3 million degree fusing hydrogen spinning around in a giant centrifuge. What could possibly go wrong? :upsidedown:

 

Pressures, and especially temperatures, aren't anywhere near what's needed. On Earth we require a nuclear fission bomb to ignite fusion. It's more than just gravity (or centrifigul force), it's also temperature to get things going.

 

It's true. Most people don't realize that a hydrogen bomb is a fusion bomb jump-started by a fission nuclear bomb.

 

That whole post says the opposite. You come off as a drunk moron. I quit reading after the 20th bad capitalization. Which was still in the first sentence.

 

But yOu CarEd enOUgh t o whine AboUt it.

 

so the dark side has started the death star already.

 

i dont see how you can create a gravitational field from a nuclear fusion device....

the reason a star works is because its mass is creating a gravity field that is trying to compress the star into a little ball, but the positive pressure of the atomic fusions happening at the core sort of "reinflate" it to prevent it from collapsing in on itself.

 

By inducing Gravity around the Tokamak, by accelerating said Tocamak in a rotaional Orbit. The Tocamak is'nt supposed to induce the Gravity, but rather Gravity must be created artificially around the Tocamak, in order for the Fusion to stabilize and sustain itself for longer than an instant.
As you say, the Star has Gravity do to it's Mass. This allows it to sustain itself. The Tocamak they showed on the program could not be mastered like a Star, and they alluded that this was because it did'nt have a Gravity of its own. So, utilizing velocity and the principles that dictate how a Gyroscope works, can't you stick the Tocamak into an apparatus that achieves this state, before turning it on. Then, if it Stabilizes the Fusion, you can power the Apparatus that is spinning the Tocamak, with a portion of the power generated? That's all I was trying to say.

 

E=MC^2 says that when you have a dense enough energy field,(even a magnetic field, such as inside a solenoid), it has gravity. Just like mass does. They both distort Spacetime. To get a strong enough field stregnth, in a area big enough for a reactor, you need something like all the energy used by the United States in a one year period.

Until better methods are discovered..............Putting this knowledge into useful/practical application is currently not possible. At least not for Earthlings.

 

Centripital acceleration doesn't equal gravity, sorry. The Tokomac been around for over 40 years. I have higher hopes for the laser implosion technique.

The gravity in a star causes uniform compression of the hydrogen gas in a star resulting in heat and pressure that causes fusion. The construction of a hydrogen (fusion) bomb uses smaller fission bombs to compress the hydrogen to get the same effect as in a star.

The Tokomac uses electromagnetic confinement to compress the hydrogen, but it is very difficult to control for longer than a few microseconds, darned plasma tends to find and exploit any weaknesses in the magnetic bottle.

 

Centripital acceleration doesn't equal gravity, sorry. .

" In General Relitivity, Acceleration and Gravity is the same"

"the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

 

Flux Capacitor will work better than the tocamac.

 

I had this same conversation with Jesus Christ the other night. Jesus also touches on this subject matter during his sermon on the mount.

 

I actually did just get done watching a few of Michio's documentaries on youtube. Good stuff.

 

Funny this should come up. I just met a guy working on this over the weekend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

We talked about it all quite a bit. He is more of a manager type guy so we couldn't get to heavy into the science of it all but it was interesting none the less.


The device your referring to is a tokamak. Honestly the whole thing sounds a bit dubious to me. While I suspect the whole thing is possible, I strongly suspect this is just another zillion dollar government money sink hole of a project that will either get cancelled half way or go over budget and fail to produce results in double the time they predict.

If an energy company was backing this technology instead of a state funded agency I might have a bit more faith.

 

I'm in agreement with those who postulate that you'd likely need gravity from all sides to balance the extreme forces of the plasma (which mimics the thermonuclear reaction inside a star).

You could keep the reaction contained by inertia, except for two important factors;

A) Any container made from normal matter would be instantly vaporized by the plasma. You'd need some "super-material" that we haven't discovered yet.

B) The centrifuge needed to maintain G forces similar to those found in a star would also need to be made from the aforementioned "super-material", or it would rip itself to shreds long before it reached the required velocities.

I'm also in agreement with the assertion that this thing is a billion dollar boondoggle with ZERO chance of ever producing a single watt of excess energy (beyond what was put into it). If it had any prayer of success, you'd see lots of large corporations building their own plasma research projects.

 

Michio Kaku talks a lot about old, dead concepts. He does not back these up with the hard science for people more capable than a child to do anything with them. In this way, he is about as useful as the children his shows are intended for. As far as educational material goes, he's pretty much the Barney's Play Along of science.

 

...also, to get the gravity of a star by spinning, there is nothing on this earth that is strong enough to withstand the force, besides the fact that spinning your small-but-heavy tokamac would force your precious plasma into the floor of the tocamac (because it wasn't strong enough to simulate the force of a star on its own to begin with, it can't overcome that very force), burning said tocamac up...

When it comes down to it, there are several methods of fusion power that are both positive energy output, and operational at a research level. The reason you haven't heard about them is because since Reagan shunted the US budget for fusion research to a level that would not come to fruition ever, and the typical US citizen would have a life-altering paradigm shift if it was forced to reconcile its standardized nationalistic upbringing with the fact that other countries can also do stuff good too without us... These types of things are generally hidden away from the American public in the most secret texts possible... Public scientific literature. The ultimate new world mega-conspiracy.

Furthermore, my stomach is fine for beer tonight.

 

...also, to get the gravity of a star by spinning, there is nothing on this earth that is strong enough to withstand the force

I don't think that's accurate. The sun has a density about 1/4 that of earth and has about 29G. Put another way, the gravity on the sun is about 29 times that of Earth.

We can easily subject objects to 29G of continuous acceleration. I don't believe this will solve any problems though.

In fact, there have been people subject to momentary forces exceeding 29G and survived. In fact, 32G is generally considered a force a properly protected human can walk away from. Mr. Stapp regularly subjected himself to 45G, with eventual eye damage.

And the highest recorded was 170G+ with many broken bones and other injuries.

 

In addition, for those who still believe that the momentum and inertia that forms acceleration, and gravity are not closely related, or, in fact one and the same, think again of a pilot.

If we point our aircraft straight down and accelerate at 32ft/sec/sec, we experience zero G. Same as the ISS, which is in a constant state of "free fall". But, when we pull out of the dive, we experience more than 1G. Earth's 1G is added to the 4G acceleration (for example) of the aircraft and a pilot may experience 5G or more!

But do the same maneuver going straight up, and pilot only experiences 3G during the "pull out" as Earth's gravity subtracts from the inertia experienced by the pilot.

 

If we point our aircraft straight down and accelerate at 32ft/sec/sec, we experience zero G. Same as the ISS, which is in a constant state of "free fall".

If I built a ladder tall enough to reach the ISS and stood on a scale on top that ladder, I would only weigh about 5 pounds less than I do on earth. Earth has almost the same pull on the ISS in orbit, as it would on the ground. "Freefall" due to orbital velocity is what keeps things in "balance".

 

E = mc2.......


or does it?!?!

 

Michio was talking about the Toke a matic,new fangled bong or some such.

 

Considering the radiation levels coming from the sun, which has a pretty similar reaction to what we're trying to create, would there be some immense radiation problems that may not be containable if such a reaction could be sustained for any length of time?

The phrase "playing with fire" seems to come to mind, only on at a preschool level.

The "law of unintended consequences" also seems to come to mind.

Hmmm...

It is an interesting topic, though.

 

Oh well, atleast it was a fun question to ask.

 

The biggest problem with your idea is that gravity is such a weak force, there isn't a way to create enough of it in a closed system like this to do what you're thinking of.

You all know how people say that the full moon effects peoples emotions because it's gravity has a greater effect on the water in our bodies or some version of that idea? Two problems there. 1) the moons mass doesn't change with the lunar cycle and 2) the gravity from the pillow you sleep on every night has a greater effect on your body (to the tune of many BILLIONS of times greater) than the moon. You need a LOT of mass for a small effect over distance. Gravity is a very, very weak force.

 

Nope - the other guys hit on it earlier. The Tokamak needs gravity, but it needs to be at the center of the gravity. in other words, it needs extreme gravitational forces pushing in from all directions at once (just like you'd see at the very center of a star). That extreme gravitational force would create the pressures needed to maintain containment. That would also create a buttload of heat. Putting the Tokamak in a centrifuge would only provide gravity in one direction. Just like those state fair rides where you got into a giant barrel with thirty other people, and the thing spins all crazy-like. you're pushed back into the cushioned wall from the artificial gravity - but you're only pushed backwards. you're not being squeezed from the sides, nor from the top of your head / bottom of your feet. just from the front.

 

That's why I was thinking it would only possibly work in Space, and perhaps would make an Ideal Propulsion Sytem and Power Source for all the Lasers.
I mean, you gotta' have High Powered Lasers if your going out in Space. If for no other reason then there is a lot of Debris out there. Also, you'de likely require a High Powered Magnatron for various duties like Melting frozen Water to collect it efficiently.

 

Also, there are very large flaws and gaps in relativistic theory that we're still trying to fill. Right now, the big thing is dark matter and dark energy... all place holders until we can reconcile observation with actual understanding. We're closer now than we were 150 years ago, but the holes in relativity are gaping. It's more precise on a large scale than Newtonian stuff, but still not "all there". Good on ya OP for thinking outside the box though.

 

The dark matter subject seems so simple on the surface. Clearly, all that we observe here on Earth is stellar debris, from the 2nd lightest element, to the heaviest. All formed in the nuke-u-lar fuze-ion reaction in a star or billion. I'd guess there is a stunning quantity of non stars, that were once stars. Coupled with anti matter theory and we have enough. Clearly, we find it difficult to observe non illuminated, distant objects. Just 'cause we can't see it....

 

Repeating a few points others alluded to: Fusion does not require gravity, but it does require that the hot (very hot) plasma be contained. No "container" made of matter can withstand the heat of the plasma. Gravity, in a star, effectively creates a container, holding things inward. The tokomak approach is to use an electromagnetic field to contain the plasma, so it never contacts the material walls of the tokomak container. In both such cases, a force is being used (gravity or electromagnetism), which isn't affected by heat as matter is. As others mentioned, a centrifuge creates gravity in one direction, towards the bottom of a container ... that container made of ordinary matter, hence not usable to contain hot plasma.

 

It isn't the gravity at the surface you have to emulate it is the pressure caused by that gravity at the core - "The sun has a core pressure of 1.65 × 109 tons/in sq"

 

Gravity at the core, should be zero. Because you have "roughly" equal mass in all directions cancelling all the gravitational vectors out.

But I think it is way more complicated than that with other variables......................

Yeah, hydraulic pressure is there too.

 

It is really elementary. It is the same system used to power the Telefunken U47.

Be carefull out there, there a a lot of plookers lurking in the shadows.