Nuclear fussion should be available in the next ten years...

After decades of nuclear fusion power being always ten years away, suddenly we are looking at a handful of endeavours striving to be the first to Q > 1, the moment when a nuclear fusion reactor will produce more power than is required to drive the fusion process in the first place. At this point the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor holds the world record with a Q of 0.67.

At the same time, a large international group is busily constructing the massive ITER tokamak test reactor in France, although it won't begin fusion experiments until the mid-2030s. The idea is that ITER will provide the data required to construct the first DEMO reactors that might see viable commercial fusion as early as the 2040s, optimistically.

And then there's Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), a fusion energy startup. Where CFS differs is that they don't seek to go big, but instead try to make a tokamak system that's affordable, compact and robust. With their recent demonstration of a 20 Tesla (T) high-temperature superconducting (HTS) rare-earth barium copper oxide (ReBCO) magnet field coil, they made a big leap towards their demonstration reactor: SPARC.

James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.

And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope. An ion is a gas. With the fusion process they use at ITER.org, it seems that they want to create helium which is something like 2/4He from highly charged ions that they create by stripping the shell away from D2-D3 interaction.
Basically once the shells are stripped away, the neutrons and protons that are ionized will form 2/4He releasing energy as a result. What do you not get about that Quasimodo? It's pretty basic and am sure that even Harvey gets it.
An FYI, since hydrogen has a proton and 2/4He has 2 protons and 2 neutrons (2 + 2 = 4, ), this suggests that electrons will be absorbed by a proton converting it into a quark. This suggests it will consume energy. Kind of why I think annihilating a hydrogen element might work. It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.
I think I'll stick with Green Energy for the time being.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.

And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope. An ion is a gas. With the fusion process they use at ITER.org, it seems that they want to create helium which is something like 2/4He from highly charged ions that they create by stripping the shell away from D2-D3 interaction.
Basically once the shells are stripped away, the neutrons and protons that are ionized will form 2/4He releasing energy as a result. What do you not get about that Quasimodo? It's pretty basic and am sure that even Harvey gets it.
An FYI, since hydrogen has a proton and 2/4He has 2 protons and 2 neutrons (2 + 2 = 4, ), this suggests that electrons will be absorbed by a proton converting it into a quark. This suggests it will consume energy. Kind of why I think annihilating a hydrogen element might work. It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.
I think I'll stick with Green Energy for the time being.

When are yiu going to harness the 'brown' energy trapped, in you crap-sack? Methane is a potent, planet-killing 'greenhouse gas. Causes about 5 times the warming, of manmade CO2.

James___ wrote:And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope.

James___ wrote: An ion is a gas.

James___ wrote: With the fusion process they use at ITER.org,

James___ wrote: ... it seems that they want to create helium

James___ wrote: It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.

James_I_am wrote: I think I'll stick to Green Eggs and Ham for my well-being.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.

Nuclear explosions are fission. Fission has the cascading effect. Fusion does not. The moment you stop providing fuel to a fusion reaction it stops dead.

James___ wrote:With Dr. Kaku of NYU, annihilating hydrogen is a fusion process.

James___ wrote: Lise Meitner realized that the mass lost when matter split into 2 was accounted for by Einstein's E = MC^2.

James___ wrote: Basically fusion absorbs energy because it is creating a heavier/denser form of matter.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:With Dr. Kaku of NYU, annihilating hydrogen is a fusion process.

It's kind of stupid to use the words "annihilating hydrogen" when the hydrogen is really being "fused" into helium. It's sort of why they call it nuclear fusion and not nuclear annihilation.

James___ wrote: Lise Meitner realized that the mass lost when matter split into 2 was accounted for by Einstein's E = MC^2.

... so you have no excuse for writing:

James___ wrote: Basically fusion absorbs energy because it is creating a heavier/denser form of matter.

Fusion releases energy because matter is converted into energy ... so there is less matter, not somehow more or denser matter.

James___ wrote:For fun,

James___ wrote:... when ions that are protons

James___ wrote: ... drop to a less energetic state,

James___ wrote: It's like steam giving up it's heat when it condenses into water.

James___ wrote: And with the laser creating an ion takes less energy.

James___ wrote:This would need to be a cascading effect as well.

James___ wrote:The energy released releases the energy in another hydrogen element.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:... when ions that are protons

When are protons ions?

The fusion between deuterium and tritium (DT) nuclei produces one helium nucleus, one neutron, and great amounts of energy.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/08/19/a-giant-step-toward-the-holy-grail-of-energy-research-scientist-on-fusion-breakthrough.html

Since hydrogen is the most common element in space, might be the place to develop it. Then going to the Moon or Mars would take much less time. iter.org has been working on a fusion process as well using tritium. https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels

With what Dr. Kaku has been working on, he uses H (hydrogen) and ITER uses H2-H3 types of hydrogen. With H2 and H3, those would be ionized hydrogen meaning they consist of having 2 and 3 hydrogen elements that would be like O2 oxygen and ozone.

Neither H2 nor H3 an ion. Neither oxygen nor ozone are ions either.

I don't think you know what an ion is.

And you couldn't figure out that I meant isotope.

James___ wrote:
An ion is a gas.

James___ wrote:
With the fusion process they use at ITER.org, it seems that they want to create helium which is something like 2/4He from highly charged ions that they create by stripping the shell away from D2-D3 interaction.
Basically once the shells are stripped away, the neutrons and protons that are ionized will form 2/4He releasing energy as a result. What do you not get about that Quasimodo? It's pretty basic and am sure that even Harvey gets it.
An FYI, since hydrogen has a proton and 2/4He has 2 protons and 2 neutrons (2 + 2 = 4, ), this suggests that electrons will be absorbed by a proton converting it into a quark. This suggests it will consume energy. Kind of why I think annihilating a hydrogen element might work. It'd be like a mini nuclear explosion and those have a cascading effect as well.
I think I'll stick with Green Energy for the time being.

The endless quest for safe, easy accessible energy.

There is no perpetual motion. We all know that. However there has been posited that there is a universal energy source. Tesla was one of the first to propose it. Quantum theory relies on energy as a supposed zero point energy field. Today, many purport to view the zero point energy as a possible source of universal energy. Tesla did not know of this but he did say.......

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for Coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels."

To this I must add and explain our energy dilemma and note the fact that Tesla did understand, should his prophesy not be found to be true, what would forever limit man's energy.

When Tesla made the above statement he had "ideas". There is no doubt that electrons abound loose and free here on earth, or there would be no static electricity to shock you and no lightning. Electrons are electricity. Nothing else in the real world can produce electricity without the flowing charge bound up in the electron. Free electronic charges do exist in nature. Not everything is strictly electrically neutral at all times. Tesla knew this. All positive charges in the macroscopic sense are due to an imbalance absence or loss of electrons, while all negative charge is due to a collection of excess electrons.

Tesla's mind raced far ahead of his ability to prove many of his musings. Today, we know many of his thoughts, even when he was in command of his senses, are wrong. Tesla was careful to not allow himself to be linked to the impossible physics of perpetual motion so long held by the loony fringe in science for over a thousand years. The laws of thermodynamics will now allow that and Tesla knew it.

Instead, he envisioned a mechanism that could tap into what he considered a pre-existing font of natural energy found throughout the universe. Thus, the statement he made above. All of this was laid out in his huge article in 1900, "On Increasing Human Energy", (Century magazine)

Tesla had just returned from the heady days in Colorado and had it in his head that such a universal field of energy existed all around us. He could not prove it, but had huge hopes for the idea. In the above grandiose statement, he followed up within a number of news paper articles a proviso. This proviso, none of his boosters ever notes due to their being besotted with everything Tesla and their abject lack of knowledge related to the physics of the universe. Tesla, when pressed, tended to tell both sides, but to the press, he waxed eloquent with speculations which any good newspaperman would pump to a higher and more fantastical level to sell papers and make Tesla appear as if he stepped down from Mount Olympus.

Now to what Tesla predicated in his bold statement regarding universal energy. After his firm belief in a universal font of electrical energy just waiting to be tapped into, he noted, and I paraphrase as close to his quote as I can.

"I seek, via mechanisms made by man, to connect with the very wheel work of the universe.... To capture unlimited amounts of energy from the boundless font which makes up the very fabric of the universe. If man fails in this effort, he will forever be doomed to be a hunter-gatherer."

I hold this to be the most prophetic and well spoken statement Tesla ever made so long as he lived. Tearing this statement apart, you can see his true genius and depth of thought. With his seeing the power of his work in Colorado Springs in 1899, he had come to believe in a universal source of energy just waiting to be tapped which lay just beyond his immediate grasp. Realizing that the laws of thermodynamics might limit this dream, should there be no such real source of hidden universal energy, Tesla noted the fact that man has always been a hunter-gatherer and may yet be doomed to continue along this path. So..... 1.Tesla had dreams and hopes firmly in his mind related to endless energy. 2. He, as a trained college science graduate and knowing physics and the laws of thermodynamics had to admit that with no such energy source, man would have to continue along his ancient path of seeking out energy sources containing "pre-cocked", "energy guns". 3. In such gatherings, all we had to do is apply a tiny amount of seed energy (pulling the trigger) to reap that stored molecular energy found bound up in what we had gathered up.

In short, man must gather up sticks or mine coal which have stored molecular energy due to photosynthesis from the sun over years (wood) or millennia (coal). Then, to pull the "trigger" by applying a single small flame for but a moment. Finally, to stand back and allow that stored energy to pour out over hours to warm us at the hearth or to boil water to drive steam trains and boats. This, is hunter-gathering in man's effort to capture and use energy forever for as long as he has existed. We are still nothing but hunter-gatherers to this very day. Nothing has changed nor will it ever in the foreseeable future.

Tesla had no idea about nuclear energy. Yet all of nuclear energy is just hunter-gathering! All nuclear energy derives from stored binding energy... Give it a thought as a scientist.... Uranium and all matter beyond hydrogen is created only in long ago, exploded, giant super novae. In these giant explosions, energy is created solely by the potential energy source of gravity. Gravity has acted upon the collapsing star to force an energetic explosion of such a magnitude that the helium thru carbon which fused during the life time of the exploded star can only now fuse even these "unfusable" stellar products to produce yet more massive higher elements.

The "stellar vomit" resulting from these huge explosions drifts through space and ultimately form a nebula and a new star is born: our sun. Much of the solid elemental rubble is kept away from the new star by the violent solar radiation pressure. Doomed to orbit the star at various distances and to, ultimately, accrete into planets with all the heavy elements.

Man, in the late 1890's, discovers radioactivity from only the heaviest two metallic elements. They seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics so closely guarded by science. Slowly we learn that molecular energy is not the only store of universal energy! The nuclei of these heavy elements are unstable and as the nucleus decays, a far more vast outpouring of energy called nuclear energy is released. This nuclear energy makes the chemical molecular energy appear as but a baby's breath in comparison, mass for mass with wood or coal. The process is called fission. (we split atoms with pre-cocked energy guns)... We quickly, and almost overnight, learn to use nuclear energy to first kill and then to grow our society by leaps and bounds. What pulls the nuclear trigger in nuclear energy? First hunt for it, then, gather it, refine it, separate out one isotope of uranium. Then, merely bring two pieces of it close together and unbelievable amounts of energy will pour out, releasing stored nuclear binding energy from that original nova billions of years ago.

Oddly, and by accident, we determine that the very lightest of stable elements can also produce energy just as the sun does via fusion! (forcing the lighter elements together violently and against their electrostatic and nuclear will as dictated by physics). But there is a snag. We can only fuse and obtain such energy from these lightest elements if we first raise the temperature to hundreds of millions of degrees. We must also contain the resultant energy. The only thing that can do this is the energy released in the fission of uranium. We do powerful fusion first in a device designed to only kill, (H-bomb). We surround the light elements with an atomic bomb, (fission) to make it happen. The energy from the H-bomb far exceeds that from the fission bomb used to trigger the fusion reaction.

But now, why not use it to produce useful, controlled fusion energy? To control fusion we must heat the light atoms to temperatures as in the H bomb, but we can't use fission. Some plasmas are in the right temperature range. We try that and we do indeed get well controlled fusion. However, we do not get enough fusion energy to even begin to approach the energy that we put in to achieve the fusion reaction! With more energy, we create more fusion, but a problem rears its ugly head. The laws of physics are ever mindful and prevent such reactions as fusion to occur. As fusion energy grows, the forces needed to contain the violent reaction needed to boil water begin to destroy the reactor vessel. This, and other factors, tend to kill the fusion process. The ruling force is electrostatic repulsion.

Quantum theory is brought to bear here and all fusion is a mere probability that the ions of the lighter elements will or will not fuse even at fusion temperatures! In an H-bomb, the probabilities allow for a high order of positive probability due to a gross and instantaneous temperature rise due to the fission explosion far beyond and many times the fusion temperature required.

To this day, we have no way to control fusion in a reactor at or even near fusion "ignition" temperatures. Only gravity, a potential energy, is seen to be the controller and creator of fusion throughout the universe in far flung remote units called stars separated by light years.

Xadoman wrote:
Harvey, if you want to read about fusion then go to this forum:

https://fusor.net/board/

By R.Hull:

[quote]The endless quest for safe, easy accessible energy.

There is no perpetual motion. We all know that. However there has been posited that there is a universal energy source. Tesla was one of the first to propose it. Quantum theory relies on energy as a supposed zero point energy field. Today, many purport to view the zero point energy as a possible source of universal energy. Tesla did not know of this but he did say.......

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for Coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels."

keepit wrote:
There's a simple thing about fusion. The hydrogen atom has an incredible amount of vibrational energy - the atom itself, the proton itself, and the quarks themselves.
When the hydrogen atom is by itself this total energy is very high but when the atom fuses with another hydrogen atom, the hydrogen atoms aren't free to vibrate as much and the vibrational energy is reduced. That energy has to go somewhere and it is released to do what ever it does.

James___ wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Harvey, if you want to read about fusion then go to this forum:

https://fusor.net/board/

By R.Hull:

[quote]The endless quest for safe, easy accessible energy.

There is no perpetual motion. We all know that. However there has been posited that there is a universal energy source. Tesla was one of the first to propose it. Quantum theory relies on energy as a supposed zero point energy field. Today, many purport to view the zero point energy as a possible source of universal energy. Tesla did not know of this but he did say.......

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for Coal, oil, gas or any other of the common fuels."

It's possible that he was trying to tap into the Earth's electromagnetic field. It's energy is everywhere but how to harness it? When electrons are converted into a magnetic field, a motor is powered. So how can electromagnetic energy be harnessed without a generator converting it into electrons or is there a more efficient way?

keepit wrote:itn,Just google "nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe Tesla was looking for 'free' energy. He was working on an efficient, nearly lossless way to distribute electricity. He wanted to make electricity freely available anywhere on the planet, without physical wires to the generating plants. The electricity people used, still needed to be generated in the traditional manner. The idea was to use the planet as a storage device, like a capacitor, which anybody could tap into, with a simple device. Which, of course, sort of pissed off investors, as there would be no means of metering and charging the consumers for the electricity they used. Our current system, fuel is burned, electricity generated, but any surplus isn't stored anywhere. Use it or lose it. It's sort of why solar panels on residential roofs, aren't saving people much money, or actually helping out. Power companies still have to pay for that production, even when nobody is using it. They still need to produce electricity a generating plants as well. Solar panels produce only during the day, a surplus during low demand hours, which doesn't get stored anywhere. The electric companies are forced to pay for a product, nobody is buying, every day. The grid system struggles to balance the load, with unpredictable production.

keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.

Google is not God, dude. Neither is it a source.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.

Google is not God, dude. Neither is it a source.

At some point if people want to discuss technological innovation they should become aware of some of the basics as far as science goes. And without reference material, then it might just be someone's opinion being discussed that has nothing to do with actual science. And then we could consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_k5CSYKhg

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
itn,
Just google
"nuclear binding energy" and you'll understand the process of nuclear fusion better.

Google is not God, dude. Neither is it a source.

At some point if people want to discuss technological innovation they should become aware of some of the basics as far as science goes. And without reference material, then it might just be someone's opinion being discussed that has nothing to do with actual science. And then we could consider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_k5CSYKhg

The ONLY authoritative reference for any theory of science is the theory itself and it's associated law.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Google is not God.

And the belief that logic is perfect

Xadoman wrote:

And the belief that logic is perfect

I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

And the belief that logic is perfect

I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

And the belief that logic is perfect

I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

And the belief that logic is perfect

I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.

With your logic itn, there "is" and "isn't". That is an extremely limiting philosophy. It'n like you need to be in control and that is your mechanism of choice. Either that or you like creating chaos.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

And the belief that logic is perfect

I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

"Perfectly" is a condition which only you can define, right? This would explain why logic is not fallible then, right? That's because it'n an extension of yourself?

Xadoman wrote:I think that logic is not perfect.

Xadoman wrote:Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

And the belief that logic is perfect

I think that logic is not perfect. Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Zeno's paradox's are not related to logic.
They are related to mathematics, and have been resolved through the invention of calculus.

The paradoxes themselves are base rate fallacies.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

In other words, Zeno's paradoxes are not logic.

Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

"Perfectly" is a condition which only you can define, right? This would explain why logic is not fallible then, right? That's because it'n an extension of yourself?

Apparently I have to say it again: Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics.
If you perfectly follow the rules, it works.

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:I think that logic is not perfect.

What does this mean? How is logic imperfect? Is it the wrong shade of blue? Please be clear.

Mathematics, being built on logic, would be "imperfect" in the exact same way so I'm eager to learn what that is.

Xadoman wrote:Zeno s paradox is a perfect example how logic could lead to false conclusion.

Incorrect. Logic is not to blame if people choose to not use it and instead decide to form their own erroneous conclusions.

Some modern day examples of Zeno's paradoxes are Greenhouse Effect, ocean acidification and global glacier disappearance.

How does logic not work, exactly?

.