Helion Energy to demonstrate net electricity production by 2024

[Skipjack]

Skipjack offered that Helion reached a triple product of 1E+22 eV*s/m3 with Venti. As far as I know, Venti did B=8T max, β around 1, and accepting ηei=1/8 (given that plasma temp only reached 2 keV, it was probably less, but that would not change the result much). From those figures we obtain: n*T = 1.5E+30. Dividing triple product by n*T gives τ_N = 0.08 ms.

We know the real time was 40 microseconds, so there's a factor of 2 difference between calculated and experimental data. It would be nice to find out where is the mistake in my calculations.

The numbers (apart for the final Triple product) achieved by Venti are from the JASON review paper.
Those numbers were:
8 * 10^22 density, 2keV temperature and 40 microseconds confinement time
That would be a Triple product of 6.4 * 10^18 keV * s/m3
However those numbers were before the final campaign which improved on those numbers to a triple product of over 10^19 keV s/m3
But I only know the triple product and not the values for density, confinement time and temperature.
I am not sure how you are calculating the

By the way, doing the same for Trenta, from B=10T, β=1, Ti=9 keV, ηei=1/10, and τ_N = 0.5 ms, I obtain an ion density of 2.5E+22 m^(-3), and a triple product of 1.1E+23 eV*s/m3. How does this compare with the real deal ?

The 9 keV are from the 2020 campaign where Trenta still only had a B field of 7 Tesla (yes, less than Venti!).
From my understanding, Trenta was later updated with stronger magnets (don't know the field strength), but the numbers achieved with those are not public yet. David Kirtley told me that they are putting together another paper for JOFE, but that is still in peer review. Not sure if it will have the latest results from Trenta, though.
Either way, a triple product somewhere in the mid 10^20 keV s /m3 range is roughly what I estimated for Trenta's 2020 campaign.
We do not know the exact measurements of Trenta nor Venti. So some things are hard to calculate. I know that Trenta was 3 times the radius and 30 times the volume of Venti.
Confinement time scales with radius^2.1 so we get about 0.4 ms from just that. So close to 0.5 ms.

[charliem]

I have a doubt regarding the definition of Q in Helion presentations. Are they using a different definition than the standard ?

As I understand it, the usual definition is: Q_plasma = E_fusion / E_injected

While Helion seems to define it as: Q_plasma = (E_frc + E_fusion) / E_frc (where E_frc is the energy contained in the final compressed FRC, pre-fusion)

Does anyone know ?

By the way, Helion does not seem to care that much about Q, but if that's their definition Polaris would have it much easier to claim Q>1 (only need to generate enough fusion to compensate for the loses in the FRC creation, and in the direct conversion to electricity).

I would do a nice headline

[Skipjack]

I have a doubt regarding the definition of Q in Helion presentations. Are they using a different definition than the standard ?

As I understand it, the usual definition is: Q_plasma = E_fusion / E_injected

While Helion seems to define it as: Q_plasma = (E_frc + E_fusion) / E_frc (where E_frc is the energy contained in the final compressed FRC, pre-fusion)

Does anyone know ?

By the way, Helion does not seem to care that much about Q, but if that's their definition Polaris would have it much easier to claim Q>1 (only need to generate enough fusion to compensate for the loses in the FRC creation, and in the direct conversion to electricity).

I would do a nice headline

What Q? There are several Qs and they all have different definitions.
Definitions are here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.10954.pdf

For Helion, it is all about Q(wallplug) or Q(eng). They can theoretically have a Q(wallplug) >0 with a Q(sci) < 1.
Sam and Scott actually looked into this specifically for the "Helion situation". I was talking to them about it. It is pretty counter intuitive but the math checks out.

[mvanwink5]

2028!
https://www.helionenergy.com/articles/h ... microsoft/

[Maui]

CNBC article about it:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/10/microso ... -2028.html

[Maui]

CNBC article about it:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/10/microso ... -2028.html

[charliem]

Thank you for the link Skipjack. It is nice to be able to position Helion's results on the general fusion landscape (Helion machines are not mentioned, but it is easy to add their known/estimated figures to the main graphs).

On the other hand, too many Qs. This paper defines no less than 7, and other sources add/rename some more.

That's bad PR for fusion. Where there is confusion there is controversy, and where there is controversy people easily adopt the cynic point of view: "everything is a scam". We've recently seen signs of this on the social networks.

Personally, I'd advocate to stop using Q in press releases, at least in the headlines. Just use two, easy to understand, terms, for example "fusion gain" and "reactor gain" (equivalent to Q_sci and Q_wp). Two are more that enough for the general public, generate less confusion, and consequently less criticism.

Regarding the agreement between Helion and Microsoft. Undoubtedly good news but I wouldn't have put a hard date in it (2028). There is a lot of research and engineering still ahead before the first operational prototype, and that almost guarantees delays. I don't see any upside in doing this, and a lot of downside (as illustrated by Elon Musk's overly optimistic time predictions, and subsequent attacks by detractors). Not the best idea.

[Skipjack]

I am less worried about their ability to do the technology, more about stuff outside their control (permits, regulation, stupid people).

[Skipjack]

There is a lot of research and engineering still ahead before the first operational prototype, and that almost guarantees delays. I don't see any upside in doing this, and a lot of downside (as illustrated by Elon Musk's overly optimistic time predictions, and subsequent attacks by detractors). Not the best idea.

Depends on how you define "operational prototype". I would say that will be Polaris, which they expect to have completed by the end of the year with net electricity towards the end of 2024. The power plant will just expand on the lessons learned from Polaris.

[mvanwink5]

Electric power production will need to be sold, it cannot be stored. Helion is not claiming their power plant will be reliable in 2028, there is a lot of real world things to learn. However, this should be a shock to those that are hoping that Fusion will not hit until late 2030's.

What is seemingly not being understood is that Helion is building a factory to mass produce their power plants. This is not about proving fusion, it is about scaling up for rapid roll out.

Helion may not be the first on the grid even with 2028 shock target as Gap Energy has yet to test their next device. General Fusion & TAE are on the contrary targeting 2030's.

The pressure is on all the fusion teams now.

[Skipjack]

Helion may not be the first on the grid even with 2028 shock target as Gap Energy has yet to test their next device. General Fusion & TAE are on the contrary targeting 2030's.

You mean Zap? Their FuzeQ is already operational, but they do not know how long it will take them to optimize it and whether it will need additional upgrades to reach Q(sci)>1.
From what I have heard, they are also going to want peer review before publishing any results. It could be over a year until we learn whether they have been successful or not.

[mvanwink5]

Spell disruptor strikes again. LOL

[sdg]

The Microsoft deal seems to be having it's intended effect: generating interest in Helion. Here's an article from MIT Technology Review with a skeptical headline and a few skeptical "experts", but the author seems a bit more hopeful:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/0 ... -doubt-it/

The quoted "experts" present no real knowledge or understanding of Helion's approach, so there's nothing interesting technically in their comments or this piece generally, but it does demonstrate rising interest and attention. Kirtley is doing a great job as spokesman, in addition to his remarkable technical knowledge.

[jrvz]

Getting a grid connection has become a significant problem for solar projects https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/clim ... -grid.html, but fusion doesn't require large amounts of land. I hope they are looking at existing fossil fueled plants that already have the grid connections. Or even hydroelectric facilities - particularly the ones facing water shortages.

[Carl White]

A little depressing how negative the general reaction to the Helion/Microsoft power delivery agreement has been. A lot of "Helion is a scam", "Helion can't possibly deliver", "Helion hasn't published enough to be credible", etc.