Can scientists finally contain lightning in a bottle with a stable plasma ring?

AI Thread Summary
Engineers at Caltech have successfully created a stable plasma ring in open air, a significant advancement since plasma typically requires containment. This method does not rely on magnetic fields, raising questions about its implications for the ITER project, which is based on magnetic confinement. However, maintaining the plasma ring requires a continuous stream of water, and scaling this technology for larger applications like ITER presents substantial challenges. While the research hints at potential applications in plasma-based technologies, it does not currently indicate viability for energy storage. Overall, this breakthrough is seen as a fascinating development, though not necessarily a solution for fusion energy or energy storage.
Messages
15,438
Reaction score
10,137
Like Magic, Only Better
When it was first described in the 1920s by physicist Irvin Langmuir, plasma was said to be one of the fundamental states of matter, though not one that exists freely on Earth under normal circumstances. Plasma is made up of charged particles, ions and electrons, and does occur naturally as lightning; an occurrence that can be contained in man-made objects like florescent light bulbs and plasma-cutting torches.

Now, for the first time, engineers from the California Institute of Technology(Caltech) have been able to create a stable plasma ring without a container According to the Caltech press release, it’s “essentially capturing lightning in a bottle, but without the bottle.”

https://futurism.com/stable-plasma-ring-created-open-air-first-time-ever/
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
Engineering news on Phys.org
Awesome! Its mentioned that no magnetic ring was necessary. What would this mean for ITER since a magnetic field is the entire premise of it? Would this be more viable for energy storage?
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
DS2C said:
Awesome! Its mentioned that no magnetic ring was necessary.
It also says that a continuous 9000 psi stream of water is required to maintain ring.
What would this mean for ITER since a magnetic field is the entire premise of it?
The ring looks like it's only 100 µm in diameter. [ref: my eyeballing of figure 1 (A) from the original paper]
I think the ITER* plasma ring is a bit larger. (google google google)
Yup: [ITER] major radius 6.2 m [ref: wiki]

Sounds like they would have some scaling up to do.

That does sound like a fun maths problem though:
Find the flow rate required to create an ITER sized plasma torus utilizing Caltech's method.
Extra credit: Determine if such a pump exists on the planet, and costs.
Variables:
fluid velocity: 300 meters/second (671 mph)
fluid radius: 6 meters (19.7 feet)
Being retired, I'll do it:
Flow rate: 34,000 m^3/sec (9 million gallons per second)
Capacity of the largest pump in the world: 150,000 gallons/sec [ref: Gizmodo, circa 2011]
Pumps required: 60
Cost of that pump: $500 million
Cost for 60 such pumps to do the experiment: $30 billion
Would running 60 such pumps in parallel work?
Probably not.​
Conclusion: skip this experiment.​

Would this be more viable for energy storage?
From my interpretation of:

...suggest pathways to create energy-storing coherent plasma structures at atmospheric pressure (47)

(47) Smirnov BM (1993) Physics of ball lightning. Phys Rep 224:151–236..​

It sounds like they are suggesting more experiments, and have not suggested that this is a currently a viable energy storage system.

* I had to look up "ITER"
per wiki; "ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and Latin for "the way") is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject, which will be the world's largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment. It is an experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor that is being built next to the Cadarache facility in Saint-Paul-lès-Durance, in southern France."
 
  • Like
Likes PAllen and atyy
DS2C said:
Awesome! Its mentioned that no magnetic ring was necessary. What would this mean for ITER since a magnetic field is the entire premise of it? Would this be more viable for energy storage?
It is relatively cold, it is tiny, and it needs a continuous water stream, otherwise it breaks down in fractions of a second.

Here is the original publication without futurism's usual dose of "this will solve all the world's problems tomorrrow" journalism.
The confined and chamberless nature of this plasmoid has potential implications for the investigation of plasma–matter interactions, in the development of plasma-based deposition techniques for the microelectronics industry, in the emerging field of plasma medicine, or as a model for energy-storing self-maintained plasmoids.
The energy storage is not really an application they expect. This becomes even more clear in the full text:
Our platform could also be of interest within the technological challenge of plasma self-confinement (46) or suggest pathways to create energy-storing coherent plasma structures at atmospheric pressure (47).
It is an interesting new tool, but it won't be used for fusion, and it doesn't look useful for energy storage either.
 
  • Like
Likes Evanish and atyy
Well even if it's not a viable option for energy storage, I think it's still pretty cool!
 
I just changed my avatar as it is a screen capture of an optical feedback loop in the process of becoming a consistent rotating ring. To make this ring cover the centre of the circle for long enough to effectively introduce a shadow into the feedback loop without destroying the pattern. I have only done it twice before nearly 20 years ago (using my finger) and the amazing thing is that there are 2 sets of tiny 'waves' running in different directions around the inside and outside of the ring.

image048.jpg

image054.jpg

image062.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image048.jpg
    image048.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 768
  • image054.jpg
    image054.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 739
  • image062.jpg
    image062.jpg
    10.6 KB · Views: 758
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Back
Top