| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2006 03:29:38 AM |
| Object: |
Nuclear fusion. |
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?
Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?
I've thought of writing a science fiction novel which includes the idea
that exotic forms of harnessing energy can be formed in space,
microwaved down from energy transmitters to hot air baloons with energy
receivers and then carried down a line to the local power grid. If
fusion was considerably more efficient in outer space, which I believe
to be so, would this be a viable option for carrying energy down to the
surface? The water can be gotten by harvesting comets.
.
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear fusion. |
21 Mar 2006 09:27:53 AM |
|
|
wrote:
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?
So, what you are asking is, if we invented an entirely new kind of
tehcnology that nobody has any clue how to do, would it be practical?
When I dream, I have a pony.
Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?
Um. Lipids (fat) are about 9 kilo calories per gram, or a bit under 37
kilo
Joules per gram. Gasoline is about 45 kilo Joules per gram.
Maybe you could start with a good encylcopedia. Or a web search.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear fusion. |
21 Mar 2006 02:46:01 PM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?
So, what you are asking is, if we invented an entirely new kind of
tehcnology that nobody has any clue how to do, would it be practical?
When I dream, I have a pony.
Newsflash: Atomic bombs use nuclear fusion to trigger nuclear fission.
Also, ALL nuclear fusion harnessing technology is stuff that nobody has
any clue how to do. Otherwise we'd have nuclear fusion.
Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?
Um. Lipids (fat) are about 9 kilo calories per gram, or a bit under 37
kilo
Joules per gram. Gasoline is about 45 kilo Joules per gram.
What about the energy wasted trying to turn CO2 and H20 into Gasoline
and O2 as opposed to trying to figure out what the body does NATURALLY?
Maybe you could start with a good encylcopedia. Or a web search.
Socks
I've already done all that. Are you suggesting I do it again?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear fusion. |
21 Mar 2006 02:46:04 PM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?
So, what you are asking is, if we invented an entirely new kind of
tehcnology that nobody has any clue how to do, would it be practical?
When I dream, I have a pony.
Newsflash: Atomic bombs use nuclear fusion to trigger nuclear fission.
Also, ALL nuclear fusion harnessing technology is stuff that nobody has
any clue how to do. Otherwise we'd have nuclear fusion.
Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?
Um. Lipids (fat) are about 9 kilo calories per gram, or a bit under 37
kilo
Joules per gram. Gasoline is about 45 kilo Joules per gram.
What about the energy wasted trying to turn CO2 and H20 into Gasoline
and O2 as opposed to trying to figure out what the body does NATURALLY?
Maybe you could start with a good encylcopedia. Or a web search.
Socks
I've already done all that. Are you suggesting I do it again?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear fusion. |
21 Mar 2006 02:46:04 PM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?
So, what you are asking is, if we invented an entirely new kind of
tehcnology that nobody has any clue how to do, would it be practical?
When I dream, I have a pony.
Newsflash: Atomic bombs use nuclear fusion to trigger nuclear fission.
Also, ALL nuclear fusion harnessing technology is stuff that nobody has
any clue how to do. Otherwise we'd have nuclear fusion.
Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?
Um. Lipids (fat) are about 9 kilo calories per gram, or a bit under 37
kilo
Joules per gram. Gasoline is about 45 kilo Joules per gram.
What about the energy wasted trying to turn CO2 and H20 into Gasoline
and O2 as opposed to trying to figure out what the body does NATURALLY?
Maybe you could start with a good encylcopedia. Or a web search.
Socks
I've already done all that. Are you suggesting I do it again?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear fusion. |
21 Mar 2006 04:13:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote:
wrote:
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?
So, what you are asking is, if we invented an entirely new kind of
tehcnology that nobody has any clue how to do, would it be practical?
When I dream, I have a pony.
Newsflash: Atomic bombs use nuclear fusion to trigger nuclear fission.
Also, ALL nuclear fusion harnessing technology is stuff that nobody has
any clue how to do. Otherwise we'd have nuclear fusion.
Ok. When I dream, I have a *flying* pony.
Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?
Um. Lipids (fat) are about 9 kilo calories per gram, or a bit under 37
kilo
Joules per gram. Gasoline is about 45 kilo Joules per gram.
What about the energy wasted trying to turn CO2 and H20 into Gasoline
and O2 as opposed to trying to figure out what the body does NATURALLY?
What *about* the energy wasted doing that?
And what has that got to do with what the body does?
And what has *that* got to do with energy that might be produced
from fusion?
Are you suffering from a fantasy that it's easy to produce lipids
from nuclear reactions?
Maybe you could start with a good encylcopedia. Or a web search.
Socks
I've already done all that. Are you suggesting I do it again?
No, I'm suggesting you do it while awake.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nuclear fusion. |
21 Mar 2006 08:57:03 PM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
What if we were to induce nuclear fusion by using fission to smash
together fusion components, and do this at a small enough scale for the
energy to be harnessed efficiently? Would that be practical?
So, what you are asking is, if we invented an entirely new kind of
tehcnology that nobody has any clue how to do, would it be practical?
When I dream, I have a pony.
Newsflash: Atomic bombs use nuclear fusion to trigger nuclear fission.
Also, ALL nuclear fusion harnessing technology is stuff that nobody has
any clue how to do. Otherwise we'd have nuclear fusion.
Ok. When I dream, I have a *flying* pony.
Are you trying to troll me? Because you're seriously failing.
Furthermore, the energy can be stored in lipids, which naturally have
one of the highest known, if not THE highest known, energy storage to
storage volume ratio?
Um. Lipids (fat) are about 9 kilo calories per gram, or a bit under 37
kilo
Joules per gram. Gasoline is about 45 kilo Joules per gram.
What about the energy wasted trying to turn CO2 and H20 into Gasoline
and O2 as opposed to trying to figure out what the body does NATURALLY?
What *about* the energy wasted doing that?
And what has that got to do with what the body does?
The body is naturally more efficient than lo-tech methods of doing
things.
And what has *that* got to do with energy that might be produced
from fusion?
Are you suffering from a fantasy that it's easy to produce lipids
from nuclear reactions?
You wouldn't produce it DIRECTLY from nuclear reactions. However, you
wouldn't store it in batteries or anything like that because those lose
energy over time.
Maybe you could start with a good encylcopedia. Or a web search.
Socks
I've already done all that. Are you suggesting I do it again?
No, I'm suggesting you do it while awake.
Socks
Obviously I've looked in an encyclopedia while I was awake. Are you
suggesting that I did it in my sleep?
What here isn't in an encyclopedia probably hasn't been truly
researched before. However, I'm not the only one who has thought about
these things. I am suggesting that people start doing research on
fission triggered fusion and lipid storage, both of which are seperate
topics from eachother.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
