Amateur fusioneers.

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Amateur fusioneers.

Post by Torulf2 »


choff
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

I remember Kulcinsky referred to polywell as a dark horse over a year ago, that he didn't have the answers about it yet but expected to get them soon.
In the article he's quoted as saying 25 to 30 years till commercial reactor. That could be interpeted to mean he's skeptical of WB8, but more than likely I'm reading too deeply between the lines.
CHoff

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

choff wrote:I remember Kulcinsky referred to polywell as a dark horse over a year ago, that he didn't have the answers about it yet but expected to get them soon.
In the article he's quoted as saying 25 to 30 years till commercial reactor. That could be interpeted to mean he's skeptical of WB8, but more than likely I'm reading too deeply between the lines.
Ther is some confusion in the article, probably from the writer. Selfsustainig the reaction (ignition) only applies to thermonuclear processes like Tokamac of laser confinement. I have generally considered that breakeven fusion has been already been achieved in hydrogen bombs. Though reading the Wikipedia article makes me wonder. The purpose of the tritium, etc. is to provide neutrons to convert a shell of uranium 238 into plutonium and thus greatly increase the fission yield. I don't know wether the fusion adds net power or actually consumes a small amount of the otherwise aviable power before the boosted fision kicks in. The relatively small blast yield of the 'neutron bomb' that has the fusion componant but not the secondary blanket of uranium 238 would support the idea that the fusion energy yield in the hydrogen bomb is not at breakeven (or at least not significantly above it). Otherwise, why use the fusion to produce neutrons to drive a seconday fission process. The term hydrogen or fusion bomb is missleading as they are actually boosted fision bombs. Perhaps this was intentinal in an effort to confuse the compitition.

In that case the NIF may indeed be the first to reach fusion breakeven (or at least thermonuclear ignition), though JET came close. And of course, if Bussard had suceeded in convincing backers to persue the 'WB100' aggressively it might have been in close competition with NIF to be first to net power.




Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

kunkmiester
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

Early bombs were called fission-fusion-fission bombs, because they worked that way. The U-238 wasn't transmuted, it was directly fissioned by the different kind of neutron put out by the fusion reaction--I can't remember how exactly all that worked.

modern "clean" weapons place a greater focus on the fusion stage, and leave out the second fission stage. While the first weapons got close to 70% of their yield from the U-238 tamper fission, modern weapons are designed to get sometimes more than that from the fusion stage.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The NIF is no where near break even.

Also IIRC it is not yet operational.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

kunkmiester wrote:Early bombs were called fission-fusion-fission bombs, because they worked that way. The U-238 wasn't transmuted, it was directly fissioned by the different kind of neutron put out by the fusion reaction--I can't remember how exactly all that worked.

modern "clean" weapons place a greater focus on the fusion stage, and leave out the second fission stage. While the first weapons got close to 70% of their yield from the U-238 tamper fission, modern weapons are designed to get sometimes more than that from the fusion stage.
In that case, then yes, breakeven fusion reactions have already been achieved on Earth, though in a violent way.
MSimon wrote:The NIF is no where near break even.

Also IIRC it is not yet operational.
I wondered if I was wrong to consider ignition equivalent to breakeven as opposed to merely a prerequisite for breakeven in a thermonuclear fusion reactor.

I know NIF stands for National Ignition Facility.
What does IIRC stand for?

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

IIRC - common (not common enough?) internet slang - If I Recall Correctly

Google is pretty good these days for "strange" acronyms and abbreviations.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

MSimon wrote:IIRC - common (not common enough?) internet slang - If I Recall Correctly

Google is pretty good these days for "strange" acronyms and abbreviations.
Yep, the acronyms for IIRC is the first listed item from a Google search. I like the fourth possibility. :)

http://www.acronymfinder.com/IIRC.html

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Ahhhhh.....Isnt NIF to test Pu for bombs . . .. . . .

I'm sure they'll have some plasma data that will be of interest when done, but really now, it has very little to do with what we are interested in here at talk polywell.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

kunkmiester wrote:Early bombs were called fission-fusion-fission bombs, because they worked that way. The U-238 wasn't transmuted, it was directly fissioned by the different kind of neutron put out by the fusion reaction--I can't remember how exactly all that worked.

modern "clean" weapons place a greater focus on the fusion stage, and leave out the second fission stage. While the first weapons got close to 70% of their yield from the U-238 tamper fission, modern weapons are designed to get sometimes more than that from the fusion stage.
Fusion generates fast neutrons and the cross section of U238 is higher than U239. That's the purpose of "fast breeder" reactors - you use fast neutrons to burn the U238 and convert it to PU which also has high cross section. With all the U238 lying around it made sense. Now that U238 punches holes in armor, there is reason to get the fusion stage working to release more gammas rather than neutrons. Overall bang for the buck = don't waste anything.

The next stage is shaped nuclear charges. I'd love to know how they intend to make that happen.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

kunkmiester wrote:modern "clean" weapons place a greater focus on the fusion stage, and leave out the second fission stage. While the first weapons got close to 70% of their yield from the U-238 tamper fission, modern weapons are designed to get sometimes more than that from the fusion stage.
And 4th generation weapons purge the fission primary entirely.
drmike wrote:The next stage is shaped nuclear charges. I'd love to know how they intend to make that happen.
Project Orion developed that waaaay back in the day, called it Casaba-Howitzer.
Vae Victis

kunkmiester
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

Now that U238 punches holes in armor, there is reason to get the fusion stage working to release more gammas rather than neutrons.
It's a whole heck of a lot cleaner too. Fun thing, the first lithium deuteride bomb had a much greater yeild then they thought, because the lithium reaction produced fast neutrons too, fissioning more uranium.
And 4th generation weapons purge the fission primary entirely.
How the blue blazes do you expect to do that? If conventional explosives were enough to create enough fusion to create an explosion, it'd be mind boggling. Or are "fourth gen" weapons still in progress?

That would actually make the salt cavern idea practical. Drop a bomb down, melt the salt, harvest the heat, repeat. One of the more unconventional ideas.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

kunkmiester wrote:
And 4th generation weapons purge the fission primary entirely.
How the blue blazes do you expect to do that? If conventional explosives were enough to create enough fusion to create an explosion, it'd be mind boggling. Or are "fourth gen" weapons still in progress?
Chemical explosives are of course insufficient; that was determined back in the '50s. Here is an open source review of some possibilities.
kunkmiester wrote:That would actually make the salt cavern idea practical. Drop a bomb down, melt the salt, harvest the heat, repeat. One of the more unconventional ideas.
PACER? Waste of material. A Wang Gun has potential tho.
Vae Victis

Post Reply