Univ. of Wis.: Inertial electrostatic confinement fusion.

Mondays Diary by BostonJoe was about a video @ Google. The video was of a talk given by a DR. Bussard, concerning his research on inertial electrostatic confinement fusion. Cool right? Well I watched the video and noted that DR. Bussard mentioned the University of Wisonsin @ Madison, they had a similar program. Like most of us, I am one who usually looks around for a second opinion. So I went to the university web site, and low and behold....

Dr Kulcinski holds the "GRID".

The "GRID" in the chamber, operating.

University of Wisconsin @ Madison IEC Fusion Advanced Fuels Project home page.

Potential uses include electrical power plants & Medical isotope production.

SO it seems that Dr. Bussard has stepped ahead of the pack with his so called upgraded Farnsworth Fusor. Though if you watch the Google video, it shows 2 of Dr. Bussards early grid designs, that are similar to the effort produced by the University of Wisconsin.

At focusfusion.org I found a review for the Bussard video

Steinke:  This is an interesting video.  It is quite technical and the slides he displays don’t come out very well on the video so it can be hard to understand at times.  But what he’s talking about is a big development.

The Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor is one of the earliest designs for a fusion reactor.  It works well to demonstrate fusion reactions, but has not seemed very likely to produce net energy.  Bussard, et. al. seem to have overcome a fundamental difficulty which could allow this design to become a power producing reactor.

So yes, Dr. Bussard is not the only one thinking along these lines, it may soon be proven that Dr. Bussard has made the breakthru of a lifetime. I hope so.

DR Bussard speaks of Saturns moon Titan, and being able to get there in 74 days, Dr Kulcinski of the University of Wisconsin also thinks highly of IEC fusion potential, on the moon. Dr. Kulcinski has a wonderfull pdf on the mining of Helium on the moon and the part that fusion would play in making this possible. I am nearly 50 years old, will I see this in my lifetime? I hope so.

One inate element of me being human, is hope. I write this with the hope that IEC fusion can be the energy system of the this century. Hope that Peak Oil just became old news. Hope that Global warming can be dealt with in a positive manner. Hope that humans can explore the solar system. Hope that we can do better than Dick Cheneys double super secret energy meetings.

I hope, therefore I am human.

•  Tip jar, Props to Boston Joe for turning me onto

  this subject. See the intro.

  by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:13:30 PM PDT

•  Solar Rooftops = Feasible Solution

  This fusion stuff is pie-in-the-sky.  Solar PV technology is a better solution, one that's practical and feasible TODAY.

  Lets HOPE our leaders will wake up and provide incentives and tax breaks so that we - like Germany and Japan - can have solar rooftops.. and a future.

  by bincbom on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:15:19 PM PDT

  •  Is that really true?

    A housetop of solar panels can provide electricity for a house. What about a 100-story skyscraper? Cities are still going to need some sort of fuel-based power for a long time.

    by dennisl on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:21:06 PM PDT

    •  Falling Air

      would work in tall buildings. You need a shaft that rotates as the cool air falls through it. You can get similar results with hot air rising.

      Problem is the effcinecy is low, as with solar and our society is using more power not less (computers, i-pod, ect).

      by Something the Dog Said on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:30:56 PM PDT

    •  The Idea Is Solar Rooftops Everywhere

      What's being done in civilized countries is that they're installing PV rooftops everywhere they can.  The power is not just used by the house/building with the PV roof.  Instead, the power is put back onto the grid in the local area.

      Even though this might not be enough power to replace conventionally-fueled power plants, it would be enough to replace more than half of our current needs.  And the cost is now low.  In fact, PV-roof power is less expensive than nuclear.. TODAY.

      And think about the environmental impact.  Wow.  There just isn't any.  Except that buildings would need less air conditioning because a lot of the previous "solar gain" would be turned into electricity.

      We're INSANE if we don't do this.  But then again, America really is insane, so I don't expect that we will.

      It's not flashy or Buck Rogers, just a good, sound approach to generating electricity that will allow the human race to survive the 21st century.

      by bincbom on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:39:33 PM PDT

      •  Environmental impact

        And think about the environmental impact.  Wow.  There just isn't any.

        Excuse me, but aren't you assuming that that the production of PV panels uses no resources, consumes no energy, and leaves no waste?  It might very well be true that the environmental impact would be less than our current power-generation system, but you need to show it with data that take those externalities into account.

        by ebohlman on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:41:43 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    and as far as Energy solutions in general, I vote for the most de-centralized power generation possible, no matter the tech (solar, wind, water, geothermal, tidal)

    as far as space transport, solar sails could provide the most elegant way to cruise the system.

    Still, in both cases - we'd be foolish not to research & develop fusion or other promising techs - just NOT at the cost of undercutting the soft techs. And I make a major exception where it comes to nuclear fission plants. Simply one of the worst ideas ever. Stupid way to boil water.

    by ornerydad on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:24:02 PM PDT

    •  not quite the stupidest idea.

      That would be grinding up charcoal, burning it and putting the waste into the environment.

      by mbkennel on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:27:24 PM PDT

  •  What about houses that don't have south facing

    roofs or houses that have large trees in their yards.  My house has a lot of square feet on top but in the winter the sun is too low in the southern sky to generate much power on my east/west facing roof and in teh summer the two oak trees in my yard would block most of the sunlight.

    by Dr Colossus on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:26:08 PM PDT

    •  Solar rooftop system

      My system has half the panels on SE side and half on SW side. Yes I had to cut 3 trees (lots of firewood) but worth it because my electric bill for last year was zero.

      by side pocket on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:39:51 PM PDT

      •  I had thanksgiving dinner in a solar house

        100 sq. miles of PV, wind, and fusion are the combo that can save the human race.... otherwise we face the Dick Cheney Mad Max vision.

        by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:46:36 PM PDT

  •  No offense bincbom, but are you paying

    attention?
    Dr. Bussard is the former Assistant Director of the AEC. The guy has a pedigree a mile long.

    Yes, we need PV. about 100 sq. miles in this country. But Damn, watch the video, check out the supporting programs at the Univ. of Wisconsin.

    I'm guessing you didnt really check this out, I ask that you do, please.

    by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:28:03 PM PDT

    •  uninformed opinions....

      ...would be laughable but that they are sometimes contagious among uninformed individuals.

      Having worked on design engineering for utility-scale wind projects, I can say with certainty that even if we make maximum utilization of wind and solar and conservation, we still need nuclear fission in the mix in a significant way.  

      Progress in fusion always intrigues me, though I don't believe we should be holding out hope for short-term breakthroughs or treating fusion like a miraculous panacea.  We need to use the climate-clean sources we have right now, and plan to become sustainable on those sources.  Then, if and when we get a viable fusion reactor, we can rejoice, take our time scaling it up to commercial viability, and then find good use for the additional energy.  

      And above & beyond all else, we have got to reduce population by about 75% or nothing else we do is going to make a bit of difference.  

      by G2geek on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:44:35 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        ...about population...is really the main problem

        with fewer people to support...so many of our problems just GO AWAY

        we'd need less energy....fewer environmental issues...we wouldn't be eating so many fish that the oceans are depleted, etc etc

        by RumsfeldResign on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:58:56 PM PDT

        •  Need volunteers

          Problem is, we also need volunteers for depopulation ...  and nobody wants to step up.

          Me included.

          by thiroy on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:18:22 PM PDT

          •  aye, there's the rub mate

            by RumsfeldResign on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:20:01 PM PDT

          •  My family

            dies with me.
            As a child I made the decision not to reproduce for pollution concerns. I only have a few decades left, which I'm spending as useful as possible.

            by parryander on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:24:51 PM PDT

          •  depopulation volunteers

            It can be done gradually, maybe, if there's enough time; but lots of people have started on this, starting I betcha' in the 60's???

            I'm eldest of 3, my husband is eldest of 5, and we have one.  

            My brother has one and my sister has none*.  

            His 4 sibs have 9 biologicals & 2 adopteds among them, so ... that's 8 in this generation, 13 in the next -- under replacement level.  

            *(No, I'm not counting blended families -- my brother-in-law's first family would throw ALL our virtue right out the window! 8-))

            by chimene on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

      •  Right on G2geek

        DId ya watch the google video?

        by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:12:39 PM PDT

  •  pie in the sky?

    So is the kind of power storage required to make it possible for either solar or wind to become a full replacement for coal / nuclear.

    The problem with solar / wind power is that when the sun shines or the wind blows isn't necessarily when electrical demand is.

    Priced PV solutions that include power storage for the home that doesn't involve buying and selling power to/from the grid?

    by alizard on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:42:16 PM PDT

•  There are fundamental limitations

  on potential power output in this kind of device, unfortunately.

  I thought it seemed like a clever idea at first, but there are sufficiently major problems that it is not presently considered a feasible means of producing power by most plasma physicists.

  See:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11412

  The essential "initially clever" idea is to try to have the fusion ions not be in a 'thermal' (Maxwellian) velocity distribution, but have a higher fraction than normal be very fast.  This is because fusion happens only on those rare conditions  which have very high energy and can overcome the mutual repulsion.

  Unfortunately, the reality is that near collisions which are not sufficiently energetic or head-on to produce fusion---which are far more common than the direct hits---end up deflecting the ions in chaotic, and virtually random directions, producing the usual thermal distribution very quickly.

  This is the central reason why nuclear fusion has been very hard compared to nuclear fission.  In fusion, you have to squeeze together two positively charged nuclei which repel one another very strongly.  Only if you really ram them together just right will they fuse.

  By constrast, in nuclear fission (nuclear power plant) is it is a neutron, which has no charge, which strikes the positively charged Uranium nucleus to cause a reaction.  The Uranium and neutron don't repel one another so it can slide right in.

  by mbkennel on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:26:01 PM PDT

  •  I think the basic difference is

    ...that most fusion money has gone toroidal. SO is it fair to say that the conventional wisdom is toroidal? And if that is so, untill a full scale proof of concept is demo'ed, would the conventional wisdom be prone to nay saying?

    Bussard is not the only one saying this..

    Starting with 100MWe power plants, then base load plants:

    http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/...

    by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:06:03 PM PDT

•  We are a strange animal.

  There are many ways of defining the human condition.  Savagery and ambivalence are the most frequent.  It's important from time to time that we acknowledge that hope is as much a part of our heritage as anything else.

  by electricgrendel on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:26:44 PM PDT

•  "Life Will Find a Way"

  Remember wanting to punch Goldblum when he kept saying that?

  Same with science.

  BTW: That goes for nukes as well.

  by Heronymous Cowherd on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:32:12 PM PDT

  •  Notice they had to knock Jeff cold?

    in the second reel to turn off the exposition.

    But he did nail Geena Davis, you gotta give him credit for that.

    by bernardpliers on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:43:25 PM PDT

•  Too cool! Thanks for this.

  by MadScientist on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:43:40 PM PDT

•  Long been alternate fusion theories

  And people claiming it's possible (in theory) to build relatively small fusion reactors. Even "cold fusion" never quit went away.

  by bernardpliers on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:58:24 PM PDT

  •  small fusion reactors have/are

    a dime a dozen, going back decades.

    In the Field of IEC

    There seems to be 2 Universities and Dr. Bussard following the IEC idea..

    I think its important to note that proof of concept at a commercial scale seems to be the next step.

    by Roger Fox on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:16:57 PM PDT

•  My mind is blown

  I always knew Philo Farnsworth as the father of television (sort of my own grandpa, in a way, as I was raised by TV).  I had no idea he came up with an apparatus for fusion.

  by Crashing Vor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:15:30 PM PDT

•  Bush/Cheney diffuses fusion, confusingly

  As long as these fossil fuel dinosaur pea brains are still around, the only energy alternatives we will see are Regular or Premium.

  by KEVIN SCHMIDT STERLING VA on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:35:40 PM PDT