FAQ - Q in fusion energy. The lie. The Propaganda

If you wonder how/why fusion works, or how/why the Fusor works, look here first.
Post Reply
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

FAQ - Q in fusion energy. The lie. The Propaganda

Post by Richard Hull »

I have been very impressed by the recent flurry of physics videos produced on Magellan by the physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder. She speaks physics the way it should be spoken with all the hard truth, limitations and current developments exposed with their faults and limitations. What on Earth is more flawed, faulty and misrepresented than fusion as relates to usable energy on the grid. I have spoken to this for many years now. Give her a listen for she has real numbers that she quotes to yank the brain of even the most hopeful back into the real world of physics, engineering and the effort of getting fusion energy out of the wall outlet in our homes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

FAQs are about Frequently Asked Questions. This should put the facts related to the question..."How far are we along the path to usable fusion based electrical energy?"

Hard sayins' for sure. She puts the research physicists preaching fusion in their place, giving deference to the engineering end of things which is often shoved aside while we are lead down the primrose path.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: FAQ - Q in fusion energy. The lie. The Propaganda

Post by Dennis P Brown »

I agree that Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is a gold mine of accurate and informative facts about physics. Her points are always spot on and absolutely based on solid physics.

That the Q-value that every single energy producing fusion machine made to date is complete nonsense is, sadly, all too correct. Ditto on her pointing out in another Youtube that Field Theory (the so-called "Most accurate theory in all Physics) predicts that our universe must have an energy 10^+117 orders of magnitude bigger then measured! This is often called the greatest bad prediction in all of physics*.

All I can say is she isn't afraid to point these issues out in a manner that, like you said, is easy to understand.

* I'd agree it is the worse prediction that is finite but the Black Hole singularity issue is right up there, too; that is, with their infinity problem - which, by the way, is also a problem with the "Big Bang" theory but that is generally ignored. I think that at the next HEAS, if you want, I can give a formal talk on these (and other) issues that current physics get's wildly wrong and show a simple methodology that mathematically corrects many of these issues.
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2007
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: FAQ - Q in fusion energy. The lie. The Propaganda

Post by Frank Sanns »

I think it is fair to say that BOTH measures of Q are important.

The first measure being of the Lawson criteria. If this cannot be achieved then none of the other energy balance really matters. Q>>1 is success.

The next measure is how many multistory buildings and energy sources are required to achieve this Q.

Both are equally important in the end but they give different information. It is the funded organizations and media that cherry pick and mix the numbers. Unfortunately the public, policy makers, and financial contributors have no idea. They are ignorant to common sense thinking and picking this apart on their own. Therein lies the problem. Lie, mix in facts and pseudo facts, and dangle in a get rich scheme and you have a line of people with money ready to hand it over to you. It is societal as much as it was when the Brooklyn Bride was up for sale. If anybody has any cash, it might not be too late to get in on that. My PayPal address is ..................
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - Q in fusion energy. The lie. The Propaganda

Post by Richard Hull »

This is the kind of a FAQ that can have good discussion. I only put it in as a FAQ as it is a great factual explanation to those looking at future power fusion. Dennis a talk on the matters you noted at next years big event would be welcome. Remind me of it if you sign up for next years October event.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: FAQ - Q in fusion energy. The lie. The Propaganda

Post by Dennis P Brown »

Richard, I will and promise it will be less boring then my Manned Mar's paper!

I think a great example of buildings to cost relative to "Q" can be a bit misleading is the W-7X stellarator built by the Germans. It achieves the ability of holding a power plant level plasma fully stable for well over a minute (with 50 MW pumped in). Due to heat load, that is the max time allowed - not issues of instability. With water cooling tiles in the plasma chamber (finished next year) they will aim for 30 minutes. This is all done with deuterium only (no neutrons for them) and so has a "Q" of zero. But holding a power plant level plasma at temps needed for fusion for 30 minutes will be a game changer and have no real parallel in any previous fusion device.

That said, look at how complex and difficult building that stellarator was and the idea of making it go nuclear (massive radiation) and then trying to shield the magnets and have the chamber last long enough for a power plant is beyond difficult. Fusion will not be viable for many years yet no matter what the W-7X achieves. ITER is a lost cause and I will not discus that mess at all. NIF is about five orders of magnitude under 'Q=1" but through games, they created a new definition of "Q" to allow them to achieve that phony value. Enough said about that. Don't think there are any other games going on that are serious - MIT and the host of make believe systems being built are just pie in the sky soon to be forgotten.

Fusion, even with a stable plasma using a stellarator, is just too expensive to build as an energy source. As for "Q"= 1, not too likely even for a proto-type power plant reactor, even if built in the next twenty years.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: FAQ - Q in fusion energy. The lie. The Propaganda

Post by Richard Hull »

I see you are drifting towards a firm understanding of the limits of power ready controlled fusion in any sort of near future without my famed "lucky donkey". The lucky donkey need not be a person, It could be a wild, out of the box concept paradigm that turns out to be simple to demonstrate. (probably discovered or uncovered by a single person)

I will comment.......If the stellarator does use only deuterium gas and achieves a sustained fusion power level plasma for 30 minutes.....There will be D-D fusion with all the associated debris, including a gang o' neutrons. I hope they achieve the full power level plasma temperature for fusion, of course, but they will have neutron issues. Big issues. Maybe just use protium gas. (common hydrogen) This way they can reach real D-D and D-T thermal levels without any real H-H fusion and no neuts.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Post Reply

Return to “FAQs: Fusion and Fusor Theory”