Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
long long ago in a lifetime far away I was acquainted with a woman whose husband was a mathematician working on fusion. She described him as someone who could pick up a 300 page book containing a particular mathematical equation, start at page one, and then the = sign occurs on page 180, and that he actually understood that stuff. I'll take her word for it.
Any case, as I understood it, the issue was the amount of energy that needed to be put into the system to achieve ignition was a real big problem.
I probably should read up on the latest technology, but my question is does fusion do anything different from nukes. IE does fusion just boil water, producing steam, which spins turbines to produce electricity?
Depends on the particular method being worked on. Some ideas do not, but most do. Theres been some research on using super critical CO2 turbines as well.
Lockheed Martin claims they will have fusion within 8 years....well technically 3 years for a demo, and 5 years to ramp it up to production.
The articles I've read about Lockheed's project lead me to believe it's a joke. They have nothing but a concept and computer simulations and bold claims. Claims and computer simulations are a dime a dozen. Just because someone is begging for and getting research funding does not mean it's about to be real! No one is close to proving a working system, let alone ramping up to full scale production.
Quote:
Fusion power will make it practical to mine asteroids.
Even if fusion power was successful, it would not be viable to mine asteroids for common metals like iron, aluminum, and copper. It's expensive just to launch hardware off the planet (cheapest is $4,000/lb). And then you will need to launch and re-enter the mined material... millions of tons of it!
Quote:
Lets hope that its more of the socialism then corporate totalitarian, but even then the changes in technology will eventually allow a individual to completely self support himself in a comfortable way. When that occurs corporations are doomed.
It don't think you understand what I'm saying, or if you do, I'd like to know why you disagree. The issue isn't that it wouldn't be possible (in theory) for a person to do this, the problem is that the rich and powerful will not allow it. It is against their interests. When consumer-capitalism is dead it would be a "waste" of resources.
The articles I've read about Lockheed's project lead me to believe it's a joke. They have nothing but a concept and computer simulations and bold claims. Claims and computer simulations are a dime a dozen. Just because someone is begging for and getting research funding does not mean it's about to be real! No one is close to proving a working system, let alone ramping up to full scale production.
The lockheed martin skunkworks division is well known for delivering. Last year the National Ignition Facility fired off the first fusion result that got more power out then was put in, Additionally there is the Focus Fusion group (which is running test shots with real hardware), the military funded polywell research, and much more.
Quote:
Even if fusion power was successful, it would not be viable to mine asteroids for common metals like iron, aluminum, and copper. It's expensive just to launch hardware off the planet (cheapest is $4,000/lb). And then you will need to launch and re-enter the mined material... millions of tons of it!
Spacex is estimating costs in the $500/pd range with its reusable rockets which they have been showing regular progress on. Theres been several different ideas on how to deliver the material, including foaming it, and just dropping it for reprocessing, or building simple landing craft in orbit that land themselves. More work is needed on this obviously.
Quote:
It don't think you understand what I'm saying, or if you do, I'd like to know why you disagree. The issue isn't that it wouldn't be possible (in theory) for a person to do this, the problem is that the rich and powerful will not allow it. It is against their interests. When consumer-capitalism is dead it would be a "waste" of resources.
I think I do understand, The reason I disagree is that theres an assumption of current cost. I believe we will find that what the "rich and powerful" will allow becomes irrelevant when the money they have is no longer a primary driver. If all of a persons needs can be met with what to me is a minor cost...less then a minutes income basically of my current income....then its trivial for mee to help 100 people. And if as a result those 100 people can all help others the same way...suddenly we have a society where lots of wealth is not that important.
Right now...we all need money for food, shelter, etc. In the future those needs can all be met with a small investment. Once that occurs the traditional dynamics are void.
We've got a long way to go. Its going to happen faster then most expect, but its still a long ways away. 40 years? Just a guess.
The lockheed martin skunkworks division is well known for delivering. Last year the National Ignition Facility fired off the first fusion result that got more power out then was put in, Additionally there is the Focus Fusion group (which is running test shots with real hardware), the military funded polywell research, and much more.
Yes, many people are working on it... as they have for many decades. All have made bold claims and promises, and all have failed. It may happen someday, but we are nowhere near using fusion as our primary energy source.
Quote:
Spacex is estimating costs in the $500/pd range with its reusable rockets which they have been showing regular progress on. Theres been several different ideas on how to deliver the material, including foaming it, and just dropping it for reprocessing, or building simple landing craft in orbit that land themselves. More work is needed on this obviously.
I hate to be a spoil-sport but the ratio of "pop" science and tech ideas that you hear about vs ones that actually have some practical sense is probably >1000 to 1. More than "work" is needed. This is physics and economics (reality).
Quote:
I believe we will find that what the "rich and powerful" will allow becomes irrelevant when the money they have is no longer a primary driver.... Right now...we all need money for food, shelter, etc. In the future those needs can all be met with a small investment. Once that occurs the traditional dynamics are void.
Power and assets will *always* be a primary driver. The thing that is changing is that they will no longer need *us*. They will no longer rely on consumer-capitalism and will therefore no longer need to allow us to be free and prosperous.
There is always a limit. Energy, water, air, minerals, land, pollution, etc. Even if the costs of processing and production are cut drastically, these other limits remain. If you can supply all your needs with a "small investment" then why not invest a little more and become insanely prosperous? Now multiply that by 10 billion persons.
The powerful can allow everyone to play this game and let the scarcity of all these resources drive up the price to incredible levels. Levels so high that mining asteroids for some of them actually *does* become viable. Or they can deny us access and keep these resources for their exclusive use. Which do you think is more likely? That they will actually *give* us this bounty out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes, many people are working on it... as they have for many decades. All have made bold claims and promises, and all have failed. It may happen someday, but we are nowhere near using fusion as our primary energy source.
In the past I agree with you, but it used to be only 1-3 groups, almost all government. Now its still those...plus half a dozen pretty serious private companies, with real hardware showing real results. We're a lot closer then you believe in my opinion.
Quote:
I hate to be a spoil-sport but the ratio of "pop" science and tech ideas that you hear about vs ones that actually have some practical sense is probably >1000 to 1. More than "work" is needed. This is physics and economics (reality).
This is spacex failing a landing on a moving platform because they miscalculated the amount of hydraulic fluid needed. Theyre launching this hardware regularly, and will make another attempt shortly.
physics and economics....both work here.
Quote:
Power and assets will *always* be a primary driver. The thing that is changing is that they will no longer need *us*. They will no longer rely on consumer-capitalism and will therefore no longer need to allow us to be free and prosperous.
There is always a limit. Energy, water, air, minerals, land, pollution, etc. Even if the costs of processing and production are cut drastically, these other limits remain. If you can supply all your needs with a "small investment" then why not invest a little more and become insanely prosperous? Now multiply that by 10 billion persons.
The powerful can allow everyone to play this game and let the scarcity of all these resources drive up the price to incredible levels. Levels so high that mining asteroids for some of them actually *does* become viable. Or they can deny us access and keep these resources for their exclusive use. Which do you think is more likely? That they will actually *give* us this bounty out of the goodness of their hearts?
Short term, I agree. Its why I suspect we will see some socialism first. everyones vote counts the same. Long term? Not as much. The ability to design things for recycling with 3d printing drops your material needs a lot, and fusion makes the power side of it lopsided from today.
Should be interesting times. Lets both hope I am more right then you are . I certainly hope I am, but acknowledge that you could be right as well.
Should be interesting times. Lets both hope I am more right then you are . I certainly hope I am, but acknowledge that you could be right as well.
*Very* interesting. I hope you are right too... but I don't think your projection is logically consistent with what I perceive. Always I ask... what will the rich and powerful want, and how might we unite to effect something else? It would take an informed and organized public forcing policy that would benefit the majority, against the wishes of the powerful minority. Our democracy has already been broken in that sense, so how would we ever get control? Sad thing is I have to admit that democracy has probably been a sham all along. Even lip service to it will disappear when consumer capitalism disappears.
What do you mean by "socialism"? If you mean egalitarian distribution of wealth, I don't believe that is possible. Rather we will have an expansion of welfare so the unemployable can survive in leisurely poverty, until they slowly die off.
I think the bigger danger is not low-skilled jobs, but medium and medium-high skilled ones. Low-skilled work can already be done by humans in cheap countries with no labor standards for practically nothing. Robots would probably be more expensive than sweatshop workers in the garment industry, for example. You can pay those people 60 cents a day that's 1200 a year for 40 hours a week, robots will have to get damn cheap to beat that.
The little things our brains do that enable the most basic functions like walk, dodge an obstacle, etc... that's really hard for a robot to do. We're still light years away from a robot that can move like a human - so the basic jobs that require you to.... well, move... will probably be hard to replace. Robotics will probably be able to supplement human movement for amputees, etc... but I doubt very much they will be able to duplicate movement in the next 100 years.
Where computing technology is really scary is in the middle class, medium-skilled jobs that college graduates do sitting behind desks. Those could go away quite quickly.
If you can do your job on a computer and it's not particularly creative, I think it's likely that a computer will be able to do that job by itself in the not-too-distant future.
If you kill off the consumers' abilities to consume, what happens to the economy? You'd still have the rich and the very poor. It might turn the middle classes into kind of quasi-indentured servants of some sort. The economy might shift into a neo-feudalism.
There would be major shocks to the system - the industrial revolution did not exactly happen peacefully.
Last edited by redguard57; 03-04-2015 at 02:54 AM..
I think the bigger danger is not low-skilled jobs, but medium and medium-high skilled ones. Low-skilled work can already be done by humans in cheap countries with no labor standards for practically nothing.
I'm speculating on what will happen in the US. It's true that in some parts of the world low skill labor is cheaper than any robot is likely to be for a long time. But that is because the people live at bare subsistence, minimal food and a space to sleep.
At any rate, people will have an increasingly difficult time finding a competitive advantage over a machine, that justifies paying them a decent wage.
Quote:
We're still light years away from a robot that can move like a human - so the basic jobs that require you to.... well, move... will probably be hard to replace. Robotics will probably be able to supplement human movement for amputees, etc... but I doubt very much they will be able to duplicate movement in the next 100 years.
Actually they are faster and more precise already. What they lack is the processing power and programming to do what humans and animals do. Current computer power is barely above insect level, so a humanoid robot that acts and moves like a human isn't possible yet.
I don't believe humanoid robots will be more than a sideshow. We won't be replaced by robots that "do what we do", and they will not need to have human functionality. Most will be highly specialized to perform particular tasks, likely with parts that swap out for other specialties.
Also note that most of the jobs that people currently have are serving other middle class humans. As more people become unemployable, these services will be reduced. Increasingly the function of the robots will be to serve the wishes of their (few) owners, and the infrastructure will change to facilitate this.
Quote:
If you can do your job on a computer and it's not particularly creative, I think it's likely that a computer will be able to do that job by itself in the not-too-distant future.
Even if your job is creative, the competition will be fierce. There will be high demand for designing, programming, and managing computers until they become sophisticated enough to do this on their own. The brilliant and talented will be well off. The rich will likely always want human performers and entertainers, but this will not be a lot of jobs.
Quote:
If you kill off the consumers' abilities to consume, what happens to the economy? You'd still have the rich and the very poor. It might turn the middle classes into kind of quasi-indentured servants of some sort. The economy might shift into a neo-feudalism.
The economic model will remain capitalist for a good while. What will end is the *consumer* part... that relies on middle class consumption, prosperity, and mass production. Production will eventually serve whatever the wealthy wish directly, rather than them just skimming off profits from general economic activity. I expect that they will live in unimaginable space age luxury. The humans who are still useful will live very well also.
What about the rest of us? I don't think there will be many servants. A few. Since we have no purpose where they are concerned, and any resources we consume are simply wasted, they will have every incentive to reduce our living standard to a low level. Maybe even do away with us entirely. It depends on how charitable they are. I lean towards believing we will be poor but comfortable, and largely distracted and entertained via cyberspace and VR. We will own little, but we will generally be happy and satisfied... as well as now anyway. Any desire to procreate will be gone (and possibly outlawed), and the excess humans will eventually die off.
Unless we can somehow join together and force a different outcome, I believe this will be the fate of humanity. Or something worse. Various disasters like war or pandemic could hasten the process.
The thought of us "joining together" seems like such a far off fantasy. Propaganda keeps us confused and divided over silly issues and sticks us into camps where we align with a bunch of other nonsense. Important things are not discussed and are even taboo to mention. Most people still believe that the public has the power to change society to serve their wishes. I believed that also until recently. I thought that our democracy and freedom and universal rights were evidence of that. Now I realize that all these served the wishes of the powerful few. It was the best way for *them* to increase their power and wealth. It's nice that it has been symbiotic for so long, but it would be very naive to believe that our rights, freedom, and living standards will persist when the rich no longer benefit.
It's already happening! Has been for at least 40 years. That's when they decided to end their dependency on the US consumer, and go global. It's been wildly successful for them, and sucked for the rest of us. This isn't "free trade". This is draining the US of capital, and piling on fiscal and private debt. Do you hear about it in the news? Every excuse imaginable is floated up as the "cause" of our poor economic situation, except the real one. The solution is easy *if* your goal is general US prosperity, but if that had been the goal, this would never have happened in the first place.
I can only conclude we have freedom, democracy, and prosperity only because our "masters" were wise enough to realize that this was in their best interest. And now they are steering us in another direction, because this is no longer the case. If we actually *could* join together I think we have a chance, because the institutions are there for majority rule. Are the propaganda and manipulation too effective for us to have any hope of a consensus? That seems to be the case. Invasive surveillance, media consolidation, fear mongering (perpetual war on terror), and the expansion of welfare are all trends that support that less optimistic future. At this point the idea of us successfully organizing to fight for our interests seems about as fantastical as angels coming down to save us.
People will demand political change when things get too bad, and compromises are made. It's happened before. When the first social welfare programs were created, it was with the purpose of ameliorating the worst excesses of industrial capitalism so there would not be rebellions. It will take considerable inequality though, at least 4-5 times worse than it is. People will put up with a lot, but not an unlimited amount of inequality. See: French Revolution, Russian Revolution, German social reforms, etc...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I certainly hope I am, but acknowledge that you could be right as well.
