Nuclear Fusion breakthrough? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:49:30 am
content: Didn't see this posted anywhere:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy1/Nominally, I would not consider the source a bunch of crackpots, so there's room to hope this pans out.Plus, after the Fleischmann Pons Cold Fusion fiasco, I would hope they were bloody sure before saying anything...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 08:27:38 am
content: There are a number of obvious errors in that article. Its hard to say if they are sloppy typos - like saying fusion where fission would be correct - or the result of an entirely sloppy mind.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 08:32:49 am
content: I certainly noticed the typos (pretty sure that's what they are). SciAm is hardly a fountain of "woo" science. Probably just a mad dash to get it posted.A 100MW reactor that fits in a 7x10 foot truck would be pretty impressive. The space applications of compact power like that alone...

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 08:33:44 am
content: I see a lot of articles announcing this. I haven't paid any attention because it's been just that, not even a peep about what it is they're actually doing. So... what's the point? Sure, I can do fusion on my desk, that doesn't mean it's freaking newsworthy.I hope it's related to Bussard's work.Tim

author: Codemonkey
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 08:34:48 am
content: That article is a bit pants, original press release is here:http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/october/141015ae_lockheed-martin-pursuing-compact-nuclear-fusion.htmlMust be something in it, I can't imagine a company of that calibre announcing something like this without having something to back it up!

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 08:38:20 am
content: Quote from: Codemonkey on October 16, 2014, 08:34:48 amThanks. Much better. And "is a bit pants" is my new favorite phrase.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 08:39:51 am
content: This project was originally announced over a year ago:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactorThere seems to be a lot of scepticism about the motive and timing of the recent press release:http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-bash-lockheed-on-nuclear-fusion-2014-10http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/16/experts_skeptical_over_lockheed_martins_claims_to_have_cracked_fusion/In answer to T3sl4co1l's speculation, it appears that they have taken some ideas from Robert Bussard's Polywell fusion research:http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 12:30:58 pm
content: I thought "pants" was supposed to be a superlative. Or maybe I've been reading it wrong, it's pretty infrequently used...Tim

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 05:45:12 pm
content: Lockheed did very little to enhance its credibility with this release. They have yet to fuse anything. It sounds like the project has simply run out of funding and internal goodwill and is looking for outside money just to survive. If their prototype was actually working, there would not be a solicitation in the form of a press release. Lockheed would simply build a reactor and own everything.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 05:49:47 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 16, 2014, 12:30:58 pmIt means about the same as 'crap'.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 06:28:04 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on October 16, 2014, 05:49:47 pmI've always felt that 'pants' implies a sort of hapless incompetence at which the British are particularly adept.(For our American friends: British pants are one's nether garments - Y-fronts, boxer shorts or whatever.)For example, among 1970s motor cars the Ford Pinto was crap, but the Austin Maxi was absolute pants.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:08:35 pm
content: The LHM video was pretty small, some might have missed it:I hope he's right, could be a social game changer.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:11:23 pm
content: I'm not sure nuclear fusion on the back of a truck is a good idea. Even fusion reactors produce substantial radiation during operation.http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/pres/105029.pdf?origin=publication_detail

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:22:42 pm
content: The truck drawing was a recycled slide from the presentation where management explained how the reactor was going to be hauled to the dump if the project manager didn't find some money and get his shit together.And since Lockheed's "reactor" doesn't fuse atoms, there's no danger of radiation.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:43:20 pm
content: Let's assume for a min this pans out, in ~10 years or so these are "available".How does:- One market a technological marvel?- Keep other companies/governments from squashing/stealing/politically stalling the tech?- Countless other significant considerations?Could something such as this cause war, between the country that owns it and the ones that wish to have it?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 07:57:34 pm
content: 1. Sell it to power companies?2. Make the technology available to US govt on request (I'm sure they'd LOVE a military contract). Then it becomes the US govt's problem3. ...4. Profit?

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 11:09:35 pm
content: As this does not yet do fusion, the only way that I can see they have any confidence, is that a small-scale test of the confinement system mentioned in the Aviation Leak article made them say "holy crap!" There'd have to be a minimum size to have a thermal mass and volume high enough to keep the plasma from quickly radiating away the energy needed to fuse, which you wouldn't expect a small scale test to achieve. In the case of Tokamaks, or NIF, the size needed is enormous (and largely unsuccessful). If my surmise is correct, it'd have a pretty high minimum output (i.e, not super-throttleable) . If the high beta claim is accurate due to the above noted confinement method working gangbusters, it's a civlization changing advance.As for what their motivation would be for going public this early, a cynical (possibly accurate) answer would be they are looking to get their foot in the door to score massive cost-plus contracts to replace the energy infrastructure of the US Military. The Navy funded Polywell, for instance. The US military would have a keen interest in portable power like that.If this doesn't work, they are going to look like fools.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 16, 2014, 11:47:58 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on October 16, 2014, 07:43:20 pmSame as you market anything else. Sell it, lease it, rent it out.Anyone using energy is a potential customer.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 12:30:02 am
content: Quote from: Codemonkey on October 16, 2014, 08:34:48 amPutting on my devil's advocate hat:QuoteSo yeah, there is potential reason there. Funding is likely drying up and they need more, so like all projects, be it fusion or anything else, they put on the most positive and optimistic case possible to get new funding.Of course, I think it's awesome, and I hope it's true.My money is certainly not against fusion.And don't think for second the military would love a truck size fusion reactor. They like nothing more than to replace their fission reactors on their ships and subs.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 12:50:59 am
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on October 16, 2014, 07:43:20 pmLike any invention: once one party gets it working the secret will get out or other parties will figure it out for themselves. IMHO the patents wars are going to be interesting.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 12:56:31 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 17, 2014, 12:50:59 amAnd that's only going to work in the countries that care about such things. Try suing someone in China for example.But this is potentially so big that it could and likely will enter the realm of top level international politics should one (possibly privately funded) company do it.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 01:17:13 am
content: It may be worth noting that the Polywell projecthasachieved fusion, and that the technical details are already common knowledge, to the degree that a web developer was able to build his own working Polywell fusion reactor using only his own money and that provided by followers of the project on his website. Robert Bussard went public in 2006 after the US Navy stopped funding the project, but they have been providing further funding since 2010.Of course, what's missing is net energy production - Farnsworth–Hirsch fusors also achieve nuclear fusion, and can and have been built by high school students. However, like every other attempt so far, including the multibillion dollar tokamaks, they consume more energy than is generated.

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 01:49:50 am
content: It sounds to me like a fishing trip. Lockheed has had mega brain drain in the last decade. this is a PC attempt to get other entities out there to show an interest, or tip a peek at thier technological hand to see if they can be of any use to move the project along in a more cost effective way. They would not be doing this if they were on sure footing within the company. Lockheed has more than enough capital to do this. Weather or not there is the will within the company is questionable. They are a aerospace manufacturer. Not a electrical generator company. GE and Westinghouse would stomp them into the ground if they threatened their generation equipment buisness.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 01:56:24 am
content: I expect they told the academics on the project to use their skills to the full. These would beTelling everyone a breakthrough is real close nowCreating a glowing picture of massive commercial potential for their work in 10 yearsRaising funds.These skills are, of course, interdependent. The sole purpose of the first two is to feed the third.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 03:14:11 am
content: Quote from: calexanian on October 17, 2014, 01:49:50 amDo they have the capital? After the F-35 Fiasco, they've been on a pretty short leash from the US Government. The military didn't have much sense of humor about the scale of those overruns.According to this, they are carrying $6 billion dollars of debt (scroll down):http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=LMT:NYQHere's gross revenue:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lockheed+martin+gross+revenueHere's net profit:http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=lockheed+martin+net+profitThe fraction of a/b =http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28lockheed+martin+net+profit%29%2F%28lockheed+martin+gross+revenue%29As defense contractors go, they're doing pretty well now, but during the mid 2000's they were bleeding money, which may have sapped cash reserves. Plus they still have to pay dividends and fund other parts of their business off current profits. Just on principal, they may be very disinclined to pay for a high-risk research program when a lot of eager customers with infinitely deep-pockets (the military) were available. They'd probably think it doesn't hurt to ask.As for GE, they carefully pointed out you can put the hot gas output of their reactor straight into a regular generator.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 03:28:57 am
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on October 17, 2014, 03:14:11 amThe F35 is pretty much business as usual for the defence industry. Its a little more extreme and publicised than usual, but nothing too extreme. The three golden rules of defence contracting are never to be:On specOn timeOn budgetThere is no way to squeeze more money from the tax payers if you break these rules.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 03:45:34 am
content: Speaking of fusion curiosities, there's been an interesting development in the Rossi e-cat saga.20141011http://www.blacklistednews.com/Cold_fusion_reactor_verified_by_third-party_researchers%2C_seems_to_have_1_million_times_the_energy_density_of_gasoline/38508/0/38/38/Y/M.htmlCOLD FUSION REACTOR VERIFIED BY THIRD-PARTY RESEARCHERS, SEEMS TO HAVE 1 MILLION TIMES THE ENERGY DENSITY OF GASOLINEAndrea Rossi’s E-Cat — the device that purports to use cold fusion to generate massive amounts of cheap, green energy – has been verified by third-party researchers, according to a new 54-page report.This is the report:http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf2MBQuite a fascinating read.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 06:04:36 am
content: It's worth noting that there was a fusion conference in Russia this week. Instead of giving a presentation, Lockheed stayed home and issued a press release. Anyone find that just wee bit odd for a Fortune 100 company with a supposedly world-changing fusion power source?And Rossi's e-cat is just complete horseshit. It has never been submitted for a true Eout / Ein evaluation. It has to stay plugged in and Rossi refuses to let the power in be measured. Then there's the absence of liberated neutrons from the fusion reaction. And the lack of corresponding radiation. Oh, and Rossi himself? He's a convicted criminal. Look it up..Want to evaluate a new power source? Check your wants, hopes, beliefs and the rest of it at the laboratory door. Power sources are testable and repeatable. There is no reason to want, hope, or believe anything about any of them. Anyone who comes to you with one of these magic power systems who won't submit it for independent "black box" testing of Ein and Eout needs to get their ass kicked out the door with extreme prejudice.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 06:40:33 am
content: Anybody recognize the test gear in the rack in the background?It'd be interesting to know what the Skunkworks would use to tinker with a fusion reactor confinement test article.Much looks familiar...

author: Nermash
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 06:51:24 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on October 17, 2014, 06:04:36 amBecause there is a new cold war going on between USA-Russia?Quote from: LabSpokane on October 17, 2014, 06:04:36 amJust yesterday I went to ecat website, there is a new report there done by professors at Bologna uni, claiming COP of 3-4, and excess heat which could not have been produced by a chemical reaction of reactor contents. However the issue of complete absence of neutrons is still there...I agree that Rossi's life was colourfull to say the least

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 06:58:38 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on October 17, 2014, 06:04:36 amIt's in the report, page 24.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 08:24:05 am
content: I had a read through the e-cat report and there are some highly questionable methods.Why would you use an AC heater and triac controller when DC would be far easier to measure accurately without any doubt over issues like power factor.Why would you attempt to measure the output with a thermal imaging camera when you could just wind a water coil at a suitable distance to maintain the required temperature and measure actual heat output with a much higher degree of confidence.If this thing was real it would be very easy to set up a demo that was completely convincing and couldn't be realistically challenged. Yet once again we see unnecessarily convoluted test methods and secrecy, giving rise to a strong smell of bullshit.As someone on Slashdot commented, these things should be evaluated not only by scientists, who come at things with a narrow mindset and aren't used to being tricked or misled , but also by people experienced in spotting fraud, trickery and misdirection, like magicians.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 08:30:17 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on October 17, 2014, 08:24:05 amOh come on. Next you'll be trying to convince us that Yuri Geller can't bend spoons with the power of his mind.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 08:41:27 am
content: Build your own fusion reactor...http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 08:50:36 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 17, 2014, 08:41:27 amAchieving non-explosive fusion is no challenge at all. People have been doing it, with practical and inexpensive medical applications, since the 1960s. Achieving more energy out of controlled fusion than you put in to create it is the challenge.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 09:18:54 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on October 17, 2014, 08:24:05 amIt's not a triac controller. Observe the interestingly square pulse waveforms shown.Edit: Hmm. looking at it again I don't knowwhatthose waveforms are. Stupid little obscure display. Are they total power envelope? What timescale? How come 'up' and 'down' pulses? Don't even know what the units are.Some scope captures of the actual drive signals would have been nice.I found this aspect very interesting. There are three 'phases' of heater coils, and yet it _isn't_ using the obviously simplest form of heater control - triacs, with either zero crossing cycle on/off pulsing or phase control.Why?Also, why three separate heaters and not just one?Given that there's clearly some unconventional physics going on (unless the supposedly independent reviewers are flat out lying about the isotope ratio shifts, or they had a trick pulled on them, and my gut feeling is they are not lying and weren't tricked), perhaps those odd aspects of the drive system are fundamental to the process? I'd be inclined to expect that simply heating a sample of the same fuel material up to that temperature, with a flame, or simple electric heater, won't achieve anything.There's also the aspect that whatever the process was, the signals applied via the heating coils were apparently exerting a control influence, beyond simple temperature control. Lots of excess power output, but it didn't run away? Interesting.So when you say "highly questionable methods" I think you are confusing the machine, and the methods chosen by the investigation team to examine it. They're given the machine and can't change how it operates, or there'd be no point. They have to choose methods suitable for the constraints imposed by the nature of the device as provided to them.QuoteA full calorimetry setup would be quite difficult for something like that. Since the device has to run at around 1000 deg C, you'd have to have a fairly large enclosure with heat exchangers some distance from the device. Which makes insulation, feed-throughs, and visual observation of the device difficult. It would also be expensive, and take time to set up.QuoteI'd like to know whether Rossi or any of his associates were present during the tests the report discusses. I got the impression he wasn't, but I don't recall them specifically saying he wasn't. Need to re-read it with that question in mind. He's mentioned, but was it just phone conversations, etc, or was he ever in the room?

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 09:34:24 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on October 17, 2014, 09:18:54 amTrue but if it's producing such a large surplus, all you'd need to show as that it was producing more energy in the water than the input power, so even with a very lossy system, a positive result here would be convincing.At 1000 Deg a lot of the heat would be radiated, so just putting a U-shaped water jacket a few inches above it would catch a large proportion of radiated and convected heat.

author: mzzj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 10:06:11 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on October 16, 2014, 05:45:12 pmmy thoughts exactly. Lot of would if - marketing bullshit.I bet they are looking for more funding. Maybe they should go crowd-sourcing

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 10:46:26 am
content: Interesting. Was poking around, and not only is LockMart not "just a defense contractor" they seem to be getting into the energy biz on several fronts:http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/10/16/lockheed-martins-fusion-breakthrough-is-just-one-piece-of-its-fast-growing-energy-portfolio/The fusion program can't be random then. It's obviously part of a bigger strategy.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 10:57:34 am
content: Cheap energy is the 20th and 21st century's fools gold.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 11:09:49 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on October 17, 2014, 09:18:54 amThe builder of a thermal power source is solely and 100% responsible for the heat exchangers to capture the energy and generate power. It is the device's raison d'être after all. It is not anyone else's responsibility to guess. Heat exchangers are not mysterious and are readily available - even in Italy.It matters not if one can see the device. One can't see a fission reactor during normal operation. We set the bounding box to encompass the reactor and it's turbine and measure the output power versus the parasitic load of the systems it needs to operate.It doesn't matter what what the theory of operation is either. The device could run on powdered unicorns and sea monkeys. For a fission/fusion device, one measures Ein and Eout. Either there is a net energy gain or there is not.Science and engineering make qualifying such devices simple. The liars and fools selling mystery energy machines always make the tests hard and non-objective.

author: nitro2k01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 17, 2014, 05:08:42 pm
content: Quote from: HP-ILnerd on October 17, 2014, 06:40:33 amTime to test my image Google-fu!Rows 1-2: 2 * HP/Agilent 6032A power supply. 60V, 50A.Row 3, on the left: BK Precision 1737 dual range power supply. 30V/3A or 60V/2A.Row 3, on the right: For the longest time, I saw an instrument with a small screen and a big brown screen before I realized it's a smaller instrument with a leather carry case on top.I cannot make out what device is on the bottom, but it's likely another lab power supply.Row 4: Tektronix PS280. Yet another DC power supply. Who would've guessed? :p Triple output. One fixed 5V/3A and two variable 30V/2A outputs.Row 5: HP/Agilent/Peeshite (sorry) 8648D RF signal generator. 9 kHz-4 GHz.Rows 6-7: HP Agilent 8753C network analyzer + 85047A S-Parameter test set. 300 kHz-6 GHz.Row 8-10: Too low detail to be useful in image searches. My guess would be power amplifiers and/or yet more power supplies.

author: HP-ILnerd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 18, 2014, 05:35:14 am
content: nitro2k01:Nice! The Network Analyzer totally threw me. Convinced myself I was looking at one of those old HP scopes from when they had a fascination with buttons instead of knobs. Oops.