re: Fusion question - smart guys help appreciated

Think about it like magnets

Two magnets click together there’s a lot of energy when they bond (fusion)

If you get two paired magnets to split apart and surround them with a bunch of other magnets you can get a chain reaction going (fission)

There is somewhat of a misconception that fusion is more efficient because thermonuclear weapons are more powerful.

Per atom, fusion is actually less efficient. (But hydrogen being more abundant and smaller, it’s per volume fuel efficiency is pretty high.)

Moreover, thermonuclear weapons receive the majority of their destructive force from fast fission (something like >70 percent in the case of Castle Bravo). Fusion provided something like 10 percent on its own. But it’s main contribution was the fast neutron which contributed to fast fission.

You are also splitting atoms when producing power. It’s sending one atom into another in which case they split. They just control the rate/ amount that they split at using control rods, boron and so on.

I’d also say it’s not necessarily the process that’s dangerous but the level of severity if a terrorist decides to fly a plane into a plant. Or maybe a nuclear bomb. It provides cheap energy but also has a dark side that people take advantage of.

I’m not sure what you are getting at but be more specific and I’ll give my best answer.

I think you would be best off watching a video that explains fission vs fusion.

two minute video that explains it.

quote:

---

It’s pretty simple

---

Yea, but the main winding should be of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semiboloid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters for it to work the most efficiently.

Sometimes it feels good when you’re coming, sometimes it feels good when you’re going, it’s just like that.

quote:

---

Making that happen on Earth, spending less energy on the equipment to force the fusion than the energy created at the point fusion is a game-changer. Did I get that right?

---

Basically. But the important distinction is the energy used to create the magnetic field to contain the reaction is greater than the energy generated by the reaction. The exothermic reaction is so hot it would melt any conventional containment so they use a magnetic field to contain it. Overly simplified, it currently takes 1000MW of electricity to contain the fusion reaction that generates enough btus of heat to generate 700MW of electricity. That game is changed if this test can be duplicated and you generate enough heat to make more electricity than you are using to contain the reaction.

The advantage is the byproduct of the fusion reaction is Helium, as opposed to spent uranium that has to be stored and allowed to decay.

This isn’t some perpetual motion machine as the energy is released by the heat of the reaction. The more efficient we can generate the magnetic field, the more net gain in generation from the heat. The heat in the reaction is “constant.”

Make sense?

quote:

---

You have to have a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings are in a direct line with the panametric fan. If you don’t, the main winding of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-boloid slots of the stator will not stabilize. It’s pretty simple

---

Glad this is still being taught in the basic engineering curriculum.

quote:

---

Overly simplified, it currently takes 1000MW of electricity to contain the fusion reaction that generates enough btus of heat to generate 700MW of electricity. That game is changed if this test can be duplicated and you generate enough heat to make more electricity than you are using to contain the reaction.

---

I’m nitpicking here since you did say it’s overly simplified - but I don’t think anyone is even attempting to actually generate electricity from a fusion reaction right now. AFAIK they’re trying to get (using your example) >1000 MW of raw heat output from the 1000 MW used to sustain/contain the reaction.

Which is important because even after net gain is achieved, there’s still a long way to go to achieve net generation. The problem is that you kind of need a working fusion reactor before you can start testing designs to efficiently extract the heat from that reactor, especially when you need to both extract heat and extract tritium at a >99% capture rate to keep your fuel supply going.

Nothing will come of this until politicians and the elites decide they can get rich off of it.