A bit more focus to fusion?

Andrew · Senior Member

A bit more focus to fusion?

Andrew · Senior Member

An interesting question: can fusion be used for something else, other then power source and space engines? Because I heard that you can use fusion to reduce the half-life of radioactive waste.

If the tokamaks can be used for that, that may be a much more useful and plausable use.

No country wants nuclear waste, but if we can make it live only a century as opposed to millions of years, people may rest more easy. Allot of money goes into handling nuclear waste. So there is the political will and money behind it.

Think about it. Instead of a shoe-lace tripping aggressive approach, we can use fusion to do something very useful, from which it can gain money and interest.

Fusors are already used as a neutron source. They could be improved?

And archiving breakeven would then be an interest for companies that handle waste this way, and may always do more research towards it, if for nothing else but to make their products more competitive.

John · Senior Member

Of course we haven't actually achieved the goal yet. We are still below Q = 1 and we need something like Q = 10. My we have made a fair about of progress on the current funding. I point from the beginning is that the field is starved for money. We are spending a lot more on a lot of things that are far less valuable in the science field. One fact that I'm noticing is that the U.S. has decreased it's support for the field since about 1993 and it is the international community that is now achieving results. The same is true for high energy phyisics where CERN is becoming the world leader.

Andrew · Senior Member

And where does the little money that there is go? Expensive Tokamaks.

Where does the money go? To fancy computer models of global warming, the Iraqi war, bull****- abstinence program that do not even work (abstinence in itself is not bad idea, telling that it is an option isn't either, what is bull****, is telling that its the ONLY option is), cold fusion without any explanation which is really scientists and a few engineers making some more **** up to get government money, silly sue cases, useless administrations, and useless administration of useless administration, to other countries that spoil it, corruption, anti-science bull**** like "intelligent design" etc, etc.

Those, and again, the fact that the USA wasted billions already. International may be the way to go, even if years are wasted on debating what kind of coffee machine should be near the entrance. Why? Because the Tokamaks cost a fortune to build, not because its research, but because the tokamaks are like that.

John · Senior Member

I think that any fusion concept that would produce the same amount of electric power as a typical commercial fission reactor would cost something similar to ITER. Most of the money is research not fabrication of the device. The same goes with a new airplane type. We might spend $20 billion to develop an aircraft that will have a first unit cost of $300 million and an average production cost of $100 million.

You just seem fixed on the idea that tokamaks won't work so let just try anything else. Most fusion researchers don't agree with you on this. Tokamak wasn't chosen by chance. It emerged as the best in competitions with many of the earlier concepts. The reason for the increased cost is that we are now going for a reactor that will demonstrate energy productions not just a plasma physics experiment.

My main concern is that not enough money is being invested and we might compromise to the extent that we end up short of the goal. Anyway neither of us are likely to get what we want. ITER will go forward but it will be a slow program. ICF will go forward as well because the U.S. national labs support it. Other things will have scrounge for money.

Andrew · Senior Member

Expenses of a reactor themselves very much depends on what technology would be used. Tokamaks need very powerful magnetic fields that require superconducters. A commercial reactor would need active cryogenic cooling with current superconductors, helium Promeathean cycle that is also expensive. The vacuum chambers would also have to be very big, thus very expensive. Not to mention the fact that in order to jump-start the reactor, a separate fission plant would be needed.

Polywell on the other hand would not necessarily need superconductors, the demo plant could run with copper wires (liquid nitrogen cooled, but still cheaper). Superconductors would come with the bigger reactors, but they are less necessary, plus would be much easier to cool, as the chamber walls would be mainly heated, rather then the grid. Polywell can also do aneutronic fusion, thus further reducing needing for cooling. Make no mistake, the engineering involved is not easy, but much easier then what tokamaks have to struggle with.
Polywell is also small, thus you could put it in as a heat source to already existing coal, oil and even fission power plants, reducing the cost further. The vacuum chamber would also be much smaller, not small as my closet, but very small compared to the tokamaks. Polywell too, would need a backup plant, but making several reactors would be much easier for already mentioned reasons, and much less power would be required.

Most fusion researchers base their entire carrier on tokamaks, and get their money for doing tokamaks. Its kinda hard to thing outside the box, when you make your living in it.

Again, fusion researchers are not immune to paradigms. And remember the Swiss and their watches? They knew how to make them, and made darn good ones, but none of them could foresee the potential in going digital. End result? Swiss watches are now a less-precise, niche market for rich people wanting to look classy.

The DoE has official policy to pursue just and only tokamaks and ICF.

And yes, tokamaks produced well.

30 years ago.

Farnsworth literally rolled up a fusor on a burrowed meal cart in front of a bunch of AEC engineers, and produced highest level of fusion ever recorded to that date. The people were convinced, but none of them wanted the project to go from their budget. Farnsworth experiments later drowned up due to the lack of money. If he gotten a quarter of what the tokamak guys had, we might now have commercial fusion reactors supplying the world's energy needs, along with regular moon rockets and expeditions to Mars.

10kBq Jaro · Senior Member

John wrote:
I think that any fusion concept that would produce the same amount of electric power as a typical commercial fission reactor would cost something similar to ITER.

John, I would like to know what you base that belief on.
As I recall, the ITER power pulses are supposed to be only a few hundred megawatts (was it 400MW ?).
This is thermal power, not electricity produced with a conversion efficiency of ~40%.
Several megawatts will be dumped into the cryogenic superconductor coolant by neutrons & gammas that make it through the lithium PHT fluid, which will require many times as much power to extract that heat.
The RF heaters and particle injection heaters will eat up more megawatts.

Moreover, with ITER pulses being short and far between, the average power comes to far less than 400 MW.
By contrast, a typical fission plant produces a continuous ~3000 MW of thermal power.

So there is a long way to go, in both size and cost, before even a Tokamak that "works" produces anything like the power output of a nominal nuke plant.

They will not come anywhere near to being economically competitive.

-- Edited by 10kBq Jaro at 02:45, 2007-06-08

John · Senior Member

10kBq Jaro wrote:

John wrote:
I think that any fusion concept that would produce the same amount of electric power as a typical commercial fission reactor would cost something similar to ITER.
John, I would like to know what you base that belief on.

My point in context is that what evidence that fusion reactors based on the alternative concept that Andrew advocates would really be cheaper? He attacks the cost of ITER by comparing it to the cost of small lab test experiments like Bussards polywell work. My basic thought is that the tokamak work by the mid-1990s reached the point where going forward to a prototype reactor is the next logical step. ITER has been scaled by some because budget issues and it won't compete with mature fission plants. If everything were to work out it is likely that commercial fusion reactors that might follow would be scaled to the size of the current fission plants.

I think that a lot of interesting technology will be developed in the course of the ITER project. Some of it would be useful in other fusion concepts with they were to ultimately prove superior to tokamaks. ICF systems (laser not H-bombs) are still going to have to have a similar method of converting energy from fast neutrons will breeding tritium. Their will be issues of materials in this environment. I also do seem some merit in throwing some money at this so that the fusion community can grow and that more top quality people go into this field. If there are better approaches a larger community will provide the mavericks that will develop alternative ideas that might be more productive if tokamak does fail.

As for a the Bussard polywell it seems to me that Israel should fund it. At $200 million it is well within their ability to fund and as a long shot if it worked it would go a long way to undermining Arab oil power buy reducing the demand for oil marginally the prices would drop rapidly taking about their enemies economic power.

-- Edited by John at 03:38, 2007-06-08

Andrew · Senior Member

My point in context is that what evidence that fusion reactors based on the alternative concept that Andrew advocates would really be cheaper?

The technology involved is surprisingly low-tech, thus cheaper. Superconductors, for example, are not necessarily involved, copper and occasionally even stainless steel can be used for experiments. This alone greatly decreases costs.

He attacks the cost of ITER by comparing it to the cost of small lab test experiments like Bussards polywell work.

Yet those small lab experiments results and fusion rate were very much comparable, even occasionally surpassing tokamaks, at much lower costs then what the tokamaks needed.

When people are doing the same thing as billion-dollar projects for less money and similar results, it may be a sign that the billion-dollar projects may be doing something wrong.

Also, Jet did cost a billion, or nearly so. Farnsworth produced very good fusion at a fraction of the cost.

One of my approaches is that we need fusion NOW! Not 30-50 years or more later with a relaxed research program at which end's the researchers can comfortably retire, we need it now, preferably within a decade. This is the 21st century's greatest issue and most important goal.

And what little money we have shouldn't be spent on red herrings that an entire generation has been excited and disappointed in, but aggressively pursuing innovative schemes and research. You propose more money to the project and inspiring speeches. You and I both know that such will simply not happen.

I propose changing policy, changing priorities and ideas on what fusion is with a more aggressive research program.
The Manhattan project rounded up the most smartest people they could find and gave them a problem with x amount of budget. Everyone started cracking skulls, and we got THE most destructive weapon, and basis for developing electricity-producing reactors.

Normally, the destructive potential of the nuclear bomb discouraged the generation of scientist that either saw or grew up on stories of the first world war and the senseless carnage that was in it. But nobody had much objection nuking Hitler.

However, with fusion, something very useful can be developed that would help all of us on this planet. That's a good motivation for a peaceful energy source, don't you think?

John · Senior Member

Yet those small lab experiments results and fusion rate were very much comparable, even occasionally surpassing tokamaks

Is the really true? See below from the Wikipedia Polywell Article:

Despite initial difficulties in spherical electron confinement, at the time of the research project's termination, Bussard had reported a neutron rate of 10⁹ per second (based on detection of three neutrons, giving a wide confidence interval).
Based on the detection of THREE neutrons! The test also ruined the device so it can't be easily repeated. Based on this I guess the entirely mainstream fusion community can be declared to be frauds that are just trying to keep their jobs.

I think that Bussard work should be funded. I'm somewhat surprised that some rich interests don't do so. GE could do the without blowing their bottom line and have the inside track on making billion off of exploiting it if it worked. Why don't Google follow up on this. The big money people are funding some way out solar concepts. Israel could really undermine their opponents if they could reduce the demand for oil by say 10 or 15 percent and send oil prices spiraling downward.

The good news is that the Japanese JT-60 is now achieved Q = 1.25 and confinment time of 28.6 seconds. So we are making progress. I guess there is going to be a retort that this a theoretical prediction of the D-T reaction since the JT-60 only ran D-D. But we have the results of the Priceton work and the JET work with D-T and D-D so these estimates should be very good prediction. I see continued progress and no reason to stop. I would be happy to here that Polywell work get its chance as well but I really have my doubts here.

Andrew · Senior Member

Then you know little of the Polywell or IEC in general.

WB-6 produced a fusion rate of 3000 neutrons per second (although, the test actually ran for a few microseconds) with a potential well of 10 kv. With traditional fusors, THERE IS NO NEUTRON DETECTION AT THIS WELL DEPTH at ALL! You need 4-5 times as powerful potential well for similar results.

There were also multiple tests, the average amount of neutrons detected by the sensor being three. The neutron detector was also farther away from the centre, so scattering must also be taken to account.

The prototype was also destroyed due to the multiple tests overall, and was actually meant to be destroyed. Even if it wasn't, the project would have been cancelled by the Navy anyway. Dr.Bussard's team was running on money given because someone there realized the potential of their work.

A member of the Polywell groups also is expressing interest in creating a Polywell, funded by himself. No donations. This man will make a polywell reactor running D-D and even p-b11 as a hobby.
IEC fusion is THAT cheap. The most expensive parts are the vacuum pumps and chamber. If a serious research lab wanted to, they could easily replicate the results done by EMC2.

So the JT-60 contained a plasma for less then half a second. Wonderful prospect, albeit the Q=1.25 being extrapolated breakeven, not actual. If we would have counted extrapolated breakeven as actual breakeven, then we would have had that about 20 years ago. Story ain't so. I'm willing to bet that researchers will discover ANOTHER plasma instability. Because we found plenty since the presentation of the tokamak way back in the 50's.

Oh, and the tokamaks would have to do 3 times that much to archive engineering breakeven, not just scientific. If you are lucky. And 10 times of that to archive economic breakeven, along with solving even more plasma instabilities due to the electromagnets and plasma seperated by running helium and molten lithium. And 100 times to be even competitive with a IV generation fission reactor that can work contentiously.

And since tokamaks cannot do anything else but D-T practically, they have no future. The only advantage would be less dangerous radioactive waste, which isn't really an issue with breeder reactors. Tritium must also be produced artificially. Yes, there is the lithium, but you must replaced that as well. It will only increase the reactor's run-time, not solve the problem of getting the fuel as a whole.

John · Senior Member

WB-6 produced a fusion rate of 3000 neutrons per second (although, the test actually ran for a few microseconds) with a potential well of 10 kv.

3000 neutrons/sec * 1 microsecond = 3 neutrons

So the JT-60 contained a plasma for less then half a second.

It isn't 1/2 second on the JT-60 but 28.6 seconds which a big difference.

And since tokamaks cannot do anything else but D-T practically, they have no future. The only advantage would be less dangerous radioactive waste, which isn't really an issue with breeder reactors. Tritium must also be produced artificially.

The initial tritium will need to be produced in a fission reactor. But once we have an operational fusion reactor it will breed its own tritium from the lithium. Don't for forget n + Li7 --> Li6 + 2 n.

Wonderful prospect, albeit the Q=1.25 being extrapolated breakeven, not actual. If we would have counted extrapolated breakeven as actual breakeven, then we would have had that about 20 years ago.

As I pointed out we have run D-T reactions in two machines Princeton and JET as so we know how D-D and D-T relate. That allows a reliable prediciton.

A member of the Polywell groups also is expressing interest in creating a Polywell, funded by himself. No donations. This man will make a polywell reactor running D-D and even p-b11 as a hobby.
IEC fusion is THAT cheap. The most expensive parts are the vacuum pumps and chamber. If a serious research lab wanted to, they could easily replicate the results done by EMC2.

Why don't they? I'd have it done if I was the energy czar. I hope that someone does this sort of work. You are making this sound a little "crack pot" like our cold fusion pals. The worlds science establishments get blindsided by some guy working in this basement that make the first function fusion reactor! It would be a hoot it it happened. Aren't some of the university scientists working on this. I though that someone at University of Illinois(?) was doing some lab work on IEC.

I really think that the Israeli's should give this a go. It maybe a long shot but it's cheap as you point out and if it worked it would be a blow to their enemies. If it reduced oil consumption by say 10 percent the prices would plunge!

Andrew · Senior Member

Why don't they? I'd have it done if I was the energy czar. I hope that someone does this sort of work. You are making this sound a little "crack pot" like our cold fusion pals. The worlds science establishments get blindsided by some guy working in this basement that make the first function fusion reactor! It would be a hoot it it happened. Aren't some of the university scientists working on this. I though that someone at University of Illinois(?) was doing some lab work on IEC.

The reason why this isn't mainstream that much is partly because its RECENT. The video about the doctor talking about his work is barely one year old. Very few people know about this, and EMC2 is not advertising yet. Dr.Bussard and the others are still working on summarizing 10 years of work.

Why aren't IEC that mainstream as well? They are very tricky, and most researchers view them as a dead end.

Also, if you think that Polywell won't work, look here:
http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php Another IEC scheme.

I do hate crackpots, and know a bit about pseudo-science. Polywell looks fairly rock-hard.

I really think that the Israeli's should give this a go. It maybe a long shot but it's cheap as you point out and if it worked it would be a blow to their enemies. If it reduced oil consumption by say 10 percent the prices would plunge!

Oil prices are held high artificially I recall, but you do have a point. As of yet, the main source of information regarding Polywell, is Tom Ligon, a researcher that worked there. Otherwise, EMC2 is silent, struggling with summarizing the data and math involved and getting enough money to run at all.

3000 neutrons/sec * 1 microsecond = 3 neutrons

WB-6 ran pulsed due to various reasons (including no continuous power supply, the power needed to run the thing was supplied by capacitators, due to budget and lab). The tests ran microseconds. However, a fusion rate of 3000 per second is quite high. For a potential well of 10 kv, that is amazing. There is little stopping to run the thing contiously if one can get the right equipment.

The initial tritium will need to be produced in a fission reactor. But once we have an operational fusion reactor it will breed its own tritium from the lithium. Don't for forget n + Li7 --> Li6 + 2 n.

I do know. What will happen when the lithium runs out, and the fuel is spent? You still need tritium.

As I pointed out we have run D-T reactions in two machines Princeton and JET as so we know how D-D and D-T relate. That allows a reliable prediciton.

And nothing else.

-- Edited by Andrew at 21:35, 2007-06-17

John · Senior Member

I do know. What will happen when the lithium runs out, and the fuel is spent? You still need tritium.

There is a lot of lithium. I don't think that is a major limitation.

On the funding side on could hope that perhaps the founders of Google will fund Bussard's work. The are funding some cutting edge ideas in solar power. The idea of aneutronic fusion, i.e. B-11 and H might appeal to them. I would like to see if there is anything to this. Given the amount of work that was done trying to confirm (or disprove) cold fusion you would think that someone would give this a chance.

My main beef with you is that you don't give the mainstream much credit inspite of their systematic progress. Fusion is a tough problem but the goal is in sight. It may turn out that EMC2 will do an end run and get there first. All the better if that happens but I see no reason to through in with the fossil fuel guys and attack the mainstream.

Andrew · Senior Member

I do not like tokamaks. Here is why:

They are big, cost are enormous and rely overly much on high-tech. They can only do D-T which is quite nasty and difficult to economically convert. You need to do roughly 3 times scientific breakeven to get money out of it.

Beyond that, they sponged up pretty much all research in non-fission-induced fusion. Farnsworth's last fusion machines was supposedly close to Polywell, according to mythology. But it never quite ran before the lab ran out of money. If they received even the quarter or tenth of what tokamaks got, then they might be succeeded, and we might be living in a fusion-run world.

One of main interests in nuclear engineering is space applications. It is impossible to do it any other way. Only nuclear can give the energy versus weight.

Tokamaks are as heavy as a aircraft carrier and humongous, requiring enormous power to trigger breakeven. This rules out any space-based application, leaving us with nothing but D-T fusion on ground with incredible expenses.

Power plants that IV generation fission plants could outrun them economically.

There is little point with them. No future as well. The most useful thing I ever heard that came from tokamak research is the VASIMR drive, that could be easily outperformed by MPD drives.

I find the programs wasteful and useless. With a great mentality that "future generations will solve the problems" idea which is retarded at best. You can't hope that your kids will solve your problems. You want to give a future to your children, not problems.

The only credit I think that the tokamaks deserve is that they were the first to produce non-fission-induced fusion. Anything else, is their problem. JT-60 archived half a minute of confinement? Great, except that it would need to do that contentiously. Or for years the very least.

Oh, and a here is a video of a Hirch-Farnsworth fusor running for more then a minute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeMd5LCu7Ag

Every advanced with the tokamaks is only with the tokamaks. In the end, the only thing they can do is increase the strength of magnetic fields or refine field's form. They are already running at the highest edge with the technology we can supply.

Tokamaks sound fairly easy in theory, but practically, the engineering problems involved are so enormous, that they might not be solved. Every problem solved gives you another, a sign that the design concept may have flaws.

However, here is this brilliant piece of joined engineering and physics that could do what billion dollars couldn't do so far, for the fraction of the cost.

And it would actually have a future: it could do not only D-D, but D-He3 and even p-B11. It could fit on the space shuttle. It could generate power with high efficiency. It could power incredible engines that would not only allow us to get to LEO, not only to the Moon, but the entire solar system, and beyond a bit.

And could easily outperform IV generation fission reactors in the long run. The first reactors will not be compatible as power plants, but as the solutions become more refined, they will. If you add p-b11 to the equation, you will get energy directly rather then with the Promethean cycle where at least 50% of the energy is lost. You can use the costs saved by not buying turbines and generators to build either a bigger reactor or an another one.

There is a lot of lithium. I don't think that is a major limitation.

I meant inside the reactor. There is only so much in there.

Andrew · Senior Member

And yes, I was sceptical at first.

I mentioned www.fusor.net before right? Well, Tom Ligon visits there.

Crackpots avoid sceptics and criticism like fire. Tom Ligon did not do this, he answered them. Whenever there was criticism, no matter how well based, he was able to answer it. Either he, or another person that understood the device enough to answer it. The Polywell isn't a perfect machine. It has various engineering problems itself, however these are much more easy then putting molten lithium next to supercooled superconductors. It has its own design problems, and the machine must be built on certain specifications, or it will choke on losses. However, these problems are quite solvable.

The concept Polywell works on, the fusion concept that is, is well-known and established. This is IEC, inertal electrostatic confinement. An invention of Farnsworth who was experimenting with vacuum tubes. Way back in 56. 1956.

Polywell is an improvement of Farnsworth and Hirch's famous fusor, that is well-known throughout the world as a neutron source. Polywell's aim is to minimize losses found in Hirch-Fansworth fusors by a, recirculating electrons and b, making a virtual anode that attracts ions and isn't effected by the damage done by fusion products.

If I have to take my bets which fusion scheme I must follow, I'd rather follow Polywell's, rather then the tokamaks which a generation has waited for already.

John · Senior Member

Does all of this really pass the smell test? This would imply that the fusion community is really not all that bright. They are ignoring these cheap simple devices that will work (in your opinion) while spending billion on things that won't work (again in your opinion). When claims of cold fusion were announced then were not slow to conduct experiment to duplicate it that of course failed. But, they did check it out. But for some strange reason these ploywell fusors just aren't given a fair chance!

Of course if the scientists at any number of labs across the world broke with this policy they would demonstrate fusion and win the Nobel Prize but no they just won't do it. That sure makes a lot of sense to me!

Andrew · Senior Member

John, you already fired the "yeah right, cold fusion" argument. Read above, I won't repeat myself.

John · Senior Member

I think you are completely missing the point which your completed discounting the expertise of the fusion research community. The point on cold fusion is that when it came out it was investigated by fusion scientists and was found wanting. They didn't just ignore it. Certainly the eletrostatic fusion systems have a lot more cedibility than cold fusion ever had.

What is strange is that this one approach would be so neglected given its claimed promise! Perhaps that's for no other reason than there really isn't that much promise? Farnsworth fusor are worthless to scale to a real fusion power plant as the grids would be quickly destroyed. Dr. Bussards ploywell has solved that issue but there is a low of disagreement over its merits. I would like to see his funding restored so that he can build and test his WB-7 and WB-8 devices. But that's know reason to abandon other projects that are on going. We might well find that ploywell won't work after all and that we have no fusion program left.

Andrew · Senior Member

It is not rejected. It is just not funded, in favour of large tokamaks.

Like I said, IEC is tricky to do, and most physicist preferred the largely-funded and simpler tokamaks. Some don't, and can spend the rest of their life trying to get funding to test their idea. Or perhaps even more.

Farnsworths fusors do melt, and do not produce net power. But they do produce fusion very easily, and the concept they work on is proven thusly.

As for abandoning other projects? Of course not, just the useless tokamaks. They are too expensive, too difficult to do and have very limited usability. The USA alone has already spent almost a generation of people to try to get the thing working. No such luck. We've seen bigger devices, prettier pictures, some circulating plasma, allot of money spent, but no breakeven. Look up the sky and tell me: how many suns are toroidal?

And even if Polywell doesn't work, it at least throws us back on the right track for fusion and prove that IEC isn't the dead end thought it to be.

Andrew · Senior Member

Another point: IEC is ignored ever since its birth. Remember Farnsworth and the burrowed meal tray? A bunch on people from AeC saw a fusion reactor working right in front of their eyes, but none of them wanted the project funded from their budget, despite its obvious promise.I recall that Farnsworth funded his work from private money. Not a cent of government money has been given to IEC devices.

IEC machines have been struggling with funding ever since.

As for why, do you think that fusion research is without politics?

Andrew · Senior Member

Correction: Delete the line "not a cent of government money has been given to IEC devices." Word of passion.

However, they ARE underfunded by magnitudes.

John · Senior Member

As for abandoning other projects? Of course not, just the useless tokamaks. They are too expensive, too difficult to do and have very limited usability. The USA alone has already spent almost a generation of people to try to get the thing working.
No to the machine made todate were ever entended to "work" as you put it. They were are basically experimental devices. ITER will be the first one designed to actually be in some sense a working reactor. So there was not attempt and no failure. Tokamak programs are actually progressing under the limited budgets that we have been working in the past decade. Things are improving on that front recently.

Hopefully some of this money will be availible to test out the IEC concepts. Really don't see that choice is so clear cut as you make it. Bussard claims some scaling laws that seem a little unlikley and has (as far as I can tell) any real justification for them.

Andrew · Senior Member

Bussard claims some scaling laws that seem a little unlikley and has (as far as I can tell) any real justification for them.

The scaling laws are from relatively simple calculations based on the data on the WB machines operation.

No to the machine made todate were ever entended to "work" as you put it. They were are basically experimental devices. ITER will be the first one designed to actually be in some sense a working reactor. So there was not attempt and no failure. Tokamak programs are actually progressing under the limited budgets that we have been working in the past decade. Things are improving on that front recently.

They were also improving 30 years ago. They are improving now. And if all of them are experimental devices, not attempted to demonstrate breakeven capability, then what the hell did the USA spent several billion dollars on?

And to ansrew a previously mentioned argument, billions of dollars for pure research does not come easily. NASA needs roughly 2,8 billion a year just to function at all, and much more for its actual space programs. For 10 billion, NASA could have done it all way back when the shuttle was still in development: space station, moon base, manned expeditions to Mars, unmanned expeditions to the gas giants, etc.

-- Edited by Andrew at 13:53, 2007-07-02