Reply To: Physics Nobel to Big Bangers

[DerekShannon]

1. No. But in the experimental stage, the generation of neutrons is important for diagnostic purposes, so the use of aneutronic fuel would not be ideal, anyway. The predictions for hydrogen-boron are extrapolated from experiments with deuterium and helium. Use of hydrogen-boron will be phased in as future experimental work progresses. In terms of how long fusion has been sustained, you can simply respond that the confinement product (which factors in time, energy, and density) calculated for the Texas A&M experiments (5×10^15 keV*sec/cm3), while controversial, would be a record at the time if correct.

2. This is an engineering issue for a commercial prototype that is down the road a ways compared to the near-term question of whether net energy can be generated at all. But you can consult the “Energy Flow Sequence Diagram” at http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/business_plan.htm for a sense of how it would work.

3. A commercial DPF would pulse with a frequency below that at which thermal effects would become a problem. But preliminary estimates suggest 1000 pulses/second (1kHz) would not be a problem, and that is enough for plenty of power (5MW) given the low cost. If it can only pulse 600 times per second, then 3MW–That would be nothin’ to cry about.

4. We don’t know that it is, but we are finding out in not much time for a lot less money.

5. Don’t waste time on people who just want to snark.

If you want to answer questions at this level of detail, the Arxiv paper regarding the Texas A&M work is readable. Find it here: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/PROSPECTS_FOR_P11B_FUSION.htm