Newsgroups: sci.physics.plasma
From prometheus!pmk@cs.UMD.EDU Sun Jun 9 15:55:03 1996
From: prometheus!pmk@cs.UMD.EDU (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II Ltd.
Subject: Advanced concept fusion research

The following (below) is an article comment. I am strongly in support of
advanced concept research for fusion and I believe the tokamak program has
not been subjected to the criticism and standards to which AC concepts are
held.
Incidentally our plasmoids are generated with better efficiency and we
have made recent changes to extend that effort. We are close to
investigating the effects of the new modifications.

Best regards,
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Kenward wrote:
>
> Edward Paes <hpee6426@uriacc.uri.edu> wrote:
>
> >The idea was (and still is) to squeeze ionized heavy water with magnetic
> >fields strongly enough to create a nuclear fusion reaction; a goal,
> >incidentally, which after 46 years remains nearly as elusive as ever.
>
> Nearly. Try heavy hydrogen (deuterium), with a dash of even heavier
> hydrogen (tritium).
>
> You are also wrong on the elusiveness. They have come a long long way
> in the past 46 years. They just haven't reached the end of the road
> yet. As much as anything, the question is now becoming one of
> economics and technology, rather than science.

This is a cop out. The fundamental problem is physics, which has to
do with the weakness of this topology to utilize pressure efficiently. A
requirement for Pressure of a kilobar to be supplied by coils to generate
less than ten atmospheres of plasma pressure, is not acceptable. This is
a terrible waste of resources and space, when it could be accomplished
far more efficiently in a Spheromak type configuration. Feynmann said
that if something either costs too much or takes more than 10 years to
bring it to commercial use, it likely will never work. If it could work,
(plasma come into burn conditions), then what hope that solid state first
walls could perform for the required time and meet the specifications for
a clean chamber. Most fusion burners I know about (stars) have fusion power
impervious plasma Mantles for first walls. The gains of the tokamaks
ability to generate some fusion power is nearly entirely due to the fact
that only recently have they been using D-T. (50% T isn't exactly a dash).
I suppose the first time a gasoline engine was supplied with fuel, its
power output increased substantially, and further, it would have likely
functioned above energy break-even from the outset. I think the tokamak
should have evolved not just have been made larger.
I do see that the Spherical Tokamak invented in the 70's is getting
promoted as THE alternate concept. It's more efficient, but not nearly
as efficient at utilizing confinement power as other alternatives.
However,it may keep PPPL in business if the *promotion* of this ORNL
originated idea "works". Unfortunately the concept itself won't.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, BX 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037|
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu FAX (301) 434-6737 |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075 ***** Commercial FUSION in the Nineties ***** |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Michael Kenward OBE / Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568 Fax: (0)1444 401064
> Science Writer & / michael.kenward@dial.pipex.com
> Editorial Consultant / http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/michael.kenward/