5 ms·
Yes, it removes ONE funding obstacle because as the OP I replied to says cost increased with the 4th power of the size, but that just means you move to the next
by joncrane 6y ago
Yes, it removes ONE funding obstacle because as the OP I replied to says cost increased with the 4th power of the size, but that just means you move to the next limiting factor: the neutron blanket, designing to be able to swap out the shielding, etc.
We are still VERY far away from practical fusion. The fact that we know what the current limiting factors are doesn't mean that once we overcome those hurdles that we'll have a practical solution.
- jcims 6y agoI wonder if that General Fusion design has any benefit here? It’s basically a swirling sphere of molten lead that is injected with a bubble of hydrogen plasma and then a bunch of pistons pump the volume down to collapse the bubble to create fusion conditions. It seems that that the lead might provide neutron shielding and is also the carrier fluid for the excess heat. Who knows if it actually works but the simplicity of the design seems pretty elegant.
- pfdietz 6y agoI don't think GF has a realistic chance of making a workable reactor. They've already given up on the acoustic compression scheme, and the slow compression scheme they are now following has a metal post down the middle of the chamber, unshielded from average neutron fluxes that will, at the center, be orders of magnitude higher than in more conventional reactors.
- jcims 6y agoThat’s a bummer, I always liked the idea, sort of like collapsing cavitation bubbles. Lots of energy focused on a very small spot. I could never sort out how the plasma injection would work without some kind of physical tube placing it in the center... guess it didn’t lol.