4 ms·

>A fusion reaction with a power gain < 1 is endothermic -- its temperature is less than that of its power source. You are trolling! Or you just don't get it.

>A fusion reaction with a power gain < 1 is endothermic -- its temperature is less than that of its power source. You are trolling! Or you just don't get it. The energy does not disappear. If you put in 1, and the reaction gives you .5, you have 1.5. You do not have to maintain a stable reaction, in the same way a hydrogen bomb doesn't have to produce however many terajoules of electrical energy to be more useful than TNT. It just has to be more total. They are not making an electric generator, they are making a rocket. They are not the same thing.

lutusp 13y ago
> The energy does not disappear. Below break-even, the source power is requires to sustain the plasma in a high-energy state to maintain fusion. Therefore it's unavailable. Any effort to extract more power than the fusion reaction produces will extinguish the reaction. Example -- let's say we have a fusion reactor that doesn't achieve break-even (example: all existing laboratory reactors). Let's say very hypothetically that heating the plasma sufficiently requires 1000 watts (sometime in the future) but the fusion reaction itself only produces 250 watts. Once the fusion reaction has been established, we can only extract 250 watts from the system. Any effort to extract more will extinguish the reaction. Therefore more power must flow into the system than can be taken out. It's endothermic. Which word didn't you understand? > If you put in 1, and the reaction gives you .5, you have 1.5. You, too, can learn the physics required to understand this system. You just have to think a bit harder. > You do not have to maintain a stable reaction On average, yes, you do. This project has a peak and an average power that differ greatly, but terms like break-even still have their normal meaning, which is why NASA mentions break-even in the project's documents as a required project goal. 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." What does break-even mean in a pulsed fusion generator? It means the average output power is greater than the average input power. > They are not making an electric generator, they are making a rocket. They are not the same thing. Yes, they are the same thing. They both require break-even, and they both rely on a fusion reaction. > You are trolling! I know this subject, you do not. Therefore it is you who are trolling when you should be reading.
- vectorjohn 13y ago
  > Which word didn't you understand? I understood all of it, I just think you're wrong. And unless you ever address what anyone is saying, all I can do is keep on thinking you're wrong. Nobody - nobody here, nobody on TFA - said anything about sustaining a reaction. It is a one-off explosion much like a weapon. An explosion like that is hard to use for generating electricity, just like a bomb, but great for pushing things around. Why isn't this feasible? Please explain. Why can we detonate a hydrogen fusion bomb, which generates a lot of energy (but no electricity), but we cannot initiate a tiny short term burst with a carefully designed fuel pellet? I'm not saying they have everything figured out. I'm just saying I wouldn't be so skeptical to think it would be some amazing breakthrough if they do it. If this rocket works, we still don't have usable fusion electricity. That problem still needs to be solved. But it is not the same problem. > Yes, they are the same thing. They both require break-even No, electrical generation means you need to need to somehow use your energy to heat up something and turn a turbine, or something like that. Which means you need some kind of ongoing stable and contained reaction. There are so many difficulties with that, it really WOULD be a big deal if they solved that problem. Just making a small explosion? Not as far fetched. > I know this subject, you do not. And don't try to argument-from-authority me. You're a random account on the internet just like me. As far as I know you're some crackpot pseudoscience crazy. Not that I believe that, but I don't know better.

lutusp 13y ago

> The energy does not disappear. Below break-even, the source power is requires to sustain the plasma in a high-energy state to maintain fusion. Therefore it's unavailable. Any effort to extract more power than the fusion reaction produces will extinguish the reaction. Example -- let's say we have a fusion reactor that doesn't achieve break-even (example: all existing laboratory reactors). Let's say very hypothetically that heating the plasma sufficiently requires 1000 watts (sometime in the future) but the fusion reaction itself only produces 250 watts. Once the fusion reaction has been established, we can only extract 250 watts from the system. Any effort to extract more will extinguish the reaction. Therefore more power must flow into the system than can be taken out. It's endothermic. Which word didn't you understand? > If you put in 1, and the reaction gives you .5, you have 1.5. You, too, can learn the physics required to understand this system. You just have to think a bit harder. > You do not have to maintain a stable reaction On average, yes, you do. This project has a peak and an average power that differ greatly, but terms like break-even still have their normal meaning, which is why NASA mentions break-even in the project's documents as a required project goal. 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." What does break-even mean in a pulsed fusion generator? It means the average output power is greater than the average input power. > They are not making an electric generator, they are making a rocket. They are not the same thing. Yes, they are the same thing. They both require break-even, and they both rely on a fusion reaction. > You are trolling! I know this subject, you do not. Therefore it is you who are trolling when you should be reading.

vectorjohn 13y ago
> Which word didn't you understand? I understood all of it, I just think you're wrong. And unless you ever address what anyone is saying, all I can do is keep on thinking you're wrong. Nobody - nobody here, nobody on TFA - said anything about sustaining a reaction. It is a one-off explosion much like a weapon. An explosion like that is hard to use for generating electricity, just like a bomb, but great for pushing things around. Why isn't this feasible? Please explain. Why can we detonate a hydrogen fusion bomb, which generates a lot of energy (but no electricity), but we cannot initiate a tiny short term burst with a carefully designed fuel pellet? I'm not saying they have everything figured out. I'm just saying I wouldn't be so skeptical to think it would be some amazing breakthrough if they do it. If this rocket works, we still don't have usable fusion electricity. That problem still needs to be solved. But it is not the same problem. > Yes, they are the same thing. They both require break-even No, electrical generation means you need to need to somehow use your energy to heat up something and turn a turbine, or something like that. Which means you need some kind of ongoing stable and contained reaction. There are so many difficulties with that, it really WOULD be a big deal if they solved that problem. Just making a small explosion? Not as far fetched. > I know this subject, you do not. And don't try to argument-from-authority me. You're a random account on the internet just like me. As far as I know you're some crackpot pseudoscience crazy. Not that I believe that, but I don't know better.