4 ms·

Actually you don't want the transmission process to be 100% efficient. If you really captured all the fusion energy transmitted (or even just the small part of

by rob74 2y ago

Actually you don't want the transmission process to be 100% efficient. If you really captured all the fusion energy transmitted (or even just the small part of it reaching Earth), all sorts of people would complain, trust me! But fortunately that fusion reactor has more than enough power to go around...

_Algernon_ 2y ago
They wouldn't complain for long though
nkrisc 2y ago
If only it were smaller and closer. We could make it smaller by using a force other than gravity to compress the matter. Perhaps a very strong magnetic field? If it was strong enough you’d only need a fraction of the matter.
- rob74 2y ago
  OTOH, the concept proposed by OP is already implemented and has been working reliably for billions of years with trillions of successful deployments, while this newfangled technology you are proposing still has to be demonstrated to work...
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    You’re not looking at the entire cost. What are the end of life procedures when fuel is exhausted?
    - rob74 2y ago
      That's another plus! If you ever get to the end of the fusion reactor's life (which is not very likely), it's literally end of life for you (and everyone else who might still be around) too, so no need to worry about decommissioning costs and exhausted fuel anymore...
      - brookst 2y ago
        I can say the same thing about my basement fission reactor.
      - lpwf 2y ago
        YBGIBG, but not in a dickish way.
  - BoxOfRain 2y ago
    Unfortunately the original developers left long ago taking the source with them, and none of them are reachable to provide an explanation even through exotic means of communication.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Trillions of deployments that are all subject to the inverse square law at a distance of 100 million miles. It's hard to comprehend how bad that efficiency is.
tehbeard 2y ago
> But fortunately that fusion reactor has more than enough power to go around... "All the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever." "Not forever,"
- spiritplumber 2y ago
  Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

by rob74 2y ago

_Algernon_ 2y ago

They wouldn't complain for long though

nkrisc 2y ago

If only it were smaller and closer. We could make it smaller by using a force other than gravity to compress the matter. Perhaps a very strong magnetic field? If it was strong enough you’d only need a fraction of the matter.

rob74 2y ago
OTOH, the concept proposed by OP is already implemented and has been working reliably for billions of years with trillions of successful deployments, while this newfangled technology you are proposing still has to be demonstrated to work...
- nkrisc 2y ago
  You’re not looking at the entire cost. What are the end of life procedures when fuel is exhausted?
  - rob74 2y ago
    That's another plus! If you ever get to the end of the fusion reactor's life (which is not very likely), it's literally end of life for you (and everyone else who might still be around) too, so no need to worry about decommissioning costs and exhausted fuel anymore...
    - brookst 2y ago
      I can say the same thing about my basement fission reactor.
    - lpwf 2y ago
      YBGIBG, but not in a dickish way.
- BoxOfRain 2y ago
  Unfortunately the original developers left long ago taking the source with them, and none of them are reachable to provide an explanation even through exotic means of communication.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Trillions of deployments that are all subject to the inverse square law at a distance of 100 million miles. It's hard to comprehend how bad that efficiency is.

tehbeard 2y ago

> But fortunately that fusion reactor has more than enough power to go around... "All the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever." "Not forever,"

spiritplumber 2y ago
Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.