Chernobyl x1,000,000?

Honestly, I think Nuclear energy is the better way to go, we just need to safely operate it. This "star energy" thing seems like a bit too much, we should test it far outside of earth, not on its surface.

Last time I checked, a fusion reaction (your so-called mini-sun) has been done many times before, lemme check again... yup. Each progressive fusion reaction (which this will just be the latest in a long line) is trying to get initial energy input down while maintaining reaction for longer time for more energy output to create a reaction that is cost-viable for use in the grid. Nothing more. Larger fusion reactions have been done in the past, but consumed more energy to start then was obtained from them. This one is much smaller, has a smaller window of existence, and will hopefully create a nice amount of energy (through reducing the energy needed to start it and more refined methods of capturing the released energy).

So let's see less sensationalism in a thread about something that has been done many, many times in the past in larger sizes (as far as the fusion reaction is concerned) than the one described in the article.


A star is nothing but a big fusion reaction, hence the article called this a mini-star (because it is a very small fusion reaction). Using Helium 3 would also be a "mini-star" by the same definition (in fact the only difference is an isotope).

There is plenty of Helium 3 at surface of the moon. Only problem is the expenses of mining operations

@AKA_Thunder2

Exactly :nod:

Stop these crazy people :ahhh: TO be honest just reading the OP I'm scared.

Would you all rather stay using oil as an energy resource?

You act like I'm the only one who thinks this is a bad idea. Have you like, actually read any other responses in this thread? Or feedback on articles about this subject?

Yes b/c we're still on Earth.

No, but using stars as energy source is complete madness.
Fusion is fine as long as it does not involve stars or other unstable "end-of.the-world" machines.

That last bit was not directed solely at you, but everyone in this thread

This has been done before on larger scales (but poorer energy collection), and the world is still here.

I've never heard of anything larger than a lazer that's 3 football fields long that causes a star to form on the Earth.
Any links on anything bigger than that?
This sounds like something out of a science fiction film.

http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100501.gif



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

Edit: Yes I agree with the experiment, but I don't think it's dangerous at all. Bunch of pansy wimps ye be. There will probably be nothing we can do that will ever be more dangerous than upper atmosphere nuclear bomb tests, when there was actually a good projected chance of the atmosphere catching fire. Shooting lasers to make something very hot? Pff, small time.

The laser's size is the only thing impressive in this experiment. A star, for the final time, is just a big, fat, fusion reaction, of which this one is called a "mini-star" because it is a very small version of it (though I would say micro-star would be more appropriate given the size of it)

as for other fusion reactions (any of which could be called a star if you wanted to):

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

The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. Project partners are currently preparing the site (as of September 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

.5 seconds is many times longer than 200 trillionths of a second. Fusion reactions have been occurring all over the world since 2000 and many in the 1990s as well. Probably some in the 1980s too.

So really guys, stop overreacting to something that is small, and quite frankly, old (just more refined).

I'm aware of the LHC.


Not overreacting, just stating the obvious things that could go wrong with it. And something could go wrong.

Sorry, fusion is proven (as in to work safely, not to produce energy cheaply for grid use) technology. It is no more dangerous than any other energy source in the excruciatingly small size used in the experiments. It snowballing out of control is also not an issue due to the fact that it lacks the gravity to maintain it's own fusion reaction and would quickly cool to below-fusion temperatures without humans controlling it.

I'd be more worried about an earthquake causing the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to release fallout than any fusion reactor.

This also means I can't vote in the poll, since this is not dangerous (in fact it is laughably safe in comparison to other similar experiments)

Edit: thanks for giving me a vote option

We should aim that laser at the gulf oil spill.

I hope that this happens the day of the solar storm. I'm totally getting super powers then.

There. Changed the poll, just for you, Defron. :rolleyes:
Quite sorry I didn't add an option for the less feint of heart, I didn't realize we had a nuclear physicist in our midst.

Now the Gulf Coast is really screwed :facepalm:.

People I've known got hurt (didn't die but hurt) by turning their gas stove and propane barbecue on. So your saying NOTHING can go wrong?

You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know that a mini-sun can only exist through humans forcing the right conditions, or that this experiment in varying ways has been done numerous times in the last 2 decades.


I am not saying nothing can go wrong, but that there is no more danger than with any fission reactor or any fusion reactor that has been done thus far. Fission is, in fact, much more dangerous as the reaction keeps going without humans there whereas a fusion reaction cools too fast without them.

either humanity is pretty much wiped out, or we get a good energy source. Win/win imo.

All safe/nonsafe debates aside, what types of differences in the way we use power/do things could we see if this type of technology was used in an everyday scenario?
EDITED for stupid grammar.

Where's the option, Yes and it's not dangerous, get started already. Who the heck labelled fusion power as "star power"? That's just going to get the sensationalist news agencies started on something small and ruining another potentially beneficial experiment. Fission reactors are more dangerous than fusion reactors would be. For now, they have not been able to sustain the reaction long enough, so fusion reactors are not going to replace fission reactors just yet.

And certainly nothing like the gigantic nuclear explosion everybody seems to think is possible. Just because it involves nuclear-something people assume bombs. Even power plants like Chernobyl don't explode into nuclear bombs when they fail. They call it a meltdown for a reason.



Well either every coal plant in the world would close down in several years and electricity would be VERY cheap (not free because we still have to pay for building the damn thing) or the technology would be crippled, shot, and buried by lobbyists under the pay of the coal and oil companies.

The Nintendo GameStar Fusion Entertainment System 3000