Polywell
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
was renewed and all went quiet.
The latest, as far as I can tell, is the wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
Also, any opinions on whether this is a good bet for a longterm solution?
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Uncle Al
>
> Any updates on the tech? Last I heard was that their Navy contract
> was renewed and all went quiet.
> The latest, as far as I can tell, is the wiki entry.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
>
> Also, any opinions on whether this is a good bet for a longterm solution?
"Bussard had reported a fusion rate of 10^9 per second running D-D
fusion reactions at only 12.5 kV (based on detection of a total of
nine neutrons in five tests"
That bespoke a considerable degree of optimism. Given the simplicity,
small size, and modest resources for operation of the device
contrasted with its budgeting, something is odorous.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Any updates on the tech? Last I heard was that their Navy contract
>> was renewed and all went quiet.
>> The latest, as far as I can tell, is the wiki entry.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
>>
>> Also, any opinions on whether this is a good bet for a longterm solution?
>
> "Bussard had reported a fusion rate of 10^9 per second running D-D
> fusion reactions at only 12.5 kV (based on detection of a total of
> nine neutrons in five tests"
>
> That bespoke a considerable degree of optimism. Given the simplicity,
> small size, and modest resources for operation of the device
> contrasted with its budgeting, something is odorous.
Not necessarily, for a couple of reasons.
First, I assume that the Navy would not keep topping up funds unless
their scientific advisers thought it a reasonable bet. Second, you can
do a hell of a lot of science and engineering with a small team (around
half a dozen?), a few million dollars and no middle management.
The google talk on this is:
http://tinyurl.com/yjdge2y
Any opinions on Focus Fusion?
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/category/C58/
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> >> Any updates on the tech? Last I heard was that their Navy contract
> >> was renewed and all went quiet.
> >> The latest, as far as I can tell, is the wiki entry.
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
> >>
> >> Also, any opinions on whether this is a good bet for a longterm solution?
> >
> > "Bussard had reported a fusion rate of 10^9 per second running D-D
> > fusion reactions at only 12.5 kV (based on detection of a total of
> > nine neutrons in five tests"
> >
> > That bespoke a considerable degree of optimism. Given the simplicity,
> > small size, and modest resources for operation of the device
> > contrasted with its budgeting, something is odorous.
>
> Not necessarily, for a couple of reasons.
> First, I assume that the Navy would not keep topping up funds unless
> their scientific advisers thought it a reasonable bet. Second, you can
> do a hell of a lot of science and engineering with a small team (around
> half a dozen?), a few million dollars and no middle management.
> The google talk on this is:
> http://tinyurl.com/yjdge2y
>
> Any opinions on Focus Fusion?
> http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/category/C58/
Power plants start around a GW thermal. Fission plants produce most
of their heat from fission product nuclear recoil. Half the energy of
hydrogen isotope fusion is carried away by fast neutrons. You
engineer that. Uncle Al will live far way, upstream, and upwind.
Richard D. Saam
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> Any updates on the tech? Last I heard was that their Navy contract
>>> was renewed and all went quiet.
>>> The latest, as far as I can tell, is the wiki entry.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
>>>
>>> Also, any opinions on whether this is a good bet for a longterm solution?
>> "Bussard had reported a fusion rate of 10^9 per second running D-D
>> fusion reactions at only 12.5 kV (based on detection of a total of
>> nine neutrons in five tests"
>>
>> That bespoke a considerable degree of optimism. Given the simplicity,
>> small size, and modest resources for operation of the device
>> contrasted with its budgeting, something is odorous.
>
> Not necessarily, for a couple of reasons.
> First, I assume that the Navy would not keep topping up funds unless
> their scientific advisers thought it a reasonable bet. Second, you can
> do a hell of a lot of science and engineering with a small team (around
> half a dozen?), a few million dollars and no middle management.
> The google talk on this is:
> http://tinyurl.com/yjdge2y
>
> Any opinions on Focus Fusion?
> http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/category/C58/
>
The following information was gleaned from Dr. Bussard's talk
Please check for accuracy
10 estimated Mev/nuclear fusion
1.60E-05 erg/nuclear fusion
1.00E+09 nuclear fusions
100 cm^3 (estimated volume reactor)
1.00E+07 nuclear fusions/cm^3
0.33333 test time frame in seconds
481 erg/sec/cm^3
4.81E-05 joule/sec/cm^3 (watt/cm^3)
It does not seem test apparatus was able to create
a useful energy density.
Richard D. Saam
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
True.
However, they are claimed to scale up proportional to some power law
making them rapidly attain breakeven with quite small machines. At
least, considerably smaller than a Tokamak.
I suppose my question really is: Are both these alternative approaches
potentially better than Tokamak?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Why should such plants start at 1GW?
Also, both systems seem to have ambitions that include p-B reactions
eric gisse
[...]
>
> Why should such plants start at 1GW?
Economies of scale, and the simple fact that we can build <1GW plants that
do NOT rely on such complex, unproven, and currently nonexistent technology.
> Also, both systems seem to have ambitions that include p-B reactions
>
Except all current attempts at fusion at power production scale involve some
combination of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> Power plants start around a GW thermal. Fission plants produce most
> of their heat from fission product nuclear recoil. Half the energy of
> hydrogen isotope fusion is carried away by fast neutrons. You
> engineer that. Uncle Al will live far way, upstream, and upwind.
>
Enclose the construct with lots and lots of graphite. The Wigner effect will
take care of the neutrons, and your lack of heat problem.
How to handle the fact that graphite burns and the energy release is
unpredictable and violently exothermic is an exercise for the reader.
Reading about the Windscale fire is suggested.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Why should such plants start at 1GW?
>
> Economies of scale, and the simple fact that we can build <1GW plants that
> do NOT rely on such complex, unproven, and currently nonexistent technology.
I assume you are including Tokamaks in that statement?
>> Also, both systems seem to have ambitions that include p-B reactions
>>
>
> Except all current attempts at fusion at power production scale involve some
> combination of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium.
And such power stations are 50 years away - always have been.
The Tokamak based design for a commercial fusion reactor is an
engineering nightmare that will be orders of magnitude more complex than
a fission reactor.
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Why should such plants start at 1GW?
>>
>> Economies of scale, and the simple fact that we can build <1GW plants
>> that do NOT rely on such complex, unproven, and currently nonexistent
>> technology.
>
> I assume you are including Tokamaks in that statement?
In neither part.
Gigawatt scale solar (of few designs), fission (of many designs) , and
fossil fuel plants already exist. Name me one fusion plant that can keep a
toaster running for 24 hours straight.
>
>>> Also, both systems seem to have ambitions that include p-B reactions
>>>
>>
>> Except all current attempts at fusion at power production scale involve
>> some combination of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium.
>
> And such power stations are 50 years away - always have been.
And always will be.
Sorry, fusion researchers ;{
Uncle Al
The Official advantages of a fusion plant are more than 2% fuel burn
(swelling in fission fuel pellets), 1% the molar mass, fuel
availability, and "no" radioactive waste.
*Projected* fusion burn cycles are seconds to minutes, fission runs
continuously. Tritium is inefficiently made in a nuclear reactor by
fission of Li-6. Handling megacuries of (hot) tritium is not a clever
thing as evidenced by leaks in tritium luminous safty sign, watch, and
gunsight manufacture on a vastly smaller scale. The reactor first
wall must be periodically replaced by robot. Everything in the
neutron path will be violently radioactive.
There is no way to efficiently capture the 50% of fusion energy
carried by produced fast neutrons. A thick blanket of molten lithium
allows both isotopes to be fissioned to tritium, plus a heat exchanger
and tritium head space recovery if operating over 900 C (dissociation
pressure vs. concentration; and you'll be venting mole-for-mole helium
anyway). An NaK breach is nasty. Add a few megacuries of tritium.
The handling of fission waste is a cakewalk by comparison.
All hydrogen facilties leak. Look at a Space Scuttle launch. See the
fireworks sparkling in the blast well? The Space Scuttle's liq H2/LOX
engines leak hydrogen from tankage through the pumps to the bell.
Uncle Al worked in a quartz-blowing facility, H2/O2 burners, hundreds
of them. All distribution lines were brazed copper tubing. A line
that did not hold pressure had everybody running with diluted shampoo
squirters. You could follow goop residues from the benches, across
the walls, past the manifolds, outside, back to the tankage trailer.
Nobody cut corners, people were very sincere, near everything
eventually leaked hydrogen.
Uncle Al says, "If you need even one PhD on your production line, you
don't have a production line." Fission plants are at best run by
retired nuclear Navy.
Now, the fun parts! When all automobiles have 200-800 lb lithium ion
battery packs by Enviro-whiner decree, will fusion reactor fill and
refill have priority? There are 254.4 million registered cars in the
US. Planetary lithium production is 12,500 tonnes/annum. 10 kg
lithium/car is 200 years of lithium production - if the mines hold
out.
No mining - hurts the environment and its fragile and endangered
species.