Or somebody with a cynical nature and a knowledge of the history of fusion so far?
British Fusion reactor in the works...
- Thread starter msbae
- Start date
Or perhaps noknowes is just someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about. Seriously, just look at his other posts, particularly those in this forum. Take a look at some of the gems this fellow has come up with. Thus far his posts illustrate that he has a keen lack of knowledge about all things scientific, in multiple fields.
it is theoretically possible to have a car crash at 500 miles per hour and survive.
I gave you the reasons above yet you ignore them and ask me the same question.why?
did you read the reasons i gave here and in the previous post?
yes i do have scientific training and i can assure i know when a group of people get together and pull the wool over peoples eyes.THEY HAVE HAD 50 YEARS OF "IT IS 5 YEARS AWAY",THEN they extended it to 10 then 15 now it is 50 years.
can you not deduce from this that your being hoodwinked.
are people really that gullible nowadays?
i suppose the powerpoint presentation with fancy cgi brainwashes some people so well.
do you know anything about how real world funding works?
ITER and it's ilk are a juggernaut.a colossal failure.no one can comes out and say it is a failure.anyone who did would be black balled by his fellow employees.
just imagine this tube surrounded by super duper delicate magnetic coils how are you going to get any energy out?
how?
the magnetic field coils MUST enclose the torus completely leaving no room for anything else.any chink in that coil or field and poof it fizzles out.
this is assuming it even gets started in the first place as coils of plama kink.no matter how hard you try.
kink.
kink.
kink.
get an elastic band and try to stop it kinking.
ITER is the wrong shape.
what shape is the sun?
You've still failed to provide anything to back up your claims.
And just saying you've got some technical knowledge? Well the saying goes in cyberspace, nobody knows you're a dog.
I don't know what kind of links would help any body on any side of this issue. Actually it seems to me like it's the people who think fusion would work as a energy source (especially one that will "allow us to tell the Middle East and oil companies to go to hell") who need to back their claims up. Like someone said, they have been trying for a long time and even I remember a few "were almost there" type of articles yet we're still no closer. Hell these people seem to have a hard time getting money, wonder why?
It took some time to get fission up and running as power source and that's not half as difficult as fussion so of course it's going to take a long time. Afterall where would be nuclear power be without the funding the Manhattan Project recieved during WWII?
So do I, I have a degree in electronics. I know nothing about fusion reactors.
The problem with science is that it is a very wide subject encompassing medicine through to geology and most scientists in the world are only experts in their chosen field. I wouldn't trust an industrial chemist to design a mainboard for anything and I wouldn't trust an astronomer to build a fusion reactor.
So does your scientific training make you an authority on theoretical physics? Because if not then you need to provide links.
This man has to be a scientific genius.
Where from? What field?
my sources are the fundamental laws of physics.
sources are not required when the project is fundamentally flawed as explained above.I note you failed to address any of those points i raised thus evading the issue.all you want is a source for is like some kind of messiah telling to believe this religion or that.
my sources are the fundamental laws of physics.
i do not need a career white coat telling me this or that while peddling someone else's interest.
you should be using capacity for thinking to arrive at the conclusion using established facts that hot fusion as per ITER is a colossal failure.
do you think einstein had someone provide him with sources?
a car when it is being stopped does not require energy to be stopped.
does a waterfall need energy to stop when when it hits the ground?
no.
it in in fact generates energy.
The uncouth guy above who brayed and swore at me that you need energy to stop a car is clearly ignorant of basic physics and even more of practical every day existence.He believes cars need energy to stop!!!
Fundemental laws of physics say a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly.
Familiar with the expression put up or shut up?
You've failed to put up so now.....
Again, as in the "Destroying Tornadoes" thread, here is a page explaining Newton's First and third Laws, in terms so simple, even noknowes might actually understand it. LINK
Simply put: It takes as much energy to stop a mass, such as a car, from 60mph to zero, as it did to accelerate the same mass from zero to 60mph. Yes, the car already has energy, and in order to stop it requires the application of an equal but opposite force to negate that energy.
Simply put: It takes as much energy to stop a mass, such as a car, from 60mph to zero, as it did to accelerate the same mass from zero to 60mph. Yes, the car already has energy, and in order to stop it requires the application of an equal but opposite force to negate that energy.
Yea, he's confusing regenerative braking as used by Hybrids. Regenerative braking scavenges energy from the braking process, but does not create any energy in excess of what was used to accelerate the car in the first place.
OH, and Einstein did the math himself and provided it to peers for review. If he had refused to do so as you have, nobody would have believed him either.
As for a car "not needing energy to stop", this is due to friction. Friction with the air, friction with the road, friction in the mechanicals of the car, etc. Friction is the form of energy used to stop the car. If there was no friction the car would truly continue for ever, as the law of inertia dictates.
I will give you one thing. I have been following the Polywell project for a couple years and I do believe it is on a much faster track to a working reactor than the "hot" fusion research is. But that doesn't mean that hot fusion will never work.
OH, and Einstein did the math himself and provided it to peers for review. If he had refused to do so as you have, nobody would have believed him either.
As for a car "not needing energy to stop", this is due to friction. Friction with the air, friction with the road, friction in the mechanicals of the car, etc. Friction is the form of energy used to stop the car. If there was no friction the car would truly continue for ever, as the law of inertia dictates.
I will give you one thing. I have been following the Polywell project for a couple years and I do believe it is on a much faster track to a working reactor than the "hot" fusion research is. But that doesn't mean that hot fusion will never work.
I would hope so otherwise he was a piss-poor scientist. Science isn't about faith or believing something based on what somebody says, science is about following evidence and accepting the conclusions of verifiable facts. If you fail to provide evidence to back up your claims then you should expect to be ridiculed in the academic arena, that's the way these things work.
Go millions of light years out into deep space, out into the most perfect vacuum, a place where gravity has no effect. Push a car in a straight line at 50km/h and come back a century later; the car will still be travelling in the same direction at the same velocity because there was no force being exerted on the car to stop it.
The reason why a car will stop on Earth is because of friction with the air and friction with the ground (caused by gravity) exerting energy upon the car causing it to slow and eventually stop. If you fail to grasp this simplest of the fundamental laws of the universe then you need to stay as far away from fusion as possible because you would find away to make safe energy source explode and destroy half a continent.
Just so you're aware, that's a 70 year old urban legend with no basis in reality. The laws of physics and aerodynamics are perfectly kosher with bees flying.
You have finally forced me to quote a source against my will.I do not believe in getting allies to prove my point.I am totally confident in my position and the depth and breadth of my knowledge.
"QUESTION:- Are nuclear fusion – and the corresponding ITER reactor – a viable solution ?
If ITER was really everything people tell us we would be in favour. But no ! ITER will never produce electricity (the official ‘goal’ is to try and run a fusion experiment for…. 400 seconds !).
2002 Nobel Prize for Physics winner, Japanese scientist Tadatoshi Koshiba,has denounced ITER as only likely to produce “very large quantities of tritium, radioactive hydrogen that is extremely dangerous to all forms of life” and “50,000 tons of nuclear waste with an average life of more than 1000 years”. And all that without any guarantee
that the fusion process will ever deliver any electricity."
Well what do you have to say to that?
A physics scientist.A nobel prize winner finally puts the final vindication to my assertion.
Have you got your hat ready?
