20 years away, and always will be

[hanelyp]

Proof = silence. Bussard was wrong. Everyone who predicted success so far has been wrong.

Silence proves only that the insiders have nothing to say. The US navy, sponsoring the main line of polywell research, has good reason to keep quiet about success. They want to get a head start over enemies. The prospect has also been brought up of the DoE grabbing the project if it gets too much attention, and then putting it in a coma as they continue tokomak research.

[ladajo]

Yes, it certainly does appear that insiders have nothing to say.

Unless you can read minds.

And for the record, other than internet fan boys, no one of repute has come out with a polywell success prediction. It has been mainly discussed on an estimated progress theme, which has been based on what little information has made it into the wild.

If I had to guess, I would say EMC2 is currently negotiating funding waters as the known contract seems to have run its course. What happens with funding, IMHO, is as good an indicator as any about progress and viability for EMC2.

Who knows, maybe they are ready to come out from under the navy umbrella, and give it a go as a full up commerical entity vice a government sponsered one.

We shall see. Soon, probably, if the most current contract updates we have peeked at are valid.

[Skipjack]

There are several very promising fusion concepts that are seeing a good amount of research right now. Polywell is only one of them and one of the most silent ones.
I would like to point out that just at the beginning of 2013, Lockheed Martin came out with a promise of a high beta reactor by 2017.
Then we have General Fusion. They are making slow but steady progress. I personally know that the guys at MSNW still believe that their concepts can work and will work soon. They are struggling for funding more than others, but they have been able to meet their own expectations pretty well so far.
All that makes me quite optimistic that nuclear fusion can be achieved for power production purposes.

[crowberry]

The scientific method is based on the interplay between experiments and theories. Sometimes experimental breakthroughs requires years or tens of years to have a proper theoretical explanation, like in the case of superconductivity. Hypothesises, theories and models are also made to predict the outcome of experiments. If the experimental results disagree with the models, then the models are adjusted or abandoned in favour of better models. A practical difficulty in science is that the phenomena to be studied are often so complex that simplifications and approximations are necessary to carry out the computations. Making good simplifications and approximations is an essential part of scientific endeavour as well as checking their validity against experiments. Another important process of science is to study and understand any new phenomena found in experiments and to understand and calibrate the instruments and detectors used in the experiments.

In the case of fusion the basics of the problem has been understood almost since the beginning as is evident by the creation of the thermonuclear bomb. As has already been pointed out in this thread we understand that the energy source that drives most stars is fusion. The tough problem in fusion research is to achieve controlled fusion that produces more energy than is needed to start and continue the reaction, that is to achieve Q>>1. The product of temperature, density and confinement time (the triple product) needed to achieve Q=1 has been known since 1957 for a particular fusion fuel and reactor. Comparing the achieved value of the triple product in an experiment and comparing it with the achieved values in earlier experiments gives a quantitative measure of the progress achieved. In 1997 the JET tokamak reached Q=0.65 with a deuterium tritium plasma. This is only 35 % below break even. In 1998 the JT-60 tokamak deuterium was used as fuel, but if one computes the equivalent Q-value for a deuterium tritium fuel, then the effective Q-value is 1.25, which is already above break even. For tokamaks the knowledge to build a Q>>1 device has been available since the 1980s, but the political will and the funding to accomplish this has not been there. It is expected that ITER will perform as designed with a Q-value of 10, but showing this requires ITER to be built and the experiments to be done, which unfortunately takes a long time for such a complicated machine.

Scientifically the tokamak research has demonstrated the best results so far and this is why most of the resources have been on developing tokamaks in the world. Wether this will be the most practical or economical way to achieve fusion energy is of course not known, but with present knowledge it is the only scientifically proven way.

The physics of plasmas is very rich and complicated and much more so than was anticipated in the early days of fusion research. The lack of understanding of the plasma instabilities was one reason for the too optimistic visions of achieving fusion energy in the early days. Today the understanding of plasma behaviour is much better and with faster computers and better simulation codes one can do much better than previously. It should be understood that all the different fusion methods probe different physical situations with different confinement time scales, densities, forces and confinement methods, so the progress or lack of progress in one are has little or no application to another fusion method.

The best and most practical way to achieve fusion is not known and for this reason it is important to pursue different ideas and concepts simultaneously. All major experiments including laser fusion have contributed significantly to the the knowledge of plasma physics and in many cases the triple product has advanced significantly too. Most of the experiments have been performed to study some aspect of plasma physics and this has been highly successful. Only ITER has really been designed as an Q>>1 experiment.

The laser fusion experiments at LLNL have shown a steady progress from one experiment to the other and in this sense they have contributed to scientific knowledge as successful experiments. So far NIF has not achieved a burning deuterium tritium plasma, because their simulation codes gave too optimistic results. This has no impact on the other paths to fusion because the conditions in the other experiments are vastly different. The experiments at NIF will continue and perhaps they will understand better the laser and target interactions to improve the results.

The only failed fusion experiments were those that were built, but were cancelled before they had any chance of making any measurements because of funding cuts. The current generation of experiments for many fusion methods is at a level that break even might be achieved in the next few years. Whether this will happen or not remains to be seen.

Tokamak: effectively JT-60 demonstrated DT-equivalent break even in 1998
ITER DT fuel in 2027 or 2028
Stellarator: Wendelstein 7-X first plasmas in 2015
Magnetized target fusion: General fusion experiments in reach Q=6 within the next couple of years
Sorlox has announced that they might achieve break even with a new power supply
Helion energy has announced that they are aiming for commercialization before 2020
Dense Plasma Focus: LPP has made steady progress and has a good plan on how to proceed towards break even in the next years
Laser fusion: The experiments are probably switching from indirect drive to direct drive to get better results
Z-pinch: Sandia labs are planning to upgrade their experiment and possible within the next few years they can reach breakeven
Polywell: Devices for studying the concept have been built and the results have not been able to disprove the feasibility of
the idea. It is not known that a large enough device has been built that could achieve break even.

In addition to these there are others like Lockheed Martin that are working hard on achieving first break even and then commercialization before 2020.

[mvanwink5]

For my part I appreciate all the elaboration from our forum contributors on economic fusion progress towards fusion powered electric generation. I hope all and their families have a happy and prosperous new year.
Best wishes

[CharlesKramer]

In addition to these there are others like Lockheed Martin

I hope one of them work because electricity that is clean, cheap, and decentralized (p-11b without needing big capital investment for steam and turbines) will change EVERYTHING. The first tier of changes are possible to guess:

-- no more coal, no more fracking
-- the global warming debate ends
-- competition for mid-East oil stops
-- many major concerns (peak oil, acid rain, Fukushima) become obsolete

so the stakes could not be higher. I plan to win the lottery, and hire a truckload of physicists to start my own fusion project.

The scientific method is based on the interplay between experiments and theories. Sometimes experimental breakthroughs requires years or tens of years to have a proper theoretical explanation

Sometimes the device comes first, and theory follows. In the case of controlled fusion for electricity theory came first, and so far the devices have failed -- which means theory failed too.

The scientific method is based on the interplay between experiments and theories. Sometimes experimental breakthroughs requires years or tens of years to have a proper theoretical explanation

There is a third possiblity, too: sometimes breakthroughs never come.

Bubble memory, fuel cells practical for cars, fission powered airplanes and automobiles (yes, those were designed in the 1950s... the Soviets even flew a fission powered plane) all failed -- so far. Not everything hopeful necessarily will ever succeed.

Isn't anyone else here disenchanted and disappointed about where fusion is today compared to the hopes of 5 years ago? Imagine the USA suddenly becomes a monarchy again, and you wake up and discover you are King. Well, aren't we lucky, the King loves fusion!

Only the more money you spend on fusion, the less you have to prepare for a world with dwindling fossil fuels. Fusion might solve all your Kingly problems, but the fusion story is 60 years of over-optimism and failure (again, and again, and again).

So, Sire, what are your orders?

I'm still cheering for fusion, but, you know: no longer holding my breath.

- Charles

[hanelyp]

Bubble memory, fuel cells practical for cars, fission powered airplanes and automobiles

I don't see those as technologies that can't work so much as there being better alternatives.

Bubble memory lost out to semiconductor devices.

Fuel cells lost out to internal combustion which uses far more easily transported fuels.

Fission has hazards, and refueling with liquid chemical fuel makes it unnecessary for mobile applications.

[CharlesKramer]

Bubble memory, fuel cells practical for cars, fission powered airplanes and automobiles

I don't see those as technologies that can't work so much as there being better alternatives.

First, they were illustrations: not everything that is promising and close to practicality actually works -- no matter how much money and time is thrown at it. Fusion like that too, so far.

Accepting that some technologies never succeed seems alien today. I think semi-conductors spoiled us -- things based on them *always* improve because semi-conductors get increasingly transistor dense, and increasingly faster. But many other things -- maybe even most -- just don't work EVER.

And, so far, bubble memory, fuel cells practical for cars, fission powered airplanes and automobiles FAILED. Sure, they "work" in a way, which is maybe what you meant (though fission powered airplanes were always nuts -- the Soviets got one flying only by exposing the people on it to an unshielded reactor). But they never became commercial after a lot of time and investment. Maybe someone can think of better examples -- "clean coal" perhaps (which turns out to be expensive and not actually clean, so pilot projects were abandoned).

Fusion has failed much far more dramatically. After 60 years it doesn't work on any basis. The problem isn't that other ways to make electricity are still better -- fusion remains far even from breakeven.

[ladajo]

So now you are saying that your failure examples were not science fails, but engineering/economic fails?

I understand you are a little bitter over fusion progress. But hard science is hard. Again, if we knew what we were doing it would not be called science.

Again, I offer that fusion is understood, it is just not currently economical. Not unless we find a better way to the triple point. I think they will.
I am not sure when though. If pressed, I am inclined to think with in the next decade a demo plant will be running that is not ITER.

Maybe I am wrong. Dunno yet. But what I do know does not lead me to dismiss the work at hand. I think we are better than 50/50 these days.

I did not think that a few years ago.

[CharlesKramer]

So now you are saying that your failure examples were not science fails, but engineering/economic fails

More hair splitting. They do not work -- not good enough to sell. The goals of the research were not met -- after big investments and much time.

Fuel cells are a particularly dramatic example -- unlike fusion, fuel cells "worked" in one sense from the start, but they never became reliable enough or inexpensive enough despite decades of investment and 100s of millions invested and many promises of models for sale soon. I think General Motors is still puttering around the country in a fuel cell powered car -- but despite the dawn of a new era of electric cars, none of them use fuel cells. Ballard and Plug Power (big hype fuel cell companies in the early 2000s) are near bankruptcy.

But forget fuel cells, forget NiF. My point is just some technology never succeeds no matter how much money and time are put in, and no matter how promising. Perhaps there are better examples than the ones I offered, but really, is the principle so difficult to accept?

I did not think that a few years ago.

What makes you more optimistic? 6 and more years ago I was a believer; now fusion looks more far away to me than ever, and its optimists seem in denial about 60 years of fusion failure.

[Skipjack]

So now you are saying that your failure examples were not science fails, but engineering/economic fails

More hair splitting. They do not work -- not good enough to sell. The goals of the research were not met -- after big investments and much time.

Fuel cells are a particularly dramatic example -- unlike fusion, fuel cells "worked" in one sense from the start, but they never became reliable enough or inexpensive enough despite decades of investment and 100s of millions invested and many promises of models for sale soon. I think General Motors is still puttering around the country in a fuel cell powered car -- but despite the dawn of a new era of electric cars, none of them use fuel cells. Ballard and Plug Power (big hype fuel cell companies in the early 2000s) are near bankruptcy.

But forget fuel cells, forget NiF. My point is just some technology never succeeds no matter how much money and time are put in, and no matter how promising. Perhaps there are better examples than the ones I offered, but really, is the principle so difficult to accept?

I did not think that a few years ago.

What makes you more optimistic? 6 and more years ago I was a believer; now fusion looks more far away to me than ever, and its optimists seem in denial about 60 years of fusion failure.

Actually fuel cells are very widely used. E.g. the amazing German Type 212 class uses fuel cells. It is the most silent submarine ever built and it can operate submerged for weeks.

[ladajo]

What makes you more optimistic? 6 and more years ago I was a believer; now fusion looks more far away to me than ever, and its optimists seem in denial about 60 years of fusion failure.

I guess we exist in different circles.

As for your point about fails. It appear to me that you have changed your argurment from science does not succeed, to be that technology development does not always get to market. On the second, I would agree. In fact, that happens alot. It is part of the normal development process. There is a high failure rate. Ideas do not always translate well to need verses resources.

And on Skipjack's point, I fully agree. There are many applications our there making use of fuel cells. They are proven techology and the question is a bunsiness one. Where is the need. Coventionally powered submarines have a huge need. Another good example is compact nuclear fission plants. They have been in use in submarines for decades. The current plant average production is probably around 150MW. Why do not we have a multitude of them around the country powering small towns? Again, it is not a science or technology problem, it is a cost verses need problem. Although, personally, I would argure that we are idiots for not staying on the fission trail. Talk about letting hype derail reason.

Anyway...

[CharlesKramer]

It appear to me that you have changed your argurment from science does not succeed, to be that technology development does not always get to market

I never made that distinction, and it's not a distinction that makes sense. Science is about producing knowledge. In that sense, fusion research is a "success" to the extent it produced that.

But fusion research *promised* practical fusion energy would arrive soon -- and has promised it for 60 years, and for 60 years failed. "20 years away, and always will be." More recently it was supposed to be 5 years away, and even (Dense Plasma Focus) 2 years away from proof of concept. The use of the word "failure" in this context is unambiguous, and I should think unarguable -- the promise was clear, and its failure equally so. NiF promised fusion/ignition, and so did its predecessor Nova. Bussard 7 years ago claimed he solved the fusion problem -- discovered it in data after his last machine was taken apart. Dense Plasma Focus said a year or two for proof of concept -- 7 years ago.

And here we are: no ignition. Fusion is not an energy source, and may never be.

There are many applications our there making use of fuel cells.

I acknowledged when I first mentioned fuel cells that they have niche applications -- for space ships, and fork lifts, and some telephony uses (I believe as back-up power).

But fuel cells were promised for HOMES and CARS. General Electric, in anticipation of re-selling Plug Power fuel cells, actually had photographs of them on its website. Coming soon! That was in 2000. A year later they were off the site ("temporarily") and never put back and Plug Power is near bankrupcy.

Fuel cells for homes are not competitive, and ditto fuel cells for cars despite the dawn of a new era of electric cars. General Motors had a fuel cell car prototype (the earliest one was in the 1960s! a van using an alkaline chemistry, if I recall), the current GM PEM-based fuel cell is probably still being driven around. But they are not commercial for cars or house -- another product that is 20 years away, and possibly always will be.

Why is the notion of failure seem to unlikely to you, to the point of denial? How can you be optimistic about fusion (if you are) after NiF, Polywell, Dense Plasma Focus and so far ever other fusion effort have continued to make promises that -- 6 years after they were made -- seem laughably far away.

Perhaps you are just young, and don't know yet that many (maybe most) things expected to appear real soon never actually happen. Sometimes good things happen no one expects.

[mvanwink5]

Ah, but the only ones that need persuading or dissuading are the ones with their hands on the purse strings and running the projects. Politicians, bureaucrats, for government projects, and VC groups for private funded projects, along with very capable scientists and engineers doing the work. Somehow CK's arguments aren't dissuading those folks, and funding is in place and research is progressing and addressing the tough science of plasma physics. There is only one way to settle this discussion on our end and that requires waiting. I'll put my two cent bet that in a year or two that CK will rediscover his optimism.

[paperburn1]

I feel one of the reasons we have no fusion is we have not reached the "common man" point. This is still a large dollar project and the Joe public has not the funds or access to pursue it further. We are very near that point as you are beginning to see more guy and gals throwing the bits and pieces together. As an example take the automobile, At first it was the plaything for the rich or wealthy. But major advances did not really occur until the Henry Ford explosion of plenty of easily available bits and pieces. Then hot rods and roadsters started showing up. Mods and improvements started to flow like water from a spring.
I had the joy and agony of chaperoning my grand daughters sweet sixteen party. Twenty-five young girls interacting squealing and just making my life disrupted for two days.
But I notice one thing among the babble that was interesting. It was a huge amount of tech talk on how to get the most out of their electronics. "This is how" and "do this because" and "let me show you" . The rate at which these children absorbed and almost instinctively handled their phones and tablets was phenomenal. New tech was not scary to them but a part of their adventure. These are the ones that are going to give us fusion and not in 60 years but 10 or 20 years.
Or at least that is what I believe.