bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (07/05/86)
>Many people seem to think "fusion reactors are just around the corner" but I >doubt it. The only fusion processes occuring in nature require, at a minimum, >a collection of mass about 8% that of the sun -- far more mass than that of >all the known planets put together, and unlikely to fit in even a large >basement. It is a tough job: gravity provides the "confinement" needed by >the fusion processes in stars, but our species has yet to devise an adequate >substitute so we can put a little one together that works for more than a few >microseconds, if that. >Ed Nather Although your explanations and clarifications in the above article (not quoted here) seemed correct, with this paragraph you seem to lapse into generalizations that I don't think are well-founded. Although I agree that fusion isn't likely to become a major energy source next week I don't think the problems are quite (or as bad as) what you describe. For example, as I understood the tokamak at MIT, the whole goal was to only create fusion reactions which lasted a few microseconds. The hope was that it provided enough energy in that brief period to power up the lasers for the next one (and, of course, then some to draw off into electric cherry stoners etc.) I don't think anyone wanted a totally self-sustaining reaction as it is exhibited in nature (a star), that would be a bit hard to control. The basic idea was (hmm, might be way over my head here, corrections appreciated) you pop a bit of stuff (tritium dioxide? I dunno) into the reactor chamber, super-compress it with lasers and it creates a fusion reaction. This gives off a lot of heat and free electrons which can be drawn off directly. The heat can be turned into steam and thus electricity (turbines) and the electrons can be used directly, so you use some of that to power the lasers to do it again... -Barry Shein, Boston University
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (07/07/86)
In article <899@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >appreciated) you pop a bit of stuff (tritium dioxide? I dunno) into In a longish letter to Nather, I pointed out (among many other things) that deuterium dioxide doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. Neither does tritium dioxide. [Nits back at you.] I do apologise for the one real [possible] error, not looking up which decay path H(3) is most likely to take. [By the way, if anyone is interested, lexicographically my H(3)2O / H(3)O2 is written .PS (H super 3) sub 2 O / H super 3 O sub 2 .PE ] -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)