DOCSLIB.ORG

Fusion Space Propulsion-A Shorter Time Frame Than You Think

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fusion Space Propulsion-A Shorter Time Frame Than You Think FusionFusion SpaceSpace Propulsion--Propulsion-- AA ShorterShorter TimeTime FrameFrame thanthan YouYou ThinkThink JohnJohn F.F. SantariusSantarius FusionFusion TechnologyTechnology InstituteInstitute UniversityUniversity ofof WisconsinWisconsin JANNAFJANNAF Monterey,Monterey, 5-85-8 DecemberDecember 20052005 D-3He and Pulsed-Power Fusion Approaches Would Shorten Development Times $$$ Fusion D-3HeD-3He FRC,FRC, dipole,dipole, Rocket spheromak,spheromak, ST;ST; Pulsed-powerPulsed-power MTF,MTF, PHD,PHD, fast-ignitorfast-ignitor JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 2 D-3He Fusion Will Provide Capabilities Not Available from Other Propulsion Options 107 Fusion ) s 6 / 10 10 kW/kg m ( y 1 kW/kg t i c o l 5 0.1 kW/kg e 10 v t Nuclear us (fission) Ga s-core fission ha electric x 4 E 10 Nuclear thermal Chemical 103 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 Thrust-to-weight ratio JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 3 Predicted Specific Power of D-3He Magnetic Fusion Rockets Is Attractive (>1 kW/kg) • Predictions based on reasonably detailed magnetic fusion rocket studies. Specific Power First Author Year Configuration (kW/kg) Borowski 1987 Spheromak 10.5 Borowski 1987 Spherical torus 5.8 Santarius 1988 Tandem mirror 1.2 Bussard 1990 Riggatron 3.9 Teller 1991 Dipole 1.0 Nakashima 1994 Field-reversed configuration 1.0 Emrich 2000 Gasdynamic mirror 130 Thio 2002 Magnetized-target fusion 50 Williams 2003 Spherical torus 8.7 Cheung 2004 Colliding-beam FRC 1.5 JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 4 Fusion Propulsion Would Enable Fast and Efficient Solar-System Travel • Fusion propulsion would dramatically reduce trip times (shown below) or increase payload fractions. 1000 Chemical (Isp=450 s) 800 ) s Nuclear y thermal a 600 (Isp=900 s) (d Fusion e (1 kW/kg) m i 400 t Fusion ip r (10 kW/kg) T 200 0 Earth-Mars Earth-Jupiter (29% payload) (4% payload) JFS 1999 JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 5 Key Fusion Fuels for Space Propulsion 1st generation fuels: 2nd generation fuel: D + T → n (14.07 MeV) + 4He (3.52 MeV) D + 3He → p (14.68 MeV) + 4He (3.67 MeV) D + D → n (2.45 MeV) + 3He (0.82 MeV) 3rd generation fuels: → p (3.02 MeV) + T (1.01 MeV) 3He + 3He → 2 p + 4He (12.86 MeV) {50% each channel} p + 11B → 3 4He (8.68 MeV) 10-21 L 1 - s 3 -22 m 10 D-3He H t a r D-T n p-11B o -23 i t 10 c 3 a He- e Re D-D 3He 10-24 1 5 10 50 100 500 Ion temperature keV JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 6 H L D-3He Fuel Requires Continuation of the Remarkable Progress of Fusion Physics • Decades of plasma physics progress created sophisticated tools that will facilitate the development of innovative concepts: 10,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 Computer Chip Memory (Bytes) ITER 100,000,000 10,000,000 JET TF TR 1,000,000 JET TF TR ¾ Experimental 100,000 JET JET TF TR techniques 10,000 PDX JET 1,000 DIII-D Achieved (DHe3) ¾ DIII Achieved (DD) Diagnostics 100 PLT Achieved (DT) Pro jected (DT) ¾ Computational 10 Alcator C modeling 1 Fusion Power (Watts) 0.1 ¾ Theory ATC, Alcator A 0.01 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 7 D-3He Fuel and High β Relax Engineering Constraints • Reduced neutron flux allows 1 D-T ¾ Smaller radiation shields, e s D-D a e ¾ Smaller magnets, m l s e r a l p ¾ Less activation, g r e n o 3 ¾ Easier maintenance, and r ed fa He:D -1 10 =1:2 o ¾ Potentially, proliferation- i n s o u r fy t proof fusion power plants. u e Tritium burn on nm n fraction = 50% 3 • Increased charged-particle s o He:D i as t c =1:1 a flux allows direct energy r 3He:D=3:1 Ff conversion to thrust or 10-2 1 10 100 electricity. Ion temperature keV ¾ Nonlinear gain in useful power / radiator mass H L Pthr/Mrad α η/(1-η) JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 8 D-3He Fuel Could Make Good Use of the High Power Density Capability of Some Innovative Fusion Concepts • D-T fueled innovative concepts become limited by neutron wall loads or surface heat loads well before they reach β or B-field limits. • D-T fueled FRC’s (β~85%) optimize at B ≤ 3 T. • D-3He needs a factor of ~80 above D-T fusion power densities. ¾ Superconducting magnets can Power Density Relative to a D TFRC with 85%and B 3T reach at least 20 T. - b= = ¾ Fusion power density scales as 2 4 2000 β B . 1000 x ¾ Potential power-density 1000 100 x 10 x improvement by increasing 1 x 0 β and B-field appears at right. 1 20 0.75 15 0.5 10 b 0.25 5 B T 0 JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute H L 9 Plasma Power Flows in Linear Devices Give More Design Flexibility than Flows in Toroidal Devices • Power density can be very high due to β2B4 scaling, but first-wall heat fluxes would remain manageable. ¾ Charged-particle power transports from internal plasmoid to edge region and then out ends of fusion core. ¾ Magnetic flux tube can be “pinched” on one end by increasing the magnetic field on that side, giving primarily single-ended flow. • Pulsed concepts gain similar advantages by reflecting plasma from a magnetic nozzle. Expanded Not to scale FRC core region flux tube to reduce heat flux Neutrons Bremsstrahlung ThrustThrust Charged particles JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 10 Low Radiation Damage in D-3He Reactors Allows Permanent First Walls and Shields to be Designed 120 C) 0 ° ( e UWMAK-III (Mo) ARIES-IV (SiC) ARIES-I (SiC) r u 100 t a r 0 e p UWMAK-II (AS) m 800 e T ARIES-RS (V) TITAN (V) l HSR (AS) WITAMIR-I (FS) a r ARIES-II (V) u t 600 ASRA-6C (AS) ARIES-ST (FS) c ARIES-III u Apollo-L3 MARS (FS) r t NUWMAK (Ti) MINIMARS (FS) S m 400 u STARFIRE (AS) m UWMAK-I (AS) i UWTOR-M (FS) x a Apollo-L M 200 “Permanent DT Fuel life regime D3He Fuel for steel 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Maximum dpa per 30 Full Power Years JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 11 Radioactive Waste Disposal is Much Easier for D-3He Reactors than for D-T Reactors D-3He D-T 30 full-power years 5 full-power years Class A Low- activation Class C Tenelon HT-9 Low- steel activation Tenelon Deep Geologic Burial HT-9 steel JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 12 Fusion Rockets Would Provide Electricity Production and Materials Processing Capabilities at Destination • Direct conversion to electricity • Plasmas provide many materials could take advantage of the processing capabilities. natural vacuum in space. B.J. Eastlund and W.C. Gough, “The Fusion Barr & Moir experiment, LLNL Torch--Closing the Cycle from Use to (Fusion Technology, 1973) Reuse,” WASH-1132 (US AEC, 1969). JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 13 A Well Documented Lunar 3He Resource Exists • Lunar 3He concentration verified from Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, & 17 plus USSR Luna 16 & 20 samples. • Analysis indicates that ~109 kg of 3He exists on the lunar surface, or ~1000 y of world energy supply. • One-way Earth-Mars trip requires ~100 kg 3He. • 40 tonnes of 3He would supply the entire 2004 US electricity needs. • ~400 kg 3He (8 GW-y fusion energy) is accessible on Earth for R&D. L.J. Wittenberg, J.F. Santarius, and G.L. Kulcinski, “Lunar Source of 3He for Commercial Fusion Power,” Fusion Technology 10, 167 (1986). JFS 2004 Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin 14 Well-Developed Terrestrial Technology Gives Access to ~109 kg of Lunar 3He • Bucket-wheel excavators • Bulk heating • 33 kg 3He / year • Heat pipes • ~600 tonnes volatiles / year • Conveyor belt • 556 km2 / year • v = 23 m / h JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 15 Lunar 3He Mining Produces Other Useful Volatiles JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 16 D-3He Field-Reversed Configuration (FRC) Appears Attractive for Fusion Propulsion • FRCs possess key desired • Recent encouraging results: characteristics for D-3He fusion: ¾ Emerging understanding of why FRCs appear far more stable than ¾ Very high β≡Pplasma/PB-field ¾ Linear external B field MHD theory predicts. ¾ Cylindrical geometry ¾ Attractive current drive by rotating magnetic fields (RMF) demonstrated. From Univ. of Washington web page for the Star Thrust Experiment (STX): www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/RPPL/STX.html JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 17 Spherical Torus Space Propulsion Would Benefit from the Substantial DOE ST Research Effort • Very low aspect-ratio version of the tokamak. • High β, implying high power density. • Critical issues: recirculating power and providing thrust. • Glenn Research Center design: C.H. Williams, et al., NASA TM 2005- 2 m 213559. Pegasus ST experiment, Univ. of Wisconsin 2 m JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 18 The Dipole Configuration Offers a Relatively Simple Design That an MIT/Columbia Team Has Begun Testing Io plasma torus around Jupiter LDX experiment (MIT) 0.65 m Dipole space propulsion design: E. Teller, A.J. Glass, T.K. Fowler, A. Hasegawa, and J.F. Santarius, “Space Propulsion by Fusion in a Magnetic Dipole,” Fusion Technology 22, 82 (1992). JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute 19 Magnetized-Target Fusion (MTF) • Ionized material from the fusion micro-explosion would reflect from • Plasma jets a diverging would converge, magnetic nozzle to compress, and produce thrust.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Years of Fusion Research
    “50” Years of Fusion Research Dale Meade Fusion Innovation Research and Energy® Princeton, NJ Independent Activities Period (IAP) January 19, 2011 MIT PSFC Cambridge, MA 02139 1 FiFusion Fi FiPre Powers th thSe Sun “We nee d to see if we can mak e f usi on work .” John Holdren @MIT, April, 2009 3 Toroidal Magg(netic Confinement (1940s-earlyy) 50s) • 1940s - first ideas on using a magnetic field to confine a hot plasma for fusion. • 1947 Sir G.P. Thomson and P. C. Thonemann began classified investigations of toroidal “pinch” RF discharge, eventually lead to ZETA, a large pinch at Harwell, England 1956. • 1949 Richter in Argentina issues Press Release proclaiming fusion, turns out to be bogus, but news piques Spitzer’s interest. • 1950 Spitzer conceives stellarator while on a ski lift, and makes ppproposal to AEC ($50k )-initiates Project Matterhorn at Princeton. • 1950s Classified US Program on Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion (Project Sherwood) carried out until 1958 when magnetic fusion research was declassified. US and others unveil results at 2nd UN Atoms for Peace Conference in Geneva 1958. Fusion Leading to 1958 Geneva Meeting • A period of rapid progress in science and technology – N-weapons, N-submarine, Fission energy, Sputnik, transistor, .... • Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion had great potential – Much optimism in the early 1950s with expectation for a quick solution – Political support and pressure for quick results (but bud gets were low, $56M for 1951-1958) – Many very “innovative” approaches were put forward. – Early fusion reactor concepts - Tamm/Sakharov, Spitzer (Model D) very large. • Reality began to set in by the mid 1950s – Coll ectiv e eff ects - MHD instability ( 195 4), Bo hm d iffus io n was ubi qui tous – Meager plasma physics understanding led to trial and error approaches – A multitude of experiments were tried and ended up far from fusion conditions – Magnetic Fusion research in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECT FUSION DRIVE for Interstellar Exploration S.A
    Journal of the British Interplanetary Society VOLUME 72 NO.2 FEBRUARY 2019 General interstellar issue DIRECT FUSION DRIVE for Interstellar Exploration S.A. Cohen et al. INTERMEDIATE BEAMERS FOR STARSHOT: Probes to the Sun’s Inner Gravity Focus James Benford & Gregory Matloff REALITY, THE BREAKTHROUGH INITIATIVES and Prospects for Colonization of Space Edd Wheeler A GRAVITATIONAL WAVE TRANSMITTER A.A. Jackson and Gregory Benford CORRESPONDENCE www.bis-space.com ISSN 0007-084X PUBLICATION DATE: 29 APRIL 2019 Submitting papers International Advisory Board to JBIS JBIS welcomes the submission of technical Rachel Armstrong, Newcastle University, UK papers for publication dealing with technical Peter Bainum, Howard University, USA reviews, research, technology and engineering in astronautics and related fields. Stephen Baxter, Science & Science Fiction Writer, UK James Benford, Microwave Sciences, California, USA Text should be: James Biggs, The University of Strathclyde, UK ■ As concise as the content allows – typically 5,000 to 6,000 words. Shorter papers (Technical Notes) Anu Bowman, Foundation for Enterprise Development, California, USA will also be considered; longer papers will only Gerald Cleaver, Baylor University, USA be considered in exceptional circumstances – for Charles Cockell, University of Edinburgh, UK example, in the case of a major subject review. Ian A. Crawford, Birkbeck College London, UK ■ Source references should be inserted in the text in square brackets – [1] – and then listed at the Adam Crowl, Icarus Interstellar, Australia end of the paper. Eric W. Davis, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, USA ■ Illustration references should be cited in Kathryn Denning, York University, Toronto, Canada numerical order in the text; those not cited in the Martyn Fogg, Probability Research Group, UK text risk omission.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Center Is to Provide Broadest Dissemination Possi
    A major purpose of the Techni- cal Information Center is to provide the broadest dissemination possi- Me of information contained in DOE’s Research and Development Reports to business, industry, the academic community, and federal, state and local governments. Although a small portion of this report is not reproducible, it is being made available to expedite the availability of information on the research discussed herein. LA-UR -83-930 NOTICE PORTIONS fl~ T!+:3 l?EPi)RT .RI!E !!.LEG18LE. TITLE COMPACT FUS ION REACTORS ———_ . _ It has kk’i: r:~roduccd ?rom the best availoblc copy to permit !he hroadeti P0SSihJ8 avallabJJJtg AuTPIoa[s) R. A. tiraho~skl Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, !1!1S7545 R, L. liil~(211SOll ‘1’cchnologv International Inc. , Ames, Iowa 500i9 MASTER SUB~IfTED TO 5th ANS Tupical Mcctini! on the Technnlokv of I%sif}n Hncrjv Knoxville, T:/ (April ‘26-2N, 1983) “l-hisrcporlwasprcpmcdusm ucimuntdwork spuniurcdhyxnMKcncyur[hc[JnimdSIaIa (iuvcrmncn{.Neithcrihc(JnilcdSlohx+(iuvcrnmcntII,)rtinyngcncylhcrw(,nurnnyorlhcir cmplnyw.nmkcsunywnrran[y,caprcmurim])licd,m nmumcsunyIcguliinhllilyurrccpunai. hilityIurtheuccurncy,cumplclcncm.nrusrfulnckso(tinyinkwmuliun,qqwrnius,prducl,nr prucxMdiccluscd,orrcp-nlsthutilsutcwIIuldnulinfrin~cprivatelyuwncdrights.Ncfcr. CIILZhereinlounyqwci[iccommcrciulprmluct,prwxc,urservicehytraocname,Irudcmurk, mrinuructurcr,orotherwiseIJ(RMnwincucxmrilyamti[i[utcorimplyihcndurwmenl,rccwm. mcrrdnllun,or(nvuringhy the[Jni~cdStuIcK(invcrnmcnlw UIIVngcrwyIhqrcur.llc vlcwa nmlnpiniomd uuilw+cqwcmcdhcrclntlunotncwcurilyMIMIC.w
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Rockets for Planetary Defense
    | Los Alamos National Laboratory | Fusion Rockets for Planetary Defense Glen Wurden Los Alamos National Laboratory PPPL Colloquium March 16, 2016 LA-UR-16-21396 LA-UR-15-xxxx UNCLASSIFIED Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA | Los Alamos National Laboratory | My collaborators on this topic: T. E. Weber1, P. J. Turchi2, P. B. Parks3, T. E. Evans3, S. A. Cohen4, J. T. Cassibry5, E. M. Campbell6 . 1Los Alamos National Laboratory . 2Santa Fe, NM . 3General Atomics . 4Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory . 5University of Alabama, Huntsville . 6LLE, University of Rochester, Rochester Wurden et al., Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 35, 1, 123 (2016) UNCLASSIFIED Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA | Los Alamos National Laboratory | How many ways is electricity made today? Primary Energy Source Nominally CO2 Free Current capacity (%) Expected Lifetime (yrs) Natural Gas no 100 Coal no 80.6 400 Oil no < 50 Biomass neutral 11.4 > 400 Wind yes 0.5 > 1000 Solar photovoltaic yes 0.06 > 1000 Solar thermal yes 0.17 > 1000 Hydro yes 3.3 > 1000 Wave/Tidal yes 0.001 > 1000 Geothermal yes 0.12 > 1000 Nuclear fission yes 2.7 > 400 [i] REN21–Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century Renewables 2012–Global Status Report, 2012, http://www.map.ren21.net/GSR/GSR2012.pdf , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_development UNCLASSIFIED Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA | Los Alamos National Laboratory | What is the most important product that fusion could deliver? .
    [Show full text]
  • (!Ss%LOSALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY
    LA-UR-8”-J020° TITLE: A RZL’IEW OF A1.’f’Ek?JATIl’E CO SC KPTS FI~!l F!AC SET1(: Fl:SIf)N AUTHOR(S): R. A. Kri~kowskl, R. 1,. hflllt’r iln(l R. 1.. tlil~~l~+’n SUBMllTED TO: 4~11ANST1’p[~sillylt,~.tIn}; (JII t]]e Ttrhnrrl[)Kv l~f Contr[)llcd !fuclmr l:IISiIIn KIIIK of l’rus~!il, PA (ocLOl)Cr ]4’+-]7, 1980) —— — IMICLAIMIU——— By 8ceptana of this arllclo, the publlshcr rcco~nimt that tfw U.S. Oowrnmnt rmdm anoncrnclusiw, rovalty. frw Ilanw 10 publish or r@produa the publlt~d form of thiscontribu. tkn, Or 10 OllOW othcft to do SO, for U.S. Goverrwwnt pur. fmsm, Tho LoI Almas SciwIIlfic Labormow mqutbtithatth~pub. Ihfmr idantlfi this wtlclcm work pcrfornwd unriw tfw ● m. pICCS Of t~ U.S. Mpanmnt of Enargy, (!ss%LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY Post Office Box 1663 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 An AfflrrnatfveAction/Equal Opportunity Porm No, &la R3 8t. No. 2820 12/70 . ..... ----- . ,, ,, ● * . Rohcrt A. Kr.lkowski, RJ)II.11,1 L. Hiller and Ran(iv 1.. Ikgrnsori Los AJacrns .%lentlflr !,ahor.~tory, l!nlvrrxlry of C~llternla LnM AlamoK, NM H75A5 ,, —. -.. .- .,. .- . -. All:’ wtli momL certdlnly Cvl)lvc am Innig)li’ ‘ of t ho ~rld”s quest :or EIANIIVIIc fusion power, dcvrlopa from expvrlment, thvory ●nd ayntemn with the tandem mirrnr serving an a primary studies. backup Cone.?pt in the US fus loll prukfrnm, ● wide Il:c awnrmlry of the AFC’rI give II cm Tablv I rnng,, of alternative fuu ion cooccpts (Ak L’o) have ha$ treon org.lnittid inLo rhv following c.itogorlo~: bevn an,! nru bring pursurd.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Statutory Invention Registration (19) 11 Reg
    United States Statutory Invention Registration (19) 11 Reg. Number: H627 Peng 43) Published: Apr. 4, 1989 (54 SPHERICAL TORUS FUSION REACTOR Waldrop, "Compact Fusion: Small is Beautiful,” Sci ence, vol. 219, pp. 154-156, Jan. 1983. 75 Inventor: Yueng-Kay M. Peng, Oak Ridge, Hagenson et al., "Compact Reverse Field Pinch Reac Tenn. tors,' Los Alamos Nat. Lab., LA-10200-MS, Aug. 73) Assignee: The United States of America as 1984. represented by the United States Primary Examiner-Deborah L. Kyle Department of Energy, Washington, Assistant Examiner-Richard L. Klein D.C. Attorney, Agent, or Firm-David E. Breeden; Stephen 21 Appl. No.: 783,604 D. Hamel; Judson R. Hightower 22 Filed: Oct. 3, 1985 57 ABSTRACT 511 Int. Cl."................................................ G21B 1/00 A fusion reactor is provided having a near spherical 52 U.S. C. ..................................... 376/142; 376/133 shaped plasma with a modest central opening through 58) Field of Search ........................ 376/121, 133, 142 which straight segments of toroidal field coils extend that carry electrical current for generating a toroidal (56) References Cited magnet plasma confinement fields. By retaining only the U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS indispensable components inboard of the plasma torus, 3,778,343 12/1973 Coppi et al. ........................ 376/133 principally the cooled toroidal field conductors and in 4,263,097 4/1981. Ohkawa .............................. 376/133 some cases a vacuum containment vessel wall, the fu 4,268,353 5/1981 Powell et al. ... 376/142 sion reactor features an exceptionally small aspect ratio 4,330,864 5/1982 Ohyabu ............. ... 376/142 (typically about 1.5), a naturally elongated plasma cross 4,363,776 12/1982 Yamada et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Science the Challenge of Mind Experiencing Truth
    Science the challenge of Mind Experiencing Truth When science is doomed to fail in its pursuit, as with nuclear fusion power, the mind opens a path to a higher order power that gives us the Universe. Rolf A. F. Witzsche http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN Dimensions of the mind? Choked or Free? In order to meet the challenge of the New Ice Age ahead, science needs to be unfettered, free, vital, and dynamic The case of 'Active Research' 'Active research' is fascist research The Nazi death camps have become infamous examples for conducting 'active' research.. They would face off a mother and her child, each with a switch to deliver a painful electric shock to the other, with a 'researcher' having a switch for each with which to force the mother and child into unnatural reaction, typically until the death of one of them of both. That's 'active' research. A lot of this type of deeply painful and deadly 'active research' has been imposed on society throughout history. See: Active Research in the Political World Some of the 'active research' mania has spilled over into the sciences with equally devastating consequences for society. 'Active research' in the sciences is presently conducted by some of the world's most prestigious high-energy physics labs. It is carried out in numerous different way. The High-frequency Active Aurora Research Project (HAARP) is operated by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, for example, which by its very name defines its activity as 'active research.' It produces unnatural conditions in the Earth's ionosphere to observe its response.
    [Show full text]
  • The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor, and How to Make It Work
    Revision Date: 1/05/2007 The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor, And How to Make It Work by Tom Ligon This article originally appeared in the December 1998 edition of Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Although edited slightly for reprints in Infinite Energy and for posting on fusor.net, it was intended for a fairly broad audience, especially high school science students. Fusor.net has my permission to post this article. Anyone else wishing to post it, ask my permission! This material is copyrighted. Tom Ligon A really distressing trend has been developing for some time among scientifically knowledgeable people I've met. A lot of you are growing quite pessimistic about the prospects for practical fusion power in general, and fusion-powered space travel in particular. The roots of this disillusionment are not hard to find. Fusion, for those of you who slept through high-school physics, is the process of squashing two atomic nuclei together to produce a new element. Many light-weight nuclei give off copious energy when this happens. In the Sun, hydrogen nuclei fuse (we pretend we know the mechanisms) to form helium. A tiny fraction of the original mass is converted to energy according to E = mc2. The process occurs deep in the Sun's core, at mind-boggling temperatures that cause the nuclei to move rapidly, where similarly mind-boggling pressure keeps the nuclei in close proximity, and sheer bulk prevents rapid heat escape. The physics community often calls these "thermonuclear reactions" 1 The World's Simplest Fusion Reactor because of the high temperatures driving them in the Sun, or triggering them in "hydrogen" bombs.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Propulsion
    Fusion Propulsion Opening the Solar System Frontier John F Santarius Lecture 28 Resources from Space NEEP 533/ Geology 533 / Astronomy 533 / EMA 601 University of Wisconsin March 31, 2004 Key Points • D-3He appears to be the fusion fuel of choice for space applications. • D-3He fusion will provide capabilities not available from other propulsion options. • Several configurations appear promising for space propulsion, particularly the field-reversed configuration (FRC), magnetized-target fusion (MTF), spheromak, and spherical torus. • Successful development of D-3He fusion would provide attractive propulsion, power, and materials processing capabilities. JFS 2004 Fusion Technology Institute 2 A Prophecy Whose Time Will Come “The short-lived Uranium Age will see the dawn of space flight; the succeeding era of fusion power will witness its fulfillment.” From the essay “The Planets Are Not Enough” (1961). JFS 2004 Fusion Technology Institute 3 D-3He Fusion Will Provide Capabilities Not Available from Other Propulsion Options 107 Fusion ) s 6 / 10 10 kW/kg m ( y 1 kW/kg t i c o l 5 0.1 kW/kg e 10 v t Nuclear us (fission) Ga s-core fission ha electric x 4 E 10 Nuclear thermal Chemical 103 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 Thrust-to-weight ratio JFS 2004 Fusion Technology Institute 4 At the Predicted Specific Power, α=1-10 kW/kg, Fusion Propulsion Would Enable Attractive Solar-System Travel • Comparison of trip times and payload fractions for chemical and fusion rockets: Fast human transport Efficient cargo transport 1000 1 900 0.9 ) s 800 0.8 on
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Potential for Spherical and Compact Tokamaks
    Ac ,_ - - - - - I cly 7 -4 4 - 2- 0 TRITA-ALF-2003-01 .4b Report S ISSN 1102-2051 CCH ISRN KTH/ALF/--03/1 -- SE KTH Fusion potential for spherical and compact tokamaks Mikael Sandzelius I Iw i i9 MPwAL*"vfiP I wffiMwrRAAhv AN W.Ww AMWi,,' - ', 'R, Research and Training programme on CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS (AssociationEURATOMINFR) FUSION I PLASMA PHYSICS ALFVEN LABORATORY ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN TRITA-ALF-2003-01 ISRN KTWALF/R--03/1 --SE Fusion potential for spherical and compact tokamaks Mikael Sandzelius misa6803 student. uu se Master project in physical electrotechnology 9 ETEN OCH Stockholm, 4th February 2003 The fv6n Laboratory Division of Fusion Plasma Physics Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm (Association EURATOMINFR) Printed by The Alfv6n Laboratory Division of Fusion Plasma Physics Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm Abstract The tokamak is the most successful fusion experiment today. Despite this, the conventional tokamak has a long way to go before being realized into an econom- ically viable power plant. In this master thesis work, two alternative tokamak configurations to the conventional tokamak has been studied, both of which could be realized to a lower cost. The fusion potential of the spherical and the compact tokamak have been examined with a comparison of the conventional tokamak in mind. The difficulties arising in the two configurations have been treated from a physical point of view concerning the fusion plasma and from a technological standpoint evolving around design, materials and engineering. Both advantages and drawbacks of either configuration have been treated relative to the conven- tional tokamak.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Reports
    MEETING REPORTS SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP ON field-reversed theta pinch (FRTP), and the Spheromak. The THE ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF FUSION first three of these are tokamak concepts. The OHTE and IGNITION EXPERIMENTS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, RFP are larger aspect ratio devices; they differ by the inclu- OCTOBER 29-30, 1981 sion of helical windings on the OHTE. The FRTP and Spheromak represent the compact tori. For each concept, an advocate spoke for 15 to 20 minutes explaining and INTRODUCTION answering questions. A synopsis of this discussion is given A key next step for fusion development is the achieve- in Table I. We amplify this by considering each concept ment of a "burning," i.e., ignited, fusion plasma. Not only sequentially. will this signal the start of an era of fusion power experi- ments, but it will enable an exhaustive study of the physics RIGGATRON Tokamak of a plasma where fusion product heating dominates. In- deed, there is growing confidence in the fusion community This program is currently funded and under way at that an ignition experiment might be carried out in a device INESCO, Inc., in La Jolla, California. The concept is to of relatively modest size, and at a cost that would be attrac- build an ignition experiment using technology that will tive in the near future. Consequently, the present workshop extrapolate directly into a reactor in the shortest possible was held in conjunction with the 9th Symposium on the time frame. The plan is to build a number of small, high Engineering Problems of Fusion Research [sponsored by field tokamaks to explore the parameter space available the University of Illinois (UI) Fusion Studies Laboratory] to this concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection of a Toroidal Fusion Reactor Concept for a Magnetic Fusion Production Reactor 1
    Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1987 Selection of a Toroidal Fusion Reactor Concept for a Magnetic Fusion Production Reactor 1 D. L. Jassby 2 The basic fusion driver requirements of a toroidal materials production reactor are consid- ered. The tokamak, stellarator, bumpy torus, and reversed-field pinch are compared with regard to their demonstrated performance, probable near-term development, and potential advantages and disadvantages if used as reactors for materials production. Of the candidate fusion drivers, the tokamak is determined to be the most viable for a near-term production reactor. Four tokamak reactor concepts (TORFA/FED-R, AFTR/ZEPHYR, Riggatron, and Superconducting Coil) of approximately 500-MW fusion power are compared with regard to their demands on plasma performance, required fusion technology development, and blanket configuration characteristics. Because of its relatively moderate requirements on fusion plasma physics and technology development, as well as its superior configuration of production blankets, the TORFA/FED-R type of reactor operating with a fusion power gain of about 3 is found to be the most suitable tokamak candidate for implementation as a near-term production reactor. KEY WORDS: Magnetic fusion production reactor; tritium production; fusion breeder; toroidal fusion reactor. 1. STUDY OBJECTIVES Section 2 of this paper establishes the basic requirements that the fusion neutron source must In this study we have identified the most viable satisfy. In Section 3, we compare various types of toroidal fusion driver that can meet the needs of a toroidal fusion concepts for which there has been at materials production facility to be operational in the least some significant development work.
    [Show full text]