I am seriously thinking a opening a google account, set up a calendar page and share it with everyone interested.
It might become interesting to post on it all the deadlines for the various researches we are following here.
Carl White wrote:There are more people than you can imagine out there for whom $10M or $50M are considered a narrow investment.
They just need someone they trust to convince them that this is a good business, worth investing.
Do you remember Madoff?
There are some technologies that can not be embodied in table-top scales.
And only when parameters would exceed some values can be showed something interesting.
So, some experiments may be costly from the very beginning.
And in general definitions "expensive" and "cheap" are very relative.
But why should not spend on experiments that in case of success solving a global problems when today nations spend a lot of money on military purposes.
For note: missiles cost from 50 thousand dollars to a few millions.
Pushing one button you can spend the total Polywell budget. Attacking Aircraft Carrier you (multiple anti-ship missiles are required) you should spend ITER budget.
Why not to spend for more useful things?
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Nobody considers tungsten as first wall material, stainless steel - yes, aluminum - yes, niobium - may be, molybdenum - may be, etc.
Now, I am amazed!
In the last decade (and more) Tungsten has been one of the main front runners (if not the main one) in first wall material for nearly any fusion experiment. Main advantages being the low erosion rate and the small tritium retention.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Why not to spend for more useful things?
You should ask this to the people investing their money in e-Cat, not to me.
My question is rather rhetorical.
As I know the answer. Also I am sure that on e-cat should be spent nothing.
May be some prize for how to swindle people in a simple manner.
Joseph Chikva wrote:
Nobody considers tungsten as first wall material, stainless steel - yes, aluminum - yes, niobium - may be, molybdenum - may be, etc.
Now, I am amazed!
In the last decade (and more) Tungsten has been one of the main front runners (if not the main one) in first wall material for nearly any fusion experiment. Main advantages being the low erosion rate and the small tritium retention.
Giorgio wrote:
Now, I am amazed!
In the last decade (and more) Tungsten has been one of the main front runners (if not the main one) in first wall material for nearly any fusion experiment. Main advantages being the low erosion rate and the small tritium retention.
The relatively high ductile to brittle transition temperature, however, poses specific problems.
And so what? Don't also stainless steel, aluminum, niobium and molybdenum each have specific problems?
The point is not the problem each one of them can have but which one is the best choice for the work.
Best choice at least for the first time is stainless steel. As first wall can be made with low thickness.
Fe, Chrome and Ni have lower atom number and so Lower Bremstahlung.
And generally stainless steel is well tested in fission reactors as heating rods' outer material.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Best choice at least for the first time is stainless steel. As first wall can be made with low thickness.
Fe, Chrome and Ni have lower atom number and so Lower Bremstahlung.
And generally stainless steel is well tested in fission reactors as heating rods' outer material.
Stainless Steel was supported as first wall material during the late 90's, but all latest researches are showing that Tungsten will substitute SS as a material of choice in many parts of fusion reactors.
The reasons are many:
Low thickness Stainless Steel has issues with erosion rate, while Tungsten erosion rate is 30 times lower than Stainless Steel.
Tungsten is not subject to sputtering erosion (a BIG issue for Stainless Steel).
Tungsten does not suffer from tritium retention.
Tungsten allows for a negligible plasma contamination.
Edited to add:
Fission experience can be useful but dealing with plasma in fusion conditions is much different than choosing an heating rod cage material.
DancingFool wrote:The nickel will melt first in a stainless steel reactor, also.
Nickel should melt?
So, its temperature should be 1455 °C? In hydrogen atmosphere?
Has anybody create the material reliably running in those conditions?
There is no such materials.
The highest temperature using in industrial processes is about 950 °C. Let's say 1000 °C. And not more. This is hydrocarbons pirolisis process. And special grade stainless steel is used.
Heh. I'm glad you brought that up. My point was that SS has a higher melting point than pure nickel, without concern for minor considerations like utility.
So I'm sure you'll be enthralled by one of Rossi's posts:
Andrea Rossi
May 4th, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Dear Mr Ivan Mellen:
Thank you for your glance in the future possible applications: for now I am earthly attached to the present necessity to arrive with a good 1 MW plant in October, to make heat.
Maybe your previsions are right.
About your questions:
a- the temp inside the reactor reached the 1,600 °C
b- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joseph Chikva wrote:Best choice at least for the first time is stainless steel. As first wall can be made with low thickness.
Fe, Chrome and Ni have lower atom number and so Lower Bremstahlung.
And generally stainless steel is well tested in fission reactors as heating rods' outer material.
Stainless Steel was supported as first wall material during the late 90's, but all latest researches are showing that Tungsten will substitute SS as a material of choice in many parts of fusion reactors.
The reasons are many:
Low thickness Stainless Steel has issues with erosion rate, while Tungsten erosion rate is 30 times lower than Stainless Steel.
Tungsten is not subject to sputtering erosion (a BIG issue for Stainless Steel).
Tungsten does not suffer from tritium retention.
Tungsten allows for a negligible plasma contamination.
Edited to add:
Fission experience can be useful but dealing with plasma in fusion conditions is much different than choosing an heating rod cage material.
Under "new researches" you mean probably Max-Plank Institute's proposal for ITER?
And what material is used?
The optimum joining condition of a Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) has been examined for
developing the fabrication technology of the ITER first wall using Be of S-65C grade, CuCrZr,
dispersion strengthened Cu alloy (DSCu), and 316L austenitic stainless steel (SS).
Very good if material has low erosion rate.
But for fabrication of big size structures it would be more important machinability and weldability with admissible set of properties.
And fission experience would be very helpful. Do you think that neutrons in fission reactors have low energy? Or low flux?
Can anybody say that we know how to make so big sized structures from tungsten, graphite or somewhat else except steel? We do not. This is reality.
Recall that first wall structure in ITER weighs much more than 1000 t.
Last edited by Joseph Chikva on Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Heh. I'm glad you brought that up. My point was that SS has a higher melting point than pure nickel, without concern for minor considerations like utility.
So I'm sure you'll be enthralled by one of Rossi's posts:
Andrea Rossi
May 4th, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Dear Mr Ivan Mellen:
Thank you for your glance in the future possible applications: for now I am earthly attached to the present necessity to arrive with a good 1 MW plant in October, to make heat.
Maybe your previsions are right.
About your questions:
a- the temp inside the reactor reached the 1,600 °C
b- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Do you wonder that I think he's a fraud?
I am familiar with an advanced glass melting furnace where the powdered raw materials were injected onto a refractory cone for inertial separation from the gas, at a temperature of 1500C. The nozzle was made of copper. You obviously don't understand what happens at the boundary layer of a cooled metal wall.
Revisiting this thread after ~ a week, it is still largely rubbish. I can safely leave it again.
parallel wrote:I am familiar with an advanced glass melting furnace where the powdered raw materials were injected onto a refractory cone for inertial separation from the gas, at a temperature of 1500C. The nozzle was made of copper. You obviously don't understand what happens at the boundary layer of a cooled metal wall.
Revisiting this thread after ~ a week, it is still largely rubbish. I can safely leave it again.
So, Rossi uses non-metal insulator material?
In hydrogen atmosphere?
