View Poll Results: Vote and vote often...

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Fusion

    9 60.00%
  • A Linear Collider should be in the works.

    3 20.00%
  • Whaah what??

    3 20.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Fusion? Atom Smashers? Which way to go?

  1. #1
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796

    Fusion? Atom Smashers? Which way to go?

    I just read this short article and was curious as to what the forum members thought about this.

    Seems crazy that we're only funding 3 billion into DoE....When quite possibly the future of human kind could be hinged on this all important research they do....


    The article.

    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994366

    Again, the question....Fusion....or high energy physics ....
    Your thoughts?





    I also found it interesting that science is also looking into microbes to scrub the atmosphere of carbon dioxide...

  2. #2
    Junior Member MadDoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Looks dark
    Posts
    1
    I'll check back later. Too early for big words.

    *looks for second cup of coffee*

    *finds wife*

    *Oh boy!*


    People will forget what you said... and people will forget what you did... but people will never forget how you made them feel.

  3. #3
    Got Alizee? ScottE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    16,861
    Downhill, you place alot of faith in the SG community to be able to even comprehend what you are taking about with respect to linear colliders, Fusion, Quantum Mechanics. While there are some incredibly smart people here this type of thing probably isn't up their alley.


    That being said. Yes 3 billion does seem like a low number with respect to what we are talking about. With respect to the poll, Fusion holds the most benefits, but we might not be able to do fusion without first doing the linear collider. Interesting situation, but like the end of the article says it's a 20 year plan and 20 year plans usualy get changed.
    Respect it.

  4. #4
    if I was forced to choose, it would be Fusion. Fusion has a practicle aplication, HEP is pure science only, intriguing but just pure science.

    in all truth, I feel that both feilds should be persued with everything we have.



    so DH, did you watch NOVA the last two weeks about string theory? it was wonderful. god I love this stuff.

  5. #5
    BE HAPPY ! ! ! ! ! poptom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Santa Monica, Southern California
    Posts
    4,632
    Fusion.

    While I was disappointed when construction was stopped on the Superconducting Supercollider years ago, it's probably just as well. Costs were enormous and just kept escalating. Of course the physicists wanted the world's greatest accelerator but they didn't make a strong enough case for finishing the project, or that it would even work at all.

    Experimenting with sustained fusion is also a great money pit and I think that should have priority. It may turn out to be a mere pipe dream but I'd like to see it come about during my lifetime.

    --Tom
    "Mr President, you have big balls" - Dominica prime minister Eugenia Charles to Ronald Reagan after the invasion of Grenada, 1983

    "We win and they lose. What do you think of that?" - Ronald Reagan, 1977

  6. #6
    =+/TOOL FAN\+= Tawcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vancouver eh?
    Posts
    1,898
    There's actually a prof in my university that's doing fussion research. He's doing this research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory I believe. The tough thing about fussion is that it requires extreme condition and extremely high energy. Right now the energy they're getting out is less than the input energy. In other word, super unefficient.

    There are already bunch colliders in the world. There's one in the Swiss, French border (my E&M prof used to work there), one here on UBC, and bunch in US I think. You really can't do partical physics research, in particularly, quantum mechanics, particle theories without helps of linear, circular colliders (at least from my understanding). With the current power issue down in the US I can see why they're putting construction of colliders on hold.

    Not to mention these colliders create gagantic magentic fields which some ppl think could cause cancer so you have to put it somewhere isolated....

    Side note: here's a Co-op job posting for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, U.S.A.

    Co-Op placements for senior undergraduates in Honours Physics and Engineering Physics are available in the B174 Laser Facility in the Lawrence Livernmore National Laboratory. B174 is home to Janus (2-beam, killo-Joule/nanosecond, Nd-glass laser system), JanUSP (100 TW/100fs Ti:Sapphire laser system), USP (10TW/100fs Ti-Sapphire laser system), and COMET (Picoseocnd X-ray laser system). B174 is also the base for diverse research activities that include physics at high energy densities, ultrafast dynamics, laser-matter interaction, inertial confinement fusion, material science at extreme conditions, and laboratory astrophysics.
    Most students will be involved in laboratory experiments while others may be engaged in computer simulation or theory. Students will work in research teams together with postdoctoral follows and staff scientists. A strong background in physics and mathematics is essential.

    Sounds really neat. I'm going to try and apply (assuming I have time to write my resume and stuff).

  7. #7
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    A question for a more than newb......

    If string theory is correct, then why bother with accelerators?

    There is a fast reactor that I was under the impression was being used to study the feasibility of fusion, mothballed at the INEL.....I can't for the life of me figure out why we would spend monies on some of the things we do, while all but ignoring what we really COULD do if we would pool the worlds best minds on the feasibility of fusion.

  8. #8
    =+/TOOL FAN\+= Tawcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vancouver eh?
    Posts
    1,898
    Originally posted by downhill
    A question for a more than newb......

    If string theory is correct, then why bother with accelerators?

    There is a fast reactor that I was under the impression was being used to study the feasibility of fusion, mothballed at the INEL.....I can't for the life of me figure out why we would spend monies on some of the things we do, while all but ignoring what we really COULD do if we would pool the worlds best minds on the feasibility of fusion.
    I'm not too aware of the string theory myself but from what I've learned some of the particle physists are trying to link gravitational theories with electromagnetism theories. (kinda like how electrical theory is related to magnetism theories, so it's called E&M, they're trying to link gravity into this).

    There seems to be a lot of missing loops on some of the theories. Ie there are electrical monopole, dipole, quadrapole, etc but for magnetism there's no magnetic monopole. Since E&M are linked together, one would assume there's magnetic monopole, but that doesn't seem to be the fact. So some physists are using accelerators and other methods to find this damn monopole.

    A lot of this, IMO, has to do linking all the theories together and make sense of each other. If you look at mechanical and electrical theories (ie F=ma, etc) there are a lot of similarities between them. As one of my profs calls it "duality." Once you know one you know them all.

    A lot of discoveries are by accident. (ie viagra ). Go figure eh?

    I can probably go and talk to my E&M prof and ask her the exactly question and end up talking to her for 5 hours.

  9. #9
    R.I.P. 2018-07-16 RoundEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    In a dry but moldy New Orleans, Louisiana
    Posts
    18,219
    .........with an annual budget of $3 billion.......
    I don't know about y'all, but I think that's A LOT of money, no matter what kind of research it is.

    I'll have to remark on the story later, after I can read it all.
    Sliding down the banister of life ..........................

  10. #10
    Imperial Impotentate brembo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    crawlspaces
    Posts
    18,725
    Originally posted by RoundEye
    I don't know about y'all, but I think that's A LOT of money, no matter what kind of research it is.

    I'll have to remark on the story later, after I can read it all.
    3 billion when it comes to fusion research is a drop in the bucket. The facilities needed to generate the intense fields and gravities required to squish atoms that don't wanna be together, together are prototypes and must be over-engineered to the hilt.

    The super-conducting super-collider that was proposed some years ago, woulda been I *think* on the order of a 50 mile circumference. Building a circle of concrete that big is a task in itself, building one thats "perfect" as it were to zip subatomic/atoms at near the speed of light is on a whole different level.
    Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
    I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.

  11. #11
    Morterator Immortal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario , Canada. Behaviour : Good
    Posts
    22,670
    What? Zuh?

    I say things go boom

  12. #12
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    Fusion...there is a ton of energy in a chocolate bar..if we could only figure out how to harness it. Fusion is the key.

    Can you imagine a reactor that we are splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen? The heat given off would generate magnum amounts of electricity. The by product? Bottle it for your auto. Emissions? Water.

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    And even though 3 billion may seem like a lot of money, it's not that much of the budget. Under the current one, less than one percent.

  13. #13
    Certified SG Addict Brent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    42,163
    Fusion

    It has a very practicle application and is needed now, with our growing cities and power requirenments. Not to mention it is a clean safe source of power. And will be needed to power spacecraft and facilities in space and on planets.
    "Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor

  14. #14
    Broke
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Northern AB, CA
    Posts
    13,506
    Originally posted by ScottE
    Downhill, you place alot of faith in the SG community to be able to even comprehend what you are taking about with respect to Fusion,

    Hey, I'm offended, I saw back to the Future II and Mr Fusion, I know what the heck he's talkin about

  15. #15
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    Originally posted by Chris
    Hey, I'm offended, I saw back to the Future II and Mr Fusion, I know what the heck he's talkin about

    Thanks Chris!! I never lost faith. I knew this was a good subject for here!!!



  16. #16
    =+/TOOL FAN\+= Tawcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vancouver eh?
    Posts
    1,898
    Originally posted by downhill
    Fusion...there is a ton of energy in a chocolate bar..if we could only figure out how to harness it. Fusion is the key.

    Can you imagine a reactor that we are splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen? The heat given off would generate magnum amounts of electricity. The by product? Bottle it for your auto. Emissions? Water.

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    And even though 3 billion may seem like a lot of money, it's not that much of the budget. Under the current one, less than one percent.
    Imagine creating energy using sea water...

    Like my prof said: "I'll probably never see fusion reactor in my life time..."

    It's a complicated process...

    The beauty of fusion is that you can keep fussing the atoms together, essentially creating bigger and bigger atoms.... and in the end you get Immy.

  17. #17
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,796
    The beauty of fussion is that you can keep fussing the atoms together, essentially creating bigger and bigger atoms.... and in the end you get Immy.

    ROTLMAO

  18. #18
    =+/TOOL FAN\+= Tawcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vancouver eh?
    Posts
    1,898
    Originally posted by Tawcan
    The beauty of fusion is that you can keep fussing the atoms together, essentially creating bigger and bigger atoms.... and in the end you get Immy.
    Wait a sec...would that be a beauty or would that be something else?


  19. #19
    Got Alizee? ScottE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    16,861
    Originally posted by downhill
    ROTLMAO

    The only problem with Tawcan's theory is that once you got to iron you'd have to put energy back in to continue fusion. You could not continue fusion indefinetly. Everyone knows Immy is far more dense than iron.
    Respect it.

  20. #20
    Morterator Immortal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mississauga, Ontario , Canada. Behaviour : Good
    Posts
    22,670
    Laugh it up you bastards. Laugh it up.

    (goes to corner and swallows razor blades)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •