Can Flame Jets Effectively Constrain Plasma in Fusion Reactors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrewtv848
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confinement Jets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of using flame jets to confine plasma in fusion reactors, specifically exploring the implications of combustion and jet streams on plasma stability and energy extraction. The scope includes theoretical considerations and technical challenges related to plasma confinement in fusion applications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes using a combusting hydrogen or other reactants to generate flame jets for actively confining plasma, while expressing uncertainty about the potential destructive effects on the plasma.
  • Another participant notes that the temperatures required for plasma state in fusion reactors, such as ITER, are significantly higher than those achievable by combustion, suggesting that combustion may not be suitable for plasma confinement.
  • A third participant discusses the implications of introducing ions with atomic numbers greater than one into the plasma, indicating that they could increase energy losses and complicate fusion reactions without contributing positively to plasma pressure.
  • A later reply provides a quantitative analysis of the material requirements for maintaining plasma pressure, arguing that the proposed jet system would require an impractical amount of energy and material, leading to instability and failure of the confinement system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the viability of using flame jets for plasma confinement, with some questioning the feasibility based on temperature and energy considerations, while others remain uncertain about the potential effects of combustion on plasma stability.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the behavior of plasma under the influence of combustion jets, the dependence on specific definitions of plasma stability, and unresolved calculations regarding energy requirements and material dynamics in the proposed system.

Andrewtv848
Messages
16
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: Andrewtv848 and hutchphd

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
7K