General Fusion in the news

[mvanwink5]

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~jgregson/images/J ... Thesis.pdf
Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulations in Liquid-Lead
Simulations of the General Fusion Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor Concept

3.3 Cavity Collapse
One of the major issues with the design of the General Fusion MTF reactor is obtaining a good cavity collapse, where good implies optimizing fusion yield as a function of capital and operating costs of the reactor. One of the key components of the fusion yield is the volumetric compression of the plasma; the more compressed the plasma is the better. Another issue is the shape of the cavity, where it is assumed that spherical or approximately spherical, cavities are preferable to oddly shaped cavities. This is based on a number of observations, strangely shaped cavities provide more opportunity for hydrodynamic instabilities to develop, have larger surface areas for heat and mass transfer as lead at the lead-plasma interface vaporizes and could disrupt the magnetic field that helps to confine the plasma.

The rest of the section on cavity collapse is worth reading if you are interested in more insight (starts on page 71)

[crowberry]

There is an article in Physics in Canda from 2010, where General Fusion explains in detail their ideas and plans in response to an article by E. Vogt. General Fusion’s Response to E. Vogt’s Opinion, Physics in Canada / La Physique au Canada - 2010 (66.4)
http://www.cap.ca/sites/cap.ca/files/ar ... ardson.pdf
It is well worth reading and it is not behind a paywall. GF is partly doing the explosive plasma compression tests because there is no such unclassified data available.

[mvanwink5]

Nathan Gilliland, the new GF CEO, was on a business news show at 35 minutes into the show. Nothing new is said, but you get to see that he is a polished "Talking Head" for GF, so you get to see him in "action."
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/ ... 444633105/

[Aero]

Nathan Gilliland, the new GF CEO, was on a business news show at 35 minutes into the show. Nothing new is said, but you get to see that he is a polished "Talking Head" for GF, so you get to see him in "action."
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/ ... 444633105/

Nothing new said, but what was said was said very effectively. He does a good job.

[mvanwink5]

Two things needed for GF now, one is the solution to the liquid surface instability during plasma acoustic compression, the second is cash, to keep the cash support where it needs to be now, and to arrange the cash for when the stability issue is solved. Clearly the new CEO, Nathan Gilliland, has been brought on board for GF's second major need, cash. Does that person need to be a CEO though? I guess that is what I am struggling with. Perhaps the wisdom of the choice will be revealed this year.

[paperburn1]

CEO s are valuable for the Rolodex they carry.

[Skipjack]

Unfortunately the CEOs of big companies make at least 10 times as much as the average worker at the company makes.

[paperburn1]

In the USA its more like 100 to 200 times

[crowberry]

There is a Youtube video where Michel Laberge is interviewed in front of a large General Fusion plasma injector. Actually the video is an advertisment for Photon Control Inc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj4qXJcZSZw. The video is quite short at 3 min 53 s.

[mvanwink5]

Good news.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/04/genera ... -full.html
APRIL 11, 2014
General Fusion will start building a full size prototype fusion reactor as early as this year

A bigger venue will be needed when the time comes to build the full-size prototype, featuring a three-metre-diameter sphere, between 200 and 300 pistons and plasma injector all connected together. It’s expected to take at least three years to build. Ideally, that process will begin before this year is out.

Sounds good at least...Not sure this is a go or not.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/technol ... zy-genius/
How a Canadian fusion reactor could revolutionize the energy sector
For years no one took them seriously. Now it looks like their idea is just crazy enough to work

[mvanwink5]

"Possibly later this year, General Fusion will begin work on a full-size prototype reactor. At the center will be a sphere, three meters in diameter, inside which molten lead swirls at high speed creating a vacuum, or vortex, in the middle. Arrayed around it will be 200 to 300 pistons"

This is what is new with the "Next Big Future" article mentioned above:
1.This year for start on the full scale prototype (possibly), and
2.The first time 300 pistons were mentioned instead of 200. My guess is this higher number of pistons, 300 vs 200, is a result of efforts to tame the RM liquid lead surface instability issue.

[crowberry]

Thanks for the links mvanwink5!

Canadian business writes

Getting the reactor to work once is the easy part. Getting it to work repeatedly and cost effectively for power production, that’s harder.

I would not agree that solving break even is easy. Obviously building a commercial reactor after demonstrating proof of principle will not be easy, but it should still be a more reasonable engineering problem to solve. In the GF case there is however the complication that the concept relies on mechanical high precision pistons, so developing them to the level that they work reliably for years will require a lot of work. The full size prototype will be built to last 1000 shots only to save money, so in a production system the prototype pistons would only last less than 17 min.

[mvanwink5]

crowberry,

I would not agree that solving break even is easy.

I took that to mean where they are now, which I interpret to mean with their current understanding of how to compress spheromaks. Also, it seems to imply GF thinks that increased number of pistons solves their RM stability problem and now all they need to do is engineer the full scale prototype, which would be (relatively) easy as compared to where they are today. I realize I have gone way out on a limp with speculation. Still, to be thinking of starting the full scale prototype by years end requires engineering, finance, supplier bid cycle and contract awards, so GF's science understanding must be very far along at this point.

Their piston and anvil longevity was supposedly solved, so I am unsure what components are limiting their cycle testing. Perhaps it is the production and handling of tritium?
Best regards as always

[mvanwink5]

I am backtracking on my severe assessment of having a VC financial guy, Nathan Gilliland, at the top position of GF. There is only so much incremental hardware construction, hard tests, and test proven computer modeling that can be done. At some point, the full scale prototype has to be built based on all the science and engineering that can be done with full scale components and in GF's situation, a third scale (diameter, not volume) reactor. That means a step change in finances and delay time for prototype build. The challenge is to put together the package and sell it to the VC's. That is Gilliland's job. This is a make or break project point. It is not like getting government money where it is pure politics. So I wish the GF team the best of luck in this one challenge that requires a different hat.

Should EMC2 get to the point that GF has and needs to make that financial leap, they will be facing the same cash band gap. Maybe that is where they are now and part of the FPDS.gov conundrum....time for big cash from a big pond. The big move...or not.

[asdfuogh]

It is not like getting government money where it is pure politics.

Bullshit. All types of funding require selling your idea to the buyer. It's the same whether you pitch to government or private investors, but maybe your use of language has to change to accomodate their ears. There's so much blaming MFE researchers on this forum that it's disturbing. Sure, tokamak guys get a lot of money, but that's because they sold their idea to the government with numbers and proposals that convinced whichever listening committee. Bussard must have done the same when they sold their idea to the Navy. Tri-Alpha did the same to their private investors.

As much as researchers hate to think about where they get their money, that's an essential part of the job. I think that for EMC2/Polywell to become established, they must (1) first sell its idea to established scientists (at least, more than the small number that works on it right now), then (2) sell that idea to a wealthy source. However, to accomplish (2), they must have some part of (1) accomplished, whether its approval from some big names, strong peer-reviewed articles, or whatever else.

If you look at General Fusion or Tri-Alpha, they have (1) done (in quantity, at the very least, I'm not yet well-informed in who the big players of the fusion plasma community are). (2) is accomplished for Tri-Alpha (most funding of the private fusion companies), and (2) is, at least, partially accomplished by General Fusion (they got funding from the Canadian government).

I'd even venture a third condition in that (3) they sell their idea to universities/national lab groups to build up the next generation of scientists and researchers working on their ideas. In that sense, Tri-Alpha and General Fusion use the underlying "compact toroid" plasmas (ie. FRCs and spheromaks) which are worked on in university groups and national lab groups. EMC2/Polywell has some (two, at the least, correct? Australia and somewhere else..) but it'd be nice to accomplish that third condition as well..