3 ms·

>But if you were able to contain a golf ball of sun, the heat it produced would be able to power far more than a reptile's brain as its heat was transfered to t

>But if you were able to contain a golf ball of sun, the heat it produced would be able to power far more than a reptile's brain as its heat was transfered to the environment... It is you who is misunderstanding the concept here. A golf ball of Sun produces heat only about as much as the reptile brain. In other way - if you put as many reptile brains in one pile so that the pile will be as large as Sun, you'll get the pile radiating with Sun's black-body radiation temperature and intensity. The trick here is that amount of energy produced is proportional to volume, while radiating surface is just square-proportional, thus black-body radiation temperature (i.e. frequency, ie. energy of a given radiated photon) of a pile of reptile brains (or golf-ball sized chunks of Sun) would be much higher than that of a one brain or the same set of brains (or chunks of Sun) spread around with significant distances between each other. Edit: it isn't to say that fusion power can't be used as a practical source of energy on Earth. It is just some forms of [stationary] containment are ruled out, mainly by bremsstrahlung (Sun overcomes it precisely because of volume to ratio being big enough). Dynamic forms of containment are proven to be working (net-positive) at least by H-bomb.

redwood 13y ago
I'm sorry, but the core of the sun is 150 times as dense as a reptile's brain and far far hotter. Thus you would need far more than the equivalent volume of brains to create the same effect. I see what you mean about the energy of escaping radiation, however.
- arbitrarywords 13y ago
  For your point to be persuasive you need to add why temperature and density would increase power. e.g. one could have a core of extremely hot, dense inert material.
  - redwood 13y ago
    Something hot should not be thought of as inert, because something hot by definition is something with incredible internal velocity. But then there are multiple definitions of inert.. I think what you're saying, though, is that if you contain something extremely hot and dense, you cannot get any useful energy out... Because the energy needed to contain it prevents you from getting anything out. Right? Because I'm coming from a perspective that says: if you can contain something like a small bit of solar core: and if you can let some of that heat leak to the outside environment: you can derive terrific power from the thermal dynamics at work. The sun exists in the pressure-free vacuum and thus extends to a far less dense outer layer where the heat gradient (the argument against power potential per volume) is low. However if you could contain the sun into a smaller volume, it would have the same massive heat flux but over a much lower surface area and thus with far more power potential per volume. I assume we're not so much disagreeing: over focusing on different issues. Is it correct that you're saying that the act of containment itself prevents the ability to harness the flux?
    - arbitrarywords 13y ago
      We might be slightly talking at cross purposes. I agree that something hot contains a lot of available energy. I'm making the point that it may not produce any available energy (i.e. inert in the sense of nuclear fusion).

redwood 13y ago

I'm sorry, but the core of the sun is 150 times as dense as a reptile's brain and far far hotter. Thus you would need far more than the equivalent volume of brains to create the same effect. I see what you mean about the energy of escaping radiation, however.

arbitrarywords 13y ago
For your point to be persuasive you need to add why temperature and density would increase power. e.g. one could have a core of extremely hot, dense inert material.
- redwood 13y ago
  Something hot should not be thought of as inert, because something hot by definition is something with incredible internal velocity. But then there are multiple definitions of inert.. I think what you're saying, though, is that if you contain something extremely hot and dense, you cannot get any useful energy out... Because the energy needed to contain it prevents you from getting anything out. Right? Because I'm coming from a perspective that says: if you can contain something like a small bit of solar core: and if you can let some of that heat leak to the outside environment: you can derive terrific power from the thermal dynamics at work. The sun exists in the pressure-free vacuum and thus extends to a far less dense outer layer where the heat gradient (the argument against power potential per volume) is low. However if you could contain the sun into a smaller volume, it would have the same massive heat flux but over a much lower surface area and thus with far more power potential per volume. I assume we're not so much disagreeing: over focusing on different issues. Is it correct that you're saying that the act of containment itself prevents the ability to harness the flux?
  - arbitrarywords 13y ago
    We might be slightly talking at cross purposes. I agree that something hot contains a lot of available energy. I'm making the point that it may not produce any available energy (i.e. inert in the sense of nuclear fusion).