This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
“The quality of the carefully made capsules wasn’t quite as high as the one used in December, and three of the five experiments used less laser power than before”
Well, it looks like they’re going to have to take nothing for granted and fire off at least a half dozen shots with capsules identical to the December shot and laser power equal to the December shot in order to confirm the results of that shot and convince themselves that they can reproducibly achieve ignition conditions. -Doug
Due to this setback I think the employees at Los Alamos should start taking more required training to make up for this issue. I mean that’s how it works the other way about.
Why on earth would a failed fusion experiment that is decades behind schedule, and billions over budget garner a Nobel prize? That is setting the low bar even lower.
Getting the first burning fusion plasma, without a bomb, is worth a Nobel but this was done two years ago. With a bomb it was done in 1951 in operation greenhouse george. What they are calling ignition now is completely a dumbed down and arbitrary definition that has little to do with anything that matters.
Why on earth would a failed fusion experiment that is decades behind schedule, and billions over budget garner a Nobel prize? That is setting the low bar even lower.
5/11/2023 7:51 AM
Climate change.
I am not joking, there is talk about NIF winning since it represents a new form clean energy that could save the world. The world will be doomed very soon if we continue to use fossil fuels, we must be free of this by the next 15 years and fusion can be one of the methods. By giving the prize the NIF we will show the world that fusion energy is a viable option that must be pursued. Even if NIF does not work out the end we need to give the perception that it works and Fusion is the way forward among many others. Again you may say this is a joke but this is a real conversation people are having and will not be surprised if NIF wins this years. I think if they get one more successful shot in the next six months that the odds are 50% or more.
In case you have any doubts just look at the 2021 Nobel prize for climate change. Few physicists thing any of these people deserve the prize. Even the one physics guy Parisi, was said to win it for climate change, when in fact his research had nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Even his is a controversial choice as many think he should not have gotten it either but there are some that think he does. Another theory is that he got since they failed to give it to Cabibbo. Technically speaking NIF is probably more deserving of the 2021 prize but there is a push to make the prize more and more about climate change.
I was looking at one of Lindl’s presentations from 2007. They were predicting yields starting with 20 MJ and goings much higher - into the 100’s of MJ. I think what they’re getting now (1-3MJ), although important, are essentially fizzles. I’m wondering of the hot spot conditions are just marginal and that’s why there’s such difficulty in repeating the experiments. But hats off to them, they’re dealing with mix and massive instability while trying to get super high convergence.
Lindl's predictions were based upon low adiabat fuel, which never worked. These old predictions don't apply since all the working implosions have used high adiabat fuel. So, 1-3 MJ isn't a fizzle but is just the limit with high adiabat. They are definitely on the margin of any of this working, otherwise they would not have so much trouble repeating anything and wouldn't be trying to push the laser to even higher levels of energy.
“They are definitely on the margin of any of this working, otherwise they would not have so much trouble repeating anything and wouldn't be trying to push the laser to even higher levels of energy.”
Aren’t the 192 NIF lasers running near or at damage threshold now? Have there been any NNSA budget proposals to rebuild each of the 192 NIF lasers to increase power and energy density by ___x, in a manner that would be able to use the same facility? Or, a NNSA budget proposal to design and build a prototype laser (1 of 192 needed) as ~proof of its viability?
"They are definitely on the margin of any of this working, otherwise they would not have so much trouble repeating anything....."
Do they lack the ability to (1) precisely and fully characterize each target assembly and/or (2) to precisely and fully characterize each implosion to determine exactly what went wrong and make adjustments to the next shot to improve the probability of ignition? If they lack (1) or (2) or both, then it seems they're reduced to essentially pecking around in the dark and relying on getting lucky to see another successful shot. And who knows how long that may take? -Doug
The real issue, unfortunately, is that they need about 3x the laser energy to get reliable and efficient ignition. I don't think congress has the stomach for that at this point, but it's a shame they got so close and didn't quite get over the hump. It's not like ICF is a big mystery as they make it out to be. Is just impossible to say reliably that you can achieve ignition with a very modest amount of laser energy because there are well known instabilities and always minor variations that can't be fully characterized or controlled. But at least we now have a pretty good idea of where the threshold is.
“Point me to a commercially viable power plant and I'll get interested in endless LLNL fusion blather.”
We’ve been conditioned to believe EVs will save the planet, even though we don’t have the grid capacity for such a transition from gasoline. In CA, expect pre-scheduled rolling blackouts in the future and even costlier electricity. Even now, some fixed income elderly Californians must decide to run “the air conditioner or the oxygen machine” because of sky high electricity rates.
Meanwhile 7,000 miles away, China (FYI: we share the same planet with China) is building about 2 coal power plants per week. You know, the power plants that pump out large amounts of CO2, the global warming gas into our MUTUAL atmosphere.
Back in the USA, we buy lithium battery materials from China to power our “clean” EVs. Except, the carbon footprint to produce an EV delivered to USA showrooms, is comparable to gas cars over their lifetimes.
Maybe it’s time to switch gears from a 25-75 year fusion possibility, to a new generation of fission plants that can be designed much safer and far less prone to human error than their fission plant predecessors.
19 comments:
“The quality of the carefully made capsules wasn’t quite as high as the one used in December, and three of the five experiments used less laser power than before”
Well, it looks like they’re going to have to take nothing for granted and fire off at least a half dozen shots with capsules identical to the December shot and laser power equal to the December shot in order to confirm the results of that shot and convince themselves that they can reproducibly achieve ignition conditions.
-Doug
All focus should be on NIF from now on, this was going to win a Nobel prize for sure, we gotta get this done.
Yeah all the "carefully made capsules" will guarantee fusion energy is just about 50 years or so.
Due to this setback I think the employees at Los Alamos should start taking more required training to make up for this issue. I mean that’s how it works the other way about.
Why on earth would a failed fusion experiment that is decades behind schedule, and billions over budget garner a Nobel prize? That is setting the low bar even lower.
Getting the first burning fusion plasma, without a bomb, is worth a Nobel but this was done two years ago. With a bomb it was done in 1951 in operation greenhouse george. What they are calling ignition now is completely a dumbed down and arbitrary definition that has little to do with anything that matters.
Why on earth would a failed fusion experiment that is decades behind schedule, and billions over budget garner a Nobel prize? That is setting the low bar even lower.
5/11/2023 7:51 AM
Climate change.
I am not joking, there is talk about NIF winning since it represents a new form clean energy that could save the world. The world will be doomed very soon if we continue to use fossil fuels, we must be free of this by the next 15 years and fusion can be one of the methods. By giving the prize the NIF we will show the world that fusion energy is a viable option that must be pursued. Even if NIF does not work out the end we need to give the perception that it works and Fusion is the way forward among many others. Again you may say this is a joke but this is a real conversation people are having and will not be surprised if NIF wins this years. I think if they get one more successful shot in the next six months that the odds are 50% or more.
In case you have any doubts just look at the 2021 Nobel prize for climate change. Few physicists thing any of these people deserve the prize. Even the one physics guy Parisi, was said to win it for climate change, when in fact his research had nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Even his is a controversial choice as many think he should not have gotten it either but there are some that think he does. Another theory is that he got since they failed to give it to Cabibbo. Technically speaking NIF is probably more deserving of the 2021 prize but there is a push to make the prize more and more about climate change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-right-words-are-crucial-to-solving-climate-change/
The USA is imploding right now at this very minute, NIF is the last thing we need to worry about.
I was looking at one of Lindl’s presentations from 2007. They were predicting yields starting with 20 MJ and goings much higher - into the 100’s of MJ. I think what they’re getting now (1-3MJ), although important, are essentially fizzles. I’m wondering of the hot spot conditions are just marginal and that’s why there’s such difficulty in repeating the experiments. But hats off to them, they’re dealing with mix and massive instability while trying to get super high convergence.
Lindl's predictions were based upon low adiabat fuel, which never worked. These old predictions don't apply since all the working implosions have used high adiabat fuel. So, 1-3 MJ isn't a fizzle but is just the limit with high adiabat. They are definitely on the margin of any of this working, otherwise they would not have so much trouble repeating anything and wouldn't be trying to push the laser to even higher levels of energy.
“They are definitely on the margin of any of this working, otherwise they would not have so much trouble repeating anything and wouldn't be trying to push the laser to even higher levels of energy.”
Aren’t the 192 NIF lasers running near or at damage threshold now? Have there been any NNSA budget proposals to rebuild each of the 192 NIF lasers to increase power and energy density by ___x, in a manner that would be able to use the same facility? Or, a NNSA budget proposal to design and build a prototype laser (1 of 192 needed) as ~proof of its viability?
"They are definitely on the margin of any of this working, otherwise they would not have so much trouble repeating anything....."
Do they lack the ability to (1) precisely and fully characterize each target assembly and/or (2) to precisely and fully characterize each implosion to determine exactly what went wrong and make adjustments to the next shot to improve the probability of ignition? If they lack (1) or (2) or both, then it seems they're reduced to essentially pecking around in the dark and relying on getting lucky to see another successful shot. And who knows how long that may take?
-Doug
The real issue, unfortunately, is that they need about 3x the laser energy to get reliable and efficient ignition. I don't think congress has the stomach for that at this point, but it's a shame they got so close and didn't quite get over the hump. It's not like ICF is a big mystery as they make it out to be. Is just impossible to say reliably that you can achieve ignition with a very modest amount of laser energy because there are well known instabilities and always minor variations that can't be fully characterized or controlled. But at least we now have a pretty good idea of where the threshold is.
Well said 5/15/2023 6:50 AM.
Point me to a commercially viable power plant and I'll get interested in endless LLNL fusion blather.
“Point me to a commercially viable power plant and I'll get interested in endless LLNL fusion blather.”
We’ve been conditioned to believe EVs will save the planet, even though we don’t have the grid capacity for such a transition from gasoline. In CA, expect pre-scheduled rolling blackouts in the future and even costlier electricity. Even now, some fixed income elderly Californians must decide to run “the air conditioner or the oxygen machine” because of sky high electricity rates.
Meanwhile 7,000 miles away, China (FYI: we share the same planet with China) is building about 2 coal power plants per week. You know, the power plants that pump out large amounts of CO2, the global warming gas into our MUTUAL atmosphere.
Back in the USA, we buy lithium battery materials from China to power our “clean” EVs. Except, the carbon footprint to produce an EV delivered to USA showrooms, is comparable to gas cars over their lifetimes.
Maybe it’s time to switch gears from a 25-75 year fusion possibility, to a new generation of fission plants that can be designed much safer and far less prone to human error than their fission plant predecessors.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin#:~:text=It's%20the%20equivalent%20of%20about,in%202022%20compared%20to%202021.
This last comment is the smartest I have seen in this blog. Here is a brain that works!
5/17/2023 12:48 PM
5/16/2023 6:01 PM here. You are spot on! Excite me with new fission possibilities instead of boring me with new fusion promises.
Certainly 12:48 lives in the real world.
Post a Comment