Slashdot Mirror


China to Build World's First "Artificial Sun"

cletuii writes to tell us the People's Daily Online is reporting that China is planning on building the world's first "artificial sun" device. From the article: "The project, dubbed EAST (experimental advanced superconducting Tokamak), is being undertaken by the Hefei-based Institute of Plasma Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It will require a total investment of nearly 300 million yuan (37 million U.S. dollars), only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world."

429 comments

  1. Sun Tzu by dotslashdot · · Score: 3, Funny

    I see the light in Sun Tzu's the Art of War!

    1. Re:Sun Tzu by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 4, Funny



      Is China getting a civilization advance for this, or can they update all energy units for half the cost once this is complete? Mr. Chairman! We have completed a great wonder...Artifical Sun

    2. Re:Sun Tzu by dotslashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

      We can finally outsource global warming!

    3. Re:Sun Tzu by Melfina · · Score: 1

      Indeed, only another result of China's enlightnment~

      --
      :3 rawr.
    4. Re:Sun Tzu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why the hell was this modded offtopic? Have you never played Civilisation?

    5. Re:Sun Tzu by Meagermanx · · Score: 0

      What, so Iraq can't have nuclear weapons, but the Chinese can have their own Sun!?

    6. Re:Sun Tzu by core+plexus · · Score: 2, Funny
      They're way ahead of the U.S. in that department: "China has darkened over the past half-century. Where has all the sunshine gone?"

      Looks like they need an artificial sun.

    7. Re:Sun Tzu by shokk · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome my new Sino masters and their wonderful cuisine!
      Now, exactly what SPF should I be wearing to survive an Artificial Sun being dropped on my city?

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    8. Re:Sun Tzu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'nickname' artificial sun comes from the translation.

      In Chinese, they call it 'artifical sun' just like they call a computer 'electric brain'.

    9. Re:Sun Tzu by Emeye · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, it's one-fifteenth the cost due to cheaper labor. Physicists in developed nations just demand too high of pay for their labor in the artificial suns field.

    10. Re:Sun Tzu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      By completing their new Great Wonder, known as Artificial Sun, China makes five unhappy citizen units happy where it was built, and gets a free cathedral in every city on the continent. Plus, China can now upgrade its cavalry units to Crouching Tiger flying kung fu fighters, who make city walls obsolete.

    11. Re:Sun Tzu by hoborocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, what it does is this - it removes the fog of war completely. That sounds good, but keep in mind that EVERYONE loses it, so now those #*^&%! Zulus can see all of your units, and Diploblitz you at the proper time...

      It's made obsolete with the advancement of Electricity, though. Years after the sun is created, it's discovered that it's not serving enough of a purpose.

      --
      AccountKiller
    12. Re:Sun Tzu by davez0r · · Score: 1

      mod parent +5 civilization ownz

    13. Re:Sun Tzu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Everyone I've ever given head to (a LOT of people) says its the best they've ever had. Well guys this is why, so try and make your man happy.

      1.I LOVE to do it. It absolutely turns me on more than recieving it. I get a massive stiffy, sometimes I even shoot my load, without masturbating.

      2.I look up at him while I'm doing it so he knows I'm loving it. You give him the eyes or that "i fucking love this" face. Literally devour him. Act like you can't get enough of his cock.

      3.I spend a lot of time licking and sucking his balls while using my hands on him and looking him in the eye... Also--yes I'll perform a "hummer" if you will

      4.Of course I SWALLOW.. but I also allow him to pull back, jerk into my open waiting mouth and onto my chest and six-pack.

      5.I always give while on my knees.. He's either standing up over me holding my head or he might be sitting on the couch, or toilet.

      6.Yes, I have let him give me a pearl necklace. In that case I wipe the cum off of my neck and I have him feed it to me off of his fingers.

      7.I'll talk dirty to him a little bit. Tell him I don't want him to cum yet because I'm not ready, or that I love the way his hard cock feels in my mouth.. I take my time--he better be prepared to sit there for at least a half hour probably more.

      8.I love to lick and tickle under his balls. The "taint" if you will. Or I'll use my thumb to apply light pressure in circular motions or going up and down. I'll go lower and lower down to the ass if he lets me. If he's enjoying it, yes I will rim, and yes I have fingered his ass.

      9.When I'm getting really turned on, I'll stroke my cock and finger my asshole in front of him. Then I'll take my fingers rub my pre-cum on his head and then suck it off. I'll also suck my fingers clean for him. If its someone who paid me or something then I've even gone so far as to climb onto him, slowly guiding his cock into my ass.. sit there for about 10 seconds then get back down on my knees and continue sucking.

      10.I deep throat. There have been instances where I dont even realize he came because it's so far down my throat. If he gags me I keep going.

      11.And its just general technique. I have a very busy tongue and I get him into a great rhythm building him up and slowing down to help prolong and intensify his orgasm. I love to flick my tongue back and forth around his sensitive ridge and all underneath it.

      12.I also SUCK his cock head firmly letting it pass in and out of my mouth, so my lips run over him while he fucks my wet mouth.

      13.I'll get him nice and wet and use my hand to stroke him in a counter-clockwise motion and then I suck on him going clockwise. The other hand goes to his nipples, balls, asshole, etc.. but the combined sensations get him so hard.

      14.When he's ready to cum thats when speed and intensity HAVE TO INCREASE. I bob up and down on him faster and faster and I let him thrust his hips too so I take him even deeper.

      15.After he cums I'll continue to suck him slowing down intensity and speed, bringing him down from his orgasm until he stops me becuase he's so sensitive.

      And that is why I give head like a pornstar. No, I am not a slut and I do not have STD's. I'm just a guy who likes to suck cock. Men--there are other men out there like me so don't give up hope if you have never had great head.

  2. Cheap labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they don't need to pay the researchers much?

    1. Re:Cheap labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't this how it works in the US too?

      -Disgruntled Grad Student

    2. Re:Cheap labor? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

      And people say outsourcing is bad.

      With these kind of discounts, a bit more tweaking by Walmart and they could have these puppies on shelves for about 3.50

    3. Re:Cheap labor? by MultiModeRb87 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually no, Graduate Students are quite expensive to operate. Sure, you don't have to actually pay them much more than cold beans, but the department insists that somebody pay for their tuition, and don't forget the overhead costs associated with allowing them to work in the university-managed facility. Your average US graduate student costs the grant on the order of $70k to $80k per year.

      I'm sure it's cheaper in China. :-)

      -Gruntled Grad Student

  3. Obligatory Simpsons Quote... by mangledspine · · Score: 1, Funny

    Excccccceellent! *rubs hands* /monty_burns

  4. Gasp by Beren87 · · Score: 5, Funny

    But Japan is land of the rising sun!

    1. Re:Gasp by biocute · · Score: 4, Funny

      Relax! Japan is still the land of the rising sun, except this sun is made in China.

    2. Re:Gasp by liangzai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The land of the rising sun AS SEEN FROM CHINA. You can see this in the Chinese/Japanese characters for Japan (Riben or Nihon): they are a sun plus a root in succession. The Chinese characters were imported by Japan.

    3. Re:Gasp by Kuciwalker · · Score: 1

      Well, now it's the land of the setting sun.

    4. Re:Gasp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Japan is the land of the rising sun, but they don't have a chink in their lead armour...

    5. Re:Gasp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no, AS SEEN FROM KOREA. :) I'll add "ilbon" to the list of words with identical Chinese characters.

    6. Re:Gasp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan will be the land of the rising artificial sun when they see the accidental rising fire ball engulfing China.

    7. Re:Gasp by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " Relax! Japan is still the land of the rising sun, except this sun is made in China."

      Until China builds the World's First "Sun Ray" and aims it at Japan. Then Japan will be the Land of the Burning Sun.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    8. Re:Gasp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, they'll ship the sun minus one widget to Japan so they can "assemble" it there!

    9. Re:Gasp by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      There is one detail that throws your hypothesis off. The sun rises in the East--China is to the West of Japan -_-

    10. Re:Gasp by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      How long until I can buy them by the gross at wal-mart?

    11. Re:Gasp by duffahtolla · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't think you got his point..

      When the Chinese looked towards Japan (east) they see a rising sun, so the chinese characters for Japan represent a sun (ri4) and its origin (ben3). Japan didn't have a writing system of their own and through a protracted process adopted the Chinese characters even tho the language was totally different (approx 5th century). The character for ri4 meant "sun" and was mapped by the japanese to the word 'Ni' which meant the same. The chinese character (ben3) which meant "origin" was mapped by the japanese to the word 'hon' which also meant "origin"

      Hence the Chinese (and thus Japanese) characters for Japan mean "Land of the rising Sun" AS SEEN FROM CHINA.

    12. Re:Gasp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, aren't you supposed to be jobhunting?

  5. Obligatory cliche by xiphoris · · Score: 4, Funny

    "What could possibly go wrong?"

    1. Re:Obligatory cliche by scsirob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing, that's why they can build it so cheaply.. That's why they cut cost on all safety features, which brought the cost down to an incredible 1/20th of the price of a full falesafe design.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    2. Re:Obligatory cliche by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The poeple who transform the materials from basic resources like ore to the final parts and build it only cost less than 1/20th of those in western countries, while still being more hard-working. ;P

      So you don't have to cut down safety so much...

      Besides us-products aren't anymore so well-known for their quality either. (okay... the quality of this scentence could improve too... maybe i'll outsource formulating of scentences to east-asia... ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Obligatory cliche by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about the safety aspects: In the event of a China Syndrome... it's already there.

    4. Re:Obligatory cliche by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1, Informative

      scentence ... I think you mean sentence .

      Well if you have bad things to say about the way things are done in china as a chinese,
      you might experience something like this :

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4515197.st m

      The chinese rush to expansion and industrialization has a hunger to feed based on the
      150 year captivity of hong kong, and I don't think it will be soon forgotten .

      As a nation we need to re-evaluate sending most of our money out of the country .

      Not just to china, but to all nations that have poor relations with us such as mexico .

      If you have to buy your friends, they are not really your friends .

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    5. Re:Obligatory cliche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to forget that a lot of the apparent wealth of the U.S. is from "transitting" money from abroad. When it was a good place to do business, that's where people invested or stashed their cash. You start playing the antagonistic player and you soon find out that those investments aren't so forthcoming anymore. A lot of the income from taxing flow of money through your gates dries up.

      It can be expensive to maintain an antagonistic attitude. Just look at Bush's intervention in the airplane deal between Spain and Venezuela. It's still going to proceed... except there will be NO U.S. technology in the planes. Now, if you were in the business of making planes worldwide, wouldn't you think about it twice before using components that could cause a foreign government start telling you who you could sell your planes to? I'd change suppliers. And if you were a supplier of such parts based in the U.S., what would you do? Yes, I would move my operation elsewhere too.

    6. Re:Obligatory cliche by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      the quality of this scentence could improve too... maybe i'll outsource formulating of scentences to east-asia... ;

      You might as well. Or at least outsource your spell-checking, since you're obviously incapable of doing it yourself. ;-)

    7. Re:Obligatory cliche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safety for a fusion reactor? Are you completely out of your mind?! No matter what goes wrong, the worst thing that could happen is the release of less than one gram of hot plasma.

      But I suppose, not understanding the subject matter is a good excuse to post "those Chinese obviously neglect safety" crap on /.

    8. Re:Obligatory cliche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Slashdot 2006, where the only people that know what the hell they are talking about post as Anonymous Coward, and idiots with 6 digit user accounts get a +5 for linking to Wikipedia.

    9. Re:Obligatory cliche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they cut cost on all safety features, which brought the cost down to an incredible 1/20th of the price of a full falesafe design.

      For another 20 times more money, we can move from "falesafe" to "fail-safe" design :-)

    10. Re:Obligatory cliche by numbski · · Score: 1

      "The power of the sun...in the palm of my hand."

      "I couldn't have made a mistake, I just need a larger containment field!"

      Sure...haven't seen this one before. Nope. Nope.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    11. Re:Obligatory cliche by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well.. then lass uns deutsch reden... ou français peut-etre... oder letzebugesch (my native tongue) vläicht?

      You can also write in nederlands. But i then will not be able to answer in the same* language.

      Of course I'd love to enter a higher level of conversation by using C++, (O')Haskell, Java, and (well, not really a high level ;) PHP or Basic.
      Hasy anyone ever done a conversation in Perl RegExp??

      * lol. i accidentidentially typed "lame" instead of "same"... this *must* mean something... ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:Obligatory cliche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the article refers to a fusion reactor as an "artificial sun".

      Let me guess: a firearm is now "a boomstick", books are now "paper with words on it", the internet is now "magic with computers" - and if something is excellent it's now "double plus good".

      I'm also frustrated that the Slashdot editors - and readership - appear to have dropped out of school.

    13. Re:Obligatory cliche by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1

      Have you seen Spiderman 2?

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    14. Re:Obligatory cliche by ModifiedDog · · Score: 1

      No, it's
      "What could possibly go wrong? go wrong? go wrong? ..."

  6. In Other News.... by carterhawk001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dr. Otto Octavius recently filed suit against the government of China, damn USPTO lets you patent anything these days....

    1. Re:In Other News.... by RodgerTheGreat · · Score: 0

      On an unrelated note, researchers working on the project have announced that they plan to attach artificially intelligent robotic arms to the spine of a technician to enable him to handle the dangerous substances involved. "We've thought about it for a few minutes, and we're pretty sure that this is the easiest way to do it. We're superglueing the AI controller chip in place, just to be on the safe side. Trust us- we're professionals!"

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Copy me to your signature so I can replicate, and introduce your own mutations so I can evolve.
  7. Tokawha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wikipedia has some info about Tokamak reactors, and fusion power in general. I still don't get it ;)

    1. Re:Tokawha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Howstufworks also has a good overview.

    2. Re:Tokawha? by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      That article is but one link away from "Hairy ball theorem". I can't decide whether someone trolled Wikipedia again, or someone trolled physics.

    3. Re:Tokawha? by Heembo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Think subatomic particles slamming together fast enough to rip open the surrounding fabric of the universe and KA-BOOM!

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    4. Re:Tokawha? by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 1
      Here's my best guess (and I'm a second year ECE major, so I know some physics, but not THAT much...):

      Fusion requires a lot of heat, because the point is to be atoms flying around really, really fast, so when they smash into each other they stick together and make a bigger atom, instead of bouncing apart. Heat is really a measure of atomic activity (meaning, lots of heat makes atoms move very fast). So the idea behind the fusion reactor is that if we get a certain area hot enough, all we have to do is keep adding fuel and it will sustain the reaction. (think of it as a normal wood fire, only instead of chemical energy being freed from the wood, its atomic energy being released from sea water. Once you get a wood fire going, all you have to do is add wood, same idea with the sea water.) So that's how you get energy from fusion.

      The issue is that the temperatures required will melt anything that is in contact with it. The solution is to use magnetic fields to hold all the fuel away from the walls of the container. A toroid (picture a donut, with a magnetic field flowing inside of it) is the best way to do it, because its fairly easy to make one (basically you take a solenoid and stick both ends together to make a circle) and its a more stable field than trying to get a spherical container.

      Hope this helps!

      Jim

    5. Re:Tokawha? by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Informative

      TOKAMAK is in Russian: "" (toroidal chamber in magnetic coils).

      Fission is what powers nuclear power plants and atomic bombs. It works by splitting the atom (lot's of energy is released on splitting the atom's nucleus.)

      Fusion is what powers the Sun by combining atoms into bigger attoms (even more energy is released.)

      To combine two atoms together, it is necessary to overcome nuclear forces that are very strong. In the Sun, it happens because the gravity that pulls the Sun together heats up the atoms so much. The atoms become very fast and slum into each-other at huge speeds (above 10,000,000K to do this) and overcome the nuclear forces and join into bigger atoms. This releases more energy than fission (splitting atoms.)

      If we can find out a way to use Fusion to actually generate power, we will have virtually endless supplies of power (just use hydrogen from water to combine it into Helium for example.)

      TOKAMAK is a machine that generates large thoroidal electromagnetic fields ( a donut type of a field), and inside the donut's tunnel, it is possible to hold superfluid material - plasma in a suspended state.

      The plasma is created by speeding up the atoms within the thorus. Fast atoms then will hit into each other at higher speeds, and once the speeds are high enough to merge them, you get a thermonuclear reaction. Until recently it was impractical to use TOKAMAKs for energy generation, because the amount of energy spent on heating up the atoms was greater than the energy retrieved from the reaction.

      1-2 years ago I heard the news that there was a break even somewhere in the world, but I can't confirm it.

      (Some history: Work of Lev Davidovich Landau (a Soviet physicist,) on superfluidity of Helium and plasmas allowed further work on TOKAMAKs which were invented in the 1950 by another Soviet - Andrei Saharov)

  8. yay by jibjibjib · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new chinese plasma physics overlords

    1. Re:yay by DumbparameciuM · · Score: 1

      1. Build fake sun 2. ??? 3. Profit!

      --
      "We are Samurai, the Keyboard...Cowboys"
    2. Re:yay by Gryle · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're forgetting all of their mutant minions inevitably created via radiation exposure.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    3. Re:yay by jibjibjib · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, radiation exposes YOU!

    4. Re:yay by The-Trav-Man · · Score: 1

      ...And would Like to offer my services in rounding up the inevidable mutants to work in their giant underground msg mines!

    5. Re:yay by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. You use to new sun device to speed to combination of the Chenjesu and the Mmrnmhrm. Then when the Chmmr emerge, ask them about fusion. That's step 2. There must be a step 1.5 or 2.5 or something.... this isn't right!

  9. mmm by mistermicro · · Score: 0

    Just another step towards becoming a autarky.

  10. KaBOOM ! by Redshift · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article says that the reactor "aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy".

    Infinite energy?

    Uh .. anyone else a tinsy little bit worried about that word "infinite"?!

    1. Re:KaBOOM ! by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Not if China is admin'ing these tabletop fusion generators, I mean what could possibly go wrong- Duke Nukem Forever gaining sentience, escaping virtual reality and starting "the war to end all wars"? Not a chance! HehHehHehHeh!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    2. Re:KaBOOM ! by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 5, Funny



      The article says that the reactor "aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy". Infinite energy?

      Anything that outlives you can be considered infinite. For example, my honda CRX is infinite.

    3. Re:KaBOOM ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article says that the reactor "aims to generate infinite, clean nuclear-fusion-based energy".

      Infinite energy?

      Uh .. anyone else a tinsy little bit worried about that word "infinite"?!


      No, because he cannot deliver "infinite" energy.

      Name the brightest, hottest, densest star in the univers(es). Don't know the name, simply concede that there are more intense stars than sol, and one of them must be the most intense.

      If that star's light does reach us on earth, it's luminousity does not overpower our sun and does not light our night sky. Its heat and gravity also do not overpower Sol's effect on the earth. Although it may have some small effect, it is not distinctive. It can be resonably concluded, then, that the light and heat of any star must have limits.

      The Chernobyl incident, tragic though it was, also had limits. The radioactivity in that wasteland will last for thousands of years, and travelled from Ukraine to Sweden, but had little appreciable effect on America, and will dissipate eventually. (I mean about radioactivity; the human cost and societal implications will emerge with any serious discussion of nuclear energy.) It was, thus, limited.

      OTOH, he may end up blasting the formaldehyde turkey* for himself and 200 square miles of his closest friends. That, however, is still not infinite energy. Frightening, yes. Horriying, yes. But not infinitely so. I'll be saying prayers tonight.

      *(some would say "baste" it)

    4. Re:KaBOOM ! by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1

      I read the article, and it appears that they extract deuterium from sea water. What is the enviromental impact on the sea? Does it actually "use up" water? Could we, in the long term, run out of water?

      --
      ymmv
    5. Re:KaBOOM ! by sumday · · Score: 1

      Of course not! There are certain things in the world that are always going to be around. Water, oil, natural gas, and human stupidity.

      Hmm... maybe it's just that last one. *buries head in the sand*

      --
      sudo killall humans
    6. Re:KaBOOM ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Extracting Deuterium from Sea Water is no threat to the sea itself, it exists for a tiny fraction of the total volume of sea water, one so small if all of it were removed, we probably wouldn't notice the sea level change anything outside the margin of error. Deuterium is not essential to the existence of water, so removing it in no way affects the quality or general properties of water.

    7. Re:KaBOOM ! by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 5, Informative
      Uh .. anyone else a tinsy little bit worried about that word "infinite"?!

      Nope, because the reporter probably doesn't know what he's talking about.
      When we have a working fusion reactor (expected somewhere in the second part of this century), the reactor itself of course won't provide infinite energy. But there is enough fuel on earth (and by extension on the moon) to last us a few million years. Longer than humans have been around. So in that sense, the first working fusion reactor will provide infinite energy, because we finally figured out how to build one. Once the first one is build, building dozens more is merely left as an exercise for the engineers. :)

      Theoretically, when there is ignition, all the energy generated is pure profit. You don't have to add energy anymore, only fuel. So the energy output/energy input = infinite. But that is not the same as infinite energy. You still needs to add fuel. The amount of fuel injected in a reactor determines how much you get out of it. That is certainly high, but definitely less than infinite. And in practice, there will always be some losses. So the ouput/input ratio may be high, but not infinite.
      There is also no need to worry about something like TMI or Chernobyl. In a classical nuclear reactor, all the fuel needed for years sits inside the reactor waiting to be used. In a fusion reactor, the fuel pellets are injected from the outside on a need to have basis.

    8. Re:KaBOOM ! by runcible · · Score: 1

      Not all at once, dummy.

      They're going to generate a finite amount at any given point, it'll just add up to infinity *over time*, see?

      --
      remember the wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi: If enough peasants die horribly, someone will probably notice
    9. Re:KaBOOM ! by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 1

      Well, the reality is that this would not be the first fusion reation that ever occured. We are very good at making them occur in Nuclear bombs. The difference here is that we would want to control the reaction and thus produce usable energy so worrying about this is pointless since we are already very good at making "infinite energy". Also, it's not really infinite energy. There is enough deuterium in the Ocean to generate about 1 million times the annual energy usage. However, we only have about 1000 year supply of lithium. We could do a D-D reaction though that would be a little more difficult to contain, but we have 1000 years of energy before we have to figure that out.

      --
      No Sigs!
    10. Re:KaBOOM ! by Illserve · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that our energy usage won't increase over time.

      I imagine that, much as my Mp3 collection expands to fill the available space as my hard drive gets larger, so too will mankind's energy usage expand to fill the available supply.

      Call me crazy....

    11. Re:KaBOOM ! by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      More worried about the definition of clean energy:
      Currenct definition: CO2 neutral/emission neutral
      I do not think that is enough since reducing other materials faster than the natural speed of it, means more energy is released into the eco system. Only wind energy is neutral, and sun energy is neutral under conditions it is harvested against a background with the same absorbtion levels so not more energy is contained on earth than before.
      Burning down a forest and replanting it is neutral too in the long run.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    12. Re:KaBOOM ! by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

      Dude, our energy needs are increasing daily. But to increase that rapidly that you blow through a few millions of years worth of fuel in such short a time that other energy sources can't be find implies that we are really stupid and deserve our faith. By the time we have used that amount of energy, either human has gone extinct or has populated nearby star systems, even with slower than light speeds.
      Even with all the energy we use today, it's insignificant with what the sun pumps out every second. No, the energy problem is for the next 50 years, not the millennia afterwards. But that is just what I think.

    13. Re:KaBOOM ! by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      I have an 89 SI.. leaks a lot in the cabin.. but.. god is it great.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    14. Re:KaBOOM ! by drjzzz · · Score: 1
      Right. Early proponants of nuclear energy (fission) promised power "too cheap to meter" because they couldn't imagine consumers using all the electricity (and because the didn't include all the costs). This "all you can eat" pricing approach works only when there is a relatively small potential increase, say for long distance telephone service.

      As attractive as fusion is, cutting corners on generating a terrestrial sun doesn't seem like the way to go. On the eve of the first atomic bomb test, scientists engaged in that gold-plated program apparently wondered whether it might ignite the atmosphere. Oops.

      --
      to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
    15. Re:KaBOOM ! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      We definitely won't run out of water, since deuterium is a small fraction of the water supply. But that doesn't mean there won't be other negative effects.

      Will there be an environmental impact? Almost certainly. After all, that's the Law of Unintended Consequences. But we'll probably be able to contain or reverse the impact before it grows out of control.

    16. Re:KaBOOM ! by woolio · · Score: 1

      my honda CRX is infinite.

      I think most tall people will remind you that the space inside a CRX is extremely FINITE.

    17. Re:KaBOOM ! by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      Finite power over infinite time. Don't worry.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    18. Re:KaBOOM ! by Clod9 · · Score: 1
      You are incorrect. I have an '88 CRX HF and I'm 195cm tall, and although it looks funny to people when I'm standing next to the car, I have to say I have far more legroom than practically any other car I've been in. That includes a large Mercedes, Ford SUV's, a Cadillac, and certainly any midsize coupe or sedan. In no other car have I been able to stretch my legs out straight with my knees locked. And headroom is just fine, too.

      I also find that the hatchback accepts many objects (like, say, my kayak) that wouldn't fit in any sedan. The only thing I've ever been wholly stymied by was a 4x8 sheet of plywood.

      The only things wrong about the CRX are (a) the headlights stay on when you take the key out of the ignition and drain the battery, and (b) it isn't manufactured any more. It has no other flaws.

    19. Re:KaBOOM ! by Clod9 · · Score: 1
      You're not scared by the word "infinite"? I sure am.

      The unrestrained growth in energy use will be the worst effect. If energy were "free", we would use more: to be precise, we would DISSIPATE more, into our planet's climate system. And we will do so, until we heat up our rivers and atmosphere like a toaster oven.

      If we can switch from fossil fuel to fusion energy, we will immediately see a benefit in reduced pollution and whatnot. But in a few short decades, we will be using vastly more energy than we can imagine using now. What happens to it? The light and heat will not escape to space at the higher rate we produce it. we've demonstrated that even when a resource is depleted, we continue using it faster instead of conserving it. When electrical power is "free", the scarce resource will be the ability to absorb the free energy we pump into the system. And humans will continue to put off dealing with the problem, just as we're doing now.

      Imagine that you could make a portable device that could convert warm water into an electrical current, and produce cold water, with no other changes. How soon do you think we would freeze all our oceans? Everyone who had one of the devices would be saying "let other people conserve while I sit comfortably and watch my DVD collection." It would be just like Ice-9. It would be INEVITABLE. Not that it'll be worse than choking on fumes as we're doing now, but it won't be paradise. Just a different kind of destruction in the end.

  11. This has been a pipe dream so far by ravee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hydrogen fusion has fascinated scientists for ages. But till now a break through has not been found. Yes they have made hydrogen bombs. But to control the fusion process to generate clean energy has not been found yet.

    China's experimental device could reveal some breakthroughs and might eventually help tide the energy deficit faced the world over.

    --
    Linux Help
    for all things on Linux
    1. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by ages, you mean 77 years, then yes, we've been interested in fusion since back in the stone ages where we only had radio, no TV. :\

    2. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by Voltageaav · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or could create the biggest fireworks show yet seen on earth?

      --
      Someone save me from this sanity.
    3. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by oxymor00n · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. The produced Helium in the Tritium-Deuterium reaction slows it down until it stops. In fact one of the problems of fusion with a tokamak is to get the helium-ash out of the plasma.

    4. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Actually they have successfully achieved fusion in a Tokamak. The problem to date now is achieving what is called 'break-even'. Break-even is achieved when you get at least as much power out as you put into the system. It will be interesting to see if they can finally achieve the holy-grail of fusion.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    5. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by Bj�rn · · Score: 1

      There is also a financial break-even. And that comes a bit later than the energy break-even point.

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    6. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Roger that. One of my degrees is in economics. They won't even come close to financial break-even for quite a while, in my not so humble opinion. Aside from up front capital and operational costs you still have those dreaded decommissioning costs. Knowing how people/governments usually behave, I seriously doubt anyone is even thinking about that, yet.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    7. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the USSR, they actively avoided thinking about the decommissioning costs of Communism. Much the same is the case in China. That's acceptable to them as the regime insists on the notion they are in it for the long run.

      All around the world, the issue of decommissioning costs of Nuclear power has been actively avoided. "We'll, er.. figure that out later (after the generation benefiting from the power plant is dead)."

    8. Re:This has been a pipe dream so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decomissioning is not an expensive thing with these, all reactors built to achieve fusion (unlike the current models that are mainly for plasma confinement research) are built from low-activation materials like tungsten. The estimate is that a decomissioning can be in the form of tearing the place down and keeping the tokamak itself in storage for 10 to 20 years

  12. Yay, another tokamak by qbwiz · · Score: 0

    Please remind me why this cheaper version of a form of nuclear reactor that has yet to be shown to work well really matters. Is China just jumping on the bandwagon?

    --
    Ewige Blumenkraft.
    1. Re:Yay, another tokamak by G-funk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because there's no theoretical reason it can't work, and whoever doesn't need oil first wins?

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    2. Re:Yay, another tokamak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain how this would significantly affect oil dependence. In the US we only make 25% of our electricity from oil and natural gas--50% is from coal, and 20% is nuclear. Even if we had fusion power that make 100% of our electricity, how is it going to fit in your car? And before you mention electric cars, explain how we are going to truck goods across the country.

      Oil dependence is only significant for transportation, not electricity generation. Unless we invent an economical fuel cell car or hydrogen power car, reduce the cost of biodiesel or ethanol, or generate an electric car that has a reasonable amount of energy storage, we will be stuck on oil. I'll put my short term bet on biodiesel and my long term bet on fuel cells. I doubt that we will increase energy storage densities any time soon (look how much progress we've made in the last 100 years).

    3. Re:Yay, another tokamak by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      There's no theoretical reason why the infinite improbability drive can't work, either. There is no reason to believe that the Chinese have any practical or even theoretical solution to wall-heating or plasma instabilty, either.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    4. Re:Yay, another tokamak by froschmann · · Score: 1

      Unlimited electric power would go a long way towards making other types of energy available. Think about how you could sink more power into getting oil out of say, tar sands, then you get out of the use as fuel. You take a hit in exchange for portability, but it wouldn't matter if you had free electric power.

    5. Re:Yay, another tokamak by lahi · · Score: 1

      If you have effectively free electrical energy, you can produce other energy sources from that, can't you? I guess you could even transform any excessive CO2 from the atmosphere into pure carbon and oxygen. Of course pure carbon isn't very useful for cars, but again, it could be transformed into gasoline. You could even make diamonds (literally out of the air) if you wanted to.

      However, I for one much would prefer using that one fusion energy source we already have, at a fairly safe distance. I know that theoretically a malfunctioning local fusion engine would halt and not run amok, but although I might want to bet the farm on it, I'd rather not bet the entire planet.

      -Lasse

    6. Re:Yay, another tokamak by jibjibjib · · Score: 0

      But there is a practical reason why the IID wouldn't work. We haven't worked out how improbable it is yet.

    7. Re:Yay, another tokamak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's no theoretical reason it can't work, and whoever doesn't need oil first wins?
      That right there is the point that no american politicians seem to understand. By relying so much on oil we are basically putting ourselves at the bottom of the technological stack. Whichever country is first with a viable, renewable energy source that doesn't involve oil is going to quickly become the worlds most powerful nation. That is unless the other world countries grouped together and attacked them to take that information. We wouldn't do that though right? I mean hey, the US isn't that dishonest yet is it? Is it??

    8. Re:Yay, another tokamak by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Could somebody please write me the number infinity to 5 significant figures? Thanks.


      (Hah! It's a joke! Don't flame me you OCD mathematicians you.)

    9. Re:Yay, another tokamak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs my right not to get blown up.

      No it doesn't. If you're so afraid of getting blown up, move somewhere else. We certainly have enough cowards to last us till the end of time and if we lose one no one will even notice.

    10. Re:Yay, another tokamak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read it again, foo', this time a little more slowly.

    11. Re:Yay, another tokamak by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Dude.. its not free so get over that part of it.  Even in
      conventional nukes the costs of the fuel (which takes a
      few years to go through) is not a large % of the cost.

      As other poster noted, until electric cars offer the
      necessary distance, power, and quick recharge (compare to
      time spent re-filling a tank of gas) - they just aren't
      going to be a large part of life.  Once you get into the
      suburbs or rural areas they just wont fly.

      Finally - do not ignore the large consumption of product
      by industry for a wide range of goods including plastics.
      1/3 of US consumption is non-transportation related.

    12. Re:Yay, another tokamak by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, we will always need some sort of oil.. A world with out plastics and moving parts would be pretty dull.

      However, reducing the need to where bio-oils can meet our needs, is a good goal.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    13. Re:Yay, another tokamak by lahi · · Score: 1

      that would be another good reason to use the existing fusion source (solar energy) instead of building expensive tokamaks. However, even "real" local fusion energy would have a far better cost pattern than the existing use of fusion fuel in weapon systems. The reason being that the device used to create the fusion has a far longer lifetime than the fractions of a second in a bomb. Thus the initial cost can be amortized. In principle I can't see anything preventing the price per joule from going down to effectively zero. It would probably take a few centuries, though. My personal opinion is that developing technology for harvesting the existing energy flow from the sun will succeed in an acceptable price far sooner than developing local fusion energy sources.

      As for oils use for plastic and other chemistry - as a builder of plastic scale models (we are an almost extinct kind of dinosaurs) I am very much for this use. Oil should be used for chemicals and plastic, and plastic should be reused far more than it is today.

      -Lasse

    14. Re:Yay, another tokamak by diablomonic · · Score: 1
      Im replying to parent and the one further up saying we always need oil.

      Firtly, quick recharge for batteries: SOLVED (though not for sale yet as far as I know)

      toshiba quick recharge batteries

      next range: well even a crappy home made conversion of a normal car to lead acid powered electric gets roughly 100kms range, using second hand old motors , existing drive train etc.

      now assuming we use the mentioned lithiums instead of lead acid (or the nimh they tend to use today) we get ~4 times the range, then factor in a new more efficient motor, and car designed from the ground up for electric use, and 600 - 1200 kms range on a charge seems entirely feasable, with the nice 2 mins recharge. (let alone using lithium sulphur batteries if/when they are available, double to triple the capacity again, or fuel cells...)

      add some nice decent efficiency solar cells giving maybe 1 or 2 Kw (assuming ~3-5m^2 area at ~25-35% efficiency) on a nice sunny day, boosting the day range up a lot (especially for short trips, where recharging might not be necessary at all)

      the main reasons we dont have any decent production electric cars now is because car companies dont want a car to turn into a chasis, some electric motors and batteries and electronics (too easy for cheap chinese knockoffs) after investing so much in petrol engines, so wont do the reasearch necessary to make it a reality, oil companies dont want to lose their market, and almost everyone else believes the lie that electric cars are unfeasable.

      next to the comment that we always need oil, i have no doubt at all that if there was no geological oil available, we would have as many of these operating thermal conversion of almost any organic garbage to oil as is necessary to supply us with the required oil(actually these are supposed to be efficient enough to supply the entire US oil needs just using US agricultural waste, solving two problems at once, let alone other waste. no need to dig any more out of the ground at all)

      so as you can see, oil production for plastics etc is not theoretical problem only a political one i guess, even without geological oil, and electric cars CAN work fine :)

      --
      watch "the money masters" on google video
  13. Good thing too by MutantHamster · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know how much longer the real sun's going to last. I mean these days it seems like half the time it's not even up there.

    --
    My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
    1. Re:Good thing too by MorningDew76 · · Score: 1

      Wow you're right!!

      *hides in bomb shelter*

    2. Re:Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the other 3/4 of the time its covered by heavy fog. If this invention reduces greenhouse emissions and helps the environment then I'm all for it.

    3. Re:Good thing too by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      I see we're not posting from Tierra del Fuego or other points further south.

    4. Re:Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That great "WHOOOOSHH!!!" sound is that joke speeding by above your head.

    5. Re:Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is a little light on details. It's like everybody is expected to already have a firm grasp of the topic. You seem know what you're talking about. What is that "sun" thing?

    6. Re:Good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That great "WHOOOOSHH!!!" sound is that joke speeding by above your head.

      Only if by "your" you mean, well... yours.

    7. Re:Good thing too by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "I don't know how much longer the real sun's going to last. I mean these days it seems like half the time it's not even up there."

      You don't live in the London or Seattle by any chance do you?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    8. Re:Good thing too by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I just got back from vacation in Arizona; don't worry, the sun still exists. We just can't see it from here.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    9. Re:Good thing too by kgskgs · · Score: 1

      I think sun does exist. But it's so dark at nighttime that we can't see it. :) :)

  14. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that's one way to help the overpopulation problem...

  15. How far off is fusion power? by MorningDew76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So when my dad was a kid (1960s), they said fusion power was 30 years away. Now, they say it's 45 years off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_develop ment

    Are we looking at a pipe dream here?

    1. Re:How far off is fusion power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cure for polio was a pipe dream. Splitting the atom was a pipe dream. Pipe down.

    2. Re:How far off is fusion power? by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

      When your dad was a kid the Soviets were still offering free delivery of their fusion devices to US cities. Nowadays fusion isn't as big a deal at the DoD, which means fewer resources and slipping goals.

    3. Re:How far off is fusion power? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Funny
      The Law of the Hydrogen Fusion (LHF) is therefore this: "No matter what time/date/place it is -- Hydrogen Fusion is only 30-45 years away."

      In pre-historic times: a chimp useses a stick as a tool -- all the other chimps: "Holy Crap, Hydrogen Fusion is only 30 years away! Eep Eep Eep..."

      Exponential fast-forward to 1950s: first H-Bomb is detonated -- everyone else: "Cool, we can bomb the hell out of each other, oh and we almost forgot: Hydrogen Fusion is only 30 years away! Eep Eep Eep Hooray!"

      2006: After everyone else has tried to contain/control hydrogen fusion, the Chinese announce they will build a cheaper and funtional Hydrogen Fusion Reactor -- everyone else "Hydrogen Fusion is only 30 years away! W00t!"

    4. Re:How far off is fusion power? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Ack! Ugh! *cramps in teh ribs* LOL!!!!!! And sooooo true!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:How far off is fusion power? by Chas · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're using the Microsoft countdown timer.

      You have 30 years to go...

      You have 31 years to go...

      You have 45 years to go...

      You ...oh you get the idea!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:How far off is fusion power? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Except that ITER (in France) *may* be able to generate a net positive energy output. Due to budget restrictions that's no longer a primary goal, but the design parameters still make it a possibility even if that's now on the edge of it's capabilities due to the cutbacks (it'll still cost ~$3B to build).

      http://www.iter.org/index.htm

    7. Re:How far off is fusion power? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      The thing is though, it would need to produce enough positive net output to justify the costs of building and running it over its lifetime, but at this time, even with enough budget, it doesn't seem that it could happen.

    8. Re:How far off is fusion power? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The cure for polio was a pipe dream.
      So were flying cars and human-level AI. We have every reason to believe they should be possible, but so long as we don't know how that doesn't count for a lot.
    9. Re:How far off is fusion power? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      That's true for this version (ITER), but energy output scales rapidly as a result of size. At this point there don't seem to be any obtacles other than the money each iteration requires and the necessary ironing out of practical problems that these pre-production designs are intended for. The physics, material and design issues seem to have been resolved.

      Note that ITER isn't meant as a production model - it was always a test design, but one that takes us very much closer to production. It could however, prior to the budget cut, have delivered net enery output.

    10. Re:How far off is fusion power? by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
      there don't seem to be any obtacles other than...the necessary ironing out of practical problems ...

      Pesky practical problems always seem to get in the way don't they? Damn, if it weren't for those pesky pratical problems, we'd have flying cars. All the theoretical work has been done. Just a few bits and pieces to work out.

    11. Re:How far off is fusion power? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Well, the theoretical understanding of plasmas and how to control them has advanced massively since the early days of JET, the materials science has advanced, the designs for issues like Helium "ash" removal are there... I'm not sure what aspect of Fusion reactor design you seem to think are still such a problem?

      The Moller sky-car, FWIW, works.

    12. Re:How far off is fusion power? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      So were video phones. Since my girlfriend has a pc, she can't see me as any larger than a postage stamp (macs allow for full screen video). You still can't call your grandma on the video phone.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:How far off is fusion power? by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      Net energy output is the primary goal, amongst many other things. The goal of an ignited plasma with infinite power gain is what was scaled back when the machine size was scaled down from a 10 m major radius to the 6.2 m radius that the design is for now due to the ridiculous cost that such a machine would have (> 100 billion most likely). It isn't precluded from achieving ignition, it is just that a more modest goal of Q = 10 as a proof of concept. If you can achieve Q = 10 then it becomes more realistic to attempt to get Q = 1000 or infinity rather than going right after it once you achieve Q = 1.

    14. Re:How far off is fusion power? by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the important correction!

      I don't recall reading of such a huge cost difference between the original and scaled-back designs. Are you sure that ~$100B is right? The scaled-down design is "only" expected to cost ~$3B to construct and another ~$3B to operate over it's 10+ year lifetime. Why such a huge difference between the 10m and 6.2m designs?

    15. Re:How far off is fusion power? by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      $100B might be an overshoot (well, it probably is). The latest estimate I've seen for the cost of building the current machine is about $5 Billion euro, about $6 billion US. I have an estimate from the first scaling down that I know of, which was to 8.14 m major radius (1.5 GW power, 1000s burn time) and it was projected to cost - $10 Billion 2005 dollars to build. An important consideration in the size difference of the machines is that most of the systems scale with volume rather than the major radius. I would guess that such a machine would cost several times more just to construct. I'm not too sure how the operating costs would change though.

  16. See also by interiot · · Score: 4, Informative

    See also the Joint European Torus, the largest nuclear fusion reactor yet built, and ITER, the international attempt to build a much bigger one.

    1. Re:See also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China can use it !
      I have been to Shangahi,
        Although the sun may shine many days of the year , the pollution and smog covers it on many days , By comparison Los Angeles smog would be called clean !
      An artifical sun might be welcome.

    2. Re:See also by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      Yea and selling this as the "first atrificial sun" just makes you look foolish. It's another piece of the pie and we'll need a lot more before this becomes a reality. More research cannot mebbe with 1.2 billion the Chinese just cannot wait for the oil supplies to run out and have to start looking NOW for things they can sell to the rest of the world when it does.

      enjoy

  17. Labor Costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.


    I wonder if the slave labor has something to do with that? Just a shot in the dark(punny!(but not really...))
    1. Re:Labor Costs? by MorningDew76 · · Score: 1

      The article addresses this. The reactor that's being built in China is apparently a lot smaller.

    2. Re:Labor Costs? by drDugan · · Score: 1

      the chineese are soooooooo going to take over the world.

      The west has a culture dominated by traditionalists (Jung sJ types - think "lawyer") - the East, esp china is dominated by conceptualists (Jung NT types - think "engineer").

      Other notable exapmles:
      France,Tibet, Swiss - primarily idealists (NF)
      Brazil, Sweden, Italy, Canada - primarily experiencers (SP)

    3. Re:Labor Costs? by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      That's because until recently practicing law all but forbidden in China. Private law firms have only begun to spring up within the last five years.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    4. Re:Labor Costs? by ichin4 · · Score: 1

      You're being funny, right? You don't really believe that psycobabble, right?

      The West, since its emergence from the Dark ages, has been dominated by people who can evolve and adapt in order to get what they want. (As opposed to certain eastern parts of the world, which tried to seal their borders for 200 years in order to preserve their purity.) If there is some truth in your psycobabble, and the West really does need more "NT types" to compete, you can be damn sure we will start producing them.

    5. Re:Labor Costs? by drDugan · · Score: 1

      there is mounting evidence that these types are genetic/environment effects that are set before birth.

      as for psycobabbble, no, it's not babble at all, Jung types are quite real. The signal is not completely clear, as many environmental factors, people habilts, experiences, etc. all cloud measuring the effects - but I firmly believe that as our understanding of functional and chemical neurology emerges to the point of truely understanding how our brains function, we will go back to these "babble" models and see them as crude approximations grounded in real effects. [[ note to the information archaeologists -- HI! ]]

  18. What are the chances that ... by Korbeau · · Score: 1

    this device swallows the earth instantly in a big black hole?

    1. Re:What are the chances that ... by quokkapox · · Score: 2, Interesting
      this device swallows the earth instantly in a big black hole?

      Where would all that mass come from?

      A related point is that we probably needn't worry about inventing a device that annihilates the entire Universe, either. If such a device could exist, it probably would have already been invented elsewhere, and we wouldn't be here thinking about it.

      That's why astronomy and cosmology are so important -- what we see when we look far enough out, is likely all that is possible.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    2. Re:What are the chances that ... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Well, it might have been invented but the effect is still travelling towards us...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:What are the chances that ... by quokkapox · · Score: 1

      There's no sign of such an effect. The universe seems to be homogeneous, our galaxy looks just like all the other spiral galaxies at various distances and times.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    4. Re:What are the chances that ... by Voltageaav · · Score: 1

      Or the portion that our puny telescopse can see anyways.

      --
      Someone save me from this sanity.
    5. Re:What are the chances that ... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      A related point is that we probably needn't worry about inventing a device that annihilates the entire Universe, either. If such a device could exist, it probably would have already been invented elsewhere, and we wouldn't be here thinking about it.

      Yeah, or a device that makes the entire universe completely screwed up and illogical.

      Oh. Nevermind.

    6. Re:What are the chances that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the chances that ...
        this device swallows the earth instantly in a big black hole?


      Zero. Next silly question?

    7. Re:What are the chances that ... by quokkapox · · Score: 1
      Or the portion that our puny telescopse can see anyways.

      And how do the portions which we can't see matter? Read this, a few links deep.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    8. Re:What are the chances that ... by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Essentially everything is outside our light-cone, we cannot interact with it in any way, yet it's existence can be inferred from the symmetries of our locally observed physical laws.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    9. Re:What are the chances that ... by quokkapox · · Score: 1
      Yeah, or a device that makes the entire universe completely screwed up and illogical.

      Sorta like an entity that can perceive and then miraculously intervene in human affairs at will. The supernatural. Or does the screwed-up-illogicalness still propagate at the speed of light for some absurd reason?

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    10. Re:What are the chances that ... by Firehed · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Only if it goes out. Actually, probably very little, unless we somehow just find more matter to use, as I doubt a portion of the earth could gravitate in on itself while the earth as a whole doesn't.

      Even if it does, though, I'd imagine it'll be a fairly small black hole. Most are, seeing as they're basically a supercondensed chunk of gravity. I saw somewhere that scientists hypothesized that the universe was about 3" in diameter prior to the big bang. And that's a damned universe worth of gravity and matter. Think of the densest material you can, make a 3" sphere out of it. Mulitply that weight by infinity, add 3.14 (not pi, just 3.14) and raise that all to the i power, and you'll have about how much the universe weighed in that form. My theory is we had two balls (*ahem*...) of half-univseres that gravitated towards each other with such an incredible acceleration that the collision force caused the big bang. And it'll eventually happen again, with black holes sucking in each other and making even stonger ones.

      Wait, if something becomes so dense that it's own gravity makes it smaller, doesn't that mean that there's an actual weight limit in America?

      Seriously, though, why bother? We have a perfectly good sun right now that already has nuclear fusion figured out, and it should last at least another five billion years. Not to mention it's free (at least until we have some sort of Burns-esque sun-shield so we can be charged even more for light and heating).

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    11. Re:What are the chances that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If such a device could exist, it probably would have already been invented elsewhere..

      Elsewhere? Can you please elaborate?

      I was taught that we were created by a supreme being and are the only intelligent life in the entire universe.

      Now I am getting confused.

    12. Re:What are the chances that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, if something becomes so dense that it's own gravity makes it smaller, doesn't that mean that there's an actual weight limit in America?

      Two problems with that:

      1. Something just being more dense doesn't reduce its weight just means it takes up less room for a given weight. So there wouldn't be a weight limit, but maybe a size limit.

      2. Muscle is more dense than fat, so it more likely affect bodybuilders than fat people.

    13. Re:What are the chances that ... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Since causation cannot travel faster than light it could have happened 300 years ago 500 lightyears away and we wouldn't notice until 200 years in the future.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:What are the chances that ... by hughperkins · · Score: 1

      Well, imagine that a new type of quark is generated that is much heavier than other quarks. It sucks other nearby matter towards itself. When it bumps into other matter, it turns the quarks in that matter into these new heavy quarks too. It is self-propagating.

      (Source: "End Day" by BBC or Channel 4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/end_day.shtml )

    15. Re:What are the chances that ... by yoprst · · Score: 1

      None. Zero. Zilch. One doesn't need a tokamak or quark-gluon plasma or whatever nifty buzzword you've heard from the media lately to create a black hole. The only way to do it is to have alot of mass.

    16. Re:What are the chances that ... by ajpr · · Score: 1

      To create a black hole you either neither a lot of mass or a lot of inertial mass (i.e. something moving at very high speeds) colliding. The LHC (next gen atom smasher) may create very small black holes that only last for very short periods, but at the scales involved the dominant force isn't gravity and therefore the black holes would "evaporate".

      The fusion reactors don't have the necessary velocity of collisions to create a miniture black hole, and the high temperatures work against gravity, much like the reason our Sun doesn't collapse into a black hole is that high temperatures cause an outward pressure that holds the thing in an equilibrium.

    17. Re:What are the chances that ... by Kataton · · Score: 1

      A big black hole would suck.

    18. Re:What are the chances that ... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Black hole sun
      Won't you come
      And wash away the rain
      Black hole sun
      Won't you come
      Won't you come

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    19. Re:What are the chances that ... by syukton · · Score: 1

      You say that like supreme beings don't like playing with their toys the same as we do.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    20. Re:What are the chances that ... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Or does the screwed-up-illogicalness still propagate at the speed of light for some absurd reason?

      Well, Bush broadcasts on a 3 second delay...

    21. Re:What are the chances that ... by ScottKin · · Score: 0

      This is one of the problems with dealing with and discussing such topics; Too many people believe in the reality of all of the technology they've seen and read in Science Fiction as fact, but take very little time to actually learn about or study what is being presented to them in a fictional way.

      Would a supposedly "heavier quark" violate Einstein's Theories (which have proven to be fairly reliable during most of the 20th Century and on through the 21st)? Also most quarks are repelled by other quarks due to electrostatic forces at relativistic sizes (upspin quarks have a positive charge of 2/3 and downspin quarks have a negative charge of 1/3 of a proton), and also note that there is a 200:1 difference between the mass of a proton and the mass of a quark. Having a "heavy quark" that could cause such events as you described would virtually break charge-symmetry (for more information on "breaking charge-symmetry" visit http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/6/3 ). The inherrent mass of a quark is so small that it would not really attract anything, and charge-opposition between upspin and downspin quarks would create the previously-described symmetrical elecrostatic repulsion.

      Yes, strange things do happen at the 1TeV level. Fermilab, Brookhaven and Berkeley labs have been investigating "heavy quark" creation in heavy-ion collisions, but since these are forced collission events (aka "fission"), the chances of the creation of such particles in a fusion framework are virtually non-existant. If that were the case and if we followed the scenario presented in the BBC show you mentioned, the largest fusion furnace we know - THE SUN - should have greated the aformentioned scenario and created it's own heavy quarks attracting other heavy quarks and so on.

      Remember to take the roots of those two words I used earlier; "Fiction" and "Science"

      Fiction: a story, not usually true = false
      Science: the process of discovery, analysis and the explanation of all around us.

      Now concatenate the two:

      "A false description of discovery, analysis and the explanation of all around us"

      Now, I like good Science Fiction. Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica - it's all good entertaniment...but that's all it is. Some people, like those that produced the BBC series previously noted, will take the smallest bit of scientific fact and twist it into the most obsurd forms of entertainment and try to make themselves look clever in the process...when all they're doing is making a mockery of those who actually *do* the scientific process.

      'nuff said!

      --ScottKin

      --
      I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
  19. They don't work by zymano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Break even will never occur with a Tokamak.

    Need to use pressure,radiation and heat.

    1. Re:They don't work by DoubleEdd · · Score: 1

      Errr, tokamaks are a method for generating the required pressures and temperatures (and I don't know why you think radiation is necessary). You might also want to explain to all those plasma physicists why they're wrong and millions shouldn't be spent on tokamak research.

    2. Re:They don't work by sanman2 · · Score: 1

      Uhh, the tokamaks still use up more energy than they put out. And the scientists have been promising to deliver fusion power for decades, but patience has been used up. Congressional hearings have even wondered aloud about barrier laws that even fusion researchers have been slow to admit to.

      Getting payola for science can be very addictive.

    3. Re:They don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientist have been waiting for years to get the funds to prove to the politicians that it can work.

      Getting money for science can be very difficult, especially long term projects.

    4. Re:They don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      1928
              "There is no likelihood that man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo."
              Robert Millikan

      1932
              "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean the atom would have to be shattered at will."
              Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist.

      1933
              "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine."
              Ernst Rutherford

      1945
              "This is the biggest fool thing we've ever done- the bomb will never go off- and I speak as an expert on explosives."
              Admiral William Leahy, speaking to President Truman about the atom bomb

    5. Re:They don't work by Don_dumb · · Score: 1
      You might also want to explain to all those plasma physicists why they're wrong
      A press release circa 1200AD could well have read: -
      "Gold from base elements, 10 thousand alchemists can't be wrong!"

      You realise that they could be simply misguided. I would love to see that this works, and I think I understand the (v. basic) principles behind why it should eventually. Of course they should try to see if they can get energy from fusion, because as with the alchemists, they may make other discoveries while they are doing it.
      Even if fusion itself is a red herring.
      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  20. Diety patent rights? by NY_TRANSPLANT · · Score: 1

    I'd say "God" has the patent rights to this, but do the Chinese care? :)

    1. Re:Diety patent rights? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      course not dude, they're the baby eating, nazi loving, satanic, ritualistic commies just like Red Foreman cracks em up to be on That 70's Show...

  21. Until it's perfected by Belseth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It'll be a wonderful thing if it's ever made practical. In the meantime there's a nice big one that comes up once a day and there are practical ways to get energy from it.

  22. Title is misleading by ookabooka · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are building an experimental fusion reactor, a Tokomak. While I suppose you could call it an artifical sun, I think a better choice of words would be tokomak or fusion reactor.

    On another note, this is not a one of a kind device. Europe has one called JET, and is planning on making another, ITER.

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    1. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While JET is mostly a european project, ITER certainly isn't. Substantial contribution comes from Japan, the US and others, including China (ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, Latin 'the way').

    2. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are building an experimental fusion reactor, a Tokomak [wikipedia.org]. While I suppose you could call it an artifical sun, I think a better choice of words would be tokomak or fusion reactor.

      I like "Mr. Fusion".

  23. 2010... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the Chinese government will have enough self-replicating black monoliths to compress Jupiter into becoming a new sun in the solar system? Cool! I bet the Russians and Americans will be jealous as hell at this technological feat. Are they on schedule for completion in 2010?

    1. Re:2010... by gQuigs · · Score: 0

      Totally on topic, Nice date. Maybe we can go back in time..

    2. Re:2010... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      For those of you who don't get the reference, please read 2010: Odyssey Two by Arthur C. Clarke. It's very much on topic not only because the black monoliths turn Jupiter into an artificial sun in the novel, but also because the competition between China and America/Russia may become a reality by 2010.

  24. uh by lamp540 · · Score: 5, Funny

    we have these already, they're called LIGHTBULBS.

    1. Re:uh by 4Dmonkey · · Score: 1

      Greetings from an earthling !
      How are you doing up there.
      Well so far we have not managed to achieve fusion inside a lightbulb, we just heat something inside it so that it emits light. Pl beam down your tech asap. And in exchange we offer you some of our lightbulbs, just in case....

      --
      God created man in his own image, but somehow he evolved into a hairless monkey.
    2. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, I just wanted to point out that the GP was replying to the topic, "China to build world's first artificial sun," by saying we already have lightbulbs, so good work missing the joke (or ignoring it).

      Second, and perhaps more importantly, I wanted to let you know that you accidentally put an M in your name.

      Ass.

  25. Walmart by anandpur · · Score: 1

    When it will be available in walmart. I think everything "Made In Chine" is there, maybe not at 1/15 or 1/20

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Skip Fusion by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny
    Let the Chinese have their fusion. I say we just skip directly to a ZPM. That will show them.

    This probably also explains the Chinese Moon program. They plan to go up there and steal all the Helium-3 before we can get it for ourselves.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Skip Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably are gonna make a hatak-class vessel for the mining op too. =)

    2. Re:Skip Fusion by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Let the Chinese have their fusion. I say we just skip directly to a ZPM. That will show them.

      We would if the damn team we sent to Atlantis would care to report back. From what I've heard Gen. O'Neill is quite pissed.


      BTW, concerning your sig, Slashdot can't receive an injunction in Germany yet, someone first has to register the domain slashdot.de and have it point at slashdot.org.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  28. Price fixing by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 0

    I wonder if their use of a devalued dollar and slavelike labor practices are driving the cost down juuuuust a touch? :)

  29. Don't you know by InternationalCow · · Score: 1, Interesting

    propaganda when you see it? The government outlet makes a big deal of what is essentially a small research setup. How's that comparable to ITER? Yeah, "superior Chinese technology can make this 10 times cheaper than primitive Western technology". Utter crap. I can't believe this made it to slashdot.

    --
    ----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
  30. Costs. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    only one fifteenth to one twentieth the cost of similar devices being developed in the other parts of the world.



    Yeah right. If you have to follow Chines safety standards and can pay your workers Chinese wages, of course the thing will be a lot cheaper ...

    1. Re:Costs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah right. If you have to follow Chines safety standards and can pay your workers Chinese wages, of course the thing will be a lot cheaper ...

      Bingo! Add to that the benefits of the Government being able to "tell" suppliers what price to charge for "Strategic National Programs" and you have a real price winner.

  31. Re:*sigh* by rts008 · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, only 135 of them. To get the other 135, we would have to "think about the children" and stop "piracy"- only then can you attain the mgic *270*

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  32. Wait a sec... by plaxion · · Score: 1

    The title says 'China to Build World's First "Artificial Sun"', but if "similar devices [are] being developed in the other parts of the world" then it isn't a foregone conclusion that they will be the _first_ to do so.

    1. Re:Wait a sec... by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I found that quite odd as well since I've known of 'working' Tokamaks for a couple of decades now. Typical reportial misreporting/hype. However, it was enough hype to get it posted here! Sooo.... who's the sucker?

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  33. Oh S-U-N by ashwinds · · Score: 1

    I thought this was a news about cloning

  34. even better by idlake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since, with clean power, we wouldn't need oil from the Middle East, we could get out of there and terrorists would lose interest in the US.

    1. Re:even better by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While your heart was in the right place with your post, I don't think you really thought it through.

      WHile yes, it might eventually allow us to forget about oil in the DISTANT future...you need to consider a couple things.

      First...there's existing technology and infrastructure which will be around for a LONG time that is quite dependant on the oil from the Middle East. This won't magically allow us to turn around the next day and say "ok, we got fusion, we don't need your oil anymore". Think of all the old cars that still depend on it and that wouldn't be able to be refitted with an electric battery.

      Next...think of all the countries that will not be able to afford the new technology since it will initially be so expensive. They will still be quite reliant on the oil.

      And the third thing is that there's some uses of oil that fusion power just can't be used for.

      So yes, it will help alleviate the energy crisis...it most definitely will not solve our oil problem, especially in the immediate future. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I thought I should point out the reality of the situation.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:even better by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      And the third thing is that there's some uses of oil that fusion power just can't be used for.

      What are those exactly? The only thing I can find that doesn't have a clear method of synthesis is Ethylene. And, while Ethylene is quite important, I'm not a chemist so there could be something obvious that I've overlooked. Are there any other examples?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  35. 37 million is cheap for a Praxis Explosion! by qualico · · Score: 1

    Not a bad price tag to build a star, considering how much it costs to fly out to one.

    How much to maintain?
    and
    What does 100 million degrees look like when it gets out of control?

    I thought the Klingons taught us a thing or two with the Praxis Explosion?

    1. Re:37 million is cheap for a Praxis Explosion! by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      I thought the Klingons taught us a thing or two with the Praxis Explosion?

      This might come as a shock, but Star Trek isn't the best place for learning physics... ;)

    2. Re:37 million is cheap for a Praxis Explosion! by qualico · · Score: 1

      lol
      damn, you mean that isn't real!?!

  36. Yikes... by Max+Nugget · · Score: 1

    I hope this doesn't somehow indirectly lead to the near-death of Mr. Burns...

  37. It doesn't have to be heavy by melted · · Score: 1

    Just very, very dense. It'll suck in additional mass then.

    1. Re:It doesn't have to be heavy by SteveAyre · · Score: 1

      Not really - you'd be converting mass already on the earth so there wouldn't be an increase in the gravitational pull by it on everything else. A tiny decrease possibly, because it's now slightly further away from everything else.

      To create a black hole to swallow the Earth you'd need to bring more mass to Earth first.

    2. Re:It doesn't have to be heavy by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Well it depends, a big enough black hole would keep swallowing matter and thus become even bigger. As such after a long time it could swallow the earth despite not ever being bigger than it. Granted, it would need to begin at a decent size so that it doesn't evaporate instantly.

    3. Re:It doesn't have to be heavy by syukton · · Score: 2, Informative

      a big enough black hole would keep swallowing matter and thus become even bigger.

      Yes, big enough, and there's not enough matter in a laboratory to create such an object, nor do we have technology sufficient enough to compress the mass present in a laboratory into a space small enough to create a threatening black hole. (by "threatening" I mean one that wouldn't evaporate instantly)

      There's something known as the Schwarzschild radius, which is more or less the "event horizon" of an object of a given mass. Only an object whose radius is itself smaller than its Schwarzschild radius can be considered a black hole. An object the size of, say, Mount Everest, has a Schwarzschild radius of about a nanometer. You would therefore need to compress Mount Everest into a volume slightly less than 4.19 cubic nanometers in order for it to become a black hole.

      According to wikipedia, the Schwarzschild radius is roughly calculable with the equation: r = m * 1.48 * 10^-27, where r is the radius in meters and m is the mass in kilograms. A 1 kilogram mass would have a Schwarzschild radius of 1.48 * 10^-27 meters, while a proton is 10^-15 meters in diameter. So you'd have to compress 1 kilogram of matter into a space many orders of magnitude smaller than a proton before you'd have to worry about black holes. Like I said, we lack the technology...

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    4. Re:It doesn't have to be heavy by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      I know all that, my reply was that it is theoretically possible to create a black hole using matter already on Earth (not all the matter but still a lot of it) such that it would, given enough time, swallow the Earth. Yes, you'd need a lot of matter but you don't need to bring it from anywhere else.

  38. That article is oil lobbyist spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That article is an oil lobbyists spam. Whenever someone corrects something, they throw in a ridiculous statement like the 'perpetual motion machine' statement or top it with a link to a lobbyist site.

  39. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    blame America's financial problems on "The war on terror", what the hell about the expensive food, cloths, cars, houses, and other crap your favorite liberal democrat enjoys paid for by his government check coming from tax dollars??? you cant blame everything on Bush and conservative republicans...

    In the end, it will be one country less that we GIVE insane amounts of money to... which in the end, the totalitarian government or the "revolutionaries" go and take anyway, and then our retarded charities go and send more money. Have you ever heard the saying "Give me a fish and I'll have ONE meal, but TEACH me to fish, and I'll have a meal every day of my life"... this is what America and other Coalition participants are working for - to take the totalitarian government out of power and industrialize these nations - making them self sufficient in the long run.

    So next time, I ask you to please think in the long run before you blurt your mouth, if it's even possible for you to do that.

  40. Siderman II by qualico · · Score: 2, Informative

    Surprised no one mentioned it yet.

    The scene with the artificial sun has to be pretty close to what the process looks like.

    1. Re:Siderman II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no siderman, don't drink and drive! Sorry, but the title made me laugh out loud...

  41. Some confusion? by massivefoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the wonders of chinese slave labor. I guess you can do that when you have a billion people and a ton of them in jail/reeducation camps.

    There seems to be a degree of confusion here. Building a fusion reactor is not like making trainers in a sweatshop. A huge proportion of the work done will simply be in the design. That requires engineers and mathematicians and believe me, engineers and mathmos of this level who aren't getting an acceptable wage in China can find a job damn easily in England.

    Break even will never occur with a Tokamak.

    Need to use pressure,radiation and heat.


    A tokamat is essentially a huge torus covered in magnets to squeeze a ring of plasma (read "gas minus the electrons") as close as possible. That is where your pressure and heat comes from. And no, you do not need radiation.

    1. Re:Some confusion? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      A tokamat is essentially a huge torus covered in magnets to squeeze a ring of plasma (read "gas minus the electrons") as close as possible. That is where your pressure and heat comes from. And no, you do not need radiation.

      My understanding of fusion in the sun is that it never takes place with the density we hope to achive inside a tokamak. In fact fusion events are relatively rare inside the sun, and the heat flow out of the surface is not that great given the volume within which fusion takes place.

      So artificial controlled fusion may actually be much harder than it would be to achive inside a star. Perhaps this artificial sun analogy has been making the idea look easier than it really is.

    2. Re:Some confusion? by massivefoot · · Score: 1

      My understanding of fusion in the sun is that it never takes place with the density we hope to achive inside a tokamak.

      I suspect you may be getting confused with a slightly different result. The original calculations for nuclear fusion suggested that the temperature, and hence the density of the Sun were too low for fusion to be occuring. These failed, however, to take account of a quantum effect called tunnelling (look it up, it's really quite fascinating).

      What graduate school did you go to?

      Well, if you must know, none, I'm, an undergrad. :-)

    3. Re:Some confusion? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      the wonders of chinese slave labor. I guess you can do that when you have a billion people and a ton of them in jail/reeducation camps.

      There seems to be a degree of confusion here. Building a fusion reactor is not like making trainers in a sweatshop. A huge proportion of the work done will simply be in the design.

      A great deal of the cost is in the laying of steel and pouring of concrete and winding the tokomak and a huge number of other skilled and semi-skilled jobs. The design of the thing is cheap in comparison.
      That requires engineers and mathematicians and believe me, engineers and mathmos of this level who aren't getting an acceptable wage in China can find a job damn easily in England.
      Assuming the unlikely case where China allows them to emigrate.
  42. we already have clean nuclear power technology by idlake · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's be clear about one thing: we already have a nearly unlimited supply of nearly waste-free nuclear power in the form of breeder reactors: they destroy most of the radioactive waste and are at least an order of magnitude more efficient than current nuclear power plants in using nuclear fuel.

    Why aren't they being used? Hard to say. The US claims it's because of nuclear proliferation, but that doesn't seem like a particularly strong argument. In light of the hazards of current fission reactors, and the difficulties of achieving fusion, maybe that's the third option.

    Of course, the best solution would be to stick with the fusion power plant in the sky: it provides more than enough energy for our needs, with current technologies, if we only made a concerted effort to capture it.

    1. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

      The article you link to cites a lot of concerns over weapons material production, and the unreliability of the complex design of various breeder reactors.

    2. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US claims it's because of nuclear proliferation, but that doesn't seem like a particularly strong argument.

      Uh ... that is the whole argument. When you're using a breeder reactor, you're turning non-fissile material (thorium, U-238) into fissile material (U-233, Pu-239). Let's look at the uranium chain for a moment.

      You take a mix of fissile material (U-235, Pu-239), and non-fissile material (U-238). You then set off the reaction. Result, after an appropriate period of time, is a mix of fissile material (U-235, Pu-239), non-fissile material (U-238) and fission by-products -- but a quantity of non fissile material has been turned into fissile material. Extract the material from the core, and reprocess, which is separating the fission by-products from the rest.

      The end mix, after extracting the fission by-products, is a combination of U-235, Pu-239, and U-238 ... but the proportion of U-238 is significantly lower. Plus, it's a lot easier to extract Pu-239 from this mix than to enrich U-235 to bomb grade material. Boom boom, you have the material you need, in sufficient purity, to make your very own nuclear weapons; the rest is relatively straightforward engineering.

      Unfortunately, in the long run, we either need to do this, or go with fusion. We don't have so much fissile material around that we can afford to ignore breeder reactors for centuries to come.

      As an aside: most nuclear reactors in the US were designed to create plutonium, and sell it to the US government. The electricity was a side benefit. When the US stopped buying Pu, the cost of generating electricity through fission skyrocketed, because it was no longer being subsidised by those sales.

      As for the thorium chain: there is a similar risk, but because there hasn't been as much research into building weapons using U-233, it's not as great at the moment. Do the research, and we're in the exact same situation.

    3. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by idlake · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it also points out that the proliferation concerns aren't all that justified--there are plenty of easier ways of getting weapons-grade material. As for complex design, these kinds of reactors have been built and work. On balance, it's easier to build such a reactor than to build waste storage facilities that are safe for millennia, and that's the alternative.

    4. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Decker-Mage · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Unfortunately, despite all the advantages of breeder reactors, the first thing the public and especially the eco-freaks think when you say breeder is nuclear weapons material. I don't make the universe, I just take it and engineer solutions within it. The problem with breeders is political, not engineering. Just as the public and some of the eco-freaks hear fusion and start singing hosannas despite the well known engineering problems that they will have (posted above) that they also happen to share with their fission cousins. All politics.

      BTW, I used to belong to several of eco-freak organizations and tried to pound some sense into them about the risk/cost/benefit ratios of various means of energy production with zero success. Which is why I parted ways with them. I'm ecologically minded, and well trained in the science and the economics of same, they weren't. Those people are not rational, sadly. It's all about what feels good.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    5. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by stevelinton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Breeder technology was seen as the way forward here (in the UK) for some decades, but eventually shelved more for technical and economic than environmental and political reasons. To make use of breeders you have to reprocess the spent fuel, and this is not at all easy to do safely or cheaply, let alone both. Also, if you're going to reprocess, some of the nicest reactor technologies (like the bed of carbon/cermaic pebbles) don't work so well. The better the fuel is contained in the reactor, the harder it is to get it out in the reprocessing plant. Trying to remotely manipulate ton lots of hot radioiactive concentrated nitric acid contaminated with just about every element you can think of is never going to be easy or cheap.

    6. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      if we only made a concerted effort to capture it.

      But watch out because if you get too close it will melt the wax in your wings and you'll fall into the sea.

    7. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by slysithesuperspy · · Score: 1

      Could they not change the name so it's more politically-friendly?

    8. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      I suppose they could call it a fast fission reactor which is exactly what it is but I don't think that would make much difference in the end. They'd still be squawking about the fact that it produces high grade (bomb grade) nuclear fuel as a by product. Now the fact that this same fuel just so happens to make for efficient downstream reactors with little to no waste seems to escape notice unlike your conventional civilian reactor. Changing the name won't make a bit of difference if they can jump up and down and scream nuclear weapons production with that crowd.

      I don't make the universe, I just try to live in it.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    9. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Veteran · · Score: 1

      I think that it is more than what feels good. Politics ultimately is about power. These are people who want power over you. They are afraid of you because your knowledge of engineering gives you power to change things. They lack the power to do that - so they try to keep you from having that power by making you feel bad about what you do. This is a passive - aggressive technique. In my opinion it is a waste of time to attempt to educate such people - as you discovered.

      The proper course of action is to carefully listen to what they say. Give their viewpoint due consideration, and when you realize it is mostly a power game, keep the few good points they raise, then ignore everything else and continue being an engineer.

      Engineering is about making things work in the real world - that includes making solutions to the problems of technology real.
      .

    10. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, the best solution would be to stick with the fusion power plant in the sky: it provides more than enough energy for our needs, with current technologies, if we only made a concerted effort to capture it.

      And the cool thing is, it's already in place, and all we need to do is harness the power already being radiated.

      Not as exciting a project, though, and it's a decentralized effort. Big countries with centralized command structures can't wield it over their people. Hmmm....

    11. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, you might get accused of sounding like Michael Crichton!

    12. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extract the material from the core, and reprocess, which is separating the fission by-products from the rest.

      See, this is the way to get a wrong argument that sounds right. Extracting sufficiently pure PU-239 from the stuff in the core is the hard part of building a weapon. Assuming an Integral Fast Reactor with pyroprocessing, there is no way to get Pu from it. All you get is a mixture of Pu isotopes, lots of U and actinide contaminants that make milling the Pu metal nearly impossible. And on top of that, it still contains short lived fission products which produce heat and radiation. A hot plutonium pit is unusable because it would melt the plastic explosive in the warhead. Nobody would even try to do that. If you select the thorium fuel cycle, the situation is nearly the same. You get U-233 contaminated with U-232, which has exactly the same problems.

      So how do you use a breeder to build a bomb? Well, simple, you don't employ pyroprocessing, but instead ship the used fuel to a PUREX plant. However, while PUREX has civilian uses in conjunction with light water reactors, it is not useful in conjunction with breeders. Therefore, not a breeder poses a proliferation risk, the PUREX plant does. The IFR however is much more proliferation resistant than LWRs.

      The other question is, can the construction of plutonium bombs be prevented by withholding the breeder, PUREX and uranium enrichment technologies? Of course not. The first plutonium bombs were built without the use of either. Instead the US and GB used graphite moderated, air cooled reactors fueled with natural uranium, then extracted the plutonium using bismuthum phosphate precipitation. Much simpler, and much easier to do without anyone noticing.

      So actually "non-proliferation" is no argument against modern breeders. BTW, of the power reactors currently in use, only three were designed for plutonium production. These are the US-designed Fast Breeder, the UK-designed Magnox and the russian RBMK. When the US government had no more need for plutonium, the Fast Breeder research was redirected to the IFR. All other reactors in use (PWR, CANDU, pebble bed reactor, lead-cooled designs) or advanced development (IFR, MSR) are chiefly power reactors.

    13. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Effing_T · · Score: 1
      Why aren't they being used? Hard to say.

      One of the main reasons is the secondary heat exchanger where sodium (Na) is really close to water. And as you know, sodium and water do not get along very well...

      The concept of breeder reactors is really nice, on the paper. But having so much sodium and so much water around is scary... And if you add the load of required radiocative stuff to the equation, you get a really dirty potential bomb...

    14. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that "fast nuclear reactor" is a fine name. I think you'll be glad to know, however, "the fact that it produces high grade (bomb grade) nuclear fuel" is actually not a fact. Check out the following link, which discussed the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) specifically relating to proliferation risk: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html. Wikipedia also has some useful information.

      While it is true that a fast nuclear reactor can be rigged to produce more plutonium 239 (the kind of Pu that bomb makers want) than a thermal reactor (70-80% of the fuel vs. 60%) it is so contaminated with exotic transuranics that are highly radioactive that it's practically useless for making a weapon. A bomb maker wants at least 93% pure Pu239, so even 80% is not good enough, but the shielding required to deal with the contamination of the other highly radioactive elements that are present negates that "benefit". Waste from a thermal reactor would be much easier to turn into a bomb, but even so, no such weapon has been produced in the decades we've had nuclear technology. Uranium enrichment is so much easier, and easier to keep secret. You start with abundant, stable, U238. Who'd want separate out exotic elements from a substance you'd have to keep behind 6ft thick shielding? Try transporting that.

      As for the environmental argument, fast nuclear reactors can not only burn U235 like a thermal reactor (which is 1% of naturally occurring uranium) they can burn plutonium from decommissioned weapons, "waste" fuel from thermal reactors and U238 (which is 99% of naturally occurring uranium). Once you've burned all the uranium and plutonium, what's left is highly radioactive, which means that it has a low half-life, which means that it decays to a safe level much more rapidly. We're talking hundreds instead of hundreds of thousands of years. That means that planning to keep the waste onsite makes sense.

      An even larger environmental benefit from fast nuclear reactors is reduced mining. Since these advanced fuel cycles can burn more kinds of material (i.e. the vast majority of transuranics) instead of only burning 1-2% of an isotope of uranium that is 1% of naturally occurring uranium (we're talking four orders of magnitude difference), the environmental benefits of reduced mining activities are enormous. Moreover, not only do you not need Yucca Mountain, but because we can burn "waste" we've already generated as fuel, we already have stockpiles of fuel that will last us for centuries. This actually solves yet another, often overlooked, problem with conventional nuclear: we're running out of U235. We probably have 100years worth of U235 in the ground. With a fast nuclear reactor we can burn just about anything.

      Not only does an advanced fuel cycle, like that used in the IFR, limit proliferation, and limit the lifetime of the resulting waste to hundreds of years instead of hundreds of thousands, it can be built in a passively safe reactor. The IFR relied on the laws of physics to prevent meltdown. First, the fuel in the IFR was metallic instead of ceramic. This means two things. First, metals conduct heat much better than ceramic, increasing the rate of thermal transfer away from the fuel. Secondly, the fuel expands as it heats, shutting down the reaction. Finally, the fuel was placed in a pool of liquid sodium (the fuel itself was clad in steel) at atmospheric pressure, instead of using pressurized water as the primary coolant. The IFR relied on convection in the liquid sodium to carry heat away from the fuel instead of pumped pressurized water. So, what happens when all active (secondary) cooling is removed? They actually did the test. The fuel heated up slightly and was then passively cooled by convection currents in the liquid sodium carrying heat away from the fuel as the reaction shutdown.

      So, an advanced fuel cycle, like was used in the IFR, can have dramatic benefits to the environment by reducing not only long term waste storage requirements, but

    15. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    16. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with the freedom of information those types are doomed in the long run. I agree: "The proper course of action is to carefully listen to what they say. Give their viewpoint due consideration, and when you realize it is mostly a power game, keep the few good points they raise, then ignore everything else and continue being an engineer."

      But I would also add... play their game. Tell them what they want to hear. But also work against them quietly. Gain their trust and fuck them over. Win the game of politics. The best engineer is also the one who can play the system to his own end. And if engineers are so smart why can't they win the politics game? (guess what, the smartest do, that's one reason the MAD doctrine won and kept us all alive)

    17. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by quintesse · · Score: 1

      I also think it's more than what feels good and I agree it's about politics and the power to change things. I do think your view of the "eco-freaks" is too harsh, because those are exactly the people that have at least been clamoring for the politicians to something while the rest of us sat on our collective asses not thinking about anything or sure in our knowledge that the world would not come to an end in _our_ livetime. And who thinks farther ahead than the next football match anyway? The problem with politics is that when you have a group of people who are absolutely unwilling to see a problem you have to present an extremely opposing view for them to notice anything. If you just push at them slightly they won't budge, you really have to shove. So that's why I think well-reasened voices that try to see everything from both sides and tries to be as complete and correct as possible in all their statements are unloved in both sides of this "conflict", they muddy the waters and simple decisions become really hard. And when that happens you can forget about getting support from the people in the street because most of them don't want to have to study the problem first for a couple of weeks before they decide which way to cast heir "vote". In the end both the politician and the "eco-freak" have to be able to explain their side of the story in the 5 minutes that you give them when they stop you on the street. You can only do that by making things more black and white than they really are.

    18. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Some are tree hugger that pair with Republicans in their degree of delusion, but others understand that mass production of weapon grade uranium is very likely to become a factual problem. Unlike engineers who many times are highly functional autistics, people with some social skill understand that opportunity and avaiability make power hungry people exploit any weapon at their disposal.

      So the best some engineer can do is find another way to obtain energy without breeder reactors , engineers better side with the peaceful good of the masses because they're considered highly skilled labor, but still LABOR without any governing skill or ability..intelligent vulgus, so to say.

    19. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and all we need is to replace all those inconvenient existing solar collectors with ours.
      Black is so much more cool and goth than green anyway.

    20. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of designs of breeder reactor that DON'T create weapons grade wastes. The few that do have been designed to accomplish that end. If you are after electric power rather than military power, you chose a design that delivers electric power. Very few of those discard a perfectly useable fuel.

      That said, most of the breeder reactors that have been built to date have been built with the specific intention of production of plutonium, etc., for use in nuclear weapons. And when designed and operated (BOTH!) to accomplish that, then that's what they do. But it's quite difficult to produce plutonium from a reactor designed to optimize the production of electric power.

      Well, perhaps I overstate my case. The essence is correct, but the electric generating designs I'm thinking of were also designed with the specific knowledge that they needed to minimize or eliminate available plutonium. This may well have shaped their designs as powerfully as the intention to build bombs shaped the design of the plutonium maximizing breeders.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      How about "Nuclear Disposal Reactors"

      Has a nice ring to it.

    22. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Veteran · · Score: 1

      This may come as a shock to most people on Slashdot, but Republicans are not deluded.

      Neither the Liberal - progressive point of view nor the Conservative point of view is "wrong" or "deluded".

      The reason that people see things differently is perspective. If I hold a coin up between us am I deluded if I say that I see heads - while you clearly can see tails?

      Liberals and conservatives both play an important role in American society: imagine a 1000 foot high antenna tower which is held in place by guy wires. If one side pulls too hard the antenna will begin to topple in their direction.

      In the current political environment both sides have decided that the other side is trying to destroy the country by pulling too hard in their direction.

      What is necessary is to turn down the rhetoric on both sides - the tension on the wires is too high. In the current situation we are vulnerable to the slightest outside force breaking the wires that are pulled too tight and making everything collapse.

    23. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      The last time I cared about what others thought about me is around the age of 13. I tried to fit in, socially, with the 'in set' at my local high school. After about three weeks I figured out that it 1) wasn't worth it and 2) they were totally vapid. After that I went my own direction which just so happened meant I went to college at that age (13) while they were still playing social games at the local high school. Yep, I was a total geek!

      What's strange is that I've spent most of my life doing re-engineering of various processes in the military, business, and government to reduce the amount of resources (personnel, energy, material) required for same, while saving a ton of money, and I do mean a ton of money. So your observation does hit the nail on the head since I seem to feel defensive about what I do/did. Weird. I still have some work to do.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    24. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      Well at least you got the high functioning autistic part right. It's a little late to worry about weapons grade uranium or plutonium don't you think when there are well over thirty thousand plus (some estimate 50K+) of the damn things, counting tactical and nuclear, out there. The time is now to start burning this stuff for something more useful, power production, than having it sitting around for some id10t to toss at some other id10ts. This genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle despite anyone's best wishes. My point is that we take advantage of technology, with the proper controls as safety and integrity have ever been one of my primary concerns, now.

      I still don't know how you managed to drag the republicans from my post as I have very little in common with them. People that are chiefly (solely) concerned about exploiting political power occur across the political spectrum. Indeed, I could make a very good case that they occur far more on the left than the right, but I won't bother as I seriously doubt you'd listen.

      Lastly, it's strange that you should say that engineers have no governing skill or ability. There have been successful engineers in government positions in the past and there are more than a few successful ones in China and India today just to give two examples. That most engineers are not the least bit interested in governance would be a far more accurate statement. I've been in political positions before and frankly I won't do it again despite being asked on more than one occasion. When you build something, you have something in front of you as proof of your labors. All too often in the political arena, what you have at the end of the day is a compromise. Engineers simply don't like compromise. They also don't like doing/creating things that simply do not work, something that also occurs in the political arena when laws are passed or institutions are created for ideological reasons rather than practical (working) reasons. Completely different psychological makeup among the two groups and pretty much mutually incompatible in most cases. At least I understand it.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    25. Re:we already have clean nuclear power technology by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      Turning down the rhetoric? Frankly the rhetoric is quite mild by historic standards. As part of one economic history research project I went delving into papers from the 1700's and 1800's. By their standards, this stuff is quite mild. I think people are just hypersensitive about any kind of criticism as I well know from experience here and elsewhere. [Where's that asbestos underwear?]

      We do need all aspects of the ideological spectrum, not just conservative or liberal-progressive. Even Marx had a useful observation or two as I found when reading his works. A lot wrong, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day :-).

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  43. The Great Sun of China? by johncadengo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well according to this article: The death toll in the building of the first Great Wall was astounding: More than a million people died building this 3,000 mile section more than 300 people per mile.

    Now, if more than a million died building some wall... How many more Chinese must die building the Great Sun of China? China's not exactly known for its valuing of individual's lives in the progress of economics...

    --
    My page.
    1. Re:The Great Sun of China? by MBHkewl · · Score: 1

      Are you actually comparing the China from the 17th century with the current China?!

      Sorry, but that's absurd! It's like comparing current USA with the days of York! (though different locations)... [Ok, bad example. They're similar. In the days of York streets were filthy, whores every where and the country was run by a bunch of arrogant wealthy snobs. Those rich snobs used to sell corn to people; Now they sell korny people.]

      Regardless of the bad example, your comparison makes no sense to me. Why? Because China is now a big rival in the electronics market. Garments, as well, which is challenging the EU's. That means more jobs and better economy.

      --
      Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
  44. High opinions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SOMEBODY ... thinks the sun shines out of their asses!

  45. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...assuming the terrorists didn't sabotage the first couple and destroy the entire frikkin continent

  46. small correction.. by yidele · · Score: 1

    Chinese entry into controlled fusion research is hardly the first. Please make an effort to distinguish between headlines and content, especially when quoting form sterling paragons of fact-based reporting such as "People's Daily Online"

  47. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by freaks_and_geeks · · Score: 0, Troll

    You, sir, should take yourself off Slashdot and over to the National Review board, or the nearest mental facility.

  48. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it's only january, but I nominate your post for funniest of 2006! I mean, your flaming righteous indignation is spot on! If I were a less careful reader, I'd miss your subtle irony wrapped in your over the top language and preposterous world view. Richard Prior and Lenny Bruce could learn from you. Do you write for the daily show?

    Kudos, sir! You're my hero!

  49. Not Funny: Taiwan Supplies the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Taiwanese companies will supply most of the core technologies that Beijing needs to build this artificial sun. In the past, Taiwanese companies have collaborated with Beijing in exporting weapons technology to Iran.

  50. Re:Hmmm by mogalpha · · Score: 1

    China has been building Tokamaks for the last 30 years or so. He Fei has housed a Tokamak in the Physics dept. of the local university for at least 20 years for conducting fusion research.

    In any case, why does it sound more reasonable if I said there were fusion devices in Madison, Wisconson and Princeton, New Jersey (both at universities as well) than in China? Don't be a racist troll. Even if it were a publicity stunt, I'd take a publicity stunt over ignorance any day.

  51. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blame America's financial problems on "The war on terror", what the hell about the expensive food, cloths, cars, houses, and other crap your favorite liberal democrat enjoys paid for by his government check coming from tax dollars??? you cant blame everything on Bush and conservative republicans...

    Um, maybe because the expensive food, cloths, cars, houses, and other crap provides something back to the national industry, which is hard to say about the war on terror. Besides those government contractors that like to go around overcharging for their services, of course.

  52. im buying one as soon as its in walmart. by bxbaser · · Score: 2, Funny

    probably be like $39.99

    1. Re:im buying one as soon as its in walmart. by carnifex0 · · Score: 1

      No way, with markdown, it's like $38.97

  53. a simple question by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    Well, if China is still on planning stages, how come theirs will be the "world's first" since "similar devices [are] being developed in the other parts of the world" ???

  54. Re:Slave labor? by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 1

    Building a fusion reactor is not like making trainers in a sweatshop.

    What graduate school did you go to? :-> :->

    Though I always wondered why my committee had me making all those shoes. "Plasma Jordans" my ass.


    Try searching for "DSM-IV" and "301.7" - explains just about everything, doesn't it?

  55. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    In response:
    1. To smoke kneejerk reactionists out so we can see them and deal with them....GOTCHA!
    2. I don't have a "...your favorite liberal democrat..."- I'm a registered Republican, but ya gotta call em like ya see em.
    3. Fish???- Oh, sorry. I have to use a Winbloz box at work....wasn't thinkin', sooooo Thanks for the fish, and have a nice day! (I'm allergic to seafood you insensitive clod!) :)
    I also fail to see the connection between fish and a totalitarian gov't., unless you mean to imply we ( the people) are the fish.....WTF????
    4. "this is what America and other Coalition participants are working for - to take the totalitarian government out of power and industrialize these nations - making them self sufficient in the long run. "

    Sooooo, if they aren't marching to our tune they are WRONG? Again.... WTF????

    I suggest you put down the crack pipe, step away from the keyboard, and GET A GRIP!

    Reminds me of an old Sanka (tm) commercial: "What's the matter Bob, too much cafeine?"

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  56. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chairman Mao has already tried industrializing China by his "Great Leap Forward" with the "success" of 20-40 million people dead by famine. Let's see how well China can do it this time around.

  57. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sabotage a fusion reactor! OMG! (fusion != fission)

  58. Unforeseen Consequences by Ars+Dilbert · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm seeing predictable phaser rays. Stage two emitters activating now. Overhead capacitors to one-oh-five percent. Eeeeeh... its probably not a problem, probably, but I'm showing a small discrepancy... well... no... its well within acceptable bounds. Sustaining sequence.

    Bzzzzzzt! Boom!

    Oh dear! Gordon, get away from the...

    Shutting down, attempting shut down, it's not, it's not shutting down, it's not...

    B O O M!

    1. Re:Unforeseen Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought I'd see a resonance cascade...let alone create one!

  59. For the Star Control fans.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Now it is time to bring the Sun Device over to Procyon II and speed the Chmmr Process up!

    Star Control 2 - Try it if you haven't!

  60. Re:But... by jibjibjib · · Score: 0

    Probably not. Does it run NetBSD? Of course!

  61. Oh Doctor Octopus, do you never learn? by Channard · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Looks like Doc Ock's up to his old tricks again. Artifical Sun indeed... didn't he remember what happened the last time? Presumably the web-slinger is booking a flight to the East as we speak.

  62. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you write for the daily show?

    No.. He is actually Rob Corddry disguised on Slashdot.

  63. Did anyone besides me... by MikTheUser · · Score: 1

    ...think of a Quantum Singularity-Powered Romulan Warbird when they read this?

    1. Re:Did anyone besides me... by Rogue+Pat · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're scary, before reading this article i just finished watching the DS 9 episode Visionary

  64. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, there's far worse on Slashdot. Anyone that's been around longer than a day surely knows this. Slashdot likes loonies...or the other way around, I can never tell.

  65. alternative headline... by cacoe · · Score: 0

    China to Create World's First "Artificial Super Nova"

  66. latin lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, Latin 'the way').

    Actually, that's a really bad translation. It is apparently part of ITER's own promotional material, so it shows up in many articles. It annoys me everytime I see it.

    iter means 'a journey'.

    Related English words:

    "itinerant" - someone or something that travels a lot

    "itinerary" - a plan or schedule for a journey

    via means 'a way' or 'a road'.

    Related English words:

    "via" - by way of

    "viaduct" - a bridge-like roadway (like an aqueduct)

    Related Italian word:

    "ferrovia" - from iron + roadway, meaning railroad

    Ok, that is the latin lesson for the day.

  67. Re:*sigh* by dfenstrate · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're the asshole who starts talking politics in the middle of every discussion, aren't you?

    Example from your life:
    Coworker: So I started talking to this hot babe at the bar yesterday, and we were really hitting it off...

    You, interupting: Bush wants to take away her voting rights and chain her to the stove!

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  68. We already got one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ummm....we here in the US already had one. For 15 years actually. And that's the part that's unclassified. It's over at Princeton.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFTR

    So....I can see why this is printed as the 'first ever' in the source link. Last time I checked, Slashdot wasn't promoting Chinese Propaganda though. Maybe a correction should be made.....

    1. Re:We already got one! by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is unclassified. Many countries have tokamaks. I don't think that the article was trying to imply that China was the first or anything like that. It was trying to say that China was going to be first to have a working device.

  69. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 simple facts.
    In the year 2000 the United States had the largest surplus budget in the countries history.
    By the year 2003 the United States had entered the largest budget deficit in the countries history.
    Both of these are considered "common knowledge", at least by anybody who doesn't get their news from FOX.
    The simple fact of the matter is the "war on terror" has cost this country much more than it will ever gain back, in dollars or world opinion.

    P.S.For those non americans reading, 2000 was the year that George Bush Jr took office.

  70. Exchange rate by dougTheRug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Yuan exchange to the dollar is pegged by Chinese policy, so the value in Yuan probaby doesn't reflect simply to a value in USD.

    In addition, this is an experimental reactor, not a production reactor. What good would building 100 of them do for anybody?

  71. They've already done this, actually. by nilbog · · Score: 1

    This already happened in Spider Man, and it didn't end well. The octopus guy had to kill himself to destroy his man made sun. Do the chinee have an octopus guy?

    --
    or else!
  72. loss of containment by dougTheRug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Another thing to note about a fusion reaction is that pressure is required to keep it up. In the unfortunate event that the torus breaks open, the plasma will stop reacting.

    Can a knowledgeable person comment about escaping neutrons, gamma rays and stuff in such an event? Could that lead to a nasty cloud of radioactive strontium or something similar to what we think of with "fission gone bad"?

    1. Re:loss of containment by kesuki · · Score: 3, Informative

      fusion generates a lot of high energy radiation, but almost no radioactive particles. fission on the other hand leaves around all these radioactive isotopes, which will be radioactive for the next billion years. if a fusion reactor lost containment and went kaboom the facility might be destroyed and if so residents of the nearby city would have recieved about 5 years worth of x-rays and, some other hard radiation that few except astronauts have even been close to. but due to the short intense burst, the side effects would likely be nil. contrary to anything you may have heard about bruce bannon, the incredible hulk.

    2. Re:loss of containment by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 5, Informative
      I can give it a try.

      Worst cases I can think off. Mind you, I haven't studied fusion reactor disasters, yet. So I could be wide off. However, it is my impression that not many people are worried about this. And that what I write down here is the prevailing knowledge. I have a masters degree in physics and worked on a tokamak for my masters thesis. For my PhD, I will be working on plasma's within a few weeks. So, that you know, I am not a crackpot scientist. English is not my native language, have patience.

      You fill the reactor with as much fuel as you can, and you keep the machine going (i.e. you keep the magnetic field lines on, so that the plasma is confined and fusion reactions are going on.). Once enough fuel is inserted and energy is build up, you get an hydrogen bomb. An hydrogen bomb requires a classical fission bomb to get temperatures high enough so that fusion starts. But this can not happen accidently. In other to use a fusion reactor as a bomb, you intentionally have to add fuel to get it that far that it will explode. Any fusion reactor will have safety mechanisms. Now such things can fail. But since the fuel is sitting outside, safety systems can be designed that no fuel is inserted unless the operator (assisted by a computer) authorises fuel injection.
      Contrast this to a fission reactor (the ones in operation now). All the fuel is present inside the reactor. The only thing operators can do is manipulate the burning rate. When something fails here all the fuel just keeps burning.
      If something goes wrong in a fusion reactor, the reactor simply has to burn out. This happens rather quickly. there is no need to keep fuel inside that is needed more than for a minute or so. (Don't know how much or how long, just below the critical value for a explosion.) Fission reactors have fuel rods inside that lasted for years. Fusion reactors can be designed that fail safe means that no fuel is injected. You have to override such systems just to inject fuel, just to keep it going. In fission, fail save means that carbon rods are inserted between the fuel rods and you hope/pray that the fission reactions stop.

      Okay, so what happens when everything goes wrong. No extra fuel is injected and the operators are no longer in control of the machine. It can not explode because there is not enough fuel inside. So forget Chernobyl and TMI. This means that everything outside the building is safe.

      So, it can not explode. That leaves radiation. These are neutrons, gamma's (high energy light waves), high energy particles (alpha's mostly). There are other particle inside a reactor than alpha particles. Alpha particles (20% of the energy of a fusion reaction, 80% goes into the neutrons) are needed to keep temperaturs high. But this needs to be supplemented by external energy sources (another fail save, stop injecting energy.) Now these other particles, such as helium (this is the waste from fusion reactors. Even the waste has high economical value ! ) and carbon (eroded from the wall) have to be continually extracted from the reactor because the are bad for maintaining the required temperatures and energy levels. Alpha particles are stopped by a piece a paper. Don't worry about them. The neutrons are needed to generate tritium (tritium is radioactive, I think it has a 20 minute halve life inside the human body). But tritium will only be needed in the first few generations. Because using tritium is the easiest way to get towards a working fusion reactor. So the neutrons activate the reactor and the reactor will be stored for 50-100 years as high radioactive waste. Strontium, as you mentioned, although present in carbon and a waste product of coal plants is not present in fusion reactors. So these neutrons hit the wall, generate tritium and heat the wall/water in pipes and exit the chamber. (the water inside the chamber wall is the first water pipe system and generates steam in a secondary pipe system. From here you have a classical power plant of any kind.) Blocking those neutrons coming from the reactor chamb

    3. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Councilor Hart, it is posts like yours that have kept me reading slashdot, and enduring (and eventually coming to cherish, to a degree) it's many and various quirks.

      I don't really have any way of knowing that you are who you say you are, or verifying that you know what you say you know, but assuming that you are and you can (respectively), I'd like to tell you that you rock! That was the best explanation of a complex subject to a mostly layman audience I've read in a long time.

      [Posted AC so I don't get a reputation for being complimentary to people]

    4. Re:loss of containment by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 4, Informative

      if a fusion reactor lost containment and went kaboom
      What do you mean by losing containment?
      If the chamber bursts, the plasma comes into contact with the outside world. Everything in reach of the plasma is going to have a lousy day, but there isn't an explosion. Also, such an environment isn't exactly beneficiary to fusion reactions.
      If the magnetic fields disappear, the plasma comes into contact with the wall. Again not very positive, for the wall and potentially for everything outside. Again, something which doesn't exactly promotes fusion reactions.
      The only way, as I see it, for such a reactor to explode is to maintain confinement and keep adding fuel and fuel until it explodes.
      An explosion is a lose of containment, but lose of containment doesn't imply an explosion.
      In my other post, I did forgot to mention x-rays. But I have no idea about the amount of x-rays produced in a tokamak or in case of failure or the effect of it on humans, so I won't comment on that.
      As to the radioactive particles from fission. It's the short lived ones that are dangerous, not the ones that are stable for a few billion years. Heck, we are living in a world filled with particles that have a 4+ billion years half live. Everything else has mostly decayed and disappeared since Earth's formation.

    5. Re:loss of containment by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? Did you think so? Thanks, that means a lot to me.
      Rest assured I am who I claim I am. In posts as this I am very careful in what I write and I doubt every line. First to make sure I didn't make stupid mistakes, because I don't feel like being made an idiot by someone who knows better, and second because I know myself that there is much knowledge about this and that I still have much to learn about it. It's also easy to make a mistake in a rather quickly written comment.
      At the moment I making a site about stuff like this, but it's not yet finished so I can't point you to it for verification of my claims about me.

    6. Re:loss of containment by kesuki · · Score: 1

      the point is, unlike chernoble which tripled the _global_ backround radiation, a fusion reactor failing would only have local consequences. yes, hard radiation is bad, can cause sterility, and increase the risk of cancer. but it's unlikely that the amount given off in a fusion reactor failure would have noticable long-term effects on many people outside a 1km radius.

      but yeah, it would be a bitch to be at the core of the plasma ball rapidly expanding and as it expanded rising... it would loose fusion very fast, but how fast? until it happens we don't actually know. has any scientist working on such a reactor deliberately simulated a total containment field failure? it's quite likely that the reason for the 20X cost difference is that the chinese facility is using unshielded, basic construction techniques. for the 'outer' facility, which means once the plasma melts the shielded 'generator core' any hard radiatition still coming from the plasma has little to stop it from radiating outwards. but the farther you are the exponentially less radiation one is exposed to, so unless this artificial sun is the size of the superdome when contained there isn't going to be a huge consequence for the local community should something go wrong.

      Just to remind you but this ball of plasma is going to be about 20 times hotter than the sun, so when it begins thermal expansion, Yes there is going to be an explosion. think a popcorn kernel what happens when it reaches the right temperature? *pop* now think this magnetically contained artificial star, which is about 5 million times hotter than that popcorn kernel, and is being compressed (by magnetic fields) to a tight enough density to enable fusion. the instant the plasma breaches the containment core the entire building will become super heated, and pop like a giant ballon.

    7. Re:loss of containment by HidingMyName · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the interesting post. As a lay person in this area, I'm curious, what hard problems have prevented viable fusion power generation, since you seem to indicate that safety issues appear resolvable with current technology.

    8. Re:loss of containment by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      In terms of explosions, three mile islands, china syndrome, etc... nothing at all.

      However, we still don't have a reactor design that can output more energy than it takes to ignite the fuel and sustain its magnetic field, though recently I believe some researchers broke even. In a few decades, those problems should be solved, and the only "hard" problem left will be the mass hysteria caused by the "n word".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    9. Re:loss of containment by frogstar_robot · · Score: 3, Informative

      The temperature will fall off very very rapidly as the plasma expands. Also, fusion reactors can be built inside the same sort of vaults that fission reactors are built in. If the reactor explodes, there is no need to take a building with it. Messy.

    10. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fission on the other hand leaves around all these radioactive isotopes, which will be radioactive for the next billion years

      Care to name even a single one of them that has a half life of... oh, let's be generous, over one million years and is dangerous?

      (No, not uranium or thorium, that was already there before the reactor was started and gets consumed rather than produced. Also not iodine-129, that isn't dangerous and not to be confused with iodine-131. Good luck.)

    11. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get a fucking life fag

    12. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are some of the ways of tackling the neutron embrittlement problem? How much long term waste (150+ year) can accumulate from say a 1 GW fusion reactor annually?

    13. Re:loss of containment by kravlor · · Score: 4, Informative
      Disclaimer: I am a plasma physicist working in the magnetic fusion arena.

      A magnetically confined fusion plasma is a very tenuous beast. If all operating conditions are not satisfied, the background plasma requisite for fusion will not be created -- and if you go from 'good' to 'bad' operating conditions, the plasma snuffs itself out on the order of a confinement time (several milliseconds depending on device parameters).

      has any scientist working on such a reactor deliberately simulated a total containment field failure?

      Sure -- in modern research devices these failures happen for a myriad of reasons. Disruptions have happened a lot in the course of this research. On current devices, a disruption can be a 'no big deal' operation or force repairs; on a fusion reactor they really need to be avoided. Fortunately, the cause of showstopper disruption events are well known and techniques exist to stay away from the region of parameter space that causes them! There are also techniques to mitigate disruptions from unexpected failures (PDF warning).

      think a popcorn kernel what happens when it reaches the right temperature? *pop*

      There's a difference between temperature and energy density. For instance, if you blow out a candle you can snuff out the glowing wick with your fingers without burning them -- despite the wick being around 1000 K. The reason is that the candle wick doesn't have much energy stored inside. The same goes for a magnetically confined plasma. While the plasma has a very small tail in its energy distribution which allows thermonuclear fusion, the stored energy in the plasma itself is insufficient to, say, melt a building and set off an incindeary firestorm.

    14. Re:loss of containment by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, break even was recently achieved. Since at break-even, it is theoretically possible to run a fusion reactor indefinately (since you are not required to supply any more energy to keep it running), the problems must be related to containment/handling of the plasma: e.g either the magnetic fields are not stable, or some of the plasma leaks away over time, or the plasma becomes contanimated or otherwise reduces in reaction efficiency over time. I would guess it is some combination of all of the above.

      Still, it would be nice to know exactly what the problems are with continuous running of a fusion reactor.

    15. Re:loss of containment by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have no idea. I just know a little about how a fusion reactor is supposed to work under normal conditions.
      I do know that there is less waste than with a fission reactor. In both cases the chamber has to be treated as waste. The fuel itself from fission is additionnel waste compared to fusion. The problem, while still there, is definitely not as bad. As to figures regarding volume, I don't know. As to years, I always heard something like 50 years of storage for the vault.
      Fusion research is a difficult, multi-field, international problem that will require a lot of effort and money to solve. We are not talking about a lone scientist in some backroom trying to get a tabletop version to work. So don't expect some guy posting on /. to have all the answers.

    16. Re:loss of containment by elpapacito · · Score: 1

      Yes, your fusion reactor better make coffee too ! It's essential.
      And it must be colored red.
      And smell good

    17. Re:loss of containment by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To me it sounded like:
      1) An optimistic version of an extreme worst case. My worst case would have had the fuel feed under computer control, and the problem being, say, a virus controlling the computer...and, naturally, falsifying the readouts.
      2) A pessimistic version of an extreme worst case. When the pressure valve lets go (or the containment chamber cracks) all reactions stop immediately. Loss of pressure reduces both heat and pressure below the critical amount.

      OTOH, I'm only a dilitante at physics...all branches, not any one in particular, so possibly I'm wrong.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:loss of containment by bar-agent · · Score: 4, Funny

      Disclaimer: I am a plasma physicist working in the magnetic fusion arena.

      I do not think this word means what you think it means.

      "Disclaimer" here means "take this with a grain of salt; I might be biased." Now, if you weren't actually a plasma physicist--say, if you were a gardener--I could see adding a disclaimer. But since you are a plasma physicist...

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    19. Re:loss of containment by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 3, Informative

      Break even (or the equivalent of break even) was achieved on the JT-60U tokamak in Japan in the late 90's (1998 I think). No fusion occured because tritium wasn't used in the reactor since I don't believe that JT-60U is equipped to handle tritium (for reasons of radiation). The performance of the plasma, being the energy confinement time, fuel density and ion temperature, was such that the equivalent energy gain had tritium been present would have been 1.25. Some of the problems with the current generation of machines are the use of copper coils rather than superconducting niobium-tin coils as copper coils require a tremendous amount of power to generate the magnetic fields necessary to confine the plasma (typically 3-5 Tesla at the machine major radius). The coils on the small tokamak I work on are copper and require a few tens of kilowatts of power to generate a 0.7 Tesla magnetic field we use and we have the benefit of having very small coils. The largest machines, where the copper coils are much larger (about 3m diameter, roughly compared to .4m on our machine) require hundreds of megawatts to generate their magnetic fields. Superconducting coils present the ability to greatly reduced the power required to operate the machine. The problems with plasma performance are generally centered around energy loss from the plasma, through particles, heat or EM radiation. Radiation isn't a big problem, but particle and heat loss are. The plasma is very turbulent and this turbulence leads to what is referred to as anomalous losses, anomalous in the sense that they are not well explained by theory and are orders of magnitude larger than what is predicted by theory. These losses can be reduced by elaborate modes of operation, generally referred to as H-modes (H meaning high confinement). There are some other drawbacks to these modes, but without getting into much detail, the scaling of confinement with various parameters of the machines shows that a machine the size of ITER (http://www.iter.org/ should have a plasma performance that is good enough to achieve a fusion power gain of 10, that is 50 MW of heating to the plasma and 500 MW of fusion power output. The ideal would be to be able to turn off the plasma heating, but if ITER works as predicted it will be very good. There is also some concern over what will happen to the alpha-particles produced after they give up there energy to other species in the plasma. They have to be removed as they will degrade the plasma performance. I believe that there is an idea of a way to remove them, but this is outside of my area of research. There are other problems with an actual power producing machine. Most of these are engineering problems and have to do with such things as building some sort of lithium blanket that can withstand being bombarded with 14 MeV neutrons, breeding and extracting the tritium fuel and handling the tritium fuel.

    20. Re:loss of containment by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      I'll add that the fusion plasma density in a tokamak is very low -- about 10^20 particles/m^3, or 1 millionth the density of atmospheric pressure air. In other words, it's in a vacuum vessel, and will implode, not explode.

      The magnetic field here is _not_ for squeezing the plasma, it's for controlling it, and even strong fields don't do a particularly good job of it. A greater danger is the energy contained in the superconducting magnets. Mega-amps or more are going through those things, and there's also a significant physical tension due to the magnetic field. Coolant loss or structural failure would be bad.

    21. Re:loss of containment by mako1138 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mm, I'm late to this discussion, but...

      Point one: tokamaks run their plasmas at about 1 millionth of atmospheric density; the rule of thumb is 10^20 particles/meter^3. This means the plasma is in a vacuum vessel.

      Point two: for DT fusion, you've always got neutrons coming from the reactions. And they're fast neutrons, which means they'll react with the Nickel in stainless steel to form Cobalt-60, which is a gamma emitter. But that's stuck in the wall, and you'd want to use a different material for your walls anyway.

      Point three: if magnetic containment fails and the plasma hits the wall, the plasma just dumps its thermal energy into the wall, and fusion can no longer be sustained. This happens in experiments all the time, though they try to avoid it. At worst, this could rupture the wall.

      Point four: I haven't studied this in detail, but if the wall ruptures, then there will be air sucked _into_ the reactor to equalize pressure. In a real plant design, you'd probably have separate air circulation for this region of the plant, but for disaster analysis you'd assume a small amount of what's inside the reactor gets outside into the world. The only radioactive stuff would be tritium, which is relatively harmless, but still a problem.

      So if a fusion reactor fails, nothing catastrophic happens. You need extreme extreme density to have an H-bomb. This is what they do with in Inertial Confinement Fusion, compact DT ice with lasers. I don't have my notes right now, but that resultant density is a whole fricking lot more than 10^20 per meter^3.

    22. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hadn't considered the actualy density of or the size of the fusion reaction, but it seems quite unlikely that a fusuion reactor of that scale could indeed produce a yeild of several 100's of megawatt hours. since you Are, as you disclaim a psysicist in the feild what difference would it make if the Size of the fusion reaction core had to contain enough plasma to continually generate 100 megawatt hours (or more) of usable electricity? (eg: beyond any produced to maintain the containment field)

      because the reason china is building this is with the goal of producing many many full scale fusion reactors for the production of electricity. in the mean time they've been ramping up fission power generation to 'fuel' the needs of a rising middle class. eventually their long term goal is to move from fission to fusion. so the question is can enough plasma be safely contained to produce enough power safely to make fission a plausible near term electric generation method? because if not there are alternatives, largely based on using energy from the large, natural fusion reactor we orbit. wind, solar, bio fuels... they're all more or less proven as viable in the right conditions. fusion offers the promise of 'cheap' energy that won't run out in the entire time humanity has previously existed on this planet, but it does so at the use of a natural resource that is heavily used by the eco system to maintain habitability, removing more than 20% of that resource could concievably render more than 50% of the currently habitable landmasses uninhabitable.. still, an energy source worth exploiting, since in the time span that the energy source can safely be used, technolgies to harvest the vast amounts of that resource from nearby planetary bodies could be devised, allowing a restoration of original levels, and literally increasing the useable reserves by a million fold.

    23. Re:loss of containment by mako1138 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My fusion professor had an essay question that went like this: The devil comes to see you, offering a choice of three things in exchange for your soul: a room-temperature superconductor, a full understanding of plasma transport phenomena, and a resilient first wall material. Which do you choose and why?

      The concept of the question is that any one of those three things would give us a viable fusion reactor. They're all technical issues.

      1) Superconducting magnets. Tokamaks rely on SC magnets to create their strong fields. With current technology, these magnets have to be cooled with liquid helium. One obvious problem is that a coolant failure would be bad, and it's expensive to keep a cold thing cold while it's next to a very hot thing. Another is that the magnet coils are in a position where they experience a lot of neutrons, damaging the material. So why would a room temperature superconductor be good? It would eliminate the cost of coolant and alleviate concerns about coolant failure, for one. Removing all the cooling facilities would also allow the tokamak to be shaped for better efficiency.

      2) Plasma transport. This refers to heat conduction through a plasma. It surprised me to learn that we still do not understand plasma transport. The calculated heat flux out of the plasma via electron motion is off by orders of magnitude. And of course, the error goes the 'wrong way'; we calculate much less heat loss than actually occurs, and we want to keep heat in the plasma to maintain the reaction. Furthermore, we don't fully understand plasma instabilities, as confined plasma likes to do all sorts of wacky things.

      3) The first wall. The 'first wall' is the wall right next to the plasma. In DT fusion (the only variety considered to be commercially viable) you produce 'fast neutrons' which really mess up most materials. The canonical example is stainless steel, which will deteriorate rather badly and produce Cobalt-60 in the bargain. So there has been interest in more exotic materials like Vanadium and Molybdenum. The problem here is that at fusion temperatures, materials tend to bleed off particles, and anything that's not D or T in the reactor poisons the reaction and reduces the yield significantly.

    24. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything in reach of the plasma is going to have a lousy day, but there isn't an explosion

      and how do you know that the reason for the breach etc wan't the act of terrorists who used an explisive device to strip the core of all it's radiation shielding lead prior to loss of containment, or even without loss of containment, perhaps accompanied with a rapid increase of fuel to increase the devistating effect?

      sure in china that just means they need to have more armed guards ready to shoot anyone who isn't supposed to be there on sight, and making sure the people who are supposed to be there have no opportunity to perform sabatoge... but it's a little harder or at the least a little more expensive to achieve the same level of security over here.

    25. Re:loss of containment by wiggle.e · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I am a plasma physicist working in the magnetic fusion arena.

      Isn't that a claim?

    26. Re:loss of containment by Dan+Mills · · Score: 1

      Just a note that a magnetically confined fusion plasma is a LOW DENSITY system, with IIRC typical electron/ion densities in the 10E13-10E14 per cubic cm region, and tempetures of only around 10Kev. Getting any one (or possibly) two parameters into the useful fusion region is easy, getting all three there is a hard problem!

      Even in the event of a leak to atmosphere, air (and worse, water vapour - time consuming to pump back out) will flow into the reaction chamber and will very quickly quench the plasma.

      IIRC Argon has been used to deliberately quench the plasma in some experimental reactors so as to avoid wall erosion during an instability?

      The failiure mode that is likely to cause far more damage to the machine is it seems to me a sudden failiure of the magnet assembly as that would dump the whole 1.2LI^2 energy from the magnetic field into the structure and while I don't have figures for the energy stored in this mechanism, I am willing to bet that it is far larger then energy stored in the plasma.

      It is somewhat difficult to see a failiure mode that would have much effect outside the plant, possibly a tritium leak or major liquid metal fire, but tritium has a fairly short half life (14 years), and has a short biological half life (unless as tritium hydroxide, T2O or DTO, T2O is corrosive, so is not favoured as an approach to storage, DTO might be a reasonable way to store fusion fuel, but for these experimental reactors, I am betting that a uranium hydride will be used, with the tritium released by heating).

      Note that none of this says that a radiation release is impossible, the reactor structure will after all be exposed to a considerable neutron flux (and there will be some local X ray hazard inside the sheilding while the plasma is present).

      There is IMHO lots of interesting engineering (and a lot of interesting physics) in the details of these machines.

    27. Re:loss of containment by typical · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this post.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    28. Re:loss of containment by typical · · Score: 1

      [Posted AC so I don't get a reputation for being complimentary to people]

      It's kind of sad that we live in a world where we feel pressured not to give people well-deserved compliments.

      I try to do so at work -- when someone does something deserving of a compliment, they get one.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    29. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seconded for bing to get a fucking life

    30. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Handey can make coffee... and walk the dog... and reset the Neptunium Impeller while inside the reactor core. Barring that, pop a couple of Rad-X and strap on your powered armor, 'cuz you've gotta go install that Hydrodynamic Magentosphere Regulator--err... HyMag.

    31. Re:loss of containment by Savaticus · · Score: 1

      We don't need to worry about a loss of containment, if it happens they can just reverse polarity on the deflector array and vent the plasma into space.

    32. Re:loss of containment by lintocs · · Score: 1

      Are you out of your flipping mind?

      A vast quantity of high energy plasma moving at very nearly the speed of light escapes magnetic containment and you're talking about some "hard X-rays"? Think about the laws of thermodynamics... where the heck to do think all that energy is going to go?

      Idiot.

    33. Re:loss of containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >fusion generates a lot of high energy radiation, but almost no radioactive particles

      This is incorrect. Fusion generates lots of free neutrons. These neutrons can be absorbed by any surrounding materials which will transmute them into radioactive isotopes over a period of time. The entire reactor will eventually become fairly radioactive.

      >if a fusion reactor lost containment and went kaboom the facility might be destroyed

      This is incorrect. A Fusion reactor would never explode if containment is lost. If containment is lost the reactor would simply stops working. In the worst case scenerio, a containment failure would overheat the reactor causing some melting of the reactor walls and perhaps permimently damaging the magnetic field coils. A containment failure would represent zero danger to near by residents.

    34. Re:loss of containment by lemarsu · · Score: 1
      ...safety mechanisms. Now such things can fail.

      - Did I hear "No such things can fail."?

      [Safety mechanisms]. You have to override such systems...

      - My God, it seems I have already heard such things...

      - No, you are day dreaming!...

  73. Horribly inaccurate. by edunbar93 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article glosses over a few important details, such as the fact that it's highly unlikely it will be able to produce more energy than it consumes. Thus while it might be able to use seawater to produce 300 times the energy per volume of gasoline, it probably takes about 3,000 times as much energy to extract the deuterium and generate that energy (the bit about getting the core temperature up to 300 million degrees is telling).

    Especially if they're only spending $37 million US. I'd expect research and development costs to be at least 1000 times that. Of course, the article is too light on details to even begin to understand what the hell they're talking about.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    1. Re:Horribly inaccurate. by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $37 million is for an upgrade to an already existing machine. Building a brand new machine takes years, not months and the superconducting coils cost more than $37 million. HT-7 is a medium sized machine, so I find it hard to believe that even with an upgrade to have fully superconducting magnetic coils it will be able to generate anything more than an insignificant amount of fusion. For instance, HT-7 is 1.22m in radius with a plasma current of 90 kA. JET is 2.96m with a plasma current of 4.8 MA and it has not achieved breakeven. The article is very misleading; I'm sure that they mean that the intent of the tokamak device in general is to generate power instead of saying that this specific machine will.

    2. Re:Horribly inaccurate. by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      people keep posting amazment that the chicoms are able to do this for only $37 AS IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY TELLING THE TRUTH. I mean, our government (or any government) isn't known as a model of efficiency, but there is at least *some* transparency in what they spend. Doc Oc spent more than $37 mil for the tritium that went into his machine, and that was in Hollywood!

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  74. Actually addressing your question... by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

    The Chinese aren't actually making an artificial sun, as the article would imply.

    They are going to make a donut shaped chamber that will have a small amount of plasma reacting in it.

    This won't create any conditions that would support a black hole. There are risks with fusion, but it's generally considered to be on the order of a melted fusion reactor and some very unhappy physicists and investors.

    I'm hoping an expert can comment more specifically on human health risks associated with things most likely to go wrong with a fusion reactor.

  75. why are some scientists so anal!? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Too much ego?

    Not enough of them taking LSD?

    More scientists should be open and willing to accept anything, even if it invalidates the last 30 years of their
    efforts. Otherwise you will die a stupid old man, like the idiot who liked DC power in NY, Edison.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  76. Neutron embrittlement by Decker-Mage · · Score: 4, Informative
    The reactor vessel is not forever. One problem that you will have, just as we have with civilian and military reactors, is neutron embrittlement of the metals that make up the containment vessel and other equipment. What is happening is that the neutron flux from the reaction is not contained by the superconducting field (makes sense since neutrons have no charge) and those fast neutrons literally knock metals and other materials out of alignment as they go through materials. Eventually, depending on the strength of the neutron flux which will be much higher than in a fission reactor, you'll have to shut down and bury the materials as not only will they be structurally weakened but radioactive as well.

    There are no free lunches especially when it comes to nuclear engineering/physics. The promising thing here is that you have the potential to have a much higher power density and cheaper fuel since deuterium, in the form of heavy water recovered from the ocean, is not exactly hard to come by. Desalinization followed by reduction of the water to hydrogen and oxygen and then just gather ye heavy hydrogen in the form of deuterium and tritium. Heck, if they don't use the tritium in the reactor, even though it is a fine lower temperature ignition source, they could always sell it on the open market. It's quite valuable on its own.

    --
    "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    1. Re:Neutron embrittlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reactor wessel is not forever captain.

    2. Re:Neutron embrittlement by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Free Lunch , no but I think the ppl in wisconsin have a better idea :

      http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/iec.html

      It is running right now, the real issue is fuel, and this does kinda
      throw a monkey wrench into spending billions on ITER .

      We know where the fuel is, and so do the chinese, and I feel it is a large
      part of their interest in a return to the moon .

      Helium-3 is placed there by the sun over time .

      At current oil prices, 1 Kilogram of Helium-3 as fuel = over 4 million USD of oil .

      I think robotically mining the moon is the way to get it, and of course ppl
      will flip out and want to save the natural habitat of the moon...

      To them I say take a stand, either it is oil, and more wars in the middle east,
      or we look for any viable alternative that may also take us into space .

      I think it is worth it, and so do a lot of scientists .

      Keep in mind this type of fusion does not radioactively contaminate the reactor .

      24 hours after a shutdown, you could enter the reactor chamber .

      Zero pollution Fusion is in our grasp, and one is running in wisconsin now .

      Hope for the future ...

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    3. Re:Neutron embrittlement by kravlor · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Disclaimer: I'm a plasma physicist, work in the lab next door, and know several of the people working on this project.

      I think a distinction needs to be made between the use of fusion to produce net energy versus fusion for other purposes, such as a low-volume neutron generator. It is the latter which IEC devices currently find their use. For instance, a friend of mine is working on using the IEC device to produce medically useful isotopes; another works on detecting explosives/land mines via the emitted neutrons.

      When it comes to making power, IEC grids suffer from the same neutronics issues. A real fusion reactor will be undoubtedly the harshest material environment on Earth. These neutronics material issues are of fundamental importance, so much so that a separate neutron irradiation facility will be constructed as a part of the ITER negotiations to study the topic.

    4. Re:Neutron embrittlement by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

      I think as a plasma physicist you might want to read this .

      You will notice the section on Neutronicity .

      In the 3HE + 3HE reaction you will notice it is "ZERO"

      This is what your neighbors ultimate goal is there .

      Presently I think they have D + 3HE working .

      If they are next door you might go ask them why they have this up on
      the web if you feel it is wrong ????

      http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC27/IMAGES/fig1 7.GIF

      Thanks,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  77. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not an American. I think it's commendable that your country has put the welfare of other nations and the globe at large ahead of it's own financial interests.

  78. Where do we get tritium from ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1
    After nuclear fusion, the deuterium extracted from one liter of sea water will produce energy equivalent to 300 liters of gasoline.

    OK, so that is where we get the duterium from, but where do we ''mine'' the tritium ? Can we, perhaps, get it by irradiating duterium ?

    Anyone know the answer ?

    1. Re:Where do we get tritium from ? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      The answer is JFGI!!!

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Where do we get tritium from ? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      actually, the results from a google search could be quite confusing, as the U.S.A. is getting its tritium from recycled warheads currently. The usual methods historically included lithium bombardment in a light water reactor, or deuterium bombardment in a heavy water reactor. But the prosposed means for future production includes accelerators or lithium aluminate rods in light water reactor, as well as other means.

    3. Re:Where do we get tritium from ? by kravlor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Disclaimer: I'm a plasma physicist.

      It turns out that the D-T fusion reaction yields a high-energy neutron. (In fact, these neutrons rattling around a shield/heating blanket around our reactor are what generates the heat we'll use to make electricity.)

      However, there also exists a couple of favorible nuclear reactions which convert Lithium to tritium:

      1) 6Li + n -> 4He + T + n + 4.5 MeV
      2) 7Li + n + 2.5 MeV -> 4He + T + n

      Effectively, the presence of Lithium, a very abundant element in the ground (more 7Li than 6Li), around the fusion reactor will generate _more_ T from fusion than is burned. We can therefore breed as much T as is needed from our existing supplies, which are = 20 kg for civilian use! A better way to think of fusion fuel is that they burn deuterium and lithium. :)

      Without a fusion reactor, tritium can be created in trace amounts in the upper atmosphere through cosmic ray bombardment (perhaps ~50 kg distributed around the entire atmosphere), and in practical amounts by using heavy-water moderated fission reactors (deuterium bombardment, as you suggest).

  79. Go China! by ichin4 · · Score: 1

    This seems like a good move on the part of the Chineese. While information about a lot of "prestige engineering", like rockets and nuclear bombs, is locked up in U.S. and Russian government agencies, most fusion energy research has occured in the open in the international scientific community for the last 50 years. So the Chineese can start right away at the state-of-the-art, without having to re-discover all the stuff that we won't tell them. (Not that the state-of-the-art is really all that impressive. After 50 years we still don't have a sustained net-positive reaction.)

    By the way, the people worring about some doomsday scenario can rest easy. The stored energy in a Tokamak isn't much different from the stored energy in a dam or nuclear reactor. (The energy density may be comparable to that in the sun, but the volume isn't so big.) So while you wouldn't want be standing next to the thing when it blew, once you get a few hundred kilometers away, the explosion wouldn't bother you too much.

  80. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not unless you can convert military skill and hardware into huge donut sized magnetic coils that contain fusion reactions.

  81. Re:The Tokamak Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might want to consider getting psychiatric care.

    -- A concerned coward

  82. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

    That's an awfully simplistic way of looking at things. Congress has actually manged to run up the deficit on many many programs not related to "the war on terror". Remember the farm bill, No Child Left Behind, and the massive increases in Medicaid spending we've had since Bush took office. Spending is up across the board, and social programs still take up the lion's share of spending in Washington.

  83. Your argument is incorrect... by msauve · · Score: 1
    A related point is that we probably needn't worry about inventing a device that annihilates the entire Universe, either. If such a device could exist, it probably would have already been invented elsewhere, and we wouldn't be here thinking about it.

    That is not a valid argument. There's a possiblity we _are_ the only ones here. There's a possibility that it hasn't been invented yet (someone has to be first). There's the chance that if it has been invented, it happened such a short time ago or so far away that the event horizon has not yet reached us.

    How you choose to claim "probably" is unknown, since none of these probabilities are known.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  84. Grounds for attack by the US? by blankoboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Surely having your own "sun" can be interpreted as being a WMD. No? Go get 'em boys...ugh.

    1. Re:Grounds for attack by the US? by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you're a preferred trading partner 1bn+ strong, you can do damn near anything you want. Have your own WMD's in back yard. Violate human rights laws while making low quality components. Even cause havoc in any form you want in the name of "free [to exploit] trade"

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  85. Re: Hairy-ball not a troll ;-) by guybarr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually it's a real diff. geom. theorem (2nd-year math undergraduate stuff) which is indeed applicable to tokamaks, since ionized particles stay (up to diffusion) "stuck" in magnetic field lines.

    The Wikipedia article is indeed accurate, although very terse.

    -- and yes, I AM a plasma physicist (or at least, was one for 4 years)

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  86. Isolation by jnunoferreira · · Score: 1

    the wall...their own sun...when will they chop the country of earth and orbit on their own around the sun?

    1. Re:Isolation by theboogeyman · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you blabbering about?

    2. Re:Isolation by jnunoferreira · · Score: 1

      baah, conspiracy theories... true though. you gotta admit, historically, china has always been a very "self centered" country..they had paper for ages, before most europeans knew how to write!

  87. Letter to Asia from China...? by akmarksman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "All your sun are belong to us"

    --
    Marine Sergeant: Did I give you permission to b*tch, soldier?
  88. Otherwise known as... by Circlotron · · Score: 1

    ...vapourware. I'll be great if they get it to go, but I'm not holding my breath. And if they do get it to go and then the West starts making unauthorised, unlicenced copies of it, will they feel entitled to complain?

  89. Oil will be needed for a long time yet by duffer_01 · · Score: 1

    I have been waiting for a good Slashdot story on energy as I recently found a very interesting site http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ which talks about a subject called Peak Oil, our reliance on oil and how technologies like this will not easily remove our reliance on oil. I would love to hear other /. comments on this.

    To me, something like this Fusion reactor sound promising, but there are still so many industries that are reliant on oil, it can be somewhat scary.

  90. shill, mod down pls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kthxbai

  91. To build? They already had one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody read little red book these days? Chairman Mao is the Sun!

  92. please help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Scientists believe that deuterium can be extracted from the sea and an enormous amount of energy can be obtained from a deuterium-tritium fusion reaction under huge temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius. After nuclear fusion, the deuterium extracted from one liter of sea water will produce energy equivalent to 300 liters of gasoline. "

    i mean is it ABVIOUS that we need to make
    this happen or am i just missing something really
    ABVIOUS? serious! i can't think of anything to compare
    this planetary wide stupidity to ... it's just god awfull!
    who cares what it costs! it can freaking cost a
    trillion trillion dollars. if we get a artifical sun,
    geez weez, home safe. */me points finger at head*
    (yeah, it should at least break-even of course duh!)

    1. Re:please help! by Illender · · Score: 1

      uuummmmm...what?

      --
      When I rule the world, I'll have squads of flame throwers fanned out around me, and for me, winter shall cease to exist
  93. thus eliminating the primary barrier to nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    being created by small organizations without big funding.

    thanks science!

  94. Stinkin' slashdot summaries by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

    It's a tokamak fusion reactor. It will undoubtably use deuterium-tritium fusion instead of light hydrogen fusion (which we can't do yet)so it's not exactly 'an artificial sun'. It is also by no means the first - JET near Oxford in the uk has been operating for 15 or so years (biggest at the mo') and there have been loads built all over the world. It's the first big one to use superconducting magnets which is actually quite interesting. The most amazing thing to me is that they can build the thing in a couple of months as the article suggests. Does anyone have any real info on this project? The linked article is a bit light on facts.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  95. Why not! by dbucowboy · · Score: 1

    Everything else is made in China...

    --
    This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
  96. Re:*sigh* by arasinen · · Score: 1

    You could build a whole lot of things for the money that goes into Iraq. For example, you could reduce AIDS drastically, almost eliminate child mortality due to malnutrition, malaria...

    Heck, you might even build a few (read tens of) Big Science labs with the money that gets left over from the previous attempts of bettering the world. If you're feeling green, you might also want to save some of the world's biodiversity hotspots and prevent extinction of thousands of species.

    Of course, the money in Iraq is doing important stuff there as well. War is expensive. I'm just lucky I'm not the one doing the difficult decisions whether to fund research or take out Saddam.

    --
    [ Antti Rasinen ]
  97. Hiroshima and Nagasaki by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1

    Didn't the US build the world's first artificial sun over Japan during WWII?

    --
    Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    1. Re:Hiroshima and Nagasaki by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

      No, the first one of those was at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, 1945.

      --
      Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  98. Doubtful by Khyber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then the terrorists will come after us for severely damaging their economy and thus causing further pain and suffering to their people. No matter what terrorists always find some excuse to be terrorists.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Doubtful by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Then the terrorists will come after us for severely damaging their economy and thus causing further pain and suffering to their people. No matter what terrorists always find some excuse to be terrorists.

      Sure, they'll always find some excuse to be terrorists. There'll always be angry young hotheads keen to set the world to rights.

      But the thing is, once we have no further use for they're oil then we're gone from the Middle East, and they no longer have the unifying focus of the Great Satan. What happens then? You're going to love it: they turn on each other. That's what religious bigots do, when left to themselves. They get into an 'I'm more pious than you' pissing match, fragment, faction and murder each other. All that's stopping the various terrorist cells and groups from going after each other is that they'd all far rather go after us. We leave the Middle East, they'll kill each other off in a beautiful bloodbath. Hell, that's what they were doing anyway, before they got on this jihad about America.

      The only problem with this dream scenario is Israel; however, I suspect that most of the West's support for Israel comes from the value of having a powerful country there whose allegiance is totally to our side, and ties back in to the oil addiction. Once we don't need the oil any more, we don't need Israel either, and I think it's very likely that we'll cut them loose to look after themselves.

      I realise that all this involves civil wars across an entire region, the deaths of huge numbers of people, and human suffering on an enormous scale. But that's what things are like already in large parts of Africa, which we don't care about at all because there's no oil there. Once we don't need the Middle East's oil, we won't care about them either.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. You prove that sheer cynicism can produce more elegant analysis than the diplomatese we're usually fed. I honestly think you should level up your popular writing skill, and be a journalist.

  99. The power of the Sun by MECC · · Score: 1


    In the palm of my hand...

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  100. "Excellent" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    - C. Montgomery Burns

  101. World's First? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Bad enough when readers don't RTFA, but the submitters/editors???

    Where in the world could anyone have gotten "world's first" from here? The article makes it pretty clear that this is an upgrade to an existing design and that plenty of similar tokamak reactors already exist.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  102. The big question about fusion power is... by dexter+riley · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...how do you say "still twenty years from now" in Chinese?

  103. This is so obviously going to go wrong... by supabeast! · · Score: 1

    "Scientists believe that deuterium can be extracted from the sea and an enormous amount of energy can be obtained from a deuterium-tritium fusion reaction under huge temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius. After nuclear fusion, the deuterium extracted from one liter of sea water will produce energy equivalent to 300 liters of gasoline."

    I just know that in 2106 we'll all be freaking out by some horrible climate problem caused by nobody ever bothering to find out if important plankton or algae can survive in seawater that's had the deuterium removed.

  104. Just a catch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we could get out of there and terrorists would lose interest in the US.

    Oil or not, as long as the US supports Israel, Americans will be the target of the terrorists.

  105. spiderman 2 by yincrash · · Score: 0, Redundant

    didn't anyone watch spiderman 2? trying to create artificial suns can only result in fusing robotic arms to your spine!

  106. Poor relations with Mexico? by ttfkam · · Score: 2, Insightful
    but to all nations that have poor relations with us such as mexico

    Hunh? The US hasn't been at war with any of its neighbors (Canada and Mexico) for over 150 years. I'll grant you that Cuba may qualify, but Mexico? Compare that with Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia -- a couple of World Wars come to mind at the very least.

    And you think we have poor relations with Mexico? Admittedly the relations aren't at all perfect, but poor? Last time I was down there, in Mexico City, no one spit on me. Sure there are kidnappings, but guess what? Mexicans get kidnapped too! It's a developing world problem, not a US-Mexican relations problem.

    Have you seen any of the arguments between the English and French? Or Germany and Italy? China and Tibet have gotten along famously. And let's not forget the great friendship between India and Pakistan. Or Israel and... well... every other country in that region.

    Or were you going to bring up Mexican illegal immigrants as a great evil?
    --

    - I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
    1. Re:Poor relations with Mexico? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1LRCO5 .html

      You see, Mexico is dominated by a white elite. They require illegal immigration into the us as a check valve against social unrest. This illegal immigration is causing hospitals to shut down and a huge welfare burden to the entire southwest of the United States.

      Mexico refuses to even acknowledge that illegal immegration to the US is a crime. In fact, they publish brochures on how to stay away from law enforcement as well as how to receive benefits. But if I were to sneak into Mexico illegally Mexico would not hesitate to call my incursion illegal and either imprison me or deport me.

      The people of the US southwest are fed up and this whole issue will come to a head sooner or later. I don't see Mexico's stance as one of good relations.

      I am not anti-immigration. I am anti-illegal immigration. Ignored illegal immigration is a slap in the face of all of those who came here legally, through the proper channels. So I would consider it a great evil. Especially if you require ER treatment in south Arizona...

    2. Re:Poor relations with Mexico? by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US will stop requiring imported slave labor when the plants harvest themselves.

      (With apologies to Aristotle, I think. Google didn't turn up the original which I remember as "We will stop needing slaves when the looms run themselves".)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Poor relations with Mexico? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/10/D8F1LRCO5 .html

      This other poster offers a small sample of the poor relations with mexico .

      US border patrol have been shot at by mexican army .

      http://www.nbpc.net/news/incursion/otaymesa.html

      Before you blather on and try to make your "opinion" right via volume, you
      might do a little research before blasting blowhard leftist rhetoric .

      I am neither a democrap, or rebulicorp, I take each issue individually .

      The state of New Mexico, and Arizona have declared a state of emergency via their governors .

      This request for help has gone "totally" ignored and unheard .

      Thus formed dangerous groups like the minutemen at the border .

      It is just a matter of time before things get out of hand and members
      of that group have received death threats .

      School books being circulated in the US mention the nation of Aztlan and
      speak of plans to reclaim the SW portion of the US for hispanics to make
      a new nation .

      What you are seeing is a cross border beginnings of a civil war in the SW US .

      For those who don't "get it" go back to being an ostrich and stick your head
      back in the sand, and get ready to get goosed .

      Peace !
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  107. Flying cars and Human-level AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean to tell me that the General Lee isn't a flying car and Microsoft Bob isn't AI?

  108. seconded... by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I totally agree with the AC. Awesome series of posts. Thanks.

    --
    sig.
  109. i'll take a fusion reactor please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mmm, I'll take a number 34 and a number 65 oh and a side of fusion reactor please. Dont forget the prawn crackers....

  110. budget for spell checker? by Crackez · · Score: 1

    Looks like they even cut your budget for a spellchecker....

  111. So whose bright idea was this? by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 0

    It's hard to warm up to.

  112. infinite? by rjmars97 · · Score: 1

    The continuing use of "infinite energy" in the article is false and a misunderstanding of what is happening in the reactor. It should be something along the lines of "uncomprehensibly large amounts of energy".

    --
    Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer
    1. Re:infinite? by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      Actually, what it means is that the ratio of input power to output power is infinite. This is because an ideal tokamak would have a burning plasma in it that was heating itself with the alpha-particles produced by fusion. It's written to be misleading.

  113. I am still confused by sunwolf · · Score: 1
    The problem is referred to as the hairy ball theorem. Imagine a sphere with hair growing out of it...It turns out that it is impossible to comb hair on a sphere so that no hair sticks up. A strand of hair that is standing on end would be equivalent to an instability in the reactor. However, a hairy doughnut can be so combed, and thus adjustments to the magnetic field can be made to correct the irregularities.

    WTF DOES THIS MEAN!?
    1. Re:I am still confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about it. Have a "hair" at each point on the surface of a sphere. Now try to make it lie down "smoothly" so nearby hairs are pointing in the same direction... you can't. But you can on a torus, by combing it through the hole and around the outside. Mathematically, this is equivalent to a toroidal reactor being more stable than a spherical one. Probably has to do with magnetic field lines.

    2. Re:I am still confused by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      It's scientific proof of why kids' hair cannot be combed correctly.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:I am still confused by The-Trav-Man · · Score: 1
      it is impossible to comb hair on a sphere so that no hair sticks up.

      sure you could!
      just comb all the same direction, and when you get to removing the comb curve it around to tamp down the remaining hair with the flat end.

      any good barber could tell you that!

  114. Sun Faith by mercedo · · Score: 1

    In East Asia or Amerindian civilisation, they have had a irresistable yearning towards the Sun. Often the Sun had been characterised as the objective of faith.

    --
    Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
  115. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    faced with the choice of working with a guy who constantly criticizes bush or a guy who constantly brags about his sexual conquests, i'd quit and get a new job.

    i mean, you're both bush-bashers in your own way...and i've got work to do.

  116. get your political spectrum right by penguin-collective · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, despite all the advantages of breeder reactors, the first thing the public and especially the eco-freaks think when you say breeder is nuclear weapons material.

    "Eco-freaks" don't particularly care about proliferation, they care about the environment.

    The people who worry about proliferation are people like Bush, people who want to maintain a nuclear monopoly in the hands of the US and a few others.

    1. Re:get your political spectrum right by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Many of them do care fervently about nuclear proliferation. They just extend the definition to cover the increase in nuclear weapons by any government. Including, e.g., the US.

      Some people think of a nuclear war as the ultimate (near ultimate?) environmental disaster.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:get your political spectrum right by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Having belonged to more than one of these organizations at one time I beg to differ. Actually, my membership in some of them would classify me as a terrorist! Oh well, they were already watching me, and no I don't need a tinfoil hat.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    3. Re:get your political spectrum right by idlake · · Score: 1

      That's academic. The people who are stopping breeders are the hawks and right wingers that are actually in power.

      Of course, even if breeders were proliferative, proliferation is happening anyway, so the objections are pointless from either camp.

      Environmentalists object to nuclear power in general, but if you're gonna have it anyway, it might as well be the cleanest kind.

  117. Undead ? by MarkTina · · Score: 1

    So you've been outlived ? Doesn't that mean you're a corpse ? And if you're posting on slashdot then you must be a ZOMBIE!! That damn comet dust!!!!

  118. Why do we need 2 suns? by Citrus+Pastels · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with the original sun? Can't we find a way to harness its near infinite energy? Seems cleaner, safer and more sustainable to me.

    1. Re:Why do we need 2 suns? by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      It's more sustainable, but with the amount of deuterium in the oceans it doesn't make much difference. At current power consumption it's estimated that there is enough deuterium for about millions of years. Fusion could be used to make a large powerplant (>1 GW) in a very small area.

  119. I predict a Made For TV movie by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    starring Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda about a malfunctioning "artificial sun" and I further predict that it will be called "The China Syndrome".

    Huh ... that title seems oddly familiar somehow.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  120. Obligatory... by Wrathernaut · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, fusion reactors built you!

  121. KABOOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    watch them go kaboom, crazy chinese

  122. It will take a few decades but it is doable by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    Let's assume commercial fusion reactors are available, safe and overall cheaper than running fossil fuel powerplants.
    Then oil- and coal driven powerplants will disappear almost automatically. How fast will depend on the exact financial numbers, but the market will handle that one nicely.
    In transportation, railways (electrically driven) could make a comeback and handle a lot of the long-distance transport that is done by trucks and planes today. For short-range distribution, electric cars might help. Where that is not practical due to sparse poulation (railway not economically feasible) bio-diesel might help out.
    And finally, there is petroleum-based chemistry. I guess that could be converted to use vegetable oils. Which would of course need time and money for development, but I see no reason why it should not work.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:It will take a few decades but it is doable by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I don't think you realize how important the usage of the transportation is versus what powers it. People who don't take things like trains usually do so for reasons other than what it is powered by. It may not be feasible...there may not be a track by them.....they may like driving, or have to bring a lot of things with them, etc.

      So while we may be able to do some cool things with public transit, I don't think it will drive a comeback....at least not until some of its other restrictions are solved.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  123. Burning Plasma by taboguilla · · Score: 1

    I've google it and looked it up on wikipedia, but I can't find something that explains what "Burning Plasma" is and how it is different from what I guess I think of as regular plasma: plasma that is created by applying large large amounts of energy to matter so that its electrons are in a disassociated state. I am certainly no expert in this stuff (but the subject is very interesting to me), so if I am wrong about my regular notion of plasma I would really appreciate it to be corrected. Thanks! Frank

    1. Re:Burning Plasma by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 2, Informative

      To quote F.F. Chen: "A plasma is a quasineutral gas o charged and neutral particles which exhibits collective behaviour".

      A burning plasma is a nearly fully-ionized gas in which the fusion power captured by the plasma keeps the plasma hot. It can also be called a self-heating plasma.

  124. What I want to know is ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Since no-one involved in the field of fusion research has managed to achieve a net production of usable energy, what is it that the Chinese know about this that everyone else involved in the field of fusion research doesn't? Or could this be (*gasp!*) propaganda?! I'll wait until the thing starts generating a few thousand megawatts before I get excited about it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  125. Clean by umbrellasd · · Score: 1
    Don't worry. When oil runs out, if fission is the most cost effective alternative, all the resistance to clean fission plants (pebble reactors) will magically disappear. When most people suddenly cannot afford to heat their home or operate their vehicle, they will change their tune quite rapidly.

    Because the people with knee-jerk objections to pebble reactors are ignorant, and ignorant people are driven by fear. Seeing heating and fuel costs quadruple will put the fear in them, and when the counter argument from the government is "we can create environmentally safe pebble reactors and address this issue", the ignorant will go from "Hell no" to, "Oh, well I guess that is OK," to "Praise, Jesus!".

    1. Re:Clean by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      It'll be a long time before the oil runs out if the industry is allowed to utilize all extent and newly discovered reserves. Siberia, to give just one example, is geologically identical to Alaska so I expect there is a lot of oil just waiting there to be discovered if the Russians ever were willing to swallow a bit of their pride and allow the oil companies to do the exploratory work. And that doesn't count the billions of tons of oil shale both in the United States and Canada, let alone anywhere else, to be had at the stroke of a legislative pen after the lawsuits from the eco-freaks clear. Lastly, there is more than a little oil off both coasts that is currently inaccessible. If 'the people' can't drive their SUV's, how long do you think those state laws are going to stand? It's all political. Environmental economics is one of my more fascinating areas of study and what you see in the press bears no resemblence to actuality. Frankly, they should never let an engineer near economics as we don't do ideology, which drove more than one of my professors more than a little nuts.

      Personally, pebble reactors are the way to go if we can't use breeders or fusion as they are inherently safe. But try to explain that to someone that couldn't pass a basic physics course.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    2. Re:Clean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Siberia, to give just one example, is geologically identical to Alaska so I expect there is a lot of oil just waiting

      Siberia has been well mapped for oil. Oil production in the FSU peaked in 1987. Russia has become an Net Exporter because internal demand fell after the collapse of the SU and never fully recovered. Russia expects to end Oil exports in 2009. There is some untapped fields but they are small compared to the tapped fields and production from these fields will not match the depletion of existing fields.

      >And that doesn't count the billions of tons of oil shale both in the United States and Canada

      Shale Oil has a Negative EROI. Meaning it takes more energy to extract it, then can be consumed.

      >Lastly, there is more than a little oil off both coasts that is currently inaccessible

      While there is some Oil offshore its isn't in great quantities. The cost of Oil would probably need to be above $100 bbl to be profittable. Drilling for this oil is not going to make up the shortfalls when the large Middle East fields begin to perminently decline. All of the cheap oil has already been discovered and tapped. The untapped fields that remain are considerably smaller and were unprofitable to develop when oil was below $50 bbl. But the combined production of all these fields will not match the volume of oil extracted from the large fields that are nearing depletion.

      The only fossil fuel that will probably make a strong comeback is Coal, since its reasonably abundant and inexpensive to extract. However, since its a solid fuel, it not transport friendly fuel (for Internal Combusion and Jet Engines). Its possible to convert Coal into liquid fuels, but its production is never going to be even remotely near the quantities Oil currently provides.

      >Personally, pebble reactors are the way to go if we can't use breeders or fusion as they are inherently safe

      Except that Peeble reactors don't breed very much fuel, and there is a very limited supply of fissible fuel (Pu239 and U235). Unfortunately, its unlikely that breeders will ever be economical, despite any political support for a Nuclear (fission) powered future.

      Nuclear power is only viable for Electric power generation. Its not practical for home heating, transportation, petro chemicals or the thousand other uses of Oil. We currently use Quads of power from oil, and its going to require nearly 10 times that amount of power to replace it with fuels and other resources currently provided by Oil.

  126. Re: Hairy-ball not a troll ;-) by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Then perhaps you can explain this?

  127. Re:The Tokamak Fraud by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Yes, the Jews are responsible for everything bad! They even caused the extinction of the dinosaurs! It's a worldwide conspiracy, along with the aliens and Bigfoot!

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  128. Solve a problem with brute force by heroine · · Score: 1

    Theoretically you could make fusion practical by throwing money at the problem, building such a huge reactor that it doesn't need as much fancy physics as what they need in Europe to make tiny reactors. China is the only country with enough industrial machinery to build such a reactor.

    1. Re:Solve a problem with brute force by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      Which tiny reactors in Europe? Europe has the largest tokamak on the planet.

  129. Moller's sky cars don't work by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

    If Moller's sky-cars work, why aren't we seeing them flying around? -- That is what they are designed for, isnt' it? One can argue that not too many people see the NASA satelites, but we all know they work. But that is because they were designed to go into orbit and not be seen by very many people, but these Moller cars were supposed to replace the cars that people use every day, so if they work we would see zoom by in the sky every morning while we are stuck in traffic.

    1. Re:Moller's sky cars don't work by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      I think the problem with any type of sky car is the drivers rather than the vehicle. Can you imagine what rush hour would be like? There'd be no minor fender benders, only fatalities (and watch out below). Maybe sometime in the future when the sky cars are able to fly themselves and avoid collisions, but I still doubt it!

  130. Obviously. . . by jafac · · Score: 1

    Obviously, China is not run by huge multinational oil companies, like all other industrialized nations are.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  131. Re: WHY THE GODDAMN HELL DOES EVERYBODY... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 0, Troll

    FIRST ISSUE: how can you be so blind as not to see the relationship between MONEY and FISH? The fish is compared to the money that America gives to some 30 odd countries, and as I said, it would be better to help the nation industrialize itself and become self sufficient - but since their government is likely to come take what we have given them or help them acheive, be it free money or helping the people of the nation become self sufficient.

    ===============

    SECOND ISSUE: This is where their government becomes a major part of the issue. How many of you have heard of or seen the video clip of the third world country wherein a group of international charities were kind enough to build a soccer/football (only soccer in America, correct?) stadium for the people. In return, their government seizes it to publicly execute people in. So what do the people of the country that used to enjoy soccer games there do??? Instead of seeing their own government as a serious threat to themselves, they ask the international charities to BUILD THEM ANOTHER STADIUM, when instead they could have at the absolute least asked the UN and NATO for help replacing the current government.

    I know a LOT of you guys think like rts008 here, that "Sooooo, if they aren't marching to our tune they are WRONG? Again.... WTF????". It is NOT a matter of getting them to do what we say, its called giving the people FREEDOM AND LIBERTY from the oppression of their own government, or the "revolutionaries" that supposedly fight for the betterment of their country, yet hold whole villages hostage (such as cases where either the military or revolutionaries place landmines around the village well, and only they know where to step to get through to the well withought getting blown to peices) which they daily have to live with the fear of being tortured or executed because of what they say or do. One of Saddam Husseins kids (was it Uday or Qusay?) favorite methods of torturing people was to chain them to a wall by their feet, with the victim hanging upside down, and to beat their feet with a baseball bat (swinging down on their heels).

    My point is, for the past FORTY YEARS the people Iraq lived in this kind of fear, and the situation is not limited to just Iraq and Afghanistan. How is it hurting the people of their country by taking away that fear and helping them to set up a government where THEY make sure it never happens again?

  132. Re:The Tokamak Fraud by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

    This doesn't explain why other nations are even more involved in tokamak research than the US (China, India, EU). Working in the field, I get all kinds of people coming up to me with "Did you hear about the device that (insert something about outperforming a tokamak)." At current, the only other devices achieving plasma performance like tokamaks are other large toroidal devices with helical fields like stellarators. A lot of people claim to be outperforming them in their backyard, though. I read Physics of Plasmas, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, Nuclear Fusion and Physical Review Letters on a daily basis and I've seen no mention of them. I do find lots of mention of it on random websites.

  133. "People's Daily Online" = Commie Rag by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    "People's Daily Online" = Commie Rag

    Of course, given the low level of credibility required to get posted on Slashdot, this article probably struck the editors as something on par with the Washington Post.

  134. Re:*sigh* by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    No. On the contrary, this is the ONLY post where I attempted (and very obviously failed, whether it be due to me being wrong, or everybody else being stubborn.) Every other post I have made here on /., I have at least tried to keep relevant to the originating topic, whether it be in the humorous posts that I make, or the ones that seriously try to offer up solutions or improvements to the topic at hand. For example, when 90% of the thread on NASA holding the contest (whatever it was) for people with serious ideas as to inventions that could change the future of space travel, it was as I said, 90 percent of the people making posts on the thread only wanted to crack cheap, cliche jokes - I on the other hand, was one of the few trying to seriously offer an intellectual post on the basics of how to make a gauss/rail-gun mass driver powered by a nuclear reactor (and selling the excess power when its not in use to nearby cities, so it would be profitable) for launching satellites and cargo into orbit, and replace the agin shuttle system, saving America and it's Congress mountains of money.

    I can understand how you were ready to be so pissed at me for a flamebait post, but if you really wanna go into calling me an asshole for it, please, look into my previous posts - otherwise, I wouldnt take too much heart from anything anybody says of the type of response you had to my flamebait post.

    BTW: here's the copy of the last bunch of threads I made posts in, if you dont find them relevant to the topic they are attached to, fuckin sue me...

    I'm sure building architechs took care of... Sunday January 22, @12:28AM 1 attached to Saving Energy in Small Office Buildings Keeping Dialup would only let dialer spyware... Saturday January 21, @11:07PM 1 attached to Is Obsolescence Good Computer Security? Re:What has happened to the shows like... Thursday January 19, @01:41AM 1 Re:What has happened to the shows like... Wednesday January 18, @08:52PM 2 1 attached to MythBusters - The Lost Experiments Re:Sounds like the USPTO... Thursday January 19, @08:20AM 1 1 Re:Sounds like the USPTO... Wednesday January 18, @06:16PM 1 1 attached to Slashback: GPLv3, Firefly, iTunes You want to give them a basic understanding... Tuesday January 17, @05:50PM 1 attached to What Should People Understand About Computers? The whole "Web 2" thing is bs, its not a new Web.. Tuesday January 17, @10:32AM 1 attached to Web 3.0 Why use batteries, just draw it from the heart... Monday January 16, @10:48PM 2, Insightful attached to Nanobatteries Power Artificial Eyes Its true, ex: their site: it sucks... Monday January 16, @12:21AM 1 attached to Web Users Judge Sites Instantly Re:oh really? Sunday January 15, @04:45PM 1 attached to IBM's Radical Cell Processor Who wants to bet??? Sunday January 15, @01:58AM 1 attached to SEC Formally Investigates IBM Re:iPod owners have the money and iTunes Store... Sunday January 15, @01:02AM 1 1 iPod owners have the money and iTunes Store... Friday January 13, @04:11PM 1 1 attached to iPod Owners Not Thieves Not replace due to limited # of writes... Thursday January 12, @09:51PM 1 1 attached to Flash Memory to Rival Hard Drives Ya, he promised that for MSN users, not the rest.. Thursday January 12, @07:44PM 1 1 attached to Spam is Dead Its not like its special for ATI, Nintendo already Sunday January 15, @04:36PM 1 attached to ATI Talks Revolution Graphics Just talks bout cases looking like a stereo... Thursday January 12, @04:02PM 1 attached to The Year of the HTPC Hell you still gotta have an inverter... Thursday January 12, @03:53PM 1 attached to The World's Tiniest Power Supply Unit Re: What I meant was... Friday January 13, @03:47PM 1 Sounds like its recognizing IT as under-credited.. Thursday January 12, @03:44PM 1 1 attached to 'The IT Crowd' UK Sit-com

  135. "The power of the Sun in the palm of my hand!" by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

    -- Doctor Otto "Octopus" Octavian

  136. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow somebody needs serious help :o

    Help item 1:
    For instance I would gladly point out to you that you can link to your personal page which shows your recent posts --with handy links!-- rather than list them up in a comment (without links!) like some deranged anal retentive accountant lol

    Help item 2:
    User dfenstrate didn't mod you down so don't blame him for it (if you had read about the moderation system you'ld know a user can't mod as well as post in the same discussion/article).

    Help item 3:
    Getting defensive won't help you around these parts of the net, especially not when your defence against not wearing your trousers is to take off your underwear...

    Help item 4:
    Spending less time on Slashdot is good for your mental health.

    Help item 5:
    And stay away from those coworkers! :)

  137. Re: Hairy-ball not a troll ;-) by RussR42 · · Score: 1
    Photoshop?

    Damnit, now I have to buy grapes on the way home...

  138. Re:*sigh* by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    hehe... you need to lighten up. And the other poster is correct, I can't mod you if I write in the thread at all.

    I didn't read your post past the first two sentences because it's obvious you're taking it all too seriously.

    Here's the chain of events:
    1. You make a strained connection to politics in an unrelated thread.
    2. I mock you for it.
    3. You post a serious 3 page response.

    It's just slashdot. Nothing here matters, we're all just a bunch of assholes opining about things that 99.999% of us have no power over whatsoever. If your blood pressure rises at all from anything posted on slashdot or any online forum, you need to step away from the keyboard for a week or two.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  139. Note to self.... by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 0

    Do not look directly into artificial sun with remaining good eye.

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
  140. Cheap energy = no oil dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oil products are basically carbyhydrates. If the energy from fusion is cheap enough, it can be used to synthesize oil products from CO2 and water.

  141. Infinite Energy by asiwko · · Score: 1
    Fission is what powers nuclear power plants and atomic bombs. It works by splitting the atom (lot's of energy is released on splitting the atom's nucleus.)

    Fusion is what powers the Sun by combining atoms into bigger attoms (even more energy is released.)
    So we split atoms to get energy out and then we put them back together and get more!

    Maybe we should be building fusion reactors and fission reactors in the same neighborhoods.

    I hope this one hasn't been patented yet....
    1. Re:Infinite Energy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So we split atoms to get energy out and then we put them back together and get more!

      Maybe we should be building fusion reactors and fission reactors in the same neighborhoods.
      - no. Any elements that are heavier than iron are not produced in normal thermonuclear reactions. Heavier elements (including gold, radium, uranium,) are produced in supernova explosions, where the temperatures and masses go way above normal thermonuclear reactions by factors of tens of billions or more.

      A supernova is an explosion of a massive supergiant star. It may shine with the brightness of 10 billion suns. The total energy output maybe 10^44 joules. This is as much as the Sun outputs in its entire 10 billion years lifetime. At the point of explosion the star would have an iron core. Elements of the 'iron group' have mass number A=60. This is the most tightly bound nuclei, so no more energy get be retrieved by nuclear fusion. A supernova explosion though, also generate an implosion of the core, produces heavie than iron elements and strange star types, such as neutron stars.

      It is possible that heavy elements are also produced by other means, but we are not sure how yet.

      Besides, fission only works with unstable radioactive elements such as Uranium or Plutonium, so we would have to go as high as 2-3 hundred protons per nucleus. I don't think we can synthesize that on this planet at all yet.

    2. Re:Infinite Energy by asiwko · · Score: 1

      I have no humorous response. Some help? Anybody?

  142. First sun by suitti · · Score: 1

    H bombs predate any tokomaks. Though brief, they produce more energy than they consume.

    --
    -- Stephen.
  143. Re:*sigh* by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    Since you posted actual advice meaning to help me not screw myself over in the future, I'll have to take it to heart.

    Hell, I've only been on slashdot for about 5 months now - not an excuse, just saying I had NO idea the point I was trying to make to one person, in a futile attempt to get them to stop (what it seems like) blaming the war on terror for every little thing that goes wrong, even if could in no way effect what they would rather have.

    Like I said, hell, I was only tryin to get a point to rts008, and half of slashdot butts in - I guess thats what I get for posting my personal views on a public formum...