Alley Oop: Nuclear Fusion
https://www.gocomics.com/alley-oop/2023/02/09
“When two atoms love each other very much…”
This is why I still read Alley Oop.
Lynn
On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:08:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Alley Oop: Nuclear Fusion
https://www.gocomics.com/alley-oop/2023/02/09
“When two atoms love each other very much…”
This is why I still read Alley Oop.
Lynn
They have to be coerced into proximity, though.
Very much an arranged marriage.
On 2/10/2023 9:56 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:08:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Alley Oop: Nuclear Fusion
https://www.gocomics.com/alley-oop/2023/02/09
When two atoms love each other very much
This is why I still read Alley Oop.
Lynn
They have to be coerced into proximity, though.
Very much an arranged marriage.
"Laser shotgun marriage" is probably closer.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:23:53 -0500, Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
On 2/10/2023 9:56 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:08:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Alley Oop: Nuclear Fusion
https://www.gocomics.com/alley-oop/2023/02/09
“When two atoms love each other very much…”
This is why I still read Alley Oop.
Lynn
They have to be coerced into proximity, though.
Very much an arranged marriage.
"Laser shotgun marriage" is probably closer.
I recently encountered a /Science News/ article about one of those
"laser shotgun marriages" that actually put out more energy that the
amount that was put in!
Unfortunately, it wasn't very clear just what this meant. Any net
positive output is fine, but that may or may not have not included all
the power needed to actually generate the laser beams that pumped
energy into the chamber. That amount appears to be at least 10 times
what was put in, and far more than what came out.
But then, it may not matter: it could be that the support equipment
could power enough of these things simultaneously to actually produce
more energy that running the entire operation does. The article did
not say anything about this.
Of course, the article was about the fact that, for the first time
ever, we actually got more out than we put in.
""It is a big scientific step," says Ryan McBride, a nuclear engineer at
the University of Michigan. But, McBride adds, that does not mean that
NIF itself is producing power. For one thing, he says, the lasers
On 2/11/2023 11:03 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 14:23:53 -0500, Mark Jackson
<mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
On 2/10/2023 9:56 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2023 17:08:58 -0600, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Alley Oop: Nuclear Fusion
https://www.gocomics.com/alley-oop/2023/02/09
When two atoms love each other very much
This is why I still read Alley Oop.
Lynn
They have to be coerced into proximity, though.
Very much an arranged marriage.
"Laser shotgun marriage" is probably closer.
I recently encountered a /Science News/ article about one of those
"laser shotgun marriages" that actually put out more energy that the
amount that was put in!
Unfortunately, it wasn't very clear just what this meant. Any net
positive output is fine, but that may or may not have not included all
the power needed to actually generate the laser beams that pumped
energy into the chamber. That amount appears to be at least 10 times
what was put in, and far more than what came out.
But then, it may not matter: it could be that the support equipment
could power enough of these things simultaneously to actually produce
more energy that running the entire operation does. The article did
not say anything about this.
Of course, the article was about the fact that, for the first time
ever, we actually got more out than we put in.
"But that changed in the dead of night on Dec. 5. At 1 AM local time, >researchers used the lasers to zap a tiny pellet of hydrogen fuel. The >lasers put out 2.05 megajoules of energy, and the pellet released
roughly 3.15 megajoules."
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/13/1142208055/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-climate-change
Not 10X, 1.5X.
Did the article you read mention that the lasers burned out after a
second or so ? And that the lasers are horribly inefficient ?
""It is a big scientific step," says Ryan McBride, a nuclear engineer at
the University of Michigan. But, McBride adds, that does not mean that
NIF itself is producing power. For one thing, he says, the lasers
require more than 300 megajoules worth of electricity to produce around
2 megajoules of ultraviolet laser light. In other words, even if the
energy from the fusion reactions exceeds the energy from the lasers,
it's still only around one percent of the total energy used."
"Moreover, it would take many capsules exploding over and over to
produce enough energy to feed the power grid. "You'd have to do this
many, many times a second," McBride says. NIF can currently do around
one laser "shot" a week."
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 18:39:54 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"But that changed in the dead of night on Dec. 5. At 1 AM local time,=20 >>researchers used the lasers to zap a tiny pellet of hydrogen fuel. The=20 >>lasers put out 2.05 megajoules of energy, and the pellet released=20 >>roughly 3.15 megajoules."
=20 >>https://www.npr.org/2022/12/13/1142208055/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-cl= >imate-change
Not 10X, 1.5X.
I thought I was saying that the amount of energy needed to produce the
laser blasts was about 10 times what was put out. Given your data
above and below (output 3.15 MJ vs total energy neede 300 MJ), it was >actually about 100 times what was produced.
But perhaps I was an unclear as I found the article.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 18:39:54 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"Moreover, it would take many capsules exploding over and over to
produce enough energy to feed the power grid. "You'd have to do this
many, many times a second," McBride says. NIF can currently do around
one laser "shot" a week."
Scaling up is hard to do.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 18:39:54 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"But that changed in the dead of night on Dec. 5. At 1 AM local time,=20 >>>researchers used the lasers to zap a tiny pellet of hydrogen fuel. The=20 >>>lasers put out 2.05 megajoules of energy, and the pellet released=20 >>>roughly 3.15 megajoules."
=20 >>>https://www.npr.org/2022/12/13/1142208055/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-cl= >>imate-change
Not 10X, 1.5X.
I thought I was saying that the amount of energy needed to produce the >>laser blasts was about 10 times what was put out. Given your data
above and below (output 3.15 MJ vs total energy neede 300 MJ), it was >>actually about 100 times what was produced.
But perhaps I was an unclear as I found the article.
Has anyone pointed out yet that the purpose of the NIF is
weapons research, not energy production? They used
lasers designed several decades ago - knowing that they
aren't useful for power production, but are useful for
creating high-energy neutrons that can be used to test
materials for the weapons systems. Which was the primary
purpose of the experiment in question. The fact that
it was over-unity in some fashion, was interesting, but
not the purpose of the experiment.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 19:53:48 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
But perhaps I was an unclear as I found the article.
Has anyone pointed out yet that the purpose of the NIF is
weapons research, not energy production? They used
lasers designed several decades ago - knowing that they
aren't useful for power production, but are useful for
creating high-energy neutrons that can be used to test
materials for the weapons systems. Which was the primary
purpose of the experiment in question. The fact that
it was over-unity in some fashion, was interesting, but
not the purpose of the experiment.
The article didn't -- as best I can recall.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 19:53:48 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote:
But perhaps I was an unclear as I found the article.
Has anyone pointed out yet that the purpose of the NIF is
weapons research, not energy production? They used
lasers designed several decades ago - knowing that they
aren't useful for power production, but are useful for
creating high-energy neutrons that can be used to test
materials for the weapons systems. Which was the primary
purpose of the experiment in question. The fact that
it was over-unity in some fashion, was interesting, but
not the purpose of the experiment.
The article didn't -- as best I can recall.
Well, there's your problem. I suggest you watch the
50 minute long panel discussion with the scientists at LLNL
that ran the experiment. Every question that's been
asked in this thread is answered in that discussion.
Don't bother with news outlets (science or general), their selective reporting >is worthless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmzep3YaRNI
n Mon, 13 Feb 2023 16:49:47 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 19:53:48 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>wrote:
But perhaps I was an unclear as I found the article.
Has anyone pointed out yet that the purpose of the NIF is
weapons research, not energy production? They used
lasers designed several decades ago - knowing that they
aren't useful for power production, but are useful for
creating high-energy neutrons that can be used to test
materials for the weapons systems. Which was the primary
purpose of the experiment in question. The fact that
it was over-unity in some fashion, was interesting, but
not the purpose of the experiment.
The article didn't -- as best I can recall.
Well, there's your problem. I suggest you watch the
50 minute long panel discussion with the scientists at LLNL
that ran the experiment. Every question that's been
asked in this thread is answered in that discussion.
Don't bother with news outlets (science or general), their selective = >reporting
is worthless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DCmzep3YaRNI
Sorry, I am too busy enjoying my retirement to watch 50-minute panel >discussions.
And /Science News/ is pretty good.
So, your theory is they were /really/ interested in developing a
fusion bomb that needed an awful lot of lasers? Or something like
that?
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:10:53 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
particularSo, your theory is they were /really/ interested in developing a
fusion bomb that needed an awful lot of lasers? Or something like
that?
It's not a theory. Watch the damn video instead of speculating >>baselessly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility
"It supports nuclear weapon maintenance and design by studying
the behavior of matter under the conditions found within nuclear
explosions."
They talk about that specifically in the panel discussion; this =
shot tested the effects of high-energy neutrons on certain materials >>(presumably those used in the physics package for an explosive nuclear = >device).
Sounds like an excuse for using all that equipment to study physics
when they are supposed to be developing weapons to me.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
n Mon, 13 Feb 2023 16:49:47 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 19:53:48 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>>>wrote:
But perhaps I was an unclear as I found the article.
Has anyone pointed out yet that the purpose of the NIF is
weapons research, not energy production? They used
lasers designed several decades ago - knowing that they
aren't useful for power production, but are useful for
creating high-energy neutrons that can be used to test
materials for the weapons systems. Which was the primary
purpose of the experiment in question. The fact that
it was over-unity in some fashion, was interesting, but
not the purpose of the experiment.
The article didn't -- as best I can recall.
Well, there's your problem. I suggest you watch the
50 minute long panel discussion with the scientists at LLNL
that ran the experiment. Every question that's been
asked in this thread is answered in that discussion.
Don't bother with news outlets (science or general), their selective = >>reporting
is worthless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DCmzep3YaRNI
Sorry, I am too busy enjoying my retirement to watch 50-minute panel >>discussions.
Come now, it's very interesting and educational. Education is never
a waste of time. And given the amount of time you spend on usenet....
And /Science News/ is pretty good.
But apparently not good enough.
So, your theory is they were /really/ interested in developing a
fusion bomb that needed an awful lot of lasers? Or something like
that?
It's not a theory. Watch the damn video instead of speculating
baselessly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility
"It supports nuclear weapon maintenance and design by studying
the behavior of matter under the conditions found within nuclear
explosions."
They talk about that specifically in the panel discussion; this particular >shot tested the effects of high-energy neutrons on certain materials >(presumably those used in the physics package for an explosive nuclear device).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 155:18:39 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,848 |