The scale of interest is commercial power generators and the national laboratory-scale prototypes of the power plant. It is particularly interesting to see if different technological approaches (tokamak, pinch, inertial confinement, etc.) are more suitable to particular scales.
Dear Vyacheslav N Romanov ,
As you know, in Tokamaks it will be necessary to obtain the critical state and obtain a nuclear fusion reactor to later check necessary adjustments for a possible scale reduction.
So far this is going in opposite direction, scaling up (JET to ITER).
Thanks for the question.
Regards,
Wiltgen
PS: In 1997 Tokamak JET set record for closest approach to scientific breakeven, reaching Q = 0.67, producing 16 MW of fusion power while injecting 24 MW of thermal power to heat the fuel.
Filipe Wiltgen Not in the U.S. it is going in the opposite direction; there are plenty of commercial start-ups building small-scale prototypes right now. Q ~ B^3; and it is hard to scale-up advances in high-field science. Cost ~ weight is a factor too.
Also, the true, engineering Q (heat-to-total power input - not to confuse with artificial "fusion power" input) record achieved at JET was only 2%, not 67%. (https://news.newenergytimes.net/2017/10/06/the-iter-power-amplification-myth/)
Vyacheslav N Romanov So you have to discuss the proven and recorded fact directly with the people in Culham regarding the JET record. Which seems absurd nonsense.
All researchers in tokamak fusion community involved in thermo-nuclear fusion controlled by magnetic field in Tokamaks will tell you that scale should always be larger.
After all, don't you think that the whole world united in must largest consortium between countries until today with incalculable values does not know what it is doing? Pity all of us!
Its not real.
Vyacheslav N Romanov your link is crazy guys! You have to be careful to indicate this.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Inorganic Materials
- Ceramics
- Glass