That prompted the desperate press release by a rival research outfit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...a-1412164.html

Imagine how many nuclear fusion researchers would lose their jobs if
they ever DID achieve a working reactor...

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 03:12:19 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That prompted the desperate press release by a rival research outfit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...a-1412164.html

Imagine how many nuclear fusion researchers would lose their jobs if
they ever DID achieve a working reactor...

70 seconds after 60 years of ZETA research is amazing. We might make 5 minutes by 2020 at this rate.

On 15/12/16 04:11, Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 03:12:19 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That prompted the desperate press release by a rival research outfit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...a-1412164.html

Imagine how many nuclear fusion researchers would lose their jobs if
they ever DID achieve a working reactor...

70 seconds after 60 years of ZETA research is amazing. We might make 5 minutes by 2020 at this rate.

You are an optimist!

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...t-2111164.html

"First plasma was originally scheduled for 2018 with the start of
deuterium-tritium operation set for 2026. However, in July 2010 the Iter
Council agreed a new schedule under which first plasma is slated for
November 2019, with deuterium-tritium operation starting in March 2027."

Translation: "We've had a great idea! With careful thought, we can keep
our research funding going a little longer. All we have to do is add a
few months now and again. "

Or you can go straight to the source at http://www.iter.org/mag/9/65
"But all of the incremental steps that must be achieved are now drawn
out through to the machine's First Plasma€”a milestone in itself, but
also the beginning of an experimental campaign that will last at least
20 years."

Well, research that will last /at least/ 20 years. Nothing like an
open-ended research project to generate (pun intended) continuous funds.
I wonder how they came up with 20 years in the first place? Why not 15
or 25?

--

Jeff

On the other hand itskind of like plasma envy. My plasma is bigger or longer
lasting than your plasma.
Its a shame they cannot allbe together and come up withsomething.
The real killer here though seems to be extracting theenergy in some
efficient way. Iam reminded of that film,The core with its Unobtainium.
grin
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
That prompted the desperate press release by a rival research outfit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...a-1412164.html

Imagine how many nuclear fusion researchers would lose their jobs if they
ever DID achieve a working reactor...

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 05:12:17 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That prompted the desperate press release by a rival research outfit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...ctor-achieves-
record-plasma-1412164.html

Imagine how many nuclear fusion researchers would lose their jobs if
they ever DID achieve a working reactor...

I first remember reading about ZETA in the 1960s ... and back then, they
said it wouldn't be long ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA_(fusion_reactor)

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 15/12/16 11:04, Brian Gaff wrote:

The real killer here though seems to be extracting theenergy in some
efficient way.

No.

That's the very very easy bit.

The real difficulty is keeping a sun the size of a hula hoop, but
considerably hotter, in one place. 70 seconds is a bloody miracle.
..

On 15/12/16 12:53, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 05:12:17 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That prompted the desperate press release by a rival research outfit...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...ctor-achieves-
record-plasma-1412164.html

Imagine how many nuclear fusion researchers would lose their jobs if
they ever DID achieve a working reactor...

I first remember reading about ZETA in the 1960s ... and back then, they
said it wouldn't be long ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA_(fusion_reactor)


I my engineering time I have dealt with things that just came along and
happened, and things that we tried to make happen and couldn't. Theres
no real way to ell. Transistors just came along. Fromn cats whisker
diodes to germanium was but a short step, then silicon and suddenly we
could make circuits automagically at huge complexity and very low
prices. It was a revolution no one expected.

If Leonardo da Vinci had had - say a Rotax engine, he would have had an
aeroplane flying in 10 years.We waited 400 years for a decent engine.

If we had had a decent battery, we would have had electric cars pre wwI
and never used an IC engine at all. We are still waiting for decent
batteries and looks like there never will be a decent battery that will
make electric cars simple and cheap.

Nuclear fission? bang some refined uranium together in a big pot of
water and drive a steam engine. Simples.

Nuclear fusion...heat a deuterium plasma to a few million degrees and
keep it in a jar. Oh dear. What jar would that be?

Its Leonardo waiting for that Rotax engine. It might not turn up for 400
years. Or it might turn up tomorrow.

On 15/12/16 15:33, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:56:06 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its Leonardo waiting for that Rotax engine. It might not turn up for 400
years. Or it might turn up tomorrow.

Nuclear fusion has been "just around the corner" since I started reading
science books in the 1970s.

Te point is, we don't have a suitable container.

We don't even know what a suitable container would consists of.

So we have no way of knowing when one might turn up.

Meantime, there's lots of worthwhile research to be done. Its like
building gliders that fly for 70 seconds, to get to understand
aeronautics, without actually having one that will rise off flat ground
without a tow.

And hoping that a lightweight engine turns up.

On 2016-12-15, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:56:06 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its Leonardo waiting for that Rotax engine. It might not turn up for 400
years. Or it might turn up tomorrow.

Nuclear fusion has been "just around the corner" since I started reading
science books in the 1970s.

I can't find it now, but I've seen a cartoon with a caveman rubbing
sticks together over kindling, while another says "Fire, it's always
just around the corner!"

On 15/12/16 16:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:38:46 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/12/16 15:33, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:56:06 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its Leonardo waiting for that Rotax engine. It might not turn up for
400 years. Or it might turn up tomorrow.

Nuclear fusion has been "just around the corner" since I started
reading science books in the 1970s.

Te point is, we don't have a suitable container.

We don't even know what a suitable container would consists of.

So we have no way of knowing when one might turn up.

Meantime, there's lots of worthwhile research to be done. Its like
building gliders that fly for 70 seconds, to get to understand
aeronautics, without actually having one that will rise off flat ground
without a tow.

And hoping that a lightweight engine turns up.

I've always wondered if there is a way to use nuclear power to generate
electricity directly ? Rather than all that faff with steam |(and the
associated inefficiencies).

yeah. Move plasma through a magnetic fed and it generates leccy.

Or you can use another working fluid than water in say a gas turbine,
followed by a steam turbine

It's amazing how much engineering just happens to work because of a
peculiar quirk in physics or chemistry, and that's the only way we have
to do....whatever...

On 15/12/16 18:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
I had some (very !!!!) vague idea of maybe two radioactive substances
somehow joined to deliver a current across the assembly.

Sort of a nuclear equivalent to a chemical battery.

I have no idea how or if it would be possible.

Mmm. I'll think about that one.

On 15/12/2016 16:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 18:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
I had some (very !!!!) vague idea of maybe two radioactive substances
somehow joined to deliver a current across the assembly.

Sort of a nuclear equivalent to a chemical battery.

I have no idea how or if it would be possible.

Mmm. I'll think about that one.


There are many electrical fields emanating from the sun, how are they
generated?

--
Michael Chare

On 16/12/16 02:10, Michael Chare wrote:
On 15/12/2016 16:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 18:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
I had some (very !!!!) vague idea of maybe two radioactive substances
somehow joined to deliver a current across the assembly.

Sort of a nuclear equivalent to a chemical battery.

I have no idea how or if it would be possible.

Mmm. I'll think about that one.


There are many electrical fields emanating from the sun, how are they
generated?

MHD I think. Not sure.

On Friday, 16 December 2016 00:10:28 UTC, Michael Chare wrote:
On 15/12/2016 16:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 18:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
I had some (very !!!!) vague idea of maybe two radioactive substances
somehow joined to deliver a current across the assembly.

Sort of a nuclear equivalent to a chemical battery.

I have no idea how or if it would be possible.

Mmm. I'll think about that one.


There are many electrical fields emanating from the sun, how are they
generated?

The Sun is a gigantic mass of swirling charged particles - RF agogo.

En el artículo , Jeff Layman
escribió:

Translation: "We've had a great idea! With careful thought, we can keep
our research funding going a little longer

*ding*

with lots of nice little jollies in agreeable conference centres, being
put up in agreeable hotels in agreeable locations at the taxpayer's
expense.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:56:06 +0200, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its Leonardo waiting for that Rotax engine. It might not turn up for 400
years. Or it might turn up tomorrow.

Nuclear fusion has been "just around the corner" since I started reading
science books in the 1970s.

Earlier in the year I watched an edition of Horizon on BBC4 with Prof Cox
telling us about the "current" fusion projects.

Almost all of the projects that he visited predicted that their particular
approach was going to see a break-through in 10-15 years.

Original broadcast date - 2006!

tim






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 15/12/2016 16:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:07:35 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:06:08 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

I've always wondered if there is a way to use nuclear power to generate
electricity directly ? Rather than all that faff with steam |(and the
associated inefficiencies).

MHD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet...amic_generator
Efficiencies are low, around 20%, but can be raised to ~60% if the
plasma is then used to raise steam, when the whole process including
efficiency becomes broadly comparable to CCGT.

Fascinating, but not what I envisaged.

I had some (very !!!!) vague idea of maybe two radioactive substances
somehow joined to deliver a current across the assembly.

Sort of a nuclear equivalent to a chemical battery.

I have no idea how or if it would be possible.

Given the state of knowledge of sub atomic physics, is anyone qualified
to say it *isn't* possible ?

Although possibility and practicality are not necessarily connected ...

(Makes note to self to ensure Royal Institute lectures are recorded )


Well there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_battery

but at 100 microwatts it's definitely a niche solution.

P.