Nano Fusion? Micro Fusion? Fusion Learning Source?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the challenges and considerations in fusion reactor design, particularly the feasibility and implications of smaller-scale fusion reactors compared to large, expensive facilities. Participants explore the limitations of current technology, the efficiency of different reactor sizes, and the potential for learning and experimentation in fusion research.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why fusion experiments are predominantly large and expensive, suggesting that smaller reactors could facilitate more experiments.
  • Others argue that there are inherent limitations to how small reactors can be made due to the necessary components like electromagnets and fuel injectors.
  • A participant mentions that while size reduction is desirable, various scaling laws indicate that larger reactors tend to be more efficient.
  • One participant highlights that the energy required for fusion is dependent on plasma volume, suggesting smaller reactors could require less energy.
  • Another participant notes that while fusion can be performed easily, achieving net positive energy output remains a significant challenge.
  • Some participants express interest in understanding the specific components that limit size reduction in reactors.
  • There is a discussion about the potential for smaller reactors to achieve efficiency goals that could inform larger reactor designs.
  • A participant mentions that valuable insights can be gained from plasma machines that do not perform fusion, contributing to the understanding of fusion processes.
  • Concerns are raised about the relevance of discoveries from unrelated projects, such as the LHC, to the specific challenges of fusion research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and efficiency of small versus large fusion reactors. There is no consensus on the best approach, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge various limitations related to reactor size, energy requirements, and the efficiency of fusion processes. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of technical challenges and theoretical considerations without resolving these issues.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying fusion technology, reactor design, and plasma physics, as well as individuals exploring experimental approaches to fusion research.

  • #31
Bengey said:
we don't have the tech to squeeze nuclei. Thanks.
No mechanical technology because the physics of solids does not it allow it. The technology for fusion does exist via inertial, electrostatic, and magnetic confinement of nuclei, or "squeezing" them if you like, and has for some time. Unfortunately so far nobody has proven how to do so without using more energy in the process than is produced (outside of fusion enhanced nuclear explosions).
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
SupaVillain said:
When experimenting with fusion, why do we always go so big and make extremely expensive reactors that take years to create and even construct facilities for? I've seen some failed attempts at making fusion happen in carbon nanotubes, failing in the sense that the carbon nanotubes are just completely demolished. It makes more sense to me (I'm new to this stuff) to make small reactors that could fit in your hand or smaller to have far many more experiments conducted,had the same amount of money that's put into these massive reactors been put into a large quantity of smaller projects.

Agreed, the big guns are pulling the majority of funding while ignoring gaps in our knowledge that could be filled with simpler, less expensive fusion experiments. Engineers require data if they are to eventually design a feasible commercial reactor for power generation.

I am not saying we aren't collecting good information with these 'big' experiments, just that we should grab more of the low hanging fruit at the same time as you suggest.
 
  • #33
Some effects appear in larger reactors only, or appear in smaller reactors but don't appear in larger reactors. Building 1000 desk-sized reactors gives a good statistics, but it cannot address several things ITER is built for.
 
  • #34
mfb said:
Some effects appear in larger reactors only, or appear in smaller reactors but don't appear in larger reactors. Building 1000 desk-sized reactors gives a good statistics, but it cannot address several things ITER is built for.

Absolutely, both are required equally.
 
  • #35
mesa said:
Agreed, the big guns are pulling the majority of funding while ignoring gaps in our knowledge that could be filled with simpler, less expensive fusion experiments. Engineers require data if they are to eventually design a feasible commercial reactor for power generation.

I am not saying we aren't collecting good information with these 'big' experiments, just that we should grab more of the low hanging fruit at the same time as you suggest.

Err, what? We've had small-scale fusion experiments running for over 50 years. It's only been recently that we've started to scale up into really big designs.
 
  • #36
Drakkith said:
Err, what? We've had small-scale fusion experiments running for over 50 years. It's only been recently that we've started to scale up into really big designs.
Hey Drakkith!

If you think the bulk of funding is going to small scale fusion experiments then I have a reactor I would like to sell you ;)
 
  • #37
I believe the intent was small *relevant* to ISIS or NIF. Everything prior, tokamaks, magnetic mirrors, etc, fell much further away from the Lawson criterion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
13K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
11K