Did Lockheed Martin Solve Nuclear Fusion?

Holding MY breath!

Substitute "reactor" with "bomb" and you get...........

Fusion Bombs (reactors)

Fission bombs worked, but they weren't very efficient. It didn't take scientists long to wonder if the opposite nuclear process -- fusion -- might work better. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of two atoms combine to form a single heavier atom. At extremely high temperatures, the nuclei of hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium can readily fuse, releasing enormous amounts of energy in the process. Weapons that take advantage of this process are known as fusion bombs, thermonuclear bombs or hydrogen bombs. Fusion bombs have higher kiloton yields and greater efficiencies than fission bombs, but they present some problems that must be solved:

• Deuterium and tritium, the fuels for fusion, are both gases, which are hard to store.
• Tritium is in short supply and has a short half-life.
• Fuel in the bomb has to be continuously replenished.
• Deuterium or tritium has to be highly compressed at high temperature to initiate the fusion reaction.

Scientists overcome the first problem by using lithium-deuterate, a solid compound that doesn't undergo radioactive decay at normal temperature, as the principal thermonuclear material. To overcome the tritium problem, bomb designers rely on a fission reaction to produce tritium from lithium. The fission reaction also solves the final problem. The majority of radiation given off in a fission reaction is X-rays, and these X-rays provide the high temperatures and pressures necessary to initiate fusion. So, a fusion bomb has a two-stage design -- a primary fission or boosted-fission component and a secondary fusion component.........



It's all fun and games until it gets weaponized.

 

Scaling this down to being portable will change the face of the planet.

 

A fusion reactor is less weaponizable than a fission one. They are even less a threat in case of an accident. Any loss of contaiment in a fusion reactor means the reaction stops. There is no bang, but a fizzle.

If it wasn't clear from ETC(SS)'s post, in order to get the sudden burst of fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb, as opposed to the slow and steady one of a reactor, you need to use a nuclear bomb as a blasting cap.

 

That is just investor relations claptrap.

I refuse to call it a 'breakthrough' when contained human-controlled fusion still doesn't work in any size container.

 

That's absolutely correct.....they're "less" weaponizable.
Actually?
I don't have a problem with fusion power except of course that it's not currently feasible....and won't be for a while.
As long as they can tinker with it without reducing the planet count in our Solar System....I say more power to them.....pun almost unintended.

 

Fusion is a long term solution. Like fuel cells, we should invest in them because they have potential down the road. Fuel cells, while still expensive, are being comercially used now. We need to keep that in mind when it comes to funding fusion research. It took a hit in the US with cheap oil a couple decades back.

Likewise, we shouldn't pass over interm solutions because they aren't ideal. Fission power can be done cleaner and safer. Even, ugh, 'clean' coal can help. I think most here would prefer natural gas for a base plant, but does mean supporting fracking.

 

Is fusion just beyond us? Is it like the Victorians trying to master radar or nuclear power? Do we keep investing hoping we'll suddenly work it out or do we just advance as normal and let it happen when the time's right? Nuclear fusion has been 'nearly there' for as long as I've been alive. It still hasn't happened.

 

Fuel cells was 'nearly there' for some time too. While I don't think they are ideal for cars, they have made great strides in making them affordable. It might take some time to get working fusion, or even never, but we have to keep plugging at it until then.

 

Fission has been here longer than I have been alive.

I think you meant fusion, which was never 'nearly here'. It has been '20 years away' for 50 to 60 years.

 

I wouldn't suggest it. 5 years to a prototype and 20 years to production is what they are saying.
That is a long time to hold your breath

Breakthroughs are great, however I won't be holding my breath until we are close to production.

 

Yeah I did

Corrected

 

The one compound referred (Lithium Deuteride) I believe is a fairly fabulous H2 adsorbent for storage.

 

Interesting post. Thank you.

The first I heard about this was in The Guardian. The article was full of scientists rubbishing the claims, and saying there was no evidence.

Lockheed announces breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy | Environment | theguardian.com

I think that's pretty questionable. They criticise LM for not releasing enough detail, and that as scientists they need evidence. And then they make their own assumptions, saying it's almost certainly not true, based on.... no evidence.

I think a lot of it is (a) The Guardian's hostility to America, (b) The Guardian's hostility to big corporations, (c) The Guardian's hostility to the defence industry, and (d) the scientists who've been quoted being unhappy about the possibility of a corporation cracking the problem when they haven't managed it themselves.

I would assume that, if the claims are true, LM has many, many good commercial reasons for not releasing all the information. There's an absolute s--tload of money to be made here after all.

But I can also see that, in the absence of evidence, and on the assumption that LM can make financial gains purely out of making the announcement, there's every reason to think it isn't true.

So I don't know what to believe.

But I hope fusion is on its way reasonably soon.

 

My understanding is that the key problem is how to contain the 300,000,000°C heat that the fusion reaction generates. You need to be able to create some sort of casing that can maintain the reacting particles in a steady position at that temperature, and at the same time stop the energy from leaking out so that the reaction doesn't fizzle out.

I can see why this is important. And I know they're looking at various methods, including extremely strong magnetic fields, to do this.

What I don't understand is why they haven't looked at the obvious containment solution.



On the outside, it's cool to the touch. On the inside, it's at least 300,000,000°C. Maybe more.

 

I don't see anything in there claiming that they have yet succeeded in making fusion work. All the good sounding stuff is written in the future tense.

So this is still vaporware. As they say on PriusChat, "pics or it didn't happen".

 

Do people buy those more than once? Once being the time they totally scalded the roof of their mouth, where they were unable to eat solids for a week and then swore blindly never to touch one again? Or was that just me?