Fusion power? YOU BET!

you are looking at one or two experiements and concluding all fusion research is staying in these two fields.

it's stupid and i've refuted you enough in this thread

:king:
 
arsin said:
I laugh too at the absurd being sold off as do-able, "give me ur monies."

So the fusion experiment, which started a fusion reaction for a billionth of a second required "500 times the entire energy output of the United States of America at any given moment" to initiate.

Does anyone have an idea how much energy is required to initiate a sustainable fusion reaction?
Click to expand...

You havent changed your attack angle yet, you need something more then
"They didnt get it working on their first try".
 
hummm
3-4 more months until we know if the polywell wb8 worked
if it did, then mega boners engaged

thats when the experiment closes
the papers to publish may be further off
 
the success of fusion is dependent upon shia labeouf's 100million dollar investment in the project.
 
Goshin said:
what'd he invest that money into?
which one

cuz if it's tokamak, it was wasted
Click to expand...

you obviously never saw this terrible movie

MV5BMTU5MDEzMzYwMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTcwMjUxMw@@._V1._SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg
 
even though it's probably already been said..i don't wanna read 17 pages..but i thought this thread was gonna be about the new razor i just bought
 
EMC2
simple, small recap about the last few months

Test to be done and report sent to navy program by end of April
If things go well, they are to build a proton boron 11 testing device, which is a better fuel source to use for this fusion.
Why is the proton boron 11 fusion fuel ideal? - Polywell Wiki Faq
and
PB11. The weight of the boron is rather inconsequential, and the neutron flux is much smaller, meaning much less shielding, which is consequential weight. Of other interest are the He3 reactions, which would allow easier scavenging of fuel. Not sure how much boron is out there, but we know that there's a fair amount of He3. D+T could be scavenged, but again, we also need to look at the neutrons
Click to expand...
Aside from the neutron issue, P-B11 fuel has the advantage that practically all of the fusion energy produced is carried by charged particles, which allows for direct energy conversion at high efficiencies (~80%). D-T and D-D reactions also produce charged particles, but onlly ~ 50% of the energy is in this form. The rest is in neutrons. Also, the charged particles from these reactions have a wider range of kinetic energy- increasing the difficulty of direct conversion. The energy in the neutrons not only cause more radiation concerns for the crew, they damage structures, and produce more waste heat (per unit of usefull power obtained). Waste heat is a major concern for a spacecraft. At least some of the heat energy deposited from the neutrons can be recovered through thermocouples, or a heat engine (steam or sterling type engine), but these are far less efficient (more waste heat) than direct conversion.
As a hypothetical comparison. A P-B11 reactor might produce 1.2 GW raw power, and deliver 1 GW usefull power. A D-D reactor would need to produce ~ 2 GW of raw power to deliver the same amount of usefull power. That means the P-B11 reactor can be half the relative size (help to offset the increased difficulty of fusing P-B11) and ~800MW less waste heat would need to be handled. In some regards the D-H3 reaction would be superior to P-B11 (more energy per reaction, easier to fuse, perhaps easier direct conversion, neutron load is much worse than P-B11 but much better than D-D or D-T) except that the difficulty and cost of obtaining He3 is daunting.
Click to expand...

If they proceed with that and test, results by October 2012.
Finally, if both of these tests are :bigthumb: the navy will build a 100MW fusion reactor to be complete by 2015.

If that is built, we have cheap, clean, effective power.

I'm unsure what I'll be able to report this summer, since the Navy will most likely keep the information gleaned from WB-8 secret. I guess if they fund 8.1, we'll know 8 worked, and that's great since it proves the scaling principals of the device (which means it will power us into the future!!!!!111)
 
Criticism is key to quality. Indeed, Rider’s criticisms may have been the best thing for Polywell research. Thanks to him, we already know many of the Polywells’ flaws. If we are smart, we can plan around these issues, save time and money, and increase our chances of success. We will also have the benefit of hindsight. For example, WB-3 had square magnets, something we now recognize as an obvious mistake. We are now on our eighth redesign of the Polywell concept. We have the benefit of over 18 years of research and experience already invested in Polywells to learn from. Even more broadly, we have more than 50 years of fusion’s successes and failures to draw on. For example despite the hopes of Livermore scientists, the TMX mirror machine was not a power producing reactor. But it did lead to the particle loss equation. A key equation describing particles lost while electrostatically and magnetically confined [13-15]. That equation, combined with Bussards’ ring spacing work and Whiffle ball concept could be powerful, potent design information, knowledge that we did not have before
Click to expand...

small excerpt from this wonderful post:
The Polywell Blog: If the Navy Gets Mixed Results: We Fund It.


also:
Polywell Update 1 May 2011
Finally there is some news about Polywell Fusion progress. From recovery.gov here is the essential news.
Projects and Jobs Information

Project Title Federal Contract

Project Status More than 50% Completed

Final Project Report Submitted No

Project Activities Description Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services

Quarterly Activities/Project Description As of 1Q/2011, the WB-8 device operates as designed and it is generating positive results. EMC2 is planning to conduct comprehensive experiments on WB-8 in the next 9-12 months based on the current contract funding schedule.

Jobs Created 11.00

Description of Jobs Created two full time plasma physicists. one full time equivalent electrical engineer.
So figure another year before the final report. In the mean time testing is ongoing.
Click to expand...
i've heard the testing was perhaps 6 months behind schedule due to building the wb-8
So look towards end of 2011 for a report maybe.
Worst case scenario, may 2012.

I'll keep digging around for information today, see if i can find anything else

here:
Latest report from EMC2 is that the WB8 polywell fusion reactor is running as designed, and generating positive results. They are running a bit behind schedule due to some procurement issues, apparently related to sensors, but are getting positive results already and intend to continue experiments on WB8 for the next 9-12 months. This is very very good news.
Click to expand...

there ya go
 
Hey Goshin, how do you feel about China and Korea investing billions into test reactors, while at the same time the US is cutting the DOE's budget?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top