RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on May 4, 2010 4:08:26 GMT -5
If it works it's going to be the greatest thing ever and we will have peace on earth in a century.
I just wish they would do it in 2011 or 2013 instead of 2012
|
|
|
Post by Tiffany on May 4, 2010 6:05:46 GMT -5
I just wish they would do it in 2011 or 2013 instead of 2012 It's probably scaring people SHIRTless about the end of the world...I mean, I know it's scaring me.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 4, 2010 10:00:45 GMT -5
If it works it's going to be the greatest thing ever and we will have peace on earth in a century. So I see you never traveled to Europe, or Africa...or SA.......
|
|
4905ab
Meteorite
hello world
Posts: 13
|
Post by 4905ab on May 11, 2010 5:48:46 GMT -5
it would be great if they mange to make this work as it would solve the energy demand and give clean energy out but i want then to do it safely no going all evil and making a crater in the earth
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on May 11, 2010 6:00:15 GMT -5
If it works it's going to be the greatest thing ever and we will have peace on earth in a century. So I see you never traveled to Europe, or Africa...or SA....... I live in Europe, and almost all the earth's problems are caused by resource shortages, even the ones that pretend like they are some other problem . Endless cheap sustainable electricity will solve so many problems the rest will be easy. Hell, if electricity was cheap enough we could even separate all the excess water from the ice caps melting into hydrogen (to fuel cars) and oxygen (which is awesome) and we could pump water to areas of drought and.. .no wait.. I'm not going to list all the problems that cheap electricity would solve because I'll be here literally forever. (not literally, just till i die of old age)
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 11, 2010 8:09:43 GMT -5
They've been doing this for ages in France and in the UK anyways. It's not a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by GojuRyuKarateWolf on May 11, 2010 17:55:29 GMT -5
Just when you thought you've seen it all....It says that "the resulting reaction will be more than 100 million degrees Celsius (hotter than the center of the sun) and will exert more pressure than 100 billion atmospheres. Then hydrogen isotopes will band together with so much force and heat that their nuclei will fuse, creating energy which, as you can imagine, will be plentiful enough to supply abundant power". Maybe it's just me, but I think it's kind of risky? What if it goes wrong? What will be the consequences? The result may end in catastrophe, in my opinion. A part of me hopes it's trollin' for some reason...Anyway, let's imagine that BANG, it was a success: how are they going to keep that amount of energy? What are they going to sacrifice for the sake of all that power? I mean, 100 MILLION degrees celcius isn't a lil burn...Am I even making sense? lol
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 11, 2010 22:32:04 GMT -5
Just when you thought you've seen it all....It says that "the resulting reaction will be more than 100 million degrees Celsius (hotter than the center of the sun) and will exert more pressure than 100 billion atmospheres. Then hydrogen isotopes will band together with so much force and heat that their nuclei will fuse, creating energy which, as you can imagine, will be plentiful enough to supply abundant power". Maybe it's just me, but I think it's kind of risky? What if it goes wrong? What will be the consequences? The result may end in catastrophe, in my opinion. A part of me hopes it's trollin' for some reason...Anyway, let's imagine that BANG, it was a success: how are they going to keep that amount of energy? What are they going to sacrifice for the sake of all that power? I mean, 100 MILLION degrees celcius isn't a lil burn...Am I even making sense? lol You're making sense, and the situation you're describing is akin to a nuclear reactor going critical and devolving into uncontrolled fission, essentially setting off a large nuclear warhead within the plant, destroying it and a wide surrounding area. However, in the case of fusion, this explosion would be exponentially more powerful, and thus inherently more dangerous. Fortunately, incidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have made nuclear energy proponents wary of the necessary safety precautions in nuclear power, and a fusion-related meltdown is highly improbable given the precautions that must and inevitably will be taken. Still, that much sheer energy being released in an instant is a potentially terrifying thought...
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 5:27:45 GMT -5
It's not like they have a tub of 100 million degrees liquid just sitting there. The stuff they have at that temperature in in very tiny quantities and is forced into place by a magnetic field. The energy created arrives in the kinetic energy of neutrons, which is harvested by means of a lead plate which the neutrons crash into and heat up. That plate has water running behind it which heats up to the extent that it can be used to power turbines. I will say this now and put my entire reputation on the line: No-one will die from the direct result of a nuclear fusion reactor failure.
|
|
richie
Meteorite
Jackie xx
Posts: 34
|
Post by richie on May 12, 2010 9:58:23 GMT -5
My mind is preety much summing up the title as: Should we create an artifical sun on earth? My mind has immediatley responed with: ''yes''
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 11:01:01 GMT -5
It's not like they have a tub of 100 million degrees liquid just sitting there. The stuff they have at that temperature in in very tiny quantities and is forced into place by a magnetic field. The energy created arrives in the kinetic energy of neutrons, which is harvested by means of a lead plate which the neutrons crash into and heat up. That plate has water running behind it which heats up to the extent that it can be used to power turbines. I will say this now and put my entire reputation on the line: No-one will die from the direct result of a nuclear fusion reactor failure. The potential problem that you're overlooking is the chance of the cooling, insulation, or magnetic containment systems failing. This could be due to human error, miscalculation, or simply structural failure. Personally, I find this situation unlikely, as people designing modern fusion reactors will more than account for the potential safety hazards. However, we can't deny the POTENTIAL for failure, in which case uncontrolled fusion could result, possibly killing thousands. Again, highly unlikely, but the potential is inherently there when working with such large amounts of raw energy.
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 11:42:37 GMT -5
What situation could arise that would kill thousands? Where does the harm arise?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrope on May 12, 2010 12:57:27 GMT -5
What situation could arise that would kill thousands? Where does the harm arise? let's see, what happens when a nuclear reactor goes critical... explosion that equals a Tactical Missile with a Nuclear Warhead.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 14:55:34 GMT -5
What situation could arise that would kill thousands? Where does the harm arise? Have you ever heard of the h-bomb? It is the logical advancement on the traditional fission-based atomic bomb. In a hydrogen bomb, an initial fission reaction is used to trigger a potentially endless amount of fusion reactions that release exponentially more power than the initial fission. Uncontrolled fusion. Now, if a fusion reactor being used for energy purposes were to have a meltdown of sorts, the tight controlled pinpoint fusion taking place could become uncontrolled, releasing a massive amount of energy that would be like a small meteor impact. See how that could kill thousands? See where the potential harm arises?
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 18:10:36 GMT -5
I was more asking for clarification on your "meltdown of sorts". The only situation I can see occuring is the magnetic field shuts off, and the gas expands, cooling to below the threshold for serious fusion. Also, a quick read-up on H-bombs (wikipedia) tells me your description is not how they work, they merely use nuclear fusion to create neutrons to make more fission happen.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 18:14:40 GMT -5
Your brief wikipedia browsing has lead you to draw premature and false conclusions. A hydrogen bomb works with an alternating flow of an initial fission powering fusion and vice versa. However, the much greater power comes from the fusion, not the fission, making it the more energy-yielding factor of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 18:17:22 GMT -5
You still haven't answered my question. What malfunction could occur in a fusion reactor which would cause an issue?
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 19:09:29 GMT -5
A loss of coolant accident. This could cause emergency cooling systems to fail, and even if the reactor is shut down, the reacting material within the reactor would continue producing the heat from its last reaction, and would subsequently burn through the reactor, and then explode violently when contacting a much cooler surface, like the water table beneath it after it burns straight through the reactor, facility floors, and earth that separates the two.
|
|
|
Post by speakmouthwords on May 12, 2010 20:13:08 GMT -5
I think you're wildly overestimating how much material is actually in that thing. It's not much. Not much at all. The reason it's at such a high temperature is mostly due to Charles' Law.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 20:48:42 GMT -5
I'm not overestimating, I'm aware it is an extremely minuscule amount of material, but it doesn't matter. It has so much latent energy, that this tiny chunk of matter will burn through meters and meters of earth before it dissipates in the ground water, where it may or may not explode.
|
|