Scientists plan to ignite tiny man-made star

Didint Hans Alfveen do something like this before?

Considering that all of the greatest scientific knowledge eventually gets into the control of war profiteers and people who thrive on the lack of energy/resources to most of the world's population... I'd bet my bottom dollar that if this succeeds, it will not be used to give us all free energy and make the world a happy lovely place.

And I'm thinking.... what if they do get this fusion to sustain its reaction? Will they be able to contain the power of a sun-like caliber? Do they even know what the sun really does? This seems like dangerous science based on educated guesses, which could be very disastrous... maybe not the end of the world, but bye bye whoever is unlucky enough to live within a 100 mile radius or something crazy like that.

I don't trust anything in the hands of profiteers.

Looks and sounds kind of cool if it all goes smoothly, though. SpiderMan 2, indeed! Almost to the T.

That part about creating a star out of Jupiter was completely stupid. First of all, you'd need 20 times the mass of Jupiter before you could even start to think about creating a man-made star.

What a load of crap.

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Considering that all of the greatest scientific knowledge eventually gets into the control of war profiteers and people who thrive on the lack of energy/resources to most of the world's population... I'd bet my bottom dollar that if this succeeds, it will not be used to give us all free energy and make the world a happy lovely place.

And I'm thinking.... what if they do get this fusion to sustain its reaction? Will they be able to contain the power of a sun-like caliber? Do they even know what the sun really does? This seems like dangerous science based on educated guesses, which could be very disastrous... maybe not the end of the world, but bye bye whoever is unlucky enough to live within a 100 mile radius or something crazy like that.

I don't trust anything in the hands of profiteers.

Looks and sounds kind of cool if it all goes smoothly, though. SpiderMan 2, indeed! Almost to the T.

Try reading about the NIF and not getting all your science from Spiderman 2. Seriously. Your post displays complete ignorance of the subject at hand. "dangerous science based on educated guesses" is a hell of a judgment from somebody who displays absolutely no idea about the workings of the machine in question.

Sorry i skipped a few post but i was just wondering, what happens when it burns out? Will it explode like a real star or can they control it more then that?

reply to post by legacyv


You just keep adding more fuel, if you don't, then it will just die. The fusion is iniciated via the lasers anyway, without which nothing will happen..

There is plenty of information on the web about this and it has been covered pretty well for the better part of a decade. It isn't "new", per se.

My personal opinion is that this method is more likely to succeed than than the toral design seen in ITER, as it mimics the spehrical nature of the sun rather than trying to contain a donut of plasma like ITER.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by legacyv

 

You just keep adding more fuel, if you don't, then it will just die.

Ok thanks i understand it a little bit more now

It is all academic anyway.
A couple of reasons come to mind here:
1 - Fusion Reactions are not how real stars work. They are Electrical in nature which explains the surface temperatures of 5400 K against heliosphere temperatures in the millions of K by comparison.
If real starts ran on Fusion, the surface would be hotter than the outer heliosphere/heliopause.
2 - We cannot even maintain a controlled fusion reaction at all - never mind a "mini star" presumably dreamed up by either a weapons group or a relativist looking for a grant. In billions & billions of $$$ worth of experiments & almost 50 years of trying, the closest anyone has got is the H-Bomb, which is a true fusion reaction, but an uncontrollable one. Hence the great big explosion.

This is all stuff & nonsense and should be ignored for the trite patronising garbage that it is.

Originally posted by wheresthetruth
I'll play along with this one with one of the best lines from that movie:
"The power of the sun in the palm of my hands."

Why is mankind hellbent on destroying itself and planet?

Well it isn't so why confuse the will of the few fanatics with the will of more than 6 billion people?

I dont care what the practical application or the best of intentions this is being developed under, this will be turned into a WMD.

Well if you don't care for specifics i wont bore you with them and just ask you why our current economic/social/technology models keep yielding WOMD when the people just want security, food and the stability that allows the same for their children?

Nothing of power has ever been created that wasnt turned into a weapon.

And few technological breakthroughs have not yielded practical devices that are not currently or could not possibly be hugely beneficial if not for the top down imposition of our current economic and political model. When did the people of the world vote for non representative two party systems or autocratic unelected rule? How is this OUR fault?

Bones and stones were sharpened leading to piercing and slashing weapons.

So the 95% who wants to make a peaceful living should continue trying to club game animals to death while they have the occasional example of sharp piercing weapon wielding rival tribes? Where is the evidence that these weapon evolution where not driven by higher hunting yields? Why presume warfare or violence as casual power?

Metal replaced these to make arrows and swords.

Arrows are certainly hunting tools but since not everyone hunts for a living ( some people actually started to farm the land and raise livestock etc) what would they create for self defense given their greater resources and pooled knowledge? Why presume that the advent of metal farming and industrial tools came later and not before their weapons applications? Do you know how fabulously expensive a bronze or later steel sword where and how much wealth you had to generate by farming and otherwise to get one? Why would this sort of instrument often be the single most expensive possession of any middle class citizens ( lower classes could not afford them) if people were so crazed and violent?

Gunpowder was created and its use in glorious displays of fire in the sky became the fuel for cannons, explosives and firearms.

Gunpowder were 'discovered' while searching for other things. I hardly understand why you never mention the legitimate self defense capabilities of all these 'horrible' tools. Would you rather spend hours each day not tending your livestock or working your farms so you can practice with the sword and bow or a few hours a week with the rifle yielding a far greater capacity to ward off anyone who might be interested in borrowing some of your ( lets presume) hard won wealth?

Splitting the atom was supposed to be used for the production of energy for the world, instead became the most destructive force in the history of mankind.

It is being used for that and have saved many more lives than it's destroyed. I know the potential differences but as with all other weapons there are countermeasures to nuclear weapons that may negate or seriously impede their effectiveness.

Now, they want to create something that makes an atomic bomb look like a firecracker by comparison.

We have long has fusion weapons; i don't understand why you think this is very different.

Is there anything created for reasons of purity that cannot be weaponized and used against another human being?

VEry probably not and this is why the majority can not be allowed to gain control of the world for they will surely dismantle the weapons and find a way to apply technology towards goals that would make almost everyone too wealthy to have much reason in personally engaging in risky behaviour.

Is there any limit to their attempts?

If your still referring to 'humanity' or 'mankind' then no; there probably isn't any thing people wont do to create means to protect themselves from perceived foreign and domestic enemies. Why this is a bad thing i have absolutely no idea as disposable income and high tech weapon possession does not yield any more violence than poverty and absence of firearms does.

Basically the better armed the individual is the more he can discourage others from coercive practices which is as far as i can tell just about the best thing you can do for 'liberty' as long as citizens are not in control of their governments.

Stellar

What The Hackin? O.e

reply to post by Tinman67


waste of money and very very ,very, stupid method..

it is a ONE SHOT wonder.

regardless of if it works or not after the first shot the room will no longer be CLEAN.

think about it.

which means they cannot fire again until all those expensive mirrors and lenses need to be cleaned.

the whole room will need to be cleaned.

the laser beams energy will also hit the opposing walls for each of those beams ejecting more/debris from those walls.

the whole idea is so stupid and clumsy...

if they fire without cleaning the mirrors and lenses will be destroyed as they absorb the laser beam energy..
no electrical energy can be obtained from it.

this is so stupid it beyond belief.

there can be NO PRACTICAL use for this.

$1.2 billion for this stupidity?

am i right or am i right?