TOKAMAK

Tcv_int.jpg (86 KB)

Inside view of a swiss TOKAMAK

  • Leave a comment ?

    26 Responses to TOKAMAK

    1. Looks like a test fusion reactor…

      Reply

    2. For those, like me, who had no clue: Wiki: Tokamak Pretty cool.

      Reply

    3. Looks like the ugly brother of a TARDIS.

      Reply

    4. @HoChunk:
      Compared to the TARDIS, most things are ugly.

      Reply

    5. pfff. cold fusion beats this hands down.

      Reply

    6. Ohhhh, Tokamak. Please hurry up and become a feasible system of providing energy so that we may not have fossil fuels any more.

      Miniature sun reactor FTW! Yay nuclear byproduct of WATER/HELIUM!

      Reply

    7. If they put even 0.0001% the money into fusion reactor designs like the Farnsworth Fusor that they put into these monstrosities, we’d already have fusion power.

      Reply

    8. @NoOneInParticular: Spending money on a project does not change the laws of physics. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of Farnsworth Fusors built (at least 0.0001% of the money spend on TOKAMAK has been spent on them), but none have gotten to Q=1. Without getting too technical, there is good reason to believe that inertial-electrostatic confinement will never break even.

      Reply

    9. But we already have solar power that’s available. Why are we re-inventing the wheel again?

      Reply

    10. @Annarchy: Because we’re scientists, and that’s how we roll.

      Reply

    11. @Annarchy:
      @AgZed:
      SRSLY

      Why create something that could be dangerous when we have awesomeness readily available?

      Reply

    12. @AgZed: Here.Here.
      @Annarchy: @RSIxidor: Science is about figuring out how the universe works. Solar power might be a better solution for energy production, but let’s study other things to just to see if they can work.

      Reply

    13. Why build one? Cause the sun is like 149,597,870,691 meters away from us right now. A tokamak can be in my backyard, generatin’ my energies.

      Besides the fallout from a tokamak accident would really be quite small in comparison to other, heavy nuclear energy generation.

      Reply

    14. @Reboot
      Any link you might have to the technical details of why such a system will not break even? And also what about ITER?

      Reply

    15. @reboot: After hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, Tokamaks haven’t reached unity gain either. There hasn’t been even ten million spent on Farnsworth Fusors. Also, magnetic deflection of charges around the acceleration grid shows great promise at finally breaking unity gain. And while there have been thousands of Farnsworth Fusors built, the vast majority are built by amateur researchers in their garage. It’s funny that something built for less than $500 in a garage shows more promise than a $10B Tokamak. ๐Ÿ˜€

      Reply

    16. @QuantumStorm: Honestly, I can’t find one that would accessible without a university account. Try looking of some of Nevins’ work at LANL. He’s done some calculations that show IEC can’t get better than about Q=.1-.3.
      @NoOneInParticular: You have know idea what you’re talking about.
      I’m really getting tired of arguing with clueless people who can’t even bother to google enough to get their figures in the right ballpark, but somehow think they’re smarter than all the scientists in the world.

      Reply

    17. @RSIxidor: The spirit of inquiry is never satisfied with “good enough” or “that’ll do”. Human curiosity will always compel us forward, to make it (whatever “it” is), bigger/smaller, faster, cheaper. Better. Human progress has no limits, no line that we can draw and say “From here, we go no further.” So to your question of “Why?”, I give you the same answer that men & women of science have been giving since the first time the question was asked: Because we can.

      Reply

    18. @reboot: I’m tired of arguing with brainwashed retards who don’t know what THEY’RE yammering about. I’ve got a degree in physics. I’ve forgotten more about both then you’ll EVER know. Quite a few of those scientists (those not bought by the billions handed out to hot plasma fusion projects) agree with me, and are becoming more vocal by the year as things like Tokamaks continue to fail to produce tangible results despite billions of dollars. Pull your head out of your ass and do some more research yourself. You’re clearly deluded, or bought and paid for. Your choice. ๐Ÿ˜›

      Reply

    19. @RSIxidor:
      @AgZed:
      So, just like mountain climbing: because we can. Hm. I suppose I am in the minority when I say that just because you can do something does not mean you should do it. Hadron collider, anyone?

      Reply

    20. @Annarchy: Why shouldn’t we use the Hadron Collider?

      Reply

    21. @HoChunk:
      Oh, where to start? First reason: the guys running it have no idea what it will really do once it’s up and running. I am not comforted by the thought that some numbnut scientist will end the universe (and I know the odds are tiny that will happen) just to see what his shiny new toy does. It will be used to mostly prove and disprove theories, which is asinine in my opinion. At an expected cost of รขโ€šยฌ3.2รขโ‚ฌโ€œ6.4 billion, couldn’t they have used their giant brains to come up with a better way to spend that ungodly amount of money?

      Reply

    22. Why are we still talking about this? the answer is clearly Dog shit

      Reply

    23. @RSIxidor:
      Truer words have never been seen on this site before.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas