kallend 1,635 #1 October 16, 2014 www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015 And it's not April 1.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #2 October 16, 2014 Sounds like an excellent alternative. Unfortunately liberals here in the 70's scared people so much with the whole "No Nukes" thing I doubt it would be commercially viable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HYoq6vIVXcPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #3 October 16, 2014 "Ultra-dense deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, is found in the earth's oceans, and tritium is made from natural lithium deposits." "Ultra-dense" is a funny word for an isotope that is half as dense as . . . helium. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lurch 0 #4 October 16, 2014 Meh. This is one of those clickbait fakeouts. They say straight-up that this is planted into the news cycle specifically to drum up investment/enthusiasm for Lockheed. I can't get excited about it because there aren't any actual facts in any of it. As much as I'm a huge fan of fusion and can't wait to see the real thing in play, this non-article has been all over the news today. "Lockheed makes huge fusion breakthrough" as if they finally achieved a solid break-even, something more than a lab fixture or tech demo and can now go build that commercial fusion plant we've all been waiting for for decades. But then the details, or lack of them, start to show. No actual reactor yet, not even a name. No mention of the process, what reaction, cost, technology... In fact once you pick through and process all the hype in the articles, they say almost nothing. There are dozens of articles floating around today and they all say... nothing! Nothing new at any rate, nothing they haven't been saying about it already for decades. Just under the hype there's nothing but weasel-words and carefully chosen phrasing. "Could" "Would" "Might"... How are they dealing with plasma instability? Last I heard they still had issues with compression asymmetries with the laser version and eddy current field breakdown with magnetic confinement. Reactor wall ablation? Is this a steady state reaction or something cruder, hohlraum pulse-fusion, we talking firing little nuggets into the center of a reaction chamber and hitting it with a laser, or did they figure out a working mini-tokamak runs continuously like a neon light, steadily cranking out more heat than the power it takes to drive it? Is this superconductor based or did they figure out how to pull it off with ordinary electromagnets? For decades the idea has been to try to pull it off on a giant utility scale, large plant. To suddenly claim they can jump directly to working miniaturized deployable generator plant you can fit on a truck skips far too much detail. I had high hopes for the Polywell concept but there's no mention of that, either, although if I had to guess I'd say that might be what they refer to here. Even then, no mention of how they plan to collect and harness the energy, either, let alone redirect some of it to keep the thing running self-sufficiently. The final blow to this hype for me is the one note of actual reality they reference where they still admit the damn thing is a decade away. They say they could have a demo running in a year. Tall order. Show me one actually running and producing power- nevermind the "finished, truck-mounted power pack consumer product", show me an actual tech demo running on its own, far enough past break-even to actually work even if it is just in a lab driving a 1-megawatt utility electrical load instead of "consumes 50MW and dumps the heat instead of driving an actual load because nobody could bother to rig the heat exchanger and steam turbine" and I'll be impressed. Aside from getting and keeping a past-unity break-even reaction going, collecting and applying the energy is a nontrivial detail. Losses? Thermal gradients? Materials? Maintenance? I don't even ask for a developed application. Don't care if they haven't compacted it down to a truck yet or made it convenient and easy to use so long as you read the fucking manual. Just show me a demo plant consuming a few megawatts but cranking out 100 and I don't mean thermal and theoretical, I mean actual electrical power exceeding input. I'll buy this with enthusiasm when I see them power one up, get it running, then cut the utility power and the thing powers itself and runs even a single building on the leftover electricity. -BLive and learn... or die, and teach by example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 October 16, 2014 Clean, reliable and inexpensive power. Yes, there are plenty of people who aren't in the petrochemical industry who have huge problems with this (those who see a threat in increasing the human population and prosperity). On another note, Lockheed hasn't said it's a net power gain from it. Controlled fusion has thus far been accomplished with power input in excess of that which was taken out (a couple years ago, a small fusion reaction generated something like 40 MJ of energy from a 20 MJ laser shot. Problem was it took about 500 MJ to charge the lasers.) I'm also very surprised by kallend's reference to this. This is a press release about something that was not peer reviewed. Nor will it be peer reviewed because it's an example of technology. Lockheed doesn't want others knowing how it did this so they can patent and prevent others from doing it. Lockheed is looking for investors. We probably won't hear much more about this for a while. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,129 #6 October 16, 2014 QuoteI'm also very surprised by kallend's reference to this. This is a press release about something that was not peer reviewed. Nor will it be peer reviewed because it's an example of technology. Lockheed doesn't want others knowing how it did this so they can patent and prevent others from doing it. I'm no lawyer, brain surgeon, professor, or rocket scientist. But, my guess is that might be why there is a question mark at the end of the thread title.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #7 October 17, 2014 SkyDekkerQuoteI'm also very surprised by kallend's reference to this. This is a press release about something that was not peer reviewed. Nor will it be peer reviewed because it's an example of technology. Lockheed doesn't want others knowing how it did this so they can patent and prevent others from doing it. I'm no lawyer, brain surgeon, professor, or rocket scientist. But, my guess is that might be why there is a question mark at the end of the thread title.... The first time I recall a claim for unlimited fusion power being imminent was in 1956 with a device called "ZETA" (zero energy thermonuclear assembly). Several others have come along since. None of them panned out. Hence my skepticism. "Fusion - Energy Source of the Future. Always has been, always will be".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
