most all fusion generators fall into the same base issues 1. you have to create fusion. atoms don't really want to be fused so much do thye? so vst energy is required to get it to occur 2. you have to contain a sun. the plasma made has to be contained somehow 3. you have to harness the energy. In effect a contemporary nuclear plant and a hydro eletcric plant are quite similar. Heating water to drive turbines. this runs into the laws of entropy. The key part is you lose masses of energy generated from containment and heat loss etc. and you have to put masses and masses of energy in to get it going. irrespective of how you get it started you have to keep it going and thats where all these fall down. you have to feed the plasma ball in other words. At this point "micro" plants are just pipe dreams and getting yourself 100million in investors is a drop in the ocean or in other words fools toosing cash away. the first genuine profitable fusion plant is decades away at best. its the same reasons as why maglev trains adn such are so hard to do. you don;t have the magnetic field to really do this. CERN is an a amzing building... or should i say city.. but we can't build 100 of these types of things to power the world.
Plasma physics is discovering new things all of the time. Plasma and EM it is theorised can create atomic nuclei, rather than fusion of actual atoms. A more brick level way of thinking of the problem. Plasma physics is Astrophysics poor cousin. They don't teach plasma physics in Astronomy and Astrophysics, yet there is so much plasma in space as to boggle the mind. It's a really interesting subject with many alternate explanations for Astrophysical problems
indeed but the engineering problem is where i am more interested as you'd expect. To make it profitable
Only I have proved that I do understand it. Hence my ability to challenge many of the claims of the anti climate change lobbies that you've quoted. So, please stop with this angle of attempting to deflect and decry the posts of both myself and others, as it's not conducive to sensible debate. Which is what you claim you want on this thread. Prove it, by putting away the '******', 'ignorant' and 'you know nothing' nonsense and lets converse with with the aid of facts, not hyperbole or put downs.
Well you nailed the problem right there, profit. With the population at what? 7 billion is it? Profit driven model cannot work when there is 11 or 14 or 18 billion. It just is not sustainable At this rate 99.9999% of us will be left sharing about 15% of resources and land
Well its a matter of scale. For example in the early years of electricity you could throw up one hyro plant on a big river like the hoover dam and supply half the country over there. now the hoover dam is probably only really significant for controlling water not so much the power. this means I can't build one power plant in UK and supply all of uk for example. I probably need 10 of them so if i'm selling juice to a 10th of the Uk poulation that tells me how much money i can spend to reasonably build and maintain that fusion plant. Right now it costs more to run the plants there might be in small scale test than you make out of them. the same could be said of nucelar plants too though... so the government need to sub vent the enterprise and what government will with cheap oil and coal to burn still... thats one issue The models shown use different types of fusion using different particles to generate different outcomes but in the end what we are looking for is a zero radiation, zero polluting solution that takes in a fuel of some type and fuses it and then generates usable electricity for people to use. keeping the plasma ball or ring contained while it is used to generate power is a massive undertaking. I can't see serious micro plants being built for that. Rotating the plasma to directly generate electritiy by passing magnets cna only be done by... well using magnets to accelerate the plasma round.. it doesn't add up does it really?
So you commited #fraud then by assuming every value from a long time ago had its maximum expected value, knowing that plotting "temperature + error" would hide the recent rise in temperature because temperature increases but error decreases. Well at least doing the same thing for the lower bound would demonstrate the clear effect of recent heating... ...except you ignore this point completely, refuse to plot the corresponding graph like you did with the upper bound, and change your reasoning completely to now considering that the point can be anwhere in between the bounds. Yes it can be anywhere in between, so how about for consistency we take the middle point? Oh wait, that's already drawn by the thick line on the graph and shows recent heating so we can't do that.
I don't know on what basis you make these bizarre claims. Perhaps it would be useful if you say who "they" are. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plasma physics astronomy astrophysics
So lets break down this post of yours. Note how many times you talk about me directly, which points out exactly what you are about, transparent. Starting off, I said "I downloaded it and zoomed in and put a trend line at the upper boundary of uncertainty of this chart" To which you respond "So you commited #fraud then by assuming every value from a long time ago had its maximum expected value, knowing that plotting "temperature + error" would hide the recent rise in temperature because temperature increases but error decreases. Well at least doing the same thing for the lower bound would demonstrate the clear effect of recent heating..." What I actually said.. I downloaded it and zoomed in and put a trend line at the upper boundary of uncertainty of this chart, a chart I disagree with anyway, the BBC claim is unscientific nonsense. Hyperbole to be exact Now you understand uncertainty right? So if I drew another trend line at the lower boundary of uncertainty (the actual temp could be anywhere within at any given point) and beyond the boundary of upper or lower uncertainty, that means obviously the range of uncertainty is huge." What I demonstrated that both you and the BBC omitted was the uncertainty. The line (I drew with MSpaint ffs) was not science or a claim of science it was to show that the temperature could be anywhere in that upper range, my line was not a suggestion those were the temps, I was pointing out they "could have been" seeing as we are dealing with probability, I never bothered to line the low end probability because I made my point. A point you still dont understand, it's called uncertainty, which you never pointed out when you posted that chart did you? Who's trying to fool who now? The two bits of my post you quoted belong in the same context, you split it into two to try attack each on it's own out of context. The attack on the second part. I said, it doesn't even make sense that you split this up as it is completely relative to the first bit you singled out, and I note you left the vast majority of what I said out, especially about probability modeling. Convenient. Plus now, you and I are talking about what each other is doing instead of the subject, this is your area of nonsense not mine. "So if I drew another trend line at the lower boundary of uncertainty (the actual temp could be anywhere within at any given point) and beyond the boundary of upper or lower uncertainty, that means obviously the range of uncertainty is huge." To which you replied "...except you ignore this point completely, refuse to plot the corresponding graph like you did with the upper bound, and change your reasoning completely to now considering that the point can be anwhere in between the bounds. Yes it can be anywhere in between, so how about for consistency we take the middle point? Oh wait, that's already drawn by the thick line on the graph and shows recent heating so we can't do that." I made the point yet I ignored it? that doesnt make sense at all First of all what corresponding graph? I could have drawn the low probability on the same graph, but it is there, you can see it, I dont need to draw it. Do you not understand the argument, I suspect you do not. The point is the uncertainty portrayed as fact, and that the uncertainty is greater than the chart shows, this is supported in my post, most of which you conveniently ignored. Also note your wording, "I completely refuse to". Can you show me where I completely refused to do anything? Why do you even use such language.. it seems emotionally charged I pointed out the flaws in the chart and the science behind it I never came to any conclusions of my own. So in short, you are not even discussing my post. Just bits you think you can pick at, after you just slapped a link up with no point to make other than try rile me Bottom line? You used that link and chart as proof that CAGW theory is accurate, but it is not evidence in any sense of the word #uncertainty
I wont even read your posted link that is meant to represent theoretical astrophysics and plasma physics world wide. All in a 20 second google search like Again somehow you end up talking about me "I don't know on what basis you make these bizarre claims" @moreinjuredthanowen you can see why the other thread went to **** mate
The other thread went bad for exactly the reason you are pointing out here You make some insane and unsubstantiated claim, then when asked about it only reply with "I refuse to answer/discuss/read what you posted" and proceed to claim the thread is being ruined
you never read my posts and pretend to have a debate and here you are doing the exact same thing again. Read my reply, respond to it
and also, yes sure, I post scientific arguments on the other thread and your counter arguments were "'#meltdown" and "#conspiracy and #Fraud". Sure Astro
And also @astroturfnaut tell me where you got "I completely refuse to"? And explain how me bringing up a point is ignoring the point? I am curious
I wanted to reply to this but my time was taken up with that tripe... tomorrow You made some good points I want to come back to
A mix of renewables is the way forward, wind. Solar Hydro, Francis style large scale and low head Kaplan turbines mixes with horizontal Kaplan river turbines. Pumped storage to store grid excess. And finally for the UK, tidal lagoons.
So "climate change deniers" is the link, and you want me to read this "balanced" source that you cannot use to make your argument against my post? Strange, you seem to accept a BBC article as proof? Cos you never questioned the post containing the chart.. nor addressed any point in my reply.
If you are interested in tidal power the look into a project / company I worked for in a consultant role. Open Hydro. Then at Swansea bay tiday lagoon. A current project
