5 ms·

>>However, the link you gave doesn't say that it will be a prototype of a net energy fusion reactor Uhhh? Are you trolling me? See the TITLE of the article: "

>>However, the link you gave doesn't say that it will be a prototype of a net energy fusion reactor Uhhh? Are you trolling me? See the TITLE of the article: "General Fusion will start building a full size prototype fusion reactor as early as this year" From the first paragraph: "Possibly later this year, General Fusion [website] will begin work on a full-size prototype reactor." Even the link is "general-fusion-will-start-building-full.html" :-) For added support, go check the website of GF: http://www.generalfusion.com/slides/#gallery1 http://www.generalfusion.com/slides/#gallery1 Look at "where we are going", second image from the top. "Full Scale, Net Gain Prototype In the next phase of development, General Fusion will be constructing a full scale prototype system. The prototype will be designed for single pulse testing, demonstrating full net energy gain on each pulse, a world first." Click the arrow -- it says "GOAL: Fusion energy released is 6x the piston energy input" (I upvoted you for successful trolling. But please stop that.)

dalke 12y ago
You may say that I'm trolling, or quibbling over an irrelevant nuance. I don't think I am. I believe I am trying to keep true to the intent of Asimov's prediction. I pointed out that "full size prototype fusion reactor" is not the same thing as "experimental fusion-power plant" which is what Asimov claimed would be here by 2014. (Chicago Pile #1 was a nuclear reactor. The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant and BORAX-III were nuclear power plants. There's a big difference between a reactor and a reactor which can be used as an experimental power plant.) The General Fusion link you gave still doesn't say it will be a fusion power reactor, only that it will be a fusion reactor. Yes, it says "6x the piston energy input", but that's not the same as "6x the input energy." Elsewhere on the site: General Fusion’s Magnetized Target Fusion system uses a sphere, filled with molten lead-lithium that is pumped to form a vortex. On each pulse, magnetically-confined plasma is injected into the vortex. How much extra energy is needed to keep the lead-lithium melted, how much energy is needed for the pumps, how much is needed for cooling, etc.? From the information I've read - and thank you for the pointers - I can't conclude that it's a going to be a net energy fusion reactor, in the sense that Asimov meant for an "experimental fusion-power plant." Or, put it this way - do you consider Chicago Pile #1 as an experimental nuclear power plant? If so, then the source of our difference is in what "power plant" means. If not, then what's the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear power plant, and what was the first experimental nuclear power plant?
- BugBrother 12y ago
  >> How much extra energy is needed to keep the lead-lithium melted You misunderstand. The energy from the fusion is taken up by the molten lead -- which is then used in a heat exchanger, like the present fission reactors etc. (The steam pistons also get their energy from the created heat. It seems unlikely that accelerating all those steam pistons won't be the major energy cost in the system, but sure -- pumping lead is hardly easy. But five times more than the pistons?) So the thing missing from an experimental power plant is a heat exchanger, like fission etc power plants. (And sure, lead is less fun than water!) I assume THAT is what you missed and assumed was a major problem? From what I've read, the proposed experimental system will (if it works) not be built to last for long, it is experimental. But again -- the energy system needed for this to be an experimental power plant is very similar to most other power plants that work by heating a medium. Work has been done on much worse than lead (see liquid sodium!). (About not being built to last: There are lots of moving parts, but those should probably not be a show stopper; boat engine pistons work for quite a while.)
  - dalke 12y ago
    I don't misunderstand. There's heat flow loss out of the body of the reactor. How much is this loss, compared to the amount generated? What I'm missing are numbers: how much power do they expect to generate from fusion, how much power do they think it will take to run the full prototype system, and what's the operating temperature; ideally as part of a Sankey diagram. I think this isn't available because they simply don't know. Again I ask, was Chicago Pile #1 a nuclear power plant? If not, what was the first nuclear power plant, and what distinguishes a power plant from other sorts of nuclear reactors? I think it must generate at least enough power to be be self-sustaining to qualify as a power plant. I therefore believe this General Fusion system, when built, will be an experimental fusion reactor used to develop the principles leading to a fusion power plant, but will not itself be a fusion power plant, experimental or otherwise. BTW, the Wikipedia page says "They hope to have a working reactor by 2020", which is of course 6 years after Asimov's prediction. The WP does not give a source for that information.
    - 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

You may say that I'm trolling, or quibbling over an irrelevant nuance. I don't think I am. I believe I am trying to keep true to the intent of Asimov's prediction. I pointed out that "full size prototype fusion reactor" is not the same thing as "experimental fusion-power plant" which is what Asimov claimed would be here by 2014. (Chicago Pile #1 was a nuclear reactor. The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant and BORAX-III were nuclear power plants. There's a big difference between a reactor and a reactor which can be used as an experimental power plant.) The General Fusion link you gave still doesn't say it will be a fusion power reactor, only that it will be a fusion reactor. Yes, it says "6x the piston energy input", but that's not the same as "6x the input energy." Elsewhere on the site: General Fusion’s Magnetized Target Fusion system uses a sphere, filled with molten lead-lithium that is pumped to form a vortex. On each pulse, magnetically-confined plasma is injected into the vortex. How much extra energy is needed to keep the lead-lithium melted, how much energy is needed for the pumps, how much is needed for cooling, etc.? From the information I've read - and thank you for the pointers - I can't conclude that it's a going to be a net energy fusion reactor, in the sense that Asimov meant for an "experimental fusion-power plant." Or, put it this way - do you consider Chicago Pile #1 as an experimental nuclear power plant? If so, then the source of our difference is in what "power plant" means. If not, then what's the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear power plant, and what was the first experimental nuclear power plant?

BugBrother 12y ago
>> How much extra energy is needed to keep the lead-lithium melted You misunderstand. The energy from the fusion is taken up by the molten lead -- which is then used in a heat exchanger, like the present fission reactors etc. (The steam pistons also get their energy from the created heat. It seems unlikely that accelerating all those steam pistons won't be the major energy cost in the system, but sure -- pumping lead is hardly easy. But five times more than the pistons?) So the thing missing from an experimental power plant is a heat exchanger, like fission etc power plants. (And sure, lead is less fun than water!) I assume THAT is what you missed and assumed was a major problem? From what I've read, the proposed experimental system will (if it works) not be built to last for long, it is experimental. But again -- the energy system needed for this to be an experimental power plant is very similar to most other power plants that work by heating a medium. Work has been done on much worse than lead (see liquid sodium!). (About not being built to last: There are lots of moving parts, but those should probably not be a show stopper; boat engine pistons work for quite a while.)
- dalke 12y ago
  I don't misunderstand. There's heat flow loss out of the body of the reactor. How much is this loss, compared to the amount generated? What I'm missing are numbers: how much power do they expect to generate from fusion, how much power do they think it will take to run the full prototype system, and what's the operating temperature; ideally as part of a Sankey diagram. I think this isn't available because they simply don't know. Again I ask, was Chicago Pile #1 a nuclear power plant? If not, what was the first nuclear power plant, and what distinguishes a power plant from other sorts of nuclear reactors? I think it must generate at least enough power to be be self-sustaining to qualify as a power plant. I therefore believe this General Fusion system, when built, will be an experimental fusion reactor used to develop the principles leading to a fusion power plant, but will not itself be a fusion power plant, experimental or otherwise. BTW, the Wikipedia page says "They hope to have a working reactor by 2020", which is of course 6 years after Asimov's prediction. The WP does not give a source for that information.
  - 12y ago