Construction of French Fusion Reactor Underway - Polidicks

If this Fusion Reactor is completed and works, it will probably replace nuclear and fossil fuel power in the more developed countries. :)

[QUOTE=Timenova;24860445]If this Fusion Reactor is completed and works, it will probably replace nuclear and fossil fuel power in the more developed countries. :)[/QUOTE] No, [i]this[/i] reactor is only for scientific purposes and won't even power a generator.

The French are already way ahead of everyone else in nuclear technology. I'd like to see how this turns out.

People do realise they are unlikely to break even on Energy Input:Output, right?

Free Energy it still science fiction :frown:

[QUOTE=Haywood;24860760]The French are already way ahead of everyone else in nuclear technology. I'd like to see how this turns out.[/QUOTE] It's not French god damnit. It's built in France, but not even half of the people working on it ever were in France.

Sacre bleu!

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;24862150]It's not French god damnit. It's built in France, but not even half of the people working on it ever were in France.[/QUOTE] No point telling that. This is ITER. [img]http://www.oeaw.ac.at/euratom/Bilder/Official_ITER_Logo.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Swebonny;24862366]No point telling that. This is ITER. [img]http://www.oeaw.ac.at/euratom/Bilder/Official_ITER_Logo.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Read my 2 previous posts.

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;24860815]People do realise they are unlikely to break even on Energy Input:Output, right?[/QUOTE] Dude, this thing is designed to provide ten times as much power as is put into it.

Yeah it's not only French, there are a lot of countries in it: [quote]At the June 2005 conference in Moscow the participating members of the ITER cooperation agreed on the following division of funding contributions: 50% by the hosting member, the European Union and 10% by each non-hosting member. According to sources at the ITER meeting at Jeju, Korea, the six non-host partners will now contribute 6/11th of the total cost — a little over half — while EU will put in the rest. As for the industrial contribution, China, India, Korea, Russia, and the U.S. will contribute 1/11th each, Japan 2/11th, and EU 4/11th.[16][/quote]

[QUOTE=Yahnich;24866004]This is the prototype of all fusion reactors. Chances are it won't be nearly as effective as they hope it'll be. But progress is progress damnit.[/QUOTE] The output = 10x input is their minimum goal. It will happen.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;24865401]Read my 2 previous posts.[/QUOTE] I know, that's why I posted that image. It's not made by France, yes.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;24858506]Wow. Damn. If there was to be a REALLY miniature version of this, would laser, plasma and such weapons be theoretically possible? Such things require a lot of energy, so could this be the answer? Well, we'd of course need something to spew the plasma from the barrel, and we'd also need something that the plasma wouldn't damage to build the chamber and barrel from, but still? Just asking.[/QUOTE] We don't have the control over magnetic fields to use plasma weaponry in any other way than flamethrowers. Lasers are theoretically possible, yes, but pointless for combat.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;24858506]Wow. Damn. If there was to be a REALLY miniature version of this, would laser, plasma and such weapons be theoretically possible? Such things require a lot of energy, so could this be the answer? Well, we'd of course need something to spew the plasma from the barrel, and we'd also need something that the plasma wouldn't damage to build the chamber and barrel from, but still? Just asking.[/QUOTE] You dont seem to understand the process of "generating" energy. Fusion Energy doesnt mean some bizarre shit going down in a tube that will somehow turn cogs and wheels and magically generate electricity or some shit. Same with nuclear power. the radioactive parts dont magically do something to suddenly generate power. All fusion (and nuclear) does is generate heat. That heat will then be used to turn water into steam which will then power a generator. A fancy steam engine if you will. It's not gonna be a big ball o' energy that you can, i dunno put the plug of your anal vibrator in and then boom it works or cram it in a gun and fire it at shit. Sounds hella less fancy huh. So no laser weapons for you man.

Well, I don't know shit about science, was just guessing. Thanks for the info.

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;24868087]You dont seem to understand the process of "generating" energy. Fusion Energy doesnt mean some bizarre shit going down in a tube that will somehow turn cogs and wheels and magically generate electricity or some shit. Same with nuclear power. the radioactive parts dont magically do something to suddenly generate power. All fusion (and nuclear) does is generate heat. That heat will then be used to turn water into steam which will then power a generator. A fancy steam engine if you will. It's not gonna be a big ball o' energy that you can, i dunno put the plug of your anal vibrator in and then boom it works or cram it in a gun and fire it at shit. Sounds hella less fancy huh. So no laser weapons for you man.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.freeinfosociety.com/images/science/nuclearenergy1.jpg[/img] The concept is quite simple.

[QUOTE=Jallen;24858309]Gah I live too close to france. I don't want to die :([/QUOTE] It can't blow up by the nuclear reaction. Just the containment-coils can once they lose their superconducting phase. Then the enormous amount of current in the coil will suddenly feel a resistance so the coil heat and blows up. This will damage the reactor chamber but nothing more. [editline]03:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Clavus;24858776]To elaborate the reason why theres still radioactive material even though the fusion reaction doesn't use or generate radioactive elements itself: from what I read, 'normal' nuclear fission power is still required to get the fusion reaction going, so there's still some radioactive material used in the whole process.[/QUOTE] You got that somehow wrong. During the process of fusion using deuterium (one proton, one neutron) and tritium (one proton, two neutrons), you gain helium (two protons, two neutrons) + one neutron. This process gains more energy than using just Deuterium. Also you get one neutron which can activate non-radioactive materials. You might think this is a problem but actually this can be used to breed Tritium out of Lithium (Li + n -> He + T). Yes, there is a little less radioactive waste, but it's negligible and the most isotopes which are getting created decay fast. [editline]03:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=thirty9th;24859031]Problem is, they're forging away at this even though it's extremely costly.[/QUOTE] ITER costs (estimated so far): €15 billion. Iraq war costs: [URL="http://costofwar.com/"]$750 billion[/URL] Oh hey, lets ask the US for 50 ITER reactors. Yes, the ITER is expensive if you compare that to your income. But every state of the G8 spends a shitload more money than the ITER actually costs.

I remain pessimistic that this will ever catch on in the United States, do environmentalists view this negatively?

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;24899434]I remain pessimistic that this will ever catch on in the United States, do environmentalists view this negatively?[/QUOTE] The United States is helping work on it... And no, they probably won't seeing as fusion is by far the best form of energy production that exists and has very little pollution compared to fission.

WE GON HAVE TO BLOW UP DEM FRENCHIES BECUZ DEY CULD SUPORT TEH TERRORISTZ! /caps

Oh man guys fusion power I CAN'T FUCKING WAIT