Comments on: TOKAMAK

By: Annarchy

Annarchy — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:30:47 +0000

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

By: RSIxidor

RSIxidor — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:46:46 +0000

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

By: Annarchy

Annarchy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:12:05 +0000

@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 â‚¬3.2â€“6.4 billion, couldn't they have used their giant brains to come up with a better way to spend that ungodly amount of money?

By: HoChunk

HoChunk — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:24:52 +0000

@Annarchy: Why shouldn't we use the Hadron Collider?

By: Annarchy

Annarchy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:18:18 +0000

@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?

By: NoOneInParticular

NoOneInParticular — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:05:36 +0000

@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.

By: AgZed

AgZed — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:14:53 +0000

@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.

By: reboot

reboot — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:53:15 +0000

@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.

By: NoOneInParticular

NoOneInParticular — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:49:09 +0000

@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.

By: QuantumStorm

QuantumStorm — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:04:56 +0000

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