New testing of model improves confidence in the performance of ITER

April 21, 2018 by John Greenwald, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Physicists Brian Grierson of PPPL and Gary Staebler of General Atomics. Credit: Shaun Haskey

Scientists seeking to bring fusion—the power that drives the sun and stars—down to Earth must first make the state of matter called plasma superhot enough to sustain fusion reactions. That calls for heating the plasma to many times the temperature of the core of the sun. In ITER, the international fusion facility being built in France to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion power, the device will heat both the free electrons and the atomic nuclei—or ions—that make up the plasma. The question is, what will this heating mix do to the temperature and density of the plasma that are crucial to fusion production?

New research indicates that understanding the combined heating shows how we could improve the production of fusion in ITER and other next-generation fusion facilities—a key finding of physicists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), the DIII-D National Fusion Facility that General Atomics operates for the DOE, and other collaborators. "This shows what happens when electron heating is added to ion heating," said PPPL physicist Brian Grierson, who led testing of a computer model that projected the DIII-D results to ITER.

The model, created by Gary Staebler of General Atomics and reported in a paper in Physics of Plasmas with Grierson as first author, investigated the DIII-D experimental results in conditions mimicking those expected in ITER. Diagnostics supplied by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of California, Los Angeles measured the resulting turbulence, or random fluctuations and eddies, that took place in the .

Multiscale turbulence

The measurements revealed turbulence with short-to-long wavelengths caused by electron and ion heating, respectively. The combination produced "multiscale" turbulence that modified the way particles and heat leak from the plasma. Turbulence can reduce the rate of fusion reactions.

The combined electron and ion heating altered the gradient, or spatial rate of change in the plasma density. This finding was significant because the that ITER and other next-generation tokamaks produce will increase as the density grows greater. Moreover, the increase took place without causing impurities to accumulate in the core of the plasma and cool it down, which could halt .

The scientists used a "reduced physics" model called TGLF that simplified the massively parallel and costly simulations of multiscale turbulence that require millions of hours of computing time on supercomputers. The researchers ran this simplified version hundreds of times on PPPL computers to test the impact on the model of uncertainties stemming from the DIII-D experiments.

"The TGLF model exploits the weak turbulence properties of tokamaks like ITER," said Staebler. "It approximately computes the plasma transport billions of times faster than a gyrokinetic multiscale turbulence simulation run on high-performance supercomputers."

Impact of electron heating

The model looked specifically at the impact of electron heating on the overall heating mix. Researchers produce such heating by aiming microwaves at the electrons gyrating around magnetic field lines—a process that increases the thermal energy of the electrons, transfers it to the ions through collisions, and supplements the heating of the ions by neutral beam injection.

Results indicated that studying multiscale will be essential to understanding how to deal with the multiscale effect on the transport of , particles and momentum in next-generation tokamaks, or fusion devices, Grierson noted. "We need to understand transport under ion and electron heating to confidently project to future reactors," he said, "because power plants will have both types of heating."

Explore further: New turbulent transport modeling shows multiscale fluctuations in heated plasma

More information: B. A. Grierson et al, Multi-scale transport in the DIII-D ITER baseline scenario with direct electron heating and projection to ITER, Physics of Plasmas (2018). DOI: 10.1063/1.5011387

Related Stories

Multiscale simulations help predict unruly plasma behavior

September 21, 2017

Decades of fusion research have brought many advances in our understanding of the physics of plasma, the hot ionized gas at the heart of a fusion reactor. While many questions are being answered, important challenges remain.

Recommended for you

Gravitational wave detectors to search for dark matter

August 16, 2018

Gravitational wave detectors might be able to detect much more than gravitational waves. According to a new study, they could also potentially detect dark matter, if dark matter is composed of a particular kind of particle ...

131 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2018
And doing fusion is really secondary to what that machine is all about - storing plasma efficiently in bulk, especially antimatter. Antimatter which can be made at CERN and beamed directly southward to this machine. Which explains their proximity.

For what purpose you ask?
rrwillsj
2.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
For those grousing "Get on with it, already!"

The intention is, to recreate a controlled, repeatable version of stellar fusion cycle. Here on Earth.

In a sober and safe manner.

That after all the investment of funding and diversion resources such as expertise. Then site selection, construction, ongoing maintenance costs, security, and etc etc.

There will be one chance to get this right. I am pleased that in this article the researcher's stress testing each stage of development with methodical precision.

A major failure, for what ever reason, of a prototype fusion reactor. Would be a major roadblock with gaining Public acceptance for constructing an actual powerplant.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2018
The likelihood of success by the ITER, stellarator, or perhapsatron is very low. The are trying to force the plasma to do unnatural processes. Magnetic fields are ill-equipped in plasma confinement, electric forces need to be tapped to produce fusion energies.
Processes the allow the plasma to do what it wants to do to create fusion.
http://www.safire...gle.html
https://lppfusion.com
eljo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2018
cantdrive85

Yes indeed. Over the last couple of years I have been amazed following the progress and very promising experimental results that have been demonstrated so far in both of those innovative alternative approaches and this in very modest and low cost setups. I am very pleased with the renaissance of fusion research in the last decade as demonstrated by the many different approaches that are being explored and funded in some cases even by purely private investment. In an ideal world all of them would receive all the funds they could possibly need in parallel. The Genie seems to be out of the fusion bottle and the competitive vibrant open-minded environment is perceived as a good thing by all in the field.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2018
Magnetic fields are ill-equipped in plasma confinement, electric forces need to be tapped to produce fusion energies.


Electrostatic confinement of fusion also works (Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor) but it's less efficient.

It's been tried, and failed. Nevertheless, the fusor devices are useful and used for neutron sources in experiments even though they're miles away from energy break-even, because they can be made in desktop sizes.

The main issue with fusors is that getting enough acceleration to smash the nuclei together requires such high electric fields that stuff simply starts breaking apart. You got currents leaking everywhere with more electrons than protons being accelerated through the device.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 21, 2018
https://en.wikipe...ki/Fusor

For every volt that an ion of ±1 charge is accelerated across, it gains 11,604 kelvins in temperature. For example, a typical magnetic confinement fusion plasma is 15 keV, which is a temperature increase of approximately 174 megakelvins for a singly-charged ion. Because most of the ions fall into the wires of the cage, fusors suffer from high conduction losses. On a bench top, these losses can be at least five orders of magnitude higher than the energy released from the fusion reaction, even when the fusor is in star mode.[20] Hence, no fusor has ever come close to break-even energy output.


In other words, assuming the energy loss diminishes linearily with scale, you need to make the benchtop experiment five orders of magnitude (10^5) bigger. The fusor goes from 1 meters in diameter to 100 kilometers in size before it breaks even.

Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2018
Actually, as far as I know, electrostatic confinement fusion research is ongoing, but very badly funded (particularly considering that Google was pitched a decade or so ago, has lots of money, and spends lots of money on server farms, not to mention several other companies that could save a lot of money the same way). A Geekwire article says EMC2 is trying to put together US$30 million in funding to build the next-generation polywell reactor, and has identified a single design they wish to pursue. That was in 2016. Things have been quiet since, but given their track record, I expect once they have the money, they'll start building and testing that design; the article also indicates they think it will take 3 years from when they get the money.

Wikipedia has a good article: https://en.wikipe...Polywell

And worth noting that electron heating is somewhat crucial for this design.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2018
It's been tried, and failed
So sorry wrong again...
Electrostatic confinement of fusion also works (Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor) but it's less efficient
The navy is apparently ahead with this hybrid concept.

"A reactor small enough to fit on a truck could provide enough power for a small city of up to 100,000 people.

"Building on more than 60 years of fusion research, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works approach to compact fusion is a high beta concept. This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller... we will be able to develop a prototype within the same five year timespan."

-Its apparently related to polywell but I'm not entirely sure how.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2018
@Otto, the USN cut funding to EMC2, the patent holder for the polywell, in about 2014 or so. They're seeking private funding.

The Skunk Works item is based on magnetic confinement with superconducting magnets, not electrostatic confinement like the polywell; according to the Wikipedia article Lockheed is doubling down on funding, and their first prototype has been successful but not all that impressive (3.5kW and that's gross, not net). They're still in the build phase on their second attempt. Here's the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipe..._Reactor

I didn't check if there are any USG funds, military or civilian, involved in the Lockheed project.
KBK
not rated yet Apr 22, 2018
Stabilization of confinement:

Polarization has strong impact on electrons, study shows:

https://phys.org/...ons.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
The Skunk Works item is based on magnetic confinement with superconducting magnets, not electrostatic confinement
Like I say there is some discussion on how the thing actually works...

"Skunkworks is working on a high-beta reactor... Magnetic containment, radio frequency induced heating. Appears to use a magrid like polywell. The radio frequency heating seems to be the added touch that allows for a more compact reactor than Bussard's scaling law would allow."

"Idea: Positive charge on the outer magnetic toroids. An electron beam feeding an excess negative charge in pollywell style. Ion confinement and electron recirculation polywell style."

- and appears to contain some electrostatic elements such as internal ring magnets. Which is why I referred to it as an apparent hybrid. Details are hard to find.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
"Lockheeds' idea to use this internal magnetic property to push against the sharply bent containing field. Dr. Bussard called the concept "the whiffle ball trap" [49]. If Lockheed can do this, they could create the worlds' best plasma trap."

"Lockheed is positioned to show cusp confinement better than EMC2 was able to. So far, EMC2 is the only group that has published data on cusp confinement."

"a source of electrons at the far end of the tank. Lockheed is using Lanthanum Hexaboride cathode as their source; the same device EMC2 used..."
http://fusion4fre...-effort/

"Inertial electrostatic confinement is a branch of fusion research which uses an electric field to heat a plasma to fusion conditions... typically done in a sphere, with material moving radially inward, but can also be done in a cylindrical or beam geometry..."

-etc. They are also using neutral beams, typical of tokamaks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
The Skunk Works item is based on magnetic confinement with superconducting magnets, not electrostatic confinement like the polywell
Coup de grace...

"In 1980 Robert W. Bussard developed a cross between a fusor and magnetic mirror, the polywell. The idea was to confine a non-neutral plasma using magnetic fields. This would, in turn, attract ions."

"Several schemes attempt to combine Magnetic Confinement and electrostatic fields with IEC... The polywell uses a magnetic field to trap electrons. When electrons or ions move into a dense field, they can be reflected by the magnetic mirror effect.[20] A polywell is designed to trap electrons in the center, with a dense magnetic field surrounding them."

- So apparently Lockheeds reactor is some type of polywell.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2018
For those grousing "Get on with it, already!"


rrwillsj, that flawed reasoning could justify any delay. To be clear, I think ITER is a wonderful concept, but the unjustifiable delays are causing more harm than good. The agreement to build ITER was signed in 2006 and now 12 years later even the building is not complete. ITER won't be ready for D-T experiments until 2035, at the earliest.

https://www.iter....lestones

More than likely, other efforts like MIT's SPARC reactor will pass up ITER many years before ITER produces any useful fusion science.

The fact that the U.S. Republican Party, whose energy policy is controlled by oil barons, has not tried to pull us out of ITER the same way we pulled out of the Paris Convention should worry anyone who cares about fusion.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
From the ITER website: "First Plasma is schedule for December 2025" and "the start of Deuterium-Tritium Operation in 2035."

https://www.iter....psible_7

Perhaps somebody can defend the need for a full decade shake-down period? Maybe ITER should schedule their first D-T experiments for 2127, that way folks will think the "1" is a typo and ITER really meant 2027.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2018
ITER suffers from advanced bureaucratitis, that is, advanced inflammation of the bureaucrats. Too many special assistants to the deputy assistant to the special general assistant to the assistant director general in charge of the little plastic paper clips used to hold the reports on the second winding of the fourth injection magnet together. In order to add one winding to one magnet about five hundred of these parasites need to be asked for permission. By the time they give permission all the liquid helium they're using to cool the magnet has evaporated and they have to find some scientists to blame.

The intelligence of a committee is equal to the intelligence of the stupidest member divided by the number of members.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2018
@TheGOO tries to turn a polite conversation into another demonstration of how cool GOO is and how stupid everyone else is. You must be a real joy to work with. Tell me, do you find the locks on your file cabinet stuffed with chewing gum very often?

Sorry, @GOO, I'm not going to argue with someone who clearly illustrates they don't understand how a polywell works about how a polywell works.

You really are a rotten little piece of excrement, aren't you?
Mark Thomas
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2018
Da Schneib, I enjoyed both your recent comments, as usual. Based on the advances made so far, I believe fusion science has the potential to fix a host of serious and urgent problems we are confronting. That is why it kills me ITER is taking its grand ol' time.

About OttoBotto, a.k.a. TheGOO, he believes he is right about everything so there is no need to think anything through, a terrible combination. Sure, he may get some things mostly right, but good luck arguing with him on the things he doesn't. Making matters worse, he also likes to mislabel, insult and be unduly provocative. He earned the OttoBotto nickname from me when he argued killer "robots are the only moral alternative."

https://phys.org/...ars.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
@TheGOO tries to turn a polite conversation into another demonstration of how cool GOO is and how stupid everyone else is. You must be a real joy to work with. Tell me, do you find the locks on your file cabinet stuffed with chewing gum very often?
Der Scheide just resents it when he is proven wrong. For instance he confuses polywell with a fusor...
The Skunk Works item is based on magnetic confinement with superconducting magnets, not electrostatic confinement like the polywell
...and so otto informs him...

""In 1980 Robert W. Bussard developed a cross between a fusor and magnetic mirror, the polywell. The idea was to confine a non-neutral plasma using magnetic fields"

-etc. Why is it you resent being proven wrong SO MUCH kleine Muschi? Why not just admit it, and then people wouldnt think so little of you and otto wouldnt feel obligated to insult you for being so small.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2018
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866669it was a dead end and yet this white elephant continues to be funded as nobody can admit that it is the wrong shape and will never work.

Because it's not about science, it's about spending as much public money as possible hunting snipe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
I mean no offence, but ITER is the worst possible fusion project..: ITER Will Never Lead To Commercial Viability of hot fusion
Probably not but the closed bottle is the best potential configuration for STORING plasma in bulk. In the future we will be using exotic materials of all sorts in plasma form. They must be created, stored, manipulated, and even transported, in bulk.

The torus, most likely stellerator, is the way to do this. And ITER is necessary to learn as much as we can about how to do this. And as I say I dont think its proximity to CERN is a coincidence. The next ring radius may bring the 2 facilities in direct contact, and begin feeding antiparticles directly into ITER,

These machines will become smaller and smaller as field strength and control increases. But the toroid configuration is probably what we are stuck with.

Lockeeds bottle apparently leaks like a sieve.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 22, 2018
Because it's not about science, it's about spending as much public money as possible hunting snipe
I find it odd that the most rabid plasmalover on this site is so against the facility with the potential to teach us the most about the stuff.

Whats your deal cannoli?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2018
The "well" in polywell is there because a polywell contains the plasma in a charge well. The magnetic confinement is for the electrons that create the charge well, not for the plasma. This is duh if you have any idea how a polywell works.

@Goo, you are an idiot quoting things you do not understand written, apparently, by people who don't understand them either, unless that's you lying or cherry picking their statements.

We done here?
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 22, 2018
"The polywell uses a magnetic field to trap electrons. When electrons or ions move into a dense field, they can be reflected by the magnetic mirror effect.[20] A polywell is designed to trap electrons in the center, with a dense magnetic field surrounding them.[59][79][80]"

Sources:

20 "Mirror Systems: Fuel Cycles, loss reduction and energy recovery" by Richard F. Post, BNES Nuclear fusion reactor conferences at Culham laboratory, September 1969.
59 Carr, M.; Khachan, J. (2013). "A biased probe analysis of potential well formation in an electron only, low beta Polywell magnetic field". Physics of Plasmas. 20 (5): 052504.

79"Vlasov–Poisson calculations of electron confinement times in Polywell(TM) devices using a steady-state particle-in-cell method". The DPP13 Meeting of The American Physical Society. Retrieved 2013-10-01.

80"Electrostatic potential measurements and point cusp theories applied to a low beta polywell fusion device" PhD Thesis, Matthew Carr, 201
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
written, apparently, by people who don't understand them either, unless that's you lying or cherry picking their statements
My sources above. You mean you didnt bother to google my quotes?

"The polywell uses a magnetic field to trap electrons" - You really consider this cherry picking?

Da scheides sources: his ass. Come on scheide which is more plausible; that those sources are respected, legitimate experts who know what they're talking about, or that youre a pissant who wants to pretend hes them and hates it when people won't let him?

Hmmm?

It's ok buddy. You're certainly not alone here.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
"The polywell uses a magnetic field to trap electrons" - You really consider this cherry picking?
Yep.

Next?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
Getting back to the original point
Its apparently related to polywell but I'm not entirely sure how
to which muschimann responded
The Skunk Works item is based on magnetic confinement with superconducting magnets, not electrostatic confinement like the polywell
-But is as described by pros as 2014;

"In February 2013, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works announced a new compact fusion machine, the high beta fusion reactor,[25][26] that may be related to the biconic cusp and the polywell, and working at β = 1."
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
Getting back to the original point
Because you transparently don't have an answer to the current one

Dumb da dumb dumb, dumb da dumb dumb duhhhh

If the Skunkworks thing is "like a polywell," where's the charge well, dumbshit? As I often ask idiots like you, where's the beef? And if there's no charge well, how can it be "like a polywell?"

Like I said you have no understanding of how it works, you're just quoting people without understanding how the thing is supposed to work, which means you are accepting data uncritically. That's why you're also a global warming denier.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
You're a stupid, @Goo. A Dunning-Kruger sufferer. You accept what you want to hear uncritically. You cherry pick. You lie for jebus. And you are dumb enough to think no one will notice.

Like I said, you must be a joy to work with. I've dealt with a lot like you and humiliated them in technical design meetings. You really hate people like me, because obviously you've been humiliated a lot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
Because you transparently don't have an answer to the current one
Naw that was your attempt to divert attention from my original point. Confirmed by experts of course...

"The machine is a simple canister filled with plasma. It has magnetic coils embedded inside it. This actually breaks a paradigm of fusion research. Lockheed has made a Galatea. This is a Russian term, popularized by A Morozov [38]. This is a type of machine, where the coil and plasma mingle together. This is why the polywell and the T4B can be considered in the SAME VEIN OF APPROACHES."

"The Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor concept relies on a DIAMAGNETIC plasma behavior to produce sharp magnetic field boundaries and confine fusion plasma in a magnetically encapsulated, linear ring cusp geometry."
Cont>
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
Still no answer @Goo. Just another transparent bob, duck, and weave.

When you bob, duck, and weave I don't bother reading anything beyond the first lie. It's my practice with trolls. Answer the question or get continuing responses just like this.

Your tactics reveal your objective and it has nothing to do with the truth. You're just another one like @RealityCheck, @Lenni, or @cantthink69.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
As compared to bussards polywell...

"The theory about the formation of a wiffleball like magnetic structure in the center of the device is a bit more iffy. it's very hard to test wither such a structure forms or not, but it is not essential for achieving fusion in the polywell. the wiffleball hinges a lot on wither electrons express DIAMAGNETIC behavior when subjected to intense magnetic fields..."

-Again they're similar per my original point, as far as anyone can tell. Both use the lanthanum electron injector. The polywell injects plasma material via puffers while the CFR uses neutral beams.
If the Skunkworks thing is "like a polywell," where's the charge well
I've given you numerous expert opinions as to the similarity. What makes YOU think you know more about it than they?

Youre still wrong and pissy to boot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
Still no answer @Goo. Just another transparent bob, duck, and weave
I don't have to answer irrelevant questions. Asking them is pretty slimy isn't it?

Why don't you explain why you think you know more than published experts re similarity of these 2 machines? That's pretty relevant.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
It's not irrelevant @Goo. It goes to the core of your claims and you, transparently as a 3-year-old, choose to pretend you were never asked. You're lying again, @Goo. I don't see a lot of point when dealing with a liar in anything other than their lies.

Bobbing, ducking, and weaving is bullshit people wouldn't accept from a toddler. Why do you think you will get away with it? Could it be because you are not smart enough to evaluate your opposition?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
It's not irrelevant @Goo. It goes to the core of your claims and you, transparently as a 3-year-old, choose to pretend you were never asked
Rather than just declaring that it's relevant, explain 1) how it's so critically, uniquely relevant, and 2) how it negates the opinions of the EXPERTS I cited which say that the 2 machines are indeed similar.

Enough declaring and ass-bearing. They were pretty particular in thheir reasoning. You ought to be able to provide the same sorts of learned opinions (not you) to confirm it.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
I'm still waiting to hear you show the charge well in that Lockheed thing, @Goo. You said it's "like a polywell." If it is, where's the charge well? You're just bobbing, ducking, and weaving, trying to distract from your technical inaccuracies.

Until you can show the charge well in the Skunk Works fusion reactor, you're just lying some more.

The reason this is so important is to see if Lockheed is trying to rip off EMC2's patents. And if @Goo is trying to help them by keeping anyone from noticing.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2018
It's so wonderful dealing with industry and political and advertising and foreign shills. It makes me want to shit and then take a shower.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2018
You know it's curious das scheide used the term 'charge well' so I thought I would Google it to see if it was actually the 'plasma trap' the experts refer to. But i couldn't find the term anywhere on Google.

Except for this

"BOLT Lighter USB Rechargeable Windproof Electric Plasma Arc Cigarette Lighter with ..... but use it for outdoors / other lighter needs and it works well for that and holds a CHARGE WELL ..."

- Is this what you found in your drunken stupor herr schlampe? Hey it's got plasma, electricity... charge... I can understand your confusion.

So I gots to conclude, unless you can provide a ref, that it is something you made up.

BTW both machines are plasma traps and another reason why theyre similar. See expert opinions above-
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2018
Please use 'charge well' in a sentence. Hey I got one

"The Light Brigade sure showed us how they could charge well."

-No? My VISA card can sure charge well.

Here's one

"Description. Rocket Junkies Aluminum Charge Wells are designed to be used with the avionics bays of Mid to High Power Rockets..."

-we're getting closer I think-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2018
It's so wonderful dealing with industry and political and advertising and foreign shills. It makes me want to shit and then take a shower
I imagine it's because you fail to drop your pants first? haha
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2018
@TheGoo, why's it called a "polywell?" Where's the well? Where's the beef?

Dudebro can't even explain the name but claims to know how it works.

I was wrong; the three-year-old is better than @TheGoo.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2018
So you did make up the term. What a loser.

In other news

"April 10: US Navy recognized technological potential of radiation-free ultralow energy neutron reactions (LENRs) by awarding 2nd prize in 3rd-annual NAVSEA-Leidos disruptive technology essay contest to paper re future use of LENRs in naval power generation"

-So let's hear you call the USN dunning Krueger stupid
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2018
Fusion does not work if you take any energy out

The sun only works because it is slowly losing energy, a tiny fraction of its 800,000 mile diameter 2x10+30kg. ITER is removing 30% which to high it has to be below 0.1% because ITER has not got the insulation of the sun. ITER loses 30% through cooling, 30% through radiating leaving 30% to put back into the energy for fusion, that's a 60% short fall.

The only solution is to attach ITER to a giga watt fossil fuelled power station to provide the energy of fusion which taking heat loss's into account will give ITER a power output of 300mega watts
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2018
No, I didn't "make up the term." Your shit is weak, @Goo.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2018
A more efficient soloution is take ITER out the equation and feed the giga watt fossil fuelled power station direct into the national grid.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2018
The sun only works because it is slowly losing energy

It is losing energy at exactly the rate it is producing it - otherwise you would have a net energy buildup in the sun and it would continually grow hotter and hotter.
granville583762
2 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2018
No net energy gain

In ITER; the energy required for fusion is the same as released on fusion so no net energy gain

The Sun is different, it has the gravitaional mass of 2x10+30kg of mass crushing the 800,000mile diameter sphere, it can afford to lose heat because gravity makes up any short fall.
ITER has not got than luxery, any heat loss is a drop in the 100milion degree fusion temperature which is were the giga watt fossil fuelled power station comes to the rescue keeping ITERs fusion fires burning.

While your enjoying the luxery of renewable energy, heating your house, cooking your lambchop stew as you bath in the ulimted renewable solar energy, give a thought to those poor fusion reactors attached to giga watt fossil fuelled power staions to keep their icy 100million degree fusion fires burning antialias_physorg.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 23, 2018
In still other related news

"NASA and Global Energy Corporation Agree to Develop "High Power Space Generator"
"...contract documents between NASA Glenn Research Center and a company called Global Energy Corporation (GEC) which outline agreements between the two parties "For Development and Testing of a High Power Space Generator"

"The initial goal is to develop and run a self-sustaining 10 kW thermal, 2 kW electric, hybrid generator for planetary space missions and planetary surface power. Such generator technology would be scalable to 100 kW at the Plum Book Facility. Larger generator designs would be built and run at appropriate offsite location."

"-little detail about the tech to be used, but the point of contact for GEC is Lawrence P. Forsley, formerly of US Navy SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, who is a long time researcher in the field or LENR and is the listed inventor of this patent for a "Hybrid Fast Fusion Fission Reactor"

-End run?
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 23, 2018
I googled "Hybrid Fast Fusion Fission Reactor" and found this

"Fusion–fission designs essentially replace the lithium blanket with a blanket of fission fuel, either natural uranium ore or even nuclear waste..."

-which makes me wonder if this will be a reactor which can use yellowcake processed from martian ore. Probably not.

But I wonder what a 'fast' hybrid is. Does it refer to fast neutrons as in fast breeder?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
[The Sun] can afford to lose heat because gravity makes up any short fall.
Actually, in order for gravity to make up the shortfall the Sun has to shrink. That's because any amount of energy emitted due to gravity has to decrease the gravitic potential energy. The fact that ITER is even being built is because the Sun has never been observed to shrink.

Just sayin'.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2018
The sun oscillates with an 11year cycle, it pulse's where it heats up, expands, cools and gravity compress's its 800,000mile diameter where it heats up to expand again in its 11year cycle which is coincidental in tune with solar sunspot cycle
[The Sun] can afford to lose heat because gravity makes up any short fall.
Da Schneib > Actually, in order for gravity to make up the shortfall the Sun has to shrink. That's because any amount of energy emitted due to gravity has to decrease the gravitic potential energy. The fact that ITER is even being built is because the Sun has never been observed to shrink. Just sayin'.

ITER just literally does not exist in the Fusion stakes; On the one hand we have Unlimited Solar Energy to Power all our Energy needs from Today to 5Billion years into the Future, on the hand we have ITER, that for eternity we are continually waiting for the miracle of fusion that is never going to happen!
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2018
How to keep your fusion fires burning

"To date the recent pulses run on JET have used Ohmic heating – which involves heating the plasma solely by running an electric current through it. Other auxiliary heating methods, such as neutral beams will soon be used. In this way JET will progressively be brought up to higher power levels during the length of the campaign to allow a detailed investigation of the wall materials under conditions approaching those of ITER"

If proof is not already needed, that fusion reactors require external heating! http://www.ccfe.a...ilw.aspx
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
In ITER; the energy required for fusion is the same as released on fusion so no net energy gain

Nope. While it is true that the net energy of the entire system stays the same there is an energy conversion going on (mass being converted into Energy via E= mc^2). The mass is reduced, the radiation is increased - we feed in the mass (deuterium as fuel) and get out energy in the form of radiation which we can convert to steam and power generators with.

The energy required is not the same as that released (only if you count the fed in fuel as 'energy'...but since we get that for free provided to us by the universe it's not our energy that we pump in...much like the energy in fossil fuels is not something we put in there but something we can take out.).
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2018
In ITER; the energy required for fusion is the same as released on fusion so no net energy gain
-Guess you never learned about exothermic reactions. Along with a whole host of other things you would have learned in a high school science class.

"...the long sought-after plasma energy breakeven point (Q=1). Breakeven describes the moment when plasmas in a fusion device release at least as much energy as is required to heat them. Plasma energy breakeven has never been achieved: the current record for energy release is held by JET, which succeeded in generating 16 MW of fusion power, for 24 MW of power used to heat the plasma (a Q ratio of 0.67). Scientists have now designed the next-step device—ITER—as a Q≥10 device (producing 500 MW of fusion power for 50 MW consumed by the heating systems)."
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
Are you buy any chance talking perpeptual moiton or over unity machine or what everthere calling them nowadays where theres a hidden giga watt fosil fueled power station hidden round the back.
In ITER; the energy required for fusion is the same as released
-Guess you never learned about exothermic reactions. Along with a whole host of other things you would have learned in a high school science class.

"...the long sought-after plasma energy breakeven point (Q=1). Breakeven describes the moment when plasmas in a fusion device release at least as much energy as is required to heat them. Plasma energy breakeven has never been achieved: the current record for energy release is held by JET, which succeeded in generating 16 MW of fusion power, for 24 MW of power used to heat the plasma (a Q ratio of 0.67). Scientists have now designed the next-step device—ITER—as a Q≥10 device (producing 500 MW of fusion power for 50 MW consumed by the heating systems)."

Mark Thomas
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2018
Technically speaking, in 2014 the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in the U.S. got more energy out of its plasma that was put into that plasma. Although this was only the beginning because of all the huge losses in delivering that energy to the plasma are not accounted for, it did prove we are getting the science right and a fusing plasma can provide an energy gain.

https://www.scien...through/

What we really want is a fusion power plant that produces enough saleable electricity to make the whole thing at least marginally profitable. To do that we need a significant net gain at the wall plug, not just within the plasma itself, meaning the total electricity produced is significantly greater than the total electricity consumed. If ITER can satisfactorily produce Q≥10, then the scientific groundwork will have been laid for DEMO, the first prototype fusion power plant, not a scientific experiment like ITER.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
Sounds like a perpetual motion or over unity machine, or what everyone calling them nowadays, where there's a hidden giga watt fossil fuelled power station hidden round the back
producing 500 MW of fusion power for 50 MW consumed by the heating systems
if this was true where's fusion, I know another 35years

granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
How convieniant the output is already the half the output of it's giga watt fossil fueled power station.
Sounds like a perpetual motion or over unity machine, or what everyone calling them nowadays, where there's a hidden giga watt fossil fuelled power station hidden round the back
producing 500 MW of fusion power for 50 MW consumed by the heating systems
if this was true where's fusion, I know another 35years


At least there is honesty in admitting an extrenal 50MW heating system, because why does it need extrnal of 50MWs of heating when it is outputting 500MWs
Mark Thomas
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2018
mackita, I believe I described it correctly. You are correct that the laser power was not even close to being exceeded. But just looking at the plasma itself as a black box, more energy came out than was put in. Again this is not useful in itself except it verifies our science is correct and suggests fusion can be make to work in some context like ITER.

granville, this is not a perpetual motion machine. The sun is not a perpetual motion machine because the fusion cycle it uses ultimately converts mass into energy. Same idea behind a fusion power plant. The sun will run out of fuel after a roughly 10 billion year lifetime and a fusion reactor will cease to function without fuel to fuse.

If the science is not making sense, then consider all the countries participating in ITER. China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. They know that whoever is able to successfully develop this technology could have an enormous economic advantage.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
50MW heating / 10% efficiency is actually 500MW of external heating
Is this because it is too difficult for fusion alone to keep temperatures just over fusion temperatures, the heat loss is too rapid for fusion to maintain it on its own. This implies the heat of fusion is converted into electrical current to heat the plasma to produce fusion completing the cycle ending up heating the plasma, a vicious cycle with an overall conversion rate of fusion to lithium to neutrons to steam to electricity to Ohmic heating. A highly efficient conversion process I'll say, you're probably looking in the order of 5% to 10% efficiency so converting external 50MW heating / 10% is actually 500MW of external heating; which miraculously is also fusions total output! We're back to square one, No net gain!
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2018
Mark Thomas:- your missing the vital point, the sun is 800,000miles in diameter, ITER is measured in inch's, there is no comparison between a star and a pokey fusion reactor on a planet that our sun would not even notice if the earth fell on its surface as the earth would just disappear without trace! What a star gets away with in the fusion stakes can in no applicable way even remotely be compared to our made fusion reactors!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018

Solar power in the Sun, energy input equals energy output!

The sun has so much mass it can burn itself out in a billion years or 10s of billions of years, as it can maintain a heat loss faster than its producing burning out in millions of years which is still longer than people have inhabited earth, but man made made fusion reactors cannot maintain that heat loss because you have to have 800,000 miles of diameter and 2x10+30kg of mass! Solar power in the sun, energy input equals energy output!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
The fusion procces, or as every one is calling the proton-proton Procces requies the same amount of energy to split hydrogen that is given back again when hydrogen fuses to helium! No net energy gain.
Mark Thomas> If the science is not making sense, then consider all the countries participating in ITER. China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. They know that whoever is able to successfully develop this technology could have an enormous economic advantage

If you cheat and use isotpes of hydrogen and helium to reach helium4, the energy required to manufacture your istopes you get back when helium4 is formed so still, no net enrgy gain! Energy In always equals Energy Out.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
Insulating ITER
And how is every one proposing to insulate ITER, Its plasma a cool 100million degrees, juicy millions of degree highly radioactive neutrons flying everywhere there radiating heat, cooling the plasma below fusion temperature burying themselves in the water cooled lithium plates removing more than 50% fusion heat below 100million degrees so although relatively cool, it melts all known metals, ceramics or whatever, and every couple of weeks the reactor is shut down to sweep the ash out and sintered metal. A highly satisfactory, highly radioactive process, to say the least.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
We cannot contain our plasma

The sun by pass's all these problems, by only using hydrogen atoms, magnetic and electrical fields and gravity which for the purposes the Sun has got in mind, solar fusion; cannot melt because gravity is essentially holding a fluid ball of plasma, because this is part of our problem, we cannot contain our plasma. It is always streaking straight to ITER's apology for containment walls.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
mackita> The fusion reactors could operate under molten lithium blanket - literally the wall of flowing lithium absorbing neutrons and protecting walls of reactor. The reactor of http://www.unifiedgravity.com/ is such a reactor - it contains a metal cone covered by a thin layer of lithium flowing on it.

So there you mackita, it's not just us that have thoroughly gone into this problematic fusion. It is worldwide, even if Unified Gravity is solely out to make a quick buck, it is on the solid foundations of a real insoluble problem if you continue to use atoms to insulate and maintain containment walls your metal will sinter, crack, flake and ultimately melt.

It will become a plasma so why not use a plasma.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
180 degrees centigrade is practically boiling water. Hot fusion has no net energy gain, the trick is getting a net energy gain from cold fusion even if it involves some solar energy process from the sun.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
If it was easy to get energy out of atoms; the atoms, molecules and quarks would not be able to hold themselves together, which is why their bonds are so strong, we are trying to do more than alberts photo electric effect.
I for one am not holding my breath for any breakthrough in fusion hot or cold!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
How much hydrogen,nickel or palladium a giga watt is required every hour?
Which is why the hydrogen sucking metals like nickel or palladium catalyze the cold fusion the most

It has to be mined.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2018
There is another way, a simpler way, with independent home generators utilising quantised acceleration; but just as every has become accustomed to hot and cold fusion, to help realise quantised acceleration you have to be pointed in the right direction, work it out yourself then you can help put it into operation. It has to be every ones idea so a critical mass is reached where everyone is on the same wavelength and not fighting each other.
Does not involve catalysts or high voltages except 240volts, no neutrons and as is purely mechanical, you can see what is happing, is it safe and child proof to use.the parts being metal and plastic like a car.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2018
quantised acceleration
WTF?

You have got in one mackita, to help realise quantised acceleration you have to be pointed in the right direction, work it out yourself then you can help put it into operation. this is about energy production the easy way
granville583762
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
The difficult bit is realising it, then it is a question of putting into operation. it is easier to grasp as hot and cold fusion
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2018
This is what i have been doing for years mackita, away round producing energy with using hot or cold fusion, because that is all we are doing with fusion, quantised acceleration is a means to an energy source. how energy is produced cheaply cleanly and with no waste is the aim.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
This require you to be on the right wavelength because i am pointing you in right direction, when you know just like you know of cold fusion, one is actualy easier than other. It all depends on wether you to want to know, because my only interest is producing clean cheap plentyfull energy.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2018
Some like it hot

Cold fusion 25 years on
What is the difference between hot fusion compared to cold fusion, hot fusion promises unlimited power in 25 years where as cold fusion promises unlimited power in 25 years.
Have any of these promises been realised over these two centuries
To date no promises have been realised and the date for ITER to realise the point of fusion for one or two seconds is 2035 is 17years and from that point on after cleaning out the reactor over 2036 another firing will take place for a few second, any longer an ITER will be lost as all those billions will be for naught.
Is cold fusion forecasting any better, to date you cannot set any foreseeable future date for useful power from hot or cold it's just some like it hot
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2018
Our Stars Solar power and its Free! We do not need to provide any fuel, just take as much as your little heart desires!

The money spent on JET, ITER would go towards extracting limitless solar emery from our safe friendly star that has been producing power and will continue, it has been available for 5billion years , it is available now today, and will continue to available for another 5billion years and you know the best part! Its Free and we do not need to provide any fuel, It comes as part of the free package
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2018
But what do instead, spend untold billions on fusion reactors that cannot possibally work when we have an 800,000mile fusion reactor on our door step.
At least the oil shieks have their heads screwed on right , there moving into the new solar gold energy market, exporting solar energy!
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2018
Energy In always equals Energy Out.


Granville, you are not thinking logically or scientifically here. If I light a match to get a campfire going, then clearly the energy out is greater then the energy in. As OttoBotto pointed out, you need to understand "exothermic" reactions. Oil is worth real money because burning it produces valuable energy.

From a scientific perspective, the energy in burning wood or oil is simply changing form from chemical to heat. In a nuclear reaction like fission or fusion, it is mass itself that is being converted to energy. Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 shows us that a little mass is equivalent to a whole lot of energy. Fusion and fission work by converting mass to energy. The sun is a natural, gigantic fusion reactor, but that does not mean only giant fusion reactors work. I suggest you do some reading on this with an open mind and consider that many of the people involved are extremely intelligent.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2018
Mark Thomas:- The difference between hydrogen and helium is very close to one to one where energy in equals energy out.
As you go up the atomic table the difference between elements increase as the elements become radioactive where there unstable able to release energy without an equal energy cost but there is a heavy price to pay, they are radio active like neutrons in fusion reactors, in other words Mark Thomas the energy of radioactivity is part of the equation - energy in equals energy out. It is your self, Mark Thomas that is confusing the energy conservation equation. Heavier elements are releasing the energy they required to make the heavier elements they are, as they fall apart into their original lighter elements, energy in equals energy out.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2018
You have efectively created a perpetual over unity machine out of a fusion reactor

Mark Thomas:- what your trying to achieve is given 2 magnets, the energy of of attraction your using to convert into electricity, then your seperating the magnets against atrraction to repeat the procces, it requires the same energy to seperate the magnets as they give up on attraction! you have efectively created a perpetual over unity machine out of a fusion reactor, because your disreguarding thermal and frictional loss's!
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2018
Fusion energy cost is obvious by its absence
Lately there has been no energy output fusion figures minus (input energy + thermal loss's + energy required to make the fuel + reactor down time and maintenance) as Mark Thomas says "I suggest you do some reading on this with an open mind and consider that many of the people involved are extremely intelligent" which is exactly what I'm doing, but these simple basic facts are obvious by their absence. Diesel engines work because our fusion reactor has previously provided the energy to store it in a form that allows us to burn it to release the stored energy. With ITER were exactly in our fusion reactors position, we are providing the energy to compress hydrogen to the point of fusion; ITER has its methods our fusion reactor has its gravitational mass. Mining for Isotopes has an energy mining cost when subtracted from its gains. If on paper the figures stack up, all the problems are known, it is a simple case building reactors.

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2018
The MYTH of self sustaining fusion
When ITER reaches the point of fusion it is not self sustaining, the temperatures and pressures have to be maintained and at this fusion point the plasma gets more and more energetic for ever making a bee line to ITERs apology for containment walls, and if that was not enough problems, the slightest deviation results in the temperature falling below the point if fusion. The chicken and the egg problem emerges in getting burnt fuel out and fresh fuel in without reducing the 100million degrees, energy in = energy out. The unburnt fuel has to be raised to 100million degrees and inserted at the pressure of the plasma where the 100million degree burnt fuel is ejected and put through a heat exchanger (another little heat loss that got over looked) and how do you put 100million degree burnt fuel through a heat exchanger!
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2018
The alternative to The MYTH of self sustaining fusion
mackita> nickel/palladium are just a catalyst so that they can be recycled and the cold fusion can run even with pure lithium and hydrogen (albeit it would require mild voltage 1500 - 2000 V for acceleration after then). But the energy yield of fusion is some 20 MeV - so it doesn't actually matter. Given the well known stability problem of metal catalysts (poisoning), the cold fusion without catalysts currently looks the best solution for me. The metal catalysts also have unpleasant tendency for overheating under which the cold fusion starts to run like the hot fusion under release of neutrons. The catalyst-less fusion would indeed remove it, because it can be controlled reliably by external voltage like the transistor.

180 degrees centigrade is practically boiling water. Hot fusion has no net energy gain; the trick is getting a net energy gain from cold fusion even if it involves some solar energy.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2018
This is what is so infuriating concerning fusion
Melting steel requires enormous quantities of energy because it is a process, where as energy production involving fusion should not provoke the discussion of attaching a giga watt power station to fuel the process, this is an indication of its expected output. Just as the suggestion of the use of solar energy in liquid lithium, and here lie's a criticism - the fact liquid lithium used in cold fusion is liquid at 180 degrees centigrade and it is used to catch the 100million degree radioactive Neutrons in fusion reactors is indicative of what is so infuriating concerning fusion!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2018
Fossil fuels are chemical reactions involving covalent bonds. Fusion is reorganising protons and electrons forming elements and neutrons releasing anti-electrons and neutrinos.
Hot fusion has no net energy gain
How did you got into it? Do you understand the concept of fuel and it's accumulation of energy for later usage? And how did you manage to pass the forum registration procedure?

The helium protons mass difference in energy over the hydrogen protons mass. . Hydrogen = 1.00794, Helium = 1.0006505 a difference of the mass of the proton 0.0073 = 1.5x10-10 joules a proton gained or to put it another way for every proton in the plasma requires 1.5x10-10 joules to form a helium proton which helium will release 1.5x10-10 joules a proton on forming a helium atom.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2018
The only way to get round this is if hydrogen is unstable decaying into helium releasing energy in the form of raditation, but then it would not be a fusion reactor, more likly a fission reactor.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2018
Fusion reactors have solved our waste disposal problem

As we do not need fusion reactors for energy production, fusion reactors have solved our waste disposal problem, because they can break down all the nastie's, down to their constituent parts in the reactor core and turn them into useful elements, as a waste disposal unit all they need is to be attached to a giga watt power station which coincidently they already are!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2018
ITER is located in France where they have shifted to nuclear power; how fitting to turn ITER into a waste disposal fusion reactor powered by nuclear power, the combination of the two would make the most environmentally sound method of rubbish disposal and France would be the envy of the world!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2018
There's a hole in our fusion bucket
mackita> - there are way more important things about fusion, which the publics should read and to understand.

Well put them dear Henry, put them!
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2018
There is no relavance in managing to pass a forum registration procedure, because it was not myself who put Lithium in the path of 100million degree neutrons.
Hot fusion has no net energy gain
mackita> How did you got into it? Do you understand the concept of fuel and it's accumulation of energy for later usage? And how did you manage to pass the forum registration procedure?

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2018
Commercial fusion devices already exist and produce more energy than it takes to run them, in the form of fast neutrons.
http://phoenixwi....enerator
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2018
Its a neutron generator! no mention of electricity production, there seems to be no end of use's except fusion electricity generators?
Commercial fusion devices already exist and produce more energy than it takes to run them, in the form of fast neutrons.
http://phoenixwi....enerator

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2018
The reaction is exothermic. Tons more energy out than in.

Listen, you're obviously one of those deranged trolls who shows here from time to time, and thinks that by flooding this site with spittle you'll be recognized as a genius.

And nobody is going to get you to listen to reason because the way you think has nothing to do with reason.

Sometimes you guys get banned 2-3 times before you get the message. Hey, makita/zephyr has gotten his ass canned 40-50 times and he's still here.

But you're still pathetic.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2018
TheGhostofOtto1923> The reaction is exothermic. Tons more energy out than in.

Listen, you're obviously one of those deranged trolls who shows here from time to time, and thinks that by flooding this site with spittle you'll be recognized as a genius.

And nobody is going to get you to listen to reason because the way you think has nothing to do with reason.

So what is problem? this fusion-reactor has been constructed over 2 centuries and it can quite easily lapse because the next update is 2035 with with a further udate of 20 years taking up to 2055. It is not beyond the possibilities we could reach the end of this century with no further progress than we reached so far.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2018
If as you say
TheGhostofOtto1923> The reaction is exothermic. Tons more energy out than in

Where are our fusion reactors TheGhostofOtto1923?
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2018
Fusion and patience
@granville583762: try to explain, https://www.youtu...YEsKvHvk comes from. Don't use your mom's account for logging here without her permission.

This sounds like a very concerned request mackita, detonating a nuclear bomb is not exactly relevant to the process in the fusion reactors, although similar they are two different identities, solar fusion is not supposed to be using the instability of heavy elements to extract energy from the atom - the nuclear bomb is using the instability of radio-activity, because if you go back century mackita, fusion reactors were sold as a clean radio-active free safe energy which now we know it has to have radio-active neutrons to remove the heat of fusion and by using isotopes fusion is relying on the instability of elements to make it easier to give up the mass difference in energy.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2018
Putting fusion on the map
You see, every discussion can be only as smart http://www.taurus...l-F.png.

Seeing as were going at the slowest ship in the convoy and "The reaction is exothermic. Tons more energy out than in" and you are determimned to put fusion on the map, here is your chance to explain what is preventing the fusion reactors reaching unity coupled with continuous runing mackita.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2018
Mass Difference (mass defect)

(TheGhostofOtto1923> The reaction is exothermic. Tons more energy out than in)

The ingredients for fusion take the energy for fusion from the from fusion plasma in ITER.
The end product of fusion replaces the energy it took from ITERs fusion plasma, replacing it with the exact same amount of energy

The mass difference of the nucleus is the difference between the total mass of the separate nucleons added together compared to the mass of the nucleus when all the nucleons are together in the nucleus.
The energy is (mass difference)C*
alexander2468
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2018
Reaching the coulomb barrier is a long time coming
Starts by injecting room temperature hydrogen atoms to circulate up to hundred million degrees acquiring sufficient energy to overcome each coulomb barrier where a small percentage fuse to helium while the majority rattle round in orbit draining all that hard won heat away. The few that fuse replace the energy it took to raise their temperature from room to a hundred million degrees, where now fused into helium join the majority rattling round in orbit increasing the energy plasma heat drain making it progressively harder for the few that fuse to maintain a fusion temperature of a hundred million degrees. The energy of the coulomb barrier is equal to the difference in mass of a hydrogen proton minus a helium proton; once the coulomb barrier is passed the protons are locked inside the nuclear force so that initial release of energy is the total energy released by one helium atom.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2018
Other possible ways of breaching the coulomb barrier besides muon catalysis;

"In Ni-H and
other similar LENR systems, the overcoming of the Coulomb barrier is possible if the hydrogen is in
an intermediate Rydberg state (ion-electron pair according to BSM-SG theory). The process known as
proton capture is assisted by the magnetic interaction between the Rydberg matter and the nickel
nuclei which are in a proper nuclear spin state."

and

"The Widom-Larsen theory is an proposed explanation for supposed Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) developed in 2005 by Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen. In the paper describing the idea, they claim that ultra low momentum neutrons are produced in the cold fusion apparatuses[1] during weak interactions when protons capture "heavy" electrons from metallic hydride surfaces."
434a
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2018
Ironically http://nautil.us/...pothesis and threatening their power. So that we - tax payers - really have problem here. We know how to reach better future, but we don't have tools how to achieve it, because most of research resources remain allocated by mainstream physics.


Let's just leave the science to one side for a moment.

I'm a physicist. My research grants are in the low millions for which I have to design and build my equipment often from first principles, pay my small team, pay the bills on my lab, take home a tiny salary and occasionally eat when I can afford it.

Alternatively, I could whack some crystals together and change the shape of humanities destiny, not only would I become the most famous scientist alive but probably in history. I would be an instant trillionaire.
I might even get to eat out.

On a purely economic basis you should be that person if you had any sense.
Please feel free to BS about what's stopping you.
alexander2468
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2018
Neutrons in fusion, the delicate balance of force and energy
The neutron is heavier than an isolated proton. The protons increase in mass; they gain their energy from the plasma through their collisions, where a few hydrogen atoms gain sufficient energy to form the neutrons necessary to form helium. A few free neutrons decay giving the energy back to the plasma and the lithium plates. Half the energy of fusion is locked inside the neutrons which are locked inside the nuclear force in the helium atom beyond reach which has to be supplied to the plasma! The other half is released from the protons as they pass through the Coulomb barrier. The forces at play are in delicate balance at the mercy of thermodynamic heat loss, 33% heat loss, 33% stays in the plasma and 33% generates electricity; 33% quickly drops to 10% to the consumer and ITER. The plasma is the unknown is 33% input enough. This generator is now at 10% efficiency and dropping.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2018
Neutrons are agents of transmutation an Elegant solution
"Neutrons are agents of transmutation: They can transform one element into another, protons and neutrons which sit next to each other in an atom's nucleus, could transform into one another if paired with an electron. http://nautil.us/...pothesis "
Applying this technique with hydrogen at room temperature, the proton and electron are amenable to accepting neutrons result in the mass difference with the accompanying release of energy ending with a helium atom. The whole ITER project revolves around the 100million degree plasma but ultimately in end; it is all about getting the hydrogen atom to accept neutrons and protons, the protons mass drops in combination with other protons.
TheGhostofOtto1923> Other possible ways of breaching the coulomb barrier

434a
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2018
You're basically saying, the science is here for doing impractical research with no return value


No. I am categorically saying you are full of BS and CF is 100% as full of BS as you are.
Added to the fact that you are so damn obvious I was able to point out you would write some BS to deflect from the fact that you are full of it before you did.

If you weren't full of BS you would be doing the research yourself to deliver this utopian future for humanity you claim CF would be.
But it isn't and you are full of BS.
Prove me wrong, build it.......No? Just like all the other charlatans, snake oil salesmen, trolls and BS artists that fill the world with their stench.

What is hilarious is you think we are all as stupid as you are and that we are taken in by your shit.

Hic venit in novum stercore. Quod idem est in priore stercore.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2018
434a, we see this all the the time, but I still find it amazing how some people are able to ignore the obvious evidence and/or lack the basic mental tools to think things through. I often think we need to expose students to critical thinking skills to a far greater degree and much earlier in the educational process.

For example, look at one of the basic logic errors granville has made above. Just because the sun is a gigantic fusion reactor, he concludes that fusion reactors must be star-sized. His ancestors were telling us that heavier-than-air flight is impossible because we don't have wings.

This particular logic error manifests itself in many pernicious ways. Many people assume that because life is unfair, it must always unfair, and they give up on trying to make things better. If the voters demanded our leaders act in our best interests, and not at the directions of their rich donors, we could be doing so much better.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2018
The advantage of humongous errors
For example, look at one of the basic logic errors granville has made above. Just because the sun is a gigantic fusion reactor, he concludes that fusion reactors must be star-sized. His ancestors were telling us that heavier-than-air flight is impossible because we don't have wings

That's the advantage with humongous mistakes, they have humongous amounts of hydrogen and humongous amounts of heat taking the sun billions of years too slowly run down its hydrogen store, whereas as starlets such as ITER have no heat store and run down their grams of hydrogen in seconds.

Mark Thomas
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2018
granville, you seem like a nice person, but you are ignoring the clear evidence: Exhibit 1: Scores of brilliant people think there is a good chance we can make fusion work. Exhibit 2: Billions of dollars are being spent to make fusion work. Exhibit 3: Nature provides examples of fusion. Exhibit 4: Fusion adds explosive power to the hydrogen bomb. Exhibit 5: Science says fusion appears to be doable and is worth pursuing to find out for sure.

Simply assuming everyone else is wrong, and has been wrong for nearly a century, and you alone are right, is incorrect thinking. This is why OttoBotto lashed out at you. You need to work harder to understand what all the fuss is about before challenging it. I have been looking at fusion technology for decades and my conclusion is fusion is extremely difficult, but it is also extremely important and most likely will be achieved this century.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Apr 27, 2018
Some more details from Lockheeds patent

" The following describes an encapsulated fusion reactor for providing these and other desired benefits associated with compact fusion reactors. The encapsulation fields of the disclosed devices allow recirculating field lines to be compressed and contained. The disclosed embodiments contain the fields within a much smaller volume, completely containing the plasma within a magnetosphere much like the magnetosphere surrounding the Earth. The encapsulated fields of the disclosed embodiments are higher strength and less susceptible to instability as well as more compact—a great improvement over typical systems."

"For example, the open-field magnetic system within fusion reactor 110 may be any linear ring cusp device, a Polywell device, any spindle cusp device, any mirror device, any of the linear-ring cusp devices described herein, or any other magnetic system having open magnetic field lines."
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2018
Some more details from Lockheeds patent


OttoBotto, you get credit for looking it up, but that is not a patent, it is a published patent application. It won't become a patent until next Tuesday.

Check it out here:

https://patents.g...80047462

You actually only found 1 of at least 5 such recently published patent applications, enjoy.

1. 20180090232 Heating Plasma for Fusion Power Using Neutral Beam Injection
2. 20180068748 Magnetic Field Plasma Confinement for Compact Fusion Power
3. 20180068747 System for Supporting Structures Immersed in Plasma
4. 20180047463 Heating Plasma for Fusion Power Using Electromagnetic Waves
5. 20180047462 Encapsulating Magnetic Fields for Plasma Confinement
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2018
ITER and the solar comparison
Thank you for the complement mark - this is the sad part no one is completely right, I am just pointing out it is the mass difference when protons combine in groups is equal to the energy to break through the coulomb barrier for each proton, that is all the energy the proton gives, it is the interpretation that I am pointing out, the neutron requires energy which it retains while in the helium nucleus, the neutron is a net loss on the heat in the plasma and the proton only put back in plasma its mass difference which it took out getting out getting up to 100million degrees. In the sun the hydrogen remains at all times in sun the loss's are minimal – in ITER each fresh hydrogen is inserted cold where it takes plasma energy to reach 100million degrees and burnt fuel is removed at 100million degrees. I think you can now see my interpretation and solar comparison.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2018
granville, I might see where the misunderstanding may be coming from. It appears you think the fusion of a deuterium nuclei and tritium nuclei into a helium-4 nuclei and neutron yields no energy because you begin and end with two protons and three neutrons.

You are treating protons and neutrons as if they were fundamental particles, but they aren't. Both are comprised of three up or down quarks held together by gluons carrying the strong nuclear force, not to mention their interaction with virtual particles. If you add up the masses of the deuterium and tritium nuclei, you will see it is less than the mass of a helium nuclei and neutron. It is this lost mass that is converted into energy and gives the loose neutron its 14.1 MeV kick. Simply looking at the periodic table of the elements will prove the mass numbers do not add up because protons and neutrons act differently inside different nuclei.

https://en.wikipe...r_fusion
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2018
14.1 MeV has to return to the plasma
Initially obtaining the energy out the plasma, which is heating the deuterium and tritium, that's 2 protons and 3 neutrons which accounts for the loose 14.1 MeV neutron. the plasma raises all 5 nucleons to 100million degrees which still has to be accounted for and subtracted from this lost mass that is converted into energy and gives the loose neutron its 14.1 MeV kick. The deuterium and tritium are still relatively speaking inserted in the plasma cold and this lost heat per nucleon has to be replaced and can only be replaced from the "lost mass" the neutrons are still a net loss as you point out "the lost mass that is converted into energy and gives the loose neutron" so the neutron after being heated to 100million degrees is given even more energy in its 14.1 MeV kick. Some of this 14.1 MeV goes back into the plasma to maintain its 100million degrees
Da Schneib
not rated yet Apr 27, 2018
@Mark, look up the packing fraction curve. This shows where the energy in both fusion and fission comes from.
Mark Thomas
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2018
14.1 MeV has to return to the plasma


No, the overall mass is being reduced (mostly by the reduction in gluons - I understand) and that mass that is converted into energy. Per Einstein, mass and energy are always conserved, but are interchangeable. There is a net loss in mass and corresponding net gain in energy. If the temperature of the plasma remains constant at steady-state, the net gain in energy shows up as the imparted momentum of the 14.1 MeV neutron that leaves the plasma at 17% of the speed of light. The temperature of neutron is therefore much higher than the plasma temperature. Very rough guess: Neutron temp is 12 billion degrees C, plasma temp is 100 million degrees C. I am afraid you are going to have to read up on this yourself. Have a great weekend.

https://en.wikipe...neutrons

https://dothemath...-fusion/
alexander2468
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2018
The bitter sweet taste of victory
This was suspected all along, relativistic 12 billion degree neutrons passing through the millimetres of plasma exiting from the plasma in 2x10-11seconds straight through the lithium plates taking all the mass difference energy of the newly formed helium atoms out of the reactors outer defences into concrete blocks, leaving the helium atoms to rattle round the rapidly cooling plasma, cooling below the required 100million degrees. The irony of having just within your reach, 12billion degree neutrons existing in the plasma for less time than a "virtual particle", that are now playing havoc with ITERs administrative concrete blocks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2018
OttoBotto, you get credit for looking it up, but that is not a patent, it is a published patent application. It won't become a patent until next Tuesday
Wow So you're THAT anal. Huh.
alexander2468
3 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2018
Its neutron cousin can join the party and turn it into a tritium
Protons breach the coulomb barrier over 6% C, faster than the majority of neutrons flowing freely in and out of atomic nuclei. Thermal neutrons colliding in the nuclei; being neutral they do not need KE. Neutrons can simply walk up to hydrogen protons at 2km/s settle in creating deuterium and its cousin can join the party and turn it into a tritium, which is why isotopes end up being unstable. These isotopes have useful industrial applications, inside the fusion world each reaction has an energy price to pay. The first door requires an input of energy where it gives it back as it closes behind you, the next door opens where each door require the energy released from the previous door because of your initial energy to open the first door, the enormous amount of energy is tantalisingly close but now we have reached it; it appears to be in the form of a relativistic 12 billion degree neutron!
alexander2468
3 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2018
Concrete solution to relativity
Slowing relativistic 12 billion degree neutrons is the next door to pass through where the principal of each door requires an input of energy. 17%C slowed to below 1000kms will enable a proportion of the 14MeV to be turned into electricity. By simply at no great cost to ITERs construction, encasing ITER in concrete blocks allowing free passage of the relativistic 12 billion degree neutrons slowing them sufficiently where they are moving slowly enough for them to pass through secondary water cooled lithium plates essentially involving a larger reactor

There is no alternative, the neutrons are moving too fast, but it is not going to be done before ITERs next firing in 2035 and a further firing in 2055, because now ITERs fate is with fixed bureaucratic institutions. Unless some bright spark has come up with an even simpler solution than breeze blocks, even breeze blocks are not going to be used. Roll on 2055!
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2018
Hey alex the troll, if youre looking for healthy efficiency...

"COP (Coefficient of Performance) is a measure of the ratio between energy output and input. Leonardo Corp guarantees a COP of 6 for the ECAT 1 MW, meaning that it takes a required 166 kW of input power to produce 1 MW of heat. Also note that the ECAT High-Temperature test prototype is currently working at COP 3.7, see ECAT reports."

-According to rossi this means ultimately that your car can run for 100M km and your cell phone for 250 yrs.
https://ecat.com/...chnology

Not enough hyperexo? How about the hydrino?

"Various [brilliant light power] SunCell modules will output anywhere from 250KW to 10MW electric power, with a required Ignition power of 240KW for the 10MW unit and an average power input of 10KW, meaning therefore an impressive COP of 1000..."

-More or less.
alexander2468
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2018
The bright spark has arived
TheGhostofOtto1923> your car can run for 100M km and your cell phone for 250 yrs.

May your Ghost for ever haunt the centuries to your eternal dream, then you can rest your weary head.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2018
Schneib's Rule: If you post a statement of known experimental fact, a nutjob will post denying it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2018
http://appft.uspt...0180426. COP 10-50 is claimed.

Well there you go. Wish I knew how you did that hotlinks text thing.

10-50 from hot fusion in 5 years would be something now wouldnt it? Even its more the size of a boomer nuke rather than a tractor trailer nuke. Oh well. Baby steps.
milnik
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
How does a fusion come about?
If we force deuterium (neutron and proton) to merge with tricium (2 neutrons and proton). Then a fusion occurs, that is, from this compressed state, one neutron escapes out, and helium (2 neutrons and 2 protons) forms together with the release of a large amount of heat. So, it is possible in another way to force a neutron to leave the core of a chemical element and to get energy. Take the deuterium and expel it from the neutron, it will remain hydrogen, and use this loose heat when the neutron moves away from deuterium.
Tell the scientists to do it, Just need to know how to expel the deuterium neutron.
There is also a simpler way: in a hydrogen atom, convert the proton into an antiproton and connect it with a new protons (annihilation). Try, when you have tried so much more than 50 years ago.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
Positive and negative quarks do not annihilate so why would they in a proton
milnik> There is also a simpler way: in a hydrogen atom, convert the proton into an antiproton and connect it with a new protons (annihilation). Try, when you have tried so much more than 50 years ago.

An anti-proton is a negative proton, a proton with it quarks rearranged to give a negative charge so why would it annihilate, positive and negative quarks do not annihilate, so why would they behave any differently arranged in groups?
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
Electric field polarity does not an antiparticle make
milnik> convert the proton into an antiproton.

The only difference in a positive or negative proton is its electric field; the electrons electric field is identical to the protons electric field as it the quarks electric field the only difference is in the polarity of field everything is identical. The proton does not have an electric field, it is the property of the 2up and 1down quarks electric field. It is not actually a positive electric field it is three fields two positive and one negative where the positive nullifies the negative, in other words milnic the opposite of annihilation proof positive and negative quarks do not annihilate.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
The likelihood of success by the ITER, stellarator, or perhapsatron is very low. The are trying to force the plasma to do unnatural processes. Magnetic fields are ill-equipped in plasma confinement, electric forces need to be tapped to produce fusion energies.
Processes the allow the plasma to do what it wants to do to create fusion.
http://www.safire...gle.html


Please realize that the first set of claims is rejected by ITER already, the second set is pseudoscience too - not published in peer review, say where the ITER research is published - and hence both unsuitable for posting on a science site and - trivially - boring the hell out of the rest of us.

If you are interested, there is a whole exciting reality out there to investigate. Take a basic science course, say. And then come back and have a real discussion.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2018
@granville58...,
Science does not know how to form subatomic particles.
Here is an example for proton: when 3g of particles (3 quarks and 3 gluon bonds) are formed and free gluon, quark gluon plasma is formed. When the free gluon decays, the positron enters the 3kg particle and forms a proton, and the electron circles the protons and that is the hydrogen atom. Electric charge can not be a fraction, as claimed by quarks (1/3 or 2/3), or some quarks are tanned as the eggs for the ears, and the upper, lower. Is there a middle quark, a small, big, cheerful, sad, bully, and so on. Only there are three of the same quarks associated with gluons that can not be disassembled. Free gluon is an energy state of matter and without it there is no magnetism, but there must be a major role to play Aether in which you do not believe.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) May 01, 2018
Converting gamma-rays into electricity
Combining negatons and protons produces gamma-rays - there does not appear any direct way to convert the gamma-rays directly in to electricity just as there does not appear any direct way to convert 14MeV neutrons into electricity. The same goes for positrons and electrons where you would think with Albert Einstein's Nobel award prize winning research on the photo-electro-effect, he and others would have continued the research in converting gamma-rays into electricity.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2018
Who knows the mutual relations of Aether and one of the aggregate states of matter, he knows all about the formation of magnetism, magnetic and electro fields, and all kinds of radiation such as gamma rays and the like)
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2018
1.4MeV allows you across the coulomb barrier and relativistic neutrons realise 14MeV, 10x the input energy!
Can you achieve 1.4MeV with an input of 1.4MeV? No
Can you extract 100% the energy output of a 14MeV neutron? No
Any reactor can be built with better material as tungsten, all materials have to be replaced which means down time, why build of expensive metals which need replacing, since the reactor has regular cleaning down time, this is the time to replace the removable shields with cheap disposable materials because however its approached all materials rapidly degrade in the face of 150million degrees and relativistic neutrons, expensive disposable material are a waste of money and cheap materials will achieve a working reactor sooner. Ultimately, there's no point in building a fortress reactor as relativistic 14MeV neutrons are making a bee line straight out your reactor, which this point alone defeats the whole purpose of building your fusion reactor in the first place
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet May 02, 2018
It's like ignoring the fact that transistors have been invented
Yah except that transistors had actually been invented, and were working for everyone to see, and were being manufactured in piles.

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.