[bcreighton7]

Like the new sleek look…good job. Integrated logo etc is good.

[bcreighton7]

meemoe_uk wrote: ok, but it was reasonable to expect there’d be more interest on this forum for safire. We’re supposed to like plasma cosmology and plasmoid fusion right? I didn’t expect us just to silently commend the progress of safire, I expected us to discuss the ramifications of safire on theory of fusion power.

For instances, I’m consider myself a noob, but this thought came to me quickly :

The sun, x-ray binaries, and quasars have axial beams of ions. In the lab, the artificial induction and harnessing of such beams is the goal of FF1. It space, its reasonable to assert these beams are created in the corona ( the alternative is any beam that was created inside the star would have to punch thru the outer surface of the star )

Now we have safire producing ultra high power events with its corona. Is there a way they could be made to all fire along an axis? I think applying an external magnetic field or electric field would allign these events. And there ya go. A quasar in a bottle, and a lot easier than FF1. No need for expensive capacitor banks and switches. The corona creates its own capacitance with natural electric double layers and fires itself when its ready. The ion & X-ray absorption chamber designed for FF1 should work for a corona fusion power device just as well.

While you are promoting CF as a more “natural” and easier solution to fusion, isn’t your proposal a lot like the horribly expensive tokamaks in the need to apply an exterior magnetic field? It may may be simpler tho in that the magnetic field would not need to contain the reaction, but simply channel the e- stream. The research has a way to go. FF is proven. It creates fusion. The main issues are related to engineering. CF has a lot of work to get where FF is now. I believe it may prove quite difficult to outwardly apply the type of natural magnetic field that occurs naturally in quasars.
How do you propose to do it?

[bcreighton7]

Uploaded possible logo 🙂 http://imgur.com/a/JaFTS

[bcreighton7]

Maybe it would be worth contacting these engineers – sounds like they ran across the various fusion projects, and liked the ideas behind the projects. They might provide some inroads to approaching companies like Google and entities like the Gates Foundation(although I know they have their own thing going on).

[bcreighton7]

I generally like the new web page. I like the new modern layout. It flows better for the eye as you scroll down.

I would like to see the FFS adopt a new logo, more consistent with that of LLP and its webpage perhaps using its logo http://lppfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/lppFusionLogoGreenGreensmaller.jpg as a model. Perhaps the world could be figured as the plasmoid with green and blue poles sticking out.
This is even something I might be willing to play with. It could also be used on the forum pages to give them a more consistent feel – just a suggestion.

[bcreighton7]

bcreighton7 wrote: “The problem, we concluded, was that during each shot the inner layer of the steel, facing the plasma, was heated by the plasma to about 1000° C, enough to break up the chromium oxide in the stainless steel. Chromium oxide protects steel from further oxidation (rusting) at room temperature, but can’t withstand high temperatures, even for the few ms until the heat dissipated through the bulk of the steel.”

I assume an alloy like Hastelloy N has been rejected as not being as heat tolerant? Still with only 6-8% Chromium it should reduce the problem. Perhaps would accept a titanium coating better? I don’t know much about the properties of all the possible different alloys, but hastelloy N is a preferred choice for its resistance to oxidation at high temperatures.

Perhaps a relatively cheap solution would be a SiC coating? Higher melting point than SS. Doubt it could be done on site however. Would probably have to send in the chamber to be coated by a company like Electro-Coatings. They have a specialty coating they call Nye-Carb.

Then there is our friend CNT – perhaps it could be installed as a layer of conducting insulation to conduct heat away from problem areas. Don’t know how expensive that would be or if it would work better than a titanium coating – of course you need a place to conduct heat to.

P.S. If one of my suggestions is adopted, do I get a consultation fee? 🙂

For future reference my friend CNT is back in the news. It seems when utilized with nanophotonic crystals, they can convert 1000 C heat into light usable by photovoltaic cells. Perhaps covering some of the chamber walls with this material would be another way to use the excess heat to increase efficiency, while keeping critical components of the chamber cooler.
Here is a link: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-solar-usable-cell-efficiency.html

[bcreighton7]

Engineer wrote: I think the idea of government money use for research outside of defense is indefensible. It is time for government to focus on fission fuel reprocessing and conversion to short half life isotopes.

And how are they going to do that without spending money on nondefense research? Do you mean maybe they should perhaps spend more money on perfecting an unproven technology such as LFTR reactor technology which we can use to use up all the spent fuel? Or do only you have one solution to promote? Without some new technology we are going to remain dependant on fossil fuels which I personally believe is “indefensible.”

[bcreighton7]

Engineer wrote: Also, found papers at ASC for photovoltaic conversion of x-rays with Pb compounds. I would like to see an engineering study to determine optimum size. Maybe too soon, but such analysis would help with financing.

Lerner already has patents for a photovoltaic X-ray device. But I am sure would be open to more efficient processes. Yeah, it may seem early for that to be put into play, as lots of nuclear engineering has to be worked thru first to get the reactor up and going, but I’m sure any “spare” down-time used to perhaps make the device more efficient would be well spent as it is one of the main components needed to make the reactor commercially viable. I would think optimum size is going to vary on the compound or molecular structure used.

[bcreighton7]

bcreighton7 wrote:

Molten salt reactors are not restricted to Thorium, in fact you get all the same advantages (and disadvantages) with U in such a design. For example reprocessing U cycles give very similar waste.

Indeed molten salt was proposed to fix many of the issues with thorium. But lets be clear. It is *not* proven. A small demo reactor (or 2) was operated, *without* breeding and *without* in situ reprocessing. There was corrosion problems and fixes proposed but not validated. To get to a proper deployment status your talking about 10-20 years full size demo first. And that is a estimate from the industry, you know the people that actually build these things.

Hi,
Yes, that is why I said

It has a proven working model at least, and if we built out one, we may end up with a commercially viable plant within 10 years which could be used to replace the nuclear reactors which are now coming up for retirement while potentially keeping their electric generation systems. I’m sure there are still engineering problems to face on a full scale plant, but if the hype is to be believed it has many advantages over our current nuclear reactors:

I realize the LFTR reactor I am talking about still has engineering challenges to work out, but it was proven to work. I don’t think it is pie in the sky. At this point, fusion is still literally pie in the sky ie in the sun. Moving the physics of the sun to the earth will be a bit of an engineering challenge I think. While I believe Dr Lerner and team may well reach net energy with the beryllium anode, the challenge is to be able to repeat the fusion billions of times and convert the energy, and at this point we can’t confirm we will even get past the tungsten anode. If it ends up feeding impurities into the reaction, the challenges will really begin.
It seems to only make sense to have another viable and at least somewhat proven nuclear power source. Plus we are living at a time of some financing challenges for fusion. While I think this will certainly change for focus fusion once net energy is reached, there will still be nuclear engineering challenges to address.

looks like someone in my home state thinks this technology is going to work at a commercial level – even sooner than I thought. They changed up the design to avoid some engineering issues.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Martingale-reveals-its-ThorCon-liquid-fuel-reactor-design-07011501.html

[bcreighton7]

“The problem, we concluded, was that during each shot the inner layer of the steel, facing the plasma, was heated by the plasma to about 1000° C, enough to break up the chromium oxide in the stainless steel. Chromium oxide protects steel from further oxidation (rusting) at room temperature, but can’t withstand high temperatures, even for the few ms until the heat dissipated through the bulk of the steel.”

I assume an alloy like Hastelloy N has been rejected as not being as heat tolerant? Still with only 6-8% Chromium it should reduce the problem. Perhaps would accept a titanium coating better? I don’t know much about the properties of all the possible different alloys, but hastelloy N is a preferred choice for its resistance to oxidation at high temperatures.

Perhaps a relatively cheap solution would be a SiC coating? Higher melting point than SS. Doubt it could be done on site however. Would probably have to send in the chamber to be coated by a company like Electro-Coatings. They have a specialty coating they call Nye-Carb.

Then there is our friend CNT – perhaps it could be installed as a layer of conducting insulation to conduct heat away from problem areas. Don’t know how expensive that would be or if it would work better than a titanium coating – of course you need a place to conduct heat to.

P.S. If one of my suggestions is adopted, do I get a consultation fee? 🙂

[bcreighton7]

Well, I should have known that LPPF would have known about such a material – after all it has been around for over a decade. Don’t I feel stupid…
Apparently, Lerner is considering CNT as a coating for the electrodes.
http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/carbon-nanotubes-may-protect-electrodes/
I assume its absorption of X-rays has been deemed too great to use CNT as a monolithic cathode, but it seems the properties of CNT would allow for a smaller cathode…

[bcreighton7]

Tim_Petrik wrote: Ivy, I don’t think the gas cathodes have to end at the same plane as the center-anode. The current should stop flowing axially away from the back wall once the center electrode (solid) ends.

Dr. Lerner, thank you for your encouragement! I don’t know enough about the differences between Mather/Fillipov-style DPFs to comment on the necessity of solid electrodes. But I’d like to point out that I only want to replace the outer electrodes with gas electrodes and keep the design of the center electrode and insulator unchanged. If the resulting design doesn’t fit with Mather/Fillipov-style DPFs, maybe a new name can be found 😉

That actually sounds like an elegant solution to a lot of the cathode problems the reactor would run in to such as avoiding degradation of a solid cathode, but presents some new engineering challenges, and may require more energy than its worth.

I have a potential idea that seems it should use a lot less power, and should have less heat concerns – how about making the cathodes and maybe the anode of carbon nanotubes? It is a highly conductive and strong material, should be relatively cheap, and is structurally light enough to allow x-rays to pass through, although CNT has a somewhat high attenuation rate. My guess is the xrays may cause too much degradation of a CNT anode, but some long-term tests appear promising. Nevertheless, the relatively high x-ray attenuation of CNT makes it a less than ideal choice for an anode in this reactor. The cathodes might be able to be designed in a way to lessen the loss of X-rays. In a vacuum CNT is estimated to have a higher melting point than beryllium. I know next to nothing about the physics of such an application, but thought I might bring it up.

[bcreighton7]

delt0r wrote: Molten salt reactors are not restricted to Thorium, in fact you get all the same advantages (and disadvantages) with U in such a design. For example reprocessing U cycles give very similar waste.

Indeed molten salt was proposed to fix many of the issues with thorium. But lets be clear. It is *not* proven. A small demo reactor (or 2) was operated, *without* breeding and *without* in situ reprocessing. There was corrosion problems and fixes proposed but not validated. To get to a proper deployment status your talking about 10-20 years full size demo first. And that is a estimate from the industry, you know the people that actually build these things.

Hi,
Yes, that is why I said

It has a proven working model at least, and if we built out one, we may end up with a commercially viable plant within 10 years which could be used to replace the nuclear reactors which are now coming up for retirement while potentially keeping their electric generation systems. I’m sure there are still engineering problems to face on a full scale plant, but if the hype is to be believed it has many advantages over our current nuclear reactors:

I realize the LFTR reactor I am talking about still has engineering challenges to work out, but it was proven to work. I don’t think it is pie in the sky. At this point, fusion is still literally pie in the sky ie in the sun. Moving the physics of the sun to the earth will be a bit of an engineering challenge I think. While I believe Dr Lerner and team may well reach net energy with the beryllium anode, the challenge is to be able to repeat the fusion billions of times and convert the energy, and at this point we can’t confirm we will even get past the tungsten anode. If it ends up feeding impurities into the reaction, the challenges will really begin.
It seems to only make sense to have another viable and at least somewhat proven nuclear power source. Plus we are living at a time of some financing challenges for fusion. While I think this will certainly change for focus fusion once net energy is reached, there will still be nuclear engineering challenges to address.

[bcreighton7]

our favorite man here:

Dr Lerner in Alvin Weinberg blog

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/01/28/the-hidden-faces-of-fusion-power/

[bcreighton7]

Brian H wrote: Gates is now pushing a new fission “travelling wave” design, 300MW+, buried for about 50 yrs, 40x more efficient than standard designs, uses depleted uranium etc.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/07/bill_gates_terrapower_china/

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/07/23/bill-gates-nuclear-company-explores-molten-salt-reactors-thorium/

TerraPower, the Bill Gates-chaired nuclear company that is developing a fast reactor, is now investigating alternative reactor technologies, including thorium fuel and molten salt reactors.

[Author]

Posts