[Aeronaut]

Henning wrote: Now there’s another surge in registrations, this time on the DPF forum. Mostly their “institution” entry contain a name, and in the “Bio” there’s sometimes a link to some ad. I think the “Bio”-thing is added later, so it isn’t evident it’s spam in the first place.

I would be happy if there are so many DPF scientists around, but I doubt it.

I’ve been seeing the same thing. A lot of profiles with just that one field filled in. But if all of the links other than to LPP were automatically no-followed, the word would eventually get around. It would also tighten our SEO up a lot.

[Aeronaut]

Here’s the direct link: http://www.prweb.com/releases/fusion/energy/prweb3766134.htm

[Aeronaut]

Henning wrote: Aeronaut, your idea is on earthtimes.org: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/edisons-idea-factory-to-ignite,1226053.shtml

Found this via Talk-Polywell.

Cool deal. MSimon posted part of my press release. 🙂 The next week or few should be interesting as it ripples out through various interactions. It’s getting read all over Germany, btw.

[Aeronaut]

Phil’s Dad wrote: “Layers Donkey, Ogres have layers” (Shrek 1) ;-P

Precisco, Francisco 😆

[Aeronaut]

Yep, Jimmy, we’re both talking about the X-ray converter’s thousands of layers being the onion.

[Aeronaut]

Intriguing numbers. I’d never heard of a 990, but I’ve always marveled at how small of a percentage actually makes it to an organization’s mission in the cases of most organizations with successful fund-raising programs.

I do have a question about when serial experimentation is more beneficial than parallel experiments where all teams can see what’s worked and refine experiments from there. Onion yield and manufacturing are going to be significant engineering and marketing challenges for as long as DPF fusion is in service since the fueling and cooling systems are going to be intertwined with the onion. So I’d expect the FFS program to look like it had gone dark during large stretches of the engineering phase.

I bought a press release (they made me an offer I couldn’t refuse) that will raise public awareness as well as deliver some link juice to FFS and LPP (anchor texts are aneutronic fusion and dense plasma focus). Look for stories based on it Monday and Tuesday, maybe for a long time if it taps the perfect storm that I believe is in place.

In less than 600 words I systematically reduced the capital costs of all nuclear (and turbine) programs to arrive at the DPF. Then it announces the target date of 2010 and the need to build a privately-funded network of FF-1 clones to solve a number of challenges that look more significant from the sidelines than they do from the field.

So anybody griping about lack of info could be more constructively using that effort to figure out how to finance either FF-1 or FF-2,501, which may “magically appear” at their community college within 2 years, unrestrained by govamint funding.

[Aeronaut]

What does the supply and demand curve for energy really look like?

What would you like it to look like? The cheaper that heat and electricity become, the more demand there will be for each. Even air freighters can be targeted for FF. The indirect approach is low-cost bio-fuels, and the direct approach is to eliminate 250 ton fuel loads.

I expect fusion plants in almost every building over a few thousand square feet (and many mansions) as well as the entire shipping industry (except maybe most semi trucks) as the market matures past a certain point.

iow, I don’t expect the world’s energy needs to dictate FF production and sales numbers.

[Aeronaut]

How many people needed a car or a phone in 1910? Both were viewed as extravagances (at best).

[Aeronaut]

Sounds like a stationary engine due to shielding. How many RPM and how much torque would you expect? How complex would the fuel system be?

[Aeronaut]

JimmyT wrote: FYI, The onion design has been temporarily shelved. The current thinking is that it will be more difficult to manufacture than a simple cylinder shape. Look at the picture Rez’ has posted on the topic titled “Dense Plasma Focus (DPF)” on the home page. It’s a small picture but it depicts a cylinder design. Perhaps later generations of the device can have an onion design, which may well prove to be lighter and more efficient.

Meanwhile, maybe we can harass Rezwan into posting a bigger picture of this variant.

My impression was that it was called an onion because of all those layers…

[Aeronaut]

jamesr wrote: Although this site has close ties with LLP it should not be thought of as a fly on the was of a research lab.

For any quality scientific research, whether by a private company or academic institution, I believe it is right and proper for any substantive developments to be first published at a recognized conference or peer reviewed journal.

While it is interesting to debate and inform a wider community of the science and technology behind focus fusion through this society and its forums. In particular because there are contributors such as Eric himself to enlighten and correct comments made on aspects of the theory and design. We should not expect shot by shot updates of LLP’s ongoing research.

Agreed. I’ve designed a test matrix that protects cap life by proving each milestone at the lowest possible and practical voltages. Switching to pB-11 fuel resets the entire matrix, but that’s where the plane turns onto final and lines up the runway.

Put another way, what good is a network of 2,500 FoFu-1 clones without a thorough experimental database to build their experiments around? One of the strengths of that network would be the transparent theory and experiment database that would allow each school to see what hasn’t been tried that might bear on one or more aspects of system design. I’m thinking onion design in particular, since I think that’s going to be the most challenging subsystem, both now and as long as DPFs are being manufactured in any quantity.

[Aeronaut]

“But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that FF will solve all problems and, once we have it, everlasting prosperity is ensured. ”

Agreed. Human nature guarantees problems.

The cel phone and PC industries give us some insight into how to churn a market that should have been saturated long ago, so there’s no way to see from here what’s going to be invented or commercialized in the next 10 to 20 years.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote: The gaps are still huge. It’s now almost 3 weeks since the last post that was actually news. It’s apparently a matter of the perfect being the enemy of the good when it comes to updates.

Then you’re going to just love it when the next major variable is introduced into the testing matrix 😆

[Aeronaut]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

Eric’s method and reasoning behind it seem to have avoiding such a similar fiasco as the prime directive.

A very sensible approach; Think long term. State nothing you can’t prove. Make no promises. (A bit like politics.)

Nor does it hurt to have a secondary justification such as X-ray lithography. (Just dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s) 😆

[Aeronaut]

jamesr wrote: Its not quite as simple as that. There may be many filaments, and each one could be comprised of lots of micro-filaments. Plasma is an unstable thing. Density & temperature gradients will tend to cause instabilities which will cause splits and reconnections of the filaments and turbulent behaviour.

That leads to another question or few.

1. How does the plasma sheath rotate during the axial runout phase? This would seem to imply huge spikes in the current waveform.
2. Would a more correct visualization be that each cathode’s filament system is the base of a corkscrewing spiral?

[Author]

Posts