# [Suggestion] Control the power of the sun, or: Fusion reactors!

• Official Post

D + T => n (14.1 MeV) + He(3.5 MeV) This means 1 kg of this fuel gives out 100 GWh (thermal energy).
Oh and guess why almost every nuke today uses a fusion booster. Not really because you get less energy than you put in.

No perpetual motion there.

• Quote

>> "Its not a perpetual mobile. It basically converts mass to energy. So you are right it has to come from somewhere and it does come from somewhere."

Converting mass to energy requires energy, and trying to get more energy out of a system that was put into it is over -unity and more mythological as world peace.

Quote

>> "D + T => n (14.1 MeV) + He(3.5 MeV) This means 1 kg of this fuel gives out 100 GWh.
No perpetual motion there.

I'm not understanding your formula, but I'm assuming you got it off this wikipedia article:

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

I'm gladd you can read, so here's some more material for you:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hy…oduction/natural_gas.html

That's the method used for about 95% of the US. Not saying it's the best, but let's look at electrolysis:

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

quote: "Water electrolysis does not convert 100% of the electrical energy into the chemical energy of hydrogen"

It's actually closer to 60-85% effeciency when not including the burning-to-energy conversion (and using methods by many DIY people on youtube), simply the process of creating the H2 from water (the previous mentioned method of production is a bit above this one).

Now that we got the hydrogen from water, we can just smash it all together to form a sun right? No, Lawson criterion wants to dope it to make deuterium (quickly burns up in the sun, but hey, that's Lawson criterion for you) and tritium (which is itself fissile and I question that the energy got out of this system is merely this decaying)...are these methods free to make, or are we just ignoring all the steps of energy required in the system? Even then, you get neutron radiation as the byproduct, yay...and how exactly will that help, or did some magical box get created that suddenly absorbs neutrons and produces electricity? Oh, and don't forget the energy used in the electromagnetic torus and the air conditioning units.

Or you can do what I originally stated in my earlier post, simply get a massive amount of hydrogen (1e30 grams of it) and voila. Just having that much mass in one general location would cause the atoms to ball from gravity until the center begins to fuse from its own pressure and bam, herpes...I mean sun.

Quote

>> "Oh and guess why almost every nuke today uses a fusion booster"

Now you know something about nukes do you? When you decide to light your bbq grill with lighter fluid as opposed to lighter fluid plus gunpowder...obviously the latter will have more effect. We all know hydrogen burns, you throw a bunch of it compressed on the back of a nuke, obviously it will be bigger. That doesn't mean the energy produced is more than was required to make the thing.

• Official Post

Now you know something about nukes do you? When you decide to light your bbq grill with lighter fluid as opposed to lighter fluid plus gunpowder...obviously the latter will have more effect. We all know hydrogen burns, you throw a bunch of it compressed on the back of a nuke, obviously it will be bigger. That doesn't mean the energy produced is more than was required to make the thing.

Ehm right... and you are sure you understand the difference between burning hydrogen with air ( 2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O) and fusing 2 Cores into a new one ( Deuterium + Tritium => Neutron + Helium)?

• >> "before posting meaningless BS, pls take a second to get acquainted with actual research. and take a look at the iter project. thx"

I have and I know about it...but just because someone is getting grants to do research on something, doesn't make it any more possible or proven efficient. Look at all the companies/idiots trying to create perpetual motion for example. There was a device created years ago (similar to the design of Iter) that injected hydrogen on small scales in a magnetic centrifuge but the power output was less than that of straight burning it in comparison (and burning is 80% efficient).

So before posting a comment as if I know nothing, you might want to say to yourself "this guy might know wtf he's talking about, maybe he has degrees in the field," or at the very least, rub a couple of your neurons together to remember that you can't create more energy than you put into a system....ever! Even our own sun has limited power, it will eventually die, that's called entropy (although it's more of the expanding universe theory and the cooling effect, but we won't get into quantum mechanics and other proofs when you can't even handle basic Einstein energy law).

I have a degree in the field. You are wrong. Gorni and Rick have already explained why, so I won't repeat.

• Quote

Ehm right... and you are sure you understand the difference between burning hydrogen with air ( 2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O) and fusing 2 Cores into a new one ( Deuterium + Tritium => Neutron + Helium)?

Yes, and the point of the analogy was to get to the last part of that paragraph, not to correlate burning with fusion (that last part stated "That doesn't mean the energy produced is more than was required to make the thing").

Quote

Lol converting mass to energy gives tons of energy. You prolly never saw E=mc2....

oh and fusion IS NOT BURNING!!!

1. Maybe you've heard of "activation cost" when it comes to chemical reaction, well it applies to other areas as well. In order to get the "E" part out of mass, you need to perform some actions of conversion (smashing atoms or fracturing them costs energy). Humans do not have the ability to turn mass into energy at a 100% efficiency...in fact, we can't even turn any mass into energy (the HC comes close, but the energy produced from smashing 2 protons is miniscule to detect, we only see the aftershock from magnetic detectors). A nuclear reactor only yields maybe 0.1% efficiency of the possible energy the uranium could provide, and even that's over-exaggerating. Yes, I am comparing fission energy to atomic deconstruction because it's the closest to entropy we have.

2. I know fusion is not burning, when did I say that? Again, caught up in analogies, I won't use them I guess, it confuses you guys.

Quote

I have a degree in the field. You are wrong. Gorni and Rick have already explained why, so I won't repeat.

A man in the field would not state another one is wrong in such a trolling fashion. Plus, if they were right, then there would be fusion reactors all over the planet and we'd be harnassing the power of a thousand suns....we're not, and all the tests of the "Iter" like devices have all shown far below expected values.

• They are still developing fusion reactors that will actualy make enough energy but in theory it is possible. Just getting to that heat and maintaining the magnetic field isnt very efficient AT THE MOMENT (there is a very good possibility there will be a commercial fusion in our lives).

Lets assume IC2 is a bit more advanced than present day ok?

oh and if you think converting mass to energy yields only miniscule amounts of energy i suggest going to youtube and search for nuclear explosions. They arent that miniscule.

• I will elaborate however.

Fission and Fusion are reactions that alter the very structure of mater; they are not mere re-arrangements like relationships on a soap opera, but entirely new things such as trading in two bicycles for a motorcycle.

Fusion (hydrogen) is something most recently Hollywood physics bent to make Iron Man's arc reactors; the (SPOILER movie #2) adding what is effectively a reaction catalyst/medium. The giant doughnut reactor you see in the first movie is a good 'inner' view of what one of these may actually look like if built in a working way.

Fission is the easier and more realistic matter splitting type.

In both cases the general idea is that shifting the configuration of mater results in a few different pieces of mater, some 'leftover parts' that go on to further the reaction (alpha, beta, gamma; radiation) and a /lot/ of heat which can be used in more conventional energy production methods, such as steam turbines.

The Fission reactions all tend to be 'messy' because they leave a bunch of unstable leftovers laying about that can take quite a long time to stabilize. This is /partly/ due to the fact that fuel reprocessing to concentrate it back to reactor grade material is banned in the US due to a retarded fear that all such activity /could/ lead to weapons proliferation (as if dirty bombs aren't nearly as bad). Were that material reprocessed and the full energy extracted the waste products would largely fall in to two categories: things with very short half-lives (go away in a few days to weeks at most) and things with -very- long halflives (a slow trickle of radiation; extremely useful in medical applications and nuclear based batteries; possible applications in electronics).

Fusion reactions, meanwhile, are notorious for having issues actually producing a net gain of energy. I hope we'll be able to build such systems eventually, but within the short term gen III/IV fission reactors and reprocessing are the options I'd love to see in use. Remember, it wasn't the earthquake it's self that ravaged the older, poorly run and management crippled reactors in Fukushima; it was poor management and failure to account for tsunami flooding with properly laid out equipment that produced that result. Newer plants would doubtlessly be built even more idiot proof (with automated systems to do what was necessary in the first place) and with more extreme murphy's law scenario writers listened to.

Unsupported Meme

• Sab, you need to go tell the US and the EU that fusion power can't work. They're wasting \$150 billion a year on it as we speak.

• Can everyone without some understanding of E=mc2 pls leave this topic now? We dont have time to convince you mass can be converted to energy and that it already happened.

• Sab, you need to go tell the US and the EU that fusion power can't work. They're wasting \$150 billion a year on it as we speak.

Actually we probably /are/ wasting 150B a year instead of /investing/ 300 billion a year. A lot of times we try to accomplish things on budgets instead of building a more modular system that can be modified to fit a whole generation of tests instead of just one. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Unsupported Meme

• Actually we probably /are/ wasting 150B a year instead of /investing/ 300 billion a year. A lot of times we try to accomplish things on budgets instead of building a more modular system that can be modified to fit a whole generation of tests instead of just one. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Scientific progress can't easily be rushed. The original Tokamak design is a prime example; the US was pouring rivers of money into anything with "nuclear" in its name, including nuclear fusion power, and failed miserably, while equally deperate but heavily underfunded soviet scientists stumbled on a design that to this day works better than any model predicts. Laser confinement looks more promising at the moment, but commercial viability will likely use another method altogether. We can only hope it builds on current research.

• Official Post

Well looks like everyone is having fun here

Anyway, down to the point, here are my arguments/standpoints....

1. This is Minecraft, not RL
2. I'm all for making things as realistic as REASONABLY possible, refer to #1
3. If we were to make IC² as realistic as you guys are essentially saying, then....
a. We will need IC³ as NOTHING is completely realistic, such as...
I. Nuclear reactor - Don't you know that neutrons come out of magic reactor walls, and also little fairies that create water for steam, and also magically turn the steam into powers, HAYO
II. Wiring - Were you not aware that there is no such thing as voltage or resistance, or AC current, just DC, and that current is measured in Energy Units, not Amps
III. Scraps - Somehow we can take any piece of material, whether it be an advanced microcircuit, or a cubic meter of stone, you can turn it into ANYTHING for only a few EUs of power. Yes somehow we can either get a wooden hoe, a block of dirt, yes even a golden helmet, but best of all, a DIAMOND, HAYO!
IV. Matter Generator - Sure you could make a scrap box with those scraps, but somehow, the magic little leper-cons will help us to turn our scrap made out of anything into a specific item/block, yes with a bit of power and one of these, you can make DIAMONDS with this new found matter of the future, making this DIAMOND on the same crafting table that you make microcircuits, go figure, but it works! HAYO!
V. Quantum Suit - Didn't you know that for only a few Matter, you can have an "Iron Man" like suit, that can make you breath underwater, run super fast, jump off cliffs, not get hurt at all, and jump right back up the cliff to the top? Well it's possible, just charge your suit up and go creeper hunting as UBER speed with your Nano-Sabre!
VI. Fist vs. Tree - Let me walk outside my house and break a tree, oh wait, I just hurt myself, earning myself a bloody fist, and a tree still standing...
VII. Mining - Yeah I was digging in my back yard and I found... copper, tin, iron, gold, diamond, uranium, redstone, and lapis lazuli, and shoot, I didn't even need a special suit to touch the uranium.
VII. Everything else - Must I continue? I've only scratched the surface of IC², not even touching Minecraft itself, didn't you know that the world is made up of Meter sized cubes?
4. Refer to #1
5. If you want to make IC³ then be my guest, but it will take you some time, you wont be able to use forge, because of too many base-classes modified, you wont be able to use ANY of IC²'s code, as it isn't realistic enough for you. Shoot, it will only take you 2.21 Years for you to update the mod to the next Minecraft version, so many base-class files you know.
6. So in conclusion, I suggest you guys just DROP it, IC² will not get anything as realistic as you guys want anyway, and this isn't exactly the place to argue about quantum physics, just for the heck of it, there's a difference between if it is going to contribute to IC², and if it is just a discussion, this isn't a forum for Physics.

Get the idea guys?

EDIT: It would seem my tab spacing didn't want to work, oh well, deal with it.

Lesson 1: Watch over your crops....

• Official Post

just yesterday i broke a giant tree with my bare hand and it turned into logs , and i put them in a workbench and HAYO planks

EDIT: let me go overhere and grab my jetpack and break the branches at the top

NOW lets grab my 5billion tons of stone i have in my back pocket and build me a house SCREW cement my stone sticks together magicly

now for lights??? lets grab my torches that last forever, with my wooden floors with torches made with fire... what could possibly go wrong

BAZINGA

• Official Post

Hey darenton, didn't you know that we have floating blocks magicly hovering there, as if Zues is standing under them holding them up.

Also guys, I would like to ask you a question, and please answer honestly, I would like to know which person you are, please match yourself up...

Also one last thing, MineCraft is MineCraft, IndustrialCraft makes it YourCraft. Either way, it isn't RealCraft, or RealisimCraft, or RealisticCraft, its MineCraft, it's not about what the game is, its about what you make the game.

Lesson 1: Watch over your crops....

• Official Post
• Official Post

but BTT i hope my idea is not completly wasted.

• Official Post