Nano Fusion? Micro Fusion? Fusion Learning Source?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges and rationale behind building large fusion reactors instead of smaller, more experimental ones. While smaller reactors could facilitate more experiments, the efficiency of fusion processes generally improves with larger sizes due to scaling laws and the need for significant magnetic confinement. The complexity of achieving fusion energy output that exceeds input energy makes large reactors like ITER necessary for meaningful progress. Additionally, while small-scale experiments can yield valuable data, they may not fully replicate the conditions needed for practical fusion applications. Overall, the focus remains on large-scale projects to advance the understanding and feasibility of fusion energy.
  • #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
10K