Let us start discrediting tokamak fusion. Wrong Shape.

Discuss ways to make polywell research more widely known or better understood. Includes education and outreach.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois

Post by MSimon »

TallDave wrote:
jmc wrote:They keep finding more problems, so I have to doubt a continously operating net power plant can be close to ITER-sized without some radical advances. It would not surprise me if they come back and say it needs to be 2-4x larger.
2X to 4X bigger has been the tokamak rallying cry for 50 years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

You can get away with a smaller tokamak with high energy densities and net energy production if you increase the field strength aswell, I think that was what the FIRE programme was about, building a reactor the size of JET only running it at 10 Tesla instead of three.


The only catch is morepowerful magnetic fields also cost money.

Post Reply