ITER in Scientific American
ITER in Scientific American
The June 2012 issue of Scientific American has an article on ITER. (Sorry, only a preview available. Iter.org linked to a PDF of the entire article earlier, but they changed the link.) Despite the fact that iter.org linked to the article itself, it's a rather pessimistic look at the future of fusion power, as represented by ITER. Not too surprisingly, there is no mention of any fusion alternative, not even NIF.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
Re: ITER in Scientific American
They changed to link but didn't remove it from their site.Ivy Matt wrote:The June 2012 issue of Scientific American has an article on ITER. (Sorry, only a preview available. Iter.org linked to a PDF of the entire article earlier, but they changed the link.) Despite the fact that iter.org linked to the article itself, it's a rather pessimistic look at the future of fusion power, as represented by ITER. Not too surprisingly, there is no mention of any fusion alternative, not even NIF.
First tried Google's cached version of iter.org, but it was "too new", but Bing had older cached, which still had the link to the article
http://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com ... %20(2).pdf
Had a subscription starting early in HS, for 10 yrs after engr college. I remember the CO2 warming theory when it first made the mag along with continental drift. I guess not everything pans out. Then it became something else.... No real loss, we have the net....
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Side note:
I once ran across some microfilm copies of SciAm from its early days in the 1800s. Nothing like the current rag, or the gold standard of the 60s/70s. It was all about really practical stuff, such as reducing wear in bearings, efficient steam engine design, crop harvesting machines, metallurgy techniques, etc. A reminder that the job description "scientist" used to imply someone who could also design, fabricate and test real hardware (engineer-machinist-mechanic), not just theorize. Even the big-wigs like Kelvin (Thomson) would be hands-on, tinkering in their lab-shops to produce some amazing stuff.
I once ran across some microfilm copies of SciAm from its early days in the 1800s. Nothing like the current rag, or the gold standard of the 60s/70s. It was all about really practical stuff, such as reducing wear in bearings, efficient steam engine design, crop harvesting machines, metallurgy techniques, etc. A reminder that the job description "scientist" used to imply someone who could also design, fabricate and test real hardware (engineer-machinist-mechanic), not just theorize. Even the big-wigs like Kelvin (Thomson) would be hands-on, tinkering in their lab-shops to produce some amazing stuff.
People like ... Dr. B?DeltaV wrote:Side note:
I once ran across some microfilm copies of SciAm from its early days in the 1800s. Nothing like the current rag, or the gold standard of the 60s/70s. It was all about really practical stuff, such as reducing wear in bearings, efficient steam engine design, crop harvesting machines, metallurgy techniques, etc. A reminder that the job description "scientist" used to imply someone who could also design, fabricate and test real hardware (engineer-machinist-mechanic), not just theorize. Even the big-wigs like Kelvin (Thomson) would be hands-on, tinkering in their lab-shops to produce some amazing stuff.
