• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lockneed breakthough in fusion reactors.

macdoc said:
So what's more unlikely ...

Man walking on the moon....

Regenerated spinal cords...

Fusion in 10 years...

We now have 2 of three.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29645760
Click to expand...

But,
- no one has gone to the moon since the early 1970s. Nor have we left low earth orbit since
- regenerated spinal cords are not routine
- we have been promised fusion several times before.
 
Trakar said:
Compare units not weight.

One mole of fusion fuel is a few grams (4-10 depending upon fusion scheme).
One mole of fission fuel is around a quarter of a Kg (dependent upon metal used).

Each unit gives off an approximately similar amount of neutrons, and this comparison doesn't include the gamma emission considerations.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the quantity (moles) of fuel be the only consideration in neutron production? Nuclear produces around 4 MeV per decay, whereas fusion can produce around 18 MeV per fusion. The masses are quite irrelevant, but, assuming similar yields, you need approximately 4.5 times fewer neutron-producing events in a deuterium-tritium reaction to produce the same amount of power in a fission one.
We're saying the same thing, aren't we? :)

McHrozni
 
macdoc said:
Is Lockheed not a build out of the Polywell concept.
Click to expand...

Quite different in concept, really.

The Polywell attempts to compensate for the deficiency of the Fusor in that the Fusor cannot approach breakeven without melting the electrode it depends upon by having a virtual electrode in the form of magnetically trapped electrons that form the attractor for the oscillating light nuclei.

The CFR creates a magnetic bottle. As I understand it, there is a surface magnetic field that adheres to the inner bottle wall that is used to contain a volume which is not itself strongly penetrated by the magnetic field. Where it is similar is that the light nuclei bounce back and forth and that there is a fairly high cross-section of collision in the center of the volume.
 
I had a thought last night. Given that it's highly unlikely that Lockheed made a breakthrough that allows us to go straight from being unable to produce viable fusion reaction that gives us more power than we put in to a compact 100 MW reactor that can fit in the bed of a truck, what if this is something else entirely. Something like a flypaper for spies, an attempt to flush them out? What better way to do so than setting up a bait which is basically the Holy GrailTM of energy production for everything - from military to airspace to shipping to powering cities.

The claim on their site is they intend to produce the base load for the entire world by 2050. This would be at least as revolutionary as internal combustion engine. It's a particularly sweet fruit to try to steal.

Thoughts?

McHrozni
 
Don’t get too excited, no one has cracked nuclear fusion yet

While the rewards of fusion power are substantial, so are the challenges of making it a reality. The deuterium-tritium reaction is the easiest fusion reaction to initiate, yet the optimal temperature needed is 100 million degrees C, which is six to seven times hotter than the core of the Sun.

The key to producing significant fusion power is confining the plasma long enough at a high enough temperature and density for there to be a net power gain.

The international research community is currently working on a new experimental fusion reactor, called ITER, which will have a field strength of about 5 Tesla and a radius of 6 m. Overall, the ITER device is 60 m tall, weighs 23,000 tonnes, and has 80,000 km of niobium tin superconducting strands. Such a device does not fit on the back of a truck.

Despite the difficulties, progress in fusion power has exceeded the spectacular improvement in computer power. In the space of 30 years, power output has increased by a factor of more than a million. Present-day experiments have a power output of tens of megawatts. ITER will produce 500 megawatts of fusion power.

Lockheed Martin will need to show a lot more research evidence that it can do better than multinational collaborative projects like ITER. So far, its lack of willingness to engage with the scientific community suggests that it may be more interested in media attention than scientific development.

Matthew Hole is Australia’s representative on the IAEA International Fusion Research Council and Chair of the Australian ITER Forum, a consortium of scientists and engineers who support an Australian participation in ITER.
Click to expand...
 
Lockheed Martin will need to show a lot more research evidence that it can do better than multinational collaborative projects like ITER
Click to expand...

The multi-nationals tried and failed to produce a blue laser as well.
Instead it took a couple of guys in an obscure agriculture chemicals lab to do it.

What IS moving forward at an incredible pace is materials science and in this case....small may well be the better approach to fusion.
The article smacks of self serving justification for a mega- project.

I do hope one or the other or both work out but I'd say Lockheed's sure allows for a lot more Iterations ;) ...sorry could not resist.
 
macdoc said:
Fusion in 10 years...
Click to expand...
Fusion has always been 10-20 years away, because it would be far more accurate to say it's $80 billion away, and has been since the 70s:

spoilered for big chart
512px-U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png


U.S. historical fusion budget vs. 1976 ERDA plan [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], by Geoff Olynyk (Own work), from Wikimedia Commons
 
And blue lasers are impossible. :rolleyes:

Things change...get used to it.

Besides - the phrase was 30 years away, not 10, not 20 ...do keep up.

Fusion Power—Just 30 Years Away! (Again) | Charles ...
bigthink.com/videos/fusion-power-just-30-years-away-again
Jun 3, 2010 - We've known this for 30 to 50 years. The joke in the fusion energy community is that fusion is always 30 years away
Click to expand...
http://bigthink.com/videos/fusion-power-just-30-years-away-again
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
And blue lasers are impossible. :rolleyes:

Things change...get used to it.

Besides - the phrase was 30 years away, not 10, not 20 ...do keep up.


http://bigthink.com/videos/fusion-power-just-30-years-away-again
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Are you replying to me? Why would you quibble about the number of years used as an estimate when I was disagreeing with the use of years as an estimate in the first place? Whoever said anything about blue lasers being impossible?
 
I don't understand.
Click to expand...

that's obvious :rolleyes:

•••

Me too. If anything, the results of both that and the new big Cadarache reactor should give us more clear path toward commercial widespread fusion.
Click to expand...

Despite the cynics I think that is part of the motive of Skunkworks opening up the project to outside help.

In some ways similar to Musk and his patent opening to get EVs into the mainstream.....perhaps a massive multi-faceted push for fusion can do this in a decade ala the moon.

That achievement pales in comparison what successful fusion would do for civilization and the biome.

How big should the prize be..... ;)
 
FREE ENERGY!! Whoo hoo! Using neutrons to heat water! Everyone knows neutrons will be free of charge....
 
I agree that the truck mention is only for the benefit of readership in visualizing the size of it. Not meant to be a literal installation.

Its similar to metaphorically comparing satellites as being the size of a school bus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom