Eight (8) Goals of LPP's Experiment

[Aeronaut]

Augustine wrote:

Welcome Augustine. 🙂

I hope however that a neutron count will not figure significantly as a sucess criteria. :sick: Ideal result? 0
(Although I understand the inevitability of it with Deuterium)

The neutron count seems to be more of a smoking gun. Of course we all want p-B for our reaction but i’ll take the neutron count of a Deuterium reaction. Once you show that you can fuse Deuterium all you need to do is establish how the machine scales. The rest is engineering.

Welcome aboard, Augustine.

My understanding is that the deuterium phase is more about calibrating the diagnostic equipment and proving the basic machine and its procedures. The Texas results are the baseline, iow. Once we have that, we can continue the methodic progression with this third machine.

The boron fuel is an entirely different critter, with much greater energy requirements, so I don’t see the deuterium tests as a scalability indicator. Rather, we’d need to experiment with pulse rate, cooling, electrode life tradeoffs, overhaul scheduling and costs, etc. to determine how many of our stackable modules are optimum for, say, repowering a 1.6GW coal-fired plant.

[Henning]

Aeronaut wrote: Rather, we’d need to experiment with pulse rate, cooling, electrode life tradeoffs, overhaul scheduling and costs, etc. to determine how many of our stackable modules are optimum for, say, repowering a 1.6GW coal-fired plant.

That’s actually engineering. What we need to establish, is the correct order of magnitude of energy output compared to energy input. The goal for FoFu 1 is to show that QT > 1 (thermal energy output bigger than energy input). Next step is to show that’s QE > 1 (electric energy output bigger than energy input) with FoFu 2. Only after that we can start twiddeling with pulse rates and stuff.

[Aeronaut]

Henning wrote:

Rather, we’d need to experiment with pulse rate, cooling, electrode life tradeoffs, overhaul scheduling and costs, etc. to determine how many of our stackable modules are optimum for, say, repowering a 1.6GW coal-fired plant.

That’s actually engineering. What we need to establish, is the correct order of magnitude of energy output compared to energy input. The goal for FoFu 1 is to show that QT > 1 (thermal energy output bigger than energy input). Next step is to show that’s QE > 1 (electric energy output bigger than energy input) with FoFu 2. Only after that we can start twiddeling with pulse rates and stuff.

Excellent points, Henning, and I agree. I’m more at home designing and building things than I am in a science/lab environment.

[JimmyT]

Brian H wrote:

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.

That’s a good way of putting it. Even if it is only outputting say 1.5 times its input, it recycles the original charge. The rest is coming at you 300 times a second. That’s why it doesn’t need anything like Q=30-50 per cycle to be viable, as some commentators have suggested.

In the end though it comes down to bang for buck. How much net electricity per dollar (including capital payback, fuel sourcing and processing, decommissioning costs, waste disposal, security costs, tea, coffee and so on over the expected lifetime of the machine). Let’s call it $Q.
Yeah; here’s another definition I found: “Q-factor: Ratio of power produced by fusion to power put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the magnetic fields. “
By that measure, the Q for pulse 1 is 1.5. For pulse 2 et seq. it is ∞.
But $Q is the overhead costs allocated on a per-pulse basis; lessee:
330 p/s x 60 sec. x 60 min x 24 hr. x 180 days-between-servicings = ~5 billion pulses. Each pulse is worth (¼¢x(5,000kw/pulse)/(330x60x60) = $0.00001. 5bn pulses are worth $50,000. Estimated overheads&amortization per half year are ~ $25,000. $Q is ~2.0. But the “background” power price is around 9¢/kwh (what FF would be replacing), so that 2.0 can be multiplied by ((9 / ¼)=36) = 72. So until “costly” power is entirely supplanted, that would be the payoff ratio ($Q) for putting up new FF generators.

:cheese: :coolgrin: 😆

That number $0.09/Kwh is, I think, a retail number. Which includes billing, transmission and distribution services. I think they call that “at the light switch price”.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav1/wholesale.html#tab10 Gives a better idea of wholesale prices.

Well, here’s a second source which indicates that Wholesale prices did get that high for 2008. At least for New York. Though they have since fallen: http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/newsroom/press_releases/2010/New_York_Wholesale_Power_Prices_Historic_Low_031110.pdf

I didn’t do any math, but it looks to me like the average of the first tables is close to $30.00/MW. Which translates into 3 cents/Kwh.

So that would be about a 3 month payback period. Still spectacular. And hopefully neighborhood generation will decrease the distribution costs to homes. And large commercial users could install their own units. Avoiding billing, transmission and distribution costs altogether. But all that has been discussed elsewhere in these forums.

Man, do we need this technology, or what?

[Author]

Posts