Aneutronic fusion projects v.s. conventional magnetic confinement fusion projects.

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
After decades of research and pretty much nothing to show for it experimental fusion reactors haven't come anyware close to producing sustainable fusion, let alone a means to extract or use the energy they produce. Does anyone think the current energy crisis will boost interest and funding into the various fusion projects like ITER(tokomak fusion reactors), stellarators, shperemoks, dense plasma focus, and intertial electrostatic confinment to the point where we get something that actually works? Or is practical fusion go to be another 50 years of into the future, just like experts said 50 years ago?




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
P.S. does anyone no why so much fusion research has been focused on tokomaks and not other types of fusion reactors. Considering everybody's been working at magnetic confinement reactors for so long and none of the prototypes have even produced break even power you would think researchers would explore alternative designs a bit more eagerly instead of sticking with something that generally dosen't seem to work.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Anybody? Nobody's got an insight or thoughts on this? Can't work, won't work becuase we don't have the tech to make it work, already works, but is being supressed by the oil companies? I'm talking to myself here people.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
excuse me is it "aneutronic" or "antineutronic"



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Whoops! My bad.I'll just edit that.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
No wait. It is aneutronic. Don't have my head today.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The most exciting aspects of aneutronic fusion reactors that under developement are that firstly, they produce 90% of thier energy as x-rays and electricity instead of neutrons. Secondly, electricity can be extracted directly from the fusion reaction itself via a particle deccelarator or a magnetic deccelarator grid( magrid), no nead to produce excessive amounts of heat to boil steam to run turbines. And lastly and most importantly is the simplicity of their design. The two prototypes that are currently being tested are actually derived from technologies that have been around for decades.
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc. has developed their reactor from a modified dense plasma focus, while the competing design invented by legendary fusion research Dr. Robert Bussard( R.I.P.) is essentially a fusor on steroids called Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion. Before he passed last year he and his fellow researchers founded a company called Emc2 Fusion and has recently been awarded a research contract by the U.S. Navy to build a protoype fusion reactor for future submarines. Here are their websites if anyone wants to take a look, they have alot more detailed info than I can post off hand.

focusfusion.org...
www.emc2fusion.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the link I think we would have to wait another 50 years before this technology comes by because magnetic decelerators(i havnt heard that before) might be expensive to build and maintain so we would have wait until technology improves.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Giving this thread a well deserved bump.

Yes, more method madness. Stay tuned



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DSC
AEDALUS

 


Flag for you my friend.. I believe the reason for the concentration is this was the easiest method. We still haven't been able to explain the physics behind some of the cold fusion, its not accepted into the main stream of science. Other reason is that it requires huge investment, money and facilities which means the main stream power companies can take over this work.

The one that I am really interested in is the NASA transmutation of elements under gigahertz vibration-
futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov...
I cannot find a link but I believe funding is sparse to slow with all the lobbying that big oil does, some of the projects on transmutation have been completely stopped..



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Sometimes these projects and the direction taken is to do with accessibility of technology and also how funding works. Stereotypical oil company conspiracies out of the way, what normally is the case is that politicians are often business men, their science knowledge and interest vanished somewhere around high school while they were picking on and beating up 'nerds'. To them giving funding is about investment for payback in some way while they are still in a job.

Most of these projects require a lot of RnD because we do not currently have all the technology. Just because it has been some 20-30 years in the making, doesn't mean there has been nothing useful out of it. Quite often though never shouted about, development of materials and technology is supported and advanced in the interest of these projects and are a benefit to the general public in the long run. Going up to a politician and saying "We need funding for 20 years" is just about the same as stamping "Denied" on your own forms.

An example of this is in the international linear collider, which has been on the table for about... 10 years now i think. Why? well because its difficult to get someone with no interest in science to agree to fund a project when the current status is the following

-LHC was just built, why do you need another one?

It is like the problem faced by a kid who's computer is 3 years old and wants his/her parents buy another to play games on... the parent says... why do you want a new one? The one you have is brand new!

Magnetic containment is probably the most well understood in terms of technology and handling.





top topics
 
3

log in

join