Theory of minisun fusion generators

For tech wizards and n00bs alike. Questions, answers, or just general hoo-haa.

Moderator: Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
redundant_redundant
Grand Templar
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:54 pm
Location: canterlot. I come to save thee luna :D

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#46 Post by redundant_redundant »

Sebbie wrote:
Symphona wrote:Yes yes, stupidly impractical, I agree with you.

Surely if you use /stupidly/ high temp Hydrogen you could still get it to work though? Given the lack of pressure, it would have to be obscenely high, but...in theory?

All this discussion is basically just hot air, there are better and easier ways to do it, but still kinda interesting. For example, without a distinct 'center' for the hydrogen, will the sphere remain stable?
All that matters regarding whether or not fusion can happen is the temperature; the pressure is irrelevant (high pressure tends to lead to high temperatures, which is why we generally think of fusion as requiring very high pressures, but if you could generate the required temperature without the high pressure, that'd work fine too). I'm just still unclear on how you would prevent the hydrogen from just falling into the black hole. Also, what do you mean by there being no distinct "center" for the hydrogen?
next person who says blackhole gets tossed into one. I ment gravity singularity and was using that system as an example
Twokinds Revolution. an epic story of the still continuing war between basitons and humans, with kiedran caught in the middle

Chocolate wrote:Because its TASTY
- Chocolate
Image

User avatar
Sebbie
The Guy You're Gay For
Posts: 4102
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Isla Vista, CA

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#47 Post by Sebbie »

redundant_redundant wrote:next person who says blackhole gets tossed into one. I ment gravity singularity and was using that system as an example
But...a gravitational singularity is a black hole...
PhycoKrusk wrote:especially Alaric who, without all that fur, I imagine is ripped
Image ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
redundant_redundant
Grand Templar
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:54 pm
Location: canterlot. I come to save thee luna :D

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#48 Post by redundant_redundant »

Sebbie wrote:
redundant_redundant wrote:next person who says blackhole gets tossed into one. I ment gravity singularity and was using that system as an example
But...a gravitational singularity is a black hole...
not true. an event horizons singularity is a black hole, a gravity singularity is a gravitation point, like the earths core.
Twokinds Revolution. an epic story of the still continuing war between basitons and humans, with kiedran caught in the middle

Chocolate wrote:Because its TASTY
- Chocolate
Image

User avatar
Symphona
Apprentice
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:29 pm
Location: England

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#49 Post by Symphona »

The theoretical Naked Singularity is a Black hole rotating very quickly, according to some simple searches :P

Sebbie, I'm making the same point you are: in a normal explosion/sun, by and large things are moving out from a central point. The model I'm imagining for this mini-star involves two spheres: one between the bottom of the fusion band and the singularity, and one at the top of the fusion where it's being contained, with the fusion section lying in between these two spheres. Without that central point to effectively radiate from however, will it all just collapse into the singularity?
Linux is hard...

User avatar
TheJ
Templar
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: Interwebs

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#50 Post by TheJ »

redundant_redundant wrote:
Sebbie wrote:
redundant_redundant wrote:next person who says blackhole gets tossed into one. I ment gravity singularity and was using that system as an example
But...a gravitational singularity is a black hole...
not true. an event horizons singularity is a black hole, a gravity singularity is a gravitation point, like the earths core.
This is getting out of the realms of the realms of my mind...... but I think that it would help if an innocent high school freshman typed the words "Gravitational singularity" in Wikipedia.
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, some of which are a measure of the density of matter.

For the purposes of proving the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, a spacetime with a singularity is defined to be one that contains geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner. The end of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity. This is a different definition, useful for proving theorems.

The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). These singularities are also known as curvature singularities.
Or more simply,
A gravitational singularity (sometimes called a spacetime singularity) is a place in a black hole where the gravity is thought to be infinite.

Oh but don't take me too seriously. I mean, I'm not even good at black hole related physics.
MY AVATAR IS CALLED KRIETH KREISER.
ORIGINAL CHARACTER DO NOT STEAL.
COPYRIGHT: ME.
2012
Kindamoody wrote:avwolf is always right. :wink:
Schrodinger wrote:Stop trying to inject logic where none exists.

User avatar
Sebbie
The Guy You're Gay For
Posts: 4102
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Isla Vista, CA

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#51 Post by Sebbie »

redundant_redundant wrote:an event horizons singularity is a black hole, a gravity singularity is a gravitation point, like the earths core.
Alrighty, some clarifications: the Wikipedia article is more or less correct, in that singularities (at least how we're talking about them here) are points in spacetime where the (scalar) curvature blows up. According to the cosmic censorship hypothesis, all such curvature singularities in 3+1 dimensions (i.e. our universe) will be covered by an event horizon. Naked singularities (i.e. singularities not covered by an event horizon) can be theoretically formed by taking the extremal limit of either charged or spinning black holes (i.e. dumping enough electric charge into a black hole, or "spinning" it fast enough), but creating such extremal black holes is physically impossible. For the purpose of this discussion, we cannot talk about physical naked singularities; if you want to talk about singularities, an event horizon must come with it. In particular, a black hole is effectively defined as an event horizon (not as a singularity - you can theoretically have event horizons, and therefore black holes, without any kind of singularities); therefore, if you want to talk about a singularity in our physical universe, you are necessarily talking about a singularity enclosed in a black hole.

I have no idea what you mean by a "gravitation point"...

Symphona wrote:Sebbie, I'm making the same point you are: in a normal explosion/sun, by and large things are moving out from a central point. The model I'm imagining for this mini-star involves two spheres: one between the bottom of the fusion band and the singularity, and one at the top of the fusion where it's being contained, with the fusion section lying in between these two spheres. Without that central point to effectively radiate from however, will it all just collapse into the singularity?
Ah, OK, I didn't realize that that's how you envisioned it. Whatever material the spheres would be made of would need to be strong enough to resist both the intense gravity and tidal forces from being so close to the black hole, and the extremely high temperature necessary for the hydrogen to undergo fusion. Even if such a material existed (which I don't think it does), the bigger problem is that the black hole would want to drift around inside of the spheres and eventually crash into one of them, making the whole thing collapse into the black hole; you'd need some way to keep the spheres centered around the black hole.
PhycoKrusk wrote:especially Alaric who, without all that fur, I imagine is ripped
Image ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Orinjei
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:41 am
Location: AnySmallSuburb, Ohio, USA

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#52 Post by Orinjei »

Mind if I jump in here? No? Good. I have actually heard of the black hole made in France. It is indeed possible to create one, even though it takes a massive amount of energy to start. I will address each concern individually.
1a) How the black hole will be contained: I've read worries of it floating around in the chamber and sucking everything in. RESPONSE: Anything spinning rapidly will have a magnetic field. (And for people who say "Well it needs to be solid," no it doesn't. Jupiter, the gas planet has a magnetic field but no solid core.) Now to control the black hole, super-powerful electro-magnets could in fact hold the black hole in place until it dissipates.
1b) How the star will be contained: Stars give off large amounts of radiation, no matter how small. RESPONSE: A thick wall of lead will keep the radiation in. -- Heat from the star would melt any material. RESPONSE: This part would be near impossible to put into practice. Diamond. With the highest melting point of all known materials at 3820 degrees Kelvin. Making the assumption that the man-made star would about 1 foot in diameter, the diamond could easily contain the small star. I may need to move onto another post to finish these. I will address the creation issues in the next post.
My life is tough,
The roads are rough,
I never thought,
The stage is wrought with danger.

It's hard for them to see,
The powers deep within me,
I will prove,
I cannot lose,
In this battle known as life.

User avatar
Orinjei
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:41 am
Location: AnySmallSuburb, Ohio, USA

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#53 Post by Orinjei »

Creation issues will be addressed here.
2a) Black hole creation: I am unsure how to do this on a small scale. Though, a pseudo-black hole was made was made in the LHC by colliding lead and gold particles together. This small collision made a blast of over 10,000,000,000,000 degrees Celsius. (And yes that is a trillion and no I did not put too many zeros.) The result lasted less than a nano-second. If larger or more particles at a higher speed were used, it could possibly make a true micro black hole again.
2b) Star creation: I have read that if the materials needed for the star to form were pumped into or around the black hole, then they would get sucked up and not get used. This is not true. A black hole is not a "portal" or a "destroyer". The black hole would actually help the creation of the star in several ways, as the matter is absorbed it is giving off large amounts of energy that would start a chain reaction with the other gases. If the gases are pumped in fast enough, then the black hole would "overload" and tear itself apart, releasing the gases that were absorbed earlier on, thus feeding the chain reaction for a little longer. The one possibility with this is that when the black hole collapses, it uses too much force and launches the required particles away. Sustaining the star is another issue, as it would need a lot of hydrogen and other gases to continue. Time to move to the next post I think. Maybe...

EDIT: I'm going to take a break from this for a bit...
My life is tough,
The roads are rough,
I never thought,
The stage is wrought with danger.

It's hard for them to see,
The powers deep within me,
I will prove,
I cannot lose,
In this battle known as life.

User avatar
Sebbie
The Guy You're Gay For
Posts: 4102
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Isla Vista, CA

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#54 Post by Sebbie »

First of all, Orinjei, please don't double-post. Alrighty, now on to your claims:
Orinjei wrote:Mind if I jump in here? No? Good. I have actually heard of the black hole made in France. It is indeed possible to create one, even though it takes a massive amount of energy to start.
I still won't believe this one bit until someone provides me with a source. I've done pretty extensive Googling and can't find anything on it. The closest thing I can find is this, which talks about "artificial" black holes in the sense of using fiber optics to create surfaces from which light cannot escape, but that has nothing to do with real gravitational black holes like the ones we're talking about.
Orinjei wrote:1a) How the black hole will be contained: I've read worries of it floating around in the chamber and sucking everything in. RESPONSE: Anything spinning rapidly will have a magnetic field. (And for people who say "Well it needs to be solid," no it doesn't. Jupiter, the gas planet has a magnetic field but no solid core.) Now to control the black hole, super-powerful electro-magnets could in fact hold the black hole in place until it dissipates.
First of all, it's not true that anything spinning rapidly will have a magnetic field: there needs to be electric charge of some sort thrown into the mix. In particular, not any black hole will do; you'd need a rotating and charged black hole, called a Kerr-Newmann black hole. There's nothing that says they can't be created, but the problem with charged black holes is that they tend to very readily attract opposite charge and become electrically neutral, so you'd need to find a way to prevent that. The other issue is that Earnshaw's theorem states that you can't use static standard electromagnetic fields to stabilize something; you'd need to rig up some dynamic feedback loop that changes the response of the electromagnets is response to any drifting of the black hole.
Orinjei wrote:1b) How the star will be contained: Stars give off large amounts of radiation, no matter how small. RESPONSE: A thick wall of lead will keep the radiation in. -- Heat from the star would melt any material. RESPONSE: This part would be near impossible to put into practice. Diamond. With the highest melting point of all known materials at 3820 degrees Kelvin. Making the assumption that the man-made star would about 1 foot in diameter, the diamond could easily contain the small star. I may need to move onto another post to finish these. I will address the creation issues in the next post.
You are aware that the surface of the sun is around 5800 K, and the temperature required for nuclear fusion to occur is around 10 million K, yes? Diamond (or any other substance currently know to us) would not be able to withstand the required temperature.
Orinjei wrote:2a) Black hole creation: I am unsure how to do this on a small scale. Though, a pseudo-black hole was made was made in the LHC by colliding lead and gold particles together. This small collision made a blast of over 10,000,000,000,000 degrees Celsius. (And yes that is a trillion and no I did not put too many zeros.) The result lasted less than a nano-second. If larger or more particles at a higher speed were used, it could possibly make a true micro black hole again.
Um, actually, those collisions produced what are called quark-gluon plasmas; I don't know what you mean by a "pseudo" black hole. Producing black holes in the particles colliders we have today is only possible if there are extra compactified dimensions; in only four dimensions, our current particle colliders simply aren't energetic enough to create black holes.
Orinjei wrote:2b) Star creation: I have read that if the materials needed for the star to form were pumped into or around the black hole, then they would get sucked up and not get used. This is not true. A black hole is not a "portal" or a "destroyer". The black hole would actually help the creation of the star in several ways, as the matter is absorbed it is giving off large amounts of energy that would start a chain reaction with the other gases. If the gases are pumped in fast enough, then the black hole would "overload" and tear itself apart, releasing the gases that were absorbed earlier on, thus feeding the chain reaction for a little longer. The one possibility with this is that when the black hole collapses, it uses too much force and launches the required particles away. Sustaining the star is another issue, as it would need a lot of hydrogen and other gases to continue. Time to move to the next post I think. Maybe...
...what? There are two ways to "overcharge" a black hole (more properly, create an extremal black hole): either get it spinning fast enough or throw in enough electrical charge. It turns out that both of these techniques are physically impossible; as a black hole gets charged more and more, it repels any more charge you try to throw in more and more strongly. Likewise, if you try to throw in matter with angular momentum to increase the black hole's spin, there tends to be gravitomagnetic repulsion between the black hole and the extra matter. Even if creating such extremal black holes were possible, you haven't "blown up" the black hole, because the singularity (and everything it's eaten) is still there; you just lose the event horizon. Anyway, if you were to dump matter onto a black hole in the hopes of supporting some kind of nuclear fusion, you'd need to pump matter onto it at an incredibly high rate, because it would indeed fall into the black hole very, very rapidly.
PhycoKrusk wrote:especially Alaric who, without all that fur, I imagine is ripped
Image ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
SirSlaughter
Templar Inner Circle
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:16 pm
Location: 不滅の神天皇の名の下に殺しグリーン大群の真ん中に!
Contact:

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#55 Post by SirSlaughter »

Alright sebbie, I did a bit of searching and I think I may possibly have found an article or 2 about the black hole thing with france:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06sun4.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/world ... 20991.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -hole.html

Ok From what I have read it was on the Franco Swiss border taht this was happening. There was an issue with hawaii getting upset over this and I believe some legal work was involved. Just thought I would drop this off for ya. :)

User avatar
Sebbie
The Guy You're Gay For
Posts: 4102
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Isla Vista, CA

Re: Theory of minisun fusion generators

#56 Post by Sebbie »

You're referring to the LHC black hole scare; I addressed that earlier in this thread:
Sebbie wrote:Are you guys confusing the whole stupid "black hole scare" LHC thing with them actually producing a black hole? The LHC production of black hole was only an idea (started by my quantum field theory professor, incidentally), which would only be possible if certain theories positing the existence of extra spatial dimensions are correct. Such a black hole, if formed, would be microscopic, and would evaporate in a ridiculously small fraction of a second. There has also never been a confirmed production of such a black hole.
Again, I emphasize that we have not yet been able to create a black hole.
PhycoKrusk wrote:especially Alaric who, without all that fur, I imagine is ripped
Image ImageImageImageImageImage

Post Reply