5 ms·

1) This is an absurd complaint 2) It's not even totally accurate. Aneutronic fusion can create electricity directly from charged particles without going throug

1) This is an absurd complaint 2) It's not even totally accurate. Aneutronic fusion can create electricity directly from charged particles without going through the heat generation step[1]. It's an active area of research with the highest profile group working on it being TAE[2]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri_Alpha_Energy,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri_Alpha_Energy,_Inc.

pfdietz 7y ago
The people associated with TAE were told 20 years ago that their scheme would straight up not work. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wallace_Manheimer/publication/235032059_Comments_on_the_Colliding_Beam_Fusion_Reactor_Proposed_by_Rostoker_Binderbauer_and_Monkhorst_for_Use_with_the_p-11B_Fusion_Reaction/links/00b7d53453384bee2e000000/Comments-on-the-Colliding-Beam-Fusion-Reactor-Proposed-by-Rostoker-Binderbauer-and-Monkhorst-for-Use-with-the-p-11B-Fusion-Reaction.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wallace_Manheimer/publi... The story reminds me of Transatomic. Venture capital doesn't necessarily evaluate science well.
- thunderbird120 7y ago
  That study was using assumptions based on a 1987 study which predicted that the fusion chain would result in 1 high energy and 2 low energy alpha particles. More recent results suggest that this is incorrect[1], with the reaction actually generating 2 high energy and 1 low energy alpha particles. This would push the CBFR method well within the realm of possibility. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269310013626 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931...
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Your argument there does exactly nothing to counter the criticisms in the paper I cited. It's totally irrelevant.
wffurr 7y ago
1) You are both wrong and a jerk. Freshwater usage is a limiting factor and a concern. 2) That's exactly the kind of thing that's needed in addition to sustainable fusion reaction to actually make "unlimited" power.

pfdietz 7y ago

The people associated with TAE were told 20 years ago that their scheme would straight up not work. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wallace_Manheimer/publication/235032059_Comments_on_the_Colliding_Beam_Fusion_Reactor_Proposed_by_Rostoker_Binderbauer_and_Monkhorst_for_Use_with_the_p-11B_Fusion_Reaction/links/00b7d53453384bee2e000000/Comments-on-the-Colliding-Beam-Fusion-Reactor-Proposed-by-Rostoker-Binderbauer-and-Monkhorst-for-Use-with-the-p-11B-Fusion-Reaction.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wallace_Manheimer/publi... The story reminds me of Transatomic. Venture capital doesn't necessarily evaluate science well.

thunderbird120 7y ago
That study was using assumptions based on a 1987 study which predicted that the fusion chain would result in 1 high energy and 2 low energy alpha particles. More recent results suggest that this is incorrect[1], with the reaction actually generating 2 high energy and 1 low energy alpha particles. This would push the CBFR method well within the realm of possibility. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269310013626 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931...
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Your argument there does exactly nothing to counter the criticisms in the paper I cited. It's totally irrelevant.

wffurr 7y ago

1) You are both wrong and a jerk. Freshwater usage is a limiting factor and a concern. 2) That's exactly the kind of thing that's needed in addition to sustainable fusion reaction to actually make "unlimited" power.