Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Dr Ben Miles" channel.

@fivish Oh, you've done the math to know this? Want to share with the class?
3
They've bandied around the term "ignition" to describe this breakthrough. Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't "ignition" by definition require inefficiency to be considered?
2
@timvankuilenburg2152 That's just ad hom. Why don't you explain how he's wrong if you're going to bother replying? Personally, I'm not convinced that extending and bolstering our current interglacial period is the worse option.
2
It consumes fuel added to the system, so it doesn't violate thermodynamics.
2
@Gomlmon99 Why not?
1
@Gomlmon99 MIT defines it as, "The point where a fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining instead of requiring a constant input of energy."
1
@Gomlmon99 That doesn't make sense. In the case of inertial fusion, that quote says to me that enough output is given to power the source of inertia. In that case, efficiency loss from the laser and electricity generation is a necessary consideration.
1
@Gomlmon99 Yes, but you're not reconciling your understanding with the quote. You understand how what you're espousing as ignition could be perceived as contradictory with the quote, yes? And it's nothing personal, but I don't know you other than as a random internet person and that authority must take lower precedence given an MIT source.
1
1. Nuclear fusion is already weaponized: thermonuclear weapons. 2. Safer alternatives to nuclear fission is crucial for modern military powerplants as modern submarines and ships currently run on pressurized water nuclear fission reactors. This could also modernize aircraft, bringing back the idea of nuclear powered aircraft capable of flying for months without refueling. In addition, being able to have a small trailer-sized reactor that doesn't consume diesel to generate power in the field would be great for FOB's. Defense will be some of the first adopters in the technology when it becomes viable. They will be dumping a lot of money into the industry, and that's actually a really good thing (In fact, they area already dumping a lot of money into fusion through Lockheed-Martin's Skunkworks division). 3. Oil companies are dumping resources into fusion and other renewables. They know better than anyone else that the current consumption of fossil fuels is too fast, and that we're quickly running out, for it to remain a viable business strategy. It's in their best interest to diversify energy production.
1
@odinmcboden9690 You've got some really weird ideas if you think any of this is confirmation of what you initially said or that it won't simultaneously come to civilian use.
1
@odinmcboden9690 What I'm saying is just going over your head. New tech before production infrastructure is laid is prohibitively expensive. Military expenditure expedites that infrastructure establishment, getting it to civilian affordability sooner through public expenditure, allowing tax dollars to perform double duty in establishing expensive infrastructure investments as well as defense.
1
@odinmcboden9690 God, you're daft.
1
@odinmcboden9690 A narcissist? How does that even make sense?
1
 @thurlravenscroft2572 What does that have to do with your free lunch comment?
1
@thurlravenscroft2572 That's fair enough. When people mention free lunches in terms of physics, they're most often noting that someone's trying to get more energy out of a system than the total being put in.
1