Details on ITER ELM problems

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

rnebel wrote: I believe it was Albert Einstein (or so I've been told) who said that the definition of insanity is when you keep trying the same thing over and over again and expect to get a different answer.
Stupidity, Madness, Insanity. These all come to mind. Especially when i read things like
Iterfan wrote:Iter already has one feature to deal with ELMs known as "pellet pacemaking", where pellets of frozen hydrogen are fired into the plasma every 25 thousandths of a second to provoke mini-ELMs instead of ones that could trigger a shut down.
Personally i think Iter will be around as long as there is oil left to sell. Television is a distraction for the common people. Iter seems a distraction for the scientific community. I mean really how many people have the audacity to question the feasibility of such a colossal program ? Well im glad such people have congregated here on this forum, and if anything we have "the way" and its only a matter of time before people understand this
DrMike wrote: there is so much complexity in even a simple plasma that a whole lot of small devices spread out over many people will get us more useful information over the short run.
Agreed. Think about RF driving plasmas. Driven virtual anodes and cathodes, POPS etc. I cant believe how little work has been done in this area. So much can be gained from these smaller scale experiments. There is so much that needs to be done. I cant wait to help, i just hope WB7 makes a loud enough bang.
Purity is Power

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

TallDave wrote:What worries me about their solution is that they are talking about bleeding off energy from the plasma to solve this. Given that the whole challenge in a maxwellian setup like a tokamak is to confine as much energy in as small an area as possible, the fact they are resorting to leaking some out doesn't seem to bode well.
The whole ergosity thing is not a bad idea, when conducted carefully it won't reduce confinement time, it will only smooth it out. In between ELMS ergosity will reduce confinement a little but since during ELMs confinement is reduced without ergosity, since ideally ergosity stops ELMs it will increase the confinement over the would-be elming periods.

This ergosity thing isn't something completely out of the blue, its been tried and tested on D-IIID already. As to the reason why the problem of ELMS has suddenly come to the for front as a potential problem with the ITER design, IMO it is because they have just come up with a solution. The ITER team don't like to go to the press with problems when no obvious solution exists, there are probably plenty of problems to do with ITER for which the solution is not obvious but people are just discretely staying quite about and hoping for the best.

That 9 GJ figure sounds about right, at beta=5% 640MJ sounds more like the internal energy of the plasma, I heard that the magnetic energy stored in ITER will be the equivalent of 1/40 of the Hiroshima bomb (if released suddenly), this isn't the same as the power dissipation however, as the coils are super-conducting and so don't require any power to maintain their magnetic field. That will be the real challenge, making sure the thing doesn't break. So long as they can keep tinkering around with the plasmas I'm pretty sure they get their Q=10 objective atleast, but if the vacuum vessel cracks open releasing tritium rich Berilium Dust all over Cadarache.......... I can just see the headlines in large bold print: "Clean, safe energy?"

Incidentally, regarding a sudden release of heat, you might want to consider the issue of wigner energy. As the neutrons pour through ITER, defects buildup in the materials, these defects have a potential energy associated with them, if they are heated above a critical threshold this energy can be suddenly released in one go, it this release is too great for the coolant which cools the super conducting magnets to handle then they could be carried above the critical temperature which might result in a thermal quench... this would not be good. (Although the super conducting coils are embedded it copper which has a low resistance and therefore should inductively slow down such a quench)

By the way, I've talked to some people who work on the design of the blankets and they will not contain liquid lithium, its far too volatile, there are non-explosive solutions to blanket design in with the lithium atoms are present in more stable compounds. There are also smart ways of reducing the buildup of non-tritium radioactive compounds... its not that bad!

Incidentally I don't share the view that ITER won't be built or funding will suddenly be cut, Europe's in it too deep. After that quibble with Japan the EU is now footing 60% of the bill, I think the EU will build ITER whether or not the rest of the world wants to get involved.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

This ergosity thing isn't something completely out of the blue, its been tried and tested on D-IIID already. As to the reason why the problem of ELMS has suddenly come to the for front as a potential problem with the ITER design, IMO it is because they have just come up with a solution. The ITER team don't like to go to the press with problems when no obvious solution exists, there are probably plenty of problems to do with ITER for which the solution is not obvious but people are just discretely staying quite about and hoping for the best.
So they are spending $16 bn for a device with known flaws hoping they can fix them later? That is not proper engineering.

That is a criminal enterprise.

Proper engineering is to fix the problem in the prototype stage and then build the big one.

Or if you have to do the fix at the larger size at least have a plan for the fix included in the design.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

Its not proper engineering for a final product, but ITER is a prototype.... its just a very big one.

Like I said ELM coils have sort of been proven on D-IIID, they have been tested on smaller machines as have disruption mitigation mechanisms.

I think the main problem is that once you ignite the machine, a lot of things could change quite dramatically, including the neutron bombardment the vessel as a whole will have to endure, but the only machines that seem to have a good chance of igniting are incredibly expensive and large.

Though there are other plans to create the kind of conditions one might find in a reactor (both in terms of plasma and neutrons) in a much cheaper device called the components test facuility, though this will not be capable of ignition.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/47/12B/S20

I might add that a Components test facuility type device could conceivably achieve breakeven though it would produce far lower powers than ITER .

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

It is bad design practice to build the next larger size without having fixes incorporated for all the problems known in the previous experiments. It is not that you have to be certain they will work. However, they must be at least addressed.

I stand by my sentiments.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply