/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16029048]

>magnetic confinement = trying to hammer a nail with a blow dryer
>inertial confinement = trying to hammer a nail with a flashlight
>magnetic target = trying to hammer a nail with a hammer

Why did we ever waste time on the first two?

[Anonymous No.16029050]

>>16029048
Because the first 2 have potential of making energy, the last one has real hard time doing so

[Anonymous No.16029073]

>>16029048
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-switching
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_particle_accelerator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCwFCK5DIU

[Anonymous No.16029111]

>>16029048
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Catch
Zeta Cancri or Tegmine ("the shell") is a multiple star system that contains at least four stars located 82 light-years from Earth. The two brightest components are a binary star with an orbital period of 1100 years; the brighter component is a yellow-hued binary pair and the dimmer component is a yellow-hued star of magnitude 6.2. The brighter component is itself a binary star with a period of 59.6 years; its primary is of magnitude 5.6 and its secondary is of magnitude 6.0. This pair is at its greatest separation around 2019
Then a light among them brightened,
so that, if Cancer one such crystal had,
winter would have a month of only a day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9GybXczNAc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horologium_(constellation)
Boats and Lake 亢池 Boötes/Virgo 4 The boat beside the pool
Battle Chariots 陣車 Lupus/Hydra 3 The chariots
Imperial Guards 騎官 Lupus/Centaurus 10 The imperial guard
Chariots and Cavalry 車騎 Lupus 3 The chariots and cavalry
Celestial Spokes 天輻 Libra 2 Officials of the vehicle management
Chariots and Cavalry General 騎陣將軍 Lupus 1 The general who responsible for chariots and cavalry
Fish simplified Chinese: 鱼; traditional Chinese: 魚 Scorpius 1 Fish in the galaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormyridae
Elephantfish possess electric organs that generate weak electric fields, and electroreceptors (ampullae of Lorenzini, knollenorgans, and Mormyromasts) that detect small variations in these electric fields caused by the presence of prey or other objects of different conductivities. This allows them to sense their environment in turbid waters where vision is impaired by suspended matter.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmonic_metamaterial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinplasmonics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Pn-PvhY_0

[Anonymous No.16029244]

For me, it's plasmon polariton driven gamma ray lasers
https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/slow_light_project/slow_light_project.htm
>What happens to the wavelength, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.16029262]

>>16029048
what do the pistons do? Just compress material like a diesel until it reaches 300 million degrees?

[Anonymous No.16029269]

>>16029048
Because part of the research for magnetic confinement, mainly toroidal magnetic confinement schemes like a Tokamak, is for classified weapons systems and propulsion applications and not for applications in a workable fusion reactor.

[Anonymous No.16029300]

>>16029269
>is for classified weapons systems and propulsion applications and not for applications in a workable fusion reactor.
you lie

[Anonymous No.16029460]

>>16029300
Why is that? Tokamak definitely isn't the way forward, and yet we still dump money into it. Something about it is...
>A.) Good for nuclear weapons simulations
>B.) Artificial Kerr Singularities

[Anonymous No.16030756]

>>16029048
What exactly is op pic?

[Anonymous No.16031308]

>>16029048
Because ITER is a scam.

[Anonymous No.16031319]

>>16029269
This is similar to my pet theory as well.
Projects like ITER and CERN are the descendants of govt funded programs created in an effort to prevent physicist/scientists leaving their country for the USSR or similar and then contribute to soviet weapons development.

That is, there's no goal of creating something from these programs, they exist simply to occupy our scientists so they do not work for the enemy and create something for them.

[Anonymous No.16031321]

>>16029300
Please explain why you think he's wrong.
ITER for example is completely inadequate for the job of demonstrating practical net gain energy. Worse, it's 30 years behind schedule as per >>16031308. These are hallmarks of a scam.

[Anonymous No.16031343]

>>16029073
You have convinced no one by your low effort post.

[Anonymous No.16031854]

can someone explain why tidal energy is not infinite and how it might relate to entropy?

[Anonymous No.16031953]

>>16029460
>Artificial Kerr Singularities
If you're smart you'll forget you ever heard of these

[Anonymous No.16032000]

>>16031953
I wish I could, fren...but I've already gone all the way down that particular rabbit hole. At least I didn't mention polariton driven gamma ray lasers or photon time reversal using optical phase conjugation....funny how these three things have something in common, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.16032284]

>>16031321
>Please explain why you think he's wrong.
The part where he says tokamak research is for weapons and propulsion. This isnt Stargate

[Anonymous No.16032372]

>>16031321
ITER is remarkably on schedule for a huge project like this and certainly not 30 years behind schedule, the construction hasn't even been going for 30 years.

>>16031854
Tides are powered by moons orbit and earths spin, they will eventually stop happening when moon gets tidally locked.

[Anonymous No.16032502]

>>16032372
>ITER is remarkably on schedule for a huge project like this and certainly not 30 years behind schedule
Complete lies. See this graph of triple product >>16031308?
See how sucessive reactors have been improving triple product at a particular rate?
Notice how if we plot a line of best fit, we see we ought to have had a reactor that produces a triple product high enough to create a commercial reactor?

Please explain to me why either: a reactor has not provided us with a triple product in the 1000s range by the early 2010s.
Or explain why triple product is a metric totally unsuitible to measure figure of merit for fusion power.

I'm desperate to know. Because my graph plainly shows ITER - as a reactor designed to demonstrate net gain energy fusion - is totally behind on that goal as measured by triple product.

[Anonymous No.16032567]

>>16032502
ITER isn't supposed to fit into a graph some redditor made. I'm sorry I guess?

[Anonymous No.16032579]

>>16032284
Z Machine at Sandia is a good example of this. Yes, it is for fusion research...but, it's primary function for is for nuclear weapons design.

[Anonymous No.16032585]

>>16032579
>Z Machine at Sandia is a good example of this
z machine is not an example of a tokamak.

[Anonymous No.16032592]

>>16032567
Do you understand what the graph displays?

Triple point - a roughshod measure of how good your fusion reactor is

Time - years passing

As we can see, as time passes, reactors with increasingly better triple products are made. Plotting a line of best fit we see that extrapolating it a reactor with a triple product capable of achieving a "commercial reactor" should become available in about 2005.

So why the fuck is ITER's triple product so fucking far behind all the previous reactor's gains??? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

There's only two possibilities: Triple product is not a useful metic. Or ITER is behind schedule.

[Anonymous No.16032601]

>>16032372
The moon is already tidally locked to Earth

[Anonymous No.16032782]

>>16032585
No, but it is an example of the same science with highly classified applications. Toroidal magnetic confinement schemes could have "other" applications outside fusion research.

[Anonymous No.16033943]

>>16032782
>No, but it is an example of the same science with highly classified applications.
Its not the same retard. Tokamak is not a Z pinch, admit you are a liar and you dont know shit, then kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16033954]

>>16033943
Retard, it's AN EXAMPLE OF REGULAR FUSION RESEARCH WITH CLASSIFIED APPLICATIONS. I KNOW A TOKAMAK AND A Z-PINCH ARE NOT THE SAME. THERE ARE HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE CLASSIFIED APPLICATIONS FOR THE TOROIDAL MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT SCHEMES UTILIZED IN A TOKAMAK, FOR EXAMPLE SAY CONFINEMENT OF A ROTATING PLASMA OR DILUTE QUANTUM GAS.
Is it clear now, dipshit? Tokamaks obviously are not the way forward, yet we still keep dumping fucktons of money down the drain. Why? Because it's a great way to hide your classified research in a public program, just like They® do all the time at research universities.

[Anonymous No.16034027]

>>16033954
Who gives a fuck? We are talking about Tokamak and you start talking about something else.
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ARE NOT THE SAME THING
Rotten diseased brain faggot, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16034104]

>>16033954
This. ITER is a scam, anyone defending it is a leftist fag and should kill themselves forthwith.

[Anonymous No.16034111]

>>16033954
>FOR EXAMPLE SAY
>It was real in my mind

[Anonymous No.16034117]

for me it's the tube

[Anonymous No.16034210]

>>16034117
I want to believe. It'd be cool if this works cuz its a bit like a reciprocating piston engine of sorts, small enough to put it into a ship too. Could have the battleship yamamoto with fusion drive.

>low cost
It's my beleif net energy gain fusion is perfectly possible, the only thing holding it back is that a reactor would need to be about 100 meters wide using tokamak design - costs too much.

[Anonymous No.16034485]

>>16034117
>>16034210
too good to be true

[Anonymous No.16034498]

>>16034485
Don't care, because it's funded with private money.
ITER (scam) on the other hand, is taxes (theft), so is twice the waste.

[Anonymous No.16034511]

>>16029048
Why is a contraption that looks like a pokemon necessary?

[Anonymous No.16034606]

>>16034027
God, you're dumb.
>>16034111
I can provide several examples of public fusion research programs that have classified defense applications.
>Laser self-focusing, it's not just for inertial confinement fusion
There also plasmonic laser pulse compression, but hey...

[Anonymous No.16034684]

>>16034606
>I can provide several examples of public fusion research programs that have classified defense applications.
But not Tokamak, cant you? Dumbass

[Anonymous No.16034726]

>>16034684
I did earlier, dipshit.
>Artificial Kerr Singularity
>Inb4 retarded
There are optical and acoustic black hole analogues created in a lab, why not a broad spectrum electromagnetic one as well? Hence the interest in toroidal megantic confinement schemes.

[Anonymous No.16034755]

General fusion is going to absolutely win, they are building a piston engine while everyone else is fucking around with magnets and lasers and retarded shit.

[Anonymous No.16035300]

>>16034726
>I did earlier, dipshit.
>>Artificial Kerr Singularity
>hehe it spins so its a black hole
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16036105]

[Anonymous No.16036723]

A giant doughnut

[Anonymous No.16037209]

>>16029048
The top two performing fusion experiments use ICF(NIF and that new direct drive work). Hydrogen bombs use ICF and they work.

[Anonymous No.16038421]

>>16029048
will be hilarious if ITER project fails

[Anonymous No.16038453]

>>16037209
Direct fusion drive is magnetic confinement. And the only thing NIF is winning at is generating click bait news. NIF is further away from useful energy than JET, despite costing 10 times more.

[Anonymous No.16038605]

>>16038453
This.
ICF is up there as the greatest scam of our time.

[Anonymous No.16039609]

>>16030756
nobody has explained this to me yet

[Anonymous No.16039632]

>>16031319
damn thats a deep one

[Anonymous No.16039633]

>>16029048
>muon catalyzed fusion trying hammer a nail by convincing a fat guy to sit on it.

[Anonymous No.16039802]

>>16039609
i have never seen an explanation
it evokes a diesel engine

[Anonymous No.16039813]

>>16039609
It's the system used by one of those scam companies. I think Commonwealth Fusion. You use timed pistons to create a shockwave that concentrates at the centre to initiate fusion.

[Anonymous No.16039824]

>>16039609
>>16039802
>>16039813
It's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion

[Anonymous No.16039845]

>>16039824
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion
The outside of the sphere is covered with steam pistons, which push the liquid metal and collapse the vortex, thereby compressing the plasma. The compression increases the density and temperature of the plasma to the range where the fuel atoms fuse, releasing energy in the form of fast neutrons and alpha particles.[14]
So its like a diesel
I would never believe this could work. I would believe that the time to compress would be too big and that the heat would diffuse out before fusion is achieved.
Same as in a diesel engine, it needs a minimum speed to operate
I would intuitively assume that the wall speeds required would be in the order of tens of km/s and that only focused explosives could reach them. But if steam can do it, so it be.

[Anonymous No.16040637]

>>16039845
Conventional explosives aren't even enough, otherwise it would be substantially easier to design thermonuclear weapons. They used to do implosion experiments on deuterium to study phase transition behavior with explosive lenses and didn't get anywhere close to fusion conditions. Even on Z which can accelerate the liner to 40 km/s needs an axial confining B-field and laser preheating to get significant neutron yield.
Also with the piston speeds general fusion is getting, they'd end up getting much worse flux compression than they're expecting since there would be diffusion of the magnetic field lines into the liquid metal.

[Anonymous No.16041337]

>>16038453
>>direct drive fusion is magnetic confinement
you have absolutely no understanding of fusion at all.
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-scientists-effective-inertial-confinement-fusion.html
The two best fusion experiments running on DT fuel are ICF.

[Anonymous No.16041726]

>>16029048
because reality doesn't actually correspond to this strawman you've created

[Anonymous No.16041867]

Idiots love ICF because the fuel resembles the size of their brains

[Anonymous No.16042335]

>>16034117
Deboonked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vUPhsFoniw

>>16034210
They're called opposite piston engines pretty cool

[Anonymous No.16042345]

If a reactor could reach a temperature of 2000 giga kelvin, it could start to cause total mass to energy conversion

[Anonymous No.16042447]

>>16039845
What stops the liquid being used to compress the plasma from both boiling away, and diffusing into the plasma thus diluting the fuel and cooling the plasma?

[Anonymous No.16042450]

>>16042335
I think Improbable Matter is a socalist EU loving type, so he just hates on any private company thing. He'd clearly much prefer we waste hundreds of billions of dollars on ITER like projects.

[Anonymous No.16042455]

>>16042335
>hey babe, time for your 4pm dick flattening

[Anonymous No.16042517]

>>16042447
Likely thermal inertia, as in Tokamak. Some amount of heat does have to flow into it, in a tokamak the steel walls would get hot and that would produce steam. Maybe its the same with that molten lead.
Though i dont know if it makes any sense to implode plasma with a hydraulic piston.

[Anonymous No.16043549]

[Anonymous No.16044278]

>>16042517
>Likely thermal inertia
That's just a matter of the time of plasma being contact with molten metal being very short.
Entire idea of this contraption is to be middle ground of speed isn't it?

[Anonymous No.16044349]

>>16041337
NIF achieving a burning plasma and also being way further away from producing a functioning fusion power supply are totally compatible facts.

[Anonymous No.16044353]

>>16044278
I think the surface of the molten metal is meant to provide an opposing magnetic field so it can crush the plasma in the middle of the chamber without physically touching it but idk

[Anonymous No.16044534]

>>16042450
>why yes, i never learned physics because learning is a liberal psyop, and i believe whatever advertisements tell me
you're going to end up eating the bugs because they tell you it's beef from a white-owned American farm

[Anonymous No.16044665]

>>16042335
>guy says that because their current prototype isn't a working reactor that it means they've failed
Anyone who can't grasp simple concepts like prototyping towards future designs and can only think of things as they are now should be disregarded.

[Anonymous No.16044740]

>>16044353
It doesn't provide an opposing magnetic field. In conductors, it takes some nonzero amount of time for magnetic field lines to diffuse into them. On timescales shorter than the magnetic diffusion time the magnetic field can be more or less treated as a fluid, so the metal wall will push on the magnetic field lines and cause an increase in flux density/magnetic pressure at the center which is what compresses the plasma. Realistically this would also lead to Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities at the liner-magnetic field interface and lead to shit compression though

[Anonymous No.16044752]

>>16044740
>Realistically this would also lead to Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities at the liner-magnetic field interface and lead to shit compression though
The fast spinning counteracts this. As the liquid metal moves inwards, the rotation speeds up and the centrifugal force ensures that the acceleration is always outwards, in spite of the compression. This was the key breakthrough, but not sure that the overall system actually works.

[El Arcón No.16044754]

>stimulated emission from the vacuum = working smarter, not harder

[El Arcón No.16044755]

>>16044754

[Anonymous No.16045108]

>>16044752
This is the original idea, but it doesn’t totally work in practice. The magnetic field that diffuses into the liner induces enough current to ohmically ablate it and produces a layer of metallic vapor between the magnetic field and liquid liner. So you would need to stabilize RT at all of the the liquid-vapor, vapor-magnetic field, and magnetic field-confined plasma interfaces which isn’t realistic. Since these layers are all so thin, if even one interface is unstable the perturbations will quickly grow larger than the layer thickness and causes distortions even at the other stabilized interfaces. This leads to the metal vapor mixing with the plasma and rapidly cooling it via Bremsstrahlung.

[Anonymous No.16045236]

>>16044349
just add more fuel

[Anonymous No.16046074]

>>16045108
So it's just another grift targeting unsuspecting VCs.
Which is the least bullshit fusion startup? Helion?

[Anonymous No.16046289]

>>16046074
>targeting unsuspecting VCs.
The smart money, folks

[Anonymous No.16046317]

>>16034117
>heat is also harnessed
how???

[Anonymous No.16046321]

>>16034498
why is every publically funded project that leads to actual results called theft, but some private grifter is touted as the real solution? I keep seeing this pattern all the time now and it's hella annoying.

[Anonymous No.16047153]

>>16034498
>Don't care, because it's funded with private money.

[Anonymous No.16047384]

>>16047153
>only 21T

[Anonymous No.16048279]

How is this thread still alive

[sage No.16048746]

>>16048279
Oh, that's an easy one. It has gotten on the hidden bump agenda list of the >>>/pol/ tards.
It's fairly obvious at this point. You notice these threads easily, because they have way fewer posts than usual threads and are bumped sometimes for weeks even.

[Anonymous No.16048947]

>>16048279
>>16048746
>muh pol
Explain why ITER has not produced a triple product in line with the trend set by reactors before it per >>16031308.
Seriously i'd like to know. Only 2 reasons I can see: Triple product is not a good measure. Or ITER is massively behind schedule.

Considering ITER began in the 1980s, I'd say its just a scam.

[Anonymous No.16048997]

>>16031308
Or the trend line a bad extrapolation. There's nothing magical about drawing a line through some past data into the future, there is no guarantee the scaling will continue to hold.

ITER did not really begin in the 80s. Only the preparation for setting up the organisation to build it.

[Anonymous No.16049004]

>>16041337
>The two best fusion experiments running on DT fuel are ICF.
Only when measured with a convenient figure-of-merit. If you were to plot them in terms of engineering Q, they would be dreadful.
Maybe think twice before regurgitaing press releases.

[Anonymous No.16049028]

>>16049004
ICF would be batshit retarded if it weren't for the fact that it's actually defense research for giant laser technology.

[sage No.16049090]

>>16048947
I don't care about the thread topic really.
I know fusion is probably overfunded and ITER is slow as hell. But that's not the point.
The point is just, that this thread is on someones bump list. (And the point is that they have a lot of threads on it at the same time)

(And the point is that the threads that are on that person's bump list all are similar in terms of the topic they are about which at minimum includes distrust of gobermint)

[Anonymous No.16049094]

>>16049028
I think the fusion side is more interesting, as it's used to test models for weapons and to test the ageing nuclear stockpile. Not that lasers are uninteresting. Apparently the NIF lasers are pretty shit by modern standards, they are hugely inefficient and take several hours to cool off between shots.

[Anonymous No.16049739]

>>16048746
Maybe they're bumped because they're actually about science topics rather than outright trollposting like 95% of /sci/
I'm interested in fusion so I check this thread from time to time to see if anyone has posted something new and interesting.

[Anonymous No.16049886]

>>16048997
>trend line a bad extrapolation.
Faily, I don't know what qualifies a reactor to be on that >>16031308 graph, but on the assumption there's no reactors that ought to be there that produced a lower triple product; the current trend line seems fine.

>no guarantee the scaling will continue to hold.
If you're right that would give a satisfying but disappointing answer. Of course I want to know what technological snag has been hit to cause deviation from the trend.

As far as I can tell, there isn't actually anything that limits us from doing energy gain fusion tokamaks; just make the reactor volume bigger and you will eventually get net gains. So the really challenge is building a reactor small enough such that the energy generated can pay back the reactor cost.

[Anonymous No.16049887]

>>16049090
>at minimum includes distrust of gobermint
A healthy thing to have. Govt is a bunch of criminals after all.

[Anonymous No.16049897]

>>16031308
>>16049886
Where ITER has been added to the plot is bullshit and inconsistent. 2035 is the start of DT runs, not the first plasma. But many of the datapoints on the plot there are not with tritium. JT-60U has never run DT, it is not equipped for it.
So if one puts ITER at 2035, then JT-60U should be removed along with most of the data.

>>16049886
> on the assumption there's no reactors that ought to be there that produced a lower triple product
That is not the case. Where is EAST, KSTAR or MAST? The data has been cherrypicked. You're putting to much faith in a silly plot

[Anonymous No.16049899]

>>16049897
>2035 is the start of DT runs, not the first plasma.
Yes. That is it's proper place. It won't start doing any real fusion until 2035! That's pathetic. Only moreso by the indication that it ought to have done it in 2005.

[Anonymous No.16049901]

>>16049899
So the plot is still bullshit then. Go ahead and remove all the points without tritium.

[Anonymous No.16049902]

>>16049897
>JT-60U has never run DT, it is not equipped for it.
Then how does it have a triple product? This goes back to >>16032592. Is Triple product a useful metric to measure how close to making net gain energy your fusion reactor is?

When I read ITER's timeline as "first plasma 2025" that doesn't sound like "we're fusing plasma" that just sounds like they're turning the reactor on, seeing what explodes and fixing it. There won't be any fusion going on beyond what you get in a high-school fusor experiment.
JT-60 on the other hand has made a "triple product" of over 100, evidently DT isn't required to make a reactor have a high triple product. So again, is triple product the real problem here?

>Where is EAST, KSTAR or MAST?
Plot them roughly then. Adding these missing reactors might drag that trend line right down such that ITER fits nicely.

[Anonymous No.16049903]

>>16049901
see this >>16049902 for response

[Anonymous No.16049910]

>>16049902
>Then how does it have a triple product?
They extrapolate from DD runs. Most experiments never use tritium.
The triple product is a figure of merit for the reactor, it is not the energy gain. It does not require fusion.

>There won't be any fusion going on beyond what you get in a high-school fusor experiment.
In a several of those early experiments there will be no fusion. Still plotted.

>Plot them roughly then.
No thanks. Those are just examples. There are dozens of experiments.

[Anonymous No.16049920]

>>16049910
>The triple product is a figure of merit for the reactor, it is not the energy gain. It does not require fusion.
Then is that figure of merit any good for predicting net energy gain as the graph predicts?
>Those are just examples. There are dozens of experiments.
Can you estimate where'd they'd be? Would they be enough to drag that trend line right down so ITER isn't a complete outlier?

[Anonymous No.16049926]

>>16049920
The graph doesn't "predict" that. There is more to energy gain than the triple product.
>Can you estimate where'd they'd be?
As I said, no thanks. I'm sure you can do it yourself

[Anonymous No.16049945]

>>16049926
>The graph doesn't "predict" that.
I wasn’t clear enough, the graph states that a “commercial reactor” requires a triple product of >1000.

>There is more to energy gain than the triple product.
This is what i’ve been asking for. According to you triple product is not a good measure for inferring if a reactor can achieve net gain energy. Why then is triple product not a good measure?

[Anonymous No.16049950]

>>16049902
>>16031308
>JT-60 on the other hand has made a "triple product" of over 100,
That is just wrong. The plot claims to be in units of 10^20 keV s m^-3, so 100 is 10^22. But JT60U actually holds the record at 1.53x10^21 keV s m^-3. A factor of 10 lower.
Whoever made the plot fucked up. And instead of actually thinking for yourselves you just posted it thoughtlessly.

Here is a less fucked figure, showing ITER is comfortably on the current trajectory. You see it is not a straight line, so this doubling "law" is already bullshit.

> evidently DT isn't required to make a reactor have a high triple product. So again, is triple product the real problem here?
You misunderstand. Triple product is only a useful figure of merit for one single reaction. DD fusion would require 100 times the TP compared to DT for break even.
Tritium isn't used to increase the product, it's used to increase the reaction rate (not measured by these criteria).

[Anonymous No.16049951]

>>16049950
Forgot pic.

[Anonymous No.16050026]

>>16049950
>>16049951
Thanks. This is the sort of answer I’ve been looking for: The reason for ITER’s apparent delay is neither triple product being a bad measure, nor ITER being a terrible project, but is instead that the data on the graph is wrong, so the trendline is inaccurate representation of triple product gains over time.

Thanks again for that graph, paints a much better picture of ITER. Where’s it from? (not trying to pull a SOURCE??? on you)

If you happen to know, what makes a reactor’s triple product larger? Bigger reactor plasma volume as i suspect? Denser magnetic fields?

Also what’s caused rate of triple product gains to slow? Just don’t have strong enough magnets or building materials to cope with forces generated?

[Anonymous No.16050128]

>>16050026
If you look the website is annotated.

ITERs gains mostly come from a longer energy confinement time, which scales strongly with radius.

>Also what’s caused rate of triple product gains to slow?
There is no reason to expect that it should be exponential. A straight line on that plot. If we plot using a linear axis for the triple product instead of log, ITER would be a huge jump. Bigger than any previous jump. In that metric gains have accelerated. There is no objective way to measure the speed of progress.

[Anonymous No.16050358]

>>16050026
The reality of these experiments is the more energy that gets put into the plasma, the more vigorously and creatively nature finds ways to release it. More than that, fusion reactions themselves poison the process, demanding even more fuel and energy. Yes, stronger magnets need to be developed, but the fundamental compensation ends up simply being the size. You can always make a fusion chamber larger (at great expense) in order to increase the triple product. But to your point, the actual chamber that could achieve continuous net gain (not just for a split second) could very well be too large to ever construct.

[Anonymous No.16050409]

>>16050358
why is it difficult to build larger reactors?

[Anonymous No.16050565]

>>16050409
Because the goal is to make the most extreme combinations of microwave ovens, particle accelerators, super conducting magnets, cooling systems, power delivery (and even more systems in the case of a power power plant). This all has to culminate around the fusion chamber which itself must maintain a high vacuum. For ITER there will never be more than 1 gram of fuel in the chamber. This all adds up to larger equipment, more infrastructure, thicker and thicker materials, which at some point will exceed plausibility.

[Anonymous No.16050577]

>>16050409
I think it's just a matter of money. Fission reactor could be made a simple as a coal powerstation e.i a bucket of water with some control rods. Fusion seems to need magnets made from gold bars the size of a house.

>>16050358
Would I be close in saying we could do net gain fusion today if we just made the reactor very large?

>>16050128
>confinement time, which scales strongly with radius.
Why's that? I assume more radius just means it's easier to put equipment in, less miniaturization, e.i. gains that "sea dragon" rocket would have by being big.
Why can't we have a continuous confinement time? Are we reliant on the specific heat capacity of items in the reactor that we for some reason cant actively cool?

[Anonymous No.16050618]

>>16050577
>Would I be close in saying we could do net gain fusion today if we just made the reactor very large?
In terms of actual electricity? No, we definitely don't know how to do that. For now we're riding the same dream of the 1950's.
ITER will make some purely technical milestones if everything works properly and also give concrete data about what is viable or not in the future. For instance, there's all the talk about breeding tritium in the reactor (which is extremely expensive to generate otherwise). DEMO would conceptually need 300g of tritium per day to demonstrate itself as a power plant, which we definitely cannot produce now, so some alternate process is very much needed.

[Anonymous No.16050622]

>>16050618
>In terms of actual electricity? No
Is that soley due to lack of fuel? I was meaning in terms of assuming we had nigh infinite resources e.g. superconductors, fuel etc, could we design a fusion reactor capable of net electrical gain.
(net gain as in it powers itself, not just heating plasma)

[Anonymous No.16050664]

>>16050622
>Is that soley due to lack of fuel?
Nope. There are many things that are still unknown. The essential aspect of ITER is that it's a critical research platform and that by the time DEMO's time comes then enough of the unknowns will have been resolved--but that's not set in stone. Even hypothetically with all the fuel and funding needed we still have to go through the motions to develop more technologies.

[Anonymous No.16050705]

>>16043549
imagine the machining costs

[Anonymous No.16050738]

>>16050705
Forget the costs, it's not practical to manufacture single components of that size at all. Both sectors of the vacuum vessel machined so far had significant fabrication defects and were damaged during shipping, so they've completely halted assembly of the vacuum vessel over 2 years ago and haven't resumed yet.

[Anonymous No.16050776]

>>16031319
Interesting theory

[Anonymous No.16050780]

>>16050738
if you look at large engines for ships for example it can be done correctly but i'm guessing the shop that did those components was one of those aerospace shops that is staffed entirely by young engineers and not grimy machine shop boomers. this actually makes a tremendous difference
>t. machinist

[Anonymous No.16050813]

>>16050780
It's actually worse than that, apparently they contracted out to some shitty Korean shop where the company forged employee's certification and still sent the part to ITER even though they dropped it during manufacture and bent it out of shape https://reporterre.net/IMG/pdf/inssn-mrs-2021-0650.pdf

>>16050622
We haven't even done experimental work on generating electricity since no experiments actually produce enough heat from the fusion to actually raise the temperature of a blanket sufficiently. There's probably no good way to do this without D-T operation, which nobody wants to do because besides the cost,
you end up producing stupidly large amount of radioactive waste because of neutron capture in the surrouding material and adsorbing of tritium to the walls. I'm too lazy to find the paper right now but it only will take about 2 hours of operation for the entire reactor vessel to be activated enough to be considered class A radioactive waste. Even NIF only tries to carry out a high yield shot once a month because of this even though they're using less than 1 mg of tritium.

[Anonymous No.16051228]

>>16046074
>Helion

[Anonymous No.16051465]

>>16049004
>>engineering Q
they're fucking science experiments and they indicate ICF is promising.
>>16049028
NIF uses obsolete and inefficient lasers because they were cheaper and because NIF is a science experiment. They didn't develop new lasers.

[Anonymous No.16051470]

>>16051465
>they're fucking science experiments and they indicate ICF is promising.
They're not driven by scientific questions.
Do you really think people would be ok spending 20+ on ITER if the only results were about plasma physics? People are funding it for future energy production, that's not a scientific goal. So yes Q engineering is relevant.
I can also confidently say NIF would never have been built if not for its weapons research. Not much of a science experiment when most of the results are classified.

[Anonymous No.16051562]

>>16042450
He's obviously more knowledgeable than fuckwitz like real engineering, so I'd rather trust his judgement.

[Anonymous No.16051591]

>>16051470
ITER's engineering Q will be zero. It won't generate electricity. It's an experiment to show that you could eventually generate electricity.

[Anonymous No.16051597]

>>16051591
Quite easy to factor the efficiency of turbines.

[Anonymous No.16051702]

>>16051228
if investors are stupid enough to believe this stuff then they deserve to lose their money

[Anonymous No.16051781]

>>16051597
80% of the energy released is carried by the neutrons which completely escape the reactor and end up depositing the heat in the 3.5 m thick concrete wall around the vessel. Actually utilizing the energy produced is non-trivial.

[Anonymous No.16051805]

>>16051781
heat up molten lithium with them. Why lithium? So you can breed tritium with them.

[Anonymous No.16051824]

>>16051781
>neutrons which completely escape the reactor and end up depositing the heat in the 3.5 m thick concrete wall around the vessel.
That doesnt seem to be the case. Hardly any neutrons make it that far (the bio-shield).

[Anonymous No.16051866]

>>16051805
don't forget only lithium-6 is effective in that conversion and is like 5% of what occurs naturally

[Anonymous No.16051878]

>>16051866
well worst case, you can just buy tritium from the canadians. Their CANDU reactors make it. The only real advantage of fission over fusion is that most places don't have heavy regulations on fusion like they have for fission.

[Anonymous No.16051922]

>>16051878
Most CANDU plants will be decommissioned soon with no plans for any more to be built. Even without ITER, we’ll have close to zero tritium stockpile by the end of the century https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/fusionportal/Shared%20Documents/FEC%202018/fec2018-preprints/preprint0461.pdf
And according to ITER’s own reports (Appendix I https://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/ITER%20Technical%20Reports/Attachments/9/ITER_Research_Plan_within_the_Staged_Approach_levIII_provversion.pdf ) they’ll end up using 3/4 of the world’s supply during their operation.
It will also end up with even stricter regulations than fission once it gets closer to viability since you could replace part of the blanket with depleted uranium and use the fast neutrons to breed enough Pu-239 for a pit every few days https://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/IT032-Glaser-2013-Fusion-Vienna.pdf

[Anonymous No.16051952]

>>16051922
then have the canadians build more.