Help Needed: Magnetic Inertial Hybrid Fusion Reactor

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of a Magnetic Inertial Confinement Hybrid Fusion Reactor using Peeta Watt lasers to achieve the necessary conditions for fusion. Concerns are raised about whether this method can effectively control energy and maintain the required temperature and pressure for sustained fusion. The challenges of achieving both density and temperature in a tokamak are highlighted, noting that excessive energy input from lasers could disrupt plasma stability. Additionally, the current state of US fusion research is described as underfunded, with a focus on existing projects rather than new approaches. However, there is optimism about potential breakthroughs due to increasing private investment in fusion technology.
KFM
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
Can anyone help with this please...

Would the following work?

Magnetic inertial Confinement Hybrid Fusion Reactor.

Peeta Watt lasers are focused on the plasma in the equatorial plane of the multi mega amp plasma pulse within its’ torous geometry between the center post and the merging compression coils. This creates the high temperatures and pressures required at an ignition point... a focal length distance form the laser.

Would this work, or is it necessary are the temperatures and pressures already met but the energy can not be controlled?

Thanks
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Magnetic inertial Confinement Hybrid Fusion Reactor.
 

Attachments

  • hybrid.png
    hybrid.png
    42.6 KB · Views: 516
please see image
 

Attachments

  • Magnetic confinement inertial confinement hybrid fusion reactor.png
    Magnetic confinement inertial confinement hybrid fusion reactor.png
    48 KB · Views: 514
KFM said:
Magnetic inertial Confinement Hybrid Fusion Reactor.

Where is this coming from? You need to give a link to the source.
 
This is a little too facile.
The challenge in a tokamak is to get both the density and the temperature up to the point where fusion can propagate, else one pays extra for every fusion event .
Dumping in a lot of energy via a laser beam just creates a hot spot which disturbs the plasma and complicates the task of squeezing the plasma sufficiently.
The engineering effort to make that approach functional is likely to be much greater than that needed to bring the existing work to a successful conclusion.

As an aside, the US fusion effort is already running on starvation rations, in line with the desultory international effort currently centered on ITER, so there is no money for alternate approaches. The current programs are post 2050 at best, low priority and low budget, partly perhaps because success would step on many toes. The one ray of light is that the problem is getting renewed private attention. In a world where there are centi-billionaires willing to pay for results, there may be opportunity for a breakthrough.
 
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...
Back
Top