I’d like to continue the discussion on transportation. Basically even with shielding, a focus fusion reactor is light enough to fit into a train, plane (airliner) or ship. But, except for ships, that might not b the best way to go. Maglev would certainly be great for long-distance travel. The key thing is to build it underground in evacuated tubes. RAND did a study back 30 years ago showing you could get from NY to LA in 30 minutes with evacuated maglev and the energy costs would be very small, because you would feed energy back into the grid as you decelerated the train electromagnetically and there would be almost no friction.
Of course you have to dig very long tunnels, so the thing would cost tens of billions to build, much like the highway system. But once the network is built, you would cut way down or even eliminate planes.
The money you save with focus fusion could go toward this network ,for one thing.
For ships, you probably would want fusion reactors on board, but each one will only weigh a few tons, so that is OK.
Maglev would certainly be great for long-distance travel. The key thing is to build it underground in evacuated tubes. Of course you have to dig very long tunnels, so the thing would cost tens of billions to build, much like the highway system.
Concrete tubes above ground might be as effective, but far cheaper. It would also allow the possibility of windows. It would be nice to have a view on the trip besides miles and miles of tunnel walls.
RAND did a study back 30 years ago showing you could get from NY to LA in 30 minutes with evacuated maglev and the energy costs would be very small, because you would feed energy back into the grid as you decelerated the train electromagnetically and there would be almost no friction.
Now that’s what I am talking about. That would be awesome, and green at the same time. What is the speed we are talking about? 9500 kph? Or over 10,000 in a ramped bell-curved “flight-plan” to reduce G’s? That would be a rush! (Might have to test people for heart conditions prior to riding!)
Building it would be great for the economy, as it wouldn’t be just be for an east coast-west coast route but part of a complete network, and would use materials and technologies domestically and world-wide. The idea of it being underground also works on so many levels. It lowers the impact on the environment, hides the sound, makes riding it more of a spectacle. Focus fusion could be what’s needed to make it a reality. I really feel that focus fusion will be a catalyst for all sorts of new things.
Of course you have to dig very long tunnels, so the thing would cost tens of billions to build, much like the highway system. But once the network is built, you would cut way down or even eliminate planes.
Well, we do have the technology, as the Chunnel proves. This would be way bigger than the Chunnel, however. Lots of surveying and planning. Still, if planned right, the project could be quickly made to pay for itself if you build out smaller routes on your way to connecting the coasts. (Think of routes now served by Amtrak’s Acela.) And with focus fusion energy driving even more automated diggers than the Chunnel had, the costs of making it, per km, could be better than the Chunnel’s, which went way over budget.
Perhaps the Helium beam exhaust of the Focus Fusion could be be used as a plasma torch to cut the maglev tunnels. The minimum rock to be vaporized would be around the circumference and a hole cut in the center to insert a rotary torch to cut out the back side of the rock plug. The rock plug would be removed mechanically, still a daunting task, I am sure. Or, we could just blast!
I am not familiar with tunneling techniques and am not sure how a fusion plasma torch could be incorporated into the operation.
FF is not sitable,adaptable for 15 m dia Tunneling
Reasonable Dim may be 3-5 km
Tunneling is done by GIANT Cutter and
Micro second time-delayed detonater
FF is not sitable, adaptable for 15 m dia Tunneling
Appan,
I do not understand the word sitable, as it is not a standard English word. Do you mean suitable? If so, why do you say so?
Why would a diameter of 15 meters be required for an evacuated tube? 5 meters may be sufficient.
With a cross-continental transit time of 30 minutes, a single tube could provide service from either end every hour-and-a-half or two hours. A second tunnel need not be built at the same time as the first, nor immediately next to it.
Reasonable Dim may be 3-5 km
What do you mean by “Dim”? 3 to 5 kilometers for what?
Tunneling is done by GIANT Cutter and Micro second time-delayed [detonator.]
What do you mean by “micro-second time-delayed detonator”?
In a presentation to the Seventh Symposium on Current Trends in International Fusion research, held a year ago, but recently released on the Web, Dr. Jan Brzosko reported that in 500 shots a DPF functioning at a peak current of 0.95 MA had neutron yields that had a standard deviation of only about 15%.
Laser beams, electron beams, electrically charged and accelerated atoms, even highly focused ultrasound ...... could all be driling and tunneling tools powered by focus fusion for underground construction.
” But once the network is built, you would cut way down or even eliminate planes “
Big business and entrenched interests (major airlines) will fight to kill this any way they can. This is why Los Angeles and many other cities of the United States have such a pathetic, wasteful transportation infrastructure.
Assuming a plasma torch of sufficient power, why would we need to pull out a plug? Why not just set it to maybe a few cm depth per pass and use the PLC (computer) to “paint” inside the circle? By eliminating the gigantic metal cutters and the torque required to drive them, the machinery size, cost, and complexity goes way down, along with maintenance scheduling. I’m sure that how far a machine could “bore” through solid rock in a day would shoot through the roof.
Focus Fusion Society 
