Fusion progress?
Poop Dogg
status of fusion research? What do you all estimate as how many
years until a self-sustaining fusion reaction is achieved that is
sufficient for commercial energy production?
I don't really see any viable alternative for future energy
production. Oil and coal will run out in the next few centuries,
and even if they were unlimited their combustion results in
the Greenhouse Effect, precluding their use.
Solar and wind power are cute, but their application is limited.
I just read about how they want to build a huge windmill farm
off the coast of Cape Cod, and the residents are not happy about
it at all. The same with solar, it requires a large land area
to generate useful amounts of energy, something that is bound
to be opposed on both environmental and aesthetic grounds.
Nuclear fission is an option, but it is political suicide for
any who would promote it. And there is also a limited supply
of nuclear fuel and disposal is also a political hot potato.
The final alternative is conservation, something that may delay
the problem slightly. The activists believe that somehow our
limited energy supply will be sufficient if factories somehow
manage to improve their efficiency to the point where they
consume only a few watts of power. They also want us to drive
tin can death traps and think they can legislate the efficiency
of internal combustion engines. Never mind that the U.S. and
world population continue to soar, meaning that any improvements
in efficiency, if possible, will be offset by the number of new
people consuming energy. In the end the oil and coal reserves
will be depleted, the greenhouse effect will accelerate, and
no new fission plants will be built.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Poop Dogg" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:V8GdnaJ1OKZ...@bravo.net...
> I'm interested in fusion but hardly an expert. What is the current
> status of fusion research? What do you all estimate as how many
> years until a self-sustaining fusion reaction is achieved that is
> sufficient for commercial energy production?
The current crop of tests (and I mean over the last 15-20 years current)
have come close enough to break even to do some fiddling with possible
designs. None of them are close enough to figure out if continuous function
is possible and they sure don't look very practical. The most successful are
the ones closest to repetitive detonations of the equivalent of a small
fission weapon, (the exploding wire X-Ray compression and the laser
compression). I haven't been really close to this recently, so some stuff
could be going on that I have just missed. A reasonable assessment today
would be that fusion is not a predictable mix in any future energy source.
Don't hold your breath.
Poop Dogg
>................................................The most successful are
>the ones closest to repetitive detonations of the equivalent of a small
>fission weapon, (the exploding wire X-Ray compression and the laser
>compression).
The laser method you mention, that's the method where pellet of
deuterium-tritium are dropped into a chamber and blasted with
a megapulse of laser energy to make them fuse?
I had read about that, I wonder why the Tokamak design was
chosen over the laser method?
Gordon D. Pusch
It hasn't. Both methods are being pursued as a Matter Of Official Policy,
as established back when Jimmy Carter pulled the DOE out of constitutional
nothingness. The reason why you don't hear as much about the laser implosion
research as you do about the tokomak research is because most of it is "black:"
Classified TOP SECRET. Laser implosion physics is considered to be so closely
related to H-bomb physics, and uses so many of the same computational methods
that it must be done "Behind The Fence" at the same secured facilities that
design nuclear weapons, such as Livermore or Sandia. (Indeed, much of the
laser implosion work is funded by the "Nuclear Weapons Stewardship Program,"
and there is a school of conspiracy theory that it is all just a "cover"
for an end-run around the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, by simulating
nuclear weapons physics in miniture...)
The other factor is that lasers are so bloody inefficient that it is rather
unlikely laser-driven implosion is ever going to produce enough "gain" to
reach "Engineering Breakeven." ("Scientific Breakeven" --- getting as much
energy out of the pellet as you put into it --- is probably quite possible,
but getting as much energy out of the pellet as you put into the _laser_
requires at LEAST another order of magnitude or two of gain out of the burn...)
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Paul Studier
> status of fusion research? What do you all estimate as how many
> years until a self-sustaining fusion reaction is achieved that is
> sufficient for commercial energy production?
Fusion will probably never beat fission.
---------snip
> Nuclear fission is an option, but it is political suicide for
> any who would promote it. And there is also a limited supply
> of nuclear fuel and disposal is also a political hot potato.
There is a very large amount of uranium in the world.
If you double the price you are willing to pay, the amount
of uranium available increases by about 5.5 times.
Uranium is so cheap that breeders have been put on
the back burner. With breeders, you could afford to
extract uranium from the ocean and have a billion years
supply. See
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html.
Nuclear waste is not as much as a problem as many
other types of waste, especially if we reprocess. The
answer is to wrap it in copper, and bury it in granite,
which is reducing. The containers should last a million
years, with the granite as a back-up.
Fusion will be scary to the watermelons. It also has
waste from decommissioning. It produces and uses
tritium, which is difficult to contain. If you can convince
people that fusion is save, then you can convince them
that fission is safe.
Finally, breeder reactors and reprocessing has been
demonstrated in several countries. Go check out
http://www.iter.org/ to see the proposed next generation
of fusion experiment. Then check out
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/reactors/iter-fusion-briefing-notes.html
to see why environmentalists are opposing fusion.
--
Paul Studier <Stu...@pleasenospamtoPaulStudier.com>
When you work, you create.
When you win, you just take from the loser.
For an explanation, see http://paulstudier.com/win
John Wilson
> "Fred B. McGalliard" wrote in message ...
>
>>................................................The most successful are
>>the ones closest to repetitive detonations of the equivalent of a small
>>fission weapon, (the exploding wire X-Ray compression and the laser
>>compression).
>
>
> The laser method you mention, that's the method where pellet of
> deuterium-tritium are dropped into a chamber and blasted with
> a megapulse of laser energy to make them fuse?
Yes
>
> I had read about that, I wonder why the Tokamak design was
> chosen over the laser method?
>
>
It's easier to see how a Tokomak could be the heat source for a
commercial power plant. Also, for most of its history, Tokomaks gave the
best plasma conditions of any fusion approach.
Take a look at:
http://query.llnl.gov/llnl-sci-cat/sci-search-topic.taf?_function=list&Category=Fusion
for the spectrum of work going on at just one of the National
Laboratories (Livermore). The Big Deal there is the National Ignition
Facility, the most advanced laser fusion system in the world.
For some of the other US fusion research:
There are numerous other sites working smaller pieces of the puzzle and
alternate approaches. The big international thrust is ITER:
Check the US Department of Energy site, too:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do
as well as equivalent organizations in other countries, especially the
British UKAEA, (United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency) and the French CEA
(Commisariat d'Energy Atomique) have information about those countries'
programs.
73,
JohnW
James Logajan
...
> I just read about how they want to build a huge windmill farm
> off the coast of Cape Cod, and the residents are not happy about
> it at all. The same with solar, it requires a large land area
> to generate useful amounts of energy, something that is bound
> to be opposed on both environmental and aesthetic grounds.
Actually solar is about as environmentally benign an energy source as one
is ever likely to find within the biosphere. And environmentalists
generally have no problems with it. There is approximately a gigawatt of
solar power incident per square kilometer. Assuming only ~3 full-sun-
hours/day insolation and ~20% conversion (the theoretical thermodynamic
limit is ~95% conversion efficiency (though not with PV cells)) you'd need
an area of land (or sea) of ~500,000 km^2 (a square of ~700 km * 700 km) to
replace ALL other sources of power for the ENTIRE world, which is estimated
to be on the order of ~400 quadrillion BTUs/year (~4*10^20 J/year):
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html .
By comparison, the total surface area taken up by water reservoirs is
also about 500,000 km^2:
http://webworld.unesco.org/water/ihp/publications/waterway/webpc/pag21.html
I don't know what the surface area of farmland is, but I'm sure if only a
small fraction of it were turned over to direct solar power production (as
opposed to the low efficiency production of food energy) it would also
suffice.
So if you think solar power is "cute", you've been standing too long in the
noon day sun! ;-)
Paul Studier
news:Xns93FC9001452C...@129.250.170.85...
>
> Actually solar is about as environmentally benign an energy source as one
> is ever likely to find within the biosphere. And environmentalists
> generally have no problems with it.
I doubt that it is environmentally benign. It is very
difficult to add up all the adverse environmental
impacts that go into a product, but a rough estimate
can be made by looking at its cost. The higher the
price, the more stuff that goes into it. Solar is very
expensive. In addition, if renewables are to make
up any significant percentage of the electricity
generation, then the cost must either include storage,
or the capital costs of fossil fuel and nuclear plants
used to back it up.
The environmentalists used to have no problem
with wind, but now that wind is growing, there is
growing opposition to it.
Gordon D. Pusch
> The environmentalists used to have no problem
> with wind, but now that wind is growing, there is
> growing opposition to it.
Indeed, there is a long history of "environmentalists" switching their support
for each "alternate" energy technology from "Let's wait and conserve until
energy technology X is ready" to "Technology X is harmful to the environment!"
once "technology X" actually starts coming into wider use. This demonstrates
that their _REAL_ agenda is actually only the "Let's wait and conserve!" part:
They don't _really_ want people using =ANY= source of energy...
Roland Paterson-Jones
> the problem slightly. The activists believe that somehow our
> limited energy supply will be sufficient if factories somehow
> manage to improve their efficiency to the point where they
> consume only a few watts of power. They also want us to drive
> tin can death traps and think they can legislate the efficiency
> of internal combustion engines.
Sorry, that makes you a troll. Who are you really, and who is paying for
your silly posts to science groups?
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:bz4bb.472$vS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "James Logajan" <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93FC9001452C...@129.250.170.85...
> >
> > Actually solar is about as environmentally benign an energy source as
one
> > is ever likely to find within the biosphere. And environmentalists
> > generally have no problems with it.
>
> I doubt that it is environmentally benign. It is very
> difficult to add up all the adverse environmental
> impacts that go into a product, but a rough estimate
> can be made by looking at its cost. The higher the
> price, the more stuff that goes into it. Solar is very
> expensive. In addition, if renewables are to make
> up any significant percentage of the electricity
> generation, then the cost must either include storage,
> or the capital costs of fossil fuel and nuclear plants
> used to back it up.
You are missing the incidental costs of current energy usage. Global
warming, acid rain? Sometimes the (current) price is not representative of
the true (long-term) cost.
I, pencil. How many forests have been cheaply cut and burnt simply because
they were there?
Paul Studier
news:bkqgq6$6e0$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > I doubt that it [solar] is environmentally benign. It is very
> > difficult to add up all the adverse environmental
> > impacts that go into a product, but a rough estimate
> > can be made by looking at its cost. The higher the
> > price, the more stuff that goes into it. Solar is very
> > expensive. In addition, if renewables are to make
> > up any significant percentage of the electricity
> > generation, then the cost must either include storage,
> > or the capital costs of fossil fuel and nuclear plants
> > used to back it up.
>
> You are missing the incidental costs of current energy usage. Global
> warming, acid rain? Sometimes the (current) price is not representative of
> the true (long-term) cost.
>
> I, pencil. How many forests have been cheaply cut and burnt simply because
> they were there?
>
> Roland
>
> --
> Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
> Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
> http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
> mobile: +27 72 386 8045
> e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
>
>
No, I am not missing the incidental costs. I am just saying
that the true long term cost is extremely difficult to know,
but a good estimate is the current price.
What is the impact of all the hazardous chemicals such as
arsenic and cadmium contained in solar cells? Do solar
cells generate more energy in their life than it costs to
make them? Neither of these questions is easily
answered, but considering the high current cost of solar,
I doubt if they have less impact than other energy sources.
Fred B. McGalliard
...
> No, I am not missing the incidental costs. I am just saying
> that the true long term cost is extremely difficult to know,
> but a good estimate is the current price.
The current price is what folk are willing to pay, and what at least one
group is willing to produce it for, not it's value and not it's cost. If I
am buying it, and it is very important to me, and you are willing to sell it
cheaply, it has a nice low price. Great for me in the short run. If you
price it low and you save money by dumping your contaminated waste in the
river running down hill into "my land" I will eventually get to pay the full
cost. But if it runs into a lake on your side of our ephemeral boarder, what
do I care? But you see, this cost is still a cost, it is just born by folks
out of sight. If production costs were the only factor in price, you would
perhaps be right. In general, I don't think you can get away with this easy
assumption.
Paul Studier
news:HLq7...@news.boeing.com...
Good points. Price as an indicator of cost and of impact
is not perfect. However, without some accounting, how
could anyone conclude that solar is better or worse than
coal or nuclear or any other form of energy production?
Fred B. McGalliard
...
> Good points. Price as an indicator of cost and of impact
> is not perfect. However, without some accounting, how
> could anyone conclude that solar is better or worse than
> coal or nuclear or any other form of energy production?
True enough. Imagine cutting down forests to put up solar arrays. Sounds
silly to the US with it's vast deserts, but a lot of places do with what
they have locally. At the price of poor quality wood, solar panels could
look good to some folk.
Poop Dogg
>"Poop Dogg" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:V8GdnaJ1OKZ...@bravo.net...
>>
>> The final alternative is conservation, something that may delay
>> the problem slightly. The activists believe that somehow our
>> limited energy supply will be sufficient if factories somehow
>> manage to improve their efficiency to the point where they
>> consume only a few watts of power. They also want us to drive
>> tin can death traps and think they can legislate the efficiency
>> of internal combustion engines.
>
>Sorry, that makes you a troll. Who are you really, and who is paying for
>your silly posts to science groups?
I assure you I am not a troll nor am I on anybody's payroll. It
was simply my personal opinion which I stand behind unless someone
proves otherwise. The free market has done wonders in promoting
scientific development while the government has done virtually
nothing. So why is it the activists think that a machine's
efficiency can somehow be legislated? One would imagine that a
powerful and highly efficient internal combustion engine would
have already been developed if it were technically feasible. I
would enjoy driving a big SUV that got 100mpg. There are none,
though, because it is impossible! What the activists actually
achieve through mandatory fuel-economy legislation is the
production of tiny lightweight deathtraps with insufficient
power. This is NOT what the marketplace wants, therefore no one
purchases the vehicles.
Ken
need to be overcome to produce low cost solar cells plus efficient
energy storage systems could be greater than those of viable fusion
power. Solar cell costs of production have been coming down for years
with big gains in the pipeline, they could be set into roads and other
paved surfaces as well as roof areas without the need for dedicated
solar 'farms' and electrical storage technologies are really in their
infancy ( the most popular has barely changed in over a century). Give
them the kind of funding fusion research gets and see what happens.
Fusion faces a multitude of engineering difficulties and is unlikey
ever to be something the average person can install or operate. Solar
already economically pumps water from wells, provides power to homes
in remote locations and runs remote communications and it is still in
its infancy. I wouldn't be willing to bet it can't be scaled up
sufficiently to compete.
Ken
Paul Studier
news:8aabb9a1.03092...@posting.google.com...
> I find it difficult to believe that the engineering challenges that
> need to be overcome to produce low cost solar cells plus efficient
> energy storage systems could be greater than those of viable fusion
> power. Solar cell costs of production have been coming down for years
> with big gains in the pipeline, they could be set into roads and other
> paved surfaces as well as roof areas without the need for dedicated
> solar 'farms' and electrical storage technologies are really in their
> infancy ( the most popular has barely changed in over a century). Give
> them the kind of funding fusion research gets and see what happens.
From:
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/03budget/content/highlite/highlite.pdf
Fusion got 247 million in 2002 (page 47) and Solar got 89 million
(page 36) and total renewables (including solar) got 386 million (page 36).
> Fusion faces a multitude of engineering difficulties and is unlikey
> ever to be something the average person can install or operate. Solar
> already economically pumps water from wells, provides power to homes
> in remote locations and runs remote communications and it is still in
> its infancy. I wouldn't be willing to bet it can't be scaled up
> sufficiently to compete.
> Ken
I think that the energy industry should fund it's own research at it's
own risk and benefit, but it is better for the government to fund solar
that has actually produced some power, rather than fusion, which has
not. In addition, the generation time for innovation for renewables
is probably months or a couple years. For fusion it is about 20 years.
Scott A Crosby
> I find it difficult to believe that the engineering challenges that
> need to be overcome to produce low cost solar cells plus efficient
> energy storage systems could be greater than those of viable fusion
> power. Solar cell costs of production have been coming down for years
> with big gains in the pipeline, they could be set into roads and other
> paved surfaces as well as roof areas without the need for dedicated
> solar 'farms' and
Can you cite any non-speculative examples of this?
> electrical storage technologies are really in their infancy ( the
> most popular has barely changed in over a century).
THis might be physics talking. Computers are a matter of engineering
and manufacture, can you describe me a battery capable of storing,
say, 2.3e7 J of energy? Thats what coal gives us. (Hydrogen is 5 times
higher)
Right now, lithium ion batteries are good for about 7.2e5 J/kg. Find
me something signifigantly better at the same price and you have a
billion dollar invention. At the density of 7.2e5, one needs about
100,000 tons of batteries to equal the nightly production of a single
nuclear power plant.
> Solar already economically pumps water from wells, provides
> power to homes in remote locations and runs remote communications
> and it is still in its infancy.
Thats because its cheaper to put up $10,000 solar arrays than to put
up a $40,000 power line and deal with $10/month electric bills. I
cannot think of any cases where one has access to the grid and solar
remains the cheapest option.
> I wouldn't be willing to bet it can't be scaled up sufficiently to
> compete. Ken
Maybe in a speculative future, but not in any reasonable one I see.
Scott
Mark Carroll
Fred B. McGalliard <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
(snip)
>could be going on that I have just missed. A reasonable assessment today
>would be that fusion is not a predictable mix in any future energy source.
>Don't hold your breath.
That's interesting. I sort of had been holding my breath, figuring
that a lot of the practical issues like magnetic containment in
Tokamak-style fusion were engineering problems that would succumb
after enough dollars had been thrown at them, and the worst of the
environmental issues seemed to be figuring out how to safely handle
the tritium. Perhaps I am too easily taken in by the glowing
assessments from people who want their continuous fusion research
funded, though.
-- Mark
Fred B. McGalliard
"Mark Carroll" <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:68D*6g...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
The "it's just an engineering problem" issue makes it sound like it is just
around the corner. Not so. It is a fundamental physics problem that may be
soluble, but there is no guarantee, and so far much evidence to the
contrary. Every step up has been a revelation as to how difficult it is to
hold a plasma. It is like pushing on a rope, and it just gets a few orders
of magnitude harder with each magnitude closer to breakeven. Probably the
only workable engineering solution today would be a series of small H bombs
detonated in a large underground cavity. Hard to make practical, but the
physics is there. It seems rather likely that a large enough bunch of lasers
and we could make a fusion pellet go off, but the size of this array, and
the number of times it can be fired before it would have to be rebuilt seem
to be more fundamental physics than just engineering. But it is still
possible that we are just going about it wrong, and one clear eyed genius
with a new idea (not likely a minor variation on the current ideas but a
really new idea) and we might find that there is a way to make it work. But
it's like betting on the inside straight, when the deck has been in your 2
year old's hands and he may have eaten the card.
Bruce Scott TOK
|> The "it's just an engineering problem" issue makes it sound like it is just
|> around the corner. Not so. It is a fundamental physics problem that may be
|> soluble, but there is no guarantee, and so far much evidence to the
|> contrary. Every step up has been a revelation as to how difficult it is to
|> hold a plasma.
[...]
That is very true and it is the first thing you have to convince
laypeople of when discussing fusion. Alone among energy production
scenarios, we don't know all the physics of it.
A colleague here gave a talk Monday about edge physics and transport...
he mentioned with one exception every surprise about confinement (except
the H-mode) has been bad news.
At the moment, I don't feel relieved at all concerning the way the ITER
scenarios all depend so much on transport barrier scenarios. But...
..that's the reason we have to build the experiment. One of them,
anyway...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Roland Paterson-Jones
> "Roland Paterson-Jones" wrote in message ...
> >"Poop Dogg" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:V8GdnaJ1OKZ...@bravo.net...
> >>
> >> The final alternative is conservation, something that may delay
> >> the problem slightly. The activists believe that somehow our
> >> limited energy supply will be sufficient if factories somehow
> >> manage to improve their efficiency to the point where they
> >> consume only a few watts of power. They also want us to drive
> >> tin can death traps and think they can legislate the efficiency
> >> of internal combustion engines.
> >
> >Sorry, that makes you a troll. Who are you really, and who is paying for
> >your silly posts to science groups?
>
> scientific development while the government has done virtually
> nothing
The free market directs scientific development. It could be argued that the
20th century is a stagnation point in scientific endeavour. All of the
important physics and chemistry was done in the 19th century. The 20th
century endeavours are simply large-scale mop-up operations. Modern science
is impressive in its breadth, but not in its depth, and this is endemic due
to patent litigation and careful performance (publishing) monitoring of
academics.
> So why is it the activists think that a machine's
> efficiency can somehow be legislated? One would imagine that a
> powerful and highly efficient internal combustion engine would
> have already been developed if it were technically feasible. I
> would enjoy driving a big SUV that got 100mpg. There are none,
> though, because it is impossible!
It sounds like you are dead set on driving a SUV. Fair enough. You're
probably a big man who needs a big car. There are already some
electric-petrol hybrids that fit your bill, but they come at a premium
price.
You must realise that, given current ICE technology, the more power your
engine has, the less efficient it is at typical load. Typical load is what
you are doing 9 to 5, and also what you are doing on the
motorway/freeway/highway.
Electric hybrids smooth out the maximum power of the ICE with a highly
efficient electric engine for low power regimes, which is what you are doing
almost all the time. They are MORE efficient (mpg) in the urban cycle than
on the highway.
> What the activists actually
> achieve through mandatory fuel-economy legislation is the
> production of tiny lightweight deathtraps with insufficient
> power. This is NOT what the marketplace wants, therefore no one
> purchases the vehicles.
Firstly 'lightweight deathtraps' is an oxymoron in motoring terms. The
lighter your car, the quicker you can stop, turn, accelerate.
Head-on collisions constitute a minor quantity of MV accidents. Even so,
driving a light car lets you avoid more of them than driving a big car.
Change the tape, salute a passing wanker, check out the bouncing tits,
overtake on a blind rise, momentum rules when you have to correct your
previous driving line.
Secondly, what the market wants is skillfully manipulated by the producers.
Why do you want a big SUV? That class of car didn't exist 5, 10 or 20 years
ago. Why do you want a powerful engine? How often do you get the opportunity
to put your foot flat?
Gordon D. Pusch
> The free market directs scientific development. It could be argued that the
> 20th century is a stagnation point in scientific endeavour.
Perhaps in some fields, but not in others. Biology, for instance, is now
enering a period of explosive development; new bacterial genomes are now
being sequenced at the rate of one every other day, with the total amount
of data in GenBank doubling once every 18 mos. ther are currently on the
order of 200 complete prokaryotic genomes available, and 800 partially
sequenced genomes; in five years, we can expect those numbers to be in
excess of 1000 and 8000, respectively. Since the number of functional
connections between genes that can be infered via comparative analysis
goes uproughly as the square of the number of completely sequenced genomes,
it is highly likely that within five years, and certainly no more than ten,
all the major prokaryotic gene systems will have been catalogued, and we
will have a near-complete moloecular understanding of unicellular life.
(Complex multicellular lifeforms will take perhaps 5--10 years longer.)
> All of the important physics and chemistry was done in the 19th
> century.
That depends on one's definition of "important." Your definition appears to
consider both quantum mechanics and Einstein's Relativity to be "unimportant;"
also nuclear power, solid-state electronics, lasers, superconductivity, etc.,
etc....
> The 20th century endeavours are simply large-scale mop-up operations.
Uh-huh. What history books have _you_ been reading ???
> Modern science is impressive in its breadth, but not in its depth,
Nice buzzphrase; I'm sure it sounds very good to other post-modern
pseudo-intellectuals. Now: Please operationally define what you mean
by "depth," without use of more meaningless post-modern buzzphrases,
or reference to anti-intellectual loons like Feyerabend.
> and this is endemic due to patent litigation and careful performance
> (publishing) monitoring of academics.
That has very little to do with the nature of science per se, and a great
deal to do with the proliferation of government and corporate funding policies,
government regulatory poloicies, and the explosive proliferation of those
social parasites known as "Bureaucrats" and "Lawyers."
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:gin0cjm...@pusch.xnet.com...
> "Roland Paterson-Jones" <rol...@rolandpj.com> writes:
>
> > The free market directs scientific development. It could be argued that
the
> > 20th century is a stagnation point in scientific endeavour.
>
> Perhaps in some fields, but not in others. Biology, for instance, is now
> enering a period of explosive development; new bacterial genomes are now
> being sequenced at the rate of one every other day, with the total amount
> of data in GenBank doubling once every 18 mos. ther are currently on the
> order of 200 complete prokaryotic genomes available, and 800 partially
> sequenced genomes; in five years, we can expect those numbers to be in
> excess of 1000 and 8000, respectively. Since the number of functional
> connections between genes that can be infered via comparative analysis
> goes uproughly as the square of the number of completely sequenced
genomes,
> it is highly likely that within five years, and certainly no more than
ten,
> all the major prokaryotic gene systems will have been catalogued, and we
> will have a near-complete moloecular understanding of unicellular life.
> (Complex multicellular lifeforms will take perhaps 5--10 years longer.)
I think this is a perfect example of my breadth vs. depth, and a classic
mopping up operation. Modern science will catalogue the genes. This is not a
result of deep thought, but rather of broad-based co-operative manual
labour.
> > All of the important physics and chemistry was done in the 19th
> > century.
>
> That depends on one's definition of "important." Your definition appears
to
> consider both quantum mechanics and Einstein's Relativity to be
"unimportant;"
> also nuclear power, solid-state electronics, lasers, superconductivity,
etc.,
> etc....
Sure, the creativity leaked over into the early 20th C. I imagine even GR
was conceived by Albert fairly early on, but took some time to formulate
properly.
Your other examples are more engineering than science.
>
> > Modern science is impressive in its breadth, but not in its depth,
>
> Nice buzzphrase;
Thanks, dude.
> Now: Please operationally define what you mean
> by "depth," without use of more meaningless post-modern buzzphrases,
> or reference to anti-intellectual loons like Feyerabend.
As man strives to become one with the infinite cosmos, the depth of his
thrusts into the fertile but mysterious secrets of mother earth can be
likened to the sweet spring rain on the parched Indian desert.
Just kidding. In my mind a 'deep' result is a consistent theory like EM, GR
etc., that unifies previous concepts or theories, is easily understood by a
decent number of people, and provides plenty of opportunity for prediction
(engineering) and hence testing.
A 'broad' result, on the other hand, is the result of many parallel
woman-hours following a single line of thought established at the start of
the endeavour. Academic research often follows this pattern.
Much love
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
> perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Cool sig.
Ken
isn't worth funding r&d in that area. Sure I'm doing some speculation
but solar cell production costs have been coming down. I've seen a
quote from Prof. Rob Largent of the University of NSW' s Photovoltaic
Research Group in an issue of Australian Geographic claiming that
production methods they've developed should result in production
costs about 1/20th of those in commercial use currently - I think he
was referrring to polycrystalline cells as the currently used method.
Speculation? Sure, but based on good science. Exageration? Possibly,
but their reseach has produced significant improvements in solar cell
efficiencies as well as improved production methods suited to mass
production. As for embedding solar cells into road surfaces, again I'm
speculating, but it's hardly rocket science or fusion physics to set
cells into hardened tiles that could be set into road surfaces.
I'm not sure what limits there are with batteries but I do know it's
not simply a matter of how much energy per kilogram - although very
high energy densities would indeed be very useful, making electric
vehicles a viable proposition. In load levelling 100, 000 tons for 1
night's power usage for a small city might be economically feasable if
the cost over the lifetime of the batteries are low. Efficiencies are
measured in numerous ways but clearly losses of energy in charge and
discharge are important as is battery life and very importantly, costs
over time. Batteries have a long long way to come but fusion has a lot
further.
I'd still bet my money on solar ahead of fusion, which, given that it
hasn't provided any usable power so far, has costs per kw somewhere
near infinity.
Ken
Steve Spence
might spoil their multi million $$$$ views. Not those truly concerned about
the environment, or any that stayed awake in science class.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Poop Dogg" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:V8GdnaJ1OKZ...@bravo.net...
> I'm interested in fusion but hardly an expert. What is the current
> status of fusion research? What do you all estimate as how many
> years until a self-sustaining fusion reaction is achieved that is
> sufficient for commercial energy production?
>
> I don't really see any viable alternative for future energy
> production. Oil and coal will run out in the next few centuries,
> and even if they were unlimited their combustion results in
> the Greenhouse Effect, precluding their use.
>
> Solar and wind power are cute, but their application is limited.
> I just read about how they want to build a huge windmill farm
> off the coast of Cape Cod, and the residents are not happy about
> it at all. The same with solar, it requires a large land area
> to generate useful amounts of energy, something that is bound
> to be opposed on both environmental and aesthetic grounds.
> Nuclear fission is an option, but it is political suicide for
> any who would promote it. And there is also a limited supply
> of nuclear fuel and disposal is also a political hot potato.
>
> The final alternative is conservation, something that may delay
> the problem slightly. The activists believe that somehow our
> limited energy supply will be sufficient if factories somehow
> manage to improve their efficiency to the point where they
> consume only a few watts of power. They also want us to drive
> tin can death traps and think they can legislate the efficiency
> of internal combustion engines. Never mind that the U.S. and
> world population continue to soar, meaning that any improvements
> in efficiency, if possible, will be offset by the number of new
> people consuming energy. In the end the oil and coal reserves
> will be depleted, the greenhouse effect will accelerate, and
> no new fission plants will be built.
>
>
asontag
----snip
>
> Nuclear waste is not as much as a problem as many
> other types of waste, especially if we reprocess.
Too bad reprocessing is illegal. I agree with you that reprocessing
and deep waste storage are the way to go, but it will never happen due
to politics. There are just too many people who want fission to go
away for good. And the public has been scared by too many years of
mushroom clouds and impossible mutations in the popular media to let a
little thing like reality convince them that fission isn't dangerous.
>
> Fusion will be scary to the watermelons. It also has
> waste from decommissioning. It produces and uses
> tritium, which is difficult to contain. If you can convince
> people that fusion is save, then you can convince them
> that fission is safe.
Fusion waste is safe after 100 years. Fission waste is safe after
10,000 years. Seems like fission has a bit more of a waste problem to
me. Also you need to realize that the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle is
only the first step for fusion because it is the easiest to achieve
breakeven with. Advanced fuel cycles such as deuterium-helium3 produce
a couple of orders of magnitude less waste and allow for direct
conversion of the fusion product kinetic energy to electricity at a
theoretical efficieny of ~80% by bypassing the Carnot cycle.
>
> Go check out
> http://www.iter.org/ to see the proposed next generation
> of fusion experiment. Then check out
> http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/reactors/iter-fusion-briefing-notes.html
> to see why environmentalists are opposing fusion.
Fusion is scary to environmentalists only because it gets lumped in
with fission in the larger category of nuclear power. It is almost
impossible for a fusion plant to have an accident that harms anyone
off-site. The Sierra Club arguments are pretty pathetic. They complain
about spending anything on a plant that won't produce electricity, but
the money spent on new energy research is a fraction of a percent on
what is spent on energy. At least a percent or two reinvestment in new
technology is common in most industries. It shouldn't be so much to
ask for something so important as energy.
Aaron
asontag
> "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:gin0cjm...@pusch.xnet.com...
> > "Roland Paterson-Jones" <rol...@rolandpj.com> writes:
> >
> > > The free market directs scientific development. It could be argued that
> the
> > > 20th century is a stagnation point in scientific endeavour.
> >
> > Perhaps in some fields, but not in others. Biology, for instance, is now
> > enering a period of explosive development;
> > (Complex multicellular lifeforms will take perhaps 5--10 years longer.)
>
> I think this is a perfect example of my breadth vs. depth, and a classic
> mopping up operation. Modern science will catalogue the genes. This is not a
> result of deep thought, but rather of broad-based co-operative manual
> labour.
Then why did it start so late if it is just a problem of labor? Oh
wait, because they didn't know how to sequence genes until recently.
Developing the techniques to perform this task required plenty of
in-depth thought. Just because most people can't understand the
details until they are well on their way to a PhD in the field doesn't
mean that there isn't plenty of good science going on.
>
> > > All of the important physics and chemistry was done in the 19th
> > > century.
> >
> > That depends on one's definition of "important." Your definition appears
> to
> > consider both quantum mechanics and Einstein's Relativity to be
> "unimportant;"
> > also nuclear power, solid-state electronics, lasers, superconductivity,
> etc.,
> > etc....
>
> Sure, the creativity leaked over into the early 20th C. I imagine even GR
> was conceived by Albert fairly early on, but took some time to formulate
> properly.
>
> Your other examples are more engineering than science.
How about string theory and all of modern high-energy physics? If you
think that is engineering, then you are mistaken.
> >
> > > Modern science is impressive in its breadth, but not in its depth,
> >
> > Nice buzzphrase;
>
> Thanks, dude.
>
> > Now: Please operationally define what you mean
> > by "depth," without use of more meaningless post-modern buzzphrases,
> > or reference to anti-intellectual loons like Feyerabend.
>
> Just kidding. In my mind a 'deep' result is a consistent theory like EM, GR
> etc., that unifies previous concepts or theories, is easily understood by a
> decent number of people, and provides plenty of opportunity for prediction
> (engineering) and hence testing.
String theory satisfies all of your requirements, as long as you
consider a decent number of people to be those who understand the
math.
>
> A 'broad' result, on the other hand, is the result of many parallel
> woman-hours following a single line of thought established at the start of
> the endeavour. Academic research often follows this pattern.
>
You seem to consider only major shifts in scientific thought to be
'deep'. Things like Newtonian mechanics, E&M, general relativity and
quantum mechanics were entirely new ways of viewing the universe.
These new views were necessary in part because of the flaws of the
previous views, or because there was no real scientific description at
all before some of these results. Perhaps we haven't seen a major
shift in thinking in the last century because we are finally on the
right path and don't need a major correction. Also, each of these
theories as originally proposed represents a new framework, not a
complete and finished body of work. The rest of science involves
filling in the details in these broad theories, which still requires
plenty of deep thought. I argue that the filling in of details that
has happened in the last century makes modern science much more 'deep'
than anything that came before.
Aaron
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:fd8504df.03101...@posting.google.com...
> "Roland Paterson-Jones" <rol...@rolandpj.com> wrote in message
news:<bljeqa$4fb$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> > "Gordon D. Pusch" <gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com> wrote in message
<snipped badly to preserve the thread>
Re. modern science is broad but not deep.
> > > > Modern science is impressive in its breadth, but not in its depth
> > > Perhaps in some fields, but not in others. Biology, for instance, is
now
> > > enering a period of explosive development;
>
> Then why did it start so late if it is just a problem of labor? ...
> ... Just because most people can't understand the
> details until they are well on their way to a PhD in the field doesn't
> mean that there isn't plenty of good science going on.
Indeed, it took a good amount of engineering to develop the tools.
Interestingly the analytical tools are mostly statistical (I have had
incidental experience as a programmer). On the machines that produce the
sequencing data, I can't comment. It's certainly a clever application of
physical and organic chemistry.
> > > > All of the important physics and chemistry was done in the 19th
> > > > century.
>
> How about string theory and all of modern high-energy physics? If you
> think that is engineering, then you are mistaken.
String theory is hamstrung by it's poor prediction. High energy physics is
conducted according to standard model, which is an ugly pastiche of
experimental data.
> You seem to consider only major shifts in scientific thought to be
> 'deep'. Things like Newtonian mechanics, E&M, general relativity and
> quantum mechanics were entirely new ways of viewing the universe.
Yes, indeed, paradigm shifts, if you want to become party to popular jargon.
> These new views were necessary in part because of the flaws of the
> previous views, or because there was no real scientific description at
> all before some of these results. Perhaps we haven't seen a major
> shift in thinking in the last century because we are finally on the
> right path and don't need a major correction.
I doubt that. Modern physics is messy. It's yucky.
> Also, each of these
> theories as originally proposed represents a new framework, not a
> complete and finished body of work. The rest of science involves
> filling in the details in these broad theories, which still requires
> plenty of deep thought. I argue that the filling in of details that
> has happened in the last century makes modern science much more 'deep'
> than anything that came before.
Well, that's exactly my argument inverted, and you're wrong. A good theory
presents opportunity for further scientific experiment.
The problem with modern science-by-concensus, a.k.a. filling the gaps, is
that there is little scope for creative endeavour.
A guy I worked with as a cook (I was a waiter) in a restaurant in South
Africa was studying local fauna for his Ph.D. Unfortunately, his findings
contradicted the existing theory, and he found himself in a quandry. Should
he fudge his results and get an easy Ph.D., or should he try to publish his
results regardless?
asontag
What? Heterotic super string theory is the first theory to incorporate
gravity into quantum field theory while also predicting the existence
of all of the elementary particles. Sound like good prediction to me.
>
> > You seem to consider only major shifts in scientific thought to be
> > 'deep'. Things like Newtonian mechanics, E&M, general relativity and
> > quantum mechanics were entirely new ways of viewing the universe.
>
> Yes, indeed, paradigm shifts, if you want to become party to popular jargon.
>
Ok, so you only consider paradigm shifts to be the result of deep
thinking. By that logic, Michael Jordan was the only good basketball
player. I think that is an unreasonably high bar to set.
> > These new views were necessary in part because of the flaws of the
> > previous views, or because there was no real scientific description at
> > all before some of these results. Perhaps we haven't seen a major
> > shift in thinking in the last century because we are finally on the
> > right path and don't need a major correction.
>
> I doubt that. Modern physics is messy. It's yucky.
The details are invariably messy, but the underlying principles are
quite simplistic. That's why I invert your argument below. Coming up
with the beautiful principles and the elegant arguments is great, but
the real depth comes from understanding all of the messy details. I
understand a broad range of science topics in general, but there are
only a couple that I can go into gory detail on. I consider that
ability to be able to go into detail an indicator of the depth of
knowledge.
>
> > Also, each of these
> > theories as originally proposed represents a new framework, not a
> > complete and finished body of work. The rest of science involves
> > filling in the details in these broad theories, which still requires
> > plenty of deep thought. I argue that the filling in of details that
> > has happened in the last century makes modern science much more 'deep'
> > than anything that came before.
>
> Well, that's exactly my argument inverted, and you're wrong. A good theory
> presents opportunity for further scientific experiment.
>
No, you're wrong, and evidently we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Filling in the details is the further scientific experiment that tests
the theory. If in the course of filling in the details, something
doesn't fit, then the theory needs to be adjusted. This happens quite
often in modern science. Outlying cases are not thrown out. Theories
are changed on a regular basis to make them more accurate. This is not
some brute force effort but the result of many intelligent people
trying to understand problems on a fundamental level to find the
solutions.
> The problem with modern science-by-concensus, a.k.a. filling the gaps, is
> that there is little scope for creative endeavour.
What do you mean by 'science-by-concensus'? It sounds like you are
saying that there is something wrong with being required to prove what
you say to your peers. If you have something controversial to say and
there is some disbelief, you will have to fight harder, but your
results will be more significant. No one ever got famous for proving
something that everyone already knew was correct. Spewing out
controversial crap without any proof is for usenet, not scientific
journals.
As for scope for creative endeavor, there is all of the room you want
to throw out any idea. You just have to be able to defend yourself
from the criticism that will come from the mainstream that you
apparently think will be in opposition. I'm sure there are cases of
some 'establishment' squashing some radical new idea, but at least in
my field, crazy ideas are tolerated almost to a fault. People don't
shoot down ideas just because they're new out of pragmatism. If it
turns out to be right, then those who tried to stop it for no reason
lose clout. There's no better defense of a new idea than success.
>
> A guy I worked with as a cook (I was a waiter) in a restaurant in South
> Africa was studying local fauna for his Ph.D. Unfortunately, his findings
> contradicted the existing theory, and he found himself in a quandry. Should
> he fudge his results and get an easy Ph.D., or should he try to publish his
> results regardless?
That's not a quandy. If you fudge your results, you will be found out
sooner or later. The PhD is worthless without a good reputation. I
hope he published what he found.
Aaron
Paul M Koloc
asontag wrote:
> "Paul Studier" <stu...@pleasenospamtopaulstudier.com> wrote in message news:<RwSab.10751$BS5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> ----snip
>
> Fusion waste is safe after 100 years. Fission waste is safe after
> 10,000 years. Seems like fission has a bit more of a waste problem to
> me. Also you need to realize that the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle is
> only the first step for fusion because it is the easiest to achieve
> breakeven with. Advanced fuel cycles such as deuterium-helium3 produce
> a couple of orders of magnitude less waste and allow for direct
> conversion of the fusion product kinetic energy to electricity at a
> theoretical efficieny of ~80% by bypassing the Carnot cycle.
But you will never be able to get a burn with D-He3 using an Iter
(tokamak) power reactor. The plasma pressure (n*T[D-He3]) product with
the confinement time is too low to get a break-even ignition.
>> Go check out
>>http://www.iter.org/ to see the proposed next generation
>>of fusion experiment. Then check out
>>http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/reactors/iter-fusion-briefing-notes.html
>>to see why environmentalists are opposing fusion.
>
>
> Fusion is scary to environmentalists only because it gets lumped in
> with fission in the larger category of nuclear power. It is almost
> impossible for a fusion plant to have an accident that harms anyone
> off-site. The Sierra Club arguments are pretty pathetic. They complain
> about spending anything on a plant that won't produce electricity, but
> the money spent on new energy research is a fraction of a percent on
> what is spent on energy. At least a percent or two reinvestment in new
> technology is common in most industries. It shouldn't be so much to
> ask for something so important as energy.
>
> Aaron
The Sierra Club complaint is legitimate, and is based on the cost to
risk ratio. This also includes the environment. The Iter and all other
tokamaks and Stellarators are fatally flawed by engineering realities.
The engineering problem is the inability to reach and sustain (over
time) the appropriate plasma pressure for a commercial burn. Making the
beast bigger will not help since the pressure does not scale well with
size. Disruption of the energy stored in the huge stablizing toroidal
field magnets is a serious threat to the facility and near neighborhood.
These primative concepts will only act as black holes for money**, as
well as pose an expensive cleanup problem within a couple of years after
"burning plasma" attempts are made.
There is a better class approach: Magnetic target fusion (MTF). The
principal problem is finding the highly conductive, rugged target. That
work by comparison to the tokamak has just started and is not yet mature.
Warning: MTF is not approved by the tokamak oriented USDOE.
** First quoted by Joe Davidson (formerly DoE)
--
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FX (301) 434-6737:
|--PH (301) 445-1075 ; mailto:p...@plasmak.com
|--Raising Support ; //www.neoteric-research.org
|--Grid Power ; //www.prometheus2.net
|------------------------------------------------------------|
asontag
> asontag wrote:
> > "Paul Studier" <stu...@pleasenospamtopaulstudier.com> wrote in message news:<RwSab.10751$BS5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > ----snip
> >
> > Fusion waste is safe after 100 years. Fission waste is safe after
> > 10,000 years. Seems like fission has a bit more of a waste problem to
> > me. Also you need to realize that the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle is
> > only the first step for fusion because it is the easiest to achieve
> > breakeven with. Advanced fuel cycles such as deuterium-helium3 produce
> > a couple of orders of magnitude less waste and allow for direct
> > conversion of the fusion product kinetic energy to electricity at a
> > theoretical efficieny of ~80% by bypassing the Carnot cycle.
>
> But you will never be able to get a burn with D-He3 using an Iter
> (tokamak) power reactor. The plasma pressure (n*T[D-He3]) product with
> the confinement time is too low to get a break-even ignition.
>
I didn't say that D-He3 would be used in ITER. ITER (or any currently
proposed burning plasma experiment) is just the next step towards
fusion and will use D-T. I was speaking of much farther down the road
when fusion becomes more mature. Fusion confinement time has been
increasing at twice the rate of computer chip speed for the last
couple of decades. There is no reason to think that it won't be
possible to reach confinement times that allow us to burn D-He3
eventually.
ITER is not the grand culmination of fusion research. It is simply a
tool to allow the study of burning, near steady-state plasmas. There
are constant refinements going on to make these devices more reliable
and economically attractive. Burning plasma physics is just one more
piece of the puzzle needed before the step to a demo plant is made.
Such a plant would incorporate the results of all the research on
other experiments that goes on while ITER is being built as well as
the ITER burning plasma results.
> >> Go check out
> >>http://www.iter.org/ to see the proposed next generation
> >>of fusion experiment. Then check out
> >>http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/reactors/iter-fusion-briefing-notes.html
> >>to see why environmentalists are opposing fusion.
> >
> >
> > Fusion is scary to environmentalists only because it gets lumped in
> > with fission in the larger category of nuclear power. It is almost
> > impossible for a fusion plant to have an accident that harms anyone
> > off-site. The Sierra Club arguments are pretty pathetic. They complain
> > about spending anything on a plant that won't produce electricity, but
> > the money spent on new energy research is a fraction of a percent on
> > what is spent on energy. At least a percent or two reinvestment in new
> > technology is common in most industries. It shouldn't be so much to
> > ask for something so important as energy.
> >
> > Aaron
>
> The Sierra Club complaint is legitimate, and is based on the cost to
> risk ratio. This also includes the environment.
What are the risks you are talking about? Is it the supposed tritium
releases? If so, please tell me why there will definitely be releases
that harm the environment. It's easy to throw out those accusations
without any proof. Please convince me that there is a real problem,
and that this isn't just another environmental scare tactic.
>The Iter and all other
> tokamaks and Stellarators are fatally flawed by engineering realities.
Name one (besides the incorrect ones below).
> The engineering problem is the inability to reach and sustain (over
> time) the appropriate plasma pressure for a commercial burn.
Pressure really isn't the problem for producing a burn. High pressure
provides better economics, but a burn can be achieve at relatively
modest pressures. Fusion isn't ready for the commercial aspect because
of the necessity to study burning plasma physics before a power plant
is built. Specifically, the ability to sustain the burn using alpha
heating, removal of helium ash and other impurity concerns etc. need
to be studied in an ITER-like environment.
> Making the
> beast bigger will not help since the pressure does not scale well with
> size. Disruption of the energy stored in the huge stablizing toroidal
> field magnets is a serious threat to the facility and near neighborhood.
Ok, first making the device bigger does help with confinement, but
you're right about pressure; that is better optimized through a change
in aspect ratio, which can be done at any size. For results on high
pressure, look at ST (spherical tokamak) results. Recent results from
NSTX show that high-pressure discharges can be achieved and sustained.
The ST is still relatively new, so it is not ready for a burning
plasma type machine yet, but the promise of stable high-pressure
plasmas is there.
The problem with disruptions is not the energy stored in the TF, but
rather the energy stored in the plasma, and that has been solved. Read
the following paper for the details:
Disruption mitigation with high-pressure noble gas injection
Author(s): Whyte, D.G.; Jernigan, T.C.; Humphreys, D.A.; Hyatt, A.W.;
Lasnier, C.J.; Parks, P.B.; Evans, T.E.; Taylor, P.L.; Kellman, A.G.;
Gray, D.S.; Hollmann, E.M.
Publication: Journal of Nuclear Materials
Volume: 313-316
Start Page: 1239
Publication year: 2003
Basically, when disruption pre-cursors are detected, a large volume of
high pressure gas is injected into the plasma. This causes the plasma
to radiate away the stored energy harmlessly as visible light. This
has been demonstrated experimentally on DIII-D.
Any other engineering show stoppers you think can't be solved?
> These primative concepts will only act as black holes for money**, as
> well as pose an expensive cleanup problem within a couple of years after
> "burning plasma" attempts are made.
>
So is all scientific research that does not have an immediate pay off
a 'black hole for money**'?
> There is a better class approach: Magnetic target fusion (MTF). The
> principal problem is finding the highly conductive, rugged target. That
> work by comparison to the tokamak has just started and is not yet mature.
>
> Warning: MTF is not approved by the tokamak oriented USDOE.
> ** First quoted by Joe Davidson (formerly DoE)
What do you mean that it is not approved? There is DOE funded research
at Los Alamos on MTF going on as we speak (here's a link that even has
a picture: http://fusionenergy.lanl.gov/). And why do you say that MTF
is a better approach? It's a fairly new idea, but it has a long way to
go to show that is even a leading contender among the tokamak
alternates. BTW, DOE is currently moving forward rapidly on a large,
well funded stellarator project, NCSX at PPPL, so is not quite so
tokamak-centric as you might suppose. There are also plenty of
alternate concepts being funded by DOE, besides the almost mainstream
ST, there's the RFP, the levatated dipole, the spheromak as well as
the FRC used in MTF, and I'm sure that I'm forgetting something. The
tokamak is the main concept because it has been the most successful.
As other concepts do well, they receive the funding to compete.
Aaron
Paul M Koloc
asontag wrote:
> Paul M Koloc <xp...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<3F8E4F2D...@starpower.net>...
>
>>asontag wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul Studier" <stu...@pleasenospamtopaulstudier.com> wrote in message news:<RwSab.10751$BS5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>>----snip
>>>
>>
>> > Fusion waste is safe after 100 years. Fission waste is safe after
>>
>>>10,000 years. Seems like fission has a bit more of a waste problem to
>>>me. Also you need to realize that the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle is
>>>only the first step for fusion because it is the easiest to achieve
>>>breakeven with. Advanced fuel cycles such as deuterium-helium3 produce
>>>a couple of orders of magnitude less waste and allow for direct
>>>conversion of the fusion product kinetic energy to electricity at a
>>>theoretical efficieny of ~80% by bypassing the Carnot cycle.
>>
>>But you will never be able to get a burn with D-He3 using an Iter
>>(tokamak) power reactor. The plasma pressure (n*T[D-He3]) product with
>>the confinement time is too low to get a break-even ignition.
>
> I didn't say that D-He3 would be used in ITER. ITER (or any currently
> proposed burning plasma experiment) is just the next step towards
> fusion and will use D-T. I was speaking of much farther down the road
> when fusion becomes more mature.
If tokamak can't burn D-T or D-H3, then it should be dropped. The ITER
will never produce a fully ignited or burning plasma even D-T. The BP
experiment is a gag by the tokamak community, designed to pull the wool
over the eyes of the appropriating committees. Burning plasma? Who could
be against that?
A commercial fusion generator will have to burn an aneutronic fuel.
Anything else is not acceptable to the general public, once they become
informed of the facts. If aneutronic development is much further down
the road, then considering the magnitude of the investment it takes for
tokamak research, the tokamak program should be halted. Commerce has
limitations on the cost and time tokamak development has and may take.
So the window of opportunity is closed on the tokamak. Our only
salvation is to put the funds on much smaller, more rugged, and mean,
lean concepts. They are out there. For example, a Spheromak topology
combined with MTF.
> ... .Fusion confinement time has been
> increasing at twice the rate of computer chip speed for the last
> couple of decades. There is no reason to think that it won't be
> possible to reach confinement times that allow us to burn D-He3
> eventually.
>
>
That's not the problem. You are being tricked the same way that the
tokamak program has tricked the appropriation committee into funding
this approach year after year for the past 40 years. Improving one or
another of the three factors necessary for fusion does nothing. The
measure of fusion has to do with a kind of volume, a product of three
factors, that must be reached simultaneously. Improving sustainment time
happens automatically by increasing the linear size of the machine. The
real problem is to improve the other factors.
The first factor of that volume is a critical temperature needed for
ignition. And, the needed temperature is significantly higher for
aneutronic fuels than for environmentally unacceptable D-T. So we are
talking huge increases in this value that must be sought before make
work projects that can't work siphon away needed funds. Besides, the
achievement of the higher needed aneutronic burn temperatures could be
explored using protium (hydrogen) or He-4 with H. We will do the
necessary science without jeopardizing the environment. Once aneutronic
parameters for all three factors are reached, then we can substitute the
"real fuel".
The next factor is density. That's easy? The highest plasma density
that can be achieved depends on the product of the poloidal Beta,
maximum achievable operating magnetic poloidal pressure, and the inverse
critical ignition temperature. No big deal, huh?
Let's think about it. The plasma confining poloidal magnetic pressure
increases with toroidal plasma current. If the plasma current is raised
too much, the toroidal current ring will become unstable; unless the
current through the toroidal field coils (field strength) that produces
the stablizing toroidal field is also increased proportionately. It
turns out that the engineers must build the toroidal field coils to
handle significantly higher currents and magnetic toroidal field
pressure than the poloidal field pressure produced by the toroidal
plasma current. Unfortunately design and mechanical limitations on the
maximum toroidal field coil pressure for a given aspect ratio and
toroidal size, will not be large enough to allow a significant increase
in stable toroidal plasma current and its associated poloidal field
strength. The maximum allowed plasma current maybe produces a poloidal
field pressure, which with the optimal poloidal Beta, only allows for
about ~10 atm of confining plasma pressure. Note that the system has a
negative pressure leverage. That is the toroidal field pressure must be
significantly higher than the plasma confining poloidal field. The
ratio of the toroidal coils field pressure is order ~1000s of atm, and
the plasma pressure is only order ~10 atmospheres. That's a ratio of
1000 to 10 or 100 to 1. Of course I could be wrong since as you say
the progress has been so earth shattering that I could be off by a few
tens.
The product of ignition Temperature, times a commercially workable fuel
density gives us the plasma pressure. Stars have lots of plasma pressure
at their cores and a high Beta since the field is very low and the nkT
is induced by gravity. Using a device that is a sort of inverse lever
and fulcrum pressure engine, such as the tokamak, is not clever.
Now comes the time factor. We can get an idea of how big our product of
plasma density, sustained temperature, and sustainment time is.
Time is basically proportional to the system's inductance, which itself
is proportional to the dimension or linear size of the current ring.
However, cost is important and that varies at a rate probably a bit
faster than the volume of the device cubed. OUCH! :-(
Consider that a chemical coal burner (pressurized) can generate a burn
of many tens of watts per cubic centimeter. We might expect tens of
thousand times greater burn rate from fusion than coal due to fusion's
fantastically larger fuel energy density/cc. What do we get from a
tokamak? milliwatts/cc?? The burn rate is proportional to the plasma
density squared, and that is proportional to the plasma pressure
squared. By comparison MTF devices can generate plasma pressures 1,000s
times greater than a tokamak. Think of the number of times smaller an
electric power generator would be due to the higher burn density. How
much smaller mass the power generator would be? How much more flyable
they would be. Truly, if you swallow the Burning Plasma Hokum you are
being scammed.
Times are important in other ways. For example, how many months of
operation would a burning plasma experimental tok-device be allowed to
have before the system is ordered to be shut down due to metal fatigue
or radiation buildup. Once the time to generator shutdown is
determined, then we can take the ratio of the project's costs plus the
cost of tearing it down and burying the radioactive stuff to the number
of months of total operation that was allowed. Boy! How much more could
other approaches benefit with that funding rate. So what will we gain
from a tokamak BP experiment? Simply an unworkable model of a power
generator that in fact never can produce a sustained burning though out
its plasma even for one second.
Here, we could talk about the kid that made fusion neutrons for a
significantly fewer number of bucks.
I think it was Feymann that said, if a concept can't be made to work
(generate fusion electric power in this case) in ten years, then it will
never work. In this case ITER will simply cost too much. It's time to
move on. And take a serious look at a number of relatively new concepts
>
> ITER is not the grand culmination of fusion research. It is simply a
> tool to allow the study of burning, near steady-state plasmas. There
> are constant refinements going on to make these devices more reliable
> and economically attractive. Burning plasma physics is just one more
> piece of the puzzle needed before the step to a demo plant is made.
> Such a plant would incorporate the results of all the research on
> other experiments that goes on while ITER is being built as well as
> the ITER burning plasma results.
That's a thin claim. It's time to research these other concepts on their
own merits. Besides, the tokamak is so flawed it can't incorporate
features of the more advanced and simpler concepts. We already know the
tokamak won't work. Forty years is too long.
>
>>>>Go check out
>>>>http://www.iter.org/ to see the proposed next generation
>>>>of fusion experiment. Then check out
>>>>http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/reactors/iter-
fusion-briefing-notes.html
>>>>to see why environmentalists are opposing fusion.
I've been around for at least as long as the tokamak. In its current cut
back state, it is certainly going to fail.
>>>Aaron
>>
>>The Sierra Club complaint is legitimate, and is based on the cost to
>>risk ratio. This also includes the environment.
> What are the risks you are talking about? Is it the supposed tritium
> releases? If so, please tell me why there will definitely be releases
> that harm the environment. It's easy to throw out those accusations
> without any proof. Please convince me that there is a real problem,
> and that this isn't just another environmental scare tactic.
Hey, be realistic. Ask the weapons labs about Tritium releases. If you
pop the magnetized toroidal field coils: OOPs! There goes a 1-10
gigajoules driven shock wave. Bringing a tokamak's field up is like
hearing the sounds of a U-boat going into the depths. A lot of really
loud ominous creaking and big bangs as bolts shear.
>>The Iter and all other
>>tokamaks and Stellarators are fatally flawed by engineering realities.
>
> Name one (besides the incorrect ones below).
>
>>The engineering problem is the inability to reach and sustain (over
>>time) the appropriate plasma pressure for a commercial burn.
> Pressure really isn't the problem for producing a burn. High pressure
> provides better economics, but a burn can be achieve at relatively
> modest pressures.
A tokamak does not meet the economic requirements. More pressure might
help, but unfortunately it can not be achieved.
Certainly a tokamak could not generate the pressures necessary to use
with any of the aneutronic fuels I would use. Also, a tokamak confining
field is less than modest. Lower pressures mean a much longer
requirement for sustainment time, which for the given device (Iter) will
not happen. With lower pressure there is less plasma density so the
tokamak chamber would have to increased greatly in volume in order for
the whole system to generate the electric power level that is expected
from a large city.
> Fusion isn't ready for the commercial aspect because
> of the necessity to study burning plasma physics before a power plant
> is built. Specifically, the ability to sustain the burn using alpha
> heating, removal of helium ash and other impurity concerns etc. need
> to be studied in an ITER-like environment.
Studying burning plasmas can be done in cheaper, more economical
devices, such as IEC or its magnetized upgrade. Fusion physics is not
mysterious; the burning plasma experiment is a ploy, to take your brain
off from the real problems, and to use different words, that on their
own imply something that is not achievable. If a different significantly
higher pressure device with a substantial Sustainment time were used,
then the "Burning plasma experiments" collected on the tokamak would not
apply.
>
>>Making the
>>beast bigger will not help since the pressure does not scale well with
>>size. Disruption of the energy stored in the huge stablizing toroidal
>>field magnets is a serious threat to the facility and near neighborhood.
>
>
> Ok, first making the device bigger does help with confinement, but
> you're right about pressure; that is better optimized through a change
> in aspect ratio, which can be done at any size. For results on high
> pressure, look at ST (spherical tokamak) results. Recent results from
> NSTX show that high-pressure discharges can be achieved and sustained.
> The ST is still relatively new, so it is not ready for a burning
> plasma type machine yet, but the promise of stable high-pressure
> plasmas is there.
My best to Martin Peng, but in my opinion the spheromak is the better
man. Isn't the toroidal field more limited because of the squeezing of
the coil cross-section through the major axis? Perhaps they first chill
coil and then give it a current pulse to keep the coils from overheating
. Consequently the spherical tokamak not capable of sustained
operation at the coil pressures necessary for a significantly stronger
toroidal plasma current and poloidal field pressures as you claim. What
is the plasma pressure achieved in the NSTX?
>
> The problem with disruptions is not the energy stored in the TF, but
> rather the energy stored in the plasma, and that has been solved. Read
> the following paper for the details:
Correct, and disrupted plasma current can cause damage to the vacuum
wall. What I was referring to was a disruption caused by metal fatigue,
sheared bolts, etc. in the supercooled toroidal field coils.
> Disruption mitigation with high-pressure noble gas injection
> Author(s): Whyte, D.G.; Jernigan, T.C.; Humphreys, D.A.; Hyatt, A.W.;
> Lasnier, C.J.; Parks, P.B.; Evans, T.E.; Taylor, P.L.; Kellman, A.G.;
> Gray, D.S.; Hollmann, E.M.
> Publication: Journal of Nuclear Materials
> Volume: 313-316
> Start Page: 1239
> Publication year: 2003
> Basically, when disruption pre-cursors are detected, a large volume of
> high pressure gas is injected into the plasma. This causes the plasma
> to radiate away the stored energy harmlessly as visible light. This
> has been demonstrated experimentally on DIII-D.
It's not harmless. The operation of a tokamak causes little heated
balls of molten wall and limiter material to start to roll around in the
vacuum chamber where the balls continue to heat until they sublimate,
causing an impurity vapor injection into the plasma. Once in the plasma
these impurities cool and lowers the conductivity of the plasma non
uniformly and catastrophically. That can cause resistive-G modes, for
example.
LANL filmed the process. The impurity invasion makes the chamber look
like it's a loaded toilet in the act of flushing.
> Any other engineering show stoppers you think can't be solved?
There are many. Consider that (even without the heat impact of fusion
and its DT spawned neutrons) the walls generate impurities that are
initially not ionized and can't be magnetically stopped from reaching
the plasma. Once in the plasma, they ionize, get magnetically trapped,
produce strong electron radial diffusion and excessive radiation
cooling. That two punch cooling quench ANY hopes for reaching fusion
ignition.
Generally it's called the "wall problem", first found theoretically by J
Ogden of PPPL and later published by L Lidsky, MIT. For movies of the
action go to the LANL web site, if the USDOE hasn't ordered it removed.
>> These primative concepts will only act as black holes for money**, as
>>well as pose an expensive cleanup problem within a couple of years after
>>"burning plasma" attempts are made.
>
> So is all scientific research that does not have an immediate pay off
> a 'black hole for money**'?
Well, I and a few other great guys certainly have spent money to develop
fusion. And gee, we are still doing experimental topological work, and
haven't gotten far enough to feign a fusion experiment like the BPX. If
our current work succeeds, we will move directly to into fusion
experiments.
>
>>There is a better class approach: Magnetic target fusion (MTF). The
>>principal problem is finding the highly conductive, rugged target. That
>>work by comparison to the tokamak has just started and is not yet mature.
>>
>>Warning: MTF is not approved by the tokamak oriented USDOE.
>>** First quoted by Joe Davidson (formerly DoE)
>
> What do you mean that it is not approved? There is DOE funded research
> at Los Alamos on MTF going on as we speak (here's a link that even has
> a picture: http://fusionenergy.lanl.gov/). And why do you say that MTF
> is a better approach?
Read about its advantages, especially the stuff about the plasma regimes
it achieves, its compactness, its ruggedness, and its especially low
cost. Siemons et al. We are currently working on finding a suitable
magnetized target to use, but as I said, we are not there yet.
It's a fairly new idea, but it has a long way to
> go to show that is even a leading contender among the tokamak
> alternates. BTW, DOE is currently moving forward rapidly on a large,
> well funded stellarator project, NCSX at PPPL, so is not quite so
> tokamak-centric as you might suppose. There are also plenty of
> alternate concepts being funded by DOE, besides the almost mainstream
> ST, there's the RFP, the levatated dipole, the spheromak as well as
> the FRC used in MTF, and I'm sure that I'm forgetting something. The
> tokamak is the main concept because it has been the most successful.
> As other concepts do well, they receive the funding to compete.
>
> Aaron
By golly, sounds like the fusion program is doing well. :-( I guess
NCSX has ripping toroidal currents :-(, and the FRC is somehow stable
and long lived :-(, and the Stellarators is a really dense high
temperature and high pressure plasma that's easily heated :-( and the
spheromak somehow degenerated into a "toroidal chamber" instead of the
vacuum spherical chamber within which it would better work. :-( If the
National Fusion Program is not tokamak-centric, then why did the US
Congress have to force the increased funding of alternate concepts by
the USDOE? And since, when is a Stellarator an alternate or innovative
concept. Oh! I get it, they stuck it into a snaking twisted toroidal
chamber with what almost looks like random flutes, etc. Boy that should
couple the plasma into the wall.
And another problem. The USDOE should be doing plasma science research,
not a junk program with "burning plasma fusion". First, Please do the
plasma science. For example: One problem I have been interested in is
"What the devil is the cause of sun spots". Or, "Why is it still taught
that a lightning bolt heats air ohmically to produce thunder?", and,
"What is the plasmoid or magnetoplasmoid topology of ball lightning**?
If the USDOE refuses to research these problems, then they should be
shut down.
**An opinion shared by the late Boris Kadomtsev.
asontag
> asontag wrote:
> > Paul M Koloc <xp...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<3F8E4F2D...@starpower.net>...
> >
> >>asontag wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Paul Studier" <stu...@pleasenospamtopaulstudier.com> wrote in message news:<RwSab.10751$BS5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >>>----snip
> >>>
>
> >> > Fusion waste is safe after 100 years. Fission waste is safe after
>
> >>>10,000 years. Seems like fission has a bit more of a waste problem to
> >>>me. Also you need to realize that the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle is
> >>>only the first step for fusion because it is the easiest to achieve
> >>>breakeven with. Advanced fuel cycles such as deuterium-helium3 produce
> >>>a couple of orders of magnitude less waste and allow for direct
> >>>conversion of the fusion product kinetic energy to electricity at a
> >>>theoretical efficieny of ~80% by bypassing the Carnot cycle.
> >>
> >>But you will never be able to get a burn with D-He3 using an Iter
> >>(tokamak) power reactor. The plasma pressure (n*T[D-He3]) product with
> >>the confinement time is too low to get a break-even ignition.
> >
> > I didn't say that D-He3 would be used in ITER. ITER (or any currently
> > proposed burning plasma experiment) is just the next step towards
> > fusion and will use D-T. I was speaking of much farther down the road
> > when fusion becomes more mature.
>
> If tokamak can't burn D-T or D-H3, then it should be dropped. The ITER
> will never produce a fully ignited or burning plasma even D-T.
A lot of respected scientists both in fusion and outside of fusion
disagree with you. The National Acadamies performed an independant
review of magnetic fusion and specifically the need for a burning
plasma experiment. Most of the scientists involved in this review are
not in fusion, and their careers will go on undisturbed if fusion
research is cut completely. The committee homepage is:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/projects_bpac.html
I encourage you to look at the pre-publication report from the
committee.
Why don't you think ITER will be able to ignite? There is always the
chance it won't, but nothing is certain until it is done. You can't
claim that it won't work with any more certainty that I can say that
it will. You can look at the research and draw your own conclusions,
but I agree with what the reviewers say.
>The BP
> experiment is a gag by the tokamak community, designed to pull the wool
> over the eyes of the appropriating committees. Burning plasma? Who could
> be against that?
>
Again with the conspiracy. Why do you think there is some great
conspiracy behind the magnetic fusion effort to build a burning plasma
experiment? Do you suggest that all of these people don't realize that
they will not be able to work if they are found out to be pushing
fradulent research? For a conspiracy to work, everyone has to be
involved. The fusion community is small, but not small enough for
collusion on this scale.
> A commercial fusion generator will have to burn an aneutronic fuel.
> Anything else is not acceptable to the general public, once they become
> informed of the facts. If aneutronic development is much further down
> the road, then considering the magnitude of the investment it takes for
> tokamak research, the tokamak program should be halted.
I agree with you that the D-T fuel cycle is too dirty to be the
mainstay of fusion power forever. But if it allows fusion power to
become commercially viable while the science is developed to the point
where advanced fuels can be burned, then it is acceptable to me. The
waste produced isn't nearly as bad as fission products. Fusion waste
will be harmless in 100 years, unlike the nuclear waste that we deal
with currently from fission plants and weapons production that will be
deadly for 10,000 years.
The amount of money invested in fusion research is tiny in comparison
to the amount of money spent on energy, and is far behind the amount
spent on R&D in most industries. Regardless of the actual dollar
amount, the payoff potential is so great that the investment is worth
it.
>Commerce has
> limitations on the cost and time tokamak development has and may take.
> So the window of opportunity is closed on the tokamak.
That's why the research isn't commercially funded. Until businesses
start caring more about the welfare of humanity in general than their
own profits, there are not going to be any major investments in
technologies that don't lead to instant profit. That is why the
government funds scientific research that is not yet commercially
viable.
> Our only
> salvation is to put the funds on much smaller, more rugged, and mean,
> lean concepts. They are out there. For example, a Spheromak topology
> combined with MTF.
You mean the money going to tokamaks should be invested in experiments
like you build. There couldn't be any ulterior motive for someone to
be trashing the tokamak when they are trying to sell their own
alternative concept could there?
>
>
> > ... .Fusion confinement time has been
> > increasing at twice the rate of computer chip speed for the last
> > couple of decades. There is no reason to think that it won't be
> > possible to reach confinement times that allow us to burn D-He3
> > eventually.
> >
> >
> That's not the problem. You are being tricked the same way that the
> tokamak program has tricked the appropriation committee into funding
> this approach year after year for the past 40 years. Improving one or
> another of the three factors necessary for fusion does nothing.
Improving one of the factors shows that it is possible to achieve the
necessary parameter regime. Once the technology and the conditions
necessary for the factor to reach the desired regime are determined,
then it can be explored if these conditions are in conflict with
achieving the other factors simultaneously. You are assuming that it
has been shown that achieving all of these factors at the same time is
not possible, but that is incorrect.
>The
> measure of fusion has to do with a kind of volume, a product of three
> factors, that must be reached simultaneously. Improving sustainment time
> happens automatically by increasing the linear size of the machine. The
> real problem is to improve the other factors.
>
> The first factor of that volume is a critical temperature needed for
> ignition. ... Besides, the
> achievement of the higher needed aneutronic burn temperatures could be
> explored using protium (hydrogen) or He-4 with H. We will do the
> necessary science without jeopardizing the environment. Once aneutronic
> parameters for all three factors are reached, then we can substitute the
> "real fuel".
This is exactly what is going on. Only TFTR and JET have run D-T (JET
got to Q=0.65 with 16 MW of peak fusion power). All of the other
research is exploring the relevant physics so that any further
attempts to run in D-T will produce a burning plasma. JET and TFTR are
old experiments that are as outdated as the Commodore 64, yet they
were able to achieve significant fusion power and get over halfway to
breakeven. Putting all of the advances of the last 20 years into an
experiment on the same scale (or greater in the case of ITER) has a
very good chance of burning IMHO.
You paint a pretty grim picture, too bad it is not reality. AT
optimizations have allowed DII-D to operate routinely at about 10%
beta, which is not nearly as dire as you make the problem out to be.
STs have gone far beyond this, but we'll discuss more below. You're
telling me that it is not possible to build toroidal field coils
capable of sustaining the magnetic field pressure necessary for a
burning tokamak, but the coils on JET and DIII-D work just fine and
prototyping is in progress for ITER coils. Engineering challenges like
this can be overcome when there is sufficient motivation and enough
resources are devoted to the problem.
>
> The product of ignition Temperature, times a commercially workable fuel
> density gives us the plasma pressure. Stars have lots of plasma pressure
> at their cores and a high Beta since the field is very low and the nkT
> is induced by gravity. Using a device that is a sort of inverse lever
> and fulcrum pressure engine, such as the tokamak, is not clever.
What is your definition of clever? A device which routinely achieves
temperatures much hotter than the core of the sun at densities high
enough to allow significant fusion seems fairly clever to me.
>
> Now comes the time factor. We can get an idea of how big our product of
> plasma density, sustained temperature, and sustainment time is.
>
> Time is basically proportional to the system's inductance, which itself
> is proportional to the dimension or linear size of the current ring.
> However, cost is important and that varies at a rate probably a bit
> faster than the volume of the device cubed. OUCH! :-(
>
Confinement time depends on several factors, and the scaling
projections for ITER indicate no problem for reaching a burn. Cost is
the prohibitive factor that causes all of this debate, but that is why
we are still doing research.
> Consider that a chemical coal burner (pressurized) can generate a burn
> of many tens of watts per cubic centimeter. We might expect tens of
> thousand times greater burn rate from fusion than coal due to fusion's
> fantastically larger fuel energy density/cc. What do we get from a
> tokamak? milliwatts/cc?? The burn rate is proportional to the plasma
> density squared, and that is proportional to the plasma pressure
> squared. By comparison MTF devices can generate plasma pressures 1,000s
> times greater than a tokamak. Think of the number of times smaller an
> electric power generator would be due to the higher burn density. How
> much smaller mass the power generator would be? How much more flyable
> they would be.
Then by all means, make a MTF power plant. I think it is an
interesting idea, but it has many hurdles of its own to overcome. I
don't understand why you feel the need to try to tear down the
conventional fusion program to advance your own interests though. The
problem is that we live in a society that spends hundreds of billions
on war, etc., but can't find enough money to fund basic research in
such a vital area as future energy sources. Why don't you direct your
energy against that establishment instead of fighting against those
who have common goals as yourself (clean, safe energy)?
> Truly, if you swallow the Burning Plasma Hokum you are
> being scammed.
I get the feeling that someone here is trying to scam me. If there
were such a thing as 'Burning Plasma Hokum', I have faith that someone
in the scientific community would have cried foul. The recent review
by the National Acadamies was a perfect opportunity for this, but
you'll probably suggest that they are part of the conspiracy too, even
though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
>
> Times are important in other ways. For example, how many months of
> operation would a burning plasma experimental tok-device be allowed to
> have before the system is ordered to be shut down due to metal fatigue
> or radiation buildup. Once the time to generator shutdown is
> determined, then we can take the ratio of the project's costs plus the
> cost of tearing it down and burying the radioactive stuff to the number
> of months of total operation that was allowed. Boy! How much more could
> other approaches benefit with that funding rate. So what will we gain
> from a tokamak BP experiment? Simply an unworkable model of a power
> generator that in fact never can produce a sustained burning though out
> its plasma even for one second.
Sour grapes. The more you write, the more apparent it becomes that you
are mad that tokamaks are receiving funding and you aren't. All of the
things you bring up are issues that must be dealt with, but they are
not insurmountable. Every industry has problems, that's what keeps
engineers in business. I guess I'm just optimistic that these problems
can be solved. Part of the current fusion plan is a significant amount
of materials research to find suitable first wall materials etc. They
have already come a long way, and continuing research is a part of the
plan.
>
> Here, we could talk about the kid that made fusion neutrons for a
> significantly fewer number of bucks.
He can make all the neutrons he wants, but he's never going to make
net power with an IEC device. It's just an expensive lightbulb with an
ionizing radiation bonus.
>
> I think it was Feymann that said, if a concept can't be made to work
> (generate fusion electric power in this case) in ten years, then it will
> never work. In this case ITER will simply cost too much. It's time to
> move on. And take a serious look at a number of relatively new concepts
Feynman said it, so it must be true. Ok I give up now...
Actually I think we should look at the new concepts AND persue ITER
(or any other burning plasma experiment). Our society can afford it.
We can afford $2billion each for a wing of B2 bombers that are now
obsolete. We can afford $XXX billion to liberate Iraq and the
president was proposing to spend $100 billion on a missile defense
shield that wouldn't stop a bomb in a truck or cargo container.
>
> >
> > ITER is not the grand culmination of fusion research. It is simply a
> > tool to allow the study of burning, near steady-state plasmas. There
> > are constant refinements going on to make these devices more reliable
> > and economically attractive. Burning plasma physics is just one more
> > piece of the puzzle needed before the step to a demo plant is made.
> > Such a plant would incorporate the results of all the research on
> > other experiments that goes on while ITER is being built as well as
> > the ITER burning plasma results.
>
> That's a thin claim. It's time to research these other concepts on their
> own merits.
They are being researched. As they demonstrate success, they receive
greater funding. The RFP at the University of Wisconsin recently
demonstrated neoclassical confinement (a major breakthrough for an
RFP). Their funding has gone up considerably as a result. The tokamak
is by far the most successful magnetic fusion device, that's why it
gets the most money. It's not some conspiracy, success is rewarded.
>Besides, the tokamak is so flawed it can't incorporate
> features of the more advanced and simpler concepts. We already know the
> tokamak won't work. Forty years is too long.
That's simply not true. We don't know the tokamak won't work. You
disagree with the science, and that's fine, but don't expect the rest
of the scientific community to come to a halt because you disagree.
Forty years is too long, but at the beginning, it wasn't thought that
you would be developing an entirely new branch of physics. And the
benefits in vacuum technology and plasma processing in the
semiconductor industry are payoffs that are rarely mentioned. Politics
are responsible for part of that delay too. Building TFTR just to keep
the premier US machine at Princeton at a time when the Oak Ridge
proposal for an AT type of machine set the program back 10-15 years.
>
> >
> >>>>Go check out
> >>>>http://www.iter.org/ to see the proposed next generation
> >>>>of fusion experiment. Then check out
> >>>>http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/reactors/iter-
> fusion-briefing-notes.html
> >>>>to see why environmentalists are opposing fusion.
>
> I've been around for at least as long as the tokamak. In its current cut
> back state, it is certainly going to fail.
Those weren't my links, but never miss an opportunity to remind
everyone that the tokamak is doomed, DOOMED I TELL YOU!!!!
>
>
> >>>Aaron
> >>
> >>The Sierra Club complaint is legitimate, and is based on the cost to
> >>risk ratio. This also includes the environment.
>
> > What are the risks you are talking about? Is it the supposed tritium
> > releases? If so, please tell me why there will definitely be releases
> > that harm the environment. It's easy to throw out those accusations
> > without any proof. Please convince me that there is a real problem,
> > and that this isn't just another environmental scare tactic.
>
> Hey, be realistic. Ask the weapons labs about Tritium releases. If you
> pop the magnetized toroidal field coils: OOPs! There goes a 1-10
> gigajoules driven shock wave. Bringing a tokamak's field up is like
> hearing the sounds of a U-boat going into the depths. A lot of really
> loud ominous creaking and big bangs as bolts shear.
That's why the engineers do extensive analyses, build prototypes, add
in safety margins, and build containment systems to deal with the
unexpected. The average person wouldn't dream of living near a nuclear
power plant, but thinks nothing of a refinery or other chemical plant
being a few miles down the road. Ask the people in Bhopal India
whether they would rather be living next to the chemical plant there
that killed several thousand with their release of methylisocyanate,
or Three Mile Island. My point is that safety comes about through
effort. If the US fission industry can keep a good safety record, the
fusion industry has a good shot at it.
How does IEC have ANYTHING to do with a burning plasma? It is a good
source of neutrons, but will never reach breakeven. If you consider
the IEC to embody all of the relevant physics of a burning plasma,
then I don't know where to begin. I think everything you are putting
out is a ploy to take my mind off of the real problems.
The reason to study a burning plasma is not some trick to keep you
down and stifle other research. To quote the pre-publication report by
the burning plasma assessment committee:
"The nonlinear behavior of magnetically confined plasmas at high
temperature and pressure, a behavior that in turn may be modified by
the alpha-particle heating, is of fundamental interest. In addition,
burning plasmas used for energy production will be significantly
larger in volume than present experiments, affecting the plasma
confinement, and they may therefore be expected to
show new phenomena and changes in previously studied behavior.
An extrapolation from present experiments to the effective size of a
full energy producing reactor entails substantial uncertainty, which
can, however, be reduced by studying a burning plasma experiment. The
increase in effective plasma size at high plasma temperature is
predicted to modify many phenomena that can determine the level of
fusion power produced in a reactor. Understanding these effects is not
feasible in the smaller-scale fusion experiments that are available to
the scientific community today. In particular, it can be expected that
a burning plasma experiment, due to its unique plasma parameters and
its ability to study these issues in the burning state, will make
critical contributions to understanding:
• Plasma behavior when self-sustained by fusion (burning);
• Fusion-Plasma turbulence and turbulent transport;
• Stability limits to plasma pressure;
• Control of a sustained burning plasma; and
• Power and Particle Exhaust."
>
> >
> >>Making the
> >>beast bigger will not help since the pressure does not scale well with
> >>size. Disruption of the energy stored in the huge stablizing toroidal
> >>field magnets is a serious threat to the facility and near neighborhood.
> >
> >
> > Ok, first making the device bigger does help with confinement, but
> > you're right about pressure; that is better optimized through a change
> > in aspect ratio, which can be done at any size. For results on high
> > pressure, look at ST (spherical tokamak) results. Recent results from
> > NSTX show that high-pressure discharges can be achieved and sustained.
> > The ST is still relatively new, so it is not ready for a burning
> > plasma type machine yet, but the promise of stable high-pressure
> > plasmas is there.
>
> My best to Martin Peng, but in my opinion the spheromak is the better
> man. Isn't the toroidal field more limited because of the squeezing of
> the coil cross-section through the major axis? Perhaps they first chill
> coil and then give it a current pulse to keep the coils from overheating
> . Consequently the spherical tokamak not capable of sustained
> operation at the coil pressures necessary for a significantly stronger
> toroidal plasma current and poloidal field pressures as you claim. What
> is the plasma pressure achieved in the NSTX?
The spheromak is great if you like cold plasmas that only last a
millisecond or two at best. The toroidal field is more limited, but at
lower aspect ratio much higher plasma pressure is stabilized by the
same toroidal field. As I said, the ST is still immature (NSTX has
been in existence for five years), so developing sustained operations
is still necessary. That being said, the short pulses of NSTX are 0.3s
or greater and up to 1s pulses have been achieved. How long has the
longest spheromak been sustained? The limit in pulse length for the ST
is from the limited ohmic flux, not the TF. The first examples of
bootstrap current sustained discharges are just being found though. RF
current drive techniques should also allow for pulse extension. NSTX
has achieved >30% beta with Ti ~ 3keV and n ~ 3 e19/m^3 -- at the same
time! :-)
> >
> > The problem with disruptions is not the energy stored in the TF, but
> > rather the energy stored in the plasma, and that has been solved. Read
> > the following paper for the details:
>
> Correct, and disrupted plasma current can cause damage to the vacuum
> wall. What I was referring to was a disruption caused by metal fatigue,
> sheared bolts, etc. in the supercooled toroidal field coils.
This is not a serious issue for a well engineered and maintained
machine.
>
> > Disruption mitigation with high-pressure noble gas injection
> > Author(s): Whyte, D.G.; Jernigan, T.C.; Humphreys, D.A.; Hyatt, A.W.;
> > Lasnier, C.J.; Parks, P.B.; Evans, T.E.; Taylor, P.L.; Kellman, A.G.;
> > Gray, D.S.; Hollmann, E.M.
> > Publication: Journal of Nuclear Materials
> > Volume: 313-316
> > Start Page: 1239
> > Publication year: 2003
>
> > Basically, when disruption pre-cursors are detected, a large volume of
> > high pressure gas is injected into the plasma. This causes the plasma
> > to radiate away the stored energy harmlessly as visible light. This
> > has been demonstrated experimentally on DIII-D.
>
> It's not harmless. The operation of a tokamak causes little heated
> balls of molten wall and limiter material to start to roll around in the
> vacuum chamber where the balls continue to heat until they sublimate,
> causing an impurity vapor injection into the plasma. Once in the plasma
> these impurities cool and lowers the conductivity of the plasma non
> uniformly and catastrophically. That can cause resistive-G modes, for
> example.
>
> LANL filmed the process. The impurity invasion makes the chamber look
> like it's a loaded toilet in the act of flushing.
Once again, check on current research. Please go to:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/projects_bpac.html and read the
relevant sections of the report, or better yet, the relevant papers.
Many of the wall issues have been addressed, and that is a very active
area of research. The disruption mitigation technique effectively
rendered a disruption harmless, the other issue you bring up is due to
routine operation, not disruptions. CDX-U is operating with a liquid
Li limiter. It reduces impurities in the plasma and something similar
to this could be used in a reactor allowing the limiter to be
refreshed while the machine was operating.
>
> > Any other engineering show stoppers you think can't be solved?
>
> There are many. Consider that (even without the heat impact of fusion
> and its DT spawned neutrons) the walls generate impurities that are
> initially not ionized and can't be magnetically stopped from reaching
> the plasma. Once in the plasma, they ionize, get magnetically trapped,
> produce strong electron radial diffusion and excessive radiation
> cooling. That two punch cooling quench ANY hopes for reaching fusion
> ignition.
>
> Generally it's called the "wall problem", first found theoretically by J
> Ogden of PPPL and later published by L Lidsky, MIT. For movies of the
> action go to the LANL web site, if the USDOE hasn't ordered it removed.
>
Once again first wall issues. See above.
> >> These primative concepts will only act as black holes for money**, as
> >>well as pose an expensive cleanup problem within a couple of years after
> >>"burning plasma" attempts are made.
> >
> > So is all scientific research that does not have an immediate pay off
> > a 'black hole for money**'?
>
> Well, I and a few other great guys certainly have spent money to develop
> fusion. And gee, we are still doing experimental topological work, and
> haven't gotten far enough to feign a fusion experiment like the BPX. If
> our current work succeeds, we will move directly to into fusion
> experiments.
That's great, I would honestly like to see your successful results.
The fusion program has changed significantly since the huge budget cut
in 1996. The program is significantly more science oriented. Drs.
Yamada and Ji have done some great work on reconnection using MRX.
Paul Bellan does some great work on solar flare physics at CalTech.
These are just the two examples that came up off the top of my head
after thinking for about 0.5 seconds. There is plenty of pure plasma
science being funded by DOE. As for the state of the fusion program,
many of the experiments that you derided above are doing quite well.
It sounds like for whatever reason you have chosen not to follow the
results. Significant progress has been made on almost any front you
can think of, if you would care to look. Maybe you have been outside
the community too long and missed some of the changes in philosophy
and some of the progress.
I doubt that I will change your view, but at least those four or five
other people who are reading this will see another perspective.
Shadetree33
solar and fission power to obtain the hydrogen, may short curcuit this
discussion. The four: fission, hydro, solar and hydrogen have and
endless supply. Our future is assured. Political hand-wringing will be
the sport of the future, more-so than now.
Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message news:<3f8b5...@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
Paul M Koloc
asontag wrote:
> Paul M Koloc <xp...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<3F8FC9B2...@starpower.net>...
>>asontag wrote:
>>>Paul M Koloc <xp...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<3F8E4F2D...@starpower.net>...
>>>>asontag wrote:
>>>>>----snip
>>>>But you will never be able to get a burn with D-He3 using an Iter
>>>>(tokamak) power reactor. The plasma pressure (n*T[D-He3]) product with
>>>>the confinement time is too low to get a break-even ignition.
>>>I didn't say that D-He3 would be used in ITER. ITER (or any currently
>>>proposed burning plasma experiment) is just the next step towards
>>>fusion and will use D-T. I was speaking of much farther down the road
>>>when fusion becomes more mature.
>>If tokamak can't burn D-T or D-H3, then it should be dropped. The ITER
>>will never produce a fully ignited or burning plasma even D-T.
> > A lot of respected scientists both in fusion and outside of fusion
> disagree with you. The National Acadamies performed an independant
> review of magnetic fusion and specifically the need for a burning
> plasma experiment. Most of the scientists involved in this review are
> not in fusion, and their careers will go on undisturbed if fusion
> research is cut completely. The committee homepage is:
Science isn't a democracy.
Okay, the hopes are there, I agree. But, a tank full of wishes and
moans do not get you to a BPE. What does? A complete overhaul of the
engineering physics of fusion where the effort is made to use every bit
of plasma science (and research observed but unknown plasma science)
that is and will be coming available to us to contrive a device that has
a reasonable chance of working using an aneutronic fuel. WHY use a 40
year old concept that can't Efficiently transmit pressure to the
confined plasma with out throwing 99% of the externally applied pressure
away? What is going on here? Has the first up-level topological
evolution of the Stellarator, paralyzed us? This is nuts. Our work is
not finished. And SCREW D-T, the biggest cop out of all.
These guys are frightened. They can't think. The ones that can aren't
allowed to "rock the boat" with other ideas. System lock has set in.
A poet once said, "Pissonett".
> http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/projects_bpac.html
>
> I encourage you to look at the pre-publication report from the
> committee.
>
> Why don't you think ITER will be able to ignite? There is always the
> chance it won't, but nothing is certain until it is done. You can't
> claim that it won't work with any more certainty that I can say that
> it will. You can look at the research and draw your own conclusions,
> but I agree with what the reviewers say.
>
Because in forty years, the tokamak hasn't. You can't get a gasoline
engine without piston rings to work either. There is much missing from
this evolvable construct.
>>The BP
>>experiment is a gag by the tokamak community, designed to pull the wool
>>over the eyes of the appropriating committees. Burning plasma? Who could
>>be against that?
>
> Again with the conspiracy. Why do you think there is some great
> conspiracy behind the magnetic fusion effort to build a burning plasma
> experiment? Do you suggest that all of these people don't realize that
> they will not be able to work if they are found out to be pushing
> fradulent research? For a conspiracy to work, everyone has to be
> involved. The fusion community is small, but not small enough for
> collusion on this scale.
>
The word is stupidity, not conspiracy. Peer pressure (the down side of
peer review); or, let's walk in "Lock Step"; or, Let's keep the flag
ship program afloat. I don't understand why this disaster is
promulgated. I suppose for the old guys running the program, this is
all they know about. I don't think Ann Davies ever pulled her head out
long enough to know there was plasma science in nature that if seriously
researched could have been reverse engineered to replace the tokamak
with something that makes sense. Blinders! Anyone?
>>A commercial fusion generator will have to burn an aneutronic fuel.
>>Anything else is not acceptable to the general public, once they become
>>informed of the facts. If aneutronic development is much further down
>>the road, then considering the magnitude of the investment it takes for
>>tokamak research, the tokamak program should be halted.
>
>
> I agree with you that the D-T fuel cycle is too dirty to be the
> mainstay of fusion power forever. But if it allows fusion power to
> become commercially viable while the science is developed to the point
> where advanced fuels can be burned, then it is acceptable to me. The
> waste produced isn't nearly as bad as fission products. Fusion waste
> will be harmless in 100 years, unlike the nuclear waste that we deal
> with currently from fission plants and weapons production that will be
> deadly for 10,000 years.
If you think about it longer, in our WMD oriented world there are big
reasons to never crank D-T up as a commercial device at all. Besides
D-He3 is not that much harder.. . well except for the current 40 year
old Temple of the USDOE.
> The amount of money invested in fusion research is tiny in comparison
> to the amount of money spent on energy, and is far behind the amount
> spent on R&D in most industries. Regardless of the actual dollar
> amount, the payoff potential is so great that the investment is worth
> it.
Faulty thinking. At the start that might have been a cogent argument,
but it is forty years later. Throwing money down a rat hole at stuff
for which one doesn't have a grasp of the fundamental science will not
work, and hasn't so so far. Further, money wasted has the feature that
it will come back later and bite you in the Ass. That's pretty close to
where we are now. Congress can and does opt out of these bad situations.
Since fusion is fusion and cold fusion is "bad" then guess what? Hot
fusion is probably bad too. What the jerk heads were thinking when they
pounced on cold fusion? is totally beyond me. Bad thinking. Maybe its
their parochial view.
>>Commerce has limitations on the cost and time tokamak development has and may take.
>>So the window of opportunity is closed on the tokamak.
> That's why the research isn't commercially funded. Until businesses
> start caring more about the welfare of humanity in general than their
> own profits, there are not going to be any major investments in
> technologies that don't lead to instant profit. That is why the
> government funds scientific research that is not yet commercially
> viable.
The power industry did participate, and they were Screwed directly by
the USDOE. Furthermore, they were fed the unceasing "Reactor Study of
the year", but since the power industry had their own engineers they
realized after analysis that these reports were "unreal" to the maximum.
Yep! The DOE has poisoned the development of fusion probably for a long
time to come. Man kind also doesn't fly commercial supersonic jets, go
to the moon on a regular basis, etc. etc. So the world could sink back
into a helpless morass unless we use OUR BRAINS in place of so much
money and develop powerful, clean low mass fusion engines. You want to
lay around and continue betting your future on a 40 year old, overworked
concept that is sinking into the New Jersey mud (and other places)? Wait
for another decade and then another and then another .. pretty soon you
will be too old to care.
Now I have trouble understanding why you are fixed on the past and do
not take a more positive attitude, such as working the problem from the
point of view "What will it take to give me the ultimate fusion
machine"? Something simple, ergonomic, etc. Here you are stuck in the,
"Gee, I can electrically induce plasma in a vacuum". Which became,
"Golly, these accelerators are really large and nifty machines." You
don't have to track that line of discovery. I am presuming you are of
slight age.
>
>>Our only
>>salvation is to put the funds on much smaller, more rugged, and mean,
>>lean concepts. They are out there. For example, a Spheromak topology
>>combined with MTF.
>
> You mean the money going to tokamaks should be invested in experiments
> like you build. There couldn't be any ulterior motive for someone to
> be trashing the tokamak when they are trying to sell their own
> alternative concept could there?
No, I think you should get off your ass and come here and help me
(assuming you have some engineering physics). We won't get anything out
of this for ourselves (most pioneers die penniless), but mankind could.
BTW, since when has the USDOE ever funded an honestly new concept; I
think our Spheromak was the last. They took the Spheromak and watered it
down so that it is barely recognizable. What they should have done was
to continue to evolve it toward something that might work. Oh no?
This has been my most painful lesson: Once a funding line is Named, it
ain't gonna change (Evolve). That could be why tokamaks are still here.
They simply hung on and gradually out ate the competition. ITER --
very appropriate.
>>>... .Fusion confinement time has been
>>>increasing at twice the rate of computer chip speed for the last
>>>couple of decades. There is no reason to think that it won't be
>>>possible to reach confinement times that allow us to burn D-He3
>>>eventually.
>>
>>That's not the problem. You are being tricked the same way that the
>>tokamak program has tricked the appropriation committee into funding
>>this approach year after year for the past 40 years. Improving one or
>>another of the three factors necessary for fusion does nothing.
> Improving one of the factors shows that it is possible to achieve the
> necessary parameter regime. Once the technology and the conditions
> necessary for the factor to reach the desired regime are determined,
> then it can be explored if these conditions are in conflict with
> achieving the other factors simultaneously. You are assuming that it
> has been shown that achieving all of these factors at the same time is
> not possible, but that is incorrect.
No it does not. Pushing one side of a mylar bag filled with water does
not give the mylar bag more volume. It goes in a bit here and it bulges
out a bit there. So some things do not work the way you claim. You
have to compatibly increase the "factor volume" to make fusion progress.
>>The
>>measure of fusion has to do with a kind of volume, a product of three
>>factors, that must be reached simultaneously. Improving sustainment time
>>happens automatically by increasing the linear size of the machine. The
>>real problem is to improve the other factors.
>>The first factor of that volume is a critical temperature needed for
>>ignition. ... Besides, the
>>achievement of the higher needed aneutronic burn temperatures could be
>>explored using protium (hydrogen) or He-4 with H. We will do the
>>necessary science without jeopardizing the environment. Once aneutronic
>>parameters for all three factors are reached, then we can substitute the
>>"real fuel".
> This is exactly what is going on. Only TFTR and JET have run D-T (JET
> got to Q=0.65 with 16 MW of peak fusion power). All of the other
> research is exploring the relevant physics so that any further
> attempts to run in D-T will produce a burning plasma. JET and TFTR are
> old experiments that are as outdated as the Commodore 64, yet they
> were able to achieve significant fusion power and get over halfway to
> breakeven. Putting all of the advances of the last 20 years into an
> experiment on the same scale (or greater in the case of ITER) has a
> very good chance of burning IMHO.
Hey! any tokamak is outdated no matter what new coat of paint you put on
it. Think about it this way, the stellarator is a fish, the tokamak is
an amphibian, the spheromak is a reptile, and ...
Actually, as far as fish goes, the tokamak and its need for resources is
more like a shark. Be careful it doesn't eat more future technology.
Good point. Let's see, if I reshape the field coils so they can't
generate as much maximum field strength to get a small boost in Beta,
I'm ahead? NO! Check the plasma pressure -- if that's up, you're
going in the right direction. Ordinary Beta does not indicate overall
pressure performance nearly as well as Engineering Beta star <beta*>.
Beta * is sort of the ratio of plasma pressure to the max outside
pressure needed to keep the system together. For tokamaks, that's the
poloidal field pressure in the midplane against the field coil surface.
The only thing that is grim here is the Inability of the USDOE to evolve
toroidal concepts.
>>The product of ignition Temperature, times a commercially workable fuel
>>density gives us the plasma pressure. Stars have lots of plasma pressure
>>at their cores and a high Beta since the field is very low and the nkT
>>is induced by gravity. Using a device that is a sort of inverse lever
>>and fulcrum pressure engine, such as the tokamak, is not clever.
> What is your definition of clever? A device which routinely achieves
> temperatures much hotter than the core of the sun at densities high
> enough to allow significant fusion seems fairly clever to me.
Be more critical. Exact more, not less. Watch your trade-offs.
Please, be more challenging. I do think you have potential. Look if
you want "feeble inconsequential fusion" then talk to the kid that
cobbled together a Farnsworth device. Remember, we want order megawatt
fusion from each cubic centimeter of fuel plasma. Keep your eye on
fusion's potential, not what a vacuum plasma might eke out.
>>Now comes the time factor. We can get an idea of how big our product of
>>plasma density, sustained temperature, and sustainment time is.
>>Time is basically proportional to the system's inductance, which itself
>>is proportional to the dimension or linear size of the current ring.
>>However, cost is important and that varies at a rate probably a bit
>>faster than the volume of the device cubed. OUCH! :-(
> Confinement time depends on several factors, and the scaling
> projections for ITER indicate no problem for reaching a burn. Cost is
> the prohibitive factor that causes all of this debate, but that is why
> we are still doing research.
No problem, huh. The only factor that money has bought for the tokamak
is its huge unwieldy size, which means it does have the inductance and
the "sustainment time". So Big Deal... 40 years and NO BURN. Doesn't
cold fusion obtain more net power/cc then the mighty white whale Tokamak??
Any bells going off? Come on, listen. Surely there is a tinkle?
>>Consider that a chemical coal burner (pressurized) can generate a burn
>>of many tens of watts per cubic centimeter. We might expect tens of
>>thousand times greater burn rate from fusion than coal due to fusion's
>>fantastically larger fuel energy density/cc. What do we get from a
>>tokamak? milliwatts/cc?? The burn rate is proportional to the plasma
>>density squared, and that is proportional to the plasma pressure
>>squared. By comparison MTF devices can generate plasma pressures 1,000s
>>times greater than a tokamak. Think of the number of times smaller an
>>electric power generator would be due to the higher burn density. How
>>much smaller mass the power generator would be? How much more flyable
>>they would be.
> Then by all means, make a MTF power plant. I think it is an
> interesting idea, but it has many hurdles of its own to overcome. I
> don't understand why you feel the need to try to tear down the
> conventional fusion program to advance your own interests though. The
> problem is that we live in a society that spends hundreds of billions
> on war, etc., but can't find enough money to fund basic research in
> such a vital area as future energy sources. Why don't you direct your
> energy against that establishment instead of fighting against those
> who have common goals as yourself (clean, safe energy)?
Look, MTF is dumb and simple. The only thing it needs for break through
performance is a workable target. For example, a hyperconducting plasma
encapsulated Spheromak with order mega amperes of current.
Conventional fusion means stuff based on plasma science that has a
paucity of knowledge. There may be workable fusion concepts that do
not have that impediment. So let's expand our concept horizon to
include more and SCARIER plasma science. Boo! Do you think a gasoline
engine's success hinged on a burning gasoline experiment? Hell no. It
worked from the outset. Once it worked, there was time to do the "burn
better" experiments. The BPE pushers have it backwards. Let's form a
concept that works. The Stellarator-Tokamak-Spheromak chain of evolved
concepts form the direction. It needs to be extended one maybe two more
steps. Then we have the device to conduct a BPE. I'm not against the
tokamak, I'm for Evolving it to the point where it becomes workable. Eh!
(with a Canadian accent)
Because, tokamak cannot work, it has a bad reputation of not working.
Currently (and since the 70's) the tokamak is wasting the lion's share
of the money. Don't worry about anything I say here or there. That will
not change a Tokamak's physics and probably not its lack of future. It
has its uses. In fact, it has been topologically evolved into the
Spheromak and its born of an evolved Stellarator. The TFTR could be
incorporated into an engineering museum to be the primo example of
really BAD engineering. The kiddies can learn from that. In the
meantime.. we should focus on evolving the concepts.
The unevolved tokamak concept itself is fatally flawed. Think of it as a
giant acorn that will grow a tiny but colossally ripping power generator
if it Evolves.
>
> > Truly, if you swallow the Burning Plasma Hokum you are
>
>>being scammed.
>
> I get the feeling that someone here is trying to scam me. If there
> were such a thing as 'Burning Plasma Hokum', I have faith that someone
> in the scientific community would have cried foul. The recent review
> by the National Acadamies was a perfect opportunity for this, but
> you'll probably suggest that they are part of the conspiracy too, even
> though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
First of all, the USDOE rewrites the NAS reports. The NAS is fluff of
overly focussed and a little blind professors. Let's just say that NOW
is Not the time to divert our effort from plasma science and conceptual
plasma topology evolution.
>>Times are important in other ways. For example, how many months of
>>operation would a burning plasma experimental tok-device be allowed to
>>have before the system is ordered to be shut down due to metal fatigue
>>or radiation buildup. Once the time to generator shutdown is
>>determined, then we can take the ratio of the project's costs plus the
>>cost of tearing it down and burying the radioactive stuff to the number
>>of months of total operation that was allowed. Boy! How much more could
>>other approaches benefit with that funding rate. So what will we gain
>>from a tokamak BP experiment? Simply an unworkable model of a power
>>generator that in fact never can produce a sustained burning though out
>>its plasma even for one second.
>
> Sour grapes. The more you write, the more apparent it becomes that you
> are mad that tokamaks are receiving funding and you aren't. All of the
> things you bring up are issues that must be dealt with, but they are
> not insurmountable. Every industry has problems, that's what keeps
> engineers in business. I guess I'm just optimistic that these problems
> can be solved. Part of the current fusion plan is a significant amount
> of materials research to find suitable first wall materials etc. They
> have already come a long way, and continuing research is a part of the
> plan.
I am not happy with the fixed focus on the tokamak, and not upon tokamak
evolution past the Spheromak. So? If you were an engineering
physicist, I doubt that you would be pleased with the tokamak.
But hey, we just keep pecking away. We ourselves are making bit by bit
progress that has big jump points. Our approach is to prove that our
engineering physics concept will NOT work. If we are wrong, then you and
we can all be very happy. Although, I personally am having tons of fun.
So far our skeptical approach keeps us focused in the right direction.
Look, we are (most of us) still alive. Our approach is so cheap, We can
demonstrate it very quickly in terms of man hours of effort, and capital
resources are quite minimal. So we are willing to continue, especially
since we are currently on the verge of running a critical test. We may
eventually need to better fill the current signature to get optimal
performance. For now we will test, since it ready and has a significant
probability of working well without that optimization.
>
>>Here, we could talk about the kid that made fusion neutrons for a
>>significantly fewer number of bucks.
>
>
> He can make all the neutrons he wants, but he's never going to make
> net power with an IEC device. It's just an expensive lightbulb with an
> ionizing radiation bonus.
Wow! Critical thinking! Now if you can cut through the USDOE/PPPL BS,
hopefully you can get to the point where you will realize the problem
is, "How to evolve the Tokamak". Once done we'll build it and start the
BPE. That should be no big deal, since with its inherent Lawson numbers
it should work on the first shot with D-He-3. In the meantime come and
take a look at our stuff, if you have nothing else to do except stack
cards.
>>I think it was Feymann that said, if a concept can't be made to work
>>(generate fusion electric power in this case) in ten years, then it will
>>never work. In this case ITER will simply cost too much. It's time to
>>move on. And take a serious look at a number of relatively new concepts
> Feynman said it, so it must be true. Ok I give up now...
Yeah, he's an amazing fellow, and he adjusted some plasma physics so our
stuff will work better. :-)
> Actually I think we should look at the new concepts AND persue ITER
> (or any other burning plasma experiment). Our society can afford it.
> We can afford $2billion each for a wing of B2 bombers that are now
> obsolete. We can afford $XXX billion to liberate Iraq and the
> president was proposing to spend $100 billion on a missile defense
> shield that wouldn't stop a bomb in a truck or cargo container.
I am all for burning plasmas, it's just that I have found one needs the
right device for them to burn.
>>>ITER is not the grand culmination of fusion research. It is simply a
>>>tool to allow the study of burning, near steady-state plasmas. There
>>>are constant refinements going on to make these devices more reliable
>>>and economically attractive. Burning plasma physics is just one more
>>>piece of the puzzle needed before the step to a demo plant is made.
>>>Such a plant would incorporate the results of all the research on
>>>other experiments that goes on while ITER is being built as well as
>>>the ITER burning plasma results.
>>
>>That's a thin claim. It's time to research these other concepts on their
>>own merits.
>
> They are being researched. As they demonstrate success, they receive
> greater funding. The RFP at the University of Wisconsin recently
> demonstrated neoclassical confinement (a major breakthrough for an
> RFP). Their funding has gone up considerably as a result. The tokamak
> is by far the most successful magnetic fusion device, that's why it
> gets the most money. It's not some conspiracy, success is rewarded.
The funding should have gone up regardless of the results, since the
value is the knowledge. Hell, if it were the other way around, there is
the temptation to fudge results.
In general, you seem to have a crush on the tokamak. Maybe that's the
only thing you can see. Tunnel vision effect, I guess. Like most in
the tokamak community you do not seem to have any concept of when the
plug should be pulled. I can't understand it. It's forty years of full
power maximum research and development, and it's the same old piece of
creaking junk. That's WHY industry doesn't keep throwing money at
research if it doesn't work with modest investment. The Germantown
bosses seem incapable of making that judgment. Note that for forty
years a few forecasts could have been expected to slip. Well that is
one thing, but the tokamak EPOCH of slippages is quite something else,
horrendous. Wake up USDOE, please!
>>Besides, the tokamak is so flawed it can't incorporate
>>features of the more advanced and simpler concepts. We already know the
>>tokamak won't work. Forty years is too long.
>
> That's simply not true. We don't know the tokamak won't work. You
> disagree with the science, and that's fine, but don't expect the rest
> of the scientific community to come to a halt because you disagree.
Right, after forty years with the pedal to the metal. Doesn't it sound
like that portion of the scientific community has come to a halt on its
own? Why? I didn't cause it. There is a bug in the system. Trust me.
The community are feeding off the flow from Line Items. Does anyone in
the community have the control to work on what they want to?? No. It
all comes down from the Germantown assylum. In effect, is the USDoE a
totalitarian entity? This is an exaggeration, but I think there is too
much truth to it.
> Forty years is too long, but at the beginning, it wasn't thought that
> you would be developing an entirely new branch of physics. And the
> benefits in vacuum technology and plasma processing in the
> semiconductor industry are payoffs that are rarely mentioned. Politics
> are responsible for part of that delay too. Building TFTR just to keep
> the premier US machine at Princeton at a time when the Oak Ridge
> proposal for an AT type of machine set the program back 10-15 years.
[Go check out]
[http://www.iter.org/]
[http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/nuclear/reactors/iter-fusion-briefing-notes.html]
> Those weren't my links, but never miss an opportunity to remind
> everyone that the tokamak is doomed, DOOMED I TELL YOU!!!!
Aaron, it's been fun. Time will tell. The truth will out.. etc, etc.
[snip]
> That's why the engineers do extensive analyses, build prototypes, add
> in safety margins, and build containment systems to deal with the
> unexpected.
Indeed? Guess those law suits do help.
If it's a hazard, as in attempting BPE in an unsafe vessel, then don't
do it. If the chances are slim that the BPE will work, then don't do it.
Remember, the meaningful BPE uses D-He3 at a minimum. Even you agree to
that. So Screw the tokamak, turn off the Dog and Pony Show! Let's get
on with it. An Aneutronic BPE, Rah! Yeah!
[snip]
>>Studying burning plasmas can be done in cheaper, more economical
>>devices, such as IEC or its magnetized upgrade. Fusion physics is not
>>mysterious; the burning plasma experiment is a ploy, to take your brain
>>off from the real problems, and to use different words, that on their
>>own imply something that is not achievable. If a different significantly
>>higher pressure device with a substantial Sustainment time were used,
>>then the "Burning plasma experiments" collected on the tokamak would not
>>apply.
>
> How does IEC have ANYTHING to do with a burning plasma? It is a good
> source of neutrons, but will never reach breakeven. If you consider
> the IEC to embody all of the relevant physics of a burning plasma,
> then I don't know where to begin. I think everything you are putting
> out is a ploy to take my mind off of the real problems.
Well, by the same token, a tokamak will not create a BP. Let's invent
something that does. It's not like a known loser is our only
possibility. If you feel that way, you could get depressed.
> The reason to study a burning plasma is not some trick to keep you
> down and stifle other research. To quote the pre-publication report by
> the burning plasma assessment committee:
> "The nonlinear behavior of magnetically confined plasmas at high
> temperature and pressure, a behavior that in turn may be modified by
> the alpha-particle heating, is of fundamental interest. In addition,
> burning plasmas used for energy production will be significantly
> larger in volume than present experiments, affecting the plasma
> confinement, and they may therefore be expected to
> show new phenomena and changes in previously studied behavior.
Pure raw cow generated plant food. The plasma is not anywhere near
being high pressure. Without high pressure the effects are essentially
non-existent. It is frivolous research.
The prediction of significantly larger volumes is an admission of this
criticism. It is also an admission that there is a paucity of plasma
pressure. The new stuff expected is highly speculative, and any changes
will be highly marginal. That is to say they will be in the noise. So
there will be no agreeable results. The test should be postponed for
the development of a workable concept to complete.
> An extrapolation from present experiments to the effective size of a
> full energy producing reactor entails substantial uncertainty, which
> can, however, be reduced by studying a burning plasma experiment. The
> increase in effective plasma size at high plasma temperature is
> predicted to modify many phenomena that can determine the level of
> fusion power produced in a reactor. Understanding these effects is not
> feasible in the smaller-scale fusion experiments that are available to
> the scientific community today. In particular, it can be expected that
> a burning plasma experiment, due to its unique plasma parameters and
> its ability to study these issues in the burning state, will make
> critical contributions to understanding:
Come on! Read this stuff. It is NUTS! There is no real experiment
here, this is a pile of horsey biscuits. The certainty already exists
that tokamak plasma volume will have to be enormously increased. That
means that there wouldn't be enough power to start it up, and if it does
start it will definitely become hugely hazardous, assuming that it could
(which it can't), yield any significant power, and further it is a
blight on human intelligence.
> • Plasma behavior when self-sustained by fusion (burning);
> • Fusion-Plasma turbulence and turbulent transport;
> • Stability limits to plasma pressure;
> • Control of a sustained burning plasma; and
> • Power and Particle Exhaust."
The first one is not going to happen. 2 Will not be measurable and has
never been understood. 3 This is obviously measured using normal plasma
study and has already been shown to be a problem. 4 There is no need
for extra control, it won't sustain. 5 It will have inconsequential
Power by comparison to the input power, and Particle exhaust can be
detected five kilometers down the road with a good beta particle and
soft X-ray detector. (There goes the neighborhood)
>>>>Making the
>>>>beast bigger will not help since the pressure does not scale well with
>>>>size. Disruption of the energy stored in the huge stablizing toroidal
>>>>field magnets is a serious threat to the facility and near neighborhood.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, first making the device bigger does help with confinement, but
>>>you're right about pressure; that is better optimized through a change
>>>in aspect ratio, which can be done at any size. For results on high
>>>pressure, look at ST (spherical tokamak) results. Recent results from
>>>NSTX show that high-pressure discharges can be achieved and sustained.
>>>The ST is still relatively new, so it is not ready for a burning
>>>plasma type machine yet, but the promise of stable high-pressure
>>>plasmas is there.
On second read, the best obtainable aspect ratio is with a spheromak,
which is better topologically than a tokamak. So... drop the tokamak.
>>My best to Martin Peng, but in my opinion the spheromak is the better
>>man. Isn't the toroidal field more limited because of the squeezing of
>>the coil cross-section through the major axis? Perhaps they first chill
>>coil and then give it a current pulse to keep the coils from overheating
>>. Consequently the spherical tokamak not capable of sustained
>>operation at the coil pressures necessary for a significantly stronger
>>toroidal plasma current and poloidal field pressures as you claim. What
>>is the plasma pressure achieved in the NSTX?
> The spheromak is great if you like cold plasmas that only last a
> millisecond or two at best. The toroidal field is more limited, but at
> lower aspect ratio much higher plasma pressure is stabilized by the
> same toroidal field. As I said, the ST is still immature (NSTX has
> been in existence for five years), so developing sustained operations
> is still necessary. That being said, the short pulses of NSTX are 0.3s
> or greater and up to 1s pulses have been achieved. How long has the
> longest spheromak been sustained? The limit in pulse length for the ST
> is from the limited ohmic flux, not the TF. The first examples of
> bootstrap current sustained discharges are just being found though. RF
> current drive techniques should also allow for pulse extension. NSTX
> has achieved >30% beta with Ti ~ 3keV and n ~ 3 e19/m^3 -- at the same
> time! :-)
Don't misconstrue the embodiment with the topology.
We may have a far better embodiment of the Spheromak. We shall see,
presently. The flux core generation of spheromaks at PPPL was
unfortunate only in the sense of the method of generation. Surface
impurities were entrained at the outset, so the plasma never had a
chance.
The toroidal field in the rigid walled spheromak is current limited,
since the currents are not hyperconducting. That is not the case with
our embodiment.
>>>The problem with disruptions is not the energy stored in the TF, but
>>>rather the energy stored in the plasma, and that has been solved. Read
>>>the following paper for the details:
>>Correct, and disrupted plasma current can cause damage to the vacuum
>>wall. What I was referring to was a disruption caused by metal fatigue,
>>sheared bolts, etc. in the supercooled toroidal field coils.
> This is not a serious issue for a well engineered and maintained
> machine.
It is a serious issue. Engineering of flaky projects never seems to be
up to professional practice. Ask NASA.
On your last stuff, the use of liquid Li is difficult in a device that
has toroidal field coils external to the limiter, which it must. Li is
low Z and it could ionize before mixing with the plasma and thus be
nearly kept out. But... Lithium is also adventurous stuff. But the
evolved tokamak and spheromak will not have this problem.
I, too, am not so worried about plasma current disruptions. In general,
if it is routine, then it is a major problem. The "routine stuff" Will
snuff your BPE. They can also excite disruptions. The tokamak isn't
the device to use. Do you want to prove to the world that magnetic
fusion is not possible? That is the take the press will give.
> Once again first wall issues. See above.
>>>> These primative concepts will only act as black holes for money**, as
>>>>well as pose an expensive cleanup problem within a couple of years after
>>>>"burning plasma" attempts are made.
>>>So is all scientific research that does not have an immediate pay off
>>>a 'black hole for money**'?
>>Well, I and a few other great guys certainly have spent money to develop
>>fusion. And gee, we are still doing experimental topological work, and
>>haven't gotten far enough to feign a fusion experiment like the BPE. If
>>our current work succeeds, we will move directly to into fusion
>>experiments.
> That's great, I would honestly like to see your successful results.
I know you would. All good guys would.
>>>>There is a better class approach: Magnetic target fusion (MTF). The
>>>>principal problem is finding the highly conductive, rugged target. That
>>>>work by comparison to the tokamak has just started and is not yet mature.
>>>>Warning: MTF is not approved by the tokamak oriented USDOE.
>>>>** First quoted by Joe Davidson (formerly DoE)
>>>What do you mean that it is not approved? There is DOE funded research
>>>at Los Alamos on MTF going on as we speak (here's a link that even has
>>>a picture: http://fusionenergy.lanl.gov/). And why do you say that MTF
>>>is a better approach?
>>Read about its advantages, especially the stuff about the plasma regimes
>>it achieves, its compactness, its ruggedness, and its especially low
>>cost. Siemons et al. We are currently working on finding a suitable
>>magnetized target to use, but as I said, we are not there yet.
>>It's a fairly new idea, but it has a long way to
>>>go to show that is even a leading contender among the tokamak
>>>alternates. BTW, DOE is currently moving forward rapidly on a large,
>>>well funded stellarator project, NCSX at PPPL, so is not quite so
>>>tokamak-centric as you might suppose. There are also plenty of
>>>alternate concepts being funded by DOE, besides the almost mainstream
>>>ST, there's the RFP, the levatated dipole, the spheromak as well as
>>>the FRC used in MTF, and I'm sure that I'm forgetting something. The
>>>tokamak is the main concept because it has been the most successful.
>>>As other concepts do well, they receive the funding to compete.
Second read. Stellarators are more primitive than tokamaks. That means
the tokamak is a much better beast, although not good enough.
Glad to hear that Yamada et al are still kicking. Reconnection plasma
science is likely key. Paul Bellan does great work, I was thoroughly
impressed.
Look, there are several of these plasma science problems related to real
stuff that should be funded Aggressively. Otherwise this work could
just end up as a curiosity. So I agree with you. But, I remain
skeptical of the USDOE view of plasma science and its proven inability
to fundamentally evolve concepts.
Thanks, you did a great job.
CC
<ason...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Spewing out controversial crap without any proof is for usenet, not
> scientific journals.
Au contraire! There's quite a bit of useless crap in journals.
CCRyder
CC
<xp...@starpower.net> wrote:
> And another problem. The USDOE should be doing plasma science research,
> not a junk program with "burning plasma fusion". First, Please do the
> plasma science. For example: One problem I have been interested in is
> "What the devil is the cause of sun spots". Or, "Why is it still taught
> that a lightning bolt heats air ohmically to produce thunder?", and,
> "What is the plasmoid or magnetoplasmoid topology of ball lightning**?
> If the USDOE refuses to research these problems, then they should be
> shut down.
>
> **An opinion shared by the late Boris Kadomtsev.
> --
Paul, if you really want to know the physics behind sun spots you'll
have to dump a lot of things that you thought were true and prepare
yourself to make a literal 'quantum' leap. The pun is on the unknown
physics behind quanta. I could put it in pure simple terms to you but
I doubt you'd grasp it. You know that a sunspot is produced by the
intersection of a large scale flux loop structure with the photosphere.
1. Every every topologically closed flux loop structure produces a
gravitational field. An hitherto unknown property of a gravitational
field is that it produces a strong gravitational charge separation
effect which is strongest along the toroidal axis of such a toroidal
monolithic gravitational 'field'.
2. Because electrons cannot fall to as low of energy states (because
of the charge separation effect of gravitational field) then they
produce photons of greater wavelength. At the toroidal axis core of a
strong flux loop system the gravitational charge separation effect is
more pronounced and associations between some nuclei and electrons can
never occur. Consequently, the center of sunspots will produce less
visible radiation that may be produced in areas adjacent to the sunspot
on the photosphere.
3. When a large scale flux loop suddenly undergoes collapse then the
gravitational charge separation effect is obliterated and a large
cascade of electrons will surge down to regions which previously had
been devoid of all but the most strongly held electrons in heavier
elements (heavier than hydrogen and helium). The result is a huge
radiation flux produced by electrons achieving dynamic associations
with a broad range of nuclei. Consequently one see's a sudden flux of
radiation which is the characteristic signature of a solar flare.
4. A supernova event is similar in that it can occur if there is a
significant displacement of the star's main toroidal flux loop
structure away from the pure nuclear matter which resides along the
toroidal axis of the flux loop's monolithic gravitational 'field'.
The properties of a gravitational field may be deduced from simple
axioms related to the relative motion of quanta.
CCRyder
'email by replacing the 'y' with the an 'i'.
CC
> The fusion program has changed significantly since the huge budget cut
> in 1996. The program is significantly more science oriented. Drs.
> Yamada and Ji have done some great work on reconnection using MRX.
> Paul Bellan does some great work on solar flare physics at CalTech.
> These are just the two examples that came up off the top of my head
> after thinking for about 0.5 seconds.
Yes, two examples which "you" believe are 'great'.
There is plenty of pure plasma
> science being funded by DOE.
"pure plasma pseudoscience" would be the better description.
As for the state of the fusion program,
> many of the experiments that you derided above are doing quite well.
> It sounds like for whatever reason you have chosen not to follow the
> results. Significant progress has been made on almost any front you
> can think of,
Significant BS.
if you would care to look. Maybe you have been outside
> the community too long and missed some of the changes in philosophy
> and some of the progress.
>
> I doubt that I will change your view, but at least those four or five
> other people who are reading this will see another perspective.
Oh, hell, give yourself some credit. Many dozens of people can be
conned by what you say. After all you yourself were conned into
believing what you say is true and if you are a better orator then
you'll be able to get more people in the groupthinkalike club with you.
:-).
CCRyder
Edwin L. Bondoc
Whew! That was quite a reply.
Nevertheless, I disagree in continuing with anything similar to
Tokamak. In my other post I said that the Russians are laughing at the
people who continued on in this experiment. They've already had enough
with Tokamak and didn't want to spend more on it.
If progress is what we're after, I'd say we also look at the other
theories aside from pp reaction on which these experiments are based
on. I propose the pep reaction which is another way that
astrophysicists tell us the other method to achieve fusion.
To continue on with pp based experiments is not progress to me but a
continuity of the same problem. If we continue with confining the
burnt fuel away from the wall of the vessel, we are only left with
heat due to radiation to be used for power generation. And how much is
this? I don't know but am sure the power conversion efficiency may be
smaller than a thermal power plant.
asontag
> In article <fd8504df.03101...@posting.google.com>, asontag
> <ason...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fusion program has changed significantly since the huge budget cut
> > in 1996. The program is significantly more science oriented. Drs.
> > Yamada and Ji have done some great work on reconnection using MRX.
> > Paul Bellan does some great work on solar flare physics at CalTech.
> > These are just the two examples that came up off the top of my head
> > after thinking for about 0.5 seconds.
>
> Yes, two examples which "you" believe are 'great'.
Yes, "I" "do". Can you further elaborate on what is wrong with that
particular research?
>
>
> There is plenty of pure plasma
> > science being funded by DOE.
>
> "pure plasma pseudoscience" would be the better description.
What a convincing argument. Your "technically detailed" explaination
of sunspots is a good example of "real" science I guess.
>
>
> As for the state of the fusion program,
> > many of the experiments that you derided above are doing quite well.
> > It sounds like for whatever reason you have chosen not to follow the
> > results. Significant progress has been made on almost any front you
> > can think of,
>
> Significant BS.
That's what you put out all right. I'm perfectly willing to listen to
reasonable criticisms from someone who actually knows what they're
talking about. So far you argue at about the second grade level. Let's
see where we're at; you said "nuh uh", so I guess the proper reply
from me is "uh huh".
>
>
>
> if you would care to look. Maybe you have been outside
> > the community too long and missed some of the changes in philosophy
> > and some of the progress.
> >
> > I doubt that I will change your view, but at least those four or five
> > other people who are reading this will see another perspective.
>
> Oh, hell, give yourself some credit. Many dozens of people can be
> conned by what you say. After all you yourself were conned into
> believing what you say is true and if you are a better orator then
> you'll be able to get more people in the groupthinkalike club with you.
> :-).
>
I don't want anyone to join my club who seems as incapable of
participating in a real discussion as you do. Rage against the machine
man, I'm sure you have all the answers. :-P
Paul M Koloc
Edwin L. Bondoc wrote:
> Paul
>
> Whew! That was quite a reply.
>
> Nevertheless, I disagree in continuing with anything similar to
> Tokamak. In my other post I said that the Russians are laughing at the
> people who continued on in this experiment. They've already had enough
> with Tokamak and didn't want to spend more on it.
That's interesting information. When I visited Kurchatov, E. Velikov
had a half dozen tokamak experiments running simultaneously. At the
time, quite impressive. As for your first comment about anything
similar to a Tokamak, you might be surprised how different our current
PLASMAK(tm) concept is from a tokamak. This is in spite of the fact
that they both share the same overall magnetic topology. You might want
to scan the web sites I cite in the sig below. Our current work is to
generate PMKs that are large enough and long lived enough to be then
formed in D-He3 and protium gas and used as MTF targets. The model is
sketched and the embodiment shown formed in atmospheric air, but of
smaller size than needed for MTF work.
> If progress is what we're after, I'd say we also look at the other
> theories aside from pp reaction on which these experiments are based
> on. I propose the pep reaction which is another way that
> astrophysicists tell us the other method to achieve fusion.
In the earliest days, particle physicists impressed their ideas on the
shape of the earliest toroidal devices. Beam heating is still used.
> To continue on with pp based experiments is not progress to me but a
> continuity of the same problem. If we continue with confining the
> burnt fuel away from the wall of the vessel, we are only left with
> heat due to radiation to be used for power generation. And how much is
> this? I don't know but am sure the power conversion efficiency may be
> smaller than a thermal power plant.
High power conversion efficiency is a key element of a successful
commercial fusion operation. We think that our stuff will have the
required efficiency. The web site includes one patent application, so
some of the embodiment particulars can be found.
Gordon D. Pusch
> In my other post I said that the Russians are laughing at the people who
> continued on in this experiment. They've already had enough with Tokamak
> and didn't want to spend more on it.
Don't jump to conclusions. The Russians are not spending research money on
_ANYTHING_ thses days, because their economy is in even more pathetic shape
that the U.S.A.'s. Unlike the Neo-Cons and the Demagogues, the Russians now
understand that you CAN'T spend money you DON'T HAVE unless you want runaway
hyperinflation. The Russian people found out what hyperinfaltion was like
after the collapse of the FSU, and are =NOT= anxious to repeat the experience !
It is ironic that a former communist country now understands how capitalism
works far better than the country that once grew rich on it, while that
latter country is frittering away its inheritance on Neo-Con totalitarian
neo-fascism, a Trotskyite Permanent State of War, and a "Homeland Security"
program that makes no one any more "secure" (except the Federal Goon Squads),
and everyone less free, as the former U.S.A. shreds the last tatters of its
own constitution and destroys its own economy. Russia watches us in horror
as we sovietize ourselves...
"...They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety..." -- Benjamin Franklin
-- Gordon D. Pusch
asontag
> edwin...@yahoo.com (Edwin L. Bondoc) writes:
>
> > In my other post I said that the Russians are laughing at the people who
> > continued on in this experiment. They've already had enough with Tokamak
> > and didn't want to spend more on it.
>
> Don't jump to conclusions. The Russians are not spending research money on
> _ANYTHING_ thses days, because their economy is in even more pathetic shape
> that the U.S.A.'s. Unlike the Neo-Cons and the Demagogues, the Russians now
> understand that you CAN'T spend money you DON'T HAVE unless you want runaway
> hyperinflation. The Russian people found out what hyperinfaltion was like
> after the collapse of the FSU, and are =NOT= anxious to repeat the experience !
>
I was at a talk given by a Russian scientist a couple of years ago and
he told horror stories about trying to do scientific work in their
ruined economy. They were lucky to get paid anything, and one of the
duties of the scientific staff was to take turns guarding their
substation with a high power rifle to prevent looters from stripping
the transformers and cabling to sell as scrap.
This was at a lab that does hot fusion research, so I wonder why they
continue with their research when they aren't getting paid, since they
are all just welfare queens in white lab coats? Could it be that they
really believe in what they're doing, or would that make too much
sense for the conspiratorial minded?
Aaron
Edwin L. Bondoc
> _ANYTHING_ thses days, because their economy is in even more pathetic shape
> that the U.S.A.'s.
>
The Russsians admitted how they got and improved their nuclear
capability by getting informations from others without spending much.
They are only interested on anything that would place them ahead of
anybody and that includes fusion research.
Edwin L. Bondoc
> he told horror stories about trying to do scientific work in their
> ruined economy.
Could it be that they really believe in what they're doing, or would
that make too much sense for the conspiratorial minded?
Talk is very much different from documentary. The Russian officials
admitted they make use of the updated information they get from
others. Any scientist believes on what they're doing. Did they really
tell you everything? Would you confirm every thing they said?
asontag
I don't understand the point of your post. Are you suggesting that the
person giving the talk was lying about his project or the impact of
the post-Soviet economy on scientific research in Russia? If so, the
existence of his project has been verified by Americans and Europeans.
The impact of economic collapse on Russian science is quite real as
well.
Aaron
CC
> CC <CCR...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:<181020031756404532%CCR...@singtech.com>...
> > In article <fd8504df.03101...@posting.google.com>, asontag
> > <ason...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The fusion program has changed significantly since the huge budget cut
> > > in 1996. The program is significantly more science oriented. Drs.
> > > Yamada and Ji have done some great work on reconnection using MRX.
> > > Paul Bellan does some great work on solar flare physics at CalTech.
> > > These are just the two examples that came up off the top of my head
> > > after thinking for about 0.5 seconds.
> >
> > Yes, two examples which "you" believe are 'great'.
>
> Yes, "I" "do". Can you further elaborate on what is wrong with that
> particular research?
Sure. 'Reconnection' physics is pseudophysics to the max.
Standard physics is missing whole chapters on key aspects of
electromagnetism. And yet the problem isn't that there doesn't exist
enough data to properly understand the universe but rather that there
are so many things which are readily accepted in every educational
institute as properly interpreted which, in fact, are nothing of the
kind.
> > There is plenty of pure plasma
> > > science being funded by DOE.
> >
> > "pure plasma pseudoscience" would be the better description.
>
> What a convincing argument. Your "technically detailed" explaination
> of sunspots is a good example of "real" science I guess.
> > As for the state of the fusion program,
> > > many of the experiments that you derided above are doing quite well.
> > > It sounds like for whatever reason you have chosen not to follow the
> > > results. Significant progress has been made on almost any front you
> > > can think of,
> >
> > Significant BS.
>
> That's what you put out all right. I'm perfectly willing to listen to
> reasonable criticisms from someone who actually knows what they're
> talking about. So far you argue at about the second grade level. Let's
> see where we're at; you said "nuh uh", so I guess the proper reply
> from me is "uh huh".
Really? And to claim that someone is arguing 'at about the second
grade level' is itself an argument from what grade level?
> > if you would care to look. Maybe you have been outside
> > > the community too long and missed some of the changes in philosophy
> > > and some of the progress.
> > >
> > > I doubt that I will change your view, but at least those four or five
> > > other people who are reading this will see another perspective.
> >
> > Oh, hell, give yourself some credit. Many dozens of people can be
> > conned by what you say. After all you yourself were conned into
> > believing what you say is true and if you are a better orator then
> > you'll be able to get more people in the groupthinkalike club with you.
> > :-).
> >
>
> I don't want anyone to join my club who seems as incapable of
> participating in a real discussion as you do.
Please don't make me laugh. I'm sure you'd take anyone you can get. :-)
> Rage against the machine man, I'm sure you have all the answers. :-P
And you, having no answers yourself, must needs suppose that everyone
is in the same boat as you are.
CCRyder
Roland Paterson-Jones
> works far better than the country that once grew rich on it, while that
> latter country is frittering away its inheritance on Neo-Con totalitarian
> neo-fascism, a Trotskyite Permanent State of War, and a "Homeland Security"
> program that makes no one any more "secure" (except the Federal Goon Squads),
> and everyone less free, as the former U.S.A. shreds the last tatters of its
> own constitution and destroys its own economy. Russia watches us in horror
> as we sovietize ourselves...
>
>
> "...They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety..." -- Benjamin Franklin
We are going to be investigating you. Have now doubt. You might like
the communist girlies, but we will show you where they come from.
Roland