Half the people in the Hindenburg survived. How many survived the last airline crash? How warm does the jet fuel keep you? Modern aircraft are a big flying fuel tank that *cannot* go slow. A 747-400 takes almost 100T of fuel IIRC.
It is very difficult in science to get published with a different outcome to previously published results regardless of thoroughness. And by previously published I really mean "established" bias. History of science is rife with many examples of ideas that where blocked at the post as it where only to be found out they were right all a long years later.
Scientist are *just* like everyone else. We have agendas, we not objective (this author never does anything worth while: reject without reading), we are unscientific (just find a "significant difference", i need that professorship), we are seriously stuck in our dogma (I know that is wrong). I could go on. But you get the idea.
We are *not* this group of objectively minded "for the science" folk who are all for the pure pursuit of knowledge that many here in/. seem to think we are. In fact those scientists only exist in movies.
"In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data", is a nice ideal, but the reality is that if you don't write up your results in a politically correct enough manner it will difficult to even get reviewed let alone accepted. If you write politically enough, data is optional. (Nature even published a paper on Homeopathy!--yea real credible and prestigious)
You do realize that the rest of the world has had first to file for forever without the problems/. bleats on about. Intel has *always* been in a position to file first in the EU for example. The only change is that this is now how its done in the US too.
Neutron activation waste is "low grade" as in many many orders of magnitude less that current nuclear waste. Also it has a short life span as radioactive waste. Most of the activity declines in *hours* for most material choices. It is probably possible to make a device that needs less that one year of "waiting around" before its not longer considered radioactive. At most it is something like 20 if we don't even try.
There is the problem of scaling. You can't just make it smaller, it no longer works. Size, unfortunately matters. Of course there could be some breakthrough, for example in the area of high temp superconducting magnets that means 100T magnets are possible. This could bring down the size of ITER like device a lot.
What is needed is a plentiful supply of cold (relatively) water.
You don't even need that. You can have dry air heat exchanges. Sure they are more expensive. But they exist and are used in some locations. Then the power plant needs almost no water at all.
this only works for aneutronic fuels like B+p or He3+D or even He3+He3. There are more than a 100x harder to get to fuse and have 100x less or more power density.
The fact is that dealing with neutrons is going to be easier and probably always cheaper than getting these fuels to fuse and their associated low power densities.
Modern thermal cycles don't have much resemblance to their 18th century counterparts. And at any rate, it is pretty efficient (over 50% these days) and well established at high power levels, density and 24/7 type operations. So even with "uber magic energy generation" you only get a increase of less than 2, while most of these designs want to use mythical aneutronic fuels that have at least a 50-100 times less power density. So now your original 2GW plant is now 80-90% efficient but only produces 80MW and cost 3x as much.
Just because it is old, does not make it bad, out of date or old fashion.
This one of the only legitimate dark horse in this fusion race. However i have not heard much from them for a while. Are they bending metal so to speak?
At the time, the idea of plate tectonics was just gaining traction in academic circles. Knowledge of a that fault line simply did not really exist back then.
Millions of years of fuel is pretty dam sustainable in anyone book. And if you going to say it is not, well then neither is solar or anything planet side.
I believe with artillery it is termed shoot and scoot to avoid counter battery fire. Tanks however are typically on the move. There strength is from manoeuvre.
But that is near IR, so quite a long way from thermal IR. Thermal IR sensors are quite expensive and can only detect heat hotter than the sensor, so they are actively cooled.
This is not quite true. By all accounts the Tiger tanks in WWII where many times better than the Shermans. But the US was producing them 10 to one. And in the battle field it was 5-10 to one against the tigers when deployed. They could always maneuver behind the tigers and get a shot in the thin rear amour.
In fact that story is repeated throughout WWII. Massive production of cheaper units in the US and Canada. Although the P51 was dam fine fighter for the time. So it wasn't always pure numbers.
Unfortunately the emissivity of air is not zero, and air with a lot of carbon dioxide in it is even less close to zero, with even a tiny amount of soot in it, will glow bright enough in IR to light up the valley. Engine exhaust has both.
In other news Night vision does not use IR, but visible light. That is why they are called Image Intensifiers.
Letting of live rounds tends to give away your position. Muzzle flash from anything on a tank is not particularly small. Hell even my.303 lights up a valley.
Slashdot Mirror
Half the people in the Hindenburg survived. How many survived the last airline crash? How warm does the jet fuel keep you? Modern aircraft are a big flying fuel tank that *cannot* go slow. A 747-400 takes almost 100T of fuel IIRC.
It is very difficult in science to get published with a different outcome to previously published results regardless of thoroughness. And by previously published I really mean "established" bias. History of science is rife with many examples of ideas that where blocked at the post as it where only to be found out they were right all a long years later.
/. seem to think we are. In fact those scientists only exist in movies.
Scientist are *just* like everyone else. We have agendas, we not objective (this author never does anything worth while: reject without reading), we are unscientific (just find a "significant difference", i need that professorship), we are seriously stuck in our dogma (I know that is wrong). I could go on. But you get the idea.
We are *not* this group of objectively minded "for the science" folk who are all for the pure pursuit of knowledge that many here in
"In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data", is a nice ideal, but the reality is that if you don't write up your results in a politically correct enough manner it will difficult to even get reviewed let alone accepted. If you write politically enough, data is optional. (Nature even published a paper on Homeopathy!--yea real credible and prestigious)
Self-skepticism is difficult. At lest to do objectively.
Some of the worst camera work ever!
WADR, they said the same about killing the SSC, that it would set particle physics back $yada decades. LHC appears to have made that argument moot.
20 years later!
You do realize that the rest of the world has had first to file for forever without the problems /. bleats on about. Intel has *always* been in a position to file first in the EU for example. The only change is that this is now how its done in the US too.
I have this really bad habit of forgetting my passwords.....
If you give my 1billion dollars, i will give you fusion in 2 years.
Yep, that was real easy.
The 3He reaction is: 3He+3He to 2p +4He. I guess there may be a 6Be* intermediary. But it is not really a relevant part of the reaction.
Neutron activation waste is "low grade" as in many many orders of magnitude less that current nuclear waste. Also it has a short life span as radioactive waste. Most of the activity declines in *hours* for most material choices. It is probably possible to make a device that needs less that one year of "waiting around" before its not longer considered radioactive. At most it is something like 20 if we don't even try.
There is the problem of scaling. You can't just make it smaller, it no longer works. Size, unfortunately matters. Of course there could be some breakthrough, for example in the area of high temp superconducting magnets that means 100T magnets are possible. This could bring down the size of ITER like device a lot.
What is needed is a plentiful supply of cold (relatively) water.
You don't even need that. You can have dry air heat exchanges. Sure they are more expensive. But they exist and are used in some locations. Then the power plant needs almost no water at all.
this only works for aneutronic fuels like B+p or He3+D or even He3+He3. There are more than a 100x harder to get to fuse and have 100x less or more power density.
The fact is that dealing with neutrons is going to be easier and probably always cheaper than getting these fuels to fuse and their associated low power densities.
Modern thermal cycles don't have much resemblance to their 18th century counterparts. And at any rate, it is pretty efficient (over 50% these days) and well established at high power levels, density and 24/7 type operations. So even with "uber magic energy generation" you only get a increase of less than 2, while most of these designs want to use mythical aneutronic fuels that have at least a 50-100 times less power density. So now your original 2GW plant is now 80-90% efficient but only produces 80MW and cost 3x as much.
Just because it is old, does not make it bad, out of date or old fashion.
This one of the only legitimate dark horse in this fusion race. However i have not heard much from them for a while. Are they bending metal so to speak?
It is typically assumed that you need a gain of about 10 (wall plug) for a plausible economic reactor.
At the time, the idea of plate tectonics was just gaining traction in academic circles. Knowledge of a that fault line simply did not really exist back then.
Millions of years of fuel is pretty dam sustainable in anyone book. And if you going to say it is not, well then neither is solar or anything planet side.
The tank can move soon after firing.
I believe with artillery it is termed shoot and scoot to avoid counter battery fire. Tanks however are typically on the move. There strength is from manoeuvre.
I didn't want to invoke Godwin and was specifically avoiding WW2
I didn't bring up Hitler or the Nazis, just the German army. Therefore it is not a Godwin. ;)
But that is near IR, so quite a long way from thermal IR. Thermal IR sensors are quite expensive and can only detect heat hotter than the sensor, so they are actively cooled.
Do that and the Judges will just rubber stamp court orders.
This is not quite true. By all accounts the Tiger tanks in WWII where many times better than the Shermans. But the US was producing them 10 to one. And in the battle field it was 5-10 to one against the tigers when deployed. They could always maneuver behind the tigers and get a shot in the thin rear amour.
In fact that story is repeated throughout WWII. Massive production of cheaper units in the US and Canada. Although the P51 was dam fine fighter for the time. So it wasn't always pure numbers.
Unfortunately the emissivity of air is not zero, and air with a lot of carbon dioxide in it is even less close to zero, with even a tiny amount of soot in it, will glow bright enough in IR to light up the valley. Engine exhaust has both.
In other news Night vision does not use IR, but visible light. That is why they are called Image Intensifiers.
Letting of live rounds tends to give away your position. Muzzle flash from anything on a tank is not particularly small. Hell even my .303 lights up a valley.