Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:13 pm
So explain how you keep electrons from hitting the grid?
Without magnetic shielding?
Without magnetic shielding?
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
The $200 mil is for a 100 MW demo. I think.TallDave wrote:Good discussion. Hope no one got their feelings hurt too much. BTW Simon, I think anticarrot said he was an aerospace engineer, not a nuke engineer, which might explain some of his questions. I found them interesting, but then I'm just a humble programmer/entrepeneur.
As a programmer, I know new things rarely work right the first time (it's easier to recompile than rebuild tho; in your face 'neers!). We all know Bussard has thrown out an estimate of $100-$200M for a full-scale reactor. Based on our guesstimated costs of around $10M for The Great Convincer, am I correct in assuming only about $50M of that is actually the cost to build it, and the rest is included because there are going to be serious engineering challenges/failures, as one would expect with such a novel, revolutionary tech? Or should the estimate be higher to take that into account?
Testing is the big question. I'm wondering if the estimate should be more on the order of an order of magnitude rather than 2x, or if this is really simple enough engineering-wise that the estimate can be as tight as he makes it.Fusion R&D Phase 2 - Design, Build and Test
Full Scale 100 MW Fusion System
5 years, $200M
Dave,TallDave wrote:Right, when I said "full-scale" I meant net power: the Phase II 100MW demo Bussard talks about. I probably should have been more explicit.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Testing is the big question. I'm wondering if the estimate should be more on the order of an order of magnitude rather than 2x, or if this is really simple enough engineering-wise that the estimate can be as tight as he makes it.Fusion R&D Phase 2 - Design, Build and Test
Full Scale 100 MW Fusion System
5 years, $200M
I'm trying to pick up a little more 'neering. Discussions like this sure don't hurt.
Closer to 80% for ITER's D-T reaction, so emphasis on the 'or more' there. ITER has a peak capacity of 500MW. 0.1% of this is 500kW, not 5kw. ITER is also designed to run for short periods of time, unlike a p11B reactor, which runs continuously.MSimon wrote:ITER running at 500 MW will produce around 250 MW or more of neutrons. My recollection may be off but it is the right order of magnitude.A Polywell running at the same power production rate will produce 5 kW of neutrons.
I think you'll find that total exposure (power * time) will also be a factor.Overall neutron damage will be in proportion to total neutron power.
Yes yes. The steel and concrete will last donkeys years. I've never questioned this for those materials.Now consider a fission plant.
Nice of you to say so. Eventually.Damage to the superconductors is another question. That will take operational experience. It may also be mitigated by proper design. We shall see. It may just be a matter of adjusting current densities to allow for damage. i.e. take a coil capable of 10T and run it at 1 or 2T.
I never said I did. 'Aerospace' is not spelled with an 'n'. But then again it shouldn't matter. When speaking to members of the public, or politicians, or grant committees, "Trust me, I wear a big impressive white lab coat," is a good and useful answer to many concerns, because many in such groups want simple reassurance rather than actual information. But when it comes to science and engineering, facts, figures, and/or accessible-references should matter more than CV swinging contests.BTW anti in what country do you practice nuclear engineering?
No.Will the B10 explode if bombarded by neutrons?
Okay. How about you do an experiment? Right now.The above is a joke right? Do you live in a country where the 'net is filtered?
PB11 fuel for a polywell would be a gaseous form, no? B2H6 .. ?
Will the B10 explode if bombarded by neutrons?