Xref: utzoo sci.physics:6301 sci.space:10056 rec.arts.sf-lovers:22858 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!mimsy!prometheus!pmk From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,rec.arts.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Fusion --- a Second Look Keywords: fusion, aneutronic, plasma, power, propulsion Message-ID: <1115@prometheus.UUCP> Date: 15 Mar 89 11:38:38 GMT References: <35164@vax1.tcd.ie> <1140@wpi.wpi.edu> <15453@cup.portal.com> <1114@prometheus.UUCP> <269@v7fs1.UUCP> Reply-To: pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 Lines: 93 In article <269@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <1114@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >>We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK >>plasmoid, ... >> ... consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium + >>helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible. ... That means that >>operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with >... Do you have any more information? I'd like to take >a look at it. ... . . (whatever happened to Migma?) The reference noted in my previous article appears in a supplement to "FUSION TECHNOLOGY" which covers reviewed papers from The American Nuclear Society's Salt Lake Meeting on "The Technology of Fusion Energy". The proceedings are just now being shipped by the printer to libraries and participants, although I have not yet received my copy. The article title is: 'PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications'. The article also briefly discusses MIGMA. Basically, progress on Migma has been quite steady to date. However, it must reach several orders of magnitude higher plasma density before it will be commercially successful. Each order of magnitude increase in density represents a new development or research challenge and an evolved MIGMA device. Each level requires millions of dollars and at least one or two years time. Also, there is a chorus of theorists chanting "instability" at each level of density, but so far so good. It would be great if Migma and the PLASMAK(tm) concept both worked. The former would be a sort of thermonuclear birthday candle, while the latter, with its deca-gigawatt output, would be more like an electric cutting torch by comparison. >I think, though, that pushing "no radiation" in an attempt to placate >those who run screaming in horror at the word "radiation" is futile. Not Quite so!! That is not the engineering reason for greatly minimizing or zeroing the "radiation problem." Let me explain and put aside the biological/environmental effects which can be discussed elsewhere. Certain applications need very high power density with little cooling. To fly from the earth's surface to Mars surface and turn around and fly back again within four to six weeks, requires an extremely low mass but exceptionally powerful energy device that can heat planetary atmospheric gases for reaction mass during boost phase and then "transform" to closed cycle electric power generation, which in turn drives a small reaction mass to great velocities, i. e. a plasmoid accelerator interplanetary rocket engine. The very energetic (fast) neutron flux from a D-T reaction carries most of the reaction energy and would penetrate a dense gas blanket and deposit that energy in the inertial compression driven walls. The walls would not be insulated from the fusion energy as they would be by a dense blanket gas in an aneutronic burner. Consequently, they would change state (i. e. melt to liquid or sublimate to gas or plasma). Therefore, NEUTRONIC burners (as with D-T) can NOT burn at much power density. Tokamaks face the "wall power limit" and that results in a few watts per cubic centimeter from the fuel plasma. Consequently, tokamaks are colossal in size. By comparison the volume of the compressed thermonuclear plasma in a 60 hertz three phase (180 pulse burns/second) 10 gigawatt PLASMAK burner is about that of a small plum. It is only natural that if the aneutronic fuel contains millions of times the energy per unit mass as common chemical fuels, then the burn power density should also be substantially higher, and with a developed PLASMAK device it will be. Yet there is no risk that it will become unstable and ignite or explode outside of a controlled burn that takes place in the normally functioning engine. The fuel itself is not dangerous. On the other hand NEUTRONIC fuels such as tritium or certain plutonium/uranium isotopes are hazardous. >radioactivity of fission plants can be dealt with, too, as the French >are so ably demonstrating. Hmmmm? I understand they handle their alcohol a diluted sip at a time so well, that, it is now impossible to find an imbibing French continental who can remember the details of his/her own experiences in the second world war. Handling is relative. >.. . If we don't figure out some way to ignore the technophobes, in Probably a form of xenophobe. I worry more about the investor that a few years ago considered IBM clones a "really high risk," and the tons of people apparently hooked on credit instead of piling up stock in companies on the cutting edge of technology. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+