Talk-Polywell.org

KitemanSA wrote:Phoo! Doesn't mention inertial electro-static at all. Lousy report.

EPRI would also like to acknowledge the cooperation and contributions of the following organizations:
General Fusion, Inc. Georgia Institute of Technology
Helion, Inc. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
University of Texas Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

The electric power generation industry today is focused on nuclear
power from fission energy as a power generation source. However,
energy from fusion has been a long-term vision for many decades.
Some notable recent accomplishments are worthy of review with
regard to fusion energy’s potential to become a practical source of
power. This report summarizes an industry effort to assess the state
of the art of fusion energy, through a review of seven proposals for
near-term applications.

Technical Conclusion Summary
Several innovative fusion technologies were reviewed and assessed
from the standpoint of a technical readiness level (TRL) analysis; the
TRL analysis showed the technologies to be at an early stage of
readiness. The conclusion of this review is that no near-term (less
than 30 years) fusion options are available to the power industry.

2.2 Commercialization Process
Naturally, there are also variants around these main themes. Within the fusion
portfolio, the technological development of concepts advances through a series of
stages of experimental development (see Figure 2-5). These stages are concept
exploration and proof of principle, followed by performance extension. Success in
these stages should lead to fusion energy development and demonstration, and
finally, to delivery of commercial plants. When a project is sufficiently mature,
many other development considerations arise—such as optimization for
economic performance, operational and maintenance attractiveness, supply chain
readiness, licensing compatibility, and so on.

Each stage of development brings increased opportunities for developing the
building blocks successively, a greater range and capability (dimensional and
dimensionless parameters) for exploring plasma conditions, and more demanding
technology requirements. The steps are as follows:
 Concept exploration typically costs less than US$10 million per year and
involves the investigation of basic characteristics. Experiments cover a small
range of plasma parameters (such as at <1 keV) and have few controls and
diagnostics.
 Proof of principle is the lowest cost program (US$5 million to US$40
million per year) to develop an integrated understanding of the basic science
of a concept. Well-diagnosed and controlled experiments are large enough to
cover a fairly wide range of plasma parameters, with temperatures of a few
kilo electron volts, and some dimensionless parameters in the power plant
range.
 Performance extension programs explore the physics of the concept at or
near fusion-relevant regimes. Experiments have a large range of parameters
and temperatures (>5 keV), with most dimensionless
 Fusion energy development develops the technical basis for advancing the
concept to the power plant level in the full fusion environment. It includes
ignition devices, integrated fusion test systems, and neutron sources.
 A demonstration power plant is constructed and operated to convince
electric power producers, industry, and the public that fusion is ready for
commercialization.

Skipjack wrote:I thought the report was not particularly great either. It completely disregards all the papers released by Tri Alpha and MSWLLC on FRC colliding beam and how they are solving the issues mentioned in the report. Tri Alpha is also fully funded, from what I understand.
Polywell of course did not even get a mention.

You can write your alternative digest and publish that.
Do you think that inertial electrostatic confinement can be embodied in near 30 years?

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:Phoo! Doesn't mention inertial electro-static at all. Lousy report.

U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

zapkitty wrote:No. That refers to a laser-based fusion program at the USNRL, not polywell.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

zapkitty wrote:No. That refers to a laser-based fusion program at the USNRL, not polywell.

My English isn't so good as desirable, but I understood that despite cooperation with NRL by opinion of authors polywell is not worthy of review. Thanks.

krenshala wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote:

zapkitty wrote:No. That refers to a laser-based fusion program at the USNRL, not polywell.

My English isn't so good as desirable, but I understood that despite cooperation with NRL by opinion of authors polywell is not worthy of review. Thanks.

It is possible it just was not reviewed by whoever did this paper.

Joseph Chikva wrote:

zapkitty wrote:No. That refers to a laser-based fusion program at the USNRL, not polywell.

My English isn't so good as desirable, but I understood that despite cooperation with NRL by opinion of authors polywell is not worthy of review. Thanks.

JoeP wrote:

Joseph Chikva wrote:

zapkitty wrote:No. That refers to a laser-based fusion program at the USNRL, not polywell.

My English isn't so good as desirable, but I understood that despite cooperation with NRL by opinion of authors polywell is not worthy of review. Thanks.

That's your take on it. You could be correct. Or not. It could be that Polywell is such a small player and insignificant project it did not even rise to enough of a level of awareness in the authors minds to even mention it.

They could have mentioned explicitly as an unworthy of review. The exclusion of such words does not imply unworthiness implicitly. Logic.

Joseph Chikva wrote: How can you imagine this? If NRL staff provide to author information about laser fusion method researched in their laboratory there was not even slight mention about another approach linked with the same laboratory?

And one more question is: are you really sure that Tri Alpha people "are solving the issues mentioned in the report"?