First goal: machine assembled, and a pinch. Check!
Four goals are supposed to be wrapped up in just two months. Is this realistic?
2. At 25kV: Produce 1 MA, determine optiumum gas pressure
3. Test theory of axial magnetic field
4. Move to 45kV, 2MA, with Deuterium
5. Confirm Texas results, with better instruments
(A note on this confirming Texas results. On the day of the first shots, Eric took out the notebook that he had with him 8 years ago for the Texas shots. “I’m picking up where I left off”). I have that on tape.
Then, for all of next year, the final three goals:
6. Heavier Gases: D + He + N, and shorter electrodes
7. The seventh goal is to demonstrate some fusion burn with pB11 fuel.
8. Net energy
Just to clarify, given that D-D reactions require much less energy and have a greater power density than p-B11 reactions, is it possible that goal 2 will actually involve the generation of net energy (even if that energy is in a form that isn’t practical to capture with the device)?
A more general question (which is perhaps appropriate for a different thread) is how potentially versatile is the FF approach as far as fuels go? I understand the strong desire for aneutronic, direct electrical generation, and that seems like the ideal goal to me. But can the FF system be potentially used successfully (i.e., over unity) with other types of reactions?
The D-D reactions are just to clarifying that fusion actually happens. The neutron count as deuterium nuclei bounce together and overcome the repelling force is important here. That’s how you determine the force of nuclei colliding, and that there’s not just the colliding x-rays produced by bremsstrahlung.
It looks like only goals #5 and #6 involve the hardware modifications that lead to downtime. Baby seems to be confirming projections early in most series, so I expect it to continue to do so pretty much on schedule.
The D-D reactions are just to clarifying that fusion actually happens.
I understand that—I was just wondering if it was also possible that such reactions could end up at theoretical breakeven. That would seem to me to be a huge validation of the FF approach, even if D-D (and D-T) is not the final intended fuel for a variety of excellent reasons.
The D-D reactions are just to clarifying that fusion actually happens.
I understand that—I was just wondering if it was also possible that such reactions could end up at theoretical breakeven. That would seem to me to be a huge validation of the FF approach, even if D-D (and D-T) is not the final intended fuel for a variety of excellent reasons.
I would venture to guess that the answer would be “no” if “positive power production” means electrical output due to the nature of the products made from D-D fusion versus Boron-Hydrogen. If one just wants to see a general energy out > energy in no matter if it’s heat/x-rays/electrical or whatever…then maybe a series of shots could show that with D-D if instrumented carefully enough in an adiabatic chamber. However, from the pictures I’ve seen so far…I don’t get the impression that such an environment is present so careful heat exchange analysis is not in the cards. I could be wrong of course…I am basing that conclusion on admittedly very limited information.
If one just wants to see a general energy out > energy in no matter if it’s heat/x-rays/electrical or whatever…
I’ve always understood “breakeven” to be used in this most basic way for all other fusion projects. It’s also my understanding that none of the multi-billion dollar research projects have accomplished this.
then maybe a series of shots could show that with D-D if instrumented carefully enough in an adiabatic chamber. However, from the pictures I’ve seen so far…I don’t get the impression that such an environment is present so careful heat exchange analysis is not in the cards.
That’s my impression as well. I was just curious as to why this wasn’t an initial goal of the research, since being able to accomplish this would go a very long way toward validating the FF approach—it would be doing for a few million dollars what the huge multi-billion research facilities haven’t been able to achieve over several decades. I would think this would be a hugely impressive milestone, and one that might help to free up further investment money and provide legitimacy to the approach. I’m sure the FF folks have thought of this, and I was just wondering as to why it was ruled out as a goal.
Actually, pB11 burns faster than D-D at high temperatures. DT would burn faster than either, but would create a great deal more radiation and thus require a lot more shileding.
But the other reason is that our theories indicate that compression and density improve with heavier gases. So we will get better condtions with pB11 than with DD or DT.
Eric, when in the sequence of the eight steps do you anticipate taking pretty pictures of your plasmoids? Also, would you consider those pictures to be material to be released at a conference? Or would you post them immediately on the web?
I understand they are an important part of confirmation of your theoretical understanding of what is happening. But I don’t know if that means you won’t post them immediately.
Since the ICCD camera is so expensive, we will be very careful about installing it and making sure it is not damaged by too much RF or UV radiation. But I would think we’ll be getting pictures by year-end at the latest. We may have pin-hole camera images earlier. And I’m sure we’ll put some up on the websites.
The real “net energy” is usable energy, I think, which is either captured heat or electric current (the ideal end result, which FF gets to far more directly than D-D fusion or D-T fusion can). Energy in the form of neutron emissions etc. is pretty much “lost”.
Dr. Owl has it right; a very impressive schedule; it would make for one hell of a great start to 2011! The world changes on that day.
I don’t have much of a head for liquor these days, so if you see a bunch of my posts on 2011/01/01 with lotsa typos, you’ll know why!
The real “net energy” is usable energy, I think, which is either captured heat or electric current (the ideal end result, which FF gets to far more directly than D-D fusion or D-T fusion can). Energy in the form of neutron emissions etc. is pretty much “lost”.
Is there a standard definition of “over unity” for fusion projects? The impression I have always gotten is that the way “breakeven” is typically used is very theoretical, and involves all released energy, whether it would be practical or not to harvest it (and that such things like the Carnot limit and other parasitic energy losses are not considered). It seems to me that the real beauty of the FF approach is that since most of the energy gets captured directly as electricity, it will be very easy to demonstrate practical breakeven, that is, breakeven with all those losses factored in. (By contrast, even if ITER or NIF produce theoretical breakeven, that tells us very little about whether it can be practically turned into more usable power than it consumes, since the actual generation of electricity requires so much additional engineering.)
The real “net energy” is usable energy, I think, which is either captured heat or electric current (the ideal end result, which FF gets to far more directly than D-D fusion or D-T fusion can). Energy in the form of neutron emissions etc. is pretty much “lost”.
Is there a standard definition of “over unity” for fusion projects? The impression I have always gotten is that the way “breakeven” is typically used is very theoretical, and involves all released energy, whether it would be practical or not to harvest it (and that such things like the Carnot limit and other parasitic energy losses are not considered). It seems to me that the real beauty of the FF approach is that since most of the energy gets captured directly as electricity, it will be very easy to demonstrate practical breakeven, that is, breakeven with all those losses factored in. (By contrast, even if ITER or NIF produce theoretical breakeven, that tells us very little about whether it can be practically turned into more usable power than it consumes, since the actual generation of electricity requires so much additional engineering.)
As I understand it, the ability of the pulsed FF system to recharge its own capacitors and refire indefinitely means it has infinite Q, the ideal. Perhaps I’m wrong about that, but that’s how I understand it so far.
