isaackoi2@gmail.com
May11-06, 05:00 AM
Greetings,
I'm currently brushing up on my rather dated knowledge of atmospheric
plasmas and would appreciate a bit of help.
While I'd welcome suggestions of links or books to bring me up to date,
at the moment I'm particularly interested in the modern view on two
statements about plasma dating back to the late 1960s.
Are the following generally regarded as correct today?
Or have things materially moved on in plasma research in the last 30 or
so years?
(1) One of my books dates back to 1968 and contains the following:
"... controlled fusion power will require the creation of plasma with a
temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees and the generation of a
'magnetic bottle' to contain and insulate this plasma. These problems
are among the most difficult and challenging in physical sciences today
and have occupied the full attention of some of the world's best
physicists for the past decade. The problem is still far from being
solved".
Does the above quote still represent the current position (albeit with
the reference to "the past decade" needing to be updated to "the last
[?40] years)?
Is plasma containment for nuclear fusion still one of the stumbling
blocks for developing fusion as a power source, or is progress now
being impeded primarily by other issues?
(2) Also, I've read some material on a plasma conference in 1969
(attended by various representatives of the University of California,
Los Alamos Scientific Lab, and others). That material includes a
conclusion that cnntainment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely
under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so.
Is the duration of "a second or so" still regarded as the upper limit?
Or has subsequent research indicated that plasmas may be stable under
atmospheric conditions for longer periods?
I note that the abstract of a more recent paper (dating back to 1989)
at the link below implies that ball lightning may have a lifetime "of
over 100 s".
http://intl.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=102474
I had understood that ball lightning was a form of atmospheric plasma
(but would welcome a correction if my understanding is incorrect).
So, is there a conflict between the 1989 paper and the view at the
conference in 1969?
If there is no conflict, I do not understand at the moment how are the
two different time periods to be reconciled. Can anyone explain or
point me in the right direction?
If there is (as there appears to me at present) a conflict between the
1989 paper and the view in 1969, which is correct? Has knowledge of
plasma improved, or was the statement in 1969 simply wrong?
Any help at all (even pointing me in the right direction for further
research) would be appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Isaac Koi
I'm currently brushing up on my rather dated knowledge of atmospheric
plasmas and would appreciate a bit of help.
While I'd welcome suggestions of links or books to bring me up to date,
at the moment I'm particularly interested in the modern view on two
statements about plasma dating back to the late 1960s.
Are the following generally regarded as correct today?
Or have things materially moved on in plasma research in the last 30 or
so years?
(1) One of my books dates back to 1968 and contains the following:
"... controlled fusion power will require the creation of plasma with a
temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees and the generation of a
'magnetic bottle' to contain and insulate this plasma. These problems
are among the most difficult and challenging in physical sciences today
and have occupied the full attention of some of the world's best
physicists for the past decade. The problem is still far from being
solved".
Does the above quote still represent the current position (albeit with
the reference to "the past decade" needing to be updated to "the last
[?40] years)?
Is plasma containment for nuclear fusion still one of the stumbling
blocks for developing fusion as a power source, or is progress now
being impeded primarily by other issues?
(2) Also, I've read some material on a plasma conference in 1969
(attended by various representatives of the University of California,
Los Alamos Scientific Lab, and others). That material includes a
conclusion that cnntainment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely
under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so.
Is the duration of "a second or so" still regarded as the upper limit?
Or has subsequent research indicated that plasmas may be stable under
atmospheric conditions for longer periods?
I note that the abstract of a more recent paper (dating back to 1989)
at the link below implies that ball lightning may have a lifetime "of
over 100 s".
http://intl.ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=102474
I had understood that ball lightning was a form of atmospheric plasma
(but would welcome a correction if my understanding is incorrect).
So, is there a conflict between the 1989 paper and the view at the
conference in 1969?
If there is no conflict, I do not understand at the moment how are the
two different time periods to be reconciled. Can anyone explain or
point me in the right direction?
If there is (as there appears to me at present) a conflict between the
1989 paper and the view in 1969, which is correct? Has knowledge of
plasma improved, or was the statement in 1969 simply wrong?
Any help at all (even pointing me in the right direction for further
research) would be appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Isaac Koi