Fusion plants
Moderator: Moderators
Canadian Idiot is a parody of American Idiot by Weird Al. My favoret line is: "Yall hear the same kind of story
Break their nose and they just say "Sorry"
What kind of freaks are that polite?
Means that they're all up to something"
That line is only followed in greatness by:
"They think their stupid accent is so cute
I have no idea what they're talking Abuoot"
Break their nose and they just say "Sorry"
What kind of freaks are that polite?
Means that they're all up to something"
That line is only followed in greatness by:
"They think their stupid accent is so cute
I have no idea what they're talking Abuoot"
- SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
KDR_11k wrote:I'm wondering if that thing had a positive outoput or if it took more power to ignite than it produced. AFAIK there are several working fusion systems that were tested already but they all had negative energy balance which means they output less energy than you need to put into them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_ ... modynamics
- PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Wouldn't a nuclear explosion be capable of that? If so, we could have a nuclear explosion ignite a thermonuclear explosion.Deathblane wrote:...
With current technology you have to put in ultramegagigajoules of energy just to get the fusion reaction working, as in lieu of huge amounts of pressure we heat the reactents to thousands of times the temperature at the centre of the sun.
...
Nuclear explosions, and possible thermonuclear ones, don't actually explode. All they do, would do, is release energy which .. whatever .. ends up beeing an explosion, as you know. So, if a thermonuclear reaction is capable of releasing so much energy, i don't see how could that not be possible to make a bomb. (keeping in mind if is possible to ingnite the thermonuclear reaction, of course)
Anyway, four thousand years of total war? So soon? I better start build my lvl-10 k-bot, the Paulada Commander! And hope it get's finished in time.
Don`t you dare sending out your Fidos again to hunt down "metall rich objects" just for your Comander Building...
It took me quite a while to Fix that Plasma Hole from the Test Series with your Pewees from Last Year. If you work again in that direction - at least get another Target. And ... can you pleaze reclaim the Garbage if you are already on the Way...
It took me quite a while to Fix that Plasma Hole from the Test Series with your Pewees from Last Year. If you work again in that direction - at least get another Target. And ... can you pleaze reclaim the Garbage if you are already on the Way...

- Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
Ok, a nuclear fusion bomb (which does exactly what you describe) has been produced that will detonate with a force of 50MT, which translates to about 2*10^17 J, where's this reactor (once it's working in 20odd years time) is designed to output a maximum of 5*10^9.PauloMorfeo wrote: Wouldn't a nuclear explosion be capable of that? If so, we could have a nuclear explosion ignite a thermonuclear explosion.
Nuclear explosions, and possible thermonuclear ones, don't actually explode. All they do, would do, is release energy which .. whatever .. ends up beeing an explosion, as you know. So, if a thermonuclear reaction is capable of releasing so much energy, i don't see how could that not be possible to make a bomb. (keeping in mind if is possible to ingnite the thermonuclear reaction, of course)
So you see we already have very efficient, very powerful weapons that work on fission and then fusion. The beauty of fusion reactors is mainly the low cost of the fuel, not orders of magnitude more power than we currently generate using traditional coal or gas fired powerstations.
Paul: An uncontrolled fission reaction cannot be contained. Sure, it's hot enough to ignite your fusion reactor but it's also hot enough to vaporize the entire thing.
Explosions are nothing but quick releases of large amounts of energy. Doesn't matter what the source is. In a fusion reactor you don't really want an explosion, you want a very small reaction. No current fusion reactors operate with enough energy in their chamber at once to cause more than a small dent in the chamber hull. It's like dropping a match on a concrete floor, not going to do much.
Explosions are nothing but quick releases of large amounts of energy. Doesn't matter what the source is. In a fusion reactor you don't really want an explosion, you want a very small reaction. No current fusion reactors operate with enough energy in their chamber at once to cause more than a small dent in the chamber hull. It's like dropping a match on a concrete floor, not going to do much.
- Deathblane
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 01:22
Uhh actually they heat up the particles via radio waves, and the only difference having working fusion reactors will have to the world is to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels.PicassoCT wrote:The Current Version of heating the Plasma can be controlled - but needs hours to heat it up. Particle accelerator are used for it and i don`t know what stupid stuff Humanity would do, if it would get hands on working- fusion.