-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Does anyone have some insight as to why they are actually doing the "intermediate" step with Tungsten anodes and cathodes when it seems Beryllium anodes/cathodes is what would be the final goal? I mean it seems they are trying now to get funding for the Beryllium ones before even the Tungsten cathode is ready.
One step at a time. The tungsten electrodes are much cheaper than beryllium, but should eliminate the plasma contamination from the old copper-silver electrodes (which has held back LPP and many other experimental groups). When the plasma is free from contamination, Eric Lerner's mathematical model predicts the plasmoid will compress more symmetrically and produce dramatically higher fusion yield. When that prediction is verified, LPP will be ready to invest in beryllium electrodes and crank up the input current to get the full target yield.
At least that is my understanding, based on one reading of a shareholder report awhile back.
Tungsten is an order of magnitude cheaper than Beryllium, so it's cheaper to validate the design before doing the real thing.
No they didn't, because arcing in the copper electrode was contaminating the plasma with metal ions. Their design got better results than anyone else's (record high temperature), but not as good as Eric's theory predicts. Last I heard, they will also be testing a slightly different electrode geometry with the tungsten.
Let's hope the time will be short, because that will mean the tungsten tests are successful. Before that happens, they are raising money for beryllium, but will not buy it. This is responsible advance planning.
Tungsten vs. Beryllium Electrodes
I'll take a shot at explaining this...
The old electrodes were silver plated solid copper, which showed problems vaporizing (both silver and copper) where the high current arcs first interacted with the electrodes - this process displaces atoms from the electrodes and carries them into the fuel gas, contaminating it and reducing the yield. (I believe this has been documented by various research groups - not just LPP.) Aside from just being far cheaper than beryllium, tungsten has an extremely high melting and vaporization temperature, which makes it a perfect benchmark material because it should demonstrate the lowest possible fuel contamination. It seems to me to be a very good idea to spend a little on tungsten, get the results and be more confident/educated about next steps. Given the costs and research results it'll generate, this seems a very responsible move. More science is good here.
Also, because tungsten withstands extremely high temperatures, LPP can increase the power with (most likely) no arc vaporization. Once they demonstrate the predicted output at current powers, they'll ramp up the power and the tungsten should hold up very well.
Finally, they're currently using deuterium gas as fuel, which has far lower yield than boron. As they move forward and increase power, they'll increase the density of the fuel gas and also titrate slowly toward boron fuel. With boron fuel, the yield will skyrocket and the device will start generating a enormous amounts of x-rays with each shot as a byproduct of the fusion reaction. Tungsten is a very heavy atom, which unfortunately absorbs x-rays as heat. As a result, the necessary x-ray levels will likely melt and/or vaporize tungsten. (That's hot.) To get to net energy, they'll switch to beryllium because it absorbs very little x-ray energy as heat - it will be much easier to cool it during normal operation. According to my understanding, beryllium should handle the powers needed for net energy without polluting the gas too much and still be possible to cool. It is still very important to know what tungsten does in comparison to beryllium as a benchmark. Experiments are necessary to prove all of this and figure out exactly what's going on in the device while changing as few variables as possible in each step.
Having the tungsten results will generate benchmark results that will be useful to determine what's going on as power increases. Going directly to beryllium would miss these benchmarks. If there were an unexpected anomaly in the output, it could be much more difficult to figure what is happening without the results from the tungsten electrodes.
This is my understanding but I'm no research plasma physicist or materials expert! I'm a software guy who finds this stuff fascinating.
I'll take a shot at explaining this...
The old electrodes were silver plated solid copper, which showed problems vaporizing (both silver and copper) where the high current arcs first interacted with the electrodes - this process displaces atoms from the electrodes and carries them into the fuel gas, contaminating it and reducing the yield. (I believe this has been documented by various research groups - not just LPP.) Aside from just being far cheaper than beryllium, tungsten has an extremely high melting and vaporization temperature, which makes it a perfect benchmark material because it should demonstrate the lowest possible fuel contamination. It seems to me to be a very good idea to spend a little on tungsten, get the results and be more confident/educated about next steps. Given the costs and research results it'll generate, this seems a very responsible move. More science is good here.
Also, because tungsten withstands extremely high temperatures, LPP can increase the power with (most likely) no arc vaporization. Once they demonstrate the predicted output at current powers, they'll ramp up the power and the tungsten should hold up very well.
Finally, they're currently using deuterium gas as fuel, which has far lower yield than boron. As they move forward and increase power, they'll increase the density of the fuel gas and also titrate slowly toward boron fuel. With boron fuel, the yield will skyrocket and the device will start generating a enormous amounts of x-rays with each shot as a byproduct of the fusion reaction. Tungsten is a very heavy atom, which unfortunately absorbs x-rays as heat. As a result, the necessary x-ray levels will likely melt and/or vaporize tungsten. (That's hot.) To get to net energy, they'll switch to beryllium because it absorbs very little x-ray energy as heat - it will be much easier to cool it during normal operation. According to my understanding, beryllium should handle the powers needed for net energy without polluting the gas too much and still be possible to cool. It is still very important to know what tungsten does in comparison to beryllium as a benchmark. Experiments are necessary to prove all of this and figure out exactly what's going on in the device while changing as few variables as possible in each step.
Having the tungsten results will generate benchmark results that will be useful to determine what's going on as power increases. Going directly to beryllium would miss these benchmarks. If there were an unexpected anomaly in the output, it could be much more difficult to figure what is happening without the results from the tungsten electrodes.
This is my understanding but I'm no research plasma physicist or materials expert! I'm a software guy who finds this stuff fascinating.
I'll take a shot at explaining this...
The old electrodes were silver plated solid copper, which showed problems vaporizing (both silver and copper) where the high current arcs first interacted with the electrodes - this process displaces atoms from the electrodes and carries them into the fuel gas, contaminating it and reducing the yield. (I believe this has been documented by various research groups - not just LPP.) Aside from just being far cheaper than beryllium, tungsten has an extremely high melting and vaporization temperature, which makes it a perfect benchmark material because it should demonstrate the lowest possible fuel contamination. It seems to me to be a very good idea to spend a little on tungsten, get the results and be more confident/educated about next steps. Given the costs and research results it'll generate, this seems a very responsible move. More science is good here.
Also, because tungsten withstands extremely high temperatures, LPP can increase the power with (most likely) no arc vaporization. Once they demonstrate the predicted output at current powers, they'll ramp up the power and the tungsten should hold up very well.
Finally, they're currently using deuterium gas as fuel, which has far lower yield than boron. As they move forward and increase power, they'll increase the density of the fuel gas and also titrate slowly toward boron fuel. With boron fuel, the yield will skyrocket and the device will start generating a enormous amounts of x-rays with each shot as a byproduct of the fusion reaction. Tungsten is a very heavy atom, which unfortunately absorbs x-rays as heat. As a result, the necessary x-ray levels will likely melt and/or vaporize tungsten. (That's hot.) To get to net energy, they'll switch to beryllium because it absorbs very little x-ray energy as heat - it will be much easier to cool it during normal operation. According to my understanding, beryllium should handle the powers needed for net energy without polluting the gas too much and still be possible to cool. It is still very important to know what tungsten does in comparison to beryllium as a benchmark. Experiments are necessary to prove all of this and figure out exactly what's going on in the device while changing as few variables as possible in each step.
Having the tungsten results will generate benchmark results that will be useful to determine what's going on as power increases. Going directly to beryllium would miss these benchmarks. If there were an unexpected anomaly in the output, it could be much more difficult to figure what is happening without the results from the tungsten electrodes.
This is my understanding but I'm no research plasma physicist or materials expert! I'm a software guy who finds this stuff fascinating.
Well explained. One other thing is that in a prototype reactor, the X-rays carry a lot of the fusion energy with them. For a real reactor to produce the advertised electrical output and to function at all as a net energy source, these X-rays have to be converted into electrical energy by means of the photoelectric effect in a hull around the core, consisting of hundreds of thin metal foils. These foils work as a sort of "solar cell" in the X-ray spectrum.
So, there are two parts in extracting as much of the fusion energy as possible:
1) Each fusion pulse creates a short and intense "packet" of very fast Helium nuclei (three per Boron nucleus, six positive charges). This pulsed "current" can be directly converted into electricity by using an electronically controlled transformer coil, through which the pulsed Helium nuclei fly. If there's interest in how this works, I can elaborate.
2) The fusion-induced disintegration of the Boron nucleus into three Helium nuclei quickly accelerates the Helium nuclei. This acceleration of charged particles creates, in this case, photons in the X-ray spectrum. It's physically the same effect as Bremsstrahlung, just not with slowing down charges, but accelerating charges. Due to their high frequency, the X-rays carry a lot of energy.
The Beryllium electrode is needed for a real prototype reactor, exactly because Tungsten absorbs most of the X-rays and heats up in the process and is eventually destroyed. But the conversion of X-ray energy to electricity is actually needed for net energy production in a real reactor. That's why an X-ray transparent Beryllium electrode will be manufactured.
Transitioning from Deuterium to Boron gas will increase the plasma density for free. This means, that as soon as a certain energy threshold has been crossed wth Deuterium gas, it can be shown that pB11 fusion is going to perform as predicted by the models.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I'll take a shot at explaining this...
The old electrodes were silver plated solid copper, which showed problems vaporizing (both silver and copper) where the high current arcs first interacted with the electrodes - this process displaces atoms from the electrodes and carries them into the fuel gas, contaminating it and reducing the yield. (I believe this has been documented by various research groups - not just LPP.) Aside from just being far cheaper than beryllium, tungsten has an extremely high melting and vaporization temperature, which makes it a perfect benchmark material because it should demonstrate the lowest possible fuel contamination. It seems to me to be a very good idea to spend a little on tungsten, get the results and be more confident/educated about next steps. Given the costs and research results it'll generate, this seems a very responsible move. More science is good here.
Also, because tungsten withstands extremely high temperatures, LPP can increase the power with (most likely) no arc vaporization. Once they demonstrate the predicted output at current powers, they'll ramp up the power and the tungsten should hold up very well.
Finally, they're currently using deuterium gas as fuel, which has far lower yield than boron. As they move forward and increase power, they'll increase the density of the fuel gas and also titrate slowly toward boron fuel. With boron fuel, the yield will skyrocket and the device will start generating a enormous amounts of x-rays with each shot as a byproduct of the fusion reaction. Tungsten is a very heavy atom, which unfortunately absorbs x-rays as heat. As a result, the necessary x-ray levels will likely melt and/or vaporize tungsten. (That's hot.) To get to net energy, they'll switch to beryllium because it absorbs very little x-ray energy as heat - it will be much easier to cool it during normal operation. According to my understanding, beryllium should handle the powers needed for net energy without polluting the gas too much and still be possible to cool. It is still very important to know what tungsten does in comparison to beryllium as a benchmark. Experiments are necessary to prove all of this and figure out exactly what's going on in the device while changing as few variables as possible in each step.
Having the tungsten results will generate benchmark results that will be useful to determine what's going on as power increases. Going directly to beryllium would miss these benchmarks. If there were an unexpected anomaly in the output, it could be much more difficult to figure what is happening without the results from the tungsten electrodes.
This is my understanding but I'm no research plasma physicist or materials expert! I'm a software guy who finds this stuff fascinating.
Thanks, great explanations!
Due to the challenges with X-ray capture I think maybe and intermediate step will be to produce a very efficient (however not net electricity generation) source of very strong x-ray radiation that can be used to scan structures such as bridges, buildings etc. for weaknesses. This has been discussed by Lerner on several occasions. It's important though to point out that capturing the energy of x-rays and turning it to electricity is more of an engineering challenge than anything else, the technology already exists. You will need different sheets for different energies or wavelengths if you will - just like modern solar panels have multiple layers to catch the different wave lengths. Remember that x-rays and visible light are both just electromagnetic waves that we choose to call by different names since they are in different spectra of energy.
For those who are skeptical to the LPP approach I can understand. What really made me a believer was watching a presentation with Eric Lerner where he started out talking about sun flares, nebulas and quasars in space. He showed images of how strings of plasma were shooting out of the structures, showing how this is a normally occurring phenomena in space on a very macroscopic scale. All they want to do is the same on a much more microscopic scale. It's an inherent property of plasma to behave this way when it gets hot enough and dense enough. The focus fusion idea just has so much more going for it than the ITER and other Tokamak ideas.
ITER and DPF are structurally very different. ITER is an infrastructure project, due to its enormous requirements. As an infrastructure project, there are many stakeholders involved. Many companies earning their fair share of money (actually, tax payer money). As with practically all tax payer money fed projects, this is a feeding cycle going on and on. No involved party is, on a long-term financial basis, actually interested if the ITER approach is the right track to approach a practical fusion reactor. As long as it's a free lunch (i.e. tax payer money), they take it. Infrastructure projects like ITER, that may or may not be practical, are like supertankers. Once set in motion, it's hard to change course. Even if it means failure. So far, it has proven too difficult to "teach plasma to behave". I think it is a bit akin to trying to "teach a knife how to be a spoon". Not impossible, but it's just not going to be a very good spoon.
DPF, on the contrary, up till now has successfully tried to teach the knife how to be a better knife. The scientific peer-review community agrees with what has been accomplished so far. That very fact is the best sign that some legitimate science is going on and that progress is being made. After a good and long study of that approach and the state of affairs, I became a volunteer for this cause. I see it as one of very few once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to actively partake in a revolutionary development, as was the development of the transistor, the airplane or the internet.
I can only ask the readers of this forum to have a look at the following crowdfunding effort that is going on right now, to accelerate the whole development process: FOCUS FUSION: emPOWERtheWORLD | Indiegogo
Recalling that the DPF reactor will be only a couple cubic meters large and produce around 5MW of electrical power, I see it as a perfect fit for EV recharging stations. Over the long haul, the existence of small fusion reactors is going to greatly simplify building and maintaining the EV infrastructure, thus bringing down prices even more. I'm also thinking about Elon's long-term goals like human settlements on Mars, or just space. Having a waste-free nuclear, highly compact and potent energy source available will be absolutely vital for the success of those "far out" projects. And let's not forget about spaceship propulsion. A humongous machine like ITER that weighs many thousands of tons is, in that context, completely inadequate. In the end, ITER will be nothing different from your regular water heater. Radioactive waste not taken into account. DPF, on the other hand, will directly convert fusion power into electricity.
Please support the effort!
-------------------
P.S.: Is Elon Musk even aware of the existence of this scientific project? Practical fusion reactors would greatly help his ambitions come to fruition. Maybe someone, who is close to him, can raise his awareness. I heard he is not the poorest and science-averse individual on this planet
.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Great points Royal!
I too would love for Elon to come aboard, preferrably as an investor.
With regards to space travel, how would one best make use of electricity from a small fusion reactor to propel a space craft? In the vacuum of space you'll need to expel some matter (gas) to get a jet effect right? A propeller or wheel that turns won't do much good...
I too would love for Elon to come aboard, preferrably as an investor.
With regards to space travel, how would one best make use of electricity from a small fusion reactor to propel a space craft? In the vacuum of space you'll need to expel some matter (gas) to get a jet effect right? A propeller or wheel that turns won't do much good...
One aspect in space travel is to overcome the limitations of solar cells. They are only usable up to about Jupiter's orbit around the sun. Also, not having to take care of radioactive waste, produced by ordinary fission reactions in fission power plants, greatly helps.
During operation, the DPF reactor will produce usable electricity, but also a certain amount of waste heat. That waste heat, as well as the electrical energy, could be used to (super)heat a type of fuel. The cool thing about this approach is that the final exhaust speed is not limited anymore by the inherent chemical energy potential of that specific fuel, say hydrogen. One could heat a fuel to temperatures as high as the material sciences permit, and release small "explosions" of fuel gas or plasma out of the "rocket" nozzle. At the same time, this process cools the whole system - the heat energy is being flushed out.
ITER and DPF are structurally very different. ITER is an infrastructure project, due to its enormous requirements. As an infrastructure project, there are many stakeholders involved. Many companies earning their fair share of money (actually, tax payer money). As with practically all tax payer money fed projects, this is a feeding cycle going on and on. No involved party is, on a long-term financial basis, actually interested if the ITER approach is the right track to approach a practical fusion reactor. As long as it's a free lunch (i.e. tax payer money), they take it. Infrastructure projects like ITER, that may or may not be practical, are like supertankers. Once set in motion, it's hard to change course. Even if it means failure. So far, it has proven too difficult to "teach plasma to behave". I think it is a bit akin to trying to "teach a knife how to be a spoon". Not impossible, but it's just not going to be a very good spoon.
DPF, on the contrary, up till now has successfully tried to teach the knife how to be a better knife. The scientific peer-review community agrees with what has been accomplished so far. That very fact is the best sign that some legitimate science is going on and that progress is being made. After a good and long study of that approach and the state of affairs, I became a volunteer for this cause. I see it as one of very few once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to actively partake in a revolutionary development, as was the development of the transistor, the airplane or the internet.
I can only ask the readers of this forum to have a look at the following crowdfunding effort that is going on right now, to accelerate the whole development process: FOCUS FUSION: emPOWERtheWORLD | Indiegogo
Recalling that the DPF reactor will be only a couple cubic meters large and produce around 5MW of electrical power, I see it as a perfect fit for EV recharging stations. Over the long haul, the existence of small fusion reactors is going to greatly simplify building and maintaining the EV infrastructure, thus bringing down prices even more. I'm also thinking about Elon's long-term goals like human settlements on Mars, or just space. Having a waste-free nuclear, highly compact and potent energy source available will be absolutely vital for the success of those "far out" projects. And let's not forget about spaceship propulsion. A humongous machine like ITER that weighs many thousands of tons is, in that context, completely inadequate. In the end, ITER will be nothing different from your regular water heater. Radioactive waste not taken into account. DPF, on the other hand, will directly convert fusion power into electricity.
Please support the effort!
-------------------
P.S.: Is Elon Musk even aware of the existence of this scientific project? Practical fusion reactors would greatly help his ambitions come to fruition. Maybe someone, who is close to him, can raise his awareness. I heard he is not the poorest and science-averse individual on this planet
Agree! Elon please check the science and promise behind this project and get back to us!
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
If you can afford it I would suggest you look in to investing. I see you are in Canada so you will not be affected by the US rules regarding "Accredited investors".
Great to hear you donated, Dutchie. I strongly believe that the whole Tesla community working together can easily make this happen in a snap.
Has anyone seen a response from Elon on LPP / Focus Fusion. Or sent him a tweet / massage?
The latest newsletter from LPP is here:
LPP Fusion Newsletter, corrected, May 27 2014
One item is a 1-hour presentation by Eric Lerner to the Oxford University Scientific Society last month:
Oxford Scientific Society Talk - Eric Lerner - - YouTube
LPP Fusion Newsletter, corrected, May 27 2014
One item is a 1-hour presentation by Eric Lerner to the Oxford University Scientific Society last month:
Oxford Scientific Society Talk - Eric Lerner - - YouTube
Similar threads
