meta: dpf applications area for fusion-derived tech?

[zapkitty]

I placed the FOOF thread in its current location in the
plasma focus forum because none of the socio-econo-geo-
politico threads seemed any more appropriate than any of
the marketing-lobbying- fundraising threads and there were
already similar threads under the plasma focus heading.
And my posts always seem somewhat more technico- than
socio-politico 🙂

But as of late there’s been a lot discussion in the plasma
focus area about (believe it or not) dpf 🙂

And I don’t want to barge in on that just to bump my thread
with my latest parts list for converting ISS to fusion
power.

Thus my post here: would a dpf applications area for
fusion-derived tech be an appropriate addition to the
forum? Or perhaps just a specific space-applications area
somewhere so people know what they are getting into?

[vansig]

technical discussions regarding the application of focus fusion are likely to pick up and branch out as the technology approaches unity, so yes it would make sense to promote these threads

[Brian H]

But it’s so much fun watching the astronauts do spacewalks to fiddle with and replace the solar panels! And they’re so … wingy!

[zapkitty]

Brian H wrote: But it’s so much fun watching the astronauts do spacewalks to fiddle with and replace the solar panels! And they’re so … wingy!

Yes, those are clear and convincing arguments for replacing spacecraft solar power systems with onboard fusion systems.

[Rezwan]

Is there any reason not to put it in the technology section under Plasma Focus? I’ve renamed it DPF-Plasma Focus, if that makes it any better. And moving it now.

[Brian H]

The whole DPF hypothesis is probably a radical outlier according to most of the conventional fusion crowd. I’m not fully competent to judge the assessments I’ve read, but they seem to go off into quickly dismissing it as a minor phenomenon, doomed to lose energy faster than it can be utilized. Thus, the “break-even” point for FF, if achieved, will cause a major rethink, I think!

E.g.: a recent remark posted somewhere I was outlining FF was along the lines of listing all the high multiples of temperature etc. that pB11 fusion had to achieve, and the comment that it was dreaming to try and master it before “garden variety” conventional fusion.

Anyhow, that’s the tone I get, and I hope and expect those expressing it are shortly gob-struck by LPP’s success.

[Tulse]

Brian H wrote: E.g.: a recent remark posted somewhere I was outlining FF was along the lines of listing all the high multiples of temperature etc. that pB11 fusion had to achieve, and the comment that it was dreaming to try and master it before “garden variety” conventional fusion.

One response to that: a dream that costs four to six orders of magnitude less to research than has been spent on “garden variety” fusion is a good gamble.

[Brian H]

Tulse wrote:

E.g.: a recent remark posted somewhere I was outlining FF was along the lines of listing all the high multiples of temperature etc. that pB11 fusion had to achieve, and the comment that it was dreaming to try and master it before “garden variety” conventional fusion.

One response to that: a dream that costs four to six orders of magnitude less to research than has been spent on “garden variety” fusion is a good gamble.
Damn $traight! My WAG was that their budget for coffee would suffice. 😉

[Brian H]

It should always be kept in mind that fusion is easy to produce. Basement workshop “fusor” rigs will do it just fine. It’s controlling and containing the energy long enough to keep it going that’s the key.

[zapkitty]

Rezwan wrote: Is there any reason not to put it in the technology section under Plasma Focus? I’ve renamed it DPF-Plasma Focus, if that makes it any better. And moving it now.

As you like, and I think the clarification in description may help a bit.. at least innocent bystanders won’t be wondering “why is that guy going on about abstruse spaceship details again in this area of the forum?” 🙂

[Author]

Posts