Regarding the process of Fusion I understand the goal is to reach "ignition" where the plasma is self sustained. When it reaches that point does the "input power" get turned off or disconnected for m the source, and the plasma would continue to generate power by the fusion Process or would the "input power"stay on and the fusion process would just generate the power exceeding the input power required to create the fusion and then some additional power to go along with it?

I know the process is complicated, but that process the power from fusion still needs a circuit to flow through right?

 

Unless there are developments I'm not aware of heat is the end goal.To boil water or other substance to drive turbines.

 

As far as I'm aware all fusion techniques being study require a continuous input of power to generate fusion.
The elusive goal is to get more energy out than is put in, with the excess typically proposed to generate electricity.

The deuterium-tritium fusion process being studied generates high energy neutrons which are absorbed to generate heat, which is used to generate steam to power a turbine-generator.
Two problems with this are the inefficiency of the heat to electricity process, and the neutrons tend to make whatever is absorbing them, radioactive.

Also being studied is hydrogen-boron fusion.
This process is a some more difficult to ignite, but it generates few neutrons or other ionizing radiation, while generating high-energy (charged) alpha particle which can, in theory, be use to generate electricity directly by passing the charged particles through a coil, avoiding the inefficiency of the steam-turbine cycle.

 

Don't you find it slightly amusing that once we have to fusion to work to generate heat, we rely on Parsons' steam turbine and Hopkinson's synchronous generator, both from the penultimate decade of the 19th Century, to turn it into electricity?

 

All the advances of human energy production ultimately boils down to (no pun intended) somehow convincing water to make a turbine spin (excluding solar panels and wind turbines - unless, of course, you count the solar reactor, which is intended to either boil water or sodium). The look of disappointment on people's faces when they learn how a nuclear reactor works never gets old to me.

 

There is always room for improvement on conversion methods. Most of which are very inefficient at this time. For example a peltier cooler is bidirectional it can convert a temperature difference into electricity. It has a horrible efficiency rating. Then there are solar cells is the output has sufficient light output we convert it to electricity using them. Again horrible efficiencies.

Try looking up things like Stirling engines which are bidirectional. Heat to movement or movement to cooling. In theory more efficient than steam engines.

 

This generates few neutrons or other ionizing radiation, while generating high-energy (charged) alpha particle which can, in theory, be use to generate electricity directly by passing the charged particles through a coil, avoiding the inefficiency of the steam-turbine cycle.

It makes me wonder if once we've stopped heating the climate with CO2, we might still be heating it with the surplus heat from all our fusion reactors! Or will we manage to get organised enough to do something useful with the heat, such as heating homes, or heating greenhouses to grow vegetables, thus avoiding a repeat of the great British salad shortage of 2023!

 

There is always room for improvement on conversion methods. Most of which are very inefficient at this time. For example a peltier cooler is bidirectional it can convert a temperature difference into electricity. It has a horrible efficiency rating. Then there are solar cells is the output has sufficient light output we convert it to electricity using them. Again horrible efficiencies.

What's the more efficient? Loudspeaker or Newcomen Engine - it's the Newcomen Engine!

 

This process is a some more difficult to ignite, but it generates few neutrons or other ionizing radiation, while generating high-energy (charged) alpha particle which can, in theory, be use to generate electricity directly by passing the charged particles through a coil, avoiding the inefficiency of the steam-turbine cycle.

A problem is that the present grid system requires rotating machines with large amounts of inertia to keep it stable against all the connected grid-tied inverters.

 

It
makes me wonder if once we've stopped heating the climate with CO2, we might still be heating it with the surplus heat from all our fusion reactors!

It is already being discussed.

The Mystics of Gaia will not be appeased until 10% of us are heating our caves with firewood, and the rest are dead.

 

It is already being discussed.

The Mystics of Gaia will not be appeased until 10% of us are heating our caves with firewood, and the rest are dead.

Mr. Google gives the efficiency of a utility-sized steam turbine at 90%, but that still means 10% of all the fusion power generated will be turned into heat before it reaches the grid.

 

It makes me wonder if once we've stopped heating the climate with CO2, we might still be heating it with the surplus heat from all our fusion reactors!

Not likely.
The excess green house heat trapped from the sun due to the increase in CO2 is far in excess of the small amount that could be produced by any practical number of fusion reactors.

Here are some numbers from the University of Washington:

The current radiative forcing due to each heat-trapping gas is given below. In total, heat-trapping gases are locking in a radiative forcing of 1980 TW of power, equivalent to 3.88 W/m2 over the Earth’s surface. This is over 500 times the world electricity usage, and is around 1.5% of the absorbed sunlight on Earth.

Heat-trapping gas radiative forcing

Factor	Current concentration (and increase since preindustrial)	Radiative forcing
Carbon dioxide (CO2)	417 ppm (up 50%)	1130 TW
Methane (CH4)	1.91 ppm (up 160%)	280 TW
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	0.34 ppm (up 20%)	110 TW
Forever chemicals (fluorinated compounds)	less than 0.001 ppm (up from 0)	210 TW
Ozone	increase near surface, decrease high up	240 TW
Total		1980 TW

CO2 is the biggest contributor right now, causing around 60% of the global heating. This percentage will likely rise substantially in future decades. N2O is the smallest contributor in this list, at around 5% of the present-day warming.

 

As far as I'm aware all fusion techniques being study require a continuous input of power to generate fusion.
The elusive goal is to get more energy out than is put in, with the excess typically proposed to generate electricity.

The deuterium-tritium fusion process being studied generates high energy neutrons which are absorbed to generate heat, which is used to generate steam to power a turbine-generator.
Two problems with this are the inefficiency of the heat to electricity process, and the neutrons tend to make whatever is absorbing them, radioactive.

Also being studied is hydrogen-boron fusion.
This process is a some more difficult to ignite, but it generates few neutrons or other ionizing radiation, while generating high-energy (charged) alpha particle which can, in theory, be use to generate electricity directly by passing the charged particles through a coil, avoiding the inefficiency of the steam-turbine cycle.

Your saying in the hydrogen boron set up the charged alpha particles are sent through a coil? How does that work? Is there just a bunch of coils surrounding the emission site of the particles and they make there way into the wire? Sorry... confused. Any documentation on the theory?

 

Is there just a bunch of coils surrounding the emission site of the particles and they make there way into the wire?

No. An alpha particle (a helium nucleus) cannot travel in a wire.
They are high energy, rapidly moving, positively charged particles which give up their energy by magnetic induction as they move through the center of the coils (all in a near vacuum of course), the same way as negatively charged electrons moving through the coil would (except the generated current is of opposite polarity).

 

Oh, ok thank you! That makes sense. So the charged alpha particles would almost be considered a virtual primary wire? Kinda maybe?

 

I didn't know that..are there any other particles that give up their energy by magnet induction instead of heat, light, etc

 

So the charged alpha particles would almost be considered a virtual primary wire?

Sure, it's just not in a wire.
The wire just serves the purpose of providing a conduit for a moving charge (in the wire's case it's an electron).
For the alpha particle, it's moving through free space in a near vacuum.

I didn't know that..are there any other particles that give up their energy by magnet induction instead of heat, light, etc

Any moving charged particle (electron, proton, etc.) generates a magnetic field that can give up energy to a coil it moves through.
Since an alpha particle is heavier, containing two protons and two neutrons, each particle carries much more energy (kinetic energy) for moving at any arbitrary speed as compared to a single proton or electron.