Discussion:
WI: Commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion
(too old to reply)
jerry kraus
2018-04-11 13:09:47 UTC
Permalink
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true. What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out! Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
SolomonW
2018-04-12 01:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation

Less coal

Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
jerry kraus
2018-04-12 13:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?

One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
SolomonW
2018-04-13 01:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-13 03:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
No, actually the various Star Trek ships used Matter/Anti-Matter
annihilation as their power source.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
jerry kraus
2018-04-13 13:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, actually the various Star Trek ships used Matter/Anti-Matter
annihilation as their power source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, Dim. And, matter/anti-matter conversion is roughly 300 times more efficient than nuclear fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than nuclear fission, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical reactions.

The real problem, however, isn't the amount of energy required, per se. The real problem is the theoretical limit of 300,000 km/s specified by relativity theory for the speed of light. This would require years to get to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri -- Captain James T. Kirk's birthplace, by the way. And, to deal with that, Star Trek uses the relativistic concept of a Warp Drive, to Warp space-time. Actually, bearing this in mind, energy considerations are scarcely even relevant to Star Trek.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
The Old Man
2018-04-13 17:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, actually the various Star Trek ships used Matter/Anti-Matter
annihilation as their power source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, Dim. And, matter/anti-matter conversion is roughly 300 times more efficient than nuclear fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than nuclear fission, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical reactions.
The real problem, however, isn't the amount of energy required, per se. The real problem is the theoretical limit of 300,000 km/s specified by relativity theory for the speed of light. This would require years to get to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri -- Captain James T. Kirk's birthplace, by the way. And, to deal with that, Star Trek uses the relativistic concept of a Warp Drive, to Warp space-time. Actually, bearing this in mind, energy considerations are scarcely even relevant to Star Trek.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
As usual, you're quite incorrect. The Warp Drive Theory bypassed the Speed of Light maximum because it created a Warp Bubble which negated the mass of anything IN the bubble, allowing it to travel faster than the Speed of Light. BTW, NASA (those folks that you seem to despise) has been doing research along these lines for the past ten or fifteen years and made some impressive theoretical progress. They are absolutely nowhere near actually building such a craft, but it's a start.
And for your information, according to Star Trek Canon, Kirk was born in Iowa.

8^P

Regards,
John Braungart
jerry kraus
2018-04-13 18:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by jerry kraus
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, actually the various Star Trek ships used Matter/Anti-Matter
annihilation as their power source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, Dim. And, matter/anti-matter conversion is roughly 300 times more efficient than nuclear fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than nuclear fission, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical reactions.
The real problem, however, isn't the amount of energy required, per se. The real problem is the theoretical limit of 300,000 km/s specified by relativity theory for the speed of light. This would require years to get to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri -- Captain James T. Kirk's birthplace, by the way. And, to deal with that, Star Trek uses the relativistic concept of a Warp Drive, to Warp space-time. Actually, bearing this in mind, energy considerations are scarcely even relevant to Star Trek.
Post by Dimensional Traveler
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
As usual, you're quite incorrect. The Warp Drive Theory bypassed the Speed of Light maximum because it created a Warp Bubble which negated the mass of anything IN the bubble, allowing it to travel faster than the Speed of Light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, that does sound rather like warping the space-time continuum, to me anyway. Also, it tends to make energy considerations irrelevant, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, NASA (those folks that you seem to despise) has been doing research along these lines for the past ten or fifteen years and made some impressive theoretical progress. They are absolutely nowhere near actually building such a craft, but it's a start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummmmm...John...how do you really know it's a "start", if what they have is "impressive theoretical progress"? Given your bureaucratic FBI background, surely you can smell disinformation, when you come across it. What are you expecting them to say: "Well, actually, we've just been totally blowing taxpayer money doing diddley-squat other than navel-gazing, but, hey, it's a living!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by The Old Man
And for your information, according to Star Trek Canon, Kirk was born in Iowa.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Alpha_Centauri

Sorry, John. I was just quoting from the classic episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday", where Kirk describes himself as "a little green man from Alpha Centauri," , to his air force captor in 1969. I'd always thought he was telling the truth! Not the green part, of course. Although, he does make it with a green girl, as a I recall, in another "classic" episode.
Post by The Old Man
8^P
Regards,
John Braungart
The Old Man
2018-04-13 19:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
Post by The Old Man
Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, actually the various Star Trek ships used Matter/Anti-Matter
annihilation as their power source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, Dim. And, matter/anti-matter conversion is roughly 300 times more efficient than nuclear fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than nuclear fission, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical reactions.
The real problem, however, isn't the amount of energy required, per se. The real problem is the theoretical limit of 300,000 km/s specified by relativity theory for the speed of light. This would require years to get to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri -- Captain James T. Kirk's birthplace, by the way. And, to deal with that, Star Trek uses the relativistic concept of a Warp Drive, to Warp space-time. Actually, bearing this in mind, energy considerations are scarcely even relevant to Star Trek.
As usual, you're quite incorrect. The Warp Drive Theory bypassed the Speed of Light maximum because it created a Warp Bubble which negated the mass of anything IN the bubble, allowing it to travel faster than the Speed of Light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, that does sound rather like warping the space-time continuum, to me anyway. Also, it tends to make energy considerations irrelevant, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, NASA (those folks that you seem to despise) has been doing research along these lines for the past ten or fifteen years and made some impressive theoretical progress. They are absolutely nowhere near actually building such a craft, but it's a start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummmmm...John...how do you really know it's a "start", if what they have is "impressive theoretical progress"? Given your bureaucratic FBI background, surely you can smell disinformation, when you come across it. What are you expecting them to say: "Well, actually, we've just been totally blowing taxpayer money doing diddley-squat other than navel-gazing, but, hey, it's a living!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I read about a proposed matter/antimatter annihilation in several science publications; Discovery and Popular Science, among others. A Google search might find you something including images. The ship that NASA showed was about the size of a B-52 bomber (sans wings) if I recall correctly. Happy searching!

Regards,
John Braungart
jerry kraus
2018-04-13 20:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by jerry kraus
Post by The Old Man
Post by jerry kraus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, actually the various Star Trek ships used Matter/Anti-Matter
annihilation as their power source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, Dim. And, matter/anti-matter conversion is roughly 300 times more efficient than nuclear fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than nuclear fission, which is orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical reactions.
The real problem, however, isn't the amount of energy required, per se. The real problem is the theoretical limit of 300,000 km/s specified by relativity theory for the speed of light. This would require years to get to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri -- Captain James T. Kirk's birthplace, by the way. And, to deal with that, Star Trek uses the relativistic concept of a Warp Drive, to Warp space-time. Actually, bearing this in mind, energy considerations are scarcely even relevant to Star Trek.
As usual, you're quite incorrect. The Warp Drive Theory bypassed the Speed of Light maximum because it created a Warp Bubble which negated the mass of anything IN the bubble, allowing it to travel faster than the Speed of Light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, that does sound rather like warping the space-time continuum, to me anyway. Also, it tends to make energy considerations irrelevant, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, NASA (those folks that you seem to despise) has been doing research along these lines for the past ten or fifteen years and made some impressive theoretical progress. They are absolutely nowhere near actually building such a craft, but it's a start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummmmm...John...how do you really know it's a "start", if what they have is "impressive theoretical progress"? Given your bureaucratic FBI background, surely you can smell disinformation, when you come across it. What are you expecting them to say: "Well, actually, we've just been totally blowing taxpayer money doing diddley-squat other than navel-gazing, but, hey, it's a living!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I read about a proposed matter/antimatter annihilation in several science publications; Discovery and Popular Science, among others. A Google search might find you something including images. The ship that NASA showed was about the size of a B-52 bomber (sans wings) if I recall correctly. Happy searching!
Regards,
John Braungart
Oh, matter/antimatter annihilation is standard science, but difficult to do. Has nothing to do with Warp Drives, per se, however. The latter are a purely speculative, theoretical construct. And, matter/antimatter annihilation won't get you past the speed of light, if Einstein is correct. Fortunately, I doubt that he is.
SolomonW
2018-04-14 09:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
No, actually the various Star Trek ships used Matter/Anti-Matter
annihilation as their power source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_drive




The main source is fusion.
The Old Man
2018-04-13 12:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
According to the various Star Trek technical manuals, the only way that the Enterprise uses fusion is to power their IMpulse engines, that being "old technology". And let's remember that (unfortunately) it's fictional.....

Regards,
John Braungart
SolomonW
2018-04-14 09:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
According to the various Star Trek technical manuals, the only way that the Enterprise uses fusion is to power their IMpulse engines, that being "old technology". And let's remember that (unfortunately) it's fictional.....
Regards,
John Braungart
The main power is fusion but the warp drive uses antimatter.

.
jerry kraus
2018-04-16 13:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Old Man
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
According to the various Star Trek technical manuals, the only way that the Enterprise uses fusion is to power their IMpulse engines, that being "old technology". And let's remember that (unfortunately) it's fictional.....
Regards,
John Braungart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
The main power is fusion but the warp drive uses antimatter.
Antimatter powers the Warp Drive in Star Trek, but, there's actually no connection between the two, in real physics. Antimatter/matter annihilation is simply the most efficient power source physics can currently conceive of, and, it has been tested to some extent on a very limited scale in the laboratory. Warp Drives are speculative constructs that probably don't exist, at all.
Post by SolomonW
.
SolomonW
2018-04-17 00:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Old Man
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
According to the various Star Trek technical manuals, the only way that the Enterprise uses fusion is to power their IMpulse engines, that being "old technology". And let's remember that (unfortunately) it's fictional.....
Regards,
John Braungart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
The main power is fusion but the warp drive uses antimatter.
Antimatter powers the Warp Drive in Star Trek, but, there's actually no connection between the two, in real physics. Antimatter/matter annihilation is simply the most efficient power source physics can currently conceive of, and,
Which is why Scotty is always worried about the dilithium crystals
Post by jerry kraus
it has been tested to some extent on a very limited scale in the laboratory. Warp Drives are speculative constructs that probably don't exist, at all.
Post by SolomonW
.
jerry kraus
2018-04-17 13:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Old Man
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
According to the various Star Trek technical manuals, the only way that the Enterprise uses fusion is to power their IMpulse engines, that being "old technology". And let's remember that (unfortunately) it's fictional.....
Regards,
John Braungart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
The main power is fusion but the warp drive uses antimatter.
Antimatter powers the Warp Drive in Star Trek, but, there's actually no connection between the two, in real physics. Antimatter/matter annihilation is simply the most efficient power source physics can currently conceive of, and,
Which is why Scotty is always worried about the dilithium crystals
Post by jerry kraus
it has been tested to some extent on a very limited scale in the laboratory. Warp Drives are speculative constructs that probably don't exist, at all.
Post by SolomonW
.
Excellent Solomon! Yes, I've haven't thought Dilithium Crystals in years, makes me very nostalgic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek)

Now, Dilithium crystals are a fictional substance, created to control an actual, demonstrated phenomenon in physics, matter-antimatter annihilation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Actually, we can have matter-antimatter conversion without these purely hypothetical dilithium crystals. They're just supposed to make it easy and efficient to do.

On the other hand, even all this, isn't sufficient to give us the Warp Drive, in the Star Trek universe. It would just give us a great deal of energy, but, Einstein's relativistic limitations on going faster than the speed of light should still apply, according to most of conventional physics, as currently understood. Even Dilithium crystals and matter-antimatter conversion on a large scale should not be sufficient to achieve speeds faster than 300,000 km/s.

For the Warp Drive we need something else. We need Warp Nacelles, to structurally warp the configuration of space-time -- whatever that means, exactly!

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Nacelle

The matter-antimatter annihilation powers the Warp Nacelles, which somehow "warp" space-time, to allow faster than light travel. Pure fiction, of course.

What I really hope, is that if we ever can achieve near light speeds with normal sized objects, nothing much in the way of relativistic effects happen at all, and we can just keep getting faster and faster, indefinitely!

Now, that doesn't seem to be the case with sub-atomic particles in an accelerator. But, that's a rather abstract situation, that may not apply to the "real world", of normal sized objects in space, you know.
SolomonW
2018-04-18 07:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Old Man
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
According to the various Star Trek technical manuals, the only way that the Enterprise uses fusion is to power their IMpulse engines, that being "old technology". And let's remember that (unfortunately) it's fictional.....
Regards,
John Braungart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
The main power is fusion but the warp drive uses antimatter.
Antimatter powers the Warp Drive in Star Trek, but, there's actually no connection between the two, in real physics. Antimatter/matter annihilation is simply the most efficient power source physics can currently conceive of, and,
Which is why Scotty is always worried about the dilithium crystals
Post by jerry kraus
it has been tested to some extent on a very limited scale in the laboratory. Warp Drives are speculative constructs that probably don't exist, at all.
Post by SolomonW
.
Excellent Solomon! Yes, I've haven't thought Dilithium Crystals in years, makes me very nostalgic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek)
Now, Dilithium crystals are a fictional substance, created to control an actual, demonstrated phenomenon in physics, matter-antimatter annihilation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
Actually, we can have matter-antimatter conversion without these purely hypothetical dilithium crystals. They're just supposed to make it easy and efficient to do.
On the other hand, even all this, isn't sufficient to give us the Warp Drive, in the Star Trek universe. It would just give us a great deal of energy, but, Einstein's relativistic limitations on going faster than the speed of light should still apply, according to most of conventional physics, as currently understood. Even Dilithium crystals and matter-antimatter conversion on a large scale should not be sufficient to achieve speeds faster than 300,000 km/s.
For the Warp Drive we need something else. We need Warp Nacelles, to structurally warp the configuration of space-time -- whatever that means, exactly!
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Nacelle
The matter-antimatter annihilation powers the Warp Nacelles, which somehow "warp" space-time, to allow faster than light travel. Pure fiction, of course.
What I really hope, is that if we ever can achieve near light speeds with normal sized objects, nothing much in the way of relativistic effects happen at all, and we can just keep getting faster and faster, indefinitely!
Now, that doesn't seem to be the case with sub-atomic particles in an accelerator. But, that's a rather abstract situation, that may not apply to the "real world", of normal sized objects in space, you know.
When a director of Startrek was told that it would be impossible for the
ship to go faster than light, he replied "Of course, course it can, the
Captain said 'engage' and off it goes"
jerry kraus
2018-04-18 12:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by The Old Man
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
Post by SolomonW
Post by jerry kraus
So, suppose all those promises from the past ninety years or so of controlled, commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion actually came true.
There are many promises, which ones?
Post by jerry kraus
What does this change exactly? Bear in mind, we all thought atomic reactors would solve everyone's problems, too, and, we all know how well that worked out!
It depends who you talk to.
Post by jerry kraus
Surely, there will be massive maintenance costs and and various unanticipated and significant waste products and dangers, as with absolutely everything else? So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past, really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly? If so, why and how?
Water distillation
Less coal
Considering that coal is much cheaper than petrol now, and we still have
not got a practical car going to be little effect here although synthetic
fuel might be a goer.
OK, Solomon, I'll probably agree with these rather modest advantages. So, like atomic power, certain limited benefits, but, doesn't fundamentally alter our options, significantly. What about space travel? We thought atomic power would help, it hasn't, so far anyway, to any great degree, anyway. Can we become an interplanetary, or interstellar species with nuclear fusion?
Fusion, I presume would need a large space ship, we are not up to that yet.
Post by jerry kraus
One of the real attractions of science fiction in the mid-twentieth century was the idea of a "new frontier", in space, based on space travel. Does nuclear fusion help us with this?
It will. The star ship enterprise uses fusion.
According to the various Star Trek technical manuals, the only way that the Enterprise uses fusion is to power their IMpulse engines, that being "old technology". And let's remember that (unfortunately) it's fictional.....
Regards,
John Braungart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
The main power is fusion but the warp drive uses antimatter.
Antimatter powers the Warp Drive in Star Trek, but, there's actually no connection between the two, in real physics. Antimatter/matter annihilation is simply the most efficient power source physics can currently conceive of, and,
Which is why Scotty is always worried about the dilithium crystals
Post by jerry kraus
it has been tested to some extent on a very limited scale in the laboratory. Warp Drives are speculative constructs that probably don't exist, at all.
Post by SolomonW
.
Excellent Solomon! Yes, I've haven't thought Dilithium Crystals in years, makes me very nostalgic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek)
Now, Dilithium crystals are a fictional substance, created to control an actual, demonstrated phenomenon in physics, matter-antimatter annihilation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
Actually, we can have matter-antimatter conversion without these purely hypothetical dilithium crystals. They're just supposed to make it easy and efficient to do.
On the other hand, even all this, isn't sufficient to give us the Warp Drive, in the Star Trek universe. It would just give us a great deal of energy, but, Einstein's relativistic limitations on going faster than the speed of light should still apply, according to most of conventional physics, as currently understood. Even Dilithium crystals and matter-antimatter conversion on a large scale should not be sufficient to achieve speeds faster than 300,000 km/s.
For the Warp Drive we need something else. We need Warp Nacelles, to structurally warp the configuration of space-time -- whatever that means, exactly!
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Nacelle
The matter-antimatter annihilation powers the Warp Nacelles, which somehow "warp" space-time, to allow faster than light travel. Pure fiction, of course.
What I really hope, is that if we ever can achieve near light speeds with normal sized objects, nothing much in the way of relativistic effects happen at all, and we can just keep getting faster and faster, indefinitely!
Now, that doesn't seem to be the case with sub-atomic particles in an accelerator. But, that's a rather abstract situation, that may not apply to the "real world", of normal sized objects in space, you know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by SolomonW
When a director of Startrek was told that it would be impossible for the
ship to go faster than light, he replied "Of course, course it can, the
Captain said 'engage' and off it goes"
Kind of like Elon Musk's approach to colonizing Mars, with current technologies.
Ed Stasiak
2018-04-12 16:54:40 UTC
Permalink
jerry kraus
So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past,
really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly?
Can we get a POD?

But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would still
be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants and
vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a backwater.
jerry kraus
2018-04-12 17:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
jerry kraus
So, would commercial nuclear fusion power plants now, or in the past,
really have improved, or even altered the human condition significantly?
Can we get a POD?
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would still
be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants and
vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a backwater.
That's assuming that fusion engines could be miniaturized and safely placed in cars. Given the current Tokamak laser designs, that seems highly unlikely. Temperatures of 100 million degrees are required, sophisticated plasma containment systems. Again, as with atomic energy, do the liabilities largely outweigh the assets, at least given current design approaches?
The Horny Goat
2018-04-12 22:28:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:58:29 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus
Post by jerry kraus
That's assuming that fusion engines could be miniaturized and safely placed in cars. Given the current Tokamak laser designs, that seems highly unlikely. Temperatures of 100 million degrees are required, sophisticated plasma containment systems. Again, as with atomic energy, do the liabilities largely outweigh the assets, at least given current design approaches?
Even if you get such an engine imagine the first time two such
vehicles collide - with combustion chambers running hot enough to
vaporize the entire vehicle I can't imagine they' be too popular even
if authorize on roads by state authorities.

Imagine if you get a rear ender and both vehicles are vaporized!

No - if you get fusion energy it would be chiefly on a city wide basis
and if used for personal transportation at all would be to produce
electric power for charging electric cars.

It's not totally impossible these could be used safely - after all the
United States Navy has NEVER had a fission reactor malfunction.
(Something Jimmy Carter took immense pride in) despite operating SSN's
since the late 50s.
Rich Rostrom
2018-04-12 18:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly
reduced. Sure, oil would still be needed for
lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid
East becomes a backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor
small enough to fit in a motor vehicle or airplane.

(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in
which a car make called the "Fusion Special" played
a part. It was known for making obituary headlines...)
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Pete Barrett
2018-04-13 13:11:51 UTC
Permalink
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).

Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.

Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
--
Pete BARRETT
The Old Man
2018-04-13 17:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).
Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.
Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
--
Pete BARRETT
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, no?

Regards,
John Braungart
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-13 18:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).
Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.
Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, > no?
I want to see video of one of those crossing the Pacific. :)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
The Old Man
2018-04-13 19:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Pete Barrett
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).
Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.
Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, > no?
I want to see video of one of those crossing the Pacific. :)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Okay, I'll rephrase that. The Mag-Lev trains could be mostly underground travelling at extremely high speed. You're right, they won't work as far as I can see transoceanic, but you could have the airports there to fly passengers overseas. Also, cargo and passenger runs would be on different and separate tracks.
Short distance runs for cargo would be in electric trucks power replenished every night in yards.
For passengers going from train to final destination, electronic trams or buses on fixed routes as was once the case in America. In urban areas, subways or buses to take people to work or play and there could also be intercity "smart cars" that could be rented (or leased or purchased if needed) to take families to see loved ones or on vacation.
The above scenario was given to me in 1980 by the fellow who developed 23 separate patents for superconductivity and mag-lev transportation. He unfortunately found out what it was like to go against the established transportation industry.

Regards,
John Braungart
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-13 23:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Pete Barrett
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).
Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.
Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, > no?
I want to see video of one of those crossing the Pacific. :)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Okay, I'll rephrase that. The Mag-Lev trains could be mostly underground travelling at extremely high speed. You're right, they won't work as far as I can see transoceanic, but you could have the airports there to fly passengers overseas. Also, cargo and passenger runs would be on different and separate tracks.
Short distance runs for cargo would be in electric trucks power replenished every night in yards.
For passengers going from train to final destination, electronic trams or buses on fixed routes as was once the case in America. In urban areas, subways or buses to take people to work or play and there could also be intercity "smart cars" that could be rented (or leased or purchased if needed) to take families to see loved ones or on vacation.
The above scenario was given to me in 1980 by the fellow who developed 23 separate patents for superconductivity and mag-lev transportation. He unfortunately found out what it was like to go against the established transportation industry.
I still think it would be cool to see one zooming across the ocean. :)

As for passenger mag-lev train service, in the US we don't currently
have much passenger train service because it's a money loser for
railroads and that's on already existing rail lines. With what it will
cost to build mag-lev lines and trains for the foreseeable future I have
trouble believing that will change any time soon. California is
supposedly working on a high speed train line from SF to LA. Last I
knew all they have on the planning board is a line from the
middle-o-nowhere sorta near SF to the middle-o-nowhere sorta near LA.
The cost to acquire the land and right of ways in urban areas for
something like this is very, very high. Passenger jets are cheaper and
faster for those that need to travel quickly and fuel for the car is
even cheaper _and_ the car has just a bit more freedom of movement. :)

I suspect that if we want a continental mag-lev train network we will
end up starting by upgrading the existing lines to handle both current
engines and mag-lev, eventually phasing out the current diesel-electrics
and it will still be almost entirely for cargo.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
The Old Man
2018-04-14 23:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by The Old Man
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Pete Barrett
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).
Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.
Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, > no?
If you had a choice of flying from New York City to San Francisco in four hours with all the attendant rigmarole at the airport (including weather-related delays, etc.) or riding for five hours aboard a mag-lev train (with dining car, less hassle at the station and comparable pricing - or maybe even less), which would you choose? One of the biggest reasons that the trains are dying in this country is that they're still rooted in the Nineteenth Century.
Maybe if someone like Elon Musk got behind it.....

Regards,
John Braungart
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by The Old Man
Post by Dimensional Traveler
I want to see video of one of those crossing the Pacific. :)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Okay, I'll rephrase that. The Mag-Lev trains could be mostly underground travelling at extremely high speed. You're right, they won't work as far as I can see transoceanic, but you could have the airports there to fly passengers overseas. Also, cargo and passenger runs would be on different and separate tracks.
Short distance runs for cargo would be in electric trucks power replenished every night in yards.
For passengers going from train to final destination, electronic trams or buses on fixed routes as was once the case in America. In urban areas, subways or buses to take people to work or play and there could also be intercity "smart cars" that could be rented (or leased or purchased if needed) to take families to see loved ones or on vacation.
The above scenario was given to me in 1980 by the fellow who developed 23 separate patents for superconductivity and mag-lev transportation. He unfortunately found out what it was like to go against the established transportation industry.
I still think it would be cool to see one zooming across the ocean. :)
As for passenger mag-lev train service, in the US we don't currently
have much passenger train service because it's a money loser for
railroads and that's on already existing rail lines. With what it will
cost to build mag-lev lines and trains for the foreseeable future I have
trouble believing that will change any time soon. California is
supposedly working on a high speed train line from SF to LA. Last I
knew all they have on the planning board is a line from the
middle-o-nowhere sorta near SF to the middle-o-nowhere sorta near LA.
The cost to acquire the land and right of ways in urban areas for
something like this is very, very high. Passenger jets are cheaper and
faster for those that need to travel quickly and fuel for the car is
even cheaper _and_ the car has just a bit more freedom of movement. :)
I suspect that if we want a continental mag-lev train network we will
end up starting by upgrading the existing lines to handle both current
engines and mag-lev, eventually phasing out the current diesel-electrics
and it will still be almost entirely for cargo.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-16 15:54:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:24:13 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Okay, I'll rephrase that. The Mag-Lev trains could be mostly underground travelling at extremely high speed. You're right, they won't work as far as I can see transoceanic, but you could have the airports there to fly passengers overseas. Also, cargo and passenger runs would be on different and separate tracks.
Short distance runs for cargo would be in electric trucks power replenished every night in yards.
For passengers going from train to final destination, electronic trams or buses on fixed routes as was once the case in America. In urban areas, subways or buses to take people to work or play and there could also be intercity "smart cars" that could be rented (or leased or purchased if needed) to take families to see loved ones or on vacation.
The above scenario was given to me in 1980 by the fellow who developed 23 separate patents for superconductivity and mag-lev transportation. He unfortunately found out what it was like to go against the established transportation industry.
If you're examining a project like that you might want to examine what
the Chinese are currently doing in integrating transportation in
Guangdong province including Hong Kong.

The plan is to make it possible to move everything from people to
container size cargoes anywhere within Guangdong to any other location
(including ports) in under 2 hours by 2020.

This project in involves construction / upgrades to high speed rail,
bridges, tunnels etc and when completed is expected to cover an area
of 100+ million people representing roughly 5% of world GDP.

I don't have a link for you but I saw a presentation on it (with lots
of storyboards) when I was in HK in 2012.

I would imagine a mag-lev system would be a big part of projects like
this if fusion energy made the cost of electricity 1% of current
costs.
Insane Ranter
2018-04-14 17:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Pete Barrett
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).
Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.
Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, > no?
I want to see video of one of those crossing the Pacific. :)
Bering strait bridge or tunnel? Its been at least a concept proposed since the 1890's.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-04-14 21:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Pete Barrett
But for one thing, the oil industry is greatly reduced. Sure, oil would
still be needed for lubricants, plastics and such but with power plants
and vehicles all powered by fusion motors, the Mid East becomes a
backwater.
I don't see how one could have a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a
motor vehicle or airplane.
If you have an effectively infinite supply of electrical energy, then it
may be practical to have electric or hybrid cars which get their power
from a network of wires either above the road (like trolley buses) or
buried in it (by the same sort of induction which allows wireless
charging for phones).
Once out of the network, they'd need to have either batteries or a
conventional IC engine take over, but all that technology is in existence
now. And if electricity is cheap enough, then it will make economic as
well as environmental sense, even if the cars themselves are more
expensive, and the road network costs something to electrify.
Aircraft would be a bit different, because they could hardly get their
energy in the same way, even if there was a practical electric engine for
an aircraft. So if aircraft are still using oil products for fuel, while
road and rail are able to use much cheaper electricity, then air travel
may become more expensive relative to road or rail - there might be a
resurgence of rail transport for long distances, with air travel reserved
for cases where someone needs to go very quickly, and in person.
(That said, there was an SF story many years ago in which a car make
called the "Fusion Special" played a part. It was known for making
obituary headlines...)
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, > no?
I want to see video of one of those crossing the Pacific. :)
Bering strait bridge or tunnel? Its been at least a concept proposed since the 1890's.
First leg, California to Hawaii. :D
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-16 15:48:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:00:57 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
If we had fusion power, we'd probably be using electronic mag-lev trains in lieu of aircraft, both for passenger service and cargo hauling, > no?
I want to see video of one of those crossing the Pacific. :)
Yeah - I was going to say that yesterday I took my daughter to the
airport for a flight to England...
s***@yahoo.com
2018-04-18 22:46:29 UTC
Permalink
buddy of mine sometimes posts on the Pittsburgh Sci-Fi stuff about the "Stellarator" research in this stuff.

Nils K. hammer

Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'WI: Commercially viable controlled nuclear fusion' (Questions and Answers)
25
replies
What is fuel-reforming technology?
started 2007-10-26 21:32:19 UTC
alternative fuel vehicles
Loading...