When we are thinking of creating Artificial sun, why to wait for so long years?
Here are some of my inputs want to share with you:
1. Why dont we create an Artificial Sun without following Nuclear Fission or Nuclear Fusion process?
2. First we can create a sun like body, which is rotating and revolving around the earth like moon and works only at nights.
This can be possible of keeping a body and maintaining its position on the space, such that it absorbs sun’s radiation and will use it turning into light at the nights.
If we are succeeding in this, we can save huge amount of electricity in forms of lights.
Also, it is helpful if we keep our artificial sun (working with Solar Energy) emits O3(Ozone) as the by-product.
In this manner, we can protect our environment and also can avoid nuclear powers to control on Mankind.

Please correct me, if anything above of my points goes wrong.

Thank you one and All

Catalytic cold fusion with palladium should be tried. They are putting a square peg in a round hole here. Maybe a warp one spaceship could harness a quasar and beam it back as a laser.

Fusion is the joining of the nuclei of two or more atoms. The nuclei contains >99.9+% of the mass, but almost no volume. The majority of the volume is occupied by the ‘electron cloud’. The ‘electron cloud’ keeps the nuclei apart, and gives what is known as the Bohr radius (the distance between the nuclei, maintained by the electron cloud repulsion and the attraction of the respective nuclei).

The best approach to fusion would be to eliminate the electron cloud, thus eliminating the Bohr radius repulsions (rather than smacking them so hard that they finally whack into each other).

The best way to eliminate the electron cloud is with a device that is at the core of a ‘PET’ (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner (medical device found in many hospitals). It is the Positron generator (the anti-particle to the electron).

Using the Positron generator to eliminate the electron cloud (positrons and electrons act as waves, and ‘cancel’ each other out when they come in contact)of a sample insulated from electron flow would initiate fusion within the sample. You would have your ‘mini sun’ with the resultant controlled energy release. The energy release is not from particle and anti-particle collisions, but rather the resultant fusion that simultaneously occurs with the particle annihilations. I dare any physicist to try this test and prove me wrong! Fusion is possible with current technology!

Well, lets do some abstract reasoning.

If one great country builds this successfuly, every great country must have one of their own to be non-dependent. If every major country has one. What effect will the magnetic fields have on our oceans tides and sea and land life. How do we know it will not cause insect problems which rely on the earth’s magnetic fields. The buildings that houses these suns may be covered up with geese in the winter time who rely on magnetics.

Now if it is possible to build this sun, it will never be the sole source of electricity for national security reasons. Every country will have their weapons pointed at their enemy’s solar sun, which means our energy must come from more than one location or source. And we would have to have antimissile weapons position to guard our chief source of energy. So there is a possibility that a great country would have several suns or other alternative energy sources since relying on one is not wise.

How about this. For every great tool that has been invented. It has been used to destruct. Engines made for tranportaton eventually led to army tanks, guns made for killing food eventually led to killing people. If we can make lasers to ignite hydrogen therefore creating more energy than was put in it, we can then use this elevated energy to propel a bigger laser to take out other countries. So that would be the race after inventing the solar sun for our energy needs.

They’re not stupid when they say its a good green solution for the future.

Actually fission and fusion reactions are both what can happen inside a nuclear weapon: Lots of energy is released. The key in both energy technologies is to keep the reaction slow. However, talking about dangers and wastes, the half-life for fusion waste will be about 13 years, while that of fission-waste is about 10000 years. Consider accident situations!

hihii

These are my memories of what he said, and may not be totally accurate, but they might interest someone, so I am posting it here.

Now the JET (Joint European Torus) project has been handed to the French for industrialization after the UK has produced the necessary enabling technologies. When started it was estimated 30 years to produce the needed technologies and another 30 before the first power plants are seen.

Love it or loathe it, we need something of this nature because our requirement for energy is increasing exponentially whereas the green alternatives can only go so far because the land area they occupy is finite. If you assume exponential growth it quickly becomes energy or food or living space (or even air if we cover enough of the oceans to affect plankton levels)?