jordan@greipa.UUCP (Jordan K. Hubbard) (07/13/85)
Some people have been raving about how fusion will be acheived
soon or how it won't. Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but hasn't
this already been acheived some time ago with the shiva laser
at AMES? When I was there they had been fusing deuterium for
awhile( or so they said, anyway). Perhaps they're raving about
commercial plants?
By the way, in regards to the photon wavicle discussion doing on,
how is everyone so sure that the photon exists in 3 dimensional
space during every moment of its travel?
Perhaps it 'rotates' in and out of conventional space at a frequency
dependant upon its energy level. I guess this might account for its
wave-like nature. Then again, maybe I don't know what the heck
I'm talking about..
Oh well, just a thought.
--
Jordan K. Hubbard
@ Genstar Rental Electronics.
Palo Alto, CA.
{pesnta, decwrl, dual, pyramid}!greipa!jordan
"ack pfffft. gag. retch. barf.. ack"
- Bill again.smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (07/14/85)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA rduxb!smh > .... already been achieved some time ago with the shiva laser > at AMES? When I was there they had been fusing deuterium for > awhile( or so they said, anyway). Perhaps they're raving about > commercial plants? Right on. Fusion has been obtained in the lab many times, but a sustained power producing reaction has not been revealed to the public by anyone. All present processes use more power than they produce. However this is to be expected by the design. Development is coming right along and a commercial design is just a few (hopefully) iterations away.
tomk@ur-laser.uucp (Tom Kessler) (07/15/85)
Sorry to to break the news to you but... Yeah sure we can achieve
fusion with lasers as they did with SHIVA the $20,000,000,000 question
is, Can we get more energy out of the fusion reaction than we put into
it?--
--------------------------
Tom Kessler {allegra |seismo }!rochester!ur-laser!tomk
Laboratory for Laser Energetics Phone: (716)- 275 - 5101
250 East River Road
Rochester, New York 14623mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (07/16/85)
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes) I thought that the Shiva laser experiment is running at LLL (Lawrence Livermore Lab) rather than AMES - it's all SF Bay area - so who cares?
hull@hao.UUCP (Howard Hull) (07/18/85)
> how is everyone so sure that the photon exists in 3 dimensional > space during every moment of its travel? I, for one, seem to believe that it effectively exists, i.e. "couples" only in one dimension. I have already been corrected on this very net concerning the errant ways of my thinking on that, too. (Thus no repeats are needed). > Perhaps it 'rotates' in and out of conventional space at a frequency > dependant upon its energy level. I guess this might account for its > wave-like nature. Then again, maybe I don't know what the heck > I'm talking about.. > Oh well, just a thought. Yes. Looks like we need a new newsgroup (shudder). Call it net.thought, eh? For seriously researched but physically unverified proposals, net.thought.deep might be more appropriate... :-) This is, after all, net.physics - as such, Physics is quite demanding with respect to what constitutes a bonafide physical theory. Gwyn et al have listed the qualifications for serious submissions: Mathematical description of a real, observable, physical processes. I think with a little bashing away, you could get them to relax the mathematical requirements, but they will still require repeatable demonstrative properties. In order to save the time of serious physicists and escape the metaphysical and pseudo-science discussions, perhaps there should be a net.physics.expert as well. Has this been discussed? Howard Hull [If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion... ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts] {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | harpo!seismo } !hao!hull
rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (07/21/85)
> Some people have been raving about how fusion will be acheived > soon or how it won't. Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but hasn't > this already been acheived some time ago with the shiva laser > at AMES? When I was there they had been fusing deuterium for > awhile( or so they said, anyway). Perhaps they're raving about > commercial plants? > -- That's just the point. I think that the fusion engine at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has only just (this year?) sustained a fusion reaction at the break-even point. Up to then, more energy was pumped into the lasers than was being extracted from the system. This is a long way from commercial energy production. I've always heard it said (for completely different reasons) that AI and fusion are always 20 years down the road. It does seem like profitable fusion is attainable in the next ten years, given a sufficient method for mass-producing deuterium. I'm glad the research is being done, but I'm curious as to how profitably the laser implosion method will compare with the variants on the tokamak (toroidal) scheme. The setup at LLL seems like such a behemoth. Anyone care to hazard an educated guess? -- Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl