| Author |
Message |
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
In article <Xns97E2DFDEBB168lostgallifreyangmail@140.99.99.130>, Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> writes:
| Quote: | "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in
news:1150317707.277460.69240@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
redbelly wrote:
Radium wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Radium wrote:
Why not add a zing to life and use fusion instead of fission.
Why not try living in the real world ?
Graham
What is so unreal about fusion-pumped lasers? If pumping can be
done by fission, then why not with fusion??
Even if it were possible, for people to get interested in (and
funding) to build one it would have to be either more efficient or
somehow produce a better laser beam than what already exists.
Mark
Fusion lasers are more interesting than fission lasers. Fission sucks.
I recommend you do some tachyon bombardment in a containment field based on
a magnetic monopole. This might even make your 'circular' laser
(spherical), as opposed to the polar form a torus would produce. A small
pellet of unobtainium nullate should form a nice plasma to help stabilise
the reaction, which should be self sustaining indefinitely. You'll want
some hefty iridium YAK bullshit lasers to pump it to start things off
though, as many as you can get round it.
That's a keeper:-) |
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PD
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
Radium wrote:
| Quote: | redbelly wrote:
Radium wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Radium wrote:
Why not add a zing to life and use fusion instead of fission.
Why not try living in the real world ?
Graham
What is so unreal about fusion-pumped lasers? If pumping can be done by
fission, then why not with fusion??
Even if it were possible, for people to get interested in (and funding)
to build one it would have to be either more efficient or somehow
produce a better laser beam than what already exists.
Mark
Fusion lasers are more interesting than fission lasers. Fission sucks.
|
Good reason to scribble out a keen-o proposal of one from your Kenner
Half-Bake Oven. Except your light bulb is out.
Personally, I think an antimatter-matter laser is *much* more
interesting than fusion. Fusion is dangerous, sweaty, and stubborn.
Antimatter-matter just runs on its own. Plug-n-play. Like an iPod.
PD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pooh Bear
science forum addict
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
| Quote: | Sam Goldwasser <sam@saul.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in
news:6wodwvijuq.fsf@saul.cis.upenn.edu:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
snipped
Why not use the nuclear fusion as the pump?
Because I don't know how to pump a laser non-desctructively with
fusion. :)
Sometimes fission is used to pump lasers. Fission is boring as hell
though. Why not add a zing to life and use fusion instead of fission.
I agree. But (1) fission tended to be a one shot deal. You got your
beam a few ns before the entire thing vaporized and (2) for fusion, we
need a neutron pumped lasing medium or something like that, don't we?
Gamma photons?
|
She canna take any more Captain !
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostgallifreyan
science forum beginner
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:44909173.E5D939@hotmail.com:
| Quote: |
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Sam Goldwasser <sam@saul.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in
news:6wodwvijuq.fsf@saul.cis.upenn.edu:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
snipped
Why not use the nuclear fusion as the pump?
Because I don't know how to pump a laser non-desctructively with
fusion. :)
Sometimes fission is used to pump lasers. Fission is boring as hell
though. Why not add a zing to life and use fusion instead of fission.
I agree. But (1) fission tended to be a one shot deal. You got your
beam a few ns before the entire thing vaporized and (2) for fusion, we
need a neutron pumped lasing medium or something like that, don't we?
Gamma photons?
She canna take any more Captain !
Graham
|
True, that.  I had worries about dilithium, let alone soft vanadate and
such.
--
----------------------------------------
http://save.nazanin.googlepages.com/home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Goldwasser
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> writes:
| Quote: | Sam Goldwasser <sam@saul.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in
news:6wodwvijuq.fsf@saul.cis.upenn.edu:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
snipped
Why not use the nuclear fusion as the pump?
Because I don't know how to pump a laser non-desctructively with
fusion. :)
Sometimes fission is used to pump lasers. Fission is boring as hell
though. Why not add a zing to life and use fusion instead of fission.
I agree. But (1) fission tended to be a one shot deal. You got your
beam a few ns before the entire thing vaporized and (2) for fusion, we
need a neutron pumped lasing medium or something like that, don't we?
Gamma photons?
|
My brief read is that D-T fusion produces a 14 Mev neutron and a 3.5 Mev
He4 nucleus.
--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radium
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
PD wrote:
| Quote: | Radium wrote:
redbelly wrote:
Radium wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Radium wrote:
Why not add a zing to life and use fusion instead of fission.
Why not try living in the real world ?
Graham
What is so unreal about fusion-pumped lasers? If pumping can be done by
fission, then why not with fusion??
Even if it were possible, for people to get interested in (and funding)
to build one it would have to be either more efficient or somehow
produce a better laser beam than what already exists.
Mark
Fusion lasers are more interesting than fission lasers. Fission sucks.
Good reason to scribble out a keen-o proposal of one from your Kenner
Half-Bake Oven. Except your light bulb is out.
Personally, I think an antimatter-matter laser is *much* more
interesting than fusion. Fusion is dangerous, sweaty, and stubborn.
Antimatter-matter just runs on its own. Plug-n-play. Like an iPod.
PD
|
Neutron-antineutron as well as proton-antiproton annihilation give out
more energy than nuclear fusion. However, antimatter is far more
difficult to make than fusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redbelly
science forum beginner
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
Radium wrote:
| Quote: | Neutron-antineutron as well as proton-antiproton annihilation give out
more energy than nuclear fusion. However, antimatter is far more
difficult to make than fusion.
|
Why, all of a sudden, is difficulty a concern?
Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is boring as
hell by comparison.
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radium
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:10 am Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
redbelly wrote:
| Quote: | Radium wrote:
Neutron-antineutron as well as proton-antiproton annihilation give out
more energy than nuclear fusion. However, antimatter is far more
difficult to make than fusion.
Why, all of a sudden, is difficulty a concern?
|
The extent to which antimatter is more difficult to make than fusion is
exponentially greater than the extent to which fusion is more difficult
than electricity.
| Quote: | Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is boring as
hell by comparison.
Mark
|
LOL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Goldwasser
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:21 am Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
"redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com> writes:
| Quote: | Radium wrote:
Neutron-antineutron as well as proton-antiproton annihilation give out
more energy than nuclear fusion. However, antimatter is far more
difficult to make than fusion.
Why, all of a sudden, is difficulty a concern?
Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is boring as
hell by comparison.
|
Why? We can make antimatter in controlled quantities. We can't do the
same with fusion. :)
--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Goldwasser
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:53 am Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
| Quote: | redbelly wrote:
Radium wrote:
Neutron-antineutron as well as proton-antiproton annihilation give out
more energy than nuclear fusion. However, antimatter is far more
difficult to make than fusion.
Why, all of a sudden, is difficulty a concern?
The extent to which antimatter is more difficult to make than fusion is
exponentially greater than the extent to which fusion is more difficult
than electricity.
|
The high energy physics types make antimatter all the time. What's
the problem? :)
--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:30 am Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
In article <6w1wtp6gkv.fsf@saul.cis.upenn.edu>, Sam Goldwasser <sam@saul.cis.upenn.edu> writes:
| Quote: | "redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com> writes:
Radium wrote:
Neutron-antineutron as well as proton-antiproton annihilation give out
more energy than nuclear fusion. However, antimatter is far more
difficult to make than fusion.
Why, all of a sudden, is difficulty a concern?
Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is boring as
hell by comparison.
Why? We can make antimatter in controlled quantities. We can't do the
same with fusion. :)
Oh, we sure can. Not that this is of much use. |
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redbelly
science forum beginner
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
| Quote: | "redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com> writes:
Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is boring as
hell by comparison.
|
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
| Quote: | Why? We can make antimatter in controlled quantities. We can't do the
same with fusion.
|
For that matter why not pump with solar power, produced by fusion
within the sun? The zing and excitement of nuclear fusion, delivered
directly to your front doorstep! :-)
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Radium
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
redbelly wrote:
| Quote: | "redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com> writes:
Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is boring as
hell by comparison.
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
Why? We can make antimatter in controlled quantities. We can't do the
same with fusion. :)
For that matter why not pump with solar power, produced by fusion
within the sun? The zing and excitement of nuclear fusion, delivered
directly to your front doorstep! :-)
Mark
|
Great idea. Problem is, it will only work during the day, and that too
the clouds shouldn't cover the sunshine.
Hopefully, lenses and crystals can be used to concentrated enough
sunlight to pump the lasing medium.
No electricity required! Well, except for the medium's atomic electrons
changing energy levels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Goldwasser
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
| Quote: | redbelly wrote:
"redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com> writes:
Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is boring as
hell by comparison.
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
Why? We can make antimatter in controlled quantities. We can't do the
same with fusion. :)
For that matter why not pump with solar power, produced by fusion
within the sun? The zing and excitement of nuclear fusion, delivered
directly to your front doorstep! :-)
Mark
Great idea. Problem is, it will only work during the day, and that too
the clouds shouldn't cover the sunshine.
Hopefully, lenses and crystals can be used to concentrated enough
sunlight to pump the lasing medium.
No electricity required! Well, except for the medium's atomic electrons
changing energy levels.
|
They tried that in the earliest days of lasers. Pumping efficiency is
terrible. The Sun doesn't know that it's supposed to concentrate the
energy in specific wavelengths convenient for laser pumpoing. :)
--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html
Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lostgallifreyan
science forum beginner
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject:
Re: My hypothetical design of fusion-pumped lasers
|
|
|
Sam Goldwasser <sam@saul.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in
news:6w3be59i86.fsf@saul.cis.upenn.edu:
| Quote: | "Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> writes:
redbelly wrote:
"redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com> writes:
Antimatter is far more interesting than fusion. Fusion is
boring as hell by comparison.
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
Why? We can make antimatter in controlled quantities. We can't
do the same with fusion. :)
For that matter why not pump with solar power, produced by fusion
within the sun? The zing and excitement of nuclear fusion,
delivered directly to your front doorstep! :-)
Mark
Great idea. Problem is, it will only work during the day, and that
too the clouds shouldn't cover the sunshine.
Hopefully, lenses and crystals can be used to concentrated enough
sunlight to pump the lasing medium.
No electricity required! Well, except for the medium's atomic
electrons changing energy levels.
They tried that in the earliest days of lasers. Pumping efficiency is
terrible. The Sun doesn't know that it's supposed to concentrate the
energy in specific wavelengths convenient for laser pumpoing. :)
|
Ok, so what if we convert? Solar energy to superheat water to steam, use
that to drive a turbine, store energy in a flywheel so it can be used at
nights too, then generate DC power coverted at >90% efficiency with
electronic charge pumps to provide a controlled current for lots of diodes?
That might seem boring though, it's too close to what we do already. :)
--
----------------------------------------
http://save.nazanin.googlepages.com/home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Fusion
