Fusion Breakthrough Will Change the World

#1
n_huffhines

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
84,549
Likes
50,064
#1
This is why we don't need the government to save us from the energy crisis and protect the environment from man-made warming. Science, innovation, and business will do it for us. Carbon credits...LMAO. Amazing stuff:

In the simplest terms, nuclear fission breaks a single atom into two whereas nuclear fusion combines two atoms into one.

Fusion, the holy grail of nuclear power, creates three to four times as much energy as fission. More importantly, fusion’s key advantage over fission is that it does not produce cancer-causing radioactive waste.

“It’s safe, it’s clean, and Lockheed is promising an operational unit by 2017 with assembly line production to follow, enabling everything from unlimited fresh water to engines that take spacecraft to Mars in one month instead of six,”

The key breakthrough involves using a “magnetic bottle” to contain the vast amount of heat, which rises into the hundreds of millions of degrees, created by the nuclear reaction.
Click to expand...

Lockheed Martin Claims Fusion Breakthrough That Could Change World Forever - Forbes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3
#3
golfballs said:
Do you realize how much money Lockheed gets from the US Government?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But the question is would this innovation come about before the end of the world, courtesy of climate change, in the absence of government funding?

I'm going to go ahead and say yes.

My point was about policy, which is a hopeless solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
n_huffhines said:
Yes.

But the question is would this innovation come about before the end of the world, courtesy of climate change, in the absence of government funding?

I'm going to go ahead and say yes.

My point was about policy, which is a hopeless solution.
Click to expand...

Doubtful, IMO. Not enough Elon Musks' in this world.
 
#7
#7
Private sector vs government conversation aside, this is an enormous breakthrough. Absoultely world-changing potential.
 
#10
#10
golfballs said:
I'm not a 100% idealogue. The government has the POTENTIAL to do good.
Click to expand...

Of course they can do good, but from a cost-benefit analysis, often the good they do is outweighed by the cost.

Good: help families in need via welfare
Cost: take from families in need + provide crutch that hampers progress

I'm not trying to get an argument going that the cost outweighs the benefit (I believe that), I'm just trying to illustrate the point that they do good at a high cost.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
gcbvol said:
Private sector vs government conversation aside, this is an enormous breakthrough. Absoultely world-changing potential.
Click to expand...

Depends. We have known about fusion for a long time. Inventing a device that works economically, efficiently, logistically, and durable is the problem. I'll believe it when I see it.
 
#13
#13
Maybe they're claiming it so they can get more funding?

Hopefully they aren't full of it.
 
#14
#14
PKT_VOL said:
Depends. We have known about fusion for a long time. Inventing a device that works economically, efficiently, logistically, and durable is the problem. I'll believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's why I used potential. I've already read comments from skeptics and feel they are valid based on what we know/LM has provided to this point. We also should expect a lot more skepticism to emanate from the petrochemical industry as this evolves.

I'm hopeful, though. I would love to see this type of breakthrough in my lifetime.
 
#16
#16
gcbvol said:
Absolutely. That's why I used potential. I've already read comments from skeptics and feel they are valid based on what we know/LM has provided to this point. We also should expect a lot more skepticism to emanate from the petrochemical industry as this evolves.

I'm hopeful, though. I would love to see this type of breakthrough in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess my point is that I don't think it would be a "great breakthrough" if it was merely a proof of concept device. A toy remote control car (proof of concept) is very different than a dependable, economic, and functional electric car. We have had proof of concept with fusion circling over us everyday of our lives.
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
PKT_VOL said:
Yeah. I guess my point is that I don't think it would be a "great breakthrough" if it was merely a proof of concept device. A toy remote control car (proof of concept) is very different than a dependable, economic, and functional electric car. We have had proof of concept with fusion circling over us everyday of our lives.
Click to expand...

you believe in the aliens too? :loco:

















:)
 
#18
#18
PKT_VOL said:
Yeah. I guess my point is that I don't think it would be a "great breakthrough" if it was merely a proof of concept device. A toy remote control car (proof of concept) is very different than a dependable, economic, and functional electric car. We have had proof of concept with fusion circling over us everyday of our lives.
Click to expand...

Your point is completely valid. It sounds like they are promising a functional prototype by 2017 which makess it appear they may be beyond proof of concept. Let's hope that's the case.
 
#19
#19
n_huffhines said:
Yes.

But the question is would this innovation come about before the end of the world, courtesy of climate change, in the absence of government funding?

I'm going to go ahead and say yes.

My point was about policy, which is a hopeless solution.
Click to expand...

Well, it's an interesting choice to make that point about. Tax payers are essentially funding all of this because that's where all of Lockheed Martin's profits come from.

But point taken.
 
#21
#21
gcbvol said:
Your point is completely valid. It sounds like they are promising a functional prototype by 2017 which makess it appear they may be beyond proof of concept. Let's hope that's the case.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If we could master fusion, the world would change very quickly.

I will say this, if they are as close to a functional device as they are alluding to, my guess is that we have had said technology for years in black programs. This would merely be a release of such technology in a commercial way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
I think Ford created Fusion several years ago. Lockheed plagiarist, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
n_huffhines said:
Yes.

But the question is would this innovation come about before the end of the world, courtesy of climate change, in the absence of government funding?

I'm going to go ahead and say yes.

My point was about policy, which is a hopeless solution.
Click to expand...

every major break through (ok about 90% of them) have come from major major government funding. The medical field exists because the government needed wounded soldiers to fight, this includes drugs and clean modern hospitals. Agricultural growth so they could be self dependent in times of war. Cars, planes, trains, ships got major boosts because government needed to get stuff to the front lines fast. our industrial background: WWII. computers, radio, telegraphs were all leaps so that the government could talk to itself faster. since we are on the case of nuclear power it was governments pushing the research into this area. its impossible to say how far behind humanity would be if it wasn't for government funded research and development. plastic, aluminum, rubber: government funding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top