Homepage Forums Environmental Forums FUSION Power for SHIPPING [] NO Co,Co2 Emission;No Oxgen Depletion ;NOx is absobed[]No Damage to Environment.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #393
    Avatarappan
    Member

    FUSION Power for SHIPPING []
    NO Co,Co2 Emission;No Oxgen Depletion ;NOx is absorbed[]
    No Damage to Environment.[]
    ..
    NO BOILER, No Gas Turbine / Steam Turbine[]
    1000 MW=1340,000 hp[]
    VLCC 200,000 DWT[ 1 Mn Brl] at 200 kmph[ 110 kts]
    Transport Freight $ 1 / 200 km / Brl [or]
    HALF-RATE at 110/14 =8 TIME speed[]
    400,600 KMPH IS POSSIBLE[]
    1 Mn Brl *110/14 = 8 Mn Brl NORMALLY.[]
    COST D2F SETUP…$ 3000 Mn[]
    VLCC BUILD……….$ 2000 Mn [200,000 DWT AT 110 KTS][]
    ANNUAL REVENUE=200,000*5*200/200*16*360=5760 Mn$/Yr[]
    EXP 10 % = 576 Mn$/Yr [1.6 Mn$/DAY] NET=5760-576= 5184 Mn$/Yr[]
    .
    DUBAI-S.KOREA 15,000 KM /200= 75 HOURS[ against 38 DAYS]

    #1965
    AvatarJolly Roger
    Member

    Though I do not understand the calculations (some kind of shorthand). I do agree that Focus Fusion could power a ship or WIG-ship (Wing-In-Ground effect).

    Fission is already powering submarines, aircraft carriers and icebreakers. Focus Fusion could take over the nautical niche.

    I have also thought about FF-powered locomotives, WIG-trains and propeller-driven aircraft. However, trains and planes do crash, and the reactors would be radioactive from side-reactions. It may be possible to design reactors to survive a crash intact.

    #1967
    Avatarappan
    Member

    First Quality of FF [D2F] is NOT Radio active
    Can be used for any thing
    Minimum Power 100 MW =134,000 hp
    5000 GRT Train 10,000 Pass 600 kmph[MonoRail]
    9000 GRT Ship 10,000 Pass 600 kmph[330 kts]

    #1968
    AvatarJolly Roger
    Member

    appan wrote: First Quality of FF [D2F] is NOT Radio active. Can be used for anything.

    In the FAQ “Focus Fusion vs. Nuclear Reactors” it is admitted that there is (at least) one secondary reaction that can create neutrons. Some of those neutrons will strike reactor internals and make them radioactive. It is these activated materials that are of concern.

    Secondary reactions can be minimized, but not totally eliminated, by adjustment of the operation cycle. Activation products can be minimized, but not totally eliminated, by proper selection of construction materials.

    Only operational experience will tell how much radioactivity is generated and how concerned we need to be.

    I hope that my concerns are unfounded. I hope that Focus Fusion will find wide-spread application and power our world into a bright future.

    #1970
    AvatarGlenn Millam
    Member

    I see FF as being a good technology for MagLev trains, but not airplanes. Take away the small amount of neutrons produced by FF, and you still have a lot of x-rays to shield for, so this makes carrying onboard reactors weight-prohibitive for aircraft. However, with maglev, you don’t have that problem, and using similar technology that nuclear-powered subs use, building a safe reactor is not hard. Which brings up ships. As Appan points out, FF would be ideal for shipping.

    I’m a big believer in FF-powered Maglev. There are many problems with airplane-based travel. What people like about it is that you can get from point A to point B fast. The downsides are many. First, jets are one of the main contributors to global dimming. Next, airplanes have to be light, so they will probably always need a conventional chemical-based fuel. Third, there are only so many accommodations and people you can put on a plane. The A380, the 787 Dreamliner and the latest 747’s are an attempt to address this. But what if you could zoom from Baltimore to New York at 600+ kph, have a private office to work in while you were going there, and when you got there, you drove your own (hopefully EEStor-based electric) car away from the station to your meeting? It’s only possible with maglev. A train can be as big or as small as you need it to be, and can carry anything.

    #1971
    AvatarJolly Roger
    Member

    Glenn Millam wrote: I see FF as being a good technology for MagLev trains, but not airplanes. … you still have a lot of x-rays to shield for, so this makes carrying onboard reactors weight-prohibitive for aircraft.

    Perhaps the FF reactors could be placed near the wingtips to minimize the amount of shielding required.

    jets are one of the main contributors to global dimming.

    Because of unburned hydrocarbon fuel in the exhaust. No fuel, no exhaust.

    airplanes have to be light, so they will probably always need a conventional chemical-based fuel.

    A fully-fueled airliner is pretty heavy, too.

    But what if you could zoom from Baltimore to New York at 600+ kph … ? It’s only possible with maglev.

    Maglev is not the only way to levitate a train. Wing-In-Ground-Effect (WIG) can also be used. It would use only 1/3 the energy to raise the train off the tracks, so more energy could be used to make the train go faster.

    Common WIG train designs have horizontal wings, but one that is no longer on the Web had angled-down wings gliding over a triangular-cross-section track. It was to be powered by linear induction motors at the wingtips.

    Whether Maglev or WIG, bullet trains would need new track, and in some cases, new right-of-ways. In the near-term, I foresee diesel locomotives being replaced with Focus Fusion.

    #1972
    Avatarappan
    Member

    Combination of Andy Engine [Rotary , No Crank Shaft] ,Air bearing & Vapour Jet will eliminate the need for ” Maglev “
    Vehicle rides on AIR Cushion [NO RAILS] Energy Source can be Solids,Oil,Gas, Fusion,Nuke[]
    DRIVE:: FRICTION-CUM-JET DRIVE for MONO-RAIL [ NO RAIL, NO WHEELS for WAGONS] []
    ………….PROPELLER-LESS JET DRIVE , RUDDER-LESS STEER for SHIPPING.

    #1973
    Avatarappan
    Member

    CONTACT DETAILS OF A D2F TECHNOLOGY PROVIDER PLEASE ?
    COST,SIZE, TIME FOR A 100 MW POWER PLANT ?

    #1974
    AvatarJolly Roger
    Member

    appan wrote: Combination of Andy Engine [Rotary , No Crank Shaft] ,Air bearing & Vapour Jet will eliminate the need for ” Maglev “

    Appan,
    please post links to “Andy Engine”, “Air Bearing” and “Vapour Jet”.

    Also, please edit previous posts to explain the meaning of all the abbreviations. I did not understand them.

    #1975
    AvatarJolly Roger
    Member

    appan wrote: CONTACT DETAILS OF A D2F TECHNOLOGY PROVIDER PLEASE ?
    COST,SIZE, TIME FOR A 100 MW POWER PLANT ?

    By D2F, I am guessing you mean D2 Fusion, or Cold Fusion. I found this:

    http://d2fusion.com

    They are associated with Cold Fusion pioneer Dr. Martin Fleischmann.

    Not much credence is given to his work, as it has not been consistently reproducible.

    Apparently, the Focus Fusion work so far is quite reproducible by anyone with the same equipment. But there is the rub. FF has some of the most advanced DPF equipment in the world.

    #1976
    AvatarGlenn Millam
    Member

    Check this link out, Jolly.

    Maglev rocks.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqFkVagJ3cs

    #1977
    AvatarGlenn Millam
    Member

    As for fusion reactors on airplanes, I just wonder about the amount of lead that has to surround a reactor to keep the x-ray from coming out. That is going to be a lot of weight, I would think. Eric would have the answers, but if you look at the schematics for a FF reactor, you have cooling, transformers, all sorts of stuff that have to be accounted for. You could make a lot of stuff from lightweight materials, but… I just can’t see it.

    #1978
    AvatarJolly Roger
    Member

    Lerner wrote: Basically even with shielding, a focus fusion reactor is light enough to fit into a train, plane (airliner) or ship.

    From the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Focus Fusion could be used in a large airplane.

    Enough said on this thread. Let’s continue on Lerner’s thread.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.