Can Flame Jets Effectively Constrain Plasma in Fusion Reactors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrewtv848
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confinement Jets
AI Thread Summary
Flame jets generated from combusting hydrogen or other reactants are proposed as a method to confine plasma in fusion reactors, but concerns about their effectiveness arise. The extreme temperatures required for plasma state in reactors like ITER, reaching 150 million degrees Celsius, far exceed what combustion can achieve. Introducing additional ions increases energy losses and complicates plasma stability, as higher atomic numbers contribute to pressure without aiding fusion. Calculations suggest that the mass of material needed to sustain such jets would be unmanageable, leading to instability and failure of the confinement system. Overall, the proposed method is unlikely to achieve stable operation in a fusion reactor environment.
Andrewtv848
Messages
16
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
New type of active confinement
I have a idea for a plasma based fusion reactor. Using a combusting hydrogen/other reactant generate a flame jet to actively confine the plasma and possibly using a helium compressed jet stream as well to bring down turbulence.
My friend already says these will destroy the plasma but I am am not sure.
thanks for your time
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Andrewtv848 said:
Summary:: New type of active confinement

hydrogen/other reactant
Generally, any ion of Z>1, He, Li, . . . increases the energy losses from the plasma, in addition to having lower cross-sections (probability) for fusion reactions. In addition, as Z increases, there are a corresponding numbers of electrons which also contribute to the plasma pressure, without any benefit with respect to fusion.
 
  • Like
Likes Andrewtv848
Plasma pressure is of the order of 105 Pa. A good rocket engine can shoot out material at an optimistic ~5 km/s. For each square meter you need 105 Pa*1m2/(5 km/s) = 20 kg/s of material. ITER has a few hundred square meter surface area. Let's say 500 for simplicity. Then your jets shoot 10 tonnes of material into the plasma per second. The material is essentially at zero temperature compared to the plasma temperature. Heating 10 tonnes per second to 100 million K requires a power of a few petawatt - millions of gigawatts (for less than a gigawatt of electricity). At the given pressure you can only support maybe a few grams of material, so your system breaks down after a microsecond - time for the jets to move just a few millimeters. The system never reaches any sort of stable operation. The numbers just don't work out at all.
 
  • Like
Likes Andrewtv848 and hutchphd
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top