Lockheed claims breakthrough on fusion energy project

[Argylas]

Anyone knows any more details about this? It would be really sweet if someone can really make a practical controlled fusion reactor soon - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/lockheed-fusion-idUSL2N0SA04D20141015

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Anyone knows any more details about this? It would be really sweet if someone can really make a practical controlled fusion reactor soon - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/lockheed-fusion-idUSL2N0SA04D20141015

'U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle.'

That's a pretty big typo. Reporter and editor missed that? Good job, Reuters.

[ZedNova]

'U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle.'

That's a pretty big typo. Reporter and editor missed that? Good job, Reuters.

I wonder if they even know the difference between Fission and Fusion.

[Kryten]

I'd be extremely cautious. An unknown team coming up with a revolutionary design, that they refuse to even hint about the nature of? All the detail in the article is a size and power figure that together are ludicrous. 100 megawatts in 7*10 feet? Apparent two-dimensionality aside, how's that even supposed to exist without turning into a glowing puddle?

[Streetwind]

"(...) and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade."

How did the joke go? It's always 20 years away? I suppose this is a major advancement then...

[Nibb31]

100 megawatts in the back of a truck? I wonder what happens if it gets rear-ended.

also:

U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle.

doesn't give me much confidence in whoever wrote the article.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Nibb31

[lajoswinkler]

This is probably fission, not fusion. Ah, Reuters.

[Argylas]

I wonder if they even know the difference between Fission and Fusion.

It doesn't seem the reporter knows the difference. You would be surprised by the lack of in-depth subject knowledge of editorial staff in big media companies. This coming from an ex-reporter in a big financial newspaper in my country

I'd be extremely cautious. An unknown team coming up with a revolutionary design, that they refuse to even hint about the nature of? All the detail in the article is a size and power figure that together are ludicrous. 100 megawatts in 7*10 feet? Apparent two-dimensionality aside, how's that even supposed to exist without turning into a glowing puddle?

I am cautious with this, that is why I asked if anyone knows anything more on the subject. The scarcity of data in the article may be due to the reporter and the editorial agenda of Reuters (which is short quick articles, befitting a news agency, as opposed to large analytical articles that are mainly the forte of magazines and weekly newspapers). Maybe some more in-depth articles will pop-out soon. My guess right now is this is 99.9% an attention-grabbing attempt by a little-known science team, which will later be debunked in some way...

[Nibb31]

Searching for the name in the article and Lockheed points to this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

It looks like they have been making various presentations of it for a couple of years.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Nibb31

[magnemoe]

Searching for the name in the article and Lockheed points to this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

It looks like they have been making various presentations of it for a couple of years.

Yes, has been some fusion projects sponsored by the US military, as I understand this is because DOE don't want other projects and fund them by the military is a sort of backdoor.

[-Velocity-]

This is probably fission, not fusion. Ah, Reuters.

No, it's fusion, I had heard that Lockheed was working on this a few years ago. I guess they think they've actually made some progress.

[-Velocity-]

Yes, has been some fusion projects sponsored by the US military, as I understand this is because DOE don't want other projects and fund them by the military is a sort of backdoor.

The Navy does a lot of research on power- new power systems, new power storage, increased power efficiency- these are all big pushes within Navy-sponsored research. I was funded under one such project for a while. Ships need lots of power, and if you don't have to refuel them, that makes your Navy far more powerful- you don't have to have vulnerable replenishment ships chasing around your surface vessels nearly as much. Also, more power and new energy storage technologies allows you to have new kinds of weapons, like EM rail guns, lasers, etc. This is genuine military funding, not "DoE going in through some backdoor". People bemoan US military spending while being completely unappreciative of all the spin-off technologies it creates for us civilians.

Edited October 15, 2014 by |Velocity|

[rtxoff]

Could it be they really pulled that off? One thing that accounts for them is that they are Lockheed, not some backyard garage.

And another against them that they are building 2 of the most controversial discussed fighter jets yet.

[-Velocity-]

Could it be they really pulled that off? One thing that accounts for them is that they are Lockheed, not some backyard garage.

And another against them that they are building 2 of the most controversial discussed fighter jets yet.

Sure, it's possible they could really pull it off. There are several research efforts going- like this one- that are trying to find cheaper alternatives to the big expensive fusion projects (such as ITER and NIF). Another one that comes to mind is EMC2's "Polywell" research. I'm not sure how viable Polywells are, I just know that the Navy has also been funding that effort.

Nuclear fusion isn't particularly hard to achieve- you can build a "fusor" type fusion reactor in your garage for just a few thousand dollars. It's getting net power gain that is so exceedingly difficult. But no law of physics says that there cannot be some cleverly-designed, compact, cheap fusion reactor that gets net power gain. Hence, there is reason to hope, even if it's sort of a long shot.

[KerikBalm]

After reading the actual press release... this is news media doing terrible reporting.

What lockheed is actually doing, is looking for partners (academia, private industry, etc) to help further develop it... which makes me worry that Lockheed wants to divest itself from the project.

That said, it most certainly is Fusion research, not fission, and Kryten.... Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks is most certainly not an "An unknown team"

"

[TavishThomas]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015

this is pretty big news if it turns into anything real over the next decade.

[rtxoff]

There is already a thread about this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96902-Lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy-project

[Awaras]

This is probably fission, not fusion. Ah, Reuters.

They have corrected 'fusion' to 'fission' in that line.

[Vanamonde]

Duplicate threads merged.

[*Aqua*]

"We can make a big difference on the energy front," McGuire said, noting Lockheed's 60 years of research on nuclear fusion as a potential energy source that is safer and more efficient than current reactors based on nuclear fission.

In other words: "We spent 60 years but we still don't know how to do it. Help us!"

I look forward to Wendelstein 7-X. They finished building the stellarator. Next year they will start the plasma tests.

The goal of Wendelstein 7-X is to determine how an ongoing fusion (for years) can be archieved. It won't be able to generate a surplus of energy, it's too small for that.

[hebdomad]

... Or at least that's what I'd write as a headline.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy

Lockheed Martin, makers of the billion dollar money pit the F-35, as well as cyber security experts, and wave tidal energy plants manufacturers have developed a nuclear reactor that can fit on the back of a truck. While the US navy have enjoyed their 'portable' nuclear reactors in their boats for years, maybe, just maybe we will see nuclear reactors take to the skies like Russia and the USA did in the 1950s and 60s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

Just imagine. Being able to fly without refueling for ten years... of course there would be some slight hazards that might be problematic. But hey! carbon free air transport is exactly what we need right now!

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/513066/we-need-nuclear-powered-airplanes-not-solar-powered-ones/

[Nibb31]

Please read the forum before posting:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96902-Lockheed-claims-breakthrough-on-fusion-energy-project

[TavishThomas]

I think another huge point to make here is how small they're aiming to make it. a working net gain fusion reactor in space could be revolutionary in terms of spacecraft capabilities.

[KerikBalm]

Even the guardian is repeated this rubbish.

Lockheed did not announce a technological breakthrough. They said the same thing about their project as they've been saying for a long time now, except now they are looking for partners... which actually implies they want to divest from it... which is bad news for their fusion research.

[Argylas]

If they really made some breakthrough (and that is a VERY big if) and have a concept for a net energy-gain fusion reactor with the size of a truck, this will revolutionize a lot of industries. It will turn the energy sector on its head. And we will have fusion powered airplanes and spacecraft in the future. One can only dream...