Robert Bussard, one of the giants of the field, claimed to his dying day he had cracked the problem
![Homemade_fusion_reactor[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/homemade_fusion_reactor1.jpg?quality=83)
Above: a homemade “fusor” similar to the Polywell nuclear fusion reactor
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Not many people have heard of Robert Bussard, but he was one of the giants of nuclear fusion research. But if an engineering solution for viable small, household size nuclear fusion reactors is ever discovered, they will almost certainly be largely based on Bussard’s work.
Bussard’s focus was on a field of Nuclear fusion research known as electrostatic confinement. Unlike the better known magnetic bottle reactors, such as the $20 billion ITER project, electrostatic confinement can be applied to fusion plasmas which are the size of a small glass fish tank.
Electrostatic confinement has been well known since the 1930s. Small electrostatic nuclear fusion devices are sold commercially – as neutron sources. A small nuclear fusion reactor is an incredibly convenient way to produce a dense stream of neutron radiation, because as soon as you switch off the power, the plasma cools, and the radiation stops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator
The problem is nobody has figured out how to extract more energy out of an electrostatic fusor, than you put into it. There is a long list of problems to be solved. One of the big problems with viable nuclear fusion is keeping the plasma hot enough – when you heat something to millions of degrees, it really wants to shed some of its heat. In electrostatic confinement systems, the violent acceleration / deceleration, as charged plasma particles bounce off the high intensity electric fields, causes a significant cooling of the core. There are also problems with the electrodes – keeping an electrode from melting, when it is in close contact with a superheated gas, is a significant engineering challenge.
Bussard at the end of his life, claimed to have solved these problems. He built a small prototype using a grant from the US Navy. Right up to his dying day, he was trying to raise funds, to build a full scale prototype, of his Polywell nuclear fusion reactor design.
The late physicist Robert Bussard worked for decades to try to show Polywell fusion could work, using a variety of Wiffle-Ball configurations. Just before his death in 2007, he claimed that he was getting close to solving the challenge with his WB-6 device.
After Bussard passed away, other researchers picked up the baton at EMC2 Fusion in New Mexico and continued building test devices. Most recently, Park and his colleagues used a redesigned Wiffle-Ball test device in a San Diego lab to show the Navy that their configuration could enhance plasma confinement even under incredibly high pressure — pressure levels that could not be achieved by, say, the ITER reactor.
Bussard’s prototype might not have worked. However Bussard was an extremely credible fusion researcher – unlike some rather dodgy characters in the “bubble” fusion field, Bussard really might have made that crucial breakthrough. When you consider the eye watering sums which are wasted on renewables, such as the huge loss sustained by the Federal Government when Solyndra collapsed, it really seems a shame that Bussard never got a chance to take the final step, to realise his dream of seeing his ideas tested in a full scale prototype.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard
he was trying to save humanity instead of trying to save Gia … of course he was ignored …
wish I had of thought of that, thank you Sir.
Well I think today is Wednesday, April the first.
Evidently to his dying day, Robert Bussard had never ever heard of Earnshaw’s Theorem; a theorem, fundamental to electromagnetism.
All existing thermonuclear reactors operate by use of the gravitation force, and gravitation sucks.
Electro-statics operates via the Coulomb force, which does not suck; but blows apart.
in the atomic nucleus, the strong force operates to overcome the electro-static force, and stop the nucleus from blowing apart.
So forget about controlled nuclear fusion based on the Coulomb force. Only gravity works.
g
Hmmm… plasma discharges producing light, heat, and fusion by accelerating charged particles using electric and magnetic fields… where have we seen that before?
Well, not on the scale of our Sun which is big.
Too big to fit on a desktop.
I’ve got a really big desk.
It might fit.
Here is my cartoon contribution to how Robert Bussard probably felt …
http://www.maxphoton.com/dont-tread-on-me/
Thank you Max.
Giggle. 🙂
I, too, think it’s an intriguing design. I would not exactly say that it was lost, though: Bussard gave a talk at Google HQ in 2006 on the subject, going into a great deal (probably too much for the audience) of detail on the concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU
I saw that one and was amazed. For 250 million we could take it to the next level and see if it could go but to try and find 1/2 a Solyndra in funding? Good luck. I keep seeing stuff like the LFTR and this and go “We’ll buy it from China someday”. Sad.
Exactly. China very likely will beat the rest of the world to thorium reactors.
Isn’t Norway working on one – an MSR if not a LFTR?
The initial photo in this WUWT article resembles a miniaturized Tesla coil with a somewhat strangely cage-like top electrode, that surrounds a light source that appears slightly like a fairly ordinary kind of incandescent light bulb. And all of this appears to be under a bell jar. And that part gets me thinking that the atmosphere under the bell jar may be at below-atmospheric pressure and/or consisting of a gas richer in argon than air is. Argon is cheap (#3 gas in Earth’s atmosphere) and it has been widely used in the lighting and neon sign industries for a goodly 65 years.
Yes, it is at low pressure, but it is Deuterium.
The photo is of a Farnsworth Fusor, basically a spherical linear accelerator that accelerates all the charged particles toward the center, where they collide, and if they are something fusable like ionised Duterium nucleii, they fuse.
And it really works. You can go and buy one, for use as a laboratory source of neutrons. Unfortunately it requires more power in than it gives out, mostly due to particles striking the spherical accelerator electrode.
Bussard had the idea of shielding the spherical accelerator electrode using magnetic fields.
Hi Bob – sorry, but your comment is lost on me – can you answer your own question please?
Are you referring to ITER / LHC / lightning or something else?
Ta!
The Sun!
Bob, you seem to be describing not the standard model, but rather the ‘Electric Universe’ model of the sun. Am I reading you correctly?
Duh. Thank you…. :-}
@max, I believe the standard model uses the same description? However, is fusion the cause or the reaction? I believe that is the difference between the two theories.
Nuclear fusion has always been the energy source of the future. Unfortunately it probably always will be just that. Princeton Freshmen in 1956 were proudly told of the great work Lyman Spitzer was doing nearby on the Stellarator (an early fusion device).
Suddenly – seeing the private sector have an interest – a fusion reactor looks a lot more viable within my lifetime.
He also pioneered the idea of the Bussard Ramjet.
Thanks Timo, that concept was a big part of SciFi (I just couldn’t get it of the tip of my tongue you beat me to it)
A favorite of author Larry Niven… who also sliced up Freeman Dyson’s spheres.
Bussard Ramjets would be nice, unfortunately the problem is that the drag from the scoop is greater than the thrust generated from shooting the protons out the exhaust nozzle. One may as well trying to go dead to wind in a sailing vessel. Project Orion-type nuclear rockets seem more feasible. And even at that.
There’s always Hawking radiation ….
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803.pdf
Magnetic scoop.
I remember Bussard from his name being used in science fiction for his development of the theoretical space propulsion of the Bussard ramjet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
That was also the first thought that sprang to mind when I read the name in this post.
I see I am in good company, recognizing Bussard as the originator of the Ramjet space drive.
I read here we spend about 250 million a year on domestic fusion research. As opposed to over 8 billion on climate change research?
No wonder we haven’t cracked fusion yet. Shame that.
Spot on. A true absurdity, given that fusion is one of the only serious contenders for the solution to the problem that climate change enthusiasts assert exists. If we invested in it the other way around, how long would it remain unsolved?
I think it’s well established that the Greens don’t want unlimited carbon free energy, how would they manage to get us all to live in tepees?
The Greens are selling guilt, not viable economic solutions.
Mark, according to this White House report report the USA government budgets circa 20 billion/yr. for climate change. And that does not include the billions industry spends to comply with regulations.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
and it is the Executive Branch (that White House) that sets the research and technology priorities and agenda. Time for change.
If a viable, commercial nuclear fusion plant was built today Greens would oppose it to their core. They will create imaginary dangers and attempt to deceive.
Oh look what I see! They started even before one is built! It’s worse than I thought!
A critique of Greenpeace’s position.
We should allow them to live out their lives without energy from nuclear fusion… put them on the next Voyager probe and send them into interstellar space as far away from those evil stars as they can get. They can be 3°K GreenCicles.
Well in this case, I’m with GP. Just what is it, that the electrostatic Coulomb force is going to push against, in order to compress the DT fuel inside down to a high enough density , at a high enough Temperature for a long enough time to get it to fuse, and when that happens, how do you take out the garbage that makes, and put in some new fuel, to keep it running ??
Mark Bofill,
I believe $5.5 bn of that is energy research. I’d like to see fusion work but it’s hard. I think better fission designs would cost less to research and pay off much sooner. Why we’re not drilling geothermal wells RIGHT NOW like gangbusters is quite beyond me.
And of course, it’s obligatory I trot this out: http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.
According to Bjorn Lomborg in a WSJ piece: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432404579051123500813210
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated in 2010 that fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $4 billion a year.
I’m guessing, without doing too much digging, that the wide disparity in the figures has to do with how what constitutes a “subsidy” is counted. For the record, I’m not staunchly opposed to fossil fuel subsidies when they’re for things like market stabilization. I do think it’s interesting to put all these very large numbers into perspective.
I love the green screeds that assert fossil fuels cost more than they return. It necessarily follows that the entire Industrial Age is an illusion. And, people (like Brandon) fall for it.
Bart,
I have never, once, read an argument which said that fossil fuels have a negative return. Nor would I “fall for it” if I had since, as you point out, it’s obviously false. Were you born this obtuse, or did you work at it?
Well, Lockheed seems to be moving right along.
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/lockheed-martin-outlines-plans-for-nuclear-fusion-reactor/
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were incorporating Bussard’s work.
The only hint we have from Bussard is this note he scribbled in a book:
“I have discovered a truly marvelous electrostatic nuclear fusion device whose description this margin is too narrow to contain.”
Perhaps it had something to do with prime-ing?
Yes, the Fermat of the margin was too small for the device design.
I wish I had used that technique in final exams when I was a kid.
““I have discovered a truly marvelous answer to this complex analysis problem whose description this margin is too narrow to contain.”
Or how about when dealing with total idiots?
“I have discovered a truly marvelous response to your utterly stupid comment whose description your marginal brain is too narrow to contain.”
Or …
Hah, I was trying to think of an “autofermatic” post and there you go spoiling it.
Well-played, sir!
From what I recall, the previous article by Eric Worrall claimed it was Rossi’s E-Cat “fusion device” that was going to solve all our energy needs.
How’s that coming along? Can I purchase one at Walmart yet?
No, I think Rossi’s e-cat is nonsense – and I’ve never said differently. Rossi’s explanation for the lack of radiation from his e-cats, that he has discovered a “new” kind of fusion, is not credible IMO.
My mistake. I apologize. I confused you with Rick Werme.
Was wondering how long it would take someone to mention Rossi’s e-cat… always good for a morning chuckle.
Maybe the e-cat needs a better cat.
http://imgur.com/gallery/70OaExT
I haven’t said much about the E-Cat lately, I might post an update below or in the next Open Thread. There’s a lot going on, but it’s all in the middle of their stories.
Nope, not available at WalMart yet. While Rossi is focused on industrial applications, he hasn’t forgotten the home market.
Ric is my nickname, Eric my given name. Typhoon could be even more confused.
Parkhomov from Russia has “just” replicated Ross’s effect more then once (in fact just last week).
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/27/parkhomov-again-replicates-rossi-effect-the-challenge-is-before-the-scientific-community/
And Airbus has been filing LENR patents.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/22/airbus-files-patent-for-lenr-power-generating-device/
And the “lack” of neutrons has been explained. Just last month a team in Ukraine not only replicated the Rossi effect, but ALSO stated they ARE detecting neutrons. And to how/why most tests fail to see neutrons is that “most” sensors and software are setup to detect a continuous stream of neutrons – not a pop and a crackle. (so such sensors report an average).
So LENR does not seem to output a continues amount of neutrons.
And from Mats Lewan book “An Impossible Invention” (about the Rossi device) they state:
when they pushed the E-Cat very hard, that neutrons were detected using a neutron dosimeter (bubble detector)
The simple matter there are now 1000’s of papers and growing replications of these low level nuclear heat effects.
They are not chemical.
MOST interesting is the third party test of the Rossi device released earlier (to the public) this year. The SIGNIFICANT part is the isotope changes that occurred in the nickel powder. How such isotope changes can occur and this not being some kind of nuclear effect really seals the deal.
That testing was done by Royal Swedish Academy of Science with a members from Bologna University, and Uppsals Sweden.
Link here (PDF)
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
Note the above. isotope changes that occurred in the nickel fuel. This is clearly a reaction at the nuclear level.
So AirBus is being granted patents, several new replications have occurred this year. Rossi claims he has a working plant on customer site (it is his first commercial install – a development platform). These picture are recently released:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/19/new-official-web-site-andrea-rossi-com-pictures-of-the-new-plant/
The evidence for LENR is piled up so high now, that anyone with Google and a few minutes of their time will fast realize that LENR is real.
Tomorrow a open source project will attempt another replication of the Rossi effect based on Parkhomov. If that reactor tomorrow works – then LENR is a done deal, and LARGE number of replications will occur this year.
Regards,
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Apparently it’s in successful use in a factory … also Airbus has gotten a patent for their own separate work … Rossi’s results have been replicated by Parkmanov (sp?) and these results replicated in turn in several other labs.
Rossi’s results have not been replicated by anybody because he still does not tell anybody how it actually works (hint: not at all). And unless you happen to be the only person who knows what that supposed reactor in that said factory is ACTUALLY doing, nobody knows, either, because again, it is a secret. It is certainly not cold fusion…
Reply to Matt … there was enough information in the Lugano report for successful replication … and labels are not particularly important … note that it’s called LENR not cold fusion … but the name is only important for those attacking the name and not the results …
I’ve always assumed that the e-cat must work by Neutron Repulsion. ^¿^
Interesting, but this is a hard problem. I was drawing pictures of six-magnetic-pole plasma confinement devices back when I was around 12 years old (I’m not kidding, I’m quite serious) and am 60 as of last Sunday. That’s a long, long time for the idea to be kicked around without a fundamental resolution. We have far better computers now, and can do things like model the microtrajectories in phase space of electrons and the plasma itself, but there are still serious instabilities in the behavior of plasmas at magnetic field junctions because the problem is nonlinear (and possibly chaotic). There is little problem getting fusion to happen. There is a big problem getting fusion to happen in a regime with net energy production, especially BIG net energy production (given that conversion to usable energy will be fortunate to occur as efficiently as 50%). Basically we need a gain of 10 to 20 to be able to make this “the” power supply of civilization, and we haven’t gotten a “gain” at all yet, and I don’t know how seriously to take reports that Skunk Works or whoever have gotten close to break even. Lockheed-Martin, at least, seems pretty confident that they can push their current design — whatever it is — to a serious positive gain.
If, of course, anyone ever does succeed in solving this very difficult problem, the world’s energy problem is over for all time, as are the “global warming” problem, the Middle East problem, the clean water and sanitation problem, and the global poverty problem. Given enough, cheap enough, energy all of the world’s scarcity issues are resolvable, and there is enough Deuterium in the oceans to power global civilization at a power consumption per capita greater than that of the most developed countries on Earth for millions of years before it is even noticeably depleted (and then there are the gas giant and gas giant moons, with what amounts to a infinite supply). Certain fusion designs would also double as interplanetary scale space drives, and open up the solar system to real colonization and resource mining. So I certainly hope that it happens, and rather expect that it will. Whether or not it happens with this design, with my own imagined design, or with a design yet unimagined, who can say?
But yes, one of the really silly things about fusion is that we should have been investing in it at maybe 10 times past funding levels across the board, including “maverick” non-mainstream ideas and designs, forever. Even if you view it as an extreme long shot, the payoff is a Type I civilization on the Kardashev scale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
This is worth a substantial and continuing risk, given the absolutely enormous payoff. Indeed, any (fuel-based) solution but thermonuclear fusion and perhaps global scale non-fuel-based photovoltaic solar are just pissing into the wind — transient and limited by the ultimate scarcity of fuels to at most a (few) thousand years or so before humanity falls back into the dark ages suffered before the advent of cheap and nearly universally available electricity. Either we sooner or later develop fusion, or we are doomed to a truly apocalyptic catastrophe when fuel scarcity becomes even more dominant a political-economic constraint than it is today/already in a world of ever-increasing population and resource demand.
This is why I also strongly advocate the continued investment in PV solar. It is in many ways less than ideal, but at least the direct harvesting of solar energy ties the lifetime of human civilization to the lifetime of the Sun, effectively long enough for us to solve many other problems including — maybe — the one of getting around between stars and colonizing space. Fusion in particular is essential to that endeavor, as there is no other fuel source capable of both pushing a starship (based on known physics) and keeping it electrically alive and functioning for the 100s of years likely necessary for any given interstellar voyage. None of this has anything to do with AGW, of course — it’s just the way it is.
I do like one side effect of a successful fusion design. It would “instantly” eliminate the burning of most fossil fuels for energy, and since IMO oil and coal both are going to be far more valuable in the long run as minable stores of raw and partly “cooked” organic materials (that is, as raw material for plastics and pharmaceuticals and lubricants) that we are currently WASTING by burning them, this is a good thing. Politically, as well, it would instantly remove the source of income from places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Iraq — it would cause an immediate and vast shift in the global geopolitick that in the long run one can only imagine would be for the better.
rgb
Ahhh… see? but we are humans, and so very poor forward thinkers – as a general rule. The ‘best’ never wins… It’s always the immediate short term gain that is sought after.
From my limited understanding, the best course of action in harnessing energy in useful ways to humans would be to utilize thorium reactors for the general public – and a few highly protected breeder reactors to generate high quality reactor material…. and concurrently dump billions in USD /year into fusion research, until either the plasma problems are solved or proved unsolvable for small masses.
“and so very poor forward thinkers”
Compared to which other species?
“compared to what other species…”
Ants, bees, termites, squirrels, …
Indeed, such a fusion capability would step on too many toes to be ‘allowed’ any time soon.
Agreed 100, thanks rgb!
Brgds from Sweden//TJ
Happy Birthday – from a long ago Tar Heel – and thanks for your contributions.
Pie in the sky trumps coal in the furnace every time.
There is no energy shortage, but rather only a shortage of common sense. Before we try to solve tomorrow’s problems, we need to address contemporary issues with the tools and resources at hand.
I fail to see how burning fossil fuels now could ever be considered a waste when there is no viable alternative to keeping (even poor) people warm, clean, healthy and happy.
CAGW is a scam with many purposes and beneficiaries, one of which is to justify Western presence in the Middle East.
Happy Birthday!
-sp-
I’ve wanted this forever too and finally realized why it’s not happening. Government will not push fusion research for the same reason they continue to kick the dead horse of AGW. They need an excuse to control energy because that amounts to controlling the people. The private sector is not going to push fusion research because it costs too much and the result wipes out all of the existing energy companies and those who depend on them. They will oppose it until it actually looks like a doable thing at reasonable cost. Fusion is the best energy solution imaginable and it’s going to remain that way until the government stops concentrating on control and begins to concentrate on the long term well being of the country/world or some private sector company comes up with a really cheap way to do it.
Dr Brown,
I’m pleased that you mention this. It has ceased to amaze me, but it never ceases to depress me to think that for all of the progressive concern for the future of our species that we fail to focus our energies on solutions that would decisively and unambiguously solve the problems for all time.
Precautionary principle? It’s what debaters call a non-unique argument. When we make policy in the face of chaotic systems, almost all paths are dubious and the risk relationships uncertain. Very few pathways provide humanity with a ‘win’ no matter what, for all reasonable intents and purposes. Fusion is one. Colonization of space is another. Want to solve for global warming, meteor strikes, pandemics, and who knows how many other unknown unknown problems? Let’s get off this rock. Let’s devote the necessary time and resources to remove the problem of limited energy from the equation. There’s no theoretical barrier I’m aware of, it’s just appears to be a very very very difficult engineering problem. No reason I know of that sufficient research, study and experimentation shouldn’t tame that problem.
Can we harness solar, wind, other renewables, to solve our current energy needs? Possibly. What happens when our population doubles, as the Malthusians worry. I believe in human ingenuity and technology, and I don’t fear that day. But when population doubles again, and again, and again? Eventually, sooner or later it seems likely to me that our quality of life and freedom will be bounded by finite resources, finite space, limited energy, no matter what sort of conservation policies we adopt today. Even discounting this, look at our history. Expansion and colonization redirects our aggressive biological nature. Instead of fighting amongst ourselves we should be striving together to conquer/colonize the solar system, and then neighboring solar systems, and then the galaxy. Solve fusion and get a solid foothold in space, and a new age of mankind will begin that will outlast our star, as you pointed out.
But no. We’d rather putz around with political rallies, wind farms, and slogans. It’s sad.
Best regards as always sir.
Regarding the need for reduced carbon as a raw material for chemical synthesis: For this, it should be possible to use plant oil instead once we run out of coal and mineral oil.
With cheap energy anything can be made.
In grade school, 5th grade maybe, we had to write a letter requesting something from a business or Gov Agency, I wrote the the Atomic Energy Comm, they sent me a have dozen pamphlets showed reactors, nuclear subs, fusion, but it’s been a long time since I drew any pictures, actually it was a theory behind cold fusion, actually it’s sort of the same as Bussard’s, only smaller.
I figure some fission, maybe a thorium burners till we sort the issues with fusion out.
But I’ve been waiting for the Jetson’s all my life, and I’m annoyed about that.
Nanotech and advanced fusion energy and we will at least become a spacefaring race, then we need to bend space.
We’ve already spent a ton of money on thermonuclear fusion in addition to a sizable chunk of coin on inertial confinement and a few peanuts in electrostatic–i assume you don’t want to count muon catalyzed reactions because, well, you did say you wanted alpha greater than one.
PV is just a terrible idea unless someone can come up with a dirt cheap amorphous device that actually has some durability and efficiency, or a way to cost effectively put SPSS’s in orbit.
And if we have fusion, then who cares if we burn hydrocarbons? We can always make more if that’s the most cost efficient way of using them. It’s not like the fraction we burn is the same fraction we use for plastics anyway.
Anyway, here’s the paper that all the Polywell folks have hung their hats on:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.0133v1.pdf
In the meantime the Navy has cancelled funding, so that’s looking promising…
“Even if you view it as an extreme long shot, the payoff is a Type I civilization on the Kardashev scale:”
As long as it doesn’t reach levels II or III as I don’t think humans are mentally stable enough to survive those levels. At much higher generation levels it always becomes easier (eventually) to weaponize the source and it then only takes a few educated nut cases (or the military) to cause city size havoc.
Probably why exterior civilizations, if observing, wouldn’t bother with real contact, just too unstable a species.
[In the meantime, the mods are not convinced today’s culture will survive any additional Type TV Kardashian events either. .mod]
Suppose you focused on making neutrons with Deuterium – Deuterium fuel. No Tritium required. If you irradiate U238 you can make Plutonium without a nuke reactor. And you can do short runs which optimizes Plutonium production. Now Plutonium is harder to explode than U235. But you don’t need centrifuges. You can do the extraction with chemistry. You do need some Tritium – but you have an electrically controlled neutron source. Lots of things can be done with that. Good and bad.
Are we ready for a hundred nuclear armed nations? Well we are about to find out given our current Mid-East Policy.
And that Kardashian scale, is just another example of juvenilia anyway, along with geo-forming and the rest. People who worship at the Michio Kaku shrine have too much time on their hands.
Humans will eventually stabilize the world population, by one means or another, and hopefully, not at zero. But I wish them eternally good luck on that Nuclear fusion energy.
And they are nowhere near getting even the DT reaction to operate, and ignore the fact that there are no Tritium mines on earth. So they will have to use one fo the more impressive reactions. Impressive in the sense of a truly gargantuan ignition condition.
Then there’s Earnshaw’s theorem.
I am surprised to hear this coming from you. Solar warrants little investment. At only 200W or less per square meter on a dull day, the received energy density is just far too low to be useful. Right now solar can generate reliably only about 5W per meter squared. 1 GW of generation would consume 15 square km at the equator (far more at the poles) and even if it were 100% efficient generation can’t get smaller than 3 square km per GW. Solar is almost but not quite viable at the household scale where you need 10KW array and lots of batteries, but nowhere near being viable on an industrial scale. When Alcoa can run it’s smelters on solar i’ll convert. Solar is viable only if the human race regresses to a very basic level of sophistication, machines….gone, pharma….gone, and a couple for the greenies… 50″ plasma TVs … gone, welfare cheques… gone!
That’s why you want your plants in earth orbit, beaming power via microwave to ground receivers. As long as you don’t mind a potential death-ray over your head, you’re getting the full benefit of 1,300 or so watts/sq meter. No dust storms, no rare desert tortoise to halt your construction. Easy-peasy.
Good points. I have many of the same thoughts.
Fusion may be impossible to develop into a practical energy source. I do not think there is any way to say that if we try hard enough we can be sure of getting there.
And speaking of space travel, I am reminded of an issue which is rarely brought up but, as far as I know, has no known solution: That of how to protect space travelers from the deadly hailstorm of radiation and cosmic rays which will assault anyone who leaves the earth’s protective magnetic field and atmosphere behind.
What are you gonna do if you are halfway to wherever and a large CME heads your way?
Fusion: How are they gonna make it so it is quickly rechargeable, simple enough to mass produce, and long lived enough to make up for the construction costs?
Someone, please tell me.
Seriously.
My youthful optimism and high hopes on these two issues have taken a beating.
Space travel: There are two forms of radiation to deal with. The outer layer ought to be a hydrogen heavy material, such as ice, to absorb the barrage of high energy charged particles. The inner layer ought to be a layer of lead or similar heavy metal to block incoming x-rays and gamma rays. Make sure that your ice layer is thick enough, as charged particles that hit metal produce deadly Bremsstrahlung x-rays. If you are more interested in more, look up “atomic rockets”.
Fusion: Well, we just don’t know enough yet to say yes or no. Since we are too busy eviscerating our scientific and industrial infrastructure in every conceivable way, don’t hold your breath for definitive news on the matter.
Sadly solar power is not a solution that will work in isolation
Or is infinitely scalable.
Nuclear power is both.
Solar energy is like warming your hands on someone else’s bonfire instead of having central heating.
“…as are the “global warming” problem, the Middle East problem…”
Yeah, because instead of a bunch of PO’ed people with time on their hands due to steady income from low input work, we’ll have a bunch of even more PO’ed people with even more time on their hands due to lack of work. And, ready access to unlimited power to make big booms.
The Middle East problem will not be solved in any of our lifetimes. That is the result of the projections of all my models 😉
“This is why I also strongly advocate the continued investment in PV solar.”
Without huge gains in efficiency, it will never return anything near what is needed to satisfy a significant portion of what we are accustomed to using. And, I think we are near the limits of efficiency for current tech.
We don’t have to solve these things today. We have lots of time before fossil fuels run out. As Capt. Nemo would say, “When the world is ready for a new and better life, all this will someday come to pass, in God’s good time.”
So if we have the capability to release vast amounts of free (cost wise) energy from thermo-nuclear reactors in everybody’s kitchen, just what is it that will limit the earth Temperature rise.
If you get the thing to work, how will you remove the reaction products (the garbage) which is at mega temperatures, and then insert new fuel (which is at room temperatures) without upsetting the equilibrium of the thing.
And finally, just what is it that the EM fields are pushing gainst (outside) that enables them to confine the fuel ??
Why does Earnshaw’s theorem NOT apply ??
I think money spent on this more than on “climate change research” would be money well spent. Unfortunately it won’t happen, because “big” governments don’t like us having cheap plentiful energy as we are the less easily controlled.
Agreed. A similar expenditure on Thorium fission might prove even more profitable. Safe nuclear will get us through the next century IMO.
Thanks for reminding me of this fine scientist, not that I had forgotten him. I just wish there was some genuine strategic interest in using the nuclear process to solve most of our power problems. Regrettably most westerners are far too negative these days to tackle the engineering challenges involved in polywell fusion or even the thorium reactor. This attitude is one consequence of the increasing influence of feminism on public policy. The fantasy of this ideology is laughable, just as if they can create a better world. What one without reliable electricity. Sure!
Some of you might really enjoy a presentation at NASA Goddard, by retired electrical engineering professor Dr. Donald Scott, about the history of plasma physics, some potential applications to modern cosmology, and some of the misunderstandings and mis-steps by contemporary nuclear fusion researchers.
It’s a very interesting and enjoyable talk, and he’s a good speaker.
Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott
Here is Bussard giving a talk at Google headquarters, with details about his design, a design very similar to Farnesworth’s design from a half century ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU
First, please understand that “small scale” fusion devices, such as could be used to power a home, will never be funded since they will be in competition with commercial power. This is probably the real reason this kind of funding never showed up in his lifetime. Human salvation will never be able to compete with profit. After all, for those in power, most of us are “useless eaters” to start with.
> .. will never be funded since they will be in competition with commercial power.
> Human salvation will never be able to compete with profit.
1. Any company that managed to develop a “small scale” fusion device would make billions in profit.
2. A commercial power company that accidentally discovered ‘small scale’ fusion when trying to develop large scale would not hide it because of 1.
3. Most discoveries start off large and end up getting smaller and more efficient through continuous development. I expect the first commercial fusion reactors will be huge things that barely make a profit but as time passes they will get better (provided they ever actually become viable).
Lets just get a fusion reactor, of any size, working before worrying about those nasty profit making companies suppressing power for the people.
The present regulatory environment precludes anything like household fusion reactors. The same interests that push the CAGW agenda would bitterly oppose the idea.
I have a hard time understanding this kind of comment. It seems to me that it is like arguing that the automobile will never be funded because it will be in competition with the buggy whip business.
If it is viable economically in a way that will lead to profits then it will attract capital. The people supplying that capital will be happy to harvest profits that would have otherwise gone to the commercial power utilities.
[Of course! Today’s DOE fusion reactors take all forms of plastic …. VISA, AMEX, MasterCard are all accepted. Then they generate EBT cards as their primary output. .mod]
Tom,
I would be more worried about the containment of the positron radiation inherent in the proton-proton reaction. On the way to making a He-4 nucleus, 2 protons have to overcome a huge coulomb barrier to have the nuclear force bind them while another set is doing the same thing. In each pair, one proton has to emit a positron to make an H-2 nucleus which kicks out of the nucleus with a few MeV of kinetic energy. Then these two H-2 nuclei have to overcome another large coulomb barrier to make the He-4 and emit a several MeV gamma ray. So now in your closet, you have this device that is spitting out positrons and gamma rays at ionizing energy levels.
I think I want a good bit of shielding (meters of the stuff) between me and a fusion reactor.
This article is not correct. Bussard founded Energy/Matter Conversion Corporation, Inc. (EMC2) in 1985 to build the polywell. It has gone through several rounds of funding from the Navy, successfully building larger prototypes, and is seeking additional funding.
See their website: http://www.emc2fusion.org/
See the Talk Polywell website: http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php
NBC discusses their search for funding: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/low-cost-fusion-project-steps-out-shadows-looks-money-n130661
Here is a presentation by EMC’s CEO about their current status: http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=238715
The above got sent before the last paragraph:
The facts in the article are correct, but it gives an incorrect impression about work on the Polywell. It was never going to be validated — let alone tested in a “full scale” prototype in Bussard’s lifetime (he died in 1987). Even with the impressive advances in technology and the accumulated knowledge of the following 2 decades, years more work will be needed to hit those kind of milestones.
But much has been achieved by the EMC team — and others working elsewhere on this an similar tech. It’s not a dead idea.
Editor OTFMW,
Note that Dr. Bussard lived until 2007, not 1987.
If it weren’t for his plasma cell myeloma, he possibly could have lived and guided the development of polywell fusion to this day, as he was active in his work up to the very last few months of his life.
Thanks for the correction! I knew he worked with EMC for many years, so that was just brain failure on my part. He died at age 79.
Nothing like the sun…
What a wonderful information source the internet is. I recall Jerry Pournelle referencing a Bussard Ramjet in more than one of his books. Now I know where the name came from.
Pointman
larry niven did too, so them working together a lot must have influenced each other.
not sure who mentioned it first though, way too many years ago.
& Peter Hamilton in his ” Commonwealth” Sci-Fi saga had the “Dyson pair” and “Hawking D-Sink” power sources and “Hawking M-sinks” mini-black hole devices….
Hmmm… Bussard claimed that he was ‘getting close’ to solving the problem. The problem is that we now have a very long list of people ‘getting close’, and no actual solution…
@rgbatduke
…If, of course, anyone ever does succeed in solving this very difficult problem, the world’s energy problem is over for all time, as are the “global warming” problem, the Middle East problem, the clean water and sanitation problem, and the global poverty problem. …
I wonder if this IS the reason a lot of people have got close but never solved it? I think we now realise that these problems employ a huge number of influential people, and anything that will do away with them won’t be welcomed. It would be easy to suppress fusion power – you just point out that it’s ‘nuclear’ to a set of activists…
This is popular meme, that there is a powerful force behind the curtain who kills any game changing energy solution. There is no curtain,n it’s just a really hard thing to do.
Hey, “they” played “whack-a-mole” with the 200 mpg carburetors, so I was told! But now that carburetors have gone the way of buggy whips, it’s time to play “whack-a-tokomak “.
anything that will do away with them won’t be welcomed.
I disagree. Think of the new opportunities that would arise from cheap, limitless energy. What rational corporate entity would walk away from enormous (and enormously lucrative) new market opportunities?
Technology and the market will solve the energy problem. Only a short time ago we were going to run out of oil. then the price went up. Moderately expensive fracking and tar sands came into play because they were profitable. Now we have another x,xxx years to go before we need the new source. That does not mean that we should not clean up our act and do some forward thinking. When the time comes that we need the breakthrough, it will likely be within reach. The alternative is unthinkable.
Right now the brain power is invested in computers and medicine because that is where the money is. if energy gets really expensive it will attract the best minds; and if it can be solved, it will be solved.
Fossil fuels are the low hanging fruit. Show me any animal on earth that doesnt pick that first.
Newspapers and movie studios, for a couple examples. They keep fighting to keep their old models relevant rather than embracing new technologies and ideas. Larger corporations are usually less willing to change how they do things.
In my opinion, with molten salt reactors being developed for commercialization within just a few years,I see
no need for a fusion reactor
Of course if it had a Military Application, like powering Lasers it might well attract more money and attention.
In fact it may already have done so, not that we will know unless it was used in anger.
But it does have military applications, which is why Navy funding was secured: the Navy is very into the idea of railguns as the next decisive class of weapons, and those babies take LOADS of power to operate.
It’s one thing to have something the size of a carrier powered with a fission reactor – but if you want railguns on Frigates and Destroyers, you need something smaller, which this approach would afford (IIRC, the size and weight of a 100 Megawatt IEC reactor is small enough for a Frigate).
Most nuke boats are considerably smaller than a carrier. I think the Ohio class missile boats are about 1/2 the length of Nimitz class carrier. A good many modern frigates are already big enough in hull size to be powered by reactors. Presumably there are other constraints.
I was a nuke operator on the nuclear frigate DLG(N)-25 – The Bainbridge. It is now scrap.
Actually the US Navy has a plan to field railguns on destroyers in the early part of the next decade and they will be powered by conventional gas turbine generators. The average power requirement for a railgun is not necessarily that high. A railgun firing continuously at 30MJ per shot, 10 shots per minute is only sending ~5MW average out the barrel. Depending on losses power consumption could easily be 2x that, but still relatively small compared to surface combatant propulsion loads.
Nuclear power is currently cost prohibitive for surface combatant applications due to manpower and maintenance costs more than offsetting fuel savings. That is not likely to change any time soon.
Cheers
Simon – I don’t think I knew that about that assignment. Cheers!
I believe that gravity is the force behind fusion in stars. Now, if we could only figure out how that really works, many questions would be answered. We seem to forget that it is actually a disturbance of space/time in the presence of mass, according to Einstein. Now how to create that situation without all of the mass? Anyone working on that question?
Huh?
That IS the whole question.
It takes a certain density and temperature to overcome to strong nuclear force and cause protons to get close enough to fuse.
That same temperature drives them apart.
And vaporizes any material object that would try to contain them.
Protons do not fuse. Nuclei fuse. And you missed the point regarding the question of how relativistic gravity actually works. And, no, I do not have the answer and neither does anyone else, the point of the question.
We can create the heat, but how to “fool” space/time into thinking the mass is there, when it is not, and thereby create the pressures required without the mass and create the extreme curvature of space/time required, to put the question another way.
Sir,
If I take your meaning correctly, you are suggesting a better approach than confinement would be to discover a way to directly manipulate spacetime?
Sorry, I misspoke. Should not post using a phone and/or late at night.
It is the electrostatic repulsion of the protons, whether they are from hydrogen and thus bare protons, or contained in larger nuclei, that must be overcome.
Protons do not fuse, nuclei do?
What is a hydrogen nucleus? Not sure what you are trying to say. My apologies if it seemed I was being condescending or whatever, but I am having a hard time seeing how converting the question of achieving a certain temperature and density, into one of altering the properties of spacetime in order to ” fool it” into behaving differently, really gets us closer to the goal.
Unless someone had some idea for how to manipulate or alter the properties of reality, or the nature of space time.