From ASPW 2010, via the Tau Zero Foundation blog:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15695
A brief mention and no links to presentations, unfortunately.
Slough and others presenting fusion-based propulsion concept
Daedalus #1...
Long, long ago and far away, I attended the BIS Daedalus Final Report meeting, bought a Report, gleaned some autographs...
IIRC, outside the meeting, we didn't talk about Newtonian propulsion, but bewailed the lack of even a hint of theory that might, just possibly, lead to something better, possibly even FTL...
That was before the 'bubble of space' notion though, of course, implementing anything such was firmly in the realms of handwavium...
We did conjecture that a practicable means to manipulate space might hide in plain sight, akin to Faraday's minimal desktop devices. And, yes, we chuckled at the joke...
Funnily enough, neither fusion power nor AI have yet come good, and only some tiny, unconfirmed gravitational anomalies around superconductors hint at any possible avenue of progress towards a bona-fide 'space drive'...
Uh, aren't folks still arguing over that trumpet-shaped resonant cavity and its contested thrust (Or NOT ;- ) vector ??
IIRC, outside the meeting, we didn't talk about Newtonian propulsion, but bewailed the lack of even a hint of theory that might, just possibly, lead to something better, possibly even FTL...
That was before the 'bubble of space' notion though, of course, implementing anything such was firmly in the realms of handwavium...
We did conjecture that a practicable means to manipulate space might hide in plain sight, akin to Faraday's minimal desktop devices. And, yes, we chuckled at the joke...
Funnily enough, neither fusion power nor AI have yet come good, and only some tiny, unconfirmed gravitational anomalies around superconductors hint at any possible avenue of progress towards a bona-fide 'space drive'...
Uh, aren't folks still arguing over that trumpet-shaped resonant cavity and its contested thrust (Or NOT ;- ) vector ??
Re: Daedalus #1...
Last I heard it was under test by some chineese university, or so was the rumor.Nik wrote:Uh, aren't folks still arguing over that trumpet-shaped resonant cavity and its contested thrust (Or NOT ;- ) vector ??
Pretty interesting designs from the above links. I like the helicon one especially.
I suspect they would be embedded in quantum physics or theoretical chemistry, because they were scientists with the urge to seek out how the universe works.
This is why all these things, as above, are doomed to remain, for ever more, power-point design by those scientists who are wannabe-engineers.
I do not believe anything 'new' needs be discovered scientifically to make fusion work. It is now about configuring the right arrangement of magnetic and electric forces that marshal and accelerate ions into fusible conditions whilst minimising losses. This is, therefore, a puzzle to engage engineers rather than scientists... and I would posit that it is because scientists have their hands on the fusion budgets that 'fusion research' remains a series of glorified 'plasma experiments'.
In summary, it is not what the likes of Maxwell and Thomson would be doing that would interest me, but more what Brunell, Trevithick, Parsons, Tesla and Edison types would be up to. I suspect they are even in our midst, but modern 'big-science' and 'multi-national' share holder interests flatten them in a world that is no longer receptive to the outputs of lone/maverick individuals.
This is why all these things, as above, are doomed to remain, for ever more, power-point design by those scientists who are wannabe-engineers.
I do not believe anything 'new' needs be discovered scientifically to make fusion work. It is now about configuring the right arrangement of magnetic and electric forces that marshal and accelerate ions into fusible conditions whilst minimising losses. This is, therefore, a puzzle to engage engineers rather than scientists... and I would posit that it is because scientists have their hands on the fusion budgets that 'fusion research' remains a series of glorified 'plasma experiments'.
In summary, it is not what the likes of Maxwell and Thomson would be doing that would interest me, but more what Brunell, Trevithick, Parsons, Tesla and Edison types would be up to. I suspect they are even in our midst, but modern 'big-science' and 'multi-national' share holder interests flatten them in a world that is no longer receptive to the outputs of lone/maverick individuals.
Physics in their day was much more practical and the difference between theory and practice much less divided. It was only because of practical issues like transatlantic telegraph was em theory developed and steam engines etc for thermodynamics. Nowadays theory seems to outpace experiment, some due to our limit to test. Bigger machines are needed to explore a lot of the new physics. If fusion were *only* an engineering problem then we would already have power plants using it. To say its a matter of optimization is a catastrophic understatement. So far all the issues to acheivement are not even known, much less put in a form for someone to design and build a functioning power producing reactor. The closest thing to that is some type of fusion fission hybrid which could run in a more well understood regime.
Carter
Well these were kind of my points. Faraday, Kelvin and the others of the time were very driven by experiments and practical applications, generally developing theoretical explanations primarily as it could assist them in the practice and then secondarily for its own sake.
In todays institutionalised science framework I think there would be a struglle to find a place for multi-disciplined generalisers .... so probably banking.
Kind of explains a lot of what is happening in science, fusion, climate science, LHC, etc.
In todays institutionalised science framework I think there would be a struglle to find a place for multi-disciplined generalisers .... so probably banking.
Kind of explains a lot of what is happening in science, fusion, climate science, LHC, etc.
Indeed.. and it has even been said by ITER proponents. But who said that here, though?kcdodd wrote: To say its a matter of optimization is a catastrophic understatement.
I said that no new science needs to be discovered. A bit like the first car - that was a revolution but did not contain new science. Or the first computer. The science in the computer is the logic circuits and the programming, not the build.
Configuring the right fields to make fusion work is what is required, but this is not 'new science' and is a bit of a bore to those whose drive is to find new things out about the universe, whereas to create an ingenious arrangement that does work is the work of the engineer.
I can explain the way I see current fusion work by describing my view of it as being people spending their careers working out how water comes out of a tap. It is a very complex, turbulent and stochastic mechanism. But do you really need to know how to create the perfect stream of water to design a tap that lets water flow?
chris:
There is new science needed to be discovered, just not what you think it would be .... or work around tokomak turbulence altogether by building an alternate confinement field (e.g. radially-symmetric) for the plasma that is generally less suceptible to turbulent convective losses (unstable).
Well as far as I can see there is some new science needed. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of geting plasmas to fuse the biggest problem is the "transport", i.e. unwanted convection associated with magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. As old and fuddy-duddy as it seems, the basic unsolved problem of hydrodynamic turbulence must first be solved before magneto-hydrodynamic turbulence can be solved. Last time I looked turbulence was still an open problem.I said that no new science needs to be discovered.
There is new science needed to be discovered, just not what you think it would be .... or work around tokomak turbulence altogether by building an alternate confinement field (e.g. radially-symmetric) for the plasma that is generally less suceptible to turbulent convective losses (unstable).
Certainly this view is valid for Tokamak systems where macro instabilities are feared. But, the recent claims by MIT in their modified Tokamak may point the way to a solution.icarus wrote:chris:Well as far as I can see there is some new science needed. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of geting plasmas to fuse the biggest problem is the "transport", i.e. unwanted convection associated with magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. As old and fuddy-duddy as it seems, the basic unsolved problem of hydrodynamic turbulence must first be solved before magneto-hydrodynamic turbulence can be solved. Last time I looked turbulence was still an open problem.I said that no new science needs to be discovered.
There is new science needed to be discovered, just not what you think it would be .... or work around tokomak turbulence altogether by building an alternate confinement field (e.g. radially-symmetric) for the plasma that is generally less suceptible to turbulent convective losses (unstable).
But, as Bussard claimed, the physics are solved for the Polywell, and only engineering remains. The Polywell fits your second paragraph. Instabilities/ positive feedback turbulence issues are avoided by the radial symetry (the lack of concave confinement surfaces).
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
I'd say the exact inverse. It is the scientists who seek a perfect understanding, whereas engineers will be happy once the water flows, however turbulent the water is.kcdodd wrote:"to create an ingenious arrangement that does work is the work of the engineer" Where is this coming from? If a tap only worked if water has to come out "perfectly", then yeah, one would have to know how to make it "perfect".
It may well be that reducing turbulence is what is needed for progress, but are you saying the new science will be, e.g. a new force never seen before, or turbulence of a never-before-seen characteristic or that cannot be predicted by known mathematical equations and require new maths to be developed, or new ways in which fusion reactions happen?icarus wrote:Well as far as I can see there is some new science needed. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of geting plasmas to fuse the biggest problem is the "transport", i.e. unwanted convection associated with magnetohydrodynamic turbulence.
Y'see, all the underlying physics will be known. There will be no new magnetic forces, and nothing that requires new thinking. It is just a case of seeing what happens and then working with the reality. There is no new physics in that process.
There are only two outcomes; turbulence can be reduced, or turbulence can't be reduced. The latter, null, outcome is not science. But how is the former science? What type of science are you saying will be discovered?
You can study the flow in a tap for the rest of the age of the universe and probably still not be able to predict what each molecule will do when you next turn the tap on.
So how does it help to endlessly study turbulence?
We may be arguing over the pedantics of what science means, but figuring out that tokamaks have turbulence isn't science. Turbulence is understood - it is merely unpredictable. Even if it could be controlled adequately, which is far off being a certainty, there is nothing more we will learn about matter or the forces that affect matter, so there is no science.
Figuring out how to make use of known forces to move or change known matter is engineering, not science.