Earlier quoted context omitted.
CAD is hard! I think about this a lot as I'm doing a makerspace at an elementary school and adults think it needs a 3D printer, but what are kids going to print on it? I think for me, the prerequisites for mastering CAD were 1) the practice I got visualizing 3D shapes so I could translate them into unambiguous mechanical drawings on paper (I swear, I'm not that old but my college was behind and we were the last class…
Try Blockscad3d.com It's a block language where you program the object rather than manipulate shapes. It works well for my brain. Ymmv
Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
241–250 of 322 posts
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing CAD design is really interesting. A lot of stuff is just 2.5D, extrusions of 2D sketches sitting on other 2D sketches. Then you accidentally make something truly 3D by intersecting things and realize you have no idea what you're looking at, couldn't imagine it if you closed your eyes, couldn't replicate it if you had a picture of the result and didn't know the 2D inputs that made it... and then you realize ther…
Coming from 3d sculpting to CAD was...eye opening. It really makes you realize how much of design constrained by the CAD tools, which are mostly constrained by manufacturability. If true 3d printing* ever gets cheap, it'll be interesting to see how much form will be able follow function, rather than manufacturing cost. * true 3d, as in overhang are allowed. Something like a cheap FDM is more 2.5d, since overhangs are…
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the answers are missing the actual (proposed) mechanism. The energy of the reaction is mostly carried away as high-energy neutrons. So, the way to get energy back is to "capture" those neutrons. Since neutrons are not electrically charged, you can't use them to directly create electricity, so all you're left with is using them for heat. Unfortunately, since they are electrically neutral, they're also relative…
It's always fascinating to me that, no matter how many interesting new ways to release lots of energy we develop, we are still stuck with the same method for converting it to electricity: release the energy as heat, use heat to make steam, use steam to drive generator.
The 90% efficiency quoted in the comments is 90% of theoretical maximum efficiency. This theoretical maximum is about 50% for the best systems.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't either, since I spelled it Warf! I never watched Star Trek (probably get my HN privileges revoked for that), but I did know that much. And then the Reading Rainbow guy's "whatever happened will happen again". I know the character's name is Geordie or whatever, but he didn't have the right accent for him to be a Geordie, so he will forever be Reading Rainbow guy instead.
Kunta Kinte is closer to his roots.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
The helical path creates a twist in the plasma which cancels out the drift forces. This is what I meant by "tricking" the plasma. User mjfl gives an even more technical explanation: > By twisting the plasma into a shape where the curl of B (proportional to J) is parallel to B, i.e. a helix, the cross product is 0, and thus there are no net magnetohydrodynamic forces on the plasma. Hope all that's a good answer for yo…
If a 'particle' (I don't know a better word) finds itself near one of the top divertors, at the same point in the next orbit it will find itself near the bottom divertor. That is a product of the "mobius-like" shape, so although it isn't really a 'ribbon' and isn't really a mobius, it helps explain the concept concisely. I just don't know WHY that shape helps lol. Maybe it doesn't and it was just a practical design c…
The most precise term to describe the "twisted ribbon" flux tube in W7-X is "toroidal helix". The toroidal quality comes from the general torus shape of the stellarator, and the helix quality comes from the twisting of the magnetic field by magnets. (The torus shape is required only topologically; look up the knotatron to see what I mean.)
The "ribbon" we're talking about is properly called the flux tube. The flux tube is the volume created by the flux surface, which is where the magnetic field lines lie. A given volume of plasma contained within a flux tube should remain inside it, causing magnetic confinement of the plasma.
The optimality of the confinement of the flux tube is expressed with the term "omnigeneity". Conceptually, a flux tube has onmigeneity if ideally all of the non-colliding plasma inside the tube stays in the tube. W7-X's flux tube appears to be approaching omnigenity. (Another experiment which approaches omnigenity is HSX. Interestingly, HSX has one set of primary magnets, whereas W7-X has two. That's likely because HSX achieves omnigenity via quasisymmetry, whereas W7-X uses various stellarator optimization techniques.)
With these points, we can call the W7-X "ribbon" a near-omnigenous toroidal helix flux tube, which sounds way cooler. So, all that said, why is a helical property desired? From what I've read, the twist in the flux surface reduces plasma drift inside the flux tube.
I think it makes sense to analogize this stuff as a circular semi-permeable pipe filled with a high-pressure "magic fluid" flowing around-and-around inside. By semi-permeable, it means fluid will leak from the pipe if the internal pressure is too high (remember that this is magic fluid). Trying to understand the helical twist along this analogy, I think the effect is evening of internal pressure across the pipe surface to reduce fluid turbulence and permeation while maximizing laminar flow. At least, that's my best analogous interpretation of "why" the twist helps.
The divertors are useful for long-term reactor operation but have no direct relevance to the magnetic field geometry. I'm guessing there's two divertors for engineering reasons (performance, redundancy, etc.) and not for reasons of basic physics.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not with a properly design energy system. The conclusion of 100% RE research is that such a system will have costs similar to fossil fuels.
No. Right now there is no reasonable way to have a 100% renewable and reliable grid in Northern Europe, excepting classic hydro. I specifically studied the German grid, and it needs about a MONTH of storage to compensate for a once-in-a-century Dunkelflaute (a period with little wind, no sun, and cold temperatures).
If you accept slightly less than 100% renewables, you could use diesel or gas backup for these once-in-a-century events.
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
For less than 15 billion euro you could buy enough solar to power a country the size of the Netherlands. With 5 billion to spend on batteries you might even make it through night time usage. Or in other words: Fusion is too expensive at this point to be useful.
The same was said 20 years ago about solar power. Then some countries stepped up the subsidies game and booom, prices fell dramatically since suddenly everybody wanted a piece of the cake. And competition drove this all down. All you need is for somebody to start. Or we just keep telling ourselves that it's too expensive, shrug, and move on. Also note how the goal posts changed. Until recently, everybody made fun of…
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#248Ahh, Wendelstein is that stellerator reactor. The stellerator is really cool, and an alternative to a tokamak reactor. Tokamak is the doughnut shaped reactor, and it has a problem where the plasma near the outer circumference has less magnetic confinement. The stellerator is similar, but confines the plasma to a ribbon and folds it over on itself in a mobius-like arrangement. I used to be really interested in this, b…
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#249Ahh, Wendelstein is that stellerator reactor. The stellerator is really cool, and an alternative to a tokamak reactor. Tokamak is the doughnut shaped reactor, and it has a problem where the plasma near the outer circumference has less magnetic confinement. The stellerator is similar, but confines the plasma to a ribbon and folds it over on itself in a mobius-like arrangement. I used to be really interested in this, b…
What's interesting is that stellarator actually is not just an alternative, but a wholly parallel branch of evolution - it's not like one was invented strictly after another, and the authors of both designs never knew about the other's work before they completed theirs. What's even more interesting is that the fusor - the simplest possible design for a thermonuclear reactor, so simple that anyone skilled in electrica…
Re: Wendelstein 7-X: Gigajoule energy turnover generated for eight minutes
#250The Stellarator is theoretically a superior design over the Tokamak, designed to neutralize the JxB force, where J is the current through the plasma and B is the magnetic field guiding the plasma around the device. By twisting the plasma into a shape where the curl of B (proportional to J) is parallel to B, i.e. a helix, the cross product is 0, and thus there are no net magnetohydrodynamic forces on the plasma.
'Theoretically' is the right word for sure. iirc, the predecessor of the Wendelstein led to the bankruptcy of the engineering firms building the parts, because tolerances were so tight and they failed multiple times to land within the constraints.
On the other hand it is reminiscent of a Georgian I met who used to be occupied with winding regular tire sized coils by hand, for over land transmission lines. This is chirurgical precision, literally hand-craft.
We do a lot of thinking with our hands. It stands to reason, metaphorically speaking, that Wendelstein is an experiment to gain hands on experience. Therein lies the difference to megalomanic projects that exceed initial estimates, eg. BER airport, which are a running gag by now.
Insolvency means the investment returned no profits so investors on those projects stopped paying. It likely doesn't mean that the cheques bounced on liabilities. And it obviously doesn't mean that investment in this space had to stop.