4 ms·

You simply are not even reading. Nobody said anything about maintaining any steady state. That's needed for a generator. This project is talking about doing

You simply are not even reading. Nobody said anything about maintaining any steady state. That's needed for a generator. This project is talking about doing one off detonations. Have you heard of a hydrogen bomb? If they lost energy to creating the fusion in a hydrogen bomb, what would be the point? If you removed the fusion part of a hydrogen bomb, would you get a bigger explosion? No. You get MORE ENERGY using fusion. However, we don't have a way to harness that to make electricity yet to maintain a steady reaction. But maintaining a steady reaction is not what this project proposes doing. Do you get it yet? Edit: smaller explosion -> bigger explosion. So many explosions.

lutusp 13y ago
> You simply are not even reading. And your evidence is that I quoted everything that I replied to, word for word, and quoted from the original NASA project documents as well? > Nobody said anything about maintaining any steady state. I did, and so did NASA. You missed its significance. Pulsed systems have an average power level, and a peak power level. Both need to be analyzed. > That's needed for a generator. Yes, and NASA wants a net generator of energy, something better than break-even, otherwise it's not worth doing. And they say this in their documents about the project. > This project is talking about doing one off detonations. I can't believe you missed the significance of NASA'a remarks about break-even. Don't you understand that, pulsed or not, break-even still has a meaning, and if they can't get to break-even, the project makes no sense? A steady state generator either does or doesn't achieve break-even. A generator that consists of a series of pulses also does or doesn't achieve break-even. Here's what NASA has to say about this: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII_fellows_slough.html http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII... Quote: "A subscale, laboratory liner compression test facility will be assembled with sufficient liner kinetic energy (~ 0.5 MJ) to reach fusion breakeven conditions." I can't believe NASA thinks break-even is an essential program goal. Maybe they should hire you as a consultant, so they won't waste taxpayer dollars trying for break-even, after all, according to you, because the output is pulsed, break-even has no meaning. > But maintaining a steady reaction is not what this project proposes doing. You very clearly do not understand the relationship between peak and average power. The device being described generates a series of pulses, but for there to be a point to the exercise, the average output power must exceed break-even. A radar has a peak output power of two megawatts and a steady-state input power of ten watts. Does the radar violate the principle of energy conservation? Yes or no? A fusion reactor has a peak output power of two megawatts and requires an average plasma sustaining power of 200 KW. Such a generator either does or does not achieve break-even over time, and as quoted above, NASA cares very much which is so. > But maintaining a steady reaction is not what this project proposes doing. You need to learn the relationship between peak and average power. Stop embarrassing yourself. http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex28.en.html http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex28.en.html http://hank.uoregon.edu/experiments/modelocked-fiberlaser/20063.pdf http://hank.uoregon.edu/experiments/modelocked-fiberlaser/20... > Do you get it yet? You have managed to miss every key fact about this project.

lutusp 13y ago

> You simply are not even reading. And your evidence is that I quoted everything that I replied to, word for word, and quoted from the original NASA project documents as well? > Nobody said anything about maintaining any steady state. I did, and so did NASA. You missed its significance. Pulsed systems have an average power level, and a peak power level. Both need to be analyzed. > That's needed for a generator. Yes, and NASA wants a net generator of energy, something better than break-even, otherwise it's not worth doing. And they say this in their documents about the project. > This project is talking about doing one off detonations. I can't believe you missed the significance of NASA'a remarks about break-even. Don't you understand that, pulsed or not, break-even still has a meaning, and if they can't get to break-even, the project makes no sense? A steady state generator either does or doesn't achieve break-even. A generator that consists of a series of pulses also does or doesn't achieve break-even. Here's what NASA has to say about this: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII_fellows_slough.html http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2012_phaseII... Quote: "A subscale, laboratory liner compression test facility will be assembled with sufficient liner kinetic energy (~ 0.5 MJ) to reach fusion breakeven conditions." I can't believe NASA thinks break-even is an essential program goal. Maybe they should hire you as a consultant, so they won't waste taxpayer dollars trying for break-even, after all, according to you, because the output is pulsed, break-even has no meaning. > But maintaining a steady reaction is not what this project proposes doing. You very clearly do not understand the relationship between peak and average power. The device being described generates a series of pulses, but for there to be a point to the exercise, the average output power must exceed break-even. A radar has a peak output power of two megawatts and a steady-state input power of ten watts. Does the radar violate the principle of energy conservation? Yes or no? A fusion reactor has a peak output power of two megawatts and requires an average plasma sustaining power of 200 KW. Such a generator either does or does not achieve break-even over time, and as quoted above, NASA cares very much which is so. > But maintaining a steady reaction is not what this project proposes doing. You need to learn the relationship between peak and average power. Stop embarrassing yourself. http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex28.en.html http://www.radartutorial.eu/18.explanations/ex28.en.html http://hank.uoregon.edu/experiments/modelocked-fiberlaser/20063.pdf http://hank.uoregon.edu/experiments/modelocked-fiberlaser/20... > Do you get it yet? You have managed to miss every key fact about this project.