New computer model accurate describes behavior of electrons at fusion temperatures

RAMOSS · Oct 7, 2017

When it comes to being able to model how electrons behave, there was a big issue in being able to accurately predict how things would happen when the electrons were at the temperature that would be needed for fusion reactions. There has been a major breakthrough in being able to model how electrons behave at that temperature.

Now, this doesn't seem like all that much, but it has some major significance. Before, when doing research on fusion, they had to actually BUILD something, and then see how things worked with that configuration. Now, they will be able to simulate things, and see flaws or strengths in specific fusion reactor designs, rather than building the whole thing, and finding out later.

This is a cost savings, because they can reject bad designs without building it. It's a time savings too... since they don't have to build it, but can rerun a simulation with a different configuration.

We finally know the weird way electrons behave during fusion-like conditions - ScienceAlert

Kal'Stang · Oct 7, 2017

Re: New computer model accurate describes behavior of elections at fusion temperatures

Umm...think you're talking about electrons...not elections. I normally wouldn't say anything but you used "elections" several times over in place of "electrons". If you wish I can fix it for you.

RAMOSS · Oct 7, 2017

Re: New computer model accurate describes behavior of elections at fusion temperatures

Kal'Stang said:
Umm...think you're talking about electrons...not elections. I normally wouldn't say anything but you used "elections" several times over in place of "electrons". If you wish I can fix it for you.

damn .. You right.. I am getting such a brain fart. Electrons... .. that's what happens when you don't sleep one night, then are out all day doing stuff. Go ahead and fix it.

EnigmaO01 · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
When it comes to being able to model how electrons behave, there was a big issue in being able to accurately predict how things would happen when the electrons were at the temperature that would be needed for fusion reactions. There has been a major breakthrough in being able to model how electrons behave at that temperature.

Now, this doesn't seem like all that much, but it has some major significance. Before, when doing research on fusion, they had to actually BUILD something, and then see how things worked with that configuration. Now, they will be able to simulate things, and see flaws or strengths in specific fusion reactor designs, rather than building the whole thing, and finding out later.

This is a cost savings, because they can reject bad designs without building it. It's a time savings too... since they don't have to build it, but can rerun a simulation with a different configuration.

We finally know the weird way electrons behave during fusion-like conditions - ScienceAlert

Sounds like we are getting closer and closer to being able to harness fusion. I just wonder if we will allow he world to use it or some corp or country will keep it to themselves?

RAMOSS · Oct 10, 2017

EnigmaO01 said:
Sounds like we are getting closer and closer to being able to harness fusion. I just wonder if we will allow he world to use it or some corp or country will keep it to themselves?

Well, a number of the projects are being done by multiple governments (such the the stellerator), however, there are at least 2 of 3 private companies that are working on it because of the new technologies. (for one,the superconducting magnates can now be bought off the shelf in a tape form). Boeing skunkworks is working on a 'compact fusion generator' for one, and then Tokamak Energy is going to be bringing their test reactor online in 2018... This program will make a lot of the design work much cheaper.

If the skunkworks can make good their intention of having small fusion recators that can fit on a large truck, that would really be interesting. the cost of electricity and power plants would go way way down. .

EnigmaO01 · Oct 10, 2017

As long as someone doesn't make it so the cost of acquiring the technology it isn't so high we are back where we started from.

longview · Oct 10, 2017

There may be a danger, if the assumptions used in the model are incorrect.
A positive modeled result, could led researchers down a rabbit hole.

RAMOSS · Oct 10, 2017

longview said:
There may be a danger, if the assumptions used in the model are incorrect.
A positive modeled result, could led researchers down a rabbit hole.

That is why the predictions are checked. This model was able to accurately 'predict' the behavior based on what we do know now

longview · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
That is why the predictions are checked. This model was able to accurately 'predict' the behavior based on what we do know now

A functional model would be really great.
I wonder if they can figure out what Pons and Fleischman saw in their lab in 1989.

RAMOSS · Oct 10, 2017

longview said:
A functional model would be really great.
I wonder if they can figure out what Pons and Fleischman saw in their lab in 1989.

As far as I can tell, that particular experiment was just badly setup up and measured. There still are 'true believers' out there, but until such time as you can have an experiment that is testable and repeatable on a consistent basis, it's not going to go anywhere. It's a shame, cause it would have been nice.

longview · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
As far as I can tell, that particular experiment was just badly setup up and measured. There still are 'true believers' out there, but until such time as you can have an experiment that is testable and repeatable on a consistent basis, it's not going to go anywhere. It's a shame, cause it would have been nice.

I think it was Pons who described what he saw, (and had lots of trouble replicating)
He had a roll of palladium foil in a 1 liter of deuterium.
The supply was a current limited 9 volt battery.
After several hours of the experiment, he was not seeing what he was expecting, and turned off the battery switch
before going home. As he was leaving his lab, a sound attracted his attention.
The foil roll was white hot, and sent a column of deuterium steam to the ceiling of the lab,
and in the process boiled away most of the contents of the beaker.
He knew the 9 v battery could not have provided sufficient energy to turn several hundred ml of
deuterium into steam.
I cannot help but think about semiconductors, Scientist knew Silicon displayed odd electrical characteristics,
as far back as the early 1920's, but none of it could be replicated.
Several decades on, purer grades of silicon allowed the development of semiconductors.
I have never thought those two professors bet their carriers on a fraud, they saw something, and believed it was something
beyond normal physics.

RAMOSS · Oct 10, 2017

longview said:
I think it was Pons who described what he saw, (and had lots of trouble replicating)
He had a roll of palladium foil in a 1 liter of deuterium.
The supply was a current limited 9 volt battery.
After several hours of the experiment, he was not seeing what he was expecting, and turned off the battery switch
before going home. As he was leaving his lab, a sound attracted his attention.
The foil roll was white hot, and sent a column of deuterium steam to the ceiling of the lab,
and in the process boiled away most of the contents of the beaker.
He knew the 9 v battery could not have provided sufficient energy to turn several hundred ml of
deuterium into steam.
I cannot help but think about semiconductors, Scientist knew Silicon displayed odd electrical characteristics,
as far back as the early 1920's, but none of it could be replicated.
Several decades on, purer grades of silicon allowed the development of semiconductors.
I have never thought those two professors bet their carriers on a fraud, they saw something, and believed it was something
beyond normal physics.

There is a difference between 'fraud' and mistake.

longview · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
There is a difference between 'fraud' and mistake.

I know, but they did both loose their positions, and I doubt they risked their jobs on a mistake.
The description was orders of magnitude beyond a mistake.
Research continues quietly, someone will figure out what they saw.

RAMOSS · Oct 10, 2017

longview said:
I know, but they did both loose their positions, and I doubt they risked their jobs on a mistake.
The description was orders of magnitude beyond a mistake.
Research continues quietly, someone will figure out what they saw.

There are some reports among the people who are trying to figure it out (they are few) that there is an occational repeat. No one figured out how to do it consistently, and I doubt that what ever is happening is fusion.

longview · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
There are some reports among the people who are trying to figure it out (they are few) that there is an occational repeat. No one figured out how to do it consistently, and I doubt that what ever is happening is fusion.

Yea, I know, this was a very heated discussion on the old usenet when it was happening.
The only person who seemed to accurately describe what might have happened, comes across like a huckster.
Dr. Randell Mills, says hydrogen is not really at ground state, but is at a stable state.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/super-controversial-brilliant-light.html

RAMOSS · Oct 10, 2017

longview said:
Yea, I know, this was a very heated discussion on the old usenet when it was happening.
The only person who seemed to accurately describe what might have happened, comes across like a huckster.
Dr. Randell Mills, says hydrogen is not really at ground state, but is at a stable state.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/super-controversial-brilliant-light.html

SInce he's a medical doctor, not a physicists, it's not in his area of expertise, and that does raise red flags.. and the fact his company can't show that their claims are true.

longview · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
SInce he's a medical doctor, not a physicists, it's not in his area of expertise, and that does raise red flags.. and the fact his company can't show that their claims are true.

They have had a lot of people look at what he is doing, and some of the compounds he had
have never been seen before ( amalgams of the Hydrogen at some subset of normal ground state.)
We will have to wait and see, I would not automatically discount him because he is a MD though.

PirateMk1 · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
Well, a number of the projects are being done by multiple governments (such the the stellerator), however, there are at least 2 of 3 private companies that are working on it because of the new technologies. (for one,the superconducting magnates can now be bought off the shelf in a tape form). Boeing skunkworks is working on a 'compact fusion generator' for one, and then Tokamak Energy is going to be bringing their test reactor online in 2018... This program will make a lot of the design work much cheaper.

If the skunkworks can make good their intention of having small fusion recators that can fit on a large truck, that would really be interesting. the cost of electricity and power plants would go way way down. .

The cost is going to depend on what type of fusion they are doing and its byproducts especially radiation byproducts. Hydrogen Helium 3 or Hydrogen Boron reactions are the only reactions that have minimal byproduct reactions. Most everything else requires shielding and have copious amounts of hard radiation which then saturates the containment and extraction vessels. That is what makes fusion expensive.

RAMOSS · Oct 10, 2017

PirateMk1 said:
The cost is going to depend on what type of fusion they are doing and its byproducts especially radiation byproducts. Hydrogen Helium 3 or Hydrogen Boron reactions are the only reactions that have minimal byproduct reactions. Most everything else requires shielding and have copious amounts of hard radiation which then saturates the containment and extraction vessels. That is what makes fusion expensive.

Even the 'hard' radiation is much much less than the conventional fission reactor. The neutrinos will effect the containment vessel, which will be radioactive for about 50 to 100 years (verses thousands of years for fission), and you won't have to have radioactive fuel to move.

PirateMk1 · Oct 10, 2017

longview said:
There may be a danger, if the assumptions used in the model are incorrect.
A positive modeled result, could led researchers down a rabbit hole.

This will be similar to the aerodynamic models we use for engineering planes now. More information will be gathered and imputed into the model and over time it will be come quite robust and able to predict will excellent accuracy normal events. Its simply a time thing now. They will use the model, build and test their machines and determine the accuracy of the model and adjust. Wash rinse repeat. Eventually the model will be accurate enough to not bother with building multiple prototypes.

PirateMk1 · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
There are some reports among the people who are trying to figure it out (they are few) that there is an occational repeat. No one figured out how to do it consistently, and I doubt that what ever is happening is fusion.

Most likely a weak nuclear fission reaction.

PirateMk1 · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
Even the 'hard' radiation is much much less than the conventional fission reactor. The neutrinos will effect the containment vessel, which will be radioactive for about 50 to 100 years (verses thousands of years for fission), and you won't have to have radioactive fuel to move.

You know that fuel is still good right? We can still burn it if we wanted.

PirateMk1 · Oct 10, 2017

RAMOSS said:
Even the 'hard' radiation is much much less than the conventional fission reactor. The neutrinos will effect the containment vessel, which will be radioactive for about 50 to 100 years (verses thousands of years for fission), and you won't have to have radioactive fuel to move.

Its still radioactive and you know how people are about that.