That's right guys!
The first tests for creating a stabilizing a fusionplasma are starting this week in Greifswald, Germany! Is /sci/ hype for the next big step for sovling any imaginable engery crysis?
Sorry, but for now I only have a german link for proof. If someone could find a english news article, that would be great.
They should put some refugee camps next to it
just in case
>>7706251
>Implying half a mol of radioactive material could do shit
>>7706246
Greifswald fireworks?
post video
>>7706246
>when reddit keks don't realize fusion reactors are just a meme
>>7706935
Commercial fusion power is probably possible, but not in less than 50 years. And by that time we probably will have switched to something else. I'd say half-meme.
>>7707488
I bet you 5 bucks they manage to get a net power producing prototype running before 2021, and have commercial development by 2025.
>>7707488
Are you stupid? In 60 years we went from having no airplanes to landing on the moon. Fusion is a cakewalk compared to that.
>>7707588
actually, the difference between current technology and workable fusion is the difference between flying to the moon and flying to the nearest star system in a single human lifetime from the reference of the traveler
>>7707592
No its not. Youre just too inept to work the logistics. The system works its just a matter of efficiency in the design. Saying you need 100 years is saying you have trisomy 21 basically, but that wouldnt shock me.
>>7707598
the system clearly doesn't work, or we'd already have commercially viable fusion you dumb cunt.
jumping off the cliff in a hang glider isn't the same as flying any plane.
"but muh thorium"
nope
theoretically, we know how to travel faster than light, so by your logic that's a cakewalk as well
just have to "work out the logistics" to create enough "negative energy" for the alcubierre drive to work. Go back to reddit popsci you dick rag
>>7707613
Youre so stupid you actually compare nuclear fusion an already proven fact to ftl travel. Why are you even replying you colossal fuck lol.
>>7707617
>Why are you even replying you colossal fuck lol.
>lol
This made me lol.
Im mildly hyped but dont expect much
>>7707617
because your assumptions are wrong. The fact that your derision is based off of ignorance implies that you're a very unhappy person.
Let me put it bluntly:
First airplane flew in 1903
We went to the moon 1969
= 66 years
First fusion: 1952
Current year: 2015
= 63 years
idk what a cakewalk is for you, but for me it's a ritual competition for historically poor african americans of the south involving dance and cake as a prize.
you have 3 years left
>>7707625
Not him, but "fusion is decades away" has been repeated so many times, I suspect you're just parroting the idea.
So many people have said "it's almost here", and been wrong, that it sounds wrong no matter how close we get.
I'm not holding my breath, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Greifswald reactor becomes a huge step forward.
>>7707625
Holy shit youre projecting now too. Also are you gonna compare electricity to free energy as well? Lmao i can picture you claiming the concept will take at least 500 years with a petty coat and stern look of disdain for any advancements utlizing scientific discoveries.
>>7707636
I guess that last post got you good. Try coming back with something other than autistic insults next time.
>>7707643
How about you come back wih post secondary education first, or would that take 200 years for you realistically since we dont have the technology to tech vegetables calculus?
Fusion is perpetually going to be "decades away". It's a pipe dream that will never be realized.
>>7707588
The US government spent a lot of money trying to get to the moon. The amount of funding fusion gets in comparison is minuscule. And there is absolutely no indication at this point that a fusion plant could be profitable without massive government subsidies and a monopoly on electricity production.
>>7707588
>Fusion is a cakewalk compared to that.
Nope. Fusion reactions were first made in labs in the 1930s. Reactors have been routinely made since the 1950s. Since then, it's been nothing but false promises and other such cons and scams.
Fusion reactions can't be contained by matter and force fields producible by Humans, hence can't be sustained to produce commercial power.
Fusion works to power suns, since suns have the trillion trillion tons of matter available to bother produce the reaction and then contain it.
>>7707625
>First fusion: 1952
Wrong. Fusion reactions were first attained in labs in Europe in the 1930s. Good try in padding the failure of the fusion industry with two decades of forgiveness.
Humans have been able to make fusion reactions for about 80 years. And yet, Humans can't figure out how to make a fusion power reactor. There's only one rational conclusion: It's impossible to achieve, outside of a stellar core.
>>7707754
And misinformed idiots perpetually post the same comment. It'll sure as hell never work if everyone thought like you.
>>7708200
I disagree.
Fusion reactors are always 20 years away.
>>7708204
>we haven't been able to do it yet
>therefore it is impossible
I took the bait. Now fuck off.
No. The stellarator being tested in Germany is a plasma confinement experiment, it will never actually be used for fusion tests. There have been many experiments like it, this is just the first cryogenic stellarator. There have been many fusion reactors. It is a stepping stone to future devices but it is not a fusion reactor.
>>7706253
refugees are the solution to everything. haven't you been listening to your local news??
>>7708511
>local news
My local news isn't your local news. This is the world wide web.
>>7708314
>it will never actually be used for fusion tests
thats not true there will be fusion, just not ignition. there initial tests will be helium plasmas, with just microwave heating, but will move into hydrogen plasmas with full microwave and neutral beam injection heating systems
>>7708314
> cryogenic stellarator
do you mind expanding it a bit more?
Fusion occurs at billions of Kelvins, so why is it cryogenic? Or better, why they would do plasma research for fusion at really cold temperatures?
>>7708536
i think he means the magnet systems
they have to be cooled with helium at around 4 K to remain superconductive and require large cryostat systems
>>7708224
I'm glad that you're confident in having zero formal education on the matter, but we're not going to see a profitable fusion reactor anytime soon.
>>7706246
>crysis
Step away from the computer, son.
>>7708524
Hydrogen doesn't mean fusion, it doesn't work with just hydrogen. It will never run with Tritium, it's not the point of the experiment.
>>7708590
>it doesn't work with just hydrogen
D-D fusion
theres no point in an experiment with low temperature nonfusion plasmas as it doesnt allow for the study of plasma instabilities that exist under fusion conditions. the experiment is to study plasma stability and diagnostics technology. theyre not trying to reach ignition, but there will be fusion similar to how there is evaporation of water at temps much lower than the boiling point of water. see: boltzmann distribution
>>7708573
Not the anon you're replying to, but yeah. Fusion reactions are among the things we have great understanding of in theory, but almost no propensity to apply it and generate useful work.
>1st Fusion reactor
>1st
>>7708601
I never said anything about low temperatures, I said it wouldn't be used for fusion tests, D-T runs as an actual reactor. You clearly know enough to understand what I said.
>>7708634
>I said it wouldn't be used for fusion tests, D-T runs as an actual reactor
you dont need D-T for fusion. D-D fusion is what many fusion projects work with because tritium is so highly regulated and nasty to work with, not to mention expensive as fuck. if you mean to say their goal isnt to maximize power output or something then yes, but there will be fusion occurring within the reactor
>>7708650
Is tritium really that bad? Bq for Bq, I'd rather work with it than any other radioactive gas.
>>7708650
>you dont need D-T for fusion.
Yes, I can read. Apparently you can't.
>>7708628
That is not a fusion reactor. That is one of the demo fusors, you can't build a real one with a glass chamber like that.
>>7708665
its hydrogen so its very reactive. its the lowest energy beta emitter there is but it can get into the water and everything like that. and often surface contamination monitors have trouble detecting it. and it diffuses through lots of materials witch is why its typically stored using metal hydrides because it can diffuse out of typical storage containers
>>7708204
Humans were able to use hot air balloons and gliders for over 500 years before powered flight was feasible. Just because we can't do it now doesn't mean it's not possible.
>>7706246
I'm not a conspiracy nut (far from it in fact) but what I do understand is human greed. IMO people in positions of power won't see it to be logical to provide something for free when one can profit. I think it's a governmental prerogative to have the masses in a state of dependency.
>>7708704
Cheap energy is profitable. There's a reason mill owners moved from water to steam power.
>>7708715
I agree with that, but to clarify I was imagining something more like an energy source to eliminate all other methods, and in practically infinite abundance.
>>7706246
Thanks OP. I have to say the IPP website is really rubbish for news (english).
I would like any links to progress, even in German
>>7708700
>You can, it's just not a good idea because the glass offers jack all shielding.
No the glass will break by the time you reach any level of detectable fusion.
>>7708728
Fusion certainly isn't that. You'll still need an industry that supplies all the parts and deals with the waste. There may be very little used fuel to dispose of but all the components are going to be neutron activated and they'll need replacing at a far higher rate than most fission reactors. I can't see it being significantly cheaper than coal.
>>7706246
Got it.
http://www.ipp.mpg.de/3985731/w7x_15_2
>>7707488
>And by that time we probably will have switched to something else.
We literally don't know of the existence anything more efficient than fusion, except maybe for wild theories. Fusion is basically as good as it gets.
>>7707613
>theoretically, we know how to travel faster than light, so by your logic that's a cakewalk as well
>just have to "work out the logistics" to create enough "negative energy" for the alcubierre drive to work. Go back to reddit popsci you dick rag
We have yet to see proof that so much as a particle can go FTL, and we don't even know where to find "negative energy", if it even exists. Even if we did have some, do we actually know how to manipulate energy into forming a warp bubble?
We already know for a fact that fusion is legit, it occurs in every active star. And, although no reactor has yet produced more power than it consumes, it's clear that the fusion reaction IS producing power. The power we get, although less than put in, does indeed come from the fusion reaction, it's not just from the power you put in. All we need to do is develop more efficient magnetic fields and we'll have a working fusion power reactor. That's probably still a few decades away, and a few decades after that we will get our first commercial fusion power reactors. Unless there's something major to disrupt our progress, I'm almost certain we'll have fusion power by the end of the century.
And btw, we already get useful power from manmade fusion reactions, that's what hydrogen bombs are. If we really wanted to create a "fusion power plant" just to prove we could, we could just set off H-bombs underground and convert the heat to electricity. A large and strong enough chamber to capture the heat would be expensive, and overall it would be far from efficient or even worthwhile, but if we really wanted to, we could get electricity from fusion today. Whereas we are nowhere near actually getting anything to go FTL.
>>7707619
lol
>>7708314
And plasma confinement is really our main barrier to fusion power. These experiments may allow us to finally build an actual useful reactor for the first time.
>>7708650
Most prominent fusion projects use D-T, since its the easiest to get fusion and ultimately ignition to occur. D-D (or even just protium fusing with itself) can theoretically produce fusion power, however if our confinement isn't good enough for D-T to work, then it's nowhere near the point where anything else will.
>>7708688
Isn't beta radiation mostly harmless though?
>>7706246
It's a keked reactor like the rest of germany.
It's called a fusion reactor but they don't plan to do any real fusion experiments at all with it, just plasma physics.
>>7708842
>And plasma confinement is really our main barrier to fusion power. These experiments may allow us to finally build an actual useful reactor for the first time.
Plasma undergoing fusion behaves differently.
This experiment is like using hot air balloons to investigate the physics of a moon launch vehicle.
Jesus christ this thread devolved fast.
Fusion needs a few breakthroughs to be economical, and if it doesn't get them then it won't work.
You obviously can't just put a timeline on breakthroughs like you can on the progression of computer processing or genome sequencing, so stop trying.
It'd be nice with a breakthrough in fusion.
>>7708749
This. Based on the ITER project, it looks like fusion power is going to be extremely expensive. "Oceans full of hydrogen" is essentially irrelevant.
>>7708849
not when ingested
>>7708813
The physics of fusion power is irrelevant. Only the economics really matters. If you can show me that fusion power is more profitable than fission (including perhaps the social costs associated with each), maybe then I will be convinced.
>>7708894
This. It's still fascinating to observe that process.
And maybe be a part of it.
Also, google the Wendelstein 7X reactor. It's fucking beautiful.
