Slashdot Mirror


Germany Fires Up Bizarre New Fusion Reactor (sciencemag.org)

New submitter insitus writes: On 10 December, Germany's new Wendelstein 7-X stellarator was fired up for the first time, rounding off a construction effort that took nearly 2 decades and cost €1 billion. Initially and for the first couple of months, the reactor will be filled with helium—an unreactive gas—so that operators can make sure that they can control and heat the gas effectively. At the end of January, experiments will begin with hydrogen in an effort to show that fusing hydrogen isotopes can be a viable source of clean and virtually limitless energy.

29 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. -- Stellarator-- by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Funny

    great Jazz Fusion band name.

    1. Re:-- Stellarator-- by tlambert · · Score: 4, Funny

      great Jazz Fusion band name.

      Sounds like a musical dead-end to me.

      They'll be considered a classic. All it will take is 50 more years.

    2. Re:-- Stellarator-- by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah. Metal bands should have a fission-related name.

  2. Wendelstein 7-X stellarator? by nwaack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is this a story from Futurama?

    1. Re:Wendelstein 7-X stellarator? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is this a story from Futurama?

      Wendelstein 7-X Stellarator is a fully-owned subsidiary of MomCorp.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Wendelstein 7-X stellarator? by samwichse · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why, my Farnsworth P-27 Stellarizor burns twice as hot on half the fuel as your cheap knockoff 7X Stellarator!

      [growling] Wendelstein!!!

  3. Dup......ish by Nova+Express · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTA: "This story was originally published online on 21 October and in the 23 October issue of Science. It has been updated with new information."

    And yes, this story was on Slashdot then.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  4. Re:can someone please explain for me by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Same as a fission reactor?
    The cooling system powers steam turbines

  5. Re:So what's bizarre about it? by careysub · · Score: 4, Informative

    Germany Fires Up Bizarre New Fusion Reactor

    Could at least give a hint as to what's so bizarre about it in the summary.

    Y'know, as opposed to all those boring run-of-the-mill fusion reactors...

    Possibly the headline writer meant to say "Germany Fires Up Weird New Fusion Reactor" and forgot to add "Guess what happens next!"

    Yes, it is click-baitism infesting the summary.

    What is really interesting about this is that the stellerator is the oldest fusion reactor design approach, being given a new trial with 21st Century design techniques.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  6. Good name by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone's going to say that it's finally the Mr Fusion from Back to the Future. Noooo. It's Das Mister Fusion. It's German.

    1. Re:Good name by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      That would be Herr Fusion.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  7. Re:can someone please explain for me by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You don't have to "draw off" energy - the plasma is more than happy to lose heat to its surroundings. The biggest challenge with fusion is to stop the plasma from giving up its energy too fast!

    That said, for continuously operating toruses you do have to "draw off" the "ash" (helium) by means of an "exhaust" system that juts up into the outer reaches of the plasma stream (where the heavier helium concentrates), which is "a" challenge (the component is subject to a very hostile environment and faces huge thermal loads), but it's not a showstopper challenge by any means.

    --
    Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
  8. Re:So what's bizarre about it? by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

    Regular fusion reactors are either spherical or toroidal. The stellerator is more like a helical shape twisted round so that it forms a continuous loop. Words alone don't do it justice:

    http://www.fusion-eur.org/fusi...

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  9. Here by dlenmn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I should have wikied before I posted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  10. Re:can someone please explain for me by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Take a look at the specs in TFA. The magnets in this system are cooled with liquid helium to -270 deg C. The plasma sits inside the magnets. Thus any energy extracted from the plasma has to cross the boundary of the magnets, while at the same time not upsetting the magnets themselves.. What I want is an explanation of how this aspect is being considered. Once you have the energy out of the core you can pipe it into turbines to produce electricity. But that part is easily done.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. Re:So what's bizarre about it? by KGIII · · Score: 5, Funny

    This One Secret Trick Slashdot Uses to Increase Click-Through Rates!

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  12. hydrogen... by tapia · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing says success like the juxtaposition of "Germany" and "technological innovation involving a hydrogen filled container".

    1. Re:hydrogen... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hey, to be fair.... Their Zeppelins where the killer technology of the day and even though they sparked a bit less than a revolution in transportation technology they certainly where on the cutting edge. Had the Hindenburg not burned and crashed in Lakehurst JN, live on the radio, I dare say these things would have at least changed the investment mix in passenger aviation up until war broke out two years later...

      What you really need to look out for is how useless various Germen inventions turn out to actually be to the Germans themselves. They have had horrible luck in their timing... The zeppelin rage which would have ended abruptly at the start of WW2, even without the burn and crash that ended it 2 years sooner. The development of modern rocketry, only to have it's effectiveness fail to alter the effort to prevail in war, the fielding of the ONLY jet fighter of WW2 which out classed and out ran ANYTHING flying only too late to make a difference. Their inventions of navigating aircraft to precise locations over long distances using this new radio technology and the invention of RADAR prior to WW2. No Germany has lots of luck inventing things, but horrible luck with the timing and application of them.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:hydrogen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nothing says success like the juxtaposition of "Germany" and "technological innovation involving a hydrogen filled container".

      Hydrogen didn't bring down Hindenburg. It was pilot error. Here is what most likely happened:

      Hindenburg was 12 hours late and would be even more late due to a thunderstorm. To prevent being so late that they had to delay the return trip too, the captain decided to go closer to the thunderstorm than normally allowed. On arrival, he decided to land even though the winds exceeded the limits for allowing landing. So far everything has been facts. The next is speculation based on circumstantial evidence and later tests.

      A gust of wind threw Hindenburg out of the landing approach and to counter that, full rudder was applied. This was not allowed during landing due to structural stress and a wire holding the shape of the "cigar" snapped and punctured a hydrogen container. The ship was statically charged from flying too close to the thunderstorm. As a guidewire touched the ground and the front of the ship at the same time, the front suddenly started burning, presumably started by a static discharge. Based on color descriptions of the fire, the fire started in the water protecting coat on the canvas. After that burned for a while, it reached the leaked hydrogen.

      Here is the thing: if the ship used helium and not hydrogen, it would still have burned and crashed. It was doomed even before the hydrogen caught fire. Even prior to the accident, the coating was disputed due to safety concerns. It was really good at keeping the water out, but the fire hazard was ignored and some of the few knowing this objected in writing. This writing still exist. Also had the captain decided to delay further due to safety concerns, nothing bad would have happened to him and the accident would have been avoided. However his pride didn't allow that and on behalf of Germany he wanted to return to Europe in time for the passengers to make it to the Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. Sure that was important, but important enough to crash?

      This type of accident is not unique to Germany or the past. In 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 taking off from New York encountered wake turbulence from the plane ahead of it. The pilot used the rudder quite a lot to counter it, despite the fact that full rudder is banned at that altitude/speed due to structural concerns of the plane. Parts of the tail fell off, the plane went out of control and crashed into Queens. It turned out that the pilot did precisely what he was told to do during training and a faulty training program was the main cause of the accident. Needless to say wake turbulence countermeasure training changed overnight.

    3. Re:hydrogen... by binarstu · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...the fielding of the ONLY jet fighter of WW2 [by Germany] which out classed and out ran ANYTHING flying only too late to make a difference.

      Not true. The British Royal Air Force developed and flew the Gloster Meteor in World War II, which was another jet fighter of the time.

    4. Re:hydrogen... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you're overstating the two relative to each other.

      The Me-262 despite having a 30mm cannon didn't have the capacity to heft the long barrels and so had a relatively low velocity and crucially short range main armament. In terms of performance, the Meteor was slightly shorter ranged, but faster, higher flying and with a substantially better rate of climb (well, some of the later versions, it's harder to find details on the precisely contemporary versions). The very earliest meteors were mostly slower by about 100mph, though they had reached over 600 mph (faster than the 262 by late 1945). Either way the two aircraft were of comparable performance. The ME262 was also not a dogfighter, it was an interceptor. It had a rather high wing loading so it's manoverability was lower than the Meteor. That said,tight turns in an early jet of either sort was a recipe for complete disaster.

      The choice of the short ranged 30mm cannon reflects that: few shots available, get in hit hard and fast and get out. The longer range hispano 20mm on the Meteor with more ammunition was a better dogfighting gun. Also, the 30mm cannon was prone to jamming.

      The ME262 had more advanced engines, but due to the technology of the time, that meant they were beyond what could be reliably produced: their lifetime was a scant 50 hours and they were pretty finicky in flight. High speed centrifugal compressors are much easier to build. Modern engines still often use them ,especially in smaller units, unless they're sufficiently large that frontal area becomes a problem

      Both planes were a bit crappy to fly compared to the prop fighters of the day. They both had a tendency to snake at speed, so dogfighting would have likely been hilarious as neither aircraft would be remotely able to hit the broadside of a barn. The bomber tactic with the 262 was to slow greatly at the last minute to increase engagement time, so snaking there would not have been a problem.

      The meteor problems were all correctable in practice, and later models became very popular on the export market.

      Finally though, the ME262 just looks cooler.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Re: can someone please explain for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who cares. If they start using this they might be able to cut back on all those coal burning plants. Good for their smog levels good for everyone's environment.

  14. Re:can someone please explain for me by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

    First of all, this reactor, like all current fusion reactors does not create excess energy.

    There are two ways to energy transferred out, one is to utilize the so called MHD effect (was in favour the last century), now people say that you need to breed tritium from lithium, so the have a shell of lithium around the reactor core. That core is heating up by hits of neutrons. From that core you can extract heat ... as some other poster said: like in an fission reactor to drive turbines.

    However: I doubt anyone ever did the math, you have "inside" a hot core that needs to get heat to the "outside" to drive a steam engine. "In-between" you have super conducting cooled coils (close to absolute zero) which generate the magnetic containment field.

    But I guess, you can insulate the cooled coils good enough to bypass the heat transfer in a way that it is not disturbing the cooling of the coils.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  15. Re:can someone please explain for me by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    "how do you say "D'oh!" in German?"

    Deuterium Hydroxide, also known as 'slightly heavy water'

  16. Re:Two things I don't quite get by bigfinger76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A magnetic field.

  17. Re:can someone please explain for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    So what are the conceptual ideas for taking the energy out from a fusion reactor?

    They have a FAQ which includes an answer to your question.

  18. Re:can someone please explain for me by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

    "how do you say "D'oh!" in German?"

    Deuterium Hydroxide, also known as 'slightly heavy water'

    It's just BIG BONED!

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  19. Re:can someone please explain for me by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 3, Funny

    i hate these baby steps. they should have gone straight for dilithium crystals.

  20. Re:can someone please explain for me by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes I'm sure all those physicists have not "done the math" on how to get power out of a reactor. I mean it's just this big important aspect of reactor design which you could get a Ph. D in by running simulations and doing the math, so I'm sure no one anywhere is looking at it.