Current State of Nuclear Fusion Power

[consuli]

For 2019 Lockheed Martin has announced a prototype of the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor.

That's so far the most developed (excess) power generating fusion reactor, I guess.

 

[phyzguy]

That's so far the most developed (excess) power generating fusion reactor, I guess.

How did you conclude that? Where is a report that it is generating power at all? All the report says is what it could do if it works.

 

[russ_watters]

For 2019 Lockheed Martin has announced a prototype

The article title doesn't look very close to me to the title you gave the link. The part you are citing is a 4 year old announcement that as far as I'm aware hasn't been updated.

My first reaction to the title - LMCO has a patent - was: only one?

 

[consuli]

If you are further interested in the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor, you have to research on your own.

<< Post edited by a Mentor >>

 

[phyzguy]

If you are further interested in the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor, you have to research on your own.

<< Post edited by a Mentor >>

I have researched it, and I've concluded that it is "vaporware". There is no evidence that the concept works at all. The claim that they can run at a beta ratio of 1 is particularly suspect. If instead of looking at the "projections" of what the concept could do, you look at what they have actually achieved, you quickly conclude that they are nowhere close to any kind of viable fusion reactor.

 

[consuli]

If (...) you look at what they have actually achieved, you quickly conclude that they are nowhere close to any kind of viable fusion reactor.

I can neither confirm nor deny this, as currently the necessary amount of proof in favour or against is missing. We simply do not know.

 

[BWV]

I can neither confirm nor deny this, as currently the necessary amount of proof in favour or against is missing. We simply do not know.

The burden of proof is on the claim, not on disproving it. If there is not the necessary amount of proof in favor then they have nothing until they can demonstrate otherwise

 

[Astronuc]

The World Nuclear Association has a good summary of program, both past and current.
Nuclear Fusion Power

From the Wikipedia article on JET

The main source of heating in JET is provided by two systems, neutral beam injection and ion cyclotron resonance heating. The former uses small particle accelerators to shoot fuel atoms into the plasma, where collisions cause the atoms to ionize and become trapped with the rest of the fuel. These collisions deposit the kinetic energy of the accelerators into the plasma. Ion cyclotron resonance heating is essentially the plasma equivalent of a microwave oven, using radio waves to pump energy into the ions directly by matching their cyclotron frequency. JET was designed so it would initially be built with a few megawatts of both sources, and then later be expanded to as much of 25 MW of neutral beams and 15 MW of cyclotron heating.[36]

JET's power requirements during the plasma pulse are around 500 MW[37] with peak in excess of 1000 MW.[38] Because power draw from the main grid is limited to 575 MW, two large flywheel generators were constructed to provide this necessary power.[38] Each 775-ton flywheel can spin up to 225 rpm and store 3.75 GJ.[39] Each flywheel uses 8.8 MW to spin up and can generate 400 MW (briefly).

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

A practical fusion system must have a self-sustaining fusion-based plasma, and a net electrical energy production, not just breakeven. We're not there yet.

A rather negative and pessimistic assessment from a Forbes contributor.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...ssible-its-been-done-repeatedly/#40bcaef84cfd

 

[phyzguy]

The burden of proof is on the claim, not on disproving it. If there is not the necessary amount of proof in favor then they have nothing until they can demonstrate otherwise

Exactly. if I claim that I have a working warp drive, and take weekend trips to Alpha Centauri, do you believe me because there is no proof that I'm wrong?

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed temporarily for Moderation and cleanup...

 

[berkeman]

After some cleanup, thread is re-opened.

 

[consuli]

The burden of proof is on the claim, not on disproving it. If there is not the necessary amount of proof in favor then they have nothing until they can demonstrate otherwise

You are absolutely right - from the scientific point of view. Especially, as it would be magnitudes too much work to disprove any claimed theory.

However, the case of the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor is difficult. These guys are most probably working under militarily classified conditions. I guess, they would like to prove their fusion theory, but they might not be allowed to do so.

Thus, I cannot take the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor as a proven theory. However, I do not like to badmouth it either. Especially for the reason, that usually any scientific project turns out to be more difficult during its realization and I do not want to deprive those half-military researchers their follow-up funding options (by guessing from a bad information basis).

 

[russ_watters]

However, the case of the Lockheed Martin compact fusion reactor is difficult. These guys are most probably working under militarily classified conditions.

I doubt that. If it were part of a classified project, they wouldn't be making public announcements about it. Most such projects you only hear about after they are over.