/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7610830
>Let's talk about fusion power you dumb fucks.
Just what /sci/ needed. Another pop-science thread.

>>7610836
>fusion
>popsci
ayy lmao

>>7610830

how many years away are we from a commercially viable fusion plant?

>>7610851
installed, online and offloading to the grid, or full sized prototype, validated, and verified?
the former maybe 10-30 years, the latter, 5-10 years

>>7610830
How do I replace a broken fuse?

What is that machine in the OP.

>>7610869
Helion Energy's most recent prototype. its a D-He-3 device where they take two FRC plasmas and shoot them towards each other, form a larger FRC upon collision, then magnetically compress it. they may add neutral beam injectors to increase confinement time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-reversed_configuration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_beam_injection

>>7610830
What's the simplest allegory for fusion you can think of

>>7610830
>/sci/ is entirely populated by shitposters, retards and autists.

KEK

Really, /sci/ is full of shit, but it has better post quality than most boards on 4chan. Not really a high bar, I admit, but everytime you think about /sci/ being filled with cancer just go visit /b/ or /x/ or /r9k/. We really are one of the best boards here.

>>7611071
>using allegories

You are a faggot. There is a reason why we use difficult maths and hard to understand scientific language. Some relations are just too complex to be understood in casual words (or, in case of mathematics, even in a natural language like English) and if you want to really understand them, you must know these not so simple things before even starting reading about that scientific thing you want to learn about.

You may get some little knowledge from a simple explanation, but if you want to fully understand the subject you must do it the hard way.

>>7611071
grant bait

>>7611071
what a /sci/ question
doesn't want to know any base knowledge, details, tech, etc. asks for a fucking allegory
this is why /sci/ is filled with shit threads, because the users are shit

>>7610859
the military will want one within 5 years of prototype.

>>7610830
>Let's talk about fusion power you dumb fucks.

HOW ABOUT SOME WENDELSTEIN 7-X INSTEAD OF YOUR PUSSY HELION SHIT. IT'S A REACTOR THAT'S SO MUCH FUSION IT HAVE A FUCKING X IN ITS NAMES AND A DESIGN MADE BY SALVADOR FUCKING DALI!

>>7611144
>mfw i was the first and only person to introduce /sci/ to the stellarator, and w7x specifically, and now everyone throws it out there to sound different
theyre better than tokamaks, but they lack a natural divertor, which FRC plasmas have in their open field lines, which means an additional divertor internal to the plasma chamber needs to be installed. not to mention the scaling laws prevent smaller modular toroidal devices

>>7611144
YOU WANT ACCESS PORTS???

HERE'S A FUCKING MILLION OF THEM!

WE USED 200 SQUARE METERS OF PENTAGRAMS AND 300 METRIC TONS OF CANDLES TO DESIGN THIS THING.

>>7611152
>>mfw i was the first and only person to introduce /sci/ to the stellarator, and w7x specifically, and now everyone throws it out there to sound different


Because there was like 200 news articles published today on the w7-x today. don't take too much credit.

>>7611152
>Taking credit for introducing 4chan to something.

You must have very little in your life.

>>7611144
I am surprised that people even know about this, given how the Max Planck Society always keeps a very low profile on their activities, even for world-leading projects.

>>7611158
Well they clearly only know about is because of anon >>7611152

>>7611169
Kek'd

>>7610863
>remove broken fuse
>install a brand new functional fuse
And that's it

>>7611190
why would you respond to a shitpost in a thread dedicated to the opposite?
thanks for the bump tho

>mfw there's a thread with twice as many posts as this thread, entirely filled with spergs arguing as to whether they prefer chalkboards or whiteboards
smh tbh fam

So my knowledge on how the fusion reactor works is minimal. Why did they have to scale everything up in the reactor they are currently building? Is it because that way they can house all the instruments needed to get the plasma in the tokamak to the neccessary temperature?

>>7611411
I'm referring to the ITER reactor.

>>7611411
tokamaks are very low beta by nature of the plasma physics. beta is the ratio of plasma pressure to external magnetic pressure. this design as a system/plant scales well, but you need a very large plasma volume. plasma pressure P=nkt, where n is the ion density, in #/m^3 and it is one of the two major factors when it comes to ignition in fusion. the lawson criterion needs to be satisfied to reach ignition, and that is the product of plasma density and confinement time. im a little drunk so im probably rambling a bit but it has to do with scaling laws, plasma physics, and ultimately economics. tokamaks become increasingly economically attractive with larger plasma volume

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion

>>7611438
and to elaborate a bit, not precisely, but generally among tokamaks, confinement time scales proportionally to the square of plasma radius

>>7611438
What is it that causes a tokamak to be low beta? Is it just dependent on the geometry of the tokamak that causes this ratio to exist?

>>7610830
Fusion is pretty much alchemy, right?
Isaac Newton wasn't crazy afterall?

>>7611438
Also why does this design acale well and why does plasma volume have to be large?

>>7610830
OP you're drunk aren't you.

>>7611480
i believe its the high toroidal magnetic field. FRC plasmas are toroidal plasmas but with little to now toroidal magnetic field. stellarators also typically offer higher beta plasmas, and can be operated stably with no plasma current, whereas tokamaks need a large plasma current (15 MA in the case of ITER) to operate, but not too high, because of ballooning instabilities. in tokamaks, the main source of particle loss is through diffusion across the toroidal magnetic field lines, and scaling laws are similar for energy confinement. minimize that with scaling and you enhance your value of the lawson criterion
>>7611496
i wont strip on camera if that's what youre asking

Do you think stellarators will allow for practical fusion energy in the near future

>>7611558
depends on funding, interest, etc. theyre better than tokamaks in terms of steady state operation, no ExB drift, no need for plasma current, etc compared to tokamaks, but they need to be made large, similar to tokamaks, in order to be economically viable. they scale well, but the future of energy production is in modular units, which is where things like FRC devices come in. FRCs also allow for more convenient direct conversion, which is necessary when we get to real fuel cycles, not this babby tier D-T garbage. stellarators and tokamaks have closed magnetic geometry, which means you need an internal divertor to extract ash/energy from the plasma, whereas FRC devices and mirror devices have open magnetic geometry which acts as a magnetic divertor and allows for the purge of thermalized ions without an additional divertor. also FRCs are not only great for commercial applications, but also lend themselves well to propulsion systems

>>7611569
I grant thee 5 internets sir

>>7610830
Does this thread have to be strictly fusion or can we expand the discussion to other plasma subfields?

Got accepted into a physics program, starting next fall and I'm really interested in learning more about plasma physics. I hear it's a fucking HUGE field.

>>7610830
What do you think of general fusion?

>>7612025
it was meant for fusion but anything goes
>>7612035
meh. its a neat concept but it's entirely based on a D-T fuel cycle, and doesn't really translate to working with better fuels like D-He3

>>7610843
>ultra high tech fusion coil
>fucking wooden rollers

wheels are too advanced for that shit I guess

>>7612347
its 400 tons..

>>7610830
>Plasma physics
>Temperatures above 10 eV
wut?

>>7612465
of their published data, they've achieved ion temps above 2 KeV, and their website claims temps of 5 KeV reached, but i havnt found that published. not sure what youre getting at though

>>7612465
>2015
>being a lab plasma wanker
Come back when your research has practical applications

>>7612465
>weak ass noncollisional bullshit
step up

>>7612465
>throw dirt in plasma
>make video
>publish paper
>make fun of fusion research

>>7610830

Tell us your opinion on ITER

>>7612601
nice that at least something is getting significant funding, but tokamaks aren't the best option for commercial fusion imo, and has basically no applications to propulsion.
FRC > stellarator > tokamak

>>7611071
Imagine a pair of objects connected in two ways: a spring pushing them apart, and a pair of very strong magnets pulling them together.

Initially, these objects are very far apart, so there's an enormous amount of potential energy stored in the separation of the magnets.

However, the spring is very stiff, and so at long distances where the magnetic attraction is very weak it takes a lot of effort to push the objects together.

But, the magnetic attraction gets stronger and stronger as you push them together, faster than the spring force increases. Eventually, you reach a threshold distance where the magnets overwhelm the spring and snap together, slamming the two objects together and releasing energy in the process.

If the magnets are powerful enough, and the spring weak enough, the energy released will overcome the energy spent compressing the spring to this threshold in the first place and a net gain of energy will take place.

The spring, in this analogy, is the mutual electrical repulsion of the positively charged nuclei.

The magnets are the Strong Nuclear Force, which is extremely strong but (unlike gravity and electromagnetism) has a finite range: it decays so rapidly with distance that it is effectively nonexistent unless you are extremely close to the nucleus. In fact, very large atoms become unstable because the strong force is failing to reach even the other side of the nucleus!

(And on the other hand, if the magnets are weak enough compared to the spring, then if the two objects are already stuck together applying just a little bit of energy to pry the magnets apart could allow the spring to overcome the magnets and expand, driving the objects further apart and releasing all its stored energy. This is how fission works.)

>>7612659
Note: springs force drops off linearly with distance, while magnets drop off with the inverse square.

This is only sort of analogous to fusion: IRL, the repulsive electric force drops off with the inverse square, while the attractive Strong Force drops off exponentially.

Also, unlike any realistic combination of magnets and springs, the Strong Force is just stupid huge compared to the electric force, which is why the energy from fusion is so ridiculous.

Also, the analogy isn't perfect. It's not just a matter of attraction and repulsion; in some ways, it's a little more like molecular bonding behavior, in that there are other more complex and subtle contributions to stability and potential energy.

>>7612659
that's not an allegory. and don't respond to shitposts, how is this not the most simple shit to understand

Bumping to keep an interesting and informative thread alive

>>7610830
What would actually happen, ie mechanically, if I could somehow magically insert a heavy plumber's monkey wrench into the center of a fusion robot at the instant of highest energy/pressure?

Would everyone die or just everyone in the room?

Please answer my serious question please and ignore my ignorance on the minutia of such wrench inside fusion reactor.

Thank you,
Billy

>>7613195
it would melt and the plasma would quench

>>7613204
That was boring.

What about if the wrench was made out of Plutonium?

Thanks again,
Billy

>>7611071
Pushing shit together until the forces pushing it apart is overcome by the forces trying to pull it together.

>>7610830

Is there any possibility that a physical chemist could be involved in those field of research?

>>7614272
sure but i dont know if they could sell themselves over a plasma physicist, nuclear engineer, or materials scientist. depends on the specific job/need

What do /sci/ think about this?

http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/10/feature-bizarre-reactor-might-save-nuclear-fusion

>>7615084
like i said i like stellarators better than tokamaks, with no ExB drift, no plasma current necessary, and the potential for steady state operation.

>>7614439

damn, materials science is a PhD course here.

>>7610843

>>7610830
>How about a single thread that contains real, scientific information? Let's talk about fusion power you dumb fucks.
>fusion
>not actual workable power sources like fission power like IFR and LFTR

Protip: You're part of the problem.

>>7618662
>muh thorium
gtfo popsci faggot

>>7610830
>Controlled fusion
>Real science
Pick one.

>>7618863
>everything out of my realm of understanding doesn't exist
>le smug atheist face

>>7611086
Sorry faglord, if you can't explain it in words you don't fully understand it. That's what sets us apart from computers. Face it, you're just an autistic equation crunching machine good for nothing else.

>>7611144
Stellarators are old as the hills. Been failing since the 50s. Fusion is dead, go home kids.

Thoughts on Tri-Alpha?

>>7620246
p-B fuel is a bit optimistic but FRC is the way to go

>>7611072
/ck/ is better.

Helion is sexy as fuck now that they're working with actual helium. Based.

>>7620263
naw. It's all how to make poorfag stuff and opinions on shit tier, everyday food. And that comes from a poorfag here
/sci/ really is good. I don;t mind /out/, /wsg/, /tg/ or /wg/ either

>>7622455
>/sci/ really is good
read the title of the thread
>No Shitposting Autistic Faggots Allowed

>>7612347
Those fucking things are wheels faggot

>>7611144
>looks like a bunch of Gillette Fusion razors melted and twisted together

>>7610830

Isn't this stuff incredible when you take the occasional step back and just take a look at it? To manipulate our environment and apply decision making to create a miniature, artificial star?

bump

>>7622533

LOL true

>>7610882
How much force does the magnetic containment field produce? How big would it explode if the magnets were suddenly deactivated? How bad would one of those beams sting my dick?

>>7625112
>How much force does the magnetic containment field produce?
[math] P_B = \frac{B^2}{2\mu_0} [/math]
>How bad would one of those beams sting my dick?
however bad 24 million K would sting

>>7622803
really winging it aren't you, you black science fuck loving shameless shitbird

>>7625147
take your shitposting to one of the million other shit threads on /sci/ you dumb fuck

>>7610830
How much heavy water would I have to drink to die

>>7625143
so no pain at all then? all the nerves would just be dickbliterated

>>7625143
>however bad 24 million K would sting

Would it sting at all? I'd suspect that it would fuck you up so quickly as to just obliterate your nerves before they could do shit.

>>7611071
fusion is building a little star and containing it

>>7625147

What the fuck are you on about? Who pissed in your Wheaties?

>>7627072
stop responding to shitposts you fuckhead cant you read the thread title

>>7611086
Actually mathematics are not used because they are more complex but because they are rigorous. Natural language allows much more complex constructs than mathematical formalism at the price of being less precise and rigorous.