pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (03/14/89)
In article <15453@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >Lawrence C Foard says: >The big stumbling block in fusion energy has been instabilities in plasma >confinement. You try to compress a plasma in a magnetic bottle, and the >plasma leaks through like it was made of cheesecloth. Topology has a lot to do with plasma instability, for example, Stellarators are very touchy, tokamaks less so and Spheromaks are even ideally MHD STABLE! Confinement suffers if the plasma energy is increased (i.e. heated --as by absorbing power from particle beams, RF, etc ) without also correspondingly increasing the energy density (pressure) of the confining magnetic field. The latter is accomplished in adiabatic toroidal compression. >This is the main problem with achieving pure fusion energy. The pressures >and densities which are required are so high, they are beyond technology >for the foreseeable future (some people involved in the effort would >dispute this). This said "main problem" is machine dependent, and is true of devices --magnetic fusion devices-- that utilize externally applied pressure (usually magnetic coils) very inefficiently to generate thermonuclear plasma pressure. In the CIT tokamak, for example, pressure of nearly one kilo atmosphere of peak magnetic pressure produced by the toroidal field coils near the inner wall is necessary to stably confine a plasma of less than five atmospheres pressure. In the Spheromak the situation is somewhat reversed since the maximum pressure on the external conducting shell can be exceeded by plasma pressure on the minor toroidal axis by a factor of three or so. We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK plasmoid, which contains all energetic (relativistic) currents with a plasma conducting spherical shell or Mantle which is located at outer surface of the vacuum field - and impinging inner surface of a high pressure gas blanket. During a powerful formation EMP, the dense plasma Mantle is formed along with the central doughnut like Kernel toroidal plasma. The thermonuclear Kernel plasma is centrally suspended by its surrounding vacuum magnetic field and in turn that vacuum field is trapped like a pupae in a cocoon by the highly conducting energetic inner surface currents of the Mantle. Within the Kernel energetic currents impart stability against resistive modes as well as long magnetic lifetimes and excellent particle confinement times. The Mantle makes it fluid (mechanically) compressible, and consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium + helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible. Power densities could exceed multimegawatt per cubic centimeter, thus making this concept the most compact of all power sources. That means that operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with both compact size and mass each of many other very useful applications would avail themselves to a commercial solution. Efficiencies, other properties such as ADSACH and comparison to other devices are discussed in a special issue of "FUSION TECHNOLOGY" for this month of March. Article name is 'PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications'. The pessimistic prediction of a rather stodgy, tainted fusion future beginning after 2050 is not so completely secure. IF PLASMAK(tm) technology proves out, aneutronic fusion can happen in as soon as ten years, and it would then open space to an extension of the biosphere, with a much cleaner earth resulting from economical replacement of today's more polluting energy forms. Sweepingly innovative ideas are never planned for and therefore, can not be funded. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/14/89)
In article <1114@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK >plasmoid, ... > ... consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium + >helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible. ... That means that >operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with >both compact size and mass each of many other very useful >applications would avail themselves to a commercial solution. ... >IF PLASMAK(tm) >technology proves out, aneutronic fusion can happen in as soon as ten >years, and it would then open space to an extension of the biosphere, >with a much cleaner earth resulting from economical replacement of >today's more polluting energy forms. Fascinating... Do you have any more information? I'd like to take a look at it. Fusion power has been "Real Soon Now" ((TM) Jerry Pournelle) for as long as I can remember. Lots of tantalizing hints of breakthroughs come and go (whatever happened to Migma?) but nothing ever seems to come of it. I'd really like to see fusion work! I think, though, that pushing "no radiation" in an attempt to placate those who run screaming in horror at the word "radiation" is futile. The core group of these people is implacable. Even though radiation is going to be less of a problem with fusion than with fission, the "problem" is not going to go away. (If you're doing D-T fusion, you're going to have a hard time avoiding some T-T fusion, too.) That's not to say it isn't a problem that can be dealt with. But then, the radioactivity of fission plants can be dealt with, too, as the French are so ably demonstrating. Besides, I'm convinced that what's really behind a lot of the "No Nooks" crowd is an agenda which does not include any sources of electricity. As Amory Lovins said, "It would be nothing short of disastrous if we were to discover a source of cheap, clean, abundant energy." These people are going to be chaining themselves to the gates of your construction sites no matter how safe and clean your plant is, as soon as they perceive a risk that you might be sucessful. As the whole fission flap shows, facts don't matter. Public perception does. If we don't figure out some way to ignore the technophobes, in the same way that the Flat Earth Society is ignored, we're on a fast track back to the 12'th century no matter how sucessful PLASMAK is. -- Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe, Video 7 No whimper, no blast. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp His life's goal accomplished, Zero risk at last.
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (03/15/89)
In article <269@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <1114@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >>We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK >>plasmoid, ... >> ... consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium + >>helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible. ... That means that >>operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with >... Do you have any more information? I'd like to take >a look at it. ... . . (whatever happened to Migma?) The reference noted in my previous article appears in a supplement to "FUSION TECHNOLOGY" which covers reviewed papers from The American Nuclear Society's Salt Lake Meeting on "The Technology of Fusion Energy". The proceedings are just now being shipped by the printer to libraries and participants, although I have not yet received my copy. The article title is: 'PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications'. The article also briefly discusses MIGMA. Basically, progress on Migma has been quite steady to date. However, it must reach several orders of magnitude higher plasma density before it will be commercially successful. Each order of magnitude increase in density represents a new development or research challenge and an evolved MIGMA device. Each level requires millions of dollars and at least one or two years time. Also, there is a chorus of theorists chanting "instability" at each level of density, but so far so good. It would be great if Migma and the PLASMAK(tm) concept both worked. The former would be a sort of thermonuclear birthday candle, while the latter, with its deca-gigawatt output, would be more like an electric cutting torch by comparison. >I think, though, that pushing "no radiation" in an attempt to placate >those who run screaming in horror at the word "radiation" is futile. Not Quite so!! That is not the engineering reason for greatly minimizing or zeroing the "radiation problem." Let me explain and put aside the biological/environmental effects which can be discussed elsewhere. Certain applications need very high power density with little cooling. To fly from the earth's surface to Mars surface and turn around and fly back again within four to six weeks, requires an extremely low mass but exceptionally powerful energy device that can heat planetary atmospheric gases for reaction mass during boost phase and then "transform" to closed cycle electric power generation, which in turn drives a small reaction mass to great velocities, i. e. a plasmoid accelerator interplanetary rocket engine. The very energetic (fast) neutron flux from a D-T reaction carries most of the reaction energy and would penetrate a dense gas blanket and deposit that energy in the inertial compression driven walls. The walls would not be insulated from the fusion energy as they would be by a dense blanket gas in an aneutronic burner. Consequently, they would change state (i. e. melt to liquid or sublimate to gas or plasma). Therefore, NEUTRONIC burners (as with D-T) can NOT burn at much power density. Tokamaks face the "wall power limit" and that results in a few watts per cubic centimeter from the fuel plasma. Consequently, tokamaks are colossal in size. By comparison the volume of the compressed thermonuclear plasma in a 60 hertz three phase (180 pulse burns/second) 10 gigawatt PLASMAK burner is about that of a small plum. It is only natural that if the aneutronic fuel contains millions of times the energy per unit mass as common chemical fuels, then the burn power density should also be substantially higher, and with a developed PLASMAK device it will be. Yet there is no risk that it will become unstable and ignite or explode outside of a controlled burn that takes place in the normally functioning engine. The fuel itself is not dangerous. On the other hand NEUTRONIC fuels such as tritium or certain plutonium/uranium isotopes are hazardous. >radioactivity of fission plants can be dealt with, too, as the French >are so ably demonstrating. Hmmmm? I understand they handle their alcohol a diluted sip at a time so well, that, it is now impossible to find an imbibing French continental who can remember the details of his/her own experiences in the second world war. Handling is relative. >.. . If we don't figure out some way to ignore the technophobes, in Probably a form of xenophobe. I worry more about the investor that a few years ago considered IBM clones a "really high risk," and the tons of people apparently hooked on credit instead of piling up stock in companies on the cutting edge of technology. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+