Slashdot Mirror


China's Fusion Reactor Reaches 100 Million Degrees Celsius (abc.net.au)

hackingbear shares a report from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: The team of scientists from China's Institute of Plasma Physics announced this week that plasma in their Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) -- dubbed the 'artificial sun' -- reached a whopping 100 million degrees Celsius which is six times hotter than the core of the Sun. This temperature is the minimum required to maintain a fusion reaction that produces more power than it takes to run. The Chinese research team said they were able to achieve the record temperature through the use of various new techniques in heating and controlling the plasma, but could only maintain the state for around 10 seconds. The latest breakthrough provided experimental evidence that reaching the 100 million degrees Celsius mark is possible, according to China's Institute of Plasma Physics. "While the U.S. is putting new restrictions on nuclear technology exports to China, inventions and findings of EAST will be important contributions to the development of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)," writes Slashdot reader hackingbear. The reactor is currently being built in southern France with collaboration from 35 nations. According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it is expected to be "the first device to consistently produce net energy, producing 500 megawatts of clean and sustainable power."

261 comments

  1. could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    after which time the facility and everything within about 8 miles surrounding it ceased to exist

    1. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      You joke, but actually plasma fusion reactors are quite safe -- far safer than their fission counterparts.

      Even if all of the matter inside a fusion reactor were to fuse simultaneously -- a physical impossibility -- the worst that would happen is significant damage to the reactor building. There simply isn't enough matter inside the reactor at any time to do worse.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last recorded message was Je't adore!

    3. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, the south of France should be safe, unless Homer J Simpson decides to tour the facility.

    4. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The reaction will stop when the last atom on Earth is consumed. That should take a few seconds more.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Even if all of the matter inside a fusion reactor were to fuse simultaneously -- a physical impossibility -- the worst that would happen is significant damage to the reactor building. There simply isn't enough matter inside the reactor at any time to do worse.

      Fusion reactors are still generating neutrons.. activation is still a problem. There must be at least some radioactive crap that can leak out and make the evening news.

    6. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not really. The only direct products you make will be Helium-4 (stable), Helium-5 and Helium-6. You could smash up or change isotope a carbon, nitrogen or oxygen atom, I suppose. But you're talking very short half-lives.

      The concrete is a problem. Fortunately, the Iranians have a recipe that is less likely to powder or fail. So, with trade restored under the joint agreement, we're ok.

      Oh.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Fusion reactors are still generating neutrons.. activation is still a problem.

      Most of the neutrons are absorbed by the lithium blanket. The lithium splits into helium-4 and tritium. The tritium is collected and fed back into the reactor.

      Most structural parts exposed to thermal neutrons are made of zirconium, which has a very small neutron cross-section.

      There is some problems with neutron activation from a fusion reactor, but way less than with fission reactors. There is no danger of a "meltdown" or any other catastrophic failure. The biggest concern is a tritium leak, but tritium isn't very dangerous, dissipates rapidly, doesn't bioaccumulate, and has a half-life of only 12 years.

      Would I be willing to live next to a fusion reactor? Sure.

    8. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, this is college physics.

      Fission reactors: You put a years' worth of fuel rods in them. They go boom then a whole year of fuel goes boom.
      Fusion reactors: You put a tablespoon of fuel in periodically. They go boom then a tablespoon of fuel goes boom.

      The plasma ring doesn't contain much. In the days of the JET torus that plasma would routinely hit the containment vessel and cause microscopic vaporization. This, vs a whole city vaporization as is the case with fission. Or at least whole city genome vaporization, which is just as bad.

    9. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Most structural parts exposed to thermal neutrons are made of zirconium

      I couldn't find anything: do you have any info on that (the structural metal part)? Zirconium isn't a common structural metal. Presumably it would have to be alloyed, but then you have to concern yourself with the cross section of the alloying parts as well.

      All in all a very interestig engineering problem.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most neutrons are not absorbed by the lithium blanket, since no reactor actually has a lithium blanket.
      Most neutrons are absorbed by the 2 metre thick concrete bio-screen.

    11. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Zirconium isn't a common structural metal.

      Of course not. It is heavy and expensive. It is only used where low neutron cross section is important.

      Presumably it would have to be alloyed

      Yes, most commonly with tin and niobium. Sometimes with chromium, nickel, or iron.

      then you have to concern yourself with the cross section of the alloying parts as well.

      Indeed. Most zirconium alloys are 95% or more zirconium for this reason.

      More info here: Zirconium Alloys

      Zirconium sits right below titanium in the periodic table, and shares many properties, including high strength and resistance to corrosion.

      Just below Zirconium is Hafnium, which has one of the biggest neutron cross sections. Hafnium is used as a neutron absorber, and hafnium salts can be used as a neutron poison to quickly shutdown thorium salt reactors in an emergency.

    12. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Neutron activation and a melt down have nothing to do with each other.

      Would I be willing to live next to a fusion reactor? Sure.
      Current technology? No. You can't. They are far away from habitated areas for a reason: neutron flux.
      There is a reason why the reactor gets evacuated and the scientists are underground during experiments: neutron flux.
      The biggest concern is a tritium leak, but tritium isn't very dangerous, dissipates rapidly, doesn't bioaccumulate
      No it is not. It is a GAS. It is more or less the weight of hydrogen, hence it floats up towards space.
      It does bioaccumulate as it reacts with oxygen and results in water, 70% of your body is water.
      12 years half life: is not good :D So why you emphasize that is beyond me ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Add to this the half lives of neutron activated materials are all short. They are mostly measured in days and hours. It's not like fission where many of the half lives are measured in centuries and millennia. Basically decommissioning for a fusion power station is turn it off, wait say 20 years and dismantle like anything else with no precautions.

      So with the chance of anything going wrong leading to external contamination somewhere around Ä, other than I expect a fusion power station to be nosy like any other large power station and thus not desirable to live next door to, any rational person would be happy to live next door to one.

    14. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is misleading; the fissile material in a reactor can not "go boom". The Manhattan Project should impress upon anyone how difficult it is to engineer and construct a working nuclear bomb, and a nuclear explosion isn't a potential accident scenario in any reactor. Heading off the "Chernobyl" and "Fukushima" responses, those were steam and hydrogen explosions respectively.

    15. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can live within a mile of a fusion reactor quite safely. I know because I do. Look up pppl.org

    16. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decommissioning a fission plant apparently takes between 8 and 60 years depending upon who you ask.

      https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/08/01/sale-of-oyster-creek-nuclear-plant-could-speed-decommissioning-by-decades/

      Thatâ(TM)s at a cost of somewhere between $800m and $1.6b.

    17. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt only the Iranians have that recipe.

    18. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Most structural parts exposed to thermal neutrons are made of zirconium

      I couldn't find anything: do you have any info on that (the structural metal part)? Zirconium isn't a common structural metal.

      Zr is currently used as the cladding on fission fuel rods because it lets most of the neutrons through.

    19. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Until someone actually builds the first fusion plant. Then the flat-earth lobby will find reasons why this tech is the most horrible idea since Jenner invented vaccines.

      Fortunately these will be built in China, so there will be nothing the hippies can do about them.

    20. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... thank you for bring up the negative of fission vs Fusion? It was implied in the GPs post.

    21. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by quanminoan · · Score: 2

      I had done some design work on a nuclear fusion reactor, we mainly used common alloys like stainless steel (with special control over cobalt content), aluminum, titanium, etc. Aluminum alloys are great as they don't activate and self anneal radiation damage. The zirconium you mention might be more towards the intense plasma facing components. I've seen tungsten, carbon-carbon, and beryllium used in this area - particularly in the diverter area.

    22. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      There must be at least some radioactive crap that can leak out and make the evening news.

      Then here come the hippies.....

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    23. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Most zirconium alloys are 95% or more zirconium for this reason.

      More info here: Zirconium Alloys

      I'm having flashbacks to my college materials science class lecture about the various alloys of zirconium. It was so dull. The professor was droning on and on. Most of the students had fallen asleep.

      "As we alloy zirconium dioxide with aluminum dioxide, the resulting material will have a stable cubic crystalline structure. This is what you give your girlfriend if you don't like her very much..."

      Wait a minute... did he just tell a joke? I'm pretty sure I was the only one in the class that got it.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    24. Re:could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by schweini · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the insights - may I ask how the hell a random slashdotter has such interesting detailed knowledge of the structural components of a fusion reactor? It just seems so cool to run into people like you online!

    25. Re: could only maintain the state for 10 seconds by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > The only direct products you make will be Helium-4 (stable), Helium-5 and Helium-6.

      Yeah...

      ITER will experiment with the use of a lithium "blanket". This is a must-have feature of any power-producing reactor. It consists of a meter-thick layer of lithium surrounding the core. Neutrons that make it through the first wall go into the blanket, where most of them (hopefully) interact with the lithium to produce tritium, which is required to fuel the reactor. In that respect, fusion reactors like ITER actually run on deuterium and lithium, the tritium acts as a catalyst. The blanket serves the secondary purpose of (hopefully) capturing enough neutrons to slow degradation of the materials outside it, like the magnets.

      At any given time, there will be about a kilogram of tritium in the lithium blanket, which is about the level where its concentration is too small to remove it. Lithium is a flammable metal that burns well, which I'm sure anyone who's watched a video of someone's eCig exploding knows too well. It also has the ability to burn quite well in water, which will be the case because the blanket is water-cooled. If the lithium catches fire, the tritium in it will burn with atmospheric oxygen to produce tritated steam. A kilogram of tritated steam is a massive radiological event, because it is chemically identical to water, and will fall from the sky as rain and be breathed in by anyone under it.

      To put this in perspective, the IAEA defines an "acute atmospheric release of tritium" to be 10g.

      Now what might cause such an event to occur? Well, one possibility is a relativistic electron cascade, which has burned holes right through the sides of tokamaks, or more likely, a magnet quench which would destroy the entire side of the reactor. Either way the blanket would be exposed and superheated.

      Don't get me wrong, a fusion reactor will be much safer than a fission one, but your dismissal of the risks demonstrates you're not really sure what those risks are.

  2. Thatâ(TM)s hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Itâ(TM)s almost as hot as the Ghost Pepper sauce I sent Caesars as thanks for making DEFCON 25 a miserable experience with their thieving security goons.

    1. Re:Thatâ(TM)s hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you send it directly to their face or just hope they would apply it themselves

  3. Apparently not by mark-t · · Score: 0

    The Chinese research team said they were able to achieve the record temperature through the use of various new techniques in heating and controlling the plasma.... This temperature is the minimum required to maintain a fusion reaction that produces more power than it takes to run.

    Oh, really?

    ... but could only maintain the state for around 10 seconds.

    Apparently not. If it were, it would be maintained, wouldn't it?

    1. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the reasons for this could be more than just not producing enough power. I'm not a nuclear scientist, so I won't comment on why, but presumably they have a reason for this claim under the circumstances.

    2. Re: Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new reactors use very special ingredients

    3. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily - it probably means that didn't have the ability to collect the energy released

    4. Re:Apparently not by Trogre · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also I'm pretty sure the Sun, which is considerably cooler than this, is producing more power than it absorbs.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnetic confinement can't operate continuously, pretty much by definition. God damnit, what happened to slashdot.

    6. Re:Apparently not by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      They achieved the temperature required to maintain a reaction above energy break-even, but likely they could not maintain it because of instabilities.

      As an AC poster suggested, there is more than one criterion for maintaining a fusion reaction.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re: Apparently not by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: domestic pets.

    8. Re: Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fusion cuisine

    9. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently not. If it were, it would be maintained, wouldn't it?

      I don't think that logically follows.

      There may be other limitations.

    10. Re:Apparently not by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not just instabilities, but lack of a mechanism to capture and feed the excess energy back into the device, which was not a goal of the experiment.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnetic confinement can't operate continuously, pretty much by definition.

      The Stellarator can by definition.

    12. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It’s also easy to get a high temperature when you have low density.

    13. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, clearly if they aren't experts at it immediately, they should discontinue pursuit of it...

    14. Re:Apparently not by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Funny

      Advice: don't study science. With your deep, keen insight you'll a be natural for sanitary management.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Stellarator can by definition.

      Stellarators are kicking ass even though peanuts are being spent on them. No doubt they will be first to break even.

      Projects like ITER exist primarily as a bypass of NPT restrictions. They were never about producing electric power or seriously advancing technology to eventually enable that outcome. It's an expensive tax payer funded scam.

    16. Re: Apparently not by jd · · Score: 1

      Plasma is unstable. If it's not held at suitable density under suitable conditions, it will tend to pinch off. That is the problem. Nothing to do with energy.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no one needs to prove that taking excess heat out of a system and putting it into a steam turbine makes power. Wait to spend the money on generic power plant equipment when it is actually useful to studying a practical, long running reactor.

      Do you expect electric semi truck prototype to be carrying useful cargo for money from the very moment it starts to move?

    18. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well

      First the millenium happened
      then
      Millenials happened.

      Next thing you know happened
      people go from long format to short format and back again
      just to confuse the issue when someone is talking about millions, billions and trillions
      a million is 10^6
      a billion should be 10^12
      a trillion is thus 10^18

      but somehow this changed sometime the past 40 years or so
      now a million is still 10^6
      but a billion is 10^9
      and a trillion is 10^12
      Which is all so wrong to use and think about that the only reason for this change was a reason of greed, though you will not believe it, and will argue that it is right the way it is now. You're Wrong. you would have to have lived thru it, and not have benefited from the change to understand why and how it is wrong. So you'll only be arguing to maintain and feed your greed.

    19. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also I'm pretty sure the Sun, which is considerably cooler than this, is producing more power than it absorbs.

      Per cubic foot the Sun generates less heat than a compost.
      A compost also produce more power than it absorbs.

      But we are aiming for something a bit more than that.

    20. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stellarators are kicking ass

      Not really. They are still an order of magnitude below the performance of tokamaks at a order of magnitude higher cost.

    21. Re:Apparently not by mikael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They keep running into problems. I've read a few papers, and they would hit problems such as the metals used weren't strong enough to withstand the magnetic fields they were generating. That was fixed. Then the plasma rings would start to twist, buckle, warp and pinch into singularities. Stellerators fixed that problem by putting some torsion into the plasma rings. Tokamaks fixed that problem by adding extra magnetic field randomness or something to break up the standing waves. That fixed that problem. Then the neutron bombardment started poking holes in the metal structure, which weakens it over time. Maybe that has been fixed, but it keeps going round and round.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    22. Re:Apparently not by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Projects like ITER exist primarily as a bypass of NPT restrictions. They were never about producing electric power or seriously advancing technology to eventually enable that outcome. It's an expensive tax payer funded scam.

      Because the people who dispense multibillion dollar research grants are more easily scammed than some random Internet AC.

    23. Re:Apparently not by mark-t · · Score: 1

      My point is not that I would expect a fusion experiment to instantly produce viable energy output... if they haven't gotten it to self-sustaining levels yet, that's to be expected. I would, however, think that would still be the entire initial goal, and I would have expected that right out of the starting gate they'd be siphoning off as much power as they could into keeping the reaction going until they were able to get enough to keep the reaction going, and anything over and above that, if and when they get there, would be useful generated power. If they weren't generating enough power yet to do so, again.... that's okay. It's still progress, and the amount of time they are able to sustain it would still be a measure of how long they were able to keep feeding it enough power over and above what it generated to keep going, and a real measurement of how close they are actually getting to having a sustained fusion reaction.

      If, however, they weren't ever intending on trying to do that right away, then I honestly don't see what the point of talking about "maintaining" a reaction was in the first place, if they didn't actually have anything in place to even *try* to maintain it?

    24. Re:Apparently not by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The reason for the change was uniformity. There were two definitions o words like billion and trillion for decades. This was causing confusion, so we settled on just one of the definitions, and that is now being used by everybody.

    25. Re:Apparently not by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't going "round and round" it is going forward, step by step. Each issue that is solved is one less issue. There have been at least 226 tokamaks built to date, and each one advances knowledge about some aspect of design and operation. That is how extremely complex systems are developed. There is a lot of work to be done to build and operate the first true break-even tokamak -- about 20 years and $20 billion worth.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    26. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pessimistic about it, at best. Nature doesn't take the hard way to achieve anything. We're in the process of trying to re-create conditions we think exist in the sun - but ultimately, we're still following a model that has more holes than a good swiss cheese. It isn't imperical, it isn't explainable to my satisfaction at least - and the conclusions about the run are highly questionable. Unless we can explain the sun, and explain other large planets in our solar system, one of which (Saturn?) outputs more energy than it receives from the sun. How can that be? We can't explain some of the simplest phenomena, such as comets. They've "surprised" us at every turn. How then do we think we've got the Sun figured out? There's so many questions, and so many reasons to doubt. Therefore, I don't hold a lot of promise about fusion. If you really do get more out than goes in, and if indeed the run was running with fusion, then the Sun should be getting hotter, which would only serve to speed up the reaction, etc. We'd see the solar system fry in the radiation as it increases.

    27. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gibbe 20 pleads the tick-tock man !! Those were the same numbers pimped 20 years ago ... and for the next generation of failed-fusion machines will prolly not change 20 years from now. While the coal-fired plants keep going ... and going ... and going ...

    28. Re:Apparently not by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is sustainable fusion energy is about 20 years away? Wait...I feel like I've heard that before...

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    29. Re:Apparently not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Progress" has largely been a function making it bigger. Eventually it will break even if we can afford it, but there is still no path to an economical reactor. Tokamaks are incapable of confining plasma at high pressure, which leads to their enormous size.

    30. Re:Apparently not by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Caveat: I'm an armchair bystander, not a physicist, so the following is just my layman's view.

      As a researcher hoping to contribute to a larger project (ITER) you have to choose your focus, this is to min/max your contribution (read: published papers) according to your research budget. This group chose to go for the high temperature numbers, understandably, because it makes for a great press release and helps to secure budget for the next experiment. Their principal engineering contribution seems to be a pioneering use of superconducting magnets.

      Ten seconds is actually a decently long time to maintain a plasma, it seems they have in mind to increase that by two orders of magnitude by improving this equipment, but that is still plenty of time to read out a whole lot of data. The last thing they want to do is burn up a lot of expensive hardware on an early test run by running it until it melts. Doesn't make for such a great press release, it eats up the budget and lays waste to the timeline.

      You're hardly going to get good technical information from a press release, but there is plenty of good non-paywalled info on EAST out there on the net. From a quick look, I don't know how much heat they are generating from fusion at this point, but since they don't say much about it, I presume it is essentially all from external sources, and improving the external energy injection mechanisms is a major goal of their project. Ignition is not a goal of their project, it is not even a goal of ITER.

      See, isn't this a whole lot more interesting than jumping onto the internet and swearing a lot while advertising your ignorance? You could have googled it first, just like I did.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    31. Re:Apparently not by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Sustainable in the economic sense is a lot more than 20 years away, OP said "break even". And even then, the excess heat is probably not being captured, but just leaked away. It is thought that an economical generating system would soon follow a demonstration of sustainable break even operation but for now, nobody knows how big, expensive, complex or reliable that might be, so any attempt to put a specific timeframe to it is just a wild guess. But progress marches on, this is really not science fiction any more, just a whole lot of brutally hard work ahead. How long did it take humanity to get from the first campfire to a steam generator? A hundred thousand years? Getting from the steam generator to a fusion generator is moving comparatively much faster.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    32. Re:Apparently not by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      We're in the process of trying to re-create conditions we think exist in the sun

      No we aren't. The sun has the benefit of being much larger than any reactor we could build on earth so it can operate at a much lower temperature. Some details here.

      There really is not a lot of overlap between the way the Sun goes about things and the way a tokomak does, other than that both are fusion. The reactions are very different. Out sun fuses four hydrogens to make one helium while tokomaks typically use a deuterium-tritium reaction suitable for conditions that can be created on earth.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    33. Re:Apparently not by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Whoops, tokamak not tokomak.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    34. Re:Apparently not by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I think this is a case where tone doesn't read well on the internet.

      My usage of expletives was not meant to suggest anger, but simply complete and utter shock that it would even be a thing to try.

      It was more of a "What the fuck?" expression than one that was meant to suggest I was in any way outraged or that I actually thought I knew better than the people who were doing this.

      It sincerely (and still) makes absolutely no sense to me to be trying this sort of thing without also trying right from the beginning to also get as much power as you can get from the reaction to feed back and try sustain it until at least you get to a self-sustaining system, after which of course, once you've got there, you can start drawing useful power.

      Anything else isn't being "maintained" in the first place... it's just putting a whole lot of energy into making a brilliant fusion reaction that is going entirely to waste.

    35. Re:Apparently not by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It sincerely (and still) makes absolutely no sense to me to be trying this sort of thing

      We get that it makes no sense to you, no need to keep repeating. Maybe try to get some perspective here. It would help if you educated yourself a bit more about the difference between engineering and research.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    36. Re:Apparently not by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Haven't looked into this in a long time, but that could be false. The sun is big, really BIG. It is also made of fuel (hydrogen). It very well could be not producing more power than it absorbs. We do know that suns do not last forever. Eventually they run out of reaction and die. It is just that because it is so big, contains so much fuel, and I suppose is probably pretty efficient, it just takes a very long time (billions of years). However all of that is a matter of scale. As a thought experiment how many of those tomak reactors would fit into the volume of the sun, or even probably more applicable the amount of plasma that it uses... I'm gonna go with "a lot", where that is a pretty significant understatement. It's just that we don't have the capability to create something as large as the sun, nor access to that amount of fuel, and even if we did it wouldn't be a very practical application. The idea is something like the sun, but a billion times smaller (or more who knows with the scales we're talking about), that is efficient enough to use a reasonable amount of fuel over a reasonable amount of time for practical usage.

  4. Great! by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 0

    a team of scientists ... reached a whopping 100 million degrees Celsius for 10 seconds.

    Great! So soon I can get my Chinese takeout much faster, right?

    So serious question: how many oceans will that boil? It's one thing to have the moon that hot, it's another to have the head of a pin that hot. Or are the just going after temperature quantity rather than size/mass? (which is not a bad thing.)

    If I remember my fusion stuff correctly, they were trying to have high temps via lasers at a single point, and drop some deuterium at that same point/instant and get it to fuse. They got it working, but not enough to be self-sufficient.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re:Great! by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      Great! So soon I can get my Chinese takeout much faster, right?

      I'm thinking a really fast pizza oven. Why settle for dirty old coal-fired pizza, when you can have fusion pizza!

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    2. Re:Great! by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      I remember a beaker of water and a palladium electrode.

    3. Re:Great! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      So serious question: how many oceans will that boil? It's one thing to have the moon that hot, it's another to have the head of a pin that hot. Or are the just going after temperature quantity rather than size/mass?

      You're on the right track. Temperature != Heat. The plasma in the outer magnetosphere of the earth has a temperature of thousands of degrees kelvin, but it doesn't melt a spacecraft that's in it. Why? It's sparse. The average kinetic energy of particles in the plasma is high (i.e., high temperature) but the power per unit area that strikes the spacecraft is very low.

      That being said, the plasma inside a Tokomak can certainly melt something. That's (part of) why there is so much effort put into magnetic confinement.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instructions: Place pizza on rack in reaction chamber. Remove after 1 yoctosecond. Caution: Pizza will be hot, use care in handling.

    5. Re: Great! by jd · · Score: 1

      They're trying several methods. Laser fusion is one, the Chinese reactor is another.

      Find out the specific heat of materials to calculate temperature of one given the temperature of the other.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:Great! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Shit, I had a curry last night at the Taj Mahal Tandoori that was at least that hot, and it was only a medium. I bet an Fscking Indian Hot would be at least 300 million degrees.

    7. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Temperature is heat. It's a measurement of the average velocity of your statistical ensemble. Your are looking for heat capacity. A single particle at very high temperatures simply doesn't have enough heat capacity to do substantial heat transfer.

    8. Re: Great! by careysub · · Score: 1

      They're trying several methods. Laser fusion is one, the Chinese reactor is another.

      "Laser fusion" is dead. The actual general technology is properly known as inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and lasers are only one possible method of providing the driving energy.

      The original ICF idea of direct drive laser fusion is completely dead - it does not work. All ICF schemes now use indirect drive, using an external energy pulse to create thermal X-rays inside a little metal capsule (hohlraum) which then drives the implosion. You don't necessarily need lasers to provide that energy pulse, particle beams promise to be much more efficient and cost effective. Unfortunately even approach this has turned out to be more difficult than expected, the National Ignition Facility at LLNL was supposed to be a factor of 3 above break-even, but came in a factor of 3 below, even when extremely elaborate hohlraums (costs $10,000 each) were used.

      Once it became clear that indirect drive was necessary, it made the whole ICF project questionable. The original idea was that you only needed to make cheap little bubbles of frozen fuel. Once it turned out that each explosion required a high-precision manufactured multi-part unit, the cost effectiveness of the idea collapsed. Each explosion can cost no more than about a penny, and you need to set off hundreds of them each second. No one has any idea how this could be done, even if the driver problem is completely solved.

      There aren't any ICF projects comparable to the current magnetic confinement fusion work going on any more. No one has any plans for a workable ICF demo plant.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    9. Re:Great! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Correct. Temperature != Heat Capacity. Thanks for the improvement.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    10. Re: Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heavy ion fusion is the most promising path - the problem with ICF is delivering huge energy pulses efficiently and using 30 year old particle collider engineering we can do that using precisely timed and combined pulses from multiple linear accelerator sources to ignite cylinders of the safe cheap fuel - pure deuterium. The showstopper is that it only works at huge scale - reactors that produce 10's of GW (too big for the grid) and cost $10's of billions to build.

    11. Re:Great! by outlander · · Score: 1

      Toppings may be unexpected....

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
  5. Office Temp by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Funny

    Some of the researchers still felt it was too cold in the office and would prefer to bump up the thermostat a little more

    1. Re: Office Temp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That

    2. Re:Office Temp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, my wife works in China?

    3. Re:Office Temp by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Some of the researchers still felt it was too cold in the office and would prefer to bump up the thermostat a little more

      Actually they tried to make it too cold, but the temperature was an unsigned int and it wrapped.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Office Temp by mikael · · Score: 1

      You could do that with early PC flight simulators. Get a fast enough clockwise roll on your fighter plane, and after a while, it would start rolling anti-clockwise. Always wondered if that would happen in real life.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re: Office Temp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also happens in Master of Orion 2. Once your economy generates more that 32,767 credits per turn, you then start accumulating negative income quite quickly.

      Never did get round to finding out if it flips again over the 16bit boundary or if you get an overflow error.

    6. Re:Office Temp by Micah+NC · · Score: 1

      I can already see the recruiter email:

      Want to work with some hot technologies ??

  6. Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by doug141 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The protons in the core of the sun are in a temperature distribution, like a bell curve, and the average of this bell curve is way to cold for fusion. The only reason fusion happens is there are so many protons, a very few have freakishly high temperature way up the high end of the bell curve. Only those statistical outliers are fusing.

    1. Re:Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, that reminds me when I asked my chemistry teacher why water would evaporate even below the boiling point. He said something similar, the temperature is the average but on occasion a molecule gets enough energy to exceed the threshold (thus cooling the others when it leaves with its heat). Similar? Or not?

    2. Re:Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Similar in that statistically unlikely things happen quite often with enough time or space.
      The mean free path of a neutrino is calculated to be several light years through solid lead before hitting a particle.
      However neutrinos are emitted by the sun so frequently and neutrino detectors are so large that we can detect them reasonably frequently.

    3. Re:Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also note that the energy contained in room temperature liquid water is enough for it to boil if it weren't for atmospheric pressure. Water requires pressure to remain liquid, so in some sense it's always "trying" to boil away.
      Compare this to mercury, which can be a liquid at room temperature and zero pressure.

    4. Re:Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thermal energy produced per cubic meter in the core of the sun is comparable to a compost pile and less than per volume heat produced by a human. The Sun is just really, really big, so emitted light gets re-absorbed as heat, and even a relatively conductive material makes a decent insulator if thick enough. The slow fusion process of the Sun can get as hot as it does just because the heat is so well trapped.

      On Earth, we are limited to only a couple meters of insulation, instead of 100,000s of km. The reactors will lose heat many orders of magnitude faster than the Sun, so they need to produce heat much faster. Luckily DT fusion is much faster than pp fusion, and the reaction rate scales up quickly with temperature too. So with a temperature 10 times that at the center of the Sun, with a better fuel choice, you end up with a much faster reaction that can still keep hot despite the much less insulation.

      Also, because you need to make heat faster than it leaves, usually just the temperature is not enough. The triple product is a common metric, where you multiply the temperature, density, and confinement time (how long a typical particle or parcel of energy sticks around, not the lifetime of the plasma) together. You need it to be hot enough to fuse, you need enough fuel at that temperature to get enough reactions, and you need it to stick around long enough before carrying heat away. There is some room for trade off between the three. This metric has been scaling up over the years in a pattern similar to Moore's law, because of improvements to confinement time and density (temperatures haven't changed much at this point).

      That can partially explain how you can have fusion temperatures, but not self-sustaining from reactions, as their confinement time and density might be on the low side. Also, a lot of experiments run with DD instead of DT, as it behaves essentially the same, but you don't have to deal with as many neutrons and you don't have to deal with handling radioactive tritium. JT-60 has already made DD plasmas that would produce more power out than in (for a short time) if they had been DT instead, and there is no doubts about the DD plasma being any different than DT in that case. (There will be some difference at higher reaction rates, as about 80% of the energy of a DT reaction leaves the plasma as a neutron, so when the fusion power is about 5x what is being put into the plasma, that other 20% trapped power will be comparable to external heating, and there would then be an advantage to using DT fuel.)

    5. Re:Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by mikael · · Score: 1

      You could see that in the harbours close to the Arctic. The air would be below zero, but the water was still liquid. Little clouds of water vapour would form and float around the surface, looking like ghosts.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Fusion in the sun happens very rarely.. The compost heap in your backyard makes about as much energy as fusion in the sun - about 276.5 Watts per m^3. Your body makes more energy just from metabolism (maintaining your body temp as you sit around). That's why they have to get it much hotter than the sun to get more energy out of it than they put in.

      The sun is just really hot because of its enormous volume to surface area ratio. Each square meter of surface area is covering over 200 million cubic meters of volume.

    7. Re:Sun's core too cold for fusion, sort of by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      One of the most well-informed posts I have ever read by an AC.

  7. Re: I really fucking HATE /. BULLIES like ZIP... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm yeah... just... yeah

  8. Celsius? by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is 212 million degrees in Fahrenheit. If they did it in America it would have been much hotter.

    1. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is 212 million degrees in Fahrenheit.

      Uh, no. That is 180,000,032 F.

    2. Re:Celsius? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wrong. I know Farenheit.

    3. Re:Celsius? by novakyu · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are quite right. 100 deg C = 212 deg F, therefore 100 mil deg C = 212 mil deg F. I salute your intelligence!

    4. Re: Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed basic science, physics and chemistry.

    5. Re:Celsius? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Real scientists use Kelvins, not C. But I can't be bothered doing the conversion right now.

    6. Re:Celsius? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are no Farenheit:

      $ units
      2919 units, 109 prefixes, 88 nonlinear units
       
      You have: tempC(1e8)
      You want: tempF
          1.8000003e+08

    7. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bit less seance, bit more basic algebra.

    8. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real scientists use Kelvins, not C. But I can't be bothered doing the conversion right now.

      (starts kcalc) 99,999,727K :)

    9. Re: Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong way, try again.

    10. Re: Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (restarts kcalc, resubmits) 1,000,273K :(

    11. Re: Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (rerestarst kcalc) 100,000,273 (cries)

    12. Re:Celsius? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      sadly if done in America that is probably the calculation they would come to for 100 million Celsius

    13. Re: Celsius? by jd · · Score: 1

      *replaces battery in your hp48*

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except nearly every scientist in plasma physics uses eV instead of kelvins for temperature...

      Students are taught that room temp is about 1/40 eV or 1 eV is roughly 12000 K so they can convert when talking to public, otherwise one can be completely disconnected from what the plasma temperature is in everyday units.

    15. Re: Celsius? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You failed basic science, physics and chemistry.

      Caution: Urge to "Whooosh" rising!

    16. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real scientists use Kelvins, not C. But I can't be bothered doing the conversion right now.

      Kelvins, not C

      I thought it was Fortran?

    17. Re:Celsius? by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

      You are quite right. 100 deg C = 212 deg F, therefore 100 mil deg C = 212 mil deg F. I salute your intelligence!

      "mil deg"? Why do Americans have to invent new units/prefixes everyday? Now how do I know if "mil" stands for one thousandth or for one million? :)

      I know, nobody uses the SI prefixes for high temperatures (have you ever heard of a kK or of a GK>), and we all like shorthands, that's why the scientific community prefers to use the electron-Volt. 100 million degrees (C or K) is about 8.6keV.

    18. Re: Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't read 010010100111001's posts much have you?

    19. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no, it's 1800000032 Fahrenheit

    20. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K=C+273.15

    21. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has Kevin got to do with it?

    22. Re:Celsius? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Thank you! Isn't that how it works?

    23. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pff, shows what you know. "mil" obviously stands for "military". Civilian temperatures are much cooler.

    24. Re:Celsius? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      In one of my astronomy classes back in the day, a student asked "what units" when a professor was talking about star temperatures in the tens of hundred millions. His answer? It doesn't matter.

      As to why it doesn't matter, the unit differences are on the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty of the measurements.

      Now, this wasn't entirely accurate, but it did help us understand how much ballparking and handwaving there is in astronomy. These things are very big, very hot, and very far away. And often very far in the past. The uncertainty of astronomical measurements is generally unfathomably high if you're used to any earth-based science.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    25. Re: Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100,000,273.15K

    26. Re:Celsius? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He died in the inferno.

    27. Re:Celsius? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      For sure, for sure.

    28. Re:Celsius? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      I salute you, sir.

  9. Still useless for energy production by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm afraid that all deuteriam and tritium based fusion reactors rely on fuel that is in extremely limited supply, especially tritium. Since the main source of tritium on Earth is nuclear decay from fission reactors, if there are enough fission reactors to generate enough of the very inefficiently used fusion fuel to generate significant, they can generate many times more energy from the fission reactors without having to engage in dangerous refinement of the tritium.

    It's theoretically possible that thallium, which is much more plentiful than hydrogen isotopes, can be used for susion. But I'm sad to say that hydrogen fusion _cannot_ be effectively used for energy. Every technology that harvest or generate enough of the hydrogen isotopes manages and can harvest so much other energy that hydrogen isotopes re only a useful research byproduct, not a comparable energy source.

    1. Re:Still useless for energy production by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Energy generation is not the point at this time. The point is creating and maintaining the plasma and 10 seconds is pretty impressive at this stage for Tokamak.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Still useless for energy production by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I agree that the physics is interesting. But the eagerness, and much of the fiscal support for fusion, has been based on the expectation to produce energy with it. There are some more viable approaches. Thallium fusion at least makes more economic and therdynamic sense: it seems possible to recover more energy than is used to create the reaction, and the fuel is far more plentiful. And technologies such as orbital mirrors seem viable to harvest similarly or even larger supplies of energy with less concentrated, less contaminated, radioactive byproducts.

    3. Re:Still useless for energy production by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

      What is this "thallium fusion" of which you speak? Or was that a typo, like the word "therdynamic" in your post?

    4. Re:Still useless for energy production by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Umm.. if you get a fusion power plant going, that's a great achievement. You can then look for one that runs on easily available fuel.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Still useless for energy production by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      You can get all the tritium you need by capturing Spider-man alive and giving him to Harry Osbourne.

    6. Re:Still useless for energy production by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that all deuteriam and tritium based fusion reactors rely on fuel that is in extremely limited supply, especially tritium. Since the main source of tritium on Earth is nuclear decay from fission reactors, if there are enough fission reactors to generate enough of the very inefficiently used fusion fuel to generate significant, they can generate many times more energy from the fission reactors without having to engage in dangerous refinement of the tritium.

      The plan is for tritium to be bred from fusion reactors when they are actually working in a commercially useful manner.

    7. Re:Still useless for energy production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent down, they are spouting nonsense.

      A) Thallium is higher than Iron on the periodic table, meaning that it is a net-negative (everything past Iron on the periodic table requires more energy to fuse than is released) fuel for fusion power.

      B) Tritium can be produced by neutron capture on Li-6, no fission reactions required. (And provides some protection from the neutron flux.)

      H-B11 fusion is an alternative, but requires huge amounts of energy to initiate, though that appears to have been circumvented thanks to insanely powerful (10PW) lasers.
      See doi:10.1088/1742-6596/717/1/012095 (since I don't wish to link directly to a pdf)

    8. Re:Still useless for energy production by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      Yeah... you don't know what you are talking about. Deuterium is abundant, no problem, you can buy heavy water from ebay ffs and there is no limit to making more, it just takes power. And practical D-T reactor designs all include tritium breeding from lithium, which is also abundant and cheap. There are many difficulties with fusion, fuel availability is not one of them.

    9. Re: Still useless for energy production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H-B11 comes with a couple issues. It smells a lot like curry, which few people want to deal with. It tends to drag over all it's useless reactants with it and let them run amok in public. It refuses to learn the local reactors customs. Its generally referred to as goat fucker fusion.

    10. Re:Still useless for energy production by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      One can, indeed, buy heavy water, the economic and thermodynamic cost of refining it is large: it takes more power than the fusion reactions produce until and unless they become _profoundly_ more efficient, and the energy cost of refining deuterium is rarely factored into the "break-even" point of fusion power. The cost of refining the tritium, and the economic costs of refining a toxic, very radiuctive, chemically reactive gas is also not factored in.

      It is, possible to for neutrons from fusion reactions to generate tritium from lithium, as a byproduct of fusion. But a single deuterium/tritium interaction produces only one spare neutron. The neutron is what can interact with lithium and produce tritium, but it's not efficient. So a running fusion reactor cannot hope to produce even enough tritium to provide its own fuel. I'm afraid that it still needs a large scale, external source of tritium. As things stand, that means a supporting fleet of tritium producing fission reactors. If you have a fleet of those, they're already producing a great deal more energy than the fusion reactor, so the benefits are small, if any, from recycling the tritium from the fission reactors for fusion fuel.

      There _are_ potentially effective sources of tritium, such as fission reactors or even solar sails. but the energy they otherwise handle is so much larger than the results of refining and using it for fsion that it's not worth the extra effort for ordinary energy production.

    11. Re:Still useless for energy production by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The possibilities already exist, in physics and in resources, for thallium to provide fusion power. I was quite startled to learn this, it gets little attention compared to hydrogen fusion.

    12. Re:Still useless for energy production by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Oh, my. That _was_ a mistake. I meant boron.

    13. Re:Still useless for energy production by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      This would also keep thallium out of the hands of serial killers:
      https://www.theledger.com/arti...

    14. Re:Still useless for energy production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid that all deuteriam and tritium based fusion reactors rely on fuel that is in extremely limited supply,

      That's why you need the Moon's H3.

    15. Re:Still useless for energy production by careysub · · Score: 1

      H-B11 fusion is an alternative, but requires huge amounts of energy to initiate, though that appears to have been circumvented thanks to insanely powerful (10PW) lasers. See doi:10.1088/1742-6596/717/1/012095 (since I don't wish to link directly to a pdf).

      What you mean is that a theoretical technique that might possibly be made to work has been proposed.

      As the first sentence in the paper reminds us: "Compared with the deuterium tritium (DT) fusion, the environmentally clean fusion of protons with 11B is extremely difficult". And the introduction also says: "In discussing this option, Crandall mentioned that an enormous further work would be necessary to achieve this goal. The following views may summarize some of the tasks."

      So the paper's authors themselves merely claim to summarize "some of the tasks" that need to be carried out as part of " enormous further work" before any claim to feasibility (much less practical implementation) can be made for a problem that is "extremely difficult" even compared to D-T fusion which is decades away.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    16. Re:Still useless for energy production by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      What about H3? I've been hearing for years that we can get that from the moon. Where the stuff is supposed to be just laying around by the truck load tor the taking?

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    17. Re:Still useless for energy production by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It gets a lot of attention.... but mostly from scam artists who claim to have working reactors in their basement.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    18. Re:Still useless for energy production by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      As alpha particles coming from the sun the regolith of the moon should be full of helium 3. However, the fusion we are attempting here relies on D-T fusion. Any fusion attempts with He3 will require much much higher temperatures - the nuclear cross-sections are much smaller. See graph here:

      https://www.researchgate.net/f...

      Even if technically possible it wouldn't be economically for a long time, if ever. If a reactor can increase to these much higher energies boron proton fusion is also a possibility, and much cheaper (tri-alpha in CA is attempting this).

    19. Re:Still useless for energy production by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They are currently still learning how to handle the plasma. The whole thing looks pretty good though, they are making steady progress and have made so for a few decades. Expect 20-30 years until actual energy generation though. This is a _very_ long-term project, but one with no signs of failing. Will in the end probably take a bit longer than self-driving cars, which has been a research issue for something like 40 years as well and is now finally getting close to deliver.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    20. Re:Still useless for energy production by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you heard that thallium is a possibility, but if you look at charts of nuclear binding energies any element beyond iron requires energy to fuse. This is why stars can produce elements up to iron as they age but supernovas produce the heavier and rarer elements. Maybe you were thinking of thorium fission?

  10. Dr Evil quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One Hundred. Million. Celcius! *pinky finger in corner of mouth*

  11. Not that hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More useful to look at the energy of the particles. 1eV = 11,000 kelvin

    So this is a pretty feeble 9 keV. The electrons in your old tube TV have about 3-4 times the energy

    You might get some D-T reactions, but you're not going to get any D-D.

    Call us when you get to 100 keV kinds of levels.

  12. Not hot enough by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    One fusion dirty secret is that it produces neutrons that cannot be confined by electromagnetic fields, because they have no charge. They will damage the reactor, and the only way to get rid of them is to use some a-neutronic fusion reaction such as hydrogen+boron.

    But hydrogen+boron fusion require much more input energy than hydrogen+hydrogen. Is 100 million degrees hot enough?

    1. Re: Not hot enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tony figured this problem out by simply making a new element.

    2. Re: Not hot enough by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      I do not know this Tony, but he seems smart.

  13. No bias here by kaoshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    While the U.S. is putting new restrictions on nuclear technology exports to China

    How about instead, saying "While China is repeatedly caught attempting to steal nuclear technology from the United States"...

    OK, and a linked article bashing Trump admin policies based on testimony of officials who briefed New York Times journalists under condition of anonymity? Yep, this is without question legit and unbiased.

    1. Re:No bias here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there doesn't seem to be ANY articles that actually point to China actually stealing nuclear technology. Can you post some articles that show that they have stolen technology. The closest I've seen was a conspiracy to do so. But if it's a conspiracy to do so, usually that implies it failed, otherwise they would be charged with a much greater crime.

    2. Re:No bias here by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How does putting export restrictions on nuclear technology to China prevent China from stealing it?

      Aide from anything else if they were minded to steal it they could just get it from the US direct or from other countries it gets exported to.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:No bias here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one said it does prevent China from stealing it.

      Charging a man with assault, doesn't prevent him from hitting people. He can assault people while waiting for his trial. He can assault from other inmates, and guards, *in jail*. The goal is punishment, in the form of "do that, and we'll do this to you".

      The only way to stop China from stealing tech, is:

      - remove all Chinese people from the US
      - remove all forms of contact between China and the US
      - close all borders
      - setup a high-tech, laser powered dome of doom over the entire US and its borders, so nothing can ever sneak in or out

      I don't really see what your point is. Are you asserting that "oh well, they're stealing from us.. I guess there's nothing we can do, so just ignore it!"

    4. Re:No bias here by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How about instead, saying "While China is repeatedly caught attempting to steal nuclear technology from the United States"...

      But what would the point be? I mean industrial espionage has been a core part of every major nation since industrialisation. What purpose does it serve to point out the obvious?

      But since we're talking nuclear I have a better question for you: What's the purpose of nuclear technology for a nation if all you do is build weapons with it. Knowledge doesn't benefit you without the application of that knowledge. And in other news the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is now online ... in China.

    5. Re:No bias here by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      How does putting export restrictions on nuclear technology to China prevent China from stealing it?

      It'a not stealing if they use technology that we have no interest in developing.

  14. But how much is that in electron volts? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China's Fusion Reactor Reaches 100 Million Degrees Celsius

    Plasma energy sounds really large when you express it in temperature. But a more convenient gauge may be the voltage needed to accelerate the particles to velocity magnitudes correspondng to that sort of energy. This is also directly applicable to fusion systems, such as the Farnsworth-Hirsch or Bussard's Polywell, which use electric fields to accelerate the particles into the reaction volume.

    Both electrons and hydrogen nuclei have a charge magnitude of 1, so dropping them across a potential difference of N volts adds N electron volts of energy to each particle. Then, if you let the plasma thermalize to a Maxwellâ"Boltzmann distribution, the electron temperature will be (by definition) the temperature of the distribution is about 2/3 that corresponding to the average electron energy.

    So to go from degrees Celsius degrees (of a thermalized plasma) to electron volts:
      - Subtract 273.15 - a .003% drop in the bucket. (Kelvin step sizes are the same but Celsius starts at 273.15 Kelvin.)
      - Divide by 11,605 to get electron volts.
      - Multiply by 2/3 to get the average energy of the electrons and ions.

    That's an acceleration voltage of 6,025 volts (or 9,037 if you're going to react them before they thermalize). That's right in the ballpark for high-end vacuum tube technology - like the second anode on a CRT. (Those ran about 3000 to 6000 V in the 1940s, and about 25,000 V when modern color tubes were being replaced by flat panels.)

    You can see why we all had high hopes for things like Polywell, where (if it worked as expected) a "gassy vacuum tube" that would fit in a strip-mall store's back room, with all supporting equipment (mostly mid-20th-century style electronics), and provide 100 MW of DC at cross-country power line voltages.

    Of course many of the other methods for directly heating plasma heat the electrons much more than the ions. So the average energy of the plasma may be substantially lower.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:But how much is that in electron volts? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It is around 2 electron volts.

    2. Re:But how much is that in electron volts? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      It is around 2 electron volts.

      No, it's in the 6 thousand to 9 thousand eV range. See the end of the grandfather post.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:But how much is that in electron volts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I am Spartacus.

    4. Re:But how much is that in electron volts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's now at about 1.5v or "AAAA"... When they achieve fusion it'll be a complete "D" cell.

    5. Re:But how much is that in electron volts? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Eh, 2 or 9,000. What is the difference?

  15. Gravitational plasma confinement/optical density by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Sun can be cooler because it has a couple of things going for it: it's optically dense and gravitationally confined. That is, the core is SO big and SO dense that radiation doesn't just leak heat out into space. So the plasma doesn't cool down immediately. Also, the plasma density is maintained by the weight of all the mass of the rest of the star.

    Lab experiments, and in fact any plasma on earth, have neither of these advantages going for them.

    That is why the Sun can maintain its fusion reaction and why it is so hard to create fusion on earth.

  16. Re:ZIP = "better programmer" (lol, not) by aybiss · · Score: 0

    You post as AC. People aren't impersonating you. You do know how that works, right?

    --
    It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
  17. aybiss = fake name massive human fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Your MASSIVE FAIL in this life is you're nothing more than a chattering little do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" online & you know it...

    * Is that the best your "phantasyland FAKE NAME" (for your fake lie of a so-called 'life') can manage?

    When a FAKE NAME do nothing like YOU does better than I have? Then talk (you're all talk & no action)...

    You can't help you're an immature little BUTTHURT no-mind, lol! I blew you away in TONS OF PLACES and easily dust your no-mind bullshit blatherings.

    APK

    P.S.=> The TRUE PRICE of your UNIDENTIFIABLE FAKE NAME do-nothing selves like you that I can ALWAYS CASH IN ON (lol) is that I can use FACT/TRUTH on them to SHATTER their all TOO fragile delusional egos that they actually know A DAMN THING in computing, lol... apk

  18. Fusion AND fission produce energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a question for you nerds. How can nuclear FUSION *and* FISSION both produce energy? I never understood that. You would think that smaller nuclei would be high energy and heavy nuclei be low energy or vice versa. If you can get energy by splitting the atom AND by fusing smaller nuclei into larger ones, that seems like free energy. Between both processes you can generate an unlimited amount of energy.

    1. Re:Fusion AND fission produce energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Fusing heavy elements will cost more energy than is produced. Also, splitting light elements takes more energy than produced (I don't think it produces much energy?). So using uranium for fission because it's heavy makes sense but it makes no sense using it in a fusion reactor. Same goes the other way, using hydrogen for fusion makes sense but it makes no sense for fission.

      That's my lay understanding of it anyway.

    2. Re:Fusion AND fission produce energy? by ledow · · Score: 2

      Sigh.

      It's to do with the bonds between the parts of the nucleus, and the conversion of mass to energy.

      If you take a bunch of 1 proton (Hydrogen) atoms which have
        one or two extra neutrons (Deuterium, Triterium) and smash them together you will form an atom with more protons (Helium) and no neutrons, and get a bunch of "spare" neutrons which are either a) obliterated or b) ejected.

      E=mc^2. A neutron worth of mass converted to energy is an awful lot.

      In fission, you do something different. You take U235, fire another neutron at it, and it splits into two lighter elements, a bunch more neutrons get ejected (which keep the chain reaction going) and some of those get obliterated by the forces involved.

      E=mc^2 again.

      It's not about "you changed two things between two identical states and got free energy by doing so". It's "you used two different way of smashing things together, which results in one of the neutrons involved being obliterated and changed from mass to energy, and give you a bunch of waste products that you can't just recombine to get what you started with because some of it is now energy.

      Fusion is also harder because you have MUCH tinier things that you need to smash together, and they don't want to do it naturally, whereas with fission the U235 becomes U236 quite easily, which is inherently unstable and will explode of its own accord very quickly anyway.

      It's about "binding energy" of the start and end products. The binding energy (literally the energy used in the bonds that hold the thing together) of what you get out HAS TO BE LESS than the binding energy of what you put in. That's true for both fission of big atoms and fusion of tiny ones, but almost nothing in-between.

      Which is why it's REALLY HARD to make the things in the middle which only really occur in stars because they have so much energy being given out that they can end up literally forging elements that wouldn't exist in any smaller reaction, just by chance.

      Honestly, guys... a two second Google.

    3. Re:Fusion AND fission produce energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An answer for you non-nerds:

      The lowest energy nucleus is iron. So nuclei heavier than iron can be split (fissioned) producing energy. Nuclei so small that they can be combined into something smaller than an iron nucleus, can be fusioned producing energy. In practice, some nuclei are much better than others for these processes.

      There is no free energy here. If you create uranium through fusion, you will loose energy rather than get energy. And if you fission helium to get hydrogen, you also loose energy. Only light elements provide energy when fusioned, only heavy elements provide energy when fissioned.

  19. Aneutronic fusion may be impossible to sustain by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    Proton-boron fusion requires temperatures 10x higher than D-T.

    What's more, because of the higher atomic number for boron, Bremsstrahlung radiation will cool the plasma (if it's thermal) faster than the fusion reactions heat it.

    If the plasma isn't thermal, it's actually really hard to keep it nonthermal (entropy tends to win very quickly.) So it seems to me that aneutronic fusion reactions are hopeless for a plasma where losses due to Bremsstrahlung are larger than the fusion power will be.

    --PeterM

  20. A fusion reactor will generate its own Tritium by FeelGood314 · · Score: 2

    By neutron activation of lithium-6. There are a number of proposed ways to do this.

  21. General Fusion - Liquid Metal Containment by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    There is a company called General Fusion http://generalfusion.com/ that is attempting to use liquid metal fusion containment. Sounds very cool, in an almost steampunk sort of way. Being a physics noob, I'm wondering if anybody who actually knows this stuff can comment on whether or not their idea makes any sense?

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:General Fusion - Liquid Metal Containment by ledow · · Score: 1

      The one run by a guy who used to make bits for laser printers?

      Yeah, I wouldn't hold much hope.

      He may be way more qualified than I could ever be, but it just sounds like a PhD with an idea to me. There are literally millions of those kinds of people round the globe, and he hasn't really shown anything special or different.

      Hell, his Wiki article still harps on about some amazing micromirror thing that would revolutionise the telecoms industry which he seems to have just... done nothing about.

      Would trust this guy to come up with a new type of laser printer. Wouldn't expect him to somehow solve fusion in a way that nobody else in the world could.

      But, hey, shiny website.

    2. Re:General Fusion - Liquid Metal Containment by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Causing fusion into a melted lead-lithium fluid is good for achieving near 100% fusion energy capture, but since the fluid traps all ionizing radiations emitted from the engine, the only way you have to control if and how the system is working is by inserting a thermocouple in the molten fluid flux... I am afraid that this device will be a nightmare to work with.

    3. Re:General Fusion - Liquid Metal Containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General Fusion used to be the biggest joke in the fusion community. That was until this company FUSE came around. Now we laugh at both of them. FUSE is this company that thinks they can solve fusion by havining people live on a commune and not paying them. We call them a fusion cult.

    4. Re:General Fusion - Liquid Metal Containment by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      In talking with physicists over lunch it seems no one takes it seriously. One did point out that if you replaced the liquid with a molten salt you could possibly get a safe fission fusion hybrid, but not sure how practical that would be.

  22. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe other tokamaks could do it to (100 deg. C and 10 sec) but dont, because pushing the device would "damage" it and require extensive amount of "paint" after the "run with new insight"... something the other tokamaks research BUDGET doesnt allow?

    "oh no sir! we cant put that much dynamite into the gadget. it might xplode" wasnt much of a issue when developing the abomb (not ass bomb), methinks.

  23. So much for Chinese "stealing everything" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long will it take before Americans will claim Chinese "stole" this technology from them ?

  24. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's one thing the Chinese are known for is cheating and lying.

    WTF???
    Have you ever even met any Chinese people you stupid cunt?
    All of my Chinese friends are awesome.
    You, on the other hand, are a massive cock sucker.

  25. ITER wont produce power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It will run at 400 - 600 seconds and will produce more energy than it consumes, that is all. There is no power plant attached nor will there ever be: https://www.iter.org/sci/Goals

    And the power production is not clean as long as we use deuterium + tritium, the reactor vessel will have to be replaced around every 10 years and discarded as highly radioactive waste.

    Regarding sustainability: ITER will attempt to breed tritium ... lets see how good that works. Otherwise we had to farm tritium from the sea, which is energy intensive and causes another spot in the chain to work with an radioactive element.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:ITER wont produce power by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Well duh ITER is not a power plant that is DEMO.

      Sure the lining of the reactor vessel might need replacing depending on what ITER is able to determine (one of it's goals is investigation of the lining for the reactor). However once it is taken out it can be stuck in a warehouse for ~20 years then recycled. Sure it might be highly radioactive but the half lives are basically all short on a human time scale unlike fission reactor waste.

    2. Re:ITER wont produce power by rkordmaa · · Score: 2

      There is no tritium in the sea to be harvested. Well, there might be some after Fukushima, but good luck chasing down these lone atoms all over Pacific.

    3. Re:ITER wont produce power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course there is.
      It is just not much ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:ITER wont produce power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the power production is not clean as long as we use deuterium + tritium, the reactor vessel will have to be replaced around every 10 years and discarded as highly radioactive waste.

      You are right, fuck fusion. It's too hard and scary.

    5. Re:ITER wont produce power by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well duh ITER is not a power plant that is DEMO.
      That is what I wrote. Thanks for repeating it.

      However once it is taken out it can be stuck in a warehouse for ~20 years then recycled.
      No it can't.

      but the half lives are basically all short on a human time scale unlike fission reactor waste.
      No they are not. The containment is steel and concrete, and during neutron capture and later decay any kinds of decay product can be created.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  26. Re:Bullshit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Yes,the catch is:
    they want american funding and like to attract european and american PhD students to their facilities (*facepalm*)

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  27. Re: Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That, and proton-proton fusion is SLOW, and only really possible inside a star-sized gravity well. Earthly fusion is done with MUCH easier ingredients.

  28. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you have a Chinese friend therefore you are not racist....ok!

    Lol

  29. ZIP = "better programmer" (lol, not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You said it ZIP: Where's your work everyone can see/use? It's not. It's HOTAIRWARE/NOTWARE (lol) "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    The BETTER PROGRAMMER w/ no programs, lol - @ least you can say your "code" has NO BUGS - of course, it also does ZERO (like you) since it does nothing @ all, lol!

    You hotair BLOWHARD talker, lol!

    You f'd up ZIP https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    Yet 100,000++ users of my ware & dozens of even REGISTERED /.ers like/use/praise MY work https://news.slashdot.org/comm... vs. your HOTAIR talk punk!

    * LMAO!

    (Let's see how YOU take it when I publicly SHIT ALL OVER YOU by letting FACTS of YOUR FUCKUPS vs. ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... do the job for me)

    APK

    P.S.=> You STUPID & LAZY all talk chimpanzee - KEEP IMPERSONATING me - I'll expose your BLOWHARD INCOMPETENCE publicly, lol... apk

  30. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are probably seeking a technology exchange so they release a fake project.

  31. ZIP = "better programmer" (lol, not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You said it ZIP: Where's your work everyone can see/use? It's not. It's HOTAIRWARE/NOTWARE (lol) "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    The BETTER PROGRAMMER w/ no programs, lol - @ least you can say your "code" has NO BUGS - of course, it also does ZERO (like you) since it does nothing @ all, lol!

    You hotair BLOWHARD talker, lol!

    You f'd up ZIP https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    Yet 100,000++ users of my ware & dozens of even REGISTERED /.ers like/use/praise MY work https://news.slashdot.org/comm... vs. your HOTAIR talk punk!

    * LMAO!

    (Let's see how YOU take it when I publicly SHIT ALL OVER YOU by letting FACTS of YOUR FUCKUPS vs. ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... do the job for me)

    APK

    P.S.=> You STUPID & LAZY all talk chimpanzee - KEEP IMPERSONATING me - I'll expose your BLOWHARD INCOMPETENCE publicly, lol... apk

  32. Yeah but we have... Clean Coal! Take that... by truckaxle · · Score: 2, Funny

    You Frenchies and Chinese... Clean Coal 4Ever.

  33. Re:I hate /. bullies like ZIP & c6gunner... ap by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You need to be MEDICATED and perhaps INSTITUTIONALIZED. Get the fuck OFF SLASHDOT with your Tourettes Syndome of the Keyboard nonsense, you jackass.

  34. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found the racist

  35. They're gonna kill us all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're doomed!
    Dooomed!
    Doooooooommmmmmmmeeed

  36. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ya you know a few people so it makes the legendary corruption baked into the very Chinese culture moot

    https://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/china/
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_China

  37. Re:Bullshit by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    Yes but if there's another thing the Chinese are known for it's having trouble maintaining a reaction. So there might be something to it.

  38. Pleased by kiwioddBall · · Score: 1

    Pleased to observe that I am not on the opposite side of the planet to China if that stuff gets out of control.

  39. Re:Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densit by dryeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My understanding is that the energy output, per cubic meter, is about the same as the human body, 50-100 watts or whatever. Just that there are a lot of cubic meters in the core of the Sun, so it adds up. As the AC says, proton-proton fusion is slow, even at the pressures and temperatures at the core.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  40. How is fusion sustainable? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Sure the raw material may be plentiful but how do you get new hydrogen?

    1. Re:How is fusion sustainable? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Capture the methane from cows that doomsayers keep babbling about and catalyse it.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:How is fusion sustainable? by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      75% of universe is hydrogen, 25% is helium, 0.00007% is everything else, it'll be awhile before we run out.

    3. Re:How is fusion sustainable? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Haven't there been stories claiming a helium shortage? Just because it's common in the universe doesn't mean it's that common here on Earth.

      That said, hydrogen IS common here. The oceans are full of it if you can extract it from the water. So, we probably won't run out of it.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:How is fusion sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty helium on the moon.

    5. Re:How is fusion sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't make methane without hydrogen.
      Fusing hydrogen into helium removes it.

    6. Re:How is fusion sustainable? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Helium got a full shell of electrons and isn't all that keen in hooking up with something else. It's also light so it easily escapes.

      Mean-while hydrogen and oxygen aren't all that uninterested and clearly the couple is more down to earth.

  41. Re:Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Sun can be cooler because it

    doesn't care what you think about it.

  42. Re:Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densit by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    My understanding is that the energy output, per cubic meter, is about the same as the human body, 50-100 watts or whatever.

    Humans output around 100 watts abut are somewhat less than a meter cubed (we'd weigh about a ton at that size). Human power density is more like 1000-1500W/m^3, so we have about 10x the power density of the sun.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  43. Really hot! by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    This is 1 million times more than what is required to produce a usable form of energy (electricity) through a very reliable methodology to perform the conversion heat -> mechanical energy -> electrical energy (water + heat -> steam which moves a turbine -> generator coupled to the turbine creating electricity). It also seems hot enough to be useful for other purposes like running a huge amount of heating systems.

    So, I think that we are already pretty covered on the temperature front, what about focusing on other (tiny) aspects like making the heat generation last for a bit longer (perhaps it is just me, but holding it for just a few seconds or even hours seems still quite far away from what is required to reach the intended goals) or doing something on the actual usage front like actually generating a form of energy that people could use (again perhaps it is just me, but 100 million degrees sounds a bit too much for any direct application I can imagine).

    On the other hand, you might continue focusing on this or similar competitions because everyone/everything needs a purpose and this might be a realistic one for you. Being the absolute best at something is certainly very difficult and usually attracts people who want to watch/pay you, to even feel inspired to become like you. Who am I to judge anyone's life aspirations? If you don't damage anyone (should getting money from naive rich suckers be considered damaging someone or an acceptable, even desirable, outcome from the tremendously unfair, self-perpetuating wealth distribution?) and you are happy, I personally have no problem with any life approach. Some people run faster than anyone else, others have the longest nails, you have the hottest temperature. Good for you!

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re: Really hot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man you really didn't get this one.

    2. Re: Really hot! by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Man you really didn't get this one.

      Seriously? OK. Please, illustrate me.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re:Really hot! by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

      To sustain enough steam to power the world you would need, not unsurprisingly, the entire world's current supply of oil, gas, nuclear fission, solar, wind, hydro, etc. Because... that's pretty much what we use it to do (I'm excluding all losses here, for simplicity).

      One you achieve fusion, you can literally power the entire world from 867 tonnes of hydrogen per year. That's maybe a shipping container full of hydrogen. Something we can pull out of the ocean.

      For reference, we would need to burn 12 billion tonnes of oil, 10.4 billion tonnes of gas or even 7000 tonnes of uranium to do the same.

      Pretty much the only thing more powerful is complete utilisation of E=mc^2 - merging antimatter and matter and capturing the blast. You'd only need 3 tonnes of antimatter to power the world in that instance.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...

      Fusion, if it can be made to work, could power the entire world from one power station. Of course, that's not what would happen - we'd just end up USING UP all that energy and every country would have half a dozen of them. We'd end up synthesising rare materials and doing all the things we can't currently do because of the sheer amount of energy they require, rather than actually just settle on current usage coming from one place.

      But it literally is an order of magnitude more energy than the nuclear reactors we have now, which are orders of magnitude more energy than even coal and oil, which are orders of magnitude more energy than anything else.

      And it looks like we could viably do it inside the next century or so.

      With that amount of energy, you could easily obliterate the planet, or fire things into space like they were paper planes.

    4. Re:Really hot! by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      To sustain enough steam to power the world you would need, not unsurprisingly, the entire world's current supply of oil, gas, nuclear fission, solar, wind, hydro, etc. Because... that's pretty much what we use it to do (I'm excluding all losses here, for simplicity).

      One you achieve fusion

      Let me stop you there, because I already see two big problems. Firstly, you don't seem to understand the exact intention of my post: I wasn't proposing steam-based whatever (which, BTW, it is one of the most widely used methodologies for power generation under different water-burning/fuel alternatives like nuclear fission or fossil fuels) as opposed to fusion, but as part of the future commercial fusion power plants. I am not saying that there is no other way to convert the fusion heat into electricity, but this is certainly a quite sensible and reliable approach. Additionally, it seems a very descriptive way to understand some of the associated problems (100 C is enough and you get 100 million, what are you planning to do with all what you don't need?).

      Secondly, the rest of your post is based on the last quoted sentence which is pure wishful thinking. Rather than giving some reasons supporting why we should expect a commercial fusion plant to be eventually built, you are basically assuming that this will surely happen and imagining all the associated benefits. I don't think that anyone doubts about the potential benefits of having a working fusion power plant; exactly the same that everyone would love having a magical wand or their problems being spontaneously solved. You are linking a money-focused site (forbes.com) and, honestly, I have no idea about how things are done over there. But most of the work of scientists/engineers is usually spent on coming up with actual solutions to solve whatever problems, rather than on thinking about the numerous associated with succeeding.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    5. Re:Really hot! by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      I meant "the numerous advantages associated with succeeding".

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    6. Re:Really hot! by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      While the fuel in theory should be cheaper, it's using the deuterium from sea water which needs refining / separation. Tritium will require a fusion reactor to breed more tritium with a lithium blanket, otherwise every fusion reactor will rely on a fission reactor for tritium. The overall power output of proposed fusion reactors are roughly that of fission reactors. So, the verdict is still out on whether or not these things will be economically viable once we solve all the technical issues in this next century. Eventually we'll get there, but not the easiest thing.

      The last sentence - fusion reactors really are pretty tame and won't be doing any obliterating. Good way to think of it : in fission the difficulty is preventing too much power and taming the core while fusion is the exact opposite and requires every trick in the book to make it do anything at all. Makes safety inherent though. We're probably many centuries away from fusion spaceflight given how heavy and massively complex the infrastructure is, and no rockets will be launched with fusion.

  44. 10 seconds and they ran out of fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably not, more likely plasma instability but D-T fusion isn't going to power the world. Damn all D and far less T.

  45. TIL; Someone is supplying power to the sun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How else would it be able to sustain fusion? I am _NOT_ saying its done by intelligent extraterrestrial beings... but it might be!

  46. Re: Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densi by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Humans... are somewhat less than a meter cubed

    This confirms why Oklahoma always felt like The Twilight Zone: most of 'em aren't human.

  47. Re:I hate /. bullies like ZIP & c6gunner... ap by Highdude702 · · Score: 0

    Holy shit, something we can agree on!

  48. Re:Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densit by eastlight_jim · · Score: 1

    Even better, the GP's values are wrong. The sun has a power density of around (3.846E26 Watts / 1.4E27 m^3) = 0.27W/m^3. Humans are thus nearly 10,000x more energetic than the sun per cubic metre

  49. APK won't sign his shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always sign my shit. Unlike you!

    ZIP

    P.S. => If you can't take the heat. GTFO

  50. Not the first to reach that temperature by DavenH · · Score: 2

    > The Chinese research team said they were able to achieve the record temperature through the use of various new techniques in heating and controlling the plasma, but could only maintain the state for around 10 seconds. The latest breakthrough provided experimental evidence that reaching the 100 million degrees Celsius mark is possible

    100 million degrees is a record for plasma, perhaps. If it proved that reaching 100mK was possible, it's only in the tokomak design, because the Z Pulsed Power Facility achieved 1 billion K in 2006!

  51. Why do we need 6 times hotter than the Sun's core? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >_ ...a whopping 100 million degrees Celsius which is six times hotter than the core of the Sun

    Do we need that? Something at 1 million degrees wouldn't be as useful? Climbing the Everest, because "it's there" is not something you do without risk. And there's that old thing called "diminishing returns"...

    On a positive note, maybe we can use that to live in some other place in the Solar System which has plenty of water and a passable gravity (whatever it might be). The only thing remaining is devising some sort of planetary shield to fend off dangerous cosmic particles/rays -- which might be done with an stationary array of satellites, maybe -- again with that kind of power source.

    This is looking more and more like Stargate(TM)...

    Such things make us:

    1) wish that they (the Chinese) succeed;
    2) wonder if it isn't interesting to keep good relations with them and, it follows,
    3) think that being confrontational might be a losing proposition in the long term.

  52. Fusion Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just need to use F11 to stabilize it, then run it off of Unobtanium.

  53. Re:Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densit by careysub · · Score: 2

    Generally when people are talking about the Sun's power density, they are talking about the region where fusion actually occurs, in the core, not the entire visible sphere, which is the number you are using. That would be a bit like talking about the energy density in a tokamak by averaging the power output over the volume of the entire tokamak structure rather than just the actual fuel confined in the magnetic field.

    The Solar core is 19% of the Solar radius, and thus the energy density in the core, where fuel is burned, is 150 times higher - 40 W/m^3.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  54. Re:Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densit by careysub · · Score: 2

    Also you are rating the human metabolic rate about a factor of 3 too high, is is about 1000 W/m^3, so the ratio of heat output per unit volume is 25 times higher for humans. But the density of the solar core is 160 g/cm^3, so the energy output per unit mass in the Sun is 6 times higher than in humans.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  55. 6 times hotter than our Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but is it hot enough to break down a Twinkie?

  56. Minimal dangers by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Fusion reactors are still generating neutrons.. activation is still a problem. There must be at least some radioactive crap that can leak out and make the evening news.

    There is some but it's far less of a problem than with fission reactors. The half lives of the waste products are short and there isn't much high level waste to begin with. In the event of problems the reactor shuts down almost immediately and there is no residual heat to cause the sorts of problems we see with fission reactor failures. Additionally fusion reactors do not contribute to weapons proliferation either. Basically fusion power is pretty much the holy grail of power generation if we can figure out how to do it. It's got huge upside, minimal dangers, essentially zero emissions or problems with carbon footprint, the fuel is not renewable but is so plentiful it doesn't matter, etc.

    I'm sure some idiot news organizations will go all chicken little the first time a fusion reactor has a problem but the reality is that it's close to the safest power source we know of if we can make it work.

  57. it's not about temperature but how long by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

    It's a great achievement, not doubts, however the problem with fusion is to control plasma long enough to have sustained reaction, thus getting netto energy surplus.
    At the moment the biggest problem is that plasma leaks through magnetic confinement dropping temperature and shutting down fusion, and short bursts of fusion require more energy for heating plasma than one gets back.

    The ITER (international tokamak project) aims at breaking even, there are also other approaches, for which major players are:
    - stellarator (W7-X), a very promising way undergoing tests in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    - laser fusion, most notably National Ignition Facility in US (some time ago they had a breakthrough with their laser): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    - compact fusion, some specialists say it's a viable method, however so far no-one has achieved fusion this way (AFAIK): https://www.lockheedmartin.com... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    There are also other ways, but they're unlikely to have positive energy balance (aka produce more than require).

    Personally I am looking forward for the German stellarator (which seems the most promising) and this compact fusion if shown to work (is small, kind of portable but it requires HE3, which might be produced by other, bigger fusion reactors to complement each other). However, at the moment, people should pursue all viable ways.

    1. Re:it's not about temperature but how long by doom · · Score: 2

      Myself, if I had to make a guess, I'd pick something like the Polywell design: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But then, I was largely persuaded by some snark from Bussard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Paraphrasing from memory, his line goes something like: "We've spent billions of dollars researching Tokamaks and what we've learned is that Tokamaks are no damn good. Even the people working on them will tell you that they're never going to work, but they say the physics is really good. They're like superconducting cathedrals. But fusion works, we know it works, if you look up in the sky you see fusion reactors everywhere, and not a single one of them is torroidal."

      More reasonably, he makes the point that even with minimal funding, they were able to get within something like a factor of 10- "not a factor of 100 or 1000, but a factor of 10".

    2. Re:it's not about temperature but how long by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention this one, because it is said that it would not produce more energy than needed to run it, however it definitely works and its simplicity is marvelous.
      Good point, one more hope.

  58. How hot before China Syndrome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Melt straight to China!

  59. Nope, wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Deuterium and worse of all Tritium is impossible to contain and biologically disastrous. So you need massive containers just to slow down the loss of that stuff.

    1. Re:Nope, wrong. by jd · · Score: 1

      But that's going to undergo fusion. It won't escape the magnetic bottle. You only have to worry about what's on the outside, where the neutrons are a problem.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Nope, wrong. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      What?

      Deuterium is extracted from seawater and tritium makes the hands on your analog watch glow. Plus they sell it on Amazon. Can't be all that dangerous.

  60. Re: Gravitational plasma confinement/optical densi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh the sun cares! That's why it comes back every single day; to check in on us.

  61. Tritium is hell for water based biologicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And can't be contained. So yeah, apart from the stuff that is far worse for humans than uranium, it's perfectly safe...

  62. Re: I hate /. bullies like ZIP & c6gunner... a by registrations_suck · · Score: 0

    Would never work.

    What they need is to apply some machine learning to ferret out this crap. Let the poster see it on their device, so they are not alerted to the fact that no one else can see it, and just hide it from us normal people.

  63. Re: I hate /. bullies like ZIP & c6gunner... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah. Ban the guy that regularly bypasses all the filters here...that'll work.

  64. No it didnt. More Chinese LIES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STOP repeating thesr fucking lies /.

  65. Zach Patterson / ZIP "Greatest Hits" (lol, not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach Patterson) the CHIMP is (tried to take credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!

    I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).

    Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.

    Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    BIG TALK - Yet ZIP has nothing to show in programs. I can https://news.slashdot.org/comm... from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.

    LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

    Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> KEEP IMPERSONATING ME CHIMP - this comes out every time, lol!... apk

  66. ZIP = "better programmer" (lol, not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You said it ZIP: Where's your work everyone can see/use? It's not. It's HOTAIRWARE/NOTWARE (lol) "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    The BETTER PROGRAMMER w/ no programs, lol - @ least you can say your "code" has NO BUGS - of course, it also does ZERO (like you) since it does nothing @ all, lol!

    You hotair BLOWHARD talker, lol!

    You f'd up ZIP https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    Yet 100,000++ users of my ware & dozens of even REGISTERED /.ers like/use/praise MY work https://news.slashdot.org/comm... vs. your HOTAIR talk punk!

    * LMAO!

    (Let's see how YOU take it when I publicly SHIT ALL OVER YOU by letting FACTS of YOUR FUCKUPS vs. ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... do the job for me)

    APK

    P.S.=> You STUPID & LAZY all talk chimpanzee - KEEP IMPERSONATING me - I'll expose your BLOWHARD INCOMPETENCE publicly, lol... apk

  67. SI prefix, please by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

    >100 million degrees is a record for plasma, perhaps. If it proved that reaching 100mK was possible, it's only in the tokomak design, because the Z Pulsed Power Facility achieved 1 billion K in 2006!

    No, not "100mK" :)

    The SI prefix "m" = milli = one thousandth, like:

    • mm = millimeter = 1/1000th of a meter
    • mg = milligram = 1/1000th of a gram
    • mA = milliAmpere = 1/1000th of an Ampere
    • etc.
  68. Finally we can land on the sun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there's a material here on Earth that can withstand temperatures six times hotter than the core of the Sun (is that the hottest part?).
    So now we can land on the Sun during the day right?