Re: Nuclear fusion.


Puppet_Sock wrote:
Starbles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Starbles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?

So, what you are asking is, if we invented an entirely new kind of
tehcnology that nobody has any clue how to do, would it be practical?

When I dream, I have a pony.

Newsflash: Atomic bombs use nuclear fusion to trigger nuclear fission.
Also, ALL nuclear fusion harnessing technology is stuff that nobody has
any clue how to do. Otherwise we'd have nuclear fusion.

Ok. When I dream, I have a *flying* pony.

Are you trying to troll me? Because you're seriously failing.

Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?

Um. Lipids (fat) are about 9 kilo calories per gram, or a bit under 37
kilo
Joules per gram. Gasoline is about 45 kilo Joules per gram.

What about the energy wasted trying to turn CO2 and H20 into Gasoline
and O2 as opposed to trying to figure out what the body does NATURALLY?

What *about* the energy wasted doing that?

And what has that got to do with what the body does?

The body is naturally more efficient than lo-tech methods of doing
things.

And what has *that* got to do with energy that might be produced
from fusion?

Are you suffering from a fantasy that it's easy to produce lipids
from nuclear reactions?

You wouldn't produce it DIRECTLY from nuclear reactions. However, you
wouldn't store it in batteries or anything like that because those lose
energy over time.

Maybe you could start with a good encylcopedia. Or a web search.
Socks

I've already done all that. Are you suggesting I do it again?

No, I'm suggesting you do it while awake.
Socks

Obviously I've looked in an encyclopedia while I was awake. Are you
suggesting that I did it in my sleep?

What here isn't in an encyclopedia probably hasn't been truly
researched before. However, I'm not the only one who has thought about
these things. I am suggesting that people start doing research on
fission triggered fusion and lipid storage, both of which are seperate
topics from eachother.

.

Relevant Pages

  • FYI
    ... Fusion reactions power the stars and produce all but the lightest ... elements absorbs energy. ... more energetic per unit of mass than nuclear fusion. ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Re: SF Cold Fusion
    ... fusion to work efficiently. ... than the possibility of getting "cheaper" muons not much has changed since. ... Break-even (energy released compared to the direct input energy) does not ... Even with a pure neutron target ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Last global warming post - ever.
    ... To fuse Iron into higher elements, or even denser elements into still ... you need the energy of an exploding sun. ... USED to exist, and have since exploded, creating heavier elements. ... I see nothing in your links that indicates that fusion is ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Possible long term energy solution...
    ... achieve fusion. ... from thermal losses from collisions of the high energy ... crystaline accelerator utilizing thermal gradients. ... You also get it with a Farnsworth Reactor. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Global Warming
    ... nuclear energy will not solve our energy problems. ... Nuclear energy does not produce any Greenhouse Gases. ... Next, the fusion reactor. ...
    (soc.retirement)