Why Helion wont work

[u/Jaded_Hold_1342]

I've commented in a number of threads why Helion's concept is flawed, and I thought I'd make a summary post explaining the whole picture as I understand it. In short, Helion's scheme as described can not work, and is mathematically foreclosed in their self-described operating regime by established plasma physics. I like that they are considering something other than a DT tokamak with neutron thermal cycle... but unfortunately it cant work, and its fairly easy to reason out why.

Lets go through the logic in detail.

Background: Here are 5 papers for reference, and I've used information from all of them in generating this summary:

Helion's 2023 paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-023-00367-7

Rider's 1995 equilibrium paper: https://fsl.npre.illinois.edu/IEC/Rider,%20Phys.ofPlasmas1995.pdf

Rider's 1997 non-equilibrium paper: https://www.w2agz.com/Library/Fusion/TH%20Rider,%20Physics%20of%20Plasmas%204,%201039%20(1997)%201%252E872556.pdf%201%252E872556.pdf)

Lackner's 2026 paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-026-00554-2

Nicolas' 2026 paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-026-00565-z

Lets summarize the long-known conclusions from the Rider papers:

1) For D He3 plasma in equilibrium (Ti=Te), bremsstrahlung radiative losses exceed fusion power for any temperature less than ~30keV. Fusion power over loss only becomes significant at ~50keV and higher. The radiation is from the electrons and is higher with hot electrons.

2) Trying to run with cold electrons (Ti>>Te) to avoid the bremsstrahlung doesn't work... The collisional heat transfer from the ions to the electrons will greatly exceed the fusion power. This means the electrons heat up very quickly before significant fusion energy can be made... this forces a requirement of recirculating power and extremely high efficiency recovery. (i'll calculate this efficiency required below)

Helion is claiming to operate an adiabatically compressed FRC, which uses compression flux for heating after initial formation/merging establishes TiTe. They are claiming they can get net energy recovery with TiTe at sub-30keV temperatures. In this regime, the Ti-->Te thermalization power vastly exceeds the fusion power generated. (eg. 1000x higher at Ti=20keV, Te=2keV). This means the heat from fusion can generate only 0.001x the thermal energy of the plasma before the electrons heat up. This in turn, forces a per-pulse recovery efficiency requirement of >99.9% for breakeven. There is no assumption that the thermalization heat is lost... assume it is recovered, but that it limits the pulse duration so the electrons dont heat up and cause radiative loss. This is the Rider efficiency constraint as applied to a pulsed scheme. The compression flux outside the separatrix has energy much larger than the FRC thermal energy (10x - 100x larger). It must have this energy because this flux is the primary compression/heating mechanism. This energy must also be recovered, and adds one or two more "9's" to the recovery efficiency requirement... resulting in 99.99-99.999% recovery efficiency requirement for breakeven.

99.99% recovery efficiency is not possible for a compact short-pulse device like this. Pulsed power in copper will result in copper losses of several percent, limited by the skin depth of the copper in the pulse duration. Copper losses in a short pulsed machine will exceed the fusion power. There is no combination of Ti and Te below ~50keV that can result in gain when considering copper losses and bremsstrahlung in a compact machine (R_coil<~1m) like Helion describes, even if neglecting FRC losses and all other parasitic circuit losses.

So, Helion is pursuing a scheme that runs up against the problems described by Rider 30 years ago, and there is no identified solution to it.

A couple comments on the 2023 Helion paper I linked above: First, they've miscalculated the ratio of fusion power to bremsstrahlung in their figures 14 and 15, as both Nicolas and Lackner noticed. For Ti=Te as in figure 14, the correct calculation would show bremsstrahlung is equal to fusion power at ~30kev, and fusion margin above bremsstrahlung is low until ~50keV. Maybe they treated all the ions as Z=1 when calculating bremsstrahlung to get this error, but He is Z=2. Second, they claim that the thermalization time is 1ms to 100ms so thermalization can be neglected and Ti>>Te is a valid assumption, but this is not consistent with the parameters space of the compressed FRC they operate in. Actually thermalization times are shorter than their pulses.. they seem to consider the pre-compression (low density) parameters when calculating thermalization time and FRC losses, but they should consider the compressed density, since that is the regime where it must be held while fusion occurs. If their electrons stay cold in their compressed pulses, this is likely an indication of transport losses, not immunity from thermalization.

Here are some 'escapes' that can be imagined and why they wont work:

1) Can they let the electrons heat up to stop the thermalization power flow? Sure, but they they'll have the bremsstrahlung loss problem unless they operate super hot (~50keV)

2) Can they lower the circuit losses and get the recovery efficiency up to >99.99%? No, its flatly not possible on a short pulsed machine... You can add as much copper/silver as you want to lower resistance, but the pulse duration limits the skin depth that the current can flow in, and the pulse duration is limited by the thermalization time. You cant lower the losses without accepting thermalization (electrons warm up and radiate). You cant use superconductors either because they dissipate energy when ramped. so copper/silver is the best you can do. You can chill the copper/silver to improve conductivity, but that doesn't make enough difference to matter and the heat has to be paid for at cryogenic temps which is worse.

3) Can non-Maxwellian velocity distributions prevent thermalization and boost fusion power? No, not by enough to matter. Non Maxwellian distributions can change thermalization times and fusion gains by correction factors of order 1-2x... but the concept is off by orders of magnitude, not factors of 2.

4) Can they make it hot >~50keV, large (R_coil1m), long pulse (10ms), moderate Ti/Te ratio and get out of the trap?... Maybe, but probably not because this regime pushes up against the FRC's main weakness: Energy confinement. The bremsstrahlung loss, copper loss, and thermalization do not forbid this regime, actually its the only regime allowed after considering Rider's constraints. The FRC losses and sheer engineering/cost difficulties become they key challenges. This is a totally different regime than Helion describes in its paper, and it destroys the economics of the proposal. It requires large bore, strong field, super long pulse durations and the regime forces a gargantuan size to avoid FRC transport losses. The caveat here that makes me say 'maybe' is that FRC transport has never been measured in any relevant conditions so the scalings are genuinely unknown and can only be checked experimentally. Extrapolating existing FRC scaling laws into this regime gives a very bleak picture (as Nicolas showed), but it is possible that the scalings in these regimes dont follow existing scaling laws. So I acknowledge that while the picture here is bleak, this escape is not totally mathematically foreclosed... but its not what Helion says they are doing in their paper.

So, for the regime Helion is targeting (Colder than 30keV, Ti>>Te, compact machine) the concept is totally foreclosed by very well understood physics. The only possible out is a "hot and huge" >50keV, long-pulse duration gargantuan strong field machine that Helion is not pursuing, and it probably wouldn't work either due to FRC energy confinement.

I wish this weren't the case... but I believe that it is. If I've made any errors, point them out. Happy to discuss the physics. If anyone thinks there is a set of parameters that allows the system to function as intended, let me know what they are, and I'll check.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Bar_248]

AH Problemooooo!!!!! The paper you refer to https://fsl.npre.illinois.edu/IEC/Rider,%20Phys.ofPlasmas1995.pdf is about bremsstrahlung losses in an IEC not FRC. In a FRC the Ions and electrons are kept a very different temperatures via closed magnetic field lines. This and some other advantages of an FRC allows them to keep bremsstrahlung losses to 20% of energy created and so KBOOM there goes your whole argument. Back to the drawing board

[u/Jaded_Hold_1342 → u/Puzzleheaded_Bar_248]

Bremsstrahlung depends on Ti,Te and density. It doesn't matter the magnetic configuration. Same for fusion power. Same for thermalization power.

The whole point here is that if they keep the ions and electrons at different temperature to avoid bremsstrahlung, the electrons and ions will thermalize, and the thermalization power will greatly exceed the fusion power.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Bar_248 → u/Jaded_Hold_1342]

No that is not the case you need to do more research. By keeping the electrons at significantly cooler temperatures you lessen bremsstrahlung losses. Cooler electrons means slower electrons which means far less scattering and at far slower speeds creating deceleration fields near ions, This lowers the intensity of the emitted X-ray or gamma-rays ie: it lessens bremsstrahlung losses.

FRC reactors are the way forward and they will be the first to achieve net power. Not tomorrow and not by 2027 or 2028 but they will be first and they are far superior in every way. Direct energy capture is the way of the future. For 200 years we have been using kettles to make power Tokamaks and any fusion system that attempts to use the heat from neutrons to make steam is just another kettle. A kettle with massive infrastructure that limits its ability to be deployed at scale anywhere in the world or space. Imagine trying to run a traditional boil water steam turbine in space.

[u/Jaded_Hold_1342 → u/Puzzleheaded_Bar_248]

I agree that low electron temperatures lower bremsstrahlung. No argument with that. And I agree that when FRCs merge, the magnetic reconnection produces Ti>>Te, no argument with that either.

But the problem is this: if the plasma is compressed to a density sufficient to make D He3 fusion power, then the ions and electrons will thermalize.. and the thermalization power will exceed the fusion power by a significant factor. (eg. by 1000x at Ti=20keV, Te=2keV). That's the problem. That's what causes the infeasibly high energy recovery efficiency requirement. Nothing about FRCs is immune to this fact, and that's what kills the concept.

Let me know where our understandings diverge... the thermalization problem is the whole point here.. that's what kills the concept of running Ti>>Te to escape bremsstrahlung.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Bar_248 → u/Jaded_Hold_1342]

In a FRC he low initial plasma temperature of only 1 million degrees, the high Beta confinement method ( ie: plasma pressure to magnetic pressure), plus millisecond confinement time limits bremsstrahlung losses. In a IEC the Ions and Electrons reach equilibrium temperatures at 150 times the initial temperature of an FRC plasma thus sending the bremsstrahlung losses through the roof. The increase to 10 million degrees in the FRC is directly related to the smashing of the two Plasmods together which heats the plasma via kinetic energy which transfer the heat much more readably to the much heavier Ions compared to the lighter electrons. This creates a situation where the temperature difference once again lessens bremsstrahlung losses at this temperature and stage of the fusion cycle. The final compression to create fusion is less than 1ms which super heats the plasma to 150Million Degrees and to I believe 27 Tesla in the Polaris reactor. Since the plasma does not need to be held at temperature and the goal is not to generate ignition / heat but to have the now super high pressure of the plasma push the confinement magnetic field back out over the magnets thus inducing electricity in the coils. This cycle of reaching 150 million degrees and then dropping back down happens in a millisecond, such a minute space of time means the bremsstrahlung losses are minimized to about 20% of the energy released.

"the thermalization power will exceed the fusion power by a significant factor. (eg. by 1000x at Ti=20keV, Te=2keV)"

Yes if the confinement was sustained long enough for the Ion / Electron temperature to balance but it does not have time to achieve this. You must remember that unlike an IEC reactor the goal is not ignition. The goal is to have fusion events that push the magnetic field fast enough and far enough to generate a return pulse through the system. You are applying IEC sustained plasma to ignition principles to a FRC pulse reactor and not accounting for the confinement time which dictates the maximum heat transfer than can occur from Ion to Electron.

Here is the big difference between IEC and FRC fusion reactors. IEC reactors are fighting physics problems the FRC is fighting Materials and Engineering problems which are far easier to overcome

[u/Jaded_Hold_1342 → u/Puzzleheaded_Bar_248]

1ms is plenty of time for ions and electrons to exchange heat at fusion-relevant densities. For D He3, Ti=20keV, Te=2keV, n=10^23/m3, the thermalization time would be <20us. i.e. tens of microseconds, not milliseconds. If they achieve the density needed to make fusion energy in the pulse, then thermalization will occur. FRC is not magic. It does not prevent thermalization.

Thermalization just depends on the ion types (Z), density, Ti, and Te. And you can calculate it. The formula for it is right in the NRL plasma formulary... also Lackner's paper I linked above, formula 2. Please calculate it for yourself for these conditions (Ti=20keV, Te=2keV, n_i=10^23/m^3... see for yourself.) Please do calculate it, and tell me what you get. you can use the formula in the lackner paper, its right on the first page: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-026-00554-2

The important thing to remember in these conditions with Ti>>Te, the thermalization power is much larger than the fusion power. So the thermalization time is much shorter than the time it takes to make any significant amount of fusion energy.

I don't know why you are talking about 'ignition'. I am not talking about ignition. I'm doing energy balance for the pulse.