I belong to a Makerspace and we have a Science group which is making a 'Fusor'. People ask "When will you finish it?" We say "in two weeks". The funny thing is it's been two weeks away for about two years now. There's just something about fusion...gmax137 said:
A Quick search found thisVanadium 50 said:
Maybe that crypto guy in the Bahamas can chip in...Vanadium 50 said:
"Get this cheese to sickbay".topsquark said:
The issue as I see it is a lack of new, workable ideas not money. This is why my bet is on the startups with novel ideas.Vanadium 50 said:
Really? Is this based on anything? It seems odd to be saying this the day after breakeven was announced using old ideas.bob012345 said:
New fusion startups are typically using either new ideas or twists on old ideas. NIF is about two orders of magnitude away from breakeven. Do you see any reasonable possibility a practical, commercial fusion reactor will come out of the NIF? How efficient can the high power lasers be made? I'm skeptical they can be made efficient enough to make true breakeven with this concept without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. They also would have to do many shots per second on a continual basis not once in 1.5-2 hours at their best now. I believe NIF is primarily a way of testing the nuclear weapons stockpile.Vanadium 50 said:
Counterpoint:bob012345 said:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/magnetized-targets-boost-nif-implosion-performance
@mfb pointed out something similar. Those numbers basically buy you ITER and DEMO at $50 billion apiece. The tone seems to be complaining that the funding commitment is low, and I tend to agree. By comparison the US spent $260 B over 13 years on the early human space program (all up through Apollo). That's considered one of the greatest achievements in human history. The ISS cost $150B and the US currently spends $3B a year on it. Viable commercial fusion electricity would be bigger, and is definitely far more important than either. And not for nothing, the US also spent $4T on COVID stimulus/relief (some with a payback, some without). If scientists (3rd party reviewers, not the scientists involved in the project) think there is a significant likelihood the ITER and DEMO projects will succeed, as in, for real succeed not fake succeed, then I think a large increase in funding is warranted. And if we spend $100B and prove that fusion will likely never be viable, that's an important if expensive lesson too.Vanadium 50 said:
I think if progress is that incremental then fusion will miss its window of opportunity and be replaced by something else. Perhaps a form of fission breeder technology that is safer and sustainable.TeethWhitener said:
1) It's impossible to replace something that doesn't already exist, like fusion power.bob012345 said:
What would have been a fusion economy in the minds of long term industry forecasters and government planners might be replaced by a different energy economy.TeethWhitener said:
If fusion remains unfulfilled after many more decades then other forms of generation would likely be substituted and if/when those forms become entrenched it is unlikely society will decide to junk them anytime soon for fusion assuming it eventually works. So, maybe fusion will someday dominate but the transition could be delayed decades or a century or more. It's not an argument against funding any fusion power research, it's an argument that the those doing the research are too conservative and not taking enough risks to make the development faster. We might end up with the good enough instead of the best.TeethWhitener said:
Saying “Researchers, make more discoveries!” fundamentally misunderstands how research works, and fundamentally misunderstands how incremental real research is.bob012345 said:
IMO it's the NIF PAO that's the bigger problem. Yes, the news outlets should know better too, but NIF is a pretty official source and should be trustworthy.geordief said:
Yes, that would but that's not what I said.TeethWhitener said:
It's not the people, it's the organization. It's too risk averse. That's why corporate fusion programs are more likely to succeed quicker in my view. It's the difference between NASA and SpaceX.TeethWhitener said:
For a power plant tritium has to be bred in the reactor, there is no other viable source. 6Li + n -> 4He + T is producing a tritium nucleus from a neutron, but there is also 7Li + n -> 4He + T + n', producing tritium from a fast neutron and leaving behind a slower neutron that can produce another tritium nucleus. Fuel recycling and tritium breeding and extraction has to be good enough to produce an essentially closed tritium cycle.Astronuc said:
On the other hand, the reaction has a rather low cross section, and more likely, such a fast neutron would likely pass through a mass of Li and leak out of the system, or be absorbed by the structural material surrounding the Li.mfb said:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/NSE81-A21369
I had to google that one. I don't think I have ever heard that story before. Thanks, @hutchphd !hutchphd said:
I think it's worse now. I see the politics of big money science funding at work as scientists, science spokespersons and institutions, all who should be more skeptical, willingly and wildly hype the results. It's like they feel they have to say nothing bad at all or the unwashed masses will want to defund science.hutchphd said:
I don't think the fusion reactor in question knows anything about "night" unless it's something like Sagittarius A!Frabjous said: