Laser fusion put on slow burn
The US National Ignition Facility
rethinks its strategy on achieving thermonuclear fusion in the lab, but
fails to silence critics.
Geoff Brumfiel
Nature
11 December 2012
The
government's new plan, revealed to Nature, calls for a slower, more
deliberate approach to achieving ignition: the point at which more
energy is produced by a fusion reaction than is consumed. Many
physicists believe that this would be an important proof of concept for
controlled fusion.
The plan sets a new course for the laser at
the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in California. It also promotes the exploration of several
alternative ways to reach ignition, including one not involving the
laser. And it is more tentative than the previous strategy: it sets a
three-year deadline for finding out whether ignition is possible at all,
whereas the last one aimed to demonstrate actual fusion...
The
US$3.5-billion NIF uses lasers to crush a 2-millimetre pellet of
hydrogen fuel to the point of fusion. Rather than irradiating the fuel
directly, the lasers shine into a cylindrical capsule. The capsule walls
then emit X-rays that squeeze the fuel pellet until it explodes.
This
indirect approach mimics the ignition system in a thermonuclear weapon,
which uses radiation from a fission 'primary' stage to squeeze hydrogen
isotopes in the fusion 'secondary' — creating a powerful explosion.
The
NIF's main mission is to gather laboratory data on the process to help
weapons scientists to care for the ageing US nuclear stockpile. The
United States has adhered to a voluntary moratorium on testing nuclear
weapons since 1992, so nuclear scientists must use computer simulations
to check that the weapons still work, and NIF data feed into these
models.
Physicists at the NIF also hope that the process might pave the way for producing electrical power through thermonuclear fusion.
The
latest plan was drafted by the NNSA, which oversees the lab, in
response to a congressional request for a strategy for achieving
ignition.
Over the next three years, researchers will conduct
reduced-power tests to refine their computer simulations and understand
why ignition has been so elusive. They will also look at possible
improvements to the capsule design.
Other promising approaches to
be studied include using lasers to ignite the hydrogen fuel inside the
pellet directly, and using a machine called the Z-pinch to squeeze the
fuel inside a magnetic field.
By October 2015, the NNSA hopes, it
will be able to say whether ignition can be achieved using the NIF or
the Z-pinch. Failure, it warns, could have serious implications for the
nuclear-weapons programme.
The more sedate approach follows
"common sense", says Ricardo Betti, a physicist at the University of
Rochester in New York. But he worries that the plan does not give enough
time to ignition experiments, focusing instead on other nuclear-weapons
experiments and fundamental science. Devoting less time to ignition
reduces the probability of success, he warns...
http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-put-on-slow-burn-1.12016
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.7875!/file/Report%20to%20Congress-NIF%20Path%20Forward-December%207%202012.pdf
58 comments:
This report does not look at all good for NIF. While it uses very dry and sanitized language, the report to congress places greater emphasis on the role of Omega and Z in the path towards ignition. Indeed, a "slower, more deliberate approach" naturally utilizes lower per-shot cost facilities to investigate the science. On these facilities, you have more flexibility in testing different hypotheses as part of the scientific process. If it costs 6-7x times more per shot on NIF than on other platforms, then it is bloody obvious that Omega and Z need to play a much more prominent role in resolving the scientific issues that are blocking the path towards ignition.
The question is not whether NIF should survive or not. The question is whether NIF should be funded at its current level considering that diverting funds to other facilities will obviously produce more "bang for the buck."
Additionally, this report indeed confirms the "blank check" approach that NIF is being allowed to follow. The strategies to investigate issues regarding ignition are clear for Z and Omega. However, continuing the Edisonian approach towards ignition on the most expensive experiments on NIF on a per-shot basis is simply irresponsible. However, this is essentially what the report is saying. If NIF is "that" close to reaching ignition, then the last 6 months of intense investigation would have yielded some indicator of progress or greater understanding. Since it has not, but instead, opened up more questions, it indicates the need to shift (as the report correctly states) to a more slower methodical approach, and that naturally favors lower-cost Omega and Z as the workhorses and key platforms for NNSA's ignition mission moving forward.
This NNSA report to congress is incomplete for this fact - that the capability supply across the different platforms does not match the capability demand articulated by the technical review committee in their own findings used in this report. In addition, the value of each capability is not just based on the amount of energy it can put into each shot, but also on the quality of the scientific products generated from the shots, and therefore the quality of scientists themselves. Past scientific accomplishments is a reliable indicator for future scientific endeavors to generate quality scientific contributions. As such, the report clearly does not address these other very important factors across the various facilities and platforms.
Unless the thinking by congress and NNSA is for NIF to continue as a "welfare program" for weapons scientists, it is clear that the facility must cut its costs through a reduced operating schedule, reduced numbers of shots, and reduced numbers of FTEs. One does not have to advocate preventing scientific research on the platform. However, far too much resources are being misallocated to NIF, when much of that funding will produce better understanding, and improve the likelihood of resolving questions and issues surrounding ignition within the 3 year time horizon.
December 12, 2012 2:15 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
My opinion.
I wonder when those in Washington DC are going to wake up and use the American tax payers money where it need to in order to get us off fossil fuel, make jobs and build things we know how to do, all of which would cure our problems when it comes to electricity production. I’m so tired of watching people being manipulate by those in high places with their BS sob stories of, “can’t you please give us another chance”, in this case three more years, while we as a nation fall further and further behind in achieving our goal of total independent from fossil fuel used for power production. We’ve had forty years of R&D laser research to accomplish this mission and we’ve failed, so what makes you think we’ll accomplish it in the next three? It’s absolutely sad to see our tax dollars being spent on all the wrong tooIs / projects. I personally don’t give a hoot what all the wizz kids say about how wind power, sea power, geothermal plants and solar arrays aren’t efficient enough. The simple fact is this. If you build all of these power producing apparatuses and wire them all into our national power grid we’ll be doing far better than what we are now, plus, you’ll make jobs for millions of people for their entire lives maintaining them, not taking into account retrofits and upgrade. So go blow your smoke us someone else butt. Get the job done booze’s and stop giving money out to project that live on hopes and dreams. Do what you know how to do and tell the oil companies to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
If you are dependent on NIF you now know that you have less than 3 years to hit the street, get out those resumes and start looking for another research job before the S.H.T.F.
Good luck and don't wait until the last minute! They'll be plenty of smart people trying to get out and snag what good jobs they can before you make your move through the front door.
Besides, anyone who is dumb enough to stay around NIF to the bitter end will be sandbagged with all the blame. That won't be fun, will it?
Time to end this charade.
NIF turned into another "con game" by Livermore. Again, MFTF, X-ray laser ala Ed Teller, "Brilliant Pebbles" ala Lowell Wood. LLNL is a DISGRACE to the National Laboratories!
NIF is essentially dead. 3 years is more than enough time for winding that program down. Once NIF is dead, omega and z can keep pursuing fusion science as one minor part of their broader mission. The NIF design was flawed because it provides no margin at all for variations and problems that pop up. When that lack of margin prevents you from moving forward beyond such an early stage of the implosion process, then you know that you have a show stopper and the game is over. Ed and NIF claim to be able to navigate that tightrope and still get ignition. But he offers no credible plan or evidence of that. Given the only "knobs" that NIF will be able to turn over the next 3 years being related to the target design and how the fuel is structured, and how the pulse is shaped, we cannot expect any loosening of the margin. Any thoughts otherwise is self delusion and wishful thinking.
But NIF did provide important lessons - that this is the kind if problem you will run into in big science when you have zero margin. Unfortunately this lack of margin was known well in advance, and many critics had been pounding away at the design for this very reason. These critics were ignored, and now we have an impotent 6B facility.
You should all hold onto NIF related PR materials, posters and videos. In 50 years that stuff might be collectible. Think of those old soviet era posters that are in vogue even in Russia. NIF propaganda is surely to be very valuable especially if fusion is finally a reality in 50 years. Your grandchildren can have a glimpse into the past when we were only capable of primitive thinking where the government sponsored huge zero-margin science platforms and we all believed it and went along.
If you see a NIF poster, you should carefully roll it up loosely with acid free paper and keep it in a dry environment. You should remove finger oil smudges only if it can be done withou damaging the printing. Also creases will devalue a poster. Pinholes on corners will devalue the poster slightly. If there are pristine copies that are about to be thrown out, then you may have hit the jackpot.
Other memorabilia can have some limited value in the future, like NIF mugs and polo shirts. Letterheads and pens usually have no collectible value.
Posters are the likely to have the best collectible value appreciation. If you have a chance, you should try to get your hands on NIF posters. You can request them through the program office, and may even begin enjoying them immediately in your home.
Dang, I threw mine out. I should have kept it.
If Nnsa cut NIF funding in accordance with reduced shifts and shots, the lab will just keep going at 24-hour operations forcing other programs and WFO to pay for the shortfall. Llnl will never reduce the number of shifts even come hell or high water. If you are in non-NIF programs you should also think about polishing up your résumé. They will kill your program to divert funding. They will even force you to fail by throwing all sorts of obstacles in front if you, so they can then justify shutting down your program due to "your" failure and inadequacies. NIF's days are certainly numbered. But it will be non-NIF people who are thrown into the sacrificial pit first.
3 more years?
Will somebody just kill this thing already.
There is absolutely no doubt this is the end of the road for NIF. 3 years just to establish feasibility shows just how little confidence the Byer led committee has in the ignition program.
bloody obvious
Why do people use these phrases in context that argues the opposite.
That is "bloody obvious" isn't.
what makes you think we’ll accomplish it in the next three?
NIF has been operation doing ignition experiments for about a year. Prior to that, no existing experimental apparatus could get pressures within 100x of what now are regularly achieved.
The tool finally exists to explore scientific regime. So it seems wise to explore it.
Course I'm not competing for funds with NIF. Just saying, motives count.
absolutely no doubt
again, bombast contradicted by fact.
We will be laughing at you as you are walked out of the gate in shame in 3 years. You con artists need to be run out of town.
It is bloody obvious. You people have been in Edisonian mode for the last 9 months. You guys have no clue. Your neutron yields get worse with your little fixes. And we absolutely know that you have no margin.
So indeed it is BLOODY OBVIOUS. NIF = Fail. Moses = Fail. Target design team = FAIL
I don't know why NIF people think that NIC = NIF. NIF failed and is of little value. The other platforms are valuable for their scientific role. NIF needs to be mothballed until after the other labs help bet a better understanding using their smaller and less expensive platforms. We don't need Moses either. He is not a scientific leader. He is an project manager. Project to build is done. Now he needs to move on and stop lingering like a bad stench from the sewer.
December 15, 2012 12:23 AM
You have a small mind me thinks.
People remember Ceaser they do not remember who wrote the graffiti. One like you still throws stones at the moon. Science marches on by doing the experiment and it has always been thus. I will give you credit it is of some amusement to see children throw rocks at the moon, but after awhile it gets boring. You are now boring.
Do the experment...study the realm!
You can study the realm and learn how to get ignition if you shut down NIF and put the funding into the other platforms. You are more likely to get a successful outcome if you do that.
Where do i get those NIF promotional posters and materials? I want to get them before they disappear in 3 years.
If I had to describe this "realm" of study, it is the "low-margin" realm where all you get are low neutron yields and negligible alpha heating, and the shots are all like this. I think the lab has studied this regime in great detail. What might help is that maybe if they calibrate their design code to include the 1997 Deuterium EoS data that was validated by two other LLNL theoretical studies, then maybe that will turn out to be the real "explainer" for why things don't work. Also, maybe they need a strength model for the shell, and that only a strength model that uses the laser-based technique involving the Rayleigh Taylor instability - that model is well received by the academic community who know that it is so rigorous, complete and technically sound that the mechanicians using other techniques might as well fold up their experiments and get jobs as taxi-drivers.
These are the realms that LLNL scientists need to study. The realm of why their work is so bad and why they keep promoting the people behind it, or even people who have no business running experimental groups.
RT materials strength work out of LLNL is so good, i'm lost for words for describing my emotions when I think about it. And all of that work in the name of NIF. Those scientists deserve a medal.
In light of D2 EoS, the word "laughter" might be appropriate. But hey those LLNL people don't know the difference between good and embarrassingly bad. It's that same legacy and pattern of behavior that brought us here to NIF.
This LLNL NIF endeavor is the greatest scientific failure in human history. Fusion will be achieved some day but not through NIF and not through the failed scientific decisions made by LLNL managers.
That NIF memorabilia will be a collectible some day for this exact reason. Think: old soviet era propaganda posters.
The 3 years window is the "saving face" on the part of NNSA and congress.
What would I do without NIF if it is shut down? It has been such a good source for providing ideas, themes and devices for writing. NIF had all the elements of the "trifecta of sin." "Liars" far and wide though some small group of people were just deceiving themselves and didn't know any better, "cheaters" in those scientists fabricating results in EoS and the way they went about the laser strength stuff, and "fornicators" in the form of Tomas and his team of willfully engaged participants. It doesn't get any better than this from the story-telling perspective. Reality more fantastic than fiction! I need to pay attention here!
The more surprising thing is in trying to figure out how PhDs from Harvard and MIT can be so bad at science and experiments or accomplish so little scientifically in their career so far. And NIF is built on the shoulders of these types of people.
Do the experment...study the realm!
December 15, 2012 9:40 AM
This is no longer an experiment! There is no experiment without a hypothesis.
Dang, Harvard and MIT PhDs getting schooled in the practice of scientific research.
They are just bumbling now.
Utubes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyB7Ho_W9RE
Bumbling . . .
First and foremost, Ed Moses is a con artist plain and simple. We threw 6 billion dollars down the drain to support this Rube Goldberg contraption that can't even get past first base in the pursuit towards fusion. They lied when they said they needed 192 beams claiming less would not be enough. If they did a credible design with some margin, they knew the facility could not be built and it would never have gotten funded. Ed is a little lying piece of filth and its amazing he can look at his family in the morning with a straight face and not be ashamed of what kind of legacy he leaves for them. Shame on you. We see you for the con artist you are.
These people are obviously criminals. That too is bloody obvious. Pilot plant in 10 years so says the kingpin. 3 years to look into feasibility for the concept, so says the review committee. How can NIF be that far off? Ed is not a scientific leader by any stretch of the imagination. There are many other people in positions of authority and leadership at the lab who also are mediocre and do not cut it as scientific leaders. And these B student leaders bring in C student yes-men who are even worse. Look how they approach materials strength. Truly a joke of cosmic proportions. But we need to let Ed and NIF completely destroy the lab. Let him continue to savagely destroy non-NIF programs and fire good scientists and engineers so that he can either misappropriate funds or grab more share of overhead.
This is how the story ends. If NNSA wanted to save the lab, it would have shut down NIF and integrated llnl work at nts. But to instead get 3 years of feasibility where all of the investigations are focused on omega and Z tells you that 3 years is the time allotted for Ed and NIF to completely destroy itself. The technical leads have no place to go, they have no credibility outside the lab so the lab can count on them to be there until the end and to keep applying Edisonian science until their own grave has been dug. They will get what's coming to them. It's just too bad that good scientists and good programs have to take a beating through all of this.
You people at NIF are criminals for shutting down the critics in the way you did. You abused and selectively applied classification rules in order to strip certain individuals of their clearances when they argued against NIF. By the same token you violated those classification rules when you decided it was in your advantage in what you thought would support the NIF design. You people are real pieces of work playing the people who work in classification like they are stupid puppets to be manipulated to support your failed strategies. Now we get 3 years to watch you squirm under the microscope and to see what lame excuses you come up with. A quick death to nif would have been better for you. Scientific frauds who have to keep faking it for 3 more years when we are continuously pointing out publications and presentations that show you for the frauds that you are.
But we need to let Ed and NIF completely destroy the lab. Let him continue to savagely destroy non-NIF programs and fire good scientists and engineers so that he can either misappropriate funds or grab more share of overhead.
December 16, 2012 10:35 AM
Man you guys at LLNL have a great reputation of grooming greedy egotistical folks that destroy scientists and engineers and the ultimately try to take the Labs down with them.
Lowell Wood, Ed Moses, Mike Anastasio, Brett Knapp, Charlie McMilan, to name a few.....
It's what is wrong with the Labs, don't work there....
It's the LLNL culture. Those who try to buck the culture suffer. Those who go along, rise in the ranks.
Can anyone tell me in simple language how NIF has not worked so far? I don't mean project management or political, I mean the technical results. I gather they have fired at these pellets and didn't get fusion. But what did happen? Is there hope that learning from these shots will result in modifications that will work? Or are things just not working at all and the technical premise is now in question. Non physicist here so easy on the tech speak. Thanks.
NIF is able to deliver energy as per requirements for the facility. However it has hit some unforeseen roadblocks along the path to ignition. Most notably the experiments are not getting the pressures they were expecting. Increased pressure means increased deuterium-tritium reactions that is expected to produce more neutrons and further heating by the energetic alpha particle that is expected to further increase the pressure in the fuel. It's an open question what is the underlying cause of this problem. Computer codes apparently do not capture whatever is happening or not happening. The nnsa report to Congress describes some of the recommendations for how to proceed. I'm a lay person in the fusion sciences but perhaps someone else more knowledgeable can add more or correct anything I've written here.
I recall some time ago when NIF encountered issues related to 3omega damage in the fused silica optics, there was a concerted effort to engage academia and industry to help resolve the issue. In the end this led to the processes in place today that minimize the likelihood of damage production on the expensive optics.
Is the current ignition problems of a similar nature and would academic and industrial engagement help at all as it did with the optical damage? I heard that there were a number of workshops to deal with the issue, but heard very little about outcomes or straw man hypotheses.
6:30PM: the ignition experiments are not working as expected and they reported that what they thought were fixes were not helping or sometimes making things worse. You can make a determination of progress by measuring the neutron yield with each shot. Neutron yield has stayed stubbornly low. That could of course shoot upwards once you have more reactions that help the burn to become self-sustaining. But the roadblock appears to be at this very early stage of the ignition process. Whether there is a design or pulse shape fix, or whether there is a real show stopper is anyone's guess right now.
I'm a lay person in the fusion sciences but perhaps someone else more knowledgeable can add more or correct anything I've written here.
December 17, 2012 2:26 AM
As you can tell from the responses on this, our scientists at the National Labs can't even come up with a viable explanation, let alone articulate it. It's no wonder NIF is sinking.
You're quite mistaken. I don't work at LLNL and I never have.
It is more likely that not a single fusion scientist reads this blog.
This blog instead is about malcontents, retirees, foreign intelligence service propoganda and looky-loos. Oh yeah, two arm-chair Nobellaureates from New Mexico.
You gotta add Parney, he reads all of this and has a hearty laugh at the ridiculous stuff being written here.
The people at the lab certainly pay attention to what's here, especially when it's dirty laundry being aired for everyone to see. And wow there are some real interesting ones being aired out. Too bad that the lab can't do much about it. It can't be libel if it's true. But llnl has been downtrodden for many years and we have to sympathize. All those years of failure have hardened to resolve of many lifers to go after this one last Hail Mary that we call NIF. NIF unfortunately hadn't produced any high quality science in the two years it has been operating after completion. And all indicators point to no high quality science for the foreseeable future. It's not for lack of trying though. They just blackball and drive off those extremely talented scientists who could have brought home that victory.
I have to say... The level of hubris shown by lab management is simply unwarranted given the string of failures. And please stop repeating over and over how your NIF build was great? It's obvious theat you say that because you have no really good scientific findings to brag about from NIF, but please, the repetition is getting annoying. And stop peddling that RT material strength crap, that is not science.
As a former LLNLer (A,B,&Z) with no love for the lab, I still hope they figure out the problems and make it work. Despite their political and interpersonal asshattery, I think it would be great to see.
Anonymous said...
The people at the lab certainly pay attention to what's here, especially when it's dirty laundry being aired for everyone to see
Baloney. Can't even get a good explanation of optics damage. This blog is read by precocious high-school malcontents, oh yeah and Parney.
The people at the lab ....blah, blah,blah... of hubris shown by lab management .....string of failures. ...obvious theat you say t...is getting annoying. And stop peddling that ... crap, that is not science," ad nauseum
My guess is this loolapalooza is from a junior propoganda officer at Lop Nor, practicing English and shit-disturbing at the same time.
Merry Christmas to you Mr. Wong. Oh, that's right, you are godless.
Well then, happy hummingbirds to you.
Tuesday December 18, 2012
NIF is operating as designed.
Ignition and defense science studies are underway.
All is well.
Could someone explain in clear terms what "RT material strength" is, and how it relates to this discussion? References would be very helpful also. RT stands for "real-time?"
Was there even a discussion on optics damage in this thread? I only see 7:19 AM and that looks like a question. Was there something factually incorrect about that post? If so you could have corrected the poster without having to resort to lashing out and insulting everyone. After all wasn't solving that issue one of the big successes for the lab and NIF? Isn't this the kind of success you are working towards with the ignition issues?
When I was 13 I visited the Shiva facility. They were promising a working demonstration plant in 10 years. I'm 53 now. What a tremendous crock of shit this NIF thing has been. They knew the problem in 1980 and NIF has done next to nothing to advance the science. Can anyone tell me how much has been spent with Shiva and with NIF over the last 50 years? It must be astronomical.
I have a bunch of Shiva collectables if anyone is interested.
If FIS was screwing with the lab, they would be encouraging NIF to keep pushing forward with the same people and the same scientific approach, all the while building their own pulsed power facilities. But the lab doesn't need help digging its own grave. Why do anything to slow down the pace of the dig?
We should let RT material strength be their hallmark accomplishment. We must not discourage them from performing their experiments and we need to let them publish as expeditiously as possible. Let them self-proclaim victory, complete with full PR fanfare and dupe-the-journalist side shows and NNSA/DoE and APS awards. This will be like Deuterium EoS only much much worse for the lab and the lead investigators. We need to first let their "measurements" see the light of day through peer reviewed journal publications. The question is which university academics they will draw in and drag under for this one?
If a "precocious high school malcontent" is identifying RT strength measurements as not being an actual measurement, then these pimply students should be running the lab as they are very perceptive and well informed, and are probably going to run circles around PhDs from MIT, Princeton and Harvard who lead these strength "measurement" efforts. Pimply malcontent would never go to the lab though. Getting awarded a Lawrence Fellowship or other lab distinctions would be a career killing stain on an otherwise bright future.
You got it wrong. Please read the posts more carefully. Pimply malcontents are the readers of the dirty laundry. It is the nefarious Wong Foo operatives who are identifying the RT strength measurements as not being measurements. Pretty observant operatives, they should be the ones running the lab.
. Pretty observant operatives, they should be the ones running the lab...
or at least, NNSA.
Why NNSA administrators remain silent, I have no clue. I suspect that they are playing dumb so when the SHTF they can assert that the lab claimed to know best, citing many remarks by lab management that Cook and Deeney are morons who know nothing about EoS and Strength. Oh the irony when the blowback to the lab occurs. After all, nnsa does not have enough oversight or authority over the lab. Let the lab dig its own grave.
RT strength is a Livermorons concoction. Not an NNSA one.
Know-nothing sat-nothing types? Are you referring to Charlis? Lots of LLNL functionaries are just like that also. Yeah NNSA has a bunch of those too. They pretend to say littme, citing security concerns. In reality they have nothing profound to say at all.
Post a Comment