Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Stellarator - Feat of engineering and execution

  1. #11
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    Read that earlier today, fascinating stuff.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Nope.
    absolutely it would be.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    You realize that it's this EXACT ATTITUDE that ruins science funding? You can't make it accountable to the dollar. Even trying to quantify the impact pollutes the discussion.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...LuoVLPPTG06_Lw
    no what cuts the science funding, is lack of vision.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    W7-X?

    I want $1B for WB-8 and WB-9.

    Or hey, a cool $100M for a LFTR or any MSR at this point would make me happy. We did it in the 60's. There are nearly a dozen projects that are going on and our regulation here in the US means they have to go to China, Canada and India to get them even built.


    Science and money are always intertwined. But it doesn't mean that is a bad thing, or that the money source always directs the science. Good science normally helps drive a vibrant economy, especially when it involves producing more energy cheaper.
    regulation is not what stops large scale science research machines in the USA.

    lack of funding does.

    because we'd rather kill brown poeple than solve the problem presented to us.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #14
    Insider Pump Scout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin Rapids, WI, USA
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    because we'd rather kill brown poeple than solve the problem presented to us.
    Well, of course, because we have racism in our DNA as a nation.

    Me, I trained to kill what would have been other white people (never had to do it, but I trained my ass off in case it came to that), so I'm not quite sure where you're trying to go with bringing that into this discussion. Killing people, white, brown, purple, whatever, isn't really about science, unless we're now talking about ways to kill people of a variety of colors more efficiently and scientifically.

    Science for the sake of science is pretty cool, but winds up getting Tesla'd. It'd be nice if that weren't the case. I'm not sure if there's a really good way to split funding, ROI, and science from each other. The guy who pays the bills is almost always going to want something in return for that funding. I'd bet there's benevolent donors who really do just want scientific progress, but there's a whole lot more people with money and agendas.

  5. #15
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    absolutely it would be.
    Based on nothing and no experience in the field.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Pump Scout View Post
    Well, of course, because we have racism in our DNA as a nation.

    Me, I trained to kill what would have been other white people (never had to do it, but I trained my ass off in case it came to that), so I'm not quite sure where you're trying to go with bringing that into this discussion. Killing people, white, brown, purple, whatever, isn't really about science, unless we're now talking about ways to kill people of a variety of colors more efficiently and scientifically.

    Science for the sake of science is pretty cool, but winds up getting Tesla'd. It'd be nice if that weren't the case. I'm not sure if there's a really good way to split funding, ROI, and science from each other. The guy who pays the bills is almost always going to want something in return for that funding. I'd bet there's benevolent donors who really do just want scientific progress, but there's a whole lot more people with money and agendas.
    the only reason folks even have a term "science for the sake of science" means they lack vision about what science is actually about, and why we should fund it.

    there is no such thing as science for the sake of science. there is only solving problem and figuring out how things work. and you never really know what bit of information, or what technology you developed for one thing, will revolutionize another process and change the world. this makes it ALL valuable.

    if you have a working fusion reactor for example, you don't give two shits about the sunis, ISIS, or the middle east. they can blow themselves for we care. science leads to economics, leads to politics, leads to fundamental solutions to the problems we have today.

    lets talk about a manned mars mission ... sounds like science for the sake of science doesn't it? but what will you have devlop to make that mission work:

    1. make fuel from rocks
    2. arrate and make barren soil grow food (genetically engineer food to grow there?)
    3. conserve and save resources
    4. much better solar generation
    5. get everyone to work together

    these are ALL solutions to VERY real world problems we are having right now. dollars invested in solving such problems, will pay off. and you never know what other applications such technology will produce too.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 10-23-2015 at 02:36 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Based on nothing and no experience in the field.
    gordon kuhnley project management: the sooner you start, the sooner its done.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  8. #18
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    The real trick to experimental science is finding experiments that are right on the edge of possibility. Diverting funds from unknown but more easily answered problems to one giant and massively expensive project that's premature in terms of emerging technology is not wise. And you are always diverting funds for big science regardless of how big your budget is; there are innumerable worthwhile but small experiments to do. Subfields like condensed matter, atomic physics and biophysics would not be where they are today had we trudged ahead with the supercollider.

    Furthermore, these things are not easy to build. I have good reason to suspect the superconducting supercollider was an overreach in terms of available technology, becoming both a massive drain on other science as well as public support for future science funding.

  9. #19
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Uhm...
    Also nope, on all points.
    Without explanation, I might as well say you are not a man (even if I have met you in person) and my comment would be equally valid.

    As for:
    But that anti-regulation bit is hysterical
    regulation is not what stops large scale science research machines in the USA
    That might actually be where you are both a bit ignorant:

    The net effect of the regulatory sclerosis in the U.S. is to force companies offshore. TerraPower, the startup funded in part by Nathan Myhrvold and Bill Gates that is focused on a novel machine known as a traveling wave reactor, signed an agreement in September with the China National Nuclear Corp. to build a prototype unit in China. Other U.S.-based startups have indicated their intention to find more nuclear-friendly countries in which to prove their technology. Even the DOE, via Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is collaborating with a Chinese partner: Oak Ridge is working with the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics to build a prototype molten salt reactor.
    Companies are starting up and working in Canada, even Toshiba, to work on MSR, ISMR and other small format reactors for heating up oil sands. India is working on Thorium reactors. These novel new reactors are not even being allowed to be built as a test device until the NRC receives hundreds of millions of dollars, and at least 10 years, just for permit to start testing. After that time and money, the NRC might just say no because the NRC is only focused on, and only works with and approves large size LWR. Even our own ORL, which I am less than a mile from as of this typing, is working with China because the US regulatory system mucks them up.

    These companies could raise funds that were reasonable, and a couple have. They just know to not to this work in the USA. Because the USA is saying no to new nuclear development.

    Same could be said about newborn stem cell work.

    Same could be said about a lot. We (The US Gov) spent $79B on climate change between 1989 and 2009. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/mas...nding-exposed/

    Why not some other stuff?

    Some of these are items that can produce gobsmacking amounts of carbon neutral power, in one design they can use just our waste nuclear fuel and power the world, like the Transatomic design.

    http://www.industrytap.com/nuclear-w...r-72-years/417

    It’s simple. Take all the nuclear waste in the world, currently 270,000 metric tons, equivalent to the weight of the same number of African elephants, put it into WAMSR (Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor), power the entire world for 72 years, including accounting for the expected rise in energy demand over that time, and get rid of nearly all the world’s nuclear waste, reducing it to the volume of 270,000 baseballs. That’s right, from a metric ton to a baseball! Sounds like science fiction, but it’s not.
    But they can't do it here, in the US.

    So they are looking to do it in Canada and China and India.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    The real trick to experimental science is finding experiments that are right on the edge of possibility. Diverting funds from unknown but more easily answered problems to one giant and massively expensive project that's premature in terms of emerging technology is not wise. And you are always diverting funds for big science regardless of how big your budget is; there are innumerable worthwhile but small experiments to do. Subfields like condensed matter, atomic physics and biophysics would not be where they are today had we trudged ahead with the supercollider.

    Furthermore, these things are not easy to build. I have good reason to suspect the superconducting supercollider was an overreach in terms of available technology, becoming both a massive drain on other science as well as public support for future science funding.
    its the challenge that drives the value added.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •