Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.
McGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma confinement"
QuoteMcGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma confinement"Plasma confinement: hic sunt leones.(Bold mine)
The picture of the reactor implies you could put a "hole" at one end and leak out high velocity plasma. This could make a nice rocket engine.VASIMR originally had fusion in mind until they figured out it was very hard, so they just stuck to microwave heating of the plasma.
I'd assume a fusion reactor with a small amount of fuel, plus a separate tank of purely passive propellant. Prop flow rate will be just high enough to cool the engine just enough to stop it melting.
the neutron flux would provide bulk heating of the jacket
Is this LM upper management learning from Elon Musk that grand visions and inspiring hopeful technology projects have real present benefits?Is this the sort of announcement that would have been more conditional and modest sounding before Musk showed that talking about putting a million colonists on Mars didn't do any harm and rather helped him in attracting the best young talent and dealing with Congress?
I wonder if there's any chance of operating this as a nuclear light bulb - perhaps a film of 1H providing film cooling.Cheers, Martin
Sadly, like the VentureStar, this fusion reactor program may be an overly-optimistic attempt to jump too far ahead of the technology curve.
Quote from: Ludus on 10/17/2014 07:23 amIs this LM upper management learning from Elon Musk that grand visions and inspiring hopeful technology projects have real present benefits?Is this the sort of announcement that would have been more conditional and modest sounding before Musk showed that talking about putting a million colonists on Mars didn't do any harm and rather helped him in attracting the best young talent and dealing with Congress?I think you misunderstand what separates Elon Musk from traditional aerospace companies and government programs. It's not that Musk has grand visions. It's the approach he takes to achieve those grand visions. In particular, Musk focuses on cost and using proven technologies over pushing the technological edge.>
Quote from: MP99 on 10/18/2014 09:33 amI wonder if there's any chance of operating this as a nuclear light bulb - perhaps a film of 1H providing film cooling.Cheers, Martin The jacket would need to be transparent to thermal energy. Could we make one of pure quartz? I don't know.If we could then an isp of 10,000 would be achievable and we wouldn't need to sacrifice thrust for it.But that would be a hard engineering project because it couldn't have any imperfections at all.If it did the whole jacket would vaporize and destroy the engine.Perhaps one day we will be able to 3d-print a proof-of-concept jacket, laying down a single molecule per layer.Any of you young engineers out there willing to tackle this for your thesis?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/18/2014 10:43 amQuote from: Ludus on 10/17/2014 07:23 amIs this LM upper management learning from Elon Musk that grand visions and inspiring hopeful technology projects have real present benefits?Is this the sort of announcement that would have been more conditional and modest sounding before Musk showed that talking about putting a million colonists on Mars didn't do any harm and rather helped him in attracting the best young talent and dealing with Congress?I think you misunderstand what separates Elon Musk from traditional aerospace companies and government programs. It's not that Musk has grand visions. It's the approach he takes to achieve those grand visions. In particular, Musk focuses on cost and using proven technologies over pushing the technological edge.>Where do supersonic retropropulsion, printing very powerful thrusters, flying printed LOX valves, and a full-flow staged combustion engone fit into the not-bleeding edge theory? Yes - several have been talked about previously, or had rudimentary work, but SpaceX is flying two (soon three) and committed to the FFSC and cutting (or is that printing?) metal.
I see no evidence that this is significantly further along than other reasonably-funded alt-fusion projects. The only difference I see is that of Lockheed-Martin's marketing department.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/18/2014 11:46 pmI see no evidence that this is significantly further along than other reasonably-funded alt-fusion projects. The only difference I see is that of Lockheed-Martin's marketing department.Yeah, I was kinda hoping for something more. At least a scientific announcement.. but they don't even seem to have "look at how good some of our parameters are" to say.
Yeah, I was kinda hoping for something more. At least a scientific announcement.. but they don't even seem to have "look at how good some of our parameters are" to say.
From the article, they are only just starting tests of plasma confinement, so they are nowhere near to test fusion reactions yet, i.e. they have no interesting parameters to talk about...
Quote from: denis on 10/19/2014 06:52 pmFrom the article, they are only just starting tests of plasma confinement, so they are nowhere near to test fusion reactions yet, i.e. they have no interesting parameters to talk about...Don't you remember the announcement over a year and a half ago, in which they showed us a viewport photo of one of the coils surrounded by plasma? And there are other statements in the recent article that indicate that they have already done at least some testing.The phrase "We are starting with the plasma confinement" doesn't mean they haven't started yet; it just means that's where they've started and they aren't done yet. It's a description of their research strategy, not a progress report.Also, as noted above, this is the Skunk Works we're talking about. I've seen it speculated that this is not so much a research and development effort as a declassification effort. I wouldn't lay money on that, but I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility that they're further along than they sound...
Don't you remember the announcement over a year and a half ago, in which they showed us a viewport photo of one of the coils surrounded by plasma? And there are other statements in the recent article that indicate that they have already done at least some testing.
The phrase "We are starting with the plasma confinement" doesn't mean they haven't started yet; it just means that's where they've started and they aren't done yet. It's a description of their research strategy, not a progress report.
It's worth noting that lots of alt-fusion projects have already done fusion, have generated neutrons convincingly. When is "first neutrons" for this project?
What is the business model or business proposition here, in this Lockheed-Martin project? Do they plan to make money by selling these MrFusion devices?
Dr Eric Lerner's project at Lawrence Livermore
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/19/2014 09:23 pmIt's worth noting that lots of alt-fusion projects have already done fusion, have generated neutrons convincingly. When is "first neutrons" for this project?Dr Eric Lerner's project at Lawrence Livermore has an eventual goal of not producing neutrons but directly converting gama into electricity and drawing power from the 3 helium nuclei produced by the breakdown of the carbon 12 formed by the proton boron fusion. see http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/images/Presentation%20Script%20101212.pdf
Well, YEAH, that's what everyone wants. But first step in proving you're not talking out your rear is to demonstrate ignition with Deuterium-Tritium, with tell-tale neutrons. D-T is by far the easiest kind of fusion, so it's the first step. Note: nobody has achieved ignition (not in an h-bomb) with D-T, yet.So again, have they even produced any neutrons, yet? Because if not, this isn't as credible as many other alt-fusion projects out there.Or in the words of QuantumG: When someone is wishing for a pony, there's little to be gained by suggesting a unicorn would be ever better..
But I thought the whole idea was that their desired reaction is aneutronic, and thus more easily harvestable.
Quote from: sanman on 10/20/2014 04:53 amBut I thought the whole idea was that their desired reaction is aneutronic, and thus more easily harvestable.Who? The Skunkworks project? I didn't read that.Even the folks who are going for aneutronic are starting with D-D (and would probably try D-T if they could afford it.)
Quote from: Ludus on 10/17/2014 07:23 amIs this LM upper management learning from Elon Musk that grand visions and inspiring hopeful technology projects have real present benefits?Is this the sort of announcement that would have been more conditional and modest sounding before Musk showed that talking about putting a million colonists on Mars didn't do any harm and rather helped him in attracting the best young talent and dealing with Congress?I think you misunderstand what separates Elon Musk from traditional aerospace companies and government programs. It's not that Musk has grand visions. It's the approach he takes to achieve those grand visions. In particular, Musk focuses on cost and using proven technologies over pushing the technological edge.Lockheed sank a significant amount of its own money into the X-33/VentureStar program in the late 1990s, before SpaceX existed, so don't think Lockheed needs to watch SpaceX to have grand visions and inspiring technology programs.Sadly, like the VentureStar, this fusion reactor program may be an overly-optimistic attempt to jump too far ahead of the technology curve.
So anyway, back to the fusion thing -1) Will Lockheed-Martin's new announcement significantly accelerate the research efforts for magnetic fusion confinement?2) Will they have any spinoff benefits for other types of fusion research?
It uses fission - a neutron source - to initiate the fusion reaction. [..]It's a pulse design with extended burn.
Re1) No, there's no attempt at containment or sustained fusion. Their magnetic plasma confinement development, as others have mentioned, isn't groundbreaking as there isn't much left with that science other than adapting it for a specific purpose (ITER, VASIMR, this, etc).
Re2) Yes, because this is a different approach to fusion than all previous attempts;It uses fission - a neutron source - to initiate the fusion reaction. H-bombs have been doing it for decades but this is the first fusion experiment smart enough to realize the benefits.It's a pulse design with extended burn. Plenty of garages have accomplished pulse fusion, but what appears to be a simultaneous injection of fuel at ignition creates a much larger burn per cycle.
The patent applications are enlightening:http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/p/n/r/US2014301517A1.pdfhttp://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/e/e/f/US2014301519A1.pdfhttp://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/y/n/d/espacenetDocument.pdfThere are actually eight co-aligned superconducting coils: the two big interior coils, four outer coils in between the interior coils, and two mirror coils at either end. So, the field geometry is somewhere polywell and FRCs like Tri-Alpha or Helion. They may use FLiBe as a coollant liquid, which would allow them to breed tritium directly (neutron bombardment of lithium makes tritium).
That's mentioned in the article about using a liquid metal coolant. The only nuclear related example I can think of this in propulsion terms was when liquid metal was used in the reactors of some soviet subs.
Quote from: A12 on 10/15/2014 07:19 pmQuoteMcGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma confinement"Plasma confinement: hic sunt leones.(Bold mine)Didn't they use a magnetic bottle for plasma confinement at the New York World's Fair in 1964?I wish they'd develop VentureStar instead.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/26/2014 02:45 pmQuote from: A12 on 10/15/2014 07:19 pm... magnetized ion confinement ..."... a magnetic bottle...Well, their concept is a bit more than just a magnetic mirror. ...
Quote from: A12 on 10/15/2014 07:19 pm... magnetized ion confinement ..."... a magnetic bottle...
... magnetized ion confinement ..."
A magnetic mirror is how a magnetic bottle is really called. Well, actually a magnetic bottle is an application of the concept of the magnetic mirror. It's the effect the keeps the plasma inside the bottle.
More details published here:"After surprising the world with the announcement of a new nuclear fusion energy concept with the possibility of fast application at relatively low cost, Lockheed Martin has revealed more detail about the basis of its proposed compact fusion reactor (CFR)"Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/news-analysis/new-details-on-compact-fusion-reveal-scale-of-challenge/1019393.article#ixzz3GsrDfsrqNothing on fission neutrons...
I'm pretty sure they didn't have superconducting coils at the 1964 World's Fair, nor computers capable of simulating intricate magnetic fields.
Quote from: simonbp on 10/27/2014 04:11 amI'm pretty sure they didn't have superconducting coils at the 1964 World's Fair, nor computers capable of simulating intricate magnetic fields.Of course they didn't. I'm simply bringing up the lack of a compelling need to change the terminology. They managed to make a magnetic bottle to control the Fusion for purposes of a public demonstration. Fifty years ago, by using a magnetic bottle, they squeezed a small amount of hydrogen to the point of fusing. And they did it in public. Every hour on the hour. Pretty amazing feat, by any telling.This is simply the helf century old context of the current announcement. What is really needed is for Lockheed's skunk works to make VentureStar a functioning launch vehicle. That would be a pragmatic use of time talent and treasure.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/27/2014 12:38 pmQuote from: simonbp on 10/27/2014 04:11 amI'm pretty sure they didn't have superconducting coils at the 1964 World's Fair, nor computers capable of simulating intricate magnetic fields.Of course they didn't. ... John, could you provide me a link to this info? ...
Quote from: simonbp on 10/27/2014 04:11 amI'm pretty sure they didn't have superconducting coils at the 1964 World's Fair, nor computers capable of simulating intricate magnetic fields.Of course they didn't. ...
What is really needed is for Lockheed's skunk works to make VentureStar a functioning launch vehicle. That would be a pragmatic use of time talent and treasure.
I would think that it's up to Lockheed themselves, and not some random internet commentators, to decide for themselves what is "really needed" for their business.
I now think that fusion reactors are just around the corner,...
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 11/01/2014 06:40 pmI now think that fusion reactors are just around the corner,...I think you're right. Heck, they've been "just around the corner" for the last 50 years straight, so why wouldn't they be now?
Quote from: Lee Jay on 11/01/2014 08:07 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 11/01/2014 06:40 pmI now think that fusion reactors are just around the corner,...I think you're right. Heck, they've been "just around the corner" for the last 50 years straight, so why wouldn't they be now?You do realise that technology has moved on a bit in that time. I really dislike this use of cheap memes for things like this.
Quote from: Star One on 11/01/2014 08:59 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 11/01/2014 08:07 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 11/01/2014 06:40 pmI now think that fusion reactors are just around the corner,...I think you're right. Heck, they've been "just around the corner" for the last 50 years straight, so why wouldn't they be now?You do realise that technology has moved on a bit in that time. I really dislike this use of cheap memes for things like this.Exactly! By now, we have a pretty good understanding of how to achieve break even with nuclear fusion. The bigger issue right now is how to make it economically competitive with coal.
All you gotta do is get around that dang corner!
Like many experts in the field, those at Jet believe the Lockheed announcement is not a breakthrough but a lack of concrete information is frustrating the scientists."You have to be ready for somebody to change your mind, you have to be," said Prof Steve Cowley, the director of the Culham effort."I don't know in this case. It might be that they have some good ideas, but partly because they are doing it commercially they are not going to tell us, so it can't be subject to the normal scientific peer review."If they do have some innovative ideas they'd be fools to tell us."
New article on this from the BBC. On what is actually quite a thin article the most interesting part is the section covering other scientists frustration at the lack of info from LM.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29710811
New article on this from the BBC. On what is actually quite a thin article the most interesting part is the section covering other scientists frustration at the lack of info from LM.
Quote from: Star One on 11/17/2014 11:43 amNew article on this from the BBC. On what is actually quite a thin article the most interesting part is the section covering other scientists frustration at the lack of info from LM.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29710811 I'm not sure if I'd put too much trust in an analysis done by a guy who thinks fission is "splitting molecules".
Well, my deleted post dwelt briefly on NASA's funding level percentage fifty years ago, and the public demonstrations which engaged, well, the public, who fund these sorts of things, but that was found offensive. Apparently they now opt for secrecy and low funding and little public recognition.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 11/17/2014 12:15 pmWell, my deleted post dwelt briefly on NASA's funding level percentage fifty years ago...Just an FYI but 50 years ago the "public demonstrations" ...
Well, my deleted post dwelt briefly on NASA's funding level percentage fifty years ago...
Quote from: RanulfC on 11/19/2014 03:12 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 11/17/2014 12:15 pmWell, my deleted post dwelt briefly on NASA's funding level percentage fifty years ago...Just an FYI but 50 years ago the "public demonstrations" ...Randy: I was talking about the World's Fair in 1964, where they gave a public fusion demonstration. And remember that NASA had a much higher percentage of the nation's budget dollar back then.
The more I read of this story the less sense it makes.The LM Advanced Projects Development team is know for its aircraft (U2, SR71) and its aerospace plances (the X33).So a) Some of their research team comes to management and says "We've got a really good way to do fusion that not been tried in 70 years." or b)Management goes out and hires a team to investigate fusion, because, yo'know, it's cool.Option a) makes (possibly) slightly more sense if it comes out of some in house research on magnetic field patterns for some other purpose. But frankly I smell a massive rat. No results, no peer review. I think they're looking to get some part of the USG to cough up a big bag of cash.
What I do not understand, is why should the military get the Compact Fusion Reactor in 10 years, then the rest of the world in 20 years years? Should the whole world have this technology out at the same time or commercial use has it then the military?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/20/2014 05:21 amThe more I read of this story the less sense it makes.The LM Advanced Projects Development team is know for its aircraft (U2, SR71) and its aerospace plances (the X33).So a) Some of their research team comes to management and says "We've got a really good way to do fusion that not been tried in 70 years." or b)Management goes out and hires a team to investigate fusion, because, yo'know, it's cool.Option a) makes (possibly) slightly more sense if it comes out of some in house research on magnetic field patterns for some other purpose. But frankly I smell a massive rat. No results, no peer review. I think they're looking to get some part of the USG to cough up a big bag of cash. Or they might just have decided they don't need to broadcast everything they are doing, especially if they have more patents to file and they don't want their competitors to borrow any ideas. I think their approach is perfectly sensible in the context of this plus they have no requirement to produce anything for peer review at what sounds to be still an early stage of development. Give them time people and take your cynicism down a notch.
The military makes sense because they already pay a premium for power on mobile units and place great value on a strategic advantage. If you can fit a practical fusion reactor on an aircraft carrier, then the military will buy it at a tremendous markup. They already did for fission reactors. The designs they use are not remotely competitive compared to the commercial market.
If its as small as they claim, I would expect that it will be able to be fit to cruisers and destroyers and containerised to enable field deployment to FOBs. Independence from the fossil fuel line of supply would be revolutionary in military logistics.
Quote from: Wigles on 11/21/2014 03:50 amIf its as small as they claim, I would expect that it will be able to be fit to cruisers and destroyers and containerised to enable field deployment to FOBs. Independence from the fossil fuel line of supply would be revolutionary in military logistics.Don't get too carried away.There is still a fuel supply. It's just (in principle) a lot smaller.But the whole story just does not hang together. A huge aerospace weapons corp (do they do any civilian non government products any more?) is trying to raise external funding (and hence loss of total control) for a product that if real would have the whole world beating a path to their door at almost any price?What does make sense is they've seen Bussard's company get some cash out of the USN and they figure if they can offer something similar their reputation will do the rest.
But frankly I smell a massive rat. No results, no peer review. I think they're looking to get some part of the USG to cough up a big bag of cash.
Why are you trying to draw conclusions on something that's still at its early stages and has yet to have full disclosure of all its details. This to me seems an exercise in futility and leads to groundless speculation.
Ok guys, One thing I do know about LM Skunkworks, they never make a public announcementabout a particular technology, ESPECIALLY one that's going to change the very basic economic structure of the nation, if not the world, unless they were pretty danged certain that they could actually do a particular thing. As in they've likely already got a government backed classified version that they've been running for some time now. If indeed they have produced such a beast, at the current size that they're quoting, building even a few of these generators is going to get noticed. I know that the military has been playing around with nontraditional compact power generation systems since at least the 1980's. And yes, we are talking something smaller and lighter than a standard nuclear reactor. I think that their main problem is likely to be scaling up the manufacturing capibilities of LockMart to meet the expected demand from the public. ten years would also allow time for the needed infrastructure that would be needed to support such a potentile changeover from other types of power generation to that of Fusion. By announcing such a system 10 years before the actual release would prevent a lot of, "future shock" that could adversely effect all of the economy. And finally, there could be sensitive data and equipment that might not be declassified yet that still need go through the declassifaction process.
Oddly LM's vision seems less plausible to me than Elon's for mundane non-technical reasons. LM is pitching this (like X-33) very much like other traditional aerospace ideas, trying to interest outside money in paying for it. That's what they do. SpaceX in contrast is dedicated to the vision and they do other stuff to make money to support it. SpaceX isn't making a pitch to Congress and NASA to build MCT or a methane BFR. They are saying we are going to build these things because we think they should be built. The only relationship to SpaceX's business plan is the business plan has to fund them year by year from other activities. It's hard for a public company to adopt this stance since it says the company's real business is not making money and it's not about the interests of shareholders. The equivalent to SpaceX would be LM saying that humanity and the planet need a cheap clean fusion reactor soon. We think we can do it. From now on LM will be dedicated to achieving this. Everything else we do will be subordinated to it. From now on we only care about making money if it supports this objective. We welcome any help and participation but it's our singular goal whether we get any support or not. Tesla and Solar City are organized around this kind of thinking from their founding so it works for them. They are pretty closely held for public companies and it is in their DNA so no surprise for investors. Not so LM. So if the pitch doesn't bring outside money pretty soon the project gets canceled.
maybe they got the tech from Roswell a bit figured out
One thing I do know about LM Skunkworks, they never make a public announcementabout a particular technology, ESPECIALLY one that's going to change the very basic economic structure of the nation, if not the world, unless they were pretty danged certain that they could actually do a particular thing.
As in they've likely already got a government backed classified version that they've been running for some time now. If indeed they have produced such a beast, at the current size that they're quoting, building even a few of these generators is going to get noticed.
I know that the military has been playing around with nontraditional compact power generation systems since at least the 1980's. And yes, we are talking something smaller and lighter than a standard nuclear reactor.
Quote from: Star One on 11/21/2014 01:25 pmWhy are you trying to draw conclusions on something that's still at its early stages and has yet to have full disclosure of all its details. This to me seems an exercise in futility and leads to groundless speculation.The phrase you're looking for is full disclosure of any details. They've said roughly how big they think it will be.That's an aspiration, a design goal. Beyond that, what?The logic and narrative, what they are saying and in fact why they are saying it in the first place, makes no real sense.
Do they owe anyone an explanation though at this stage, you're assuming they are going to behave like a scientific institute or team, when in fact they aren't really like either of these. Just why should they say anything more than they have, is the question you should be considering.
[After some reading into the proposal it seems like the major difference between the two on a technology and design level is that they're trying to induce fusion through the flow of plasma from one end of the bottle to the other ...
Actually it's yet another electromagnetically-confined plasma experiment like ITER, Polywell and dozens of others that can produce science, but have zero chance of ever becoming a generator - aka electricity producer.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 11/22/2014 08:48 amQuote from: Star One on 11/21/2014 01:25 pmWhy are you trying to draw conclusions on something that's still at its early stages and has yet to have full disclosure of all its details. This to me seems an exercise in futility and leads to groundless speculation.The phrase you're looking for is full disclosure of any details. They've said roughly how big they think it will be.That's an aspiration, a design goal. Beyond that, what?The logic and narrative, what they are saying and in fact why they are saying it in the first place, makes no real sense.It may not make sense to those unfamiliar with what's going on, but it obviously makes sense to Lock-Mart. I think they're in a better position to judge their potential for success than I am.
Ok guys,One thing I do know about LM Skunkworks, they never make a public announcementabout a particular technology, ESPECIALLY one that's going to change the very basic economic structure of the nation, if not the world, unless they were pretty danged certain that they could actually do a particular thing...
Elon Musk has yet to produce a new technology out of whole cloth, which compact fusion reactors would certainly require. Nothing about Elon Musk's experience can contribute significantly to fusion in it's current state, particularly given some of the necessary economies of scale to make fusion produce a net gain in power.
Polywell is inertial electrostatic confinement, not magnetic confinement (even though it uses magnets)... JET will demonstrate break even with T+D in a couple of years or so. There are several magnetic confinement concepts that use field reversed configuration that look very good for comparably compact reactors. Then we have Helion, which combines magnetic and inertial confinement in a very compact aneutronic reactor concept with direct energy conversion.
Checklist for Fusion generators;1- No electromagnets2- Small reactors3- Energy recovery4- Sustainability
Quote from: rusty on 11/23/2014 07:30 amChecklist for Fusion generators;1- No electromagnets2- Small reactors3- Energy recovery4- SustainabilityThe closest idea I've seen was from General Fusion, though they did plan on going big later. Personally, I'd take a different route. But if they get it to work, would anyone complain? http://www.generalfusion.com/(some electromagnets will undoubtedly be used, they can't be the basis and #3-4 are intertwined with shielding) 1 - Why? You can't contain plasma without an electromagnetic field.2 - I agree, too big isn't practical.3 - Energy recovery by heat is a solved engineering task. Direct conversion doesn't look so difficult in a polywell if advanced aneutronic fuels work.4 - Nebulous term, and a favorite of some people I regard as reliable reverse barometers.
Checklist for Fusion generators;1- No electromagnets2- Small reactors3- Energy recovery4- SustainabilityThe closest idea I've seen was from General Fusion, though they did plan on going big later. Personally, I'd take a different route. But if they get it to work, would anyone complain? http://www.generalfusion.com/(some electromagnets will undoubtedly be used, they can't be the basis and #3-4 are intertwined with shielding)
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 11/23/2014 09:07 pmPolywell is inertial electrostatic confinement, not magnetic confinement (even though it uses magnets)... JET will demonstrate break even with T+D in a couple of years or so. There are several magnetic confinement concepts that use field reversed configuration that look very good for comparably compact reactors. Then we have Helion, which combines magnetic and inertial confinement in a very compact aneutronic reactor concept with direct energy conversion.I'm aware of all the concepts and methods and was pointing out they're all variations (except JET) on the same theme, "that can produce science, but have zero chance of ever becoming a generator". It doesn't matter if fusion is attempted in a sphere, tokamak, Helion's pulse well, LM's well, Polywell or reverse field, it's all just science projects.If you'd read the entire post, you'd see none of these come close to the checklist primarily for failing #1, #3, mostly #4 (though some electromagnets will undoubtedly be used, they can't be the basis and #3-4 are intertwined with shielding).
1 - You appear to assume a large amount of power must be expended to maintain a magnetic field. ...4 - Should the reaction heat up and expand, it will immediately cool and slow. A good design will keep the reaction near equilibrium. ...
Your checklist is nonsense and pretty much contradicts what the majority of plasma physicists in the world are thinking, but keep going.
You are so wrong in virtually all of your reasons. I, and others will get back to you...
Quote from: Hanelyp on 12/16/2014 10:16 pm1 - You appear to assume a large amount of power must be expended to maintain a magnetic field. ...4 - Should the reaction heat up and expand, it will immediately cool and slow. A good design will keep the reaction near equilibrium. ...I don't know where you derived that "appearance". Secondly, I don't equate "equilibrium" to "good" designs.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 12/17/2014 07:45 pmYour checklist is nonsense and pretty much contradicts what the majority of plasma physicists in the world are thinking, but keep going.Are you really going to argue "all the "experts" say so, so I'll say so and be correct"? Works for subatomic (quantum) theory and CO2 hysteria, so must work here too? Works for Geocentrism and search engines, so it must always be fact? Really?FYI; You're claiming a half-century of proven failure that has always been "three decades away" as the best course. If absolute failure and inability to do anything but repeat those failures - bigger! and repeat! - is what you define as expertise and success, than there's no sense in trying to make sense to you. Lemmings gonna lemming, I suppose.Quote from: IslandPlaya on 12/15/2014 11:30 pmYou are so wrong in virtually all of your reasons. I, and others will get back to you... Any time now, feel free to "get back to me" rather than just issue empty dismissals. Ditto to Elmar.
August 6, 2015, 4:15pm to 6:30pm MBG AuditoriumCOLLOQUIUM: The Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion ReactorDr. Thomas McGuireLockheed MartinLockheed Martin Skunkworks is developing a compact fusion reactor concept, CFR. The novel magnetic cusp configuration would allow for stable plasmas in a geometry amenable to economical power plants and power sources. The details of the CFR configuration will be discussed along with a status of the current plasma confinement experiments underway at Lockheed. The presentation will also touch on the potential of a fast development path and challenges to bring such a device to fruition.
QuoteDubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.Thought it was worth a separate thread to post this, and thought further it belongs here in AC section of the site. Article elaborates on expected development time with Lockheed stating they could have some of these running by 2020 ish. Also points out they developed them in part (possibly) with the thought of more efficient NTR engines for space and/or reviving a nuclear aircraft concept. Definitely neat stuff and this is a somewhat truly new concept particularly the shape of the plasma container vessel. Source:http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details
Much progress have been made in past 10 years with fusion it still not there yet for a working fusion.Some still think it is 20 to 50 years out unless some major breakthroughs.
Lockheed Martin Now Has a Patent For Its Potentially World Changing Fusion Reactor
QuoteLockheed Martin Now Has a Patent For Its Potentially World Changing Fusion Reactorhttp://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19652/lockheed-martin-now-has-a-patent-for-its-potentially-world-changing-fusion-reactor
NBF seems to agree with my earlier assessment in the Fusion threadhttps://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/lockheed-is-not-revealing-a-commercial-prototype-nuclear-fusion-reactor-in-the-next-few-years.html#more-144035
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 04/11/2018 12:55 amNBF seems to agree with my earlier assessment in the Fusion threadhttps://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/lockheed-is-not-revealing-a-commercial-prototype-nuclear-fusion-reactor-in-the-next-few-years.html#more-144035You and Wang may both be right, but I'd hesitate to use him agreeing with me as evidence of anything. I've seen him post some pretty loopy logic. His most recent post on trade war with China is a great example. It was basically magical thinking.
No, the evidence was in what Lockheed themselves have said about their progress to date and their roadmap. Also what they said about their confinement concept (which I regard with skepticism) and the fact that the reactor has to be 1000 tons in size, much larger than they anticipated (while skeptics anticipated that it would have to be larger as soon as details emerged).https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/10_MCGUIRE.pdfWang just picked up on that skepticism that has been floating around for months.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 04/11/2018 06:49 pmNo, the evidence was in what Lockheed themselves have said about their progress to date and their roadmap. Also what they said about their confinement concept (which I regard with skepticism) and the fact that the reactor has to be 1000 tons in size, much larger than they anticipated (while skeptics anticipated that it would have to be larger as soon as details emerged).https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/10_MCGUIRE.pdfWang just picked up on that skepticism that has been floating around for months.If they're sticking to their roadmap they are (depending on progress) somewhere in T5 right now.Demo high density plasma source Demo neutral beam capture / confinement Measure sheath size, cusp losses Characterize kinetic and fluid instabilitiesWhich looks like it will drive quite a lot of design choices for T6Bottom line. This is another concept (like the MIT ARC, but I'm sure there are others) that gets more viable as the magnet technology improves. I'd look at what MIT's ARC project is doing. MIT was always the underdog in US fusion research yet their skills at magnet technology kept them in the race for a long time.
Oh, I have been watching Dennis Whyte's work for quite some time I like Whyte, he seems like a smart and pleasant guy. He also is not afraid to give nods to other confinement concepts as being also viable. He just chooses the Tokamak, because they know it works.
It included images of the compact fusion reactor, an effort Lockheed acknowledged five years ago to develop a breakthrough nuclear powerplant. But Lockheed officials have said ongoing tests on a series of subscale prototype reactors won’t produce data needed for a go-ahead decision until later this year or next year.