New fusion propulsion/power system...?

[hiker]

Hi there,

I'll start out by saying that although I am an amateur in plasma physics, I am no scientist , and therefore would appreciate any input you folks can offer. You see, I've got a question that's been intriguing me.

It seems that this fellow named Eric Lerner (see website at http://www.focusfusion.org) has invented a practical way to exploit fusion. (While this site's conclusions are a bit "pie-in-the-sky", the scientific bit is well worth checking out. Site is a bit hard to follow, note that the best site nagivation is via the Site Map link) The question: Is this for real?

His plasma device is quite small (we're talking about coffee can size here) and works by condensing magnetic field lines into a tiny knot. These fields run through plasma, hence a dense body of plasma is created, and fusion logically follows. It is best explained here at: http://www.focusfusion.org/what/plasmafocus.html

If credible, this is an great breakthrough in fusion technology; you now have a plasma that produces more energy than it takes to maintain it, or a self-burning plasma. Those of you familiar with fusion as a source of power will recall that the Tokamak is the only thing that comes close to doing this...and it still falls short of this mark, producing less energy than is poured into it.

For Power: Lerner basically says that his fusion method can extract electricity directly from the plasma via a special coil, saving a huge amount of energy by bypassing conventional methods in a normal nuclear reactor (ie. heating a 1st radioactive liquid, heating a 2nd non-radioactive liquid by contained piping through the 1st liquid, and using the steam of the 2nd liquid to turn turbines to produce electricity.)

For Propulsion: Lerner also states that the spent fuel from his device can be channeled into a single plasma path, thus generating a fusion rocket engine of unparalleled power.

And to top it all off, he says the radiation from his device is minimum/non-existent.

What do you think

[Huevos Grandes]

If credible, this is an great breakthrough in fusion technology; you now have a plasma that produces more energy than it takes to maintain it, or a self-burning plasma.

Uh-huh. You take the points- I'll bet on the Yankees to win...

Those of you familiar with fusion as a source of power will recall that the Tokamak is the only thing that comes close to doing this...and it still falls short of this mark, producing less energy than is poured into it.

Perhaps I'm wrong- this has hardly been proven ? proposed REAL fusion device,2

What do you think

I think a legitimate fusion reactor is about 15-20 years off. The ITER-suggested sites in France and Asia are still being argued about, and there is no working model, or even a mock-up yet. As I understand it, a lot of the theory involved is in dispute. Tokamak is hardly the only concept being proposed, either.

Eventually, the energy will be harnessed. You're incorrect though about producing more energy than what is put into it; the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes this an impossibility. I think what you mean is that- the raw materials required are so inexpensive and abundant (deuterium with a bit of tritium), that the energy produced would be essentially unlimited.

[Van Rijn]

Welcome, hiker!

Wow. Lerner wants to do the P-11B reaction. Talk about ambitious! That's essentially aneutronic but a very "hard" reaction. It is pretty much impossible with conventional magnetic confinement unless, perhaps, you scaled a reactor up to a mile or so in diameter.

It would require some amazing trick to make it work.

In the pages I saw (and admitedly I haven't looked the pages over that carefully yet) I didn't see anything that went into any real detail on his process. I can't really say for sure if it has any chance, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. I certainly wouldn't donate money for it.

[Lianachan]

The ITER-suggested sites in France and Asia are still being argued about,

*cough*

[Spherical]

The problem with fusion is fusion. Fusion reactions are not chain reactions and all the other reactions we extract energy from, both nuclear and chemical, are chain reactions. Fusion reactions tend to break up the fusion process. Fusion power advocates have inverted this fact into a selling point when it is actually the central problem. Building a fusion reactor is like building a stove that needs a flamethrower for a pilot light.

I'm not holding my breath for this one and I think the current approaches to solving the problem are just about exhausted. Barring a fresh approach, I don't expect to ever see power from a fusion reactor.

[Nicolas]

Oh well, if Iter fails its tokamak will be the ultimate skate park.

Let's hope it lives up to expectations, opening the way for igition fusion reactors.

[hiker]

Uh-huh. You take the points- I'll bet on the Yankees to win...

hmmm...Redsocks might question that one.

Perhaps I'm wrong- this has hardly been proven ? proposed REAL fusion device,2

I wasn't aware that ITER had successfully demonstrated a working fusion reactor -- that's great; I thought that a self-powered burn was yet to come.

I think a legitimate fusion reactor is about 15-20 years off. The ITER-suggested sites in France and Asia are still being argued about, and there is no working model, or even a mock-up yet. As I understand it, a lot of the theory involved is in dispute. Tokamak is hardly the only concept being proposed, either.

I hope a legit. reactor's coming, we could sure use it. Good point on the monopoly though, there have been many different attempts at fusion.. cold fusion (questionable?), laser, inertial electrostatic, spherical toruses...

Eventually, the energy will be harnessed.

I'm cheering 'em on.

You're incorrect though about producing more energy than what is put into it; the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes this an impossibility. I think what you mean is that- the raw materials required are so inexpensive and abundant (deuterium with a bit of tritium), that the energy produced would be essentially unlimited.

I am by no means questioning the 2nd Law -- sorry if I appeared a bit unclear. I didn't mean unlimited energy: I meant that the nuclear reaction would sustain itself without outside input. In other words, the great energy released when two atoms fuse together would sustain the reaction indefinately and also provide plenty of surplus power... almost exactly the same way our fusion nuclear furnace, the Sun, works.

[hiker]

Welcome, hiker!

Thanks!

Wow. Lerner wants to do the P-11B reaction. Talk about ambitious! That's essentially aneutronic but a very "hard" reaction. It is pretty much impossible with conventional magnetic confinement unless, perhaps, you scaled a reactor up to a mile or so in diameter.

It would require some amazing trick to make it work.

Sounds improbable at the least. Would be great if it worked, though.

In the pages I saw (and admitedly I haven't looked the pages over that carefully yet) I didn't see anything that went into any real detail on his process. I can't really say for sure if it has any chance, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. I certainly wouldn't donate money for it.

No worries -- I'm hangin' onto my pocketbook!

[Spherical]

SNIPPED


I'm cheering 'em on.



I am by no means questioning the 2nd Law -- sorry if I appeared a bit unclear. I didn't mean unlimited energy: I meant that the nuclear reaction would sustain itself without outside input. In other words, the great energy released when two atoms fuse together would sustain the reaction indefinately and also provide plenty of surplus power... almost exactly the same way our fusion nuclear furnace, the Sun, works.

The sun works because it is large enough that gravity takes care of the containment problem, even then it is horribly inefficient when considered as a reactor. I am not cheering these guys on because we are throwing good money after bad with this particular approach and it is money better spent on a long list of things.

I saw one of the congressman who backed funding for this project on C-SPAN and even he doubted that the project would ever do as much a light an LED. He said the chances of fusion solving our energy problem were considerably less likely than his winning the lottery to solve his financial problems. I agree with him. He backed the ITER project simply because he thought it was a "small bet" relative to the rest of the federal budget and who knows what kind of side development might pay for the whole thing in the long run.

[publiusr]

Oh well, if Iter fails its tokamak will be the ultimate skate park.

Let's hope it lives up to expectations, opening the way for igition fusion reactors.

"Watch Steve-O fry on his skateboard..."