A hunch I've had and seeing if anyone is hunching in the same direction and/or thoughts:

details on quantum acoustic nodes QANS:

Quantum Acoustic Nodes (QANs) Quantum Acoustic Nodes (QANs) are a revolutionary concept that combines principles of quantum mechanics, acoustic resonance, and advanced materials science to create precise control points within a plasma for cold fusion. Here, we delve into the mathematical foundation, manufacturing process, and practical implementation of QANs. ### Mathematical Foundation 1. Quantum Mechanics and Acoustic Resonance: The QANs leverage the principles of quantum mechanics to manipulate acoustic waves at a subatomic level. The key equations involved are derived from quantum harmonic oscillators and acoustic wave equations. - Quantum Harmonic Oscillator: [ \hat{H} \psi(x) = \left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{d^2}{dx^2} + \frac{1}{2} m \omega^2 x^2 \right) \psi(x) = E \psi(x) ] Here, (\hat{H}) is the Hamiltonian operator, (\hbar) is the reduced Planck’s constant, (m) is the mass, (\omega) is the angular frequency, (x) is the position, (\psi(x)) is the wave function, and (E) is the energy of the state. - Acoustic Wave Equation: [ \nabla^2 \phi - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} = 0 ] Here, (\phi) is the acoustic potential, (c) is the speed of sound in the medium, and (\nabla^2) is the Laplacian operator. - Combining Quantum and Acoustic Equations: By superimposing these principles, the nodes are defined where quantum probability densities reinforce acoustic standing waves. The resonance frequency (\omega) of the acoustic nodes is fine-tuned to match specific quantum energy states and positions. [ \psi(x, t) = \psi(x) e^{-i \omega t} ] [ \phi(x, t) = A \cos(kx - \omega t) ] The interaction term (V(x, t)) in the potential energy will be a function of both (\psi) and (\phi), leading to coupled equations governing the behavior of the nodes. ### Manufacturing Quantum Acoustic Nodes 1. Materials Selection: The nodes require materials with exceptional acoustic and quantum properties. Two primary materials are: - Graphene: Offers superior tensile strength and excellent acoustic properties. - Topological Insulators: Provide robust quantum states which are crucial for maintaining coherence over long durations. 2. Fabrication Process: a. Graphene Preparation: - Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD): High-purity graphene is grown using CVD, ensuring single-layer consistency. [ \text{CH}_4 \rightarrow \text{C} + 2\text{H}_2 ] Methane (CH4) gas is decomposed at high temperatures, depositing carbon atoms onto a substrate, forming graphene sheets. - Transfer Process: - The graphene sheet is transferred onto a silicon wafer using advanced etching techniques to achieve a defect-free surface. b. Topological Insulator Integration: - Material Deposition: Materials like Bi2Se3 are deposited in thin films atop the graphene using Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE). [ \text{Bi}_2\text{Se}_3 \rightarrow 2\text{Bi} + 3\text{Se} ] - The precise atomic layering ensures the creation of topological insulator properties. c. Node Structuring: - Lithography: - Electron-beam lithography is used to pattern the nodes with

Simultaneous Enhancement of Tritium Burn Efficiency and Fusion Power with Low-Tritium Spin-Polarized Fuel (summary and links to full length paper)

Note: each paragraph is a separate quote, not sure how to format the quotes as clearly separate using the quote option, they combine after posting

I: Introduction

A closely related quantity used in this work is the tritium burn efficiency (TBE), the ratio of the tritium burn rate to tritium injection rate. Improvements in the TBE can lessen requirements for other key tritium self-sufficiency parameters such as the startup inventory, the tritium doubling time, and tritium loss fractions. A high TBE could significantly lower the cost and regulation complexity of a fusion plant.

We show an example of a plant operating with a reduced tritium fraction and spin-polarized (SP) fuel that achieves a 15 times greater TBE than a plant operating with 50:50 D-T and unpolarized fuel, without any degradation in fusion power. A significant result of this approach is that the initial tritium inventory could be decreased to such minimal levels that shortages of tritium supply would likely be eliminated.

While it is well known that polarizing the deuterium and tritium nuclear spins increases the cross section by up to 50%, SP fuels have not yet been tested in fusion plasmas. However, the first SP fusion experiments to test the polarization lifetime are planned for 2025 on the DIII-D tokamak using deuterium helium-3 fuel. Recent advances have now made it possible to polarize deuterium and helium-3 gas at ∼ 60−70%, to produce SP fuel at sufficiently large quantities for experiments, and to keep the fuel polarized during the injection process. Due to nonlinear effects in the plasma, the total fusion power increase with SP fuels can be even higher than the 50% cross-section enhancement, reportedly 80% and 90%. Such benefits would dramatically improve the economics of fusion power plants. However, there are major obstacles to overcome before SP fuels could be used to fuel power plants. Ensuring that fuel remains polarized sufficiently long is particularly challenging, with ion-cyclotron-frequency resonances and metallic-wall interactions in high recycling regimes particularly worrisome. Additionally, is it technologically hard to simultaneously achieve a high polarization fraction and produce sufficient fuel in a power plant fueling scheme, although there are recent promising advances.

With a 50% effective cross-section enhancement due to spin polarization requiring TBE = 0.10, plasma Q increases 650% from 20 to 150, the fusion power increases 17% from 482 MW to 562 MW, and the tritium startup inventory decreases 89% from 0.68 kg to 0.08 kg. To accomplish this, the core tritium fraction f co T must decrease from 49% to 43%. If one could achieve even higher effective cross section multiplier N AJ = 1.9, the plasma ignites and the fusion power increases to Pf = 712 MW.

II: Spin Polarization

For unpolarized fusion, the nuclear spins are randomly oriented and AJ = 1.0. Here, PD, PT are the vector polarizations of deuterium and tritium, where PD = D1 − D−1 and PT = T1/2 − T−1/2. Here, Dm and Tm are the probabilities of being in a nuclear spin state m, where m = 1, 0, −1 P for deuterium and m = 1/2, −1/2 for tritium, satisfying Dm = PTm = 1. By choosing PDPT = 1, the cross section is enhanced by 50%.

It is important to note that the fusion power increase has been reported to be higher than the cross-section increase for SP fuel. Recent works have found that with AJ = 1.5, the total fusion power increased by 80% and 90% (higher than 50% from the increased cross section) due to increased alpha heating.

III: Variable Tritium Fraction

(N = nonlinear power enhancement factor and AJ = spin polarization cross-section multiplier)

The plasma gain values in Table II are particularly striking. For a detailed description of how these Q values were calculated, see Appendix E. Briefly, the Q values were calculated at fixed neT τE, and account for helium dilution, tritium fraction, and spin-polarization effects (see Equation (56)). In order to better compare the different cases, we plot their Q values against TBE and N AJ in Figure 17(a). As shown by cases C, D, and H in Figure 17, the power plant ignites for a wide range of N AJ values. Inspection of Figure 17(a) at very low TBE values reveals that for the parameters chosen here, this power plant could ignite at N AJ ≃ 1.18. Optimistically, this value of spin polarization, N AJ ≃ 1.18, is very low compared with the spin-polarization power boost from recent simulations N AJ = 1.9. Notably, as shown by the fusion power in Figure 17(b), Pf still increases significantly in ignited plasmas, from a minimum of Pf ≈ 600 MW to a maximum of Pf ≈ 960 MW for the TBE and N AJ values shown.

Additionally, these results suggest that the upcoming SPARC experiment could achieve ignition with moderately high values of N AJ ≳ 1.42. In Appendix J, we perform the same exercise but with a nominal plasma gain of Q = 10 and Q = 40 rather than the Q = 20 we used here. At very low TBE, for the nominal Q = 10 case, ignition is predicted for N AJ ≳ 1.42 and for the nominal Q = 40 case, ignition is predicted for N AJ ≳ 1.06.

Operating at high spin polarization and high TBE might be challenging because the plasma is very efficient with both tritium and deuterium, resulting in low hydrogen divertor density. If spin-polarized plasmas were to be operated at high TBE, mitigating the potentially negative impact on the power exhaust would be crucial.

...it was suggested that a high TBE could give an unreasonably long helium particle confinement time. This is of particular concern for spin-polarized plasmas with very high TBE. We study this question in Appendix G and conclude that while spin-polarized plasmas with high TBE do have longer helium particle confinement times, they do not exceed dimensionless thresholds measured in current experiments.

VI: Discussion

Drawing from recent work, we have demonstrated that burning plasmas using D-T polarized fuel can increase the tritium burn efficiency by at least an order of magnitude over unpolarized fuels and with no degradation in power density. If the power density is allowed to increase significantly with spin-polarized fuel, the tritium burn efficiency can still increase by a factor of five to ten. This could significantly improve the economic viability of D-T power plants with high tritium self-sufficiency.

In one example based on the power increase using spin-polarized fuels, an ARC-like fusion power plant with spin-polarized fuel increases the fusion power by 52%, increases the TBE by 525%, and decreases the startup tritium inventory by 84% relative to the plant operating with unpolarized fuel.

We also showed that in some points of parameter space, very small increases in the fuel’s spin polarization could decrease the tritium startup inventory by an order of magnitude. For an ARC-class device, the tritium startup inventory could be reduced to less than one hundred grams, with a moderate power increase (see Figures 1 and 15 and table II). If spin-polarized fusion is demonstrated with high polarization survivability, the results in this work suggest that any impending tritium shortages for deuterium-tritium power plants would be solved. This indicates that spin-polarized fusion fuels, although undemonstrated and speculative, could significantly lower the technological requirements and costs for a power plant with high tritium self-sufficiency.

Additionally, as described in Appendix I, spin-polarized fuels can decrease the triple product required for ignition by a factor of two, and lower-tritium-fraction fuels might provide passive stabilization against thermal ignition runaway events. A particularly useful property of spin-polarized fueling systems is that they are unlikely to add significant complexity and cost to a fusion power plant and are complementary to other innovations designed to improve tritium self-sufficiency.

There are important outstanding questions directly related to this work. One is the effect of spin polarization and tritium fraction on the alpha heating. Studies have found that when alpha heating effects are included, the total fusion power increased 80-90% when operating with spin-polarized fuels with a 50% cross-section enhancement. However, it is not yet known how the total fusion power scales for a wide range of polarization fractions and tritium fractions.

A second closely related and well-known challenge is the feasibility of keeping a high core polarization fraction. Wave resonances with deuterium and tritium precession frequencies and metallic wall recycling are particularly concerning. Recent ideas for keeping the core tritium extremely well-confined and for achieving low particle recycling with lithium wall coatings might be fruitfully applied to the wall depolarization problem as well as for increasing Σ.

This work primarily focuses on magnetic confinement fusion, but it may also have applications in other fusion approaches, such as inertial confinement fusion. For instance, a recent experiment at the National Ignition Facility achieved ignition with a tritium burnup fraction of 1.9%. By spin-polarizing the fuel and optimizing the tritium fraction, it may be possible to enhance both the burnup fraction and the overall fusion yield.

Jason Parisi on twitter:

Holding everything else fixed, increasing tritium burn efficiency (TBE) strongly (e.g.0.5% --> 5%) reduces the required TBR so that it's probably a non-issue. See e.g. Meschini 2023 Fig 6(a). There are other challenges with higher TBE, but TBR is not one of them.

Wow, I hadn't read the full summary of the pre-print paper, the start up tritium inventory of an ARC-like tokamak goes from 690 g to 80 g or even 30 g:

By spin-polarizing half of the fuel and using a 57:43 D-T mix, Istartup,min is reduced to 0.08 kg, and fully spin-polarizing the fuel with a 61:39 D-T mix further reduces Istartup,min to 0.03 kg. Some ARC-like scenarios could achieve plasma ignition with relatively modest spin polarization. These findings indicate that, with advancements in helium divertor pumping efficiency, TBE values of approximately 10-40% could be achieved using low-tritium-fraction and spin-polarized fuel with minimal power loss. This would dramatically lower tritium startup inventory requirements and reduce the amount of on-site tritium. More generally than just for spin-polarized fuels, high plasma performance can be used to increase TBE. This strongly motivates the development of spin-polarized fuels and low-tritium-fraction operation for burning plasmas.

I do not have much knowledge about fusion so I apologise if the question comes off as stupid. As I understand it, building large reactors and facilities for fusion experminets cost billions and decades. And their whole job is basically just proving a single concept? Like ITER, SPARC, all these experiments are being built to prove a single concept. So, in case that single concept is demonstrated to not work, would that mean all these decades and billions in investment has all been a waste, and those large facilities and reactors are as well as junk and we're going go have to wait several more decades before the next experiment is built and proven to work? I don't see how this incredibly time-consuming and costly process will ever make us achieve commercial fusion before the next century.

They announced Lawson 26 last fall, I had previously been under the impression that they had a lot of good experience with their test steam driven impactors, but Lawson is electro-magnetically collapsed. Is this a fundamental shift from general fusion, or just a temporary milestone sprint with the new (2020) CEO and UK deal?

Seems like there are more and more things happen and capital start putting their money into the area.

Edit: For context, the PhD is in a physics adjacent field with a focus in experimental plasma physics

fusion-energy-strategy-2024.pdf

Press release with other announcements: Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces More Than $180 Million to Advance Implementation of its Bold Decadal Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy | OSTP | The White House

I often hear about the fusion industry receiving an increasing amount of funding. Does anyone have any sources they could provide / useful graphics?

https://www.fusionindustryassociation.org/fia-participates-in-white-house-summit-marking-two-years-of-the-bold-decadal-vision-for-commercial-fusion/

The White House is hosting a summit today to announce several new developments on the pathway to their "Bold Decadal Vision for Fusion Commercialization" first announced in March 2022.

The plenary sessions will feature representatives of national labs, leaders of the private fusion companies, the FIA, and leaders from the White House and Department of Energy. We expect to hear updates on the path to commercialization and discuss remaining challenges and strategies for greater collaboration between public and private sectors.

The plenary session – open to all via livestream – will commence at 3pm ET. You can watch the video live through the FIA's website or on YouTube.