6 ms·

Looking at the picture, I wonder if complexity of these devices will significantly be reduced once it finally works. I assume a lot of the bells and whistles ar

Looking at the picture, I wonder if complexity of these devices will significantly be reduced once it finally works. I assume a lot of the bells and whistles are needed to find the way, but once it's found..

StevenWaterman 1y ago
Your question reminds me of the image showing how SpaceX raptor motors evolved https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS
- pengaru 1y ago
  Is that an actual honest photo? The first two seem fully equipped including what seems to be shielded wiring harnesses. #3 looks totally devoid of any electronics. disclaimer: I don't follow this stuff at all. It just looks like a b.s. photo deliberately exaggerating how simplified #3 is vs. the others to this grease monkey.
  - jcims 1y ago
    Ready to rock(et) https://x.com/gwynne_shotwell/status/1821674726885924923?s=46 https://x.com/gwynne_shotwell/status/1821674726885924923?s=4...
  - mjamesaustin 1y ago
    IIRC not only did they remove many parts completely, but others have been integrated into the interior, which makes repair harder but will improve reliability since they are no longer exposed.
- GMoromisato 1y ago
  To be fair, the reason the right-most Raptor looks so clean is because they moved all the piping (all the complexity) to inside the casing. And the reason they made the effort is because the casing protects the tubing from the heat of re-entry. Otherwise they'd have to waste mass on heat shielding. [Take a look at videos of Superheavy Booster returning back to the launch tower--the bottom engine sections starts to glow from the heat.] I don't think that applies to Stellarators, so there may not be an incentive to simplify it. [But what do I know; I'm just a simple programmer.]
  - lux44 1y ago
    > the bottom engine sections starts to glow from the heat It's fuel burning, not glow. Speed is too low for glowing; glow would start at the edge, not from deep inside the skirt etc.
- ortusdux 1y ago
  I'm not keen on the idea of applying a 'keep subtracting things until it blows up' mentality to fusion reactors.
  - bhaak 1y ago
    The nice thing about fusion reactors is that they don’t blow up but just don’t work anymore.
    - soperj 1y ago
      they have fission reactors that have done that since the 60s (CANDU Reactor). They just don't help you produce nuclear bombs...
      - greesil 1y ago
        I dunno dude, if you fuse tritium and deuterium it does make neutrons.
      - philipkglass 1y ago
        CANDU has low intrinsic nuclear proliferation resistance. It can run on natural uranium, so it's easier to fuel than light water reactors which need enriched uranium, and its online fuel-swapping design means that it's easy to switch to low-burnup operation for generating weapons grade plutonium. Current CANDU power reactors have extensive monitoring to confirm that they are used peacefully, but if e.g. South Korea had a security crisis and decided to pursue a crash nuclear weapons program, world opinion be damned, its CANDU based reactors at Wolseong could be quickly reconfigured for weapons purposes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Nuclear_Power_Plant
        perihelions 1y ago
        It's topical that India's nuclear weapons program was started up with a Canadian-supplied heavy water reactor (though not CANDU; a not-power-generating type). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIRUS_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIRUS_reactor > "Canada stipulated, and the U.S. supply contract for the heavy water explicitly specified, that it only be used for peaceful purposes. Nonetheless, CIRUS produced some of India's initial weapons-grade plutonium stockpile,[6] as well as the plutonium for India's 1974 Pokhran-I (Codename Smiling Buddha) nuclear test, the country's first nuclear test.[7]"
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  Raptor 3 really is quite an achievement. Good on them.
- sheepscreek 1y ago
  Wow - beautiful. So there is hope! As someone unfamiliar with the challenges of mechanical engineering, I’ve often wondered at the complexity of fusion reactors. This picture puts a lot into perspective. Thanks for sharing!
  - api 1y ago
    Current fusion reactors are also studded with a ton of sensors and adjustments and injection ports and such that might not be present in a production reactor. They are experimental platforms, more like scientific instruments for studying the problem domain than production systems.
LeifCarrotson 1y ago
In my experience doing plumbing/hydraulics/pneumatics for industrial equipment, the first generation of a new product always looks way more complex than later versions. But I'm not sure they're actually more complex, they're often using a smaller variety of more flexible "industrial Lego" rather than custom, unique parts that are harder to extend or modify. Yeah, a single welded tube of the right diameter that necks down just so in that one spot to prevent cavitation, which has that sweeping multi-planar bend to just barely sneak through that obstruction, will look neat and tidy to a casual observer. Conversely, a stack of triclamp flanges, a straight length of pipe that shoots way out away from the guts of the equipment before it jogs sideways and down and back in with 90 degree couplings and gaskets and a manual shut-off valve and a pressure transmitter/flow meter and a "T" with a cap (just in case) and a sight glass looks like an awful mess. But I can build the latter in half an hour with parts we have on hand. And I'm not even a fitter, I'm an engineer! And when you do want to add something to it, I can do that in 5 minutes. After observing it function through the full regime of pressure and flow and viscosity parameters the equipment might have to deal with, I can maybe generate a print for the real plumbers to build the former dedicated-purpose component that sets all the constraints in stone (or rather, in welded stainless). That part will be unique and inflexible, embedding all the restrictions and history and test results and design decisions into a component that looks deceptively smooth to a layman's eyes. Is that simpler? I suppose it depends on your perspective.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  W7-X looks insane because its configuration was discovered by a computer pursuing a numerical optimization. We don't have any sound reasons to believe the next one will be simpler.
  - krisoft 1y ago
    > We don't have any sound reasons to believe the next one will be simpler. Yes and no. I think you are right that the plasma shape is going to remain very complex. But that's not the only reason why W7-X looks complicated. It has a ton of diagnostics ports on the plasma vessel just for research. Most of those we can probably design out for a production version. So I would expect a production version of a stelarator to be simpler than W7-X, but still remain very complex.
empath75 1y ago
The real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind. Economically all the cost of building a "boil some water and turn some turbines" plant is _already_ in the "boiling some water and turning some turbines" part of the generation, and even if the heat part of it was _free_, the rest of it would be too expensive to bother building a plant for it, compared to just building solar and wind generation and some better batteries.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind This is difficult to say when comparing an emerging technology with an established technology in an emerging economy. Based on every historical prior, it would be surprising if there weren't diminishing returns to solar and wind. And I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which power is, in part, fashion. Today we value emissions. Tomorrow it may be preserving and expanding wild spaces. On a practical level, fusion research doesn't compete with solar and wind deployment. Pursuing both is optimal.
  - davrosthedalek 1y ago
    Additionally, the total amount of solar and wind is limited. Surely more than we need now, don't get me wrong, but how much more? Factor 2? 10? I could see a future that is extremely energy hungry, and not just because of AI.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > the total amount of solar and wind is limited I'd be shocked if we max out on insolation before area we're willing to cover with solar panels and windmills.
  - Dr4kn 1y ago
    PV Panel production acts more like typical mass production and has therefore much higher cost benefits compared to every other way of producing power. For every other way of producing energy you need separate land for PV you don't. You can put them on rooftops, over parking lots or even vertical in a field. The last one increases the crop yield. Crops get less harsh sun, lose less water and the evaporation cools down the panels, which increases their production. Today we value costs of energy production and tomorrow we will to. Especially if it results in energy independence. You don't need to buy fuel for PV and wind. As with nuclear fuel only a few countries are probably going to manufacturing the fuel needed for fusion reactors. Producing enough of it and in a sufficient purity needs specialized facilities and they will only be profitable if they produce a lot of it.
constantcrying 1y ago
These reactors are build for research, so presumably they need to be more modular, have more measuring components and be more accessible for changes.
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
That's how it goes most of the time. First you have to make it work somehow, often in a very complex way. Once you have something that works, either you can strip away a lot or the components get commoditized and you can buy them in a nice package. A lot of our devices are super complex but you can build a device without much knowledge because the complexity is hidden away in nicely packaged components.

StevenWaterman 1y ago

Your question reminds me of the image showing how SpaceX raptor motors evolved https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS https://imgur.com/a/4w3q3lS

pengaru 1y ago
Is that an actual honest photo? The first two seem fully equipped including what seems to be shielded wiring harnesses. #3 looks totally devoid of any electronics. disclaimer: I don't follow this stuff at all. It just looks like a b.s. photo deliberately exaggerating how simplified #3 is vs. the others to this grease monkey.
- jcims 1y ago
  Ready to rock(et) https://x.com/gwynne_shotwell/status/1821674726885924923?s=46 https://x.com/gwynne_shotwell/status/1821674726885924923?s=4...
- mjamesaustin 1y ago
  IIRC not only did they remove many parts completely, but others have been integrated into the interior, which makes repair harder but will improve reliability since they are no longer exposed.
GMoromisato 1y ago
To be fair, the reason the right-most Raptor looks so clean is because they moved all the piping (all the complexity) to inside the casing. And the reason they made the effort is because the casing protects the tubing from the heat of re-entry. Otherwise they'd have to waste mass on heat shielding. [Take a look at videos of Superheavy Booster returning back to the launch tower--the bottom engine sections starts to glow from the heat.] I don't think that applies to Stellarators, so there may not be an incentive to simplify it. [But what do I know; I'm just a simple programmer.]
- lux44 1y ago
  > the bottom engine sections starts to glow from the heat It's fuel burning, not glow. Speed is too low for glowing; glow would start at the edge, not from deep inside the skirt etc.
ortusdux 1y ago
I'm not keen on the idea of applying a 'keep subtracting things until it blows up' mentality to fusion reactors.
- bhaak 1y ago
  The nice thing about fusion reactors is that they don’t blow up but just don’t work anymore.
  - soperj 1y ago
    they have fission reactors that have done that since the 60s (CANDU Reactor). They just don't help you produce nuclear bombs...
    - greesil 1y ago
      I dunno dude, if you fuse tritium and deuterium it does make neutrons.
    - philipkglass 1y ago
      CANDU has low intrinsic nuclear proliferation resistance. It can run on natural uranium, so it's easier to fuel than light water reactors which need enriched uranium, and its online fuel-swapping design means that it's easy to switch to low-burnup operation for generating weapons grade plutonium. Current CANDU power reactors have extensive monitoring to confirm that they are used peacefully, but if e.g. South Korea had a security crisis and decided to pursue a crash nuclear weapons program, world opinion be damned, its CANDU based reactors at Wolseong could be quickly reconfigured for weapons purposes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolseong_Nuclear_Power_Plant
      - perihelions 1y ago
        It's topical that India's nuclear weapons program was started up with a Canadian-supplied heavy water reactor (though not CANDU; a not-power-generating type). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIRUS_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIRUS_reactor > "Canada stipulated, and the U.S. supply contract for the heavy water explicitly specified, that it only be used for peaceful purposes. Nonetheless, CIRUS produced some of India's initial weapons-grade plutonium stockpile,[6] as well as the plutonium for India's 1974 Pokhran-I (Codename Smiling Buddha) nuclear test, the country's first nuclear test.[7]"
idiotsecant 1y ago
Raptor 3 really is quite an achievement. Good on them.
sheepscreek 1y ago
Wow - beautiful. So there is hope! As someone unfamiliar with the challenges of mechanical engineering, I’ve often wondered at the complexity of fusion reactors. This picture puts a lot into perspective. Thanks for sharing!
- api 1y ago
  Current fusion reactors are also studded with a ton of sensors and adjustments and injection ports and such that might not be present in a production reactor. They are experimental platforms, more like scientific instruments for studying the problem domain than production systems.

LeifCarrotson 1y ago

In my experience doing plumbing/hydraulics/pneumatics for industrial equipment, the first generation of a new product always looks way more complex than later versions. But I'm not sure they're actually more complex, they're often using a smaller variety of more flexible "industrial Lego" rather than custom, unique parts that are harder to extend or modify. Yeah, a single welded tube of the right diameter that necks down just so in that one spot to prevent cavitation, which has that sweeping multi-planar bend to just barely sneak through that obstruction, will look neat and tidy to a casual observer. Conversely, a stack of triclamp flanges, a straight length of pipe that shoots way out away from the guts of the equipment before it jogs sideways and down and back in with 90 degree couplings and gaskets and a manual shut-off valve and a pressure transmitter/flow meter and a "T" with a cap (just in case) and a sight glass looks like an awful mess. But I can build the latter in half an hour with parts we have on hand. And I'm not even a fitter, I'm an engineer! And when you do want to add something to it, I can do that in 5 minutes. After observing it function through the full regime of pressure and flow and viscosity parameters the equipment might have to deal with, I can maybe generate a print for the real plumbers to build the former dedicated-purpose component that sets all the constraints in stone (or rather, in welded stainless). That part will be unique and inflexible, embedding all the restrictions and history and test results and design decisions into a component that looks deceptively smooth to a layman's eyes. Is that simpler? I suppose it depends on your perspective.

jeffbee 1y ago
W7-X looks insane because its configuration was discovered by a computer pursuing a numerical optimization. We don't have any sound reasons to believe the next one will be simpler.
- krisoft 1y ago
  > We don't have any sound reasons to believe the next one will be simpler. Yes and no. I think you are right that the plasma shape is going to remain very complex. But that's not the only reason why W7-X looks complicated. It has a ton of diagnostics ports on the plasma vessel just for research. Most of those we can probably design out for a production version. So I would expect a production version of a stelarator to be simpler than W7-X, but still remain very complex.

empath75 1y ago

The real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind. Economically all the cost of building a "boil some water and turn some turbines" plant is _already_ in the "boiling some water and turning some turbines" part of the generation, and even if the heat part of it was _free_, the rest of it would be too expensive to bother building a plant for it, compared to just building solar and wind generation and some better batteries.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> real problem with fusion power is that even if they figure it out, it still won't be cost competitive with solar and wind This is difficult to say when comparing an emerging technology with an established technology in an emerging economy. Based on every historical prior, it would be surprising if there weren't diminishing returns to solar and wind. And I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which power is, in part, fashion. Today we value emissions. Tomorrow it may be preserving and expanding wild spaces. On a practical level, fusion research doesn't compete with solar and wind deployment. Pursuing both is optimal.
- davrosthedalek 1y ago
  Additionally, the total amount of solar and wind is limited. Surely more than we need now, don't get me wrong, but how much more? Factor 2? 10? I could see a future that is extremely energy hungry, and not just because of AI.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the total amount of solar and wind is limited I'd be shocked if we max out on insolation before area we're willing to cover with solar panels and windmills.
- Dr4kn 1y ago
  PV Panel production acts more like typical mass production and has therefore much higher cost benefits compared to every other way of producing power. For every other way of producing energy you need separate land for PV you don't. You can put them on rooftops, over parking lots or even vertical in a field. The last one increases the crop yield. Crops get less harsh sun, lose less water and the evaporation cools down the panels, which increases their production. Today we value costs of energy production and tomorrow we will to. Especially if it results in energy independence. You don't need to buy fuel for PV and wind. As with nuclear fuel only a few countries are probably going to manufacturing the fuel needed for fusion reactors. Producing enough of it and in a sufficient purity needs specialized facilities and they will only be profitable if they produce a lot of it.

constantcrying 1y ago

These reactors are build for research, so presumably they need to be more modular, have more measuring components and be more accessible for changes.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

That's how it goes most of the time. First you have to make it work somehow, often in a very complex way. Once you have something that works, either you can strip away a lot or the components get commoditized and you can buy them in a nice package. A lot of our devices are super complex but you can build a device without much knowledge because the complexity is hidden away in nicely packaged components.