41–50 of 112 posts
Looking at the picture, I wonder if complexity of these devices will significantly be reduced once it finally works. I assume a lot of the bells and whistles are needed to find the way, but once it's found..
In any future fusion power plant, a plasma with a high triple product must be maintained for long periods. I love vague terms like "long periods". Long compared to the Planck length? Geological time? Is the advertised 43 seconds almost there or "off by 17 orders of magnitude?"
I believe it's "for as long as the reactor is to be operating", and they contrast that with the previous longest times being less than 45 seconds.
This article has zero quantifiable information in it aside from the duration... which has no context. Who's recordkeeping this stuff? What are the other results so far? What is the tipping point where it is net positive? how long does it need to sustain a net positive fusion reaction to produce sufficient power for grid consumption? Are there other losses (thermal generation inefficiencies) that make the target even…
Looking at the picture, I wonder if complexity of these devices will significantly be reduced once it finally works. I assume a lot of the bells and whistles are needed to find the way, but once it's found..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question reminds me of the image showing how SpaceX raptor motors evolved https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS
I'm not keen on the idea of applying a 'keep subtracting things until it blows up' mentality to fusion reactors.
Does it kill the idea of a tokamak as an energy production device? As in a stellarator proving the much more promising design...
The bigger question is if magnetic confinement fusion will lead to the best energy producing devices. Competitors include inertial confinement, pinches, or some other exotic method. If a magnetic confinement fusion device produces net power, it's going to be a stellarator.
Sources:
Does it kill the idea of a tokamak as an energy production device? As in a stellarator proving the much more promising design...
I would also be super careful about celebrating new designs as the way forward that will replace everything. When you look at the history of combustion engines we had a ton of new approaches (for example rotary engines) but after looking at all factors it turned that evolutionary changes to existing designs was the way forward.
(there is some irony in using the iter.org link for a stellarator announcement)
1.8GJ over 360 seconds, beta of 0.03
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it's "for as long as the reactor is to be operating", and they contrast that with the previous longest times being less than 45 seconds.
I thought the expectation was that actually-operating fusion plants would operate in pulses rather than continuously, but I could be misremembering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question reminds me of the image showing how SpaceX raptor motors evolved https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS
I'm not keen on the idea of applying a 'keep subtracting things until it blows up' mentality to fusion reactors.