5 ms·

Like all fusion reactors in the world currently, NIF was made for research, not as a prototype for a power plant. As it stands, NIF is the only non-bomb fusion

Like all fusion reactors in the world currently, NIF was made for research, not as a prototype for a power plant. As it stands, NIF is the only non-bomb fusion device to reach the fusion breakeven point. If we are ignoring the research angle though, and are appraising the potential for commercial power production, Helion's design has a similar issue to NIF. Where a tokamak and similar designs create constant power, NIF and Helion's design have to generate power from sequential nuclear explosions. However for the purpose of research, NIF is indispensable; We can finally see and measure the behavior of true power positive fusion (without setting off a bomb). edit: breakeven means the reaction put out more power than the fuel took in. It does not mean the plant as a whole puts out more power than it takes, we aren't even close to that.

SkyMarshal 3y ago
Helion’s design doesn’t require constant power, it’s not based on heating water into steam to turn a turbine. Rather, their reactor is the turbine, the sequential plasma ring collision fusion reactions generate a magnetic field that drives a current in wires coiled around the reactor. It’s rather ingenious and is the first reactor-based power source that generates electricity directly from the reaction itself, rather than from heating water into steam. I hope they’re able to achieve breakeven in their next prototype or two.
- KyleBerezin 3y ago
  I'm excited to see what they can do, but its important to remember they are the only fusion device with a marketing department. Pulsed power generation would be a problem for any power plant, and its viability is predicated on its ability to reset rapidly. Helion needs to demonstrate their 12T compression ignition works, then need to demonstrate the reactor can reset quickly, and they need to demonstrate they can generate enough power from the expanding magnetic field. Its an awesome design, its just their marketing material has led people into believing we are on the verge of fusion power, which we are not. Also note, I am not against private companies competing, or marketing their product, just remember that it's not quite as great as they claim.
- light_hue_1 3y ago
  I wish people would stop parroting Helion's obvious lie that they invented direct energy capture. These ideas are more than half a century old and have been tried before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion I would have a lot more faith in Helion if they were more upfront instead of playing stupid games. If they're willing to bend the truth on this, I can believe they're lying about all sorts of other things. I suspect Helion will eventually have it's own Theranos moment.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    I've been following them for years and I've never seen them claim they invented DAC in general, just their particular device.
  - KyleBerezin 3y ago
    They have to convince senators to invest into their company lol. There is no way they are going to do that with a plasma physics textbook and a white paper on plasma compression ignition. I don't blame them for building hype, and glossing over the technical risks. It's just if you want an informed opinion you have to look past the marketing material. As devils advocate I will make the counterpoint, the idea of generating steam using heat through the walls of a tokamak is perhaps equally unproven. You need to have intense temperatures right next to supercooled magnets. That seems like a potential dealbreaker too, and everyone glosses over it in the same way.
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    To be fair I’ve never heard Helion explicitly claim they invented direct energy capture, that was my interpretation only, not anything from their PR. I’m not aware of it ever being used in a commercial power reactor design until now.
- acidburnNSA 3y ago
  Eh not really. SNAP10A didn't have a steam turbine. It used thermoelectrics to directly convert heat to electricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A There's a whole world of direct energy concepts out there: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1130979 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1130979
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    Good to know, thanks. I think that SNAP design is only feasible in space, or maybe the polar regions on Earth, since it requires a cold source on one side of the converter that is cheap or free to produce.

SkyMarshal 3y ago

Helion’s design doesn’t require constant power, it’s not based on heating water into steam to turn a turbine. Rather, their reactor is the turbine, the sequential plasma ring collision fusion reactions generate a magnetic field that drives a current in wires coiled around the reactor. It’s rather ingenious and is the first reactor-based power source that generates electricity directly from the reaction itself, rather than from heating water into steam. I hope they’re able to achieve breakeven in their next prototype or two.

KyleBerezin 3y ago
I'm excited to see what they can do, but its important to remember they are the only fusion device with a marketing department. Pulsed power generation would be a problem for any power plant, and its viability is predicated on its ability to reset rapidly. Helion needs to demonstrate their 12T compression ignition works, then need to demonstrate the reactor can reset quickly, and they need to demonstrate they can generate enough power from the expanding magnetic field. Its an awesome design, its just their marketing material has led people into believing we are on the verge of fusion power, which we are not. Also note, I am not against private companies competing, or marketing their product, just remember that it's not quite as great as they claim.
light_hue_1 3y ago
I wish people would stop parroting Helion's obvious lie that they invented direct energy capture. These ideas are more than half a century old and have been tried before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion I would have a lot more faith in Helion if they were more upfront instead of playing stupid games. If they're willing to bend the truth on this, I can believe they're lying about all sorts of other things. I suspect Helion will eventually have it's own Theranos moment.
- DennisP 3y ago
  I've been following them for years and I've never seen them claim they invented DAC in general, just their particular device.
- KyleBerezin 3y ago
  They have to convince senators to invest into their company lol. There is no way they are going to do that with a plasma physics textbook and a white paper on plasma compression ignition. I don't blame them for building hype, and glossing over the technical risks. It's just if you want an informed opinion you have to look past the marketing material. As devils advocate I will make the counterpoint, the idea of generating steam using heat through the walls of a tokamak is perhaps equally unproven. You need to have intense temperatures right next to supercooled magnets. That seems like a potential dealbreaker too, and everyone glosses over it in the same way.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  To be fair I’ve never heard Helion explicitly claim they invented direct energy capture, that was my interpretation only, not anything from their PR. I’m not aware of it ever being used in a commercial power reactor design until now.
acidburnNSA 3y ago
Eh not really. SNAP10A didn't have a steam turbine. It used thermoelectrics to directly convert heat to electricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A There's a whole world of direct energy concepts out there: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1130979 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1130979
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  Good to know, thanks. I think that SNAP design is only feasible in space, or maybe the polar regions on Earth, since it requires a cold source on one side of the converter that is cheap or free to produce.