a counter-balance to any environmental advantage on NS

A fusion reactor of a size and power output useful enough to use in a mobile unit (ship, tank, whatever) isn't possible until PMT.

Indeed. The JET has demonstrated a net power generation of 16MW. ITER is designed to provide 400 - 500MW. Your other assertion is also incorrect. Fusion reactors are no larger than any other kind of reactor. This is a picture of the inside of JET:

http://monopole.ph.qmul.ac.uk/~jmc/EUni/JET.jpg

This is somewhat large, I admit, but I'd hardly call it "fucking" large, and it's certainly smaller than commercial nuclear reactors. Fusion is actually a much more efficient process than fission, so a fusion reactor (when the technology is fully developed) of the same power generation capacity will probably be smaller than a fission reactor.

The main problem with fusion power right now is that of the sustainability of the reaction. In order to generate a self sustaining reaction, you would need a 'Q' value of 1.0. So far JET has achieved a 'Q' value of ~0.7. Its impossible to know when we (if) will reach a 'Q' of ~1.0 in real life, and I would say that how long it takes us in RL is rather irrelevent to NS as NS nations would be willing to FAR more cash into it than real world governmnets. For the sake of RP and people not ignoring you, I'd say it's PMT, but certainly not FT.


Alrighty Prae, Q= output of energy/input of energy.

Q isn't sustainability. Q is based upon the assumption that the plasma is in a steady state. (thus the input part of the equation). Positive net energy gain has yet to happen (if you have a Q of .7).

But I agree, fusion should be availabe in PMT.

And Pushka, you wanted to use a fusion reactor for an MT tank. In MT tank terms, it IS fucking large. And in terms of sustainability, we haven't gotten to the point where we can make a self sustaining reaction.

I never tried to stick ITER into a tank, same as you're not going to stick in onto a submarine. Yeah tank idea is non-realistic but an MT sub is. A smaller nuclear fusion reactor can be built and used on a sub, its completely possible MTly. Also according to head of NCState University Nuclear Engieering division ITER can sustain the reaction for a long time, because then the plasma gets to the burning state the ions get so hot they get fused together again and again pushed forward by the magnetic force. This can go on for a long, long time.

That guy doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

The world fusion project (name anyone?) has got it pretty much figured out. It basically amounts to building a bigger reactor...but then, thats how the math works out. Funding is being sought right now, and the project (and others) will get it in increasing amounts as energy needs grow. All it amounts to now is an engineering problem.

As it stands, I think the first reactor is due to come online in 10-25 years. It will be ungainly and won't produce much power, but then, it IS a FIRST reactor. Moreover, it's purpose isn't to generate power, it is to try different engineering approaches to figure out the most efficient method. Other reactors are expected to come online as the process figures itself out.

As for the "breeder reactors," well, those have been around for a loooong time, and there are a fair few types. Certainly they are useful, but they have their own drawbacks too.

I suggest you check out wikipedia, do a search for "fission reactors" and for "fusion reactors." There is a LOT of information within those links that should be valuable for both pre and post 2020 nations.

Best of luck!

You know, I don't get my info from Wikipedia. I get it from my Enviornmental Science and Physics class. But, you know...whatever...here's my two-bits:

I was talking about wide-spread practical Fusion reactors. ITER might make a single expensive reactor in 30-50 years, but we won't see anything mass-produced for a LONG time. Anything you're going to want for a tank/submarine/Walking Death Machine is going to need some radically advanced, small power-plant which we, frankly, won't be able to create for quite a while.

As for breeder reactors, I was just giving a simple suggestion. I was talking about the newest one they created...oh...must have been a few months ago. It uses spent Uranium 238 and other nuclear-waste particles as fuel for the reaction. Hypothetically, a reactor of that size could exist in a tank. I was suggesting this particular one because of it's efficiency, size, and meathod of dealing with its volitile coolant (liquid sodium), which is not kept under high-pressure like most breeder reactors.

But, frankly...I wouldn't want a nuclear-powered tank. Something about having copious amounts of radiation just dying to leak out...nope. Doesn't sit right with me.

Yes thats true some breeders use U238 and some use P239, but this is not really the discussion here.

First of all as said before ITER is not the first nuclear fusion reactor, second even though we will probably not have a practical one for a while because this field is still a nightmare for investors. The technology to make a fusion reactor is available, in fact it was available a while ago. Plus now there are many types of fusion reactors, ITER is just one, but there are also other types, inertial confinement (i think thats what you call it in english) for example. All of these already have working prototypes, technology needs to be perfected but as far as NS is concerned with our mountains of "money", someone who knows what he is talking about (aka myself) can create a feasible design of a fusion reactor small enough to stick on a submarine.

All of these already have working prototypes, technology needs to be perfected but as far as NS is concerned with our mountains of "money", someone who knows what he is talking about (aka myself) can create a feasible design of a fusion reactor small enough to stick on a submarine.

Odd thing really, but the amount of times I've heard players complain about the unlimited resources Nationstates Nations tend to have you would think more people would avoid just throwing money at the problem and arguing how that very nature is actually a good reason to accept currently experimental technology.

*shrugs* Then again, I suppose there is nothing stopping Modern Technology players from claiming they have anything they want at the end of the day... we define our own nations and others either agree or disagree with that definition. I'd heard Automagfreek admit that he's modern technology, but personally I would be more willing to think that he's prepared to RP at that level but like Iuthia he's actually PMT perhaps even towards the far end of PMT with some of his more excessive soldiers... but thats just one mans view.

As I said before, all this experimental "We could do it with nationstates resources because we are huge nations..." stuff doesn't really work in my mind, I prefer to keep my modern technology defined on todays common place technology, in order to keep it simple. At best I expect customisations, but nothing quite so far as technology which is still in it's experimental stages. I probably don't matter too much, not really RPing much in MT anymore anyways, but a fair number of other players here have also expressed their view that it's not quite close enough to be modern technology... hell, I would argue that the Super-Dreadnought, as much as I dislike it, is closer to being modern tech as everything that would be needed to make one now has been proven and tested, where as Fussion Technology hasn't been perfect yet and probably won't be for some time yet.

So do what you will with it, but bare in mind that Nationstates is a game of co-operation and mob rule. You can claim what you like, but if others feel it's being abused or isn't realistic enough for them, they won't accept it and they don't have to. Fussion Technology, at least for your nations power grid, isn't really an abuse at least... it's just another fact in a sea of facts about your nation. But if it vastly improved your naval vessels I dare say some of the modern technology naval powers would take concern.

Iuthia has the right idea.

Yes thats true some breeders use U238 and some use P239, but this is not really the discussion here.

First of all as said before ITER is not the first nuclear fusion reactor, second even though we will probably not have a practical one for a while because this field is still a nightmare for investors. The technology to make a fusion reactor is available, in fact it was available a while ago. Plus now there are many types of fusion reactors, ITER is just one, but there are also other types, inertial confinement (i think thats what you call it in english) for example. All of these already have working prototypes, technology needs to be perfected but as far as NS is concerned with our mountains of "money", someone who knows what he is talking about (aka myself) can create a feasible design of a fusion reactor small enough to stick on a submarine.

Well...I suppose so, but a few questions remain:

1) Fission reactors can be small because the reaction is based on the amount of U235 in the reactor. IE: As long as you have U235 and a nuclear reactor, you can make it quite small. A fusion reactor, as far as we know with our level of technology, needs to be large in order to generate a reasonable amount of output. Hell, the reason the Sun works is that it's so fricken huge its gravity holds everything together. So, we are left with that dellema: it's true, you could hook up a fusion reactor to a submarine but the submarine might have to increase in size.

2) Why would you want/need a fusion reactor on a Submarine? Submarines are...well...relatively unimportant in modern warfare. Anyting with an AEGIS system can often detect a submarine before they even have time to move, so simply making an over-powered sub seems a bit...well...impractical for the expense.

Actually, now that I think of it, AEGIS-equipped Cruisers sometimes have a nuclear reactor onboard. Why not design an AEGIS cruiser to have the fusion reactor? At least then you can have a large ship.

3) You would need to design a ship that could deal with the power from a fusion reactor. Remember, more power does not necessarily mean better. You risk brown-outs or, well, general power loss if you pump too much juice into the system. You'd need either very advanced and powerful batteries, or a host of systems to constantly absorb the power. Still, this one can be avoided...but you need to be careful. Don't just strap a fusion reactor onto a normal sub and call it quits.

Well...I think that's it. Honestly, just use fission power. It works just fine. If you need power...hell...strap another one on and see what you can do. (That's a joke...two powerplants would be a nightmare to deal with).

Iuthia has the right idea.



Well...I suppose so, but a few questions remain:

1) Fission reactors can be small because the reaction is based on the amount of U235 in the reactor. IE: As long as you have U235 and a nuclear reactor, you can make it quite small. A fusion reactor, as far as we know with our level of technology, needs to be large in order to generate a reasonable amount of output. Hell, the reason the Sun works is that it's so fricken huge its gravity holds everything together. So, we are left with that dellema: it's true, you could hook up a fusion reactor to a submarine but the submarine might have to increase in size.

2) Why would you want/need a fusion reactor on a Submarine? Submarines are...well...relatively unimportant in modern warfare. Anyting with an AEGIS system can often detect a submarine before they even have time to move, so simply making an over-powered sub seems a bit...well...impractical for the expense.

Actually, now that I think of it, AEGIS-equipped Cruisers sometimes have a nuclear reactor onboard. Why not design an AEGIS cruiser to have the fusion reactor? At least then you can have a large ship.

3) You would need to design a ship that could deal with the power from a fusion reactor. Remember, more power does not necessarily mean better. You risk brown-outs or, well, general power loss if you pump too much juice into the system. You'd need either very advanced and powerful batteries, or a host of systems to constantly absorb the power. Still, this one can be avoided...but you need to be careful. Don't just strap a fusion reactor onto a normal sub and call it quits.

Well...I think that's it. Honestly, just use fission power. It works just fine. If you need power...hell...strap another one on and see what you can do. (That's a joke...two powerplants would be a nightmare to deal with).

Thus far I hath kept silent.

2. AEGIS are not nuclear powered and detecting a nuclear submarine is not that easy. Modern nuke submarines (Akula, Seawolf, Virginia, even the 688/I) are very hard to detect when they are below tactical silent speed. If you get in close enough though, you can hear the reactor plant noise. The quiestest submarines in the world are actually Diesel-Electrics when on Electric power.

1) Fission reactors can be small because the reaction is based on the amount of U235 in the reactor. IE: As long as you have U235 and a nuclear reactor, you can make it quite small. A fusion reactor, as far as we know with our level of technology, needs to be large in order to generate a reasonable amount of output. Hell, the reason the Sun works is that it's so fricken huge its gravity holds everything together. So, we are left with that dellema: it's true, you could hook up a fusion reactor to a submarine but the submarine might have to increase in size.

Eh, they don't have to be large, its just the design of the experimental reactors currently available that makes them large, but those designs are electric powerplant type, i mean nobody wants to stick ITER on board of a sub, a smaller design however is possible.

You know, I don't get my info from Wikipedia. I get it from my Enviornmental Science and Physics class. But, you know...whatever...here's my two-bits:


Thats great. I've taken engineering physics classes myself. But neither your classes nor mine are referable by the other members/posters in these forums. Hense, wikipedia, a site most people here know about and can readily access. Likewise, when you get ready to write academic papers, I suggest you don't put "my environmental science and physics class" as a reference.

As for tanks/submarines/waking-death-machines, I believe these were outside of the poster's origional intent. He was asking about fusion reactors as a means of generating power, not as a wanky method to own in MT nationstates.

The basic physics for ITER is known now. ITER is just an engineering problem short on funds. Given sufficient funds, it could be built quickly and testing could begin quite soon. Power plants could be built off that knowledge in the very near future, easily within 10 years. Granted, they would be fairly inefficient, and there isn't so large a source of fuel refining for them as for fission reactors, but still possible. A "MT" fusion reactor wouldn't be much better (or any better?!) then a MT fission reactor in terms of power output, but it could be a great centerpeice for an RP, or for a nation.



Pushka: Context man, context! Maybe it is the language barrier, though your English is quite good. Yes, fusion reactors have been around for a long time, but the context here is fusion reactors as powerplants.

Within that, MassPwnage was right in correcting Praetonia, the Q value equals EnergyOutput/EnergyInput. So far, this has always been below 1. ITER is supposed to be the first fusion reactor to be able to push this value over 1. Praetor did raise another issue though, that of reaction sustainability.

(for the benifit of everyone here who does not know) A fusion reaction does not sustain itself in the sense that a fission oen does. A fission reaction keeps on, well, fissing (fizzing?) until you either drop something in to absorb the neutrons, or enough of the fuel itself "burns" off into other elements that themselves absorb neutrons. Hense the problem with meltdowns.

Fusion by contrast must be confined. You (Pushka) mentioned inertial confinement fusion, though that doesn't really offer much in terms of power production (it has more to do with basic research). Systems like ITER are much more feasible, where a magnetic field contains the reaction. But the field doesn't just contain the reaction, it makes the reaction. Should the magnetic field fail, there won't be a big boom because the reaction will stop. It doesn't matter if you stop putting fuel in, without the field, there is nothing to push the atoms together.

The problem of sustainability that Praetor mention therefore is actually an engineering problem. The question right now is, how do you remove spent fuel and add new fuel without interupting the reaction? It is an interesting problem, but again, only an engineering one, not a physics one.


LAST NOTE: AEGIS is a radar system. Radar is a system that works above the surface of the water. It can detect planes, but not subs (well, not while they are submerged anyway). If you want to detect subs, you have to use acustics (sonar). Magnetics, LIDAR, and a few other systems might be useful up close too.

Submarines are far from useless in modern warfare. Of course, that is an entirely different debate.

In addition this is NS, and since technology to make a fusion reactor practical exists today that means its MT on NS.Hold on there...

I may not be an expert on fusion (although I'm not ignorant, and ITER's own web site says that this thing is just a large-scale pilot, to see if big plants are feasible), but I do consider myself an expert on economics. In my book, to say that something can be built without difficulty if it's technologically possible even when it's not economically feasible is godmodding. Yes, godmodding.

Why is it godmodding? Because it's basically the same as claiming that your society has no real economic limits on its productive output, which is where people come up with armies of 50,000,000 men and 1,000,000 MBT's.

You can scoff at squeamish investors, but right now we have no financially useful data on the lifecycle costs or operational difficulties inherent in building, running, and disposing of such a plant, which means that when the people with the money ask, "How much will it cost to build this thing, to run it, to retire it, and to dispose of the contaminated materials left over when it's retired?" and you just look at them stupidly, those pocketbooks are all going to snap shut, because no one's going to want to throw their hard-earned money into a rathole without the faintest clue as to what the return is going to be. Ain't gonna happen, no way, no how.

PMT, thank you - because running a TOKAMAK in the laboratory for a fraction of a second is not the same thing as running a full-scale power generation facility. Were fission plants possible the second Enrico Fermi achieved A controlled chain reaction under the bleachers at the University of Chicago back in 1942? Hardly; it was another dozen years before pilot reactors came online, and another dozen years after that before the nation's first line of power generation facilities (like the now-retired reactor at Big Rock, near Charlevoix, Michigan) were available to provide America's power companies with baseline power. Fusion will take even longer than that, because the scale of operations is so much greater.

And don't give me this nonsense about environmentalists or anti-nuclear activists slowing down the effort to make practical fusion a reality: I know of no such opposition (at least here in the States), given that most people think of fusion as "clean", "safe", and "renewable" in comparison with fission (impressions that I suspect are somewhat naive). In similar fashion, investors in America's power industry are not reluctant to invest in fusion for political reasons; on the contrary, with so many fission plants retiring and concern over the environmental and regulatory problems that would come from replacing those fission plants with coal-fired generators, most American investors would jump on fusion in a moment if they were even remotely sure that it could work (economically, that is).

Technology is never the only consideration; economic and financial limits must be taken seriously if we are to be even remotely realistic in our RP. And to say, "Well, this is NS - I can ignore (economic) reality if I want to," well, that is the beginning of godmodding, which is the first step to miserably poor RP.

Last time i checked American citizens in their majority are afraid of nuclear power and only recently started warming up. Also even though investors are eager to give money to fission reactors, that is not so for fusion reactors because they are afraid of this yet not fully developed field. Anyways i am the king of my NS nation thus i can controll there my NS money gets put into, if i want that money to be put into creation of a fusion reactor then i can. That is in no way a God Mod.

Hm. I always thought "Modern" meant, you know, modern, as opposed to future.

Going by that, experimental fusion reactors are certainly MT, as the various experimental fusion reactors in the real world demonstrate. Vaporware is not modern; it is post-modern by definition.

2020 is not "modern". 2020, being in the future, is PMT. Efficient, workable, and common fusion reactors are decidedly PMT.

And don't give me any crap about political climates and fear of nuclear technology preventing us from having fusion tech earlier. That's a complete red herring. MT isn't based on what we could have if we had myoptically focused on one tech; MT is based on what actually exists. This isn't Civilization where you can have nukes in 1290 if you're properly focused.

After reading through all of this I would think that fusion reactors as test beds, experimental, and so on and so fourth on land would be certainly feasible for MT. The use of them in submarines or ships is definitely PMT. The use of them on land in actual applications could be borderline, I cannot tell (yet).

Please keep posting...This will probably be used in the fusion question within NS for months to come.

Considering we have lunar colonies in E2, I don't think the rules of MT and PMT apply to E2 very well, nor can be strictly enforced.

The BNRF is attempting to create 1 fusion reactor, and the creation will be a means, not an ends. I'm doing this not to gain imaginary power in an imaginary world, but because through this I might be able to expand into more creative writing scenarios in E2. That ridiculous penguins thread, for instance, offered a well deserved break from trying to stick to the "reality" that is E2.

Even if fusion reactors were possible in the near future, its not like they would give a country that much more of an advantage over another if it took more energy to construct than could put out. It would just be a bragging rite.

As for other parts of E2, I've seen people come up with some obviously impossible situations, but if it makes for a good and creative writing scenario, why not give it a shot? If it really is 'godmodding' then we can dismiss it as such. Otherwise, even future tech has its disadvantages, and so long as it is presented in a way which it could be defeated, and it offers a new and creative scenario, so be it.

And on another minor note, we as citizens have little idea of what is technologically possible, considering the government can and has easily hidden such things if its introduction to the populace and world would threaten their own exitstence. We should take into account, and explore the possibilities of technology and ideas that our governments, corporations, and culture have shadowed, even if it seems impossible, "godmodding."

Considering we have lunar colonies in E2, I don't think the rules of MT and PMT apply to E2 very well, nor can be strictly enforced.

We do?

We do?
I could've sworn Carthage put one up, or was going to finish within 10 years a few years ago. I also thought Cotland was up to something.

I could've sworn Carthage put one up, or was going to finish within 10 years a few years ago. I also thought Cotland was up to something.

Last time I checked that was just reverted to general NS and the moon was off-limits in a way.

Last time I checked that was just reverted to general NS and the moon was off-limits in a way.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10016788&postcount=14

is what I read, says E2.

Well, if we did settle the moon in E2, I think "the moon is a harsh mistress" sort of scenario would be awesome.

I'd say that A workable, practical Fusion Reactor could be available by 2015 or so. A Fusion reactor for a ship or submarine would be much later, probably around 2030-2040

but I wouldn't be surprised if both happened in the next ten years RL as physics has been making some good progress recently, espescially in that area.

Thats a good point but, it would all depend on the NS nations economy... i think anything below powerhouse wouldnt be able to have the funds to get it in place by 2015..

I will agree that fusion has made progress in its many forms and that physics in general has made leaps and bounds these past couple of years. One example, although I can't be specific, is that before I went away for a while there was a principle of physics that was seen as shakey but when I returned a few months laters was confirmed in labs as rock solid proven. That kind of progress in major physics experiments would have been rare before recently.

And on another minor note, we as citizens have little idea of what is technologically possible, considering the government can and has easily hidden such things if its introduction to the populace and world would threaten their own exitstence. We should take into account, and explore the possibilities of technology and ideas that our governments, corporations, and culture have shadowed, even if it seems impossible, "godmodding."Oh, really? Methinks somebody has been watching the Sci-Fi Channel a bit too much.

People love to speculate that the government and/or major corporations have all sorts of hyper-advanced technology tucked away in "Area 51" or "Hangar 19" or the "Bermuda Triangle" or the salt mines beneath Detroit (I bet you didn't know there were salt mines beneath Detroit, did you?) or wherever. Personally, I think that's a lot of bunk; highly creative, extremely fun bunk, I grant you (hey, I like "Stargate SG-1" and "Stargate Atlantis" as much as the next guy or gal), but still bunk nonetheless. There are trade secrets, secret weapons, secrets of all sorts - but I think we can all be fairly sure that there are no secret fusion powerplants humming along out there in remote places like Groom Lake, Nevada.As for other parts of E2...E2 can make whatever rules it pleases. The original question was not couched on terms of what is permitted in E2 vs. NS in general.I'd say that A workable, practical Fusion Reactor could be available by 2015 or so.Look at the published schedule for bringing the ITER pilot plant online (http://www.iter.org/index.htm). According to this schedule, construction will begin next year; after that, it will take 10 years to complete the commissioning of the plant and bring it on line.

But before you all start popping champagne corks...

Because this is a pilot plant, the people behind this project have set aside the first 10 years of its operation for the determination of its "optimum" operating conditions - IOW, there will be an initial period of up to a decade in which the plant, while it may generate more power than it consumes, will still be operating on limited basis while people figure out how best to run such a plant. And keep in mind that until this period in which the optimal physical conditions of plant operation are being determined has finished, its requirements for optimum economic efficiency can not be determined.

IOW, the plant may run, but whether it runs better than what you could buy for a similar dollar investment in coal, hydropower, nuclear fission, solar power, or conservation is anybody's guess; indeed, there's no guarantee that it will run at a profit at any point during optimisation - or ever even achieve profitability at all.

So while 2015 is close to the date when we will actually see a our first fusion pilot go online, we are likely to have to wait until 2026-27 before we see profitable operation (which is what I take it to mean when you speak of a "workable, practical" plant), and another 10-12 years after that before we see the first generation of commercial plants arrive (because any attempt to build a "workable, practical" plant that is not a pilot will need to wait for the end of ITER's testing period [2016-2027] before its designers can know how to build such a plant - that is, after all, the whole idea behind "optimisation" testing, right?).

Thus, we are brought back to the reality that fusion will not be economically practical until sometime after 2036-39 at the earliest.

(Actually, it will likely be longer than that: just because you know how to build an "optimised" fusion plant in 2027 doesn't mean that you can accurately predict the total lifetime cost of running such a plant - which is what you need to know in order to make a proper judgement as to whether or not you should build one [or how many of them you should build]. You need to take that first pilot plant through its entire operational life-cycle: construction, commissioning, preliminary operation, commercial operation, retirement, decommissioning, dismantling, cleanup, and land reclamation. Only after you have been through that entire process can you say to the (investing) public, "end-to-end, a fusion plant costs $___,___,___".

(ITER is scheduled to run through 2037, followed by a 32-year process of decommissioning, dismantling, and radioactive cleanup. The entire ITER story will not be completed until 2069; only then will investors really know enough to calculate the costs and profits involved in running a fusion plant from end to end. Only plants started in 2070 and later will be designed and run from the very start with full awareness of all the costs and risks inherent in the venture [true "optimisation"]; the first 2-3 generations of commercial fusion plants [those built between 2037 and 2069 or so] will probably need to be "subsidised" in the sense that the hosting governments will probably have to insure the investors against any unexpected decommissioning and cleanup costs incurred at the end of these plants' useful lives.)Last time i checked American citizens in their majority are afraid of nuclear power and only recently started warming up.<Looks at Pushka's comments, notes that Pushka claims to be in "Moscow, Russia", laughs derisively>

"Last time you checked?" When was that, Pushka? More specifically, when did you make your last visit to the States? How many people did you talk to? What sorts of people did you talk to? Or are you basing your assessment of our "fears" on statements made by your <ahem> completely honest, trustworthy, and objective Russian press?

I have an easier way to find out what Americans think about nuclear power. I can jump in my car and drive down to the nearest TA (truck stop) to find out what our truckers think about it, or go to a bar in Willow Run to find out what the average "shoprat" working at "Ford's" or Hydromatic thinks about it, or (since I live in a college town) go to a coffee shop to get the (presumably anti-nuclear) opinions of our academics, or the Student Union to hear what our college kids think about it. Not exactly scientific, but one H_ll of a lot more real than media "impressions" formed by people who've never set foot upon this country's soil.

"American citizens are ... afraid of nuclear power?" That's a stitch coming from someone in Moscow, former capital of the now-defunct imperial dinosaur whose principal contribution to this debate was to give us all the word "Chernobyl", but then I suppose your drinking water doesn't come down from the Pripyat, so you can afford to be cavalier about the risks. As for us Americans, I think our disillusionment with nuclear energy comes less from Three Mile Island then the fact that our utility company executives positively glowed (no pun intended) about how nuclear energy would give us power "too cheap to meter" - and followed that by constant surcharges to our electric bills to pay for the construction cost overruns for this plant or the decommissioning costs of that one. We're less afraid than skeptical; as the old saying goes, "once fooled, shame on you; twice fooled, shame on me".Also even though investors are eager to give money to fission reactors, that is not so for fusion reactors because they are afraid of this yet not fully developed field.Well, duh!

As I indicated above, investors have been the beneficiaries of tremendous government largesse in the form of PSC's (Public Service Commissions - State utility regulation boards) that have allowed them to pass along the costs of bad decisions in the construction and operation of America's nuclear power industry. If investors had been forced to bear the costs of all the blunders that the nation's utilities and nuclear operators have made since the "nuclear age" began, they'd be bankrupt. Instead, it has been the American consumer who has been forced to pay the bill for these mistakes again and again; this is the downside of having regulated monopolies running the nation's power grid.

But looking forward, the nation's investors also know that they won't get this kind of treatment again. With conservatives pushing for utility deregulation, future power executives might actually have to face the music if they decide to plow their company's money into some multi-billion dollar fiasco; the investors who stand behind them, then, are painfully aware of the fact that - next time around, with fusion power - they might end up being the ones (rather than the nation's consumers) who eat the losses. So if they're afraid, well, they should be: nuclear fusion is a huge question mark, both as far as risks and profits are concerned.

The truth that fusion "visionaries" don't want to see is that, no matter how safe the technology may be from an operational perspective, there's no way of knowing if the costs of fusion power generation will compare favourably to competing power generation methods. So what if it's possible to generate a plasma that produces more power than is required to sustain it? Big deal! How much will the equipment, plant, and labour required to create and sustain that plasma cost? What about the fuel? What are the workplace safety issues? The occupational health costs? What about wear and tear on the equipment? Plant repair or upkeep costs?

What about decommissioning costs? Nuclear waste disposal? Cleanup? Reclamation? Are there security concerns? What are the costs of meeting them? You can have a plasma if you want, but will investors make a profit? If they don't then the whole thing will turn into a fiasco.

That's why the money isn't going to flow until a pilot plant proves that fusion power generation is economically feasible. This can't be predicted in the laboratory; it can only be determined by practice.Anyways i am the king of my NS nation thus i can controll there my NS money gets put into, if i want that money to be put into creation of a fusion reactor then i can. That is in no way a God Mod.You've got me there: it's not a godmod

It's simply stupid.

For you to have a fusion plant in 2005, you would have had to start work on it sometime prior to 1995; since your engineers knew little, if anything about how to sustain a plasma in 1995, your plant probably doesn't work, and even if it does it is clearly suboptimal, since its design - based on our knowledge of fusion c.1995 - is clearly both rudimentary and speculative.

Moreover, since you probably couldn't have started that plant before 1990 (when you knew even less about fusion than in 1995), you haven't had enough time to figure out how to run your fusion plant profitably, even if you have figured out how to sustain a plasma. That makes your fusion plant (or plants, if your meglomaniacal king was stupid enough to order several) a huge money-sucking fiscal tar pit that drives your nation's energy costs so high that industry, commerce, and the people all suffer horribly from the resultant economic inefficiency and disruption.

But worse, we are now led to ask: if your great omnipotent king sticks his idiotic nose into matters like fusion power, where he has literally no idea what he is doing, then where else has his meddling caused disaster? Does your king have to sign off on every economic decision, or just the "important" ones? If the former, how does he manage to find the time to make all those decisions..."Sire, the managers of Shoe Factory No. 3 in the city of Podisevirsk wish to replace seven sewing machines this quarter; do you approve of this capital investment?"...and if the latter, how do you decide which decisions are the "important" ones"Your Highness, do you consider basket-weaving industry to be important enough to merit your attention? No? Well, how about automobile manufacturing? Yes? Then, sire, may we ask - shall the new Pushka Tornado be produced in six colours or in seven? The managers all agree on cream, violet, chartreuse, mauve, teal, and ochre, but there is some question as to whether polished tin should be offered as a colour option..."As the meltdown of the Soviet economy in the wretched "Years of Stagnation" proved, command economies do not work. Does Pushka follow this same failed example? If that's the case, are you prepared to penalise yourself severely for it?

Go ahead and hate me. That's what economists (even amateur ones) are for."This is our friend, Mr. Greenberg... He's an economist, but he's really quite nice..."

I read "Bluebells and Nuclear Energy" by Albert B. Reynolds, thats my source for my claim that america as a population is still afraid of nuclear reactors, although it is getting better.

As for the rest of your comments, you didn't really say anything constructive. Yes there are many costs that we do not consider on NS (not many people even think about how much their 1 million uber tanks will cost to maintain annualy), that however doesn't at all keep me from creating a nuclear fusion reactor if my design write up is technologically feasible, which i assure you it will be.

Yes there are many costs that we do not consider on NS, that however doesn't at all keep me from creating a nuclear fusion reactor if my design write up is technologically feasible, which I assure you it will be.

To be honest, not much stops anyone from doing anything. For all I care you could invent a anti-matter reactor of some sort, but I find that for the most part calling yourself "modern technology" is just a formality, whether or not someone accepts it as such comes down to their personal views on what is acceptable.

Personally I find most nations claiming to be 'modern technology' are actually pushing the boundaries, and in some cases are completely within the boundaries of being 'post-modern technology', but thats just one mans view against another.

What it really comes down to is how much abuse is possible with a technology claim. Most people are willing to ignore advanced technology providing it isn't being used to say you are vastly superiour to them because of it, so long as it makes sense to them and isn't abused they are happy to let you have it. Some people on the other hand prefer to limit their dealings with more advanced nations, Automagfreek doesn't really RP war with space nations for his own reasons and thats fair enough, few people like their traditional war RP to be turned into a Star Wars setting, it ruins the mood.

So meh, I know I certainly wouldn't ignore a nation for claiming fusion technology... even if I was modern technology I would probably accept it providing it wasn't abused. I mean really... what difference does it make if someone wants to have Fussion instead of Fission? Only very specific incidents could I think there would be any real difference, like trying to sabotage their nuclear power to find out it's completely the wrong type... otherwise it's probably just the same only in different name.

It's no more a godmode then claiming your people love you. Providing it's not abused.

*snip*

I suggest working on your people skills. As for advances being hidden to the public, why did you go out of your way to turn my argument into a straw-man by comparing it to Stargate? Simple breakthroughs, like those made in psychology or a chemical reaction pathway are what I was thinking of. I have examples for both where information has been hidden from public eyes. In any case I was addressing the author of this thread, Layarteb, who also happens to run E2, so yes, you in general NS can have your own rules, we will have our own.