A Not Incredibly Awful Article Which Mentions EMC2 & Others

Discuss ways to make polywell research more widely known or better understood. Includes education and outreach.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

A Not Incredibly Awful Article Which Mentions EMC2 & Others

Postby rjaypeters » Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:32 am

Mostly about NIF, though...

"Fusion Experiments Inch Closer To Break-Even Goal"

http://news.yahoo.com/fusion-experiment ... 59247.html
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

mvanwink5
Posts: 1762
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: A Not Incredibly Awful Article Which Mentions EMC2 & Oth

Postby mvanwink5 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:11 am

From the article:
Some smaller companies are also engaged in fusion power research — one called EMC2 has received funding from the U.S. Navy for its research, though it hasn't published the results in peer-reviewed journals. Others such as Tri-Alpha Energy, General Fusion and Lawrenceville Plasma Physics have also run various experiments, though no company has built anything like a working plant or achieved self-sustaining reactions. All of the companies focus on fusion reactions that don't generate neutrons.
Very shallow and wrong on Polywell and General Fusion. Also failed to mention that General Fusion's schedule is for proving "net" this year, unlike the article spending all of its coverage on a device that will never be practical, if for no other reason than the target is too expensive as compared to the power derived from it's laser induced implosion.

What is it with these journalists? Can't they get anything right? Might as well be a department of the government (call it the Department of Truth}, then they could be shut down by cutting their budget.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2774
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: A Not Incredibly Awful Article Which Mentions EMC2 & Oth

Postby D Tibbets » Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:37 am

Self sustaining reactions? Sounds like the author is stuck on the ignition requirements for Tokamaks and laser fusion. I'm not certain about DPF, FRC, of General fusion- if ignition is a requirement, but it certainly is not required for the Polywell. I would guess that the DPF and General Fusion approach depend much on inertial confinement, but as they are pulsed machines I don't know if the brief confinement is assisted by significant ignition heating, it is in laser confinement.

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

mvanwink5
Posts: 1762
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: A Not Incredibly Awful Article Which Mentions EMC2 & Oth

Postby mvanwink5 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:05 am

On the other hand, he did manage to be dimly aware that there were efforts besides the two large cash Gov't sponsored boondoggles.
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: A Not Incredibly Awful Article Which Mentions EMC2 & Oth

Postby zapkitty » Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:00 pm

D Tibbets wrote:... I'm not certain about DPF, FRC, of General fusion- if ignition is a requirement,


Eric Lerner of LPP posted this over at FFS:

LPP too is seeking ignition. That would occur in a pB11 plasmoid if the fusion power produced exceed x-ray losses, as the plasmoid heats up from not only the beam heating but also the retained fusion energy in the trapped helium nuclei produced by fusion.


edit: fixed a typo - "as" for "os"

asdfuogh
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:58 am
Location: California

Re: A Not Incredibly Awful Article Which Mentions EMC2 & Oth

Postby asdfuogh » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:08 am

Is General Fusion still seeking to prove net gain this year? I remember them mentioning stability issues in their spheromak balls..


Return to “Awareness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests