Great News!

[Breakable]

“Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened, has received $600k in funding, and a promise of phased payments of $10 million if scientific feasibility can be demonstrated to productize Lerner’s focus fusion energy production device. Unlike the Tokamak, focus fusion does not require the plasma to be stable, does not produce significant amounts of dangerous radiation, directly injects electrons into the power grid without the need for turbines and would only cost around $300k to manufacture a generator. Lerner’s inspiration for the technology is based upon an interpretation for astrophysical Herbig-Haro jets that agrees with the Electric Universe explanation.”

http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/05/26/1924242.shtml

[Henning]

Obviously not correct. It links to an old copy of LPP’s website (and not authoritative after all). CMEF was not able to collect the required USD 600000, only a fraction was transferred. Please see http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?pr=Investors for the current investment status.

Ok, it gives focus fusion some publicity, but unfortunately with the wrong information.

Cheers,

Henning

[Alex Pollard]

The slashdot discussion has some interesting contributions. I have no idea how reliable they are.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=564391&cid=23552533

Russians tried it way back and failed. Every time they though they were close, boom, energy lost and no reaction. The plasma with wiggle and break. It does NOT work.

From his diagrams, the device is much too simplistic to work. Russians used a similar setup. Plasma does not interact with just the outside, it interacts with itself. And that’s the problem that existed since the 60s.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=564391&cid=23552955

I am sure there are ways to stabilise the PF plasma, if enough efforts is put in, similar to the case of tokamak. I understand that somewhere in Russia they are building, or perhap built already, a very large PF device. Nothing seem to be exciting back in US.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=564391&cid=23549241

Plasma focus technology has been around since the 60s (see the works of Mather and Filipov). They make cute neutron and x-ray sources, but not much more practical for fusion power production than these “bubble fusion” designs. I believe there’s still a lot to be learned from the plasma focus, and I’m glad that someone is willing to pay for further research. And if we get p-B11 fusion working, that would be a great step forward too.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=564391&cid=23552411

the problem is that it takes a beam-cold target approach. It is difficult to reach the temperatures necessary to achieve a significant fusion burn in this way. The plasma cannot be considered thermonuclear, as the neutron distribution is not isotropic – this was one of the bones we had with Mr. Lerner’s conclusions, as I recall. There are still a lot of questions about confinement as well. The plasma constrained by its own magnetic fields, so it fits in this sort of odd category between inertial and magnetic confinement. In terms of pulsed fusion, to me the Z-pinch method holds a bit more promise, as we understand a great deal more about how x-rays contribute to confinement and burn.

[Alex Pollard]

Following up on the contents of these slashdot posts:

Alex Pollard wrote:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=564391&cid=23549241

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=564391&cid=23552411

Supposedly the paper in question could not be agreed to because it referred to thermonuclear neutron temperatures.
I’m not sure which of these papers it is:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0205/0205026.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401126.pdf

The term “thermonuclear” arises in neither. However isotropic neutrons were found

The isotropic distribution of the neutrons is indicated by their detection at both detectors, which are 90 degrees apart in azimuthal direction.

The slashdot poster hasn’t explained the dispute well enough for me to take his word for it.

It seems like the author of these slashdot posts is referring to the dispute Mr Lerner discusses here

http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWebBackissues2002/PEWeb%2028%20Jul%2002-2/28editor.htm

The experimental work was performed last year at Texas A&M University in a project funded by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA. Other scientists congratulated us on the success.

Yet, instead of hailing this new work, a Los Alamos National Laboratory manager threatened two members of our research team with firing if they didn’t repudiate the results.

Seems like politics got in the way of physics.

[Brian H]

It is interesting that the Chilean connection went quiet. Chile is under horrific pressure because of gas and power availability constraints from Argentina and Bolovia, etc., and needs a near-term fix for its energy requirements (copper mining and refining is fundamental to its economy.) FF is a potential savior, in a sense, but won’t be quick enough to avert problems over the next 5 years or so.

But FF would potentially also collapse demand for copper for long-distance transmission lines. If the price of copper tanked, Chile would be severely impacted.

Whether this is a factor in the turbulent politics and power-games now going on there, I don’t know.

[JimmyT]

I believe that long distance transmission lines are made of aluminum, not copper. They also often contain several strands of steel wire to strengthen then. While copper is a better conductor, it’s weight/conductivity ratio is higher than that of copper. Copper is used in the step-up and step-down transformers at either end. But the bulk of materials used is aluminum.

Not meaning to second guess ya’ Brian. Just trying to maintain accuracy in order to maintain credibility.

[Brian H]

JimmyT wrote: I believe that long distance transmission lines are made of aluminum, not copper. They also often contain several strands of steel wire to strengthen then. While copper is a better conductor, it’s weight/conductivity ratio is higher than that of copper. Copper is used in the step-up and step-down transformers at either end. But the bulk of materials used is aluminum.

Not meaning to second guess ya’ Brian. Just trying to maintain accuracy in order to maintain credibility.

Surprising — world-wide, lines are being stolen for the copper. Must be a hell of a shock …
Actually, it depends when and where:
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/POL_PRE/POWER_TRANSMISSION.html :

“On account of the cost and the difficulty of repair of such lines they are not extensively used, and cables have not yet been produced for the extremely high voltages desirable in some very long circuits, although they are readily obtainable for voltages up to 30,000 or 40,000. As to the material of the conductors, copper is almost universally used.

For very long spans, however,bronze wire of high tensile strength is occasionally employed as a substitute for copper wire, and more rarely steel wire; aluminium, too, is beginning to come into use for general line work . Bronze of high tensile strength (say 8o,0oo to 100,000 lb per square inch) has unfortunately less than half the conductivity of copper; and unless spans of many hundred feet are to be attempted it is better to use hard-drawn copper, which gives a tensile strength of from 60,000 to 65,000 lb to the quare inch, with a reduction in conductivity of only 3 to 4% . As to aluminium, this metal has a tensile strength slightly less than that of annealed copper, a conductivity about 6o% that of copper, and for equal conductivity is almost exactly one-half the weight . Mechanically, aluminium is somewhat inferior to copper, as its coefficient of expansion with temperature is 50% greater; and its elastic limit is very low, the metal tending to take a permanent set under comparatively light tension, and being seriously affected at less than half its ultimate tensile strength .

Joints in aluminium wire are difficult to make, since the present methods of soldering are little better than cementing the metal with the flux; in practice the joints are purely mechanical, being usually made by means of tight-fitting sleeves forced into contact with the wire . With suitable caution in stringing, aluminium lines can be successfully used, and are likely to serve as a useful defence against increase in the price of copper . Whatever the material, most important lines are now built of stranded cable, sometimes with a hemp core to give added flexibility . With respect to line construction the introduction of high voltages, say 40,000 and upwards, has made a radical change in the situation . The earlier transmission lines were for rather low voltages, seldom above 10,000 . Insulation was extremely easy, and the transmission of any considerable amount of power implied heavy or numerous conductors . The line construction therefore followed rather closely the precedents set in telegraph and telephone construction and in low tension electric light service . In American practice the lines were usually of simple wooden poles set 40 to 50 to the mile, and carrying wooden cross-arms furnished with wooden pins carrying insulators of glass or porcelain . “

[JimmyT]

I stand corrected Brian. I was probably going on some old information. I learned most of this stuff in the 80’s when I think there was a move towards aluminum.

[Author]

Posts