Talk-Polywell.org

bennmann wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 17, 2022 2:35 am

https://twitter.com/energy_zap/status/1 ... 7nwQw&s=19
First fuze-q neutrons

Yo, they are moving at a breathtaking speed. Government labs would still only talk about things with power points right now...

Their power supplies from the previous prototype can be used until they scale up. They may even be able to gang modules together? Sounds like they have a top notch tech team.

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/more-fund ... akthrough/
More funding for fusion: Seattle startup lands $160M and reveals technology breakthrough
June 22, 2022

UNNECESSARY COMMENT...

I first got fascinated about fusion around 2007 when Bussard (Polywell) and Lerner (dense plasma focus) both thought they had cracked it -- just give 'em year or two. But as said in a old cartoon, "that last step is a doozy."

My theory is that fact there are so many projects now, and using such varied approaches, means no one knows what they're doing - or what last minute problems may appear. This is old story with fusion -- at least as old as Lyman Spitzer at Princeton who planned 4 stellarators: A, B, C, and D. That last one signified "D" as in demo. He never got there, and he got out of fusion.

But this also means someone may get lucky --- with all the big money being tossed around, which is a good thing. There was also a report today about TAE's next round of funding including Chevron (raising even more money than Zap just raised).

Here's hoping...

IANAP (not a physicist)

Small money invested at the beginning was high risk. As money to go to the next step and to fund the next level of prototype grew, risk had to be **proven** to be commensurately lower. Now, virtually all the prototypes being built are at breakeven or better than breakeven and money is now huge. What that means is that they are at the stage where they are not proving it is possible that is done, instead they are acquiring the engineering data to build the machines for commercialization.

In other words, you are one generation behind in the pessimistic view.

I think that knowledge has reached a critical mass. Yes, many of the approaches are different and IMHO that is good (since it increases the chance of one or more to be successful). In most cases, all of these competitors are rooting for each other and they even think that the competing concepts can actually work. They mainly differ in who is going to be commercially successful.
As mvanwink5 also points out, most of the big players are planning to achieve at least break even or better with their machines currently under development. The main exception seems to be General Fusion.

Skipjack wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 20, 2022 4:03 am

General Fusion.

Is that the Canadian one with pistons focused around a sphere, with molten metal inside? That's my favorite -- from a visual steampunk point of view.

Skipjack wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 20, 2022 4:03 am

As mvanwink5 also points out, most of the big players are planning to achieve at least break even or better with their machines currently under

Lyman Spitzer planned an industrial demonstrator -- the "D" of this planned A, B, C, D. But he never got past "B". For anyone interested in ancient (1960 and earlier) fusion https://w3.pppl.gov/~hammett/talks/2013 ... t_2013.ppt

And the NiF laser effort has been an even more dramatic example of hoping scale will solve problems - the current laser facility being the successor to many efforts - Argus, Shiva, Nova... https://lasers.llnl.gov/10-years-of-ded ... leadership

None of which is to disagree with any of the comments here. I don't doubt fusion knowledge has grown because of all the diverse efforts, and I would love to see them succeed. The instant one succeeds the world changes, in a good way.

CharlesKramer wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:22 pm

Skipjack wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 20, 2022 4:03 am

General Fusion.

Is that the Canadian one with pistons focused around a sphere, with molten metal inside? That's my favorite -- from a visual steampunk point of view.

Skipjack wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 20, 2022 4:03 am

As mvanwink5 also points out, most of the big players are planning to achieve at least break even or better with their machines currently under

Lyman Spitzer planned an industrial demonstrator -- the "D" of this planned A, B, C, D. But he never got past "B". For anyone interested in ancient (1960 and earlier) fusion https://w3.pppl.gov/~hammett/talks/2013 ... t_2013.ppt

And the NiF laser effort has been an even more dramatic example of hoping scale will solve problems - the current laser facility being the successor to many efforts - Argus, Shiva, Nova... https://lasers.llnl.gov/10-years-of-ded ... leadership

None of which is to disagree with any of the comments here. I don't doubt fusion knowledge has grown because of all the diverse efforts, and I would love to see them succeed. The instant one succeeds the world changes, in a good way.

What different things people did in the past is irrelevant to the future.

Narrowly you’re right. But the observation that projects fail because of unforeseen problems is right, and always will be.

That said, the confluence of progress at the moment is remarkable. Maybe all we’ve ever needed were mega-amp, megavolt systems with megajoule capacitor banks and mega-gauss fields!

(Well, roughly. I blame rhetoric.)

Without understanding of the the work and experimental results doubt cannot be put aside.

Everything has changed since the beginning, understanding of the physics, ability to model (software & hardware), the generational machines built, the experiments on the machines run, and we are past the science phase and onto the engineering phase, and some are onto the data gathering towards making a commercial machine.

It is not the number of projects, it is just where we are. The solar and battery people are hoping commercial fusion is +10 years off, the big government science projects are hoping longer. A year or two is all they have before investors will get an eyefull.

New power supply for FuZE-Q is finished:

Can you guess what’s behind doors 1-8? That's right, it's a brand new FuZE-Q power supply designed, built and deployed in record time!

And it is still mid 2022. Going faster than even I thought or hoped. Just hoping the results match the models.

mvanwink5 wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2022 3:53 am

Just hoping the results match the models.

That's where the real issue is....
I am crossing fingers for them, but even if they fail with this iteration, the new knowledge gained should be enough to definitively prove or disprove the tech feasibility.

Retrofitting for fusion?
A new study by Zap Energy will assess the feasibility of siting a Zap fusion energy pilot plant at Washington's only remaining coal power station.

https://www.zapenergyinc.com/news/retro ... dium=email

Shows a bit of confidence? Wow!?

Is a bit older, but not sure it was posted here before:
https://7rnhe.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/mr ... WlP8MR27AM