Yet another fussion

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Breakable
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:31 pm

Yet another fussion

Post by Breakable »

I was reading this conservative fission-fussion analysis
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5929
when i found yet another competitor in fusion race - seems a little better than ITER:
"A Better Bet: The Fusion ATM
Are there better, faster-to-develop, approaches to magnetic fusion than the tokamak? Yes, there are! As an example, I
would cite the recent findings of a Department of Energysponsored committee that is taking a new look at open-ended
systems, in particular at new forms of the tandem mirror that we call ATMs (for Axisymmetric Tandem Mirror, not for
machines for getting money—yet). The committee is chaired by a former Lab employee and mirror group leader Tom Simonen
(who is doing a great job). Its members include several Lab employees and retirees, plus researchers from other labs,
including MIT, Princeton, the University of Texas, and Los Alamos. We are now writing the final report. It concludes that the open-ended ATM represents a simpler, and easier-to-engineer, approach to magnetic fusion than ITER, since it is modular in nature and, being axisymmetric, it employs only simple circular coils to create its confining magnetic fields"

Full article here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/A ... fusion.pdf

mrflora
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:16 pm

Post by mrflora »

Hmmm... 21st Century Science and Technology sounded familiar - it's a Lyndon Larouche publication. I see on the main page that you can read about Science and the Larouche Youth Movement.

Regards,
M.R.F.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

I'll read it in detail later. But, in principle, I've never really understood the argument for losses at mirrors. Just make it longer. How long? Dunno, just make it longer 1km, 10km, 1000km, whatever. It should be a "power per unit length" thing, so maybe a single device could power a country.

Just make it longer!

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Good post. To my surprise, I'd not come accross that before.
Ruddy typical they cancelled all further work as soon as the kit was all ready to go. For my money, I'd certainly blow the cobwebs out of it and give it a go. Anyone feel strongly why it shouldnt fly?

Giorgio
Posts: 2776
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Here is an interesting PDF and a PPT presentation for the ones of you that like to get more info about this type of fusion research:

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/366958.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Status of Research Regarding Magnetic Mirrors
as a Fusion Neutron Source or Power Plant

Workshop held in Berkeley, California on September 8-9, 1008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.physicsessays.com/doc/s2007/CT07-file.ppt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinetically Stabilized Axisymmetric Tandem Mirrors: A Faster Route to Economic Fusion Power?
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - March 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breakable
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:31 pm

Post by Breakable »

Just make it longer! :lol: :lol: :lol:

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

mrflora wrote:Hmmm... 21st Century Science and Technology sounded familiar - it's a Lyndon Larouche publication. I see on the main page that you can read about Science and the Larouche Youth Movement.

Regards,
M.R.F.
(Shrug) :roll:

WGAS? I personally don't care if promising new fusion techniques are first published in the American Neo-Nazi Party's Hitler Youth Daily, so long as the technique reviewed is actually promising. The same source reviewed a Q=1000 (on the math) technique six years ago. We should ignore a controlled fusion technique with a Q that high because the source of publication politically offends you?
Vae Victis

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

djolds1 wrote:
mrflora wrote:Hmmm... 21st Century Science and Technology sounded familiar - it's a Lyndon Larouche publication. I see on the main page that you can read about Science and the Larouche Youth Movement.

Regards,
M.R.F.
(Shrug) :roll:

WGAS? I personally don't care if promising new fusion techniques are first published in the American Neo-Nazi Party's Hitler Youth Daily, so long as the technique reviewed is actually promising. The same source reviewed a Q=1000 (on the math) technique six years ago. We should ignore a controlled fusion technique with a Q that high because the source of publication politically offends you?
It's not because they are politically offensive, but because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. LaRouche doesn't seem equipped with adequate BS detectors. He tends to latch onto conspiracy theories of all sorts that fail the Occam's Razor test (conspiracy theories usually do). But even granted it's not LaRouche writing this stuff, he also has a history as a fusion fanboy, and his adherents tend to share that same sort of wacky credulousness.

kurt9
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

scareduck wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
mrflora wrote:Hmmm... 21st Century Science and Technology sounded familiar - it's a Lyndon Larouche publication. I see on the main page that you can read about Science and the Larouche Youth Movement.

Regards,
M.R.F.
(Shrug) :roll:

WGAS? I personally don't care if promising new fusion techniques are first published in the American Neo-Nazi Party's Hitler Youth Daily, so long as the technique reviewed is actually promising. The same source reviewed a Q=1000 (on the math) technique six years ago. We should ignore a controlled fusion technique with a Q that high because the source of publication politically offends you?
It's not because they are politically offensive, but because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. LaRouche doesn't seem equipped with adequate BS detectors. He tends to latch onto conspiracy theories of all sorts that fail the Occam's Razor test (conspiracy theories usually do). But even granted it's not LaRouche writing this stuff, he also has a history as a fusion fanboy, and his adherents tend to share that same sort of wacky credulousness.
You guys are both correct and wrong at the same time.

Yes, LaRouche is an utter crank when it comes to politics. We once watched a video tape of him at an L-5 Society conference in the mid 80's for sheer entertainment. In this video, LaRouche derided L-5 as a cult that "brain washed" members with "psyhco-sexual" gratification. It was really hilarious watching the video. We had a good laugh out of this.

However, the coverage of fusion technology research in the various LaRouche publications over the years has been remarkably high-brow (and free from any of the ranting and raving of his political theories). Most of the information they publish comes straight out of the Fusion Technology science journal that is way too pricey for most of us to afford. I know several people who used to buy the LaRouche magazine in the 80's and 90's exclusively for its coverage of fusion research.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

djolds1 wrote:
mrflora wrote:Hmmm... 21st Century Science and Technology sounded familiar - it's a Lyndon Larouche publication. I see on the main page that you can read about Science and the Larouche Youth Movement.

Regards,
M.R.F.
(Shrug) :roll:

WGAS? I personally don't care if promising new fusion techniques are first published in the American Neo-Nazi Party's Hitler Youth Daily, so long as the technique reviewed is actually promising. The same source reviewed a Q=1000 (on the math) technique six years ago. We should ignore a controlled fusion technique with a Q that high because the source of publication politically offends you?


Good point. Reminds me of how the Nazis rejected "Jewish Physics."

German universities proceeded to hire lesser talents to teach courses in applied physics that would produce inventions for the German war machine. The new theoretical physics that would produce atomic weapons was considered by the Nazis to be “Jewish physics” and not worthy of research.

http://www.lagcc.cuny.edu/maus/refugeePhysicists.htm

Except it's the other way around.

Science stands on it's own merits regardless of who support it or oppose it.

Skipjack
Posts: 6106
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

While I agree with the notion that science stands on its own, regardless on who does it, or supports it, or opposes it, I would like to point out, that the nuclear weapons research in WW2- Germany was pretty advanced.
Condidering the circumstances under which they were working, I would even say that they were pretty close.

Still, I am glad that they did not succeed with it.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Skipjack wrote:While I agree with the notion that science stands on its own, regardless on who does it, or supports it, or opposes it, I would like to point out, that the nuclear weapons research in WW2- Germany was pretty advanced.
Condidering the circumstances under which they were working, I would even say that they were pretty close.

Still, I am glad that they did not succeed with it.
IIRC, Heisenberg & Co. were off on the required critical mass by an order of magnitude or more, and were successfully deceived by the lies about the neutron properties of carbon versus heavy water. Not a close run thing; not nearly.
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

However, the coverage of fusion technology research in the various LaRouche publications over the years has been remarkably high-brow (and free from any of the ranting and raving of his political theories).
But he does like to throw in unsubtle hints. Esp at the conclusion.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

djolds1 wrote:
Skipjack wrote:While I agree with the notion that science stands on its own, regardless on who does it, or supports it, or opposes it, I would like to point out, that the nuclear weapons research in WW2- Germany was pretty advanced.
Condidering the circumstances under which they were working, I would even say that they were pretty close.

Still, I am glad that they did not succeed with it.
IIRC, Heisenberg & Co. were off on the required critical mass by an order of magnitude or more, and were successfully deceived by the lies about the neutron properties of carbon versus heavy water. Not a close run thing; not nearly.
Heisenberg was stalling...

Re-examining Heisenberg: Objections to Present Theses
Ars artis est celare artem.

Skipjack
Posts: 6106
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Well, I guess it depends on how you define close. I do know that they were working on a nuclear reactor and that they had an almost completed prototype by the end of the war. I saw the pictures of the allies recovering it. I cant quite remember since it was so many years ago, but I vaguely remember something that looked like a bunch of boxes tied together.

In any case, I do agree that scaring away capable scientists out of their ridiculous etnic cleansing policies was one of the many stupid things that Nazi Germany did. However, Nazi Germany was still technologically very advanced. They surpassed the allies in jet engine, rocket science and aero/hydro dynamics. Helmut Walter e.g. built the best submarines of their time.
Their nuclear science was behind for many reasons. One might have been their idiotic etnic policies, another one was the constant bombings by the allies and the lack of money. Los Alamos was never bombed by any of the axis powers and the US in general saw very little destruction. They had all the peace and time and a lot more money to finish up their science.
Lets not forget that.

Post Reply