Countryfox Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Well, thorium tends to produce less waste which is nice. Would also be nice if they could throw enough money at fusion to actually get it working rather than treating it as a historical in-joke. Sorry Mac .. no one has told you .. you're not meant to reply to my meaningless drivel ... I just post in between the serious stuff to keep myself amused .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 23 minutes ago, Webbo said: A) your complaints are never tiny. B) I'm almost certain I've never said that about this govt. C) There are somethings the govt does that I don't like and sometimes I'll say so without going over the top, I still prefer them to any Labour govt. It's not up to me to point out the inadequacies of this govt just as I don't expect you to come on here complaining about Corbyn. Re b well some right wingers have Re c this is half the problem. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: There's been no lack a research in fusion it just hasn't delivered so far. If any of these alternative sources were commercially viable they'd be up and running already. Perhaps I was being a little facetious there, but I honestly do think that it requires more investment than it's getting. It's the kind of thing where the input is large and long-term, but the return is monumental and pretty much permanent - it's a scale of energy generation an order of magnitude higher than what we have already, which might end up being critical for energy needs in the future. 2 minutes ago, Countryfox said: Sorry Mac .. no one has told you .. you're not meant to reply to my meaningless drivel ... I just post in between the serious stuff to keep myself amused .... A little bit of levity is always welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Just now, leicsmac said: Perhaps I was being a little facetious there, but I honestly do think that it requires more investment than it's getting. It's the kind of thing where the input is large and long-term, but the return is monumental and pretty much permanent - it's a scale of energy generation an order of magnitude higher than what we have already, which might end up being critical for energy needs in the future. A little bit of levity is always welcome! https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/worlds-first-nuclear-fusion-reactor-50-percent-complete/4165981.html https://futurism.com/uk-government-massive-boost-worlds-largest-fusion-reactor/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: Re c this is half the problem. Why not? Same reason you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 I know it's from the Grauniad but this is a fascinating read for anyone interested in British political history: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/04/peterloo-massacre-bloody-clash-that-changed-britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 6 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Perhaps I was being a little facetious there, but I honestly do think that it requires more investment than it's getting. It's the kind of thing where the input is large and long-term, but the return is monumental and pretty much permanent - it's a scale of energy generation an order of magnitude higher than what we have already, which might end up being critical for energy needs in the future. A little bit of levity is always welcome! Anyone who cracks fusions will make trillions, if a breakthrough was likely people the world over would be throwing money at it. When I first heard of it back in the 80s they said it would be available in 20 years time, they're still saying the same thing now. Maybe it's just not possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Countryfox Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Windy aint it ! .... hope my plane takes off !!! .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/worlds-first-nuclear-fusion-reactor-50-percent-complete/4165981.html https://futurism.com/uk-government-massive-boost-worlds-largest-fusion-reactor/ ITER has the potential to be game-changing, I just hope that it works and it becomes the forerunner for much more like it. 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Anyone who cracks fusions will make trillions, if a breakthrough was likely people the world over would be throwing money at it. When I first heard of it back in the 80s they said it would be available in 20 years time, they're still saying the same thing now. Maybe it's just not possible? I think a lot of this comes down to perception: like you said, it's been "a couple of decades away" for a long time now and even though the return would be in the trillions folks don't want to invest billions to get those trillions a long time later - not when there's shorter and easier returns available. But we know that such energy generation is possible - it happens in space all the time. The question is, as it always has been, the strength of resources and materials that we have to contain and supply such energy generation here on Earth. The more advanced our knowledge and development of those things get (hyper-strenth materials and electromagnets to name two), the closer we'll get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 39 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Isn't it one of those female condoms? Very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, leicsmac said: ITER has the potential to be game-changing, I just hope that it works and it becomes the forerunner for much more like it. I think a lot of this comes down to perception: like you said, it's been "a couple of decades away" for a long time now and even though the return would be in the trillions folks don't want to invest billions to get those trillions a long time later - not when there's shorter and easier returns available. But we know that such energy generation is possible - it happens in space all the time. The question is, as it always has been, the strength of resources and materials that we have to contain and supply such energy generation here on Earth. The more advanced our knowledge and development of those things get (hyper-strenth materials and electromagnets to name two), the closer we'll get. Greater minds than mine are working on the problem but the only concern I have is how they can limit the reaction - in a star it consumes everything to iron. Edited 4 January 2018 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 19 minutes ago, Webbo said: Same reason you don't. Again though this is the problem. I see you not giving an inch even on clearly ridiculous policy points or defending even really heinous things and so I can't budge an inch in return. We need to find a way passed these stupid arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Just now, toddybad said: Again though this is the problem. I see you not giving an inch even on clearly ridiculous policy points or defending even really heinous things and so I can't budge an inch in return. We need to find a way passed these stupid arguments. You post maybe 50( that's an exaggeration)Guardian articles a week calling this govt, I react to possibly 3 or 4 of them, usually I don't even read them. I don't look for thing to moan about. I could post things about Corbyn's silence over the repression in Iran, anti semitic tweets from Labour party members or even today Labour MP Angela Rayner saying Corbyn's economic policy is shit or bust and demand that you explain why you support such people,but I don't because I'm not looking to score cheap points. I'm actually a pretty easy going person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 1 minute ago, Mike Oxlong said: Leave me out of this please. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 27 minutes ago, toddybad said: Greater minds than mine are working on the problem but the only concern I have is how they can limit the reaction - in a star it consumes everything to iron. Fusion reactions are naturally self-limiting - that's one of the reasons why we're having so much trouble getting them working in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Fusion reactions are naturally self-limiting - that's one of the reasons why we're having so much trouble getting them working in the first place. I don't know if you know a lot about their inner workings or not? Why is this? Not enough mass is present to move the reaction on from hydrogen to helium? Edited 4 January 2018 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogstanley Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 43 minutes ago, Webbo said: Anyone who cracks fusions will make trillions, if a breakthrough was likely people the world over would be throwing money at it. When I first heard of it back in the 80s they said it would be available in 20 years time, they're still saying the same thing now. Maybe it's just not possible? The logic here is obvious but is it actually true in practice? Not everybody thinks so. This article for example points out how basically no innovation happens without some degree of public financing and support: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929310-200-state-of-innovation-busting-the-private-sector-myth/amp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Thought he was referring to Buster and his barrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Relevance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: I don't know if you know a lot about their inner workings or not? Why is this? Not enough mass is present to move the reaction on from hydrogen to helium? That's about the size of it - once you've gone from hydrogen to helium and so on all the way up to iron (or carbon for smaller reactions with less temperature and pressure) then the reaction stops naturally as it cannot self-sustain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 Just now, Buce said: Relevance? He's supposed to be representing ordinary doctors when he's a labour party activist. I think it's fair to point out he's not exactly neutral. You would have thought C4 would have mentioned it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 4 January 2018 Share Posted 4 January 2018 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: He's supposed to be representing ordinary doctors when he's a labour party activist. I think it's fair to point out he's not exactly neutral. You would have thought C4 would have mentioned it too. Perhaps he's a Labour activist because the 'NHS is in crisis created by this govt'? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts