LPP Fusion explains why Tungsten and Beryllium electrodes for their dense plasma fusion reactor work

http://nextbigfuture.com/

January 23, 2016

The LPP Fusion research team is still working with the tungsten electrodes but they know the beryllium electrodes will be needed soon. Tungsten is being used now because of its extreme resistance to the heat generated by runaway electrons during the early stages of FF-1’s pulse. They are combining that thermal resistance with a technique called “pre-ionization” to prevent vaporization of the electrodes and the resulting impurities in the plasma (see earlier report here.) This, they expect, will greatly increase the density of the tiny plasmoid the device produces and thus the fusion energy yield.

If LPP Fusion is successful they could reduce the cost of energy to 10-20 times.

Two cylinders of nearly pure beryllium metal were delivered to LPPFusion’s Middlesex, NJ lab on January 14. The cylinders, weighing together 35 kg, are to be machined over the next five months into two anodes and a cathode for experiments in the second half of 2016. They were fabricated from 97.8% pure beryllium at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Kazakhstan. The two anodes will be machined in California and the cathode in Massachusetts, after acceptance testing for purity and strength, which were guaranteed by Ulba.

The Beryllium cylinders

As the plasma density increases, so will the intensity of the x-ray pulse emitted by the plasmoid. In tungsten, the x-rays will be absorbed in the outermost micron of the metal. When they are strong enough, the x-rays will start to vaporize even tungsten. Before we reach that point, LPP Fusion wants to switch to beryllium. Beryllium, a far lighter metal with only four electrons per atom, is almost transparent to x-rays. What x-rays beryllium does absorb will be spread out harmlessly throughout the bulk of the electrodes.

Tungsten electrode pictures

LPP Fusion did not want to use beryllium first because they need to test and perfect the pre-ionization technique on the tougher tungsten. Beryllium is much less resistant to the runaway electrons than tungsten. Once they get the pre-ionization to work well, we’ll test it further using a silver-coated electrode to simulate the less thermally resistant beryllium. Then they can switch to beryllium.

They have to be sure that the beryllium will not significantly erode because vaporized beryllium could recondense as beryllium dust. While bulk beryllium is harmless, beryllium dust is dangerous. If inhaled in air at above 0.1 parts per billion, it can set off an immune reaction that leads to serious or fatal lung disease. By comparison, the decaborane fuel we will be using later this year is harmful only at concentrations in air of 50 ppb, 500 times as much as beryllium dust. As a result, the beryllium is being machined at specialized facilities with high levels of safety protections. Because of this safety hazard LPPFusion will have to use special precautions, including a sealed glove box, if they do anything to the electrodes that could create dust. However, with tests to ensure no dust is produced, careful monitoring and careful safety procedures, we will be able to ensure our own safety around the beryllium.

Since only 400 tons of beryllium is currently produced world-wide, some of the LPP Fusion newsletter readers have asked if supplies will be adequate for production of millions of focus fusion generators. In fact, beryllium is as abundant in the Earth’s crust as lead, whose global production is 4 million tons per year. Beryllium production at the moment is limited by low demand, and strict regulations relating to its use in fission reactors and nuclear weapons. As focus fusion production gears up, it will be technically easy to ramp beryllium production up to the roughly 40,000 tons per year needed. Changes to regulations should also be possible, as focus fusion generators would make fission power obsolete and could lead to the cessation of uranium production, firmly closing the door to more nuclear weapons and obviating the need for controlling beryllium.


Donations can be made at this link to support the effort to develop commercial nuclear fusion via LPP Fusion.

The key to LPP Fusion progress is taking shots with our machine, Focus Fusion-1 or FF-1 for short, which gives us the experimental data to test our theories and demonstrate progress towards net energy. We estimate that to accomplish net energy demonstration we have to do 1,500 more shots. So far they have carried out 1,900 shots. Each shot costs us about $900.

For $75 you can fund the charging of one of their 12 capacitors for one shot, for $150, two capacitors and so on up to $900 for a full shot. Everyone who funds a given shot will be recognized in a list kept permanently on the website.

Author: brian wang on 1/23/2016

LPP Fusion has resumed dense plasma fusion test firing now using the new tungsten electrode

http://nextbigfuture.com/

July 16, 2015

The Tungsten electrode has been attached and tests shots are being made with the LPP Fusion dense plasma fusion experiments.

The connection of the Tungsten electrode show extremely low electrical resistance, no more at any point than 18 micro-ohms, and good mechanical strength. This ensures that the cathode can safely take up to 1.6 MA of current, enough for the planned experiments.

With just a dozen shots performed so far, they can draw only very preliminary conclusions from our results. The first is that impurities do indeed seem to have dropped significantly with the new electrodes—the first main goal of the new experiments. Impurities appear to be the basic obstacle to high fusion yields, as they disrupt the filaments that are the first stage of compression of the plasma. The optical spectra obtained in the new experiments show peaks at wavelengths characteristic of tungsten, but at roughly ten times less abundance than the copper and silver impurities seen in shots with the old electrodes.

While a tenfold reduction in impurities—to about one impurity ion for 500 deuterium ions—is a good start, it is not what Lerner calculated would be needed to preserve the filaments, nor what theory and previous experiments indicate can be achieved. For that, a 50-100 fold reduction in impurities is required, or 5-10 times less impurity than that has been achieved so far. Indeed, the initial results show the same symptoms of impurity—an “early beam” before the main pinch, and a slower motion of the current sheath, as had been observed with the old electrodes, although the early beam seems much smaller in the new shots. Given continued impurities, it is no surprise that fusion yields of about 1/8 of joule of energy are no higher than the best results observed with copper electrodes.

A possible source of inpurities might be a very thin layer of tungsten oxide—too thin to be seen or removed during the electrodes’ cleaning. Tungsten oxide dissociates at 1970 C, far below tungsten’s vaporization point of 5500 C, so an oxide layer will be far more fragile. The oxide layer might well give rise to the tungsten in the plasma as well. If this is the case, repeated firing will burn the oxide layer off and impurities will fall.

There are some hints that this may be happening, as x-ray emission and the pressure “pop” are falling as fusion yields are rising over the course of the first shots. But only more firing will confirm or refute this idea. The research team expects that as kinks are worked out of the system, firing will proceed more quickly, eventually reaching a goal of about 30 shots per week.

Delays with the Tungsten electrode have out LPP Fusion 3-5 months behind the planned 2015 schedule

LPP Fusion published their scheduled plans for 2015

LPP Fusion Plans for 2015:
As in previous years we emphasize that our plans require adequate financing. They also depend
on critical suppliers coming through on time and within specifications. However we are confident
that the tungsten cathode will arrive soon, and we are planning a backup monolithic copper
cathode as well. Our main goal for this year remains to increase the density of the plasmoid, the
tiny ball of plasma where reactions take place, the third and last condition needed to achieve net
energy production.

January-March: Now June-August
1. We will complete our computer upgrade and the creation of our Processed Data Base, a powerful
tool for analyzing our data.
2. We will install our new tungsten electrode and perform experiments that we expect will
a) Increase density about 100-fold to around 40 milligrams/ cm³
b) Increase yield more than 100- fold to above 15 J
c) Demonstrate the effect of the axial field coil
d) Demonstrate the positive effects of mixing in somewhat heavier gases, such as nitrogen

April-June: now probably August to November
1. Move to shorter electrodes

July-September
1. Implement our improved connections and demonstrate peak currents above 2 MA
2. Increase density to over 0.1 grams/cm³

October-December - only if they can run experiments in parallel but likely Q1 or Q2 of 2016

1. Move to beryllium electrodes, or at least beryllium anode, which will be needed as x-ray emission increases so much that tungsten electrodes would be cracked by the heat absorbed. Beryllium is far more transparent to x-rays.
2. Demonstrate density over 1 gram/ cm³
3. Demonstrate billion-Gauss magnetic fields
4. Demonstrate the quantum magnetic field effect with these billion-Gauss magnetic fields; show its ability to prevent plasmoid cooling caused by x-rays, making possible the net energy burning of pB11 fuel.
5. Install new equipment and begin running with pB11 mixes

Summary of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics

LPP needed to get their Tungsten electrode and then later switch to a berrylium electrode.

If successful with their research and then commercialization they will achieve commercial nuclear fusion at the cost of $400,000-1 million for a 5 megawatt generator that would produce power for about 0.3 cents per kwh instead of 6 cents per kwh for coal and natural gas.

LPP’s mission is the development of a new environmentally safe, clean, cheap and unlimited energy source based on hydrogen-boron fusion and the dense plasma focus device, a combination we call Focus Fusion.

This work was initially funded by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is now backed by over forty private investors including the Abell Foundation of Baltimore. LPP’s patented technology and peer-reviewed science are guiding the design of this technology for this virtually unlimited source of clean energy that can be significantly cheaper than any other energy sources currently in use. Non-exclusive licenses to government agencies and manufacturing partners will aim to ensure rapid adoption of Focus Fusion generators as the primary source of electrical power worldwide.

March 9 Focus Fusion NYC presentation from FocusFusion

Lpp crowdfunding support deck from FocusFusion

Clean fusion power Australia Presentation from FocusFusion

SOURCES - LPP Fusion

Author: brian wang on 7/16/2015

LPP Fusion has the Tungsten Cathode and lays out detailed plans for 2015

February 26, 2015

LPP Fusion published their scheduled plans for 2015

LPP Fusion Plans for 2015:
As in previous years we emphasize that our plans require adequate financing. They also depend
on critical suppliers coming through on time and within specifications. However we are confident
that the tungsten cathode will arrive soon, and we are planning a backup monolithic copper
cathode as well. Our main goal for this year remains to increase the density of the plasmoid, the
tiny ball of plasma where reactions take place, the third and last condition needed to achieve net
energy production.

January-March:
1. We will complete our computer upgrade and the creation of our Processed Data Base, a powerful
tool for analyzing our data.
2. We will install our new tungsten electrode and perform experiments that we expect will
a) Increase density about 100-fold to around 40 milligrams/ cm³
b) Increase yield more than 100- fold to above 15 J
c) Demonstrate the effect of the axial field coil
d) Demonstrate the positive effects of mixing in somewhat heavier gases, such as nitrogen

LPP Fusion now has the tungsten cathode

The freshly machined tungsten cathode, shown here in THP’s San Diego facility, that will be used in the new experiments

The critical tungsten monolithic cathode, key to LPPFusion’s next set of experiments, has finally been completed and shipped. It arrived at Tungsten Heavy Powder headquarters in San Diego, California on Monday, Feb.23 from their manufacturing facilities in China. It is expected to arrive at LPPFusion’s Middlesex, NJ laboratory around March 2. “For a long time, this cathode has been in the future,” said LPPFusion Chief Scientist Eric Lerner,” and the future has finally arrived.” As described in the December LPP Focus Fusion report the great difficulty of manufacturing the part from pure tungsten to exacting requirements caused long delays, which have now ended.

Preparations for the new experiments have continued, with a successful test of the new adjustors. With the aluminum model standing in for the tungsten cathode, Lerner, Chief Research Officer Hamid Yousefi and Consulting Engineer Anthony Ellis succeeded in using the micrometer adjustors to center the cathode on the anode to an accuracy of 25 microns (one thousandth of an inch). In addition, a new gantry has been purchased and will be installed to help handle the tungsten cathode, whose concentrated 35 kg mass makes it too difficult to lift and position manually.

April-June:
1. Move to shorter electrodes

July-September
1. Implement our improved connections and demonstrate peak currents above 2 MA
2. Increase density to over 0.1 grams/cm³

October-December

1. Move to beryllium electrodes, or at least beryllium anode, which will be needed as x-ray emission increases so much that tungsten electrodes would be cracked by the heat absorbed. Beryllium is far more transparent to x-rays.
2. Demonstrate density over 1 gram/ cm³
3. Demonstrate billion-Gauss magnetic fields
4. Demonstrate the quantum magnetic field effect with these billion-Gauss magnetic fields; show its ability to prevent plasmoid cooling caused by x-rays, making possible the net energy burning of pB11 fuel.
5. Install new equipment and begin running with pB11 mixes

Summary of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics

LPP needed to get their Tungsten electrode and then later switch to a berrylium electrode.

If successful with their research and then commercialization they will achieve commercial nuclear fusion at the cost of $400,000-1 million for a 5 megawatt generator that would produce power for about 0.3 cents per kwh instead of 6 cents per kwh for coal and natural gas.

LPP’s mission is the development of a new environmentally safe, clean, cheap and unlimited energy source based on hydrogen-boron fusion and the dense plasma focus device, a combination we call Focus Fusion.

This work was initially funded by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is now backed by over forty private investors including the Abell Foundation of Baltimore. LPP’s patented technology and peer-reviewed science are guiding the design of this technology for this virtually unlimited source of clean energy that can be significantly cheaper than any other energy sources currently in use. Non-exclusive licenses to government agencies and manufacturing partners will aim to ensure rapid adoption of Focus Fusion generators as the primary source of electrical power worldwide.

March 9 Focus Fusion NYC presentation from FocusFusion

Lpp crowdfunding support deck from FocusFusion

Clean fusion power Australia Presentation from FocusFusion

SOURCES - LPP Fusion

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Latest Update and Plans to Demonstrate Net Gain Nuclear Fusion in 2014 and a commercial reactor in 2018

January 01, 2014

Eric Lerner presented at the 2013 Fusion Energy Symposium.

What Has Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) achieved so far ?

* Ion temperature—goal achieved—over 1.8 billion degrees, enough to ignite pB11
*  Confinement time—goal achieved 20 ns—more than 8 ns goal
*  Energy transfer to plasmoid—over 50% of goal
* Density—must increase by 10,000

Steps To Increase Density
*  50x-- Achieve theoretical density—tungsten electrodes to eliminate impurity
*  10x-- Increase current to 2.8 MA
* 20x-- Better compression with heavier pB11

A committee of researchers was led by Dr. Robert Hirsch, a former director of fusion research for the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Agency gave a positive assessment of LPP, their research and recommended funding. Other members of the committee were Dr. Stephen O. Dean, President of Fusion Power Associates and former director of fusion Magnetic Confinement Systems for the Department of Energy; Professor Gerald L. Kulcinski, Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Professor Dennis Papadopoulos, Professor of Physics, University of Maryland. The committee was organized by Dr. Hirsch at the request of Mr. Alvin Samuels, an investor in LPP’s effort, to give an objective assessment of the program. Neither Mr. Samuels nor LPP had any control over the committee’s conclusions.

COSTS
For 5 MW generator, mass production $0.08-$0.20/W ($400,000 to $1 million for the 5 MWe generator)

Electric cost
Less than 0.3 cents/kwH Vs best today of 6 cents/kwH (20 times cheaper than energy today)

The 5 MWe device would produce 6705 horsepower.

Why would a Tokamak be 1000 times bigger ? LPP uses instabilities and does not fight them. You need a monster football stadium size device with huge magnets if you want to fight and control the physics.

LPP is the aneutronic fusion leader

Financing

•  $3.2M raised from Abell Foundation, 50 investors
•  Raising $1 M more for scientific feasibility, transition to eng. phase
•  $50M for development, engineering

After Net Gain - Engineering Challenges:
•  Removing waste heat (helium cooling)
•  X-ray capture device
•  Ion beam conversion (MW magnetron designs already get 87% efficiency)

Success Means the World Radically Changes

The 5 MWe device would be about the size of a large refrigerator or a small car. The device is mechanically and electrically simple. Making millions of these devices would not be industrially challenging. 2 million 5 MWe devices would be 10 Terawatts of power. 20,000 devices would be 100 GWe which would be equal to all of the nuclear fission power in the USA. 800 Twh per year. 10 Terawatts would be 80,000 TWh. The cost estimate was $400 billion to $2 trillion for the 2 million devices.

Space access would also be transformed

Senior Fusion researchers give major endorsement to Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Dense Plasma Focus Fusion Work and say they expect feasibility will be shown within two years with adequate funding

December 13, 2013

In a major endorsement of the fusion energy research and development program of start-up Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP), a committee of senior fusion researchers, led by a former head of the US fusion program, has concluded that the innovative effort deserves “a much higher level of investment … based on their considerable progress to date.” The report concludes that “In the committee’s view [LPP’s] approach to fusion power … is worthy of a considerable expansion of effort.”

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics has been developing an extremely low-cost approach to fusion power based on a device called the dense plasma focus (DPF). In contrast to the giant tokamak machines that have been the recipients of most fusion funding, a DPF can fit in a small room. LPP’s final feasibility experiments and planned commercial generators will use hydrogen-boron fuel, which produces no radioactive waste and promises extremely economical clean energy.

The committee of researchers was led by Dr. Robert Hirsch, a former director of fusion research for the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Agency. Other members of the committee were Dr. Stephen O. Dean, President of Fusion Power Associates and former director of fusion Magnetic Confinement Systems for the Department of Energy; Professor Gerald L. Kulcinski, Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Professor Dennis Papadopoulos, Professor of Physics, University of Maryland. The committee was organized by Dr. Hirsch at the request of Mr. Alvin Samuels, an investor in LPP’s effort, to give an objective assessment of the program. Neither Mr. Samuels nor LPP had any control over the committee’s conclusions.

The full 7 page review is here

If the physics issues outlined herein can be satisfactorily resolved, it is conceivable that the DPF concept could be developed into a viable, economic, and environmentally attractive electric power source for not only civilian power but also for military purposes. LPP’s projection of very small (about 5MW) units would be an advantage relative to most other fusion concepts. To date, LPP personnel have not given extensive consideration to the engineering of a DPF power reactor. This is appropriate in the committee’s opinion, because without the successful resolution of existing issues, a DPF reactor will not be possible. Having said that, the committee does not see any fundamental roadblock to power system viability.

The committee’s report pointed to the “innovative thinking and experimental results achieved thus far by Mr. (Eric J.) Lerner and his team at LPP.” At the same time, the scientists did not minimize the remaining work that still needs to be done to experimentally validate the predictions of LPP’s theory of DPF functioning and lay the foundation for commercial fusion generators. Commenting on the report, LPP’s President and Chief Scientist Lerner said, “We agree with the review committee that several of our predictions still need to be proved in the laboratory, which is what we intend to do in the near future.”

The LPP team has stated that, given adequate funding, they can demonstrate in a year or two the scientific feasibility of fusion energy with the DPF and hydrogen-boron fuel, a combination the team calls “Focus Fusion.” They expect that a working prototype generator can then be developed in a few years more.

The review committee broadly supported that short-term timeframe, concluding: “While a number of near-term physics issues remain to be resolved, it is likely that with adequate financial support these matters could be addressed in a relatively short period of time, e.g. a few years.” If these issues are addressed, “the committee does not see any fundamental roadblock to power system viability.” In other words, a functioning, economical and clean new source of energy may soon become reality.

Highlights of the LPP”s program, based on a theoretical model developed by Mr. Lerner are as follows:

1. The concept should operate more effectively with heavier elements, such as boron.

2. Scaling to effective operation is towards smaller sizes. 3. The so-called Quantum Magnetic Field effect, postulated in astrophysical plasmas but not verified in laboratory experiments, will reduce energy transfer from hot ions to electrons thereby preventing catastrophic energy loss due to bremsstrahlung emission by hot electrons.

4. Lerner’s theoretical model predicts that reduction of bremsstrahlung loss and reabsorption of synchrotron radiation by the dense and opaque plasma focus could allow the pB11 DPF pinch to reach ignition.

5. After the pinch disassembles, Lerner believes that plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device, carrying roughly two-thirds of the plasma energy, allowing efficient direct energy conversion to electric power.

6. Based on his theoretical model, a weak axial magnetic field might enhance the beneficial formation of the pinch plasma.

The committee’s views on these points are as follows:
1. DPF operates more effectively with heavier elements. This prediction from the model remains to be verified. In the near future LPP has a credible plan to test this theory using Nitrogen as a stand-in for Boron. This appears possible, and, if proven, would be a distinctive characteristic of the DPF.

2. DPF wants to scale to smaller sizes. This prediction of the model also needs experimental validation. This appears possible, and, if demonstrated, is a positive, distinctive characteristic of the DPF. Smaller size scaling would be unique among fusion concepts and would mean that program development might proceed rapidly. On the other hand, in a power producing device, small size might lead to difficult device cooling, an issue that cannot be evaluated at this time.

3. The Quantum Magnetic Field Effect will keep electron temperatures lower than the ion temperatures. This effect has never been seen in laboratory experiments. Its demonstration represents a major challenge since it requires much higher densities and much higher self-generated magnetic fields. Lower electron temperatures are essential for this or any pB11 concept, because electron temperatures near ion temperatures would result in radiation losses that would prohibit net power production.

4. Ignition with pB11 may be possible. While conceivable, ignition in pB11 has to our knowledge not been previously considered possible in other pB11 fusion concepts. If achievable, it would provide a distinct advantage for the DPF pB11 approach to fusion power.

5. Plasma ions will be exhausted along the axis of the device. If true, beam ion exhaust holds considerable potential for direct energy conversion, a distinct advantage, assuming relative engineering simplicity is viable.

6. A weak axial magnetic field may help pinch formation. LPP presented plausible arguments and data to the committee on this proposition. If true, it could represent a means of enhancing operation of a DPF system.

Other Issues
1. Plasma densities in the current experiment: LPP personnel and the committee believe that the plasma densities in the existing DPF experiment are too low by over a factor of 10,000 to be practical for a pB11 fusion power system. Since observed densities at LPP are currently lower by about a factor of 10-100 than in many other DPF experiments, there does not appear to be a fundamental barrier to achieving higher densities than currently observed in the LPP device. LPP personnel believe that the reason for current low plasma densities is the high impurity content of current plasmas and that a change in device electrode material is a potential solution. LPP proposes to fabricate their anode out of tungsten to dramatically reduce impurities and increase plasma densities. This approach seems reasonable to the committee. Densities must be increased even further by demonstrating the effect of using a heavier element (like the Nitrogen proposed) and eventually reaching the higher densities required for the quantum magnetic field effect.

2. Impurities in the current experiment: Both LPP and the committee recognize that impurity concentrations must be dramatically reduced.

See comments above.

3. The LPP program: The current LPP program is grossly underfunded and appears to be living hand-to-mouth. In spite of the issues and uncertainties outlined in this report, the committee feels that the promise of the LPP DPF approach to fusion power has considerable merit and that a much higher level of investment is warranted, based on their considerable progress to date. Enhanced support should largely be used
for additional experimental and theoretical efforts as well as for additional diagnostics and a larger experimental facility to accommodate additional diagnostics.

4. Developing the DPF to a viable, economic, environmentally attractive fusion power reactor: If the physics issues outlined herein can be satisfactorily resolved, it is conceivable that the DPF concept could be developed into a viable, economic, and environmentally attractive electric power source for not only civilian power but also for military purposes. LPP’s projection of very small (about 5MW) units would be an advantage relative to most other fusion concepts. To date, LPP personnel have not given extensive consideration to the engineering of a DPF power reactor. This is appropriate in the committee’s opinion, because without the successful resolution of existing issues, a DPF reactor will not be possible. Having said that, the committee does not see any fundamental roadblock to power system viability.

Brian Wang interviewed by Motherboard for nuclear fusion energy article

October 29, 2013

Brian Wang was interviewed by Sam Roudman of Motherboard for an article on nuclear fusion.

Amongst the most secretive and best-financed is Tri-Alpha energy. They’ve released nothing more than a Powerpoint, but have raised somewhere over $140 million from the likes of Goldman Sachs, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, Russian tech investment firm Rusnano, and, weirdly, former LA Law star Harry Hamlin.

“For some reason the rich guys like however Tri-Alpha presented,” says Brian Wang, who follows developments in fusion as director of research at Next Big Future. From what Wang can tell, Tri Alpha’s approach looks like the one put forward by a NASA and Department of Defense funded company called Helion Energy, which involves colliding units of plasma and magnetic fields known as plasmoids, but he says “the paper that’s been released does not indicate technical results that they’re way ahead.”

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, a small New Jersey-based outfit, is going in a more complicated, but open route. As opposed to approaches that use the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium (DT) as fuel, LPP is attempting to use a hydrogen and boron-based fuel known as pB11 instead. Despite scant funds, the potential economics of LPP reactors make them more appealing than other approaches.

“If you have another clean way to produce [energy] at 2 to 10 cents per Kw/Hr, the world does not change,” says Brian Wang. In that range, the fusion energy would be cost competitive with other renewables, as while as fossil fuels. But it would not be cheap enough to prevent investment in new capacity for dirty energy. New coal plants and oil refineries would continue to be built. “Only LPP, if they can get it down to .1 cent per Kw/Hr does the world change.”

If LPP is able to develop a reactor that’s a quarter or a fifth the price of dirty energy, than Fitzgerald thinks anyone in their right mind would switch over “purely as a market-driven proposition.” It’s a potential market of untold billions. “Even if there was only one chance in 3 or 50/50 or one chance in 2, the potential payoff if they succeed is so amazing, that I was willing to risk my money,” he says

To clarify -
If we have nuclear fusion producing commercial energy at 2 o 10 cents per kwh it will be great. Nuclear fusion would likely capture 20-50% of the electricity generation market over the course of 3-5 decades. At those prices nuclear fusion could help close the nuclear fission fuel cycle more cheaply than most other methods. However, we could build up nuclear fission reactors now at those prices.

Terrestrial Energy's integral molten salt fission reactors could be developed over 8 years and could achieve costs of about 1 cent per kwh.

LPP being able to change the world if they succeed in producing energy at 0.1 cent per kWh. Change the world meaning more than just shifting the energy generation risk. 0.1 cent per kWh would mean energy costs 20 times or more cheaper. It would mean a massive boost to the world economy and enable far more energy abundance and would drive the world economy to grow by several times.

Dense plasma focus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Plasma gun" redirects here. For the science-fiction weapon, see plasma weapon (fiction).

A dense plasma focus (DPF) is a machine that produces, by electromagnetic acceleration and compression, a short-lived plasma that is so hot and dense that it can cause nuclear fusion and emit X-rays. The electromagnetic compression of the plasma is called a pinch. It was invented in the early 1960s by J.W. Mather and also independently by N.V. Filippov in 1954.^[1] The plasma focus is similar to the high-intensity plasma gun device (HIPGD) (or just plasma gun), which ejects plasma in the form of a plasmoid, without pinching it.

Contents

• 1 Applications
• 2 Positive characteristics
• 3 Operation
• 4 Design parameters
• 5 Current research
  • 5.1 Fusion power
• 6 See also
• 7 History
• 8 Notes
• 9 External links

Applications

Intense bursts of X-rays and charged particles are emitted, as are nuclear fusion neutrons,^[2] when operated using deuterium. There is ongoing research that demonstrates potential applications as a soft X-ray source^[3] for next-generation microelectronics lithography, surface micromachining, pulsed X-ray and neutron source for medical and security inspection applications and materials modification,^[4] among others.
For nuclear weapons applications, dense plasma focus devices can be used as an external neutron source.^[5] Other applications include simulation of nuclear explosions (for testing of the electronic equipment) and a short and intense neutron source useful for non-contact discovery or inspection of nuclear materials (uranium, plutonium).

Positive characteristics

An important characteristic of the dense plasma focus is that the energy density of the focused plasma is practically a constant over the whole range of machines, from sub-kilojoule machines to megajoule machines, when these machines are tuned for optimal operation. This means that a small table-top-sized plasma focus machine produces essentially the same plasma characteristics (temperature and density) as the largest plasma focus. Of course the larger machine will produce the larger volume of focused plasma with a corresponding longer lifetime and more radiation yield.
Even the smallest plasma focus has essentially the same dynamic characteristics as larger machines, producing the same plasma characteristics and the same radiation products. This is due to the scalability of plasma phenomena.
See also plasmoid, the self-contained magnetic plasma ball that may be produced by a dense plasma focus.

Operation

The charged bank of electrical capacitors (also called a Marx bank or Marx generator) is switched onto the anode. The gas breaks down. A rapidly rising electric current flows across the backwall electrical insulator, axisymmetrically, as depicted by the path (labeled 1) as shown in Fig. 1. The axisymmetric sheath of plasma current lifts off the insulator due to the interaction of the current with its own magnetic field (Lorentz force). The plasma sheath is accelerated axially, to position 2, and then to position 3, ending the axial phase of the device.
The whole process proceeds at many times the speed of sound in the ambient gas. As the current sheath continues to move axially, the portion in contact with the anode slides across the face of the anode, axisymmetrically. When the imploding front of the shock wave coalesces onto the axis, a reflected shock front emanates from the axis until it meets the driving current sheath which then forms the axisymmetric boundary of the pinched, or focused, hot plasma column.
The dense plasma column (akin to the Z-pinch) rapidly pinches and undergoes instabilities and breaks up. The intense electromagnetic and particle bursts, collectively referred to as multi-radiation occur during the dense plasma and breakup phases. These critical phases last typically tens of nanoseconds for a small (kJ, 100 kA) focus to around a microsecond for a large (MJ, several MA) focus.
The whole process, including axial and radial phases, may last, for the Mather DPF, a few microseconds (for a small focus) to 10 microseconds (for a large focus). A Filippov focus has a very short axial phase compared to a Mather focus.

Design parameters

The fact that the plasma energy density is constant throughout the range of plasma focus devices, from big to small, is related to the value of a design parameter that needs to be kept at a certain value if the plasma focus is to operate efficiently. The critical 'speed' design parameter is , or the current linear density divided by the square root of the mass density of the fill gas.^[6]
For example for neutron-optimised operation in deuterium the value of this critical parameter, experimentally observed over a range of machines from kilojoules to hundreds of kilojoules, is: 9 kA/(mm·Torr^0.5), or 780 kA/(m·Pa^0.5), with a remarkably small deviation of 10% over such a large range of sizes of machines.
Thus if we have a peak current of 180 kA we require an anode radius of 10 mm with a deuterium fill pressure of 4 Torr (530 Pa). The length of the anode has then to be matched to the risetime of the capacitor current in order to allow an average axial transit speed of the current sheath of just over 50 mm/μs. Thus a capacitor risetime of 3 μs requires a matched anode length of 160 mm.
The above example of peak current of 180 kA rising in 3 µs, anode radius and length of respectively 10 and 160 mm are close to the design parameters of the UNU/ICTP PFF (United Nations University/International Centre for Theoretical Physics Plasma Fusion Facility).^[7] This small table-top device was designed as a low-cost integrated experimental system for training and transfer to initiate/strengthen experimental plasma research in developing countries.^[8]

Current research

A network of ten identical DPF machines operates in eight countries around the world. This network produces research papers on topics including machine optimization & diagnostics (soft x-rays, neutrons, electron and ion beams), applications (microlithography, micromachining, materials modification and fabrication, imaging & medical, astrophysical simulation) as well as modeling & computation. The network was organized by Sing Lee in 1986 and is coordinated by the Asian African Association for Plasma Training, AAAPT. A simulation package, the Lee Model,^[9] has been developed for this network but is applicable to all plasma focus devices. The code typically produces excellent agreement between computed and measured results,^[10] and is available for downloading as a Universal Plasma Focus Laboratory Facility. The Institute for Plasma Focus Studies IPFS^[11] was founded on 25 February 2008 to promote correct and innovative use of the Lee Model code and to encourage the application of plasma focus numerical experiments. IPFS research has already extended numerically-derived neutron scaling laws to multi-megajoule experiments.^[12] These await verification. Numerical experiments with the code have also resulted in the compilation of a global scaling law indicating that the well-known neutron saturation effect is better correlated to a scaling deterioration mechanism. This is due to the increasing dominance of the axial phase dynamic resistance as capacitor bank impedance decreases with increasing bank energy (capacitance). In principle, the resistive saturation could be overcome by operating the pulse power system at a higher voltage.
The International Centre for Dense Magnetised Plasmas (ICDMP) in Warsaw Poland, operates several plasma focus machines for an international research and training programme. Among these machines is one with energy capacity of 1 MJ making it one of the largest plasma focus devices in the world.
In Argentina there is an Inter-institutional Program for Plasma Focus Research since 1996, coordinated by a National Laboratory of Dense Magnetized Plasmas (www.pladema.net) in Tandil, Buenos Aires. The Program also cooperates with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission, and networks the Argentine National Energy Commission, the Scientific Council of Buenos Aires, the University of Center, the University of Mar del Plata, The University of Rosario, and the Institute of Plasma Physics of the University of Buenos Aires. The program operates six Plasma Focus Devices, developing applications, in particular ultra-short tomography and substance detection by neutron pulsed interrogation. Chile currently operates the facility SPEED-2, the largest Plasma Focus facility of the southern hemisphere. PLADEMA also contributed during the last decade with several mathematical models of Plasma Focus. The thermodynamic model was able to develop for the first time design maps combining geometrical and operational parameters, showing that there is always an optimum gun length and charging pressure which maximize the neutron emission. Currently there is a complete finite-elements code validated against numerous experiments, which can be used confidently as a design tool for Plasma Focus.
Since the beginning of 2009, a number of new plasma focus machines have been/are being commissioned including the INTI Plasma Focus in Malaysia, the NX3 in Singapore and the first plasma focus to be commissioned in a US university in recent times, the KSU Plasma Focus at Kansas State University which recorded its first fusion neutron emitting pinch on New Year's Eve 2009.

Fusion power

Several groups have proposed that fusion power based on the DPF could be viable, possibly even with low-neutron fuel cycles like p-B11. The feasibility of net power from p-B11 in the DPF requires that the bremsstrahlung losses be reduced by quantum mechanical effects induced by the powerful magnetic field. The high magnetic field will also result in a high rate of emission of cyclotron radiation, but at the densities envisioned, where the plasma frequency is larger than the cyclotron frequency, most of this power will be reabsorbed before being lost from the plasma. Another advantage claimed is the capability of direct conversion of the energy of the fusion products into electricity, with an efficiency potentially above 70%. Experiments and computer simulations to investigate the capability of DPF for fusion power are underway at Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) under the direction of Eric Lerner, who explained his "Focus Fusion" approach in a 2007 Google Tech Talk.^[13] On November 14, 2008, Lerner received funding for continued research, to test the scientific feasibility of Focus Fusion.^[14] On October 15, 2009, the DPF device "Focus Fusion-1" achieved its first pinch.^[15] On January 28, 2011, LPP published initial results including experimental shots with considerably higher fusion yields than the historical DPF trend.^[16] In March, 2012, the company announced that it had achieved temperatures of 1.8 billion degrees, beating the old record of 1.1 billion that had survived since 1978.^[17]

See also

• List of plasma (physics) articles

Aneutronic Fusion

Nuclear energy has the potential to be weapons and radioactive waste free, but that depends on what process you use. Your choices are:

Fission | Neutronic Fusion | Aneutronic Fusion

The ideal choice is aneutronic fusion. (A new...what?) "A" means "without"; "a-neutronic" means without neutrons as a byproduct. What is it about neutrons that makes such a difference? (And what's the catch?)

Fission and the trouble with Neutrons

Nuclear FISSION
When most people think of nuclear energy, they think of fission. With fission, a neutron splits a large atom into smaller ones, releasing more neutrons for a chain reaction. Control rods are required to soak up extra neutrons to avoid meltdown.

Neutrons make things Radioactive.: The fuel is radioactive, and the byproducts are radioactive. Neutrons change the nature of things they slam into, making them radioactive.

Proliferation:
Then there's the (cough, cough) proliferation problem.

The Result: Steam
The Neutrons in fission generate heat. Heat turns water into steam, to spin a turbine. This generates electricity. So, nuclear power is fuel for an 18th century steam technology.

Note: A bit of perspective here, radiation isn' t as horrible as you might think. Problems with green house gases and the deadly effects of coal and fossil fuels can make the risks of radiation downright attractive. But they don't get rid of the proliferation problem. Advances in fission (i.e. Terrapower and LiFTr) may address some of these issues to some extent. We continue to watch their development. But even if they solve the radioactivity and proliferation problem - fission will still be producing heat for a glorified steam engine. So inefficient. So 18th century.

Conventional (neutronic) fusion - DT

Nuclear FUSION has the potential to generate power without the radioactive waste of nuclear fission, but that depends on which atoms you decide to fuse. Conventional fusion approaches work with deuterium and tritium, while aneutronic fusion works with other fuels. When deuterium and tritium fuse, they yield an alpha particle and a neutron.

Deuterium
Deuterium is Hydrogen (a proton) with an extra neutron.

Tritium
Tritium is hydrogen with two extra neutrons. It doesn't occur in nature. It's rare, super expensive, radioactive and has proliferation dangers. A key challenge of neutronic fusion is how to breed tritium.

Neutronic Fusion
When deuterium nuclei fuse with tritium, they form an alpha particle (harmless Helium ion) and a neutron. Yes, that pesky neutron. The radioactive waste from fusion is less than fission, and shorter lived. But it is not eliminated.

Energy Output
The neutron generates heat which needs to be captured somehow and will likely heat water and produce steam to spin a turbine... Here again we have Space age technology to power 18th century steam engine.

Aneutronic Fusion: the best is yet to come.

1H + 2 6Li →

1H + 7Li →

3He + 3He →

1H + 11B →

Aneutronic Candidates
Aneutronic fusion is fusion that does not produce neutrons as a product of the reaction.

There are several element combinations that can be used in aneutronic fusion. We'll look at the most likely one here: ¹H + ¹¹B aka pB¹¹.

Note: H stands for hydrogen. A hydrogen nucleus is a single proton, hence "p" for proton also refers to hydrogen.

Proton Boron (pB¹¹)
When a boron-11 nucleus fuses with a hydrogen nucleus - the result is three helium nuclei (aka "alpha particles") and energy, but no radioactive waste.

Electricity Directly
But wait! If there are no neutrons produced, where do you get heat for the steam engine?

You don't. The Helium ions coming out are positively charged - it's electricity directly.

This is a space age fuel that finally cuts the umbilical cord of steam.

Awesome! Where can I get my Aneutronic Fusion?

There's a catch, of course. Aneutronic fusion is difficult to achieve. It requires an order of magnitude higher temperatures than neutronic fusion (it's very HOT fusion). Humanity hasn't figured out how to harness it yet.

It's an awesome, burning energy challenge. A lot of people think it can't be done. They don't have much confidence in their fellow human beings. The physics - daunting. Perhaps even more difficult - the finances, the collective action problem to get adequate resources to mount a thorough investigation of this challenge.

Luckily, there are some scientists boldly exploring the frontiers of aneutronic fusion, including the crew working on the LPP Experiment. These projects need our support, they need our encouragement and they need our conscious commitment.

There are many reasons to pursue aneutronic fusion. You may be in it for the energy, or for saving the world, or for getting rid of nuclear weapons. On top of those practical reasons, this is about downloading the power of the stars, stealing fire from the gods, redeeming nuclear power. It's about showing the universe what we're capable of. 

Focus Fusion Society

 

 

Nuclear Fusion Summary - Prospects for breakthrough commercial reactors 2018-2025

May 24, 2013

Nuclear fusion is one of the main topics at Nextbigfuture. I have summarized the state of nuclear fusion research before. A notable summary was made three years ago in mid-2010. I believed at the time that there could be multiple successful nuclear fusion project vying for commercial markets by 2018. Progress appears to be going a bit more slowly than previously hoped, but there are several possible projects (General Fusion, John Slough small space propulsion nuclear fusion system, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics - if they work out metal contamination and other issues and scale power) that could demonstrate net energy gain in the next couple of years.

Commercialization Date targets

General Fusion 2020 (targeting 4 cents per kwh)

Helion Energy 2022 (about 5 cents per kwh and able to burn nuclear fission waste)

Lockheed Compact Fusion 2023

Tri-Alpha Energy (previously talked about 2015-2020, but now likely 2020-2025)

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics - 4 years commercial after net energy gain proved. Say two years to prove net energy gain. Then 2019-2021 for a commercial reactor (2021 if we allow for 2 years of slippage). Could lower energy costs by ten times.

EMC2 Fusion (?? No information for the last few years. US Navy is funding the work at a few million dollars per year)

Muon Fusion - Research in Japan and at Star Scientific in Australia

There will be more than one economic and technological winner. Once we figure nuclear fusion there will be multiple nuclear fusion reactors. It will be like engines - steam engines, gasoline engines, diesel engines, jet engines. There will be multiple makers of multiple types of nuclear fusion reactors. There will be many applications energy production, space propulsion, space launch, transmutation, weapons and more. We will be achieving greater capabilities with magnets (100+ tesla superconducting magnets), lasers (high repetition and high power), and materials. We will also have more knowledge of the physics. What had been a long hard slog will become easy and there will be a lot more money for research around a massive industry.

The cleaner burning aspect of most nuclear fusion approaches versus nuclear fission is not that interesting to me. It is good but nuclear fission waste cycle could be completely closed with deep burn nuclear fission reactors that use all of the uranium and plutonium. In China it is straight up engineering questions. So a transition to moderately deeper burn pebble bed from 2020-2035 (starts 2015 but not a major part until 2020) and then a shift to breeders 2030-2050+.

What matters are developments which could radically alter the economy of the world and the future of humanity. The leading smaller nuclear fusion projects hold out the potential of radically lowering the cost of energy and increasing the amount of energy. Nuclear fusion can enable an expansion of the energy used by civilization by over a billion times from 20 Terawatts to 20 Zettawatts. Nuclear fusion also enables space propulsion at significant fractions of the speed of light (1 to 20% of lightspeed.) Earth to orbit launch with nuclear fusion spaceplanes or reusable rockets and trivial access to anywhere in the solar system.



General Fusion targeting commercial reactor for 2020 and funding does not seem to be a problem

General Fusion is trying to make affordable fusion power a reality.

• Plan to demonstrate proof of physics DD equivalent “net gain” in 2013
• Plan to demonstrate the first fusion system capable of “net gain” 3 years after proof
• Validated by leading experts in fusion and industrial engineering
• Industrial and institutional partners
• $42.5M in venture capital, $6.3M in government support

General Fusion intends to build a three-meter-diameter steel sphere filled with spinning molten lead and lithium. Super-heated plasma would be injected into the vortex and then the outside of the sphere would be hit with 200 computer-synchronized pistons travelling 100 meters per second (200 mph) The resulting shock waves would compress the plasma and spark a fusion reaction for a few microseconds.

Tri-alpha Energy - Raised about $140 million + Rusnano investment. Best funded of the smaller players

In 2013, Rusnano Group, a state-owned venture firm, invested an undisclosed amount in Tri-Alpha Energy. The Russian investment is the latest round of financing for Tri-Alpha which, prior to the Rusnano backing, is believed to have raised over $140 million from Goldman Sachs, venture capital firms including Venrock, Vulcan Capital and New Enterprise Associates, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, and others.

Tri-alpha revealed some information in a 79 page powerpoint deck in 2012

The design of a 100 MW reactor is underway. Test “shots” to demonstrate plasma confinement are in progress. It is based upon field reversed research but it seems they are migrating towards a pulsed colliding beam approach that looks more similar to Helion Energy. In the picture below, look closely at the cylinder in front of the person. It looks like the Helion Energy design.

Tri-alpha is still secretive but what has been revealed about progress does not indicate a breakthrough has yet been achieved to net energy gain. Tri-alpha energy has previously talked about getting to a commercial system by 2018.

Helion Energy and MSNW - John Slough Designs

Helion Energy Fusion Engine has received about $7 million in funds from DOE, the Department of Defense and NASA. They had already received $5 million which they used to build a one third scale proof of concept. The company hopes to raise another $2 million by next year, $35 million in 2015-17, and $200 million for its pilot plant stage.

The MSNW LLC (sister company to Helion Energy working on Space fusion) does refer to the Helion Energy work. MSNW is working on a NASA grant to develop direct nuclear fusion space propulsion. They have said they will demonstrate net energy gain within 6-24 months.

Fusions Assumption:
• Ionization cost is 75 MJ/kg
• Coupling Efficiency to liner is 50%
• Thrust conversation ~ 90%
• Realistic liner mass are 0.28 kg to 0.41 kg
• Corresponds to a Gain of 50 to 500
• Ignition Factor of 5
• Safety margin of 2: GF =GF(calc.)/2

Mission Assumptions:
• Mass of Payload= 61 mT
• Habitat 31 mT
• Aeroshell 16 mT
• Descent System 14 mT
• Specific Mass of capacitors ~ 1 J/kg
• Specific Mass of Solar Electric Panels 200 W/kg
• Tankage fraction of 10% (tanks, structure, radiator, etc.)
• Payload mass fraction =Play load Mass
• System Specific Mass = Dry Mass/SEP (kg/kW)
• Analysis for single transit optimal transit to Mars
• Full propulsive braking for Mar Capture - no aerobraking

The Fusion Engine is a cyclically operating fusion power plant technology that will be capable of clean energy generation for base load and on-demand power.

The Fusion Engine is a 28-meter long, 3-meter high bow tie-shaped device that at both ends converts gases of deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen) into plasmoids - plasma contained by a magnetic field through a process called FRC (field-reversed configuration). It magnetically accelerates the plasmoids down long tapered tubes until they collide and compress in a central chamber wrapped by a magnetic coil that induces them to combine into helium atoms. The process also releases neutrons.

The Helion Energy Fusion Engine provides energy in two ways. Like in a fission reactor, the energy of the scattered neutrons gives off heat that ultimately drives a turbine. Helion is also developing a technique that directly converts energy to electricity. The direct conversion will provide about 70 percent of the outgoing electricity according to Kirtley.

Helion Energy new plan is to build a 50-MWe pilot of its “Fusion Engine” by 2019 after which licensees will begin building commercial models by 2022.

Lockheed Skunkworks Fusion - Targeting Commercial by 2023

Lockheed presented at Google Solve for X a 100MW compact fusion reactor concept that would run on deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen). It would fit on a truck and be built on a production line like jet engines.

Breakthrough technology: Charles Chase and his team at Lockheed have developed a High Beta configuration, which allows a compact reactor design and speedier development timeline (5 years instead of 30).

* The magnetic field increases the farther that you go out, which pushes the plasma back in.
* It also has very few open field lines (very few paths for the plasma to leak out)
* Very good arch curvature of the field lines
* The Lockheed system has a beta of about 1.
* This system is DT (deuterium - tritium)

Currently a cylinder 1 meter wide and 2 meters tall. The 100 MW version would be about twice the dimensions.

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics

The LPP approach uses a device called a dense plasma focus (DPF) to burn aneutronic fusion fuels that make no radioactive waste, a combination LPP calls “Focus Fusion.” LPP has taken major strides towards their goal.

Net fusion energy is like a tripod, and needs three conditions to stand (or in the LPP case, get more energy out than is lost). Despite FF-1’s low cost of less than $1 million, the results LPP published showed FF-1 has achieved two out of three conditions—temperature and confinement time—needed for net fusion energy. If they were able to achieve the third net fusion energy condition, density, they could be within four years of beginning mass manufacture of 5 Megawatt electric Focus Fusion generators that would scale to meet all global energy demands at a projected cost 10 times less than coal. While we still must demonstrate full scientific feasibility, FF-1 already achieves well over 100 billion fusion reactions in a few microseconds.

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics - Progress and specific issues to be resolved to boost plasma density by 100 and then to increase current

In the past month’s experiments, LPP’s research team has demonstrated the near tripling of ion density in the plasmoid to 8x10^19 ions/cc, or 0.27 mg/cc. At the same time, fusion energy output has moved up, with the best three shot average increasing 50% to one sixth of a joule of energy. While the yield and density improvements show we are moving in the right direction, they are still well below what the LPP team theoretically expects for our present peak current of 1.1 MA. Yield is low by a factor of 10 and density by a factor of nearly 100. If we can get yield up to our theoretical expectation of over 1 joule, our scaling calculations tell us that with higher current we can make it all the way to the 30,000 J that we need to demonstrate scientific feasibility. We’ve long concluded that this gap between theory and results is caused by the “early beam phenomenon” which is itself a symptom of the current sheath splitting in two, feeding only half its power into the plasmoid. In the next shot series, we will replace the washers with indium wire which has worked elsewhere on our electrodes to entirely eliminate even the tiniest arcing. We will also silver-plate the cathode rods as we have done with the anode. Over the longer run, we are looking at ways to have a single-piece cathode made out of tungsten or tungsten-copper in order to eliminate the rod-plate joint altogether. These steps should get rid of the filament disruption for good, enabling results to catch up with theory.

More Background

I just do not always cover all the background every time I update one of the projects that I am tracking. They are all available from the tags and by searching my site.

Dozens of articles on Fusion going back about 8 years.

My articles for more background on the overall general fusion work
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/general-fusion-will-leverage-computer.html