Wendelstein 7-X generates and contains 25 seconds of High Temperature plasma using only passive cooling

  • Once someone named "LENR Is Not Real" posts that Wendelstein generates 25 second of plasma using "only passive cooling", then one doesn't need to be a lone genius for to realize, we are facing the troll of hot fusion lobby. The Wendelstein is optimized to sustainable plasma design - but the sad truth is, it cannot achieve even ten times lower plasma temperatures than the tokamaks, which are working in pulse regimes (and which are still not able to ignite the hot fusion reaction).


    The Wendelstein constructors must try their stuffs much harder. One just must ask, how much the German governement is willing to spend into hot fusion research while ignoring the replications of thousands-time cheaper cold fusion experiments. Which invisible power drives this apparent controversy?

    ? W7x has recently achieved plasma temperatures of ~40 to 50 million C +. These temperatures are fairly close to the temperatures of recent tokamaks and not a factor of 10 lower.

  • IH and Coolescense spent millions of dollars attempting replications of what were deemed the top LENR experiments. So far, to my knowledge, those two companies only reported failure in replication attempts. Once established commercial companies and reputable universities start to put their name on the line to report and stand by CF results, then I might change my tune.

  • W7x had a goal of 100M C for ion temperature for this phase, I believe. I earlier posted an article where they said they were up to around 40million C. I'll repost it when I find it.

  • The results you quoted are from Feb 2016 during the previous test phase and not the latest phase, by the way.

  • "When do the first fusion power plants go into operation?

    We are doing precautionary research for the second half of the century. If you do not plant trees today, there will be no forest in 50 years"


    Very expensive trees! 50 years too...phew. At least BLP and BEC are always two years away from market. :)

  • I'd have no problem with cost of hot fusion research, if only the validation of cold fusion research wouldn't take a fraction of this cost. Once we aren't still doing it, then one question arises: who is responsible for it? We shouldn't keep quiet about how research grant money is really spent. Why a Lot of Important Research Is Not Being Done. Research perversions are spreading. What we witness here is a failure of science to self-correct. Science is broken, at least by any useful definition of the word. Self-correction doesn’t always happen, and science journalists mustn’t be afraid to spell that out.


    This article therefore concludes:


    "Don’t let scientists decide for themselves what research is interesting, but force them to solve problems defined by others. In the future, the most valuable science institutions […] will link research agendas to the quest for improved solutions — often technological ones — rather than to understanding for its own sake. The science they produce will be of higher quality, because it will have to be.


  • I'd have no problem with cost of hot fusion research, if only the validation of cold fusion research wouldn't take a fraction of this cost. Once we aren't still doing it, then one question arises: who is responsible for it? We shouldn't keep quiet about how research grant money is really spent. Why a Lot of Important Research Is Not Being Done. Research perversions are spreading. What we witness here is a failure of science to self-correct. Science is broken, at least by any useful definition of the word. Self-correction doesn’t always happen, and science journalists mustn’t be afraid to spell that out.


    This article therefore concludes:


    "Don’t let scientists decide for themselves what research is interesting, but force them to solve problems defined by others. In the future, the most valuable science institutions […] will link research agendas to the quest for improved solutions — often technological ones — rather than to understanding for its own sake. The science they produce will be of higher quality, because it will have to be.


    $100's of millions of current dollars have been spent to verify CF/LENR over the past 29 years. As soon as these claims move out from under the people who started them, and into an environment where the most expensive and accurate measurement equipment is used, they fall apart. Do you seriously think, given the problems we have with climate change, that CF/LENR would not be used if it could be proven to work in a rigorous test environment?

  • Once someone named "LENR Is Not Real" posts that Wendelstein generates 25 second of plasma using "only passive cooling", then one doesn't need to be a lone genius for to realize, we are facing the troll of hot fusion lobby. The Wendelstein is optimized to sustainable plasma design - but the sad truth is, it cannot achieve even ten times lower plasma temperatures than the tokamaks, which are working in pulse regimes (and which are still not able to ignite the hot fusion reaction).


    The Wendelstein constructors must try their stuffs much harder. One just must ask, how much the German governement is willing to spend into hot fusion research while ignoring the replications of thousands-time cheaper cold fusion experiments. Which invisible power drives this apparent controversy?

    Here's the link where they say W7x is up to around 40Million C ion temperature:


    https://translate.google.com/t…e20111394.html&edit-text=

  • Quote

    $100's of millions of current dollars have been spent to verify CF/LENR over the past 29 years


    It could be easily way more - but it's still just one thousand of total cost of hot fusion research, which counts in billions instead of millions.


    Quote

    Here's the link where they say W7x is up to around 40Million C ion temperature:


    Which ions? Positively or negatively charged ones? Anyway, the tokamaks reached 5.2 x 108°C temperature already

  • "When do the first fusion power plants go into operation?

    We are doing precautionary research for the second half of the century. If you do not plant trees today, there will be no forest in 50 years"


    Anybody that understands a bit more than graduate physics, can see/understand that hot D/T fusion is a complete nonsense. Even if it will be possible to reach a positive COP, you will produce nothing else than continuous, neutron-bomb like radiation.

    It is easy to moderate low energy neutrons, but a whole spectrum of low to high energy neutrons is not manageable without outraging costs.

    LENR is just the clever way to fuse the right mixture of Hydrogen etc., with the additional payback of higher energy density and lack of pollution.



    But what really worries the Lobby: LENR scales down and enables individuals to become more or less energy independent.

    Thus the only people that are interested in ITER/Wendelstein etc. are the old, egg head military Chauvinists, that believe in spin-off weapon technology.

  • True but there got to be something in hot fusion which makes scientist to love it. Why the team from whales didn't make 'lenr is within 10 years reach' announcement instead?

    Also it kind of frustrated me that all hot fusion claims are based on new super materials claims. Those who can withstand neutrons. The materials like that do not exist but considered more real than say Stanley Mayers buggy.

  • Quote

    True but there got to be something in hot fusion which makes scientist to love it


    Job, stable job for whole decades. Jeez, what else could it be? The bigger project, the more stable job it promises. And for supporting companies as well.


    Quote

    Thus the only people that are interested in ITER/Wendelstein etc. are the old, egg head military Chauvinists, that believe in spin-off weapon technology.


    Then they should be excited from LENR. ITER is useless from this perspective,

  • Quote

    Neutron blankets :Deuterium and tritium fusion generates neutrons. This varies by technique (NIF has a record of 3E14 neutrons per second[46] while a typical fusor produces 1E5–1E9 neutrons per second). It has been proposed to use these neutrons as a way to regenerate spent fission fuel [47] or as a way to breed tritium using a breeder blanket consisting of liquid lithium or, as in more recent reactor designs, a helium cooled pebble bed consisting of lithium bearing ceramic pebbles fabricated from materials such as Lithium titanate, lithium orthosilicate or mixtures of these phases.[48]


    Direct conversion This is a method where the kinetic energy of a particle is converted into voltage.[49] It was first suggested by Richard F. Post in conjunction with magnetic mirrors, in the late sixties. It has also been suggested for Field-Reversed Configurations. The process takes the plasma, expands it, and converts a large fraction of the random energy of the fusion products into directed motion. The particles are then collected on electrodes at various large electrical potentials. This method has demonstrated an experimental efficiency of 48 percent.[50]

    (Wikipedia)

    Can someone explain why this won't work? It's pretty obvious that nobody "bothered" to figure out radioactive waste disposal for fission reactors when they were popular and constructed in numbers. And now we are awash in the extremely dangerous stuff that nobody wants to deal with Is something similar going on with hot fusion?

  • (Wikipedia)

    Can someone explain why this won't work? It's pretty obvious that nobody "bothered" to figure out radioactive waste disposal for fission reactors when they were popular and constructed in numbers. And now we are awash in the extremely dangerous stuff that nobody wants to deal with Is something similar going on with hot fusion?

    Yes, this is an interesting topic. It seems tailor made for fusion energy. I'll look it up once there is some free time.

  • Once established commercial companies and reputable universities start to put their name on the line to report and stand by CF results, then I might change my tune.

    The first Storms book includes a list of 180 national laboratories, university and corporate laboratories that published peer reviewed papers in mainstream journals with positive cold fusion results. None have retracted. There is no better way for them to "put their name on the line." This is how it is done in experimental science. So, what you are asking for was published 30 years ago. You refuse to look at it, but that does not make it go away.


    No skeptic has ever shown an error in any of these papers. You have not even read them, so obviously you cannot point to an error. The only way to disprove a widely replicated experimental finding is to show an error in all of the replications.

  • The first Storms book includes a list of 180 national laboratories, university and corporate laboratories that published peer reviewed papers in mainstream journals with positive cold fusion results. None have retracted. There is no better way for them to "put their name on the line." This is how it is done in experimental science. So, what you are asking for was published 30 years ago. You refuse to look at it, but that does not make it go away.


    No skeptic has ever shown an error in any of these papers. You have not even read them, so obviously you cannot point to an error. The only way to disprove a widely replicated experimental finding is to show an error in all of the replications.

    Sir, you keep mentioning these 180 or so experiments (some of which were done over 10 years ago) without addressing the most important issue: where is the followup? If these were so successful, why isn't this the main effort at all top universities and major research companies? Why weren't these efforts scaled up? Why has every company that has attempted to followup on these claims with expensive test equipment met with failure as far as I can tell? There is a huge disconnect between lab results and real world practical results here.

  • Sir, you keep mentioning these 180 or so experiments (some of which were done over 10 years ago) without addressing the most important issue: where is the followup?


    Perhaps you should be asking the bankers this question, They are the ones with the resources. They don't even invest in hot fusion, and never in fission reactors without all sorts of subsidies, both overt and covert. They are just not interested in 'blue-skies' research and development programmes.



    Why has every company that has attempted to followup on these claims with expensive test equipment met with failure as far as I can tell?


    Name them and we can discuss why.

  • Perhaps you should be asking the bankers this question, They are the ones with the resources. They don't even invest in hot fusion, and never in fission reactors without all sorts of subsidies, both overt and covert. They are just not interested in 'blue-skies' research and development programmes.


    Well if they play by the rules of neocapitalism who can blame em?

  • Sir, you keep mentioning these 180 or so experiments (some of which were done over 10 years ago) without addressing the most important issue: where is the followup?

    There was no follow up because of opposition to the research, academic politics, and because the researchers who replicated were middle aged or elderly when they did this work, and they are now all retired or dead. You can confirm these statements by reading the literature, and then comparing it to the attacks in Nature, the Scientific American, the Washington Post, various books about cold fusion, Wikipedia and elsewhere.

    If these were so successful, why isn't this the main effort at all top universities and major research companies? Why weren't these efforts scaled up?

    This is because the decision makers at universities and companies do not know anything about cold fusion. You can confirm that by reading what they say. You should not doubt this, or be surprised by it, because you, Mary Yugo and many others here have made the same mistake these people made. You have read nothing, you know nothing, and all of your assertions about cold fusion are factually wrong, yet you are convinced the effect is not real.


    For example, people here claim that the "ratio" of input to output never exceeds a certain low level. Anyone who has read the literature -- or even viewed my 6-minute video -- will know that is not true. Not only is it false; it makes no sense scientifically, because input power (when present) is governed by electrochemistry, whereas cold fusion excess power is governed by McKubre's equation. Anyone can see they are independent. It is not a ratio in any sense. Skeptics offer only mistakes like this, with no factual evidence to support their claims. Some go beyond nonsense into the realm of crackpot blather, for example by stating that a hot object is "not a heater," and that an object weighing a few kilograms that remains palpably hot for a week with no input power is "not being heated."


    If scientists and decision makers would act rationally and scientifically, and look at the literature, especially the tritium studies by Fritz Will et al., they would know that cold fusion is a real nuclear effect that may well become a practical source of energy. They have not done this any more than you have. They have no right to any opinion, any more than you do. A person who knows nothing about a particular technical subject should never hold an opinion, or express an opinion. Knowing about other technical subjects does not count.

  • They [bankers] don't even invest in hot fusion, and never in fission reactors without all sorts of subsidies, both overt and covert.

    Given the situation with the AP1000 Vogle nuclear reactor now under construction in Georgia, the bankers are wise not to invest in conventional fission reactors. Vogle is the only nuclear reactor project in the U.S. in the last 30 years, and it is a technical and economic disaster. The PSC may decide to abandon it. The vote comes tomorrow.


    I personally hope they continue to build it, and I hope they manage to finish it by 2022, according to the new schedule. I would like to see that because there is no other way to reduce CO2 emissions in Georgia, to reduce the threat of global warming and air pollution from fossil fuels. There is not much potential wind power in Georgia. Plenty of potential solar power, but it is not being tapped.


    Two other AP1000 reactor projects were abandoned in South Carolina this July. I think there is no likelihood nuclear reactors will be constructed in U.S., Japan or Europe. Only China is making them. I would say the technology is dead.


    In my opinion, there is no likelihood Tokamak plasma fusion reactors will ever become a practical source of energy. They would produce far too much nuclear waste. By the time they are made practical, the cost of wind and solar power, and possibly space-based solar power, will be far cheaper than Tokomak electricity, or natural gas and coal, for that matter. Of course I hope that cold fusion can be made to work. It is potentially even cheaper than solar, wind or natural gas. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

  • This reminds me communist propaganda https://www.digitaltrends.com/…reactor-halfway-complete/

    There also was a an update from General Fusion.

    http://generalfusion.com/2017/…-to-develop-fusion-power/


    While I admire engineering of GF I still don't see how they are planning to create a vortex in 1 cm volume of mercury they are planning to use as heat carrying and shockwave medium.

    I see that the GF changed the promise of fusion from 'years away' to '2 years' of so.

  • Given the situation with the AP1000 Vogle nuclear reactor now under construction in Georgia, the bankers are wise not to invest in conventional fission reactors. Vogle is the only nuclear reactor project in the U.S. in the last 30 years, and it is a technical and economic disaster. The PSC may decide to abandon it. The vote comes tomorrow.

    it appears the vote was approved to continue.

  • I'd be way more concerned about the compression and containment part than the plasma injector part. Creating a plasma is relatively simple. Confining it and maintaining it at high T is the hard part.

  • I am not sure how much mercury their big ball contains. Just imagine what happens to these few tons of metal after nuclear explosion. Now you need to create a vortex in it at least twice a second. Seems like insurmountable mechanical challenge.