Page 41 of 59

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:32 pm
by Kahuna
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Kahuna wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:Why you are so naive?
Much easier to achieve temps required to burn DT with Q>1. They can? Answer is "no".
Why don't you learn to read english before you polute this blog with more of your ignorant comments. Do even you know what the phrase: "They say" means? If you want to call the LPP team naive, feel free (although I dare say they are much more accomplished than you), but don't confuse reporting with opinion.
Thanks, at least I understand what "they say" means. That means that many their words are unbelievable.
What would you say if I'd note you that can beat Mike Tyson, can run 100m faster than 10 sec, can swim 100 m faster than 45 sec, etc?
Not will say that I am liar? As in reality I can beat only much weaker man than Mike, can run 100 m not faster than 12 sec, and swam 100 m at 1 min 1 sec 30 years ago.
If you hadn't noticed, this is a thread about LPP. It would seem reasonable to most that when LPP publishes new information that links to it be posted here along with a brief summary of the content of those links. If you think that the folks at LPP are liars or incompetent, I would suggest you not waste your time reading this thread.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:38 pm
by zapkitty
Kahuna wrote: If you hadn't noticed, this is a thread about LPP.
Actually, LPP is using deuterium now as they ratchet things up on the road to pB11:

http://mobile.twitter.com/LPPX/status/2 ... 9061586944

... step by step by step...

But just so passers by aren't confused by the extraneous fluff being tossed around: While a Focus Fusion device would indeed be able to fuse neutronic fuels such as DT, it would be difficult to optimize one for neutronic power production.

This is because of the FF unit's small size, the heat load required to run steam turbines efficiently, and the neutron damage and neutron activation issues.

However, the FF concept does lend itself to aneutronic fuels such as pB11 and the direct conversion of the fusion output to electricity. And so that's what LPP is going for. They will pass the level of DT fusion as a matter of course but they don't intend to hang around there.

It is research. There have been occasional setbacks and issues to be resolved, and there are no guarantees, but the items Kahuna quoted add up to good news.

As for Joseph Chikva's opinion of the veracity of the LPP crew... well, it's his opinion. I'm unaware of any evidence whatsoever of false or misleading statements by anyone at LPP.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:01 am
by D Tibbets
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Kahuna wrote:They say it gives them more confidence that they will achieve temps required to eventually burn PB11.
Why you are so naive?
Much easier to achieve temps required to burn DT with Q>1. They can? Answer is "no".
This is reasonable and ignorant. If you have a body of evidence and derived theories, that support you view, it is reasonable to put them forward (from either side of the question). What is important is that Focus Fusion has developed their own body of evidence that does not extrapolate the same as the older data, and they now have managed to develop the (reasonable?) theory to explain the results. This has been an area of criticism against focus fusion. Now the data cannot be disregarded with the excuse that there is no theoretical underpinning. The data and theory can still be challenged, but they can also be better defended with both data and theory.

The same of course can be said for any claim, such as various flavors of cold fusion. The important aspect is the reasonableness and quality of both the data and theory.

I can claim I have a machine that does something, and you cannot disprove it. All you can do is ask me to prove it. This is the process that focus fusion is persueing, on both the experimental aqnd theoretical side. We can argue about the quality of the data and theory, but if the data seems reasonable based on repetition and accepted applied physics principles, then the balance tips towards the claimants.

My impression over the last year is that they are making some progress and as they progress the engineering problems are escalating rapidly. The final issue may not be physics but engineering limits.

I wonder if the Pollywell may fall into this catagory. The Polywell may be the Goldilocks of the race. It has a relatively large range of sizes that it can operate under. The focus fusion and FRC's may be too small, the Tokamaks may be too big, but the Pollywell is just right. It doesn't matter much which works, all now have theoretical under pinings. What matters is what works from an engineering and economics standpoint. In my worthless opinion, I suspect the Polywell leads the pack. The focus fusion or FRC may be next for some niche applications.

In addition, high intensity pulsed X-ray production may be a pro0fitable endpoint for ff. They have approached the demonstration of this useful technology. I would be interested in a comparison of this technology with things like billion dollar laser ignition facilities, etc. . Even the Canadian General Fusion approach may have advantages in this comparison.

Dan Tibbets

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:50 am
by Joseph Chikva
polywellfan wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Kahuna wrote:They say it gives them more confidence that they will achieve temps required to eventually burn PB11.
Why you are so naive?
Much easier to achieve temps required to burn DT with Q>1. They can? Answer is "no".
Of course they can't do it. They are trying to achieve pB11 in the future.
Really?
Do they not do the real fusion experiment?
Will the achievment of positive balance of DT reaction not a great success? What do you think that people do not know that aneutronic is better than neutronic?
But where is reality?
But reality is in that focus fusion approach was checked many years ago in many laboratories around the world. Now they have changed design of one electrode and begun speaking about pB11 reaction. Let they come to that desired reaction step by step and let show Q>1 for DT. Without that all their speculations are an idle talk. As if someone speaks that he can lift 200 kg bar, let while will show ability to lift 100 kg.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:00 am
by Joseph Chikva
zapkitty wrote:They will pass the level of DT fusion as a matter of course but they don't intend to hang around there.
If they would pass to that level even as result of hard work and not as a matter of course, Lerner will be awarded with Nobel Prize. But I see that they are still too far from that "insignificunt and not interesting" for them level. And instead of reality they talk fictions.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:39 am
by polywellfan
Joseph Chikva wrote:
polywellfan wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:Why you are so naive?
Much easier to achieve temps required to burn DT with Q>1. They can? Answer is "no".
Of course they can't do it. They are trying to achieve pB11 in the future.
Really?
Do they not do the real fusion experiment?
Do you want to be taken seriously?

Research needs time.
Will the achievment of positive balance of DT reaction not a great success? What do you think that people do not know that aneutronic is better than neutronic?
But where is reality?
But reality is in that focus fusion approach was checked many years ago in many laboratories around the world. Now they have changed design of one electrode and begun speaking about pB11 reaction. Let they come to that desired reaction step by step and let show Q>1 for DT.


Tritium is a radioactive isotope. It is reasonable to use DD reactions for research as long as possible. There may be other intermediate steps (besides DT) on the way to their goal . If they show pB11 reaction your special wish isn't necessary anymore as a prove.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:30 am
by Joseph Chikva
polywellfan wrote:Tritium is a radioactive isotope.
Really? :)

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:51 pm
by zapkitty
polywellfan wrote:
re: Joseph Chikva blather...
Do you want to be taken seriously?
I believe Chikva has already been made aware that LPP is not going to bother with DT fuel. In fact I recall this being explained to him some time back.

And this makes sense for LPP as DT would be pointless in an FF-style power source and tritium is a radioactive fuel that would require extra expense to handle and clean up after.

That is probably why he's going on about only DT being "real fusion" and... given his record on this forum... he will continue to do so as long as someone tries to correct his misstatements. He rarely stops so long as anyone pays him attention.

But for casual browsers of these threads and for googlers passing by it is useful to correct Chikva's misstatements and then move on.

So for those folks:

LPP does plan on exceeding the temperature, density and duration levels that would burn DT... but they don't need to actually burn DT while getting there.

Which makes sense and saves unnecessary costs because an FF device is not going to make a good neutronic power source so why should LPPX waste time and money testing with a radioactive fuel that wouldn't be used in FF power production?

But Chikva appears to be hung up on DT.

DT, a mixture of deuterium and tritium, is indeed the low-hanging fruit on the fusion tree and it is relatively easy to burn in a fusion reactor. But tritium is radioactive and the DT reaction itself is neutronic... which means high heat loads and intense neutron radiation as well as a costly steam cycle and expensive turbines that are not much different than what you'd find in a coal-fired power plant.

Would DT reactors be better than fossil or fission power sources?

Yes, but because of the steam cycle and radioactive fuel they are unlikely to be cheaper.

Projects that aim higher.... such as Focus Fusion, Polywell, and Tri-Alpha... that aim at aneutronic fuels such as pB11, hydrogen and boron-11, would not need a steam cycle and if any or all of them are successful then they would be much cheaper and cleaner than DT -based reactors.

So DT is not required for testing aneutronic units and would be an unnecessary expense for LPP.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:33 pm
by Joseph Chikva
zapkitty wrote:DT, a mixture of deuterium and tritium, is indeed the low-hanging fruit on the fusion tree and it is relatively easy to burn in a fusion reactor.
If that is so "easy" do it and I guarantee you Nobel prize and may be you will become a billionare as well. Though in the second I am not so sure but am absolutely sure in the first. At least nobody could do it during about 60 years of fusion researches. Please come closer to reality. pB is much complicate than DT and even for DT nobody can achieave positive energy balance.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:56 pm
by randomencounter
Joseph Chikva wrote:
zapkitty wrote:DT, a mixture of deuterium and tritium, is indeed the low-hanging fruit on the fusion tree and it is relatively easy to burn in a fusion reactor.
If that is so "easy" do it and I guarantee you Nobel prize and may be you will become a billionare as well. Though in the second I am not so sure but am absolutely sure in the first. At least nobody could do it during about 60 years of fusion researches. Please come closer to reality. pB is much complicate than DT and even for DT nobody can achieave positive energy balance.
There's a vast difference between "this is the easiest fusion mix" and "we can do break-even fusion".

If they manage break-even fusion at all, they will be able to get break-even with D-T. If they can't get break-even with D-T they won't get it with anything else, either.

This is of course a completely different matter to whether they even try using Tritium, as it is a pain to keep around due to its radioactivity.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:35 pm
by Joseph Chikva
randomencounter wrote:If they can't get break-even with D-T they won't get it with anything else, either.
I see that Mr. Kahuna and Mr. Zapkitty both believe that for Focus Fusion group is very easy to achieve break-even for DT. And I am only trying to explain them that this is also not a trivial task.
Nobody argues that aneutronic better than neutronic. But also I feel that my opponents beleive that direct energy converter needed for aneutronic reactors will be much cheaper than conventional steam turbine-generator facilities. This is one more mistake. As direct energy converter is an inversed accelerator (decelerator) and, so, rather expensive machine. First is well developed and widely used, while the second have never been used yet. So, additional financing for their development is needed as well.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:42 pm
by randomencounter
Joseph Chikva wrote:
randomencounter wrote:If they can't get break-even with D-T they won't get it with anything else, either.
I see that Mr. Kahuna and Mr. Zapkitty both believe that for Focus Fusion group is very easy to achieve break-even for DT. And I am only trying to explain them that this is also not a trivial task.
Nobody argues that aneutronic better than neutronic. But also I feel that my opponents beleive that direct energy converter needed for aneutronic reactors will be much cheaper than conventional steam turbine-generator facilities. This is one more mistake. As direct energy converter is an inversed accelerator (decelerator) and, so, rather expensive machine. First is well developed and widely used, while the second have never been used yet. So, additional financing for their development is needed as well.
They are asserting a non-thermal extraction method, which is hypothetically possible though it has yet to be proven that it will be more efficient than thermal extraction.

I'd say there appears to be insufficient data, so let's watch.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:04 pm
by Joseph Chikva
randomencounter wrote:They are asserting a non-thermal extraction method, which is hypothetically possible though it has yet to be proven that it will be more efficient than thermal extraction.

I'd say there appears to be insufficient data, so let's watch.
Namely that "non-thermal extraction method" is called "direct energy converter". And till its usage they should achieve good three numbers: temperature*time*number density.
And I can not see anything promising in their activity. Such experiments with focus fusion were conducted in many laboratories in 60-70s of last century.
Single improvement they use is multiple anode rods instead of one rod.
From the beginning they've got critical plasma contamination via degradation of grease, seals and I am sure via erosion of copper rods as well. As they had a problem with transparency of observation window through which they observe the process by high-speed camera.
Ok, let's watch what will happen. Without any expectations from my side.

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:29 pm
by D Tibbets
The difference in results is explained , at least provisionally. Wheather you choose to accept the explaination or not is your choice. But, they have addressed the issue.

As fot D-T fusion, while it is definatly the easiest in a thermal plasma, it is also the most difficult to do from a lab, process, and regulatory view point. You have to have a radiation safty officer, governmental supervision, etc to use tritium. Even some of the big money Tokamak research efforts have stuck with deutrium because of these issues. The Japanese Tokanak reactor has used D-D fuel and has extrapolated their results to claim that they have achieved the equivalent of Q>1 fusion for a D-T reaction. The choice of D-D over the technically and regulatory problamatic D-T reaction is reasonable and cheeper, and quicker, and etc.

Focus fusion is working with D-D fusion for similar reasons. As for a commercial product, I think there is reconignition that aneutronic fusion is required in these machines for engineering reasons, so it is quite reasonable to talk about this during the development process.

Also, experimental work to produce P-B11 fusion in significant quantities is a attractive goal by itself. To better describe the reaction and gain working knoledge on the intricacies of P-B11 fusion is usefull , and the bragging rights are trementdous.

Dan Tibbets

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:45 pm
by Joseph Chikva
D Tibbets wrote:As fot D-T fusion, while it is definatly the easiest in a thermal plasma
D-T fusion definitely the easiest for non-thrmal approaches as well.
And even hydrogen, neon, helium or other gases were used in some fusion experiments. But not for fusion but only for showing achivable numbers: temperature, confinement time and dencity. They can also say: "using DD fuel we have achieved numbers sufficient for DT break-even" and avoid all regulations.
But they can not as I see. Instead they speak "pB and direct energy converter". Ok, I can lift 80 kg rod and after hard exersizes have a goal to lift 200 kg. But the best result I achieved was 130 kg. That is not enough for world championship (possibility of running on pB fuel) but that is quite enoug to become a local champion (break-even running on DT). Understand?