[ikanreed]

“Wait, we’ve been spending a tiny amount of money for the good of humanity’s future? Slash it! MORE NUKES!”

[ikanreed]

I don’t think I get the joke.

[ikanreed]

Warwick wrote:

How do you validate the simulation?

It’s nice to know that we’re working on simulating plasmas better, but how can you validate that the simulation was programmed correctly? As a software developer myself, I know that every piece of code has at least a few bugs. Is there some kind of well known test-case to compare against?

The code for the next iteration will be open source so there will be some scope for interested people to try and spot mistakes for themselves.

That’s nice and all, but that doesn’t tell you if the simulation has any bearing on the real world, only helps determine if the code matches the design. Open source is not a magic bullet. But if the code gets released, I’ll check it over for things a scientific layman can fix.

[ikanreed]

Joeviocoe wrote: Okay, apparently I waited too long to see the movie.
Overall I really liked it. And this film is not the first to take the idea of “fusion” and insist that it can be weaponized.

In the film, Wayne Enterprises’ Clean Energy research division had been working on a Fusion reactor of some kind. Your typical Hollywood sphere with glowing blinky lights. The sphere was connected to a platform that kept it stable and extracted usable energy. The whole system was kept under the Gotham River and could be flooded in seconds in case of a runaway reaction.
Terrorists turned on the fusion reactor and disconnected the sphere from the platform which kept it stable. Apparently, this form of fusion was self sustaining. And if not reconnected, would explode in a 4 Megaton nuclear blast.

Okay, so there is a LOT wrong with the film’s depiction of fusion power. It seemed that they really wanted to say Fission. But that wouldn’t be new.

If this is the image of fusion being pushed to the masses… then Focus Fusion has a VERY long, and arduous battle ahead of them to convince people of the inherent safety of fusion in comparison to fission reactors.

On the other hand, fusion has been weaponized for a half century now.

Edit: and really effectively too. Specifically, all neutron bombs are fusion weapons.

[ikanreed]

How do you validate the simulation?

It’s nice to know that we’re working on simulating plasmas better, but how can you validate that the simulation was programmed correctly? As a software developer myself, I know that every piece of code has at least a few bugs. Is there some kind of well known test-case to compare against?

[ikanreed]

I can’t figure out how the 3 parts of your posts relate to each other.

But only moderators can delete posts on most forum software.

[ikanreed]

GullyFoyle wrote:

And tonight’s success reminds us that our preeminence — not just in space, but here on Earth — depends on continuing to invest wisely in the innovation, technology, and basic research that has always made our economy the envy of the world.

– Barak Obama, August 6, 2012

Statement on the landing of Curiosity on Mars

That’s not really irony. Even if he were personally opposed to research funding, a somewhat off-base assertion, that would be hypocrisy, not irony.

[ikanreed]

Blocked at work. A summary, maybe?

[ikanreed]

Rezwan wrote: Do we have to blow up every last mountain before developing fusion?

Seems improbable. Fusion is seriously on course for twenty years. and world coal reserves are estimated in the centuries. I think it’s safe to say that not every mountain will go.

Answering rhetorical hyperbole aside, the implementation timeline for decommissioning the ENTIRE WORLD’S power infrastructure, and replacing it is quite long, and some of the more deleterious effects of fossil fuels are already being felt. It won’t be a pleasant century.

[ikanreed]

vansig wrote: That’s the great thing about DPF. Success will undermine *any* current nuclear program.

What about programs for heavy radioisotope production, like for chemotherapy or smoke detectors? I mean, in theory, you could do that with a d-t fo-fu device with net negative production, but it would never be as efficient as a dumb nuclear pile.

[ikanreed]

mchargue wrote:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/nasa-working-on-lightweight-z-pinch-and.html

Here’s the NextBigFuture’s page, with links to more data, like a PDF on the thruster itself.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/nasa-working-on-lightweight-z-pinch-and.html

Cheers

That’s the same link as the OP posted.

[ikanreed]

Don’t remember exactly. Sorry. It’s all better now. I think I just jumped off a subpage on google, if that’s any help.

[ikanreed]

I didn’t seriously think it was that risky a thing. The only non-sarcastic concern I had was that there would be serious legal repercussions I hope there aren’t. If Iran got a working fusion reactor, they’d lose all pretense for their existing fission program. It couldn’t possibly be portrayed as a peaceful energy endeavor anymore.

[ikanreed]

Yeah, that’s a noble goal, I hope the US government sees it that way.

[ikanreed]

I find this uncomfortable because of the amazing number of “accidents” that befall Iranian nuclear scientists. More seriously, is the U.S. State department OK with this? Iran does have a pretty wide net embargo on it right now.

[Author]

Posts