Richard Branson – Virgin Pledge

[Focus Fusion Society]

Well it looks like this one is another great fit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5368602.stm

Sir Richard Branson’s announcement that he is to donate the next 10 years’ profits from his Virgin travel businesses to the fight against global warming is the latest – and most significant – act of philanthropy from one of the world’s best known businessmen.

Virgin Fuels…How do we tap that?

Well, doesn’t look like Virgin Fuels is set up yet, but “Virgin Unite,” their charity arm, is. I shall email them and report back.

Attached files

[Rezwan]

Ah. Some cynicism appears. This Mother Jones Article says the BBC suggests that:

Branson’s move to invest $3bn in renewable energy technologies is “more than green philanthropy.” Could he also be “making a canny attempt to get in on the ground floor of a fast growing and innovative global industry” and “fulfill his mission to turn Virgin Fuels into a power giant in the same class as Shell or Exxon Mobil”? (Where have all the saints gone?)

There’s big money to be made in renewable fuels–at least that’s the general assumption–and many US biofuel firms are small-scale oufits. An unsentimental venture capitalist (not that there’s any other kind) tells the BBC, “Sir Richard wants to make money in a field where returns are being made right now.” Should we care that there’s a commercial logic to Branson’s decision? Of course not–the guy’s a businessman.

This gives me pause, as focus fusion is a direct competitor to all the renewable fuels. Will the Virgin Fuel folks embrace our fusion pitch or are they strict hydro-solar-wind-biogas types? Big money can be made with focus fusion as the renewable fuel of choice. Wish I could express this in clear economic terms.

[Elling]

Rezwan,
even if FF is in fact a competitor to all other energy sources, of course it should be presented as a renewable to Branson. In practice abundance of borax is infinite, it’s clean an harmless. So no bad feelings if we have to compare it to solar, geothermal and wind. All these also need some basic manufacturing out of common materials like alu and steel anyway. The N-word (nucculear) should be avoided. Fusion is still a good word especially as an attentiongrabber for explaining how much cleaner FF is than ITER. Don’t mention the toxicity of Be and decaboran if not directly prompted by an informed expert. Then just lay out all the details hands down and the expert will be even more satisfied.

[Rezwan]

Thanks. Check out the latest draft of the pitch here. Took out nuclear and poverty (TMI). Did refer to politics because I was tying it in to the weblog post I was responding to.

Too late for Virgin, I sent off an email that was closer to the longer version. Also suggested that they do a “Virgin prize” in lieu of the X-Prize. Was told my email had been forwarded to the Virgin Fuels dept. (Sent my email to Virgin Unite – current charity arm).

[Mark Bahner]

If Richard Branson wants to grow Virgin Galactic, fusion is the way to go. Chemical rockets will always be ridiculously expensive.

It wouldn’t be a bad idea for Virgin Atlantic (his airline), either.

[DaveMart]

Admin wrote: Well it looks like this one is another great fit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5368602.stm

Sir Richard Branson’s announcement that he is to donate the next 10 years’ profits from his Virgin travel businesses to the fight against global warming is the latest – and most significant – act of philanthropy from one of the world’s best known businessmen.

Virgin Fuels…How do we tap that?

Well, doesn’t look like Virgin Fuels is set up yet, but “Virgin Unite,” their charity arm, is. I shall email them and report back.

For aircraft travel a practicable Focus fusion power supply would greatly reduce the fuel weight, and also eliminate the substantial fire risk and most of the terrorism threat, together with eliminating most of the issues of exhaust pollution from the aircraft affecting climate, and so is hugely relevant to the Air industry’s needs.
A possible way of pitching it would be that alternatives have not all been properly explored, and that Focus fusion is one of a number of alternatives which could be looked at for relatively modest costs.
My guess is that Richard Branson, who is accustomed to risky ventures, might be attracted to financing a variety of possible solutions, each individually high risk, to try to ensure that one or the other won.
That does not hinder pointing out the unique attractions of FF, of course!
Regards,
DaveMart

[Jolly Roger]

DaveMart wrote: For aircraft travel a practicable Focus fusion power supply would greatly reduce the fuel weight, and also eliminate the substantial fire risk and most of the terrorism threat, together with eliminating most of the issues of exhaust pollution from the aircraft affecting climate, and so is hugely relevant to the Air industry’s needs.

In another thread, Lerner said powering aircraft is possible, but not probable.

Lerner wrote: 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 be the best way to go.

Commercial aircraft is only a small but very visible part of the transportation sector. Focus Fusion will have a bigger effect on transportation powering container ships, freight trains and electric vehicles indirectly through the power grid.

Conversion of an airliner to Focus Fusion would be high-profile advertisement for FF, an “orange grove in Alaska” as someone put it. It would be saying, “If Focus Fusion can do this, it can do anything!” Widespread acceptance of FF for mundane power generation would soon follow.

[Aeronaut]

Rezwan wrote: Ah. Some cynicism appears. This Mother Jones Article says the BBC suggests that:

Branson’s move to invest $3bn in renewable energy technologies is “more than green philanthropy.” Could he also be “making a canny attempt to get in on the ground floor of a fast growing and innovative global industry” and “fulfill his mission to turn Virgin Fuels into a power giant in the same class as Shell or Exxon Mobil”? (Where have all the saints gone?)

There’s big money to be made in renewable fuels–at least that’s the general assumption–and many US biofuel firms are small-scale oufits. An unsentimental venture capitalist (not that there’s any other kind) tells the BBC, “Sir Richard wants to make money in a field where returns are being made right now.” Should we care that there’s a commercial logic to Branson’s decision? Of course not–the guy’s a businessman.

This gives me pause, as focus fusion is a direct competitor to all the renewable fuels. Will the Virgin Fuel folks embrace our fusion pitch or are they strict hydro-solar-wind-biogas types? Big money can be made with focus fusion as the renewable fuel of choice. Wish I could express this in clear economic terms.

Pleased to be of assistance, Rezwan. FF is not currently seen as renewable fuels, but as a something for nothing that’s underpriced. The VC crowd is after the residual income of selling fuels for decades to come so they can sell these companies for big bucks.

The FF business model is about truly affordable local power plants that run essentially on water and maybe cost a million in quantity. There is no reason for the renewable energy or VC communities to get fired up about FF and all of the carbon credits that owners of FF reactors in fleets of ships, trains, trucks, factories, office buildings, and subdivisions could sell to those with (pardon the pun) a burning need for combustion energy sources and fuels. Fuelish? You betcha!

[Aeronaut]

DaveMart wrote:

Well it looks like this one is another great fit. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5368602.stm

Sir Richard Branson’s announcement that he is to donate the next 10 years’ profits from his Virgin travel businesses to the fight against global warming is the latest – and most significant – act of philanthropy from one of the world’s best known businessmen.

Virgin Fuels…How do we tap that?

Well, doesn’t look like Virgin Fuels is set up yet, but “Virgin Unite,” their charity arm, is. I shall email them and report back.

For aircraft travel a practicable Focus fusion power supply would greatly reduce the fuel weight, and also eliminate the substantial fire risk and most of the terrorism threat, together with eliminating most of the issues of exhaust pollution from the aircraft affecting climate, and so is hugely relevant to the Air industry’s needs.
A possible way of pitching it would be that alternatives have not all been properly explored, and that Focus fusion is one of a number of alternatives which could be looked at for relatively modest costs.
My guess is that Richard Branson, who is accustomed to risky ventures, might be attracted to financing a variety of possible solutions, each individually high risk, to try to ensure that one or the other won.
That does not hinder pointing out the unique attractions of FF, of course!
Regards,
DaveMart
Nothing succeeds like Success. Especially in Sir Richard’s world. Here’s some quick specs on electric motors:
125 HP requires 93.125 kW of three phase 460 volt electric delivered in 2.5 inch diam conduits.
This type of motor weighs 1,370 pounds, turns at 1,760 RPM, and is 94.5% efficient.

The real question is how to market propeller-driven airliners over faster jets in less crowded skies and airports.

[Breakable]

Maybe they don’t have to be propeller-driven?
Nobody has created a DC driven reactive engine, because there was no need for one yet.

[Jolly Roger]

Breakable wrote: Maybe they don’t have to be propeller-driven?
Nobody has created a DC driven reactive engine, because there was no need for one yet.

To the contrary, such an engine has been created, just not for aircraft, but for rockets – the High Power Helicon (HPH) Plasma Thruster.

http://www.ess.washington.edu/Space/HPH/

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/DPP04/baps/abs/S2400004.html

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/DPP04/baps/abs/S810095.html

It has been successfully tested with Nitrogen propellant, so it will probably work with air. The plan would be to replace the combustion chamber of a turbofan jet engine with a large HPH. I strongly recommend the installation of a HEPA filter on the intake, to keep out dust and the occasional CANADIAN GOOSE!!!

[Breakable]

Jolly Roger wrote:

…
Nobody has created a DC driven reactive engine, because there was no need for one yet.

.. just not for aircraft, but for rockets ..

That’s what I tried to state.
😛

[Aeronaut]

Thanx for the links, Jolly Roger. I’d been under the impression that ion thrusters wouldn’t work in the atmosphere. Think such an engine could do runway to escape velocity?

Thanx

Matt

[Jolly Roger]

(edited)

Aeronaut wrote: Thanx for the links, Jolly Roger. I’d been under the impression that ion thrusters wouldn’t work in the atmosphere.

Technically, the PHP is a plasma thruster, not an ion thruster. Ion thrusters won’t work in the atmosphere because they are high speed, but low thrust. The PHP by itself may not have enough thrust, but in the engine I envision, it is used instead of jet fuel to heat air, which provides the actual thrust.

Think such an engine could do runway to escape velocity?

Maybe. Put liquid N2 tanks where the jet fuel used to be, some injectors in front of the HPH, and we just might have us an honest-to-goodness Space Plane! However, in that configuration we would still be spinning the compressors, which would be a waste of energy at high altitudes. It would be better to install additional thrusters exposed directly to space.

[Jolly Roger]

Breakable wrote:

…
Nobody has created a DC driven reactive engine, because there was no need for one yet.

.. just not for aircraft, but for rockets ..

That’s what I tried to state.
😛

You did not specify aircraft. And yes, we must not put the cart before the horse. The horse was domesticated as early as 5,600 BC. The wheel was not invented until 3,500 BC, and the cart (chariot) not until 3,200 BC. We are at least 5 years away from getting our horse (5 MW portable electric source). Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait 300 years for our cart.

[Author]

Posts