How Will LPP Get There From Here?
FFI (Focus Fusion 1), LPP’s experimental device, has achieved higher fusion yields than have been achieved with any other DPF at the same peak current.
Though remarkable, this yield is still 5 orders of magnitude short of the fusion yield required to prove scientific feasibility of focus fusion. How does the team hope to make up the difference?
Step by experimental step: stairway to fusion
How will LPP go from their current 1/12 of a Joule of fusion energy to 33,000 Joules of fusion energy?
Figure 1 depicts LPP’s past and planned fusion yields per shot in Joules. The team will need to get over 10,000 Joules per shot to demonstrate scientific feasibility of net energy production. Their theory predicts that they may ultimately get as high as ~33,000 Joules per shot. (”~” means “approximately”. Pointing this out because if the font is small, it looks like a minus sign.)

The pink points in the chart above correspond to yields actually achieved so far.
The blue points correspond to LPP’s goals based on the theories they are testing.
This is a simplified representation of what LPP plans to do, and should give a rough idea of the jump in yield for each experimental stage. We used to have dates on the x-axis, but this confused people into thinking there is a set schedule. Ideally there would be, but contingency issues emerge. Things don’t always go smoothly as we know from the switch delays. As such, we’ll take it one stage at a time and not fantasize about the end until all the conditions of the present stage are set for optimum research results. After the stage is completed, we can enter the time it took.
Research parameters and anticipated yields
Each of the blue points in Figure 1 is plotted based on the theories being tested by the LPP experiment. Figure 2 below shows the variables that are expected to cause an increase in the fusion yield (left column), and the factors by which the yield is expected to increase (right column).
| Variable/cause | Factor of increase |
|---|---|
| Scaling with increased current, I5 scaling to 1.4 MA | 55 |
| Scaling with increased current, I4 scaling from 1.4 MA to 2.8 MA | 16 |
| Optimization of axial magnetic field | 3 |
| Subtotal (55 x 16 x 3) | 2640 |
| (Change in fuel to pB11) | |
| Increase in energy yield per reaction pB11 vs. DD | 3.6 |
| Increase in reaction rate pB11@600keV vs. DD@100 Kev | 12 |
| Additional compression for pB11 | 3.7 |
| Subtotal (3.6 x 12 x 3.7) | 160 |
| Total increase factor expected (2640 x 160) | 422,000 |
| Ultimate fusion yield (~1/12 Joules x 422,000) | 33,000 Joules |
The points in Figure 1 were obtained by taking LPP’s recent yield and multiplying by the factors at each step of the way. Multiplying the factors gives an expected increase of 422,000 times. Taking the current level of slightly less than 1/12 of a Joule that LPP has achieved and multiplying it by 422,000 yield gives us ~33,000. If all goes well, the experiment will validate this theory and follow the points.
Theoretical basis for anticipated yield
The first two variables in Figure 2 above (increasing current) are based on LPP’s theory, but they are backed up by extensive experiment [links needed]. So far, LPP has been achieving much faster scaling, almost I7.
The third item (optimization of axial magnetic field) is also based on LPP’s theory, but requires experimental verification.
For changing the fuel to pB11, the first two variables LPP is certain of, and are based on well-established measurements by others. [links needed]
The third item (additional compression for pB11 with a DPF) is also based on LPP’s theory, which has to be experimentally verified.
Why are 10,000 Joules required for scientific feasibilitiy?
As noted, we need at least 10,000 Joules per shot. The team hopes that they will ultimately get ~33,000 Joules per shot and that this will demonstrate scientific feasibility of net energy production with this device and pB11 fuel.
The 33,000 Joule yield was derived based on the idea of firing at full capacity for a capacitor bank of 100,000 Joules.
Some of you may be wondering why a yield of 33,000 Joules from a shot of 100,000 Joules represents scientific feasibility. Doesn’t that indicate a loss of 67,000 Joules?
33,000 Joules is the “fusion energy yield”. This is how much additional energy comes into the system from fusion reactions. This means you start with 100,000 Joules and you get a yield of ~33,000 Joules of fusion energy. Well then – that means you now have 133,000 Joules, right? Sounds like a 33% increase in energy! Net energy and beyond! Sounds like you can afford to lose an order of magnitude. After all, 103,000 Joules would be 3,000 Joules of net energy, no?
Sadly, no. Energy is lost to inefficiencies. The goal for fusion yield has to be high enough to make up for losses of the system. Assuming 80% efficiency, (80% x 133,000 Joules) gives you 106,400 Joules – 6,400 Joules of net energy. Electric energy recovery efficiency is a variable that can be increased to a certain extent by more careful engineering.
It was stated above that scientific feasibility could be had with a minimum of 10,000 Joules of fusion yield. 10,000 joules would require a system efficiency of at least 91%.
Here is the hypothetical sequence
[Volunteers required to animate this]
- A shot is fired.
- An initial current of 100,000 Joules enters the system.
- About 70,000 go toward generating the “pinch” and making fusion happen.
- The other 30,000 are not lost. They are recovered/recycled – stored in a second capacitor bank called the mirror capacitors that is charging up for the next shot.
- The 70,000 Joules in the pinch will theoretically yield 33,000 Joules of fusion-generated energy.
- 70,000 + 33,000 gives us 103,000 Joules of energy to be recovered in the ion beam conversion device. 103,000 Joules from the ion beam conversion device + 30,000 recovered from the shot gives us 133,000 Joules.
- Less ~20% energy lost by inefficiencies and you end up with the 106,400 Joules.
- And, of course, “your mileage may vary”.
“Scientific feasibility of net energy production” vs. “net energy”
This phase of the LPP experiment measures “fusion yields,” not “net energy”.
We speak of “scientific feasibility of net energy production” and not “net energy” because the experiment will demonstrate if net energy is feasible, without actually generating net energy.
The shots LPP fires do not need to produce net energy. All they need is fusion energy that is a big enough fraction of our total input – over 10% and probably 30%, depending on recovery efficiency.
“Net energy” itself awaits Phase II, the prototype reactor phase, in which a team of engineers determines how to recover energy and crank up the efficiency. And of course, this all depends on the success of this Phase I – proof of concept. Stay tuned!


(35) Comments
Seeking volunteers to cut together an Oil spill Fusion video
Fred Van Roessel joins LPPX










Comments
For a more in depth discussion, start a thread in the forums.Industrial world has an extensive experience of making good ideas or “Proofs of concepts” available to the masses, via cheap and massive production. If we are to change the world, this phase is inevitable.
One of the first things I would want to emphasise is that to make this happen, the idea has to be born with massive production in mind. A lot of cost, experimentation and time is saved if production engineers, collaborate with the scientists. Some subtle things, like choosing materials, processes and technology that can easily be scaled up later, although may not seem the fastest or more efficient way to do things, later on will be necessary. As an example if platinum is chosen for spark plugs, cathodes and anodes, we will solve in “one of its kind” some erosion problems, but will make the device un-marketable on the end. The x-ray shell or power recovering device besides the hidromagnetic coil at the exaust is critical and chalenging because of termal disipation. At last but not least, the choise of ultracapacitors have to be able to manage at least 400 HZ to have something usefull. A lot of work ahead
Good points, though I wouldn’t worry about the cost of materials. The generators are so small, and the cost/W to produce so tiny (about 1/20 of the going rate) that a small amount of exotic material per unit won’t have any impact.
however, ideally we want ability to scale up production, to become as easy as making yarn. if any slow-to-make materials are required, that’s a problem
Depends on the supply chain; if the components are subbed, the delivery rate to final assembly is their concern, and scarcity will drive up price to some exent at that stage, but insignificantly overall. But you’re right to want to avoid exotics as far as possible, of course. They all carry with them the potential for natural or artificial bottlenecks.
I understand that this gets us to feasibility of net power. But it’s a close thing where net power out only happens with extremely high efficiency. The point being that net power out is possible.
Having said that, and assuming the I^7 law holds beyond the point of net power feasibility, how much further beyond that point can the current be increased and the I^7 hold?
Even with the 91% efficiency mentioned above, with all the power flowing through the machine, waste heat is going to be a limiting factor.
If the current were to be doubled beyond that point, and assuming the I^7 holds, would the fusion power increase by a factor of 128?
At that point would the gain far exceed the input power?
If so, than even if the efficiency were to drop to say 80%, you would need to run a lot less power through the machine to get the same net power. In other words, you could get the same net power using a considerably lower total number of shots. Perhaps, a factor of 10 less shots.
Where I’m going with this is would the total waste heat / total net power drop?
Or in other words, to generate the same amount of net power, you would generate much less waste heat.
Page 4 of 4 pages of comments ‹ First < 2 3 4
Post a Comment