[Tulse]

Since the system is currently using deuterium, is it expected that the current path would actually produce theoretical breakeven with that fuel? I know the energy of the D-D reaction can’t actually be captured with a focus fusion device, which isn’t designed to generate usable energy from neutronic reactions, but is the intent to demonstrate that the reaction itself is putting out more energy than input? That in itself would be a huge breakthrough, and should be far easier to achieve with D-D than pB11. Or am I missing something?

[Tulse]

oldjar wrote: Chernobyl and Fukushima were not terrible at all.

Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. The economic costs were in the tens of billions of dollars. Huge swathes of once-productive land now lies unused. How is that not “terrible”?

[Tulse]

I don’t know why one would design a 100MW reactor until one has a functioning above-unity research reactor. Or, put another way, anyone can “design” a 100MW reactor — call me when they start bending metal.

[Tulse]

Thanks, Derek. I continue to be amazed at the transparency of the LPP efforts — I don’t know of any fusion research project, much less the private efforts, that provide so much information about their ongoing activities. Kudos to the team for embracing the true spirit of science.

[Tulse]

Are there any details on the device covered by the agreement? Given the state of research by LPP, a contract for designing new reactors seems a bit premature to me.

That said, the DPF approach is probably the most suitable of all fusion approaches to use in regions with limited technical resources. All other candidates, with perhaps the exception of Polywell, seem to require a much greater technical and engineering base.

[Tulse]

I admire the gumption and out-of-box thinking of the General Fusion folks, but their approach seems absolutely absurd to me. I can’t imagine the timing and tolerances needed being sustainable over the frequency of compressions needed to produce practically useful power.

[Tulse]

I think you may have misunderstood my point, which not that fission is currently practical for the Army and Air Force, but that they would benefit from a light, reasonably portable, high-density power supply (such as Polywell) more so than the Navy.

In any case, a breakthrough in fusion on the scale of Polywell or DPF would be a huge boon for all the armed forces.

[Tulse]

Joeviocoe wrote: The Navy could really benefit from Aneutronic fusion because of the lack of need for sheilding and even better fueling (no need for tritium breeding) and waste (no activation).

That’s true, but of all the armed forces they have the least issue with heavy shielding and radiation handling. Their craft can easily deal with both, far more so than the Air Force or Army. (After all, they are the only branch which currently operates nuclear-powered vehicles.)

I would think the Army would be even more eager for clean, easily-transportable generators (for bases), and the Air Force as well (light enough reactors could power an unmanned bomber for months, and a purely electric plane would have a negligible heat signature).

[Tulse]

Joeviocoe wrote: I don’t think Poylwell is considering Aneutronic seriously just yet. They want a working powerplant using D-T first.

Frankly I think that is a very wise strategy for them — the first “alt-fusion” approach to reach breakeven will be a big winner, even if it is with more “conventional” radioactive reactions that are nonetheless far easier to produce in principle than pB11. And the Navy is used to dealing with fission reactors, so the radiation from a DT reactor would likely not be an issue.

[Tulse]

As a pedantic correction, the website is kickstarter.com, not kickstart.

[Tulse]

zapkitty wrote: MSNW takes a deliberate swipe at boron fusion by listing it as not “based on currently accepted principles of physics and reasonable technology extrapolation” alongside cold fusion, matter-antimatter and wormholes.

Perhaps the published successes of LPPX since then will be treading closely upon a few heels right about now… 🙂

To be perhaps excessively fair, LPPX hasn’t done any pB11 shots yet…

[Tulse]

break wrote: we will see…

I am sceptical…

What facts have been reported that make you skeptical? Or are you doubtful of the whole approach in general?

I would think that the continued involvement of the US Navy suggests at least that there have been no obvious show-stoppers found to this point, which surely would be good news.

[Tulse]

break wrote: It semms polywell doesn’t work as expected…

I’m not sure where you get that from the posts at talk-polywell. As I understand it (and keep in mind that the research conducted by EMC2 is currently under US Navy contract, and thus officially confidential), the presumption by knowledgeable outsiders is that the research has found a few bumps, as one expects whenever theory is exposed to testing, but that at this point there are no obvious show stoppers. The Navy has just extended the contract for the research, which would generally seem to be a good sign.

[Tulse]

dennisp wrote: For a power plant the idea is definitely not to vent the fission fragments to the atmosphere 🙂

I kinda figured that 🙂

On the other hand, unless I’m mistaken, it sounds like the waste ends up as a gas, or at least a very fine powder, and that would be seriously difficult to handle and dispose of.

[Tulse]

I doubt this could be used in a terrestrial plant, as the beam of fragments is radioactive, and would have to be captured and stored in some fashion. However, it appears to be a very promising technology for space propulsion, with enormous specific impulse, and could get craft up to a reasonable fraction of c.

[Author]

Posts