Jump to content
Z10

Can have achieve nuclear fusion?

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

Can technically do this reaction with a good performance and a very high level of security? Because there is more news on the merger.

There is a limit of mass or energy to have to stabilize the reaction of fusion it is for that the small sun does not exist. the equations of infinity small to make the fusion will all lead to inculcating more mass to their calculation to be able to cross the condition of infinitely great to have an energy of a sun to allow the fusion to stabilize itself. because our experience to have a stable fusion is made in the infinitely large so we must also respect the condition of having a solar mass energy to stabilize the fusion.

LINK DELETED

 

Edited by Strange
Removed link to another forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Z10 said:

Can technically do this reaction with a good performance and a very high level of security? Because there is more news on the merger.

A lot of work is being done to develop this, but it seems to always be some way in the future.

What news are you referring to? The only thing I could find is: https://futurism.com/fusion-reactors-efficient

Quote

the plasma in experimental fusion reactors can generate waves that push around high-energy particles. Those waves can grow so big that the particles are actually driven outside of the reactor altogether, taking with them some of the energy needed for the fusion reaction.

The new DOE research describes complex computer simulations that can track and predict these waves, giving physicists new avenues to prevent them and keep these particles right where they belong.

But this seems to be very preliminary work that could take many years to make any practical difference (sounds familiar).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

his experiments to stabilize the fusion are made in the infinitely big. it is necessary to respect the condition of infinitely great to have a solar energy to stabilize it. look here the latest news of the fusion a plasma stabilizer of 27000 ton and it is not on to function because it takes a solar mass to stabilize it in the infinitely large.

https://www.developpez.com/actu/240750/Des-scientifiques-decouvrent-un-procede-qui-stabilise-les-plasmas-de-fusion-dans-les-tokamaks-la-perspective-d-une-nouvelle-source-d-energie-propre/

Edited by Z10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will I receive a price for this demonstration that the stabilization of the fusion is impossible on earth will avoid losing billions of money for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Z10 said:

will I receive a price for this demonstration that the stabilization of the fusion is impossible on earth will avoid losing billions of money for nothing.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You have posted a link to a news story in French (which appears to be a translation of this: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-stabilizes-fusion-plasmas.html). The news story seems to be about better ways to improve the stability of fusion reactors, and the same thing I linked to earlier.

Why would you get a prize for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in its experiments the plasma stabilizer is estimated at 35000 ton is it is not on to stabilize the fusion because it needs a level of solar energy to stabilize.
therefore it is impossible to stabilize the fusion in the long term its having a level of solar energy.
if the stabilization of the fusion is impossible without a level of solar energy then it is useless to invest on ca billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Z10 said:

in its experiments the plasma stabilizer is estimated at 35000 ton is it is not on to stabilize the fusion because it needs a level of solar energy to stabilize.
therefore it is impossible to stabilize the fusion in the long term its having a level of solar energy.
if the stabilization of the fusion is impossible without a level of solar energy then it is useless to invest on ca billion.

The articles you quote disagree with you. There is no evidence that it is impossible to stabilise fusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this experiment just shows that it takes a huge mass to stabilize the fusion and it will not be enough because it takes a solar energy to stabilize the reaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Z10 said:

this experiment just shows that it takes a huge mass to stabilize the fusion and it will not be enough because it takes a solar energy to stabilize the reaction

1. There was no experiment, the news story is about theoretical work.

2. It doesn't say anything about the mass required.

3. Your claim about it requiring "solar energy to stabilise the reaction" is unsupported by any evidence.

If you are unable to support your claim, I will request this thread is closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fusion is pretty stable in small scale experiments.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-view-of-the-LBNL-D-T-sealed-tube-neutron-generator-prototype_fig1_253185937

 

So this is plainly wrong

3 hours ago, Z10 said:

this experiment just shows that it takes a huge mass to stabilize the fusion and it will not be enough because it takes a solar energy to stabilize the reaction

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Z10 said:

in its experiments the plasma stabilizer is estimated at 35000 ton is it is not on to stabilize the fusion because it needs a level of solar energy to stabilize.
therefore it is impossible to stabilize the fusion in the long term its having a level of solar energy.
if the stabilization of the fusion is impossible without a level of solar energy then it is useless to invest on ca billion.

There’s nothing magical about solar energy. Electricity does not behave differently because of the source 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

my idea is probably dumb, but i just wached a video about fussion and the guy said that the fusion reactors temperatures get higher than the center of the sun so what if that is the problem, why don't we take examples from the sun and don't make it hotter. Please if someone could explain if that is possible and if not why? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GosheTo said:

Hello,

my idea is probably dumb, but i just wached a video about fussion and the guy said that the fusion reactors temperatures get higher than the center of the sun so what if that is the problem, why don't we take examples from the sun and don't make it hotter. Please if someone could explain if that is possible and if not why? Thanks.

That's a fair question.

Presumably your video included some description of a ball of gas being made of molecules flying around inside the ball and constantly bumping into each other?

The average speed of the molecules tells us (determines) the temperature of the ball.

But like all averages, some molecular speeds will be faster than this average and some will be slower.

Molecules that collide head on get slower and molecules that collide sideways can get faster.

So molecules are always changing their speed.

The faster a molecule is going the more energy it has

So the higher the temperature of the ball the higher the average speed.

In order to initiate fusion the impact has to involve a threshold or minimum amount of energy.

So this means a minimum speed of impact (head on) between two fast molecules.

 

OK so that's how fusion can start, what does that mean for fusion?

Well two things.

The bigger the ball, the more chance there is of a series of collisions adding up to some fast enough molecules to fuse on collision.

Or the higher the temperature of the ball the fewer the number of suitable collisions required to speed up a few molecules to fusion speed.

 

The Sun is a very large ball of gas so it can initiate fusion at a lower temperature than a smaller ball on Earth or elsewhere.

 

So either we make a ball of gas as large as the Sun (impractical) or we work at a higher temperature.

 

Incidentally, the problem with fusion is not reaching the necessary temperatures, that has been done.
It is containing the high temperature plasma (the gas become a plasma at high enough temperatures, but that is another story) long enough to keep the fusion process going.

It is also interesting that the Sun is largely made of Hydrogen, whiklst the molten sore of the Earth is a mixture of ferrous metals and is, in fact, hotter than the Sun (at least at the surface).
But there is no fusion in the Earth's core, because hydrogen is a lot easier to fuse than 'heavier' elements.

 

Does this help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

 It is also interesting that the Sun is largely made of Hydrogen, whiklst the molten sore of the Earth is a mixture of ferrous metals and is, in fact, hotter than the Sun (at least at the surface).

But there is no fusion in the Earth's core, because hydrogen is a lot easier to fuse than 'heavier' elements.

That's not really the appropriate comparison. Fusion takes place in the sun's core, not the surface. It's much hotter in the sun's core.

—————

 

Fusion in reactors is typically not p-p fusion as takes place in the sun. The reaction rate for that is really, really small (~billion year lifetime. It works for the sun because it's so big) Which means that some comparisons are not apples-to-apples (or protons-to-protons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.