Next Generation Nuclear Fission Plant

[Lerner]

Aeronaut,

Is your site on line? If so, what is the URL? You may be running into a problem. As we discovered, it is not legal in the US to raise investment funds on the web unless your security is registered with the SEC (publicly traded). So please, don’t do that! We can raise charity for FFS over the web, but not investments.

Also, we can’t achieve our goals by Dec 2009 because we will not be running at all with pB11 this year. Got to walk before we run.

Eric

[Aeronaut]

Lerner wrote: Aeronaut,

Is your site on line? If so, what is the URL? You may be running into a problem. As we discovered, it is not legal in the US to raise investment funds on the web unless your security is registered with the SEC (publicly traded). So please, don’t do that! We can raise charity for FFS over the web, but not investments.

Also, we can’t achieve our goals by Dec 2009 because we will not be running at all with pB11 this year. Got to walk before we run.

Eric

Eric,

Thanx for the legal and testing details. Yes, the site is up at http://subatomicprecision.com . I’m aiming at soliciting social support for FF and linking to LPP for more details, such as device, business plan, etc.

Rats. I was hoping the deuterium phase would only run for a week, possibly a month to confirm projections rather than further investigate the deuterium, but I forgot LPP’s x-ray and neutron bath projects.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

Aeronaut,

Is your site on line? If so, what is the URL? You may be running into a problem. As we discovered, it is not legal in the US to raise investment funds on the web unless your security is registered with the SEC (publicly traded). So please, don’t do that! We can raise charity for FFS over the web, but not investments.

Also, we can’t achieve our goals by Dec 2009 because we will not be running at all with pB11 this year. Got to walk before we run.

Eric

Eric,

Thanx for the legal and testing details. Yes, the site is up at http://subatomicprecision.com . I’m aiming at soliciting social support for FF and linking to LPP for more details, such as device, business plan, etc.

Rats. I was hoping the deuterium phase would only run for a week, possibly a month to confirm projections rather than further investigate the deuterium, but I forgot LPP’s x-ray and neutron bath projects.
I don’t think those are the issue. There are many important projections and simulations to be verified, and reactor variables to be tweaked. Actually, I’ve seen no current reference to the X-Scan project for some years now. I suspect that if it happens, it will be as a spin-off on a separate track.

Here’s a recent projection:

scientific feasibility and validation phase and complete validation of technological feasibility by carrying out engineering studies and component testing of the three critical engineering challenges of Focus Fusion—cooling, X-ray energy conversion and ion beam conversion. Cooling is critical to high-output functioning of the DPF, as there will be an unavoidable minimum of waste heat generated by electrical resistance, X-ray absorption and contact with the hot plasma. This cooling will be particularly critical for the small anode at the center of the device. A very high efficiency compressed helium cooling system will be designed, and key components will be fabricated in this phase of the project. Second, the ion beam converter will be designed, and key components such as the helical coils will be tested in our testing facility. Third, the multi-layered X-ray conversion system will be designed and tested with the X-ray output from the DPF, allowing scaling up to the full several-thousand-layer converters.

LPP will carry out the technological feasibility phase of the project in a 24-month period, overlapping by 12 months with the 24-month scientific feasibly experiment, which is expected to run through December 2010. A full-time experienced engineer will be working on each engineering challenge, and a fourth engineer will act to integrate the work and interface with the scientific staff. In the second 12 months of the engineering feasibility phase (essentially calendar 2011), the DPF facility will be mainly devoted to testing the components and modification of the DPF function for overall system optimization. The goal of the engineering phase is the demonstration that the engineering goals required for Focus Fusion functioning are attainable.

So that means 2010 and 2011 will result in “engineering” proof-of-concept. How long from then to a working commercial prototype and licenseable design? 1-2 years? If so, that would mean that the real marketing could begin late 2013, early 2014. That would be wonderful.

[Aeronaut]

Optimist that I am, a commercial prototype in 2012 is not out of the question.

Regarding “real marketing”, it can take a while to raise a megabuck. Asset(s) may need selling, corporate boards need to be sold on the overwhelming need, etc. Marketing is all about creating desire. PlayStation debuts are an excellent example of whipping the market into a pre-availability frenzy. 😉

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: Optimist that I am, a commercial prototype in 2012 is not out of the question.

Regarding “real marketing”, it can take a while to raise a megabuck. Asset(s) may need selling, corporate boards need to be sold on the overwhelming need, etc. Marketing is all about creating desire. PlayStation debuts are an excellent example of whipping the market into a pre-availability frenzy. 😉

I’m not sure where you trim that extra year, or why it’s so urgent for you. We’re still talking lightspeed here compared to any other competitive initiatives. Not that “competition” is a problem. Whenever FF comes onstream, its economics will RULE!

Are you familiar with PERT/critical path charting? It seems to me you might benefit from drawing one up and passing it by Eric and Rezwan. I think you would find it very enlightening and useful.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Optimist that I am, a commercial prototype in 2012 is not out of the question.

Regarding “real marketing”, it can take a while to raise a megabuck. Asset(s) may need selling, corporate boards need to be sold on the overwhelming need, etc. Marketing is all about creating desire. PlayStation debuts are an excellent example of whipping the market into a pre-availability frenzy. 😉

I’m not sure where you trim that extra year, or why it’s so urgent for you. We’re still talking lightspeed here compared to any other competitive initiatives. Not that “competition” is a problem. Whenever FF comes onstream, its economics will RULE!

Are you familiar with PERT/critical path charting? It seems to me you might benefit from drawing one up and passing it by Eric and Rezwan. I think you would find it very enlightening and useful.
Yes, I know PERT charts as flow-charting. Actually I think I’ll do PERT and Ghantt charts. Thanks for mentioning that. My site needs graphics to improve skimability and visual appeal while cutting the word count.

Lightspeed is measured FOB for my purposes (implies a sale was made). Have you read a book called “From steam engines to search engines- They made America”? Its not about the inventions that made the 19th and 20th centuries as much as the innovators who got the technologies to market. Asaferinstance, Google did not invent the search engine, Billy Bob didn’t invent the GUI or multi-threaded operating system, and Fulton was not the man who got steam into small boats.

Success is measured in results delivered to a hungry market.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

Optimist that I am, a commercial prototype in 2012 is not out of the question.

Regarding “real marketing”, it can take a while to raise a megabuck. Asset(s) may need selling, corporate boards need to be sold on the overwhelming need, etc. Marketing is all about creating desire. PlayStation debuts are an excellent example of whipping the market into a pre-availability frenzy. 😉

I’m not sure where you trim that extra year, or why it’s so urgent for you. We’re still talking lightspeed here compared to any other competitive initiatives. Not that “competition” is a problem. Whenever FF comes onstream, its economics will RULE!

Are you familiar with PERT/critical path charting? It seems to me you might benefit from drawing one up and passing it by Eric and Rezwan. I think you would find it very enlightening and useful.
Yes, I know PERT charts as flow-charting. Actually I think I’ll do PERT and Ghantt charts. Thanks for mentioning that. My site needs graphics to improve skimability and visual appeal while cutting the word count.

Lightspeed is measured FOB for my purposes (implies a sale was made). Have you read a book called “From steam engines to search engines- They made America”? Its not about the inventions that made the 19th and 20th centuries as much as the innovators who got the technologies to market. Asaferinstance, Google did not invent the search engine, Billy Bob didn’t invent the GUI or multi-threaded operating system, and Fulton was not the man who got steam into small boats.

Success is measured in results delivered to a hungry market.

The reason I mentioned PERT was to force you to acknowledge the existence of nodes: events which MUST occur before others can proceed. I think you are hand-waving away a number of them. Properly done PERT would force you to confront that.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

The reason I mentioned PERT was to force you to acknowledge the existence of nodes: events which MUST occur before others can proceed. I think you are hand-waving away a number of them. Properly done PERT would force you to confront that.

So which comes first- the ion conversion or x-ray conversion? I see both subsystems as being subject to continuous R&D;and improvement, even decades after the first FF ships. At fewer than five shots most hours (allows for data to be matched against projections, parts to be swapped and measured, etc.), a perfect cooling system is not needed at that point. Establishing and improving on baselines for these three critical systems will eventually raise steady output power to the 5MW (nominal) that we’re expecting.

Engineering, like politics, is the art of managing tradeoffs. I like the number 5MW (nominal), but I’m sure it will sell like hotcakes at only 1MW (nominal). The point I want to make is that we will never have a perfect machine, so if another year of engineering only adds a few percentage points, what was the rest of the world’s gain?

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

The reason I mentioned PERT was to force you to acknowledge the existence of nodes: events which MUST occur before others can proceed. I think you are hand-waving away a number of them. Properly done PERT would force you to confront that.

So which comes first- the ion conversion or x-ray conversion? I see both subsystems as being subject to continuous R&D;and improvement, even decades after the first FF ships. At fewer than five shots most hours (allows for data to be matched against projections, parts to be swapped and measured, etc.), a perfect cooling system is not needed at that point. Establishing and improving on baselines for these three critical systems will eventually raise steady output power to the 5MW (nominal) that we’re expecting.

Engineering, like politics, is the art of managing tradeoffs. I like the number 5MW (nominal), but I’m sure it will sell like hotcakes at only 1MW (nominal). The point I want to make is that we will never have a perfect machine, so if another year of engineering only adds a few percentage points, what was the rest of the world’s gain?

Aero, you’re a very presumptuous fellow! The tech requirements and tradeoffs are only vaguely known to you, yet you feel your urgency to get something accepted and in the hands of Somebody, Anybody, should override all other considerations.

Would you spend $XXX,000 now, or spend $XXX,000 in one year for something 5X better? 400% is not a few percentage points.

[Aeronaut]

5MW (nominal) is not necessarily 5 times more than 1MW (nominal). Tradeoffs such as cooling system requirements on a case by case basis, electrode life and true replacement costs of high wear parts will determine the actual power level that any power block is operated at.

BTW- what is it you want to see from FF before it ships? Are you looking for a specific set of specifications, a price point, some type of social impact? Something else? Please enlighten me.

PS- Google’s logo looks a lot like a plasma power plant today. 🙂

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: 5MW (nominal) is not necessarily 5 times more than 1MW (nominal). Tradeoffs such as cooling system requirements on a case by case basis, electrode life and true replacement costs of high wear parts will determine the actual power level that any power block is operated at.

BTW- what is it you want to see from FF before it ships? Are you looking for a specific set of specifications, a price point, some type of social impact? Something else? Please enlighten me.

PS- Google’s logo looks a lot like a plasma power plant today. 🙂

Before it ships? I would expect to see some moves on the stock and commodity markets as anticipation of consequences. An explosion of ideas and entrepreneurial inventiveness as the possibilities sink in.

The FF should “ship” (be licensed) when a proven replicatable design is in hand. Anything else would be irresponsible, possibly illegal.

As far as the power levels go, AFAIK those are rated output numbers, not fuzzy nominals. And as long as the service cycle is not more than once or twice a year, I don’t see any cost or other problems with increased “wear”. Remember the revenue from a year’s operation, even billed at ¼¢/kwh, would be around $110,000 with the savings benefit being at least 10X that, so replacement costs are not a significant inhibition from using 5MW instead of 1MW generators — especially since the capital cost of each is likely to be similar.

[Brian H]

Interesting NY State development:

Friday, July 10, 2009, 8:31am EDT
Senate pulls all-nighter, pass 135 bills
The Business Review (Albany) – by Adam Sichko

Early Friday morning, the state Senate revived a popular program that provides low-cost power to businesses.

…

During the late-night session, senators renewed the state’s Power for Jobs program, which costs $137 million a year. The program provides low-cost power, or power subsidies, to businesses in exchange for pledges to retain and create jobs.

Statewide, 330,000 jobs are connected to the program. More than 60 Capital Region companies—ranging from manufacturers to nursing homes—use the program, involving 13,000 employees.

Industrial power in New York is 40 percent higher than the national average; commercial power rates are 65 percent higher than the national average.

Now, the Power for Jobs program is extended until May 15, 2010. Under the law, some companies will undergo energy audits, information that legislators will use to develop a long-term power subsidy program to replace Power for Jobs.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

5MW (nominal) is not necessarily 5 times more than 1MW (nominal). Tradeoffs such as cooling system requirements on a case by case basis, electrode life and true replacement costs of high wear parts will determine the actual power level that any power block is operated at.

BTW- what is it you want to see from FF before it ships? Are you looking for a specific set of specifications, a price point, some type of social impact? Something else? Please enlighten me.

PS- Google’s logo looks a lot like a plasma power plant today. 🙂

Before it ships? I would expect to see some moves on the stock and commodity markets as anticipation of consequences. An explosion of ideas and entrepreneurial inventiveness as the possibilities sink in.

The FF should “ship” (be licensed) when a proven replicatable design is in hand. Anything else would be irresponsible, possibly illegal.

As far as the power levels go, AFAIK those are rated output numbers, not fuzzy nominals. And as long as the service cycle is not more than once or twice a year, I don’t see any cost or other problems with increased “wear”. Remember the revenue from a year’s operation, even billed at ¼¢/kwh, would be around $110,000 with the savings benefit being at least 10X that, so replacement costs are not a significant inhibition from using 5MW instead of 1MW generators — especially since the capital cost of each is likely to be similar.

Excellant. We are more or less on the same page. I like the part about commodities prices in particular. Nominal as I use the term refers to pulse frequency and the related engineering and maintenance requirements when operated above 330 hz.

http://subatomicprecision.com is now under 800 words, with lots of bullet points. The headline is “What If Tomorrow Was Different?”.

[jowabea]

I like the web site. The headline grates on my grammatical sense of matched tenses. Can’t it be “What If Tomorrow Is Different?”

Edit:
I really didn’t emphasize how much I like the website. It is a great short essay for generating excitement.

[Aeronaut]

jowabea wrote: I like the web site. The headline grates on my grammatical sense of matched tenses. Can’t it be “What If Tomorrow Is Different?”

Edit:
I really didn’t emphasize how much I like the website. It is a great short essay for generating excitement.

Glad you like it, Jowabea. 🙂

My friends on a marketing forum said “Huh?”, so it looks like I need to make sure that anybody “gets it” in the first 5 seconds. There’s also a few new bullet points playing on the idea of a two ton, 7 by 7 by 10 foot 5MW power plant in a 53 foot semi trailer rated for 15 ton payloads, as well as shorting aluminum futures. ;-P

edit- just overhauled the headline and aimed it at savvy, aggressive investors and executives. Now its even shorter and sweeter.

[Author]

Posts