SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nuclear Fusion Power Without Regular Tokamaks Or Stellarators:
When it comes to nuclear fusion, the most well-known reactor type today is no doubt the tokamak, due to its relatively straight-forward concept of plasma containment. That's not to say that there aren't other ways to accomplish nuclear fusion in a way that could conceivably be used in a commercial power plant in the near future.
As we covered previously, another fairly well-known type of fusion reactor is the stellarator, which much like the tokamak, has been around since the 1950s. There are other reactor types from that era, like the Z-pinch, but they seem to have all fallen into obscurity. That is not to say that research on Z-pinch reactors has ceased, or that other reactor concepts — some involving massive lasers — haven't been investigated or even built since then.
In this article we'll take a look at a range of nuclear fusion reactor types that definitely deserve a bit more time in the limelight.
[...] Inertial Confinement Fusion
[...] Magnetic Confinement Fusion
[...] All the Other Designs
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:53PM (15 children)
What precisely do you mean by "operative" design?
There's definitely physically extant z-pinch machines with "scientific net positive" results on D-T reactions, if admittedly very low yields compared to theoretical thresholds.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:05PM (8 children)
I.E. Something that works and is more than just a novelty.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:11PM (3 children)
Vague enough that I'd say, for example, the Lawerenceville Plasma Physics' Focus Fusion device [lppfusion.com] counts. The fact that they're very public with their engineering changes and experimental results is probably a offset by the fact that their head scientist is a(maybe the) plasma cosmology fringe nutter.
But the engineering work do seems to be sound, and the results of their experiments seem to be largely in compliance with the underlying plasma models used for z-pinch machines.
H-B is a pipe dream, though.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by DannyB on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:14PM
H1B is easy to get however.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:38PM (1 child)
I would say this quote from their site still puts them in the novelty category.
https://lppfusion.com/oscillations-down-fusion-yield-up/ [lppfusion.com]
Something that's only good in the lab is a novelty. At best it's a functional prototype. Still, a functional prototype, is only good, if it then leads to a successful product.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:43PM
I don't entirely understand your reasoning, but I also don't think there's anything to gain by trying to convince you of something different.
Thank you for your clarification.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:12PM (3 children)
Agree.
Demonstrating that it is possible to generate power is great. Being able to generate even a bit of net positive power is a big step. And I congratulate all the people and hard work that go into these advances. So please (people working on fusion) don't take this the wrong way.
Nuclear fusion has always been just a few decades away since I was in high school. As someone not working on nuclear fusion, I will be excited when there is a prototype power plant that can generate at some level of scale. Even a few dozen homes would be a huge advance.
Meanwhile I eagerly await my flying car. With the self driving option. Oh, and Mr. Fusion too.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:18PM (2 children)
The graph about fusion being "always 50 years away" [external-preview.redd.it]
(Score: 1) by oumuamua on Tuesday February 18 2020, @05:52PM (1 child)
That graph only goes to 2013
What is the *CURRENT* state of Fusion funding?
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:20PM
Well, I was doing a lot of original research looking through budget proposals to try and figure out where fusion research is actually allocated.
But I finally found a number someone else put together: 631 million 2019 dollars [aip.org], which is apparently 551 million in 2013 dollars.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Tuesday February 18 2020, @05:03PM (4 children)
Diction, pedantics, clarity, all fun stuff here! I suffer greatly from misunderstanding.
As an engineer, I take it to mean "economically and practically ready for general use by the public".
Something that can be built and run with reasonable safely, at reasonable cost, and provides useful output.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 18 2020, @05:05PM (3 children)
No fusion reactor design of any kind meets that standard.
Hell, a lot of fission reactor concepts like the much-loved "can't melt down" thorium reactors don't meet that standard.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:00PM (2 children)
Which is why we have R & D. :)
One of my EE dad's titles was "Produceability Engineer". Title almost seems redundant, but I guess they needed some more practicality in R & D / engineering.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:05PM (1 child)
I don't want to be too antagonistic, but isn't that the point of the article, that there's lots of exciting designs undergoing research and development?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:02PM
No. The point of it was to continue interest in research and development and it did so by implying that there are operational designs which are [almost] ready to produce power commercially. There are not. And I bracketed "almost" because they specified a time frame of "near future."
My point isn't to say it will never happen, or that it cannot happen. Nor is it to dissuade anyone from reading the article - it is cool stuff. My point is that the article is being very disingenuous by implying that it "might" be ready in the "near future" for commercial application. Even I, a great lover and user of weasel words, could see their hook amounts to a falsehood without stating any lie.
That is what I meant by "operative," as in, "efficacious for the proposed commercial purpose," clearly stated as power generation. Otherwise it's pure science, which is nevertheless pretty cool and almost always worthwhile but nevertheless very hard to pay the bills with.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:41AM
The z-pinch and several other approaches technicallyyield more energy than is input as long as you ignore the energy involved in practically rebuilding the thing after every pulse.
In other words, net loss of energy and entirely impractical for production.
The Farnsworth fusor can sustain fusion for days, but at a net loss. It's a decent source of neutrons, but not so much for producing energy.
It's fair to say those are research apparatus, worthwhile for that purpose, but not prototypes of a practical fusion generator.