Cylindrical and Symmetrical Nuclear Fusion Reactor

In summary: I haven't done any analysis, but I think that since the magnetic fields would be concentrated in the center of the cylinder, it would be less likely for particles to escape.
  • #1
MartinG
27
4
Reactor de Fusión Nuclear Cilindrico - 20.JPG

Hello !

I would like to consult you about this cylindrical nuclear reactor model that I have been thinking of with the idea of reducing the friction of the plasmas with the walls of the Toroidal nuclear fusion reactors that causes the plasma temperature to drop and the nuclear reactions to stop producing of fusion.

In Toroidal reactors, when the Plasma is heating up, it rotates at a high speed in the center of the reactor and when nuclear fusion reactions begin, for me totally symmetrical forces cannot be exerted with Toroidal and Colloidal coils in Toroidal reactors on the plasma that is rotating, and when the fusion reactions begin, it seems to me that there may be an increase in the pressures and volume of the plasma that, since it cannot be contained with completely strong and symmetrical forces in the reactor, the plasma to become turbulent and scrape against the walls as it currently does.

On the other hand, in a totally cylindrical reactor with the plasma totally confined in its center, if we use cylindrical and colloidal coils that exert a symmetrical force on the plasma, these forces in my opinion would be more even and stronger, and they could avoid better than the plasma move and touch the walls of the reactor.

There are currently other types of cylindrical nuclear reactors such as "Tri Alpha Energy" but they use another type of technology to carry out nuclear reactions and my question to the Forum is if there is any expert on this subject and what do you think of the cylindrical reactor that I show in the figure, if it seems to you that it can better confine the plasma in its center than the current Toroidal reactors or if you know if this type of cylindrical reactors have already been taken into account, and not be currently investigated due to having problems and disadvantages in their use which I am currently unaware of.

I hope that this question that I am asking you is interesting and I will appreciate your answers and opinions since nuclear fusion is a topic of great interest today.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi @MartinG. I'm sorry I can't answer your question but, for information , I believe that
"colloidal coil" should be "poloidal coil". You may want to check this for yourself.

The term "colloidal" has an entirely different meaning and this could cause some confusion!
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #3
What keeps the plasma from leaking out the ends?
 
  • Like
Likes Steve4Physics
  • #5
phyzguy said:
What keeps the plasma from leaking out the ends?
see
Steve4Physics said:
Hi @MartinG. I'm sorry I can't answer your question but, for information , I believe that
"colloidal coil" should be "poloidal coil". You may want to check this for yourself.

The term "colloidal" has an entirely different meaning and this could cause some confusion!
When I looked up poloidal, it said synonymous with toroidal. So there are no ends, it is a torus.
 
  • #6
anorlunda said:
When I looked up poloidal, it said synonymous with toroidal.
I'm not sure where you looked it up, but this is not quite correct. Wikipedia has a correct description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_and_poloidal_coordinates

What is correct is that the terms "toroidal" and "poloidal" only make sense on a torus; they don't make sense on a cylinder.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #9
anorlunda said:
I think the OP intended to ask about a torus. Hence, no ends.
That's all fine, but it doesn't make "toroidal" and "poloidal" synonymous.
 
  • #10
My idea is probably similar to the already researched "Mirror Fusion Test Facility", and from what I see in your answers, your research and development did not give good results.

My idea is that the "concentric cylindrical coils" push the plasma towards the center of the cylinder like two concentric particle accelerators, but I can't ensure that this is 100% effective in concentrating the plasma and preventing it from flowing towards the ends as I also see that It happened in the "Mirror Fusion Test Facility".

Thank you for your responses and comments. Greetings.
 
  • #11
MartinG said:
My idea is that the "concentric cylindrical coils" push the plasma towards the center of the cylinder like two concentric particle accelerators, but I can't ensure that this is 100% effective in concentrating the plasma and preventing it from flowing towards the ends as I also see that It happened in the "Mirror Fusion Test Facility".
Have you done any analysis of the magnetic fields produced by your design? Holding plasma with magnetic fields is frighteningly difficult. Particles can escape through cusps, can jump over field lines, and a plethora of different kinds of turbulence can occur. I would not have faith in any design until you've done some kind of detailed analysis.
 
  • #12
My idea is that "poloidal coils" push the plasma towards the axis of the reactor cylinder and "concentric cylindrical coils" push the plasma towards the center of the cylinder.

I don't know how they tried to get the plasma to be confined in the center of the reactor in the "Mirror Fusion Test Facility", but I believe that in my case the Deuterium and Tritium must already be injected in the form of ionized plasma into the reactor so that they can be pushed by the "concentric cylindrical coils" towards the center of the reactor.
 
  • #13
MartinG said:
My idea is that "poloidal coils" push the plasma towards the axis of the reactor cylinder and "concentric cylindrical coils" push the plasma towards the center of the cylinder.
Grasshopper, obtain this book and read it cover-to-cover, and understand the math presented. At that time, you will be able to refine your creative ideas. :smile:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0306413329/?tag=pfamazon01-20
1670112287030.png
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Fozzitron, hutchphd, Vanadium 50 and 2 others
  • #14
Grasshopper?

I am 46 years old now!
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #16
When you snatch the magnet from my hand, it will be time...
 
  • Love
  • Haha
Likes Steve4Physics and berkeman
  • #17
PeterDonis said:
That's all fine, but it doesn't make "toroidal" and "poloidal" synonymous.
Yeah I really muffed that one. I was just trying to [clumsily] say that the OP meant torus.
 
  • #18
I think this thread was in trouble from the start. As Perry Mason would say " Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"

First, the premise is that fusion researchers are using needlessly complicated field geometries because they are ignorant stumblebums and they need an amateur to show them the way is...um...flawed. Other people might apply other adjectives.

Second, as drawn the design has no confinement in z. As pointed out, "colloidal" is a word that means something else. You've drawn a solenoid, and a solenoid does not confine in the longitudinal direction. Now, if the OP meant something else, he should have drawn something else. In particular, the field configuration.

Third, fusion is primarily an engineering problem. Getting fusion is not hard - you can do it on a tabletop. Getting enough fusion is hard, But this is a quantitative issue - it needs real calculations, not "it seems to me" or :in my opinion". The position "I can't show you the calculation myself, but I am sure I will do better than what the experts can do" is a tough one to defend. It also will produce adjectives from the readers.

Fourth, same argument needs to be applied to cost. Why is this better? Giant superconducting magnets aren't cheap. Why is winding the coils one way quantitatively better than another?

Next, you say "it can better confine the plasma in its center". If you mean there is a force moving the plasma from the outside of the cylinder to the inside, such a field violates Maxwell's Equations. The best you can hope for is a helical trajectory.

So there are lots and lots of problems. As I said, the thread started badly. I'd take berkeman's advice to crack open a textbook. Then we can have a more informed discussion than we have started so far.
 
  • Like
Likes Fozzitron, Astronuc, phyzguy and 1 other person
  • #19
anorlunda said:
I was just trying to [clumsily] say that the OP meant torus.
Given that the word "cylindrical" appears in the thread title, and that the diagram in the OP is of a cylinder, I don't think it's that simple.
 
  • #20
Thread closed for moderation.
 

FAQ: Cylindrical and Symmetrical Nuclear Fusion Reactor

What is a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor?

A cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor is a type of reactor that uses nuclear fusion, the process of combining two or more atomic nuclei to form a heavier nucleus, to generate energy. It is called "cylindrical and symmetrical" because it uses a cylindrical shape and a symmetrical design to contain and control the fusion reaction.

How does a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor work?

A cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor works by using powerful magnets to create a magnetic field that contains and compresses a plasma of hydrogen isotopes, such as deuterium and tritium. The compression and heating of the plasma causes the isotopes to fuse, releasing large amounts of energy.

What are the advantages of a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor?

One of the main advantages of a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor is that it has the potential to produce large amounts of clean energy without producing greenhouse gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste. It also uses abundant fuel sources, such as hydrogen, and does not have the same risk of a runaway reaction as nuclear fission reactors.

What are the challenges of developing a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor?

One of the main challenges of developing a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor is achieving and maintaining the extremely high temperatures and pressures needed for the fusion reaction to occur. Additionally, the materials used to contain and control the fusion reaction must be able to withstand these extreme conditions and the high levels of radiation produced.

When will a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor be available for practical use?

There is currently no definitive timeline for when a cylindrical and symmetrical nuclear fusion reactor will be available for practical use. While there have been significant advancements in fusion technology, there are still many challenges that need to be overcome before a commercially viable reactor can be developed. It is estimated that it could take several decades before a functioning fusion reactor is available for practical use.

Similar threads

Help Needed: Magnetic Inertial Hybrid Fusion Reactor
Replies
4
Views
2K
Using a minimized nuclear reactor for further space travel
Replies
5
Views
1K
Record for Nuclear Fusion Set in MIT Tokamak Reactor
Replies
7
Views
2K
Basic understanding of Graphite-Water reactors
Replies
2
Views
2K
Fusion power generation: percentage of neutrons expected to be caught?
Replies
2
Views
2K
How do we prevent the fusion reactor chamber from melting?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Proper simulation code for a Nuclear Reactor core
Replies
26
Views
5K
Understanding the Plasma Confinement in Tokamak Reactor
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fusion tritium problem solution?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Can New Isotope Methods Improve Neutron Confinement in Nuclear Reactors?
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top