Print 103 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Nov 6 at 12:08 PM

The ITER fusion reactor needs super-strong steel to withstand its fiery hot temperatures. Fortunately, an American national laboratory has developed just such a steel, and has made it affordable as well.  (Source: ITER)
New steel from Oak Ridge National Laboratory is cheaper and stronger than past steel, likely to be used in ITER fusion reactor

DailyTech last month reported that Great Britain was working on  super steels.  These ultra-strong steels would be made possible by preventing irregularities in steel, which weaken its internal magnetics, making it more susceptible to heat.

Now it appears that the Americans have beaten the Brits to the punch, unveiling their own completed super steel.  The new steel was developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the U.S. ITER Project Office, which is housed at ORNL.  The ORNL was recently in the news for inventing a new titanium manufacturing technique.

With its new cast stainless steel, it continued its successes. The new steel is approximately 70 percent stronger than comparable steels and could be a boon to the fusion industry.  Its material parameters are being evaluated carefully, as it is being considered for use in shielding ITER's fusion device.

ITER is a multibillion-dollar international research and development project which is accessing the viability of creating a commercial fusion reactor.

The new steel will need to be ultra strong at high temperatures.  One key goal of the project is to develop self-burning plasmas.  Hundreds of tons of shielding will be needed to block heat and radiation from this plasma.  The shielding, primarily composed of super steel, will be close to the plasma, which will be heated to 100 million degrees.  While the shielding itself won't be this hot, it will get more than a little toasty.

ITER is being built at Cadarache, France.  The United States, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation are all contributing components.  The reactor will be of a tokamak design -- a torus of hot plasma contained by a magnetic field.  The device is expected to produce around 500 MW of fusion power when functioning.

Jeremy Busby of the ORNL Materials Science and Technology Division says designing steel to withstand the extremes of the reactor is a difficult challenge.  He states, "The United States must produce nearly 100 of these modules that are 3-4 tons each and include geometric shapes and openings."

The holes drilled in the steel will weaken it and will result in the loss of 30 percent of the material.  While casting the shape would be more economical and efficient, cast steel traditionally is much weaker.  However, thanks to recent breakthroughs the researchers are beginning to get the problem under control.

Explains Mr. Busby, "We're working to improve the materials' properties to reduce the amount of machining and welding and allow for better performance.  The use of casting can have potential value engineering benefits resulting in cost savings on the order of 20 to 40 percent as compared to machining, so this could be a fairly significant economic issue, both for ITER and in other future uses."

Mike Hechler, USIPO manager of Blanket Shielding and Port Limiter systems, initially approached Mr. Bosby and his team with the request that they design super-steel shielding for the reactor.  Mr. Bosby adds, "He talked with us because of ORNL's materials science expertise.  He was familiar with our industry work and hopeful that we could help provide a solution."

Eighteen months later, the work is almost finished.

In order to strengthen the steel, scientists focused on fracture properties, tensile strength, microstructure properties, welds, impact properties, corrosion performance and radiation resistance.  Through carefully controlled attempts using different casting techniques and varying the composition slightly, his team was able to almost double many key strength properties.

Now Mr. Bosby and his team have to await the final word from ITER on whether the material has passed its standards.  He states, "We expect to hear fairly soon about how our cast stainless steel may be used in this groundbreaking project."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/28/2008 10:40:04 AM , Rating: 1
Why do these articles have to become so nationalistic? You make it sound like the race to build an atomic bomb.

The various scientists involved were probably from all over the world anyway, and they certainly would not have been doing it for their country in a patriotic sense.

Please tone it down.

Progress is progress, its interesting side note to hear where it was developed and by who, but to start a headline "country A beats country B" is just pathetic.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By DanoruX on 10/28/2008 10:49:17 AM , Rating: 4
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere."

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By codeThug on 10/28/2008 11:46:30 AM , Rating: 4
Welcome to techno-kindergarten

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By uhgotnegum on 10/28/2008 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 5
but that comment sounded so much prettier

Alternative headlines
1.) US sooooo much better than UK at making steel
2.) US is super and so is its steel; UK stuck at "good"
3.) UK better than US at getting into news first, but then there's that problem with producing
4.) If I were super steel, where would I be? Oh yeah, in the US (not the UK, obviously).
5.) Americans make super steel, but UK secretly working on superer. In related news, country of Britain requests that Websters recognize "superer" as a word.

and lastly

6.) America beats UK to super steel; Gordon Ramsey makes a better risotto, kicks US out of Hell's Kitchen

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By JonnyDough on 10/28/2008 5:10:34 PM , Rating: 1

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Regs on 10/29/2008 7:24:00 AM , Rating: 3
More like "America sub-contracts to India to make super steel".

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By StevoLincolnite on 10/28/2008 11:55:58 AM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately people see the "Worth Reading" and "Not worth reading" as: "I agree" and "I Disagree".

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By uhgotnegum on 10/28/2008 12:13:56 PM , Rating: 4
Interesting, because I actually see this as an example of the opposite argument...

If we accept that both are "purportedly saying the same thing" (paraphrasing his comment), wouldn't the one that people find more pleasing to read, or "worth reading," naturally be bumped up? If it came down to "I agree" or "I disagree" then they would both be voted the same way.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By jRaskell on 10/28/2008 12:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
You've never seen one of those studies where groups of people are asked the same question worded in two different ways, and the results of each question are drastically different?

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By uhgotnegum on 10/28/2008 12:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that there are studies that show such things, and it even makes sense that the results would vary.

However, if I'm applying what you are implying correctly, wouldn't the question that we are asking be, "Is this post worth reading or not worth reading?" The two posts aren't different answers to two differently worded (yet, substantively identical) questions; they are a different scenario entirely. Here, we're asked the same question (identically worded) to two differently worded (yet, substantively identical) comments.

So, I'd like to think that we're both right...

New headline:

You and I both win...just not in same competition

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By codeThug on 10/28/2008 6:02:12 PM , Rating: 3
Petition DailyTech to include Agree/Disagree rating as well.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By rcc on 10/28/2008 1:45:12 PM , Rating: 1
The difference between quoting and plagarism is the credit. You forgot it.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By johnsonx on 10/28/2008 10:36:10 PM , Rating: 1
Placing quote marks around the quote credits it to someone, even if whoever is doing the quoting doesn't quite remember who to credit.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By rcc on 10/29/2008 1:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Placing quotes around it means someone actually said it. It doesn't mean it was anyone different than the poster.

And the downward spiral continues. : )

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By johnsonx on 10/30/2008 1:32:05 PM , Rating: 3
How can you tell the downward spiral continues when you've clearly already reached the bottom? Are your comments usually this asinine, or are you being purposely obtuse?

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By rcc on 11/6/2008 12:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
My comments are generally adapted to the audience. They refer to it as Style Flux these days.

However, since you've proved you have internet access, there is really no reason to post a quote without a credit, it takes Google and 30 seconds.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By JonnyDough on 10/28/2008 5:15:11 PM , Rating: 1

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By codeThug on 10/28/2008 6:04:32 PM , Rating: 4
getting pretty loose with the 6's here dough

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By JonnyDough on 10/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Ordr on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/28/2008 11:27:26 AM , Rating: 3
What? That makes no sense.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Flunk on 10/28/2008 12:46:20 PM , Rating: 5
He obviously believes that the poster is on the team working on super steel in the UK, that or he is just an idiot.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By othercents on 10/28/2008 11:06:43 AM , Rating: 5
Competition is healthy and spurs innovation as long as the losers don't quit in self defeat.


RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By livelouddiefast on 10/28/2008 1:57:05 PM , Rating: 5
sometimes competition needs to be spurred by nationalism (see the olympics).

nothing against the UK, it's just that we're better than you :)

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By tjr508 on 10/29/2008 9:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Because we all want to be like Russia and China...
Nationalism rules!

What ever happened to the 'don't trust your government' America?

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Ringold on 10/28/2008 3:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
ORNL funding for FY 2007 exceeds $1.2 billion; 80 percent of that amount comes from the Department of Energy, and 20 percent is from other federal and private customers.

Thats from wikipedia.

In other words, I, the US tax payer, give them 80 cents on every dollar they spend. Therefore, that is a national program.

As someone else said, get over it. Competition is healthy; this aversion to competition and any discomfort whatsoever is not what got North America and Europe where it is, and it is not the type of pressure that is causing the BRIC nations to surge forward.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Josett on 10/28/2008 4:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you're addressing the ONRL R&D budget alone, yes it's a national (US) program.
The ITER however, is a multi-national program and it's approved start up budget (2006) was close to 13B.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By FITCamar0 on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By MrBlastman on 10/28/2008 11:13:02 AM , Rating: 4
There is nothing wrong with patriotism or nationalism. Since when did it become a crime?

Oh yeah, when the political correctness weenies started crying about everything. How about, in regards to your PC parade...

Please tone it down.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By BeastieBoy on 10/28/2008 11:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
Damn. First the War of Independance and now this!

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By FITCamaro on 10/28/2008 12:20:26 PM , Rating: 1
When did that war happen?

I'm familiar with the war for independence but not the one you mentioned.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By BeastieBoy on 10/28/2008 12:26:55 PM , Rating: 4
That's 3 things now. You guys are on a roll.
(Please don't take this seriously)

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By FITCamaro on 10/28/2008 12:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
You guys? Just me here.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By BeastieBoy on 10/28/2008 12:36:38 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I wasn't personally crediting you with the war or the steel production either.
I'm sorry if my humour is lost on you.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By tjr508 on 10/29/2008 9:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it completely against what our country was founded on. We were set out to be an individualist nation where government came second to freedom.
It wasn't until the 20th century when we started to stick our noses into the business of other nations that you had your collectivist nationalism.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By snownpaint on 10/28/2008 11:17:52 AM , Rating: 5
It is a race.. Its always a race.. If there wasn't a drive to be the first, there wouldn't be a drive.. In science it the person that figures it out first that wins the metal, wins the funding. Everyone else after that is just proving the point. Most of the time, countries fund the research through one branch or another.. DARPA, DOD, BNES, DME, etc. Therefore, they get to claim fame, tout their flag, draw interests from other scientist looking for funding in a relative field. National Scientific Pride is used for recruitment and goes back to moon missions, Manhattan project, and Computer race. Scientists are drawn to the places that will fund their interests/research.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Hulk on 10/28/2008 11:19:19 AM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? You are offended by this headline?

Amazing where we are today. I guess there is no freedom of the press anymore.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/28/2008 11:31:42 AM , Rating: 5
Where did I say I was offended? I am not, I just find it odd.

You are reading between the lines.

Anyone who is familiar with how scientific research happens would think this whole "country vs country" thing is absurd, it is only losers sitting behind their keyboards who get excited becuase *their* country makes an advancement in science.

Same people who constantly ridicule the French at any given opportunity.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By MrBlastman on 10/28/2008 12:24:23 PM , Rating: 5
I like my French... Fried...


Into a vat of boiling oil I say!

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Hulk on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/28/2008 1:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
You have completely and comprehensively missed every point I have made. I'm certainly not an "every ones a winner" type. I am also not offended by anything written here.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Spuke on 10/28/2008 7:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm certainly not an "every ones a winner" type. I am also not offended by anything written here.
Then what's the purpose of your original comment if it did not perturb you in any way? LOL!

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/29/2008 5:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously? You still don't get it?

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Ringold on 10/28/2008 3:57:09 PM , Rating: 5
it is only losers sitting behind their keyboards who get excited becuase *their* country makes an advancement in science.

You just described pretty much every sports fan on Earth. They're just "losers sitting behind their [televisions] who get excited because *their* [country/school/state/city] makes a [touchdown/field goal/home run/etc] in [football/baseball/etc]" when they contributed nothing to the process themselves, and when teams are composed of people from all across the country and sometimes the world. If they made a contribution at all, it'd be because they bought tickets, paid tuition to a college team, or in the case of ORNL, paid taxes.

Apparently however many billion people tune in to watch sports every week for some game or another, well, they're all losers. Can you paint the loser net much wider? :P

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By codeThug on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By FITCamaro on 10/28/2008 12:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
If you're not first, you're last.

~Ricky Bobby

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By theapparition on 10/28/2008 12:41:40 PM , Rating: 3
"Second place is just first loser........."

From some horrible ESPN bio on Dale Earnhart.
However, saying the quote with a southern draw always brings a smile to my face.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By FITCamar0 on 10/28/2008 2:28:43 PM , Rating: 3
"One winner, forty-two losers. I eat losers for breakfast."

~Lightning McQueen

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By snownpaint on 10/28/2008 12:32:31 PM , Rating: 4
On that note:
Look how China handle their Olympians.. They breed them for gold, then honor their participation.

Look at Britain Olympians, they out-source them from other countries. Then celebrate their hired gold.

U.S. does a little of both, but really, they usually get one great star that wins most of the gold for them.

Can you pull from memory who was 4th place in the last mens swimming event in the Olympics?
Can you pull from memory the 2nd guy to make penicillin?
Can you pull from memory who was 2nd person to figure out lighting was electrical?
As it is said "2nd is the first loser.."

You can honor participation of games, or invention, or idea; it does take something to get to that level. However, when the chips are on the table, its the winner that takes the pot. The size of the pot is what makes that champions podium taller.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By FITCamaro on 10/28/2008 12:40:23 PM , Rating: 4
For China you left out forging documents to get underage gymnasts into the Olympics.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By codeThug on 10/28/2008 6:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding, that one looked like she was all of 6 years old.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By iFX on 10/28/2008 11:53:59 AM , Rating: 1
Sore loser?

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By bingobingo on 10/28/2008 1:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
"...and they certainly would not have been doing it for their country in a patriotic sense."

This is an assumption & probably not as true as you think.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By Hawkido on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By martinrichards23 on 10/29/2008 5:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
Competition drives commercial organisations, if you think it drives academic organisations then you have no understanding of how they function.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By v3rt1g0 on 10/28/2008 2:56:09 PM , Rating: 4
Sadly, unintelligent taglines are what I've come to expect from Jason Mick. The content isn't much better, either.

RE: "U.S. Beats Britain"
By MamiyaOtaru on 10/29/2008 5:41:46 AM , Rating: 2
Your post sounded like whining, sour grapes, and wussiness. His sounded like a truism.

New Applicance Upgrade
By Murst on 10/28/2008 10:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
This is great for places like Sears and Lowes. They can now add super stainless steel to their appliance upgrade options.

RE: New Applicance Upgrade
By chmilz on 10/28/2008 11:16:49 AM , Rating: 5
Bring on the Mr. Fusion microwave oven. No more 3 minutes for Ichiban noodles. No sir, 5 seconds and BAM! Delicious noodly goodness.

*Warning* Radiation may cause hair loss, shriveled genitalia, ugly children, or death.

RE: New Applicance Upgrade
By UNCjigga on 10/28/2008 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the main benefit of fusion is that radiation is no longer a problem?

RE: New Applicance Upgrade
By FITCamaro on 10/28/2008 12:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
Have you ever gone out in the sun?

RE: New Applicance Upgrade
By snownpaint on 10/28/2008 12:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
hahaa.. Shoot, even Scotch Tape makes radiation.. haha..

RE: New Applicance Upgrade
By Hawkido on 10/28/2008 2:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Fusion won't have radioactive waste... (the reactor will be highly irradiated, but it won't be going anywhere)

Fission leaves spent control and fuel rods that have to be reprocessed into new fuel rods, and the remains need to be stored till they are radioactively "cool" enough to transport and store.

Fusion WILL emit large and concentrated streams of gamma rays, The magnetic field will contain most of it. Gamma radiatioin however is like light from a bulb... when you turn the reactor off, the gamma radiation streams stop when the reaction stops.

The only problem is gamma radiation can potentially change some materials into radioactive isotopes. But i am sure some lab coates have this pretty much all figured out. Lead shielding/Gold Foil and all that.

Remember Radiation is an awefully inclusive term... Light from a candle is radiation, and so are x-rays, Microwaves, and gamma rays. You need to be concerned with the energy beams that can penetrate under your skin, vs. just burning the surface. Also, energized particles Alpha radiation and Beta radiation can be far more harmful as the particles can stick to skin or penetrate your tissue and continue to do damage.

RE: New Applicance Upgrade
By tjr508 on 10/29/2008 9:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it neutrons that come loose in 2h-3h reactions?

I mean they will eventually turn into gamma rays but depending on the shielding, it could be quite some distance away. And yes, fast neutrons are VERY good at 'activating' other materials.

Internal Magnetics?
By TomZ on 10/28/2008 12:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
These ultra-strong steels would be made possible by preventing irregularities in steel, which weaken its internal magnetics , making it more susceptible to heat.

Does anybody know what is meant by this? I've never heard of this term/idea before.

RE: Internal Magnetics?
By snownpaint on 10/28/2008 12:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
In a sense, a clump of Iron has a bunch of micro-magnets that line up to make the clump magnetized (they line up when exposed to a magnetic field). That magnetized clump will hold together better because the magnetization will help hold the bond between atoms, making it harder to break..

That is my brief understanding of that term.. though not sure if that is what it really means..

RE: Internal Magnetics?
By 91TTZ on 10/28/2008 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
But this article is about stainless steel, and nearly all stainless steels are non-magnetic.

RE: Internal Magnetics?
By Tesseract on 10/30/2008 10:52:15 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't stop there being iron atoms and so magnetic domains in the material. I don't think. :/

Costs ?
By nah on 10/28/2008 11:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
What does it cost---per MW-hr ? Any ideas .

RE: Costs ?
By mamisano on 10/28/2008 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure - I think this is more a Proof-of-Concept that will help develop the materials and design of future commercial reactors.

RE: Costs ?
By cornelius785 on 10/28/2008 4:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree the cost isn't really a concern now. As far as I know, scientists are still tryting to figure out to how sustain a fusion reaction and draw energy from it. When they figure that out in practice and prove it works, then I think they can figure out how cheap they can make it. It'll be interesting to see the cost of production of energy for fusion when it becomes a reality.

By tehbiz on 10/28/2008 3:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
call me when they finally make clear aluminum

RE: ok
By Ringold on 10/28/2008 4:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
All we have to do is nearly kill off all the whales, and Scotty will drop by and let us know.

RE: ok
By d1g1talm1nd on 10/29/2008 12:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
Oh science, you're so fine, you're so fine you...
By Gzus666 on 10/28/2008 11:17:18 AM , Rating: 3
Blow my mind, seriously. I wish I could collectively hug science.

By probedb on 10/28/2008 12:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
More people should hug science :)

What I want to know is...
By TheFace on 10/28/2008 1:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
If this is a multi-billion dollar project, for fusion which could be the cleanest of all energy sources and potentially create massive amounts of power, then why are they worried about 20-30% cost savings especially if casting the steel isn't necessarily the best way? They say they've made breakthroughs but is it actually as strong as the other methods? It just seemed a bit absurd that they're quibbling over a small amount of money in a hugely expensive project.

RE: What I want to know is...
By Ringold on 10/29/2008 12:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
Just because it's already an expensive government project doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt efficiency whenever and where ever possible?

I already knew your politics, but this gave it away even more. :P

I mean, if 20-30% as you say is a small amount of money, why not exempt me from taxes for life. Just a small amount of money. Why don't we just buy all of Iceland to save them from a great depression? Just a small amount of money. That savings could one day, if this is commercialized, be multiplied across dozens or hundreds of fusion plants built around the world, and every dollar not wasted on that beyond what is necessary is a dollar available for other things.

It's a change from the norm at least
By Dribble on 10/28/2008 1:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
It's often the case Britain invents stuff first, however having done the hard work it then fails miserably to spend any money commercialising it.
At this point the Japanese normally step in, take the idea and make a fortune.

Madonna was right....
By Fenixgoon on 10/28/2008 12:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
It *IS* a material world! =D

<--- studying materials science & engineering

Seriously though, this is great stuff. I hope they publish a paper on it, because I'd love to know the composition, microstructure phases, casting techniques, etc.

By Andy35W on 10/29/2008 3:22:41 AM , Rating: 2

By Vim on 10/28/08, Rating: 0
By DEVGRU on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Great...
By acer905 on 10/28/2008 10:35:11 AM , Rating: 5
Personally i'm more worried about the earth suddenly blinking out of existance for no reason. Socks seem to do it all the time, so i think its just a matter of when it happens.

RE: Great...
By FITCamaro on 10/28/2008 12:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you be concerned about something you wouldn't know happened?

RE: Great...
By Ralos on 10/28/2008 5:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
So... if somebody else went to bed with your wife, as long as you wouldn't know it happened ...


RE: Great...
By Spuke on 10/28/2008 7:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
So... if somebody else went to bed with your wife, as long as you wouldn't know it happened ...
Hey, what happens in Vegas...

RE: Great...
By Spuke on 10/28/2008 7:25:47 PM , Rating: 4
Socks seem to do it all the time
Friggin underwear gnomes.

RE: Great...
By bludragon on 10/28/2008 10:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
A fusion reactor will likely spell the end of the earth as we know it... Assuming costs can be brought under control, civilization can finally start to move away from being fossil fuel dependant, bringing about a fusion revolution where things are likely to change just as much as through the industrial revolution.

RE: Great...
By chmilz on 10/28/2008 11:10:58 AM , Rating: 3
And even after there's abundant power for all through fusion, the US will won't upgrade the power grid because of in-fighting.

RE: Great...
By snownpaint on 10/28/2008 11:43:55 AM , Rating: 3
The world would change forever.. This would be bigger then electricity, E-MC2, the Spoon, or A/C (refrigeration). This changes national power struggles, changes world economics, changes energy production (gas, oil, hydro, wind, tidal), and transportation.. Cheap, abundant, Clean, electricity is what the world needs (if it could handle it). That and uncorrupted people to spread it, offer it, and use it to make the world a better place.

But that won't happen, if I learned anything living this life, people are greedy, self-centered, and control hungry; especially ones interested in politics or finance. Which the reactor will touch both, heavily.

On a final note, This new steel is just the first of many great inventions to make this reactor work. So much will come from these steps to reach the next by the time the reactor is ready, the world will hopefully be in a better, stronger place.. (like Velcro, Freeze dried food, and super fabrics /alloys from the Space missions:>)

RE: Great...
By FITCamaro on 10/28/2008 12:26:44 PM , Rating: 1
It would change commercial power generation. But we can't exactly stick a fusion reactor into our cars. And even if we could, I wouldn't want us to.

Why do people assume that just because we can produce cheap, clean electricity that it would completely eliminate the need for gas? We can already produce cheap, clean energy safely with nuclear power. Still using gas. Oil wouldn't go anywhere as oil is barely used in the production of electricity.

RE: Great...
By Gzus666 on 10/28/2008 12:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well, with electric cars coming and progressing pretty well, by the time this is viable we will most likely be in an electric car world.

RE: Great...
By snownpaint on 10/28/2008 2:39:05 PM , Rating: 3
If you could fill your battery up for $0.03 to go 40- 60 miles, that makes a world of difference, in oil consumption and the push for electric cars.

Would you invest in Solar or Wind or Hydro energy, if you can have more then your demand with fusion reactors, that are clean (make He2).

Even with power loss through transmission the loss would be acceptable compared to the amount produced, so power plants would be spread out.

Water production (desalination) becomes easy and cheap, growing 3rd world cities. Hydrogen becomes extremely cheap to manufacture. Metal production costs become cheap by lowering the cost of refinement and smelting.

Sure we will still use Oil for flying and plastics and areas where electricity can't be transmitted, but that consumption of oil would be soooooo much less. That would change the direction of most of the world. Coal (current power plant juice) wouldn't be used and those coal companies would dwindle down to a few. Oil would be cut, making low grade crude uneconomical to drill. Also enabling countries to pick where they want to get the smaller supply they need, changing the world economics (politics)

That is just the touch of the iceberg. what about public transportation in cities, concerns of power consumption are readjusted (appliances). Then there is the ability to heat your house for pennies, effecting the Natural Gas shipments and supply, and heating oil companies.

It would be way cheaper then nuclear, Uranium needs to mined, and refined, and nuclear waste stored all cost big bucks.. H2 or H3 is easy to make, find and the amount of energy fusion makes compared to fission is much much more..

RE: Great...
By FITCamaro on 10/29/2008 7:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with electric cars isn't the cost to charge the battery. It's how far the battery will take you. Until you can quick charge a battery in 5-10 minutes to 100% charge and then have it take you 300-400 miles, pure electric cars will not be able to replace gas. Pure electric cars right now are only useful as short range commuter cars. Unless we have a major revolution in battery technology, they're going to stay that way.

RE: Great...
By Tesseract on 10/29/2008 5:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Remember the wireless power tech that intel demonstrated? It was on this site some time ago, cant remember when. But, link a clean efficient (and static) power source with something like that, and you've got yourself an electric car that doesn't need batteries.

Room temperature superconductors would be good too for batteries, providing they could be made (unlikely, but you never know), but I think they'd lose power because of the magnetic field they'd produce (and I wouldn't like my portable HDD being wiped by a car :P)

RE: Great...
By rcc on 10/28/2008 1:54:00 PM , Rating: 3
And the environmentalists would give birth to litters of kittens. The last thing they want is a cheap clean source of power.

100 million degrees...
By sweetsauce on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: 100 million degrees...
By TomZ on 10/28/2008 12:59:16 PM , Rating: 4
I'll disprove Aspden's work after you disprove the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

RE: 100 million degrees...
By sweetsauce on 10/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: 100 million degrees...
By theboomboomcars on 10/28/2008 3:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
If you think that this guy has the answer get to work and produce your own generator using this power source.

Since he evidentially hasn't convinced other scientists to work on a project to produce something from this, go a head and get started.

If you don't have them money write convincing grant proposals to try and get funding. You don't have to be a big guy to get your idea to work, you just have to get out and do something.

There are various governments around the world that sponsor out there ideas that they think may help them to get a leg up in the world.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins
Related Articles

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki