Laser fusion test results raise energy hopes

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon


MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Now compare that with a fusor which produces fusion on a table top for a cost of a few thousand bucks.

And have you seen the size of the lasers?

Image

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/about.php

Fusion is just the cover story:

http://www.trivalleycares.org/nixnif.htm

BTW I favor weapons research. It should not be sold as some kind of fusion energy project.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Dewald
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:06 am

Post by Dewald »

Yep, looks to have the same motivation as the ITER project, waste a lot of money and keep people occupied and busy instead of doing more useful stuff.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

well, i for one, LOVE big fat lasers.

(& have you seen the size of the crystals they grow for them!)

iirc - march sometime they wil be cranking the knobs up. cant wait.

:)

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

Now compare that with a fusor which produces fusion on a table top for a cost of a few thousand bucks.
Apples and oranges.
BTW I favor weapons research. It should not be sold as some kind of fusion energy project.
It's too expensive a facility to be restricted to the stockpile stewardship program.
Hiper is dependent upon it.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Helius wrote:
Now compare that with a fusor which produces fusion on a table top for a cost of a few thousand bucks.
Apples and oranges.
BTW I favor weapons research. It should not be sold as some kind of fusion energy project.
It's too expensive a facility to be restricted to the stockpile stewardship program.
Hiper is dependent upon it.
Apples and oranges? For a device that is never likely to lead to economical power? Or maybe even net power. That at best will fuse D-T.

Heck fusors fuse D-D.

For a viable power producer they have to capture near 100% of the neutrons and breed some extras.

It is too expensive for stockpile stewardship? OK. Then it is way too expensive to ever lead to a power plant.

I don't know why it isn't worth it just for stockpile stewardship.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

At least the roof is green. Looks like either advanced solar panels or natural-turf tennis courts.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

DeltaV wrote:At least the roof is green. Looks like either advanced solar panels or natural-turf tennis courts.
Astro Turf football fields. Look at the yard markers.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Looks like a communication figure.

Skipjack
Posts: 6103
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Interesting for the sake of science and experiments that can be conducted with it, but of no use to anything related to practical fusion.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

Skipjack wrote:Interesting for the sake of science and experiments that can be conducted with it, but of no use to anything related to practical fusion.
I disagree. I think it is going to get a whole bunch of data that may relate in strange ways to other plasma regimens. I really think this device, unlike ITER, really has a path to scale down, as in the 2 shot method of hyper: A compression shot, then a heat shot.

I agree with all the critics that it will never lead directly to a useful energy device, but it is the best device ever built to provide vast amounts of data on thermalized plasmas. I really think it is going to be a nice ride!

Skipjack
Posts: 6103
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I agree with all the critics that it will never lead directly to a useful energy device, but it is the best device ever built to provide vast amounts of data on thermalized plasmas. I really think it is going to be a nice ride!
I guess, my post had room for missinterpretation, because that is pretty much what I meant.

I do not think that you will be able to scale it down though and the fuel pellets are not that cheap to produce too (you would tons of those).
So I doubt that it would ever lead to something economical. But yeah it is great for science (as I said above).

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

I'm pleased with stuff that's great for science fight now. Hopefully Polywell will work as currently intended, but if it doesn't, the situation is:

1. Understand plasmas better
2. Engineer a fusion reactor based on that understanding of plasmas

Even if Polywell doesn't work, hopefully it will contribute to a better understanding of plasmas which will enable a successful IEC type system.

zbarlici
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:23 am
Location: winnipeg, canada

Post by zbarlici »

Helius wrote:
Skipjack wrote:Interesting for the sake of science and experiments that can be conducted with it, but of no use to anything related to practical fusion.
I disagree. I think it is going to get a whole bunch of data that may relate in strange ways to other plasma regimens. I really think this device, unlike ITER, really has a path to scale down, as in the 2 shot method of hyper: A compression shot, then a heat shot.

I agree with all the critics that it will never lead directly to a useful energy device, but it is the best device ever built to provide vast amounts of data on thermalized plasmas. I really think it is going to be a nice ride!
..based on this assessment, i can barely wait for the NIF to die by the sidelines due to lack of interest(or funds), thus forcing the excellent engineers/physicists to disperse & contribute to other projects.

In the 60`s, the drive was for nukes and firepower & funds was not an issue; but in recent years it seems to be all about pushing for the-least-likely-to-pollute project, and coupled with the general population`s distaste for great big budget projects, it`s very likely that the NIF sill fail. Unless they manage to distract from their main goal.

Why else would NASA be under the microscope nowadays.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

I am also scathing of NIF - how long will those optics last? how do you feed in the capsules? how do you extract energy? &c., &c.

If they really have found that the compression regime is favourable and are less troubled by Rayleigh instabilities than predicted, then maybe they're on to somthing.

However, one thing to say here; I have found only one prediction of the future to hold generally true - of all the possible outcomes for the future that you imagine, more often than not it is something different to all of them!

I am just thinking that you, I, and all the NIF team know damned well that this is a substitute nuclear weapons analysis site and selling it as a fusion energy bondoogle is just a front. And that you, I, and the NIF team aren't expecting fusion energy.

How amusing it would be, then, if they actually DID end up with a viable net fusion reactor on their hands!! Can you imagine it; "urrgg.. what do we tell the press".."better tell 'em it doesn't work or summut...".."go throw your french bread into the laser tubes.. it worked when they found evidence that the Higgs boson didn't exist and needed to shut the machine down keep the funding coming in"...

Post Reply