US Navy just patented a very compact fusion reactor.

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Jandor, Oct 15, 2019.

  1. Rockenrooster

    Rockenrooster Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    410
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Lol my dad has a 2012 Hyundai Equus that he got for 12k and my bro just got a 2014 Genesis rspec for 16k.
    Both 5.0 V8s 429HP...
    I just think that buying brand new is not a good idea unless you can afford it, even then the depreciation......
    Just don't buy new lol... Problem fixed
    I wonder how electric cars will age...

    As far as fusion, I think its cool that they're coming up with clever ideas, but I hate that its so freakin expensive just to research and try to make one. I think we could to better by extracting Hydrogen from stuff since its the most abundant element.
    But the problem with that is the amount of electricity needed to get that hydrogen
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
  2. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I'm not so sure that an abundance of electricity, or cheaper electricity, will equate to saving us money out here in Lilitution land. A lot of things that come along are sold to us on the promise that it'll be cheaper for us and yet it doesn't end up working out that way. I used to get my games on disk, in jewel cases, with nice packaging. Now I have to download them myself and pay for the bandwidth to do it, myself. And the price of the games aren't any cheaper and have actually increased a little.

    Initially they'll just claim that they have to recoup the costs of new infrastructure and development, and that will be that, the costs won't decrease, only the profits will increase. Did I tell you that I enjoy my gas guzzling Challenger?
     
    ncjoe likes this.
  3. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    I agree, if people really wanted to make a huge impact, the effort would be in taking used cars and bringing them up to spec with newer technologies. Replace old engines with newer more efficient ones, etc. Use all the old that's still usable and just make it function better.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
    AceGoober likes this.
  4. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    793
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Bah, ice & salt pretty much kill the frame after some time here (I shoot my car yearly against rust but still...) and new techs may or may not be possible to install.
    I love having Android auto, stop & go cruise control (god sent in traffic), magnetic suspension, AWD etc ... I love my ford fusion sport 2017 :) going to program the ECU next summer for almost another 100hp.

    Anyway, old cars are bought by others, how could you purchase used cars if everyone wouldn't buy any new cars ?
    Electric cars are too expensive (for fun cars) and are problematic if you live in big cities (like me), where do you park for recharge... Anyway the pollution made by the batteries alone is really a concern but less here (hydro electricity).
    I think Hydrogen may be a good avenue to explore compared to Batteries.
     
  5. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,095
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Sounds like the tolls on the bridges in our area. We were told the tolls would be for paying off the construction, and maintenance would be based on existing road taxes. That was when tolls were 50 cents. Now the tolls are $6, and set to rise to $10 in the next few years.

    The problem with hydrogen is that you would have to generate about 3-4 times as much power as compared to batteries to power the same vehicle. Electrolysis can reach a theoretical practical maximum of 80% efficiency, while fuel cells in vehicles are typically around 40% efficient, possibly reaching a practical max of around 60%. You also have energy loss when compressing hydrogen.

    I've rented a few hybrid Fusions and they're nice cars for sure. They're usually my pick when a Charger isn't available. The hybrid ones typically come in full luxury trim. Just had one with adaptive cruise (previous ones didn't), and it was super nice in traffic. I want to try adapting that into an older vehicle... after converting it to electric.
     
  6. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Now I really like my Challenger and the Hemi, don't get me wrong. And I would be worrying about someone who preferred to drive an old '68 Charger to work each day over a new one because the new ones are just really nice cars. Today's cars are just so damned nice. Doesn't mean I still wouldn't like to have an old classic cause I can appreciate them for what they are as well.

    And I have no problems with advances in technology and developing better engines, or with new energy sources for cars or whatever else. That's just advancing technology, it's smart, and it's what we have always done. I am against the government pushing the adoption of technology and new energy sources before they are ready for adoption. In fact, I think the government mostly has to stay the fuck out of it all together. They are just doing what they always do, fucking shit up. Incentivizing the adoption of new technologies to our net detriment is self defeating and that's what I see is happening.

    When I left the Army and got my first IT job doing direct system support to our customer, the first thing my new boss told me was;

    "When you are troubleshooting and trying to fix a problem, just don't make it worse."

    Made sense then. Over 20 years later, it still makes sense.
     
  7. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    21,621
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008

    i don't think there's any one perfect solution but i'd rather have the options available. will gas/diesel based vehicles disappear any time soon? probably not. but having options based on your driving habits/distance/area is always a good thing. now if only they could get the prices down to make it affordable and convince some of these gas stations to switch over.. there's absolutely no reason for having 3 gas stations on the same friggin corner of road when you could have 1 be gas, another a charging station and the other one a hydrogen station.

    and agree with icepiper.. the only useful thing they could do right now is force all the manufactures to standardize the damn charging ports.. the rest of it is just a stupid waste of tax payers money and it's not even like it comes back to benefit us either, lol.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    lcpiper likes this.
  8. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I'm with you on the options thing, in that I believe people should be able to choose what works best for them and technologies need to compete on a level playing field for the business. That means the government needs to be very careful about interfering because through our tax dollars they can negatively influence these things. By mandating and subsidizing electric EVs for instance, it's entirely possible that they have created a situation that is in fact, worse than the one they are claiming to be working to improve.

    I do have a problem with your gas station thinking. Those three gas stations are competing for business, our business. They also had to compete for the property they sit on which means gas stations won out over say, a donut shop or rental car company. This is all part of the competitive landscape that makes our business world work. This is also representative of the same competing principles behind why you don't have a charging station sitting there instead. You must ask yourself a question, why isn't there a charging station there, or even better, why do these businesses not offer that service as well. I can get gasoline and diesel, and frequently bio-fuels, LPG, and even racing grade 100+ octane fuel as well. So why no power charging hook-ups?

    I think some might believe that it's because electric is in competition with gas so it's simple greed, etc. I think that's an unrealistic view. Gas companies are not and never have been just gas companies. They are energy companies and they are into the entire range of energy delivery and they will sell and promote what makes good business sense to sell and promote. If there is demand then they will meet it if it makes sense to do so. People are buying EVs so there is at least some market for charging stations and the only reason that makes sense as to why they are not present at gas stations is an economic one. For some reason, they can't do it and make money that is worth the investment. A gas station can make $20 when you fill up your tank or $20 when you top off your batteries, makes no difference, unless of course that I can't actually make the $20 from the electric charge, then there's an issue.

    So this is how I see it. I also think we are actually in agreement right down the line. I doubt you are against competition, just the reality of the situation that is there in front of us because of the way things are. Like an unfortunate side effect. So please don't view this post as being negative toward your comments. I'm an equal opportunity poster and my reply to you is not for you alone, it's a forum :)
     
    sirmonkey1985 likes this.
  9. NickM

    NickM Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    352
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Why would someone go into business with a charging station? So many businesses offer free charging stations on site for their employees.
    Why would someone look at that an go "Naw, I'll go around the corner and pay for it"? That is what subsidies get you, and why an electric car can look appealing. When charging is offered for free in an effort to encourage people to use them, many people will elect to do that instead of paying for hydrocarbon fuels.
     
  10. KD5ZXG

    KD5ZXG Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    424
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    Misdirection, plain and simple. For adversaries to waste time on.
    Let them think we've made something absurd actually work.
    Now safe to pour thier entire military skunkbudget into it.
     
  11. Jandor

    Jandor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    286
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    It seems there are two types of fusion reactors that could be investigated.
    First one is a Polywell type using fusion of Deuterium and Tritium at around 100 millions degrees. This needs expensive fuel and produces huge radioactivity. The Core may be altered after some time and unusable in no time by very energetic neutrons. However on the opposite of the Tokamak the instabilities of the plasma are well contained in the Polywell machine who takes profit of them to heat the plasma. On the Tokamak the instabilities need to be taken care and on the contrary they are a supplemental need of energy. Most scientists think now that the Tokamak approach is the most unintelligent one but there's been to much invested to stop the program now.
    Second one is the Z machine. The interest of the Z machine is that it produces billions of degrees, which leads to Bore Hydrogen Fusion which has 0 radioactivity and emits no neutrons. There is no nuclear pollution resulting from that reactor.
    Problem is a sophisticated Z machine could be also transformed by using a chain reaction into a nuclear bomb. In fact the army is doing a lot of research on that side with the Z machines and this may bring clean nuclear bombs with all the expected effects but without radioactivity which makes a devastating nuclear launch devastating only for the attacked country and the attacker could then occupy the "cleaned" area.
    Actual nuclear bombs using fusion are H bombs, who use a nuclear A bomb with plutonium/uranium to create a fusion reaction by compressing Lithium and Hydrogen atoms. This creates a lot of nuclear waste and radioactivity that will be harmful to both sides.

    A Z machine reactor would use fusion material sealed in pills and integrated into a steel wire, a bit like a tiny light bulb. Once the fusion produced it will fell into a garbage on the ground of the reactor and so on, one reaction every amount of time. So those pills have to be produced in a large amount. It's much of a industrial process than anything extreme since all the materials are easy to find and cheap.
     
  12. Jandor

    Jandor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    286
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Maybe, but then it would seem the Z machine is the way to go because misdirection with no solution yet is kind of ineffective.
     
  13. Derfnofred

    Derfnofred Gawd

    Messages:
    593
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Evidently no one knows that the governments of the world can issue secret patents? This one might be an old design that is now too close to public domain ideas and it was no longer effectively serving its purpose: https://slate.com/technology/2018/0...he-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html

    Certainly doesn't require having anywhere near a working prototype, much less one that has a Q over 1

    I realize it's slate which is going to get ignored by some but it does cover the topic fairly well (at least in scanning)
     
  14. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,522
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    No way! Next you will tell us that they can get secret search warrants.
     
    alxlwson likes this.
  15. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    So I wasn't aware that business were offering free charging. Is it out of the goodness of their hearts or are they receiving some incentives to pay for it?

    Edited: So I started looking and sure enough, the government is incentivizing, hell they are just flat out paying companies to put in charging stations. God damned our government is stupid.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  16. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,567
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I don't actually have a problem with Sneak and Peek search warrants. I just don't see the difference in a Judge authorizing a search of my home while I'm not there, and them showing up while I'm home to do it under my nose. Either way they have to get a Judge to sign off on it. Either way, if I'm dirty then I'm mostly fucked. I guess the big difference is that I may never be made aware that they did the search and didn't find anything, because if they found something I'm pretty sure they'll let me know. So I suppose that for them to get a Judge to sign off on a sneaky, it's probably because I'm pretty fucked already.
     
  17. alxlwson

    alxlwson You Know Where I Live

    Messages:
    6,407
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013

    Problem is, sneak and peeks are issued because they don't have the evidence yet to haul you in. They have a thought, just big enough, to get a judge to write a warrant. They hope to find something on you, but if they don't, they don't want you to know that you're being investigated. They want to catch you doing something. That's a problem with our legal system. They want to catch you after the crime or unsafe act has occured, rather than attempt prevention. Prime example is cops sitting in a on thehiding hole highway. If they actually wanted to make the road safer, they would be out in a highly visible marked vehicle, driving the speed limit. Instead, they drive unmarked cars, while speeding around and hiding in a hole to CATCH someone, rather than PREVENT/DETER.


    Anyway,

    Seems to be a lot of folks in here with very high levels of physics knowledge. I had no idea
     
  18. Derfnofred

    Derfnofred Gawd

    Messages:
    593
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Yeah yeah yeah, I know it's a complete shocker, but a wildly boring alternative to a new carrier being built using superhypersectret-shamwow fusion reactor...
     
  19. Darth Ender

    Darth Ender Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    484
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Whether you believe it is real or not... It would not be the first time the military secretly was ahead of the rest of the world in a particular field of science.

    The only really odd thing is how we are learning about it.
     
  20. Burticus

    Burticus [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,133
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    I was thinking AMD might have some overstock FX 9590 chips....
     
  21. Mega6

    Mega6 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Better last gen than current gen.
     
  22. Jandor

    Jandor Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    286
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2018
    Best solution of today is to keep a used car of quality, you drive for hundreds of thousands miles. I have a lexus is xcross 300 from 2001, I have bought with most of the options, 6 cylinder 213 HP, which is 320 000 km (aka 200 000 miles) now. Works like a clockwork, doesn't ask for much gas. Drives it for 2 times a year in Germany for around 1000 miles each, at top speed on the german freeways at more than 200 km/h when possible. I never had to repair that car and only made basic maintenance. On the other hand I have for Paris and suburbs only, a Smart with 3 cylinder 1l turbo engine 84ch from 2011. It's around 80 000 km now. No problem either, works great, but I had to do repairs and the gas consumption is quite the same as the lexus. Little engine with turbo is in no way any more ecological. I believe it's easier on testing to program the turbo to give favorable figures, but in real life the big engine without a turbo is by far the best in every way. And I had problems with the Smart because this is what happens with little engines turbocharged. I had to replace the turbo once and I had an oil leak because of a oil pump problem (it was the same problem in fact that cause the failure of the turbo). Those cost me a lot. Also the Smart inside is now like an overused car when the Lexus is till like brand new. When considering the energy needed for a car, it is always also overlooked that an old car doesn't have to be rebuilt.

    I believe if there are no big discoveries in making batteries smaller, when the fusions reactors will be common, the future will be hydrogen for cars.
     
  23. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,095
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    For personal vehicles, batteries don't really need to get smaller, as you can cram a heck of a lot of batteries into the skateboard platform. What battery tech needs is fast charge (5 min to 85+%) tech to dominate use in personal vehicles. I personally believe hydrogen was dead the moment lithium ion batteries became mass produced.
     
  24. sirmonkey1985

    sirmonkey1985 [H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010

    Messages:
    21,621
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    in the same boat as you, never owned a new car and have no desire to own a new car.. i just buy dirt cheap used cars and drive em til they die, as long as they last me a year they paid for themselves if they last longer then that's a bonus.

    agree, i think faster fast charging is going to be the primary key to whether or not they because mass purchased not the battery size.. i don't think hydrogen's dead per say but i think it'll be what EV's are right now.. also possible that it'll see more use in the commercial sector than public though.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2019
  25. NightReaver

    NightReaver n00b

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Gonna be a pessimist and assume people will shun fusion and go full NIMBY after seeing a few articles on hydrogen bombs, or hell, even supernovas. Solely based on the fact that the word "fusion" will pop up.

    Why? Look at nuclear. Despite literally only a few incidents and 2 wartime uses long ago, people still spit on the cleanest, safest, most reliable, and most efficient power source humanity has developed so far. Gen IV reactors and breeders are absolute wonders of technology, yet they get dragged through the mud.
     
  26. Mega6

    Mega6 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    You underestimate the size and cost of the two major nuclear disasters so far. Abandoned land and cleanup costs in the several hundred billion range. Only China is building like crazy because they don’t give a crap about safety or humans. Haven’t built a reactor in the US since what? Three mile island. Europe is decomming, Russia is decomming. And we still don’t know where to put the byproduct.
     
    jimbob200521 likes this.
  27. NightReaver

    NightReaver n00b

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    That has no correlation to modern Gen IV designs that are world's apart from earlier reactors. When will people get over nuclear?
     
  28. Mega6

    Mega6 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    well if u care to check, gen IV designs - they are NOT ready. Wait a few years before you panic.

    “The majority of the 6 designs are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction until 2020–30”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
     
  29. NightReaver

    NightReaver n00b

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Even when they are though, we'll still ignore them and lament about why we can't have clean energy. Nuclear is still the safest large scale energy we have, even when factoring those 3 incidents. But to this day people still have an axe to grind. I really hope that people treat fusion differently, whenever we get to it.
     
  30. Rizen

    Rizen [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,225
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    China is investing in thorium salt reactor research heavily. Thorium reactors are a significantly different and safer design than what is in use today. Honestly the US should really be investing in these.

    Highly recommend anyone who is interested in nuclear read this book: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?as...linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_I8DTDbW8S74BK

    Really great and informative read on nuclear reactor technology, the history of the science, and the disasters that have occurred.
     
    NightReaver likes this.
  31. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,095
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Fast reactors are a perfectly viable method of turning long-lived highly active byproducts into short-lived active and long-lived inactive ones while generating a ton more usable energy out of the same fuel.

    What are the long term costs of continuing to use oil and coal? What is the environmental damage from building enough batteries to make sporadic green tech like solar and wind viable? Every technology is not without its downside, and fusion is that we might not ever get it to the point of being a viable energy creation source.
     
  32. Mega6

    Mega6 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Maybe not maybe so. Let China spend the money and see if they work or they blow themselves up first. I don’t see a problem in waiting as we are the largest oil producer in the world right now. Gas is cheap.
     
  33. NightReaver

    NightReaver n00b

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Even today's reactors have shown for decades to be extremely safe when properly built and maintained. Just ask France and the US Navy. Oil spills have caused much more damage than nuclear incidents, yet we build it up even more. China emits untold levels of pollution producing "green" solar cells and batteries. I just think nuclear gets a very bad rep for no good reason.

    It's like people watch the Simpsons and think that's your average plant operator.
     
  34. Mega6

    Mega6 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    $ of cleanup vs $ of energy produced. Nuclear loses big time. Stop the infatuation.
     
  35. gigaxtreme1

    gigaxtreme1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,520
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Liquid salt Thorium reactors can actually burn through the backlog of nuclear waste. Waste products from LST reactors are removed, which have much shorter half lives, and fissile materials returned to the salt matrix. A idea abandoned because the fuel is much harder to weaponize? You be the judge.
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/02/26/molten-salt-nuclear-reactors/
     
    uberjon likes this.
  36. NightReaver

    NightReaver n00b

    Messages:
    60
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Not even talking just cleanup costs. What has the cost of human lives been? US nuclear power stands at, well, zero deaths I think? Truly amazing.
     
  37. Mega6

    Mega6 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    Look disadvantages category - too numerous to mention.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
     
  38. Skillz

    Skillz [H]ard DCOTY 2017

    Messages:
    22,040
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    That's not really true.

    Sure, the price hasn't changed much since say 1999. Let's say the cost of a game was $60 back then. $60 in 1999 is equal to $90 today. Games do not cost us $90, even if you add in the average cost of bandwidth.
     
  39. Derfnofred

    Derfnofred Gawd

    Messages:
    593
    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    You've already made the case that this isn't a rational argument for you, as like the grand majority of the US (and nuclear-capable countries), -- blind eye to the ugliness (often hidden to developing world/Middle East) to oil and its *enormous* externalities and hyping the problems with nuclear power. Nuclear is absolutely not without its faults, but irrational fear (how much engendered by living under a cloud of cold war?) grips the world population while we're totally comfortable not paying attention to the known problems with other energy sources.

    There's an analytical chemistry technique called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy which looks at the relaxation time of molecules to an applied magnetic field. Ever gotten a soft tissue injury that required a MRI? SAME FREAKING THING. People lose their freaking minds about radiation and nuclear without having a grasp of the greater complexity. (Same thing with the "scary chemicals" in foods, where it's fun to troll people by naming vitamins by their IUPAC names and seeing them freak out about it).

    If we could only power society off human ignorance...
     
    GoodBoy and Verado like this.
  40. Mega6

    Mega6 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,156
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    The problem is that i am making the RATIONAL argument, while you idealists parlay Nuclear Power as the god saving grace like children of the '50's. Economics and Cost-Effectiveness all go in the the equation. It's not fear, as so much cost and return benefit as well as risk. Solar, Wind and Ocean Currents are probably better choices here than Nuclear which has been proven costly, risky and questionable over the last 75 years,
     
Tags: