Science Squabbling

More history than strictly science but what is science without it's history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/453/did-people-think-the-earth-was-flat

My favourite bit from this is

Eratosthenes (276–195 BCE) is famous, among other things, for calculating the circumference of the Earth

On the topic of favourite bits I came across this's article on Wiki the other day. The opening paragraph must be the most awesome opening paragraph of any Wikipedia article.

Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart VC, KBE, CB, CMG, DSO (5 May 1880 – 5 June 1963) was a British Army officer of Belgian and Irish descent. He served in the Boer War, First World War, and Second World War; was shot in the face, head, stomach, ankle, leg, hip, and ear; survived two plane crashes; tunnelled out of a POW camp; and pulled off his own fingers when a doctor refused to amputate them. Describing his experiences in World War I, he wrote, "Frankly I had enjoyed the war."

That's the best thing I've read in 2013.

Like a boss.

fusion reactor in us passes the break even point, now producing more energy than it takes in

Totally unlike Tom Huddleston then. Although my limited physics suggests this is not possible. Something about the law of conservation of energy. squabble

Totally unlike Tom Huddleston then. Although my limited physics suggests this is not possible. Something about the law of conservation of energy. squabble

Conservation of energy shouldn't be an inherent problem for viable fusion reactors, it's just a matter of finding a design whereby the conversion overheads don't total more than the output.

Link to BBC story.

Conservation of energy shouldn't be an inherent problem for viable fusion reactors, it's just a matter of finding a design whereby the conversion overheads don't total more than the output.

out. of. my. depth.

Conservation of energy shouldn't be an inherent problem for viable fusion reactors, it's just a matter of finding a design whereby the conversion overheads don't total more than the output.

Overall, the efficiency is still less than 1%.

Still a way to go yet...

out. of. my. depth.

Sorry, forgot this was the internet and not real life. I'll rephrase that.

whateves numbnuts u no nothing lol

Potentially the most important news of the last 100 years. Cool.

fusion power plants would have to produce more energy than they consume

This is the part that confuses me. you can't create energy so how can you produce more than you can consume?

The are not creating it, they are releasing it from the hydrogen fuel via fusion

Up until now maintaining/containing the fusion reaction has taken more energy than is released during the fusion burn.

From wikipedia's entry on nuclear fusion:

"It takes considerable energy to force nuclei to fuse, even those of the lightest element, hydrogen. This is because all nuclei have a positive charge due to their protons, and as like charges repel, nuclei strongly resist being put close together. Accelerated to high speeds, they can overcome this electrostatic repulsion and be forced close enough for the attractive nuclear force to be sufficiently strong to achieve fusion. The fusion of lighter nuclei, which creates a heavier nucleus and often a free neutron or proton, generally releases more energy than it takes to force the nuclei together; this is an exothermic process that can produce self-sustaining reactions. The US National Ignition Facility, which uses laser-driven inertial confinement fusion, is thought to be capable of break-even fusion."

Pfft.. I made self sustaining nuclear fusion years ago using a microwave and some jam doughnuts.

The are not creating it, they are releasing it from the hydrogen fuel via fusion

Up until now maintaining/containing the fusion reaction has taken more energy than is released during the fusion burn.

It's still more, taking into account the laser light that doesn't reach the target - although it is a milestone.

"Pfft.. I made self sustaining nuclear fusion years ago using a microwave and some jam doughnuts."

Doughnuts... is there anything they can't do?

It's still more, taking into account the laser light that doesn't reach the target - although it is a milestone.

True. Fricking lasers- I prefer the magnetic torus model simply due to it being more fun to imagine, and a small version would handily fit in my spare wheel well under the boot floor.

True. Fricking lasers- I prefer the magnetic torus model simply due to it being more fun to imagine, and a small version would handily fit in my spare wheel well under the boot floor.

In your De Lorean?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/oct/08/englert-and-higgs-bag-2013-nobel-prize-for-physics

Totally unlike Tom Huddleston then. Although my limited physics suggests this is not possible. Something about the law of conservation of energy. squabble

Total energy of a system is conserved. The bits of atoms getting squashed together are in a lower energy than when apart. This reduction in 'binding energy' is released as heat etc... Energy is very much being conservered.

The tricky part is getting them to get together in the first place, a viable fusion reactor needs to use less energy getting them together than is released when together. All energy generation has an 'input' cost.

True. Fricking lasers- I prefer the magnetic torus model simply due to it being more fun to imagine, and a small version would handily fit in my spare wheel well under the boot floor.

Tokamak is the name for that design, the French/Europeans are building a full size prototype ITER. Total cost around £50 Billion for a working reactor. (About the cost of HS2)

This is the part that confuses me. you can't create energy so how can you produce more than you can consume?

Take one match and set light to a box, you're creating energy! Or rather releasing chemical energy in the match tips that need a kick to get started...

Total energy of a system is conserved. The bits of atoms getting squashed together are in a lower energy than when apart. This reduction in 'binding energy' is released as heat etc... Energy is very much being conservered.

The tricky part is getting them to get together in the first place, a viable fusion reactor needs to use less energy getting them together than is released when together. All energy generation has an 'input' cost.

I got there in the end but thank you, yours was the best explanation.