3 ms·

another perpetual motion machine?

by porter 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago
The same kinds of dismissals were probably said about everyone who tried to make an airplane. Someone eventually made it work, though.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  Yes, and it was a prominent physicist who most famously said it: "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" - Lord Kelvin, 1895 http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk_12.17.03_prt.htm http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk...
tormeh 12y ago
Nah. Just a very risky investment. ITER uses "safe" physics that we know how works - it's a magnificent engineering exercise, but there are no new insights in fusion per se required. These guys seem to be aiming for an alternative solution with more eccentric science behind it. It will probably not work out, but neither does most start-ups.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  What is meant by eccentric science? Would you be specific?
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Well, I don't know much about the subject, but the way I've understood it there's ITER and then there are a couple other reactor projects. Everyone except ITER is violating some kind of popularly held belief among physicists - they could be cheaper and better, but it's far from certain that they'll work at all. This just looks like another one of those.
    - DennisP 12y ago
      I don't think it violates physicists' beliefs, it's just that they're more confident in tokamaks like ITER because they've been studied a lot more.
sp332 12y ago
You know fusion reactors burn fuel like any other power plant, right?
virmundi 12y ago
The same attach was levied against AC Power. In general the goal is for an exothermic reaction. It should be possible. Perpetual Motion Machine would be one that could sustain itself without fuel. This one can't. It has to use heavy water and helium to form the plasma. To be an actual perpetual motion machine, the system would have to create enough energy to be converted into hydrogen (E=MC^2 and all), then feed itself with the new fuel. Even at 8 times the energy output, they can't get enough energy to create parts of the fuel.
colechristensen 12y ago
No, they're not quacks. They might be a little foolish expecting (and suggesting they can deliver) net positive fusion reactors in three years, but what they're doing is solid physics. It's a high risk, high reward investment and I'm glad it's happening even if I don't think it's likely to work because someone _soon_ is going to be successful in creating a commercially viable fusion reactor, and more separate groups trying makes the chances of success higher.

another perpetual motion machine?

by porter 12y ago

another perpetual motion machine?

The same kinds of dismissals were probably said about everyone who tried to make an airplane. Someone eventually made it work, though.

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
Yes, and it was a prominent physicist who most famously said it: "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" - Lord Kelvin, 1895 http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk_12.17.03_prt.htm http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk...

tormeh 12y ago

Nah. Just a very risky investment. ITER uses "safe" physics that we know how works - it's a magnificent engineering exercise, but there are no new insights in fusion per se required. These guys seem to be aiming for an alternative solution with more eccentric science behind it. It will probably not work out, but neither does most start-ups.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
What is meant by eccentric science? Would you be specific?
- tormeh 12y ago
  Well, I don't know much about the subject, but the way I've understood it there's ITER and then there are a couple other reactor projects. Everyone except ITER is violating some kind of popularly held belief among physicists - they could be cheaper and better, but it's far from certain that they'll work at all. This just looks like another one of those.
  - DennisP 12y ago
    I don't think it violates physicists' beliefs, it's just that they're more confident in tokamaks like ITER because they've been studied a lot more.

sp332 12y ago

You know fusion reactors burn fuel like any other power plant, right?

virmundi 12y ago

The same attach was levied against AC Power. In general the goal is for an exothermic reaction. It should be possible. Perpetual Motion Machine would be one that could sustain itself without fuel. This one can't. It has to use heavy water and helium to form the plasma. To be an actual perpetual motion machine, the system would have to create enough energy to be converted into hydrogen (E=MC^2 and all), then feed itself with the new fuel. Even at 8 times the energy output, they can't get enough energy to create parts of the fuel.

colechristensen 12y ago

No, they're not quacks. They might be a little foolish expecting (and suggesting they can deliver) net positive fusion reactors in three years, but what they're doing is solid physics. It's a high risk, high reward investment and I'm glad it's happening even if I don't think it's likely to work because someone _soon_ is going to be successful in creating a commercially viable fusion reactor, and more separate groups trying makes the chances of success higher.