A new twist on fusion power could help bring limitless clean energy

January 17, 2017 by Matthew Hole, The Conversation
The superheated plasma inside the fusion reactor is twisted by magnetic fields. Credit: IPP, Matthias Otte

In a world struggling to kick its addiction to fossil fuels and feed its growing appetite for energy, there's one technology in development that almost sounds too good to be true: nuclear fusion.

If it works, fusion power offers vast amounts of clean energy with a near limitless fuel source and virtually zero carbon emissions. That's if it works. But there are teams of researchers around the world and billions of dollars being spent on making sure it does.

In February last year a new chapter of fusion energy research commenced with the formal opening of Wendelstein 7-X. This is an experimental €1 billion (A$1.4bn) fusion reactor built in Greifswald, Germany, to test a reactor design called a stellarator.

It is planned that by around 2021 it will be able to operate for up to 30 minutes duration, which would be a record for a fusion reactor. This is an important step en-route to demonstrating an essential feature of a future : continuous operation.

But the W-7X isn't the only fusion game in town. In southern France ITER is being built, a $US20 billion (A$26.7bn) experimental fusion reactor that uses a different design called a tokamak. However, even though the W-7X and ITER employ different designs, the two projects complement each other, and innovations in one are likely to translate to an eventual working power plant.

Here you can see the twist in the plasma within a tokamak. Credit: CCFE

Twists and turns

Fusion energy seeks to replicate the reaction that powers our Sun, where two very light atoms, such as hydrogen or helium, are fused together. The resulting fused atom ends up slightly lighter than the original two atoms, and the difference in mass is converted to energy according to Einstein's formula E=mc².

The difficulty comes in encouraging the two atoms to fuse, which requires them to be heated to millions of degrees Celsius. Containing such a superheated fuel is no easy feat, so it's turned into a hot ionised gas – a plasma – which can be contained within a so it doesn't actually touch the inside of the reactor.

What makes the W-7X particularly interesting is its stellarator design. It comprises a vacuum chamber embedded in a magnetic bottle created by a system of 70 superconducting magnet coils. These produce a powerful magnetic field for confining the hot plasma.

Stellarators and tokamaks are both types of toroidal (doughnut-shaped) magnetic confinement devices that are being investigated for fusion power. In these experiments a strong toroidal (or ring) magnetic field creates a magnetic bottle to confine the plasma.

A complex array of magnets keep the plasma (illustrated in pink) contained. Credit: IPP

However, in order for the plasma to have good confinement in the doughnut-shaped chamber, the magnetic field needs to have a twist. In a tokamak, such as in the ITER reactor, a large current flows in the plasma to generate the required twisted path. However, the large current can drive "kink" instabilities, which can cause the plasma to become disrupted.

If the plasma is disrupted, the reactor needs to be flooded with gas to quench the plasma and prevent it from damaging the experiment.

In a stellarator, the twist in the magnetic field is obtained by twisting the entire machine itself. This removes the large toroidal current, and makes the plasma intrinsically more stable. The cost comes in the engineering complexity of the field coils and reduced confinement, meaning the plasma is less easily contained within the magnetic bubble.

Come together

While the W7-X and ITER use different approaches, most of the underlying technology is identical. They are both toroidal superconducting machines, and both use external heating systems such as radio frequency and neutral beam injection to heat the plasma, and much of the plasma diagnostic technology is in common.

The video will load shortly

In a power plant, heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) fuse to form helium along with an energetic neutron. While the helium is contained within the plasma, the neutron is has a neutral electric charge, and shoots off into the "blanket" surrounding the . This heats it up, which in turn drives a steam turbine that generates electricity.

A common feature across fusion power is the need to develop materials that can withstand the high heat and fast neutrons generated by the fusion reaction. Regardless of design, the first wall of a has to withstand a massive bombardment from high energy particles throughout its lifetime.

At this stage, it's too early to tell whether the tokamak design used by ITER or the stellarator used by W-7X will be better suited for a commercial plant. But the commencement of research operation of W-7X will not only help decide which technology might be best to pursue, but will contribute valuable knowledge to any future experiments, and perhaps one day a true energy revolution.

Explore further: Turbulent transport of hydrogen fuel in fusion plasmas

Related Stories

Turbulent transport of hydrogen fuel in fusion plasmas

December 16, 2016

Using large-scale computer simulations, the Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy research group at the Department of Earth and Space Sciences is making important contributions to Joint European Torus (JET), the biggest fusion ...

From Germany comes a new twist for fusion research

October 27, 2016

This past year saw the commissioning and initial operation of a new large-scale plasma experiment, the Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) in Greifswald, Germany. Designed, constructed, and operated by the Max-Planck Institute for Plasma ...

A turbulent solution to a growing problem

October 27, 2016

A recent experiment lead by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), researchers on the DIII-D tokamak suggests that plasma turbulence can prevent filamentary structures called magnetic islands from growing so large ...

Tokamak is ready to test ITER's internal components

December 16, 2016

On 14 December 2016, the WEST tokamak produced its first plasma, reflecting the success of the operations carried out since 2013 on the CEA nuclear fusion reactor. Now that this major milestone has been passed, preparation ...

Clarifying plasma oscillation by high-energy particles

November 29, 2016

The National Institute for Fusion Science has developed new code that can simulate the movement of plasma and, simultaneously, the movement of particles circulating at high speeds. In the Japanese fusion reactor called the ...

Recommended for you

Weyl fermions exhibit paradoxical behavior

May 23, 2017

Theoretical physicists have found Weyl fermions to exhibit paradoxical behavior in contradiction to a 30-year-old fundamental theory of electromagnetism. The discovery has possible applications in spintronics. The study ...

53 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DonGateley
not rated yet Jan 17, 2017
Wonderful article and awesome video. I think most of us have known that in these kinds of designs 3D topography is everything and these guys seem to have a handle on one that might work.

Something I wish they had addressed is energy extraction within and beyond this prototype.
dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2017
Neither are suitable for generating electricity at lower cost than existing over-price fission
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2017
Neither are suitable for generating electricity at lower cost than existing over-price fission

If you take the difference in waste disposal problems into account - and that we're dealing here with pre-first-generation devices - then they might be cheaper.

I think the technology is a little late to make a significant impact into getting the world off fossil fuels. Even if ITER and W-7X don't run into any more delays: The timeline until a mature version of a power plant can be deployed on a large scale is way beyond that of what one can accomplish with the renewables currently on offer.

On the other hand: wind energy doesn't work well in space. If we think about any kind of serious space exploration, long term manned missions, large scale asteroid mining or colonization then fusion is a must-have.
Playonwords
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2017
OK, what's the timescale until:-
Sustained (>1hr) fusion? - probably at least 10 years
Constant fusion? another probably 3 years total 13
Constant fusion with heat extraction? another 3 years total 16
Refinement to achieve maintenance free operation for 2 years? at least 5 years total 21
Initial design of commercial reactor? 4 years total 25
Site choice and planning approval? at least 2 years - 27
Construction of proof of concept generation facility? 3 years - 30
Refinement of design of to overcome concept faults? 1 year - 31
Construction of sufficient fusion generation facilities? 3 years - 34 years

So, still pie in the sky

Now, imagine the same amount of effort put into renewable resources and battery/supercapacitor research ...
DonGateley
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2017
@Playonwords: just imagine that amount of effort put into _both_ approaches. 34 years is not at all as far away as you might think says a 72 year old. Meanwhile, the money put into renewable will provide enough time to get there without a big bump.

We must embrace all realistic solutions in parallel and without prioritization for the evolution of sources to proceed smoothly as seen in economic standards.

Politically we need an energy czar that sees it my way and can force the even distribution of development dollars despite pressures to favor one or another.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2017
Now, imagine the same amount of effort put into renewable resources and battery/supercapacitor research ...

Research doesn't work that way. Doubling the money in a sector doesn't double the output. Research is still done by people - and people researching fusion aren't qualified to research better batteries (and vice versa). It's perfectly fine to have research done in both areas.

I know: Hollywood propagates this differently. There any researcher in a movie automatically can research anything. But that's not how the real world works.
Dennis Jasbey
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2017
To paraphrase the definition of a camel, "a stellerator is a tokamak designed by a committee."

How any energy is supposed to come out of this thing, much less "limitless", is a mystery.

Essentially the same flim flam that's in thus article was published on this site last Oct 27, with a similar title. Give us a break!
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
So, still pie in the sky


Fission power went from the first atomic pile (1942) to the first experimental power reactor (1951) to the first power reactor connected to the grid (1954) and the first US commercial reactor (1957)

That was a span of 12 or 15 years depending on which way you count. If we equate the stellarator to the first experimental power reactor - once it's done - then it would be just 6 years to the first commercial demo following the same timetables. The sustained (30min) demo is proof of concept that it can be sustained indefinitely, because getting there means it works.

Fusion power could go the same way if there's enough effort and incentive to produce it. The cost of the development isn't all that high - 20 billion over 20 years for the ITER is less than 1/10th of what the US or German government squander on renewable energy subsidies every year.

You could build a Stellarator a year in each country if there was political will to do it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2017
Useful power might eventually be generated by machines like this but the research is centered on finding ways of generating, storing, manipulating, and transporting plasma in bulk.

Using materials in plasma form is essential to the future. This includes antimatter. This is the real reason for fusion research. The promise of cheap clean energy is only a way of getting the public to fund it.
You could build a Stellarator a year in each country if there was political will to do it
And no you couldnt. Materials that can withstand the neutron flux dont yet exist. And the ability to capture and use the energy is still years off.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2017
Materials that can withstand the neutron flux dont yet exist.


Yes they do. It's the same issue in fission reactors, and those work. Some fusion reactor designs have issues with neutrons interfering with the superconducting magnets, but not the stellarator - you're thinking of the one the Skunkworks are building.

And the ability to capture and use the energy is still years off.


Put water channels in the reactor walls, capture the heat into steam. That part is pretty much self-evident because the whole thing needs to be cooled by some sort of fluid anyways or the walls would melt - ergo, a steam engine.

The Operational Phase 2 of the Stellarator is installing that cooling system, so it can sustain continuous heating of the plasma for the 30 minutes of operation. That's being done right now.
bschott
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Eikka, the same fusion problem has existed since we first started trying to harness it as an energy source...we still have to put more in than we get out energy wise....this is the case no matter how perfect the reactor design.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
The present limitation of the W7 Stellarator is the fact that it has no cooling system or protective tiles inside the plasma chamber, so it can only run for about 10 seconds at full power before it starts to overheat. There's 10 Megawatts of RF power heating the plasma.

The total funding for the project is estimated at 1 billion euros over 18 years, or about €60 million a year. You'd think it could go a lot faster if it was being funded and given proper resources.

For comparison, the 9/11 memorial in New York costs $60 million a year to run. These guys are working on peanus and bobby pins in comparison to the amount of money being thrown at things like corn ethanol subsidies ($6 billion a year) that don't really do anything to reduce CO2 or fossil fuel use.
bschott
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but all of the money in the world can't change physics as much as I, along with the rest of the world want to see one of these producing power instead of consuming it.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2017
Yeah, . . "just around the corner".

We've been hearing that for over 30 years.

By the time, if ever, that it is useful, we will not need it. It is just the most expensive toy we have tried to produce.

Why put our energy in the hands of greedy corporations? I am becoming more and more self-sufficient in power and energy, with cheaper, lower, and more forgiving technology.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Eikka, the same fusion problem has existed since we first started trying to harness it as an energy source...we still have to put more in than we get out energy wise....this is the case no matter how perfect the reactor design.


Fusion power has been proven capable of breaking even by the JET. The issue is the short running time. It takes X amount of heating energy to get the fusion started to the point where it sustains itself, but the tokamak reactor designs are unstable and the plasma containment fails after a few seconds - the plasma touches the reactor walls and instantly cools down because it's only a tiny amount of gas - not enough time for the reactor to make back the invested energy.

With ITER they're hoping to get it stable enough that they could run the thing in pulses - 10 minutes to an hour - they'd simply restart it over and over with about 10 times more energy left over. With W7 they're hoping to get it entirely stable so it runs non-stop for days
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2017
Meanwhile, my PV system is providing REAL power and energy for my house and electric car.

But you guys keep on working. It keeps you out of our way.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but all of the money in the world can't change physics


You're asserting that fusion itself doesn't work - that it takes more energy to combine hydrogen atoms than you get out of it by rule, and I quote:

.this is the case no matter how perfect the reactor design.


That's blatantly untrue - the sun shines and hydrogen bombs explode just fine, and physicists can calculate the amount of energy it takes to fuse nuclei and how much you get out.

Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Why put our energy in the hands of greedy corporations? I am becoming more and more self-sufficient in power and energy, with cheaper, lower, and more forgiving technology.


The solar panels and the electric car you don't actually have would have been largely manufactured in China, by the very greedy corporations you claim to be independent of.

In reality you're burning gas and stinking up the place like everyone else. Stop playing holy you liar.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2017
Sorry Eikka, but you sound like a poor loser. My Volkswagen was not made in China. And EVs were pioneered by us, here in the USA, not China.

What do you drive? Does it leak oil? Keep it tuned up so it is efficient and fairly "clean"?

Mine has no emissions at all. None.

I heat my house with natural gas, since that is what we have here. It is cleaner than what Eikka has, probably. My furnace is condensing, which means it takes so much heat out of the exhaust the water in it condenses, for 96% efficiency.

I do my part. Why don't you try it?
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2017
.this is the case no matter how perfect the reactor design.

That's blatantly untrue - the sun shines and hydrogen bombs explode just fine, and physicists can calculate the amount of energy it takes to fuse nuclei and how much you get out.

None of our reactors are designed the way the sun is Eikka, and hydrogen bombs don't continue the fusion process for a very useful amount of time in the context of energy sources. JET energy in conjunction with MIT appeared to be on to something back in 2012... then disappeared from further publications other than morphing into an educational entity:
http://world.std....rgy.html
I am not asserting fusion doesn't work, I am asserting we haven't yet figured how to make it work for us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Yes they do... you're thinking of the one the Skunkworks are building
Uh no Im thinking of what I read in the article

"A common feature across fusion power is the need to develop materials that can withstand the high heat and fast neutrons generated by the fusion reaction."

-and what I find online after a minute of looking.

"IFMIF will consists of five major systems: an accelerator facility, a Li target facility, a test facility, a post-irradiation examination (PIE) facility and a conventional facility.[21][22][23] The whole plant must comply with international nuclear facility regulations. The energy of the beam (40 MeV) and the current of the parallel accelerators (2 x 125 mA) have been tuned to maximize the neutron flux (1018 m−2 s−1) while creating irradiation conditions comparable to those in the first wall of a fusion reactor."

-The facility isnt even BUILT yet.

What, do you think I just make this shit up like some idiot psychopath??
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Put water channels in the reactor walls, capture the heat into steam. That part is pretty much self-evident
Not according to scientists and engrs.

"During later stages of ITER operation, some of the blanket modules will be replaced with specialized modules to test materials for tritium breeding concepts. A future fusion power plant producing large amounts of power will be required to breed all of its own tritium. ITER will test this essential concept of tritium self-sustainment."

-Neutron spalling and embrittlement are inseparable from the neutron capture and conversion problem. It will take years of research at the pending facility in order to figure this out.
The Operational Phase 2 of the Stellarator is installing that cooling system, so it can sustain continuous heating of the plasma for the 30 minutes of operation
Thirty minutes on a test reactor is not the same as sustained operation of a commercial reactor for years.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
None of our reactors are designed the way the sun is Eikka, and hydrogen bombs don't continue the fusion process for a very useful amount of time in the context of energy sources.


That wasn't the point. Both prove that fusion is an energy positive process. Ergo, a perfect reactor would work because it has to work - otherwise the sun wouldn't shine. To assert that no such reactor can be built is assuming too much.

JET energy in conjunction with MIT appeared to be on to something back in 2012... then disappeared from further publications


They're rebuilding the JET for new cladding material and thousands of other parts that mimics the ITER's construction so they can test it in parallel.

What, do you think I just make this shit up like some idiot psychopath??


Actually, sometimes you read like a schitsophrenic because you tend to imply all sorts of conspiracy theories and information that sounds a bit out of this world.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Actually, sometimes you read like a schitsophrenic because you tend to imply all sorts of conspiracy theories and information that sounds a bit out of this world
-And so eikka assumes that when otto comments on fusion reactors he doesnt know what he is talking about.

And so let me remind you of what you just ad libbed and was subsequently corrected on.

"Materials that can withstand the neutron flux dont yet exist. And the ability to capture and use the energy is still years off."

-funny you cant even be bothered to spellcheck 'schizophrenic'. So I understand why you dont tend to factcheck.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
-The facility isnt even BUILT yet.


The JET had been operating at 16 MW of fusion power before it went down for refurbishing. This isn't breaking entirely new ground - there are materials that withstand the conditions already, and the same goes for the energy capture. Just because they'd like to perform it better doesn't mean it's complete sci-fi.

-And so eikka assumes that when otto comments on fusion reactors he doesnt know what he is talking about.


No, I'm suspecting you're being a bit weird because of the previous comment:

Using materials in plasma form is essential to the future. This includes antimatter. This is the real reason for fusion research. The promise of cheap clean energy is only a way of getting the public to fund it.


You're essentially implying there's some sort of secret plot and fusion power research is just a front to it.

-funny you cant even be bothered to spellcheck 'schizophrenic'.


That's a silly complaint.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Moreover since the phonetic spelling of schizophrenia is skɪtsəˈfriːniə (IPA) so it's easy to remember it as ts instead of z. Complaining about spelling errors is irrelevant and just acting toxic, Otto.

https://en.wikipe...an_Torus
The first experimental campaign after the installation of the "ITER-Like Wall" started on 2 September 2011.[17]

On 14 July 2014 the European Commission signed a contract worth €283m for another 5-year extension so more advanced higher energy research can be performed at JET.

Scientists intend to start ITER operations with a full tungsten divertor and are also planning fusion tests using Deuterium-Tritium plasmas for 2018: they hope to break their own record of 16 megawatts of fusion power.[19] Beyond 2018, the future of JET is uncertain due to the UK decision in June 2016 to leave the EU.


That I also misremembered: the ITER-like components have already been installed.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Thirty minutes on a test reactor is not the same as sustained operation of a commercial reactor for years.


Thirty minutes is long enough to ascertain that they have a functional control and cooling mechanism in place and a stable plasma. It means they can keep it at a stable state and it's not going to sputter down suddenly.

If it runs for 30 minutes, it's unlikely it won't run for 30 days or a whole year. Beyond that it becomes a question of how the materials behave.
bschott
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Ergo, a perfect reactor would work because it has to work - otherwise the sun wouldn't shine. To assert that no such reactor can be built is assuming too much.

Again I agree 100%, when we can mimic how the sun initiates fusion, we will have accomplished the goal and I am not asserting it can't be built, I am saying we haven't built it yet.
Thirty minutes on a test reactor is not the same as sustained operation of a commercial reactor for years.

Hence why I am not optimistic for the success of maintained over unity for the stellarator. Even if it can produce energy for 3 days straight before having to shut down for maintenance, it is the mandatory shut down that makes it not viable for applications where continuous power is being supplied to a grid.
We will get there one day and make it stable...but it is going to be somebodies "eureka moment" regarding reactor design that pushes it over the top, not re-tweaking of the current ones.

Eikka
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Again I agree 100%, when we can mimic how the sun initiates fusion, we will have accomplished the goal and I am not asserting it can't be built, I am saying we haven't built it yet.


Now you're just inventing goalposts. How do you know it requires the sun to work? Fusion has already been accomplished in test reactors.

it is the mandatory shut down that makes it not viable for applications where continuous power is being supplied to a grid.


That depends on for how long and how often. Simply build many and run them in skip-step: ten reactors, one down, nine running. One stops, another starts.

Regular nuclear powerplants too stop for two weeks a year for routine maintenance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
The JET had been operating at 16 MW of fusion power before it went down for refurbishing
So let me try again...

""IFMIF will consists of five major systems: an accelerator facility, a Li target facility, a test facility, a post-irradiation examination (PIE) facility and a conventional facility.[21][22][23] The whole plant must comply with international nuclear facility regulations. The energy of the beam (40 MeV) and the current of the parallel accelerators (2 x 125 mA) have been tuned to maximize the neutron flux (1018 m−2 s−1) while creating irradiation conditions comparable to those in the first wall of a fusion reactor."

-Research on commercial-grade materials hasnt even BEGUN yet. They need a dedicated facility because obviously they cant be dismantling ITERs and JETs every time they want to test out a new blanket material.
so it's easy to remember it as ts instead of z
-but you STILL spelled it wrong ahaahaaaa otto is laughing lots today.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
-Research on commercial-grade materials hasnt even BEGUN yet.


So let me try again: that doesn't mean there are no materials for the purpose. "Commercial grade" is just you shifting the goalposts.

Of course the materials need to be studied, tested and validated, and cheaper or better alternatives are always better. That however doesn't mean we couldn't build a working fusion reactor today with the materials that we already have - that was the original question: yes we could build a new Stellarator every year if we wanted to, if there was the political will.

-but you STILL spelled it wrong ahaahaaaa otto is laughing lots today.


And you're still making irrelevant complaints to insult me.

But hey, schitzos often have their own personal "in jokes" that only they understand, because other people don't make the same weird associations. Glad it makes you happy.
humy
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Neither are suitable for generating electricity at lower cost than existing over-price fission

That will eventually change with research to improve it so you are completely missing the point.
bschott
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
Now you're just inventing goalposts.

Firing between them is the only way to score.
How do you know it requires the sun to work?

Thus far, stars appear to be the only objects that "do" fusion and create an energy surplus.
Fusion has already been accomplished in test reactors.

It has been accomplished at the cost of more energy than was produced...can't wait for it to be the other way around.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
secret plot and fusion power research is just a front to it
And no Im implying that politics is often used to get things done that wouldnt normally get done.

Its simple.
Confining materials in plasma form is obviously critical to future technologies. Yes?
This has proven to be very difficult and very expensive and needs to take decades and decades of unbroken commitment. Yes?
How hard would it be to justify building a TFTR and an ITER if you told the public that they were needed to study something called plasma for use long after they were all dead?

Projects like that can NEVER happen in democracies. Only when democracies face dire threats.
cont>
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
They need a dedicated facility because obviously they cant be dismantling ITERs and JETs every time they want to test out a new blanket material.


Actually, they have been doing just that. They simply use test patches of multiple materials at the same time. The new facility simply lets them have a faster turnaround for the experiments without interfering with the plasma experiments, which will accelerate the results.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
-Its the same with fissiles. 8000 tons of the stuff sitting in silos and bunkers for decades. And now we can see that it is essential to establishing off-world colonies. And in the event that we had suddenly found ourselves facing an extinction event, its not something we could ever produce fast enough and test all the associated tech needed to use it if we had to.

It required generations of production, research, field testing, and improvement.

It HAD to be done and there was NO WAY to do it but in the context of a 'cold war' where billions could be spent on subs, reactors, explosives, atmospheric testing, and the like with the associated ruinous cost, environmental degradation, and lives lost.

And so here we are..
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2017
Thus far, stars appear to be the only objects that "do" fusion and create an energy surplus.

It has been accomplished at the cost of more energy than was produced...can't wait for it to be the other way around.


You're mixing up two things and a misconception there.

From the standpoint of physics, more energy has been created in fusion experiments than has been put in. That is so far proven - fusion works and it is net energy positive, here on earth. From the engineering standpoing, more energy has been put in than has been made.

The problem is not in the fundamental physics as you claim, but in the engineering.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
And now we can see that it is essential to establishing off-world colonies.

It HAD to be done and there was NO WAY to do it but in the context of a 'cold war'

Nah, that's your assertion - your imagination. You're retroactively ascribing it a purpose and insisting that it was done for exactly that.

Can't you see how crazy that sounds?

It's the same fallacy that the creationist makes when he appeals to the idea, "every watch has a watchmaker". Insisting that every occurrence has a reason or a plot behind it is basically paranoia.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Actually, they have been doing just that. They simply use test patches of multiple materials at the same time
So why dont you call them up and inform they dont need their new facility?

"IFMIF will consists of five major systems: an accelerator facility, a Li target facility, a test facility, a post-irradiation examination (PIE) facility and a conventional facility. The whole plant must comply with international nuclear facility regulations. The energy of the beam and etc"
The new facility simply lets them have a faster turnaround for the experiments without interfering with the plasma experiments, which will accelerate the results
Ah. So maybe they can build a stellerator in a year once they get the IFMIF up and running and analyse the results and select a new material and produce it in commercial quantities and manufacture the component parts to acceptable qualities and test assemblies for acceptable performances and etc etc.

I get it.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
So why dont you call them up and inform they dont need their new facility?


That's silly again.

So maybe they can builsd a stellerator in a year once they get the IFMIF up and running


Haven't they already built it? Aren't they already refitting it to a version 2?

and select a new material and produce it in commercial quantities


The W7 Stellarator parts were already outsourced to commercially operating machine shops in Italy. They didn't make it in a lab out of some exotic stuff.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Nah, that's your assertion - your imagination. You're retroactively ascribing it a purpose and insisting that it was done for exactly that
No, I am identifying a critical need and seeing that we fortuitously have a technology at just the right time to fulfill that need. And I am saying that it is certainly not an isolated example. I am saying that we are watching the same process take place with plasma tech. I identified a critical future need that far outweighs the purported need.

Why do you assume that you always know all you need to know in order to understand why things happen?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Haven't they already built it? Aren't they already refitting it to a version 2?

So you finally looked something up eh?
http://www.ifmif.org/

-But no, it will still take years of R&D.
The W7 Stellarator parts were already outsourced to commercially operating machine shops in Italy. They didn't make it in a lab out of some exotic stuff
Its not meant to operate in a long term commercial environment. I think I said that.

That's silly again
So why am I the one who is laughing?
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
No, I am identifying a critical need and seeing that we fortuitously have a technology at just the right time to fulfill that need. And I am saying that it is certainly not an isolated example. I am saying that we are watching the same process take place with plasma tech.


It's one thing to "identify a critical need" and another to jump to conclusions that the stuff is there because of a conspiracy. Even a number of coincidences is still coincidence.

I identified a critical future need that far outweighs the purported need.


Keyword being, YOU identified it. The jury is still out whether you're correct on both the need and the timing.

Why do you assume that you always know all you need to know in order to understand why things happen?


That's what I'm accusing you of.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
That's what I'm accusing you of.
-And the thread demonstrates that I know more about the subject(s) than you.
conspiracy
Calling something a conspiracy doesnt mean it isnt true. Sorry, I think that its easier to conclude that this fusion energy business is the conspiracy, given the facts.
It's the same fallacy that the creationist makes when he appeals to the idea, "every watch has a watchmaker". Insisting that every occurrence has a reason or a plot behind it is basically paranoia
Uh huh. Tell it to snowden who watched cabinet people and presidents lie to our faces.

Nice movie BTW. Now at redbox.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2017
So you finally looked something up eh?

I was talking about the W7

Its not meant to operate in a long term commercial environment. I think I said that.


And that's not the point. The point is, fusion research is comparatively cheap. If there was the political will, these projects would co up like mushrooms in a forest.

-And the thread demonstrates that I know more about the subject(s) than you.


Asserted by you.

Calling something a conspiracy doesnt mean it isnt true. Sorry, I think that its easier to conclude that this fusion energy business is the conspiracy, given the facts.


Asserted by you.

See, there's the problem. You see what you want to see, like the one time when you claimed that the king of Spain already knew about the Americas which is why he sent Columbus to sail there. Of course you see "coincidences" when you make up stuff like that and then believe in it! You use your own imagination as your corraborating evidence
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
"By definition, though, Big Science, like fusion and curing cancer, entails massive multi-decade endeavors that promise returns in the distant future, if ever. Only government can support that kind of basic R&D. And as Steven Weinberg, the winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, observed in an important 2012 essay in the New York Review of Books, that support is drying up..."

-Plus its all the associated advances like cryogenics, superconductors, plasma theory, etc.

You can build 20 rovers and send them all to mars at the same time. But if they all have a critical design flaw in common youve wasted not only money but time. Its the same way with magnetic bottles. We dont even know if they will be the best way to make fusion energy instead of inertial or z-pinch or electrostatic etc.

We DO know that they are the ONLY WAY of storing plasma in bulk. More suspicion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Keyword being, YOU identified it
Uh no extinction events have been understood for 100-200 years now. Its entirely understandable that people would have begun trying to figure out how to survive them.

And its commonly understood that in order to avoid the 'all the eggs in one basket' condition is to establish off-world colonies. Many scientists have been saying this for gens now.

So we can look for critical tech being developed to enable this, and we see much effort in the space program, ballistic missile tech, nuclear explosives, subs, power plants, medicine, crops, all directly applicable.

I think people are a lot smarter and more pragmatic than we are led to believe.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
You can build 20 rovers and send them all to mars at the same time. But if they all have a critical design flaw in common youve wasted not only money but time.


So you build 20 slightly different rovers, send some to mars, some to moon, some to Venus... It doesn't even need to be all rovers.

If you had funding for 20 stellarators, you could even blow one up on a lark to see if you can do it - which would yield a great deal of information on what would happen if there's a catastrophic failure. That's something you can't do if you've got to spend 20 years on minimum budget on your only precious little experiment that's at risk of defunding at every turn.

We DO know that they are the ONLY WAY of storing plasma in bulk. More suspicion.


Again you observe a potential use which is not proven; actually the magnetic containment pressures of tokamaks and stellarators are quite feeble. In your imagination it works, so it must be for that reason.

I rest my case
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
So we can look for critical tech being developed to enable this, and we see much effort in the space program, ballistic missile tech, nuclear explosives, subs, power plants, medicine, crops, all directly applicable.

I think people are a lot smarter and more pragmatic than we are led to believe.


I think claiming that we went through the cold war specifically to develop technology to migrate to Mars is one hell of a leap of imagination.

That's because all those events are real tragedies - millions of people dead, tortured, ill, traumatized, oppressed, driven to destitution - and you're claiming there was a concerted, concealed effort to do this for some ulterior motive? By whom exactly? How did it stay hidden? Are people just doing horrible things because they know they must?

That's why I call you crazy. You're literally talking some sort of secret NWO lizard people level stuff right there.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
think claiming that we went through the cold war specifically to develop technology to migrate to Mars is one hell of a leap of imagination
And I think EXTINCTION is sufficient motivation for just about anything.

Plus the fact that since fissiles proved to be so easy to make, it behooved world Leaders to develop an overwhelming stockpile first. Because uncontrolled nuclear weaponry can also lead to extinction.

So all you have to assume is that they had a modicum of foresight coupled with the will to survive. To preserve all that is good and decent about the human race. Ie, yet another preengineered war to achieve predetermined Goals. Scale is irrelevant.

'Make no little Plans.'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
I call you crazy... lizard people...
Another example... For centuries a small group of Leaders, all intermarried and all descended from charlemagne, waged these designer wars all across europe. This was ostensibly because they were all mad, petty, greedy, spoiled degenerates.

But the result was a military presence coupled with specific technologies that could repel mongols and saracens, destroy precolombian cultures in a generation, and conquer the worlds oceans.

Was this mere happenstance?

Another... On the face of it the 30 years war seems like a horrible waste of time. But it established a new economic redoubt in the swiss alps when venice had become vulnerable to naval assault, and compelled waves of very specific refugee cultures to flee to these new colonies. And they brought with them a portable religion which no longer needed a pope. Purpose-built.

There are BENEFITS of sufficient magnitude to suspect that these events are staged to PRODUCE them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
That's because all those events are real tragedies - millions of people dead, tortured, ill, traumatized, oppressed, driven to destitution
Chronic overgrowth makes war and revolution inevitable. INEVITABLE. We dont know what the word means because our religions convince us we can avoid anything.

Millions would suffered and died just the same, one way or another, along with our civilization and perhaps the species. Without doubt.
and you're claiming there was a concerted, concealed effort to do this for some ulterior motive? By whom exactly?
It doesnt matter 'by whom'. Wasting time looking for culprets deters one from looking at what was done and more importantly WHY it was done.

We both agree that it is people who decide to wage wars and revolutions. I say that humanity has gotten to where it is today - on the verge of leaving the planet - specifically because throughout all of our development, Planners won out while wishful thinkers lost.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 26, 2017
Joseph and pharoah understood inevitability. They knew that overgrowth during times of plenty would create eventual chaos and ruination. So they prepared. And not only did they preserve egypt, they ended up owning everything of value in it.

One of the many perks of knowing the future - unlimited power.

But they certainly didnt need some god to tell them about economic cycles. The same sort of prudent Machination is what built the pyramids to begin with.

Like i say, god is only a metaphor for what is to come.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.