Fire (heat) + Nuclei = Super Happy Fun Time (Thermonuclear Fusion)

If you look at the title, and know me very well, you can probably guess this has to do with something explosive, and you're right.  Unlike WD-40 and fire, red phosphorous and fire, and thermite and fire, this process isn't something your average chemistry student can pump out in a lab.  But I assure you it is just as fun, and explosive.  Just like the chemical equation that I have made famous : WD-40 + fire yields FUN, the same basic principle applies to thermonuclear fusion.  In a nutshell you heat nuclei to extremely hot temperatures.  When you heat nuclei they move at a faster rate.  The faster it moves, the more energy it creates, the more energy the higher temperature.  However they do not naturally move that quickly on their own and must be introduced to a sufficient source of heat.  Now, you can do this one of two ways: first there is an uncontrolled reaction, think the Ivy Mike test with the hydrogen bomb, that was an example of a thermonuclear reaction that was uncontrolled.  The second would be the opposite, a controlled reaction.  Considering it has never been done you can conclude its pretty difficult.  Getting the particles within the plasma to fuse together is only a matter of temperature, but keeping that plasma contained is a whole other story.  If that plasma touches anything solid the whole thing is done.  The fusion process is so specific that if anything goes amiss the whole thing collapses and fails, but on the upside that also means catastrophic failure and potential Chernobyl like implications are very small, if not statistically impossible.  Anyway the best way to contain that plasma would be within the vacuum.  The vacuum idea is not as easy as it sounds.  The problem right now is how to keep that fella from expanding and ruining your life.  The best examples would be stars.  Massive gravitational forces act to keep the plasma of the star from expanding outward.  If this can be achieved at a proportional level than we might have a break, and a huge one.  You can look at inertial confinement, and magnetic confinement as potential solutions to the problem of containing the plasma.  Both are great ideas, and have great potential.  The question is, will it be this, or will someone work out something entirely different that will change how we look at fusion.  I must note that Thermonuclear reactions are not the only way theoretically to achieve fusion, but considering its the only process that's ever worked (on an uncontrolled level)  you would be silly to go with what you don't know.  But then again stranger things have happened. 

Politics and Eco Activists: Looking out for our best interests?

For my science minded followers let me assure you there will be discussion on fusion concepts and applications.  When it comes to Energy, and especially Nuclear Energy there always has and will be politics and policy that come into play.  The purpose of this blog is to highlight every facet of Nuclear Fusion, which sadly includes the games our government plays when it comes to energy policy.  This post today is meant to address the policies of the U.S government when it comes to Nuclear Power, and why the government is wasting your money on projects that cost more, and have less potential than nuclear power and research.  When President Obama was first elected and sworn into office in January 2009, he claimed to be a major supporter of Nuclear Power.  Most of us know now when Mr. Obama says something it may just be carbon dioxide and nothing else with little or no substance, but backtrack five years ago we didn't have such trust issues.  Anyway The President and his administration worked up a deal with Constellation Energy to build a new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant near the Chesapeake Bay.  To make long story short the Obama Administration then rebuked the deal, and instead put down $900 million to build a solar plant in my home of Southern California.  Nice right?  This story reported by the resilient earth blogger Doug Hoffman goes into greater detail about the deal.  Here is the link: http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/obama-killing-us-nuclear-industry

The problem with contemporary energy policy is that we are pumping BILLIONS of dollars into the green energy sector and getting very little return on investment.  Why, because the technology is either A unreliable B not ready and in some cases both.  Hydro power is the most reliable and efficient out of the main green energy sources.  The problem with it is that you need a might river or water source to get some good juice, and I mean big.  So putting a hydro plant on the Los Angeles River might power your television and small hut so you can watch Al Gore's channel, but have fun powering the stock exchange to full capacity.  Solar power has tremendous potential but again, it is not ready.  The batteries on any solar unit will where out in 8 years at the most.  Meaning technology wise, solar units have the lifespan of a fruit fly.  Besides that with Nuclear Fusion, you get a better deal because think about it; Would you rather take scraps from the sun, or would you rather harness its power and fit it to your needs?  If you're in favor of the latter, I know of a green party blog that would better suit your reading indulgence.  Lastly we come to wind, which is singlehandedly the dumbest investment in the energy sector out there. And again all we have to do is think, does the wind blow all of the time and at a constant rate?  Nope.  So then why on God's ocean covered Earth would we pump money into an energy project where the fuel source cannot give you a consistent rate of energy?  The government spends billions on these projects and all they do is flop.  If that happened in the private sector the business would die. 

If the government wanted to truly advance energy independence, they would take my advice and the advice of many scientists.  Put money into research, not implementation of potential reliable sources such as solar.  Keep the upkeep on hydro plants and build new ones where the potential energy yield generated would be worth the investment.  Lastly put more money into expanding Nuclear power with the technology we have and research into fusion power which would single handedly out do any other energy source this planet has ever seen.  I'll end on a note to my colleagues at school who may want my head on a spike after reading my posts.  I can't see how anyone could reasonably be against fusion power.  Look up into the sky, see that massive bright light?  It's been keeping life on our fair planet alive for billions of years, and what do you think powers it?  Yeah, if you don't like fusion power, you must not like sunlight.  Next post I'm going to discuss different theories and concepts on Nuclear Fusion and what a fusion reactor might look like and do.  Stay Classy Pasadena

Nuclear Fusion and why it matters

Imagine a world where you could power your home without coal or natural gas.  Think about doing away with some of the silly "green" projects.  No longer would you rely on expensive solar units.  There would be no need for unreliable wind farms.  The power of water will no longer matter because now it doesn't matter if you live near a major source of water or one that is diverted by man.  With fusion power, engineers and scientists can recreate the power of a star and use it to power our homes, and the savings on energy costs and resources will be abundant.  Few detractors claim that developing fusion can possibly create an event where the reaction breaks down and collapses into a black hole.  Physically speaking any reaction created would not have the mass to do such a thing.  Take our own star, the sun, for example.  The sun with it's tremendous size does not have the mass to collapse into a black hole.  Take our much smaller reaction, that only uses a fraction of the power of a star.  It simply will not have the potential to collapse and consume the solar system. However, I am a very big fan of black holes and would not mind creating one simply to advance scientific knowledge, but that's beside the point.  One might ask what does fusion do?  And how does it work?  When two atomic nuclei collide together to form a new nucleus.  However not all of the mass is conserved, as some of the mass is converted into photons.  The difference between this and Fission, which is used in power plants and weapons is that fission cuts an atom, which releases the energy held together from the strong nuclear force.  The problem with fusion power at it's present state is that all fusion reactions attempted have been either unsuccessful, or have been unsustainable and lasted for milaseconds at best.  The problem is that fusing two atoms together is incredibly difficult.  Even if you take the lightest element (Hydrogen) and try to fuse it, it will not work.  that is because all nuclei have a positive charge, since like charges repel it is incredibly difficult to fuse two like nuclei together.  However, if both nuclei are accelerated to incredibly high speeds and collided they can overcome the natural electrostatic force and create a strong enough attractive force to achieve fusion. That is where I will be going with the next few posts, which is how we can achieve fusion sustainably without the use of massive particle accelerators.  While nuclear fusion is still a long way off, Thermonuclear reactions, more specifically those used in weapons, are widespread in use.  Basically it uses the heat given off from a fission to ignite a nuclear fusion stage.  Essentially not fusion, but more of a fission catalyst to start the fusion reaction.  Take a look at the Ivy Mike test in 1952, that will give you a better sense of what a thermonuclear reaction looks like.