those figures are referring to the % of mass of the fissile material converted to energy! a little different than the "external efficiency" of energy production of the device which I thought you were referring to!:)
forgive me for being skeptical of that 20% claim but....source? You only need literally a few Kg of Pu for the fission stage of an H-bomb (energy for production of the conventional explosive lenses for implosion is negligable (certainly in the Mj range)) and the energy required to produce the LiD fusion fuel is also quite small I'd imagine as you only need 110 Kg quantities. Litium mining energy costs are trivial and the energy it takes to separate D from seawater isn't extravagant. It occurs naturally at about ~.5 ppt. If I had to give an extremely rough estimate of extracting say 30Kg of D2 from water via electrolysis I'd say it couldn't possibly be beyond the Gj range. Norway alone produces tens of tonnes of the stuff yearly. The energy required to get the lead and make the steel for the case is only in the low Gj range as well. So figuring very conservatively we're still off by a factor of tens of thousands! way more than a difference of 20% I'd say.
Breakeven is defined as the point at which the fusion gain factor equals 1. In other words where the ratio of the power output of the fusing plasma is equal to the energy needed to maintain the plasma in a fusing condition. Thermonuclear devices by definition reach breakeven and ignition with high gain.
If you are referring to the energy required to produce the plutonium and to separate the deuterium from water then they still VASTLY exceed in energy output the energy required to produce these things, as a typical fusion bomb is capable of releasing energies in the PETAjoule range (>10^15J).
Yes, Lazar is a total whacko and possibly a conman) however, I can only say good things about his online site. I've ordered several things off there and have always been satisfied with the quality and speed of delivery.
Holy fucking shit. That's all I can say really. If this is an example of the type of logic the average person is capable of, we're truly fucked as a species.
"I read an interesting article once that suggested that alchemists had developed some of the earliest atomic piles. Apparently, many accounts of alchemists include information such as "they had a furnace straight from hell" and that they "suddenly developed lesions and died a few days later." Considering that radioactivity/atomic reactions were not understood until later, it is not a bad hypothesis that alchemists figured out that "warm rocks" such as pseudo-silver (radium) deposits might have special properties. If they piled enough up to create a critical mass, then they would have had a very interesting furnace."
You must admit though that this is quite the preposterous hypothesis. First, only materials which have an EXTRAORDIANRILY high specific activity (nuclear disintegrations/unit mass) are capable of actually heating themselves through radioactive decay. There is no such thing, therefore as a "warm rock" of for example U ore. The radionuclides are just way WAAAAAY to dilute to notice any thermal heating even with sensitive instruments. The only way they could've possibly noted heat from a radioactive substance was if they started refining massive amounts of pitchblende into Ra and Po as did Mme Curie and even then you would almost certainly note the radioluminescent effects of the materials before you noticed any heat. There were many nasty chemicals (HCL, HN03, As, white allotrope P, and so on) that alchemists played around with; to "develop lesions and die a few days later" is not an unthinkable occurence when un-safely dealing with these materials. No, the idea that alchemists had any clue even as to the existence of radioactivity or its effects is I think, beyond the realm of reasonable logic.
It was BW. They used the spectral information from the DISR device (think of it as a single pixel of full very accurate color) and then used it to interpolate color for a whole image. Anywho, it's bizarre but the highest quality polished images didn't seem to come from the DISR group (bleech) but instead from amateurs, mere hours after descent no less. One should keep in mind this is all through an 1 byte/sec link from the probe....
So you claim to have a degree in probability theory yet cannot seem to tell the difference between zero and finite risk. wow. nice. you must've graduated at the head of the class.
Uh yeah thanks but I think I just MIGHT know what I'm talking about here. The RTG heater units (NOT the 1 watt RHUs) are called GPHS modules (general purpose heat sources). Read this chapter!! The probabilities of RTG breakup and dispersal in the atmosphere are calculated for you, you don't even have to think. THE PROBABILITY IS NON ZERO! I can't make this any clearer.
Perhaps because some nut in his garage futzing around with what he thinks might be ball lightning likely has little to nothing to do with controlled fusion? When I do a search like this and get 2 hits, that's not really a good encouraging sign. Has he seen neutrons? What is his confinement time etc.? So far as can see it did not exceed 5usec! not exactly what I would describe as "stable plasma structure", even small tokamaks have confinement times exceeding this by a million. The reason the tokamak is consistently the preferred method of these MFE devices is not because of an evil conspiracy to suck funding from stellarators and spheromaks. It is simply because the tokamak has time and time again through the past 40 years shown its ability to produce the hottest and densest plasmas (with the highest reaction rates achieved) of any MFE confinement method known. It's as simple as that and I'd expect someone who claims to be a former fusion researcher to know it.
Doesn't it? Heard of a little thing called the Manhattan Project? Or maybe the Fermilab Tevatron accelerator? The Apollo missions? The Hubble space telescope? I'd say those big science ventures payed off in a big, no, HUGE way.
You are mistaken. If you had read the full environmental impact statement for Cassini you'd know that a significant portion of the RTG heater units were expected to burn up and disperse on re-entry should that've occured. These things are not indestructable. A fast flying shard of metal during an on pad explosion could easily slice right through an RTG.
This is NOT good news. In fact, I think it sucks. Let me be perfectly clear, I think we need Pu238 and the RTGs it's used in for space missions that travel beyond the area close enough to the sun for solar cells to be useful. The Cassini mission to Saturn is the prime example of this, the amount of incredibly fantastic science being done by that mission is impossible without RTGs. There is a small risk of Pu dispersal if the probe explodes on launch, but after that these things are looong gone and pose no environmental risk on earth. This new push for Pu production is not for science though. It is for espionage and military satellite purposes and as far as I know we're not terribly interested in the goings on between bacteria on Isidis Planitia. These RTGs will thus be used in low earth orbit satellites. These satellite orbits WILL decay, and they WILL burn in the atmosphere. It comforts me very little to know that the Pu (in ceramic oxide form I should hope!! (unlike the RTGs of the 1960s which were actually designed to burn the Pu metal contained within in the atmosphere)) capsules are designed to survive accidental atmospheric re-entry. They have their protective design as a contingency, not as a matter of expected orbit disposal method. Further, this is not a "very good thing because we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft". The actual production and utilization of Pu in the design of new RTGs or other energy conversion devices (such as sterling engines) is totally unnecessary. The Pu lump is merely an energy (heat) source and it is trivial to simulate during the design of new more efficient RTGs which usually involves the subtle modification of the semiconductor PN junction of the RTGs thermocouples.
Hell yeah we should model ourselves after her! Don't forget girls, party all the time and always be super lame to everyone!:)...stupid spoiled whore video playset comes with loseable cell phone, camcorder with night vision lens, fourteen hits of ecstacy.....
Slashdot Mirror
i meant fusion. its correct.
oops its not the mass -> energy % but rather the percent of atoms undergoing fission or fusion.
those figures are referring to the % of mass of the fissile material converted to energy! a little different than the "external efficiency" of energy production of the device which I thought you were referring to! :)
wow someone needs to read an elementary physics book.
forgive me for being skeptical of that 20% claim but....source? You only need literally a few Kg of Pu for the fission stage of an H-bomb (energy for production of the conventional explosive lenses for implosion is negligable (certainly in the Mj range)) and the energy required to produce the LiD fusion fuel is also quite small I'd imagine as you only need 110 Kg quantities. Litium mining energy costs are trivial and the energy it takes to separate D from seawater isn't extravagant. It occurs naturally at about ~.5 ppt. If I had to give an extremely rough estimate of extracting say 30Kg of D2 from water via electrolysis I'd say it couldn't possibly be beyond the Gj range. Norway alone produces tens of tonnes of the stuff yearly. The energy required to get the lead and make the steel for the case is only in the low Gj range as well. So figuring very conservatively we're still off by a factor of tens of thousands! way more than a difference of 20% I'd say.
Breakeven is defined as the point at which the fusion gain factor equals 1. In other words where the ratio of the power output of the fusing plasma is equal to the energy needed to maintain the plasma in a fusing condition. Thermonuclear devices by definition reach breakeven and ignition with high gain.
If you are referring to the energy required to produce the plutonium and to separate the deuterium from water then they still VASTLY exceed in energy output the energy required to produce these things, as a typical fusion bomb is capable of releasing energies in the PETAjoule range (>10^15J).
"Surpassing break-even point still eludes the grasp of science."
hmmm does it?
Yes, Lazar is a total whacko and possibly a conman) however, I can only say good things about his online site. I've ordered several things off there and have always been satisfied with the quality and speed of delivery.
Wow! how 1337 you are! Make sure you crank your LabTec speakers to maximum! dick.
HAHA! you must be a reaaaly great scientist with critical thinking skills like those.
Holy fucking shit. That's all I can say really. If this is an example of the type of logic the average person is capable of, we're truly fucked as a species.
"I read an interesting article once that suggested that alchemists had developed some of the earliest atomic piles. Apparently, many accounts of alchemists include information such as "they had a furnace straight from hell" and that they "suddenly developed lesions and died a few days later." Considering that radioactivity/atomic reactions were not understood until later, it is not a bad hypothesis that alchemists figured out that "warm rocks" such as pseudo-silver (radium) deposits might have special properties. If they piled enough up to create a critical mass, then they would have had a very interesting furnace."
You must admit though that this is quite the preposterous hypothesis. First, only materials which have an EXTRAORDIANRILY high specific activity (nuclear disintegrations/unit mass) are capable of actually heating themselves through radioactive decay. There is no such thing, therefore as a "warm rock" of for example U ore. The radionuclides are just way WAAAAAY to dilute to notice any thermal heating even with sensitive instruments. The only way they could've possibly noted heat from a radioactive substance was if they started refining massive amounts of pitchblende into Ra and Po as did Mme Curie and even then you would almost certainly note the radioluminescent effects of the materials before you noticed any heat. There were many nasty chemicals (HCL, HN03, As, white allotrope P, and so on) that alchemists played around with; to "develop lesions and die a few days later" is not an unthinkable occurence when un-safely dealing with these materials. No, the idea that alchemists had any clue even as to the existence of radioactivity or its effects is I think, beyond the realm of reasonable logic.
of course, but they're just trying to give SOME feel of what it might be close to. It's the best they can do with the data they have.
It was BW. They used the spectral information from the DISR device (think of it as a single pixel of full very accurate color) and then used it to interpolate color for a whole image. Anywho, it's bizarre but the highest quality polished images didn't seem to come from the DISR group (bleech) but instead from amateurs, mere hours after descent no less. One should keep in mind this is all through an 1 byte/sec link from the probe....
So you claim to have a degree in probability theory yet cannot seem to tell the difference between zero and finite risk. wow. nice. you must've graduated at the head of the class.
Uh yeah thanks but I think I just MIGHT know what I'm talking about here. The RTG heater units (NOT the 1 watt RHUs) are called GPHS modules (general purpose heat sources). Read this chapter!! The probabilities of RTG breakup and dispersal in the atmosphere are calculated for you, you don't even have to think. THE PROBABILITY IS NON ZERO! I can't make this any clearer.
Perhaps because some nut in his garage futzing around with what he thinks might be ball lightning likely has little to nothing to do with controlled fusion? When I do a search like this and get 2 hits, that's not really a good encouraging sign. Has he seen neutrons? What is his confinement time etc.? So far as can see it did not exceed 5usec! not exactly what I would describe as "stable plasma structure", even small tokamaks have confinement times exceeding this by a million. The reason the tokamak is consistently the preferred method of these MFE devices is not because of an evil conspiracy to suck funding from stellarators and spheromaks. It is simply because the tokamak has time and time again through the past 40 years shown its ability to produce the hottest and densest plasmas (with the highest reaction rates achieved) of any MFE confinement method known. It's as simple as that and I'd expect someone who claims to be a former fusion researcher to know it.
Doesn't it? Heard of a little thing called the Manhattan Project? Or maybe the Fermilab Tevatron accelerator? The Apollo missions? The Hubble space telescope? I'd say those big science ventures payed off in a big, no, HUGE way.
"There's no slamming the cesium and strontium back together to create uranium."
Yes there is, its how unununium (now roentgenium) and what not are made. You just don't get any net energy out of the reaction. You only put into it.
You are mistaken. If you had read the full environmental impact statement for Cassini you'd know that a significant portion of the RTG heater units were expected to burn up and disperse on re-entry should that've occured. These things are not indestructable. A fast flying shard of metal during an on pad explosion could easily slice right through an RTG.
Sorry, you're dead wrong.
This is NOT good news. In fact, I think it sucks. Let me be perfectly clear, I think we need Pu238 and the RTGs it's used in for space missions that travel beyond the area close enough to the sun for solar cells to be useful. The Cassini mission to Saturn is the prime example of this, the amount of incredibly fantastic science being done by that mission is impossible without RTGs. There is a small risk of Pu dispersal if the probe explodes on launch, but after that these things are looong gone and pose no environmental risk on earth. This new push for Pu production is not for science though. It is for espionage and military satellite purposes and as far as I know we're not terribly interested in the goings on between bacteria on Isidis Planitia. These RTGs will thus be used in low earth orbit satellites. These satellite orbits WILL decay, and they WILL burn in the atmosphere. It comforts me very little to know that the Pu (in ceramic oxide form I should hope!! (unlike the RTGs of the 1960s which were actually designed to burn the Pu metal contained within in the atmosphere)) capsules are designed to survive accidental atmospheric re-entry. They have their protective design as a contingency, not as a matter of expected orbit disposal method. Further, this is not a "very good thing because we need more experience with RTGs to power spacecraft". The actual production and utilization of Pu in the design of new RTGs or other energy conversion devices (such as sterling engines) is totally unnecessary. The Pu lump is merely an energy (heat) source and it is trivial to simulate during the design of new more efficient RTGs which usually involves the subtle modification of the semiconductor PN junction of the RTGs thermocouples.
Hmm well you better not watch any of their other stuff. Its peta friendly dontcha know....
A little attractive? yeah. wow. I'd totally hit it. Oops! wrong site!.... :)
Hell yeah we should model ourselves after her! Don't forget girls, party all the time and always be super lame to everyone! :) ...stupid spoiled whore video playset comes with loseable cell phone, camcorder with night vision lens, fourteen hits of ecstacy.....