What are the disadvantages of photonics when compared to electronics?

Laser #1 would be energized by a deuterum-tritium fusion also. However, the fusion in laser #1 is initiated by another laser, laser-A. Laser-A is pumped by whatever the most practical source is. After the concentrated light from laser-A ignites the deuterium-tritium fusion in laser #1, laser-A is then switched-off totally and then dissassembled as it is no longer needed. After this, laser #2 is built and has its deuterium-tritium fusion initiated by the concentrated beam emitted from laser #1. A laser #3 is then built. Laser #3 can have its own deuterium-tritium fusion initated by the beams from laser #1 and/or laser #2. A laser #4 is then built and then, well you probably get the point...

and that most practical source would be ?

Electricity??

Apparently, Divine Afflatus. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

By George, I think you're getting it.

You apparently didn't consider "efficient" to be a strong component of "practical", but most engineers do. I mention that because electronics _is_ the technology of manipulating electrons, which you'll recall is how lasers work. All other ways to power lasers involve conversion steps to get those electrons pumped, and each conversion step loses you some energy.

Unless you intend to have each and every future photonic device to have an onboard D-T reactor, why not take advantage of the power-distribution grid which already provides the fundamental force required to manipulate electrons? I suppose we might envision a future optical-fiber power-distribution grid powered by D-T reactors but that strikes me as a Really Bad Idea; unlike electrical outlets, optical outlets would need complex, COMPLETELY idiot-proof baffles to keep the "power" from leaking out every time you unplugged anything. Now imagine a kid sticking a piece of unterminated optical fiber into an outlet...

Mark L. "Do Not Look Into Outlet With Remaining Eye" Fergerson

I do intend for this.

Electricity is boring.

I still prefer this to electricity. While this D-T pumped, purely-"laseronic" entity makes life more complicated, I feel it also makes life more interesting.

In addition, lets abandon the LEDs and use lasers only. Also, the lasers should be 400nm only.

Lol. Then we should educate the kids, shouldn't we.

And therefore let's skip all that impractical setup trying to sidestep using electronics in optronics and just use the very practical approach of using electrical/electronics to power the photonics! :PpP

But fusion is the most interesting!

Not when you suffer from con-fusion! ;-)

I suppose there will now be a pro-fusion of misunderstanding. ;-D

Fusion will never replace fission as a power source, because the plant operator can't take the day off and put up a sign: "Gone Fusion". ;-P

Cheers! Rich

It's also the most _impractical_, being as we don't know how to do it yet.

Mark L. Fergerson

ya know, just cos something is interesting doesn't necessarily mean it's the BEST way to do things :P

D-T fusion has been done in labs.

I should have challenged you on this earlier; what makes it so damn "interesting"?

Some day I'll learn to be more specific for the difficult.

We know how to do matter-antimatter annihilation too, but have you noticed anyone replacing coal-fired powerplants with M/AM reactors? No? Ever stop to wonder why not? Because demonstrating the _possibility_ of doing something is not the same as demonstrating its _practicality_.

Think about what the word "practical" means. It means, in this context, surpassing "breakeven" which means getting more _usable_ power out of the process than went into it. All commercial power systems _have_ to operate far above breakeven, or they disqualify as "commercial". Can you cite a tested D-T reactor design anywhere that doesn't have to be fed orders of magnitude more power to run than comes out? No, you can't; we don't know how to do it at, much less above, breakeven. This is hardly "practical".

Right now (and for the foreseeable future) large arrays of solar cells powering banks of 60 Hz inverters (or, for your purposes, laser diodes) is enormously more "practical" than any D-T reactor. You'll also notice nobody seriously proposing trying to run the National grid off such a system.

Mark L. Fergerson