Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Capacitor bank trigger challenge #5353
    Axil
    Participant

    Is this fast enough?

    This paper describes the design and implementation of a driver that allows an IGBT module rated at 800A/3300V to switch up to 3000A at 2200V in 3μS with a rate of current rise of more than 10000A/μS,

    http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-12591.pdf

    http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/pasley1.htm

    If you want to switch 50 kilo Amperes with a sub 20 nanosecond commutation time at 20kV you are going to be in trouble if you are relying on semiconductor technology. However there is an alternative class of devices that have been around long before the humble transistor came on the scene. You might think that vacuum tubes and similar are a thing of the past. But for problems of this magnitude they are the only things on the market that will do the job.

    This application note describes the use of nanosecond SCR switch (thyristor) to enable circuit designers to upgrade high-current, high-voltage modulators and pulse generator circuitry.

    http://www.eetindia.com/ARTICLES/2001SEP/2001SEP20_AMD_AN1.PDF?SOURCES=DOWNLOAD

    All these solutions are in the lightning bolt range, you should find here something you like. If not, say why.

    in reply to: Competition from the Thorium reactor #5345
    Axil
    Participant

    What is not commonly know is that the LIFE ICR is a thorium fission/fusion hybrid driven by laser pellet implosion fusion. 95% of the LFTR design is usable in a wide range of thorium reactor types. There are also other thorium reactors under development that are 95% technology compatible with other types of thorium reactors.

    in reply to: Capacitor bank trigger challenge #5314
    Axil
    Participant

    Chech out tis reference, there are some z-pince diagrams discribed.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2071

    in reply to: Something remotelly related #5263
    Axil
    Participant

    It is true that all these nuclear power applications have an evangelist and a prophet. Power production has many of the characteristics of a religion with all the same intensity, beliefs, uncompromising tenets of faith, desire to convert the non believers or if not successful, to belittle and discredit them. Each of these energy religions is out to save the world. This world saving must be done is a certain way to conform to the tenets and beliefs of the particular faith. I am not religious in this regard.

    Energy systems are just tools that conform to economic political and economic reality. No energy system is perfect and they all are subject to faults and tradeoffs. There are no silver bullets.

    True to the Voltaire quote – The perfect is the enemy of the good; The FF system could have already been deployed, but FF is waiting for aneutronic fusion and direct energy conversion to be perfected.

    Neutronic fusion with the current state of the art heat conversion turboelectric technology could have already been in the market place as the low cost solution; not perfect but still very good. Yes, FF can do a very good job producing energy today. It could be far better than the Light Water Reactor or the Sodium Fast Reactor or ITER and LIFE or wind mills and solar panels. So why not get it into the market place?

    in reply to: Helion #5240
    Axil
    Participant

    Henning wrote: If I understand you correctly you wanna submerge a DPF in heavy water (deuterium plus oxygen). Then with an electric discharge you’re creating a bubble big enough to to cover the complete DPF, including the base, the insulator, the electrodes. And this perfectly, otherwise the sheath will go astray. Within that bubble it’s 10GPa, or is it just the initial pressure (probably much more so, I suppose). Ok, that bubble expands from tiny (10GPa) up to the size of the DPF, then it’s maybe the required 1kPa (10mbar) for the sheath to form. Remember, you need a vacuum for the DPF to work. Nothing gained compared to a gaseous deuterium/oxygen mixture, and oxygen is a bad idea for short lived fusion anyway.

    If I understand you correctly you wanna submerge a DPF in heavy water (deuterium plus oxygen). Then with an electric discharge you’re creating a bubble big enough to to cover the complete DPF, including the base, the insulator, the electrodes.

    No, that is not my intent.

    I want to create a bubble only large enough to enclose the plasmoid near the tip of the anode; maybe about 3 centimeters or so in diameter. This bubble may be formed by a small secondary electric discharge that precedes the large change that forms the plasmoid.

    And this perfectly, otherwise the sheath will go astray.

    After sufficient relaxation time, the bubble will stabilize in a perfectly round shape.

    However, if the size, shape and position of the bubble becomes an important issue, sound waves in the heavy water can be used to produce a single bubble in the same way as it is done in “single bubble sonoluminescence”.

    See as follows:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

    Within that bubble it’s 10GPa, or is it just the initial pressure (probably much more so, I suppose). Ok, that bubble expands from tiny (10GPa) up to the size of the DPF, then it’s maybe the required 1kPa (10mbar) for the sheath to form

    As the bubble collapses, the pressure increases. No one really knows how high the pressure eventually goes, but it is higher than 10 Gpa. The best time to trigger the creation of the plasmoid must be determined by experiment. It is possible that pressure can be discounted and ignored. Experiment will determine its role.

    you need a vacuum for the DPF to work

    This is true for boron fusion where energy is extracted using x-rays.

    The idea here is to produce thermal neutrons. The production of neutrons does not need a vacuum to be successful.

    Nothing gained compared to a gaseous deuterium/oxygen mixture, and oxygen is a bad idea for short lived fusion anyway.

    Yes, the DIANA data shows that oxygen does contaminate the fusion plasma and retard D-D fusion somewhat. But it does not stop the fusion process.

    Experimentation will provide a tradeoff study among the various variables involved in this concept.

    If oxygen becomes a problem then Lithium Deuteride can be used as an alternative to heavy water.

    On second thought Lithium Deuteride may be a better fusion medium than heavy water in any case. It has many advantages. I will address this in a future post. Thanks for the idea.

    Let’s switch from heavy water to Lithium Deuteride. OK? (see a later post in the Plasma Focus Forum)

    On the plus side of using a liquid medium, helium ash will be easy to remove from the fusion fuel.

    in reply to: scaleablity of a reactor? #5238
    Axil
    Participant

    Rematog wrote: And hardware made of diamond does not sound like it would be “off the shelf” or easily duplicated at thousands of sites in the US alone. (remember, you would need 954 sites of 1 GW capacity to equal the current installed fossil and fission fuel capacity in the US (98 GW of the remaining 134 GW of capacity is hydropower, solar is 1/2 a GW, wind is now up to almost 17 GW.)

    And how is this GW of electric going to be made? If the X-rays are generated in a “sphere N meter’s in diameter”, how is all of this heat getting out? If this is done with a steam system and heat exchangers… I see the plant costing $1000/kw for the steam system equipment alone. If this reactor costs only $200 million for a 1 GW machine, this brings it to $1,200/kw… not too expensive by today’s standards.. but not cheap.

    Remember, for the $1,000/kw steam cycle, I’m including not just the turbine/generator, but also the condensate pumps, boiler feed pumps, condenser, cooling tower, circulating water pumps, feed water heaters (normally 6-7 stages), make-up water treatment (ultra-pure water to protect the turbine from being destroyed by steam impurities, ERPI guidelines require <5 micro-mho conductivity), unit transformers, motor control centers (control and supply of power to all of this equipment), piping, valves, instrumentation, DCS system, turbine controls, control room, turbine foundations, turbine building and site, including offices and shops.

    So $1,000/kw assumes steam is made in a black box labeled “miracle occurs here” that costs nothing to build.

    Thanks Rematog, I am glad you brought this diamond matter up.

    And hardware made of diamond does not sound like it would be “off the shelf” or easily duplicated at thousands of sites in the US alone.

    Diamond is off the self, and the cost of diamond is dropping fast. Industrial diamond can be made from nano-diamond.

    A new nano-diamond fabrication process can drop the current price from $10 / gram to under $1/ dollar. Pure graphite is placed in a cavitation reactor where perfect pure 10 nanometer diamonds is produced in about a minute.

    Compare this price to beryllium. This is comparable to beryllium at a range of $1 to $ 10 per gram based on the purity and quantity of beryllium.

    The use of Beryllium carries other costs besides manufacture. The cost of beryllium fabrication(milling), O&M;, and use in general is high because of its health risk. Diamond has no such risks.

    The next step in the formation of large diamond objects is called hot isostatic pressing. Nano-diamond is placed in a hot isostatic press for about 8 hours at 2200C where it recrystallizes and assumes the desired form.

    The formation of an x-ray reflector requires much more processing through application of repeated layers of various carbides through vapor disposition. But diamond electrodes can be manufactured quickly

    If the X-rays are generated in a “sphere N meter’s in diameter”, how is all of this heat getting out?

    I said as follows:

    In a fusion application, boron/hydrogen fusion at the center of the large sphere produces X-rays that are directly converted to electricity on the inner surface of the sphere by a foil based X-ray to electricity conversion layer.

    I specify a power production process identical to the current FF design; no steam involved in this type of reactor.

    In summation, this design is just a bigger multistage version of the current FF design for boron fusion.

    in reply to: scaleablity of a reactor? #5232
    Axil
    Participant

    Well, low cost is a relative concept. When you appreciate that the DOE and the defense department has sent and will send before they are finished tens of billions of dollars on the existing ICF systems, 250 million is a bargain. It’s like the LIFE system but more. It’s more of a research tool, a weapon, and a star drive than it is a reactor.

    in reply to: scaleablity of a reactor? #5229
    Axil
    Participant

    The Front Lens

    The purpose of the front lens is to minimize the dispersion of the radiation beam and bring its focus to a sharp point. To accomplish this, a defection lens will be used.

    Diffraction lenses use the interference between the periodic nature of EMF radiation and a periodic structure such as the matter in a crystal. An elementary derivation of the Bragg condition assumes that the incident waves are reflected by the parallel planes of the atoms in the crystal. There is constructive interference if the optical path difference between neighboring paths is a multiple of the wavelength.

    Based on the energy wave length produced by the plasmoid, either Bragg- or Laue geometry will be used.

    Bragg- vs. Laue geometry: The Bragg condition implies that higher incoming photon energies require smaller Bragg angles. At gamma-ray energies, Bragg angles are generally less than one degree. The reflection can be at the surface (so-called Bragg geometry) or the beam can pass through the crystal volume (so-called Laue geometry). The maximum efficiency for diffraction in the Bragg geometry is close to 100% (assuming no absorption).

    A hard-X ray lenses operating in Bragg geometry using mosaic pyrolithic graphite crystals has been proposed by Frontera et al 1995.The concentrator consists of 28 confocal parabolic mirrors. Each mirror is made up of small pieces of mosaic crystal with the diffraction planes parallel to the parabolic surface, which results in a broadband energy response.

    Laue geometry lenses : In a crystal diffraction lens, crystals are usually disposed on concentric rings such that they will diffract the incident radiation of the same energy onto a common focal spot. A crystal at a distance r1 from the optical axis is oriented so that the angle between the incident beam and the crystalline planes is the Bragg angle. Its rotation of around the optical axis results in concentric rings of crystals. With the same crystalline plane used over the entire ring, the diffracted narrow energy band is centered on E1.

    Two subclasses of crystal diffraction lenses can now be identified – narrow bandpass Laue lenses and broad bandpass Laue lenses.

    Narrow bandpass Laue lenses use a different crystalline plane for every ring in order to diffract photons in only one energy band centered on an energy E1=E2 (see figure).

    Overall General Reactor Design.

    All alpha ions and fast electrons from the polls of the plasmoid are converted to x-rays through tungsten target irradiation.

    256 x-ray production modules are evenly space on the surface of a sphere of N meters in radius each centered on the common module focal point at the center of the sphere.

    This large N meters in radius sphere holds a vacuum and but at its center, a boron/hydrogen gas is puff released.

    In a fusion application, boron/hydrogen fusion at the center of the large sphere produces X-rays that are directly converted to electricity on the inner surface of the sphere by a foil based X-ray to electricity conversion layer.

    All Xcon modules are fired simultaneously. Because fusion is used to produce x-rays in the module, a power gain based on its fusion energy gain factor “Q” of the module can be expected.

    By comparison, a Q factor of only 1% will put Xcon and the LIFE laser based reactor on an even footing, since the efficiency of its lasers is only 1%.

    The design risk to improve the performance characteristics of the Xcon over existing ICF concepts is small.

    Pulsed Operation

    Unlike the Z-machine, whose firing repitition rate is at best .1/sec and life at 10/sec, the Xcon is capable of a firing repetition rate of 1000/sec.

    Applications

    With some design reconfiguration the Xcon concept is capable of the following functions:

    Design replacement for the Z machine
    Design replacement for the LIFE reactor
    A new ICF design concept
    Fusion based nuclear rocket engine.
    An Xcon based in Space star wars X-ray type anti-ballistic missile system
    If miniaturized, a stage one trigger for a pure fusion nuclear weapon.

    Development Funding

    This type “out-of-the-box” system is desirable for development by DARPA since it involves possible improvement to existing and future fusion concepts and weapons.

    in reply to: scaleablity of a reactor? #5228
    Axil
    Participant

    ohiovr wrote: Getting break even and beyond is of course the primary concern but is it possible to scale the power of these reactors? The polywell people think they can get a gigawatt out of a reactor 10 meters across. Lots of little reactors is fine of course but could something larger be made? I’m looking for electrical generators for space applications. Focus fusion is already a plus because it doesn’t use thermal effects for power generation and thermal management is not so great in space with no cold air or water to sync to. Any chance for gigawatt reactors?

    Yes, I think so as follows:

    Overview and Rationale

    I propose a new type of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) based device to test materials in conditions of extreme temperature and pressure, to gather data to aid in computer modeling of nuclear weapons and to provide a backbone technology for a high efficiency, high gain, and high output fusion reactor.

    Currently, the Z machine is the largest X-ray generator in the world and is designed to test materials in conditions of extreme temperature and pressure. Operated by Sandia National Laboratories, it gathers data to aid in computer modeling of nuclear weapons. The Z machine is located at Sandia’s main site in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    The primary weakness in the current Z machine approach is the inefficiency in the way it produces and applies x-rays to the target. Most of its energy is radiated way by various mechanisms including alpha particles, high energy electrons, light, heat, and x-ray dispersion. Only a modest faction of the input power reaches the target in the form of x-rays.

    The LIFE laser fusion reactor is also inefficient in its delivery of power to its target. The efficiency of its lasers is less than one percent.

    Xcon

    One way to improve the design of these types of ICF device is to construct a high efficiency multi-stage fusion based focused X-ray source and concentrator (Xcon).

    The principle behind Xcon is simple. Using a few hundred fusion based x-ray production modules, produce hard X-rays and gamma rays using aneutronic fusion and concentrate them into a small volume of space in the same way as the LIFE laser reactor concentrates laser light into a millimeter sized spherical volume.

    General Design.

    An x-ray production module is a small aneutronic fusion reactor shaped like the circular headlight of an automobile. It uses aneutronic boron based fusion to produce a point source of x-rays, fast electrons and alpha particles.

    This reactor fires a very powerful electrical discharge into a hollow tube in tube cathode/anode pair where the anode is hollow. During the electrical discharge, this sparkplug like device forms a plasmoid near the anode tip at the focal point of a parabolic hard radiation lens system.

    This parabolic lens can reflex x-rays and gamma rays form this plasmoid point source and focus them on a point in space about N meters away.

    The cathode/anode pair is composed of boron doped diamond. This pair is highly conductive, transparent to x-rays and gamma rays, optimally resistive to erosive ware and can withstand an operating temperature up to 3000C.

    The electrodes are enclosed and anchored in a paraboloid shaped polycrystalline diamond support structure formed with large 100 nanometer sized crystals. The diamond paraboloid is faced with a flat lens composed of graphite that provides an enclosed volume that can hold a vacuum. Puff injection of boron and hydrogen gas near the anode and is coordinated with the electrical discharge and provides the fusion fuel source.

    The Lens System

    In order to cover energies up to about100 KeV – and maybe beyond – High-Energy Photons lens geometries such as Kirkpatrick/Baez Optics, Bragg-Lenses, Laue-Lenses, and Fresnel lenses can be used together with multilayer coatings as a mirror surface.

    These multilayer coatings consist of alternating layers of high and low index n of High-Energy Photons refraction materials: The reflection by a multilayer mirror is described by the constructive interference of the reflections at all low-high n interfaces This result in a sizable total reflectivity of the system. Similar to the Bragg-diffraction in crystals, the reflections have to be added with the correct phase relationship, leading to a boundary condition that relates incidence angle q, layer thickness d and wavelength l

    2 d sin q = n l

    Where n, the order of the reflection is an integer >= 1(multilayers are most commonly used in the first order, n = 1). Consequently, the response of so called Uniform Period Multilayers results in a narrow energy-bandpass. High reflectivity in a broad energy-bandpass can be achieved with graded multilayer coatings, here the film thickness d is varied over the stack. These Extremely Broad Band (EBB) Multilayers with reflectivities over bandpasses of > 20 keV are currently being intensely developed.

    The materials for the reflector/spacer coatings are selected for their different indices of refraction of hard readiation and for minimum absorption – presently considered material combinations are W/Si, W/C, Ni/C, and Pt/C.

    Recent development work for the hard X-ray telescopes has indicated potential up to around 200 keV for this technique.

    See the following graphic representation of the parabolic shaped back reflector structure:

    Rather than reflect the high energy photons along a parallel path as in the diagram, they will be bent to converge at a point N meters distant based on overall reactor design requirements. This provision is in place to optimize the performance of the front lens system.

    Continued in next post.

    in reply to: Helion #5226
    Axil
    Participant

    Henning wrote:

    Over the years, other people have been discharging electric arcs into heavy water with no ill effects, but nobody has attempted to form a plasmoid in heavy water yet. I think it is worth a try.

    Nope, isn’t. You won’t get plasma. For plasma you need gas. For a DPF to function you need a pressure of about 10mbar. You can try to fuse deuterium (didn’t follow what for, but anyway), but only as a gas. That’ll give you some neutrons (and some energy), but that’s it. In fact D-D fusion is a standard experiment done with a DPF.

    And forget about fusing tritium in a industrial style, as I mentioned in another thread.

    One of the standard ways of producing a cavitation bubble is by electric discharge.

    The electric discharge vaporizes the water (also true for heavy water) to form a cavitation bubble; the more powerful the discharge, the more gas volume that the cavitation bubble contains. It is in this gas bubble composed of deuterium and oxygen, where the FF plasmoid will form.

    In other words, the electric discharge makes its own gas deuterium gas pocket.

    I could show you pictures of how this looks if you need them. There is a shock wave formed during the collapse of the cavitation bubble of over 10 Gpa. By comparison, a diamond anvil can only produce 1 to 2 Gpa maximum pressure force.

    On the down side, this shock wave might damage the electrodes and some engineering might be needed to avoid this damage. On the plus side, this very high pressure might increase the D-D fusion level.

    Some people think that fusion occurs in a water cavitation bubble collapse without a plasmoid being induced. Maybe; it does produce some neutrons.

    in reply to: Helion #5222
    Axil
    Participant

    Tulse wrote:

    the only fusion reactor that can produce fusion in heavy water is FF.

    What is your source for this? I’m not clear that FF will work with heavy water.

    An FF experiment is needed to find out if it is possible and if it has any merit.

    I don’t know if it is possible, but it would be great if FF heavy water fusion could be made to work for many reasons.

    The neutron fluence should go up substantially due to the increased density of deuterium in heavy water as opposed to gas.

    Fast neutron damage using D-D fusion to the reactor structure would be eliminated.

    The need to use less pulsed power to get the same fusion effect.

    Over the years, other people have been discharging electric arcs into heavy water with no ill effects, but nobody has attempted to form a plasmoid in heavy water yet. I think it is worth a try.

    in reply to: Helion #5218
    Axil
    Participant

    The hybrid thorium or spent fuel blanket seems to have a very high energy output. I wonder what how the costs work out.

    Thorium is a fusion energy amplifier. It increases the output of a fusion reaction by a minimum of 10,000 times. One thorium fusion/fission hybrid has the same energy output as a minimum number of 10,000 equivalent fusion reactors; I.E 5Mw vs. 5 Gw

    10,000 FF at $300,000 per unit cost at least 3 Billion less land cost, facilities, licenses and inspection, O&M;, etc.

    A thorium hybrid deployed under ground will cost about $2 billion.

    It has been said that fusion is neutron rich and energy poor; and fission is energy rich and neutron poor. Fusion and thorium complement each other. For thorium only fission, no neutrons are possible; it needs an external neutron source to get going.

    Once fusion is underway, in my opinion, it is relatively expensive to keep it going through continual on-the-fly waste removal. Fusion is a better answer. Fusion can burn the nuclear waste in place and provide a non radioactive waste stream.

    The LIFE fusion laser reactor is based on this idea. So are other thorium hybrids like Tri Alpha and Helion.

    There are many ITER like thorium hybrids in design but they are not viable in my opinion.

    Under current concepts, Tri Alpha and Helion will make the best thorium hybrids. FF is close behind because of its small size. It would fit nicely into the core of a thorium hybrid.

    However, the only fusion reactor that can produce fusion in heavy water is FF. This will solve all the reactor structural material (first wall) issues that are so hard to deal with.

    One of the major problems with fusion reactors is their low availability. They will break down often. If heavy water fusion can be made to work, FF will make the best thorium hybrid core, bar none. It will hardly need any maintenance if its core is plug replaceable.

    PS:

    A hybrid should have a K-eff (multiplication factor) of .95 or below. The NRC has greatly relaxed controls on this type of reactor.

    A neutron fluence of 10exp18 neutrons per second is all that is required for a hybrid; easy.

    in reply to: Helion #5192
    Axil
    Participant

    Brian H wrote:

    Helion is a fusion/fusion hybrid that expects of “q” of at most 5. In 2012 they will begin material testing in their own materials test bed.

    Check out page 21 – Low Q…

    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/355/

    That link is to this page.

    Sorry!

    Load this into Url line

    http://www.fusion.ucla.edu/FNST/Renew_Presentations/Tuesday/5.7-Slough-ReNeW Theme 4 talk.pdf
    in reply to: TriAlpha and beam directed fusion #5191
    Axil
    Participant
    in reply to: Helion #5189
    Axil
    Participant

    Helion is a fusion/fusion hybrid that expects of “q” of at most 5. In 2012 they will begin material testing in their own materials test bed.

    Check out page 21 – Low Q…

    https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/355/

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 40 total)