Chinese fake Accuphase A-65

The three most likely places are Shenzhen, China, Vietnam or Russia. Lots of very highly trained painters in those places. Shenzhen has Da Fen painters village which is now but a shadow of its former self when it was producing most of the world's retail oil paintings. Best place to see a two metre high Mona Lisa.

Well we bought 5 on the first trip then went back yesterday for 5 more. It is kind of ridiculous to buy very well done oil paintings for $5 each. They are going to look great on the walls. I’ll make the frames so even that is going to be cheap.
 
This thread has a referendum on the Chinese. FWIW, China won the 43rd Chess Olympiad. (USA was second.) Fake amps and watches aside, they will figure it out.
 
...This thread has a referendum on the Chinese...

That wasn't my intention at the outset. It was to show a blatant brand ripoff, with serious design deficiencies, being marketed as something special. A product that people may buy, use and it is likely to fail in a spectacular way down the track.

Today I read China has succeeded in producing temperatures of 100 million degrees C in preparation for designing nuclear fusion reactors etc. Scary stuff, the sun at its core is only 15 million degrees. I hope it doesn't go wrong and vaporize the lot of us.
 
I'm not worried about anything from a fusion reactor. If anything goes wrong it will simply stop working. Smashing Hydrogen atoms together (Hydrogen fusion) does not produce radioactivity. Check the physics involved.
 
Today I read China has succeeded in producing temperatures of 100 million degrees C in preparation for designing nuclear fusion reactors etc. Scary stuff, the sun at its core is only 15 million degrees. I hope it doesn't go wrong and vaporize the lot of us.

Pffft, I have tube amps which get that hot
index.php
 
That wasn't my intention at the outset. It was to show a blatant brand ripoff, with serious design deficiencies, being marketed as something special. A product that people may buy, use and it is likely to fail in a spectacular way down the track.

Today I read China has succeeded in producing temperatures of 100 million degrees C in preparation for designing nuclear fusion reactors etc. Scary stuff, the sun at its core is only 15 million degrees. I hope it doesn't go wrong and vaporize the lot of us.

High speed train is informative on how the Chinese are doing compared to my home state of California. It will take 30 years to build one line between L.A. and San Francisco. In the same period of time, China built a nationwide network. Our cost is four times higher per mile of track with a huge provision. Our current cost estimate is likely not to be met with huge over-runs likely given our history.
 
I'm not worried about anything from a fusion reactor. If anything goes wrong it will simply stop working. Smashing Hydrogen atoms together (Hydrogen fusion) does not produce radioactivity. Check the physics involved.

I briefly looked into it, it seems there is plenty of radio-activity produced :

"But unlike what happens in solar fusion—which uses ordinary hydrogen—Earth-bound fusion reactors that burn neutron-rich isotopes have byproducts that are anything but harmless: Energetic neutron streams comprise 80 percent of the fusion energy output of deuterium-tritium reactions and 35 percent of deuterium-deuterium reactions.

Now, an energy source consisting of 80 percent energetic neutron streams may be the perfect neutron source, but it’s truly bizarre that it would ever be hailed as the ideal electrical energy source. In fact, these neutron streams lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.

In addition, if fusion reactors are indeed feasible—as assumed here—they would share some of the other serious problems that plague fission reactors, including tritium release, daunting coolant demands, and high operating costs. There will also be additional drawbacks that are unique to fusion devices: the use of fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself; and unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale.

All of these problems are endemic to any type of magnetic confinement fusion or inertial confinement fusion reactor that is fueled with deuterium-tritium or deuterium alone. (As the name suggests, in magnetic confinement fusion, magnetic and electrical fields are used to control the hot fusion fuel—a material that takes an unwieldy and difficult-to-handle form, known as a plasma. In inertial confinement, laser beams or ion beams are used to squeeze and heat the plasma.) The most well-known example of magnetic confinement fusion is the doughnut-shaped tokamak under construction at the ITER site; inertial confinement fusion is exemplified by the
laser-induced microexplosions taking place at the US-based National Ignition Facility.

Tritium fuel cannot be fully replenished. The deuterium-tritium reaction is favored by fusion developers because its reactivity is 20 times higher than a deuterium-deuterium fueled reaction, and the former reaction is strongest at one-third the temperature required for deuterium-only fusion. In fact, an approximately equal mixture of deuterium and tritium may be the only feasible fusion fuel for the foreseeable future. While deuterium is readily available in ordinary water, tritium scarcely exists in nature, because this isotope is radioactive with a half-life of only 12.3 years. The main source of tritium is fission nuclear reactors.

If adopted, deuterium-tritium based fusion would be the only source of electrical power that does not exploit a naturally occurring fuel or convert a natural energy supply such as solar radiation, wind, falling water, or geothermal. Uniquely, the tritium component of fusion fuel must be generated in the fusion reactor itself.

The tritium consumed in fusion can theoretically be fully regenerated in order to sustain the nuclear reactions. To accomplish this goal, a lithium-containing “blanket” must be placed around the reacting medium—an extremely hot, fully ionized gas called a plasma. The neutrons produced by the fusion reaction will irradiate the lithium, “breeding” tritium.

But there is a major difficulty: The lithium blanket can only partly surround the reactor, because of the gaps required for vacuum pumping, beam and fuel injection in magnetic confinement fusion reactors, and for driver beams and removal of target debris in inertial confinement reactors. Nevertheless, the most comprehensive analyses indicate that there can be up to a 15 percent surplus in regenerating tritium. But in practice, any surplus will be needed to accommodate the incomplete extraction and processing of the tritium bred in the blanket."
 
High speed train is informative on how the Chinese are doing compared to my home state of California. It will take 30 years to build one line between L.A. and San Francisco. In the same period of time, China built a nationwide network. Our cost is four times higher per mile of track with a huge provision. Our current cost estimate is likely not to be met with huge over-runs likely given our history.


Because in CA it makes zero business sense to build the Crony-express. Compared to China we have many more cars per person and we also have dirt cheap airline flights that cost less and get their faster than the so called "High" speed rail. The CA HSR project will go down as one of the biggest scams of all time.
 
...The CA HSR project will go down as one of the biggest scams of all time...

Will it really be a scam, or will it provide affordable high speed electric transport for the masses when fossil fuels simply become too expensive and/or run out, or get legislated out of existence due to pollution?

Serious question. :)
 
Will it really be a scam, or will it provide affordable high speed electric transport for the masses when fossil fuels simply become too expensive and/or run out, or get legislated out of existence due to pollution?

Serious question. :)

Solar? Not enough if it. Wind? Also not enough and also being fought on the grounds that the propellers kill birds. Nuke power? Not a chance. Unless the aliens gives us the secret to gravity fusion, fossil is going to power electric plants for the foreseeable future. That means HSR electricity will be fossil generated. The scam part is a legitimate question. California public works has a long history of cost over-runs. The company that dominates road construction in California has a 737 jetliner as a corporate plane. They are notorious for under-bidding jobs, breaking ground, and then shifting resources away to start another project. This leads to project delays and the inevitable cost over-run. I'm not saying this is happening with our rail project contractor but this contractor has no experience building HSR. The Chinese and Italian companies who have built HSR bid realistically and lost because they were too high. They did not know how to game the bid process. Not surprisingly, cost and time to completion has steadily risen since project inception in 2009. With rising cost comes the prospect that the rail will never turn a profit. Ride projections look overly rosy. The train is suppose to complete the L.A to S.F. run in 2 hours and 40 minutes. It takes about 5 and 1/2 hours to make the trip by car. Because public transportation is so cruddy in L.A. and S.F., the rider will still need a car ride when he gets there. It makes no sense to take a train just to have to rent a car or take a taxi when you get there. So much for the environmental justification. If you have to rent a car, flying is faster. HSR ticket prices are unknown at this point but there is the very real political prospect that ticket prices will be held low to encourage rides. Given the construction cost and dubious case for taking HSR, it is highly unlikely the project will ever turn a profit.
 
I briefly looked into it, it seems there is plenty of radio-activity produced :

"But unlike what happens in solar fusion—which uses ordinary hydrogen—Earth-bound fusion reactors that burn neutron-rich isotopes have byproducts that are anything but harmless: Energetic neutron streams comprise 80 percent of the fusion energy output of deuterium-tritium reactions and 35 percent of deuterium-deuterium reactions.

Now, an energy source consisting of 80 percent energetic neutron streams may be the perfect neutron source, but it’s truly bizarre that it would ever be hailed as the ideal electrical energy source. In fact, these neutron streams lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.

In addition, if fusion reactors are indeed feasible—as assumed here—they would share some of the other serious problems that plague fission reactors, including tritium release, daunting coolant demands, and high operating costs. There will also be additional drawbacks that are unique to fusion devices: the use of fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself; and unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale.

All of these problems are endemic to any type of magnetic confinement fusion or inertial confinement fusion reactor that is fueled with deuterium-tritium or deuterium alone. (As the name suggests, in magnetic confinement fusion, magnetic and electrical fields are used to control the hot fusion fuel—a material that takes an unwieldy and difficult-to-handle form, known as a plasma. In inertial confinement, laser beams or ion beams are used to squeeze and heat the plasma.) The most well-known example of magnetic confinement fusion is the doughnut-shaped tokamak under construction at the ITER site; inertial confinement fusion is exemplified by the
laser-induced microexplosions taking place at the US-based National Ignition Facility.

Tritium fuel cannot be fully replenished. The deuterium-tritium reaction is favored by fusion developers because its reactivity is 20 times higher than a deuterium-deuterium fueled reaction, and the former reaction is strongest at one-third the temperature required for deuterium-only fusion. In fact, an approximately equal mixture of deuterium and tritium may be the only feasible fusion fuel for the foreseeable future. While deuterium is readily available in ordinary water, tritium scarcely exists in nature, because this isotope is radioactive with a half-life of only 12.3 years. The main source of tritium is fission nuclear reactors.

If adopted, deuterium-tritium based fusion would be the only source of electrical power that does not exploit a naturally occurring fuel or convert a natural energy supply such as solar radiation, wind, falling water, or geothermal. Uniquely, the tritium component of fusion fuel must be generated in the fusion reactor itself.

The tritium consumed in fusion can theoretically be fully regenerated in order to sustain the nuclear reactions. To accomplish this goal, a lithium-containing “blanket” must be placed around the reacting medium—an extremely hot, fully ionized gas called a plasma. The neutrons produced by the fusion reaction will irradiate the lithium, “breeding” tritium.

But there is a major difficulty: The lithium blanket can only partly surround the reactor, because of the gaps required for vacuum pumping, beam and fuel injection in magnetic confinement fusion reactors, and for driver beams and removal of target debris in inertial confinement reactors. Nevertheless, the most comprehensive analyses indicate that there can be up to a 15 percent surplus in regenerating tritium. But in practice, any surplus will be needed to accommodate the incomplete extraction and processing of the tritium bred in the blanket."
So, no "free lunch" then?
 
SLC has augmented bus service with light rail since I've been gone, but I do not know the particulars other than it appears successful and accepted for use.
This year, the cyber-rental scooters have arrived there and I saw them being used during my recent visit.
I don't know what would work in LA.
 
Will it really be a scam, or will it provide affordable high speed electric transport for the masses when fossil fuels simply become too expensive and/or run out, or get legislated out of existence due to pollution?

Serious question. :)

HSR is interesting and useful for some places. In CA it isn't high speed nor is it going anywhere where people want to go. Google it to see how the it is a multi billion theft of public funds. Way to political to comment further. Corrupt governor plus corrupt labor unions = crony capitalism
 
HSR is interesting and useful for some places. In CA it isn't high speed nor is it going anywhere where people want to go. Google it to see how the it is a multi billion theft of public funds. Way to political to comment further. Corrupt governor plus corrupt labor unions = crony capitalism

Most of the line passes through the San Joaquin Valley. Because of ground water extraction, the land is sinking up to 6 inches a year in some places. This has caused damage to the California Aquaduct. Imagine what maintenance headaches this is going to cause with elevated HSR tracks. And then there are the earthquakes which regularly destroy freeway overpasses.
 
Subsidence is a warning siren for nonsustainability of the status quo re ground water extraction. I saw the evidence on my last visit to Visalia.
 
I briefly looked into it, it seems there is plenty of radio-activity produced :

"But unlike what happens in solar fusion—which uses ordinary hydrogen—Earth-bound fusion reactors that burn neutron-rich isotopes have byproducts that are anything but harmless: Energetic neutron streams comprise 80 percent of the fusion energy output of deuterium-tritium reactions and 35 percent of deuterium-deuterium reactions.

Now, an energy source consisting of 80 percent energetic neutron streams may be the perfect neutron source, but it’s truly bizarre that it would ever be hailed as the ideal electrical energy source. In fact, these neutron streams lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.

In addition, if fusion reactors are indeed feasible—as assumed here—they would share some of the other serious problems that plague fission reactors, including tritium release, daunting coolant demands, and high operating costs. There will also be additional drawbacks that are unique to fusion devices: the use of fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself; and unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale.

All of these problems are endemic to any type of magnetic confinement fusion or inertial confinement fusion reactor that is fueled with deuterium-tritium or deuterium alone. (As the name suggests, in magnetic confinement fusion, magnetic and electrical fields are used to control the hot fusion fuel—a material that takes an unwieldy and difficult-to-handle form, known as a plasma. In inertial confinement, laser beams or ion beams are used to squeeze and heat the plasma.) The most well-known example of magnetic confinement fusion is the doughnut-shaped tokamak under construction at the ITER site; inertial confinement fusion is exemplified by the
laser-induced microexplosions taking place at the US-based National Ignition Facility.

Tritium fuel cannot be fully replenished. The deuterium-tritium reaction is favored by fusion developers because its reactivity is 20 times higher than a deuterium-deuterium fueled reaction, and the former reaction is strongest at one-third the temperature required for deuterium-only fusion. In fact, an approximately equal mixture of deuterium and tritium may be the only feasible fusion fuel for the foreseeable future. While deuterium is readily available in ordinary water, tritium scarcely exists in nature, because this isotope is radioactive with a half-life of only 12.3 years. The main source of tritium is fission nuclear reactors.

If adopted, deuterium-tritium based fusion would be the only source of electrical power that does not exploit a naturally occurring fuel or convert a natural energy supply such as solar radiation, wind, falling water, or geothermal. Uniquely, the tritium component of fusion fuel must be generated in the fusion reactor itself.

The tritium consumed in fusion can theoretically be fully regenerated in order to sustain the nuclear reactions. To accomplish this goal, a lithium-containing “blanket” must be placed around the reacting medium—an extremely hot, fully ionized gas called a plasma. The neutrons produced by the fusion reaction will irradiate the lithium, “breeding” tritium.

But there is a major difficulty: The lithium blanket can only partly surround the reactor, because of the gaps required for vacuum pumping, beam and fuel injection in magnetic confinement fusion reactors, and for driver beams and removal of target debris in inertial confinement reactors. Nevertheless, the most comprehensive analyses indicate that there can be up to a 15 percent surplus in regenerating tritium. But in practice, any surplus will be needed to accommodate the incomplete extraction and processing of the tritium bred in the blanket."

That's all moot as there are no earth bound fusion reactors. The only one that currently exists in this solar system is the Sun.

If you can re-produce the heat and pressure of the Sun why would you use anything but Hydrogen?
 
That's all moot as there are no earth bound fusion reactors.

It's not moot at all. It's what they're aiming to achieve. But I'm sure they'll all be glad to hear that hydrogen fusion is so simple. I wonder why they're messing about with the silly isotopes...
 
Back
Top Bottom