Building on more than 60 years of fusion research, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works approach to compact fusion is a high beta concept. This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
If it will fit on a truck, it will fit within a locomotive frame. If continued research is fruitful, how much smaller can you go?
I suspect that a major concern will be how many people it takes to run it.
If a two person crew can take several such units out and operate them just as they do Diesels, there could be hope.
Of course, cost, safety, and ROI will be concerns.
And, you're still constrained by physics. The steel wheel can only produce so much traction, and I suspect we're close to maxing that formula out right now.
Of course, you can always adopt a "mother and slug" configuration, which might help alleviate the traction issue by spreading the apparently phenomenal power a fusion power source can generate over several units.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I think they need to perfect the one that fits in a large building before they build one that fits in a truck (or locomotive).
One derailment might just make Lac Megantic seem to have been just a wet match stick on a breezy day.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Larry's caveats for using this as motive power are valid ones (though the use of more than one unit--two at most, to reap the advantages of DPU technology--would probably never be necessary).However, the article just said that the reactor will fit on the back of a truck, not that it would be powering said truck. It might be just being transported from place to place to provide stationary power. Perhaps the concern would be how compatible it would be with a railroad operating environment (they don't always get it--Caterpillar has yet to come up with an ideal railroad engine, for example).The power would probably be enough to provide HEP for passenger purposes in any unit, and to power a good-sized passenger-train consist up to any usable speeds.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Safety is an issue that must be addressed. Burning tank cars of crude in a North Dakota field would be a loose spike by comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z59AGIb_F5s
Hope, hype and reality.
Newsreels of America's first nuclear fission electric generating station showed President Eisenhower flipping the switch. Narrators told a future where electricty would be so cheap there would be no meters. You would pay only a flat monthly electric bill.
For speculation's sake, assume fusion will be different.
How do you convert heat into mechanical energy?
If fusion makes electricity as cheap as was hoped for in Eisenhower's presidency do you string wire and run electric locomotives?
Do you put fusion generators on the rails to provide power? It would save the horrendous cost of stringing wires overhead.
If on the rails, do you generate steam to power a generator that feeds traction motors? A turbine would probably be used to spin the generator. What of excess heat?
Early diesels were huge. So were early computers. If the pattern of size reduction follows with fusion, what locomotive engineering possiblities open up?
I have a feeling the problems will arise more from security of the radioactive materials, than it will with how to actually make it work.
Greasemonkey I have a feeling the problems will arise more from security of the radioactive materials, than it will with how to actually make it work.
What radioactive materials? I haven't read the article, but fusion and fission are different things. The sun fuses non-radioactive hydrogen, and just uses an enormous amount to create the fusing pressure.. Our fusion bombs on the other hand, from what I remember from high school, use 2 uranium or a bunch of plutonium bombs, to fuse hydrogen.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Ain't-gonna-happen.
[quote user="Firelock76"]
Aside from the mechanical and tech problems which the Skunk Wors will solve, the major obstaclees are political and emotional, especially emotional. As the use of nuclear fusion becomes practical, the uninformed will oppose it vehamently because it's "nuclear" even though radioactivity is a minor issue with fusion. As soon as you mention "nuclear" a lare number of people go directly into panic mode..Until most of the public understands the difference between fusion and fission, there will be little or no practical use of fusion. BTW, do you know how many people died as a result of the Three Mile Island incident? ... None.
First a controlled fusion reaction has to be shown [It hasn't happened yet. Univ. of Utah reportedly made that breakthrough about 35 years ago, but it was shown to be a false reading]. But once fusion-powered elecrical power plants are built, electrification of many railroads and many other modes of transport will occur.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Having seen the technoogical changes that have taken place in my lifetime I will not discount the possibility. I will say, however, it's not likely to happen soon.
Norm
I can just hear the "NIMBY's" screaming now!!!
Have fun with your trains
Thank you, wanswheel, for all of the wonderful things that you find for us!
Consider the Atomic Aircraft. Do the Google and review the details into the complexity of taking reactor into flight. It turned out to be just a 'dream too far.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
Given distructive forces abetween train and trucks, would not have been the best move to put a reactor subject to collission with extra-wide/heavy loaded trucks.
But, it is good to look back at the future that never was.
Hysterical over reaction is the defining characteristic of modern America.
Picture trying to tell thousands of small towns and dozens of large cities that you will be running nuclear powered anything through their streets...
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
ramrod BTW, do you know how many people died as a result of the Three Mile Island incident? ... None.
BTW, do you know how many people died as a result of the Three Mile Island incident? ... None.
If the concept proves successful, the technology could provide propulsive power that gives ships and large airplanes “unlimited range,” Lockheed said. Small fusion reactors could provide a cheap new source of electricity to utilities seeking alternatives to coal and gas, making desalination cost-effective in regions where water is scarce.
Whether that potential is ever realized ultimately “depends on the cost,” Paul Patterson, a New York-based analyst with Glenrock Associates LLC, said in a phone interview. “This is something to look at 10 years from now. Right now, it’s at such an early stage, it’s hard to get too excited about the implications."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-15/lockheed-skunk-works-team-tackling-nuclear-fusion-reactor.html
Lockheed is touting transport applications. Lockheed does not sell many locomotives to the Department of Defense. No mention of railroad apllications for their fusion power plant comes as no surprise.
Yes, it is too early to get excited about the implications. That is no reason not to have fun with specualtion.
Historical sidenote, here is an article on the original proposed Atomic Locomotive from the 1950's, any 'fusion" loco would be similar:
The thread title was about fusion whereas some of the follow up is about fission. Those are two rather different things. If you mean a fission powered locomotive - nuclear reactor - then there would be some interesting issues with respect to safety as has been noted. If you mean fusion then the first thing you have to do is make it happen ( I seem to recall that "breakeven" happened for only an instant in an experiment either late last year or earlier this year) on a level where you could start to think about putting a fusion plant in something the size of a large fission reactor building...and then maybe look for a way to shrink it in terms of size and cost.
Victrola1 Nuclear fusion is the process by which the sun works. Our concept will mimic that process within a compact magnetic container and release energy in a controlled fashion to produce power we can use. A reactor small enough to fit on a truck could provide enough power for a small city of up to 100,000 people Building on more than 60 years of fusion research, the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works approach to compact fusion is a high beta concept. This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html If it will fit on a truck, it will fit within a locomotive frame. If continued research is fruitful, how much smaller can you go?
Might make a good SyFy movie.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
wanswheel http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/adaccess/?keyword=railroad
Atoms for peace was the slogan in the 1950's. Atoms on rails using fission reactors flopped. It is interesting to view the engineering and design proposals from the past.
Once again, assume the hype. Fusion reactors will be more compact, be less of a hazard including massive shielding and licensed for locomotives. You may generate a great deal of heat requiring far less space and tare weight than fission.
Combustion would be external instead internal as in a diesel engine. Steam turbine locomotives with direct mechincal drives and traction motors were exprimented with and abandon in the U. S. during the 1940's and 50's.
Reciprocating steam was apparently ruled out using a huge fission reactor. Using a fusion reactor for heat, would you follow the same steam turbine electric path as propsed in the 1950's? If so, how would you design such a locomotive?
Set your reactor size from occupying a truck bed for a start. Assuming technology advances, make your reactor the size of a riding lawn mower.
Given the fact that "break even" fusion (a reaction where as much energy is produced as is required to initiate the event) has yet to be acheived, let alone a sustained fusion process that generates a net energy output, this thread is turning into science fiction.
Of course if we do build Victrola1's Fusion-Steam-Turbine-Electric Warren Buffet will have to create a new subsidiary of his railroad to be named BNSFL (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Luna) to bring Helium 3 mined on the moon down to earth to fuel the things. Maybe a
we may just as well talk about designing a locomotive that uses a the radiation from a microscopic Black Hole (No,Lockheed is not going to build a working one of those in the next few years either) to generate steam to power a turbine.
Of course if we do build Victrola1's fusion steam -turbine -electric Warren Buffet will have to create a new subsidiary of his railroad to be named BNSFL (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Luna) to bring Helium 3 mined on the Moon down toEearth to fuel the beasts. Maybe a space elevator on both bodies would be the way, the elevator cars will sure look good in that orange and green paint scheme.
And think of the raging debates we will have here on the General discussion forum about the economics of electrifying the Lunar mining railroad that hauls the HE3 to the elevator...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Victrola1 Once again, assume the hype. Fusion reactors will be more compact, be less of a hazard including massive shielding and licensed for locomotives. You may generate a great deal of heat requiring far less space and tare weight than fission.
Shielding a fission reactor is less of a problem than shieling a fusion reactor, the 14MeV neutrons from D-T reactions in a fusion reactor are much harder to shield against than the gammas from a fission reactor (which are arguably less of a problem than the fission spectru neutrons from a fission reactor). There isn't enough space in the AAR loading gauge to install enough neutron shielding for a fusion reactor.
Best way to a fusion powered locomotive is using electricity generated by a stationary power source - which could either be delivered by wire, third rail or battery.
- Erik
P.S. FWIW, I do have a degree in Nuclear Engineering and I have done neutron and gamma shielding calculations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.