Apparent breakthrough in nuclear fusion silenced by shutdown

NIF's method for achieving fusion involves sending 192 laser beams through a 1,500-meter journey that increases its energy output by a factor of more than a quadrillion. The laser beams' energy grows from one-billionth of a joule to 4 million joules in 5 millionths of a second. A breakthrough in nuclear fusion is widely considered the holy grail of achieving an unlimited clean energy source.

Apparent breakthrough in nuclear fusion silenced by shutdown

There is something going on bigger then I grasp here. My question is who is orchestrating it

The Media?
The Government?
A secret society?
The Law of the Dead Chicken?

CBS Knows Something...

BBC News - Nuclear fusion milestone passed at US lab

BBC Knows Something...

This is definitively international.

Chick Stock Recipe: Alton Brown : Recipes : Food Network

I give it 14 hrs 30 min

Newsroom: In the News, NIF & Photon Science

Why haven't they confirmed the media contacts on their newsroom?

reply to post by FryEvans




I find this highly irregular.

They fired 192 lasers and got more out than they put in?

I'm skeptical.

reply to post by grey580


This has happened before, where they fired the lasers for a split second and for the split second got more power output than used to fire the lasers.

I'm not sure where I read it, but they tweaked where the power in the laser was and it increased it even more this time.

This only shows that the idea will work, IF they can make it sustainable. Which is the true holy grail, for now they have managed to do it for a split second....

*edit*

Here it was, read it on my phone, this is the web version....fox news

So, from the various sources i see talking about it, how is this getting silenced?

reply to post by grey580

While the NIF has passed the break-even point, it is just shy of reaching "ignition" -- when nuclear fusion produces as much energy as is supplied to the lasers.

reply to post by FryEvans



But how do you sell or package unlimited energy????

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Maybe if they used 193 lasers it would be sustainable?
I don't know.

I trust they know what they are doing.
But it seems flaky to me.

pavil
reply to post by FryEvans

 

But how do you sell or package unlimited energy????

That is the beautiful part of it, you don't free energy for everybody as it should always have been.



Thruthseek3r

thruthseek3r

pavil
reply to post by FryEvans

 

But how do you sell or package unlimited energy????

That is the beautiful part of it, you don't free energy for everybody as it should always have been.



Thruthseek3r

You're so cute....... you actually believe that..........

Ask Tesla how that worked out.

pavil

thruthseek3r

pavil
reply to post by FryEvans

 

But how do you sell or package unlimited energy????

That is the beautiful part of it, you don't free energy for everybody as it should always have been.



Thruthseek3r

You're so cute....... you actually believe that..........

Ask Tesla how that worked out.

it may not ever be totally free, but if you look into alternative energy even at the current prices (I mean really look into what you need and not just ask somebody what you need and how much it will cost) it is a lot less expensive than continuing to pay for grid energy and gas. The grid is an upshot because we can feed energy back into the grid that is not used but if what ever equipment we use malfunctions, we still have the grid.

There are many different ways to feed energy back into the grid or use it for our needs that puts our current way of operating to shame. You may not believe that but you should research it. an old motor can be rewired to make an energy producing turbine so why do people buy into the over complication? I don't know about this new discovery here but even if we are not all going to have electric cars tomorrow or a wind/solar array...any amount of energy that can immediately be fed back into the grid or used for any energy need is offsetting the non renewable consumption. We do not even know how to begin calculating the true end costs to non renewable energy. Alternative energy that can be readily put into the grid, is free by comparison, at least on some levels. After start up..some alternative energy is indeed, free...as it is often also free of pollution... free of residual consequence.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


I haven't seen setups that allow for the normal wasteful household usage of energy that would work out. Just minimal setups like Les Stroud did on his series Off the Grid. I think that was the name of it.

I do know of one wind farm setup that could power all the municipal buildings of a community plus sell the excess back to the grid that would be funded by municipal bonds that sounds like a no brainer if the wind speeds in the area work. What they would do in addition to that, was the Wind Turbines would also inject air into empty natural gas wells as a byproduct, pressurizing the well and then they would run that pressurised air over another set of turbines to get even more power out of the setup. I thought that was a pretty ingenious setup. The City would sell the bonds to get the initial money for the project and they could pay the interest off with the excess power sold back to the grid plus have money left over for continuing maintenance. If the whole Ponzi-Carbon exchange would have happened, you would have been able to sell your "clean credits" you would get for the Wind Farm and sell them to a polluter and made money off of that too.

Money, time, and energy---sometimes these things can be equated mathematically. Don't think 192 lasers enters into the equation though.

pavil
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

I haven't seen setups that allow for the normal wasteful household usage of energy that would work out. Just minimal setups like Les Stroud did on his series Off the Grid. I think that was the name of it.

I do know of one wind farm setup that could power all the municipal buildings of a community plus sell the excess back to the grid that would be funded by municipal bonds that sounds like a no brainer if the wind speeds in the area work. What they would do in addition to that, was the Wind Turbines would also inject air into empty natural gas wells as a byproduct, pressurizing the well and then they would run that pressurised air over another set of turbines to get even more power out of the setup. I thought that was a pretty ingenious setup. The City would sell the bonds to get the initial money for the project and they could pay the interest off with the excess power sold back to the grid plus have money left over for continuing maintenance. If the whole Ponzi-Carbon exchange would have happened, you would have been able to sell your "clean credits" you would get for the Wind Farm and sell them to a polluter and made money off of that too.

that is because people use way more energy than what they need... but there are more and more factors to offset that every day...even for people who refuse to cut down on energy use. More energy efficient devices and things like thermal ac...and geothermal ac and heating. unfortunately, we live in a society that runs every TV in the house all day and cool or heat rooms not used often and many live in houses that are too big, try to cool the whole thing with ac while having poorly ventilated attics. When people buy electronics they do not consider "how much energy is this going to use" Also, appliances are not created with very much efficiency in mind but they could be by exploitation of moving parts to generate more energy after start up so that it will use less energy over all.

just because one has never seen an array that can pull the weight doesn't mean it's impossible... because people prove that it IS quite possible all the time. There are people who are free of energy bills. most just buy into the idea that it isn't possible... because people keep telling them it isn't possible. It's a very popular thing to do... sit and nay say everything into endless impossibility. that never got us anywhere.

If i had my own land, i would implement a number of these ideas but where I'm at.... it is UNTHINKABLE to say "well, I'm going to dig real deep into the yard here and lay down a lot of heat exchange pipe and attach some solar fans to it to offset cooling costs.... because they would think i'd lost my mind and start nay saying even though geothermal is proven to assist in both heating and cooling and after set up with minimal cost, it would run itself. geothermal in a well insulated home would work best but it would greatly offset costs with large poorly insulated attics. There are also ways to build even not so well insulated homes so that they have effective heat exchange. Geothermal is not complete cooling or heating of course but since it is one of the cheapest ways to get started if you don't mind digging, why the hell not? Next, invest in thermal ac... which is different than geothermal and is somewhat new and it's already being blocked on the market by various methods and it needs to be tried and tested to produced better tech and longer warranties since it's kinda new... but I would try at least a small unit at first (since I only use a small unit) and THEN calculate my usage. that's the point you look into a inverter which is where you need to be extremely careful and choose well and get controllers and all that plus other less expensive pieces you need to put it all together and then gradually if you have to... start expanding your array with both solar and wind and any other supplementation. Working up to your arrays capacity if you have to do it gradually... but you need to understand the system to maintain it if something goes wrong and be able to do it yourself so that it doesn't cost anywhere near what they say it does. The panels and turbines themselves are not that expensive and they are getting cheaper. hell, if you like riding an exercise bike you can even get a small generator that a regular bike sits onto if you want to juice up some batteries and get some exercise.

You can even buy lights now that run on gravity. Why run a lamp in your room when you could have a gravity light that cost the price of the lamp and then raising your arm to lift it back up when it goes out.

there's all sorts of things that can be done to offset energy costs and looking at all of energy consumption problems... it's clear we need to stop making excuses.

reply to post by FryEvans

It's taken 50 years and trillions of dollars (worldwide) to get to a point where the net energy at the point of ignition is larger than the "ignition" beam but is still less than the gross (ie total) energy of the "plant".

What a phenomenal waste of money.....well actually not quite. It is trillions of dollars spent on nuclear research which can no longer be done via underground bombs......This is why this farce continues.

If the same money was invested in alternate technology western homes could be self sufficient by now with micro generation into the grid. Please don't feed me the intermittent excuse B.S. You handle that by storing the energy. Please don't give me the batteries are expensive B.S. excuse. We can store energy as potential energy, they are called lakes up a mountain !

We have the solutions we don't have politicians with a pair of...

reply to post by FryEvans


I must confess that I find it strange that the title of this thread is "Apparent breakthrough in nuclear fusion silenced by shutdown". Judging by the fact that your thread contains several links to information about the breakthrough and related information, seems to me that there is very little silence involved with this!

It's not really being silenced, I heard about this a couple of days ago in MSM media.

I don't see any "silencing" going on with this discovery?

reply to post by grey580

I find this highly irregular.

They fired 192 lasers and got more out than they put in?

I'm skeptical.

Fission reaction. They did not get more than there was overall (in the entire system) they merely got more than they put in from part of the system, but utilizing fuel reserves in the fusion material.

Example.

System >>> ||Limited Electrical Input||Laser||Nuclear Fuel|| (+Energy) ||Limited Electrical Input||Laser|| (+Energy)

yorkshirelad
reply to post by FryEvans

 

It's taken 50 years and trillions of dollars (worldwide) to get to a point where the net energy at the point of ignition is larger than the "ignition" beam but is still less than the gross (ie total) energy of the "plant".

What a phenomenal waste of money.....well actually not quite. It is trillions of dollars spent on nuclear research which can no longer be done via underground bombs......This is why this farce continues.

If the same money was invested in alternate technology western homes could be self sufficient by now with micro generation into the grid. Please don't feed me the intermittent excuse B.S. You handle that by storing the energy. Please don't give me the batteries are expensive B.S. excuse. We can store energy as potential energy, they are called lakes up a mountain !

We have the solutions we don't have politicians with a pair of...

Very misleading post. There are problems with nearly every type of electrical generation. Batteries use tonnes of Lithium, (one of the reasons for the Afghan war? 1 trillion lithium vein found right before occupation), wind uses rare earths that scatter radiation throughout the environment, dams offset water which cause a massive detrimental effect to ecosystems.

There is no such thing as "Clean" energy.

pavil
reply to post by FryEvans

 

But how do you sell or package unlimited energy????

The same way you sell limited energy. That question is like asking how do you sell a 2L Coke when everyone has been buying 335ml cans. You can still break the 2L down into cans if need be.

Energy transport is and will be a weak point in the system. The grid can only handle so much.

All the current fusion projects show significant promise to change the landscape of energy production, making it cleaner, better, more efficient.

Even in best case scenario though, it will not remove the need of other fuel sources. There are hundreds of obstacles in the way of that, which are laws of nature and science.

grey580
reply to post by Zarniwoop

 

Maybe if they used 193 lasers it would be sustainable?
I don't know.

I trust they know what they are doing.
But it seems flaky to me.

Do you think ITER is "Flaky"?

The work on the development of the ITER site was undertaken as part of commitments made by France as the Host country, and by Europe as the Host partner. Work was carried out under the responsibility of Agence ITER France (an entity of the CEA) for a total of EUR 150 million, financed 40 percent by Fusion for Energy (the European Domestic Agency) and 60 percent by France.

The ITER project is situated on a total of 180 hectares of land in St-Paul-lez-Durance, a commune in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France that is already home to France's nuclear research centre, the CEA (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique).

The most important feature of the ITER site today is the completed 42-hectare platform—the approximate size of 60 soccer fields—where the construction of the scientific buildings and facilities began in July 2010.

There are 2 high energy yielding laser experiments.

The other was a boron laser

www.nature.com/news/two-laser-boron-fusion-lights-the-way-to-radiation-free-energy-1.13914
www.nature.com...

www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3506/full/ncomms3506.html
www.nature.com...

Don't let this one go unnoticed either!!