Talk:Project PACER

message: I just came here to check if Wikipedia has an article on PACER, the online filing system for U.S. federal courts (it stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records), and discovered this article instead.  See the PACER Website: . It looks like we will need a disambiguation page at some point.  --Coolcaesar 07:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try PACER (law). I'll add a link - Jack (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a disambiguation page!

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://sumaris.cbuc.es/cgis/sumari.cgi?issn=03779211&idsumari=A2004NPART_AV000029
** In PACER on Mon Jul 17 14:19:55 2006, HTTP Error: 
** In PACER on Thu Jul 27 00:26:24 2006, HTTP Error: 
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The article has a lot of supposition at the end as to why this project wasn't ever built - it needs hard data, as in:  X energy is speculated to be produced at a cost of Y, compared to just burning coal, which produces Z energy at the same cost.  Tempshill (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs data 

message: I made a PACER page edit.  It may not have been wise (there are few citable documents on the subject).  However, I thought some of the ideas were worth saying as the article was unnecessarily writing off PACER without (I thought) giving it as fair a hearing as it deserved.  
Any comments (and calculations!) appreciated.  
PS: 1 Megaton = 1,162,222,222 kWh 
AnInformedDude (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have RVed this edit. Don't take it personally! The material was, in essence, a personal reflection. There's also some of this left in the article, which came from my initial edits WAYYYY back. So I'm going to re-write this, including your concepts but in a reffed form. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok all done for now... see what you think! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: PACER Advantages

message: ACER fusion comments.  Thanks for your input.  I should make some points concerning how you have edited (albeit with citations) what I posted.  I can understand your position – previous studies seem to show the idea is not as economical as initially hoped.  Having said that, I don't think the idea's a write-off just yet: 
1)Do any of the studies you have mentioned show HOW the economics of the amount of nuclear energy gained from a nuclear explosion SCALES with the yield of the device used to produce the power?  Of course, it may appear ludicrous to detonate something in the 100kt-1MT range within a confined space BUT the economics of doing this may be better than the economics of using a 10kt device which obtains a relatively small fraction of its energy from the fusion process .  
2) How can it be the case that, on the one hand, large amounts of energy are invested into the isotopic separation of lithium deuteride (Lithium-6 Deuteride) and, on the other hand, this energy is not recouped via the thermonuclear explosion? Of course, significant amounts of this energy will be conducted/radiated to the outside environment BUT new technology may significantly mitigate this.  I am aware that Lithium Hydride (presumably Lithium-7 Hydride predominantly) can be used for shielding nuclear reactors, but imagine that Lithium Deuteride's more valuable use in thermonuclear warheads precludes it being used in this way due to its practical significance.  
3) Is it not possible that current technology (which would enable more efficient reclamation of the energy of nuclear fusion via the use of, say, Heat pumps), and which might economically enhance the manner in which nuclear fuel breeding occurs, would significantly alter the economics of this power generation method?  
4) I partially believe that the idea that New nuclear weapons would need to be developed for PACER to work is incorrect/biased – there are (according to FAS), in excess of 19,000 nuclear warheads in the world (potentially an underestimate).  So existing nuclear weapons, deployed for military purposes, could be deployed for a PACER-Operation Gnome project WITHOUT the need for the production of nuclear weapons (not from scratch, anyway).  The idea weapons production (from scratch) would have to be pursued seems problematic unless you can indicate (in an absolute way) why this would not be possible in a world heading towards nuclear disarmament... 
5) The link to http://sumaris.cbuc.es/cgis/sumari.cgi?issn=03779211&idsumari=A2004NPART_AV000029 does not seem to work.  This may have nothing to do with you.  
6) There may be SOME economic benefit gained from the rare nuclides which are derived from a thermonuclear explosion, especially when taking possible breeding applications into account.  This might be cancelled out/mitigated by the potential radiation risks imposed by the detonation of a device in close proximity to molten salt or other materials.  I will look into the references to see whether they go into numerical detail about this and other issues.     
7) It may be the case that one of the efficiency limits of the PACER system is the use of power generation turbines.  Equally well is the fact that a large amount of the heat energy of the thermonuclear device is lost to the environment via radiation/conduction.  Do recent advances in materials science (very good insulators that are poor conductors) improve overall efficiency if used?  
Some of these points require going into detail and may be difficult to address without a quantitatively detailed report with calculations, etc...
AnInformedDude (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Modifications to PACER Article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Project PACER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927195959/http://sumaris.cbuc.es/cgis/sumari.cgi?issn=03779211&idsumari=A2004NPART_AV000029 to http://sumaris.cbuc.es/cgis/sumari.cgi?issn=03779211&idsumari=A2004NPART_AV000029
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)