Today's guest, Dr. Eric Lerner, LPPX president, worked on Focus Fusion for 25 years. DPF work.
Do you have fusion yet. Says we don't have net energy. Says we're close. Lot of progress. Net energy this year? Can't say.
What happened in the last year? He says made progress in last year. Moving in right direction. Highlights:
In fall 2009, one of first goals try and confirm result at Texas Aand M thought had achieved high temperature and density. Had low efficiency where energy produced ( in Tx experiment) . Background: core of device is inches across, condensed energy in ball where it reaches high tempature and density. By April, fist indication, had achieved high energy, but didn't have instruments online. Half a dozen instruments. Now is growing by leaps and bounds looking at each shot. Big accomplishment have best resolution picture- close to what they want. ICCD camera based on same principles as usual camera, but expensive 65000 bucks. Pictures is being formed way they thought. Twists like telephone cord, kinks seen clearly. Radius of core was bigger than expected, but in ballpark.
Putting it in layman's terms:
Whole idea is concentrating energy to an extreme degree. Energy stored in a big room and at end of process, most of that energy is temporarily concentrated in a volume less than millimeter long and microns across 1/25 inch by few thousandth inch. Second thing is the twisting. Theory of how plasmoid forms. Like a kink on a telephone line. All that energy mentions kinks up into a little ball.
Exciting to have pictures that show this, he says.
First question from Todd in San Diego: Why are you able to come up with these results or clue to achieve fusion when Tokomak don't report such findings? Says, have to be going in the right direction. Says he's critical of the direction that Dept. of Energy is going. Mistake was to narrow range to tokomak at time it was premature to do so. If they looked at different approaches, it would not be at the low level it is at now. Their approach attempts to make the process to stay still and he says that is impossible. Plasma is unstable by nature.
Plasma focus device takes opposite way, use the instabilities of the plasma. Each instability will concentrate the energy further, just as nature does. By taking this approach, get away from having to control it. Plasma is so dense, it only has to exist for short time. Finally, PDF is a cheap device as opposed to tokomaks which are very expensive. Can do experiments a thousand times cheaper. They can't get as far we can because they are heading in the wrong direction.
Calls it institutional inertia. Hard to change it once it gets going. Calls it Eater instead of ITER because it eats up money. Momentum on their side.
Why weren't they won't funding. One thing they said, we decide to fund things on we think has best chance of success. How to decide that? How successful the thing is in getting funding. Begs the question. Circular argument.
DPF is private funding. Takes a long time to raise the money.
Question was asked about Dr. Bussard device, was it the same? The answer is no. Actually, the are others besides these two fusion methods too.
Describing some of the process again. Produces no neutrons and no radiactivity. Makes it much cheaper.
Kelly Starks: size of device. How rapid the pulse. 50 kilojoules would power lightbulb for a few minutes. Want to do it fast pulse. Can't do too rapidly though, because of heat. Optimal size is 5 megawatts, or 3 ton device a couple yards across. Very compact for that size. Could fit it into anything except a car. Could power things like a ship. Would about an airplane?, asks David A plane would be challenging. Most radioactivity is not there, but there is some. But in a plane, may not be safe as we would like.
He suggested maglev trains in an evaculated tunnels.
Charles asks other reactions possible? One of things not demonstrated amount of compression goes up as atomic charge goes up. Heavy elements have advantages. Lithium doesn't burn all that much easier. More complicated, he says. Wants to go hydrogen boron. A third of energy will be released by xrays. "Braking" radiation occurs when electron encounters protons and causes them to slow down. Intends to capture that energy efficiently.
(next) Caller was Charles: asked about other reactions, see above. With light elements, lose compression. Also, doesn't like steam. Gets away from cheap, clean energy.
Have achieved efficiency, getting close to having efficiency needed.
break
Emphasized that demonstrated that significant amount of energy in plasmoid. These beams produced are very energetic and delivers in tens of nano seconds. Produces tremendous power in that short of time. Much greater energy than in Texas A and M experiment. If all the energy goes into plasmoid, then what? Net energy? Lerner says this is necessary.
He says low efficiency in other ways of generating fusion. Getting the energy transfer into the device in the tens of percent. ( a little confusing to follow)
has a forum for this discussion; focus fusion society at focus fusion.org. ( I may have a link to that here)
(next) Caller Dave in Cleveland: NASA advanced concepts submission of proposals for that. Looked at it briefly, not sure fusion being allowed. Not enough money. Asked Dave if he could "rig the game". Dave says "Can't do it". Asked Dave if he read the proposal, he said no. Don't open space without fusion drive.
(Lerner) Says its easier to get government money once scientific demo of fusion is done. ( yep)
Problems cited in using this in space with heat.
Trent asks how fusion can be used in space. (reply) He says that once we develop it energy production on Earth, can use it for space travel. With fusion can achieve much higher speeds. Rate of exploration go up an order of magnitude.
Can use energy of the ion beams in space for propulsion.( comment from me: this confirms what I thought) Fusion generator as source of electricity that get off the Earth.( my comment this last sentence unclear) {Emphasis added as an update}
break
Karen in Madison Wis, adm pushing forward to advance sophisticated propulsion like Vasimr. Is any way that be included in future. He says he would like to fund fusion ( instead of Tokomak). Why did NASA move away from fusion, (host) David asks. (reply) Didn't want competition from oil and gas. NASA fusion program was important because it funded alternatives. He had something to say about cutbacks in spending. He sympathized with protestors. (sorry to hear him say that, but (for me) this isn't about money, it is about rule of law and democratic process)
Harold asks status of serious fusion research in other countries. Several groups on same idea as DPF. All groups are interested in net energy. The most powerful device in Poland. Another in Iran. Quite active DPF research. A large machine in Las Vegas, he said. Smaller devices in other countries, too.
Criticism of funding programs.
Caller on bad phone line or cell phone: Fusion rockets have to have better alpha he said. He says his generator weighs 3 tons. If putting large fusion rocket, would probably set up a circuit from a single bunch of capacitors. A whole cycle is 8 microsends. For a single electrode, it would melt. In theory, could put a bunch of electrodes to fire off a single capacitor for a better higher energy to mass ratio. Need a switching system. Fire the electrodes in some type of sequence. Get orders of magnitude more energy. (my comment inserted here: this is what I was thinking about, good to hear that it may be feasible)
Jane asks about He3 on Moon. Comments. He says Boron lot easier to get. If DPF works, the amount of Boron needed would be only 10 percent of what we already using. Going to the Moon too costly in comparison.
Caller Trent: Read recent paper, wonder what next thing publish in reference to Journal of Fusion Energy. He says will submit latest work that proves what he's claiming. ( Have an interruption, have to stop here)
Update: Did some editing for clarification. Kept it as close to original as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment