Its only 20 years away, or 30.

Seperating hydrogen from water on any significant scale would take a nuclear power plant for an energy source.

Now, please explain why it would take a nuclear power plant to create hydrogen power? That is just not so. I have created hydrogen in my back yard.

River

Wow that should put a smile on Nancys face

The promise of Electricity from nuclear fusion was described as "imminent" forty years ago. They had nuclear fusion at the New York City World's Fair in 1964. You could watch a tiny but very stron magnetic field crush a few atoms of hydrogen to helium. Poof, Proof of concept on the tiniest scale. It was going to solve all the problems of the world.

And then the magnetic fields holding the high temperature plasma weren't big enough to hold the plasma. And then the magnets weren't strong enough.

Supercritical magnets were strong enough but they didn't exist 40 years ago. Now they exist and guess what, the metals and ceramics involved in containing the stream of plasma melts away and if the plasma touches it, it ablades and spalls. The heat ruins the supercritical magnets (they can't get hot).

So the containments (would, ooops, wrong word) DON'T work because the temperature required to sustain fusioin was too hot.

And these problems still exist after 40 years. High temperature materials just do not exist with sufficient strength to contain a continuous, controlled fusion reaction.

One last thing, I don't know why electrolysis of water requires nuclear power. I suspect it's one of those distant memory things of a show they saw on Discovery or an article in Popular Mechanics 15 years ago.

Nuclear power is not necessary at all to separate hydrogen from water. However it is a much more energy intensive process the the resulting energy from the hydrogen. That may not be an issue for a small scale experiment, but to produce a mass quantity of hydrogen continuously, nuclear power (fission) would appear to be the most obvious solution. Dreamers may want fusion, but the material problems seem almost insurmountable for any continued and useful output.

But it does seem that once you have a means of generating massive amounts of electricity, the battery powered car seems more logical than going the extra steps of converting the electrical energy to hydrogen and then with all the problems with distribution, etc to be used in a car.

The solution is already here - but big oil et al. don't want us to know and use it.

We can tap into the driving force of the universe itself, with no harmful side effects at all.

Look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiKa4nOkHLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_0dxsZENz8

Nuclear fusion as a commercial net-positive-energy source of power simply isn't going to happen. The ITER being built in France for $Billions is the next step in a 50-year-old search for the next great source of energy. But there are at least 5 major obstacles to this technology working effectively at a financial or energetic profit, on a commercial scale. And looking forward, the financial state of the world is likely to preclude new projects of this magnitude.

Do a search for any recent presentation by Michael Dittmar, a physicist working at CERN, or search TheOilDrum web site for articles on the topic. It will get somewhat technical but that's the only way you will develop a true understanding of the issues.

Doing deep energy retrofits of existing residential housing stock and commercial buildings (40% of US energy consumption) is a far better use of financial, human, and energetic capital. It's not sexy but the payback is rapid and keeps on paying over time.

Finder

I would like to imagine nuclear fusion similar to a prehistoric,

"Quest for Fire". Movie highly recommended.

The energy consumed to maintain the ? Plasma ? that contains

the celestially hot fusion reaction is extreme.

I would like to imagine once the unit gets started, it will produce enough energy to maintain the containment fields and produce surplus energy.

And, similar to fire - once lit, other fusion operations might just be ignited

from the first one. The problem is the initiation, like rubbing two sticks.

Once the initial one has been, ignited - I would like to imagine smaller, portable fusion energy devices.

Moi

moi621 (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:17 pm I would like to imagine nuclear fusion similar to a prehistoric,

"Quest for Fire". Movie highly recommended.

The energy consumed to maintain the ? Plasma ? that contains

the celestially hot fusion reaction is extreme.

I would like to imagine once the unit gets started, it will produce enough energy to maintain the containment fields and produce surplus energy.

And, similar to fire - once lit, other fusion operations might just be ignited

from the first one. The problem is the initiation, like rubbing two sticks.

Once the initial one has been, ignited - I would like to imagine smaller, portable fusion energy devices.

Moi

Good heavens, NO to most of that. IT makes a nice dream but it isn't science.

A) it must be done in a vacuum. Once the vacuum fails the plasma cools below critical temperatures and the reaction shuts down.

B) Once ignited it is not self-perpetuating. Neither is fire. Fire goes out if the fire triad is not maintained. (that's heat, fuel and oxygen).

C) The pressure is provided by a magnetic field generated with supercooled magnets. Like dude, it would erase credit cards with spectacular efficiency. That should be obvious to anyone who ever got near a NMR or MRI or X-ray machine.

D) The biggest discovery in "Quest for Fire" Was the invention of the blow job to help cure burns of the penis. WOW, what drama, what acting, what tripe (and not the good kid of tripe they use at high-class restaurants)... Quest for Fire ranks up there with Twilight and New Moon. It's the cankle of the movie industry.

E) Fusion does follow the Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy and Matter is conserved. The amount of energy removed can be at most that which is put into the system. Even when we convert matter to energy or fuse atoms of hydrogen into helium, the amount of energy is not unlimited. And finally, it will take energy to get energy. That's called work.

f) Since the speed that energy will propagate is light speed, the appratus is going to be big. It ain't going to fit in a car. That's for sure. As my old professor used to say, that's intuitively obvious.

Just remember, this ain't like rubbing two sticks. It is real and hard science.

Dave (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:09 pm Good heavens, NO to most of that. IT makes a nice dream but it isn't science.

A) it must be done in a vacuum. Once the vacuum fails the plasma cools below critical temperatures and the reaction shuts down.

B) Once ignited it is not self-perpetuating. Neither is fire. Fire goes out if the fire triad is not maintained. (that's heat, fuel and oxygen).

C) The pressure is provided by a magnetic field generated with supercooled magnets. Like dude, it would erase credit cards with spectacular efficiency. That should be obvious to anyone who ever got near a NMR or MRI or X-ray machine.

D) The biggest discovery in "Quest for Fire" Was the invention of the blow job to help cure burns of the penis. WOW, what drama, what acting, what tripe (and not the good kid of tripe they use at high-class restaurants)... Quest for Fire ranks up there with Twilight and New Moon. It's the cankle of the movie industry.

E) Fusion does follow the Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy and Matter is conserved. The amount of energy removed can be at most that which is put into the system. Even when we convert matter to energy or fuse atoms of hydrogen into helium, the amount of energy is not unlimited. And finally, it will take energy to get energy. That's called work.

f) Since the speed that energy will propagate is light speed, the appratus is going to be big. It ain't going to fit in a car. That's for sure. As my old professor used to say, that's intuitively obvious.

Just remember, this ain't like rubbing two sticks. It is real and hard science.

Wow !

Someone did not like my post.

I don't mean via the comments above.

I mean my reputation evaporated with no note in the CP

Anonymous :shot191: Moi

<spooky> <spooky>

And I thought Halloween was over.

Well the winter solstice still approaches

and the spirits are closer to us. to us empaths.

BTW - Quest for Fire was an academic production.

Consultations with anthropologist, and all the appropriate scientist.

There were many good points in it such as the attempted mass

breeding with an out of the tribe male to improve the strength of the tribe.

Frontal intercourse.

Camp fire stories and more expressive use of language.

And of course, fire making as opposed to just carrying it or finding it. :redbounce

Regarding Fusion

Maybe we ought to perfect - Cold Fusion.

Moi

get some stainless steel plates, about 20 should do it, Notch the corner of all of them then reverse half of them so you can run a positive rod throw one have and the negative throw the other, secure the bottom with plastic or some other non conductive material. then hook a car battery to the positive and negative ends. Now this device goes in a vat of water, sea water or distilled, if distilled you need to add something like lye, the plates are completely under water, and you should have a seal over the top. When you put connect that 12v battery the electricity flowing throw the stainless steel plates in the water with lye causes a chemical reaction, it produces HH2 gas, Hydrogen. The hydrogen rises to a tube that is fed into the fuel intake. In our experiment we lit a match and watch it explode at the end of the tube. It was a flame. And best of all the waist product is water. You don't need nuclear power to produce it, it can be produced in your own car as you drive down the road. and you fill up your tank with the hose. Simple yes and no, there is still a lot of work to do but the science is good science, it works.

If you doubt this there are working models on line, go look them up for yourself. Look under HHO fuel.

River