Skipjack wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 3:36 am
If Helion can report even just a high Q with D-T (not even net electricity) at that point, the rest of the fusion world will go crazy.
Exactly my thinking.
I've studied the formulas Dr Kirtley included in his last year Princeton presentation. I wanted to try to reproduce the power density graphs in slides 18, 19 and 20. It seems they do, although only roughly.
Then, I have this idea:
According to slide 20, with a fuel of D-3He, peek magnetic field of B=20T, beta=1 and Te/Ti=0.1, Helion machines could, theoretically, surpass Qsci=1 above 12 keV in ion temp. What would those same formulas say if we switched fuels for D-T, while keeping all the other parameters equal ?
The answer I obtained is that under those conditions the temperature for Qsci=1 falls well under 9 keV. It also says it should be possible to achieve it with much weaker magnetic fields. In summary, that Trenta's 10T and 9+ keV may have been enough to get to Qsci>0.5, maybe enough to scrape Qsci=1 (with, yes, 80% of the energy production in neutrons).
That would have been right there in the news worldwide, besides NIF's Qsci>1 achievement.
Helion has never put as much effort as other fusion research companies on their PR. They have not published experimental results, neither through peer reviewed papers, nor in less formal ways. Searching for hard numbers online only reveals bits and pieces.
It's understandable, given that they are 100% privately funded at present, and concentrated on advancing fusion tech, but this overlook carries its own consequences.
When people have no hard data (and sometimes even when they have) they resort to talk out their a***s. Simple human nature: act/talk as if you know, no matter whether you do or don't.
edits: grammar and spelling
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)