[Aeronaut]

Lerner wrote: Actually, what counts for thrust is momentum change, not energy alone, so if you impart the energy to a greater mass, you can get greater thrust.
Can’t remember the exact figures, but I’ll leave it to you guys to calculate the thrust–it is not high:
beam energy per pulse 10kJ
beam velocity 1.6 x10^4km/sec
pulse rate–500 Hz
You would need many DPFs for substantial thrust but in theory 250 sets of elcetrodes could be fed from a single set of capacitors.

Can they share the same water jacket? Iow, do they need to be shielded from each other? Something like the after torpedo room in a sub, with that wall of tubes?

[Aeronaut]

The real question in my mind is if their reactor can reduce nuclear waste faster than it makes wastes. Besides, aren’t the world’s governments broke?

[Aeronaut]

DerekShannon wrote: By the way, here is the link to the Inc. article:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100401/on-the-road-with-a-supersalesman.html#

Yep, that’s the one. Thanx for the link, Derek. Since decaborane is a chemical compound, it seems that fuel could come from any of a number of chemical companies.

I have a hunch that nuclear means fission in DARPA minds, so that pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow is very likely a distraction. Working hardware talks. BS walks. Iow, being on goal 6 with 8 months left to the unity projection, the best thing we can do is focus on our plan and raise public awareness that there may be an end to nuclear waste proliferation.

The reasons I mentioned this article are to dispel the myths that we need working hardware in hand to sell, and to point out that few in business or media seem to have done due diligence regarding clean energy options, time frames, and budgets.

[Aeronaut]

hercdriver wrote: A more successful approach to introducing FF generators into the grid might be to start with smaller municipalities and remote sites which will demonstrate reliability and lack of expense. Getting the Dept Of Defense on board will also jump start the project as they provide a major funding source. Once they prove capable, you can start building to provide for increased energy demand (new coal/nuke/gas plants become defunct). This allows the current sources to be phased out over a period of 25-50 years and provides a safety net in the case of problems with FF in the near future. If FF plants show aptitude at producing energy on demand then they also have a place immediately as spinning reserves in the current power grid allowing less waste from the fossil fuel plants (which would quickly lower operating and thus end user costs). All in all a stepped and measured approach at introduction and eventual domination seems to make the most sense to me.

I like the government buildings approach, rippling out from around 2,500 experimentally-licensed reactors in local colleges and universities, then moving into state and local government buildings as the licensees start delivering FFs to dealers. Right now we seem to be looking at this like a 1940 job shop production model. By 1945, airplanes really were mass produced and had truly interchangeable parts.

Next we target all those diesel powered standby generators so that nobody expects 5MW 24/7/~360, but they’re dang sure wondering if 2 units would give them 24/7/365, and are probably experimenting with powering non-critical circuits like warehouse and parking lot lighting, possibly HVAC, etc.

The locomotive fleet is another easy place to find isolated testbeds, and the shipbuilders would be following these tests very closely.

The very worse thing we can do is allow ourselves to complacently accept as “fact” that widespread FF adoption has to take more than 5 years to accomplish. It may well play out that way, but that could likely be chalked up to a lack of leadership.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

…
Yes, the “missing” ion beam sticks out. I think he was thinking that we all know it’s balanced by the electron beam’s energy. The drift tube has a Rogowski coil at each end, last I heard. I doubt LPP’s ignoring that output, since it can provide electrical unity in one of Eric’s break-even scenarios.

I was thinking specifically in terms of the experimental rig; it seems to be looking at the establishment of the fusion cycle, and confirming the generation of energetic neutrons. The capture of alpha and X-ray energy seems to be entirely outside this setup’s design capabilities.

I’m always looking at it from a systems engineering level first. So I build a case for anything by asking “what are my various sensors telling me?” Next in the detective or accounting work is what can and what may be derived from this information.

But I can see where you’re going with this- how was the electron beam directly measured? or was it derived from theory stating that each beam carries half the plasmoid’s energy? I’d like to know, too.

[Aeronaut]

vansig wrote:

I wonder where would FF be on this chart?

FF isn’t so much a neutron source, but an xray source

Depends on the fill gas(ses). Filled with pB-11, its a source of three types of energy- heat, X-rays, and kinetic energy of the ion beam. No charge for the low energy neutrons other than the water jacket…

[Aeronaut]

Thirded.

[Aeronaut]

Not bad except for the choice of fuel. :smirk:

I agree about military tech schools being able to train operators and supervisors. And at least the Navy already trains fission reactor people. Maybe the other branches do, too. In fact, I can see a lot of former torpedomen and missile techs servicing FF installations, since my core sketches resemble torpedoes. And like Hyperion, a quick swap on-site service cycle services cores at a depot to minimize downtime and maximize standards compliance.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote: Yes, excellent stuff! Actually, it’s on the LPP site, too.

Interesting excerpt:
“The electron beam carried about 0.5 kJ of energy and the plasmoid held about 1 kJ of energy, nearly half that stored in the magnetic field of the device. So, this is evidence that a substantial part of the total energy available is being concentrated in the plasmoids and transferred to the beams.”
The electron (beta) beam is not the one to be exploited to extract energy, of course; it’s the alpha (helium) beam, which is not mentioned. I’ve been wondering how that beam is being handled in this experimental rig. It seems not to be used or measured in any way as far as I can tell.

Yes, the “missing” ion beam sticks out. I think he was thinking that we all know it’s balanced by the electron beam’s energy. The drift tube has a Rogowski coil at each end, last I heard. I doubt LPP’s ignoring that output, since it can provide electrical unity in one of Eric’s break-even scenarios.

[Aeronaut]

Great reading. Thanx for the tip, machargue 🙂

[Aeronaut]

rashidas wrote: Assuming the proof of concept for DPF goes according to schedule and surplus energy is produced by this process, what sort of personnel would be needed to build and run a commercial DPF power plant? Would an electric utility need lots of Physics Ph.D’s and engineers or could existing electrical engineers build and operate a commercial DPF facility?

The first products will be industrial ovens, furnaces, and low pressure boilers, since they’ll make electric heat cheaper than gas in the early stages where FF is well above energy unity and almost, or barely above, electrical unity. Salable amounts of electrical profit hinges on the current performance (power density) of the X-ray converter, aka the onion.

Assuming 5-10 MW per unit, and ignoring FUD/NIMBY, local transformer yards would be the most efficient way to implement a new technology that’s still in low volume production. Although they can run unattended, they will need EEs to remotely monitor their contribution to the utility’s peak load fluctuations caused by fluctuating renewables on the source side and load demands on the consumer side.

Thus the utility would pay for each unit by reducing the gas bill to the peak load generators, as well as meeting load growth demands locally instead of with coal and new transmission lines. A lower profile early installation would have one or more FFs powering the auxiliary equipment in-plant to produce more salable power per ton of coal.

In either scenario, I’d expect a PhD to direct the program, at least a MSEE to supervise it, and BSEEs to actually run it every shift. There would also be BSMEs or higher available from current operations for other support as needed.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote: There’s another issue with the plasma that’s been bothering me: the exit port for the alpha beam is open to the plasma, so the solenoid is essentially part of the vacuum chamber. Since plasma is electrically conductive, it would seem to me that there are problems in preventing shorting of the current in the coil to the plasma itself. I vaguely recall some reference to this issue.

Ideally, one would have a kind of magnetic trap door at the opening to the solenoid channel, preventing access of the plasma, which would nevertheless admit the alpha beam (helium ions). I don’t know if that’s feasible, even in theory.

I can see the drift tube and coil set(s) as an integral part of the vacuum housing, where the drift tube is open to the fill gas. But the plasma begins with the spark from the cathodes’ bases to the anode, and is confined to the current sheath +/- a little, if I understand it correctly. If this is true, then we’re developing positive charge in the coil(s) every pulse, and that converter has to be insulated from the grounded drift tube.

So I’m hoping that we don’t need to add any moving or magnetic parts, dragging down an elegant device.

[Aeronaut]

If it comes down to who you know, I’d bet on Hyperion getting the Darpa deal. If it comes down to who’s first with working hardware in the next 5 years, maybe there’s a horse race here.

Now, let’s look at this in light of 5 years- DARPA et al decline FF, which goes to market about the time Hyperion delivers to the folks with the crystal ball.

[Aeronaut]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

A good technology is to add a hidden field, that cannot be seen by normal user, but will be filled by spambots.

The other side of the same coin is to add a “CAPTCHA Code” which can be seen by humans but not machines. (The server generates a random code of letters and numbers and then converts it to a bit map which is displayed and has to be copied by the user into another field (checked agaist the server’s version) before they can continue. Easy for us – very very difficult for machines. 😛

This hoomon has a lot of trouble with most captchas, but they are more effective than a system that only focuses on spambots rather than misguided link seekers.

[Aeronaut]

AaronB wrote: Pure salesmanship without a product usually becomes exposed as a scam pretty quickly. All promise and no product. That’s not the way I want to roll out this technology, and I don’t think we’ll have to go that route. Things are progressing nicely, and we’re on the right track. However, I do agree that a good salesman WITH a good product is one of the keys to success.

I’m trying to think of a Next Generation Nuke that doesn’t have materials science challenges and/or is lacking a prototype and am coming up short. Going to be interesting to see if Hyperion can deliver when it’s time to build their first one.

[Author]

Posts