Search This Blog

13 August 2007

candy-striped torus -- General Atomics catches Bob filching images red-handed, and they are Not Happy

Well sure, click.

These are supercomputer simulations/mathematical models of turbulence in plasma (ionized high-temperature gas) inside a magnetic confinement torus or tokamak. They were produced by Jeff Candy and Ron Waltz of General Atomics, San Diego, California, one of the largest defense/military contractors in the USA, and a pioneer in the development of (fission) nuclear power reactors.

Today General Atomics makes the Predator unmanned robot battlefield surveillance aircraft. Recently General Atomics held the record among defense contractors for providing free transportation for members of Congress involved in defense contract appropriations.

So much for the relationship between giant defense contractors and our elected legislators and public officials, and back to the pretty pictures.

Superpowerful magnets confine the charged plasma and keep it from touching the metal walls of the torus.

Torus is a fancy word for doughnut or bagel shape. In ancient Greek times, before the invention of the doughnut or bagel, tore or torus referred to the ring at the end of an anchor to which the anchor rope is tied. The tore/torus has been an object of great interest to mathematicians, geometers and topologists ever since.

If the plasma touches the metal, the consequent decrease in plasma temperature would make the system too cold and not energetic enough for the desired collision of gas nucleii.

Or so it has been explained to me to the pathetic limits of my understanding of such things.

Apparently several research laboratories in the USA and Europe claim to have achieved "energy break-even" with controlled high-temperature plasma fusion in the last few years. Energy break-even means that you get a little more usable (electric) energy out the ass of this rig than you have to put in up front to make the plasma nucleii hot and violent enough to collide and fuse and generate usable energy.

The gas which is heated to its plasma stripped-electron state is hydrogen, or hydrogen enriched with the natural isotope deuterium ("heavy hydrogen"). A hydrogen nucleus has or is just one single proton. A deuterium nucleus has one proton and one neutron.

The super temperatures and gravitational pressures inside stars, which in their early stage consist almost entirely of hydrogen, smash the hydrogen nucleii together to fuse them into helium nucleii. Each collision generates an additional biproduct of electromagnetic energy as heat, light, x-rays, radio waves, etc. Fusion inside our Sun makes the light and heat which make life on Earth possible.

When we do this on Earth, in a very uncontrollable and very brief way, it's a hydrogen or thermonuclear bomb.

Physicists and chemists have been trying to control hydrogen-collision fusion since the early 1950s as a potential source of electric power. The raw material would be abundant and cheap sea water. Unlike fission power reactors (Chernobyl, Windscale, Three Mile Island, etc.), controlled fusion would be almost entirely "clean," and would not produce bio-hazardous radioactivity or long-lived radioactive chemicals and waste products. The controlled fusion cycle does not produce bomb-making biproduct material (plutonium, enriched uranium) for terrorists or bomb-eager nations to divert and buy and sell.

If controlled fusion can be achieved on a large industrial scale, it would commence a profound historical change in Earth's industrial activity, as important a change as the large-scale shift to fossil fuels (at first to generate portable steam power) that sparked the industrial revolution of 18th century Europe and North America.

Large-scale fusion power generation would allow energy-hungry industry to keep expanding, but would immediately address and rectify the global climate changes blamed on industrial-scale burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal). Controlled fusion would, in theory, have no negative effects on the atmospheric carbon cycle.

From where we stand today, controlled fusion is the ultimate Free Lunch -- almost limitless electric power, cheaply produced, with almost no environmentally toxic or damaging "down side."

Although North American, European and Japanese researchers in industry and in government and university labs pursue controlled fusion strenuously, almost nothing in the popular media is written about it. Everyone is afraid to pin too much hope on controlled fusion as a possible Savior of the Environment in the future, because no one yet knows with certainty if it can be made to work on industrial scale. Wind and solar get all the ink because at least we already know they work and are becoming practical now -- though wind and solar have great weaknesses and limitations that keep industry and the consumers of the developed nations addicted to fossil fuels and nuclear fission power generation.

Toroidal confinement plasma fusion experiments require the construction of the strongest magnetic fields on Earth, far stronger than the dangerously strong electromagnets used in modern medical imaging. Both technologies require people to be completely stripped of all ferro-metallic objects, or to stay far away from the intense magnetic fields. These are not refrigerator magnets. I've heard a buzz that these supermagnets are powerful enough to suck the iron atoms out of the blood's hemoglobin molecules, if you're dumb enough to get too close.

These models -- there are also brief computer-generated movies on the Web -- require massive amounts of digital computation on the world's most powerful supercomputers. The behavior of magnetically confined high-temperature plasma is not easy to model mathematically. The phrase "non-linear" crops up ubiquitously. The computer models are necessary to design the actual magnetic confinement toruses and the supermagnets to keep the superheated hot plasma away from contact with the metal surface.

Essentially, these are machines in laboratories on Earth which are designed to reproduce the temperatures and nucleii collision energies inside stars.

Cold Fusion

Don't confuse high-temp plasma fusion research with the "Cold Fusion" bubble and scientific scandal of 1989 (Fleischmann, Pons, Jones). The "inventors" of Cold Fusion claimed they could generate excess fusion energy (neutrons and heat) at ordinary near-room temperatures by a process that relies on chemical catalysis.

Nevertheless, Cold Fusion was a fascinating public story of how educated scientists can hypnotize themselves into believing in Magical Pots of Gold Under Rainbows, and how governments and universities can get caught up in a frenzy of dubiously supported Hope and Fantasy -- a Gold Rush in a university chemistry lab. There's a sucker born every minute, and often the sucker grows up to earn several Ph.D.s in chemistry.

from Wikipedia:

In 1994, Dr. David Goodstein described the field as follows:

"Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between Cold Fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here."

Deuterium pellet sphere / superlaser fusion

Another avenue of research into controlled fusion employs deuterium-rich pellet spheres whose surface, as the sphere falls, is superheated -- zapped -- by a superpowerful precision laser beam. The rest of the process takes place at ordinary Earth temperatures. I haven't kept up with the progress of this avenue of research into Controlled Fusion. The huge sums spent on superpowerful electromagnets in the first approach are instead spent on superpowerful lasers in lasered pellet research.

One way or the other, the road to limitless, non-toxic, non-carbon, cheap electricity has been neither smooth, cheap, swift nor easy.

As always with advanced scientific matters, most of what I've just written is probably fundamentally Wrong and Hopelessly Ignorant. If you know and can demonstrate this with certainty, Vleeptron warmly invites you to please Leave A Comment and set us straight. Try to keep the rude insults to a minimum, the Vleeptron High Non-Junk Science Council is primarily interested in Good Science, not a pissing match between skunks or a flame war.

A few years ago I filched and posted the candy-striped torus image on the old Vleeptron blog just because I thought it was pretty. And interesting. For a few years, I thought nobody noticed and nobody cared.

I was wrong. General Atomics just noticed. And cared. My free-and-easy cavalier web-filching ways have finally caught up with me.

I hope these people don't know where I live. They have Predator unmanned remote-guided aircraft, tied into GPS and Google Earth.

4 comments:

M. Simon said...

Here is one promising technology that is not getting the backing it needs to make or break it:

Bussard Fusion Reactor
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

So I have decided to do an end run around the government by designing an open source fusion test reactor.

Any one care to help? You can start here:

IEC Fusion Newsgroup
IEC Fusion Technology blog

Vleeptron Dude said...

Wow. Thanks! Sincerity ON: Thanks!

You sent me scampering to these Brussard fusion sites, and uhhh I confess publicly and humbly that it's all Greek to me.

(Naturally real Greeks don't say that, real Greeks say: "It's all Chinese to me.")

But anyway uhhh M Simon, you clearly seem to KNOW STUFF about controlled fusion.

So uhhh ... How much about controlled fusion did I get hopelessly wrong?

I would like to correct something from my post, a real Homer Simpson DOH thing.

2 hydrogen nucleii can't collide to produce 1 helium nucleus ... Helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons, so it can't be made from smashing ordinary hydrogen nuclei together.

Nucleii collision fusion (in a star or in an Earth lab) MUST involve only deuterium ("heavy hydrogen"), whose nucleus has (or is) 1 proton AND 1 neutron.

I suppose you can throw in the isotope Tritium (1 proton + 2 neutrons), but I don't know if researchers enrich the plasma or the laser pellets with Tritium or not. Tritium is rarer than Deuterium AND it's radioactive (they make glowing EXIT signs and glowing wristwatch faces out of it), so the extra cost and the uneccessary radioactivity might/would make it impractical to toss Tritium into the plasma.

Still, to be fair to myself, I think I know more about controlled fusion than most people who know nothing about controlled fusion. My Knowing Nothing about Fusion is a Very High-Class variety of Knowing Nothing.

Thanks again! I'll study more about this Brussard stuph!

Anonymous said...

I thought your readers would be interested in looking at these energy technologies and EPS's theoretic base for ball lighting.

Aneutronic Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts

Here are the links:

http://www.electronpowersystems.com/

A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as follows:

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors)."
and
"Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices)."

EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons.

It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid http://www.electronpowersystems.com/Images/Ball%20Lightning%20Explained.pdf
The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants, NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

Recent support has also come from one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, when he got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in the May issue of Scientific American,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00032CE5-13B7-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F
Dwyer's paper:
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

and according to Clint Seward it supports his lightning models and fusion work at Electron Power Systems


lightning produces thermonuclear reaction
This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts .



Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion (Below Is an excerpt).

"for larger plant sizes
Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale
Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:
Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)
Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%
(Eric Lerner)Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%"


Looks like Eric Lerner is moving down the road!!

U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_LPP_Chilean_Nuclear_Commission/
The learning curve is so steep now, and with the resources of the online community, I'm sure we can rally greater support to solve this paramount problem of our time.



However, short of a Energy "silver bullet" like fusion , Here is a fully DOABLE technology



Time to Master the Carbon Cycle


Man has been controlling the carbon cycle , and there for the weather, since the invention of agriculture, all be it was as unintentional, as our current airliner contrails are in affecting global dimming. This unintentional warm stability in climate has over 10,000 years, allowed us to develop to the point that now we know what we did,............ and that now......... we are over doing it.

The prehistoric and historic records gives a logical thrust for soil carbon sequestration.
I wonder what the soil biome carbon concentration was REALLY like before the cutting and burning of the world's virgin forest, my guess is that now we see a severely diminished community, and that only very recent Ag practices like no-till and reforestation have started to help rebuild it. It makes implementing Terra Preta soil technology like an act of penitence, a returning of the misplaced carbon to where it belongs.

Energy, the carbon cycle and greenhouse gas management
http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/CCC2006/Energy%20Paper%2006_05.htm


On the Scale of CO2 remediation:

It is my understanding that atmospheric CO2 stands at 379 PPM, to stabilize the climate we need to reduce it to 350 PPM by the removal of 230 Billion tons.

The best estimates I've found are that the total loss of forest and soil carbon (combined
pre-industrial and industrial) has been about 200-240 billion tons. Of
that, the soils are estimated to account for about 1/3, and the vegetation
the other 2/3.

Since man controls 24 billion tons in his agriculture then it seems we have plenty to work with in sequestering our fossil fuel co2 emissions as charcoal.

As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems such as Dr. Danny Day's are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "



Terra Preta Soils Technology: Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration and 3X Fertility Too

This some what orphaned new soil technology speaks to so many different interests and disciplines that it has not been embraced fully by any. I'm sure you will see both the potential of this system and the convergence needed for it's implementation.

The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.

The economics look good, and truly great if we had CO2 cap & trade in place:


Terra Preta soils I feel has great possibilities to revolutionize sustainable agriculture into a major CO2 sequestration strategy.
I thought, I first read about these soils in " Botany of Desire " or "Guns,Germs,&Steel" but I could not find reference to them. I finely found the reference in Charles Mann's "1491", but I did not realize their potential .

I have heard that National Geographic is preparing a big Terra Preta (TP) article.

Nature article: Putting the carbon back Black is the new green:
http://bestenergies.com/downloads/naturemag_200604.pdf

Here's the Cornell page for an over view:
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm


This Earth Science Forum thread on these soils contains further links, and has been viewed by 17,000 folks. ( I post everything I find on Amazon Dark Soils, ADS here):
http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.html

Terra Preta Discussion , central data base, and Mail list at REPP-CREST:
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=about


There is an ecology going on in these soils that is not completely understood, and if replicated and applied at scale would have multiple benefits for farmers and environmentalist.

Terra Preta creates a terrestrial carbon reef at a microscopic level. These nanoscale structures provide safe haven to the microbes and fungus that facilitate fertile soil creation, while sequestering carbon for many hundred if not thousands of years. The combination of these two forms of sequestration would also increase the growth rate and natural sequestration effort of growing plants.



The reason TP has elicited such interest on the Agricultural/horticultural side of it's benefits is this one static:

One gram of charcoal cooked to 650 C Has a surface area of 400 m2 (for soil microbes & fungus to live on), now for conversion fun:

One ton of charcoal has a surface area of 400,000 Acres!! which is equal to 625 square miles!! Rockingham Co. VA. , where I live, is only 851 Sq. miles

Now at a middle of the road application rate of 2 lbs/sq ft (which equals 1000 sqft/ton) or 43 tons/acre yields 26,000 Sq miles of surface area per Acre. VA is 39,594 Sq miles.

What this suggest to me is a potential of sequestering virgin forest amounts of carbon just in the soil alone, without counting the forest on top.

To take just one fairly representative example, in the classic Rothampstead experiments in England where arable land was allowed to revert to deciduous temperate woodland, soil organic carbon increased 300-400% from around 20 t/ha to 60-80 t/ha (or about 30-40 tons per acre) in less than a century (Jenkinson & Rayner 1977). The rapidity with which organic carbon can build up in soils is also indicated by examples of buried steppe soils formed during short-lived interstadial phases in Russia and Ukraine. Even though such warm, relatively moist phases usually lasted only a few hundred years, and started out from the skeletal loess desert/semi-desert soils of glacial conditions (with which they are inter-leaved), these buried steppe soils have all the rich organic content of a present-day chernozem soil that has had many thousands of years to build up its carbon (E. Zelikson, Russian Academy of Sciences, pers. comm., May 1994). http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/carbon1.html

I have joked for years with local farmers that chicken litter is just Iowa top soil imported to the valley in the form of corn, now at least we'll be able to keep it here rather than it running off into the Chesapeake Bay.



All the Bio-Char Companies and equipment manufactures I've found:

Carbon Diversion
http://www.carbondiversion.com/

Eprida: Sustainable Solutions for Global Concerns
http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4


BEST Pyrolysis, Inc. | Slow Pyrolysis - Biomass - Clean Energy - Renewable Ene
http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.html

Dynamotive Energy Systems | The Evolution of Energy
http://www.dynamotive.com/


Ensyn - Environmentally Friendly Energy and Chemicals
http://www.ensyn.com/who/ensyn.htm


Agri-Therm, developing bio oils from agricultural waste
http://www.agri-therm.com/


Advanced BioRefinery Inc.
http://www.advbiorefineryinc.ca/


Technology Review: Turning Slash into Cash
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17298/





The International Agrichar Initiative (IAI) conference held at Terrigal, NSW, Australia in 2007. ( http://iaiconference.org/home.html )
.



If pre-Columbian Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 20% of the Amazon basin it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.

Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.

We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.

I feel Terra Preta soil technology is the greatest of Ironies.
That is: an invention of pre-Columbian American culture, destroyed by western disease, may well be the savior of industrial western society.


After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology
can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.

Below is my review of these efforts in the Academic and private sectors, please forward this to all the experts you know, if you think it merits their time and support.

Sen. Byrd and Sen. Rockefeller of W VA and Rep. Udall had very positive responses to Terra Preta soils technology proposals presented to them.

Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.

The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;

Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.
Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030
by Ralph P. Overend, Ph.D. and Anelia Milbrandt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf


The organization 25x25 (see 25x'25 - Home) released it's (first-ever, 55-page )"Action Plan" ; see http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/d...ActionPlan.pdf
On page 31, as one of four foci for recommended RD&D, the plan lists: "The development of biochar, animal agriculture residues and other non-fossil fuel based fertilizers, toward the end of integrating energy production with enhanced soil quality and carbon sequestration."
and on p 32, recommended as part of an expanded database aspect of infrastructure: "Information on the application of carbon as fertilizer and existing carbon credit trading systems."

I feel 25x25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of renewable energy, but way out in front on biomass topics.


There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture , I forgot the % that is waste, but when you add all the other cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG, the balanced number is around 24 Billion tons. So we have plenty of bio-mass.

Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as they try to influence how carbon management is legislated in the USA. Carbon must have a fair price, that fair price and the changes in the view of how the soil carbon cycle now can be used as a massive sink verses it now being viewed as a wash, will be of particular value to farmers and a global cool breath of fresh air for us all.



If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP website I've been drafted to administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of G. I. T. , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.

Erich J. Knight

Vleeptron Dude said...

Wow Erich! Thanks!

Of course it's going to take me a week to digest all this. But thanks for the Guideposts to our Energy Future!!!

I now award you the Special Citation of Appreciation from the Vleeptron High Non-Junk Science Council, for educational contributions in the field of Fusion Energy!