quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
http://www.livescience.com/38533-photons-may-emit-faster-than-light-particles.html

I could end the lesson there, but what would be the fun in that. I mean if a published article in a physics journal isn't enough for you .. how about this..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

I quote: Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).

Funny. What I said exactly.

I realize you haven't actually like studied this stuff. But when I said there were wave equations for the FTL interface I'm only talking about things that I was actually forced to learn in a top 5 American engineering school.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

except that in the real world it kinda does.

thats one of the reasons it is taking us so long to find out if there actually and definitively is a higgs boson.

Let me use small words for you.

How to make a million dollars.

First, get a million dollars.

You aint gonna start fusion on the kitchen table with strike anywhere matches and some baking soda.

Except, per usual, you are just disagreeing to disagree. I said the exact thing in my first post.

Technical, economic, and political reasons may well mean we never develop feasible fusion power. But the second law of thermodynamics *does not*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Google really is your friend.

It helps you learn that you are completely wrong, time and time again and then you try to move the goal posts.

As a reminder it was *you* that said that fusion reactors were impossible due to the second law of thermodynamics.

It was you that said that you could get energy out of fusion.

It was you that said that energy isn't conserved.

How many lies did you just tell?
I never said you could not get energy out of fusion and never said that energy is n ot conserved. Go back and read the thread again. Get someone to explain all the words to you.

I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

Here are some direct quotes, where you actually did say those exact things:

DK post 16: Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics has *nothing* to do with the feasibility of fusion that puts out usable energy.

The sun, and fusion bombs are working models that show indeed that the second law of thermodynamics allows fusion to release energy.

Yes it does. It has everything to do with it. If you don't understand it you have no chance of even understanding the discussion. Why does an internal combustion engine get hot?

quote:

quote:

DK post 20: When we do fusion it always takes more energy than we get out. That is a plain fact.

The plain fact is that fusion takes matter (one form of energy) and coverts it into different matter and releases usuable energy.

And it now, and unless we get a way to manipulate gravity, will always take more energy to sustain the reaction than can be gotten out of it.

quote:

quote:

DK post 27: You don't get it do you, how precisely can you get more energy out of a fusion reaction than you put into it?

Energy is conserved (something you disputed post 56). You get useful energy out of fusion by changing matter into useful energy. The fact that it is enormously difficult (and we may never achieve it) says nothing about the laws of the universe preventing it.

Fusion is no more prevented by the laws of the universe than fission is. Its just technically more difficult.

Fission has an energetic fuel. Fusion does not. When you figure out the difference maybe then we can have a discussion.

quote:

quote:

Dk post 54: If that potential energy was sufficient to sustain a fusion reaction then suns would not die until they fused every last hydrogen atom. Since that is obviously untrue...

There are so many errors here I don't even know where to begin. So go read a book about the life cycle of stars.

Generally speaking starts consume hydrogen and fuse it and then move up the food chain to helium.. etc.
How stars die depends on the starting mass of the sun, and other factors. When nuclear fusion processes are no longer able to contest the force of gravity you get things like novas, quasars, blackholes, etc.

Exactly!. Do you not understand? Eventually the gravity is not sufficient to fuse the remaining hydrogen and the star goes into CNO fusion and then it dies.

quote:

quote:

DK post 56: Some energy is always lost. Always. That is the fundamental truth of entropy.

Energy is *never* lost. Einstein 101. It merely changes from forms useful to us, to forms not possible to derive usefull work from.
Google: heat death.

sloppy language. The energy is lost from the reaction and is not useful. I made what I meant clear by stating entropy. If you don't understand entropy it is not my fault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

DomKen, normally we argue the same sides. What happened to your physics? If the Sun works and fusion bombs work, there is no fundamental reason controlled fusion won't either. Human ingenuity and resources to throw at a difficult technical problem are the limits, not fundamental laws.
Would you mind stopping saying a fusion plant Can't produce more energy than it takes to run it and give ONE reason why? (Besides it being "Obvious"?) Getting to sound like a playing card hitting bike spokes, with about as convincing a result. Not like you at all.

Ok, do you understand thermodynamics and entropy? Really?





Now consider what is a fusion power plant supposed to be? We're going to take hydrogen, probably deuterium but that's just an isotope of hydrogen that's a little easier to fuse, and we're going to excite it somehow, IOW get it to a plasma state, and constrain it so that it fuses and when it does fuse it will release all that wonderful energy which we can gather and use.

Now for the problems, how do you get the hydrogen excited? Firing a laser at it seems the consensus. To fuse the 170 micrograms of hydrogen isotopes discussed above the lasers were fed 500 megajoules of electricity. And the fusion only released 17k joules. That's right 500 megajoules input to get 17 kilojoules out.

You see, in most engines or power plants we "burn" a fuel that is storing a readily released energy in either chemical, potential or radioactive type. Even in fission we just put the fissile material together it gets hot and we let it boil water, in the most common reactor type, but in a fusion reactor we'd have to force the reaction to happen which would take input energy and once we start doing that we're not going to come out ahead. It would be like pumping water up hill to run a water mill.

And then add in the power to make the fuel pellets, to cool them, to actually gather the energy and you see that the system. But always keep in mind the rule of entropy. No closed system can come out ahead.

Considering I have 9 years of education and 30 years of experience in this precise field - why yes, I do think I understand thermodynamics. As well as kinetics.

Once again, you clearly do not.

There are literally *millions* of chemical (and other reactions) where you must input a large starting amount of energy. This is called, variously, an Energy of Activation.

The amount of energy require has ZERO bearing. Let me repeat ZERO bearing on the amount of energy released.

As a small example - one of millions I could provide. Thermite has a very high energy of activation - approximately 162.5 KJ/mol. The Gibbs free energy release by one mole ranges from 838 to 1800+ KJ/mol
(Gibbs free energy being net of the E(a)).

Using small words: To start the Thermite reaction requires a large amount of energy. Usually you have an igniter reaction, and a magnesium starter. But the energy given off is so large that it easily surpasses 1500 degrees and melts iron. Approximately 10 times the amount of energy initially required.

The energy required to start a reaction has *nothing* to do with the amount of energy produced BY the reaction.

NOTHING.

Let me give you an even simpler example. You have a 1000 pound rock perched on the top of a 1000 foot tower.
It rests on a lever.

The amount of energy required to to nudge the rock over the edge has to do with how well the rock is balanced on the pinion. A simple finger touch may send it over the edge. The amount of energy released by the rock has no meaningful relation to the amount of energy required to set it over the edge.

NOTHING.

So it is with fusion. The amount of energy required to initiate has nothing to do with whether usable energy will be produced.

NOTHING.

The science is absolutely clear that fusion produces massive amounts of usable energy. The only question is can we master the technology required to make it happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
WRONG.

The energy of two hydrogen particles is MORE than the energy of Helium.
From Wiki:

Fusion reactions of light elements power the stars and produce virtually all elements in a process called nucleosynthesis. The fusion of lighter elements in stars releases energy (and the mass that always accompanies it). For example, in the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei to form helium, 0.7% of the mass is carried away from the system in the form of kinetic energy or other forms of energy (such as electromagnetic radiation).[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'll repeat this for you, a fusion power plant is not viable since it will always take more power input than you can get out of it. The only caveat to that is the possibility that someday we may find a way to manipulate gravity that doesn't need energy to do it.

Well I certainly hope that you intend to advise the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute, and the countless other institutes and laboratories wasting money on this frivolous pursuit. And I think it would be a commendable gesture of international goodwill if you would share your superior knowledge with the signatories to the European Fusion Development Agreement as well.

K.

The DoE is still funding cold fusion too. I assume even you don't believe that stupid shit works.

Cite please?

Besides, while it is a complete misnomer to call it cold fusion, there is science going on here that is not understood. Which means it may well be worthy of research.

For example the American Chemical Society: http://phys.org/news157046734.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
WRONG.

The energy of two hydrogen particles is MORE than the energy of Helium.
From Wiki:

Fusion reactions of light elements power the stars and produce virtually all elements in a process called nucleosynthesis. The fusion of lighter elements in stars releases energy (and the mass that always accompanies it). For example, in the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei to form helium, 0.7% of the mass is carried away from the system in the form of kinetic energy or other forms of energy (such as electromagnetic radiation).[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

You left out a little detail. The protons, it actually involves 6 of them, have to be at a very high energy state. They have to be so hot that they have lost their electrons and become ionized. That takes one of two things a huge amount of potential energy like a deep gravity well like the sun or a lot of input energy. And that is the problem with doing fusion here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

DomKen, normally we argue the same sides. What happened to your physics? If the Sun works and fusion bombs work, there is no fundamental reason controlled fusion won't either. Human ingenuity and resources to throw at a difficult technical problem are the limits, not fundamental laws.
Would you mind stopping saying a fusion plant Can't produce more energy than it takes to run it and give ONE reason why? (Besides it being "Obvious"?) Getting to sound like a playing card hitting bike spokes, with about as convincing a result. Not like you at all.

Ok, do you understand thermodynamics and entropy? Really?





Now consider what is a fusion power plant supposed to be? We're going to take hydrogen, probably deuterium but that's just an isotope of hydrogen that's a little easier to fuse, and we're going to excite it somehow, IOW get it to a plasma state, and constrain it so that it fuses and when it does fuse it will release all that wonderful energy which we can gather and use.

Now for the problems, how do you get the hydrogen excited? Firing a laser at it seems the consensus. To fuse the 170 micrograms of hydrogen isotopes discussed above the lasers were fed 500 megajoules of electricity. And the fusion only released 17k joules. That's right 500 megajoules input to get 17 kilojoules out.

You see, in most engines or power plants we "burn" a fuel that is storing a readily released energy in either chemical, potential or radioactive type. Even in fission we just put the fissile material together it gets hot and we let it boil water, in the most common reactor type, but in a fusion reactor we'd have to force the reaction to happen which would take input energy and once we start doing that we're not going to come out ahead. It would be like pumping water up hill to run a water mill.

And then add in the power to make the fuel pellets, to cool them, to actually gather the energy and you see that the system. But always keep in mind the rule of entropy. No closed system can come out ahead.

Considering I have 9 years of education and 30 years of experience in this precise field - why yes, I do think I understand thermodynamics. As well as kinetics.

Once again, you clearly do not.

There are literally *millions* of chemical (and other reactions) where you must input a large starting amount of energy. This is called, variously, an Energy of Activation.

The amount of energy require has ZERO bearing. Let me repeat ZERO bearing on the amount of energy released.

As a small example - one of millions I could provide. Thermite has a very high energy of activation - approximately 162.5 KJ/mol. The Gibbs free energy release by one mole ranges from 838 to 1800+ KJ/mol
(Gibbs free energy being net of the E(a)).

Using small words: To start the Thermite reaction requires a large amount of energy. Usually you have an igniter reaction, and a magnesium starter. But the energy given off is so large that it easily surpasses 1500 degrees and melts iron. Approximately 10 times the amount of energy initially required.

The energy required to start a reaction has *nothing* to do with the amount of energy produced BY the reaction.

NOTHING.

Let me give you an even simpler example. You have a 1000 pound rock perched on the top of a 1000 foot tower.
It rests on a lever.

The amount of energy required to to nudge the rock over the edge has to do with how well the rock is balanced on the pinion. A simple finger touch may send it over the edge. The amount of energy released by the rock has no meaningful relation to the amount of energy required to set it over the edge.

NOTHING.

So it is with fusion. The amount of energy required to initiate has nothing to do with whether usable energy will be produced.

NOTHING.

The science is absolutely clear that fusion produces massive amounts of usable energy. The only question is can we master the technology required to make it happen.

You have no idea what you are talking about
Chemical reactions contain all the energy that is going to be released by the reaction in the chemical bonds. It doesn't magically appear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
WRONG.

The energy of two hydrogen particles is MORE than the energy of Helium.
From Wiki:

Fusion reactions of light elements power the stars and produce virtually all elements in a process called nucleosynthesis. The fusion of lighter elements in stars releases energy (and the mass that always accompanies it). For example, in the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei to form helium, 0.7% of the mass is carried away from the system in the form of kinetic energy or other forms of energy (such as electromagnetic radiation).[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

You left out a little detail. The protons, it actually involves 6 of them, have to be at a very high energy state. They have to be so hot that they have lost their electrons and become ionized. That takes one of two things a huge amount of potential energy like a deep gravity well like the sun or a lot of input energy. And that is the problem with doing fusion here.

Again. Duh. Which I and MercTech and Kirata and virtually everyone else have said from the first post that the technical challenges were prodigious.

But thats not the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion is your ridiculous assertions that

a) Energy isn't conserved.

quote:

b) Fusion can never release more energy than required to initiate.

quote:

c) The second law of thermodynamics prevents it.

quote:

The fact that it takes a huge amount of energy to start the reaction is irrelevant to the question of whether the reaction violates the second law of thermodynamics, which you have claimed for nigh on a dozen posts now.

Three words you are incapable of saying: "I was wrong." Even though it it abundently clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Matter and energy are interchangeable. That is the meaning of behind E=Mc^2

No one has claimed fusion reverses entropy, never happened.

Fusion converts matter to energy.

Two protons weigh more than a helium nucleus. This is known as a "mass defect" and is the way the energy released in a nuclear reaction is calculated.

The matter lost when two protons combine to make a helium releases energy.

This is called "FUSION"

Can you say "fusion" boys and girls?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

2 protons do not weigh more than a helium nucleus! A helium nucleus contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons. You are confused.
2 protons do not fuse to make helium. I already posted the reaction. It is 6 protons.
The proton - proton chain is the most common reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Even fusion energy which is heat energy is still thus generation 2. It takes fuel which when running out...is no more.

quote:


What we have failed to research and develop, is the world's magnetic field energy which has electromotive potential obviously and will last as long as the earth does. Even geothermal is still heat energy rather than electromotive energy.

Tesla started us in that direction (some say the Ben Franklin of magnetic energy) and was never taken up because vested interests in fossil fuels don't want it. There are scientists that will tell you that when man does harness the earth's magnetic field, it will eventually power everything we need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Even fusion energy which is heat energy is still thus generation 2. It takes fuel which when running out...is no more.

Ok. Technically, you're correct. But we are actually talking about the number of hydrogen atoms that exists on the planet...which is a shit-ton...considering how much energy you can release from just a few atoms.

quote:


What we have failed to research and develop, is the world's magnetic field energy which has electromotive potential obviously and will last as long as the earth does. Even geothermal is still heat energy rather than electromotive energy.

Tesla started us in that direction (some say the Ben Franklin of magnetic energy) and was never taken up because vested interests in fossil fuels don't want it. There are scientists that will tell you that when man does harness the earth's magnetic field, it will eventually power everything we need.

Another great idea. But isn't the issue here the sheer size of the system required to do it? It seems like I heard a story of a guy that tried to power his house this way and it took something like several miles of copper wire wound around fence posts surrounding a 10 acre field to generate enough electricity to run a few light bulbs. I imagine that can be reduced significantly but can we do it enough to power everything without having a cost-prohibitive infrastructure?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No closed system can come out ahead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No closed system can come out ahead.

You're using the same argument that creationist/intelligent designists use. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No closed system can come out ahead.

You're using the same argument that creationist/intelligent designists use. [8|]