[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote: Impurities= uncertainties. TMPs are not a good place to cut costs, imo.

I know, you get into a question of purge costs vs TMP costs… but it might be a discussion worth having.

[zapkitty]

Timo wrote:

Just hypothetical mind game. How small can we get.

Just don’t omit cooling… some applications favor simpler cooling methods than others.

Waterborne transport is easiest. Aircraft can jettison their waste heat into the airstream and can even get some of that energy back with careful design. Locomotives should be easier than road vehicles…

… spacecraft operate in an environment where radiating heat is the key. Different parameters than planet-based transport systems..

[zapkitty]

And thus the notional DPF “box” can be described as 3m x 2m x 2m… if you work within those constraints for the time being you’ll be less likely to be taken by surprise…

… and why a fusion-powered passenger car? If aneutronic fusion is proven then Chevron will have no choice but to relax its death grip on large NimH battery applications… or they won’t have any options left at all except the auction block.

[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote:

Is it necessary to get to the level of detail of segments of the coil for this short demo? It might be more a distraction than anything; it certainly isn’t core to comprehending the process.

Yes, since he’s using it to teach himself as well as others. Whether it ends up in the animation remains to be seen. In any event, the lack of voiceovers is a recurring weak spot in our animations.

errrrrr…. if multiple coils are to be considered part of the learning process then that would seem to imply that we are already sure about that much regarding the structure of the alpha recovery system. .. are we?

Not objecting to the concept but this would seem to be what Rezwan just referred to as “Phase 2” stuff…

and for vansig… now with free ersatz ion beam! 🙂

Attached files

[zapkitty]

Francisl wrote: I’ve watched the animations for the collapsing plasmoid and they show a positive beam traveling in one direction and a negative beam traveling in the opposite direction. There has been discussion about using energy recovery coils for the positive beam. Can’t coils also be used for the negative beam?

As I understand it the negative beam is supposed to expend its energy on the plasmoid that created it… heating it even further and thus increasing the fusion yield and the positive beam output,.. so it would already be increasing the electrical output in an indirect manner.

[zapkitty]

jamesr wrote:

… and I was thinking of the open-ended style of Rogowski coil…

Good image – just what I had in my mind.

… and this time I didn’t waste all those hours of work with a viewport still zoomed into unrecognizability 🙂

[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote:

Here’s an image of what I reckon it should look like (photo is actually of a lightbulb filament)

Cool! Hadn’t realized the coil itself was coiled. I take it this is going to be very noisy to cool with pressurized helium?

Why would you waste helium on the coil? You’re not limited to the confined volume of the FF core so you can run a (much cheaper) oil or water loop through there.

… and I was thinking of the open-ended style of Rogowski coil…

Attached files

[zapkitty]

jamesr wrote:
mmm… looking at it now maybe there is an easier way!

… it all depends on what you want from the process. For me the easier way is telling the software what I want and letting it do the work 😉

… cheap and tawdry workmanship, that’s me…

[zapkitty]

benf wrote: There’s a bend function that allows me to bend a coil into a semi circle. So I don’t need a formula after all. I can make a full circle by splicing. I wonder if there should be multiple stacked coils? Or is just one going to soak up all the energy of the beam?

…. somewhere around here there was talk of multiple coils for alphas of different energy levels but that might be a bit much right now for your basic setup.

I’m taking this as a tool for quickly teaching the basics… was I right?

[zapkitty]

benf wrote: I see what you mean, Vansig. I’ve looked it up in Wikipedia. The problem for me is adjusting the coil (paths) manually to make it circular will be very difficult. I can key in a math formula in the 3D program I’m using, which I’ve never done before. I’m searching the web for the handy formula that will just generate the correct coil, but haven’t found it yet.

… does your”helix” command have an option that’s something like “around curves”?

If so it might save you much time if you draw the wire that runs through the core of the coil as a flat circular curve first and then tell the software to wrap the helix around that curve. Hook it all up and “pipe” should do the trick.

[zapkitty]

Tulse wrote:
But be aware that, without careful planning and PR, the debate might start with “Company puts nuclear reactor using toxic fuel in local building.”

If all FF gets is attacks with that level of truthfulness then that won’t be a problem… unless someone from FF fails to address the accusation… but actual attacks probably won’t be so limited by reality.

And again: real people who’ve watched corporate parasites slash and burn their way through the world while lying their asses off in the process… these people will have valid concerns.

Any opposition forces will gladly stir up and magnify those concerns… often for the benefit of the same corporatists who are behind the current looting… but ignoring the validity of genuine concerns would make FF proponents no better than the parasites.

A variety of explanations that don’t come off as offhand dismissals will need to be prepared ahead of time.

That’s Rezwan’s department, right? 🙂

[zapkitty]

.hack fusion

… wasn’t that the sequel to .hack liminality?

🙂

[zapkitty]

AaronB wrote: … and would allow the utility to test and perfect the process without public scrutiny or NIMBY issues.

… but you’d want the public to be aware that Focus Fusion itself does invite public scrutiny and that the utility should send the more inquisitive types to FF resources.

It seems that humanity will never be rid of the sort of idiots who will self-determine that the mag fields from an FF unit are turning them into newts… but there are also a whole lot of people out there who’ve been burned by corporate malfeasance in pursuit of corporate profits and such people will want valid assurances that this latest “thing” really is safe.

[zapkitty]

Henning wrote:
Well, yeah, but those numbers are all very speculative.

Estimates are what we get until the test unit is functioning.

Electrode wear, capacitor wear … these would seem to be the primary maintenance drivers and we should start getting some preliminary answers fairly soon.

Hard data on actual operational cycles will have to wait until the designing of production prototypes.

[zapkitty]

That’s the plan, and the cost projections per FF unit make it a very easy one to implement for industrial and utility applications.

Last I heard the regular maintenance cycle for the notional 5MWe FF unit is 24 hours downtime out of every 90 days for electrode changeout and a general checkup, and that includes a 12 hour cooling period while the short-term radiation dies down.

[Author]

Posts