3 ms·

People claim to have seen ghosts and leprechauns. Nobody's claiming to have seen break even. Only "if you give me enough money you'll see it." Which one could s

People claim to have seen ghosts and leprechauns. Nobody's claiming to have seen break even. Only "if you give me enough money you'll see it." Which one could say about ghosts and leprechauns also. The difference between the energy content of a coal reactor and a hypothetical fusion reactor: you can store a lot more gigawatts in the back of a pickup truck for one of them, and that is the one that makes enough neutrons to sterilize a city block when you burn them up. I mean, how many pounds of fusion fuel does it take to level a city?

pdonis 7y ago
> Nobody's claiming to have seen break even. Huh? That milestone was reached some years ago. https://www.livescience.com/43318-fusion-energy-reaches-milestone.html https://www.livescience.com/43318-fusion-energy-reaches-mile... What has not yet been achieved is ignition--a self-sustaining reaction that does not require continuous energy input. > how many pounds of fusion fuel does it take to level a city? We already know how to make a fusion reaction that will level a city. Having a working controlled fusion reactor would not affect our capability to level cities. So I really don't understand why you keep harping on this.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  Because you can put the energy required to level a city in the back of a pickup truck, then level a city with it using the same technology has a hypothetical fusion reactor possible, that's why. I don't know why you can't see the destructive potential of a project Daedelus with the business end aimed at Los Angeles. The NIF result created 35000 neutrons, and you should know that press release is the functional definition of a scientific fraud -I wrote a couple of articles on it which you can go find if you care about fraud.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Because you can put the energy required to level a city in the back of a pickup truck Yes, we can already do this, it's called a fusion bomb. > then level a city with it using the same technology has a hypothetical fusion reactor possible No, a bomb is not the same as a fusion reactor. A bomb burns a megaton of TNT's worth of fusion fuel all at once. A fusion reactor outputting a gigawatt of power burns the same amount of fuel in about a year. It's not at all the same thing.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > that press release is the functional definition of a scientific fraud -I wrote a couple of articles on it Google isn't showing me anything useful. Do you have links?
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > a project Daedelus with the business end aimed at Los Angeles So basically you're talking about a fusion-powered one-gigawatt flamethrower?

pdonis 7y ago

> Nobody's claiming to have seen break even. Huh? That milestone was reached some years ago. https://www.livescience.com/43318-fusion-energy-reaches-milestone.html https://www.livescience.com/43318-fusion-energy-reaches-mile... What has not yet been achieved is ignition--a self-sustaining reaction that does not require continuous energy input. > how many pounds of fusion fuel does it take to level a city? We already know how to make a fusion reaction that will level a city. Having a working controlled fusion reactor would not affect our capability to level cities. So I really don't understand why you keep harping on this.

scottlocklin 7y ago
Because you can put the energy required to level a city in the back of a pickup truck, then level a city with it using the same technology has a hypothetical fusion reactor possible, that's why. I don't know why you can't see the destructive potential of a project Daedelus with the business end aimed at Los Angeles. The NIF result created 35000 neutrons, and you should know that press release is the functional definition of a scientific fraud -I wrote a couple of articles on it which you can go find if you care about fraud.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Because you can put the energy required to level a city in the back of a pickup truck Yes, we can already do this, it's called a fusion bomb. > then level a city with it using the same technology has a hypothetical fusion reactor possible No, a bomb is not the same as a fusion reactor. A bomb burns a megaton of TNT's worth of fusion fuel all at once. A fusion reactor outputting a gigawatt of power burns the same amount of fuel in about a year. It's not at all the same thing.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > that press release is the functional definition of a scientific fraud -I wrote a couple of articles on it Google isn't showing me anything useful. Do you have links?
- pdonis 7y ago
  > a project Daedelus with the business end aimed at Los Angeles So basically you're talking about a fusion-powered one-gigawatt flamethrower?