Time for Fusion Power

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2003-02-10 08:25pm

I would like to know the general consensus on the following question: How many years until we have practical fusion power?

My $$$ is on 75 years. Any others?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-02-10 08:35pm

I'd say somewhere between 20-40 years from now we'll see a major revelation in physics, we've been due for a big one for about 40 years now. This will probably help boost particle physics a good deal, and help power and computing a good deal. Heavy use of quantum comps will make calculating big things faster and thus make physics faster and more efficient.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-10 08:42pm

<Anti-nuke protestor:.... >

AIIIEEE!!! Fusion power will bring us all down!!!!!

<end antinuke protestor....>

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2003-02-10 08:55pm

Twelve years according to Back To The Future.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-10 09:13pm

I have a fusion reactor. It aint break even tho XD

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-10 09:42pm

Sonnenburg wrote:Twelve years according to Back To The Future.

Now. What? I have a Mr. Fusion powering my PC now along with a Mr. Frostie making me slush puppy drinks.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-02-10 10:57pm

I'd say in 20 years we'll have a working model, but it won't be implimented for another 20.

Sektor31 · Post by **Sektor31** » 2003-02-10 11:53pm

I heard somewhere that experts were making good progress already on a thermonuclear fusion reactor. I'd say 5 - 10 years.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-10 11:59pm

honestly, i think we might make it by 2050 if we do more then just build bigger donuts. Seriously, a tok may be able to break even on gigawatts input, but if it only produces an extra watt out, it aint much use to the world now is it?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-02-11 04:00am

kojikun wrote:I have a fusion reactor. It aint break even tho XD

How is that Fusor working btw? Any pics of it?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-02-11 03:58pm

50 years in the future...

Consistantly...

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-02-11 04:00pm

Beowulf wrote:50 years in the future...

Consistantly...

Shoot! I'll be dead long before then. Hurry up you fusion science types!

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-11 04:36pm

15 years, tops.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-11 05:07pm

Ein, nope, no pics. I'll try to get some for you tho. I need to get access to a vacuum pump since its not evacuated persently.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-11 05:09pm

I predict some nuclear fusion in the middle of Bagdad in the very near future.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-11 05:27pm

Atleast it will be the kind of fusion beneficial to mankind

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-02-11 06:56pm

What are you people talking about? We have a working Fusion reactor kickings around. Its called the Sun

But seriously? They'll start getting positive output in probably another 5 years, and usable positive output in another 5-20, is where my $$$ is.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-02-11 09:09pm

Okay kids, let me bring up to you a relatively bizarre and new concept that most of you haven't considered. Microfusion. Basically, conducting fusion on an atom by atom basis. With either nanomachines or a scanning, tunneling electron microscope. Probably within the next ten or so years, depends on how soon someone manages to make even a small advance in current nanotech techniques.[/u]

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-11 09:15pm

Stupid noob alert.

Lets pick apart the problems with microfusion, shall we?

Firstly, the energies required to fuse two atoms are such that no nanite could ever hope to produce them over the course of its lifetime.

Secondly, STEMs are not fusion machines and do not induce fusion.

Thirdly, you're a fucking idiot.

Lets not even begin to think about the complexity of the nanites, or the fact that its impossible to get net-positive-power using such a scheme.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-02-11 09:38pm

Nanotech will be based in chem reactions and heavy engineering for a good 50 years before it goes completely mainstream. The idea of it being used for fusion reactions is absurd to degrees I cannot completely comprehend.
Really Saddam has a fusion reactor???
I thought his scientists were barely able to fart up a few canisters of mustard gas and a small fission bomb or two. Saddam will probably get smart and choose the road that the US likes the least, cooperation.
"Saddam must comply with the deadline or we will bomb"-Something to the effect of Bush setting a deadline on Iraq's self ISO 9000.
"Here it is" Iraqi ambassador, "a day early"
"Uh it's incomplete." Bush in stunned reply at compliance, "You must let us do more checks"
"Sure"
A still baffled Bush tries to think of something different
"Hey!!!! Look at me, I'm proliferating the nukky!!!!" NKs
"Hush, I wanna bomb saddam" Bush

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-02-12 03:34am

Okay, next time I look it up instead of writing it out seconds before I fall asleep. But the concept was along those lines, two hydrogen together, maybe there was an exciter beam of some sort, (gamma, particle, wasn't paying attention to the article) and it produces a very "profitable" fusion reaction. Oh, and please... don't use the word Noob. You just knocked down my esimation of your I.Q. by at least 20 percentile.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-12 03:57am

Tom_Aurum wrote:Okay, next time I look it up instead of writing it out seconds before I fall asleep. But the concept was along those lines, two hydrogen together, maybe there was an exciter beam of some sort, (gamma, particle, wasn't paying attention to the article) and it produces a very "profitable" fusion reaction. Oh, and please... don't use the word Noob. You just knocked down my esimation of your I.Q. by at least 20 percentile.

You castigate him for using the word "noob" after you mistook microfusion for nanotechnology?

PS. Even if we imagine that you can get two atoms to fuse with net gain, how useful is that? Do you figure on having 50 trillion of these reactors strung together so you can make enough power to run a lightbulb?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-02-12 04:10am

Well, I'm in favor of the spheromak fusion generator concept, but I don't know how practical spheromaks are. I understand though that people within the community have decided to revisit the spheromak recently, even though it wasn't as energetic as the tokamak. I'd guess that we might have practical fusion in 40 or so years, maybe. Who knows, eh?

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-02-12 04:18am

Well, then, the web hates me or something, because I can't go there myself. Maybe some dip@#$# from a Cox server tried to hack it, but the link is:

www.nanozine.com/q-2.html

I think that has the article that I read about this topic in it. And actually, I wasn't mistaking nanotechnology for microfusion. Anyways, the method I read in there isn't that far off.
Castigating, mind you, is what you children are doing to me.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-02-12 05:30am

I predict 5 weeks.

EDIT: Okay 6.