20 years away, and always will be

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by CharlesKramer »

I think funding for fusion is based on realistic expectations, but out of desparation. Fusion success may be essential to the continuation of the great industrial experiment.
mvanwink5 wrote: I'll put my two cent bet that in a year or two that CK will rediscover his optimism
hope you're right.
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by ladajo »

Why is the notion of failure seem to unlikely to you, to the point of denial?
I think that you have expectation management issues. Science never promises anything but an advance in knowledge, and normally via a failure mechanism. That is what I said, and what I stand by. You seem to think that pundits speaking of science are providing promises. No scientist worth anything is going to make promises. That is how you tell the real ones from the fake ones. Look at Rossi for example.

In regards to age, I fully agree with you that experience and time to ferment bring maturity and understanding. In my case I think I am rising the crest into the peak peroid of both in my life. I have retired from one professional career, and am embarked on another. My children are coming of age, and I see great hope in them similar to what Paperburn sees. As for you, I sense some extended fermentingm that would be symptomatic of advanced age bitterness and lost promises. It seems that you are a bit angry regarding some comic books of your youth and the empty promises they held being reconcialed with reality.

I know many scientists, including myself, and none of us promise results. We promise advancement. Granted my field is particular in speciality, but it is like any other.
I can guarantee you that if you asked Dr. Park if Polywell is going to work, his first answer is not going to be "sure, it will", regardless of where he is at in his research. He will not say it works until it has worked, he knows why and he can repeat it at will with suriety that others can as well.

I am sorry that you do not understand fully the nature of science, nor have the ability to seperate punditory comments from ones made by those who do science.

I remain positive in my feelings.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Robthebob
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Auburn, Alabama

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by Robthebob »

Charles,

I hate to use appeal to authority, but there are those of us in the plasma physics community, and there are those who are not.

The man in charge of NiF should be in jail for fraud.

We can't prove it to you, because there are no paper (written for the purpose of saying what NiF is), but a section of the plasma physics community knew what was going on. Even with that said, NiF (a big machine based on beam compression schemes) was still a lot closer to energy production than ITER, which may have close to no chance of getting there.

We would have to teach you about the military, about bombs, about the politics and funding, etc. Even then, it wouldnt be enough really to absolutely convince you that NiF wasnt really for energy production; the only way to absolutely convince you so is if there was an authority publication describing what was going on (which such a thing will never exist) or someone high enough in the food chain in the situation told you what was going on.
Throwing my life away for this whole Fusion mess.

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

No rabbit

Post by CharlesKramer »

Robthebob wrote:those of us in the plasma physics community
I was hoping to see reasons -- reasons based on physics -- why the past failure of fusion physics should not cause pessimism about the future of fusion. Instead I see only denial and condescension.

1. This is not about "science" where success is measured in learning. This is about very specific predictions that fusion was ready to become practical source of electricity, and break-even at least is at hand.

Those predictions failed.

There is no ambiguity about this.

2. This is not about NiF.

NiF makes an easy target for criticism because its promises of break-even fusion were so specific, and the device (even if it succeeds) is not designed to be a practical fusion machine. And NiF is the successor to Nova which similarly promised break even. And Nova was the successor to Shiva. Accordingly NiF is not just a failure on its own terms -- it represents the culmination of decades of failure.

But this is not about NiF -- since the beginning of fusion history, promises fusion would become a practical source of cheap clean electricity have been made, and for 60 years failed. The failure goes back at least to Lyman Spitzer's stellarator at Princeton, and it continues with Eric Lerner's Dense Plasma Focus (promising proof of concept within 2 years... in 2007) and Tri-Alpha rumors it would make a major announcement in 2010.

Bussard's Polywell so far is no different. In his Google talk Bussard claimed he *had* solved the last big obstacle to practical fusion -- discovered in data after the last machine he did research on was shut down). That was in 2007.

7 years later... NiF is a joke, and so is Bussard -- links on a 60 year chain, along with Lyman Spitzer's stellarator, and every other fusion effort -- with fusion still far from proof of concept it will ever work.

To deny that is pure Bullwinkle: "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat." with the assurance this time, for sure!

60 years (and MANY billions of dollars); but no rabbit.

Fusion today is deeply in trouble, because the fusion "community" which you invoke is discredited -- it's very specific promises have not be justified by reality. It's not just NiF, Tri-Alpha, and for that matter 50 years of Tokamaks -- it's that fusion theory is not right, because it's predictions have failed. It can claim improvement, but many magnitudes less than what is needed, and than what was promised.

I still favor fusion research not because it's likely, but because it might change so many things for the better.

But if peak oil is as near as some believe (or even past-tense: peaked circa 2005 and flat-lined since) our remaining resources might be better directed to offshore wind generation to create ammonia from electrolytically cracked sea-water (something Matthew Simmons advocated); or maybe it's just time to hoard flint rocks to make fires with.

We may need 'em.

CBK
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by CharlesKramer »

ladajo wrote:and none of us promise results.
"20 years away, and always will be" is based on the undisputable fact that many fusion efforts have made VERY specific promises break-even (and better) would be achieved by specific deadlines

But the failed.

NiF, for example, promised breakeven by 2012; and that failed and NiF doesn't know why: so it's a failure of theory even more than a failure of experimentation.

NiF is the successor to Shiva which similiary made specific promises, and failed.

Bussard in his Google talk made promises. Ditto the Dense Plasma Focus crew. Ditto Tri-Alpha promising a big announcement in 2010. General Fusion, the new Lockheed effort, and so on -- all have and are making very specific promises of an economic practical electricity generating fusion device.

Credibility for fusion starts with acknowledging for 60 years it thought it knew what it was doing, and did not. Maybe Lockheed or someone will change that. But 60 years fusion researchers being wrong do not provide a basis for optimism.
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

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

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by mvanwink5 »

CK, to restate the issue you are raising with the fusion projects, plasma physics is near impossible to model due to the complexity of interactions within the plasma. When the original projects began, the instabilities were not expected to be lurking in the unknowns hidden by the nastiness of the physics, but after being burned by making grand predictions as you point out and running into rude surprises their hubris was exposed and a new respect for the difficulties in making scaling predictions was appreciated. It is why machines are being built, tested, then scaled up in steps. For polywell, WB-7 was built to replicate WB-6, then WB-7.1 was built with improved diagnostics, then WB-8. But the test results for polywell are not available and those not privileged and involved don't know where the results stand.

For General Fusion, their work is with full scale components, but right now their full scale plasma injector is the difficult part. It is no surprise though because it involves plasma and instabilities when compressing the plasma. They have made experimental headway, there is cautious optimism, but the optimism is guarded as plasma is difficult science. The problem though is that until the full scale plasma injector science is pinned down and proven in actual hardware, there is no one committing full-scale hardware money. It is why the project is financed in stages. Polywell is the same situation, as I am sure Tri-Alpha is.

Everyone on this board knows this and this is not in disagreement. On the other hand, headway has been made, so that is something, not nothing. The problem with plasma is that glass 90% full isn't enough to say the glass is full, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is when working with plasma it is tricky stuff. Still, for several projects, we are waiting for movement of money to see where these guys are, but based on what I have read on released information, I am willing to go out on a limb and risk a full 2 cents and bet it will be 2014.

Until a machine is built, don't give away your flints just yet. On the other hand, there is the promise of 2014 and my 2 cent bet.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

prestonbarrows
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:41 pm

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by prestonbarrows »

Image

Image

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: No rabbit

Post by AcesHigh »

CharlesKramer wrote: Bussard's Polywell so far is no different. In his Google talk Bussard claimed he *had* solved the last big obstacle to practical fusion -- discovered in data after the last machine he did research on was shut down). That was in 2007.
you talk as if Bussard had been able to build the $200 million, 7 meter diameter Polywell, that was supposed to achieve break-even.


Bussard (and others) made promises that were achievable with adequate funding. Except for ITER, few other fusion experiments had adequate funding.

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

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by mvanwink5 »

It would be interesting to see expected reactor size for net fusion vs time and estimated cost to build a net fusion reactor vs time. Unlike semiconductors where cost per device stays the same or drops (as device capability doubles), fusion devices such as ITER size and cost has increased dramatically. It is why dark horse fusion projects are being pursued. Still, prestonbarrows' graph is a testament to plasma physics science advancement (albeit costly), and in it there is cause for belief that something can be built in time. Because of cost of machines projected to achieve net fusion is perhaps scaling logarithmically upwards (unlike semiconductors), economics of a net fusion reactor, government version, is the big question. But at least the science of net fusion plasma is being understood experimentally, so there is dim hope in practical fusion.

With appreciation and best regards,
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by ladajo »

7 years later... NiF is a joke, and so is Bussard
Your emotionally charged rhetoric serves no real purpose.

NIF is no joke. It is doing well what it was built to do. This politically charged side excursion to cement additional funding and relevance has no bearing on its true intent. As I said before, it has already contributed to weapons, and will continue to do so, as intended and regardless of "ignition and Q=1" nonsense.

Bussard is no joke either. You can not argue anything in that regard, you know not of what you speak. He said, and I paraphrase, "give me the support, and I will give you the answer. And all indications right now are that this will work. We have made a significant step forward."
He did not get the money he asked for to take it to the next level. He got support to run WB6 again and verify results. Then he died.

What happened with polywell after his death? Short and sweet. WB7 repeated and proved out WB6 results. WB7.1 improved on WB6 concept and design. Wht you do not know is what happend with WB8. That is not in public, and they aren't so far inclined to put it out. So you merely operate on speculation as to the project's status. Uninformed speculation at that.

You need to identify between pundits and science. The promises are being made by pundits, not scientists.
I read the paper that argued NIF's relevance to fusion. I know you did not. I also know that you do not know who wrote and why. I would also point out it will probably be a while before you ever see it, if at all.

I am not sure what will come out this year on the table. But I do know there are some very interesting things that have happened and are being worked on.
Try to be less angry about it. Patience.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by D Tibbets »

Fusion always 20 years in the future?

Well, yes, or perhaps 40 years in the future. Even if a viable system was demonstrated today, it would take 10-40 years to penetrate the market. Replacing, modifying, retiring current power plants would be a gradual process.

Tokamak research has certainly demonstrated the steep learning curve with plasma physics, and they do seem to be zeroing in on a Q>1 reactor, but at very questionable economics. Part of the pace for research and development sluggishness is political and management, not actual experimental processes. If there was a great enough priority then the progress could be much faster- a Manhatten project mentality . Short of that the research plods along.

As for Bussard, the jury is still out. His research with the Polywell plodded along for over 15 years, showing promise but no clear path to net power, until the Eureka moment after WB5, where he rethought some of the concepts and their relationship to experiments. The physics in retrospect seem obvious, but he nor his reviewers caught it till late in the game. If he had not been operating on a shoestring budget and bureaucratic impediments, he might have made much faster progress. The physics and experimental evidence of WB6 showed a clear path to net fusion. There is criticisms, especially for pB11 fusion, but there have been countering arguments based on sound physics.

It has been ~8 years since Bussard's Google talk and his admittedly optimistic predictions were predicated on a Manhatten like effort (though of much smaller scale). This didn't happen, and the EMC2 research continues to plod along with limited funds, bureaucratic oversight and information blackout. But, this does not imply failure or success, merely delay.

With my admittedly limited understanding, I feel that terrestrial net gain fusion is inevitable. Tokamak understanding has seemed to narrow down till they can have high confidence in making a marginally positive net gain machine; though engineering issues for the complex systems required are formidable and the final economics, if successful are very questionable. The Polywell has many physics advantages, mostly related to the near spherical geometry and of course the marriage between magnetic and electrostatic influences.

The NIF debacle is obvious, but this was primarily a PR game , not related to research progress.

Also, consider that profitable fusion power is already well proven and available for use now. One example is of course is the Sun's output coupled to Solar panels, wind turbines, fossel fuel, etc.
Then there is well proven nuclear bombs. Fission triggered fusion bombs detonated underground with subsequent harvesting of the heat has been proposed and would be a mild engineering challenge. But, for some reason, few have volunteered to have a plant in their back yard!

The question of fusion power is not so much if it is possible, but if it can be done in useful energy densities and efficiencies that make it useful/ profitable. Tokamak trends seem to be pushing this limit unless a more concentrated energy generation version becomes apparent (essentially higher Beta machines). As for Polywell, FRC, General Fusion, DPF, etc, the jury is still out, in part due to the dominance of politics/ funding
issues as opposed to the science.

In some ways this is not always bad. The physics of net gain fusion power is challenging, but perhaps more so is the materials science and engineering that is necessary to successfully implement the physics. My impression is that this is becoming the dominate issue for the Tokamak approach. Plasma manipulation necessary to create conditions for net fusion gain is apparently close. Tritium production issues and diverter issues is another matter. The same may apply to the DPF, the physics may be solved but the durability and precision that is required for a production machine may be unobtainable. In this case the energy density may be too great and the system does not lend itself to larger size/ smaller energy density operation. Similar concerns may apply to FRC (?). The Polywell might be more adaptable. Size/ energy density tradoffs may be much greater, allowing for engineering limits vs fusion gain to be best implemented.

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

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

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by choff »

It would be interesting to see a graph of output over time strictly for IEC devices.
CHoff

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by CharlesKramer »

mvanwink5 wrote: plasma physics is near impossible to model due to the complexity of interactions within the plasma
Then NiF -- and the rest -- should be more cautious in their predictions.

I am always amused to read the phrase "is not completely understood." It means "NOT understood."
mvanwink5 wrote:until a machine is built
Lots of machines have been built. Literally 60 years of machines, and many of them fabulously expensive to build. and to operate.

CBK
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by CharlesKramer »

D Tibbets wrote:It has been ~8 years since Bussard's Google talk and his admittedly optimistic predictions were predicated on a Manhatten like effort (though of much smaller scale)
That's not what heard.

-- The "Manhattan Project" has become a metaphor for the expectation a speculative goal can be achieved if just enough money is focused on it. But the Manhattan Project was a lot less speculative than most people realize. Fission was already proven, and Fermi achieved controlled criticality before the big money was spent. Fusion is arguably far more speculative. And my main point is many promising technologies get improved but not to the point of success.

-- Bussard in his Google talk seemed awfully smug (stars being fusion machines "and not one of them is toroidal." Bussard said he HAD cracked the problem -- with data only after his last fusion machine was shut down. He was convinced he has solved the problem of energy losses and had become ready for a demo machine.

CBK
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

CharlesKramer
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: 20 years away, and always will be

Post by CharlesKramer »

ladajo wrote:NIF is no joke. It is doing well what it was built to do
No -- so far -- it has failed. There is no ambiguity on this point. It repeated promised breakeven, and by every standard, including its own ,failed to achieve it by the deadlines it set for itself.

And NiF is the successor to Nova that failed the same way.

and Nova was the successor to Shiva which ditto.

The astute observer might start to detect a pattern here. :)

CBK
================================
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer

Post Reply