The world is going to change this is remarkable

[PhotonMaster3]

But if the fusion reaction only requires water as fuel, and copious amounts of energy are being expressed, and escapes containment? Enough water in the air for a fuel source? Dunno.

The only issue there is that the NIF and the tokamaks all use deuterium-tritium fusion. Deuterium is present in small concentrations in ocean water but tritium is exceedingly rare. It has a pretty short half life and decays into helium 3. I think it costs about $70 million per kg

 

[turbodog]

The only issue there is that the NIF and the tokamaks all use deuterium-tritium fusion. Deuterium is present in small concentrations in ocean water but tritium is exceedingly rare. It has a pretty short half life and decays into helium 3. I think it costs about $70 million per kg

12 year half life

Tritium - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

Member TD is known for his style, his posture regarding disagreement. He also contributes ideas and experiences.

That said:

View attachment 36219

There are two types of people in the world. Those that understand thermodynamics, and those that think perpetual motion machines are possible. A generator on an axle or tire? .... Oy vey! 🤦‍♂️
🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

 

[Olumin]

I suppose it all depends on whether our understanding of thermodynamics & the universe are correct. In the case that the universe should not be a closed system, building a generator that perpetually "channels" energy from elsewhere without consuming any fuel would theoretically be possible. Like the "white hole" theory, that some suggest could be connected to parallel universes or dimensions. Not really perpetual "motion" but rather energy. Potentially very dangerous however.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

What you describe would still be compliant with thermodynamics.

 

[Olumin]

Yeah. Its really just moving energy from one place to another within an open system. Still, effectively free energy for us. Tap into the matrix.

 

[alpg88]

I suppose it all depends on whether our understanding of thermodynamics & the universe are correct. .

Science is a history of corrected mistakes.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

Yeah. Its really just moving energy from one place to another within an open system. Still, effectively free energy for us. Tap into the matrix.

Within the definition of the problem, I would say the system is closed but we are splitting hairs .... the additional generator on the wheel/axle of the Telsa is still a face palm.

 

[LRJ88]

I for some reason get this nagging feeling that there's a belief a generator on an axle doesn't work as a breaking force on said axle, thus requiring more torque just to generate more energy at the same time as having the same function as the same apparatus without the generator. At best net neutral, at worst net negative, and seeing as how you deal with factors like movement and rotational energy being converted to heat as well i'm inclined to say it's the latter.

 

[ampdude]

Meanwhile I'm driving my 1998 Blazer to work in -20F every morning 7 days a week to make ends meet and not thinking about nuclear fusion, fission, electric cars, just paying my bills.
I'm thinking about.. I need to top my gas tank off again because we're gonna have another cold spell and I hope I don't run out of bananas and other things that fuel me during the day. I don't know what planet these people live on, but it's not mine for certain.

But if they want to give me an $80,000 Tesla for free I'm all for it. I'll sell it right away because it will pay off what I have left on my mortgage, and I can't afford to replace the battery pack in 8 years anyways. If the damn thing doesn't explode before that. Hopefully not with me in it.

 

[alpg88]

I for some reason get this nagging feeling that there's a belief a generator on an axle doesn't work as a breaking force on said axle, thus requiring more torque just to generate more energy at the same time as having the same function as the same apparatus without the generator. At best net neutral, at worst net negative, and seeing as how you deal with factors like movement and rotational energy being converted to heat as well i'm inclined to say it's the latter.

True but this is not what we are talking about here, some @#$%$ just keep talking 2lot, ou, without realising it doesn't apply in this case. no one is trying to use rotational force of the axle, cuz it is obvious it will just cause drag, and waste energy used to move the car, but it's up and down motion that is normally absorbed in suspension components, i mean the picture is pretty clearly shows it. i do have my doubts of how much net energy will be made that way, and whether extra complexity worth it, but it has 0 to do with 2lot and ou. just converting energy that is normally wasted,

 

[LRJ88]

True but this is not what we are talking about here, some @#$%$ just keep talking 2lot, ou, without realising it doesn't apply in this case. no one is trying to use rotational force of the axle, cuz it is obvious it will just cause drag, and waste energy used to move the car, but it's up and down motion that is normally absorbed in suspension components, i mean the picture is pretty clearly shows it. i do have my doubts of how much net energy will be made that way, and whether extra complexity worth it, but it has 0 to do with 2lot and ou. just converting energy that is normally wasted,

Except that's wrong. There was a mention on page one, by Bykfixer, the very same post that you yourself replied to afterwards.

As for suspension generators the article on those said exactly diddly **** of any practical use, there was no mention of total generation, if the Watt values given were peak values, how many WH were projected during a certain time on the road and so on. I've read the full article and the same goes for that, it reads as sales talk from those who know that this'll make some people fawn over every single thing that says "energy returns", whilst the fact of the matter is it doesn't actually say anything at all.

 

[alpg88]

Except that's wrong. There was a mention on page one, by Bykfixer, the very same post that you yourself replied to afterwards.

As for suspension generators the article on those said exactly diddly **** of any practical use, there was no mention of total generation, if the Watt values given were peak values, how many WH were projected during a certain time on the road and so on. I've read the full article and the same goes for that, it reads as sales talk from those who know that this'll make some people fawn over every single thing that says "energy returns", whilst the fact of the matter is it doesn't actually say anything at all.

Now i see what the confusion is about, i guess it is my fault for for not expanding the post and reading another article. the top was suspension generator, which is what i replied about. the magnet wheels idea obviously falls under 2lot, and it is pretty much nonsense, anyone who rode a a bike with a dynamo knows it. However suspension idea does not fall under 2lot, but i also question its effectiveness and worth,

Actually we already use magnet wheel idea aka regenerative braking, i had 2011 sonata hybrid, on long slopes i could see battery bars go up, thou my battery was pretty small, it was not plug in hybrid.

 

[alpg88]

Porsche is replacing gasoline with air and water.

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/porsche-replacing-gasoline-air-water.

Germans already did that in 1940s, made fuel out of coal, but it would thicken in freezing temps, i wonder if they solve this problem with this new method

 

[chillinn]

Unfortunately, the naysayers are correct about fusion. This particular breakthrough happened as part of a weapons program. It is quite interesting, but they're not working on cheap, clean energy. Weapons. Issue with fusion is cost. We already have the cheapest fission plants possible, and they're too expensive. Energy from fusion will cost even more, and a lot a lot a lot more and not even factoring getting from here to there. If we could build a fusion energy plant tomorrow, it wouldn't be built because of economics.

But the future is here, anyway. Solar PV has gotten amazing in such a short time, and it already produces electricity more cheaply than some fossil fuels and nuclear, which, btw, was never cheap. "Electricity too cheap to meter," was always a lie and never realized. The single most expensive way to generate electricity in the history of technology that was ever put into practice is nuclear. We may still need to pay for it, though, regardless of cost, because it is more or less proven to work, and relatively safely, and we really, really need clean energy to stop adding carbon to the atmosphere. If the AMOC has already shut down, and that is what is causing this unexpectedly cold winter, we're pretty much screwed already. Hello Mexico and Central America.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

We don't know how much fusion will cost so making any predictions about it is unwarranted. The expectation is containment will be far less reducing cost. We don't have viable designs, so any discussion of cost is a guess. Solar produces energy cheaply in some areas, but in other areas it is not viable (i.e. North), where storage needs to be more than a week to replace. New nuclear is expensive because we have spent no money developing it or working towards mass manufacturing which could bring down cost considerably. Storage is still the big unanswered question for renewables. Lithium is not getting any cheaper.

 

[alpg88]

Solar has its drawbacks too, When you put SP on a roof of the house, it is great, but when you cover hundreds of acres of land with it, not so great, i see this happening in upstate NY, some farmlands no longer farm food, they turned their fields into solar panel fields. Now one would think, ok so lets put them on mountain slopes where lands are not used. it may be good or it may not, what impact would it have on eco system in a long run? Deserts imo most suitable for that, but we mostly put SP close to where the energy is consumed. desert are not such places.

 

[chillinn]

We don't know how much fusion will cost so making any predictions about it is unwarranted.

It's not a prediction, it's the economic reality. I'm very sorry, and no offense, but you are mistaken, we absolutely do. This is just some blogger, and I don't agree with some of his points, but he makes it pretty clear why fusion isn't going to save us, and it's the economics. Fission will always be cheaper than fusion and fission is too expensive as it is. You can't find investors for nuclear power because it simply can't be profitable anymore (largely because solar is now so inexpensive), and frankly, fission was never profitable (taxpayers were never reimbursed for development of nuclear power with cheap electricity, and operators always just only want to sell the electricity for profit and leave governments holding the bag of decommission, effectively endless waste storage, effectively endless security for waste storage, etc.) Only a government can build fission plants and force taxpayers to pay for it, and governments that do that get voted out with a quickness. But, again, we may end up having to pay for that very expensive fission energy, or, you know, just go extinct with every other complex lifeform. Or go without electricity, or massively reduced electrical consumption, which I honestly don't think would be that bad. If all the power plants shut down, everyone that could would have solar, and that would be a lot of independent solar installations.

Solar has its drawbacks too, When you put SP on a roof of the house, it is great, but when you cover hundreds of acres of land with it, not so great, i see this happening in upstate NY, some farmlands no longer farm food, they turned their fields into solar panel fields. Now one would think, ok so lets put them on mountain slopes where lands are not used. it may be good or it may not, what impact would it have on eco system in a long run? Deserts imo most suitable for that, but we mostly put SP close to where the energy is consumed. desert are not such places.

I don't like what money grab energy companies do, either. Land should be for food, quarters and left vacant for ecosystems. And I think we should leave the deserts alone. But every parking lot should have a roof of them and every roof should, too.

 

[JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy]

We literally have no idea what a fusion reactor will cost in the future. None at all. Zip. Nada. We have not even built one. Saying you know how much it will cost is like saying you know how much the cost of a faster than light spaceship will be.

Solar is distributed so it has the potential for high transmission costs. It also, again, has poor viability in northern climates, and a lot of coastal areas. Solar also requires 3 days backup in the best locations, 10 in the worst. Not minutes, not hours, days. That is not free. We also do not have viable storage solutions.

We have never attempted large scale MFG of nuclear. Again, we don't know how cheap it could be as we have never tried. Like Fusion, it is a single breakthrough.

Even if every parking lot had solar, you would not even begin to have enough. Of course you want solar in the dessert. You want it anywhere there are few clouds so you maximize reliability and output.

 

[chillinn]

We literally have no idea what a fusion reactor will cost in the future. None at all. Zip. Nada. We have not even built one. Saying you know how much it will cost is like saying you know how much the cost of a faster than light spaceship will be.

That's not true at all. We know a lot of things about how much a fusion reactor will cost. For example, we know precisely how much a steam turbine costs, which is the only way a fusion reactor will ever generate electricity. We also know how much a bunch of powerful super conducting electro magnets cost (outrageously expensive, fwiw). And we also know how much Lithium-6 costs, and how much tons of it costs. The list goes on, but I'll stop at the Lithium, because the cost of that kills the entire enterprise, and without the enterprise, without the profit, there is no economic incentive, and without that, it will never happen. Add to this, even with the recent "break through" in a defense project (not an energy project), we have never seen fusion generate a net positive. To date, in practice, fusion has always taken more energy than it creates. I like to believe that will happen someday, but it hasn't yet, and no one knows if we ever will. But, again, even if and when we are able to get more power out of fusion than we put in, the whole thing will cost too much because, just for starters, the cost of the tons of Lithium-6, which itself is outrageously expensive and selling electricity could never, never ever, pay for it.