Author Topic: Fusion we can believe in?  (Read 4960 times)

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Fusion we can believe in?
« on: December 17, 2008, 09:03:24 AM »
Working on a shoestring budget, researchers have found no reason why a low-cost approach to nuclear fusion won't work.

President-elect Barack Obama's pick for energy secretary has said he's aware of the approach, known as inertial electrostatic confinement fusion or Polywell fusion - and although it's probably not on his radar screen right now, it just might show up in the future.

For decades, scientists have been trying to figure out how to harness the power of the nuclear reaction that sets the sun ablaze. Fusion involves smashing the nuclei of lighter elements together to produce heavier elements, plus an excess burst of energy. The sun turns hydrogen into helium. Thermonuclear bombs do something similar with different isotopes of hydrogen.

The mainstream approaches to commercial fusion would involve heating up plasma inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic bottle known as a tokamak, or using lasers to blast tiny bits of deuterium and tritium. The former approach is being followed for the $13 billion international ITER project, and the latter would be used by multibillion-dollar experiments such as the National Ignition Facility in the U.S. or HiPER in Britain.

Then there's the $1.8 million (yes, million) project that's just been wrapped up at EMC2 Fusion Development Corp. in Santa Fe, N.M. The experiment, funded by the U.S. Navy, was aimed at verifying some interesting results that the late physicist Robert Bussard coaxed out of a high-voltage inertial electrostatic contraption known as WB-6. (The "WB" stands for Wiffle Ball, which describes the shape of the device and its magnetic field.)

An EMC2 team headed by Los Alamos researcher Richard Nebel (who's on leave from his federal lab job) picked up the baton from Bussard and tried to duplicate the results. The team has turned in its final report, and it's been double-checked by a peer-review panel, Nebel told me today. Although he couldn't go into the details, he said the verdict was positive.

"There's nothing in there that suggests this will not work," Nebel said. "That's a very different statement from saying that it will work."

By and large, the EMC2 results fit Bussard's theoretical predictions, Nebel said. That could mean Polywell fusion would actually lead to a power-generating reaction. But based on the 10-month, shoestring-budget experiment, the team can't rule out the possibility that a different phenomenon is causing the observed effects.

"If you want to say something absolutely, you have to say there's no other explanation," Nebel said. The review board agreed with that conservative assessment, he said.

The good news, from Nebel's standpoint, is that the WB-7 experiment hasn't ruled out the possibility that Polywell fusion could actually serve as a low-cost, long-term energy solution. "If this thing was absolutely dead in the water, we would have found out," he said.

If Polywell pans out, nuclear fusion could be done more cheaply and more safely than it could ever be done in a tokamak or a laser blaster. The process might be able to produce power without throwing off loads of radioactive byproducts. It might even use helium-3 mined from the moon. "We don't want to oversell this," Nebel said, "but this is pretty interesting stuff, and if it works, it's huge."

The idea is still way out of the mainstream, however. In his new book about the frustrating fusion quest, "Sun in a Bottle," Charles Seife says that WB-7 and similar contraptions, known generically as fusors, aren't good candidates for power-generating fusion - even though they've attracted "something of a cult following."

"The equations of plasma physics strongly imply that fusorlike devices are very unlikely ever to produce more energy than they consume," Seife writes. "Nature's inexorable energy-draining powers are too hard to overcome."

Nebel is well aware of the naysayers. In fact, that's one reason why he's being so circumspect about the results of the WB-7 experiment. When I mentioned that he'd probably like to avoid the kind of controversy and embarrassment that came in the wake of 1989's notorious cold-fusion claims, Nebel laughed and added, "That's well-put."

Despite the skepticism, Nebel and his colleagues have already drawn up a plan for the next step: an 18-month program to build and test a larger fusor prototype. "We're shopping that around inside the DOD [Department of Defense], and we'll see what happens," he said.

Nebel said some private-sector ventures are also interested in what EMC2 is up to, and that may suggest a backup plan in case the Pentagon isn't interesting in following up on WB-7.

For the time being, Nebel said his five-person team is getting by on some small-scale contracts from the Defense Department (including these three). "I've got enough to cover the people we've got, and that's about it," he said. "What we're doing with these contracts is trying to get prepared for the next step."

He's also waiting to see what the Obama administration will bring. Will the White House support EMC2's low-cost, under-the-radar fusion research program alongside ITER and the National Ignition Facility? "We just don't know," Nebel said.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/16/1718741.aspx

Micro Sez:
So, what is this all about? The sites I found this on were all very enthusiastic, but a lot of commenters said it's all quackery. What is this good for if anything?
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2008, 09:37:23 AM »
Quote
President-elect Barack Obama's pick for energy secretary has said he's aware of the approach, known as inertial electrostatic confinement fusion or Polywell fusion - and although it's probably not on his radar screen right now, it just might show up in the future.

Nothing but 1970's style "wind and solar" babbling will show up on his radar.

Physics

  • ∇xE=-1/c·∂B/∂t, ∇·E=4πρ, ∇·B=0, ∇xB=1/c·∂E/∂t, F=q(E+v/cxB)
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,315
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2008, 02:07:16 PM »
I remain unconvinced.  Look up these guys named Pons and Fleischman, and you will understand why the scientific community is very skeptical of fusion reactions and what is claimed of them.  Basically, I'll believe it when it's been reproduced.  Of course, I'm looking for more energy out than you put in.  I will not put this down completely though, my thesis adviser has a fusion experiment going, and it sounds very similar to this setup.

Also, just because you can't see why something will fail, doesn't mean it won't. 
In the world of science, there is physics.  Everything else is stamp collecting.  -Ernest Rutherford

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2008, 02:43:42 PM »
From a layman's perspective, it's because everything is cooler than the fusion area, and is draining energy away from the plasma at a ferocious rate.

Maintaining a fusion plasma that generates more energy than it consumes is kind of like trying to maintain a ball or doughnut of hot steam in the air in Antarctica without touching it.

That's because everything you might "touch" the plasma with is much much colder than it is, and what you do to not touch the plasma, like maintain very hard vacuum or magnetic fields, and anything you do to keep the plasma hot and energetic enough to fuse the nuclei is wasting energy you're not getting out of it. And the skeptics are right to be skeptical. The smaller the fusion device, the higher the ratio of all those inherent parasitic losses are to the amount of fusion going on. 

But if one of these long-shot bets turns out to be true, the pay off is enormous.
I promise not to duck.

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2008, 02:59:39 PM »
ICF is real, and quite good, but at this point only produces (at best) 10 times as much energy as has been put in. Nowhere near enough for commercial purposes, yet.
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

Brad Johnson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,138
  • Witty, charming, handsome, and completely insane.
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2008, 03:11:44 PM »
ICF is real, and quite good, but at this point only produces (at best) 10 times as much energy as has been put in. Nowhere near enough for commercial purposes, yet.

Huh!?

Given the massive amounts of energy that a fusion reaction deals with, ANYTHING over 100% is good enough for commercial purposes.  10 times as much would already have the world beating a path to their door.

Brad
It's all about the pancakes, people.
"And he thought cops wouldn't chase... a STOLEN DONUT TRUCK???? That would be like Willie Nelson ignoring a pickup full of weed."
-HankB

slugcatcher

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 370
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2008, 03:15:53 PM »
ICF is real, and quite good, but at this point only produces (at best) 10 times as much energy as has been put in. Nowhere near enough for commercial purposes, yet.

When did this happen? I hadn't heard they got over unity yet.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2008, 03:31:11 PM »
ICF is real, and quite good, but at this point only produces (at best) 10 times as much energy as has been put in. Nowhere near enough for commercial purposes, yet.

I'm gonna need to see a citation for this.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Nick1911

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,492
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2008, 03:35:16 PM »
ICF is real, and quite good, but at this point only produces (at best) 10 times as much energy as has been put in. Nowhere near enough for commercial purposes, yet.

As an active participant in the Farnsworth Fusor community, I believe this information is incorrect.

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2008, 04:09:57 PM »
I may well have been misled, but the information that ICF got up to 10:1 out:in energy was from someone directly working with it.

Quote
Given the massive amounts of energy that a fusion reaction deals with, ANYTHING over 100% is good enough for commercial purposes.  10 times as much would already have the world beating a path to their door.

Guess again - most kinds of energy are considered completely worthless unless you're talking more than 50:1, but again, this is from folks in various industries and I may well have been misled.
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

agricola

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,248
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2008, 04:33:13 PM »
I may well have been misled, but the information that ICF got up to 10:1 out:in energy was from someone directly working with it.

Guess again - most kinds of energy are considered completely worthless unless you're talking more than 50:1, but again, this is from folks in various industries and I may well have been misled.

You have been misled.
"Idiot!  A long life eating mush is best."
"Make peace, you fools"

Brad Johnson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,138
  • Witty, charming, handsome, and completely insane.
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2008, 04:49:43 PM »
Guess again - most kinds of energy are considered completely worthless unless you're talking more than 50:1, but again, this is from folks in various industries and I may well have been misled.

Mislead again.  We're talking about production volume measure in giga- or even terawatts.  Given that, even a few percent over unity is financially viable.  Think of it as the Wal-Mart principle ... you may not make much on it, but you can still make money by selling a buttload of it.

Brad
It's all about the pancakes, people.
"And he thought cops wouldn't chase... a STOLEN DONUT TRUCK???? That would be like Willie Nelson ignoring a pickup full of weed."
-HankB

zahc

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,812
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2008, 04:57:16 PM »
Practical fusion is only about 20 years away, tops. And next year will be the year of the linux desktop.
Maybe a rare occurence, but then you only have to get murdered once to ruin your whole day.
--Tallpine

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,894
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2008, 05:21:12 PM »
Practical fusion is only about 20 years away, tops. And next year will be the year of the linux desktop.
I was thinking "....and next year it will be 20 years away also."

:)
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,651
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2008, 06:14:57 PM »
Fusion I can believe in is wasabi glazed rice krispie squares.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2008, 06:33:18 PM »
I may well have been misled, but the information that ICF got up to 10:1 out:in energy was from someone directly working with it.

Guess again - most kinds of energy are considered completely worthless unless you're talking more than 50:1, but again, this is from folks in various industries and I may well have been misled.

Was this one of the people you met through your GF's business? Maybe it's really their mild mannered ocelot alter-ego that works in the industry......  :O ;/ :laugh:
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2008, 06:36:57 PM »
Was this one of the people you met through your GF's business? Maybe it's really their mild mannered ocelot alter-ego that works in the industry......  :O ;/ :laugh:

Nope, it was my brother-in-law and one of his coworkers. He's an engineer and his friend is a physicist.


And they're not furries. And you're an ass.  =D
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2008, 06:42:57 PM »
Nope, it was my brother-in-law and one of his coworkers. He's an engineer and his friend is a physicist.


And they're not furries. And you're an ass=D

One can only hope that's not a turn-on for anyone here....  =D

But seriously, you might want to recheck with them. This sounds like an epic fail in the communication dept.....
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2008, 06:52:24 PM »
Very possibly I'm misremembering and it was 10 in to 1 out.

Next time, should I just call you a meaner phrase? To limit confusion, of course... ;)
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

drewtam

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,985
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2008, 07:39:29 PM »
Basically, I'll believe it when it's been reproduced. 

This IS the reproduced results. The original results were created by Bussard. These results confirm his findings and appears to have been peer reviewed a couple times. No it is not an energy producer, but the results show that scale will create energy production. There may be a few intermediate trials before such a full scale up.
I’m not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The… tactleneck!

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2008, 07:46:59 PM »
Practical fusion is only about 20 years away, tops. And next year will be the year of the linux desktop.

The Linux Desktop is already here, at least for many users.

My wife, a complete uncomputer person, has been using this for 6 months because she kept getting viruses on her windows box.

A better example might have been "The Flying Car" though  :lol:
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

Nightfall

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 916
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2008, 08:26:56 PM »
Fusion I can believe in is wasabi glazed rice krispie squares.
Damn that sounds good...
It is difficult if not impossible to reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into. - 230RN

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2008, 08:47:41 PM »
That's because everything you might "touch" the plasma with is much much colder than it is, and what you do to not touch the plasma, like maintain very hard vacuum or magnetic fields, and anything you do to keep the plasma hot and energetic enough to fuse the nuclei is wasting energy you're not getting out of it. And the skeptics are right to be skeptical. The smaller the fusion device, the higher the ratio of all those inherent parasitic losses are to the amount of fusion going on.

Which is why I think that if fusion power ever becomes 'mainstream', it'll be an absolutely HUGE power plant.  We're talking something along the lines of terawatt sized plants, costing not billions, but trillions of dollars.

The amount of energy needed to contain the reaction goes up more or less with the square, power production more along the cube.

In the case of fusion power, bigger IS better.

Myself

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2008, 09:18:08 PM »
Fusion we can believe in.

http://www.fusionfirearms.com/

 =D

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: Fusion we can believe in?
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2008, 09:40:48 PM »
Can't they just use watermelon rinds and stale beer for fuel ???
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin