As I was saying: Fusion falters under soaring costs.
Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.
At a meeting in Japan on Wednesday, members of the governing Iter council will review the plans and may agree to scale back the project.
"This is a vast global project to show the scientific feasibility of fusion as a limitless source of energy. "On top of this platform we are going to build 130 buildings. The main building will contain the Iter machine itself. "It will be huge - the size of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris - and it'll weigh about the same as a battleship - 36,000 tonnes of metal and instrumentation."
"This is a vast global project to show the scientific feasibility of fusion as a limitless source of energy. "On top of this platform we are going to build 130 buildings. The main building will contain the Iter machine itself. "It will be huge - the size of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris - and it'll weigh about the same as a battleship - 36,000 tonnes of metal and instrumentation."
What's the old saying, 'fusion is 100 years in the future and always will be"? Sounds to me like they're going to need an infinite source of energy just to build the damn thing.
Wow! And I, the persistent pessimist was thinking about 75 years before fusion.
Some Scientists are now talking a century off into the future?!
Either they are being really honest or they realize that until the world economic situation gets a whole lot better, any discussion of advancing the fusion mission is going to be really slow going.
We seem to be hung between the loss of the promise of fusion's dream and the faux hope of green energy "real soon now".
When is the double face slap of the hysterical woman going to come and we realize that only coal and fission nuclear will save a world in trouble whose commerce and transport will soon be virtually 100% electrically powered.
We are at the tipping point. It all came to a head at once and here we stand.
Some decision must be made or it will be made for us. We can have a slowly expanding world economy fueled by two sources considered the most evil demons on earth or the pristine air of a world probably devoid of a billion or so people, but probably, not both.
Politicians can't save us and the hope that an informed public will take charge is an even bigger dream than fusion.
We are turly living in dire, yet interesting times.
Richard Hull
Posted by: Richard Hull | June 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Can a fusor transmute deuterium into more massive chemical elements,according to Harold Urey"s Deuterium Theorey of the 1950's?
Some simple multiples of 1H2 are:
(EVEN ATOMIC NUMBER) 2He4,6C12,8O16,10Ne20
(ODD ATOMIC NUMBER),3Li6,5B10,7N14
Worse,2 deuterium can be dangerous in converting to 1 tritum and 1 protium hydrogen
instead of fusing nuclei to 2He4,
So If that is the fact,4 Be 9 could be a product of a fuzor reaction
according to a notion that !A(Tritium)+B(deuterium) +C9protium) in chanber at conditions yield desired (ATomic number,Atomic mass number)
for case At no = 4
the logical possiblities are
1. 2. 3,
T D H T D H T D H
At no,at mass A B C A B C A B C
4 4 0 0 4 \
4, 5 0 1 3
4 6 0 2 2 1 0 3
4 7 0 3 1 1 1 2
4 8 0 4 0 1 2 1 2 0 2
4 9 1 3 0 2 1 1
4 10 2 2 0 3 0 1
4 11 3 1 0
4 12 4 0 0
The 4 9 answers are not for the amateur
scientist
1 tritum fusing with 3 deuterium in the basement? I don't think so...
3 tritium fusing with 1 protium hydrogen
in my homemade gadget? Not today...i'm busy.
still,if you can do that one, maybe next week, the same gadget can do
39 tritium + 39 deuterium + 0 Protium to fuse to 78 Platinum 195?
arithmetic check:
A. 39 x 1 = 39 39 x 3 = 117
B. 39 x 1 = 39 39 x 2 = 78
C. 0 x 1 = 0 0 x 1 = 0
add: 78 195
If So,How dangerous!!! how hazArdous!!!
YER ownPrivate Gold mine turning out Platinum by the microgram.and nobody can do anything to stop it??
How about 39 T + 40 D + o H = 79 Au 197?
(GOLD? IS WHERE YOU FIND IT...
how about iron? Ferum 26 ,54, 57, 56, 58
in its stable isotopes. not one of which is betwween one ayomic 26 and two atomic 52
numbers,all of which are between 2 at no 26 @52 and 3 at no 26@78 (Not for the Amateuir not allowed any tritium by the Regulatory folks...But not for the professionals eirther,they like limestone quarrying hired hands, iron ore shiiping crews on barges plying the Great lakes from Wisconsin to pittsburg pA where the coal miners can get decent blacl=k li ung diesease and cost the government a lot of money it just does not have for no TRANSMUTER OF Acid RAIn water to IRON for making Automobile bodies and engines kn the Aurtomotive biz...
It costs too much to phase out the steel mills blast furnaces and all that air pollution and SLAG production..
and how much money is tied up in a fazer?.
dont even think on it...
jkgray =jnokgray@yahoo.com
Posted by: john kirk gray | June 17, 2009 at 12:28 PM
We need such experiments, but at the same time we must think about all the consequences
Posted by: World of Science | July 25, 2009 at 08:13 AM