3 ms·

Why is this upvoted? It shows a severe lack of physics knowledge. The whole goal of fusion is to get the energy amplification, Q, to be > 1, which requires the

Why is this upvoted? It shows a severe lack of physics knowledge. The whole goal of fusion is to get the energy amplification, Q, to be > 1, which requires the triple product n T t to be above some threshold. n is density, T is temperature, t is confinement duration. This is Lawson's criteria, you should look it up to educate yourself. Your proposal doesn't help n, T, or t, hence doesn't help Q. Also, there are economic and physical gains from concentrating your efforts into making your fusion reactor larger, rather than trying to make it 1/10 the size and have 10x of them. The economies of scale will happen once fusion ignition (Q>1) is achieved and we start mass producing dozens of fusion plants around the world. But at this point we're likely 10+ years away from achieving ignition.

pfdietz 8y ago
DT fusion reactors have inherent diseconomies of scale. That's because their power output is limited by what the first wall can withstand. By the square-cube law, the volumetric power density of a DT reactor must go down as its linear dimensions increase. This is not just quibbling, since bad power density is a huge problem with fusion. Look at ITER. The volumetric power density (gross fusion power/volume of reactor proper, not including the building or auxiliary equipment) is 0.05 MW/m^3. Compare that to a PWR primary reactor vessel, which have a power density around 20 MW/m^3. The smaller designs like ARC or Lockheed's concept have power density around 0.5 MW/m^3.