10 ms·

Tokamak is dumb. I'm sick of hearing about Tokamak. The plasma in the Safire reactor has self-containing magnetic fields and doesn't need the $20billion+ super

Tokamak is dumb. I'm sick of hearing about Tokamak. The plasma in the Safire reactor has self-containing magnetic fields and doesn't need the $20billion+ super-magnet infrastructure. A Safire reactor costs under $20-million to build, and probably much less these days. The Safire reactor can keep the plasma lit and going for hours if not days without interruption. The Safire reactor has been around for over seven years now.

aunty_helen 3y ago
There was a front page hn article this week about institutions keeping the reason for their creation going. ITER has always felt this way for me.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  It's not a coincidence that the ITER project will be about one career long.
- devaiops9001 3y ago
  Tokamak would fall in this category too.
dralley 3y ago
ITER has the same problem as the NIF, had they been designed a few years later it could be a fraction of the size and cost due to improvements in technology But since ITER was designed decades ago, we're stuck with a massive, expensive, outdated beast that's taken so long to build it will likely end up being lapped by other projects. At least NIF has something to show for it. ITER feels like building the Vasa.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  ITER never made sense at all, even without improvements in fusion technology. And the improvements have not made tokamaks sensible. Even higher field magnets don't rescue the tokamak concept from practical irrelevancy.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    And yet ITER is the only serious attempt at fusion research for power generation. NIF is a nuclear weapons research program, as are all other (non-scam) ICF designs. Other MCF designs are either more-or-less legal scams (such as the MIT-derived startup claiming to build a working fusion power plant by the end of next or year or so), or woefully under funded.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      Yeah, it's somewhat falling for the public relations spin to think NIF's fusion research is meant for power generation. NIF's fusion research is meant to simulate hydrogen bomb detonation physics. The fact that they take a closer look at interesting power generation possibilities is a fringe-benefit: that's just scientists being thorough, but it's not why it was built. It's a bonus.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      > And yet ITER is the only serious attempt at fusion research for power generation. I disagree, in two ways. First, ITER is itself not a serious attempt at a fusion research program, although there is great pretense that it is. There is no plausible route from ITER to a practical reactor, even if it achieves every one of its goals. Second, there are other attempts that are, IMO, much more promising. Helion and Zap are the two that come to mind.
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        There is a plausible route from a successful ITER to a practical reactor, the DEMO project. In principle, if ITER achieves its goals with its current technology, simply replacing the magnets with more modern ones would probably be enough to produce enough energy for a fusion plant. The designs for actually capturing that energy, and for replenishing tritium, are a bigger hurdle, but there are plausible technical solutions. Helion in contrast seems entirely a scam, promising and failing to deliver results year after year. Zap energy seems to at least not make false timeline promises, but it is trying out a much less proven concept in a direct commercial venture - not a promising way to do novel research. Note that I am very skeptical that fusion power is a plausible economic approach to power generation, and do personally believe that all known approaches will fail to deliver a power plant that is economically viable. The amount of power that is plausible with all current approaches seems far too low to justify the immense engineering costs, and the benefit of abundant fuel is just not that impressive when you have solar and wind as alternatives.
aqme28 3y ago
I did my masters in Tokamak simulation so maybe I'm biased (though I am a bit of a stellarator fanboy). But I've never heard of SAFIRE. I've been on their website, and I can't find anything explaining what SAFIRE is and especially nothing about why it's so much better than a Tokamak. I can't find anything peer-reviewed. All their marketing materials are leaving a very bad (e.g. pseudoscience) taste in my mouth
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- devaiops9001 3y ago
  Here is an explanation that includes raw video footage of a Safire type 2 chamber. https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=ZBInhPFFVog https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=ZBInhPFFVog Here is what was shared, including some raw video footage, of what happened when a small tungsten rod was exposed to plasma in a Safire type 2 chamber. https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI
  - daveguy 3y ago
    > raw video footage, of what happened when a small tungsten rod was exposed to plasma Just FYI. You're not effectively refuting the pseudoscience claim with this.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - devaiops9001 3y ago
      So you don't dispute that the Safire type 2 plasma chamber has a sustained plasma fusion reaction that causes the tungsten rod to rapidly decay, got it. Here's a hint if you need it spelled out for you: nobody gives a shit if you think this is "science" or "pseudoscience".
      - daveguy 3y ago
exitheone 3y ago
Nobody has ever independently verified any of the claims Safire has made. It's wishful thinking at best and a scam at worst.
- devaiops9001 3y ago
  The results of the Safire type 3 reactor were verified by a third party lab. It's amazing that you can just post out of your ass like that as if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.
  - daveguy 3y ago
    Let me guess... Rossi's e-cat laboratory verified it for them?
    - devaiops9001 3y ago
      Given the details the Aureon team has shared, very clearly not Rossi's lab. I don't want to hurt your feelings or whatever here, I'm just going to be very very honest with you, if your comment wasn't so obviously in bad faith, that would be a very dumb guess.
      - daveguy 3y ago
        [flagged]
        devaiops9001 3y ago
        The very real fact that the radioactive material was rendered benign was proven by the third party laboratory. You presented a guess about which laboratory it was. Your guess was both stupid and wrong. You have not successfully trolled. You did not "strike a nerve", but you did provoke a disgust response. You are not even midwit tier intelligence.
        3y ago
itishappy 3y ago
Has it been verified to actually work? A 7 year old fusion startup focusing energy on a documentary doesn't scream serious scientific research to me... https://aureon.ca/ https://aureon.ca/ https://www.safireproject.com/ https://www.safireproject.com/
- devaiops9001 3y ago
  The Safire type 2 reactor has been working for over seven years now. The documentary they already made is to document the process of creating the Safire type 3 reactor which can process liquid. The results of the Safire type 3 reactor rendering radioactive material benign were done by a third party, which means independent, laboratory. They literally spell this out in terms that even a complete idiot can understand in the documentary you just pointed out. Hence why a very small part of their team spent some documenting what the science team did to make Safire type 3.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    Where can I find these results published?
    - devaiops9001 3y ago
      Given you wrote "focusing energy on a documentary doesn't scream serious", you give the impression you are just going to ignore the findings they have published. There's plenty video showing the plasma running for far more than the "world records" of these external-magnet reactors (Tokomak, and that other Helion one), so I don't know what to point you to that can actually help you. In the documentary they published, they do waste the viewer's time with "look at this lab we built", but if they feel passionate about telling the story of their journey, that's fine. Also in the documentary, they share some of their data and what they did to validate that data with a third party.
      - itishappy 3y ago
        I suspect the current record for sustained plasma is owned by fluorescent lighting, so not sure that's a valuable metric. My comment that it doesn't seem like "serious science" means that I'm going to ignore anything not peer reviewed and I suggest others do the same. I honestly still wish them the best, they just have a lot of work to convince anyone they're really dealing with anything new or interesting, and I don't think that video production is the path to that.
pfdietz 3y ago
You don't need to believe in "Safire" (or any other fusion technology) to think tokamaks are a bad idea. They're bad all on their own.
- devaiops9001 3y ago
  Here is video footage of plasma in a Safire reactor causing a tungsten rod to rapidly decay, or at least that's what looks like is happening, not "vaporizing" (in scientific terms) https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI

aunty_helen 3y ago

There was a front page hn article this week about institutions keeping the reason for their creation going. ITER has always felt this way for me.

pfdietz 3y ago
It's not a coincidence that the ITER project will be about one career long.
devaiops9001 3y ago
Tokamak would fall in this category too.

dralley 3y ago

ITER has the same problem as the NIF, had they been designed a few years later it could be a fraction of the size and cost due to improvements in technology But since ITER was designed decades ago, we're stuck with a massive, expensive, outdated beast that's taken so long to build it will likely end up being lapped by other projects. At least NIF has something to show for it. ITER feels like building the Vasa.

pfdietz 3y ago
ITER never made sense at all, even without improvements in fusion technology. And the improvements have not made tokamaks sensible. Even higher field magnets don't rescue the tokamak concept from practical irrelevancy.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  And yet ITER is the only serious attempt at fusion research for power generation. NIF is a nuclear weapons research program, as are all other (non-scam) ICF designs. Other MCF designs are either more-or-less legal scams (such as the MIT-derived startup claiming to build a working fusion power plant by the end of next or year or so), or woefully under funded.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Yeah, it's somewhat falling for the public relations spin to think NIF's fusion research is meant for power generation. NIF's fusion research is meant to simulate hydrogen bomb detonation physics. The fact that they take a closer look at interesting power generation possibilities is a fringe-benefit: that's just scientists being thorough, but it's not why it was built. It's a bonus.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    > And yet ITER is the only serious attempt at fusion research for power generation. I disagree, in two ways. First, ITER is itself not a serious attempt at a fusion research program, although there is great pretense that it is. There is no plausible route from ITER to a practical reactor, even if it achieves every one of its goals. Second, there are other attempts that are, IMO, much more promising. Helion and Zap are the two that come to mind.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      There is a plausible route from a successful ITER to a practical reactor, the DEMO project. In principle, if ITER achieves its goals with its current technology, simply replacing the magnets with more modern ones would probably be enough to produce enough energy for a fusion plant. The designs for actually capturing that energy, and for replenishing tritium, are a bigger hurdle, but there are plausible technical solutions. Helion in contrast seems entirely a scam, promising and failing to deliver results year after year. Zap energy seems to at least not make false timeline promises, but it is trying out a much less proven concept in a direct commercial venture - not a promising way to do novel research. Note that I am very skeptical that fusion power is a plausible economic approach to power generation, and do personally believe that all known approaches will fail to deliver a power plant that is economically viable. The amount of power that is plausible with all current approaches seems far too low to justify the immense engineering costs, and the benefit of abundant fuel is just not that impressive when you have solar and wind as alternatives.

aqme28 3y ago

I did my masters in Tokamak simulation so maybe I'm biased (though I am a bit of a stellarator fanboy). But I've never heard of SAFIRE. I've been on their website, and I can't find anything explaining what SAFIRE is and especially nothing about why it's so much better than a Tokamak. I can't find anything peer-reviewed. All their marketing materials are leaving a very bad (e.g. pseudoscience) taste in my mouth

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
devaiops9001 3y ago
Here is an explanation that includes raw video footage of a Safire type 2 chamber. https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=ZBInhPFFVog https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=ZBInhPFFVog Here is what was shared, including some raw video footage, of what happened when a small tungsten rod was exposed to plasma in a Safire type 2 chamber. https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI
- daveguy 3y ago
  > raw video footage, of what happened when a small tungsten rod was exposed to plasma Just FYI. You're not effectively refuting the pseudoscience claim with this.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - devaiops9001 3y ago
    So you don't dispute that the Safire type 2 plasma chamber has a sustained plasma fusion reaction that causes the tungsten rod to rapidly decay, got it. Here's a hint if you need it spelled out for you: nobody gives a shit if you think this is "science" or "pseudoscience".
    - daveguy 3y ago

exitheone 3y ago

Nobody has ever independently verified any of the claims Safire has made. It's wishful thinking at best and a scam at worst.

devaiops9001 3y ago
The results of the Safire type 3 reactor were verified by a third party lab. It's amazing that you can just post out of your ass like that as if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.
- daveguy 3y ago
  Let me guess... Rossi's e-cat laboratory verified it for them?
  - devaiops9001 3y ago
    Given the details the Aureon team has shared, very clearly not Rossi's lab. I don't want to hurt your feelings or whatever here, I'm just going to be very very honest with you, if your comment wasn't so obviously in bad faith, that would be a very dumb guess.
    - daveguy 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - devaiops9001 3y ago
        The very real fact that the radioactive material was rendered benign was proven by the third party laboratory. You presented a guess about which laboratory it was. Your guess was both stupid and wrong. You have not successfully trolled. You did not "strike a nerve", but you did provoke a disgust response. You are not even midwit tier intelligence.
        3y ago

itishappy 3y ago

Has it been verified to actually work? A 7 year old fusion startup focusing energy on a documentary doesn't scream serious scientific research to me... https://aureon.ca/ https://aureon.ca/ https://www.safireproject.com/ https://www.safireproject.com/

devaiops9001 3y ago
The Safire type 2 reactor has been working for over seven years now. The documentary they already made is to document the process of creating the Safire type 3 reactor which can process liquid. The results of the Safire type 3 reactor rendering radioactive material benign were done by a third party, which means independent, laboratory. They literally spell this out in terms that even a complete idiot can understand in the documentary you just pointed out. Hence why a very small part of their team spent some documenting what the science team did to make Safire type 3.
- itishappy 3y ago
  Where can I find these results published?
  - devaiops9001 3y ago
    Given you wrote "focusing energy on a documentary doesn't scream serious", you give the impression you are just going to ignore the findings they have published. There's plenty video showing the plasma running for far more than the "world records" of these external-magnet reactors (Tokomak, and that other Helion one), so I don't know what to point you to that can actually help you. In the documentary they published, they do waste the viewer's time with "look at this lab we built", but if they feel passionate about telling the story of their journey, that's fine. Also in the documentary, they share some of their data and what they did to validate that data with a third party.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      I suspect the current record for sustained plasma is owned by fluorescent lighting, so not sure that's a valuable metric. My comment that it doesn't seem like "serious science" means that I'm going to ignore anything not peer reviewed and I suggest others do the same. I honestly still wish them the best, they just have a lot of work to convince anyone they're really dealing with anything new or interesting, and I don't think that video production is the path to that.

pfdietz 3y ago

You don't need to believe in "Safire" (or any other fusion technology) to think tokamaks are a bad idea. They're bad all on their own.

devaiops9001 3y ago
Here is video footage of plasma in a Safire reactor causing a tungsten rod to rapidly decay, or at least that's what looks like is happening, not "vaporizing" (in scientific terms) https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI