NJ lab claims plasma fusion breakthrough

Basically, Ketlan ...

... They touched a very small match to a very small campfire in an itty, bitty fire pit, watched it produce less heat than that provided by the match, and couldn't figure out how to refuel the campfire to make it sustainable enough to make more heat than provided by the match, nor how to take advantage of the heat.

Still, it's a start ... and no radiation side affects, either.

Onwards & upwards ... I'm hoping to see usable fusion reactors in my lifetime.

Re: So, in about another 20 years we'll have a viable fusion reactor then?

You got one already. Try looking up during the daytime.

Re: Note *where* this is being reported.

The energy extraction concept is actually simpler than tokamak and the like, they are proposing to use direct generation (the reaction should produce a stream of helium ions) vs steam turbines. Which, in theory, should be much more efficient.

This has a benefit as the net energy gain can be smaller.

Tokamak needs about 5x energy gain to be cost effective.

Focus Fusion needs about 2x energy gain to be cost effective.

They haven't actually achieved pb11 reaction yet, but this demonstrates they can achieve the temperatures required with their reactor design for a pb11 reaction to occur.

Re: No radioactivity?

Essentially, there's no difference except that the term 'alpha particle' is only used when the helium nucleus is ejected from another atomic nucleus as a form of radioactive decay.

I've been following DPFF myself and the electrons from the hydrogen and boron atoms supposedly fly off in the opposite direction due to the magnetic field in the fusion chamber. In the DPFF concept, the electrons and helium nuclei are meant to fly off in opposite directions along the axis of the fusion chamber and pass through particle decelerators (yes, that's a particle accelerator but working the other way round) which is where the energy is extracted from the reaction. I assume they're just a set of solenoids and the charged particles induce currents in them electromagnetically but I'm a CompSci graduate...

Re: No radioactivity?

No difference between helium nuclei and alpha particles, other than the energy they have, but alpha radiation is stopped by a bit of air, and as the helium nucleus slows down, it acquires two electrons from a reputable donor, turning it into delicious He, which is a good thing, because we're running awfully short of the stuff.

As to the atoms, well, the enormously high temperature makes the electrons go "I'm outta here!", leaving just the nuclei. In case of H, this is just a single proton, and in 11B, there are 5 protons and a 6 neutrons. Combine the two, as the article you linked to explains, and you end up with a single nucleus of 6 protons and 6 neutrons. These, however, are unstable for reasons far beyond my comprehension (and that of most mere mortals, top boffins excluded), and split into 3 He nuclei with 2 protons and 2 neutrons each + a rather decent amount of energy. As mentioned above, the alpha particles thus created are then slowed down and turn into lovely helium, making this almost too good to be true, if they ever manage to scale it up.

Re: No radioactivity?

Not entirely no radiation.

You do get some neutrons from reactions occurring with other products inside the reactor, but nothing like what you get in a tokamak.

Aneutronic, isn't completely without neutrons in the real world.

You get a lot of high energy x-rays from the reaction as well.

Re: 20 years away!

I can't remember where (some TV program) but I once saw a fuller version of the 20 year theory. Its not 20 years from now. Its 20 years from when we start spending real money on the problem. The same program pointed out we currently spend more on novelty ringtones.

The journey time from London to New York is measured in hours, but only once you get on a plane. If you insist on swimming then its going to be longer.

The theoretical production reactor would probably fit in a shipping container and produce about 5MW.

You do the math! ;)