ITER News Page

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:23 pm

*

http://fire.pppl.gov/

*

1639 Days have passed since the ITER Site Decision

ITER Implementing Agreement in Force October 24, 2007

ITER Design Review Complete, Reported to Council November 2008

18 Years Until 1st Q = 10 DT pulse 400s long at 500MW on ITER

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:35 pm

...but did you read the item date 27th Nov 2009:

"The scientific and engineering team building
the ITER fusion reactor failed to win an
expected endorsement from the project’s
governing council last week. The council,
which represents the seven international
partners in the project—China, the European
Union, India, Japan, South Korea,
Russia, and the United States—sent the
team back to do more work on the proposed
construction schedule for the mammoth
undertaking."

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:40 pm

chrismb wrote:...but did you read the item date 27th Nov 2009:

"The scientific and engineering team building
the ITER fusion reactor failed to win an
expected endorsement from the project’s
governing council last week. The council,
which represents the seven international
partners in the project—China, the European
Union, India, Japan, South Korea,
Russia, and the United States—sent the
team back to do more work on the proposed
construction schedule for the mammoth
undertaking."

Yeah. Reading that is what made me do some searching. Which is how I found the above url.

Back to the drawing board for ITER.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:42 pm

I wonder if the big fusion guys aren't also getting panicked by Polywell, Lerner, General Fusion, Tri-Alpha, etc.

Art Carlson · Post by **Art Carlson** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:30 pm

MSimon wrote:I wonder if the big fusion guys aren't also getting panicked by Polywell, Lerner, General Fusion, Tri-Alpha, etc.

Trust me. None of these are on the radar. Most tokamak guys believe if tokamaks fail, then fusion fails. The few who don't see all the eggs in that basket see a faint hope that the stellarator could take over if tokamaks don't make it. Several years ago when we were discussing alternatives at IPP, it was only me and one other guy who even briefly entertained the possibility of switching from the toroidal confinement horse.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:44 pm

Art Carlson wrote:
MSimon wrote:I wonder if the big fusion guys aren't also getting panicked by Polywell, Lerner, General Fusion, Tri-Alpha, etc.
Trust me. None of these are on the radar. Most tokamak guys believe if tokamaks fail, then fusion fails. The few who don't see all the eggs in that basket see a faint hope that the stellarator could take over if tokamaks don't make it. Several years ago when we were discussing alternatives at IPP, it was only me and one other guy who even briefly entertained the possibility of switching from the toroidal confinement horse.

Is this an example of bureaucratic group-think? I've seen the same phenomenon with NASA and its contractors.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:56 pm

ITER's procrastination and feet dragging makes NASA look quick on their feet!

Dan Tibbets

Art Carlson · Post by **Art Carlson** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:54 am

D Tibbets wrote:ITER's procrastination and feet dragging makes NASA look quick on their feet!

Dan Tibbets

Why, Dan! I never realized you had a soft spot for tokamaks. Your comment suggests that if only some movers and shakers like the late Dr. Bussard or the good Dr. Nebel were in charge of ITER, they could turn it into an economical reactor.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:02 am

Considering the burocratic approach style that ITER has undertaken those 18 years will easily double by the time they complete it.

Unless it is true that this whole ITER project is just a huge experiment to test one of the very last constant of the universe, the famous:
"noyftwwwhfp = 40"

Number Of Year From Today When We Will Have Fusion Power = 40

Silly of me for not beliving this the first time I heard it!

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Giorgio wrote:Considering the burocratic approach style that ITER has undertaken those 18 years will easily double by the time they complete it.

Unless it is true that this whole ITER project is just a huge experiment to test one of the very last constant of the universe, the famous:
"noyftwwwhfp = 40"

Number Of Year From Today When We Will Have Fusion Power = 40

Silly of me for not beliving this the first time I heard it!

Are they verifying the constant or forcing it to true? (question is rhetorical-no answer required..)

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:35 pm

...sent the team back to do more work on the proposed construction schedule...

..sounds to me like theyre running out of patience, or at least they sense the general public is. if i were in their position i would be sH*t scared of a non-ITER breakthrough within the next 2-5 years.

perversely, if that were to happen, their best option might be to slow (spending) down even further.

anyway. on the good side - they found oil in Brazil

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:02 pm

perversely, if that were to happen, their best option might be to slow (spending) down even further.

Why not? We have at least 1,000 years of fission. Might as well shelve the thing and dust it off again in 2109, when materials science and etc will have advanced considerably.

Anyways, history is littered with giant projects that were abandoned because smaller, nimbler off-the-radar solutions obsoleted them before they could get going.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:42 am

...very true.

but we wont get much 'considerable advancement' if we dont keep trying things that might not work.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:10 pm

Art Carlson wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:ITER's procrastination and feet dragging makes NASA look quick on their feet!

Dan Tibbets
Why, Dan! I never realized you had a soft spot for tokamaks. Your comment suggests that if only some movers and shakers like the late Dr. Bussard or the good Dr. Nebel were in charge of ITER, they could turn it into an economical reactor.

Actually, it wouldn't bother me at all if the
Tokamac was successful, I would just cringe (cringe more) when it came time to pay my electric bill.
My understanding of any fusion approach is obvously very limited, so my opinions carry little if any weight. But, what I find disgusting is the inefficency and bungling of the process. If you evaluate something and find the risks aceptable, then do it in a timely and efficient maner. I understand ITER discussions and planning has been going on for ~ 15 years, and yet essentially no primary construction has started yet. What was the time frame from planning to operation for JET ? 10-15 years? ITER will be ~ 30 years or more ( to even begin to reach desired downscaled science objectives).

Dan Tibbets