New power- Fusion?

[Piper_VGL]

Lockheed-martin announced they are about 10 years out from a working fusion reactor, about the size of a jet engine, producing 500MW of power.  Nimitz class has two reactors producing 550MW each....

 

Can you say the power of a Nimitz, in a Zumwalt, for the railguns and lasers?    hhmmm

 

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2015/02/lockheed-martins-new-compact-fusion.html#.VPU8LC4YE2b

[BnaditCorps]

get the nukes we need help!

 

[_Sarcasticat_]

NUUUUUUUKKKKEEEEESSSSS

[Abyssal_Carrier_Wo]

This is amazingly terrifying.

[Im_The_Seeker2]

That's ridiculous, of course they aren't anywhere near a working fusion reactor, 10 years from now they are going to say that they are still 10 years out, it'll be 50 years before they even get CLOSE to a sustained fusion reaction.

When the reactor stops, they are going to get some HARDCORE cavitation, that is the problem, and also the cause of supernova.

[KiloWhiskey]

That's ridiculous, of course they aren't anywhere near a working fusion reactor, 10 years from now they are going to say that they are still 10 years out, it'll be 50 years before they even get CLOSE to a sustained fusion reaction.

When the reactor stops, they are going to get some HARDCORE cavitation, that is the problem, and also the cause of supernova.

 

Problem is that its engeneers saying 10 years not physicists, and its Lockheed. It makes you wonder if they have something this time.

[MM2ss]

From the source...  "Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work."

 

Sounds like one of two scenarios.  1) The actually have it figured out (unlikely in my estimation).  2) They are about to fleece the government and numerous private investors for a bunch of capital.

[Guest]

Fusion power is a most promising source of energy, and can be useful in the future. 

[Piper_VGL]

From the source...  "Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work."

 

Sounds like one of two scenarios.  1) The actually have it figured out (unlikely in my estimation).  2) They are about to fleece the government and numerous private investors for a bunch of capital.

 

Or both.   10 years?  well IF we get a TON of money.... 10 years. Otherwise 20.....

[Guest]

 

Or both.   10 years?  well IF we get a TON of money.... 10 years. Otherwise 20.....

 

Its always 20 years isn't it? ...lets just hope we get lucky and its 10 years. 

[MM2ss]

I'm a bit skeptical.  I figure in ten years with a bunch of funding they might have the theory figured out enough to actually start trying to build one for real.

[BnaditCorps]

i think 20-35 years

[Im_The_Seeker2]

 

Problem is that its engeneers saying 10 years not physicists, and its Lockheed. It makes you wonder if they have something this time.

 

They told us we'd have death rays and space lasers, the engineers making stuff for the U.S. military are notorious for either never delivering or delivering hilariously overbudget.

[EAGLESQUAD1]

Fusion power would be a great source of power. It could power just about everything.

[KiloWhiskey]

 

They told us we'd have death rays and space lasers, the engineers making stuff for the U.S. military are notorious for either never delivering or delivering hilariously overbudget.

 

Not really, thats the broken procurement system.

[Mel_Kulek]

Lockheed-martin announced they are about 10 years out from a working fusion reactor, about the size of a jet engine, producing 500MW of power.  Nimitz class has two reactors producing 550MW each....

 

Can you say the power of a Nimitz, in a Zumwalt, for the railguns and lasers?    hhmmm

 

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2015/02/lockheed-martins-new-compact-fusion.html#.VPU8LC4YE2b

 

Better read this http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-bash-lockheed-on-nuclear-fusion-2014-10?IR=T

 

That's ridiculous, of course they aren't anywhere near a working fusion reactor, 10 years from now they are going to say that they are still 10 years out, it'll be 50 years before they even get CLOSE to a sustained fusion reaction.

When the reactor stops, they are going to get some HARDCORE cavitation, that is the problem, and also the cause of supernova.

 

Containment volume and density are on the magnitude of about 1 x 10^-30 to small to cause a supernova.  From what I've read at the end of life-cycle of fusion reactors, the plasma dissipates, as a battery/capacity maintains the magnetic field strength until all the plasma is gone.

 

 

They told us we'd have death rays and space lasers, the engineers making stuff for the U.S. military are notorious for either never delivering or delivering hilariously overbudget.

 

Space lasers do exists for communications...

Death rays do exists, the NIF is a good example, the USAF experiment on destroying in-flight ICBM another example.  The problem is that using lasers on humans is against the Geneva convention.  At least blinding people is, but using a laser on the order of magnitude to kill someone will blind them. 

 

-Mel

[Im_The_Seeker2]

 

Better read this http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-bash-lockheed-on-nuclear-fusion-2014-10?IR=T

 

 

Containment volume and density are on the magnitude of about 1 x 10^-30 to small to cause a supernova.  From what I've read at the end of life-cycle of fusion reactors, the plasma dissipates, as a battery/capacity maintains the magnetic field strength until all the plasma is gone.

 

 

Space lasers do exists for communications...

Death rays do exists, the NIF is a good example, the USAF experiment on destroying in-flight ICBM another example.  The problem is that using lasers on humans is against the Geneva convention.  At least blinding people is, but using a laser on the order of magnitude to kill someone will blind them. 

 

-Mel

I may have been a bit unclear there, I was not claiming that the reactor would cause a supernova-like explosion, rather that when the reaction is stopped, if the fuel cools rapidly, the pressure will drop rapidly, which is going to be very rough on the reactor.  It's also worth noting that cooling will be an extremely lengthy process if the particles are contained by the magnetic field throughout the entire process...

 

I really wouldn't consider those 'death rays', either, and there have so far been limited applications for them, namely: shooting down ICBMs in-flight, and the 'laser CIWS' that is being tested by the USN

[Mel_Kulek]

I may have been a bit unclear there, I was not claiming that the reactor would cause a supernova-like explosion, rather that when the reaction is stopped, if the fuel cools rapidly, the pressure will drop rapidly, which is going to be very rough on the reactor.  It's also worth noting that cooling will be an extremely lengthy process if the particles are contained by the magnetic field throughout the entire process...

 

I really wouldn't consider those 'death rays', either, and there have so far been limited applications for them, namely: shooting down ICBMs in-flight, and the 'laser CIWS' that is being tested by the USN

 

Supernova-like explosion is on the magnitude of stars, there is 1) Not enough gravity because of, 2) insufficient mass, 3) not enough density due to 4) wrong material.  Supernova occurs because of sudden end of Nuclear Fusion in an Iron or Silicon core (mature star)... you aren't creating any ingredient that would allow a supernova to occur, other than the fusion process.

 

Pressure drop would NOT be rough on a reactor... plasma dissipates in thin air, when temperatures drop below a few thousand degrees kelvin.  Cooling is NOT a lengthy process either, these are small modular containers, they are similar to Type III and Type IV closed-nuclear reactors.  If the fusion reaction because too hot, less deuterium/tritium are released, to bring it back to manageable levels, if it cools, add the other.  Unlike the nuclear accidents of the 60's 70's 80's, and Fukushima, nuclear accidents are rare due to technological innovations.  The only way to cause stress, is to drop the magnetic field, even in this event, the plasma wouldn't sustain itself for a long period of time, only destroying objects near to it.... Unlike the popular misconception that plasma would leak for miles, its more like a few yards before it dissipates.  ITER is a different story, that plasma could last a few hundred feet.  Once the magnetic containment is lost NO MORE FUSION occurs (this occurs in the nanoseconds since its barely a fusion reaction), dropping the temperature drastically.

 

The navy's experimentation with laser 'CIWS' wouldn't be considered a 'CIWS'... its a medium range anti-missile standoff weapon to supplement CIWS, not a Close-In Weapon System (CIWS).

 

-Mel

[KiloWhiskey]

 

 

Space lasers do exists for communications...

Death rays do exists, the NIF is a good example, the USAF experiment on destroying in-flight ICBM another example.  The problem is that using lasers on humans is against the Geneva convention.  At least blinding people is, but using a laser on the order of magnitude to kill someone will blind them. 

 

-Mel

 

Ya bout that..if you kill them with the laser there is no one to complain about for a war crime. It's if you blind them and they live that its a war crime. Funny thing is there's a legal leg to stand on if you use a laser to blind an aircraft pilot such that they crash. Since if a pilot is blind hes probably going to crash and hes probably going to die and take the evidence that you blinded "Oh no our laser was set to dazzle" him up in a fireball after he meets the edges of the air.

 

Additionally, its one heck of a stupid law, or badly written and interpreted. Using a laser to intentionally blind someone is agreed bad, and could be a reasonable war crime complete with reciprocity and reprisal. However using a laser to kill someone or aid in the killing of someone is no more or less moral then using any other weapon designed to kill, that happens to maim when used appropriately.

[Im_The_Seeker2]

 

Supernova-like explosion is on the magnitude of stars, there is 1) Not enough gravity because of, 2) insufficient mass, 3) not enough density due to 4) wrong material.  Supernova occurs because of sudden end of Nuclear Fusion in an Iron or Silicon core (mature star)... you aren't creating any ingredient that would allow a supernova to occur, other than the fusion process.

 

Pressure drop would NOT be rough on a reactor... plasma dissipates in thin air, when temperatures drop below a few thousand degrees kelvin.  Cooling is NOT a lengthy process either, these are small modular containers, they are similar to Type III and Type IV closed-nuclear reactors.  If the fusion reaction because too hot, less deuterium/tritium are released, to bring it back to manageable levels, if it cools, add the other.  Unlike the nuclear accidents of the 60's 70's 80's, and Fukushima, nuclear accidents are rare due to technological innovations.  The only way to cause stress, is to drop the magnetic field, even in this event, the plasma wouldn't sustain itself for a long period of time, only destroying objects near to it.... Unlike the popular misconception that plasma would leak for miles, its more like a few yards before it dissipates.  ITER is a different story, that plasma could last a few hundred feet.  Once the magnetic containment is lost NO MORE FUSION occurs (this occurs in the nanoseconds since its barely a fusion reaction), dropping the temperature drastically.

 

The navy's experimentation with laser 'CIWS' wouldn't be considered a 'CIWS'... its a medium range anti-missile standoff weapon to supplement CIWS, not a Close-In Weapon System (CIWS).

 

-Mel

If you drop the magnetic field, even if the reaction stops, that heat has to go somewhere... like, the reactor walls.  Right now, there aren't many materials that can withstand that heat being dumped into it, so while the reactor would be "easy" to start and maintain, stopping it is a different story, you couldn't just suck fuel out, it'd melt the reactor.  They're also treading a fine line between extracting enough heat from the reactor to power a turbine and extracting too much heat from the reactor, causing it to melt.  Melting is still a problem, even though it doesn't release anything near as dangerous as fissile material is.

[Klasna]

 

Fusion has been a work in progress for over 50 years. However, things are starting to get truly exciting with ITER being developed in France and W-7X in Germany.

 

Although occasionally very damaging events called "disruptions" do occur in reactors (mostly tokamaks), the total thermal energy contained in the plasma of a fusion reactor is reasonably small. However, that is beginning to change with ITER. The confined energy at any given time in an ITER discharge is equivalent to roughly 217 kg of TNT. The TFTR reactor in Princeton has had a few disruptions that have obliterated the divertor and released energy on the same scale as a .2kg of TNT. However, replacing a few components and some glow discharges to clean the reactor vessel will get the device up an running again.

 

The nice thing about fusion, if we can get it working with friendly gasses, is that the radioactive by products are fairly mild. The semi-nasty one currently is tritium, but it is rarely used (ITER will use it) and is only used because the cross section for fusion occurs at the lowest temperatures.

 

[9thFLT_Hunt]

one problem with fusion vs. fission is that the fusion plants need fuel.  Fusion runs off heavy water.  While you can refine it from seawater, the plants and bunkers would probably be prohibitively large to fit in a destroyer hull, and the hydrogen produced would be extremely volatile.  I'd say we're a long way off in seeing fusion power in anything smaller then a Carrier.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

Fusion power has been a decade away since work really began in the 50s.  Here we are, 60+ years later with a lot more identified problems but still no working solutions to making fusion work as a power source.  To be fair, it seems to be the perfect energy source if it could be made to work but until some catalytic discovery is made public, I remain skeptical of seeing it going live within my lifetime.   

[Carl]

 one problem with fusion vs. fission is that the fusion plants need fuel.  Fusion runs off heavy water.  While you can refine it from seawater, the plants and bunkers would probably be prohibitively large to fit in a destroyer hull, and the hydrogen produced would be extremely volatile.  I'd say we're a long way off in seeing fusion power in anything smaller then a Carrier. 

 

 

I don't think people understand just how energy dense hydrogen is. 1 litre of water contains enough hydrogen that at 10% conversion efficiency you can still run a 100,000 HP plant for a full day. Oil is less dense that Water, so even if you have to use heavy water to hold your fuel you can hold more of it for the same bunkerage volume. The Spruance class carried 1400 tons of fuel oil. That's the equivalent of the fuel needed to run the above plant for 4,000 years.

 

Perfect deuterium-deuterium fusion and you don't need heavy water, just filtered, desalinated, and then electrolysed seawater will do. The hard part is starting the reaction, power hungry, you'd need something like a few 100 HP radio-isotopic generator to charge a capacitor for emergency starts from cold.

 

[reaver2000]

If you drop the magnetic field, even if the reaction stops, that heat has to go somewhere... like, the reactor walls.  Right now, there aren't many materials that can withstand that heat being dumped into it, so while the reactor would be "easy" to start and maintain, stopping it is a different story, you couldn't just suck fuel out, it'd melt the reactor.  They're also treading a fine line between extracting enough heat from the reactor to power a turbine and extracting too much heat from the reactor, causing it to melt.  Melting is still a problem, even though it doesn't release anything near as dangerous as fissile material is.

 

I believe you are confusing HEAT with Temperature. Plus even current magnetic reactors can handle loss of confinement and suffer only  - "thermal Stress" not "melting"... Also the reactors are already very tough, able to handle the Neutron radiation.

 

ref. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Fusion-Power/