Unlocking the Power of Compact Fusion

In summary: According to UK AEA chief and fusion expert Steven Cowley, the Lockheed fusion project and its lead researcher McGuire have placed themselves in a bit of a scandal. Apparently Lockheed released some promising preliminary results on their reactor, prompting some immediate but unsurprising queries about plasma temperature, density, etc. After some stalling came the reply, that the machine had not yet been turned on. Cowley points out that this is not the first time this has happened - in fact, it is something of a pattern. When the company made a similar announcement in 2007, it too had not yet built a working prototype.
  • #1
Deacon James
3
4
https://lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html

HOW COMPACT FUSION WORKS
Nuclear fusion is the process by which the sun works. Our concept will mimic that process within a compact magnetic container and release energy in a controlled fashion to produce power we can use.
A reactor small enough to fit on a truck could provide enough power for a small city of up to 100,000 people.
Building on more than 60 years of fusion research, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works approach to compact fusion is a high beta concept. This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Interesting but where is a workable machine now ?
 
  • #3
That's just a project description. They don't have a working prototype.
 
  • #4
...and to put it charitably, it seems overly optimistic to me.
 
  • Like
Likes Evanish and Borg
  • #5
But it’s only 20 years away
 
  • Like
Likes Jon Richfield
  • #6
BWV said:
But it’s only 20 years away
I like the irony!
 
  • #7
mathman said:
I like the irony!
Is that a bit like goldy?
 
  • #8
So far, fusion for power generation (that is "economic" power generation) is always in the future. Back almost 40 years ago when I studied fusion engineering, it was 10 years away. Forty years later, it's about 20 years away and counting.

The problem with terrestrial systems with magnetic confinement is that we'll never reproduce conditions in the core of the sun, particularly the pressure and plasma density in the core. Furthermore, fusion is present in the sun, but it's p+p, or CNO-cycle process, as opposed to the easier d+t or d+d fusion we are attempting in terrestrial systems. It is misleading to liken our attempts at fusion with what is happening in the sun.

From https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html
Model values at center of Sun:
Central pressure: 2.477 x 1011 bar best we can to is ~70 atm (71 bar)
Central temperature: 1.571 x 107 K ITER is attempting 150 million K (https://www.iter.org/sci/plasmaheating)
Central density: 1.622 x 105 kg/m3 or about 162 x density of water; other put the estimate about 150 x density of water.
 
  • Like
Likes Mackenzie Cobb and Evanish
  • #9
I can get a 4000 watt generator at Target that is powered by fusion, albeit indirectly, for about $250

50635153?wid=250&hei=250&qlt=80&fmt=pjpeg.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 50635153?wid=250&hei=250&qlt=80&fmt=pjpeg.jpg
    50635153?wid=250&hei=250&qlt=80&fmt=pjpeg.jpg
    10.9 KB · Views: 1,245
  • Like
Likes krater, russ_watters and berkeman
  • #10
BWV said:
I can get a 4000 watt generator at Target that is powered by fusion, albeit indirectly, for about $250

View attachment 225021
Aren't generators powered by some sort of gas combustion?
 
  • #11
mathman said:
Aren't generators powered by some sort of gas combustion?
Yes, this fusion-powered generator burns gasoline, which is a pretty nifty way to store fusion power
 
  • Like
Likes Glenstr, jim hardy, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #12
BWV said:
Yes, this fusion-powered generator burns gasoline, which is a pretty nifty way to store fusion power
I think it runs on propane, but still, same idea.
 
  • #13
According the UK AEA chief and fusion expert Steven Cowley, the Lockheed fusion project and its lead researcher McGuire have placed themselves in a bit of a scandal. Apparently Lockheed released some promising preliminary results on their reactor, prompting some immediate but unsurprising queries about plasma temperature, density, etc. After some stalling came the reply, that the machine had not yet been turned on.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Astronuc said:
when I studied fusion engineering, it was 10 years away.

Ah yes, it's the technology of the future and always will be.
 
  • #15
mheslep said:
According the UK AEA chief and fusion expert Steven Cowley, the Lockheed fusion project and its lead researcher McGuire have placed themselves in a bit a scandal. Apparently Lockheed released some promising preliminary results on their reactor, prompting some immediate but unsurprising queries about plasma temperature, density, etc. After some stalling came the reply, that the machine had not yet been turned on.
Could you please provide a reference for that.

I wonder if that's a rogue engineer or if corporate leadership knew about it. Academic fraud is not a crime, but financial fraud (stock manipulation) is.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
Could you please provide a reference for that.

I wonder if that's a rogue engineer or if corporate leadership knew about it. Academic fraud is not a crime, but financial fraud (stock manipulation) is.
Cowley's talk is here, and the comments on alternative fusion approaches like Lockheeds begin at 1:11. Note that though Cowley calls these particular startup American approaches 'whacko', he's very pro American mainstream research earlier in the talk.

 
  • #17
That device at 40 seconds into Lockheed video sure resembles a Farnsworth fusor .

upload_2018-5-3_22-47-26.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-5-3_22-47-26.png
    upload_2018-5-3_22-47-26.png
    113.6 KB · Views: 1,156
  • Like
Likes Asymptotic
  • #18
Wow - the patent is only two days old !
upload_2018-5-3_23-6-42.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-5-3_23-6-42.png
    upload_2018-5-3_23-6-42.png
    42.8 KB · Views: 704
  • #19
jim hardy said:
That device at 40 seconds into Lockheed video sure resembles a Farnsworth fusor .

View attachment 225103
Fusors are indeed spherical, but they are electrostatic devices that do work on the plasma to (futilely) focus it in the center. Lockheed's device as the patent states is magnetic confinement of a thermal plasma.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Futility of a means depends on the end.
Tabletop fusors make a stream of neutrons sans uranium. Chrysler marketed them for a while. They were handy for irradiating things when you don't have a fission reactor.

They don't break even on energy though ..
Seems they have been relegated to the hobbyist world now.
http://shia.wsyntax.com/~raymond/fusor.pdf
 
  • #21
I'm wondering about how energy is extracted once fusion is achieved?
 
  • #22
mheslep said:
Cowley's talk is here, and the comments on alternative fusion approaches like Lockheeds begin at 1:11. Note that though Cowley calls these particular startup American approaches 'whacko', he's very pro American mainstream research earlier in the talk.


It's rather unfair for him to label alternative approaches as 'whacko'. The simple fact is that the mainstream fusion research community has been promising results for six decades now and their approach just isn't working thus the ongoing joke. The Lockheed approach may not work but I'm glad they and others are trying.
 
  • #23
russ_watters said:
Could you please provide a reference for that.

I wonder if that's a rogue engineer or if corporate leadership knew about it. Academic fraud is not a crime, but financial fraud (stock manipulation) is.
Academic fraud should be a crime if it involves intentional deception in order to receive grants.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #24
alantheastronomer said:
I'm wondering about how energy is extracted once fusion is achieved?
Probably running a steam generator or if they get fancy, an MHD generator.
 
  • #25
russ_watters said:
...and to put it charitably, it seems overly optimistic to me.
Lockheed's approach is more about designing the design cycle and a fast pace of research rather than a specific machine design. As I've read what they are really about is developing the facilities and staff to rapidly test a sequence of devices and changes in configurations with the hope that this process will lead to a working machine in a five to ten year period.
 
  • #26
bob012345 said:
It's rather unfair for him to label alternative approaches as 'whacko'. The simple fact is that the mainstream fusion research community has been promising results for six decades now and their approach just isn't working thus the ongoing joke. The Lockheed approach may not work but I'm glad they and others are trying.

In the failed attempts leading up to powered flight, jumping off the roof with a cape was still whacko because of a lack of a sound scientific basis. Roof jumping is not made otherwise, i.e. sound, because mainstream attempts failed.

The failure of mainstream fusion is nonetheless based on what is known, though much remains unknown. Trying something else based on known flaws or ignorance deserves the term whacko, especially given the money spent. * I don't know enough about the field to know if the particular alt-fusion attempts are necessarily flawed or random, but Cowley does.

And I'm not aware of any "promises" about early fusion attempts from scientists involved, though the pop science media consistently over hyped. Those projects usually state i) theoretical potential, ii) time to complete the experiment. ITER for instance clearly states that the project is not suitable for a commercial fusion reactor.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
mheslep said:
In the failed attempts leading up to powered flight, jumping off the roof with a cape was still whacko because of a lack of a sound scientific basis. Roof jumping is not made otherwise, i.e. sound, because mainstream attempts failed.

The failure of mainstream fusion is nonetheless based on what is known, though much remains unknown. Trying something else based on known flaws or ignorance deserves the term whacko, especially given the money spent. * I don't know enough about the field to know if the particular alt-fusion attempts are necessarily flawed or random, but Cowley does.

And I'm not aware of any "promises" about early fusion attempts from scientists involved, though the pop science media consistently over hyped. Those projects usually state i) theoretical potential, ii) time to complete the experiment. ITER for instance clearly states that the project is not suitable for a commercial fusion reactor.
Cowley may have a strong opinion but not the definitive scientific opinion. He is an advocate and defender of ITER so naturally his opinion regarding alternative approaches should not be considered completely objective especially since money is involved. There are many mainstream physicists working on alternative fusion concepts (and I'm not talking about 'cold fusion' or it's derivatives at all). I'm sure they don't appreciate Cowley's attempt to limit funding and legitimacy of other approaches. Those approaches are not based on 'known flaws' but sound physics. In fact, in some ways, they already bested traditional approaches. The idea that there is one, and only one possible way to do fusion is flawed.

Speaking of ITER, when it was proposed, it was sold as a working testbed reactor which would lead directly to commercial reactors. Otherwise, the project wouldn't have been funded. Now, it's been noticeably downgraded to a mere 'historic' experiment to possibly lead to future improvements that might, in time, lead to a commercial reactor. So, it's bait and switch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #28
Definitive science is not based on scientists, but on what they publish in the scientific literature. JET has has published results, orders of magnitude better than anything else, include laser implosion at NIF. The currently ongoing alternative projects like Lockheed's have published nothing.
Those approaches are not based on 'known flaws' but sound physics
Yes they are. Cusps leak like a sieve, tried decades ago. Yes it's possible somebody might find a work around, but without a published approach that can critiqued its indifferent from (a physicist) jumping off a roof with a a claimed better garbage bag.
 
  • #29
mheslep said:
Definitive science is not based on scientists, but on what they publish in the scientific literature. JET has has published results, orders of magnitude better than anything else, include laser implosion at NIF. The currently ongoing alternative projects like Lockheed's have published nothing.
Yes they are. Cusps leak like a sieve, tried decades ago. Yes it's possible somebody might find a work around, but without a published approach that can critiqued its indifferent from (a physicist) jumping off a roof with a a claimed better garbage bag.
Publishing doesn't make facts more true and criticism isn't always necessary to make something work. Really, working fusion will more likely be done in the dark and announced as a surprise to the mainstream fusion community.
 
  • #30
bob012345 said:
Lockheed's approach is more about designing the design cycle and a fast pace of research rather than a specific machine design. As I've read what they are really about is developing the facilities and staff to rapidly test a sequence of devices and changes in configurations with the hope that this process will lead to a working machine in a five to ten year period.
Frankly, this sounds like meaningless corporate-speak to me. You cannot schedule discovery/invention and you cannot design the post-discovery commercial development process until you know what you are developing.
bob012345 said:
Publishing doesn't make facts more true and criticism isn't always necessary to make something work. Really, working fusion will more likely be done in the dark and announced as a surprise to the mainstream fusion community.
I disagree with every one of those statements.
 
  • #31
russ_watters said:
Frankly, this sounds like meaningless corporate-speak to me. You cannot schedule discovery/invention and you cannot design the post-discovery commercial development process until you know what you are developing.

I disagree with every one of those statements.
Do you think publishing something means it's true and not publishing means it isn't? Consensus science doesn't prove one is on the right track.
 
  • #32
bob012345 said:
Do you think publishing something means it's true and not publishing means it isn't?
No, but that is not what you said before.

What is true is that published material is more likely to be true than unpublished material because of peer review and follow-up responses. Conversely, when not true, it is more likely to be known to be not true.
Consensus science doesn't prove one is on the right track.
No, it just makes it much more likely.

[edit] And when it comes to fusion it is extra important to follow a rigorous and open academic process due to the subject's history of failed promises and fraud.
 
  • #33
This thread offers opinions about many things but there is little engineering. If the OP wishes to pursue this topic, then he should open a new thread with a more specific engineering question.

Thread closed.
 

1. What is compact fusion and how does it differ from traditional fusion?

Compact fusion is a type of nuclear fusion that uses smaller and more efficient reactors compared to traditional fusion. Traditional fusion reactors are large and expensive, while compact fusion reactors are smaller and more affordable. Compact fusion also uses different methods and materials to achieve fusion reactions.

2. What are the potential benefits of unlocking the power of compact fusion?

If we are able to successfully unlock the power of compact fusion, it could provide a nearly limitless source of clean energy. This would greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help mitigate the effects of climate change. It could also lead to advancements in space exploration and other areas of science and technology.

3. What are the current challenges and limitations of compact fusion technology?

The main challenge with compact fusion is achieving a sustained and controlled fusion reaction. Scientists are still working on finding the most efficient and stable methods to achieve this. Another limitation is the high temperatures and pressures needed for fusion reactions, which requires advanced materials and engineering techniques.

4. How close are we to unlocking the full potential of compact fusion?

While significant progress has been made in compact fusion research, we are still in the early stages of development. It is difficult to predict an exact timeline, but many scientists believe that we are still several decades away from achieving commercially viable compact fusion reactors.

5. What are the potential risks and safety concerns associated with compact fusion?

As with any nuclear technology, there are potential risks and safety concerns associated with compact fusion. These include the release of radioactive materials, accidents or malfunctions, and the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. However, scientists are working to address these concerns and ensure the safe and responsible use of compact fusion technology.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
3
Replies
70
Views
8K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Electrical Engineering
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top