FUSION BREAKTHEOUGH? Via MSN -- Currently reported by the Washing Post: "IF" true -- This could be the eventual answer to eliminating the destruction of the only place we can live ---...

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Via MSN -- Currently reported by the Washing Post:
"IF" true --
This could be the eventual answer to eliminating the destruction of the only place we can live ---
SURE, HOPE SO ---
Fully understand all the slips between the Cup & the Lip -- Like how fast can you build them, how much do they cost & the big killer stopper -- What are the " Negative Side effects" if any???
BUT
A "potential" Christmas Gift for all HUMANS

"The Department of Energy plans to announce Tuesday that scientists have been able for the first time to produce a fusion reaction that creates a net energy gain — a major milestone in the decades-long, multibillion-dollar quest to develop a technology that provides unlimited, cheap, clean energy"

pmsc70d Loc: Post Falls, Idaho

It will be decades before this goes online.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

ken_stern wrote:

Via MSN -- Currently reported by the Washing Post:... (show quote)

They also said that if the discovery pans out, it will be decades before it is developed to the point of actually building any power plants of a practical output.

And as to destruction of the planet, not happening, we can ruin the ecosystem, we might even make ourselves extinct, turn the planet into a radioactive rock or otherwise unlivable, but unless we figure out how to blow it up and create another asteroid belt around the sun we aren't "destroying the planet".

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Hopefully these findings are more accurate than those reported by the University of Utah and by Georgia Tech in 1989!

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

And, the devil may be in the details. The current experiment lasted all of 400 microseconds.

The claim of energy creation is based on an input of 2.1 mega-joules of laser energy yielding 2.5 mega-joules of output energy...

However, the lasers themselves required approximately 330 mega-joules in order to charge them before releasing their energy. So it actually took about 332.1 mega-joules to output 2.5 mega-joules.

Indeed the concept has a ways to go before widespread utility.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

robertjerl wrote:

They also said that if the discovery pans out, it will be decades before it is developed to the point of actually building any power plants of a practical output.

And as to destruction of the planet, not happening, we can ruin the ecosystem, we might even make ourselves extinct, turn the planet into a radioactive rock or otherwise unlivable, but unless we figure out how to blow it up and create another asteroid belt around the sun we aren't "destroying the planet".

That's a realistic assessment. Still, fusion is a desirable long range solution for many reasons. We should welcome any new clean source of energy as it comes online.

Scientific research is STILL in its infancy, and yet look what has been learned and developed since the end of the Dark Ages.

Unfortunately, some folks still live as ostriches in a world that denies the logic of mathematical, physical reality, as well as suppressing the process of scientific hypothesis, controlled testing, and peer-reviewed discovery.

MSW

if i remember correctly, 'cold fusion' has been about five years away for the last sixty years

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

robertjerl wrote:

They also said that if the discovery pans out, it will be decades before it is developed to the point of actually building any power plants of a practical output.

And as to destruction of the planet, not happening, we can ruin the ecosystem, we might even make ourselves extinct, turn the planet into a radioactive rock or otherwise unlivable, but unless we figure out how to blow it up and create another asteroid belt around the sun we aren't "destroying the planet".

Define destruction of the planet.

We might destroy our existence, but yes, the Earth (planet) itself will survive.
I don't think it's in relation to the physical destruction of the planet, just our 'world' (not the planet) as we know it.
"Planet" being the world we live in.

Perception...
Interpretation...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

MSW wrote:

if i remember correctly, 'cold fusion' has been about five years away for the last sixty years

Maybe they are not using Earth Years?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

burkphoto wrote:

That's a realistic assessment. Still, fusion is a ... (show quote)

Yes!
I am a SciFi fan and one author who wrote "near future" scifi had them abandoning fusion power for electricity, but developing it for spaceship drives. Tor electricity he had a world where "solar collectors" were in orbit around Earth and projecting the power to ground stations which turned it into electricity to send out over the power grid.
There, a whole new thing to develop, long range power projection that doesn't zap or fry parts of the planet.

BebuLamar

It's good news but it's a long way before they can make any pratical use of it. The breakthrough was that for the first time they got more energy out of it than they put into it.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Longshadow wrote:

Define destruction of the planet.

We might destroy our existence, but yes, the Earth (planet) itself will survive.
I don't think it's in relation to the physical destruction of the planet, just our 'world' (not the planet) as we know it.
"Planet" being the world we live in.

Perception...
Interpretation...

I believe that is what I said in a different way.
The freaked out "Greens" say destroy the planet, but we won't, we may ruin it for living organisms as we know them now, kill ourselves off etc. but unless we blow up/break up the planet into a new asteroid belt or plunge it into the Sun we won't "destroy the planet". Just ruin it.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Longshadow wrote:

Maybe they are not using Earth Years?

Neptune's years, maybe?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

robertjerl wrote:

I believe that is what I said in a different way.
The freaked out "Greens" say destroy the planet, but we won't, we may ruin it for living organisms as we know them now, kill ourselves off etc. but unless we blow up/break up the planet into a new asteroid belt or plunge it into the Sun we won't "destroy the planet". Just ruin it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

robertjerl wrote:

Neptune's years, maybe?