UM-Bot Posted October 18, 2016 #1 Share Posted October 18, 2016 A world powered by practically limitless, clean energy is now one step closer to becoming a reality. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/299917/mits-fusion-reactor-sets-new-world-record 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec Posted October 18, 2016 #2 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Well 2032 is a long way from here. Unless we have some breakthrough in the meantime, it will be a long wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted October 18, 2016 #3 Share Posted October 18, 2016 a mere blink and we'll be swimming in energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted October 18, 2016 #4 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Now if they can only make it smaller. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted October 18, 2016 #5 Share Posted October 18, 2016 I believe fusion is, and must be the solution to our power needs in the short and medium term at least. What is unfortunate is that most people hear the word nuclear and are instantly repelled. but what is absolutely clear, developing stable fusion is only the first step, we need to look at ways to harness the energy produced, because fusion to power a turbine in my opinion is wasted. We need to look at new methods of generation and storage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noxasa Posted October 19, 2016 #6 Share Posted October 19, 2016 This is ridiculous. If strong magnet fields are shown to be a viable containment mechanism for a fusion reaction then governments should be throwing resources into this research like they did trying to find a cure for AIDS. Having to wait 16 years for the next stage of prototyping is just ridiculous. Sustained fusion energy production would pretty much solve the world's energy issues with no pollution or radioactive byproducts. I just don't get it...16 years? Wow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted October 19, 2016 #7 Share Posted October 19, 2016 6 hours ago, Grey Area said: I believe fusion is, and must be the solution to our power needs in the short and medium term at least. What is unfortunate is that most people hear the word nuclear and are instantly repelled. but what is absolutely clear, developing stable fusion is only the first step, we need to look at ways to harness the energy produced, because fusion to power a turbine in my opinion is wasted. We need to look at new methods of generation and storage. and delivery... our current system is... lacking in efficiency to say the least. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperdyer Posted October 19, 2016 #8 Share Posted October 19, 2016 From the linked article: "The achievement at MIT came on the final day of operation of the Alcator C-Mod tokamak. It's been in operation for 23 years, repeatedly pushing the envelope on what's possible, but budgetary pressures have forced the US to end its funding in favor of newer facilities. Still, its record is likely to stand for some time - at least until 2032, when the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (better known as ITER) is due to open in the south of France." Hilary should jump on finding funding for this project instead of trying to build solar panel and wind farms to generate electricity. The more money that gets sucked up by these two technologies will only hinder fusion development. To push the fusion technology timeline we need all countries working together in the same type of accelerated program that got men to the moon in a short number of years after making a firm commitment. It will take longer to get usable fusion power than it did to get men to the moon since we aren't as far along with fusion as we were with rocketry when the commitment was made. And where would the money come from? I'd think the oil and electric companies would want to participate so when we switch, they will still be in business. Another comment from the article used the word "profitable". Yes a profit must be made but the cost to consumers must not be astronomical either. The life of the reactors and the overall payback need to be determined. I didn't see this referenced in the article, but is water being used to create the hydrogen for the reactor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 20, 2016 #9 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Combine endless energy with an EmDrive and what do you get? Humans on every planet in the galaxy in 1000 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMan Posted October 26, 2016 #10 Share Posted October 26, 2016 On 10/20/2016 at 4:11 AM, DieChecker said: Combine endless energy with an EmDrive and what do you get? Humans on every planet in the galaxy in 1000 years. Light can't cross the galaxy in 1000 years, let alone humans. Just sayin' 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted October 26, 2016 #11 Share Posted October 26, 2016 5 hours ago, MisterMan said: Light can't cross the galaxy in 1000 years, let alone humans. Just sayin' Depends... Thats where relativity comes into play. Lets say you accelerate (and start to decelerate halfway) at 1 g (assuming EmDrive works (big question, so far), and can achieve that acceleration), then you will travel to Andromeda galaxy (2.5 million light-years) in less than 29 years. At 0.5 g you'll be there in 55 years, and so on. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted October 26, 2016 #12 Share Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) deleted Edited October 26, 2016 by bmk1245 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 27, 2016 #13 Share Posted October 27, 2016 On 10/25/2016 at 5:54 PM, MisterMan said: Light can't cross the galaxy in 1000 years, let alone humans. Just sayin' True. Since the Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years across.... "Duh" on me.... Should have picked a bigger number.... Million years maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMan Posted December 4, 2016 #14 Share Posted December 4, 2016 On 10/26/2016 at 2:11 AM, bmk1245 said: Depends... Thats where relativity comes into play. Lets say you accelerate (and start to decelerate halfway) at 1 g (assuming EmDrive works (big question, so far), and can achieve that acceleration), then you will travel to Andromeda galaxy (2.5 million light-years) in less than 29 years. At 0.5 g you'll be there in 55 years, and so on. I'm aware of relativity. I assumed the 1,000 year comment meant 1,000 years on earth, and not for each of the travelers that was going to populate every planet in the galaxy. I think he confirmed that with his response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted December 4, 2016 #15 Share Posted December 4, 2016 3 hours ago, MisterMan said: I'm aware of relativity. I assumed the 1,000 year comment meant 1,000 years on earth, and not for each of the travelers that was going to populate every planet in the galaxy. I think he confirmed that with his response. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlitterRose Posted December 4, 2016 #16 Share Posted December 4, 2016 (edited) On 10/18/2016 at 8:50 PM, Noxasa said: This is ridiculous. If strong magnet fields are shown to be a viable containment mechanism for a fusion reaction then governments should be throwing resources into this research like they did trying to find a cure for AIDS. Having to wait 16 years for the next stage of prototyping is just ridiculous. Sustained fusion energy production would pretty much solve the world's energy issues with no pollution or radioactive byproducts. I just don't get it...16 years? Wow. The record it achieved will likely stand until construction of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is completed in France which may not be until 2032 at the earliest. Looks like it was funded in 2006, but it went over budget several times and didn't meet deadlines. It also looks like the US considered withdrawing support because of the delays, but we're still in. I think you have to realize that they're trying to do something that has never been done before. 1985. At the Geneva summit meeting in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev suggested to Ronald Reagan that the two countries jointly undertake the construction of a tokamak EPR as proposed by the INTOR Workshop. The ITER project was initiated in 1988.[25][26] 1988. Conceptual design activities ran from 1988[27] to 1990. 1992. Engineering design activities started.[28] 1998. In June, the 'Final design' from the Engineering Design Activities was approved.[29] 2001. In July, the "cost-cutting" 'ITER-FEAT' design was agreed.[30] 2006. The ITER project was formally agreed to and funded with a cost estimate of €10 billion ($12.8 billion) projecting the start of construction in 2008 and completion a decade later.[12] 2007. In September, fourteen major design changes were agreed to the 2001 design.[31] 2013. The project had run into many delays and budget overruns. The facility is not expected to begin operations at the schedule initially anticipated.[8] 2014. In February, The New Yorker published the ITER Management Assessment report, listing 11 essential recommendations, for example: "Create a Project Culture", "Instill a Nuclear Safety Culture", "Develop a realistic ITER Project Schedule" and "Simplify and Reduce the IO Bureaucracy".[32] The USA considered withdrawal, but is still participating in ITER.[33] 2015. In November a project review concludes that the schedule may need extending by at least six years; (e.g. first plasma in 2026).[34] 2016. Atomic Energy Organization of Iran completed the preliminary work for Iran to join ITER[35] I'm not sure what AIDS research has to do with anything. Of course, we shouldn't stop medical research just because we're doing energy research. Edited December 4, 2016 by ChaosRose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now