Fusion Reactors can now be built

[Guest Bob Kolker]

What Me Worry? wrote:

>

>

> You're not a researcher, are you Bob?

 

No. I am a person who wishes practical results. Do you have any? I have

been hearing about how fusion generated power will be a reality in

thirty years for over fifty years. So where are the results?

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest Bob Kolker]

Mani Deli wrote:

>

> Gee, they said heavier than air flight was also impossible .

 

Nonsense. Birds have been doing it for millions of years. What Kelvin

said in 1895 was that generating enough power relative to weight was no

feasible. Which was true in 1895. The Freres Wright in addition to

getting the lift tables right invented a light gasoline engine capable

of developing enough lift. No physicists ever said heavier than air

flight was phsysically impossible. People have been flying heavier than

air kites for over a thousand years. Gliders were developed by

Lileanthal in Germany in the early 1890's. The question was heavier than

air -powered- flight. And that is a technological question not a

question of physical principle. If you can get air moving over a

sufficiently large wing fast enough, you can generate the required lift.

 

All of which has nothing to do with fusion. We know fusion works. That

is how the sun produces energy. The question is a technological matter.

The Tokomac principle of enclosing a very hot plasma in a torroidal

magnetic field had produced difficulties. The torroidal field is

inherently unstable. That is why Tokomacs don't work.

 

Despite all the optomistic predictions no one has gotten a fusion device

to maintain net postive power output for more than a minute or so. This

is clearly insufficient to be a practical power generating mechanism.

How would it be if conventional generators quit running after a few

hours? Would electrical power generation be practical if that were the case?

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest Bob Kolker]

Roger wrote:

>

> Yeah, and they said teleportation to distant planets was also impossible.

 

At light speed? Yes it is. Massive bodies can not be speed up to the

speed of light. That would require infinite energy. You can get to

another planet if you are willing to go slow enough.

 

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest Bob Kolker]

What Me Worry? wrote:

>

>

> They also said the researchers attempting it were fools. Today, we call them

> "geniuses."

 

Who is they?

 

Once an engine with a sufficient power to weight ratio could be built it

was known to be feasible. The Freres Wright solved two of the basic

problems: The first is control. An airplaine uses some kind of three

axis control. That was a Wright original. Most people trying to build

aircraft were using the boat in the water model of control That involves

yaw and pitch. Three components are needed yaw, pitch and roll. Only a

bicycle maven would think of roll.

 

The second major problem the Wrights solved was the power problem. That

developed a very light gasoline engine that could develop enough power

to get a propeller to produce sufficient speed and volume of airflow

over the air foils.

 

Once those problems were solved the aircraft business bloomed world wide.

 

Even so, use of powered flight to move lots of freight and people took

nearly twenty years after the Wrights. The machines had to have enough

payload, be sufficiently reliable and safe.

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest David Johnston]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

wrote:

>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi

>>>novels. Now it's becoming big business.

>>

>> Which big business would that be?

>

>Ask Ford and Boeing:

>

 

"Becoming big business" is not "Big business funding research".

Nanotechnology is still the subject of sci-fi novels.

[Guest What Me Worry?]

"Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:57361kF2avt4dU1@mid.individual.net...

> What Me Worry? wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> They also said the researchers attempting it were fools. Today, we call

>> them "geniuses."

>

> Who is they?

>

> Once an engine with a sufficient power to weight ratio could be built it

> was known to be feasible.

 

It was more about airfoil design. Early glider attempts would likely have

succeeded before the Wright Flyer's powered flight if their wings had

developed lift, as the Wright Bro's wing design did. The idea of creating

lift by using an airfoil (vs a flat wing) happened concurrently with the

successful early flights.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil

> The Freres Wright solved two of the basic problems: The first is control.

> An airplaine uses some kind of three axis control. That was a Wright

> original. Most people trying to build aircraft were using the boat in the

> water model of control That involves yaw and pitch. Three components are

> needed yaw, pitch and roll. Only a bicycle maven would think of roll.

 

True.

> The second major problem the Wrights solved was the power problem. That

> developed a very light gasoline engine that could develop enough power to

> get a propeller to produce sufficient speed and volume of airflow over the

> air foils.

 

It is also like a bicycle designer to think of power-to-weight ratio.

> Once those problems were solved the aircraft business bloomed world wide.

 

Yes; but you may recall that right up until the Kitty Hawk flights, the

public regarded the airplane researchers are "mad scientists." To this day,

old b/w reels are used as stock footage to demonstrate the silly madness of

invention. Sure, some of the contraptions appear silly; but they were all

considered foolish back in the day. We have the benefit of hindsight to

parse the crucial turning points; but they didn't know when or if it might

ever work. That's why it is perhaps a good analogy for fusion.

> Even so, use of powered flight to move lots of freight and people took

> nearly twenty years after the Wrights. The machines had to have enough

> payload, be sufficiently reliable and safe.

 

Yes, very true; but as you know, things happen much faster nowadays.

Research is basically product development now. There is no time to waste.

As soon as a compound, or process or technology is even close to

stability/publication/patentability, it is immediately (often concurrently)

developed into a saleable product. Everything is "just in time." Better to

risk market rejection than to sit on a technology that might sell.

 

The turn of the 20th century was a time very much like our current day.

Robber barons (we now call them "multi billionaires") were kickstarting huge

industries, betting on wild new technologies, and changing the fabric of

American life. The difference is that now it's happening 20x faster, and we

have 6 billion people and instant communication between branches of global

research labs (IBM, Monsanto, BP, etc) Some have said that cheap oil kept

fusion off the front burner; and I agree with that analysis. Expensive oil

has put nuclear energy back on the front burner; and fusion is - for many -

the Holy Grail. It is not universally loved, however, as I'm sure you can

imagine.

[Guest What Me Worry?]

"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

news:r1po03h8a2k3h7m1rto9jjdgcto2hopj9b@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

> wrote:

>

>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>>news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com...

>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi

>>>>novels. Now it's becoming big business.

>>>

>>> Which big business would that be?

>>

>>Ask Ford and Boeing:

>>

>

> "Becoming big business" is not "Big business funding research".

> Nanotechnology is still the subject of sci-fi novels.

 

Gee, that must be why it is being incorporated into products across numerous

industries, right now.

 

Were you really not aware of this fact? Or are you playing stupid?

[Guest Bob Kolker]

What Me Worry? wrote:

>

> It was more about airfoil design. Early glider attempts would likely have

> succeeded before the Wright Flyer's powered flight if their wings had

> developed lift, as the Wright Bro's wing design did. The idea of creating

> lift by using an airfoil (vs a flat wing) happened concurrently with the

> successful early flights.

 

The Wrights first attempts at a flyer were based on Lilienthal's lift

tables. It turns out these were incorrect. Another Wright original was

the wind tunnel. THe Freres Wright built a wind tunnel to test out

various airfoil shapes to measure lift empirically. They got it right

eventually. They not only got the wings right, they also used their wind

tunnel to develop efficient propellors. That is why their lightweight

gasoline engine was sufficient to lift their flyer. Langley used much

more powerful motors but his propellors and wings were not shaped

correctly.

 

So the Freres right scored a coup on methodology, the wind tunnel as

well as understanding the control problem.

 

It turns out there were powered heavier than air flights in France

before the Wright Brothers, but these early planes did not have the

right control design. They could not readily and safely turn. Try

turning a modern plane using just the rudder. You will get excessive

drag and be unable to control the plane well. That is what the first

powered planes did. They used the rudder as the primary control

mechanism. The Wrights used wing warping to roll the plane as well as

turn it with a rudder.

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest David Johnston]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:44:17 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

wrote:

>

>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>news:r1po03h8a2k3h7m1rto9jjdgcto2hopj9b@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>>>news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com...

>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi

>>>>>novels. Now it's becoming big business.

>>>>

>>>> Which big business would that be?

>>>

>>>Ask Ford and Boeing:

>>>

>>

>> "Becoming big business" is not "Big business funding research".

>> Nanotechnology is still the subject of sci-fi novels.

>

>Gee, that must be why it is being incorporated into products across numerous

>industries, right now.

 

What, you mean they have atoms in them? What will they think of next?

>

>Were you really not aware of this fact?

 

"Nanotechnology" is a word coined to refer to programmable robots

smaller than the eye can see. So no, I'm not aware of nanotechnology

being incorporated into products across numerous industries right now.

[Guest What Me Worry?]

"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

news:qdvo03hsbthd59bvlqluqtp0qv7ufttb3r@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:44:17 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

> wrote:

>

>>

>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>>news:r1po03h8a2k3h7m1rto9jjdgcto2hopj9b@4ax.com...

>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>>>>news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com...

>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi

>>>>>>novels. Now it's becoming big business.

>>>>>

>>>>> Which big business would that be?

>>>>

>>>>Ask Ford and Boeing:

>>>>

>>>

>>> "Becoming big business" is not "Big business funding research".

>>> Nanotechnology is still the subject of sci-fi novels.

>>

>>Gee, that must be why it is being incorporated into products across

>>numerous

>>industries, right now.

>

> What, you mean they have atoms in them? What will they think of next?

>>

>>Were you really not aware of this fact?

>

> "Nanotechnology" is a word coined to refer to programmable robots

> smaller than the eye can see. So no, I'm not aware of nanotechnology

> being incorporated into products across numerous industries right now.

 

Actually, nanotechnology was first coined by the late, great physicist

Richard Feynman in a1959 talk ""There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom,"

presented to the American Physical Society. Then, decades later, author

Eric Drexler wrote a quasi-fictional futurist exploration of his own

conceptions of what nanoscale technologies might become one day.

 

I'll give you partial credit for being aware of Drexler's writings.

However, nano-scale construction of elegant structures for commercial

applications is indeed commonplace. It should have taken you no more than 5

minutes using Google to verify this fact.

[Guest Anthony Matonak]

Bob Kolker wrote:

> What Me Worry? wrote:

>>

>> You're not a researcher, are you Bob?

>

> No. I am a person who wishes practical results. Do you have any?

 

Bob. You're missing the big picture. They promise they will get

practical results if only you would give them a few hundred million

dollars. After all, you can't get practical results for less.

You'll just have to trust them. No one is more honest than someone

with their hands in your pockets.

 

Anthony

[Guest Mani Deli]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:15:10 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>

wrote:

>"Becoming big business" is not "Big business funding research".

>Nanotechnology is still the subject of sci-fi novels.

 

Try reading Science Daily on the net and you will see that you are

full of crap.

[Guest David Johnston]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:09:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

wrote:

>

>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>news:qdvo03hsbthd59bvlqluqtp0qv7ufttb3r@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:44:17 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>>>news:r1po03h8a2k3h7m1rto9jjdgcto2hopj9b@4ax.com...

>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message

>>>>>news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi

>>>>>>>novels. Now it's becoming big business.

>I'll give you partial credit for being aware of Drexler's writings.

>However, nano-scale construction of elegant structures for commercial

>applications is indeed commonplace.

 

When did anyone write science fiction about the "nano-scale

construction of elegant structures"?

[Guest David Johnston]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:08:00 -0500, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>

wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:46:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>

>wrote:

>

>>Jerry Kraus wrote:

>>>

>>> I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to

>>> be this way.

>>

>>Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy

>>is the technological equivalent of vaporware.

>>

>Gee, they said heavier than air flight was also impossible .

 

It's not that fusion reactors are impossible. It's that they probably

aren't right around the corner. After all heavier than air flight

really was impossible for centuries after the first attempts to design

a machine to do it.

[Guest David Johnston]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:18:34 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>

wrote:

>

>"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

>news:a3lo03dkm8gvooea7b83mfar8v6j5pk4lh@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:46:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>>Jerry Kraus wrote:

>>>>

>>>> I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to

>>>> be this way.

>>>

>>>Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy

>>>is the technological equivalent of vaporware.

>>>

>> Gee, they said heavier than air flight was also impossible .

>

>They also said the researchers attempting it were fools. Today, we call them

>"geniuses."

 

Or we put their efforts into a blooper tape and laugh like hell at

them.

[Guest Bob Kolker]

David Johnston wrote:

>

> It's not that fusion reactors are impossible. It's that they probably

> aren't right around the corner. After all heavier than air flight

> really was impossible for centuries after the first attempts to design

> a machine to do it.

 

You mean artificially powered heavier than air flight. Birds have been

doing it for millions of years. No one who has seen a bird (or even an

insect) fly will say heavier than air flight is impossible.

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest Jerry Kraus]

On Mar 29, 7:54 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Mani Deli wrote:

>

> > Gee, they said heavier than air flight was also impossible .

>

> Nonsense. Birds have been doing it for millions of years. What Kelvin

> said in 1895 was that generating enough power relative to weight was no

> feasible. Which was true in 1895. The Freres Wright in addition to

> getting the lift tables right invented a light gasoline engine capable

> of developing enough lift. No physicists ever said heavier than air

> flight was phsysically impossible. People have been flying heavier than

> air kites for over a thousand years. Gliders were developed by

> Lileanthal in Germany in the early 1890's. The question was heavier than

> air -powered- flight. And that is a technological question not a

> question of physical principle. If you can get air moving over a

> sufficiently large wing fast enough, you can generate the required lift.

>

> All of which has nothing to do with fusion. We know fusion works. That

> is how the sun produces energy. The question is a technological matter.

> The Tokomac principle of enclosing a very hot plasma in a torroidal

> magnetic field had produced difficulties. The torroidal field is

> inherently unstable. That is why Tokomacs don't work.

>

> Despite all the optomistic predictions no one has gotten a fusion device

> to maintain net postive power output for more than a minute or so. This

> is clearly insufficient to be a practical power generating mechanism.

> How would it be if conventional generators quit running after a few

> hours? Would electrical power generation be practical if that were the case?

>

> Bob Kolker

 

Valid technical points Bob. Supposing the operational area of high-

temperature fusion is a cubic micrometer, or a cubic nanometer? Could

this not be achieved with micro-lasers? Would a magnetic field be

required for containment, or would this simply be a very small, but

otherwise conventional energy source?

 

I see you know that the Wright brothers also invented the wind

tunnel. They couldn't have invented the airplane without it.

Otherwise, they would have died trying, like Otto Lillenthal. It made

technical development cheap and safe. That's why I'm suggesting a

nanotechnological approach.

[Guest David Johnston]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:54:05 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:

>

>>

>> It's not that fusion reactors are impossible. It's that they probably

>> aren't right around the corner. After all heavier than air flight

>> really was impossible for centuries after the first attempts to design

>> a machine to do it.

>

>You mean artificially powered heavier than air flight.

 

Yes, does that really need to be spelled out?

[Guest Mani Deli]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:51:09 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>

wrote:

>It's not that fusion reactors are impossible. It's that they probably

>aren't right around the corner.

 

They are further away since Reagan, hero of Granada, stopped funding

alternative fuel research which was started by Carter.

[Guest Matt]

On Mar 29, 2:02 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> lorad...@cs.com wrote:

>

> > If the potiential power output that you claim is true.. you might have

> > to wait until a non-oil interest administration comes into office.

> > Your efforts might be construed as a threat to oil industry profits.

>

> Controlled fusion is the energy source of the future. It has been 30

> years in the future for the last 60 years.

 

Not really that long, probably closer to 40.

>

> Google <Lawson Number> and see why if you hold your breath for

> controlled fusion to become practical you will turn purple and swoon.

 

I'm not quite clear on why you think so. The lawson criteria is simply

the point at which you are getting back an equal amount of energy to

what you had to put in. Think of it as a 'break even' point. At this

point,

the reactor "ignites" and you get power. It certainly requires extreme

power to get started, I agree.

 

Why do you think it is unattainable?

 

Matt

[Guest Bob Kolker]

Jerry Kraus wrote:

>

> Valid technical points Bob. Supposing the operational area of high-

> temperature fusion is a cubic micrometer, or a cubic nanometer? Could

> this not be achieved with micro-lasers? Would a magnetic field be

> required for containment, or would this simply be a very small, but

> otherwise conventional energy source?

 

Write us when it works, won't you?

 

>

> I see you know that the Wright brothers also invented the wind

> tunnel. They couldn't have invented the airplane without it.

> Otherwise, they would have died trying, like Otto Lillenthal. It made

> technical development cheap and safe. That's why I'm suggesting a

> nanotechnological approach.

 

Write us when it happens, won't you?

 

Bob Kolker

>

[Guest Bob Kolker]

David Johnston wrote:

>

> Yes, does that really need to be spelled out?

 

Yes. Birds have been doing heavier than air flight for millions of years.

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest Bob Kolker]

Mani Deli wrote:

>

> They are further away since Reagan, hero of Granada, stopped funding

> alternative fuel research which was started by Carter.

 

Throwing money at a problem is no substitute for brains and cleverness.

The Freres Wright invented modern aviation with $1200 1903 dollars, from

their own pocket. Samuel Langley, on the other hand, crashed three of

his experimental aircraft in the Potomac with %$50,000 dollars in aid

and grants from Congress.

 

It just goes to show you have effective government financing can be.

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest Bob Kolker]

Matt wrote:

>

> Not really that long, probably closer to 40.

 

Not so. They have been talking about fusion generation since 1950. Just

the way they talked of atomic fission production of energy after the

first A-bomb worked.

 

> I'm not quite clear on why you think so. The lawson criteria is simply

> the point at which you are getting back an equal amount of energy to

> what you had to put in. Think of it as a 'break even' point. At this

> point,

> the reactor "ignites" and you get power. It certainly requires extreme

> power to get started, I agree.

>

> Why do you think it is unattainable?

 

Consider the amount of astounding progress. I don't think it is

unttainable. The Sun has been doing it for 5 billion years. What I think

is that there are extemely difficult technical proglems to be addressed

and solved and that optimism for a quick breakthrough is empirically

unjustified. As I said. Controlled nuclear fission has been thirty years

in the future for the last sixty years. It makes you wonder how the

pundits get their optimistic predictions.

 

I think it is 1000 years in the future. Neither of us will know if that

is the case or not. But I have no less evidence in favor of my estimate

than you have in favor of yours. The optimists have been wrong for over

thirty years.

 

Bob Kolker

[Guest Jerry Kraus]

On Mar 30, 3:26 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Matt wrote:

>

> > Not really that long, probably closer to 40.

>

> Not so. They have been talking about fusion generation since 1950. Just

> the way they talked of atomic fission production of energy after the

> first A-bomb worked.

>

> > I'm not quite clear on why you think so. The lawson criteria is simply

> > the point at which you are getting back an equal amount of energy to

> > what you had to put in. Think of it as a 'break even' point. At this

> > point,

> > the reactor "ignites" and you get power. It certainly requires extreme

> > power to get started, I agree.

>

> > Why do you think it is unattainable?

>

> Consider the amount of astounding progress. I don't think it is

> unttainable. The Sun has been doing it for 5 billion years. What I think

> is that there are extemely difficult technical proglems to be addressed

> and solved and that optimism for a quick breakthrough is empirically

> unjustified. As I said. Controlled nuclear fission has been thirty years

> in the future for the last sixty years. It makes you wonder how the

> pundits get their optimistic predictions.

>

> I think it is 1000 years in the future. Neither of us will know if that

> is the case or not. But I have no less evidence in favor of my estimate

> than you have in favor of yours. The optimists have been wrong for over

> thirty years.

>

> Bob Kolker

 

Depends on what people do, doesn't it Bob?

 

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/b76ed9ada7c8decc/f3be88dc2d6ab8f2#f3be88dc2d6ab8f2