I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Speculation

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by mvanwink5 »

A shot across the bow of a $50 billion government giga project must sting not just a lot of people, but lot of categories of people. A real dust up, with lots-n-lots of red faced bureaucrats. Imagine, if you will, ITER is just completed and ready for the first experiment and boards are nailed up on the doors and magnets are put on ebay.

Of course, that won't happen. No, the money will start to evaporate much earlier. And VC's will salivate at the chance of getting in on the fusion race. Hence the dust up. By the way, expect ITER to start blowing smoke on how close they really are... if only they had more money.

I might also point out that the ITER facility is not being built in anybody's congressional district...
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by Ivy Matt »

choff wrote:perhaps this is the breakthrough they're talking about
Perhaps. I don't discount the possibility that Lockheed has made some kind of breakthrough at this stage, but you don't mention the word (assuming it was Lockheed who mentioned it) before you're ready to unveil the breakthrough publicly. Otherwise you end up coming across like this or this.
mvanwink5 wrote:By the way, expect ITER to start blowing smoke on how close they really are...
That's what the JET upgrade is for: to serve as a placeholder for ITER while it is still being built.
mvanwink5 wrote:I might also point out that the ITER facility is not being built in anybody's congressional district...
The facility, no. But components are. However, your point is relevant. Already a divide is appearing between the internationalists and those who would prefer to keep a strong domestic fusion research program. And many US scientists are (naturally) in the latter camp.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

swamijake
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:09 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by swamijake »

"The symmetry of the design promises to make both simulation and test machines simple compared to some other designs."

Then why, with there large budgets and ample brain power, haven't they done the simulation and built the test device? They took time money and effort to produce a lovely video. That time is better spent generating data. It looks like they have all the parts they need to draw a vacuum and do some test runs, or at least they are close, so why not get some data and release that with all the fanfare?

Something doesn't smell right; Skunkworks indeed.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by mvanwink5 »

Why not release the data? Publish peer reviewed articles? But I thought McGuire said they were going to do that, and the reason for the announcement timing was getting ahead of the patent publication story.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by Ivy Matt »

Critique of Lockheed Martin's fusion PR campaign and critique of critiques thereof

I think I've already said enough on the word "breakthrough" and lack of specificity, but here are some things LM could have done to allay the truest criticisms:

1) Link to the patent applications. Or at least give the application numbers. They mentioned them in their press release, and they had already been published. It was only a matter of time before someone looked them up, so why not make it easy for everyone to find them? It would have focused the criticism on more relevant matters. (Well, maybe. There are always those who are too lazy to click on a link and read something before commenting on it, but presumably they would be less likely to spout off if they saw other commenters having a serious discussion of the patent applications.)

2) Talk about submitting papers to peer-reviewed publications from the beginning. (Unless, of course, this was a move made in response to criticism. :P) If people know a paper detailing results is in the works, they'll be more likely to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

3) Even if papers about results are not ready for publication, emphasize the fact that LM has already done experimental work on the concept. True, there are images of the current device all over the place, but some sites only give the text of the Reuters article (or links which people don't follow).

4) Avoid mentioning timeframes, or at least emphasize that they are only estimates, and could vary depending on available funds, personnel, and any unexpected physics or engineering setbacks.

Criticisms of the website:

The design reminds me a bit of Helion's latest redesign, which reminds me of the Focus Fusion Society's latest redesign. Maybe it's just a coincidence, and it has to do with the increasing prevalence of smart phones, but on the other hand, the close-up end-on view of the device with the text "It's Closer Than You Think" is giving me a sense of deja vu. I guess neither LPP nor the FFS bothered to trademark the phrase, and it's entirely possible that LM came up with it independently, but still....

The phrase "infinite energy" tends to trip people's woometers. Then again, I suppose other people are drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

Maybe it's just personal taste, but I have a similar reaction to the phrases "power of the sun" and "magnetic bottle" that others have to the jokes about fusion always being XX years away, or always being the energy source of the future. I look forward to the day when fusion power just is, and we don't have to explain it with hackneyed metaphors. The rest of the web page is pretty good, in my opinion, except for the repeated references to mimicking the process by which the sun works.

As for the press release, I detailed what I think it was lacking in points 1-3 above. I also think the part about LM building on 60 years of fusion research was ambiguous enough that it could be misinterpreted as saying that LM itself has researched fusion for 60 years.

Criticism of criticisms:

I'll avoid discussing the numerous criticisms fielded by those who are completely ignorant of controlled nuclear fusion and instead address the criticism of those who are completely ignorant of patent law. I've seen several comments from people who speculated that LM would hide their technology in patents instead of sharing them with the world. I'm not sure how to respond to that except to say that it's patently obvious that such people don't know the first thing about patents.

A common criticism of the LM concept is that it's just a magnetic mirror. Or it's just a picket fence. Or it's just a Polywell. The story of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. (I will admit, though, that it's always looked a lot like a magnetic mirror to me.) I presume that Tom McGuire knows the problems those various devices have encountered, and for some reason thinks his particular concept resolves those problems somehow. But of course publication of results could clarify that point.

Another common criticism, not just of the LM concept, but of any alternative fusion concept, is the idea that various nations wouldn't be spending tens of billions building a huge tokamak in Cadarache, France if there was a smaller, more economical route to fusion. I have two responses to this. First, this is government we're talking about. Several governments, in fact. Second-system effect is pretty much guaranteed, even for first systems. My second response is that nobody—not even the government—sees everything. The government probably wouldn't have given Langley $70,000 to develop his Aerodrome if they had known the Wright brothers' $1000 Flyer would work. But they didn't, so they did. That's just an analogy, of course. I could say a lot more about why the tokamak monopolizes fusion research (and why it shouldn't), but I think this comment is getting long enough.

Oh, and one more criticism is that LM is just talking about a concept, or just running simulations, and they haven't actually built a test device yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the photographs we've seen (including some from back in 2013 showing plasma) indicated that they do have a test device, and they have tested it? Just because they haven't published any papers yet doesn't mean they haven't seen any results yet. True, we don't know what results they may have obtained, but it would seem to me that if they've produced a plasma, they must have obtained some kind of results.

The last criticism, which is quite common, is that LM hasn't achieved net gain. That's (probably) true, but then (probably) neither has anyone else. Of course, it does mean everyone should be careful about throwing around the word "breakthrough" when the press is listening, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with making announcements regarding recent progress, as long as they're couched in realistic language.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by mvanwink5 »

Can we add one (or two) more reason(s) for LM's coming out? How about GF, Helion, Dynomac, EMC2, LPP, Tri-Alpha all, all have made significant updates on their status this year and some fairly recently. And LM is at a point where they are looking to partner for moving forward.

I think the complaints about the announcement are a bit thin and there is considerable detail in the patents. Want more? Always, what else is new? In reality, quick and cheap fusion (compared to ITER) should not have been such a big splash if the media had been awake this year, but high school journalist are busy covering things that aren't as hard to comprehend or make judgements on as fusion.

The big news is the race is on, the horses are running hard, and ITER is in a big sweat. (I'm just waiting on funding good news for EMC2).
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

crowberry
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:34 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by crowberry »

A week ago all that was publicly known about the LM Skunk Works T4 reactor was from the video released in February 2013. It was not LMs fault that the press used words like "breakthrough". I think the situation looks rather good based on these quotes:
Preliminary simulations and experimental results “have been very promising and positive,” McGuire says. “The latest is a magnetized ion confinement experiment, and preliminary measurements show the behavior looks like it is working correctly. We are starting with the plasma confinement, and that’s where we are putting most of our effort.
From: http://aviationweek.com/technology/skun ... or-details

So obviously they have data, but it has not been published this time, but according to the next quote there will be publications coming at some point. LM has worked like all the other fusion companies. First you run simulations and build some type of experiment to back up your patent applications. Once the patent applications are public you can then publish as much as you want on your progress.
Why announce the plans now?

Lockheed Martin has applied for a number of patents, and McGuire says that this week’s announcement was intended to get out in front of that process and ensure that people have the right context when those patents come through. Moving forward, he says that the team will be publishing its results in peer-reviewed journals.
From: http://www.nature.com/news/lockheed-mar ... sm-1.16169
“This is going to be conducted in the open,” he says

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work.
So they have started approximately in 2011 on the project and in 2013 there was that video. The meta data in the latest photos says they were taken in the beginning of September 2014. If you compare the pictures from the 2013 video with the new pictures it seems to me that they have the same T4-experiment running, but that it has been moved to a larger laboratory room. Since the 2013 video showed plasma in the T4-experiment, they have had more than 1,5 years to collect data, so it will be interesting to see it once it is published. In the patent publications there are magnets also outside of the vacuum vessel, but I think those are not included in the present version of the experiment.

Image

Image

Image

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by hanelyp »

Ivy Matt wrote:A common criticism of the LM concept is that it's just a magnetic mirror. Or it's just a picket fence. Or it's just a Polywell.
There is some resemblance between the LM proposal and each of these, but there are also important differences that anyone who takes the time to understand the proposal will see.
Oh, and one more criticism is that LM is just talking about a concept, or just running simulations, and they haven't actually built a test device yet.
I agree that the presented photos and videos include glimpses of a test device. And I'd be surprised if they didn't run simulations first, it took me a couple hours to get reasonable parameters in OOPIC. A criticism might be leveled if experimental data isn't published in the near future. I can see why they've been skimpy on public details before the patent applications.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by mvanwink5 »

Crowberry,
Nice documentation of your points. I am a bit too lazy with mine.
In the patent publications there are magnets also outside of the vacuum vessel, but I think those are not included in the present version of the experiment.
The central magnet is located outside the reactor in the patent, but inside in T4, however there are two additional magnet pairs that are located outside the reactor in the patent that are not represented in T4. I wonder if they are just for adding additional magnet wells, however there are no means for adding fusible ions, so maybe they are for cleanup? So, yes, T4 is a simpler reactor as compared to the patent.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

fahdad
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by fahdad »

I agree there is merit to publishing data and making such presentations at academic conferences, where a more thorough technical conversation can take place relatively quickly.

but i suspect they have data and the announcement may just have more to do with company culture etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue
Have Blue First flight: December 1977
F117 Introduction: November 1988

to me the company culture also explains their emphasis on compact size and mention of fly-ability. i conjure there must be internal discussions along the lines of "why should we work on this, this is misaligned to our sales force which is targeted to militaries"

i don't think a fairly diversified(altho in one segment) corp with $55B market cap, $11B Quarterly sales with $1.5B profits operates with the same motives as an essentially academic teams with priorities base primarily on funding, scientific discovery, and betterment of the world.

But then again maybe their product pipeline is running dry and they need a differentiator (im not up on my study of projected global weapons systems demand :))

altho i do wonder what their timing trigger for submitting the patents was?
their stock is doing better than their peers and the dow over the past 3-6 months, but they have their quarterly slated for tomorrow.

were they worried about any announcements in the FEC2014 conference?
is this really as big as it could be and they were waiting for particular oil price? (last week oil has been dropping due to a Saudi play)
did they really meet some internal goal and they really have confidence in their future timeline? and are just giving us info from a few years ago?

TL;DR: i think aloud about a bunch of my unfounded and uncalled for conjectures. :)

crowberry
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:34 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by crowberry »

According to this quote by Tom McGuire, they have so far done 200 plasma shots. So the amount of data is not very large yet. They probably want to study their device more and do much more plasma shots before publishing papers.
The small team developing the reactor at the company’s skunkworks in Palmdale, California, has done 200 firings with plasma, McGuire said, but has not shown any data on the results. However, he said of the plasma, “it looks like it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.”
From: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/53 ... n-machine/

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by choff »

200 shots is more reassuring. Joel Rodger described it as a combo polywell spindle cusp machine. He stated it would have 100 times less output than a cubic polywell, however, LM have probably added the external magnets and AC heating as a means to raise that limit. The two line cusps from the central magnet already almost point parallel with the axis and those external magnets probably help push it all the way parallel to the mirror magnets closing the loops for electrons return path.
CHoff

crowberry
Posts: 672
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:34 am

Re: I think Lockheed Screwed Up. We Need Data - Not Specula

Post by crowberry »

Lockheed Martin held a press conference on the 20th of October 2014 were they told that they plan to publish their first paper next year. So far they have used 1 kW of plasma heating power.
“We recapture the flow of particles and route it back into the device,” McGuire said. The team has built its first machine and has carried out 200 shots during commissioning and applied up to 1 kilowatt of heating, but McGuire declined to detail any measurements of plasma temperature, density, or confinement time—the key parameters for a fusion plasma—but said the plasma appeared very stable. He said they would be ramping up heating over the coming months and would publish results next year.
Lockheed looks for partners on its proposed fusion reactor
"We don't have any results that we would want to publicly call out qualitatively," he said. "[But] we know we can heat and ignite the plasma with under a kilowatt of power and get it lit."
Lockheed Martin's Plan to Make Fusion (Finally) a Reality

Post Reply