Not long ago, from reading SciAm and the like I was given the impression that
commercial fusion reactors would be available in about 50 years.
Reading this... http://www.iter.org/ it seems to indicate less than 30
years. As energy costs go up, and more and more money continues to get put
into fusion research, I expect that number to keep decreasing.:D We can always
hope anyway. Now if only NASA could stop losing their darned probes...
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
Tomb said:
> [Tomb] When I see the words "confinement field" in the context of
Yeah, but can you say it in a bad Scot brogue?
2B^2
Tony said: they are looking for Q > 50. So far, the tokamak design has reached
the highest Q. The current problem is that plasma instabilities quickly halt
the fusion process. Very recently, computer models have shown that it may be
possible lengthen the stable regime through magnetic field feedback.
Basically, as instabilities occur, the confinement field is adjusted to wipe
them out.
[Tomb] When I see the words "confinement field" in the context of
magnetic fields and plasma instabilities, my eyes glaze over and I can hear
several Federation Engineers yelling "The confinement field is collapsing!".
"The plasma flux capacitor is suffering an avalanche overload and the warp
couplers are offline!" Argh! Treknobabble!;)
I believe that Q > 50 would have to be harnessed energy, not just produced
energy.
How will fusion work in the game future history?
Is it a sustained fusing of one or a few atoms at a time over a long period?
Is it periodic fusing of a larger number of atoms, collecting and storing the
energy?
Either method has difficulties.
Sustained fusion would have to extremely protected both from direct hits and
from being jostled. It may also have excessive heat and/or gas/vapor
discharges. And if you are not using all the energy each moment, it will be
wasted.
Periodic fusion would have to spend a good amount of space on batteries. It
may also take a somewhat substantial "charging" time (once a day?). It may be
as vulnerable to being jostled, but would not fall out of the sky, because of
a reactor failsafe.
Of course, you could have a blending of both, a sustained fusion that stores
the energy during low demand for high demand situations. However, you then
also get the weaknesses of both (more mass spent for batteries and to protect
the fusion reactor).
Larger fusion reactors, would probably be a blending of both, as they have
more room to deal with byproducts (heat, gas), have more shielding, and be
better protected.
But, again, when dealing with a universe with FTL and antigrav, you
_must_
have the ability to stretch credibility. So you may have the walnut size ion
drive, if you so wish.
I prefer some limitations on the fusion reactor to give a reason to take the
fuel cell or internal combustion engines. Otherwise, as soon as you reach the
fusion engine, your armor forces will be able to take anything else (no weapon
limitations, little logistics train, etc.) This is also why I assumed that
powerarmor used fuel cells rather than microfusion powerplants. And, of
course, I also like the idea that fusion plants would be quite finicky,
requiring increased maintenance.
Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
> How will fusion work in the game future history?
Both principles are possible, and it also depends on the time scale. A typical
internal combustion engine (e.g.a Diesel motor) would technically fit under
the second definition, as the fuel ignitions happen periodically, even if the
period is several 1000 times a minute. For most practical purposes, a Diesel
engine provides a continuous output of energy. A turbine, in contrast is
indeed a sustained energy source.
It is hard to envision a fusion power plant that produces large amounts of
energy at large intervals (say, every few hours or longer), nor does there
seeem to be a need for that.
> Either method has difficulties.
Not really. The fusion reactor itself is not really dangerous, no worse than
the boiler of a steam or a gasoline tank. A fusion engine using
electromagnetic confinement methods (Plasma or Z-pinch) will have very
fast control and damping systems anyway. These should be able to cope with any
mechanical jostling, too.
> It may also have excessive heat and/or gas/vapor
There will be enough energy to go around, as we have discussed. However, there
may be environmental concerns from too much heat output, and in a military
context, a strong heat source is undesirable versus enemies equipped with
thermal sensors.
> I prefer some limitations on the fusion reactor to give a
Minimum weights, sizes and power output seem very reasonable restrrictions on
fusion engines.
> Otherwise, as soon as you reach the fusion engine, your armor
You still need food, spare parts, lubricants, drinkin water, ammunition
(unless you also have energy weapons)...
> This is also why I assumed that powerarmor used fuel cells rather
It seems reasonable to equip small vehicles or power armour with a different
power plant from larger ones.
Greetings
Quoting KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de:
> Bell, Brian K (Contractor) schrieb:
I have heard tell of an experimental reactor that had a glitch in the
containment. The fusion stream impacted the side of the reactor with quite
some force. Enough to move the (not small) casing across the floor.
If you ruptured the casing and the containment, I doubt the plasma stream
would be healthy for people nearby.
> > It may also have excessive heat and/or gas/vapor
> There will be enough energy to go around, as we have discussed.
There is some radiation output which would require shielding. There is also