Talk-Polywell.org

The fact that ITER can never work has been clear for a very long time.

What is really at issue is what reasoning is behind its funding. It is certainly not because Reagan and Gorbachev decided it was a good idea. Smart people don't make multi billion dollar mistakes. It must be due to some deep and disturbing corruption within the "big physics" community.

It's only a matter of time until this embarrassment is brought to light, to the detriment of all scientific disciplines that rely on public funding.

It's a stargate...

No it is a black hole where money goes and never comes out.

They actually get out as Hawkings radiations whose frequencies are strangely similar to Bank account numbers......

The rewards do not have to be an economical product to be valued. I am of the opinion, based on my layman knowledge, that ITER may be likely to achieve it's goals of net fusion power out greater than power in. That this is a success depends on your goals. The science knowledge and engineering advancements stand on their own. And, they may find use in other endeavors. If your goal is to develop an economical and sustainable fusion power supply system the goals are much more problematic. ITER may be a success, a very expensive success. Lithium first wall/ tritium production, diverter issues makes DEMO, a very very expensive goal with even more challenging issues. Finally, making this behemoth into an economical product would remain extremely formidable.

It is not the scientific goals that I find objectionable. It is the exclusive narrow view that it is THE path to fusion. Almost any other fusion concept has economical advantages, and costs significantly less to pursue. Even the fusion bomb underground approach with subsequent steam generation from the heat trapped is likely more plausible from an economic viewpoint.

Even EMC2, with divergence towards increasing complexity and uncertainties is climbing the ladder to impracticability, even if they do squeeze out a Q>1. The simple concepts that seemed inherent in the Polywell scheme are suffering the same escalation of problems that has plagued the field for half of a century.

Increasing penetration of wind, and improving photovoltaics, which utilize the Sun's fusion power are becoming increasingly attractive and may trump all other fusion reactor schemes. The glimpses of significantly improved energy storage systems may be the new breakthrough that trumps all of the other efforts.

A fusion reactor not only has to work, it has to work reliably, and most importantly, it has to be relatively cheap!

PS: A shift in the definition of price in the mobile concentrated power supplies has a different set of priorities. The US has not made a new fission nuclear plant in decades (one may be near completion), but the US Navy (and other nations) have made new fission reactors for submarines and aircraft carriers. The smaller size fusion reactor schemes might find use here (and in space) even without economic viability for the general grid power system. The Tokamak scheme fails this scenario also. A small spheromac or stellarator , FRC, Polywell, DPF, etc. might be useful here, but never a (low Beta) Tokamak.

Dan Tibbets

The expense, and potential of intercept in times of war, of delivering fuel oil make a somewhat more expensive power plant practical on navy vessels if it frees said vessel from that supply line. A nitch application where economics differ from utility grid power.

hanelyp wrote:The expense, and potential of intercept in times of war, of delivering fuel oil make a somewhat more expensive power plant practical on navy vessels if it frees said vessel from that supply line. A nitch application where economics differ from utility grid power.

As Dan mentions, however, that niche also includes spacecraft. You have the initial expense of getting the plant into (or built in) orbit, but once there things get a whole lot easier to deal with, and dramatically reduce what you need fuel for in a (assumed) manned vessel.