Homepage Forums Innovative Confinement Concepts (ICC) and others Interesting take on fusion power

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1318
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant

    Here is a link to a physicist’s website “Do the Math”. In this article he discusses the viability of fusion energy:

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/

    Any comments?

    #11514

    Some one posted this link over a month ago. Sorry I don’t remember the thread.

    #11519
    Avatarwillit
    Participant

    Yes he can do the math but needs to do more research. Iter and nif are nice science experiments but there are other unexplored avenues. Iter (i took everyones rations) will not prroduce Q + (not in forever) nif was never built to produceQ+. Dont allow anyone to crush the dreams that could change the wotld. Explore every avenue before admitting defeat.

    #11527
    Avatarwillit
    Participant

    also note that this is mainstream fusion attempts not any worthwhile mention of boron or alternate fuels.

    #11552
    AvatarIvy Matt
    Participant

    Are you saying that NIF and ITER are/will be physically unable to produce Q > 1, or are you saying that such was not the primary intention behind the construction of NIF, and that that goal will be obsolete before construction of ITER is complete?

    #11553

    NIF was built to be Q>1. It’s hard to simulate weapons when Q1 but it is likely through brute force alone. NIF has yet to run an optimized load. They are running test loads to calibrate the simulations and test diagnostics. This is normal practice when bringing up a large experiment. If you don’t return to previously tried experiments you won’t know if you are repeating them.

    ITER was designed to be Q>1 but there are a number of technical challenges and political hurdles. The debt crisis in the EU could hamper ITER. Technical challenges include the survivability of the first wall and plasma heating.

    As far as p-11B goes, the large science community has taken the perspective that you walk before you run. LPP has taken the same approach; start with D-D or D-T. Admittedly, a tokamek that can use p-11B or any aneutronic fuel is unlikely. Aneutronic fuel may be possible with NIF, but I doubt anyone will try it. NIF isn’t about controlled fusion energy; it is about simulating weapons.

    #11556
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    I think, if FF succeeds, that within 5 yrs. ITER will be a very expensive hole in the ground. Unless, of course, the advent of cheap FF power generates so much wealth that the ITER-funders can afford to let the physicists continue to have their expensive toy!!
    I personally believe that such meso-scale (plasmoids) containment attempts are in a “forbidden zone”, and that the Plasma Gods will never let it succeed.
    >:)

    #11557
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    That article has several commentators mentioning FF, and one specific request for his reaction/opinion, but he avoids the subject completely. His chart of elements skips boron entirely.

    I wonder why? Wouldn’t fit with his thesis/message?

    And comments now seem to be closed

    #12732
    AvatarMaya
    Member

    rashidas wrote: Here is a link to a physicist’s website “Do the Math”. In this article he discusses the viability of fusion energy:

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/

    Any comments?

    This is the first published description I’ve seen so far that accurately lays out the key challenges of fusion power. Notice that not one single proposal in existence today deigns to address them. Contrary to the view of some, I think we rather should talk about these problems not as discouragement but because that is the only way we can solve the riddles. If you don’t know what the challenges are you can’t find the solution. I can summarize the key 4 issues with fusion power that must be addressed for a _commercially viable_ (at least hundreds of gigawatts) reactor to work:
    1.) It must have a much more powerful means of “heating”. RF and other methods are woefully inadequate
    2.) It must contain enormous pressures far beyond what any material science we have can contain (the author refers to temperature but the two are related)
    3.) It must deal with the thermal management of neutron flux. The current fueling schemes will never work. Only Hydrogen and 11 Boron can be used in any foreseeable design and even that will require enormous thermal management (H-11B still produces flux in power levels of 1 to 10 giga watts in a 21 TW reactor).
    4.) It must have a definitive mechanism for dampening out _all_ orbital instabilities in the plasma. Confinement time must be very, very large b/c the materials science cannot deal with it otherwise.
    Part 2 has a clever, witchy exception that as far as I know no one has figured out yet.
    If you have a Ph.D. in physics (any field) and will sign an NDA I’ll explain it … I hope.

    #12739
    Avatarvansig
    Member
    #12742
    AvatarMaya
    Member

    vansig wrote: http://i2.minus.com/i1SjC3pAs50Ta.jpg

    If a troll is someone who simply doesn’t agree with you then I’ll accept the label. It’s a lot easier to say “troll” than it is to engage the points and explain why I’m wrong.

    #12744
    Avatarvansig
    Member

    i was once asked for some help, by a person who believed his ideas were great, and wanted to share — but please sign the NDA; which i did. and that’s when the trouble started. because perhaps my questions lead to exposing flaws, and my suggestions for fixing them were regarded by the other as ostensibly trivial, and obvious, and not departing from the original intent of the inventor, only a source of greater costs.
    i ended up writing large parts of the patent application, without which the thing just would not work; and i was not paid for my input, nor did i receive my name on the final draft.

    in my opinion, fraud had occurred, and i am the victim. it was a powerful introduction to the paranoid world of the proprietary, and an important lesson to me, not to allow myself to be trolled by such things.

    this forum is for free and open discussion.

    if you really want something to exist in the world, lose the need to own it.

    #12750
    AvatarMaya
    Member

    vansig wrote: i was once asked for some help, by a person who believed his ideas were great, and wanted to share — but please sign the NDA; which i did. and that’s when the trouble started. because perhaps my questions lead to exposing flaws, and my suggestions for fixing them were regarded by the other as ostensibly trivial, and obvious, and not departing from the original intent of the inventor, only a source of greater costs.
    i ended up writing large parts of the patent application, without which the thing just would not work; and i was not paid for my input, nor did i receive my name on the final draft.

    in my opinion, fraud had occurred, and i am the victim. it was a powerful introduction to the paranoid world of the proprietary, and an important lesson to me, not to allow myself to be trolled by such things.

    this forum is for free and open discussion.

    if you really want something to exist in the world, lose the need to own it.

    Sorry, I couldn’t tell who the user was at first. The system we have is not ideal. But for the same reasons that you are concerned about fraud, I see no other way to do this fairly. If you and your family put hundreds and hundreds of hours of work into an original idea that no one in ivory towers could figure out in decades it is only fair to ask for credit for the invention and fair compensation for your work if someone else is going to make billions off of it. I have no illusions. If the idea worked I would get nothing but crumbs even with patents. But I still deserve compensation for an honest day’s work, especially when so much profit is being made.

    As for the NDA, I’m sorry you got burned. You should have gotten credit. What people in academia (who are generally opposed to patents and NDAs) don’t bother to consider is the fact that they are being paid for their work so compensation isn’t an issue for them. I was hoping the forum was also about promoting fusion energy and if it is, people like myself need some way to get a fair shake and share the ideas. So, in that regard as well our system is broken because it is discouraging people like me from ever sharing it. We need a national registration scheme so that ideas can be put out right away and afford protection without all these legal costs and games. So, it isn’t necessarily about “owning” the idea, just a fair way to share ideas.

    That’s why I asked for help. Once I have a patent I have no issue with publishing it in the open and I intend to. In fact, I would be crazy not to.

    I’m also sorry that people think that because someone simply disagrees with them they are “trolling” or “trolling” for an NDA. How else does one ask for help? How else does one test their ideas in the acid bath of objection and discussion? All this is doing is discouraging advances in fusion. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has very good reason to believe the ideas they are trying to share are actually sound and significant. What would you do? Do the very same thing you just lamented and ensure non-credit and non-compensation for yourself? Of course not. So an inventor is forced to take an extreme position: act greedy or lose it all, imo.

    btw, suggestion. If you do an NDA and end up helping with the innovation …. STOP. And demand a renegotiation. An honest player should be willing to share credit with you.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.