Where are Japan and China in funding Focus?

[cccccttttt]

Curious why Japanese and Chinese physicists are silent on the Focus program?

Have they just not heard of it?

Have they dismissed it because of the high ignition temperature?

Are they going to wait, and then copy it?

The Japanese are completely behind ITER, and the Chinese have their own project.

As both countries have so much wealth, so many engineers, and so much need,

a few crumbs (millions) for a long shot would seem a good bet.

ct

[Adam Whistle]

Curious why Japanese and Chinese physicists are silent on the Focus program?

Have they just not heard of it?

Have they dismissed it because of the high ignition temperature?

The Japanese are completely behind ITER, and the Chinese have their own project.

You just answered your own question.

[Brian H]

Adam Whistle wrote:

Curious why Japanese and Chinese physicists are silent on the Focus program?

Have they just not heard of it?

Have they dismissed it because of the high ignition temperature?

The Japanese are completely behind ITER, and the Chinese have their own project.

You just answered your own question.

I’m not sure he did. The economics are so compelling, pet projects etc. are luxuries no one can afford.
Wouldn’t be surprised if work is proceeding on the QT.

OTOH, once the technology is proven by anyone, it will be easy and quick for the work to be replicated elsewhere. I don’t think there’s a huge first-adopter advantage here. Everybody may just be waiting on everybody else.

[Adam Whistle]

Another, better explanation is that they fund fission projects rather then fusion projects. Given a little thought, its quite obvious why: fission projects give results quicker, fission is a tired and true energy source, we have much more practise and expertise with it.

[Brian H]

🙂 It’s not all THAT “tired”! 😉
By contrast with the resources required to fully explore focus fusion, the resources required for fission projects and research are HUGE, as are the lead times for building reactors.

Perhaps there are too many DPF alternatives, and no dedicated advocates for this one. But I still like the covert QT research hypothesis! :coolsmirk:

[Adam Whistle]

However, there is a good likelihood of focus fusion, like many other fusion schemes in the past, not working in practise. At all. Or ending up with so many problems that the cheapness of it will go away, not making it worth it or the potential political embarrassment. And Japanese really hate embarrassment.

This is the nature of plasma physics: something looks neat on paper, but in practise, something new will come out that throws the whole thing out of the window.

Sure, focus fusion is cheap and sounds good, but there is finite amount of money in Japan, or in any country for that matter, to develop nuclear energy. Fission works, it produces energy, fusion doesn’t.

So, yeah, spelling error aside, fission is tried and true. We know its risks, we know how to make it economically, we know how to streamline it, we know what it can do and what it cannot, we know its bugs. Making IV gen fission reactors is a far more safe financial investment.
Fusion? Surprises at every corner, as shown by the last 50 years. Lots of frauds, lots of false roads, lots of surprises, lots of research and still little to show in practise.

[Brian H]

Adam Whistle wrote: However, there is a good likelihood of focus fusion, like many other fusion schemes in the past, not working in practise. At all. Or ending up with so many problems that the cheapness of it will go away, not making it worth it or the potential political embarrassment. And Japanese really hate embarrassment.

This is the nature of plasma physics: something looks neat on paper, but in practise, something new will come out that throws the whole thing out of the window.

Sure, focus fusion is cheap and sounds good, but there is finite amount of money in Japan, or in any country for that matter, to develop nuclear energy. Fission works, it produces energy, fusion doesn’t.

So, yeah, spelling error aside, fission is tried and true. We know its risks, we know how to make it economically, we know how to streamline it, we know what it can do and what it cannot, we know its bugs. Making IV gen fission reactors is a far more safe financial investment.
Fusion? Surprises at every corner, as shown by the last 50 years. Lots of frauds, lots of false roads, lots of surprises, lots of research and still little to show in practise.

Given the minute relative costs involved, and the fact that FF has demonstrated results far closer to energy breakeven, at far higher efficiencies, than ANY other fusion research, it’s certainly worth the throw. Watch the Oct 7/2007 video of the presentation Eric gave to the Google Conference, with particular attention to the research result comparison graphs.

You seem not to realize how many BILLIONS are being put into both Tokamak fusion and fission construction. The entire FF program could probably be paid out of their budgets for pocket protectors.

😉 And it’s “practice”, speaking of spelling.

[Brian H]

Oh, Adam, you said, “fission projects give results quicker”. Well, let’s have a race.

You find a fission project in the proposal stage, and check out the timeline for design, approval, construction, first output. Then compare it to the ~7 yrs to a prototype fully functional FF generator. Then add 3 years to tool up for cookie-cutter replication of hundreds of them. (Yeah, I know, depends on it working as projected, but there’s only about $10,000,000 max at risk here; tiny fractions of 1% of the cost of any fission plant of any design anywhere.)

Oh, and don’t forget to factor in the cost provisions for storage and disposal of spent fission fuel. That’ll be hundreds of million$ or billion$ more. Versus maybe $1000 for a few decades worth of helium party balloons for FF. 🙂

[Zara]

A better explanaion would be that they have more advanced smaller technologies than we do and just care to share them and so therefore would keep them from their people until the rest of the world caught up with them. There are two forms of Buddhist belief and unfortunantly the one that is mainly accepted in China as the leading Buddhist belief is to rebirth. This is a faulty look at the world and they are quite misguided according to their Taoist teachers. Then again i have just studied the religion to the point that I have an understanding of it better than any I’ve met thus far. We could learna lot from them though they are not interested in sharing their ideas and frankl I somewhat do not blame them either. This is a very funny matter and attaining Buddhahood and even enlightenment is a blessing and curse that one must learn to be in control of with so much added power backing it. This is not something they share lightly and this is where we have overstepped. It’s simply put Black and White. Like the game you play where you can throw rocks at your people. Also, I’d look to Taiwan for funding.

[Adam Whistle]

Given the minute relative costs involved, and the fact that FF has demonstrated results far closer to energy breakeven, at far higher efficiencies, than ANY other fusion research, it

[AaronB]

Adam,
Sounds like you are looking for more detailed information. Most people have a hard time digesting it, but if you want to give it a try, see Technical Paper I and II on the main FFS page, paying close attention to the references at the end. There is no “proof” that this will work, only indicators. Here are some of those indicators: the DPF is a known fusion device, scaling laws based on previous experiments indicate the target range we need in the next experiment, and the magnetic field effect will probably play a significant role in lessening radiation losses.
Fusion generators are a futuristic dream at this point, like in Back to the Future. However, the basic principles are pretty well understood. They are the same as an internal combustion engine: fuel, compression, ignition, time to react, extracting/converting the released energy into a useable form, and eliminating waste. We just need to increase the efficiency of each step in order to come out with a final net gain. There is no question about whether fusion is going on. It is only a matter of increasing the efficiency. You asked if an investor would rather go for the old-reliable investment (fission) or the long-shot gamble (fusion). While the government may not be willing to take the risk, I am. The proof will come in the success or failure of the next experiment.

[Brian H]

AaronB wrote: Adam,
While the government may not be willing to take the risk, I am. The proof will come in the success or failure of the next experiment.

Adam — is that a specific experiment you are referring to? If so, which one?

[Brian H]

Adam Whistle wrote:
If you seriously expect me to view a Google presentation as scientific evidence for such a high claim, then you are insulting my intelligence.

The presentation was to scientific listeners, and contains data which are far more current — including experimental results which are rather above my physics pay grade. IAC, the tokamak etc. are still far back on the “basics” curve, with a fundamental scaling problem, it seems to me. Stellar forces are able to constrain plasma events, and micro-scale unstable “bursts” can apparently do so, but the in-between territory has yet to show any tractability. The human-sized “stable state” model seems unworkable on the evidence.

Brian Hall

[Adam Whistle]

We just need to increase the efficiency of each step in order to come out with a final net gain.

What do you think the Tokamak crowd has been trying to do in the last 40-30 years?

The presentation was to scientific listeners, and contains data which are far more current

[Brian H]

We just need to increase the efficiency of each step in order to come out with a final net gain.

What do you think the Tokamak crowd has been trying to do in the last 40-30 years?

The presentation was to scientific listeners, and contains data which are far more current

[Author]

Posts