🧵 ITER suddenly delayed by 10 years; first fusion in 2035
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:37:32 UTC No. 16247648
It's over for this boondoggle.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Arti
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:44:14 UTC No. 16247665
>fusion's just 'round the corner bro
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:45:02 UTC No. 16247666
Keep up clean powered source.
>>>/his/16772324
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:46:18 UTC No. 16247672
Funny the article mentions nothing about the delay being 10 years. Where did you read that?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:48:44 UTC No. 16247677
>>16247672
>the previous baseline, established in 2016, was for first plasma in 2025
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:51:03 UTC No. 16247678
>>16247677
So we've gone from 'fusion is 9 years away' to 'fusion is 11 years away'... in 8 years of progress.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:51:12 UTC No. 16247679
>>16247677
First plasma =/= DD fusion. That is a different milestone.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:06:37 UTC No. 16247708
>>16247679
As of April 2022 ITER is near 85% complete toward first plasma.[89] First plasma was scheduled for late 2025,[90][4] however delays were acknowledged in 2023 which would impact this target. The ITER organisation proposed a new new schedule for the 34th ITER Council Meeting in June 2024 which includes a start of operation with a deuterium-deuterium plasma in 2035.[44]
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:26:00 UTC No. 16247746
bummer, we'll get there though. The scale of this project is unprecedented, I accept setbacks, as a matter of fact, it's what I expect, many setbacks.
pic: one of the tokamak supermagnet rings
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:27:25 UTC No. 16247748
>>16247708
Thanks for repeating the same thing. Those are different milestones.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:30:03 UTC No. 16247751
>>16247746
Why would ITER work where others have failed?
We already have Tokamaks in operation and they do shit all
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:53:55 UTC No. 16247811
>Build huge experiment to demonstrate fusion scaling.
>Get approval after decades of planning, only as a huge international collaboration because no county would fund it alone.
>Cost and timeline spiral. It doesn't matter which company can build component X the cheapest or who has the most experience, because country Y is now building it.
>Opponents say ITER is pointless "It's not a power-plant. ITER will obviously work with no problems, we should skip to DEMO".
>More delays and problems.
>"This project is shit. We should cancel it." Ignoring the fact that half the experiment is in building it.
>"The MIT reactor will do it better and sooner", ignoring the fact that a full scale machine will face the same issue of getting the budget. The issue that ITER has overcome.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:56:26 UTC No. 16247817
>>16247648
>our project will pay off in "two weeks"
>I promise!
>trust me!
>gibes me more decades of infinite free tax gibes funding!!
why are scientists such burdensome, useless leeches?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:56:40 UTC No. 16247818
>>16247751
Those machines didn't fail, they achieved fusion. They're just not big or advanced enough to break even. They were never designed to.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:02:35 UTC No. 16247826
>>16247648
i dont care if it takes 400 years, no law of nature says complicated epic projects need to be done on time or on timescales that suit your interests. Maybe some things are just hard and take 400 years to do, or 4000, who knows?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:04:13 UTC No. 16247833
>>16247751
>Why would ITER work where others have failed?
Because its bigger and what was found in the other tokamaks is they are less bad the bigger they are
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:19:44 UTC No. 16247868
>>16247828
>That demonstration device, called SPARC, is targeted for completion in 2025.
Meanwhile they haven't posted any real updates in years.
https://www.psfc.mit.edu/sparc/publ
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:20:20 UTC No. 16247871
>>16247746
>mod advanced magnet ever built
>wrapped in masking tape that someone used their teeth to cut
kek
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:23:17 UTC No. 16247878
>>16247817
9 results
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:24:38 UTC No. 16247882
>>16247868
They have a different site now
https://cfs.energy/news-and-media
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:38:35 UTC No. 16247911
>>16247882
There isn't really anything new on there either. For example, they just republished this story about a test magnet, where the actual experiment was from 2021.
https://cfs.energy/news-and-media/c
Let's look at the other exciting developments:
>CFS in the News
>06.06.2024 Commonwealth Fusion Systems Signs $15 Million DOE Agreement To Advance Commercial
>03.04.2024 CFS-MIT High-Field Magnet Technology for Commercial Fusion Experimentally Validated
>08.10.2023 Commonwealth Fusion Systems Wins Three DOE INFUSE Awards
>05.31.2023 Commonwealth Fusion Systems Selected by U.S. DOE for Milestone Program to Accelerate Commercial Fusion Energy
>03.09.2023 Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Eni Sign Strategic Framework Agreement
>02.10.2023 Commonwealth Fusion Systems Opens Fusion Energy Campus on the Fastest Path to Bring Clean Fusion Energy to the World
>01.19.2023 Commonwealth Fusion Systems Wins Two DoE INFUSE Awards to Accelerate Fusion Energy Development
>07.25.2022 Commonwealth Fusion Systems and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Establish Fusion Energy Cooperative Agreement
>07.12.2022 CFS Wins Four New INFUSE Awards in Partnership with National Labs and Universities to Accelerate Fusion Energy Development
>12.20.2021 CFS Wins Two U.S. Department of Energy Awards for Public-Private Partnerships with National Labs
>12.01.2021 Commonwealth Fusion Systems Raises $1.8 Billion in Funding to Commercialize Fusion Energy
>09.08.2021 Commonwealth Fusion Systems creates viable path to commercial fusion power with world’s strongest magnet (same magnet story)
Do you see the repeating pattern? "Funding", "Partnership", "Award". Nothing about actual hardware. In all these years they produced one test magnet.
It is literally making less progress than ITER.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:18:22 UTC No. 16247970
>>16247817
No one promised anything. It's a leading-edge, mega-project. Prototype, literally.
Goals are set and they are attempted. Sometimes they can be reached, sometimes they cannot. Such is the nature of this type of research.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:31:44 UTC No. 16247985
>>16247648
I've been saying it for a decade - fusion needs to go back to the drawing board: Apply the lessons learned over the last fifty years to inform the design and construction of many smaller scale experiments at many institutions and let researchers focus on pursuing multiple avenues to solve the outstanding problems of fusion instead of doubling down on "just build fewer, bigger projects".
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:15:30 UTC No. 16248032
>>16247648
The only point of ""fusion power"" is to make retards say
>building fission power plants would be foolish because fusion is just a few years away! we should wait for that.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:16:44 UTC No. 16248038
>>16247985
The field has been doing that for decades. It's also not like going big freezes the technology, future machines can adopt technology from large and small experiments.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:24:24 UTC No. 16248054
>>16247985
Also sticking to smaller machines does not mean you necessarily get the same budget one big machine. It's not one fixed budget year by year. Big projects can often get more funding because of optics and because of sunk cost. But if you spread your money on 10 tiny projects there is no big shinny project to convince politicians to fund the field seriously.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:27:40 UTC No. 16248067
>>16248032
Only retards say that because fusion will be more expensive than fission and fission isn't commercially viable either.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:28:30 UTC No. 16248071
>government regulation makes fission plants impossible to build
>therefore we should build fusion which is 1000x more difficult
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:34:02 UTC No. 16248081
>>16248054
You know what hurts a field more than 10 smaller projects struggling for attention? One giant mega project that ends with "eh, we got nothing, now we need to build an even bigger more expensive replacement!"
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:41:12 UTC No. 16248089
Fusion is such a joke. It will theoretically cost more than fission plants which makes it a pointless endeavor altogether.
It's also not feasible to sustain a fusion reaction for very long due to neutron bombardment of the walls of the reactor. Fission reactors swap out fuel rods every 2 years but there is no fucking way a large fusion reaction can be sustained for that long at a competitive price due to the neutron bombardment problem. Fission reactors also only replace 1/3 of their rods every 2 years whereas the whole inner lining of the fusion reactor core has to be replaced every time, and it is much more complicated to replace the inner lining than it is to replace fuel rods.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:45:40 UTC No. 16248099
>>16248089
Fission reactor designs are intentional clusterfucks due to all sorts of regulatory issues
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:47:17 UTC No. 16248102
>>16248032
>fusion is just a few years away!
In all my years of following this matter, I never heard anyone seriously claim that.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:51:59 UTC No. 16248110
>>16247970
This is not leading-edge. The tech has been around for decades and still hasn't been proven. Why hasn't there been a project that can keep a fusion reaction going for a whole month without shutting down? Why the fuck would you build something so big before reaching this obvious milestone of sustaining a reaction for more than a month? It's bonkers.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:54:59 UTC No. 16248117
>>16248089
>it is much more complicated to replace the inner lining than it is to replace fuel rods
depends on the implementation. A tokamak is certainly a complicated thing to have tits lining replaced.
I like Helion Energy's idea, I hope it works. The parts to be replaced are simpler and compact.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:56:00 UTC No. 16248118
>>16248110
>The tech has been around for decades
Not at that scale! Go build one, DIY champ!
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:57:01 UTC No. 16248123
>>16248117
>tits
I wrtoe titst, kek
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:05:03 UTC No. 16248135
>>16248038
that graph explains a lot
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:38:14 UTC No. 16248212
>>16248081
And what do you think these smaller projects are going to end in? You still have to build the big one sooner or later. You can argue technology will make it cheaper, but inflation is working in the opposite direction.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:41:31 UTC No. 16248215
>>16248089
Fission is limited by politics. The limited scale and infrastructure (long term storage and reprocessing) drives up costs massively.
>every time
And what time is that?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:42:08 UTC No. 16248218
In 10 years it will be "ooops we need more money again, give us another 10 years worth of blank checks"
Failure is job security for worthless losers who produce nothing other than demands for ever more free gibes money
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:24:59 UTC No. 16248290
>>16247818
>it totally works bro I swear, we just need a trillion dollars to scale up and it will totally work I promise no scam
Hmmm
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:28:56 UTC No. 16248295
>>16247985
>to inform the design and construction of many smaller scale experiments
We already tested small scale fusion to death. Every university physics department has a small scale fusion reactor. You can build one in your backyard for under $1,000. The point of ITER is to take what we know, and try it out at a scale that surpasses the break even point. ITER isn't even a power plant. They just vent the generated energy into the air. The projects after it like DEMO will actually make electricity.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:33:17 UTC No. 16248307
>>16248290
Yes, you retard
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:35:12 UTC No. 16248310
how would one even begin to work in this place? im a neet but i want to do something with fusion. wat do . i preferably want a skill in fusion that can translate to working with rockets
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:35:55 UTC No. 16248311
>>16248038
>Chernobyl happens
>Government stops funding fusion
I hate this shit
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:41:48 UTC No. 16248324
>>16248307
>see I put the red dot in the blue zone, that means fusion totally works!
Want to buy a bridge?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:45:04 UTC No. 16248335
>>16248038
Pure delusion, you can't guarantee throwing more money in the fire will produce a desired outcome
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:11:07 UTC No. 16248392
>>16248335
There are entire departments in governments and industry for predicting the cost and schedule of things that don't exist yet. No you cannot guarantee anything, but you can give it your best estimate.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:22:20 UTC No. 16248419
>>16247648
Holy shit the "it's always ten years away" meme is true
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:26:33 UTC No. 16248428
>>16247648
>ITER suddenly delayed by 10 years
>suddenly
We knew this years ago though? The revised the timeline a while after COVID started.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:39:28 UTC No. 16248441
>>16248212
>You still have to build the big one sooner or later.
Building bigger let us weasel our way out of the actually challenging work of solving the underlying physical problems with sustainable fusion. I suppose one could try to argue that this constitutes a "solution" - after all, fusion triple product has scaled almost linearly with experiment scale since the 70s. Except the problem with calling that a solution is that the cost, time, and engineering challenges of actually building these projects bigger and bigger doesn't scale anything fucking *close* to linearly. It's not a viable long-term path to fusion power.
ITER's plan in 2006 was for first D-D plasma by 2016. In 2015 that slid to 2025. Now they're saying best case scenario we'll be lucky to get first D-D plasma by 2035, which likely pushes D-T fusion and DEMO back to the mid-to-late 2040s *at best*, and fuck knows how long DEMO will actually end up taking (assuming ITER actually ends up achieving a burning plasma).
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:24:40 UTC No. 16248498
>>16248441
>Building bigger let us weasel our way out of the actually challenging work of solving the underlying physical problems with sustainable fusion.
No it doesn't. Either that gets done or it will never work commercially. Your question baselessly assumes there is a better way, and that this way can only be found if no one starts building big. One can always kick the can down the road and say "the technology will be better in 20 years, lets start it then". And you still haven't solved any of the practical problems, it's always going to be expensive to scale up.
>I suppose one could try to argue that this constitutes a "solution" - after all, fusion triple product has scaled almost linearly with experiment scale since the 70s.
No it doesn't. Those are log plots. You can't even pretend you know what you're talking about.
> Except the problem with calling that a solution is that the cost, time, and engineering challenges of actually building these projects bigger and bigger doesn't scale anything fucking *close* to linearly.
Firstly you fucked the point entirely. Secondly, that's not a problem. That is your absurd assumption that your linear extrapolation should exactly match reality. "Why isn't my data linear?" is not a problem with the data. This certainly doesn't need to be true for it to be viable.
>and fuck knows how long DEMO will actually end up taking
And how long will it take if there are another two generations of small experiments first? Then you are faced with the same multi-decade long conundrum of trying to get it funded.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:43:22 UTC No. 16248518
>>16248218
OBSESSED
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 01:44:12 UTC No. 16248592
>>16248498
>Your question baselessly assumes there is a better way
The optimistic triple-product scaling with system size in tokamaks only holds if you ignore everything else we've learned about fusion over the last few decades. Almost every single commercial entity pursuing fusion research has pivoted towards smaller scale devices that optimize fusion power through other methods: They're exploring magneto-inertial approaches, they're looking at plasma acceleration, they're looking at novel modifications to old magnetic mirror and polywell designs, hell even fucking muon catalyzed fusion is being looked at seriously again. They all smell the writing on the wall - tokamaks doubling-down on 'just build it bigger' isn't going to work.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 01:57:18 UTC No. 16248607
>>16247970
>It's a leading-edge, mega-project. Prototype, literally.
Except for the "literal" part, sure. My shitposts are more impressive than these peoples careers.
>>16248038
I could make better fake graphs than this if I were in on this project. HMU.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 03:45:40 UTC No. 16248711
>>16248335
It's currently unknown if generating electricity using non-gravity-confined fusion is even physically possible. Let alone within the grasps of someone to give a decent estimation of when it will be obtained if ever.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 04:41:23 UTC No. 16248749
>>16248218
tsmt this
science is just a grift.
"epic science in ten years, we promise" is right up there with "checks in the mail" in terms of extremely common empty promises. scientists are just thieves.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 04:47:59 UTC No. 16248752
>>16248749
>tsmt this
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 09:18:02 UTC No. 16248995
>>16248592
>Almost every single commercial entity pursuing fusion research has pivoted towards smaller scale devices that optimize fusion power through other methods
And strangely all these experiments are much further away from break even than existing Tokamaks like JET.
I remind you that private industry funds obvious scams, like Rossi's E-Cat. Just because something has some commercial funding doesn't mean it has any real potential.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 09:30:12 UTC No. 16249002
>>16247648
Its always just 10 more years bro.
Send gibs we promise in another 10 we will do it.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 09:54:42 UTC No. 16249017
>>16248307
nice chart. let's hope it's right
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 11:10:44 UTC No. 16249053
>>16247648
fallout from all the sanction spam we warned them but they didn't care. I have never seen so many demotivated researchers no one cares anymore.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 11:32:02 UTC No. 16249072
>>16249017
>let's hope it's right
Actually, on second thoughts, that much energy at such a low cost will be the end of planet Earth as we know it, we will absolutely consume everything for the sake of a growing economy.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 12:47:00 UTC No. 16249101
>>16248749
Fusion is an engineering problem, not one about "science".
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:02:50 UTC No. 16249111
>>16249101
Fusion is a science problem because no amount of engineers can design something that even theoretically works
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:11:07 UTC No. 16249119
>>16248117
>4.
Wait they aren't boiling water?
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:07:46 UTC No. 16249329
>>16248995
>these experiments are much further away from break even than existing Tokamaks
Well, apparently, now they've got at least eleven years to close the gap.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:34:34 UTC No. 16249391
>>16249111
>no amount of engineers can design something that even theoretically works
*no amount of engineers can design something that ONLY theoretically works
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:52:44 UTC No. 16249420
>>16249101
>>16249111
Fusion is a science problem because many of the engineering solutions to problems in fusion over the last decade have been ad hoc fixes - trying a thousand different things and finding some that seem to slightly improve performance on a particular device, but then making little or no effort figure out WHY it improved performance or WHY the same thing didn't work for another device.... which is a fucking terrible approach to R&D.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:01:33 UTC No. 16249436
>>16249119
All fusion reactors would be boiling water reactors at the end of the day, but their approach to fusion reaction is unique and their entire company structure is basically Mini Tesla/SpaceX. They just reached a stage where they fully integrated their supercapacitor production process and are starting to churn them out at scale to support their next-generation design.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:09:41 UTC No. 16249453
>>16249436
>All fusion reactors would be boiling water reactors at the end of the day
I mean, let's face it, apart from photovoltaics, almost everything is just boiling water. We laugh, but nobody's come up with a more cost-efficient way of converting (insert type of energy here) into electricity for the last 300 years.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:10:11 UTC No. 16249455
>>16249111
>>16249391
>>16249420
You want the blackpill? The science behind cold fusion is 70+ years old and it was abandoned as infeasible not long after it was first discovered.
Now does that look like a promising technology to you? The scary thing is that you actually can perform fusion and generate net electricity, that's not the problem. The problem is that it's not enough to make up for the losses from powering all the electronics and shit in the process.
I dont think anybody invested in any of these fusion companies under the impression they're going to make money any time soon. That's just how it is.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 21:43:51 UTC No. 16249934
>>16248310
That’s a long-term goal. Do you already have an idea what your concrete first and second steps for getting there might?
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:30:45 UTC No. 16250101
>>16249453
Ever heard of windfarms?
Ever heard of dams?
Ever heard of hydrogen?
Ever heard of tidal power?
None of these boil water.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:07:31 UTC No. 16250134
>>16249436
>All fusion reactors would be boiling water reactors
Not helion. Helion is trying for aneutronic proton-boron fusion. Reaction products are ions from which energy is harvested to directly drive a current. No boiling
Too bad it's a total grift lmao
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:16:31 UTC No. 16250147
>>16250101
Yeah, but all of those fucking suck.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 04:46:16 UTC No. 16250375
>>16248215
>every time
>And what time is that?
That's the fucking problem. No one really knows because breeder blankets (the inner lining of the reactor) haven't been tested yet. Probably every 2-3 years the whole thing will have to be replaced, but no one's really sure. Keep in mind that the fusion reaction can actually make the blanket radioactive which adds an element of complexity to replacing it. It's a fucking joke because there's no way you can make enough tritium at prices which are competitive with fission unless you use a breeder blanket, yet they decided to build this gigantic monstrosity called ITER before getting a breeder blanket running for at least a month straight?
It's a clusterfuck.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:35:07 UTC No. 16251591
>>16250101
boiling water to turn a shaft isn't that different from using flowing water/wind to turn a shaft
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:50:14 UTC No. 16252778
>>16247648
it's over.
r/collapse was right, we ain't gonna make it before fossil fuels pass peak production.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:01:02 UTC No. 16252790
what a shitshow, its embarrasing. Id rather they give us a range of years, it might be finished instead of a explicit date
also arent stellerators generally better for long term energy production?
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:14:06 UTC No. 16252980
>>16250134
What makes it a grift?
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:32:03 UTC No. 16253010
>>16252778
Lol, we are going to have enough oil for decades to come and then some.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:54:19 UTC No. 16253072
>>16253010
this kind of delusional thinking is exactly what makes me invest more in prepping every year.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:58:41 UTC No. 16253083
>>16253072
By all means, do that.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:16:47 UTC No. 16253110
>>16247648
Fusion has and will always be ten years away. It's the original two weeks that started in the 60's and is still king of the hill today.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:57:03 UTC No. 16253178
>>16253083
we're not in team fortress, you just got one life... and I have lots of bullets, thermal cameras and sensors that work during the night.
defense is easier than attack in real life.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:30:02 UTC No. 16253279
>>16248518
unga bunga
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:47:04 UTC No. 16253477
>>16253178
the best defense is a good offense.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:10:27 UTC No. 16253828
>>16253110
>But you just aren't funding us enough!
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:50:44 UTC No. 16253907
>>16247665
> 50 years like clockwork
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:52:06 UTC No. 16253911
>>16247748
> It doesn't count because I moved the goal posts.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:01:45 UTC No. 16253931
>>16253911
Generally speaking, fusion means deuterium-tritium. Deuterium-deuterium is a completely different process, with significantly less research behind it.
Not his fault you're an illiterate moron.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:18:50 UTC No. 16253969
>>16247648
it's always been a grift project. the whole point is for it to go on forever and pump money into the pockets of the smart big nosed people forever.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:28:07 UTC No. 16253990
So goku cant fusion with kakarot yet
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:28:58 UTC No. 16253992
>>16247648
>two more decades
>need more money
>no refunds
>t. world's biggest scammers in labcoats
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:31:30 UTC No. 16253997
>>16247648
>NIH: keep giving us massive amounts of money, cure for cancer in "two weeks" we promise
they've been spinning that big lie for more than half a century and nobody has ever called them on it. meanwhile they've made zero progress on the problem.
ITER is the same situation, just a bottomless pit of financial waste that will never pay off
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:59:02 UTC No. 16254036
Fusion has been solved for billions of years. There's a massive source of limitless energy so big it's impossible to miss and so bright it'll burn your eyes pumping out so much energy that a minuscule fraction of a minuscule fraction of it heats up the entire frigging planet. All of it up for grabs and basically none of it used. But let's con the tax cuck and sell him the idea that we can somehow make the most extreme conditions in a bottle with the rarest, most expensive material in the world to maybe in a million years achieve net positive energy in the milliwatt range because why the fuck not.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 01:00:53 UTC No. 16254041
>>16254036
post ur backyard fusion reactor
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:34:19 UTC No. 16254584
>>16253477
>the best defense is a good offense.
if your IQ is high, otherwise you will suddently find yourself in front of a loaded MG 42 and that's the last thing you will see.
Statistically most raiders will be retarded city dwellers, so it's gonna be a fast job getting rid of them.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:39:16 UTC No. 16254590
>>16248711
Fusors get hot, thus we heat steam to push as turbine
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:41:53 UTC No. 16254594
>>16254584
Nothing an uparmored jeep can't handle when it comes dashing through your front yard at 50 mph.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:12:47 UTC No. 16254773
>>16252980
this graph. Note that the axis are logarithmic
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:31:31 UTC No. 16254802
>>16254773
I realized I should elaborate:
The Y axis shows the rate of fusion reactions, basically how efficient your reactor is. Higher rate = higher power output for a given volume of plasma
The X axis shows ion temperature, this graph displays it in keV. In normal units the D-T curve peaks out around ~500 million celsius iirc. Higher temperature means efficiency losses due to high heating costs, issues with plasma containment and a whole bunch of other nasty shit not least of which is that if you heat your plasma hot enough, everything starts reacting with everything and you can't have aneutronic fusion for example.
What this graph means is: Optimal D-T fusion conditions are a literal order of magnitude easier to achieve than optimal proton-boron fusion conditions when it comes to temperature and react at 5 times higher rates (this doesn't directly translate to energy output because you get something like twice as much energy per reaction from D-T)
in short, it's literally 100 times better to run your reactor off D-T than p-B