Migma Fusion
Barry Merriman
(See "Energy Futures", Herman, 1976; call no. TJ163.25.UGH55,
pg 220-222)
The Migma idea is to accelerate a beam of + ions, curve it into
a circular pattern using magnetic fields, and have it collide with itself
in a small region to produce ion-ion fusions. ("Migma" refers to the
flower shaped pattern of the beam path). They plan to use fuels that
generate only charged fusion products, and directly convert they
products to electricity. (So, in other words, ''aneutronic'' fuels.)
The biggest problem with this approach is achieving a high density
of particles in the collision zone (typically a 1 cm^3 region),
since the particles are all + and repel.
The essence of the Migma idea was developed in Switzerland in 1969,
as a method to induce ample nuclear reactions for scientific study.
Similar work was being done at Rutgers. In 1973, their chief researcher,
Bogdan Maglich, saw the potential for a power producing device,
left rutgers, and formed his own company, Fusion Energy Corporation
(Princeton, NJ P) Box 2005, Zip 08540 as of 3/76) to develop
the Migma reactor concept.
They had $3,000,000 in startup capital, and spent $2,000,000
in their first two years. At that point, (1975)
they had a staff of 40, and proposed
a $45 million demonstration program that was intended to produce
a demo breakeven device in _1982_ (Obviously they didn't make it.).
Their reactor consists of a 3 foot diameter, 2 inch high,
vacuum chamber, with all the
fusion activity confined to the central 1 cm^3. They predict they need
10^16 fusions/sec to break even. However, their existing device (1975)
could only produce 18,000 fusion per second (off by 12 orders
of magnitude!). Also, they need to get 10^15 particles squeezed in the
central cm^3 to reach breakeven, but their basic approach is limited to
10^11 because of repulsions. They plan to try to inject electrons too to
partially neutralize the central region.
They predict their demo breakeven machine will be one meter across,
generate 10kW of power, and have a million dollar magnet on it.
(As of 1975) Maglich (chairman and chief researcher) says he hopes
to market the Migma Reactor in 1990 (Again, he obviously didn't make
it.). He also says lack of federal funding for non-plasma fusion
hinders his research, but they have gotten continuous backing from
private backers. Maglich predicts that by 1985, a $200 million dollar
Migma Reactor will be able to generate 1 MW of _electric_ (not thermal)
power. (Again, he was wrong.)
Comments:
The last I heard of Maglich that I recall firmly was an article on
Migma in Omni circa 1983. Still going strong, but no great results.
I think I saw mention of Migma several years back, but don't recall
precisely.
Ideas vaguely related to Migma have been proposed and investigated by others.
``Accelerator Fusion''---the idea of shooting an accelerater beam of
D+ into a solid T target, was proposed by John Dawson (and others?).
Basic estimates show this cannot produce useful power, because of the
energy needed to accelerate the beam. The gain (energy out/energy in)
is limited to about 3, and this is thermal energy---once its converted
to electrical, with 30% efficiency, the best you could do is
breakeven. Not interesting.
Dawson also proposed ``fusion on a wire''---take a plasma of positive
ions (a non-neutral plasma), run a wire through it, and put a low voltage
on the wire. This low potential traps the + ions, and confines them
long enough to fuse. The wire is so thin, that incoming particles will
orbit it instead of hit it, since they probably have angular momentum about it
(which must be conserved). Problems: (1) can't get high density of particles
due to repulsion; (2) Collisons dissipate angular momentum, and allow
the ions to rapidly spiral in to the wire and fry it.
I feel the Maglich/Migma saga is typical of many private/non-conventional
fusion ventures (e.g. KMS, INESCO, etc)---big predicitons, no results.
The reason is no that their ideas lack merit---its that they
lack the funds to do the needed research.
(even a small plasma physics experiment---1 m^3 chamber + several
0.5 Tesla magnets
+ instruments---costs at least $500,000 to set up, not to mention
staff and space. Even a small reactor concept would cost
on the order of $10 million to prototype. Prototype tokamaks
now go for nearly $1 billion (CIT).)
These funds are not being withheld due to any ``conspiracy''---its simply
that fusion devices are extremely expenisve to build, and funding
agencies wont part with that kind of money for unproven concepts.
Thus, rather than a conspiracy, its a catch 22: to prove your concept,
you need a device, but to get a device funded, the concept must be proven.
The Tokamak simply got lucky---it was the first design to get
promising confinement, back at a time when the projects were fairly
small (thus cheap). So it absorbed most of the initial funding.
This has sustained progress at a level that keeps funds coming in.
But, it has secured this evolutionary niche for itself---very difficult
for a new candidate to cohabitate.
My theory is that the only way for novel ideas to get funded is
to first prove the concept via computer simulation, which is becoming
feasible. Thsi will allow for cheap but accurate initial evaluation of
ideas which would be otherwise hard to evaluate.
Barry Merriman
Paul M. Koloc
>on the order of $10 million to prototype. Prototype tokamaks
>now go for nearly $1 billion (CIT).)
Hardly! Although that was the "touted" figure, it does not include
the "hand-me-downs" from the TFTR or the research program. I think
2.5 is a closer value.
>These funds are not being withheld due to any ``conspiracy''---its simply
>that fusion devices are extremely expensive to build, and funding
>agencies wont part with that kind of money for unproven concepts.
Some concepts are expensive and others are NOT!
It has NOTHING to do with cost! It is official policy that DOE won't
fund NEW alternatives; they might attract the attention of congress.
These new concepts compete strongly for funds and ATTENTION and against
a very expensive and flaky tokamak program. Why? Because, any budget
whacking Congress person might think...
"Hell's Bells, Why those people need two of them fusion gizmos?? " ,
and what happens then??,
------- W H A C K -------.
Goodbye Mirror machine! And that was "away back when there weren't no
REAL bad budget crisis".
" If it ain't conspiracy then
it is damn criminal project management."
>The Tokamak simply got lucky---it was the first design to get
>promising confinement, back at a time when the projects were fairly
>small (thus cheap). So it absorbed most of the initial funding.
>This has sustained progress at a level that keeps funds coming in.
Luck??
The DOE has NEVER funded a new startup idea, unlike the Russians, Nippon
and Italia. Initially funding was because the Russians invented it,
developed and achieved really relatively fantastic results with the
tokamak and then allowed the Westerners to come in and make their own
measurements because the West couldn't believe it. In fact, the data
turned out better. The BIG progress in tokamaks has stopped with
ASDEX (super "H" mode).
One might notice that Physicists tend to school like fish, but on an
international scale, especially around a constant funding source. What
is wonderful about the tokamak is that it is guaranteed that it will
never work but will allow governments to spend an ever increasing budget
on them as they produce an ever decreasing improvement. It has the
noblest of goals that no one dares to oppose. This is notwithstanding
the recent progress which is pathetic and the realized future
extrapolations which are dismal.
But H A R K .. .
60 more years of ever increasing bucks
going into the worldwide tokamak museum projects..
WOW !!
It boggles my mind.
>But, it has secured this evolutionary niche for itself---very difficult
>for a new candidate to cohabitate.
Especially if you mind getting rammed and then eaten by a tyrannis rex.
>My theory is that the only way for novel ideas to get funded is
>to first prove the concept via computer simulation, which is becoming
>feasible. Twos will allow for cheap but accurate initial evaluation of
>ideas which would be otherwise hard to evaluate.
Better a three pronged approach! The nature of the 4th state has more
to it than can be conquered in a narrower assault. But, ignore my
cat calls and keep up the great job. Your doing all the right things
and thinking! Very much appreciated.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; p...@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
Barry Merriman
>In article <2...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> ba...@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>It has NOTHING to do with cost! It is official policy that DOE won't
>fund NEW alternatives; they might attract the attention of congress.
I'm not up on current DOE funding policies. Is it actually written
down that they wont fund new alternatives, or are you just saying
that this appears to be the case?
For example, I recall Bussard eventually got some DOE money, and
I thinkk dome of the Muonic fusion work was DOE funded (though
I'm not sure.) Perhaps laser fusion too, at KMS Fusion, Inc.
And isn't there something like $5 million (from DOE) per year set aside
for work on novel approaches to fusion?
>The DOE has NEVER funded a new startup idea, unlike the Russians, Nippon
>and Italia.
Again, I'm not so sure. You are right about the tokamak, though
(i.e. we copied the russians). And they certainly have not been
supportive of attempts to commercialize fusion, such as Bussard's Riggatron.
One interesting thing related to DOE funding is this: in the latest
Business Week (in an article on Robotics), it said the DOE will have to spend
as much as $100 BILLION over the next 30 years to clean up
dozens of sites where wastes from _weapons production_ have been dumped.
Why does DOE have to underwrite the DOD? That $3 billion/year could
have gone a long way towards developing fusion energy, rather than
cleaning up weapons byproducts. (In fact, if you believe that figure, the
DOE cleanup budget will be 6 times the fusion budget!)
>what is wonderful about the tokamak is that it is guaranteed that it will
>never work but will allow governments to spend an ever increasing budget
Well, while I too would like better approaches than the tokamak,
(after all, its unlikely that the essentially first device they came up with
is going to be the ultimate), I'm not so pessimistic about it. In fact, I'd
be willing to give 10:1 odds that the tokamak program will be able
to deliver a commercially viable reactor in 50 years.
Barry Merriman
William Johnson
> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> >In article <2...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> ba...@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> >
> >It has NOTHING to do with cost! It is official policy that DOE won't
> >fund NEW alternatives; they might attract the attention of congress.
This is patent nonsense, as Barry proceeds to point out.
> I thinkk dome of the Muonic fusion work was DOE funded (though
> I'm not sure.) Perhaps laser fusion too, at KMS Fusion, Inc.
Certainly some of the muonic work was at least *supported* -- slight
distinction from "funded" -- by DOE, including some here at Los Alamos.
Any number of other schemes (heavy-ion-induced inertial fusion, various laser
methods [some conventional, some less so], even -- dare I say it? -- cold
fusion) have received money from DOE, either directly or indirectly. An
example of the latter is so-called "Institutional Supporting Research and
Development" money here at Los Alamos, which is a pot of money generated by
"taxing" other, explicitly funded programs so that people with crazy but
potentially interesting ideas can propose them and get startup money. If the
ideas pan out, followon funding may then become available from other parts of
DOE. I'm pretty sure that the other national laboratories have comparable
programs, all derived from DOE funds (among others).
It definitely sounds to me as though Mr. Koloc's comments have a distinct
aroma of sour grapes.
> One interesting thing related to DOE funding is this: in the latest
> Business Week (in an article on Robotics), it said the DOE will have to spend
> as much as $100 BILLION over the next 30 years to clean up
> dozens of sites where wastes from _weapons production_ have been dumped.
>
> Why does DOE have to underwrite the DOD? That $3 billion/year could
> have gone a long way towards developing fusion energy, rather than
> cleaning up weapons byproducts.
This is getting somewhat away from "fusion" issues, and I suggest asking the
question in another newsgroup if you don't like the answers you get here.
(Usual disclaimer: what follows is mine, not Los Alamos'; I don't work for DOE
and have no great interest in defending them, but you gotta call 'em the way
you see 'em.)
Anyway, the basic reason is that "production" of nuclear weapons is a complex
activity that, for statutory reasons, deeply involves DOE and has done so for
many years. One place that is a notorious focus for cleanup, Rocky Flats,
is "operated by Rockwell International under contract with the U.S. Department
of Energy. The primary mission of the plant is the development and production
of specific components for nuclear weapons," to quote from a recent document I
got describing the cleanup (available to the public via NTIS, let me know if
you're interested, it's nothing very exciting). It is somewhat inaccurate to
say that soaking DOE for the cleanup of Rocky "underwrites" DOD for this
reason; the mess that needs cleaning up was created with DOE funds.
Yes, $3B/yr would fund research on a *lot* of things! And there is widespread
concern among scientists at DOE laboratories (once again my opinion only,
standard disclaimers apply) that our ability to do innovative science is going
to be hamstrung, not only because of the loss of funding to the cleanup
operations but also because the cleanup comes attached to a lot of "compliance"
baggage of doubtful wisdom. But at the same time, the cleanup is needed, at
least at some places, and there's only just so much money to go around.
Again, followups on DOE spending on cleanup should go somewhere else; maybe
sci.environment for what's being paid for, and sci.research for general
discussions of funding issues in federally-supported research.
--
Bill Johnson | "Such things and deeds as are not written
Los Alamos National Laboratory | down are covered with darkness, and given
(m...@lanl.gov) | over to the sepulchre of oblivion." (Bunin)
Paul M. Koloc
>In article <2...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, ba...@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> >It is official policy that DOE won't fund NEW alternatives;
>This is patent nonsense, as Barry proceeds to point out.
>> >In article <2...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> ba...@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>> I thinkk dome of the Muonic fusion work was DOE funded (though
>> I'm not sure.) Perhaps laser fusion too, at KMS Fusion, Inc.
I also wrote:
Of course, I exclude from this the meager funding resulting from "heroic"
legal or political action such as from Bussard, Coppi, Wells, Maglich,
and yes... our dearest and later martyrs P&F. Is Hirsch next?
Leaving out Kip was a bit of an over sight; considering his whereabouts,
he well may have some minute change in physics law that will avenge him.
Bob Hope would love your spin. This guy literally give his LIFE trying
to get funding while before Congress. Damn that CIA spray works :-)
As far as Munonic fusion, well Hmmm! that more technique than apparatus.
It would enhance a broad spectrum of devices.
>distinction from "funded" -- by DOE, including some here at Los Alamos.
>Any number of other schemes (heavy-ion-induced inertial fusion, various laser
>methods [some conventional, some less so], even -- dare I say it? -- cold
>fusion) have received money from DOE, either directly or indirectly. An
>example of the latter is so-called "Institutional Supporting Research and
>Development" money here at Los Alamos, which is a pot of money generated by
>"taxing" other, explicitly funded programs so that people with crazy but
>potentially interesting ideas can propose them and get startup money. If the
>ideas pan out, follow on funding may then become available from other parts of
>DOE. I'm pretty sure that the other national laboratories have comparable
>programs, all derived from DOE funds (among others).
Boo! DOD is a special power density USER. DoE is a study program.
We are talking DoE Headquarters. The LANL is a terrific DOD Lab..
Their laser devices are funded from the DOD. The heavy ion Inertial
Fusion is in the same category. In fact, things are so bad, that the
DOD had to fund Tom Jarboe's Spheromak,CTX, and the work of that wonderful
little genius Z-pinch chap J. Hammel, recently deceased. The RFP magnetic
fusion group had to do a dance, not unlike private firms, to put
together a joint venture, with Canadian and private sector funding on
their "H" machine. After LANL gave up the lot of other projects, DoE
finally funded this machine, then turned around, trimmed the
allocation, and and later pared it down even more. They have made
headway/$. Why??? It's easily an order of magnitude better than
tokamak and Hdqrs must have something to fall back on... BTW the
numbers on ITER spell failure. Of course, not the public numbers.
Hey guys the clamp is on.. when people start counting on their "egg
(ISR) money", we are in a recession for sure, a science recession.
We all overlook on the bright side. Just limit blinded view to two
decades. Goodbye Mirror! Come on let's hear it -- So long, tokamak.
Oh you can't get to mars on a tokamak,
A tokamak, a tokamak.
But, if you keep trying it will
Break your back, and break you fiscally
too.
Paul M. Koloc
>p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <2...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> ba...@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>
>>It has NOTHING to do with cost! It is official policy that DOE won't
>>fund NEW alternatives; they might attract the attention of congress.
>
>I'm not up on current DOE funding policies. Is it actually written
>down that they wont fund new alternatives, or are you just saying
>that this appears to be the case?
I believe the policy is now that funding of new alternatives should not
restart until 2040 when some imaginary tokamak engineering achievement
is accomplished. That way they can remain "focused" or is fu_____sed.
That came from Clarke, former fusion boss, who is now in the
international scam called iter (pronouced ee-ter). I think the policy
was formulated by Furth and given force by the the mafia of fusion or
MFAC (now MPAC). There is only an acting head at DoE fusion. Nice dear
sweet person. M. Davies.
>For example, I recall Bussard eventually got some DOE money, and
>I thinkk dome of the Muonic fusion work was DOE funded (though
>I'm not sure.) Perhaps laser fusion too, at KMS Fusion, Inc.
Heroic ! The true Heros of this country. Guts John Wayne and
these precious names. It took Bussard's Hill contacts to get him
the "dime". Kip Siegel of KMS croaked right there while giving
testimony Congress!!, in order to get his company some money. What
timing! And Bussard! A true Giant. This guy is at it again!!
but.. mum's the word. ps.. it ain't doe.
>And isn't there something like $5 million (from DOE) per year set aside
>for work on novel approaches to fusion?
If they support some aspect of tokamak (the NATIONAL FUSION PROGRAM GOALS)
===== maybe ... if the price of concrete hasn't gone up to much.
>Why does DOE have to underwrite the DOD?
The BETTER half of DoE maybe its DoD side. But some good comes from this.
We need the tritium collected so it can decay to a clean fuel He3 :-)
>>what is wonderful about the tokamak is that it is guaranteed that it will
>>never work but will allow governments to spend an ever increasing budget
> . .. . . . . In fact, I'd
>be willing to give 10:1 odds that the tokamak program will be able
>to deliver a commercially viable reactor in 50 years.
You should live so long;
but with your grand sense of humor you just might
