MIT-designed project achieves major advance toward fusion energy (1 Viewer)

[Napoleon]

You should read the article because this is flat out false.

I suggest you bone up on the history and what MIT is actually doing. The magnets were invented in the 1950s. One of the problems with trying to build a fusion reactor is the sheer size of the magnets required to contain the reaction and generate a useful amount of energy. All MIT is doing is trying to figure out how to use smaller magnets.

Oh well then since you're a precog can you tell me next week's lottery numbers?

There’s no precog required here. Nobody is going to be bulk ordering nuclear fusion parts on late night QVC. Not the least of which reasons is that successful development of this technology would open up a brand new world of pure fusion nuclear bombs.

 

[Deuce]

I suggest you bone up on the history and what MIT is actually doing. The magnets were invented in the 1950s. One of the problems with trying to build a fusion reactor is the sheer size of the magnets required to contain the reaction and generate a useful amount of energy. All MIT is doing is trying to figure out how to use smaller magnets.

Yeah. Smaller magnets nobody has made before.

There’s no precog required here. Nobody is going to be bulk ordering nuclear fusion parts on late night QVC.

Humanity is going to be tens of thousands of these reactors for a tenth of the price.

 

[Napoleon]

Humanity is going to be tens of thousands of these reactors for a tenth of the price.

It’s not a tenth of the price of a traditional fission reactor. And proliferation would be tightly regulated because it could be weaponized - another reason supply would remain low and costs will remain high.

 

[JasperL]

I’ve been given no reason to assume that will. The technology is what it is. In terms of the cost, what I cited is just the cost of building the plant as quoted by MIT - it does not include the cost of the research that will be conducted there. I also have no reason to assume that it will become cheaper because none of the materials used are new. We’re talking about magnets, water, concrete, etc. Those things won’t suddenly become cheaper if MIT figures out how to do fusion.

All I know is if you just go back in time 100 years, to 1920, how much of what we take for granted as we sit here was considered a pipe dream, or too advanced for anyone to give it a thought at all, at that point. Goodness, the idea of nuclear power wasn't even on the radar back then. Also.... "We'll travel to the moon, and send spaceships with little flying helicopters to Mars that will send back pictures to us! LOL when pigs fly!!! And we can talk to someone across the world on our WATCHES!!!" etc.......

 

[Deuce]

It’s not a tenth of the price of a traditional fission reactor. And proliferation would be tightly regulated because it could be weaponized - another reason supply would remain low and costs will remain high.

This type could not be weaponized, no. It's fundamentally different from a fusion bomb.

 

[Napoleon]

This type could not be weaponized, no. It's fundamentally different from a fusion bomb.

It could absolutely be weaponized. The challenge that needs to be solved for a fusion reactor is the same reason why we haven’t been able to develop a pure fusion bomb - we don’t know how induce fusion without a fission trigger.

 

[Napoleon]

All I know is if you just go back in time 100 years, to 1920, how much of what we take for granted as we sit here was considered a pipe dream, or too advanced for anyone to give it a thought at all, at that point. Goodness, the idea of nuclear power wasn't even on the radar back then. Also.... "We'll travel to the moon, and send spaceships with little flying helicopters to Mars that will send back pictures to us! LOL when pigs fly!!! And we can talk to someone across the world on our WATCHES!!!" etc.......

I can equally point to all of the technology people in the 1920s imagined we’d have by now that is still pure science fiction.

 

[Deuce]

It could absolutely be weaponized. The challenge that needs to be solved for a fusion reactor is the same reason why we haven’t been able to develop a pure fusion bomb - we don’t know how induce fusion without a fission trigger.

First off, we absolutely do know how to induce fusion without a fission trigger.

Fusion bombs use a fission trigger because that is by far a more compact method to deliver the necessary energy. We could easily build a fusion bomb without the fission trigger, it would just be the size of a building. edit: and also be a far lower yield.

 

[Napoleon]

First off, we absolutely do know how to induce fusion without a fission trigger.

Fusion bombs use a fission trigger because that is by far a more compact method to deliver the necessary energy. We could easily build a fusion bomb without the fission trigger, it would just be the size of a building.

Semantics. We don’t know how to do it at the required scale which is why pure fusion weapons are still hypothetical. If MIT succeeds in miniaturizing the technology, which is all they’re doing, then it won’t be hypothical anymore.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, it is effectively impossible on the required scale which is why pure fusion weapons are still hypothetical. If MIT succeeds in miniaturizing the technology, which is all they’re doing, then it won’t be hypothical anymore.

Yes it would, what they are describing is still of vastly, vastly lower energy density than existing fission trigger weapons.

Proliferation is not an issue because anyone building anything in this ballpark is already sophisticated enough to build nuclear weapons. It's like worrying about jet engine technology "proliferating" to Boeing.

 

[Napoleon]

Yes it would, what they are describing is still of vastly, vastly lower energy density than existing fission trigger weapons.

Proliferation is not an issue because anyone building anything in this ballpark is already sophisticated enough to build nuclear weapons. It's like worrying about jet engine technology "proliferating" to Boeing.

Your first point is moot because the whole point of fusion research is to develop the technology that would allow for fusion reaction that produces energy comparable or in excess of fission. Proliferation is an issue because the only way it works with existing fission/fusion bombs is by tracking and regulating the acquisition of fissile material. A pure fusion bomb doesn’t involve fissile material and there would be no way of knowing who is building such a bomb based on the components involved.

 

[Deuce]

Proliferation is an issue because the only way it works with existing fission/fusion bombs is by tracking and regulating the acquisition of fissile material. A pure fusion bomb doesn’t involve fissile material and there would be no way of knowing who is building such a bomb based on the components involved.

I don't think you understand just how far apart the energy density is between this concept and a functional weapon. The MIT concept is not in the same universe as a weapons-grade setup.

 

[Napoleon]

I don't think you understand just how far apart the energy density is between this concept and a functional weapon. The MIT concept is not in the same universe as a weapons-grade setup.

That is where it inevitably leads because the whole point of fusion research is to develop the technology that would allow for fusion reaction that produces energy comparable or in excess of fission.

 

[Deuce]

That is where it inevitably leads because the whole point of fusion research is to develop the technology that would allow for fusion reaction that produces energy comparable or in excess of fission.

It's really not the same thing.

A fusion weapon wants to fuse all of its material, a very large amount, all at once. The device doesn't care what happens after about .001 seconds after initiation, because at that point the device is obliterating itself and the surrounding landscape. That's why a fission bomb is used. You need an enormous amount of energy to compress a weapons-grade payload of hydrogen all within a microsecond. If you don't do it all within a tiny fraction of a second, most of your payload never fuses because the first fusion reactions blow your payload apart. Fizzle, no boom.

This reactor is fusing a tiny fraction of the material needed for a weapon. Its a slow and steady feed. There just isn't the amount of energy required to fuse that much material all in an instant. Not even close. You're comparing the energy of a fission bomb to the energy of, as you described it, a few households.

You can't just shove more hydrogen into a device like this and get an explosion. You'll get... a burnt reactor and hot hydrogen gas.

We're talking ant vs. city. Many orders of magnitude.

 

[Napoleon]

It's really not the same thing.

A fusion weapon wants to fuse all of its material, a very large amount, all at once. The device doesn't care what happens after about .001 seconds after initiation, because at that point the device is obliterating itself and the surrounding landscape. That's why a fission bomb is used. You need an enormous amount of energy to compress a weapons-grade payload of hydrogen all within a microsecond. If you don't do it all within a tiny fraction of a second, most of your payload never fuses because the first fusion reactions blow your payload apart. Fizzle, no boom.

This reactor is fusing a tiny fraction of the material needed for a weapon. Its a slow and steady feed. There just isn't the amount of energy required to fuse that much material all in an instant. Not even close. You're comparing the energy of a fission bomb to the energy of, as you described it, a few households.

You can't just shove more hydrogen into a device like this and get an explosion.

We're talking ant vs. city. Many orders of magnitude.

As you said, we already know how to do fusion. The only thing preventing the development of a pure fusion weapon is that we haven’t been able to induce and contain fusion reaction without magnets the size of a six story building (that’s what the French are using in their reactor). What MIT is doing is taking a stab at miniaturizing the magnet technology to produce the same result as those six story magnets. Once you do that then there is no reason why a pure fusion bomb couldn’t be developed.

 

[Deuce]

As you said, we already know how to do fusion. The only thing preventing the development of a pure fusion weapon is that we haven’t been able to induce and contain fusion reaction without magnets the size of a six story building (that’s what the French are using in their reactor). What MIT is doing is taking a stab at miniaturizing the magnet technology to produce the same result as those six story magnets. Once you do that then there is no reason why a pure fusion bomb couldn’t be developed.

The energy density of the device you are imagining would probably be less than that of just using a regular ass bomb.

Miniaturization is not the issue here. There are limits to the force exerted by magnetic containment. You're talking about blowing up a balloon using a jet engine. The balloon simply can't contain that kind of force. To fuse a large amount of hydrogen all at once, you have to be able to contain the reaction and provide enough pressure to fuse it all very, very quickly. Where is this energy coming from? Your fusion bomb needs its own power plant.

 

[Napoleon]

The energy density of the device you are imagining would probably be less than that of just using a regular ass bomb.

Miniaturization is not the issue here. There are limits to the force exerted by magnetic containment. You're talking about blowing up a balloon using a jet engine. The balloon simply can't contain that kind of force. To fuse a large amount of hydrogen all at once, you have to be able to contain the reaction and provide enough pressure to fuse it all very, very quickly. Where is this energy coming from? Your fusion bomb needs its own power plant.

That is what MIT is working on. Instead of using traditional magnets which weigh hundreds of metric tons and are the size of a six story building they are developing superconducting tape that weighs only 10 tons and is only 10 feet tall to do the same job. Their proof of concept worked and now they’re building a reactor.

 

[Deuce]

That is what MIT is working on. Instead of using traditional magnets which weigh hundreds of metric tons and are the size of a six story building they are developing superconducting tape that weighs only 10 tons and is only 10 feet tall to do the same job. Their proof of concept worked and now they’re building a reactor.

You don't understand. That 10 foot tall magnet provides the magnetic force to contain and force a reaction billions of times less powerful.

 

[craig]

I can equally point to all of the technology people in the 1920s imagined we’d have by now that is still pure science fiction.

Please do, hard science fiction only.

 

[Napoleon]

You don't understand. That 10 foot tall magnet provides the magnetic force to contain and force a reaction billions of times less powerful.

How many megawatt hours do you think this thing is capable of producing bearing in mind that 1.16 MWh are equivalent to 1 ton of TNT?

 

[Deuce]

How many megawatt hours do you think this thing is capable of producing?

Megawatt hours? Megawatt milliseconds is the unit you need to be looking at.

I'm very concerned that you don't understand why.

LOL your edit proves it.

 

[Napoleon]

Megawatt hours? Megawatt milliseconds is the unit you need to be looking at.

No, megawatt hours are what we need to be looking at to know the TNT equivalent, i.e. the yield of the bomb that could be created using the same technology they’re using to build their reactor.

 

[Deuce]

No, megawatt hours are what we need to be looking at to know the TNT equivalent, i.e. the yield of the bomb that could be created using the same technology they’re using to build their reactor.

Ok so now you're demonstrating just a general lack of understanding of energy.

You can't just decide this thing runs for ten years, add up all that energy, and have that be your equivalent yield because that's not how bombs work.

If you release the energy slowly, it's not a bomb, it's an oven.

 

[Napoleon]

Ok so now you're demonstrating just a general lack of understanding of energy.

You can't just decide this thing runs for ten years, add up all that energy, and have that be your equivalent yield because that's not how bombs work.

The bomb goes off when you stop magnetically containing the reaction. So, yes, you could you design a fusion bomb that just continues building energy until you release it from magnetic confinement.

 

[Deuce]

The bomb goes off when you stop magnetically containing the reaction. So, yes, you could you design a fusion bomb that just continues building energy until you release it from magnetic confinement.

Holy **** that is so completely idiotic I don't know where to begin.

Let's try newton's laws. Remember that action/reaction stuff? So you start with the force of a firecracker. You have magnets containing that force. But the force grows, right? If the forces are not balanced, you get an acceleration. Well, you can't have that or your reaction fails. Therefore containment requires a corresponding increase in magnetic force.

At some point, you have the energy of a small conventional explosive. Like a grenade. Your magnets can't put out that kind of power. What happens now?