The Bussard ‘Inertial Electrostatic Confinement’ (IEC) Fusion test device has been built and tested. The team is being very tight lipped about precise results due to the terms of their funding. The group leader, Dr. Nebel does seem rather positive about the device which would lead one to believe they are getting good results:
The last time Dr. Nebel was interviewed he offered that the company could prepare and ship workable research units of the current model. This time he’s considering the building of a medium sized machine in the 1-½ meter range that would be large enough to make net power at a theoretical projection of 100MW. In the course of the forum discussion Nebel wrote, “Our contention is that since our projections for a power producing device only require a machine 1.5 meters in diameter (that) would in theory be able to produce something around 100MW of net power. (W)e might as well build the next one in that size range and accept the risk. The machines just aren’t all that expensive.”
The emphasis is mine. I have read elsewhere that the WB-7 has been running stably for many weeks and is churning out much data. Whether there is actual energy output or signs of it is something we do not know yet as the data is under embargo for the time being.
This is definitely one to watch.
this’ll have the big oil companies quaking in their boots. Personally I want one for heating my house in view of the recent gouging consumers are getting from the energy companies.
There’s no way WB-7 is producing net output, it’s physically impossible, since the thing only gets to break even at larger sizes. What matters is how many neutrons he’s getting and at the WB7 scale that has to be statistically analysed to judge whether that output is consistent with expectations for when it’s scaled up. What it comes down to is whether they can show it’s not going to be overwhelmed by bremsstrahlung (can never spell that right, too lazy to look it up haha) losses which is the major objection to the machine.
So far as I recall, the argument has always been that if there are positive indications one may as well leap to the 100MW range for the next model, precisely because it’s all about scaling.
The thing about this is it’s a step change for humanity if it works. It kills tokamak, it kills every other power generating technology, and we can throw away all our crappy rocket designs too. But we really shouldn’t get our hopes up, either. They need to get their current data peer reviewed, and in this day and age it’d be nice to see it on the web, so uncle Tom Cobley and all can go over it with a fine toothed comb. If this thing works, there is nothing comparable in importance in all of science/technology, by several orders of magnitude on the significance scale.
Dale,
It is a test reactor not a net power machine.
Expect to see a report in the next 8 weeks or less re: results.
BTW if you want real info on this contact me. New Energy often is totally wrong or they get details screwed.
I am in close contact with the people actually doing the work and the dedicated amateurs who are working to advance the field.
Watch this blog for news. I got it a month and a half ago:
IEC Fusion Technology blog
The side bar at IEC Fusion Technology blog has links to various discussion groups. They can be found under the heading Working Groups. You might be especially interested in the Talk Polywell discussion group where Richard Nebel can often be found commenting and answering questions.
A good tutorial and a history of the project before the US Navy resumed funding can be found at: World’s Simplest Fusion Reactor Revisited
I take it back about New Energy. They are reputable in the field. I am in contact with the blog owner. I confused them with some one else.
I should have looked at the blog before spouting off.
I do stand by my comment about having the news first (usually within 24 hours or less of release).
Let me add another:
Lots of libertarian oriented folks are students of the field. I’d say they predominate.
We do have a KOS Kid too: Roger Fox. When the discussion veers to politics we give him hell in a friendly sort of way.
All of us who are working on this are tight and don’t allow politics to interfere with the technical questions.
I doubt it has Big Oil quaking in their boots. Rather, as energy delivery companies it has them licking their chops at a cheaper way to produce the product they deliver.
We’ll still need oil for a while anyway. Cars have internal combustion engines because they’re better than electric cars at the moment. It’s not the cost of electricity stopping people using electric vehicles. And you still need oil to make stuff out of. Not sure a Polywell would be very practical powering a helicopter either…
I don’t know about “Big Oil” companies, but the kleptocracies of the Middle East will probably be worried – apart from oil and terrorism, they don’t have any other exports.
Still, fusion energy makes things a hell lot easier. Such as generating fossil fuels when required.
I know, the future is likely to be hydrogen, but when all factors are considered, hydrocarbons are still the most portable energy system around.
I hope it was not taken that I said this was a power generator, that is why I stated it:
Whether there is actual energy output or signs of it is something we do not know yet
by energy output I did not mean anyone to infer breakeven, just that there was some sign of usable fusion occurring.
I would appreciate hearing from you (M. Simon) when ever there is news. I am following this story like a horsefly on a herd of horses. I was handed a flyer by someone during a reception at the ISDC in Washington this year but did not have a lot of time to talk to them because I was working. It only looked like I was drinking beer and casualy chatting with people… they were very specific people. 😉
I have seen the Bussard lecture and read some of the background material so I am relatively familiar with the ideas and that by using electrostatics instead of magnetic confinement you can do fusion with math that doesn’t necessarily cause your brain to implode.
It is not big oil or even OPEC who will be upset by this technology. As someone else pointed out, we will be using gasoline to run the existing capital stock in transportation for decades to come. It does however take some pressure off oil because there is an alternative that handles base load power generation, makes the H2 economy imaginable (I will not argue whether it is realistic or not… we are arguing perceptions which have impacts of the oil market and on speculation).
The folk who are really going to go nuts are the Gaia worshippers. They do not actually want a solution, they want us to go back to a primitive and non-tech or less tech society. They will fight it tooth and nail I am afraid.
I love how liberterians will believe any snake oil sales man who tells them he can break the second of thermodynamics.
(Link)real science
Obviously a troll by someone who is unfamiliar with physics. Dr. Robert Bussard, the inventor of this technology and the person who worked on it up until his death less than a year ago is not just a physicist, but perhaps one of the top names in Physics in the 20th century.
He also happens to have a Nobel prize in physics if I remember correctly.
So ‘snakeoil’? I don’t think so. Violation of 2nd law? Don’t be silly.
It may or may not pan out, but it won’t be due to lack of physics creds.
Thanks for getting this information out to a wider public. Politicians and “big” scientists have a really bad record on predicting discontinuous advances — they missed the computer, the personal computer, the internet, & the cell phone, just for starters. Let’s hope they have missed practical fusion also.
We have to be realistic about timeframes. Even success will take decades until globally significant power is being produced.
Best plan for now remains:
a. build nuclear fission reactors like there was no tomorrow.
b. invest wisely & furiously in research & development — X-prizes, not windmill subsidies.
c. recognize that the “hydrogen economy” will consist of hydrogen atoms converted into transportable form by attachment to carbon atoms. Synthetic fuels are almost certainly the answer for transportation energy.
d. As Shakespeare said so long ago — First, kill all the lawyers. Unfortunate, but that may be the necessary price for preserving technological civilization.
Thanks for getting this information out to a wider public
I second that.
Very interesting developments indeed, please do keep us up to date!
Alice,
In a sane world you wouldn’t just be posting that on a blog…
Seconding M Simon and Ian above, the only “power output” we would see is a few neutrons — though we would like to see them. But based on your comment you seem to understand that.
Some have speculated they are not even planning on running deuterium as they only want to prove the “wiffleball” concept (which is the real key to Polywell) and that can be done with helium plasma, so we may not even get neutron counts, but we won’t know for sure for a while yet.
From all indications Nebel’s team is going to have a serious peer review before anything is released. They are not looking for a splashy news conference a la “cold fusion.” This is serious science, not gimmickry.
Simon, you are thinking of Next Energy News. They had the bogus “news” about POlywell being funded by the State of CA.
There have been arguments made that Polywell violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This was purportedly proved in a thesis by Todd Rider, which found power input for recirculation would be greater than power output. However, Rider’s paper assumed square potential wells, among other things, and a later 2001 paper by Luic Chacon which did the full bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck calculation with more-realistic parabolic wells, found there are regimes which could yield large Q values (>100 times greater power out than in).
Yes, if you can pack 100MW into a 1.5 meter power plant, then naval ships will be powered by it instead of fission. A hell of a lot less hassle than keeping a highly radioactive LWR running on shipboard.
And speaking of the Marvin and his ray gun… just think what this sort of power source would do for laser weapons, once the jump to solid state happens.
I suspect they will look at fitting them into fighter planes too, if they can find a way. But that would be decades away…
It would probably make a nice power source for a medium to large prop driven aircraft or a luxury Zeppelin…
At the moment it is working like a giant, complex and expensive PERPETUM MOBILE. Too beautiful to give us any hope. We better start drilling…
What I want to know is: Where can I invest in this?
Dale
Lasers are certainly a possibility. But consider fully automatic rail guns. Mounted on hover craft the size and armoring level of a battleship!
Well, as a power source, use one of these things and you could propel an aircraft the size and shape of Buckingham Palace.
Or, the thought occurs, the Palace of Westminster?
Dale, just to clear up one point, just because the Polywell itself might be 1.5 meters doesn’t mean the whole power system would be. I’m not an engineer, so I’m not sure what all goes into a 100 MW reactor, but I’m told a 100 MW Polywell would be 10 meters in diameter for the full kit. Something about managing the containment systems and converting pure fusion energy into useable current. But anyway, while Battleships, Super-duper Cargo Ships and Flying Westminster are still in, fusion-laser F-22s are not. Bummer, I know.
It would be interesting to see an Army tank that vaguely resembles the Chrysler building turned on its side though, wouldn’t it?
TallDave, Ian B: just fyi, the Polywell’s planned Boron-11 reaction is “aneutronic”, meaning “no neutrons.” Each B+H fusion would produce 4 helium atoms and 8.7 MeV of pure electricity. No neutron radiation and no need for a steam-driven dynamo like nuclear. That’s why this is so exciting.
One word. Bolo!!
Jim, are you referring to the AI robot warriors invented by Keith Laumer, or the string tie I wear when square dancing?
I don’t agree with this. This implies that today’s typical light-water fission reactors never had any real problems and the criticism is/was purely ideological.
Those plants were built with the mistaken assumption that simultaneous multiple failures were impossible, an idea which was disproved by the accident at Three Mile Island. Seven years later, in 1986, the NRC testified to Congress that there was 40% chance of a severe core meltdown in the existing plants. This was not some Gaian fantasy. Although various upgrades may have greatly improved that figure, the corrections proved to be very expensive. and those expenses created real economic problems for the utilities. That is the primary reason more plants were never built.
So even though some environmentalists will fight any kind of nuclear power tooth and nail, I think your fear that those people are somehow all powerful is unfounded. Also, I think those kinds of people are a minority even among environmentalists. Most environmentalists will appreciate the fact that the Bussard type fusion is indeed a vast improvement. Its not the environmentalists that have hindered its development, its the closed minds in the rest of the advanced energy research community. That’s why its in the DOD and couldn’t be published for many years.
Polywell will decentralize power grids by placing redundant reactors (3 X on semitruck) in each power substation.
This will require EMS/SCADA systems to interact at a local level to control power grids.
Small electric coops may then be able compete with large centralized grid utilities.
Coal, Nuclear, Wind, Solar systems would then become obsolete.
Deregulated and decentralized electric power will drive prices down.
Utilities would only have the grid infrastructure to sell.
When Polywell is mass produced efficiently, utilities would lose the grid as a centralized monopoly.
Who would need the centralized grid?
You pay monthly fees now for centralized grid.
This could also address the planet killer (CO2)= Air Conditioning that dominates power grids worldwide:
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/GeneMachine/239611
ENRON/Utility cartels would end:
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/RangerRick/11273
Perhaps the best way to invest in this technology at the moment is to start buying up stock in boron mining/refining companies. Imagine being able to power your house for some significant period of time on a box of 20-mule team borax.
Also, http://www.emc2fusion.org (the website for bussard’s company) has a link for making donations. I realize that’s not strictly an investment, but every dollar donated by a private-sector individual is a dollar that doesn’t have Navy/Federal strings on it. Had the present funding been without military strings attached, we might know the results of recently concluded tests already.