General Fusion's Shockwave Approach

[tanstaafl76]

<p>Is anyone familiar with General Fusion? &nbsp;I have read an increasing number of news articles about them and their approach to affordable and reliable fusion power generation by using shockwaves transmitted through a rotating mass of liquid metal (lead-lithium). &nbsp;They seem to be able to demonstrate it on a small scale, I'm curious as to what some of the physics and/or engineering experts around here think about its viability?</p><p>http://www.generalfusion.com/t5_general_fusion.php</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is anyone familiar with General Fusion? &nbsp;I have read an increasing number of news articles about them and their approach to affordable and reliable fusion power generation by using shockwaves transmitted through a rotating mass of liquid metal (lead-lithium). &nbsp;They seem to be able to demonstrate it on a small scale, I'm curious as to what some of the physics and/or engineering experts around here think about its viability?http://www.generalfusion.com/t5_general_fusion.php <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>I had not heard of them, but I took a look at their web site through the link that you provided.</p><p>My impression is that they are pursuing a technology that is the subject of research at Los Alamos National Labs.&nbsp; That would indicate that the basic physical principles are plausible.</p><p>What I see is a very small, very entrepreneurial company chasing a very difficult problem.&nbsp; This problem has been under active investigation by several very technically competent groups with a high level of government funding for many years.&nbsp; There has been much progress in understanding of the difficulties of controlled fusion, but little in the way of commercially attractive technology.&nbsp; Nevertheless the potential benefits are such that work continues and funding is provided by government sources.&nbsp; The government-funded efforts are fundamentally scientific in nature and do no have to show any sort of near-term product or profit.</p><p>General Fusion is not so fortunate as are the government scientists in terms of a reliable funding source and lack of a requirement to turn a profit.&nbsp; They will have to produce something tangible or loose the venture capital support that it seems that they now have.&nbsp; Venture capitalists can have a long time horizon -- in terms of modern investment horizons.&nbsp; But they do not have infinite patience.&nbsp; And General Fusion has taken on a very difficult technological problem.</p><p>I see in the General Fusion "management team" some people with a pretty solid technical background, but I do not see anyone with specific expertise in nuclear physics.&nbsp; I see people with a business background and an entrepreneurial spirit.&nbsp; My general impression is that they are trying to go far enough to have an IPO with the hope of cashing in on stock when the company goes public.&nbsp; But I think they are in way over their heads with respect to the technical difficulty of the problem of developing a commercially viable controlled fusion process.&nbsp; This is very high risk stuff.</p><p>I hope they achieve success.&nbsp; But I would not hold my breath waiting for it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>Thanks for the note, Doc Rock, it's nice to get some feedback from folks who actually know what they are talking about to verify what one finds on the internet! &nbsp;I had read about the Los Alamos experiments as well, my understand is that they have been achieving the implosion force via an electrical current collapsing a tube. &nbsp;What I found interesting about the General Fusion approach was the very-mechanical pneumatic hammers generating shock waves, almost reminds me of the same mindset of design as the original 'fat man' atomic bomb that used a sphere covered in explosives.</p><p>The part that seemed really bizarre was the vortex within a rapidly rotating mass of liquid metal. &nbsp;Between that and these giant mechanical pistons it seems like there is an awful lot that could go awry and lead to substantial unreliability of a commercial reactor with this design. &nbsp;But then again I don't know WTF I'm talking about </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>