3 ms·

not really - electronics need miniturisation, and wires - can it be made into wires? Can it do 10^11 features/chip? Can it form transistors? that's were most o

not really - electronics need miniturisation, and wires - can it be made into wires? Can it do 10^11 features/chip? Can it form transistors? that's were most of the loss is currently. - power transmission gets a little more efficient, and for long distance, which is already feasible with HV DC, it would be more efficient still. But in both cases, only if it's cheap enough. - confinement is far from the only technical obstacle to fusion. The main obstacle is actually economics. It will simply never be cost effective compared to alternatives. - Yes, smaller/simpler MRI etc is a real benefit. - levitation itself is only a small piece of the puzzle, and again, cost. The real benefits are in things like sensors, and current research where a strong magnetic field, or the ability to rejecting one, is needed.

fastball 3y ago
Your fusion point doesn't make any sense. The economics aren't great because the equipment required is expensive. A big part of that with current popular designs is the magnetic confinement. Swap out liquid nitrogen-cooled superconductors for RTSC and that piece of the puzzle becomes much more appealing, for the exact same reason MRI becomes smaller/simpler (which you admit is viable in the next point).
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  I'm not convinced RTSC will be immediately applicable in fusion reactors. Wendelstein 7-x is using helium cooled superconductors even though nitrogen cooled superconductors exist, but apparently they lack some necessary properties. What if the RTSC is too brittle to make wires out of it or something like that?
- jacknews 3y ago
  I said the magnets are not the only obstacle or complex technology. They're not even the major obstacle or expense. But to touche your point, if ambient superconductors, then long distance transmission from remote solar panels, apparently. There's just no way fusion is ever going to compete economically as mainstream energy, with ever cheaper solar (and wind, tide, etc), geothermal, and improved fission, at least with the current high-temperature plasma-confinement, and especially D-T, 'chemistry'

fastball 3y ago

Your fusion point doesn't make any sense. The economics aren't great because the equipment required is expensive. A big part of that with current popular designs is the magnetic confinement. Swap out liquid nitrogen-cooled superconductors for RTSC and that piece of the puzzle becomes much more appealing, for the exact same reason MRI becomes smaller/simpler (which you admit is viable in the next point).

mr_mitm 3y ago
I'm not convinced RTSC will be immediately applicable in fusion reactors. Wendelstein 7-x is using helium cooled superconductors even though nitrogen cooled superconductors exist, but apparently they lack some necessary properties. What if the RTSC is too brittle to make wires out of it or something like that?
jacknews 3y ago
I said the magnets are not the only obstacle or complex technology. They're not even the major obstacle or expense. But to touche your point, if ambient superconductors, then long distance transmission from remote solar panels, apparently. There's just no way fusion is ever going to compete economically as mainstream energy, with ever cheaper solar (and wind, tide, etc), geothermal, and improved fission, at least with the current high-temperature plasma-confinement, and especially D-T, 'chemistry'