sci.physics.particle

On Mar 19, 4:41=A0pm, Puppet_Sock wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:51=A0am, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > i just wonder when will the world wake up
> > ie
> > how high must a barrel fly up in =A0 order that
> > most people of the world will wake up
> > in a night mare ??!!
>
> Is there an actual question that can be answered in
> there someplace? If you are asking when the world
> will start development work on fusion, they already are.
>
> The issue is, it's not as simple as deciding one day
> that you want it. Between us now and commercial
> fusion to generate electricity is a large amount of
> technical advance. This will not come cheap, and
> most likely not happen in a few days, nor even less
> than a few decades. The old joke about fusion is that
> it has been 40 years away fro 60 years.
>
> As well, even did we know exactly how to do it and
> know exactly how much power we'd get, and that it
> would be huge amounts, builidng such a plant is going
> to be at least 15 years from "shovel in the ground" to
> electricity at your house.
>
> So, much as I'd like to see lots of cheap electricity from
> fusion, and I would, I'm not holding my breath. And I'm
> not getting out of the nuclear power business just yet.
> We still have to keep the lights on from now till the
> fusion plants start coming on line. And my estimate
> is that will not be in the first half of the 21st century.
> Might even be late in the second half.
>
> I do want to emphasize I'm in favour of spending big
> money developing fusion. Hey, the company I work
> for had a big part in the Canadian bid to get ITER to
> come to Canada. I would probably have been paying
> a mortgage already if it had come to Canada. But it
> simply isn't going to happen over night.
>
> Oh, and right now there isn't a huge amount of electricity
> being generated from oil. Yes, there is some, but not
> all that much. It's coal that we want to replace in that
> regard. The gnarly bit regarding oil is transportation.
> With existing technology, cheap electricity isn't the
> sticking point. It's getting that energy in a form that can
> be used for powering cars. So, without new tech in that
> direction as well, fusion power won't be the "magic bullet"
> that gets us off oil. Yeah it will decrease our need for
> coal and that's great. But oil is tougher.
> Socks

--------------
generaly speaking you atre right
we are very far from fusion and that is the bad news
that everyone should internalize.
2
if you deal with any Tokamak kind
you are waisting our precious time
it is a dead by arival concept
3
all other trials as far as i know
like Laser or others are still shooting in the darkness'

there must be some *betetr knowlege** about the geomertic structure
and otherers about the constituents involved.the basic current
'knowlege'
is crippled and too abstarct
there must be a** more exact** knowlege
i beleive i can contribute
but only to serious institutes

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------