[Ivy Matt]

I believe the plan, at least initially, is to use decaborane (B10H14). Decaborane is a solid at room temperature, which enables safer handling before introduction into the chamber.

The previous pB11 research that I am familiar with used either particle accelerators or lasers and solid boron targets.

[Ivy Matt]

The plasma focus is a relatively inexpensive device that is known to produce fusion reactions. As such, it has been used to study plasma physics in various countries that don’t have the budgets for more expensive fusion devices. It has also been studied for applications in X-ray lithography, neutron therapy, medical istope production, and production of neutrons for nuclear weapons. Thirty or so years ago, when fusion budgets were being reduced and the tokamak was edging out the competition, it was widely believed (and still is today among most mainstream fusion researchers) that the plasma focus produces fusion primarily by a beam-target mechanism in which the ion beam collides with cold gas in the chamber, producing fusion reactions. And indeed, there is evidence that in some devices that is the case. If that is always so, prospects are not good for the plasma focus as a net power fusion device. Eric Lerner is convinced, based on his own study of the plasma focus device, that in the right configuration it can produce fusion primarily by a thermonuclear mechanism within the plasmoid. Based on experiments he conducted at Texas A&M in 2001, he published a paper demonstrating the production of neutrons and hard X-rays within the plasmoid itself (see note 25 and figure 1 in particular). However, my impression is that these results have not yet been widely accepted within the plasma physics community.

[Ivy Matt]

See the article below for more on the Las Vegas DPF:

https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/new_large_dpf_in_las_vegas_unveiled

[Ivy Matt]

EMC2’s paper on “High-Energy Electron Confinement in a Magnetic Cusp Configuration” has been published by [em]Physical Review X[/em].

There’s also a rumor, from a presumably reliable source, that Jaeyoung Park will be speaking at MIT sometime soon.

[Ivy Matt]

This is the latest news I’ve heard:

https://www.facebook.com/focusfusion/posts/10155623932255258

On June 2nd the tungsten electrodes were mounted to FF-1 and waiting for the vacuum chamber to be attached.

Some developments are announced in these places:

https://www.facebook.com/focusfusion
https://twitter.com/focusfusion
https://twitter.com/lppx

[Ivy Matt]

Coaxial helicity injection?

This Science Daily article from 2010 appears to be related:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108071912.htm

Plasma confinement devices based on the tokamak concept rely on a solenoid through the center of the device to generate the initial current. Because the solenoid is used as an electrical transformer, its pulse length is limited in duration and it cannot sustain the initial current indefinitely in a steady-state reactor. Thus a method to eliminate the solenoid would remove a large component from the center of the tokamak, making the device simpler and less expensive. This allows the freed space in the center to be used in optimizing the device, making the tokamak more efficient by producing a magnetic configuration similar to that in a spherical tokamak.

[Ivy Matt]

I believe the newsletter is sent to investors, FFS members, and IndieGoGo contributors. It used to be that investors got the newsletter a few days before FFS members, and before the news items were posted on the LPP website, but that practice seems to have changed, perhaps since the crowdfunding campaign. A link to the newsletter has been posted on the LPPX Twitter feed, so I imagine it’s fair game.

[Ivy Matt]

NASA has announced partnerships with 12 companies “to advance concept studies and technology development projects in the areas of advanced propulsion, habitation and small satellites.” Three of those companies (including MSNW LLC) will be developing propulsion technologies:

Selected advanced electric propulsion projects will develop propulsion technology systems in the 50- to 300-kilowatt range to meet the needs of a variety of deep space mission concepts. State-of-the-art electric propulsion technology currently employed by NASA generates less than five kilowatts, and systems being developed for the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) Broad Area Announcement (BAA) are in the 40-kilowatt range.

The three NextSTEP advanced propulsion projects, $400,000 to $3.5 million per year per award, will have no more than a three-year performance period focused on ground testing efforts. The selected companies are:

Ad Astra Rocket Company of Webster, Texas
Aeroject Rocketdyne Inc. of Redmond, Washington
MSNW LLC of Redmond, Washington

It doesn’t specify MSNW’s propulsion technology. They have publicly revealed three: the Electrodeless Lorenz Force (ELF) thruster, the Electromagnetic Plasmoid Thruster (EMPT), and the Fusion Driven Rocket (FDR). All three are field-reversed configuration (FRC) plasma technologies, but only the latter involves fusion. The Fusion Driven Rocket was funded through the NASA NIAC program, so it’s possible the NextSTEP project is a continuation of that project. However, as far as I am aware MSNW has not published “Experimental demonstration of fusion gain with inductively driven metal liners” or a similarly-titled paper, so who knows what they’re up to? The ELF thruster is supposed to be able to use the Martian atmosphere as a propellant, so it’s possible MSNW is being tapped to develop an engine for a landing vehicle, rather than a space thruster.

[Ivy Matt]

Wouldn’t this idea suffer from the same difficulty as the problem of designing a real-life lightsaber? That is to say, how do you give the electrodes a tip, or end-point?

[Ivy Matt]

I can confirm that the Focus Fusion Society is registered with Amazon Smile. Login to your Amazon.com account through smile.amazon.com, and search for the society. It’s registered in Lafayette, California, not in New Jersey or New York, as you might expect. Select the society, and Amazon will donate 0.5% of the price of eligible purchases to the FFS.

[Ivy Matt]

It’s published by the IAEA. Very mainstream. No tinfoil hat required.

[Ivy Matt]

Yes, but not from fusion…until this year. Flying cars, hover boards, and Mr. Fusion: this is going to be quite a year.

[Ivy Matt]

On January 22, Dr. Park delivered a Microsoft Research talk, titled Polywell Fusion: Electrostatic Fusion in a Magnetic Cusp. It’s an hour and half long, but well worth watching in my opinion.

The upshot: the Polywell appears to be a viable and attractive fusion reactor. However, it will take time and money to produce a power-generating fusion reactor, but not nearly as much as will be required for a tokamak DEMO reactor. Dr. Park envisions a three-year proof-of-principle research effort to see how the device scales, followed by a $300 million net-power reactor to demonstrate scientific feasibility within a few years. Right now Dr. Park envisions using D-T fuel for the net-power device, but the actual fuel used will be affected by results obtained on the proof-of-principle device. If ion heating efficiency is sufficient (~90%), then he will strongly consider using p-B11 fuel in the net-power device.

Phase +1: Proof-of-Principle Reactor
~3 years
~5 ms high-beta operation
>10-kV ion heating by electron beam injection
~$35 million (?)
Success defined by 1) high-energy electron confinement within a factor of 10 of Harold Grad’s conjecture and 2) minimum (for D-T fuel) 30% ion-heating efficiency via electron beam.

Phase +2: Net Power Reactor
a few years
2m coil radius
5T magnetic field
80-kV electron beam
185 MW plasma heating power
1.1 GW fusion power (D-T fuel)
~$300 million
Success defined by net fusion power output.

The presentation slides can be downloaded here. The video of the talk can also be downloaded.

A thought that occurred to me while watching Dr. Park’s talk is that the Polywell is almost the opposite of the DPF in that it tries to achieve maximum plasma stability (using convex magnetic fields and high-beta cusp confinement) whereas the DPF uses plasma [em]instability[/em] to achieve fusion conditions.

[Ivy Matt]

The latest modification to the Funding Opportunity Announcement can be found here. Some key dates:

Jan. 27: Second Deadline for Questions to ARPA-E-CO@hq.doe.gov
Feb. 2: Submission Deadline for Full Applications
Mar. 31: Submission Deadline for Replies to Reviewer Comments
Apr. ??: Expected Date for Selection Notifications

Reading the FOA, the following caught my notice:

ARPA-E requires all work under ARPA-E funding agreements to be performed in the United States – i.e., Prime Recipients must expend 100% of the Total Project Cost in the United States. However, Applicants may request a waiver of this requirement where their project would materially benefit from, or otherwise requires, certain work to be performed overseas.

Given that the tungsten cathode is being purchased from and machined in China, I wonder if this would require a waiver. I would think a waiver ought to be granted if there are no facilities in the United States capable of machining it. (Although there may be another way to get a tungsten cathode soon.) Or, if the award only covers work done using the beryllium electrodes, I suppose a waiver would not be necessary.

[Ivy Matt]

Isn’t that what the axial field coil is for?

[Author]

Posts