Google Enters Race For Nuclear Fusion Technology (theguardian.com) 150
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Google and a leading nuclear fusion company have developed a new computer algorithm which has significantly speeded up experiments on plasmas, the ultra-hot balls of gas at the heart of the energy technology. Tri Alpha Energy, which is backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, has raised over $500 million in investment. It has worked with Google Research to create what they call the Optometrist algorithm. This enables high-powered computation to be combined with human judgement to find new and better solutions to complex problems. Working with Google enabled experiment's on Tri Alpha Energy's C2-U machine to progress much faster, with operations that took a month speeded up to just a few hours. The algorithm revealed unexpected ways of operating the plasma, with the research published on Tuesday in the journal Scientific Reports. The team achieved a 50% reduction in energy losses from the system and a resulting increase in total plasma energy, which must reach a critical threshold for fusion to occur.
Speeded.... (Score:3, Funny)
*twitch*
Re: (Score:1)
Cite the OED, a shitty thing that's now defining internet slang? Give me a fucking break and find me a better source that doesn't fall into those shenanigans.
Oxford lost all credibility years ago.
To be precise... (Score:3)
Oxford lost all credibility years ago.
808 years ago [wikipedia.org] ;-)
Re:To be precise... and funny! (Score:3)
This makes it into my 'ten funniest jokes on Slashdot ever'.
To understand how clever the parent's joke is, you have to reach the third sentence in the article linked, which you will first believe to be a misdirection, and then realize it to be an insider joke like they have loong liked to pull on each other.
Of course, if you're from 'there' or 'the other place', you might have caught it at once.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Speeded.... (Score:4, Informative)
Cite the OED and the point shall be conceded.
The dictionary doesn't cover grammar, but it is clearly in there as a word:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/speeded [dictionary.com]
"verb (used with object), sped or speeded, speeding."
Then there's the usage:
http://grammarist.com/usage/sped-speeded/ [grammarist.com]
Not to mention you seem to be under the mistaken belief that a words existence follows the dictionary, instead of the other way around.
Again, if you don't understand a topic...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
http://grammarist.com/usage/sp... [grammarist.com] Sorry but I must revoke your Grammar Nazi License.
Re: (Score:1)
being a grammar nazi is what concerned you? not the "want to punch a baby" thing?
Re: (Score:1)
you know you, uh, are one, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well yea. The baby was an actual nazi and it's acceptable to punch a nazi. #punchanazi
Umbrella Corporation (Score:1)
I'm just waiting for them to build a hive complex somewhere under the bay area.
Re: (Score:2)
May Silicon Valley burn in hell.
That's certainly a viewpoint - but why? Isn't solving a problem like our dependency on fossil fuels important enough that we should be pragmatic about it? As Terry Pratchett once said (different context, though): "I'd gnaw the arse of a dead mole, if I thought it would help".
Re: (Score:1)
> Isn't solving a problem like our dependency on fossil fuels
Already solved. While these guys are wasting everyone's time with a system that has repeatedly demonstrated not to work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migma
we're installing wind and PV faster than any other power source in history.
Re:I would laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
If fusion were to be able to be done, it would fundamentally change every aspect of our society.
I will propose an assertion: Energy = wealth.
If fusion becomes inexpensive and commercially available, perhaps along the "too cheap to meter" line, there would be a lot of things that are doable, which we could do, which we couldn't before:
1: Desalination plants on a large scale, combined with water pipelines. Once the warlords are out of the way, African droughts and famines would be over, and there would be a lot more arable, fertile land available.
2: Thermal depolymerization can be used as a very effective way to recycle plastics. Combine that with a ship, and it can actually harvest the plastic in the Pacific Gyre and turn it back into fuel.
3: Direct CO2 extraction out of the atmosphere, perhaps reusing it as fuels.
4: The ability to create stuff that would be prohibitivily expensive. Same thing happened with aluminum. Before electricity was available, getting aluminum from bauxite was extremely expensive. With energy cheaply available, titanium would be able to be used more.
5: The ability to do transportation networks which are wasteful on fuel right now. Cheap fuel + electric vehicles mean a bus service that can even handle rural areas with 1-2 hours on a street.
So, all, and all, if fusion is available, it will fundamentally change life as we know it, just as electricity changed things. So, it is worth keeping at it.
Re: (Score:1)
Agree 100%. I have always thought that cheap/free energy would cause a huge societal shift. Think about anything you consume and estimate how much energy it requires to manufacture and deliver. With cheap energy, you don't need to work as much to live.
(But you said this so much better.)
Re: I would laugh (Score:2)
To be fair, gasoline powered engines actually have a whole bunch of explosions. They have multiple explosion per second, even.
Re: (Score:2)
Humor doesn't always translate well to text. However, I know what they said. It was much funnier in my head.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If fusion were to be able to be done, it would fundamentally change every aspect of our society.
I will propose an assertion: Energy = wealth.
If fusion becomes inexpensive and commercially available, perhaps along the "too cheap to meter" line, there would be a lot of things that are doable, which we could do, which we couldn't before:
OK, but energy will never be "too cheap to meter" unless we develop Tesla (the original guy) wireless energy transfer as the main cost of energy is not the fuel but the lines and infrastructure needed to move the electricity around. My state is almost completely hydro and has no fuel cost and energy to ship elsewhere, but still needed to be metered. Plus fusion has many of the issues that fission has. Fusion plants will also have issues with radioactivity and disposal as we can't really stop neutrons which
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need distribution infrastructure once it becomes possible to shrink production systems enough.
Thank your for your input Ray Palmer.
Re: (Score:1)
1: Desalination plants on a large scale, combined with water pipelines. Once the warlords are out of the way, African droughts and famines would be over, and there would be a lot more arable, fertile land available.
So, you're saying that Africa's population would have constraints removed and the number of people in Africa would consequently explode. I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through...
Re: (Score:1)
There was a paper a while back that showed that once an area was stable, populations stabilized. In areas where the economy is bad, there is a higher population growth, just because of mortality rates. If one kid lives out of three, people will have more children. Heck, even Kurzgesacht has an episode on this topic exactly.
And what's so bad about Africa taking a turn at becoming a developed continent? Haven't they have more than their share of the world shitting on them?
Re: (Score:1)
The biggest existential threat facing Europe right now is an exploding African population that don't want to stay in Africa because it's full of Africans. Somehow I don't think even more Africans is going to solve the problem.
The world doesn't shit on Africa, Africans shit on Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
> If fusion becomes inexpensive and commercially available
And if you know absolutely nothing about how the energy world works, this sounds possible. If you do know a bit, then you know it's not. And the power companies have been telling the fusion folks this continually since the 1970s. But they don't listen - really, when you try to have this conversation they get mad and run away. Literally.
Consider this: any energy producing machine requires a certain amount of money to build. That money has a payback
Re: (Score:1)
I'd rather Google continue the research that isn't coming out of my pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it. What exactly annoys you about this story?
You saw the word "nuclear"... (Score:2)
... and immediatelly went into full riverdance knee-jerk mode clearly without even having a clue about what nuclear fusion is. The worrying thing is that people like you have a vote.
So Google is now working on: (Score:5, Informative)
Fusion reactor
Curing cancer
Life extension (fountain of youth)
Driverless cars
Flying cars
Sentient AI
Did I miss anything?
Re: (Score:1)
Probably, that's just what they've gone public with.
They literally have so much money they don't know how to spend it.
Re: (Score:3)
Does Sergei Brin own a cat?
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe.
A funnier answer than most will give credit for.
Re: (Score:2)
My initial question was actually intended as a Blofeld (James Bond arch-villain) reference.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I would much prefer to see it spread around more fairly, want to see what philanthropy truly looks like watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com], enjoy your crumbs as those who feed them to you feed their ego, hmm, yum crumbs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So Google is now working on: (Score:4, Funny)
Fusion reactor Curing cancer Life extension (fountain of youth) Driverless cars Flying cars Sentient AI
Did I miss anything?
Sexbots
Faster-than-light travel
Nanotechnology
Atomic-powered jetpacks
Apps, apps and more apps, because APPS!
Re: So Google is now working on: (Score:2)
I think they used to have something to do with search. Maybe...
Stamping out Zika (Score:5, Informative)
Fusion reactor
Curing cancer
Life extension (fountain of youth)
Driverless cars
Flying cars
Sentient AI
Did I miss anything?
They just released 20 million modified mosquitos [fortune.com] in an attempt to wipe out Aegypti and eliminate Zika in Long Beach Ca.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fresno
But I can totally see how you'd confuse Long Beach for Fresno
Yes, Aegypti have been found in Long Beach, but that's not where Google is releasing Mosquitos. Yet.
Re:Stamping out Zika (Score:4, Insightful)
They just released 20 million modified mosquitos in an attempt to wipe out Aegypti and eliminate Zika in Long Beach Ca.
Not wipe out, wipe out this year. We're talking about a non-native species that can fly and which is easily transported upon humans or in their possessions. It'll be back. I don't think what Google did was harmful, I just don't think it will turn out to have been worth the effort. You'll have Zika mosquitoes back in a hot minute.
Re: (Score:2)
WOLBACHIA???
Vocal chord parasites... Metallica archaea... Diné... Copulation...
Looks like Konami had an Act 3 up their sleeve the whole time, and it's playing out in SoCal. Somebody call Keifer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Killer robots
The Matrix
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss anything?
Reaction-less engines
Space Elevator
Hyperloop
Vat grown meat
Having infinite amounts of money is pretty cool actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I might expect the reverse. Fusion is one problem. Cancer is dozens of different problems.
Re: (Score:2)
AC who thinks a 'cure for cancer' would ever be a thing, as in one unitary thing, assures us fusion is a much more intractable problem. No reason to credit you, no evidence, no fuck all.
I believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the lifetime of most people alive now.
Depends on how well that life extension research goes. If their goal is "fusion in our lifetime" they'd probably be better off researching life extension first.
Google Nukes . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Well, that ought to finally put an end to those meddlesome European kids and their lawsuits!
Google has nukes!
Don't like way Google runs their business in your country!?
Eat neutrons, baby!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fusors are a reasonable way to produce neutrons but so far there doesn't seem to be a way to scale them to net energy production.
There are a variety of ways to do nuclear fusion. What is not known is how to produce net energy with fusion. ITER will probably work, but may never be economical. Other ideas (like the tri-alpha scheme) might end up being more practical but I don't think tri-alpha has released enough information to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Pile about 2*10^29 kg of average matter (*) in one place and wait for a couple of million years.
Oh, you mean how to do it when you've only got about 10^27 kg of material within easy reach? That's harder. Do you want steady power output, or pulsed output?
(Average matter : 1 part helium ; 3 part hydrogen ; trace dandruff.)
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? A Farnsworth Fuser can produce neutrons and can be made in most physics labs.
That's GOOD NEWS for EVERYONE.
Yay! (Score:2, Funny)
Now it's only 49 years away from commercial use!
Re: (Score:2)
You need another M for Musk.
Well, great, except for one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's corporate attention span is roughly equivalent to that of a hyperactive two year old.
Re: (Score:3)
for things that are of no benefit to its business, yes.
let me guess, your favorite free google toy-thingie's plug was pulled.
Re: (Score:1)
google may realize we already have practical fusion, solar panel efficiency and storage systems have arrived.
Call me... (Score:2)
optometrist algorithm (Score:1)
"Is it better like this, or like this?" ...
"I, I can't tell..."
"like this, or like this?"
"I.."
"like this or like this?"
"they look the same"
"like this or like this?"
I DON'T KNOW!
Google is having it all. (Score:1)
It's really weapon research (Score:3)
Inertial fusion attempts will never be able to compete against tokamak or stellarator designs. This type of experiments delivers knowledge that is mostly usefull for nuclear weapons, so it's no wonder nthat this type of fusion research is the dominant one in the US.
Re:It's really weapon research (Score:5, Informative)
Tri-Alpha isn't doing inertial confinement fusion. They use a plasma based design with an unusual field configuration (termed "reversed field". The machine does collide two plasmas but it is still magnetic confinement, not inertial.
Laser driven inertial has little chance of being practical without a huge breakthrough in lasers. Heavy ion driven inertial could potentially work since accelerators can be quite efficient, but there are a number of huge hurdles.
Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris (Score:2)
. Optimisation and MI is fragile for edge/unexpected cases, so I'm not sure I want this piece of maths used to control an over-white-hot stream of plasma. At least, I'd want decades of testing before deployment and not anywhere near my house or family.
I'm not a big believer in fusion anyway, except that large, conveniently placed fusion reactor that we call 'the Sun'. If we must fiddle around with this
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to be a very contradicting person.
You know nothing about plasma but point to page about a Stellerator, strange.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Prometheus, Icarus and Hubris (Score:2)
I am not sure why you don't believe in fusion. It's real. If you don't believe me, go outside and look up.
Them again? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Tri Alpha Energy, which is backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen
The design leads of TriAlpha described their design in a late 1997 paper in Science.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/278/5342/1419
Issues over the next year contained responses from other researchers. They invariably point out that the design simply will not work. In one specific instance, the original paper describes the "Q" of the reactor running on p-B to be about 2.3. One of the responses goes into this calculation in depth and calculates it to be 0.02.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/281/5375/307
This system will not work. As demonstrated at about the same time, it is HIGHLY unlikely any non-thermal-equilibrium system ever can due to massive energy losses through radiation. We've known this for almost 70 years, but the evidence by this point in time is absolutely overwhelming.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably right, but there seems to be some disagreement on the analysis. The key seems to be getting the ion temperature high wihtout heating up the electrons (the colliding plasma rings do this), and then the neutral beam injection can continue to heat ions. There seems to be some disagreement on how to calculate the time for the electrons to reach equilibrium.
I'd agree at least as far as "unlikely".
To some extent its a matter of scale. With a sufficiently large plasma I think a variety of configuratio
Deja Vu from 1978 (Score:3)
As far as I can tell, it looks like a high tech variation of the Trisops [wikipedia.org] machine I worked on 40 years ago.
If ultra-hot balls of gas.... (Score:2)
...are all we need then I'm your man. Get me a box of Taco Bell taco supremes and I could fuel the world.
In other news... (Score:2)
Yawn.
Gee, I can't wait for my ... (Score:1)
... Google MrFusion (Beta) to be publicly available.
Re: (Score:3)
ITER, this is where the money should go. Either that, or show us a new structure, and the math/simulations that say it will get to break even more efficiently. Or don't show us... just do it.
I just watched this presentation [youtube.com] yesterday by Dennis Whyte from MIT, and I must say it looked quite promising. His main point was that the recent development of commercially available high-temperature superconductors has radically changed the fusion playing field.
This is due to HTSC's having much larger operating windows compared to traditional superconductors. This allows one to scale down the reactor size while maintaining the magnetic field strength. And smaller size means cheaper and faster development.
Re: (Score:2)