Author Topic: Lockheed-Martin unveils potentially major Fusion Reactor progress  (Read 71724 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173

Quote
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.


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
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline A12

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • ROME, ITALY
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 487
Quote
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"

Plasma confinement: hic sunt leones.

(Bold mine)
« Last Edit: 10/15/2014 07:20 pm by A12 »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Quote
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"

Plasma confinement: hic sunt leones.

(Bold mine)

Noted. I think they might be a little over confident here.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 138
Given how optimistic some of the more extreme stories covering this got, I was a little skeptical and went looking for some balanced reporting.  Here are a couple more sober viewpoints.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/lockheed-martin-nuclear-fusion-skeptical
http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-bash-lockheed-on-nuclear-fusion-2014-10

However probably the most useful way to interpret the news might be found here:

http://xkcd.com/678/

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 22
those guys from Washington State University are skeptical of ANY fusion that is not theirs. They should be a bit more ethical imho.


people at Talk Polywell are having a good discussion speculating on the Skunkworks reactor based on photos and info. I really suggest reading Dan Tibbets posts
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5643

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
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.

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
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?

Offline RotoSequence

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
  • Liked: 2068
  • Likes Given: 1535
Could be. They're throwing younger blood at this one, and are taking a more media savvy approach to the technology. They've uploaded all of their press photos onto their Flickr stream in very high resolution.

Offline MP99

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.
ISTM the issue is that you want to maximise "burning" of your fusionable fuel. Just opening up one end of the reactor would waste vast amounts of it. (Fission Fragment gets over this, but at the expense of truly tiny thrust.)

I'm just imagining how much tritium you'd need to fuel your engine. I'd think multiple tons of tritium (which seems to be implied) would be a tremendous safety hazard, never mind any issues about supplying that volume.

A fusion powered engine should follow the same relation of power / Isp / thrust as SEP, just with a different efficiency measure. Extreme Isp results in extremely low thrust.

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.

Partially compensating for much lower exhaust temperature, 1H should also be a better propellant than 2H or 3H.

I wonder if there's any chance of operating this as a nuclear light bulb - perhaps a film of 1H providing film cooling. I presume not - the neutron flux would provide bulk heating of the jacket, so 1H would need to run through channels to cool it.

Cheers, Martin

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107

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.


But then you're stuck at Isp of about 900 - as NERVA was, using Hydrogen, but at chemical rocket temperatures.

What you'd want to do is inject plasma into the throttle - away from the place where the fusion reactions are happening - and use your magnetic confinement to keep this away from any materials.

I believe the proposals for fission fragment, and other fusion concepts, do this to "de throttle" the engine (unless you want it for multi-decade long Kuiper belt missions).

Quote
the neutron flux would provide bulk heating of the jacket

That is the other major drawback - to be really good for space flight you'd want aneutrionic fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion), and I believe the focus is on the proton-boron reaction.


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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 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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
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

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?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Sadly, like the VentureStar, this fusion reactor program may be an overly-optimistic attempt to jump too far ahead of the technology curve.

But they do appear to have turned a corner.
That's a major plus for the effort.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
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 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.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2014 11:19 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline MP99



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

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?

Chuck &  alexterrel,

As I understand the principle of operation of this reactor, the plasma is hot only because it is heated from an external source. It is not, itself, a source of high temperature exhaust gas (now realise I used the wrong justification for my comment on this in the previous post) it is simply a power drain.

The heat flux comes from neutrons, which provide usable heat only when they slam into the atoms of the surrounding jacket. It is recovery of this heat that would provide the energy for propulsion.

A fusion light bulb operating on this principle would need to have the surrounding layer of 1H be sufficient to capture these neutrons *instead* of allowing them through to deposit their energy in the jacket. The plasma is already constrained by the magnetic fields, so no physical "glass" is required.

Which, now I think of it, seems completely impractical. Perhaps heavy nuclei would be better for this (xenon, and its ilk?), but still seems impractical to have a jacket of propellant that's thick enough to capture the neutrons, but used sparingly enough to provide high Isp.

Whichever way you look at it, it seems that material properties - either meeting point of jacket material, or rate of absorption of neutrons - will severely hamper Isp of this as a rocket. Simple NTR with 1H may be best that can be achieved.

The real benefit here may be 900s Isp on the outbound leg, then leave the reactor on the ground and just don't recover the MCT/whatever.

P11B with non-physical capture of *charged* fusion fragments sounds like it has hugely more potential, but is *much* harder.

Cheers, Martin

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
So I'd somewhere (thespacereview.com maybe?) that one of the advantages of these small-scale efforts towards fusion power is that because they're not as expensive as tokamaks and laser ignitiion facilities, that there are many such experimental efforts going on, each potentially nibbling away and making their own tiny incremental progress.

Does this new Lockheed-Boeing approach sort of try to bring some of that mentality towards somewhat bigger fusion apparatus setups? It sounds like they'll be churning out these machines off an assembly line, thus enabling more fusion experiments of that sophistication level to be conducted at lower cost.

In which case, who will the immediate customers for these devices be? Will universities and other labs be queuing up to buy these machines from Lockheed-Boeing?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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 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.

Here's the thing -- SpaceX didn't rely on any of those things to get a working system.  They started out taking very basic technology and making it work, with a path to upgrade to a reusable system.  And they've been steadily working up to that reusable system with a minimum of new technology to make it work.

Two of the items you listed are printing parts.  That's not SpaceX developing new technology, that's SpaceX taking technology that is new but mature and applying it to their program.  Their architecture doesn't depend on it, it's an incremental improvement through the application of a new, mature technology that others developed.

A third item you mentioned it supersonic retropropulsion.  SpaceX is only doing that because they see it as the simplest way to get to cheap re-use.  And they're doing it with simple, cheap engines that they already developed and use for their expendable launch business.

Your final point is about a full-flow staged combustion engine.  But note that SpaceX has kept that off the critical path to get reusability working.  They're going to get reusability working with their simpler engines.  The more advanced engines are for future scaling of the concept.  Also, they didn't invent the idea of such engines -- others have done them before.

I wasn't saying SpaceX isn't developing anything new.  I was saying that they focus on low cost and simplicity and avoiding unproven technologies.  It's not that they will never use a new technology, it's just that they limit it to where it's absolutely necessary for their goals, or as an incremental improvement that is consistent with their low cost goals.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
So anyway, back to the fusion thing - will Lockheed-Martin's new announcement significantly accelerate the research efforts for magnetic fusion confinement? Will they have any spinoff benefits for other types of fusion research?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Are they publishing?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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.

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.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1077
If nothing else, there's food for thought in their patent docs.
NEC ULTIMA SI PRIOR

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

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.

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.

Well by Skunk Works standards this is fairly open.

Offline denis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • EU
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 9
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...  ;)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
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...

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...

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
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...

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...

I've seen that suggested as well that it might be a technology moving out of the black and that wasn't said on some tin foil hat wearing site but more than one mainstream science forum. I believe this is based off the related parents they've put out that appear to indicate they are further along than indicated plus people are having trouble figuring out how some of it's proposed to work.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2014 09:38 pm by Star One »

Offline denis

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • EU
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 9
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.
Don't remember that, no. I must have missed it.

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.
That's a fair point. However, it still sounds as they have not done fusion reactions yet.
In any cas, they didn't give any specific information on how far advanced they are, so we can only speculate at this stage.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
First neutrons is trivial. I expect they've already achieved that.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline nadreck

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?

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
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
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? Or do they plan to simply give a shot in the arm to fusion research that can hopefully result in benefits down the road? A bit of both?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
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?

That's what the article says, yes.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Dr Eric Lerner's project at Lawrence Livermore
Lerner is not at Lawrence Livermore, but at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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?

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..
« Last Edit: 10/20/2014 02:31 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
wait. isn't there someone who is going straight for high "something or the other" boron based fusion? a few articles ago?
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
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.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
But 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.)
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online eriblo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1670
  • Likes Given: 270
But 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.)

I'd guess that he means LPP - they are only using DD for diagnostic purposes and IIRC can't use DD or DT for a power producing reactor. They need HB because they need to avoid melting  the electrodes (the x-ray flux is going to be hard enough) and the efficient conversion to electric power means that they can manage with a low Q (most of the energy generated is recycled into the next cycle). Their theory also predicts a significant boost due to the higher average atomic weight of the fuel.


Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
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 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.

The old aerospace companies all have a history of investing some money and talent in speculative new technology programs. I think you're right that one difference is that Elon takes them very seriously and has a focus on cost and proven technologies. The important thing about Elon is he gets results.However he also has a strikingly different approach to expressing grand visions. X-33 might have been exciting to engineers and space amazing peoples but it was light years from saying Our Goal is put a million settlers on Mars and make life multi-planetary whether the government is interested or not. It might have been adventurous technologically but as inspiration and bold vision it wasn't much. It was another bland corporate pitch trying to interest it's customer in spending money to buy it's services. It might have been risky as an engineering proposal but isn't in the same ballpark or even in the same city as Musk's ambition. Saying we think we have a fusion technology that can save the world and end the threat of climate change and energy scarcity and it can be ready for a demo project in 5 years, decades ahead of ITER and other promises IS in the same ballpark. It is over the top by ordinary big corporate standards and yet top management embraced it.

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.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
I don't think you have any basis for believing this and I am not sure that the comparison with Space X in this case is a valid one, in fact one might almost suspect that your post is more about an unfavourable view of LM & an overtly positive one of Space X than discussing this particular project.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2014 06:25 am by Star One »

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
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?
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.

I suppose with enough time and development this could be become a contained and sustained reaction, but why - They're working towards a commercially viable thermal engine, not a science project. The casing will be large for safety reason (radiation or explosion) so any working fluid won't be affected by thermal pulsing. A pulse design is also a lot safer, simpler and easier to design and operate. Lastly, if you're going to use a neutron source you may as well use it regularly as not using it doesn't save it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
It uses fission - a neutron source - to initiate the fusion reaction. [..]
It's a pulse design with extended burn.

Where'd ya read this?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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).
Nothing to do with ITER or VASIMIR. This is more like a combination of Polywell and magnetic mirror. That sort of combination, if it works as advertised is actually rather innovative, even if the individual components are not.

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.
Fission? Neutron source? Pulsed design? Are you talking about the Lockheed reactor?

Offline SICA Design

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • UK
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 51
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#ixzz3GsrDfsrq


Nothing on fission neutrons... ::)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
This is basically a Farnsworth/Polywell-style fusor with a new magnetic field configuration (using 2 coils instead of 6). Polywell always had the issue that they were never able to fully model their configuration (which is why they found it so hard to scale up), but if LM has been able to apply some real supercomputer simulations to the problem, I can believe they have some confidence it could work.

EDIT: Also, LM is using superconducting coils right from the start, while that is something that EMC2 was going to do eventually on Polywell, if they got more money. Insulating the superconductors is going to be tricky, but a problem that has to resolved sooner rather than later.
« Last Edit: 10/22/2014 05:32 pm by simonbp »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
The patent applications are enlightening:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/p/n/r/US2014301517A1.pdf

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/e/e/f/US2014301519A1.pdf

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/y/n/d/espacenetDocument.pdf

There 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).
« Last Edit: 10/22/2014 06:09 pm by simonbp »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

The patent applications are enlightening:

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/p/n/r/US2014301517A1.pdf

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/e/e/f/US2014301519A1.pdf

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2014/10/22/y/n/d/espacenetDocument.pdf

There 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.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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.
The lithium blanket is commonly used in fusion reactor designs that fuse tritium with deuterium. E.g. ITER uses it as well. The design of the blanket is/was one of the major challenges they have been facing (its a lot more complicated for a torus).

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Quote
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"

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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Quote
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"

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.
Well, their concept is a bit more than just a magnetic mirror. There is also recirculation and neutral beam injection. This is a combination of multiple concepts.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
... magnetized ion confinement ..."

... a magnetic bottle...

Well, their concept is a bit more than just a magnetic mirror. ...

The magnetic bottle confined the plasma in 1964, safely and to the great enjoyment of the spectators..  What is this magnetic mirror you bring to the discussion?

« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 08:11 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
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.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 08:25 pm by pippin »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
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.

Back in the day, it was a magnetic bottle.  No need to change terms.  Pluto is a planet.  Brontosaurus trumps Apatosaurus.  As always, fusion is twenty years in the future.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2014 10:41 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
It's not a new term. It's the name of the effect. Always has been. Magnetic bottle is an application of that effect.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
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#ixzz3GsrDfsrq


Nothing on fission neutrons... ::)

Its a Vacuum, nothing more .. new trick, I think not

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
I'm pretty sure they didn't have superconducting coils at the 1964 World's Fair, nor computers capable of simulating intricate magnetic fields.

Again, the better comparison point is Polywell/EMC, except the Skunkworks is much better funded and isn't chasing fantasies of boron fusion.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I'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 half 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.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 01:17 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
I'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.

John,

    Could you provide me a link to this info?  I've followed Lockheed since before they became LockMart, and I never even heard a whiff about them doing a demo fuser in 1964!

     Not saying it's not true, but it would go a LONG way to explaining why Lockheed Skunkworks are certain that they can have a working prototype in ten years.  (Because, more than likely, they've had on for a few decades and only now figured out how to make them cheap enough for commercial use).

My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I'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? ...

Jason:

"They", referring to the experimentors from General Electric at the 1964 World's Fair.  Pretty sophisticated for 1964.

I was only ten, going on eleven at the time.  I freely admit to not knowing everything then, or even now.

http://www.nywf64.com/genele08.shtml
« Last Edit: 10/27/2014 02:19 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
It's just plasma confinement in 1964. Not a terribly sophisticated experiment.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
1964 Worlds Fair MIGHT be off topic. Maybe?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
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've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
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, and that SSTO vehicles are a dead end for HSF.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
I 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?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

I 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.

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327

I 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.

I like the quote, "show me the money".  We've almost had fusion so many times that I'm not going to believe it until we have it.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062

I 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. JET is currently updated to demonstrate break even with T+D, but it is only going to do so as a research project. ITER will demonstrate technologies that will allow doing it well enough to eventually lead to a practical reactor.
The projects Lockheed, Helion, Tri Alpha, LPP, EMC2 and others are working on, aim to solve some of the issues ITER and DEMO will solve, sooner and cheaper. They don't exist in a vacuum. They are building on the experience gained from past projects and better simulation software (and faster hardware to run it on). This allowed them to invent new confinement concepts that will solve or avoid the issues ITER and DEMO are currently battling. A lot of those have to do with the size of the reactor, the need for materials that can handle the bombardment from fast neutrons that are the result of burning T+D, breeding of Tritium and how to efficiently convert the neutrons into electricity. All this is more complicated than it sounds if it has to be done economically, especially with a large reactor. Large reactors also need a lot of centralized infrastructure. Starting a multi GW tokamak requires a lot of input power which requires a certain amount of infrastructure at the site and so does feeding multiple GW back into the grid. This is why many of the new concepts try to be smaller which also allows for cheaper development and a lower initial investment for a power plant and/or pursue new designs that are easier to service and/or will use advanced aneutronic fuels and direct conversion.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2014 09:22 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline cordwainer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 7
Well, their is also the reality of the energy density and cost to build a fusion generator that makes compact generators more attractive. Fact is that even if net energy can be made with the current generation of fusion reactors that net energy won't be as great as the pundits posit. The idea that fusion will produce a 100 times more energy than fission is not well founded. Losses will result even with direct conversion and thermal conversion will not be that much greater than fission, just cleaner in terms of radioactive waste. You are subject to the fact that surface area and transmission of heat is not going to be all that different from a fission reactor so a steam turbine and the Carnot cycle is not going to be that much more efficient than say a super-critical water reactor of the generation IV type. Also for the price of a large fusion reactor you can build more than one fission reactor that will produce the same amount of energy if energy density estimates are to be believed. General Fusion, FocusFusion and PolyWell would put their estimates of net energy around 1.5 to 1.75 times that of a similar sized fission reactor while Helion and Lockheed's design would put out any where from 1.75 to 2.5 times the energy in terms of density. Unfortunately you also have to take into consideration the enormous start up costs in energy to initiate fusion and the fact that you have to maintain that reaction for a considerable amount of time. Helion, FocusFusion and General Fusion hope to overcome that startup cost by using pulsed ignition that combines magnetic targeted and inertial confinement schemes so they could very well get net energy but their reactors would still be enormously complex and expensive compared to fission reactors. The idea is not to compete with fission directly but to build large portable reactors that produce more power than their fossil-fuel counterparts. The kind of power generators the size of a tractor trailer or shipping container.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 92
new class of crystal with potential for very high thermo electric conversion efficiency:

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-crystalline-thermoelectric-applications.html
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
Industrial Heat applied for a U.S. Patent for the E-cat reactor last week.

Andrea Rossi is still listed as the inventor.

Abstract
"A reactor device includes a sealed vessel defining an interior, a fuel material within the interior of the vessel, and a heating element proximal the vessel. The fuel material may be a solid including nickel and hydrogen. The sealed vessel may be sealed against gas ingress or egress and may contain no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen. The sealed vessel is heated with an input amount of energy without ingress or egress of material into or out of the sealed vessel. An output amount of thermal energy exceeding the input amount of energy is received from the sealed vessel. The fuel material has a specific energy greater than that of any chemical reaction based energy source."

It's worth reading the testing results.  There are lots of interesting tidbits.

1) They conducted four tests for the patent application using four different reactor setups.  One of the setups used multiple reactor modules.
2) These don't appear to be the 3rd party validation tests that were in the news early last month, and there is far more detail regarding the testing and measurement procedures.
3) In paragraph 50, they state that they had a meltdown of a reactor chamber!
4) This one is the kicker.  In the fourth test, in paragraph 169, they used a "system" of 18 reactors and a water calorimeter.  This is a big change from the previous criticisms that they were using IR cameras only. 
5) With this system, they are claiming in paragraph 0221, a COP of over 11!!!



« Last Edit: 11/14/2014 06:04 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724

I 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.

Well, back in the day of the World's F... uhhh... back in the day, rather,  they claimed nuclear fusion was just around the corner.  It probably is as cheap as coal.  All you gotta do is get around that dang corner!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
All you gotta do is get around that dang corner!
There are several teams working on it, almost all of them are short on cash though :(

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
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
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."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29710811

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
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
I'm not sure if I'd put too much trust in an analysis done by a guy who thinks fission is "splitting molecules".
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2014 12:21 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

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
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 it's not even written by their science correspondent.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
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.

Just an FYI but 50 years ago the "public demonstrations" which were engaging the public had to do with the Vietnam war not NASA and both public and political support for NASA and the Space Program were already falling at that time. Current public perception is that NASA recieves far more money than it actually does and while there is steady support for the exploration and science that NASA does it is very much a "lower" priority than other items in the public mind.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Well, 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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Well, 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.

Oh that's just details :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
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. :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

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. :(

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.:)

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
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. :(

I am not aware how Lockheed Martin Skunk Works group(s) operate.

I do know about a practice by IBM. They used to chose young scientists and gave them a bundle of cash plus logistics support basically without any conditions. Just do what you please and write a report about it some day. I am aware of at least one Nobel Prize Award coming out of that.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
LM's approach is very understandable.  The benefits will be apparent to all when they finish their work in just ten years.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Raj2014

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 105
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? Should the whole world have this technology out at the same time or commercial use has it then the military?
« Last Edit: 11/20/2014 08:10 pm by Raj2014 »

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
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?

That is not what I understood. My understanding was that they might build the first production unit in 10 years and that the world power needs could be supplied in 20 years. But that seems really, really overoptimistic. Switching over the words electricity infrastructure in 10 years is not doable IMO.

Offline AlanSE

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • N Cp ln(T)
    • Gravity Balloon Space Habitats Inside Asteroids
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 33
If the total cost of your power production unit is lower than fuel + operations + maintenance for existing plants, then they can replace existing plants quickly. If not, the old plants will be ran until their natural end of economic life. That would be a gradual replacement over a few decades.

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.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052

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. :(

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. :)

In addition, they're talking about developing this as a commercial product.  In which case, peer review, especially at this stage, is totally unnecessary.  If it works, and they can sell it, then they'll  make billions upon billions.  They're risking a lot less than that.  What they will need is a working product, and the necessary patents to license it out.  Peer review is superfluous.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Wigles

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 5
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.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
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.
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.   :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
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.
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.   :(

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.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2014 01:29 pm by Star One »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
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 would they give a cuss about peer reviews?  This is not a science project at some university, it's a corporation trying to come up with a new product line.  They'll make it work, or they won't.  It'll sell, or it won't.
Bring the thunder!

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807

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.

Well, of course it is (and does) -- but that's one of the most popular games here!  They seem to enjoy it, and it *is* good exercise.  Why spoil their fun?  ;)

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
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.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
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.

You're not the first too speculate something like that I've read since this announcement. But no insult to yourself I always think we should only weight it as speculation at this time. Mind you I think this kind of speculation appears every time something like this emerges.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2014 07:39 pm by Star One »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
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.

I think you're badly misinterpreting this press release and combining that with your own wild speculation along with a dose of conspiracy theory.

Saying "10 years" is a pretty standard thing when they actually mean they're doing basic research and don't really know when, if ever, they're going to get there but they know it won't be in the near future.

There's nothing in this information that indicates they've already achieved their goals, just that they're working on it and hoping they'll be able to find a way to do it.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136

I 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.

A few years ago I met a gentleman who had retired from the Princeton Physics Lab, one of THE premier groups studying controlled magnetic confinement fusion.  His opinion was that they had learned an immense amount about plasma and containment and all, but that, after forty years, they were no closer to controlled fusion than when he started. 

We were just a few years away from useful inertial confinement fusion when I worked in the field decades ago.  Someone at the NIF, I forget who, says that if you give him $10B he will build a functioning laser fusion power plant, but there aren't a chorus of people agreeing with him.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  I will believe it when Lockheed's revelations are a lot more concrete.  I, too, don't understand why they made this announcement.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Amur_Tiger

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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?

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.

Case in point here can be found in the Merlin engines, a gas-generator cycle RP-1/LOX engine is a very standard unambitious design approach and results in fairly terrible ISP. Where Elon Musk manages to get ahead is that through a full leveraging of modern manufacturing technology and materials and computer design software he's managed to shave weight off the engine to the point that it gets to a good thrust to weight ratio.

Give Energomash access to the most modern manufacturing tools, machines and robotics and leadership intent on implementing it throughout the production line and I suspect they'd see fairly notable improvements in weight while also retaining the higher ISP and larger overall thrust their larger designs are known for.

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.

There's more then just non-technical reasons opposing compact fusion.

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 where most traditional designs try this through pressure and radiation from previous fusion events. Now while I'm a skeptic of non-Tokamak fusion projects I'll certainly admit that there's enough potential that this could be a new way to approach fusion that may well succeed. However being new has disadvantages, namely that there's a huge unknown in it's ability to sustain or even start a reaction, the press release there doesn't suggest they've got one running yet period, never mind the near net-zero that Tokamak has achieved.

This doesn't mean it's impossible of course, with a dense enough cross-section of fusionable plasma you may well achieve enough fusion events to self-sustain but that's a big question mark over the entire project which could easily push it towards having net-energy issues. Also possible is that they'll be able to sustain fusion once started but have trouble getting it going in the first place, which might lead to a situation where a Tokamak style reactor is needed to get the thing going with an injection of fusioning plasma.

Offline hpras

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 2
maybe they got the tech from Roswell a bit figured out ;)

Offline Helodriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 5971
  • Likes Given: 700
maybe they got the tech from Roswell a bit figured out ;)

Not aliens, it was Tony Stark in a cave, with a box of scraps.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606

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.
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.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
     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. 
So nothing like the SR72 PR campaign, the claims they has the X33 trim issues solved in various black programmers (which turned out to inaccurate at the most polite).
Quote
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. 
Based on what exactly?
Quote
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'll take a wild stab and suggest Sakharov flux compression systems, pulse nuclear reactors and MHD systems run from rocket exhausts. Basically to run various EMP or SDI systems.

All transferred $Bn chunks of cash to various organizations with frankly damm little to show for it.  :(

Hmmm. Yes I see your point.

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220

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.
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.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2014 02:58 pm by Star One »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
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.
whereas actually they are behaving like a group trading on a past reputation in another area for excellence.

That's what Marketing types call the "Halo" effect, and is the reason for the fondness of celebrity endorsements.

Taken to it's logical extreme the question "Why release anything" could just as easily be asked.

What has their system actually produced?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Hanelyp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 252
[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 ...
I don't get that impression.  The simulations I've run based on the public disclosure have cusps on axis that would be difficult to squeeze plasma through, with a major magnetic well in the middle.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
maybe they got the tech from Roswell a bit figured out ;)
This implies LM created something that worked. 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. Even ITER's claim of "net-positive energy production" doesn't claim any electrical production and excludes the vast consumption of it's key systems. At best, LM may make ITER's claim and be a much simpler and cheaper alternative producing the same science.

Checklist for Fusion generators;
1- No electromagnets
2- Small reactors
3- Energy recovery
4- Sustainability
The 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/
« Last Edit: 11/23/2014 07:35 am by rusty »

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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.
Wrong! Polywell is inertial electrostatic confinement, not magnetic confinement (even though it uses magnets). The confinement concept has been proven and it will be much smaller than ITER.
Even tokamaks can be built smaller than ITER with recently made discoveries.
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.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2014 09:52 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052

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.
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.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220


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.
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.

Precisely it's trying to judge the eventual outcome when you only know what in fact maybe a very small part of the story.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
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...

And uhhhh.... they've also never designed, developed, and released that technology anyhow.  Other than some, but not all, of the Roswell stuff, licensed to Hollywood, back in the day.

Which is kinda why they never made that there announcement.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
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.

First, Mr. Musk has envisioned attempting the colonization of Mars using chemical rocketry.  Any technology that he develops is more likely to be an improvement over already existing tech.  So when you say he "has yet to develop a new technology", you're correct on the face of it, but your wording sounds like he has promised new technology and has not "yet" delivered.

Second, it's a halo effect, plain and simple.  Carry on.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
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.
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).

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1077
So you reckon none of these "science projects" will ever do anything for space flight? 
NEC ULTIMA SI PRIOR

Offline Hanelyp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 252
Checklist for Fusion generators;
1- No electromagnets
2- Small reactors
3- Energy recovery
4- Sustainability
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.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Checklist for Fusion generators;
1- No electromagnets
2- Small reactors
3- Energy recovery
4- Sustainability
The 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.
*correction; I was thinking/excluding NIF when I said "all the concepts and methods are variations (except JET) on the same theme."

Re1 - Some type of electric and/or magnetic field will be present, most likely including electromagnets in some way. Even GeneralFusion plans on using electromagnetic injectors. What's used counts against anything produced and taking the path of electromagnetic confinement or field reversal is a fool's errand.
Re2 - a) Field strength is a square of distance; b) The larger the reaction, the larger it expands; c) The energy released from fusion per unit of fuel doesn't change with reaction size. All this means it's better to have a small reaction close to the field generator, thus a smaller overall design. Going bigger means the system and losses grow exponentially.
Re3 - There's a whole lot more released in a fusion reaction than heat. How much and what all is recovered? How does cooling, if necessary, jive with a thermal system? Energy recovery is a lot more than just planning on running water pipes near the reactor and the fundamental and fatal flaw of ITER and many similar approaches. Some, like Polywell, are so focused on the science project they've designed-out the possibility of recovery.
Re4 - This goes back to #2 as the system must be sized to allow an expanding reaction without destroying systems; and #3 as whatever containment or shielding is used must absorb and convert energy, not fight against it and the energy released. ie; ITER eats itself alive every test and LM's design probably will as well while GeneralFusion's absorbs and turns almost all energy released (#3) into heat.

Not mentioned on this checklist, but mentioned earlier in the thread is the benefits of using fission to close the gap toward a fusion reaction. LM's design is the first I've seen to figure this out while GeneralFusion's design inherently develops a radiative chamber that I hope they're calculating for.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 166
You are so wrong in virtually all of your reasons. I, and others will get back to you... :(

Offline Hanelyp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 252
Rusty:
1 - You appear to assume a large amount of power must be expended to maintain a magnetic field.
2 - I have different reasoning for favoring a small system.  Specifically, the cost of a reactor tends to scale poorly with the energy stored inside.  A small volume high beta reactor thus being preferred to a large low beta design.
3 - Take the particularly bad case of deuterium-tritium fusion, which releases most energy in the neutron.  The energy of this neutron is converted to heat in a blanket surrounding the reactor chamber.  Ideally the magnetic coils are behind this first wall blanket and receive minimal heating from penetrating radiation.
4 - Should the reaction heat up and expand, it will immediately cool and slow.  A good design will keep the reaction near equilibrium.  One problem tokomaks have is the field weakening as the plasma pushes, very bad for stability.  A good magnetic configuration will oppose an expanding plasma with a strengthening field.  The polywell and lockheed-martin configurations both have a favorable field profile for stability.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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.
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).
Your checklist is nonsense and pretty much contradicts what the majority of plasma physicists in the world are thinking, but keep going.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
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. ...
I don't know where you derived that "appearance". Secondly, I don't equate "equilibrium" to "good" designs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 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.
You 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.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
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. ...
I don't know where you derived that "appearance". Secondly, I don't equate "equilibrium" to "good" designs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 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.
You 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.

You really might understand these issues far better than anyone else on the forum, or the "experts" which you so cavalierly dismiss, but even if so, you seem to not be making your case very well.  Doing so would serve you far better than simply posturing.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline momerathe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 36
The "fusion is always N years away" canard never fails to annoy me. If you take the most-quoted variant where N=40 (according to google), and the start date in the 1970s, we're not far off track.
thermodynamics will get you in the end

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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. ...
I don't know where you derived that "appearance". Secondly, I don't equate "equilibrium" to "good" designs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your 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.
You 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.
You have not made any actual argument that I could refute. You threw out a few buzz words of which it seems you have no understanding whatsoever and claim that whenever these are true, the fusion concept is bound to fail. Give me some real physics and math and we can talk again. Until then I suggest to read up on the developments in plasma physics during the past 20 years so you can see that we have actually made quite a bit of progress and we have learned a lot about how things do and do not work. We are now able simulate the behavior of plasma much more accurately thanks to faster computers and much more accurate models which are due to our better understanding. I also want to point out that many fusion concepts are not facing physics problems as much as engineering problems. The latter is much easier to overcome and reactor concepts that have been developed or refined over the past decades are able to work around them or mitigate them.
The biggest problem fusion is facing right now is that the large projects like ITER and NIF are not only taking the majority of the funding, they have also cemented the impression that fusion has to
a) cost billions
b) take decades
I am particularly annoyed with the NIF in this regard. ITER at least will proof one concept sufficiently, though it will probably be outdated by the time it has first plasma. Even tokamak concepts are still seeing major improvements. The Dynamak from the University of Washington is an example for that.
But hey, its magnetic confinement so "it cant work", alright.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Credit Talk-Polywell

Quote
August 6, 2015, 4:15pm to 6:30pm MBG Auditorium

COLLOQUIUM: The Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor
Dr. Thomas McGuire
Lockheed Martin

Lockheed 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.

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2

Quote
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.


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

I'm assuming this is small fusion reactor that can be used in rocket and air plane?

I wonder where Lockheed-Martin thinks it can get it operation and working before the power station using fusion.

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.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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.
Well, the main problem is not getting break even fusion. The main problem is getting economic fusion that competes with coal.
Right now, wee have almost a dozen companies that have developed new concepts or have improved on existing concepts using new technologies and better simulations that claim they can achieve fusion in less than a decade, provided they are fully funded. Indeed funding seems to be the biggest show stopper. Most government funding goes to the two big projects, ITER and NIF. The NIF is really not a fusion energy project anyway, but is mainly intended for nuclear stockpile management. The money spent on fusion research is still peanuts, considering the importance.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Thursday Colloquium, August 6, 2015, "The Lockheed Marin Compact Fusion Reactor", Dr. Thomas McGuire, Lockheed Martin

Video on link below.

https://mediacentral.princeton.edu/media/Thursday+Colloquium%2C+August
+6%2C+201
5%2C+%22The+Lockheed+Marin+Compact+Fusion+Reactor
%22%2C+Dr.+Thomas+McGuire%2C+Lockheed+Martin/1_5j8kix93

(URL too long - Mod).
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 10:14 pm by Carl G »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
« Last Edit: 08/11/2015 10:54 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 1077
http://tinyurl.com/
http://tinyurl.com/150806LMCFRcolloq

or

[url=(a huge URL without these parentheses)] Human text/title for what you're linking to [/url]
NASA Spaceflight front page
« Last Edit: 08/12/2015 02:09 am by Cinder »
NEC ULTIMA SI PRIOR

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Quote
Lockheed Martin Now Has a Patent For Its Potentially World Changing Fusion Reactor

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19652/lockheed-martin-now-has-a-patent-for-its-potentially-world-changing-fusion-reactor

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
Quote
Lockheed Martin Now Has a Patent For Its Potentially World Changing Fusion Reactor

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19652/lockheed-martin-now-has-a-patent-for-its-potentially-world-changing-fusion-reactor
So would compact fusion be a big deal for RLVs, or would it be like SEP where it's super-fuel-efficient, but is really only good once you're out of Earth's gravity well?
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 02:36 pm by JQP »

Offline Frogstar_Robot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 723
  • Likes Given: 138
I was wondering what Lockheed's secret sauce was, I always though the tokamak was overcomplicated. A practical fusion reactor that competes on cost with fossil fuels, even at 100MW capacity, would have far reaching impacts I struggle to imagine. I can't really see though how such technology would be allowed to be used freely without "national security" restrictions.

Proliferation of nuclear fission is highly undesirable from a weapons point of view, but proliferation of cheap energy is even worse from an economic POV. The current US administration has signaled their intentions in that area.
Rule 1: Be civil. Respect other members.
Rule 3: No "King of the Internet" attitudes.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
I suggest people check this post from the Fusion with space related aspects thread


In 2017.
Look at page 4. It lists their development plan. [EDIT in 2017]
They state they were at T(test?)4
They anticipate a further T5,T6,T7,T8 Culminating in the "TX" working reactor.

Superficially that means they are 5 generations away from an actual fully working system.

However what's not obvious from the 8 page pdf is wheather they are each separate machines
or wheather each can be done as an incremental upgrade from a base line design.

The former would allow more radical changes (which the previous generation results may show are needed) the latter is potentially faster to develop, making a "generation" months rather than years.

But I note funding still seems to be a problem.

Note though, this is one of those fusion concepts that looks more applicable to space use than others it looks like it needs to do a lot of new physics, as opposed to things like the MIT ARC concept, which leverage new technology and a shift in the engineering focus of the design, but (AFAIK) no new physics.

I would add that while it's a lot smaller than TOKAMAK  designs it's still pretty damm big.
Obviously the question is how much of that is because it's a test bed, built for easy access and modification, and how much is the basic physics.
At present you can get the core of a gas fueled power plant running a gas turbine that's about this size. The impressive part (at present) is the fuel saving.
OTOH if you can retain some (most?) of this power level but in a much smaller package things become more interesting.
The (fairly obvious) one would be a sort of fusion driven ramjet, like the fission fueled ramjet project PLUTO for the M3 cruise missile was looking at in the late 50's, without the gamma radiation and reactor fragment exhaust.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2018 05:23 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
I hope they get to go head to release it. IMO not going be surprised if they unveil a mass production unit in 10-15 yrs, been working on it for 50 yrs.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062

Offline JQP

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 33
NBF seems to agree with my earlier assessment in the Fusion thread
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/lockheed-is-not-revealing-a-commercial-prototype-nuclear-fusion-reactor-in-the-next-few-years.html#more-144035
You 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.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
NBF seems to agree with my earlier assessment in the Fusion thread
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/lockheed-is-not-revealing-a-commercial-prototype-nuclear-fusion-reactor-in-the-next-few-years.html#more-144035
You 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.pdf
Wang just picked up on that skepticism that has been floating around for months.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2018 06:50 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
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.pdf
Wang 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 instabilities
Which looks like it will drive quite a lot of design choices for T6

Bottom 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.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
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.pdf
Wang 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 instabilities
Which looks like it will drive quite a lot of design choices for T6

Bottom 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.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
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.
I can't say I follow fusion very closely but my impression is that quite a few of the non-traditional fusion concepts (IE Not ITER or laser inertial) can leverage any improvement in magnetic technology, either in the material (just a doubling from 5T to 10T cuts how much off the mass of the machine?) or the ability to accurately model the magnetic fields (and their interaction with the plasma). Even fairly modest improvments pay big dividends for many of them.
Which is very good news as this is more engineering than science, and that suggests that progress will be much more predictable.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 707
We have seen no evidence so far that Lockheeds new reactor actually outperforms the level where tokamaks were in the 60s. Tokamaks are really hard to beat, catching up to a six orders of magnitude difference is hard. They beat everything else even without the extra decades that have been spent on developing them, with the possible exception of stellarators.
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13997
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Here’s a small nugget about this program from this article, one of a series, regarding the 75th anniversary of The Skunkworks.

Quote
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.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-does-skunk-works-hiring-binge-indicate-sec-449492/

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0