The Death Star-II improved?

[Picard]

Especially if they use something like this.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Ahem--- there are no real working fusion-reactors, so you're not in the real world when you quote "facts" about them as evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Yes we have fusion reactors that work, but are not commercially viable yet, and they have been around for years.

Ok, from your source:

"More than one megajoule of ultraviolet energy was fired into the hohlraum, besting the previous world record by a factor of more than 30. The results gave the scientists confidence that they will be able to achieve ignition in more realistic tests scheduled to begin in the summer of 2010.

NIF researchers are currently conducting a series of "tuning" shots to determine the optimal target design and laser parameters for high-energy ignition experiments with fusion fuel in the coming months. Two firing tests have been performed on October 31 and November 2."

Remind me what calendar calculates "years" as "months," again?
Likewise, they don't work in terms of creating fusion; likewise, a megajoule is less than the amount of energy created by combusting an ounce of gasoline; might singe an eyebrow-- if it went off directly in someone's face.

A fusion reactor will not explode like an anti-matter reactor because the fusion reaction will stop once containment is lost because the requirements to artificially cause a fusion reaction will be lost, and the plasm will cool very quickly. They also need to be powered constantly when active or the requirement to cause a fusion reaction will be lost.

The fusion reaction is already underway in the reactor, and is contained by the magnetic field-- just like the fusion reaction in a star is contained by its gravitational-field; and so if the energy of the reaction of either one exceeds the strength of the containment-field, then they'll both explode like an H-bomb, and cause the remaining fuel to likewise go critical (this is known as a "supernova" for a star, and "A New Hope" for a fusion-generator." Likewise if you dialed down the reaction to a safe level, then you wouldn't get much energy out of it (which would be why the DSII didn't fry Endor when it blew, i.e. they weren't running at full power-- just enough to run the superlaser at low power-levels).

Star Trek uses a type of anti-matter that's far more powerful than current calculations, since a single ounce of it is enough to rip away half of an earth-sized planet's atmosphere (TOS: "Obsession"), whereas our current tech would result in less than a 2MT explosion. That's why a starship needs an engineering-crew to keep things running, while a pile of junk like the Falcon can run on fusion purely under control by the ship's computer alone.

[Lucky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Yes we have fusion reactors that work, but are not commercially viable yet, and they have been around for years.

Ok, from your source:

"More than one megajoule of ultraviolet energy was fired into the hohlraum, besting the previous world record by a factor of more than 30. The results gave the scientists confidence that they will be able to achieve ignition in more realistic tests scheduled to begin in the summer of 2010.

NIF researchers are currently conducting a series of "tuning" shots to determine the optimal target design and laser parameters for high-energy ignition experiments with fusion fuel in the coming months. Two firing tests have been performed on October 31 and November 2."

Remind me what calendar calculates "years" as "months," again?
Likewise, they don't work in terms of creating fusion; likewise, a megajoule is less than the amount of energy created by combusting an ounce of gasoline; might singe an eyebrow-- if it went off directly in someone's face.

You really need to do more research, and read the sources provided. The J.E.T. is/was a working fusion reactor

As of July 2010, the largest experiment was the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. Project partners were preparing the site in 2008. The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

n the history of fusion research the year 1991 is particularly significant: on the 9th November a Preliminary Tritium Experiment achieved the world’s first controlled release of fusion power. Six years later, in 1997, another world record was achieved at JET: 16 mega watts of fusion power were produced from a total input power of 24 mega watts – a 65 % ratio. This is equivalent to a release of 22 mega joules of energy.

We have working fusion reactors in the real world.

A fusion reactor will not explode like an anti-matter reactor because the fusion reaction will stop once containment is lost because the requirements to artificially cause a fusion reaction will be lost, and the plasm will cool very quickly. They also need to be powered constantly when active or the requirement to cause a fusion reaction will be lost.

The fusion reaction is already underway in the reactor, and is contained by the magnetic field-- just like the fusion reaction in a star is contained by its gravitational-field; and so if the energy of the reaction of either one exceeds the strength of the containment-field, then they'll both explode like an H-bomb, and cause the remaining fuel to likewise go critical (this is known as a "supernova" for a star, and "A New Hope" for a fusion-generator." Likewise if you dialed down the reaction to a safe level, then you wouldn't get much energy out of it (which would be why the DSII didn't fry Endor when it blew, i.e. they weren't running at full power-- just enough to run the superlaser at low power-levels).

Accident potential
The likelihood of small industrial accidents including the local release of radioactivity and injury to staff cannot be estimated yet. Nevertheless there is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat.
There is also no risk of a runaway reaction in a fusion reactor, since the plasma is normally burnt at optimal conditions, and any significant change will render it unable to produce excess heat. In fusion reactors the reaction process is so delicate that this level of safety is inherent; no elaborate failsafe mechanism is required. Although the plasma in a fusion power plant will have a volume of 1000 cubic meters or more, the density of the plasma is extremely low, and the total amount of fusion fuel in the vessel is very small, typically a few grams. If the fuel supply is closed, the reaction stops within seconds. In comparison, a fission reactor is typically loaded with enough fuel for one or several years, and no additional fuel is necessary to keep the reaction going.
In the magnetic approach, strong fields are developed in coils that are held in place mechanically by the reactor structure. Failure of this structure could release this tension and allow the magnet to "explode" outward. The severity of this event would be similar to any other industrial accident or an MRI machine quench/explosion[citation needed], and could be effectively stopped with a containment building similar to those used in existing (fission) nuclear generators. The laser-driven inertial approach is generally lower-stress. Although failure of the reaction chamber is possible, simply stopping fuel delivery would prevent any sort of catastrophic failure.
Most reactor designs rely on the use of liquid lithium as both a coolant and a method for converting stray neutrons from the reaction into tritium, which is fed back into the reactor as fuel. Lithium is highly flammable, and in the case of a fire it is possible that the lithium stored on-site could be burned up and escape. In this case the tritium contents of the lithium would be released into the atmosphere, posing a radiation risk. However, calculations suggest that the total amount of tritium and other radioactive gases in a typical power plant would be so small, about 1 kg, that they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the plant's perimeter fence.[10]

Basically any fusion reactor that does not shut down when containment is lost was designed by a moron, and with the various shield technologies in Star Wars anything that comes out of the reactor should be easily contained. Then again these are people with an irrational love for seemingly bottomless pits, and a seeming phobia of guard rails.

It's G-canon they have fusion or fission reactors smaller then R2. There is no reason for a ship to have only one huge reactor. http://st-v-sw.net/STSWimpower.html

Star Trek uses a type of anti-matter that's far more powerful than current calculations, since a single ounce of it is enough to rip away half of an earth-sized planet's atmosphere (TOS: "Obsession"), whereas our current tech would result in less than a 2MT explosion. That's why a starship needs an engineering-crew to keep things running, while a pile of junk like the Falcon can run on fusion purely under control by the ship's computer alone.

It doesn't matter if it exceeds E=MC^2. It will react with normal matter in an uncontrolled fashion if containment is lost.

[KirkSkyWalker]

The J.E.T. is/was a working fusion reactor
As of July 2010, the largest experiment was the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec.

Wow, the equivalent of FOUR ounces of gasoline/
Gee, think we should move to the other side of the globe to be safe? (snorch)


And it consumed the input of six ounces. FYI, "working" means that it produces more output than input, not simply that they've managed some supercollider fusion. Heck, they've produced anti-matter reactions doing that, it doesn't make it a "working antimatter-powered generator."
You're being fast-and-loose with your definitions.

A fusion reactor will not explode like an anti-matter reactor because the fusion reaction will stop once containment is lost

You mean that the fuel-feed will stop.
But for the ongoing reaction itself it's too late, once the containment-field is ruptured while it's operating at full power.

It's G-canon they have fusion or fission reactors smaller then R2. There is no reason for a ship to have only one huge reactor.

H-bombs can feasibly be that small; as long as you can contain the reaction, you can harness the energy. But if you can't, then it's still an H-bomb.
Likewise, having one reactor wouldn't matter, since if one went then it would take out the containment-fields of the others as well.

[Lucky]

Wow, the equivalent of FOUR ounces of gasoline/
Gee, think we should move to the other side of the globe to be safe? (snorch)


And it consumed the input of six ounces. FYI, "working" means that it produces more output than input, not simply that they've managed some supercollider fusion. Heck, they've produced anti-matter reactions doing that, it doesn't make it a "working antimatter-powered generator."
You're being fast-and-loose with your definitions.

A rude remark, and shifting the goal post.

The J.E.T. was a success, and it is a fusion reactor. I already told you the technology was not commercially viable yet, and they are building a larger version.

Where is this matter/antiti-matter reactor you are talking about? As far as I know they have never produced enough anti-matter to bother with using it to fuel a reactor.

You mean that the fuel-feed will stop.
But for the ongoing reaction itself it's too late, once the containment-field is ruptured while it's operating at full power.

We already went over this, without the precise conditions found inside the reactor the fusion reaction will stop if containment is lost. Fusion reactors do not have tiny stars in them.

H-bombs can feasibly be that small; as long as you can contain the reaction, you can harness the energy. But if you can't, then it's still an H-bomb.

Reactors are very different from bombs, and are in fact designed not to explode.

Likewise, having one reactor wouldn't matter, since if one went then it would take out the containment-fields of the others as well.

Why, it's not like Star Wars technology can't contain mega ton or more explosions with armor and energy shields.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Wow, the equivalent of FOUR ounces of gasoline/
Gee, think we should move to the other side of the globe to be safe? (snorch)


And it consumed the input of six ounces. FYI, "working" means that it produces more output than input, not simply that they've managed some supercollider fusion. Heck, they've produced anti-matter reactions doing that, it doesn't make it a "working antimatter-powered generator."
You're being fast-and-loose with your definitions.

A rude remark, and shifting the goal post.

No, it's true. Look up the term "generator--" vs. "engine."
Producing fusion is relatively easy-- they did that at Bikini Atoll. (And no, that's not the opposite of a girl on a nude beach, i.e. "NO bikini atoll;" look it up.)
Creatiing a working fusion geneator is something else, and implies a surplus.

As for being commercially viable, that's even more far-off, due to the radiation produced; a He3 generator is the next logical step. (Look that up too).

The J.E.T. was a success, and it is a fusion reactor. I already told you the technology was not commercially viable yet, and they are building a larger version.

Then Obama's economic-plan is a "success" if it pays back 65% of the stimulus-money they put into it.

Where is this matter/antiti-matter reactor you are talking about? As far as I know they have never produced enough anti-matter to bother with using it to fuel a reactor.

By your standards they did.

You mean that the fuel-feed will stop.
But for the ongoing reaction itself it's too late, once the containment-field is ruptured while it's operating at full power.

We already went over this, without the precise conditions found inside the reactor the fusion reaction will stop if containment is lost. Fusion reactors do not have tiny stars in them.

Uh, yeah they DO-- it's kinda implied by the term "fusion."
And we did NOT "already went over it." You skipped over it.
How do you think a star works, anyway?
Or do you just "wonder what they are, like a diamond in the sky?"

H-bombs can feasibly be that small; as long as you can contain the reaction, you can harness the energy. But if you can't, then it's still an H-bomb.

Reactors are very different from bombs, and are in fact designed not to explode.

What part of "contain the reaction" do you not understand?
That's the only difference, given the amount of fuel that they fuse at any one time. The generator simply sustains the reaction-- which it's able to do, because it's contained.

Likewise, having one reactor wouldn't matter, since if one went then it would take out the containment-fields of the others as well.

Why, it's not like Star Wars technology can't contain mega ton or more explosions with armor and energy shields.

Uh yeah, that's inside the reactor-- and outside the ship.

[Lucky]

No, it's true. Look up the term "generator--" vs. "engine."
Producing fusion is relatively easy-- they did that at Bikini Atoll. (And no, that's not the opposite of a girl on a nude beach, i.e. "NO bikini atoll;" look it up.)
Creatiing a working fusion geneator is something else, and implies a surplus.

You are moving the goal posts.

A bomb is not a reactor like you seem to be claiming. They didn't have a fusion reactor at the Bikini Atoll.

We are talking about reactors, and not generators or engine.

As for being commercially viable, that's even more far-off, due to the radiation produced; a He3 generator is the next logical step. (Look that up too).

Provide a link.

Then Obama's economic-plan is a "success" if it pays back 65% of the stimulus-money they put into it.

They made a working fusion reactor to experiment with, and gather data, and now they are planing to make a larger reactor with the information gained.

By your standards they did.

They have had matter/anti-matter reactions in labs, but they have not made reactors that use matter/anti-matter reactions.

Uh, yeah they DO-- it's kinda implied by the term "fusion."
And we did NOT "already went over it." You skipped over it.
How do you think a star works, anyway?
Or do you just "wonder what they are, like a diamond in the sky?"

Insult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Fusion requires extreme heat and pressure that can not be found on Earth naturally. Without the required conditions being met the reaction will spot.

What part of "contain the reaction" do you not understand?
That's the only difference, given the amount of fuel that they fuse at any one time. The generator simply sustains the reaction-- which it's able to do, because it's contained.

A reactor does not just contain the reaction, but is also designed to control it.

Uh yeah, that's inside the reactor-- and outside the ship.

You do realize you just admitted that they can do what I suggest? There is nothing stopping them from have several reactors protected by armor, and shields.

[KirkSkyWalker]

No, it's true. Look up the term "generator--" vs. "engine."
Producing fusion is relatively easy-- they did that at Bikini Atoll. (And no, that's not the opposite of a girl on a nude beach, i.e. "NO bikini atoll;" look it up.)
Creatiing a working fusion geneator is something else, and implies a surplus.

You are moving the goal posts.

A bomb is not a reactor like you seem to be claiming. They didn't have a fusion reactor at the Bikini Atoll.

Ok, so you claim that the bomb did not create a fusion reaction-- gotcha.

We are talking about reactors, and not generators or engine.

So you claim that generators and engines don't create reactions either.
Here we see where you get hung up on your failure to understand the theory behind things, like Praeothmin said.

[

quote=" KirkSkywalker "] As for being commercially viable, that's even more far-off, due to the radiation produced; a He3 generator is the next logical step. (Look that up too).

Provide a link.[/quote]

Please DAFS, I'm not a babysitter.

Then Obama's economic-plan is a "success" if it pays back 65% of the stimulus-money they put into it.

They made a working fusion reactor to experiment with, and gather data, and now they are planing to make a larger reactor with the information gained.

Wow, and you accuse ME of "moving the goal-posts," when you switch topics mid-sentence, from "generators" to reactors.
That's just plain dishonest.

By your standards they did.

They have had matter/anti-matter reactions in labs, but they have not made reactors that use matter/anti-matter reactions.

Technically, the thing that created the reaction WAS a reactor. It simply wasn't a working generator, since it consumed more power than it produced.

Uh, yeah they DO-- it's kinda implied by the term "fusion."
And we did NOT "already went over it." You skipped over it.
How do you think a star works, anyway?
Or do you just "wonder what they are, like a diamond in the sky?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Fusion requires extreme heat and pressure that can not be found on Earth naturally. Without the required conditions being met the reaction will spot.

Translation: you don't know what the $&*($# you're talking about.

The reaction in the reactor is already happening, and will lose containment-- and then it's too late to stop it. If it's big enough to supply any decent amount of energy for engines or weapons, then it can also blow up the ship, as well as ignite the rest of the fuel.





Ka-BOOM!

Look familiar?

What part of "contain the reaction" do you not understand?
That's the only difference, given the amount of fuel that they fuse at any one time. The generator simply sustains the reaction-- which it's able to do, because it's contained.

A reactor does not just contain the reaction, but is also designed to control it.

By CONTAINING it. Hard to control it without containing it.

Uh yeah, that's inside the reactor-- and outside the ship.

You do realize you just admitted that they can do what I suggest? There is nothing stopping them from have several reactors protected by armor, and shields.

Uh, yeah there are two things-- MASS, and SIZE: i.e. the ship would be so big and heavy, that it would be utterly useless. Then it's not a ship: it's a PLANET.

It's like the comedian who said "If the black box on a jet is indestructible, why don't they make the whole jet ouf the same thing as the black box so that it will be indesctructible, too?"

BECAUSE then, the plane would be a BOMB SHELTER-- i.e. very safe, but utterly immobile.

Furthermore, those shields would need the power of an even BIGGER fusion-generator-- so it's a self-defeating arrangement.
And so again:





Ka-BOOM!

[Lucky]

Ok, so you claim that the bomb did not create a fusion reaction-- gotcha.

You know I'm not saying that, and you know a bomb is not a reactor.

So you claim that generators and engines don't create reactions either.
Here we see where you get hung up on your failure to understand the theory behind things, like Praeothmin said.

You know Reactors are not necessarily generators and engines. You know this, or at least should.

Please DAFS, I'm not a babysitter.

I used google with the vague information you gave, and did not find anything of use. You clearly have something specific in mind so stop being vague and give a clear example.

Wow, and you accuse ME of "moving the goal-posts," when you switch topics mid-sentence, from "generators" to reactors.
That's just plain dishonest.

It did what it was suppose to do. Most people consider something that does what they want it to do a successful design.

Technically, the thing that created the reaction WAS a reactor. It simply wasn't a working generator, since it consumed more power than it produced.

And where is this matter/anti-matter reactor you keep talking about? You have yet to prove it exists.

Translation: you don't know what the $&*($# you're talking about.

The reaction in the reactor is already happening, and will lose containment-- and then it's too late to stop it. If it's big enough to supply any decent amount of energy for engines or weapons, then it can also blow up the ship, as well as ignite the rest of the fuel.

Your point? You just proved the Death Star was not destroyed by a fusion reactor losing containment since most of the Death Star just disappears, and the funky rings. That clearly was not D.E.T.

I don't see what the Death Star has to do with fusion reactors that are well designed.

By CONTAINING it. Hard to control it without containing it.

reactor |rēˈaktər|
noun
1 (also nuclear reactor) an apparatus or structure in which fissile material can be made to undergo a controlled, self-sustaining nuclear reaction with the consequent release of energy.

Uh, yeah there are two things-- MASS, and SIZE: i.e. the ship would be so big and heavy, that it would be utterly useless. Then it's not a ship: it's a PLANET.

Star Wars ships are mostly empty space. They have room to spare.

You are going to need to support this claim. I have never seen any sign of it.

It's like the comedian who said "If the black box on a jet is indestructible, why don't they make the whole jet ouf the same thing as the black box so that it will be indesctructible, too?"

BECAUSE then, the plane would be a BOMB SHELTER-- i.e. very safe, but utterly immobile.

The analogy and humor fail.

Furthermore, those shields would need the power of an even BIGGER fusion-generator-- so it's a self-defeating arrangement.

Why do they need a bigger reactor to contain the energy from the broken reactor? You are assuming shields can only block as much energy if not more as you put into it ,and that there would only be one other reactor. So back up these claims.

And so again:

Proof it was not a fusion reactor that destroyed the death stars. A reactor would have been D.E.T.