Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

The question is, of course, whether it works or not. Magnetized Target Fusion is not a new technology, it was tried before (in 1960 IIRC). The primary problem with those previous implementations is that it didn't work.

Once the plasma touches the metal, it cools down rapidly. So it all depends on whether the machine can compress it fast enough to fuse.

All very interesting though.

[Solifuge]

That's why it's so exciting. This implementation of MTF tries to solve the heat loss issue by delivering the compressive force suddenly via "anvils" struck by pistons, instead of over the course of the piston's movement. Also, if the first video didn't work, you can also see it on Youtube.

IN OTHER NEWS:

And also much harder to make than the old "make a person-shaped baloon and inflate it" way of making a spacesuit. There is a reason we're still not using elastic fabric.

By the time we're colonizing mars, we'll probably have suit-locks and spandex space-suits that keep the body pressurized by hugging tightly the body, instead of filling it with 1atm of oxygen. :v
-snip-

Plus I wanna see dem hunky astronauts in spandex, so sue me~

Interestingly enough, Descan, you might get that wish.

There's been significant work in thin suit designs that use elasticity and compressive bands instead of a gas balloon/bladder, for low-pressure environments recently. It isn't to show off how toned and good-looking the astronauts are (that's just a side effect), but rather to deal with the complete lack of mobility and hand dexterity in the current "inflatable" EVA suits, which lock the body in place like a human-shaped sarcophagus, with only basic mobility in the arms and fat-fingered gloves. That's kind of an intentional design in the current suit, though; keep in mind that whole Newtonian Physics thing means that moving your limbs in 0G could send you spinning. You can see a similar sort of thing if you're sitting in a swivel-chair, by lifting your legs from the floor and moving your arms and waist... only in space you wouldn't have friction to stop you. If you've seen the footage from the Apollo Mission, that's also why you see them Bunny Hopping on the moon; their suits literally didn't allow them to walk normally. And while that works great for low-G environments like Orbit or the Moon, fuck Bunny Hopping in heavier gravity like Mars... not to mention it'd make manual labor and science pretty damned difficult. Probably better to send robots to do it at that point.

Spoiler: That's where things like these come in: (click to show/hide)

KCL's Skinsuit


MIT's Bio-Suit

These use bands of active material as tension lines, to put pressure on the wearer in low pressure and low-g environments, instead of using bladders/balloons. The Bio-Suit (which is designed for use outside of the atmosphere) would offer actual mobility and manual dexterity, and is less bulky, more puncture-resistant, and easier to repair than current designs (given that your could literally slap on an adhesive patch of insulating material mid-Spacewalk, instead of deflating and counting the seconds as the atmosphere boils out from your tissues). They would also help fight tissue/bone expansion in 0G, which poses serious health-risks, but is currently just lumped in as a cost of going to space. If you paired that with an Adaptive-Resistance Motorized Exoskeleton, you could provide astronauts with mobility assistance to compensate for High-Gs or heavy loads, mobility resistance in Low-Gs, and in 0G could lock or automatically adjust an astronaut's limbs (optionally along with servos/gyros) to stabilize them when on Spacewalk. Not to mention, an active-resistance system would provide a workout for astronauts going about their regular activities in low-g, which could reduce or eliminate the need for that whole "run on a treadmill in space for a few hours a day" exercise regimen.

So yeah, skin-tight space suits! They're probably gonna be a thing! Also potentially way better than the current thing! And not just for looks!

EDIT: The Skinsuit isn't intended for use in a Vacuum, of course (the whole No Helmet/Arm Insulation bit, for starters); it's designed for use in a low-g atmospheric environment like a station or base. The Biosuit is designed for use in Vacuum, though, and was in part dreamed up for a hypothetical Mars Mission; the more recent designs are suggesting a torso shell connected with the helmet, due to issues with sealing the atmosphere in just the headpiece while retaining neck mobility. The shell and helmet would be discarded in pressurized places like a station or vessel, similar to the Skinsuit.

[10ebbor10]

That's why it's so exciting. This implementation of MTF tries to solve the heat loss issue by delivering the compressive force suddenly via "anvils" struck by pistons, instead of over the course of the piston's movement. Also, if the first video didn't work, you can also see it on Youtube.

They have sought to solve it before. After all, the technology has been in development since the 1960. Secondly, Neutronicity isn't resolved, energy and plasma density is a serious problem, and as they scale up they will undoubtly find more problems. Besides, it's not unexpected that the owner of the company developing the technology makes it seem like the end all solution to all our problems.

So far, the only benefit seems to be a lower construction cost.

[miauw62]

It's also the second-most badass way to achieve fusion energy yet :v
(Most a badass goes to the idea that was briefly considered but never done to use nukes for fusion energy.)

[10ebbor10]

Well, it was done. It's the core principle behind the Hydrogen bomb.

[miauw62]

Yeah, of course, but not to harvest electric energy.

[LordSlowpoke]

i wonder how much research was done into capturing alpha and/or beta radiation and somehow generating electricity that way

they probably considered it

[Sergarr]

i wonder how much research was done into capturing alpha and/or beta radiation and somehow generating electricity that way

they probably considered it

the voyagers power generators work that way

[10ebbor10]

All nuclear power works this way.

[Solifuge]

I think folks are thinking of Thermionic Converters/Generators; right now, we use them to generate power from waste heat generated by radioactive decay in things like space probes, but it's not directly from the high-energy particles themselves (I think the particles would basically shred any particles/materials we tried to catch them with; one of the reasons plants stick to absorbing low-energy visible light instead of higher-energy UV radiation). Basically, they generate power using the flow of thermal energy from hot to cold, which carries ions across a membrane to drive a current, rather than using heat to boil water to make steam to power a turbine (as in Nuclear Reactors). I'm not sure why we aren't using it more widely; with all the waste heat we produce, we might be able to generate Metric Buttloads of electricity... but I understand no one outside of NASA has really pursued the tech since the 1950s. Which, might I add, is a shame! Insane as it sounds, all reactors from Coal to Nuclear are basically still Windmills (if windmills powered by steam, and generating power using an inverted electric motor). You'd think we'd be past that after a millennium or two, but nooooooo...

So far, the only benefit seems to be a lower construction cost.

A few other benefits of Magnetized Target Fusion (as I understand it):
1. Doesn't require precision on a nanosecond scale (as with Inertial Confinement)
2. Needs 6 Orders Of Magnitude (1,000,000 times) less pressure to ignite fusion than Magnetic Confinement (Tokamak, et. al).
3. Makes elegant, efficient use of Molten Ferromagnetic Metal to do triple duty; first to generate the magnetic confinement field...
4. ...second, to provide a medium for delivering and distributing energy (compression from the pistons) to the fuel plasma...
5. ...and third, to shield and mitigate the outside area from high-energy particles produced by fusion (No, Neutronicity doesn't magically stop. You can't fuse stuff without high energy particle emissions... it's kind of the whole point).

Sure other implementations of Magnetized Target Fusion have been theorized since the 1960s. We've been working on Tokamak derivatives since that time, and Laser/Inertial Confinement has been in the works since the 70s. None of these are new ideas, and none of them have "worked" yet. It's not the ideas or the theories that we're lacking, but an efficient enough implementation... and that takes time, money, and many iterations, to figure out.

It's elegant, efficient, and sounds awesome on paper... seriously, molten metal, hammers, anvils, and the power of stars. It's basically The Best Image... and honestly, image is an important thing. Science doesn't have to just contend with feasibility and theory, but also with politics and funding. Unfortunately, people not taking Fusion seriously, or seeing it as a pipe dream at best (or magical nonsense at worst) is a problem. Magnetized Target Fusion mirrors the process of pressurizing and igniting fuel in an Internal Combustion Engine in a way that even the everyday non-Physicist can get their head around. Funding further development in fusion will continue to be an issue. Its benefits and efficiency aside, I would not discount the value of Image in overcoming politics, and getting us to Fusion Power.

[miauw62]

Is nanosecond precision really that much of a problem nowadays? I was under the impression that there's lots of things high-tech things that need that sort of precision, and inertial fusion is nothing if not high-tech.

[10ebbor10]

I think folks are thinking of Thermionic Converters/Generators; right now, we use them to generate power from waste heat generated by radioactive decay in things like space probes, but it's not directly from the high-energy particles themselves (I think the particles would basically shred any particles/materials we tried to catch them with; one of the reasons plants stick to absorbing low-energy visible light instead of higher-energy UV radiation). Basically, they generate power using the flow of thermal energy from hot to cold, which carries ions across a membrane to drive a current, rather than using heat to boil water to make steam to power a turbine (as in Nuclear Reactors). I'm not sure why we aren't using it more widely; with all the waste heat we produce, we might be able to generate Metric Buttloads of electricity... but I understand no one outside of NASA has really pursued the tech since the 1950s. Which, might I add, is a shame! Insane as it sounds, all reactors from Coal to Nuclear are basically still Windmills (if windmills powered by steam, and generating power using an inverted electric motor). You'd think we'd be past that after a millennium or two, but nooooooo...

In that case, we don't have any direct to electricity technology. (Well, safe for solar and some exceptions) all conventional power sources utilize turbines.

And the reason we don't use thermionic convertors is because they have efficiency of 10% or less (often between 3.5%-7%), and tend to degrade rather rapidly.

1. Doesn't require precision on a nanosecond scale (as with Inertial Confinement)

Sadly, it does. The pistons need to be activated with extreme precision, otherwise the shockwave will not be able to compress the plasma before it undergoes fusion.

2. Needs 6 Orders Of Magnitude (1,000,000 times) less pressure to ignite fusion than Magnetic Confinement (Tokamak, et. al).

First of all, your argument is just plain false. It is actually the other way around. Magnetic fusion uses by far the thinnest plasma.  (Also, higher plasma density is a good thing.)

Secondly, energy produced is a function of plasma density*time. The Magnetic fusion solution is to use thin plasma, but long fusion times. The inertial solution is to use massive amounts of plasma for very short times. The MTF is trying to find a middle ground, using lower density than inertial but lasting for microseconds rather than nanoseconds.

Also, we're talking about severe underpressure here.  Magnetic fusion confines a dilute plasma at about 10¹⁴ cm⁻³. Inertial fusion works around 10²⁵ cm⁻³. MTF aims for 10¹⁹ cm⁻³. ((The numbers might seem big, but that is the amount of free electrons per volume.))

3. Makes elegant, efficient use of Molten Ferromagnetic Metal to do triple duty; first to generate the magnetic confinement field...
4. ...second, to provide a medium for delivering and distributing energy (compression from the pistons) to the fuel plasma...
5. ...and third, to shield and mitigate the outside area from high-energy particles produced by fusion (No, Neutronicity doesn't magically stop. You can't fuse stuff without high energy particle emissions... it's kind of the whole point).

It's only an elegant solution if it actually works. See next point.

Also, it's less of a solution than you think it is.

Problems in commercial development are similar to those for any of the existing fusion reactor designs. The need to form high-strength magnetic fields at the focus of the machine is at odds with the need to extract the heat from the interior, making the physical arrangement of the reactor a challenge. Further, the fusion process emits large numbers of neutrons (in common reactions at least) that lead to neutron embrittlement that degrades the strength of the support structures and conductivity of metal wiring. These neutrons are normally intended to be captured in a lithium shell to generate more tritium to feed in as fuel, further complicating the overall arrangement.

If you put a spin on it, you can get the same elegant solution impression from any fusion technology.

Sure other implementations of Magnetized Target Fusion have been theorized since the 1960s. We've been working on Tokamak derivatives since that time, and Laser/Inertial Confinement has been in the works since the 70s. None of these are new ideas, and none of them have "worked" yet. It's not the ideas or the theories that we're lacking, but an efficient enough implementation... and that takes time, money, and many iterations, to figure out.

All of them have worked. MTF hasn't even succeeded in actually attaining fusion yet.

It's elegant, efficient, and sounds awesome on paper... seriously, molten metal, hammers, anvils, and the power of stars. It's basically The Best Image... and honestly, image is an important thing. Science doesn't have to just contend with feasibility and theory, but also with politics and funding. Unfortunately, people not taking Fusion seriously, or seeing it as a pipe dream at best (or magical nonsense at worst) is a problem. Magnetized Target Fusion mirrors the process of pressurizing and igniting fuel in an Internal Combustion Engine in a way that even the everyday non-Physicist can get their head around. Funding further development in fusion will continue to be an issue. Its benefits and efficiency aside, I would not discount the value of Image in overcoming politics, and getting us to Fusion Power.

Yes, but for the moment it's little more than a bunch of thin hot air.  There are no working MTF fusion reactors. They exist solely on paper.

[Solifuge]

At least three factual errors in the above post, but I don't imagine continuing the back and forth will get us anywhere. Let me just say that I remain excited about this because it's hella awesome, a feasible compromise between existing methodologies, and I enjoy being hopeful about future tech and human ingenuity. And it doesn't cost us anything to be hopeful.

[10ebbor10]

At least three factual errors in the above post, but I don't imagine continuing the back and forth will get us anywhere. Let me just say that I remain excited about this because it's hella awesome, a feasible compromise between existing methodologies, and I enjoy being hopeful about future tech and human ingenuity. And it doesn't cost us anything to be hopeful.

If you're going to accuse me of being wrong, point out the errors, and provide sources for your claims to the contrary.

At the moment, the only thing you're doing is smugly suggesting that the other person is dumb, and that it would be to much effort to enlighten them, all the while trying to put yourself in a good light.*

Spoiler: Since I have no idea what you're arguing against, I'm going to go the entire way and source my entire post. (click to show/hide)

And the reason we don't use thermionic convertors is because they have efficiency of 10% or less (often between 3.5%-7%), and tend to degrade rather rapidly.

The resulting current, typically several amperes per square centimetre of emitter surface, delivers electrical power to a load at a typical potential difference of 0.5–1 volt and thermal efficiency of 5–20%, depending on the emitter temperature (1500–2000 K) and mode of operation.

Now, normal power installations don't operate at 1500-2000 Kelvin. A more normal operating temperature, combined with conversion efficiencies will give me the efficiency numbers I provided.

Those came from old Soviet Radio thermal generators, btw.

1. Doesn't require precision on a nanosecond scale (as with Inertial Confinement)

Sadly, it does. The pistons need to be activated with extreme precision, otherwise the shockwave will not be able to compress the plasma before it undergoes fusion.

However, plasma is difficult to compress. When you compress it, it tends to go a little bit crooked like that, so you need the timing of the piston to be very good, and for that we use several control systems, which was not possible in 1970, but we now can do that with nice, new electronics.

2. Needs 6 Orders Of Magnitude (1,000,000 times) less pressure to ignite fusion than Magnetic Confinement (Tokamak, et. al).

First of all, your argument is just plain false. It is actually the other way around. Magnetic fusion uses by far the thinnest plasma.  (Also, higher plasma density is a good thing.)

Secondly, energy produced is a function of plasma density*time. The Magnetic fusion solution is to use thin plasma, but long fusion times. The inertial solution is to use massive amounts of plasma for very short times. The MTF is trying to find a middle ground, using lower density than inertial but lasting for microseconds rather than nanoseconds.

Also, we're talking about severe underpressure here.  Magnetic fusion confines a dilute plasma at about 10¹⁴ cm⁻³. Inertial fusion works around 10²⁵ cm⁻³. MTF aims for 10¹⁹ cm⁻³. ((The numbers might seem big, but that is the amount of free electrons per volume.))

While MCF and ICF attack the Lawson criterion problem from different directions, MTF attempts to work between the two. Magnetic fusion confines a dilute plasma at about 1014 cm−3. Inertial fusion works around 1025 cm−3. MTF aims for 1019 cm−3.[1] At this density, the fusion rate is relatively slow, so some confinement time is needed to allow fuel to undergo fusion. Here too, MTF works between the ~1 second times of magnetic methods, and the nanosecond times of inertial, aiming for times on the order of 1 µs. In MTF, magnetic fields are used to slow down plasma losses, and inertial compression is used to heat the plasma.

The thing about denser plasma being better is just basic understanding of how fusion works.

3. Makes elegant, efficient use of Molten Ferromagnetic Metal to do triple duty; first to generate the magnetic confinement field...
4. ...second, to provide a medium for delivering and distributing energy (compression from the pistons) to the fuel plasma...
5. ...and third, to shield and mitigate the outside area from high-energy particles produced by fusion (No, Neutronicity doesn't magically stop. You can't fuse stuff without high energy particle emissions... it's kind of the whole point).

It's only an elegant solution if it actually works. See next point.

Also, it's less of a solution than you think it is.

Problems in commercial development are similar to those for any of the existing fusion reactor designs. The need to form high-strength magnetic fields at the focus of the machine is at odds with the need to extract the heat from the interior, making the physical arrangement of the reactor a challenge. Further, the fusion process emits large numbers of neutrons (in common reactions at least) that lead to neutron embrittlement that degrades the strength of the support structures and conductivity of metal wiring. These neutrons are normally intended to be captured in a lithium shell to generate more tritium to feed in as fuel, further complicating the overall arrangement.

If you put a spin on it, you can get the same elegant solution impression from any fusion technology.

This post has it's own source, so no effort needed;

Sure other implementations of Magnetized Target Fusion have been theorized since the 1960s. We've been working on Tokamak derivatives since that time, and Laser/Inertial Confinement has been in the works since the 70s. None of these are new ideas, and none of them have "worked" yet. It's not the ideas or the theories that we're lacking, but an efficient enough implementation... and that takes time, money, and many iterations, to figure out.

All of them have worked. MTF hasn't even succeeded in actually attaining fusion yet.

It's elegant, efficient, and sounds awesome on paper... seriously, molten metal, hammers, anvils, and the power of stars. It's basically The Best Image... and honestly, image is an important thing. Science doesn't have to just contend with feasibility and theory, but also with politics and funding. Unfortunately, people not taking Fusion seriously, or seeing it as a pipe dream at best (or magical nonsense at worst) is a problem. Magnetized Target Fusion mirrors the process of pressurizing and igniting fuel in an Internal Combustion Engine in a way that even the everyday non-Physicist can get their head around. Funding further development in fusion will continue to be an issue. Its benefits and efficiency aside, I would not discount the value of Image in overcoming politics, and getting us to Fusion Power.

Yes, but for the moment it's little more than a bunch of thin hot air.  There are no working MTF fusion reactors. They exist solely on paper.

In the pioneering experiment, Los Alamos National Laboratory's FRX-L,[3] a plasma is first created at low density by transformer coupling a large electrical current through a gas inside a quartz tube (generally a non-fuel gas for testing purposes). This heats the plasma to about 200 eV (~2.3 million degrees). An arrangement of external magnets keeps the fuel confined within the tube during this period. Plasmas are electrically conducting, allowing a current to be passed through them. This current, like any, will generate a magnetic field that interacts with the current. It is possible to arrange the plasma so that the fields and current will stabilize within the plasma once it is set up, self-confining the plasma. FRX-L uses the field-reversed configuration for this purpose. Since the temperature and confinement time is much lower than in MCF, by about 100 times, the confinement is relatively easy to arrange and does not need the complex and expensive superconducting magnets used in most modern MCF experiments.

FRX-L is used solely for plasma creation, testing and diagnostics

That and future experiments, have, as far as I know, only been used for plasma testing.

On closer research, it appears the Shiva star has done experiments which can be classified as Magnetized Target Fusion. They use a magnetic field for the compression though, not pistons, so I remain confident in my claim that his proposed reactor hasn't even attained fusion yet. (Even though I know that it is kind of moving the goal posts.)

On a side note, the more I read about this, the more it sounds like a SCAM. You have this guy, who has no previous experience in this field (he made precision printer heads or something, hardly relevant to fusion), who starts a company, bases himself on a completely unsuccessful fusion technique, and then proudly proclaims that he'll invent net gain fusion by 2015, for just 50 million dollars.

*You might have noticed, but I hate that kind of argument.

[Sergarr]

At least three factual errors in the above post, but I don't imagine continuing the back and forth will get us anywhere. Let me just say that I remain excited about this because it's hella awesome, a feasible compromise between existing methodologies, and I enjoy being hopeful about future tech and human ingenuity. And it doesn't cost us anything to be hopeful.

If you're going to accuse me of being wrong, point out the errors, and provide sources for your claims

Yeah. If you don't point out the errors you can point out, the future will never arrive.