Spring RTS Engine

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/04 ... tml?hpt=C1

- Hey guys, I got a great idea! What if we attempted to make a star on earth?
* Awesome! When have you got some time free to get it done?
- Hmm, lemme think, how about the end of 2012?

the end
2012

"If all goes well, the resulting reaction will be hotter than the center of the sun (more than 100 million degrees Celsius) and will exert more pressure than 100 billion atmospheres. This will smash the hydrogen isotopes together with so much force and heat that their nuclei will fuse, sending off energy and neutrons."

Anyone else noticed the 'if all goes well'?

Just sayin'.

When the atomic bomb was first being developed, many people thought that its ignition would set the earth's atmosphere on fire.

Judging by the "smidgen" of isotopes they're going to be working with I doubt we'll see any reaction larger than the equivalent of a small firecracker going off. Even if it does go horribly awry (lol mini supernova) it'd probably just asplode the laser.

The fusion reaction is not much different than thermonuclear weapons, it is just a controlled reaction. They have done this before with smaller quantities that were not self sustaining or energy efficient, so this isn't a new thing.


If you don't know the science they are talking about learn it or shut the hell up.

The phrase "hotter than the center of the sun" is scary the first time you hear it; I'm guessing you probably picture the earth being incinerated in the blink of an eye.

But actually your average nuclear weapon today explodes hotter, much hotter. We've tested (and sadly, even used) lots of those - these kinds of temperatures are nothing new.

They do these kinds of tests deep underground or otherwise in extremely well-contained facilities, and we've learned our share of "ways NOT to play with nukes". The sorts of experiments they do are designed by nature to not be self-sustaining and barring some kind of masterful sabotage, there's no risk of an uncontained explosion.

The other happy news is that fusion is a lot cleaner than fission, so while it's a lot more complicated, in the long run it is a much cleaner, safer solution.

When first thermonuclear bombs were being developed, some scientists were really scared by the possibility that hydrogen isotopes contained in ocean water could chain-react. That would basically cause earth-wide fusion reaction which would turn the planet into a small star. However repeated testings of those bombs over and under the oceans have proved that not to be the case. Fusion reaction is not easy to sustain.

As for fusion power being a lot cleaner. Yes, it does not leave (much) radioactive waste. However, neutron emission is just as high (if not higher) than with fission, and that means heavy shielding is necessary. And those neutrons will create some unstable isotopes in the shield metals (or whatever is used), so there WILL be radioactive waste after all. Not that much and not that radioactive as from a fission reactor, but it will be there.

yuritch wrote:When first thermonuclear bombs were being developed, some scientists were really scared by the possibility that hydrogen isotopes contained in ocean water could chain-react. That would basically cause earth-wide fusion reaction which would turn the planet into a small star. However repeated testings of those bombs over and under the oceans have proved that not to be the case.

Moral of the story: If you're not sure whether there's a risk to ignite the whole planet, just try it and then you will know. So stop worrying and learn to love the science!

I see what you did there Dr Z.

Are you saying we Finns can finally get some sunlight too?

They see me trollin', they hatin'.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, you should watch Bill Gates' TED talk about the new reactors he's investing in which burn already-spent radioactive waste.

The Thorium reactor?

Thorium reactors make me hard.

yuritch wrote:When first thermonuclear bombs were being developed, some scientists were really scared by the possibility that hydrogen isotopes contained in ocean water could chain-react. That would basically cause earth-wide fusion reaction which would turn the planet into a small star. However repeated testings of those bombs over and under the oceans have proved that not to be the case. Fusion reaction is not easy to sustain.

I'm actually a little surprised that many of you here know that. Unfortunately many people do not know that and have a lot of misconceptions of the manhattan project. It's a little freaky if you think about the fact that our scientists (along with many brilliant defected german scientists) really just rolled the dice and hoped that shit would buff out.

I bet people with sense back then knew it wasn't a problem. Why? Meteors. Some large impacts release much much more energy than any man made weapon so far.

There are always half-arsed 'scientists' who raise all kinds of silly notions that we are about to destroy the planet with our experiments. Like the LHC and miniature black holes or whatever.

Logically speaking, this isn't dangerous. Nuclear bomb tests have already produced the reactions this lazer will produce in FAR larger scale. What they are going to do, is produce a hydrogen fusion reaction. We've done this before many many times, however, it's only been used to ramp up a 3 megaton bomb to a 300 megaton bomb. Not a controlled enough environment to make use of the energy produced.

That's why this lazer is exciting. The reaction should be very controlled.

Every time you say "lazer" I want to ban you.

Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

So I wasn't the only one to be pained by the sight of that Z.

appologies. I'll try to remmember to spell it with an s.