Magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion.

===Preface=== My opponent clearly did not read the rules of this debate. First round was acceptance only. I am keenly interested in this debate, so I’m not going to call for immediate forfeit, however, MY OPPONENT CAN NO LONGER MAKE ANY ARGUMENTS OR CLOSING STATEMENTS IN THE FINAL ROUND, as it would give him an unfair advantage. I will call for an automatic forfeit if any arguments are made in the final round. To try and preserve a coherent debate structure, I will simply shift all of Con’s turns up one round. ===Main Arguments=== C1: Magnetic confinement fusion can be self-sustaining. The main reaction used in all fusion reactors is the DT – or deuterium-tritium – reaction, expressed as D+T→He4+n+17.59MeV. [1] My opponent is incorrect in the statement that “the extra neutrons interact with the material around them.” These neutrons are in the non-thermal end of the energy spectrum (energy in the 1E7 eV range, far above the 2E-2eV thermal level), meaning that they almost always only interact with dense moderating materials after scattering for quite some time. [2] The vast majority of the neutrons exit the chamber and, in a MCF design, activate a liquid lithium “blanket”, 1) producing more tritium to use as fuel in the Li7+n→He4+T+n reaction, and 2) heating the lithium, thereby providing energy to boil water, turning a turbine, just like in a conventional nuclear or coal power plant. Alternately, water can be used instead of lithium, though the tritium-producing processes will not take place. However, the key advantage of MCF is that it also uses the He4 byproduct to heat the plasma, as He4 retains a charge and can be redirected back into the center of the plasma with the solenoids, imparting the tremendous kinetic energy of the helium ion back into the plasma, heating it up, and eliminating the need for a constant outside energy source – something ICF does not have. This would allow the reaction to continue indefinitely with no power input other than that required to pump additional fuel into the reaction – a “self-sustaining” reaction. In contrast, by the nature of the design of inertial confinement, this cannot take place, as the helium-4 byproduct is simply waste and not utilized to further heat the plasma, making magnetic confinement far superior in this area. C2: Magnetic confinement fusion outputs power continuously, whereas inertial confinement operates under pulses. The second main reason MCF is superior to ICF for power generation has to do with the method of power output. Magnetic confinement is by design, self-sustaining (given a point of criticality in reaction rates), and outputs power continuously, whereas ICF operates in “bursts”. One might point out that simply reloading the device quickly and refiring it may surmount this problem for power generation, but given the rather small amount of energy released in each individual “shot”, about 15 pellets would need to be expended every second. [3] Obviously, there are a few major problems with this. First, ICF, by design, requires an incredible amount of precision in geometric symmetry, as compressing the pellet unevenly in any manner will cause it to burst to one side only, preventing fusion from taking place, as a centra compression is required. To fix this problem, a hohlram, or small gold cylinder, contains the pellet. Lasers are fired at the foci of the hohlram, creating a symmetrical pattern of x-rays which diffract and compress the pellet more evenly. However, to reload an ICF reactor at rapid speeds, the replacement of the pellets and the hohlram would need to be mechanized, and the machinery to do so would interfere with these foci, destroying the symmetry of the system, and preventing the pellet from collapsing evenly, thereby precluding fusion from occurring. Furthermore, the cost could be prohibitive, as each hohlram must be remachined before each shot, as the lasers destroy both the target and the cylinder. ===Additional Remarks=== I would also like to point out that this debate involves whether or not magnetic confinement fusion is more promising as an energy source than inertial confinement fusion. My opponent has not addressed this topic at all in his argument; instead, he simply defined what magnetic and inertial confinement fusion are and explained how they work, failing to contrast their respective capabilities as a power source. Though his explanations of MCF and ICF are slightly oversimplified, I take no issue with their content. However, currently, he has not even addressed the argument. I will reserve my rebuttal for the next round, as per the original plan. Con’s next turn will be a rebuttal, since his rounds have been shifted up one slot due to posting his initial arguments one round early. ===References=== [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://lasers.llnl.gov... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...