Talk:Helion Energy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlexKjhu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fuel recycling?

The text says the helium-3 is captured and re-used, but gives a reaction equation in which He gains a neutron, and no explanation of if/how the extra neutron is disposed of to get back to ³He. It looks like either the claim of re-use is wrong or the reaction description is incomplete.Pastychomper (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC

Should this entire fuel cycle description be moved (or just properly linked) to the Helium-3, aneutronic fusion fuels, and/or User:Art_Carlson/Expansions_of_FRC_article pages? This level of technical detail does not appear appropriate for a company description. And likely requires more rigorous review as suggested by the comments. UWFusion (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with moving it out as described, unless this company is making an unusual claim about helium re-use, which is how I first read it. If they are making such a claim, then it would be worth mentioning in the article, but it would need some explanation as to how it would work and how that differs from other methods. Pastychomper (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The fuel "recycling" term is confusing. What they are actually doing is production of Helium-3 from the fusion of Deuterium. This results in a neutron and a He3 in one branch and a Triton and proton in the other. The Triton (with a half life of 12 years) will subsequently decay into more He3. I think it is relevant information, but should be more clearly worded.USSSkipjack (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope

An anon editor added a section about D-D fusion neutrons in their new section on critiques. The passage states that D-D neutrons were seen in the 2011 Journal of Nuclear Fusion paper. Let me quote the paper, "Most likely it is the result of a non-thermal ion population".

This is important; non-thermal ions can be driven into other ions or the container walls and produce neutrons through spallation and other processes. This is precisely the same issue that led many early researchers to conclude they had seen D-D fusion in their machines in the 1950s.

As a result, modern tests generally measure the ions in two directions opposite any internal axis that might exist. The experiment in question did not attempt this, "These detectors were employed at the axial midplane". I don't believe this paper proves the point, we need more direct statements about better measurements. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This peer-reviewed reference is being misquoted. There are 4 pages of descriptions of neutron detectors, calibrations, and data collection that appear to specifically address concerns of pulsed spallation or on-axis geometry effects, including: "Deuterium plasmas were employed and a calibrated neutron detector was positioned radially outside the magnets at the chamber center to measure the D-D fusion neutron flux." page 4.

Further, the full quote from page 8 does not suggest a non-thermal ion population is the source of all neutron production as the editor suggests. "Even with correction for FRC geometry, attenuation and scattering in intervening material a much higher ion temperature, Ti ~ 2 keV was inferred. The anomalously large signal was well beyond what could be attributed to measurement error of the plasma density and volume. Most likely it is the result of a non-thermal ion population, but the mechanism for maintaining this over the ~30 us of the FRC compression time is not clear." page 8. Bigmass49 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HSCIKC (article contribs).

Criticism

Jassby's criticism is invalid. He clearly did not do any research before writing it, or otherwise he would know about the company's prototypes producing lots of neutrons. These have been published and peer reviewed. IPA produced 10^9 D-D neutrons/pulse and Venti produced 10^11 (published at TOFE conference in 2018). I understand that criticism of criticism is sort of past the point, but I think it should be somehow pointed out. USSSkipjack (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I just read the cited 2011 paper and it doesn’t seem to include data on neutron production other than a graph showing neutron ARB without converting that to a an actual neutron production rate.

I also reviewed the JASON report and it doesn’t seem to contain data on neutron production.

Jassby’s contention is that meaningful DD neutron production has not been shown.

Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see that. Can someone point me to specific data showing DD neutron production rates by Helion? Yohoshibot (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple of the quoted references give D-D fusion neutron total yields, several peer reviewed. No instantaneous rates have been published, though as a pulsed source, that is less relevant. 216.250.210.94 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem in History

"As of January 2022, an eighth iteration, Antares, is in the design stage." This is an error in the referenced article. Antares is the name of Helion's largest facility in Everett. It is not the name of their 8^th prototype. I do not have a reference for that correction, but had that confirmed by a company- spokes- person. USSSkipjack (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnetic field requirement

Does anyone know whether the 40 Tesla magnetic field requirement projection from Table 6 on p. of [1] is still the company's position? Magnets over 20 T are incredibly large, expensive, power hungry, and heat sensitive.[2] I'm amazed that this was ever considered feasible. 2601:647:5701:39B0:3EA4:876B:A3AC:D588 (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything contradictory. Since their "first customer" Microsoft isn't slated to purchase anything until 2028, presumably they will have time to build a 40 Tesla magnet. Sandizer (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Article linked doesn't mention that 40T is a company position, discuss magnets over 20T, express criticism to the approach, or mention 'heat sensitivity' or 'power hungry'. Further article by third party doesn't question feasibility of 40T magnets, even if that was a company position. 76.121.211.208 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The government source was compiled from company responses. If you think it should be omitted, please ask on WP:RSN. The text you have been repeatedly deleting says nothing about heat or power requirements. Sandizer (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct, the reference text doesn’t mention heat or power but your non-technical opinion on criticism does. Please cite a relevant source or company response reference. 2601:602:8200:A940:2023:7895:13E5:8D3 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My "non-technical opinion" is that Table 6 on p. 36 of [3] shows that the US government, when conducting an independent performance evaluation subcontracted to MITRE's JASON program office (in which "ARPA-E asked JASON to assess its accomplishments and the potential of further investments in this field. JASON members listened to two days of briefings that included participants in ARPAE’s ALPHA program, MIF teams not supported by ALPHA-E, and teams working on pure magnetic confinement fusion. JASON also surveyed nine teams for quantitative metrics of past, present, and projected progress along critical physical parameters"), stated that Helion Energy projected (because the table row is not in blue) that they would require a 40 Tesla magnetic field. And at the time (from the Helion table row which is in blue) they only had an 8 Tesla field in operation. Note that the same data of 8 and 40 Tesla is also shown on Table 5 on p. 31.

Moreover, that same report also says, on p. 30, that "The Helion system uses a large single turn coil to produce a pulsed axial magnetic field that compresses the FRC-magnetized fuel. The purely electromagnetic approaches avoid issues of liner contamination and moving parts. The main challenge with these is whether they can simultaneously achieve sufficiently high compression while maintaining plasma stability." (Emphasis added.)

Note that government sources such as this tech report are considered more reliable than primary sources such as company claims on their web site or press releases, but you haven't advanced any such contradictory claims from any source whatsoever. You have only claimed that the government source doesn't cite another source for the number, even though Table 6 clearly states that its data "are drawn from literature sources and communications with the project leads".

Please do not remove dispute tags until the dispute is resolved. I am reverting and requesting page protection. I suggest you ask on WP:RSN to resolve your issues with the government source. Sandizer (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This definitely seems like a biased response, the company hasn’t published any projected 40T magnets, editor is referencing a 5+ year old, second-hand report, trying to interpret table colors as some sort of performance requirements, and publishing a possible future “challenge” as a “criticism”. Clearly, JASON didn’t issue a government-approved criticism of Helion’s approach in their article.

Also, there is no such thing as ALPHA-E. 75.104.68.73 (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm mostly with User:Sandizer with one important exception. The word "projection" actually appears in that document (page 36), but I understand the word as having a special, technical significance, effectively meaning "by rudimentary extrapolation" from proven operating conditions, meaning by cranking on one or more central parameters, messing around with the rest of it as little as possible in the process. What you don't want to see is the projection containing proprietary, mysterious, unproven flavours of secret sauce. What you could achieve doing mostly only the most obvious thing is not a bad exercise in evaluating technology with unproven potential. But this is a vastly different exercise than making an engineering projection which you then take to your funding sources. I don't think we have a better source. The colour of the ink is stated as distinguishing data from projection; it wouldn't be a stronger distinction in flashing neon lights. But I would argue that the word "projection" is open to misconstrual when transplanted to the Wikipedia context without further explanation. We have no reason to believe—at least not from this source—that Helion has ever conceptualized actually achieving a 40 T magnet or ever proposed this design point to an investor, even if that's the design point they offered up for purposes of this rather abstract comparison exercise. If all they have up their sleeve is cranking on field strength, they truly have a huge mountain to climb. But we don't know that, and it's not our job to infer this state of affairs from a source with possibly quite a different purpose in mind. — MaxEnt 01:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, 40 Tesla magnets are not unheard of; the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at Florida State University has operated a 42 Tesla Hybrid Magnet since 1999. There is also a 100 Tesla field generated at Los Alamos and there was this freak experiment at the University of Tokoyo that reached 1200 tesla. But weather Helion can pull off 40 Tesla is another issue. For private sector fusion firms, Tokamak Energy was setting records from the companies' formation in 2009 to 2019 under Dr. Greg Brittles. That firm build a series (13T, 15T, 17T, etc..) of frisbee-sizes HTS magnets which topped out at 19.2 (?) Tesla in the Fall of 2019. This record was then shattered by Commonwealth Fusion Systems in September 2021 when they built their six-foot long all REBCO magnet that reached 20 Tesla. 74.69.121.158 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with last several commenters, it doesn't appear Helion actually 'projected' a 40 Tesla need in the references given, nor that it is terribly unheard of in the field. I recommend the comment be edited to clarify. 216.250.210.94 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Founding date?

The article references 2013 as the founding date, but reference 10, from Popular Mechanics in 2011, says they achieved fusion in 2008. What’s going on here? Trevdna (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Lawson Criterion for Trenta seems incorrect

After watching the Video linked as a source, I do not see enough information to calculate the Lawson criterion for Trenta. They only provided confinement time comparisons to LSX and the ion and electron temperature ratios.

When asked at SOFE in 2021:

>>> Question <<< What are the target densities for a reactor (prototype)? Could the higher density lead to better coupling between ions and electrons providing an additional loss mechanism and thus cool the ions? Whats your strategy for higher densities?

Their answer was: >>> Answer <<< Target densities are still in the 2-10E22 m-3 range depending on compression field and ion and electron temperature. We do expect some increase in ion-electron thermal conduction over the lifetime of the FRC over this time, certainly not retaining as large of a differential as we see now. High-Beta plasmas, like the FRC can trade temperature and density over a wide range.

This seems to indicate that a 2E22 ions/m^3 density is their target, but that they haven't achieved it yet... I also see no proof that they have gotten close to this density, as their last results during VENTI only got to 8e16 ions/m^3 (https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/JSR-18-Task-011%20Prospects%20for%20Low%20Cost%20Fusion%20Development_Redacted%20and%20Addendum.pdf ) 18.29.48.135 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing the link provided, there may be a units-related error in your comment. The quoted reference is for 8E16 ions/cm^3 (which is 8E22 ions/m^3) 216.250.210.94 (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Great catch! Thanks for that, however it’s still hard to say that they could sustain the same density in that Jason report while achieving the temperature they measured.

Even if we use the 8e22 ion/m^3 density from that report, 4e-5 s confinement time, and a 9 keV temperature, we only get 2.8e19 keV-s/m^3 which is a factor of 3 off from the 1e20 Lawson criterion they claim.

Is there a more recent result that shows what density was achieved in Trenta? 2601:189:8180:4050:50E7:44DC:2C00:8A6F (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This paper also explicitly calls out efforts like Helion as being several orders of magnitude short of breakeven: "The truth is that no efforts are close to break-even: the proximity is an artifact of the logarithmic axes... No other MIF project [Helion is included in this bucket] is within two orders of magnitude of scientific break-even."

This paper says basically the reverse of how it's cited in the article. It does not disprove any of the criticism. TemporalBear (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Deuterium-deuterium neutrons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vUPhsFoniw&ab_channel=ImprobableMatter Sandizer (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)