Craig Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Probably... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/nif_laser_pulse/ Enormous energy output... I wonder what this would mean for the energy generation business as we know it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Type-R Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 What a job title - "Shot Director" - lol On another note though, I wonder how much power it took to power the device that produces the pulse, or even, how much power it would need to make it a viable form of energy production! Good first steps though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perkil8r Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I have a bit of an issue with it myself. I don't think it's so much a case of "Can we" but "Should we". For sure it's a good way of producing energy etc, and it's incredible to think it might become a viable possibility. We deffinately need to find a better way to forfill our greed for power, however, you have to question if it really is safe. Call me cynical if you like, but how do scientists believe the universe started?.... can we really truthfully say 100% without even the slightest bit of doubt that we can contain the result and ensure the safety of the planet or even the universe as we know it? I'm just wary, if something so small can produce so much energy there almost certainly has to be a cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Type-R Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Correct me if I am wrong,but does the size of the power output not equate to the ammount of material used that the laser focuses on? Good question though, similar on the lines to smashing protons together at the LHC, will we distroy ourselves in our quest for knowledge/power? At least we will go out with a bang! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perkil8r Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 The thing is, in the begining we as humans believed the earth to be flat, this was based on what we knew at the time. We believe we understand what happens here, but do we really? We haven't actually seen a star being born, not up close. We're operating on a very well educated guess. I'm not saying they have it wrong, I'm not even suggesting for one split second I understand much about it, but what if...... just what if they are basing it on what we believe to be true turns out not to be the case..... I once knew a very clever chap who was asked to join NASA, he would argue for hours that if he threw a ball at a wall enough times it would pass through if the atoms lined up just right. In theory yes, of course he may well be correct, but in practice? I've never yet heard of it happening. Just because the theory is sound doesn't make it happen like that......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAZ Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 If it did go bang we would probably hear it here! I think the trick is being able to contain it all, with the core process being at millions of degrees C there is only a magnetic field holding it in place. Sure having it run for a second or two is an admirable achievement, but running continuously is going to take some doing, and having really reliable kit and back-up gear is going to cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 I absolutely think we should pursue this technology because if we don't, I don't think we will survive as a species. We're destroying our planet slowly as it is, there's going to be a tipping point where there's no return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perkil8r Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I absolutely think we should pursue this technology because if we don't, I don't think we will survive as a species. We're destroying our planet slowly as it is, there's going to be a tipping point where there's no return. I quite agree, we need to investigate new sources of safe and renewable energy. I'm just wary of messing with things that we don't yet understand fully. People may moan about wind farms, but I bet they don't worry about how the power for their TV etc comes from and would be the first to moan if the power went off. I think wind, wave and solar power are the most important sources that we should be investing in right now. As an aside, has anybody else noticed just how many houses there are now with solar panels on the roof?! They seem to be cropping up daily round here. If my roof weren't a stupid 3 sided apex job I'd be seriously considering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAZ Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 You are right, if we don't move forward, it's back to banging rocks. I saw a report on the news that at the rate we are going, we are consuming more resources per year than the planet is able to sustain, and getting to the 100 % mark earlier every year. I'll bet when man made fire for the first time it was scary, in context, all that power at his command, the ability not only to keep warm, but destroy entire forest's. Fusion has to be the viable energy source for us, we are using it now via solar power. If the leap in technology continues at the rate it has over the last two hundred years, maybe in time we will all have a little fusion reactor on the wall in place of the combi boiler. It depends on how much the fossil fuel companies hold it back to protect their profits, and as they are the richest companies about, they can afford to protect themselves. But in saying that, look at how swift the coal industry declined for domestic use, everyone had a coal fire, you had to, that was the cheapest and most efficient way at the time. But also how much we still rely on it to this day with the major power industries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I can don't think the generation companies are holding it back. Government scrutiny and the need to be industry leading are now more important to their survival than sustaining a dieing industry. Nuclear is the biggest loss so far after Fukushima, with many countries now abandoning it. The exit of nuclear on such a scale will accelerate innovation, with universities being more crucial than any individual power generation company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAZ Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I was more aiming at the oil and gas companies holding back, to protect themselves. I not surprised at people being afraid of nuclear after Japan, but that was all it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perkil8r Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I can live with Fision Reactors, it's the idea of Fusion that worries me more. We know fusion is how stars are born, that to me suggests more power than we can contain since once started to a high enough degree, it self continues to grow, or at least that's my understanding of it. Can we be 100% not 99.999999999999999999999% sure, but 100% sure we know the tipping point and can ensure we don't accidentaly go over it and start something we can't stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 Fusion relies on a fuel source as any other process does, so I would assume they'd start small (a single molecule) and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAZ Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 You can get the runaway chain reaction happening with fission, Chernobyl being an example, it's also "dirtier" producing longer lasting and dangerous isotopes. Fusion though does have the capacity to be a bit of a surprise. They calculated the yield for the hydrogen bomb, where fission causes the bomb to start fusion, and that went about five times bigger than they thought it was going to be. I think we are a long way off yet with fusion, not only the monumental temperature to contain, but the pressure needed to start and maintain the reaction, which is provided by gravity in stars. The higher the mass, the greater the gravity, so stars work fine, but artificially creating that pressure and containing it is going to be the key. It's stuff like virus's that worry me more, Flu has killed more humans than all the wars put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now