Skip navigation
57comments
Share conversation: Share via:

John Smith

Mar 10, 2015
01:46

Member


1 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Looking for supporters and editors. Let me know. I kind of want someone else to take the lead here. This really needs to be done - this maybe the biggest challenge facing fusion research today.

Jeff Harti

Mar 10, 2015
06:47

Fellow


2 |
Share via:
Hi John, Thank you for submitting your proposal. Myself and the other fellows look forward to reviewing it and providing feedback. Regards, Jeff Harti

John Smith

Mar 10, 2015
07:13

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Jeff, Great. Let me know what you think. Maybe this should be moved to a different contest? Also, there are some spelling issues - an editor is looking things over for me. Finally (a little later on) you will probably need the help of a fusion expert. I would suggest Peter Catto or Jay Kesner (of MIT) if they have the time. Cheers!

Dan Whittet

Mar 13, 2015
09:42

Fellow


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Fusion energy generation has been making a great deal of progress. I worked as a consultant for a while at PPPL and I was very impressed with the history of the research and seeing actual progress in the tokamac reactors. I imagine this kind of work is very long term and competitive, but does have really amazing potential. I guess one question I have is, will fusion reactors always be VERY expensive and difficult to construct? I am more an advocate for natural organic process. From the PPPL site. "PPPL fusion research centers on the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX), which is undergoing a $94 million upgrade that will make it the most powerful experimental fusion facility, or tokamak, of its type in the world when work is completed in 2014. Experiments will test the ability of the upgraded spherical facility to maintain a high-performance plasma under conditions of extreme heat and power. Results could strongly influence the design of future fusion reactors."

John Smith

Mar 13, 2015
11:24

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
These questions are a separate topic, from this proposal. They are hard questions to answer. Honestly, I don't know; but I would make three points: 1. Independent of the physics, it is safe to say machines like ITER and NIF can never become commercially viable. No commercial energy company in the world would take on those costs, complexities or timelines. It is just not practical. 2. The current US fusion funding system has no way of bring in new ideas or devices. A good example is the proposed dynomak from the University of Washington. They started asking for funding a few years ago - but the government cannot do it. The money has already been earmarked for existing projects - projects that have many flaws. 3. I would argue we do not have a good understanding of plasma physics. We understand plasma physics well - within the contexts we have studied it. We understand plasmas in magnetic looped systems: like tokamaks, spheromaks, compact toroids and bumpy toruses. Situations where the plasma is fully thermalized and magnetized. We understand plasma in imploding shells like direct drive and indirect drive implosions. We have a fair sense of what plasma will do inside a magnetic mirror. I would argue: we do not have a good understanding of self-organizing plasmas like field reverse configurations or diamagnetic plasma inside any trap. Our general theory of plasmas, is mostly an extension of the ideal gas laws for fully ionized gases. This is a view that needs to be updated, after 50 years of data. We have taken our limited understanding and used it to excuse some ideas carte-blanche (polywells are a good example). We excused these ideas, without building them and trying them out.

John Smith

Mar 17, 2015
10:46

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello All, If anyone has any suggestions for what to call this organization, I am all ears.

Jeff Harti

Mar 21, 2015
01:07

Fellow


7 |
Share via:
Hi John, This looks to be the correct contest for your proposal. In terms of specific expertise, we are currently in the process of finalizing our advisors and judges for this contest and so one or more of those experts might have experience with fusion. Your suggestions are appreciated though in terms of folks to reach out to if we do not have that expertise 'in house'. Regards, Jeff

John Smith

Mar 23, 2015
10:48

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Jeff, Fusion was entered into the 2013 energy production contest. Jay Kesner and an Italian MIT professor (I don't remember his name) sat on that panel.

John Smith

Mar 31, 2015
09:34

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello All, I am touched that all these people took the time to support this proposal. It puts pressure on all of us to do something about this problem. Thanks to: scrapsparcs edpheil musicgirl clarkeblair cwpjr schrodingersdog TylerJordan msimon This is exciting. Lets get some more support. We are currently working to: 1. Summarizing every single fusion concept. There are over 22 variations! 2. (side project) We are trying to get a complete list of every single experimentally measured beta number for MCF. Check it out at: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170705/fusion-a-list-of-experimentally-achieved-beta-numbers-in-magnetic-confinement You can stay updated at: http://www.thepolywellblog.com/

John Smith

Apr 10, 2015
01:07

Member


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hey Guys, A good starting point is Wikipedia. They have "task forces", which are virtual teams of editors which improve different topics. I have called for the formation of a Fusion Task force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Proposal_-_A_Fusion_Research_Task_Force

Alan Chan

Apr 18, 2015
12:14

Member


11 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I'd like to help out, although I only have basic undergraduate physics knowledge.

John Smith

Apr 18, 2015
04:30

Member


12 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello, That is better than most people. Here is a first goal: 1. Make a Fusion Task force page off of the Wikipedia Physics project page. This would be a page where we could connect and coordinate edits. Here are some links: Here is the Physics project page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics Here is the project director (his user name is headbomb). We need to convince him we can start a task force. I reached out already, but did hear anything back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Headbomb Here is where I spelled out what we could do to improve fusion coverage and explainations on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Proposal_-_A_Fusion_Research_Task_Force Here is an example of a crummy article on a fusion device that needs to be reworked on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Symmetric_Torus I have source material for this device.

Alan Chan

Apr 19, 2015
10:55

Member


13 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I could begin to work on that article starting around next week, since I have final exams at the moment.

John Smith

Apr 20, 2015
10:36

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Alan, Send me your email address.

John Smith

Apr 27, 2015
11:09

Member


15 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hey all, On March 26th, 2015 at CERN, a presentation was given about alternative fusion. The presenter was a Swedish professor: Dr. Tomas Lindén of the Helsinki Institute of Physics. He also wrote a peer-reviewed paper going along with the talk. You can watch a full video of the talk below. Dr. Linden covers a variety of non-traditional fusion approaches. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2004827 We need to "open up" the public understanding of these topics. This proposal can do much to pull this off. Message me if you want to join the team. Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan

Wyatt Sanders

Apr 29, 2015
04:20

Member


16 |
Share via:
This is just my opinion, I respect your project and what you're trying to do. But why spend so much research, on labor, materials, and design, just to recreate something that exists in the sky? The sun itself is a naturally occurring, and self-managing fusion reactor that evenly distributes wireless energy over the earth's surface. It's got a mean time between failure of more than a million years. It's safe to say it's proven itself a viable option for nearly free energy. All one really needs to receive solar energy is a solar panel collector. Why should we go about reinventing the wheel, or reinventing the sun for that matter?

John Smith

Apr 30, 2015
09:19

Member


17 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
You make a good argument. But, Frank Shuman made that argument in 1908, and today fossil fuels still dominate the world.

Wyatt Sanders

Apr 30, 2015
01:44

Member


18 |
Share via:
Yeah well I'm not Frank Shuman, and the costs of silicon solar cells have followed a lot of the trends with Moore's law: Dropping by price each year, while becoming more efficient. Solar panels have only really become commercially viable in the last 10-15 years (much more so in the last 5 after China dumped cheap solar cells on the market). For comparison, solar cells today compared to when Frank Shuman was alive are about 20x more efficient in converting sunlight, while being about 1/1000th the cost. So why have fossil fuels continued to be a staple of energy up until now? Because overall they've been a cheap commodity, but when you price in the costs to the environment they quickly become infeasible and you must find alternatives like solar, wind, tidal, or fusion power. When the cost of energy is cheap there's little reason for people to switch.

Dennis Peterson

Apr 30, 2015
01:36

Member


19 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Fusion technology has also been progressing exponentially. It has to get really good before it's useful, but it's not that far away now. The sun is a great fusion reactor, it's just too bad the planet keeps getting in the way. Storage hasn't been progressing exponentially and nobody really knows how to accomplish energy storage at the scale that would be necessary. Fusion reactors wouldn't require storage, smart grids, or new long-distance transmission. They'd plug right into the grid, use insignificant amounts of fuel, produce insignificant amounts of waste, and take up insignificant land area. We should certainly continue developing and deploying solar, but it would be quite challenging to run civilization on wind and solar alone. Right now we back them up with fossil plants (or hydro, where we can, but that's limited).

John Smith

May 6, 2015
10:18

Member


20 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
insitenrg We should talk. I will message you my skype name.

Michael Hayes

May 19, 2015
05:09

Member


21 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello john, You may wish to look at 'Catalasan nuclear fusion reactor a rotating centrifugal-laser nuclear fusion reactor' for inclusion on your list of options. http://www.google.com/patents/US20030152185 Over 30 years ago I read in a physics journal about a centrifugal...fission....reactor and, after reading your proposal wondered if the the old centrifugal fission reactor concept ever amounted to much. Apparently, one person does see potential for such a reactor for fusion. Further, much of what you're bringing to the table was covered in a radio program (Geckwire/NPR) and you seem to have a good deal in common with the young student who presented the material. I ran down the link for you and your supporters to listen to. http://www.geekwire.com/2015/geekwire-radio-future-fusion-energy-microsofts-new-outlook-app-key-great-startup-town/ Best regards, Michael

Olawale Olaniyan

May 20, 2015
11:39

Fellow


22 |
Share via:
Hi, Perhaps, the proposal could be be described to indicate a climate mitigation or adaptation measure. Best wishes, olaniyan

John Smith

May 20, 2015
02:10

Member


23 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Micheal & Olaniyan, We should talk over the phone. I would be interested in learning more. Three things: 1. The radio interview with Derek Sutherland was on the dynomak. I have been following the dynomak, especially all the popular press they got. But, I have not read the paper outlining the concept (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379614002518). I want to include the concept in this effort - the Dynomak has a short very Wikipedia article - but we can want to focus on results/data. I am not sure how much data the UWash team has been able to generate so far. 2. The patent was for a ICF concept, whereby laser are rotating around a target. Stop me if I have that wrong. This would then be technically classified as a proposed approach to ICF. There are many proposed approaches to ICF: like direct, indirect drive, fast ignition, heavy ion beams and ICF combined with some magnetic fields. All of these proposals, their strengths, their flaws, their history successes and failures need to be better explained to the US Public. 3. Unfortunately, this proposal cannot say we will drop a carbon footprint. Maybe that is what the proposal needs more of, linking fusion power to climate change. The basic argument goes like this. (A) Fusion power offers mankind very cheap, zero carbon energy. (B) The lower price undercuts other options in the marketplace. (C) Economics drives mankind to burn less fossil fuels. Of course you can pick apart each part of that. Cheers, Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan

Ignas Galvelis

May 21, 2015
07:21

Member


24 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Sorry I was not active as I had to many items on my plate, but would love to help out if I still can. My main criticism of classical renewable energy is that is too expensive for a common folk and is more suitable for rich people. This sounds a bit counter-intuitive - how can wind or solar be too expensive if its all free and plentiful? However we can see that easily if we consider that poor people don't really own property or cant afford paying for electricity in advance which is what is required when you want to install a wind turbine or solar panel (payback time is about 5-10 years). You also need property where you can install and if you just have a small flat or even sharing a room, you might not get any wind or solar "rights". As such wind and solar can only be done really cheaply at large scale which is why big solar and wind will more and more be a thing in the future, same as the big nuclear and nothing much in terms of status quo will change, except (after a huge amount of resources invested) we potentially can have a safer climate. Yes there are exceptions, such as William Kawambwa or Windbelt, but if you look closely they just confirm the rule. Also classical renewable's does not bring us any closer to any serious manned space travel as that requires enormous amounts of energy, which when expensive will only be available to the rich and the elites. As such Fusion is a potentially much cheaper renewable energy source. Imagine electricity dropping by 10 or 100 times in price - how many engineers would become so happy! PS:If you want a chat, feel free to add my skype: "breakablec".

Mike Deeth

May 22, 2015
05:20

Member


25 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Here is a list of the obstacles Inertial Confinement Fusion must overcome: http://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/1138/

Wyatt Sanders

May 22, 2015
09:32

Member


26 |
Share via:
@breakablec I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with many of your points. You say that renewable energy is expensive, but it's not. I can buy a 250 watt solar panel for $160, that's $0.64 per watt. China has dumped solar panels on the market the last couple years, solar panels are really cheap. They're so cheap in fact that's why the US and EU have imposed import tariffs for anti-dumping of solar panels from china because they've been so heavily mass manufactured. I want you to keep that in mind, now what's the comparison for a fusion reactor? Even after another billion dollars (or $20 Billion dollars) dropped on research and development, do you think fusion will be viable? "Is Iter worth the increased cost? Iter has to be large and technically advanced – and that comes with a big bill. Of the €13bn price tag (over 10 years), Europe, as host of Iter, pays 45% (around €6bn). The cost overrun in 2011/2013 will be €1.4bn. It has now been decided to redeploy funds to cover the gap from the overall European research budget." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/10/17/a-working-nuclear-fusion-reactor-in-three-years-really/ It will probably be about $50-$100 BILLION dollars in research spent before you have a viable Nuclear fusion plant. Hawaii already has plans to be 100% on renewable energy sources like solar in the next 25 years. That same amount of money spent just on nuclear fusion spent on solar panels would more than power the world with solar. But for the sake of argument let me completely ignore the costs on research for Nuclear fusion. Let's say Nuclear fusion is viable today, you can install a new nuclear fusion plant that produces an insane 100 Megawatts of nuclear power at a price tag of $1 Billion dollars. That's 1,000 Million dollars for 100 Million watts. That math still comes out to $10 per watt not including anything else. Why would I ever want to spend $10 per watt for nuclear fusion, when I can spend $0.64 per watt for a cool harmless solar panel that's practically maintenance free for the next 25 years? Let's even say a solar contractor is price gouging, and is unreasonably installing solar panels at $8 per watt, that's still $2 per watt less than a nuclear fusion reactor. Let's also say we can build your nuclear fusion reactor in 5 years, how long is it going to take to pay back that Billion dollars? 5 Years? 10 years? That would also be on top of the 5 years needed to construct the reactor/plant. So we might be expecting 10-15 years minimum for ROI. Some more things you mentioned: "Nuclear fusion power, not solar brings us closer to better space travel" Sure? I guess. Then again this website and these contests are more geared towards reducing the carbon emissions here on earth so I think this point is a bit irrelevant. But I don't see why you can't use solar power in the future to escape the earth's gravity. You just need some large solar fields possibly in the desert to charge a large battery bank, that could propel something really quickly like a railgun, or MAGLEV for spaceships. Don't see why that couldn't be done in the future. Also about 90% of existing spacecraft already run on solar power. "Also classical renewable's does not bring us any closer to any serious manned space travel as that requires enormous amounts of energy, which when expensive will only be available to the rich and the elites." So by this statement you think nuclear fusion can be operated by non-elites? Do you expect me to go to the store in 30 years walk by the pretty solar panels, and buy a nuclear fusion reactor that can fit in my pocket for $200, or $300? I'm not nearly as optimistic. "You also need property where you can install and if you just have a small flat or even sharing a room, you might not get any wind or solar "rights". As such wind and solar can only be done really cheaply at large scale which is why big solar and wind will more and more be a thing in the future" Yes, you do need to own property to install a permanently connected solar panel. That's true. However you don't need to own property for a semi-permanently installed solar panel. Also solar is much better done when it's integrated into buildings. Doing it large scale means clearing land, and cutting trees which is counter-intuitive. Installing solar power on site also reduces the distance between production and consumption which improves energy efficiency as well. So no, I don't believe solar is similar in that regard. Solar is distributed power generation for the common man, and nuclear fusion is large scale centrally owned, and centrally distributed power which because of the cost remain controlled by elites. Wyatt

John Smith

May 22, 2015
10:14

Member


27 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello, A couple things: 1. It is good that we are talking about this. 2. Fossil fuels still dominate the world energy landscape. 3. @bsfusion: I agree with your list. 4. Wyatt: we do not know what a fusion power plant will look like or cost. I am trying to side step that issue, and work on fusion education. I will point out that fusors can fuse the atom, and have been built by middle school students. Good discussion. Maybe we should schedule a Google+ Hangout.

Matthew Morris

May 23, 2015
03:02

Member


28 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
ITER is not intended to be a fusion power plant. It is a research device, planned and currently under construction by an international consortium. ITER was on the drawing board for a long time, and though much has happened in the field of fusion research since it was conceived, its design is extremely conservative (except, of course, in its dimensions, and consequently, its cost). That is not necessarily a bad thing: if you're performing a scientific experiment, you don't want to change too many variables at once. ITER is not intended to be a test bed for new (i.e. most anything since the mid-1980s) ideas. Its purpose is to provide a stable platform for the study of a burning plasma, and to demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a power source. However, now it looks like the mainline fusion research community is looking to JET to prove that latter part sooner, and others on the outside of that community are looking to other concepts to demonstrate feasibility before ITER. Even assuming ITER does achieve its purposes before any dark horse concept demonstrates feasibility, there is no guarantee that the construction of a future fusion power plant would be anything like the construction of ITER. It's highly doubtful that it would be built by a huge international consortium, take some 35 years to complete, and have to spend much effort each year to keep scraping up funds. If ITER is successful, I expect individual nations or small international partnerships (and perhaps even some private corporations) will race each other to build their own power plants. Some (perhaps China and South Korea) may choose to build an advanced (and perhaps somewhat larger) version of ITER. Others (the UK, for example) would probably go for a spherical tokamak design. Italy and Russia may favor a design with a high magnetic field, along the lines of Alcator C-Mod. Germany may try building stellarators. The US could go in several possible directions. It all depends on the course of future research along these various lines. Most of these concepts (not to mention various alternative concepts outside the mainline magnetic fusion research effort) have the potential to be more compact and much less expensive than the torus with a D-shaped cross section that has been the traditional image of a fusion reactor presented to the public since around 1980. However, that particular design does have the advantage of having been researched to a higher degree than other designs, so the potential for surprising negative results with it is somewhat less. The attitude of the mainline fusion research community towards ITER, from what I have read, is "Let's build ITER and study fusion at conditions similar to that of an actual power plant (and demonstrate the feasibility of fusion as a power source to the world), and then we can worry about which particular reactor design would be optimal for an actual power plant". This is not to say that they aren't constantly looking for ways to reduce the costs of future magnetic fusion devices when compared to ITER, but it's not currently as much of a priority as actually researching fusion at power plant conditions. To summarize, the ITER design will be decades obsolete when it finally demonstrates its feasibility as a fusion power plant in 2027 or whenever. However, it is not a product, or even a power plant. It is a research platform for performing scientific experiments. What fusion researchers are expecting to get from ITER is not electricity or a prototype of a fusion power plant. They're expecting to gain knowledge, which will inform them in their efforts to build the actual, viable fusion power plants of the future. And those power plants could look quite different from ITER, and cost much less.

Dimoir Quaw

May 23, 2015
09:55

Member


29 |
Share via:
Hello all, I am a passionate advocate of fusion. In fact, I was hired as a freelance researcher by Mr Ascanio Salvidio to look into the most feasible fusion technologies: A quest that I have not yet abandoned as evidenced by a number of conceptual reactors I have filed for patent... I'm still searching... not found a winner yet ;) I am working on a proposal and have not yet read all comments so please forgive me if the following point has been elsewhere addressed. My research lead me to realise for "ITER" (a TOKOMAK) and other nuclear fusion approaches that... 1. ITER is scaled up from "JET" and so the extractable heating power density is low because reactor volume is large 2. Neutron shielding is almost certainly required for the high rates of reaction implied for operating a power plant 3. Points 1&2 mean that the SHIELDED reaction volume is large (even if the volume in which the actual reactions take place is small): Therefore extractable heating power-density is low. Low (safely) extractable heating power-density means that the reactor will run "warm" rather than "hot". As a result, the Carnot (maximum theoretical thermal efficiency) of the fusion power plant will be low. In other words, only modest amounts of post-fusion heat-energy can be converted into electrical energy. The remainder of the heat may be wasted and this means that most of the radioactive nuclei are being produced (wastefully) without the benefit of the intended electricity generation. To this end, direct conversion technologies were also proposed to my client, but these technologies are not as mature as gas-turbine, steam-turbine and heat-recovery steam generators (HRSGs) as are used in natural gas combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plants today. As mentioned before; I believe fusion to be the future answer to humanity's energy requirements - but to be competitive with fossil fuel power-plants, what technologies are available to truly enhance the thermal efficiency of future nuclear fusion power plants? Regards, Dimoir

M Simon

May 24, 2015
03:42

Member


30 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
$.64 a watt? Is that cloudy day watts or bright sunshine watts? It that 24/7 watts or 4 hours a day watts in the winter and 6 hours a day watts in the summer? Best case. So the real deal is - not counting the cost of intermittent power - multiply by 4 or 6 to get 24/7 dollars a watt - under the best circumstances. Add in your inverter, and battery for continuous power and the numbers are not looking near so good. And don't forget a back up generator for the cloudy season. And the cost of fuel and its delivery. And don't forget the cost of installing all that eqpt. And hardening against wind, rain, snow and what ever other weather is a frequent occurrence. I'm sorry to break it to you but no engineer would think like you do. Well not a good one. What you want to look at is cost per KWh delivered. Dollars per peak watt is not a good metric for intermittent sources. I can get power from the grid for about 13 cents a KWh. Delivered. And you will note that I haven't even touched on the problems of grid integration. Just the cost of stand alone.

M Simon

May 24, 2015
04:03

Member


31 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dimoir, Don't forget the requirement for creating Tritium if the reactor is fueled by D-T. That adds considerable expense and volume.

M Simon

May 24, 2015
04:37

Member


32 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
memorris, It is a sad but true fact of life that we already know that ITER is incapable of leading to a viable fusion power station. The minimum size for that type of design is on the order of 20GW (th or e? I forget) way too large for a commercial power station. The people who actually buy power stations (or their power) are looking for economical devices with outputs in the 50 MWe to 1,000 MWe range. With plants towards the lower end preferred. The steam plant capable of handling 20GWth is going to be a monster any way you build it. http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2007/07/fusion-symposia.html

Dimoir Quaw

May 24, 2015
05:32

Member


33 |
Share via:
Hello Msimon, You are of course correct. Those tritium-breeding jackets are non-trivial. Therefore: 4. the operating temperature of the power plant must be amplified above that of the reactor at the turbine (at least) or 5. direct conversion technologies must be deployed within or adjacent to the reaction chamber. Despite my present proposal, I still would like fusion to take-off because its cleaner than fission and that's one of the power-sources my proposal promises to advance in the quest of replacing fossil-fuels. Cheers, Dimoir

John Smith

May 24, 2015
09:59

Member


34 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Guys, We should really schedule a Google+ hangout to talk. I am proposing: Monday June 1rst at 7PM o'clock Pacific and 10 PM Eastern for 1 hour. We can write some kind of agenda, so everyone can have equal time to talk. Let me know if people are interested.

Dimoir Quaw

May 26, 2015
12:27

Member


35 |
Share via:
Hello Dr Moynihan, Thank for your email; I have replied it. Did you receive it? Kind Regards, Dimoir

John Smith

May 26, 2015
09:46

Member


36 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dimoir, Yes. We should schedule a time to skype. How about 4PM Thursday Afternoon (England Time).

Wyatt Sanders

May 26, 2015
11:17

Member


37 |
Share via:
@thepolywellguy I'm on Eastern Standard time in Florida. Available from 5pm-11pm EST. you can use my email for google hangouts, can we also have it recorded? wyttsndrs@gmail.com @msimon Unfortunately I don't think you understood what I wrote. $0.64 per watt, is per watt, not per watt hour or per kilowatt hour. That's the cost per watt of power from a single solar panel for the life of the solar panel for 15-25 years. What that means is a pay someone $160, and they give me a solar panel that is 250 watts. It doesn't matter how much sunlight the panel gets or anything, that wattage rating is the rating of the solar panel derived from volts times amps. Let's say I have one 250 Watt solar panel, that gets 4 hours of sunlight a day, for 250 days out of 365 in a year, for only 10 years we can figure out the cost per kilowatt hour like this 160/((250*4/1000)*(250*10)) = 160/2,500 = $0.064 per kilowatt hour, this is about half what the average cost per kilowatt hour is in the United States at $0.12kWh. Similarly if the solar panel last 15 years it would have produced more watts over its lifetime, and the cost per kilowatt hour would drop from $0.064 to $0.042 per kilowatt hour. and yeah sure off-grid solar panel systems can get expensive, but that's exactly why I advocate grid-tied systems. Then you don't need batteries, a charge controller, a large inverter, or a backup generator. All you need are a solar panel, and a microinverter for a grid tied system.

Dimoir Quaw

May 27, 2015
05:28

Member


38 |
Share via:
Hello Dr Moynihan, 9PM Thursday or 9PM Friday will be best (UK Times) for me. Kind regards, Dimoir P.S. Please see your inbox for suggested topics of discussion...

John Smith

May 27, 2015
01:37

Member


39 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Guys, We are doing a Google+ Hangout on: Monday June 1rst at 7PM o'clock Pacific and 10 PM Eastern for 1 hour. My email is: ThePolywellGuy@gmail.com I will include: wyttsndrs@gmail.com and anyone else who shows an interest. MESSAGE ME. Agenda: 1. Introduce one another (few minutes a person) 2. What are our feelings on fusion? 3. Anyone need support for their proposals/events/ideas - from others in group? 4. Do you really want to work on fusion education? 5. Can we pick 3 articles to work on this week? 6. How do we measure success in this type of project? 7. Anything else you want to say 8. Setting up another meeting Message me if your interested.

Dustin Carey

May 31, 2015
05:08

Fellow


40 |
Share via:
Hi John, Thanks very much for the interesting proposal. I quite agree with you, in terms of crowdsourcing information as a information dissemination tool, Wikipedia is likely the best available platform. Its enormous readership and familiarity (particularly for gaining a base understanding) would, I imagine, increase its attractiveness and popularity over alternative means such as dedicated blogs. There is of course some concern that the open editorship of Wikipedia would allow hostile alterations to entries which have a passionate following (i.e. cold fusion), but I know of very few instances surrounding this even on more polarizing and controversial issues such as climate change I agree with you that it's difficult to imagine utilities replicating efforts necessary for ITER (which in terms of complexity, cost and international collaboration has always rather reminded me of the contraption from Contact). However, as I believe memorris correctly pointed out, ITER is a learning project in itself. Successive projects are unlikely to follow the same enormous process, and a rich learning environment for research and industrial collaboration is of great importance to the national-application phase of fusion technology. Undoubtedly, the space exists for your information venture. I'm curious, however, how you propose to fund it, particularly given your explanation of the importance of a full-time staff. As you noted, funding for fusion is enormously dedicated towards ITER and NIF, so public means may be difficult to come by. Are you hoping for donations to cover the operating costs of your proposal? Best of luck with your project, and I'm pleased to see the preliminary work on Wikipedia! Best regards, Dustin Carey Catalyst

John Smith

May 31, 2015
07:50

Member


41 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dustin, We should talk. I would like to Skype. I never intended to set up a funding component for this team - like a Kickstarter - but maybe we should. Let me know. Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan === All, On Tuesday, I was featured on "The Space Show" talking for 2 hours about alternative fusion and this project. Check it out: http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2480-BWB-2015-05-26.mp3. I came to this proposal after asking about "The Five Whys". It is a organizational exercise, where you ask why five times. I applied it to fusion research. Here is my analysis: 1. Why is fusion power non-existent? Because of a technical hurdles. 2. Why are their technical hurdles? Because these problems have not been solved yet. 3. Why have they not been solved yet? Because there is not enough funding, resources, innovation and people working on them. 4. Why does fusion research lack resources? Because their is not enough political will, organizational support and people attempting the effort. 5. Why is this? Because fusion is poorly understood by the general public. Over 20 different approaches to fusion exist. Moreover, the atom can now be fused for under a few thousand dollars, a garage, by high school students.

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 1, 2015
09:13

Member


42 |
Share via:
Hello Matthew, As you mentioned you would do, it may have been better to have sent me an email rather than to have posted your comment. It requires a like response. Please see my abbreviated +++ responses +++ and follow the detailed reply below after the “quoted” message. --- “Dimoir, How can the final targets energy content be higher than that of the starting heat source? “ +++this was never claimed Matthew. As per our Skype conversation last Thursday; you are once again conflating enthalpy or total energy content with temperature. The two are different+++ HAS ANYONE CHECKED THE THERMODYNAMICS OF THIS IDEA?! IT CANNOT PHYSICALLY WORK. +++yes Matthew, I have as well as other academics who I can only invite to join this climatecolab+++ +++please click the link you’ve sent me. I’m not sure of its relevance+++ Your TEEU merely converts energy from one form to another: +++Most machines work in this way Matthew+++ 1. Energy source --> Heat radiation +++heat-source to isotropic thermal radiation+++ 2. Heat radiation --> Heat Beam +++isotropic thermal radiation to collimated thermal radiation beam+++ 3. Heat Beam --> Heating "dust" in a vacuum +++collimated thermal radiation beam to partially irradiate the surfaces of dust particles that are suspended in an evacuated medium+++ 4. Hot "dust" --> High Velocity "dust" +++vaporised matter ejected from dust particle to produce a propellant jet and accelerating dust particle remnant payload+++ 5. Fast "dust" --> Colliding with target +++accelerated dust particle remnant rapidly decelerating within target+++ 6. Collisions --> Hot Target +++target enthalpy or energy content increases+++ At EACH STEP, you lose energy to ENTROPY. +++energy will be lost as heat. Entropy is dimensionally equivalent to the ratio of heat with temperature. Entropy will either remain at zero or increase when considering the entire system+++ THAT IS BASIC THERMODYNAMICS. +++I agree; but a more basic inaccuracy is to conflate quantities such as heat, temperature and entropy as you have repeated...+++ How can the final target have more energy than the starting energy source? +++This is not claimed Matthew. The heat source has more atoms with moderate amounts of energy per atom. The target has less atoms with high amounts of energy per atom. The heat-source’s enthalpy or integrated energy content is greater than the target’s enthalpy or integrated energy content. In other words; the heat source has a moderate temperature but (obviously) more total energy than the target. The target has a high temperature but (obviously) less total energy than the heat-source that is driving the process. Why would we want a hot target at the end of this process anyways?? +++For this you will have to refer to the work of Nicolas-léonard-sadi Carnot. For over a century, engineers have known that by increasing the temperature difference between heat-source and heat-sink, thermal efficiency may be increased+++ We merely took usable energy source, threw some away and all we are left with is a hot target! +++We actually took barely usable energy in the form of a lower-grade of heat at a heat-source, inevitably lost some and now what we have is a higher-grade of heat from the target which allows us to derive more mechanical work and electricity from the same heat-source than if we did things as usual. Therefore nuclear and fossil fuel consumption and waste, as well as land utilisation and geothermal borehole depth are reduced. If this is still not clear to you Matthew, please read the full response below+++ Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan Chemical Engineer” ---- Hello Matthew, How are you? Thank you conversing with me on Skype last Thursday and for your interest in the TEEU mark I. I awaited the email reply you mentioned in our conversation and was checking my personal inbox until last Saturday morning (UK time), but it is good that you have chosen to reply in this public format because my reply should better inform any other readers with similar concerns. I have checked the thermodynamics of this idea. Had I any doubts about the concept, it would not have been published. In our conversation on Thursday, it seemed that you harbored some misconceptions about “energy” and “temperature”. Please allow me clarify this for readers falling into the same trap by responding to your list. Please refer to the diagram [a] or what is currently the second image of the proposal. Firstly, the Heat source (2) with an approximate temperature of 300 degrees Celsius transfers heat to a coolant (3) which predominantly radiates heat away by passing through a spherical radiator. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hu < 100%”. The cooled coolant (10) is returned back to the heat source (2) for further temperature regulation. Secondly, a collimator (4) causes the heat radiated in all directions to travel as a beam of thermal radiation (5) in one direction. This process transfers energy from one configuration to another with an efficiency of “hv < 100%”. Thirdly, the thermal radiation beam (5) enters a controlled pressure environment or receiver (6) and heats one side of the dust particles. The dust particles release heated propellant gas from the heated or irradiated surface only (7). This makes the un-heated part of the dust particle recoil (8) or move in the opposite direction to the expanding propellant gas. The dust particles behave like tiny rockets (akin to a nub of butter racing around in a hot frying pan). This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hw < 100%”. Fourthly, the dust remnants (8) (or unheated parts of the dust particles that have not released gases) accelerate like a rocket [b] for as long as the heat-beam (5) heats part of the dust as mentioned in the above paragraph {The correct choice of chemical compound*, grain dimension, emissivity, thermal conductivity, specific dissociation enthalpy, propellant atomic masses, remnant atomic masses are duly selected to optimise the thrust efficiency, specific impulse and final “payload” dust particle remnant mass and velocity}. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hx < 100%”. Fifthly, the dust is accelerated (in the laboratory frame of reference) relative to the observer (or power plant operator) to speeds that are comparable to the molecular speed of the post-combustion carbon dioxide and water molecules typically observed in the combustion chamber (combustor) of a gas turbine. The significance of this will become apparent in the following paragraphs. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hy < 100%”. Sixthly, the fast dust remnants collide with a target (9)*. Each remnant was travelling at a high speed, and then was rapidly stopped by the target. The atoms of the dust remnant were travelling together in the same direction towards the target and then scattered upon impact with the target. The following occurs; scattering at high speeds in random directions and acceleration of atoms within the target surface to high speeds. The surface target atoms collide with other target atoms and vibrate at high rates in random directions. The increased movement in random directions corresponds to an increase in temperature of the target and the vaporised dust remnant. This process transfers energy from one form to another with an efficiency of “hz < 100%”. Overview Recall that the dust remnant was travelling at similar speeds to molecules in a gas turbine combustion chamber? To summarise; the TEEU is designed to allow the original heat source (2) operating at 300 degrees Celsius to cause a temperature increase in the target to over 1500 degrees Celsius. A heat engine (a turbine for example) operating between the original heat source (2) at 300 degrees Celsius and the environment at 20 degrees Celsius (T0) will work less efficiently than the same heat engine operating between the target (9) at 1500 degrees Celsius and the environment at 20 degrees Celsius. Hence the Thermal Efficiency of the system has been Enhanced by the Unit (TEEU). The energy efficiency of a process is the ratio of the amount of energy converted into a desired form or forms from the available energy in its previous form or forms. In regards to “each step”, the increase in system “entropy” and the “basic laws of thermodynamics”: Each step followed in the TEEU sequence of operations will result in finite energy losses so that a substantial fraction (but not the entire amount) of the initial energy available from the heat source (2) can be extracted (11) from the target (9). However, thermodynamics also states that the Carnot (maximum theoretical) efficiency "h" or the Greek symbol "Eta" of a heat engine (12) can be calculated as follows: hcarnot target to environment = 1 – (T0/T9) > hcarnot heat-source to environment = 1 – (T0/T2) The turbine (12) and electrical generator (13) have efficiencies of hturbine and hgenerator respectively. So when considering the overall power plant thermal efficiency: The Carnot efficiency of a TEEU-fitted plant exceeds the Carnot efficiency of the same existing plant hu x hv x hw x hx x hy x hz x hcarnot target to environment > hcarnot heat-source to environment The practical efficiency of a TEEU-fitted plant exceeds the practical efficiency of the same existing plant hu x hv x hw x hx x hy x hz x target fed hturbine x hgenerator > heat source fed hturbine x hgenerator The Carnot efficiency of a TEEU-fitted plant will exceed those of a real TEEU-fitted plant as one would expect... hu x hv x hw x hx x hy x hz x hcarnot target to environment > heat target fed hturbine x hgenerator In short; a hotter power plant, can transform a larger fraction of its heat into electricity than the same cooler power plant can. If the effect of the overall efficiency increase due to temperature elevation is greater than the effect of efficiency decrease due to energy conversion, then the concept can physically work in practice. *TEEU mark I was published but has been greatly advanced upon in TEEU Mark II and TEEU mark III as filed patents. These are unpublished as yet and cannot be discussed before 2016 without a non-disclosure agreement with an interested and committed party. TEEU mark I is published with certain proprietary information withheld. The interested reader, physicists and aerospace engineers (for example) familiar with the basic principles of rocketry will note that the TEEU mark I is feasible as long as the vaporised dust propellant exhaust velocity is sufficiently high enough to facilitate the dust remnant's recoil to high speeds. The accelerated dust remnant transforms its accumulated kinetic energy into it's (and the target’s) internal energy [c] in a similar fashion to a meteor entering the earth’s atmosphere or a meteorite impacting upon the earth’s surface or even a space-vehicle re-entering the earth's atmosphere. Please feel free to review these processes and return with more comments. Thanks, Kind Regards, Dimoir Dr M’dimoir Quaw (Mphys., PhD.) Physicist, Electrical Engineer and Propulsion Engineer [a] http://imageprocessor.websimages.com/width/567/crop/0,0,567x564/www.quaws.name/IPG%20021%20Overview%20sites.jpg [b] http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktpow.html [c] http://www.impact-structures.com/understanding-the-impact-cratering-process-a-simple-approach/

John Smith

Jun 1, 2015
09:12

Member


43 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Team meeting in progress... https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/hoaevent/AP36tYfjOi9YFjqM0jVTGtFIxnMwXvc-hLMbv9hLlHb1a3bzWPm-Ug In the future, we should use HipChat

John Smith

Jun 6, 2015
02:49

Member


44 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hey All, 1. A big paper on the polywell is coming out June 17. 2015 from EMC^2 on Physical Reviews X. The Pre-Print is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0133 2. ARPA-E announced fusion funding for Magnetized Target Fusion in Mid-may. Helion (a FRC company won big). 3. General Fusion recently announced 27 million in investor funding: https://www.pehub.com/canada/2015/05/19/general-fusion-raises-27-mln-signs-on-malaysian-strategic-investor/ 4. Convergent Scientific Inc CTO is gong to be interviewed in a few weeks to talk about the polywell.

John Smith

Jun 10, 2015
11:20

Member


45 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
All, Today, NBC NEWS did an article on many of the fusion approaches (Polywell, DFP, Magnetized Target Fusion, Field Reversed Configurations). Alan Boyle has been supporting all these concepts for many years now: http://scitech.nbcnews.com/_news/2015/06/05/33105053-rays-of-hope-fringe-fusion-ventures-take-small-steps-toward-energy-leap Cheers! Dr. Matthew J Moynihan

Rezwan Razani

Jun 11, 2015
02:04

Member


46 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I love this project, but think you can be more focused with your five whys. It feels like you started it in reverse, with the question "Why is fusion power nonexistent" leading you to "because Because fusion is poorly understood by the general public." Is that really what got you to think of this project? Try the 5 whys in reverse now - or...try the next 5 whys. "Why do we need more fusion on wikipedia?" "because then the general public will understand it better" But how will more fusion info on wikipedia translate into the general public looking into it? Is it really the "general public" you're targeting? To me, the process of adding fusion to wikipedia is more about the team that is coming together to do it - the people who write about fusion, the researchers and people who are already supporters, to help them learn how to work together better and encounter questions as a team from the public and hone their communication skills and ethic... It will still be a few steps beyond the information on wikipedia to turn things into a movement that supports fusion. The information is a key supporting part of that process because it adds to the credibility and clarity of things.

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 17, 2015
10:51

Member


47 |
Share via:
Hello Michael, Please see my Brief reply and Full reply below that. Thank you Brief reply: Please see my ++responses below++ "Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan is correct on all counts (++ He has conflated heat with temperature. He cannot therefore be correct on all counts). Reflecting heat does not enhance heat....in any way shape or form (++ if that were true, solar-thermal rockets would not have been considered [1] and solar-thermal power plants would not use parabolic reflectors [2] to concentrate and exploit the warm sunlight in which we bathe, into an intense focused beam. Heat radiated from the sun is not exclusively infra-red or visible, it is merely the thermal energy released by the sun due to its temperature... and it is routinely focused Michael ++). Full reply: Hello Michael, How are you? I've not heard from you since our emails. I believe the last one was on 27th May. Please check your inbox; I've been awaiting your response regarding collaborative bio-fuel research as alluded to in your earlier comments. In regards to your previous comment (25) on the following page https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/planId/1316801/tab/COMMENTS. Please read carefully the preceding comment (24) "enthalpiq Jun. 01, 2015". You seem to share Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan's pitfall in conflating "heat" with "temperature". "Heat" is a form of energy whereas "temperature" is related to the energy per atom within a certain system. This nuance allows temperature to be increased (as in a heat-pump) although unavoidably losing heat in the process. An increase in temperature will increase a heat-engine's efficiency... but of course; this is explained above and in my description tab. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/phaseId/1306764/planId/1316801 Allow me to give you a further example here in the comments tab... At room temperature; hydrogen or helium molecules or atoms travel at very high speeds. Therefore the temperature of a power plant would allow said particles to travel at even greater speeds. According to rocket science, the payload of a rocket propelled by propellant (in this case hydrogen or helium gas) may travel at comparable speeds by recoil. Payload speed change ~ propellant exhaust velocity. The reflectors merely direct heat otherwise wasted from a power plant's heat source towards tiny grains of dust or ice to allow them to accelerate by releasing hydrogen or helium gas. The grain remnants eventually accelerate to comparable speeds as the hydrogen or helium atoms or molecules; however, the grains are of higher molecular or atomic mass. Upon impact, the kinetic energy of each grain remnant atom or molecule exceeds that of any single typical propellant atom or molecule. This is because a number of propellant (hydrogen or helium) molecules or atoms have contributed to the acceleration of EACH heavier grain remnant atom or molecule. "The Saturn V payload traveled at comparable speeds to the hydrogen that propelled it; yet said payload was made of heavier atoms than hydrogen!" Upon impact, the dust remnant payload (macroscopic particle) converts its ACQUIRED kinetic energy into internal energy. In this way; the post-collision heavier remnant atoms and molecules (although driven by, and travelling at comparable speeds to the hydrogen or helium propellant molecules or atoms) have a higher kinetic energy per atom (and thus... temperature) than the propellant atoms or molecules (and the original power plant heat-source that heated the dust grain to release the propellant to begin with). Of course there will be loses, but the TEEU mark II has less energy transfer stages than TEEU mark I and any loses are offset by the temperature increased efficiency enhancement. I) TEEU in general will allow the low power density and modest-temperature heat source (see the sun; our only functional nuclear reactor's fusion power density) to be more efficiently converted into electricity (See Carnot's engine). This will reduce the required nuclear reaction rate of any distant-future thermonuclear fusion reactor AND reduce the production of radioactive materials. However short-lived their isotopes in comparison with nuclear fission: Elevated background radioactivity is BAD. II) TEEU in general will allow heat, otherwise wasted in power-plants to be stored by upgrading temperatures to synthesis bio-fuels. That is assuming that the stockpiling of methane and hydrogen is safe as methane is a more POWERFUL GREENHOUSE GAS than carbon dioxide, and hydrogen is HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE: The Hindenburg immediately springs to mind. In my humble opinion; we must use the FREE already available fusion energy from the sun by building more solar-thermal plants and sequester the carbon dioxide in the air by planting more trees. The TEEU may reduce the area utilised by solar-thermal power plants and the water required to operate them. The water surplus could be used to nourish trees. Regards, Dimoir Dr M'dimoir Quaw (MPhys., PhD.) [1] http://www.psicorp.com/pdf/library/sr-1228.pdf [2] http://www.quaws.name/product-characteristics

John Smith

Jun 18, 2015
12:14

Member


48 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Dimoir, Please limit the comments here to fusion related issues. Your device merely changes energy from one form to another. You can "concentrate" energy in less mass with a higher temperature.. ....but at each step you lose energy to entropy.. Basic thermodynamics. Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J Moynihan

John Smith

Jun 18, 2015
01:25

Member


49 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello All, Polywell work was just published in PHYSICAL REVIEWS X. Here is the popular summary: Magnetic fields have been extensively studied for their ability to confine highly energetic plasmas, most notably for the purpose of sustaining nuclear fusion reactions. The efficiency of magnetic confinement is given by β—the plasma pressure divided by the magnetic field pressure—since the fusion power output increases as β. One of the first classes of magnetic configurations to be studied were “cusp” configurations for their inherent stability at high β. In the 1950s, Harold Grad at New York University conjectured that a cusp configuration might exhibit dramatically better plasma confinement at high β (β∼1) than low β (β < 1). However, early experiments were unable to demonstrate this improvement. Here, we provide evidence that Grad’s conjecture is correct, and that a high-β cusp can demonstrate better confinement of high-energy plasma electrons. With the use of a high-energy (7 keV) electron beam as a diagnostic, we measure the time-resolved confinement property of the cusp via hard-x-ray intensity as β increases from zero to the order of unity and then deceases back toward zero. Abrupt changes in the time derivative of the x-ray intensity clearly show the transition from poor confinement to enhanced confinement and back to poor confinement in a single shot. The estimated improvement in the confinement time is about 50 times or more, consistent with Grad’s theoretical predictions. Our experimental results also provide tantalizing evidence that once the transition to improved confinement occurs, the improved confinement persists even after a significant reduction in β. These results represent critical progress toward an understanding of the plasma dynamics in a high-β cusp; they resolve a key impediment to using high-energy electron beams for plasma heating. We expect that our work will pave the way for small and efficient fusion reactors that employ high-β plasmas.

Dimoir Quaw

Jun 18, 2015
07:07

Member


50 |
Share via:
Matthew, please find my ++responses++ below. --- Dimoir, Please limit the comments here to fusion related issues ++the pre-penultimate paragraph of comment 47 was fusion-related++. Your device merely changes energy from one form to another ++comment 42 has addressed this. Most devices change the form of energy. A turbine does, and has a compressor. I sense again you are mistaking the TEEU for an energy source. If it helps, try to think of it as a gas turbine's carbon-free injector. A compressor uses turbine kinetic energy to compress air to increase temperature and therefore thermal efficiency (I will return to efficiency shortly)++ You can "concentrate" energy in less mass with a higher temperature..++thank you; this is what I have been communicating to you++ ....but at each step you lose energy ++I have not denied this++ to entropy ++entropy is not dimensionally equivalent to energy Matthew. Perhaps "you lose energy to heat" would be more accurate.. Basic thermodynamics ++I agree. Making basic errors (again) as conflating energy with entropy will lead to the misunderstandings that are evident here. Now that I have (once again) stated that TEEU is a component within a power plant proposed to increase temperature and Carnot Efficiency, what seems to be the issue? If temperature increase causes efficiency increase, the newly available electrical energy output will offset the heat-energy loses. Are you aware that the compressor of a gas turbine loses kinetic energy as waste heat? As you would put it, it "merely changes energy from one form to another" yet, engineers still see fit to connect these devices onto turbines. They do so to increase thermal efficiency. Back to fusion, I am curious as to how you have predicted your figures for greenhouse gas emission reduction when the most well-funded of fusion projects does not foresee near-term sustainable and commercial break-even conditions. Do you honestly anticipate that by educating the public, such fusion will become a reality by 2020 as evidenced by your "impact" tab? That's in less than five years time! It seems very optimistic. Also, you've only predicted fusion in the United States. Why is that? Any fusion reactor constitutes what I have labelled in my proposal... https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/planId/1316801 ...as the heat source (2) and the TEEU, powered by the heat source (2) injects hot gas into the turbine (12) according to figure 2. According to figure 6 of the same proposal which has been simplified from figure 2, a heat source (a) feeds heated fluid to a TEEU (c) to be injected at a higher temperature into gas turbine (e). The TEEU is a gas-turbine injector that can be powered by a heat-source such as a nuclear fission or fusion reactor, a geothermal resource, a bio-fuel boiler or a solar-thermal receiver. The TEEU is not self-powered, rather it is proposed to enhance existing and future power plant efficiencies much like a gas-turbine compressor. It does not solely depend upon the hope of the emergence of technology which is as yet to be proven to profitably release energy for human consumption. However, should that day come, thermal efficiency enhancement will be required to reduce the production rate of radioactive materials. I hope this clarifies things. Regards, Dimoir Dr M'dimoir Quaw (MPhys., PhD.)++ Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J Moynihan

John Smith

Jun 22, 2015
10:19

Member


51 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello All, Today, the CTO of a Polywell Start up Devlin Baker, published a Podcast discussing CSI polywell fusion work: http://chrisryanphd.com/tangentially-speaking/

John Smith

Jun 24, 2015
11:06

Member


52 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Taylor Wilson was just featured in The Guardian talking about Amateur fusion: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/20/taylor-wilson-nuclear-teen-genius-science-interview

Ignas Galvelis

Jun 30, 2015
02:14

Member


53 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
@insitenrg you have not read or understood my comment >I can buy a 250 watt solar panel for $160, that's $0.64 per watt. You can buy solar cells for $0.20 per watt, but that is not the cost of renewable energy. The cost is when it is installed on YOUR property with all the storage, capacity, safety and availability requirements satisfied. If you can afford 4kw of solar panels installed with 10kwh storage then yes, you have renewable energy, but again then my point was that then you are a rich person who is living in a first world country that either has a lot of available equity or at least a good credit rating. This article about Google RE

Ignas Galvelis

Jun 30, 2015
02:07

Member


54 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Unfortunately comment got cut off due to use < character. >This article about Google RE < C program explains why renewable are not good enough to address climate change http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

John Smith

Jul 1, 2015
07:24

Member


55 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Hello, The judges have not spent enough time considering this proposal - and they should reconsider this decision. I have worked in fusion for the past 9 years; as a PhD researcher on the National Ignition Facility at Livermore National Labs, but also as a fusion blogger and advocate. After so many years in this field, I can tell you that public education is mission critical if a breakthrough is to happen. There are many reasons why: - This field has had plenty of charlatans. Public education will sort this out. We have identified many approaches which will never work. These include sets of fake claims, bad experimenters and poorly done research That is why everything must come from peer reviewed material and must abide by the rules of Wikipedia. - Many approaches to fusion power that do not receive any significant amount of federal funding. The reasons for this are not wholly scientific; but do stem from a lack of public knowledge. Researchers struggle without funding. Many have given up - squeezed out of a system that is wholly focused on ITER and NIF. - ITER is not on a path to commercial viability; education provides critical other options. At the same time, there are over 20 proven approaches to nuclear fusion and some of them are much more competitive in terms of cost, complexity and scalability. Most have not been fully explored or realized, for lack of resources. - You can get up to 1E8 fusion reactions per second - for hours continuously - in your basement. You just cannot get net power. Over 75 amateurs in North America have done it. Sometimes for less than a few thousand dollars; sometimes before finishing high school. For these reasons, amateur fusion will likely be an important part of the fusion field. Public education critical to expanding this community. - After 3.5 billion dollars was spent, the National Ignition Facility has failed to ignite; the public needs to understand why. This is causing major changes in funding and research priorities across the fusion world. Now more than ever, the field needs peer-reviewed data out in the public eye. - The public, policymakers and (in some cases) researchers lack a general background for the field. This has major ripple effects on the way fusion is taught in schools and colleges, funded by our federal government and supported by the physics community. - Traditionally, the fusion community has done a terrible job of explaining their research to the public. This effort can fill in the gap. Dr. Steven Dean has said that in the 50 years he has been in fusion, he has seen little to no advocacy to the public. He put it frankly: "...the fusion community will not speak the public, they are too busy focusing on the science..." - Fusion Power is a game changing energy technology; public education is a catalyst for accelerating research, support and funding. For eight ounces of fusion fuel, one can the same amount of energy as ~7,400 acres of solar panels, 525 tons of coal and 70,000 gallons of oil. Honestly, I do not think the committee fully appreciates the importance of this proposal. Regardless, we have already organized a team of volunteers to do the work. We have contacted some authors to get the peer-reviewed papers. It is a shame MIT has failed to get behind this effort. Sincerely, Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan

Ignas Galvelis

Jul 7, 2015
06:30

Member


56 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
What are the comments we received if any? Is there anything constructive to build upon?

John Smith

Sep 30, 2015
09:56

Member


57 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

 

Just as an update: 

We have been working with groups like the Fusion Energy League and the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab to build out articles on fusion power plants.  It is a start.  It would have been nice if MIT had not shut down this proposal, because this contest gave us a focal point to organize around.  Beyond this, the possibility of securing funding would also help things - from being able to pay graphic artists, to offering small awards for well written Wikipedia edits and improvements. 

I think the judges misunderstood the importance of fusion power, this proposal and how public education is mission critical if we want to see fusion funding turn around.  Concepts like magneto-interial fusion, magnetized target fusion and field reverse configurations have languished and struggled over the past 20 years due a lack of funding, awareness and information.

Meanwhile, machines like ITER and NIF have received the lions share of the funding due to our collective ignorance of any alternatives.  Today, we know that ITER or ITER-based power plants are not on a commercial path (a 50 billion dollar price tag?), and that will effect fusions ability to help the world deal with climate change.  Ironically, this is happening at a time when doing fusion has become so simple a teenager can do it in his basement.  

Sincerely, 

Dr. Matt Moynihan