Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 02:20:36 UTC No. 16459191

The only thing that could produce more energy per given quantity of mass would be matter anti-matter annihilation. But since we can't produce anti-matter except of a few particles that is a long, long time coming.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 02:20:55 UTC No. 16459192

>>16459185
It's shit.
> Muh Q > 1 soon!
and commercial viability never!

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 02:24:39 UTC No. 16459194

>>16459185
its the highest energy form we know of.

fission is picrelated on the right side and slightly upwards (decay products).
the differences in binding energy is small here.

fusion is from H to Li on the left side.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 02:26:18 UTC No. 16459197

>>16459192
you are like the people that said we will never have commercial airplanes.
or the doctors that thought travelling by train is so fast, it could hurt the organs.

Stop guessing start learning at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 02:46:52 UTC No. 16459215

>>16459185
It's the holy grail but will never happen.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 03:18:21 UTC No. 16459246

What if we cover the entire moon in solar panels?

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 06:32:51 UTC No. 16459349

>>16459185
Matter anti matter is even more efficient but that's some science fiction shit

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 07:33:09 UTC No. 16459399

>>16459246
Nothing, because that electricity would have to travel millions of miles to Earth. Even if there was an indestructible cable running to Earth, it would snap due to how the Moon orbits around the Earth.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 07:33:31 UTC No. 16459401

>>16459185
the biggest problem with fusion that you can't get around is the neutron flux.
the entire reactor will become neutron activated over time, embrittling materials on the atomic level and making everything radioactive.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 08:12:07 UTC No. 16459432

>>16459197
>you are like the people that said we will never have commercial airplanes.
Literally who said that? It took 10 years from the wright brother's first flight until the first commercial flight. And in between that, there was constant records being broken. Nuclear fusion on the other hand has been "market ready in 20 years" for 70 years.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 11:57:55 UTC No. 16459560

>>16459191
>matter anti-matter annihilation
i think about this like hydrogen.
it's not the energie source, but a storage.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 12:36:37 UTC No. 16459580

>>16459432
>Literally who said that?
me

gustav weißkopf did his flight way before the wright brothers (longer and higher) and its was documented in newspapers and witnessed. more like 'wrong brothers' lol.

franconians are simply the best people.
we also invented jeans btw.
and the bobby car.
and the electric car.
the fire pump.
ludo. sneaker. kleenex. globes. mp3. rolex. mail order business. jet propulsion. vienna sausage. most types of pens. tin toys. playmobil. electric street lighting. radio and television devices. (I just stop here because I have no time, Im busy with inventing new things.)

the nuclear fission reactor took 27 years from discovery to a power plant on the grid.
and you need to patient and accept technological progress isnt sticking to your schedule.
ITER experiments are starting before 2030, DEMO (the pilot plant which already will feed into grid) planning already has started.

if you want to be faster, ask your local gov to put in more money.
$50 billion (worst case estimation) for a full understanding of fusion processes sounds like a joke to me.
if you think this is much:
>civil engineering started in 2007 (17 years)
>europe, UK, switzerland, USA, china, korea, japan, russia, india (9 partners)
so we are talking about 330 million each year for the partners on average.
that is so poor.

germany alone has just invested 100 billion in its military budget.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:53:09 UTC No. 16459626

>>16459185
It's just another way to boil water

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 14:56:00 UTC No. 16459689

>>16459626
solar and wind chads laughing and virgin antimater and coal water cookers

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 15:05:52 UTC No. 16459693

>>16459689
it's not real energy if you're not using water to turn a wheel.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 15:17:24 UTC No. 16459701

>>16459689
>what if we use this single-building sized reactor to boil water, turn a turbine, and power a city?
>PPSSSSH! WHAT IS THIS? THE DARK AGES! WHY NOT JUST COVER A HUNDRED SQUARE KILOMETERS WITH SOLAR PANELS! THAT'S WAY MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY!

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 15:23:29 UTC No. 16459706

>>16459185
>Is nuclear fusion really the holy grail?

Yes... literally the second most important advance in any technological civilization.
The first is creating and controlling fire.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:03:09 UTC No. 16459887

>>16459185
No. I love fusion and would like to build a fusor at home, but it's not going to be commercially viable any time soon if ever. The materials we have just don't cut it. We'd need a massive black swan event for fusion to take off at this point.

And there's already a giant fusion reactor in the sky.

>>16459246
>>16459399
You would have to transfer the energy another way, probably via light.

>>16459701
Lol

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:17:38 UTC No. 16459905

>>16459887
Solar is infinitely worse on grid than nuclear.
Solar is handy when you put some on your own personal home to power your own personal shit.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:18:25 UTC No. 16459907

>>16459905
Ok go ahead and build some more fusion plants then.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:19:21 UTC No. 16459910

>>16459907
Fission*
Nuclear plants use fission so far

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:28:08 UTC No. 16459924

>>16459185
>>16459191
>>16459192
>>16459194
>>16459197
>>16459432
>>16459580
>>16459399
Daily reminder that there is a design for a nuclear fusion reactor that requires no new technology, which is the PACER nuclear power plant. This involves exploding low-yeild H-bombs in an underground cavity, and transferring the heat to molten salt. This type of plant is politically difficult, because it requires plutonium bombs, full nuclear explosives, so it makes a proliferation nightmare, but it works to produce fusion energy.

The fusion bombs produce neutrons as a side effect, and this can be used to clean the reactor of dangerous medium half-life isotopes, and do additional transmutations too, and breeding of fissile materials to close the cycle. It is 95% fusion energy even for small bombs. It is economical and practical, but it requires getting our act together regarding safety and politics, so that there is no danger of misuse of the bombs.

This is fusion, truly unlimited. Nothing else even comes close.

Stop guessing start learning at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:40:51 UTC No. 16459945

>>16459924
>exploding nuclear bombs underground.

Do you even read the ridiculous assertions you type out before posting.

Do you think it's actually practical to explode nuclear bombs underground? How would that work exactly? What are the technical details of how this would work.

I don't want

>it's possible bro trust me

I want a full technical layout of how I can blow up a nuclear bomb underground and transfer it to salt.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:12:39 UTC No. 16459982

>>16459945
https://files.catbox.moe/4qjb68.pdf

detailed description

Stop guessing start learning at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 20:26:16 UTC No. 16459992

>>16459982
Ok it's good that you provided technical literature. But this was a proposal that was theoretical in nature. Which approached and discussed the same thoughts I had.

Which Is.

How the fuck is blowing up a nuclear weapon underground continuously going to hold up the cavity which the explosion occurs?

Also this was published almost 50 years ago.

Anon this isn't practical it's bullshit.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:37:04 UTC No. 16460051

>>16459924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome_(nuclear_test)

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 22:20:24 UTC No. 16460110

>>16459185
Nuclear fusion and room temperature superconductors are the holy grail of technology.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 22:34:27 UTC No. 16460125

>>16459887
what kind of calculation is this?
only pure photovoltaic surface or does it include mainenance area, streets and auxiliary systems, wiring and inverters?

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 22:56:24 UTC No. 16460182

>>16459924
>This is fusion, truly unlimited. Nothing else even comes close.
Even if you dgaf about continually setting off nukes, the ability to work with molten salt would make thorium reactors a reality (which actually *is* unlimited energy for NA) and eventually, you're going to have to go back to manufacturing nukes after you exhaust the strategic arsenal, which is almost certain to use more energy on a national basis.

Did Freeman Dyson come up with this plan?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 00:52:37 UTC No. 16460332

>>16459185
I've taken the blackpill and given up on fusion. The only way I will ever see it in my lifetime is if they make a room temperature superconductor

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 01:33:07 UTC No. 16460368

>>16459924
>pipes with water and steam somewhere around the critical point
>cyclic fusion explosions right next to it
something tells me this isnt working as the authour thought it would.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 11:52:43 UTC No. 16460816

>>16459924
the reason they gave up on this is because continually manufacturing and detonating nuclear bombs drove up the price and environmental impact enough that the fact that its fusion power kind of did not matter in the slightest and conventional fission power won in every aspect

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 11:58:15 UTC No. 16460819

>>16459887
the problem with solar has never been its land use, its the fact that its production can't be made to match demand and relying on energy storage is always going to be suboptimal

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 13:42:35 UTC No. 16460877

>>16460819
suboptimal is correct but make it a full sentence.
its suboptimal in investement compared to other options that are available.
that is the problem.
the goal of a sustainable energy alternative is here and it is very affordable but it has to compete with fossil solutions and that is the mistake.
the same applies to the storage problem
the cheapest option here is currently battery storage, but there are also alternatives that are not the cheapest option.
so its the same again.
so we could be sustainable, the only ones who can initiate this are the legislators.
and now guess who isnt so happy about this.

small comparison: ban of CFCs for refrigerators - that worked too. worldwide.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 13:45:11 UTC No. 16460879

>>16459580
>franconians are simply the best people.
>we also invented jeans btw.
>and the bobby car.
>and the electric car.
>the fire pump.
>ludo. sneaker. kleenex. globes. mp3. rolex. mail order business. jet propulsion. vienna sausage. most types of pens. tin toys. playmobil. electric street lighting. radio and television devices. (I just stop here because I have no time, Im busy with inventing new things.)
And yet you cannot pronounce "p" differently from "b". Let me guess, too busy inventing things?

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 14:03:18 UTC No. 16460896

>>16460879
minor drawbaggs

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:40:19 UTC No. 16461283

According to the Nuclear Energy Agency, the world's uranium resources could supply reactors for more than 200 years at the current consumption rate.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 00:29:33 UTC No. 16461592

>>16459185
The holy grail is the Holy Grail.
Nuclear fusion is the holy grail of energy production.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 00:44:30 UTC No. 16461605

>>16459924
this is the only kind of fusion power that could actually work. a few grams of tritium in a giant magnetically confined microwave is an insanely stupid soviet-tier pipe dream.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 01:36:39 UTC No. 16461632

>>16459185
IMO it’s a money sink, we would be better off investing in solar and fission.
Solar is becoming insanely cheap because the semiconductor industry is a technological wonder.
Nuclear can provide the baseload for solar and could be much cheaper if regulation weren’t so dumb.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 01:41:17 UTC No. 16461636

Never going to happen. It requires too much hydrogen in a matter-density configuration that is impossible to reproduce in a tokamak. Shit is a scam and will never materialize into fusion on Earth.

J o h n C L a s h e r a s
w o r d p r e s s
c o m

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:38:24 UTC No. 16461854

>>16459924
teller! i thought you were dead.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 08:29:21 UTC No. 16461909

Do you want to know? Crack open a history book.

Look up "The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951", it's an offshoot of the manhatten project and still very active today. Learn history, "free energy" like from the sun. In the 1970's how normal efficient solar panels were almost made top secret technology. No joke, it was on a chopping block you didn't even know exists. It's an interesting story you can read about, no tinfoil. But any reasonable person can take that knowledge and make a few reasonable assumptions about what happens with more dangerious technology. Right? LENR for example, in the open source community one of he biggest challeges is making a setup that doesn't explode. Just decades ago whole related companies of people have gotten residecy visa's moved to the US for companies that then went dark. You know like 1950's "operation paperclip", we're still doing shit like that.

It's well known history that the agencies involved in The Invention Secrecy Act funded physisists who wrote false papers describing nuclear fission weapons as impossible. Those physisists even became the top physics spokespersons of the day. Are you seeing a pattern? Modern times, Stephen Hawking early on was a successful proponent of "free energy" but then changed his tune, it's all impossible and you should all focus on math. Somehow that made him a modern spokesperson for physiscs, got him book deals and hookers glued to his ---- on Epstein's Island. He's in the logs, why? His looks? Nice voice? His garbage personality? His shriveled ----? Or maybe his work telling everyone to focus on mathmatical black holes instead of experiments? What do you think?

In the past great effort was put into discrediting the explosive potential of fission. What's changed? Nothing. And is it bad? It intelectually sucks, but on the other hand if you've ran some experimetns you might realise with -------- ----- and the result could destroy a planet. So are you going to get easy fusion anytime soon? No.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 10:05:11 UTC No. 16461938

>>16461632
They don't really work so well together.
Nuclear gives constant output, solar very variable.
Solar integrates well with oil plants instead (ironically), because their output is easy to regulate.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:53:57 UTC No. 16462497

>>16461938
>They don't really work so well together.
>Nuclear gives constant output, solar very variable.
How does that follow

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:29:52 UTC No. 16462548

>>16462497
I think what he's trying to say is solar is bad for the grid because it's highly variable.

The setup you want is baseload power (like nuclear) combined with on-demand power (like gas turbine).

But solar theoretically becomes a good option for generating oil refinery products, including fuel for gas turbine power plants. Or alternately if you have enough gas turbine power then it can overcome the fluctuations in solar output.

Solar to syngas is also a really promising avenue.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:52:23 UTC No. 16462591

>>16462548
Do you know how much absolutely barren unused dessert exists in Arizona, new Mexico, west Texas, driving 100s and 100s of miles without seeing anything on either side of the highway for 100s and 100s of miles, just red ground and cactuses and shrubs. Fill it with solar panels why don't ya

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:55:58 UTC No. 16463774

>>16459185
Fusion energy is a giant meme. It will never be a net positive way of generating energy.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:59:25 UTC No. 16463780

>>16459185
Direct mass energy conversion
>>16459191
Non-orientable wormholes could potentially convert matter to antimatter 'for free'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-orientable_wormhole
Wormholes are a complete fucking meme though

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:03:43 UTC No. 16463943

>>16462548
Yeah, hence mini mini mini.....mini mini star; which means still need a lot of pressure, just much minier than the sun.

So hydrogen bombs work via fusion?
So just build an incredibly strong sphere, I geuss an anon in another thread already mentioned it exploding bombs underground and absorbing the energy.

So it is proven there is the capability of fusing hydrogen, just need to intelligently and strongly control and harness it.

These methods of plasma, is the attempt to use plasma to fuse hydrogen? The thought that plasma gets so hot and energetic more then most any other earthly thing and it's strong association with the sun?

So build made of extremely resistant material, a series of concentric spheres, the inner most being the one you wish to try to make a mini star in; the idea would seem to be, fill it with a ton of hydrogen, make a hydrogen fusion reaction in there;

If that is the spirit of the fusion hope in principle, then it has to be considered, how would such a reaction:
1) not obliterate the sphere/s it's contained in
2) how to harness all the energy yielded
3)how to continously keep it going (pump more and more hydrogen in?)

That's the idea, once the fusion chain reaction occurs, as long as more and more hydrogen is present in the vicinity the chain reaction will continue?

🗑️ Singularitarian at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 01:05:02 UTC No. 16464307

Never gonna work

A Jewish money sink scam

J o h n C L a s h e r a s
W o r d p r e s s
C o m

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 02:12:14 UTC No. 16465608

>>16459185
using black holes to convert mass to energy directly by hawking radiation

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 06:27:32 UTC No. 16465789

Huge huge metal spheres with door openings that are assembled by robots on the moon and then shot off to fly close to the sun and scoop parts of the Sun in then travel back down to earth and land on an ocean base platform equipped to convert and store that energy

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 06:34:26 UTC No. 16465793

Does colliding hydrogen like accelerator style fuse it? (Maybe with additional at source of collision mag fields and plasma inputs?
Is there fear that if successfully fuse hydrogen there is explosion?

How much hydrogen is tokamak attempting to fuse?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:28:26 UTC No. 16466143

How much hydrogen is hoped to be attempting to be fused at once in fusion reactors?

It is verified now that: if you hit x amount of contained pressurized hydrogen, with the strongest possible man made units of plasma, y amount of hydrogen fuses?

Pressurized hydrogen, magnetic containment, strongest plasma = fusion? Verified

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:05:13 UTC No. 16466346

"The energy released by the fusion of two hydrogen atoms is approximately 0.0918 MeV"

-Can you fuse hydrogen by particle accelerating it into one another?

-what quantity of hydrogen is attempted to be fused in the reactors?

-what level of rigor is the theory supporting the fusion reactor designs planned for how much energy output?

-if they accidently succeeded in fusing a significant amount of hydrogen would the result be explosion?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:20:35 UTC No. 16466359

>>16459185
Matter/anti-matter collisions. Warp drive nigga!

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:09:35 UTC No. 16467096

>>16459924
>so it makes a proliferation nightmare
proliferation is a second amendment for countries

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 13:16:15 UTC No. 16467102

>>16459945
>>16459992
his pdf tells you how the cavity holds up
ctrl+f structural
>The cavity maximum pressure is limited to 75 parcent of the over-burden pressure. This provides a basic tangential compressive
stress in the cavity walls which will tend to close cracks and eliminate imperfections.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:15:51 UTC No. 16467222

>>16459185
Comparing fusion to existing fission:
It reduces the fuel cost from negligible to extra negligible, eliminates the meltdown worries and eliminates most of the waste storage issue(tearing a plant down still needs some storage of irradiated building materials for several decades).
But it will still "only" produce a roughly similar amount of power per plant as fission does today. And it will likely have about the same up-front cost and decade+ long build time as a fission plant.
And I guess we don't really know about reliability and maintenance yet. Those could be significant factors in judging this technology.

Fusion has a lot of potential to be optimistic about. But economically I doubt it'll just completely crush everything else and completely take over the grid. There'll always be some sort of energy mix even when fusion arrives.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 17:55:27 UTC No. 16467365

>>16459185
What if we dug a really deep hole and used that to do geothermal

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 00:33:32 UTC No. 16467792

>>16459191
Technically, throwing mass into a black hole has a higher energy density. Fusion is the highest energy density process we current have access to.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 05:45:16 UTC No. 16468021

>>16467222
It probably won't work, how much money has been invested in fusion so far, how many solar panels could have been made and placed in Arizona desert for that cost? Please give a rough estimate

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 07:02:13 UTC No. 16468059

>>16468021
>>16467222
So we are clear the viability of fusion and dark matter research is impossible to negligible:
What is the total dollar amount spent on these endeavors, and how many solar panels could have been made/installed for that cost: an educated rough estimate shall suffice

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:58:16 UTC No. 16469038

>>16468021
>>16468059
You said:
Can you rough estimate the amount of megawatts from solar farms that could have been achieved if the total money america spent on fusion and darkmatter was instead spent on solar farms
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
To make a rough estimate, let’s consider the following:

Approximate Spending on Fusion and Dark Matter Research: The U.S. has likely invested over $20 billion on fusion research, including funding for projects like ITER, NIF (National Ignition Facility), and others over decades
NASA

Smithsonian Magazine
. Dark matter research adds several billion more, totaling an estimate of around $30 billion combined.

Cost of Solar Farms: Utility-scale solar farms typically cost about $1 million per megawatt (MW) installed. This includes equipment, installation, and infrastructure costs, though prices can vary. Solar technology has been dropping in price, so recent installations might be even less expensive, but $1 million/MW provides a reasonable baseline
NIST
.

Estimated Solar Capacity: If $30 billion were instead spent on solar farms, at $1 million per MW, the total capacity achieved could be around:

30
,
000
MW or 30 GW
30,000 MW or 30 GW
Output Comparison: At typical solar capacity factors (around 20% in the U.S., considering daylight hours and weather conditions), 30 GW of installed solar capacity would generate
This amount of electricity could power approximately 4.8 million U.S. households annually, given average consumption

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:59:24 UTC No. 16469040

>>16469038
"A typical nuclear power plant can power around 100,000 homes for a year"

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:24:20 UTC No. 16469074

>>16460877
Solar tends to encourage natural gas (or i guess biofuels if that ever happens), since while batteries can provide power through the night, what happens when there is an unusual number of cloudy days and the batteries can't store enough to get through those? Usually solar is combined with enough batteries to meet demand up to a certain percentage of the time until it becomes cheaper to just buy a conventionally fueled generator for power during longer cloudy periods

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:04:54 UTC No. 16469109

>>16459887
>assuming national AVERAGE irradiance

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:00:20 UTC No. 16469150

>>16469074
>>16469038
See above.
Those are just 2 examples of an extreme pointless waste of billions of dollars. There are more examples. With the amount of billions wasted on nothing, over the past 20 years say, enough solar farms could have been made in undeniably useless ( I geuss mining mineral stuff should be determined maybe, hindrance of solar is its acreage of footprint) desert lands which could have powered every home in america,
Then yea, have the other stuff around as back ups and reserves and fun use and whatever.

Or was the point, the awareness of looming renewable tech innovations so a strong desire to get as much profit from the old stuff quick and first. That does make sense and is understandable, to degrees I geuss.

So in stead of every American having free electricity in their home, the monthly nickel and diming of everyone really adds up, and that's alot of money for a lot of important work to be done with. It does make sense, if the work being done with that money is very important and good right

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:01:55 UTC No. 16469151

>>16469150
But this assumes the direct results of current fusion reactors are a small portion of the money spent on them, hopefully that is the case:
Because is 20 billion was actually spent on fusion reactors and dark matter then yeah that is just..

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:14:53 UTC No. 16469161

>>16469151
>>16469150
Given that fusion investments (including the last $10 billion) are spread across both private and public sectors, it’s reasonable to estimate that tens of thousands of people could be directly or indirectly involved in the fusion efforts funded by the latest $10 billion investment.

These estimates are rough, and precise numbers would depend on specific companies and the breakdown of investments across different projects.

OK so that averages 20,000 people receiving 1 time payment of 500,000, since: what is the time frame of the most recent 10 billion spent

And in this thread are multiple close to very well proven theoretical and conceptual considerations that could have said it is unnecessary and pointless to spend a dollar on that path

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 03:18:59 UTC No. 16469165

>>16469151
>>16469161
Unless a good portion of that money actually went to darpa and the like, this is an astonishing example of welfare queenage, though I geuss the smart sexy cool guys and gals that actually build metal things deserve their chance to make up for all the waste given to the untouchables

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:08:38 UTC No. 16469205

The first time I saw a solar panel I must have been around 10 or so, I now know they've been around since the 70s or whatever, but the first time I saw was I geuss late 90s, after my grandpa retired he got really into handy man tinkering, electronics, building stuff, his work shop room in his house was amazing small wood room every wall covered with bins and drawers and cubbies of nails and paints and tools, it was all very rustic and messy, which to me was cozy and charming, we painted my pinewood derby car there together, when I went back to school after for the race noone said anything but maybe that was an early social lesson of comparison and proper news and perfectness because it was the ugliest car, shoddily haphazardly carved and painted, he just let me freestyle and go with my impatient know nothing impressions, silver, gold, blue and red, spray paint and house paint I think it was, but that is one of my rare memories of spending time with him, and I don't remember but it was likely the slowest car there, I did put some cool racing stickers on there I remember, but yeah first saw a solar panel in his work bench drawer and it blew me away, never saw such a black sleek item with the little micro lines and grids, it was alien technology to me, it was so fascinating, I didn't get how it worked, and still don't though maybe I can sense out the general idea, but yeah I did get the feeling then that I wanted to work with that technology, and strive to understand something so mind blowing and foreign, going from a 10 year old who watched cartoons and played with dinosaurs and action figures and Nintendo and soccer, to coming into contact with a solar panel, the shock of the belittling mystery, encountering something so advanced and aophisticated and beyond your grasp, what type of creature is capable of making such a perfect rectangle, with these sleek shiney micro grids, and it does what, how is this possible. Unfortunately I did not headstrong pursue that path

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:40:42 UTC No. 16469678

>>16469165
Please forgive what I thought was a sense of sarcasm and unintentional bitter provocation.

As a child I was greatly inspired and awakened by the speech and the actions of the founding fathers. Growing up in a household with parents who to degrees lacked genius, hearing the way the early taught early American leaders thought and spoke, stirred my soul, snapped me into attention, that I was in the midst of something uniquely grand, less simple and casual than I had been used to.

Learned about George Washington, went to Thomas Jefferson elementary school, learned about Ben Franklin, his bifocals and glass armonica and kite. And so I have often felt and have had a sense of the impression of their nobility and and least forward facing ability to act with honor. I have not read much about Ben Franklin's letters and diaries and thoughts on the American commoners and public, how he viewed them, how he believed his fellow citizens deserved to be treated. What he would have thought of solar panels.

I am also aware these men were forced by circumstance to yield to the need to defend America from the barbarian hordes that may be the external world at small and large.

So it is sensible and understandable, that if it was exactly an either or, free electricity for all Americans, Or, a more greatly needed, valuable, and beneficial American project, then the flawlessly shielded defense of America or the grandiose productivity of America would take precedent, over a lavish ease of spoils given to all.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:41:37 UTC No. 16471120

>>16459706
https://youtu.be/hRXAbMe_THw

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:21:32 UTC No. 16471588

>>16459185
Although not too much, I doubt that fusion power will become a reality and I also question whether there is something of a chimera about it!
!

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:04:01 UTC No. 16472312

If plasma is made as hot as possible, and 100 billion deuterium and tritium are thrown in what would happens?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:40:48 UTC No. 16472349

>>16472312
Nature plays every trick it can to radiate away energy. "Hot as possible" doesn't help because particle accelerators already reach trillions of degrees and it just turns into useless particles that spray out away from each other. Confining high energy particles, maintaining density, and exchanging byproducts with fresh fuel continuously is the big mystery that nobody can explain how to physically achieve.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:35:37 UTC No. 16472420

>>16459185
The "holy grail" would be shit like generating energy directly out of the Inflaton Field.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:19:25 UTC No. 16472851

>>16472349
It's already been done with hydro bomb,

You want to fuse hydrogen
Get hydrogen in small space
Compress it strongly fastly w/ explosion in there as well.

You really think there's another way to fuse hydrogen atoms? Enough to produce non trivial amounts of energy?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:21:24 UTC No. 16472859

>>16472349
>trillions of degrees
Of 1 tiny little beam for a picosecond.

It wouldn't be different with 10 cubic yards of pure plasma that hot for 20 minutes compressed and collapsed in on by a collapse able sphere lined with electro magnets?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:43:03 UTC No. 16473252

>>16467365
((They)) won't let you do that. The peons aren't allow to know what's down there.
I tried tunneling towards the mantle on my property.
The police came by and detained me for around 50 hours on bullshit charges.
When I finally got back home I found that my pit had been entirely filled in with gravel.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:58:57 UTC No. 16473259

>>16459185
the holy grail is better energy storage while mostly using solar.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:54:25 UTC No. 16473772

>>16459185
No just a stepping stone for the material realm. Total nullification of entropic necessity is the real holy grail, which is beyond comprehension and scale of effort. That is in reference still to the material reality as we know it.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:19:40 UTC No. 16473805

>>16459185
>building insanely complex shit with insanely high cost material
>holy grail
LOL

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:20:41 UTC No. 16473806

>le more complex
>le good
Why is science like this?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:57:15 UTC No. 16473986

>>16473252
90% of the carbon is in the mantle.
they don't want people to know about abiotic gas/petroleum/coal generation and infinite energy reserves

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:42:47 UTC No. 16474113

>>16459626
*laughs in hb-11*

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 04:43:05 UTC No. 16474350

>>16473806
Ask peacocks and other flashy dancing birds

Though also for real the challenges of scientists what they've gone through for discovery is the history of the most complex human efforts

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:37:23 UTC No. 16474390

>>16461283
That's a worryingly low amount of time, especially since energy use is increasing.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:38:11 UTC No. 16474391

>>16459185
the holy grail is a mushroom
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R3pfsUgtL9A

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:49:02 UTC No. 16474938

>>16459185
we won't need fusion if we get hypercapacitors.