577 replies and 263 files omitted.
I agree, but take into account that most of their "ideas" are based in "Theoretical Physics" which is also based on "Theoretical Math", which is based on math tricks such as multi-dimensional matrices with not correlation with the physical world.
>>3161>not correlation with the physical world
Oh sure, nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant. No point in researching those
>>3162>nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant
Name an actual one functioning. The theory sounds great but its implementation is science fiction.
Go take a look at the sun and stars.>that's not what I ment!
>>3164>The JT-60SA in Japan
Not actually functioning. Call me it does.https://www.jt60sa.org/wp/
It already works, it's just continuing to developed. It's already generated plasma fields.
>>3167>It's already generated plasma fields.
I'm not arguing that as it can be done in a home lab.
What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city. I mean its characteristics to be economically viable and not a simple project for burning money.
Allow me to clarify; all these "marvelous" devices are propped as the new tech, the vanguard, the future, however the KEY for all of them to be practical is the power relation input/output. Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output. Can that be possible? As the current technology is developed, I very much doubt it.
>>3168>What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city.
Just last year it created a net positive yield, which is a huge deal because it means that given some time to optimize it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
Which is why researching the science behind it is important.
Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology, I fail to see how a city can't be.
>>3170>Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology
That is totally different tech. Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam, which spins a turbine, which spins a electric generator. No much science is involved in that.>>3168>because it means that given some time to optimize
Okay, you rest on faith. I'm don't want to be a contrarian, but to my knowledge, the fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
>>3168>Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output.
It's like a bastardized chemical exothermic reaction.
Getting the two components to bond ejects a high energy neutron (proton and election bonded tightly), the conditions is tons of heat, movement and those two isotopes.>>3171>Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam,
One of the fusion reactors shunts the hot high energy neutron to coolent aka basically water and you know what would happen next.
Other types attempt other things.
>>3169>it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
To give you a taste of the holy grail those scientists and the oligarchs funding them are after:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Nuclear Fusion is the next best thing to that. Life could be so indulgent in glowniggers didn't keep fear mongering people out of researching nuclear energy. It was Tesla's dream.>>3174
Steam = electricity = lots of other stuff.
Steam is good.
>>3171>fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
That's only one generation.
>>3175>lots of other stuff
Yeah, isotope galore ready to be chemically reprocessed for mainly nuclear medicine.
Also technology adapting to an indulgent surplus of available energy. Electric water desalination could make agriculture easier. Electric mills could synthesize steel and other polymers for cheap. Much faster internet, etc.
Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
>>3178>Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Sorry anon but I believe you are drunk in jewish lies,
Technologies are NOT in humanity hands, but jewish hands. Do you really believe jews will make available such benefits for a negligible price as you fantasize it? Really?
>>3179>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
I believe they'll do what's profitable. There is a lot of money to be made in this tech.
Jews already own all of the oil rigs and mineral mines and still sell them for energy. If nuclear energy becomes profitable they'll use it too.
Solution: remove Jews. Then we can have nice things.
>>3180>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
Perhaps, but only to the point of deploying it as a contracted goyim. To be an employee doesn't give the right to own the (((company)))'s tools.
>>3181>Solution: remove Jews.
At this point a fantasy. There are millions on the jew's payroll and most of them are more than willing to kill for a steady flow of shekels.
What a cowardly cop-out. Just surrendering to the Jews like a cuck because the battle is up hill.
Going gray is not surrendering at all fren.
It is if you allow the kikes to keep stealing everything your ancestors built.
It is what it is. Make an assessment and act according to it. Remember, your own neighbors will be the first to point at you.
Whatever you say faggot.
I'm the meantime, I'll be doing my job as usual. Maybe some corporate kikes benefit from it, but that won't stop me from pursuit of artifice.
Spinning turbines is how you make power moron. All power technology is based on that. Burn coal and it heats water, spins turbine. Windmill directly turns a turbine. Water dams pour water through a turbine. Nuclear power is heating water and turns a turbine. The fuck do you mean it is different?
>>3195>The fuck do you mean it is different?>illiterate in tech drops his oppinion
Fusion vs Fission ring a bell?
Read the thread again, nigger.
Nuclear Fusion still produces heat that can fuel a turbine; the mechanics behind the generator is still just boiling water.
How about you read my post again, double nigger? I said they are the same through turbine electrical generation. You respond with one splits atoms and one combines. Fucking hell you are hopelessly stupid. If a fission reactor can power a sub or aircraft carrier, a fusion one can too, and same goes for a city. Power is power. You get power for one device, it can scale to multiple across a power grid. That is how we have coal that powered a train now powering cities, retard.
Well, somethings are difficult to scale up.
Scale is normally a problem, but with the power available with nuclear technology, scale isn't really the issue. Cost is. Coal was hard to scale from operating a single engine to operating enough turbines to make sure the power doesn't drop over thousands of homes. Nuclear is far more reliable at scale, but you need all of this tech to make it work. Furthermore, there are better materials that would generate hundreds of times more energy than current material, but because the tech for what we have is already made, no one wants to upgrade and relearn the process.
As a person who works with electricians on a daily basis, can confirm.