Nuclear Fusion

[lifterdead]

Fusion- What is it?
Fusion is the process in which two isotopes of hydrogen are combined to form helium. This process releases enormous amounts of energy. To the best of our knowledge, it is the chief source of energy in the universe, as it powers the reactions in stars.

Why is it important?
As the fuel for this reaction is essentially hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, we have almost a limitless supply of fuel.

Why hasn’t anyone created a fusion reactor before?
Up until recently, no one imagined the need for it. Oil was cheap, abundant, and technology to utilize it was already in place. In other words, there was no energy demand that couldn’t be met by oil.

Where is progress now?
Fusion is essentially an engineering problem, not a scientific one. With a few years and adequate funding, I could build a one. (But not a net power device!) Fusion is not complex; building a net power device is. A multitude of different designs for fusion reactors are being researched right now, both in the private, academic, and government sector. Some designs look promising enough to result in a viable reactor in less than five years.

Four different approaches to achieving the holy grail of energy:

http://www.fusion.org.uk/mast/index.html

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?pr=Dense_Plasma_Focus

http://www.emc2fusion.org/

http://www.generalfusion.com/

(my bet is on polywell fusion)


I have always felt fusion represented the future source of energy for civilization. The four different companies I linked to above are all exploring cheaper alternative routes to a net power device. Many of them expect to have a working reactor within 6 years, unlike ITER, which doesn’t expect to until 2050. The high oil prices in 2008 and forecasts for environmental issues associated with a carbon-fuel based alternative have led investors and private companies looking for an alternative. Consequently, some of the brightest minds in physics are now working for these initiatives. It’s great to see it finally getting off the ground. Sadly, much of the money/press has focused on experiments like ITER in the past. (Enter ITER. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is a massive, multi-national, government sponsored attempt to work with fusion. It has been consistently delayed, argued over, plagued with budget issues.) They still do. That is changing, however, with dozen of small innovations taking place in the private sector.

Long live the free market!


I recommend MSimon blog for updates: http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/03/keep-eye-on-polywell.html

And, if anyone is really tech/physics savy, www.talk-polywell.org is an open source for fusor technology. Top physicists gather here and debate strange things like bremsstrahlung losses.

 

[tim290280]

Why hasn’t anyone created a fusion reactor before?
Up until recently, no one imagined the need for it. Oil was cheap, abundant, and technology to utilize it was already in place. In other words, there was no energy demand that couldn’t be met by oil.

I assume you aren't taking into account the couple of cold fusion claims back in the 1980's that turned out to be hoaxes (though I don't think any scientists actually believed them).

Correct me if I'm worng here, but I was also under the impression that making use of the massive amounts of energy given off is nigh on impossible due to the heat and radiation essentially melting anything around it. So gravity containment has been thought of but is counteractive as it requires huge amounts of energy and blocks everything so you can't effectively use the energy produced.

Where is progress now?
Fusion is essentially an engineering problem, not a scientific one. With a few years and adequate funding, I could build a one. (But not a net power device!) Fusion is not complex; building a net power device is. A multitude of different designs for fusion reactors are being researched right now, both in the private, academic, and government sector. Some designs look promising enough to result in a viable reactor in less than five years.

Four different approaches to achieving the holy grail of energy:

http://www.fusion.org.uk/mast/index.html

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?pr=Dense_Plasma_Focus

http://www.emc2fusion.org/

http://www.generalfusion.com/

(my bet is on polywell fusion)


I have always felt fusion represented the future source of energy for civilization. The four different companies I linked to above are all exploring cheaper alternative routes to a net power device. Many of them expect to have a working reactor within 6 years, unlike ITER, which doesn’t expect to until 2050. The high oil prices in 2008 and forecasts for environmental issues associated with a carbon-fuel based alternative have led investors and private companies looking for an alternative. Consequently, some of the brightest minds in physics are now working for these initiatives. It’s great to see it finally getting off the ground. Sadly, much of the money/press has focused on experiments like ITER in the past. (Enter ITER. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is a massive, multi-national, government sponsored attempt to work with fusion. It has been consistently delayed, argued over, plagued with budget issues.) They still do. That is changing, however, with dozen of small innovations taking place in the private sector.

Long live the free market!


I recommend MSimon blog for updates: http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/03/keep-eye-on-polywell.html

And, if anyone is really tech/physics savy, www.talk-polywell.org is an open source for fusor technology. Top physicists gather here and debate strange things like bremsstrahlung losses.

Again I thought we were a long way off. And a quick glance at those pages doesn't make me think they are close to fusion, let alone productive use of the energy.

 

[lifterdead]

assume you aren't taking into account the couple of cold fusion claims back in the 1980's that turned out to be hoaxes (though I don't think any scientists actually believed them).

Cold fusion is the black sheep of nuclear physics. Ironically, there has been some new experimental data that proves something odd is producing neutrons in cold fusion 'attempts'.
Check out this link:
http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html
(Although quite personally I think it's not fusion, and something else is producing the neutrons. Most physicists I know are disgusted with it and go ape when people bring it up. Aside from the original proponent's claims, it doesn't get much credence in the scientific community. Hearing about it just drives most plasma physicists into "ridicule" mode.)

Correct me if I'm worng here, but I was also under the impression that making use of the massive amounts of energy given off is nigh on impossible due to the heat and radiation essentially melting anything around it. So gravity containment has been thought of but is counteractive as it requires huge amounts of energy and blocks everything so you can't effectively use the energy produced.

Gravity containment? I've never heard of that being seriously though of a possibility. As best I know, fusion is being approached through 2 main routes: magnetic and inertial confinement. Both have had success. Even JET, ITER's predecessor was able to confine plasma this way. (JET actually produced power as well, but not on a level needed for a commercial reactor.) Others, like polywell, combine both and use an additional substance like boron to regulate the reaction.

Anyways, I hope you take a closer look at polywell. After having their device's performance (dubbed WB-7) peer reviewed the past summer, they're pretty much on safe theoretical ground. All that remains is for them to build and scale up the device. The father of it's design, Dr. Bussard, worked on navy research contracts for years but wasn't able to publish because of a military gag order on the research, but it's out there now and already others are starting to pick up on it.

The conventional wisdom has always stated that fusion power is "20 year off" since the 1950s. I'm sure some of the new approaches out there will prove to be failures, but I'm also reasonably sure some will meet with success. Regardless, we'll know for sure in a few years.

 

[Ryeland]

This is an engineering problem as well as a science one. While the idea of fusion from merely a reaction point of view is relatively simple, getting efficient and ample energy out of fusion is tough.

While using heat to generate electricity is currently man's most prolific method of procuring energy it is enormously inefficient. Heat as energy is highly randomized, so usually to convert it to work we use it to heat some working fluid, usually water or a gas, losing more energy to entropy generation with each step. This conversion from heat and light become even more complex with fusion due to the incredible intensity of the energy given off by the reaction. Since the rate of energy expenditure from a fusion reaction is so high it means using a working fluid like water or a gas is more challenging due to the high flow rates.

Tim is right in that the problem is containing the reaction. Typically the current method used is a magnetic field in the shape of a donut. No man made material is capable of containing the heat and energy of fusion.

Using a gravity field to compress and contain the plasma stream in a fusion reaction is one very cool idea being tossed around these days. The problem with all of this is that in order to contain the reaction massive amounts of energy are needed. The stronger the reaction, the stronger the containment needed, the less efficient the power supply.

I think with another century or so the fusion reactor may be possible. However its certainly not a simple task.

 

[tim290280]

Gravity containment? I've never heard of that being seriously though of a possibility. As best I know, fusion is being approached through 2 main routes: magnetic and inertial confinement. Both have had success. Even JET, ITER's predecessor was able to confine plasma this way. (JET actually produced power as well, but not on a level needed for a commercial reactor.) Others, like polywell, combine both and use an additional substance like boron to regulate the reaction.

Gravity as in magnetic forces. I was thinking of the electromagnetic force from the device Ryeland mentions below. Whenever I think of magnetic forces I always think of gravity as that is usually the linkage and term used in celestial texts. :gaysign:

This is an engineering problem as well as a science one. While the idea of fusion from merely a reaction point of view is relatively simple, getting efficient and ample energy out of fusion is tough.

While using heat to generate electricity is currently man's most prolific method of procuring energy it is enormously inefficient. Heat as energy is highly randomized, so usually to convert it to work we use it to heat some working fluid, usually water or a gas, losing more energy to entropy generation with each step. This conversion from heat and light become even more complex with fusion due to the incredible intensity of the energy given off by the reaction. Since the rate of energy expenditure from a fusion reaction is so high it means using a working fluid like water or a gas is more challenging due to the high flow rates.

Tim is right in that the problem is containing the reaction. Typically the current method used is a magnetic field in the shape of a donut. No man made material is capable of containing the heat and energy of fusion.

Using a gravity field to compress and contain the plasma stream in a fusion reaction is one very cool idea being tossed around these days. The problem with all of this is that in order to contain the reaction massive amounts of energy are needed. The stronger the reaction, the stronger the containment needed, the less efficient the power supply.

I think with another century or so the fusion reactor may be possible. However its certainly not a simple task.

I've just had a New Scientist cross my desk that covers a bit of this stuff. I'll have a read of it and post if there is anything of interest.

I'll also have a look at Polywell when I get a chance.

 

[Ryeland]

Gravity as in magnetic forces. I was thinking of the electromagnetic force from the device Ryeland mentions below. Whenever I think of magnetic forces I always think of gravity as that is usually the linkage and term used in celestial texts. :gaysign:

I've just had a New Scientist cross my desk that covers a bit of this stuff. I'll have a read of it and post if there is anything of interest.

I'll also have a look at Polywell when I get a chance.

Sorry about the gravity misinterpretation. Though i guess if they ever prove unified field theory that magnetic fields can technically influence gravitational fields.

Let me know if you find any good stuff.

 

[lifterdead]

've just had a New Scientist cross my desk that covers a bit of this stuff. I'll have a read of it and post if there is anything of interest.

I'll also have a look at Polywell when I get a chance

.

You read the New Scientist too!!!!

Awesome.


Great Mag.

 

[lifterdead]

Typically the current method used is a magnetic field in the shape of a donut. No man made material is capable of containing the heat and energy of fusion.

It's called a tokamak. Both JET and ITER are tokamaks.

I think with another century or so the fusion reactor may be possible. However its certainly not a simple task.

Who said building a productive reactor was simple? I said achieving states of fusion was easy. Read about a 14-year old building a fusor here: http://www.unr.edu/features/08-09/science-fair/

I think with another century or so the fusion reactor may be possible.

It could be, however, I'm betting it will be alot sooner. Care to make a gentleman's bet?

:gaysign:

I hate to keep bring up polywell fusion as an example, but it may have already met with success. All that's needed now is to scale it up. Rick Nebel (who I've communicated with a few times) talks about his success last year:

"We're looking at power generation with this machine," Nebel said. "This machine is so inexpensive going into the 100-megawatt range that there's no compelling reason for not just doing it. We're trying to take bigger steps than you would with a conventional fusion machine."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1136887.aspx

 

[Braaq]

Interesting stuff. We covered this in my Electro-Magnetism Physics course, not in this great detail so I cannot contribute but I am enjoying the info from all three. I am just happy I can follow.

 

[Ryeland]

It's called a tokamak. Both JET and ITER are tokamaks.



Who said building a productive reactor was simple? I said achieving states of fusion was easy. Read about a 14-year old building a fusor here: http://www.unr.edu/features/08-09/science-fair/



It could be, however, I'm betting it will be alot sooner. Care to make a gentleman's bet?

:gaysign:

I hate to keep bring up polywell fusion as an example, but it may have already met with success. All that's needed now is to scale it up. Rick Nebel (who I've communicated with a few times) talks about his success last year:



http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/12/1136887.aspx

Polywell is certainly a promising prospect. This is one of those cases where I would love to be proven wrong and see fusion developed tomorrow, but I just don't see it happening within the next few decades (but we can hope right?). Thanks for the link to the article, I am looking forward to hearing the results of the tests.

Anyways there is alot of tests and engineering work to be done on these things. The more energy transfer there is the more energy it will take to contain them, and at 100MW of generation who knows what it will take to maintain that field. This is certainly exciting work, but containing that sort of reaction while still performing tests on it is intense work.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

Plasma, and proton is the actual Future, ( way future..)