3 ms·
Funding: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg Wendelstein 7X is impressive, but it doesn't have the facilities for actual fusion. The best
by drjesusphd 10y ago
Funding: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
Wendelstein 7X is impressive, but it doesn't have the facilities for actual fusion. The best they can do is "theoretical breakeven", which has already been achieved with tokamaks (JT-60 in Japan).
As for "micro-fusion" devices: if you're thinking of Lockheed, as far as I can tell they're full of shit. It's an approach that was tried 50 years ago and failed.
- andrewflnr 10y agoYou seem to imply that failure 50 years ago implies failure 10 years from now, which, with all the advances in supporting technologies, is nonsensical. Do you have any solid evidence that Lockheed is full of shit?
- drjesusphd 10y agoNo I don't, which is why it was a qualified statement. They've released very little information about their design, and it's up to them to convince the taxpaying public it's anything more than a mirror machine. How do they keep the plasma from squirting out of the sides? That'd be the real innovation, but they're silent on this point. Almost as if they're not worried about it. Oh, and now it's 10 years from now? I thought they said it'd be ready in five? Wait, three, because they said that two years ago.
- andrewflnr 10y agoThe other reason to keep quiet about confinement is that it's their secret sauce. The 10 year number is a deliberately pessimistic one I pulled out of my hat, not meant to be precise. I'm just saying, it's possible that things have changed enough to make possible in the near future what was impossible/impractical in the past.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]