[Aeronaut]

I can contribute up to an hour a day to the facebook outpost. Please PM me the details of what needs to be done every day, how it should be done, etc.

[Aeronaut]

It looks like only goals #5 and #6 involve the hardware modifications that lead to downtime. Baby seems to be confirming projections early in most series, so I expect it to continue to do so pretty much on schedule.

[Aeronaut]

Ormond Otvos wrote: Not to be offensive, but merely to relay the likely impression a naive reader might get from reading it, the wikipedia entry for focus fusion redirects to Eric Lerner, who is mostly painted as a weirdo who’s got his own view of the origin of the universe.

Now you and I might be able to correct for that, but if you want focus fusion to be a concept in its own right, standing separate from the other aneutronic processes, someone authoritative needs to build a wikipedia entry for focus fusion. I can start the article, but some of you senior bloggers would need to fill it out.

Wikipedia is a very important source of information for the average person who just barely uses the internet, such as a congressional staffer, or the funding researcher for a venture capital firm.

I just went to wikipedia, where I have an old account, still active, and have found many changes stiffening up the quality of the articles, which is a good thing. However, that means that I need strong references to put in the articles, and a thorough explanation of the uniqueness of focus fusion.

I don’t think it’s enough to have a focus fusion link at the bottom of an article about Eric Lerner. Anyone skilled at composing wikipedia articles?

Here’s a very rough draft:

”’Focus Fusion”’ is a specific aneutronic method for producing electricity from plasma fusion of a boron compound and hydrogen, by generating a metastable toroidal plasma between a central post electrode and several surrounding post electrodes, from a large ultracapacitor voltage source.

The plasma so generated automatically collapses in such a fashion as to generate charged particles that exit through a coil that converts them directly to electricity, with no moving parts. Incidental x-rays are also converted to electricity using a multilayer wrap of several elements to cover the wide range of x-ray frequencies generated.

Emission of neutrons is very low, thus overcoming one of the most important objections to such processes, and the process proceeds by repeated impulses, occurring the low kilocycle range.

The process is much cheaper than tokamak to build and has recently (October 2009) achieved actual fusion and produced energy.

Excellent synopsis. Although I agree with your take on the first impression of the wiki article about Eric, I believe that it is a very effective filter. We’ll have our corporate-grade fanboys soon enough. Anybody willing to invest $4M to $20M before 2011 is not going to be ‘normal’.

[Aeronaut]

Rezwan wrote:
I guess my question here is – are comments redundant – should I just link everything up to go to forums for discussion? Or is redundancy fine? Actually, redundancy may not be the issue. More likely people miss some of the discussion by visiting either forums or just the article & its comments.

Hmmm. Another “usability” issue.

I’ve commented in both places. I like the way the homepage’s left column is becoming more intuitive, btw. Linking straight from new blog posts to the forum would further simplify navigation, imho. A blue-sky project may be to link to the “Store” and “Library” sections to eliminate the right column.

[Aeronaut]

https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/lpp_press_release/

[Aeronaut]

texaslabrat wrote:

If the power density of the fusion power sources were sufficiently high (in terms of MW/m^3 and/or MW/kg) , that’s definitely feasible from at least a basic conceptual point of view (ignoring the complexities of the actual aircraft and propulsion system design). A lot of optimization and miniturization of the fusion source will be necessary to make this kind of system do-able for atmospheric flight propulsion.

One of the “advantages” of conventionally fueled craft is that they get lighter as they travel. With a FF powerplant instead, all the weight is constant. I presume there is some crossover point where a specific fixed weight fusion generator is more efficient than than a powerplant running on conventional fuel that gets lighter over time. But it is not immediately obvious that such crossover point can be easily reached — my guess is the fusion plant in such instance would have to be very light relative to its on-the-ground, fixed instantiation.

And I’m still not convinced that there would be any major advantage to such a system. As I noted earlier, the real problem with most launch systems isn’t lack of power per se (at least not power on the scale that an FF device would generate).

I’m not convinced it would be feasible in the near-term by any stretch…fitting probably a GW of power production into a space-worthy airframe (never mind the issues of power distribution within the craft) meant to take off from a runway presents issues that are non-trivial to say the least.

And while you say that an “advantage” of a conventional plane is that it gets lighter as it travels…I’ll counter by saying that a sufficiently miniaturized power source STARTS light so therefore has a huge advantage. Not having to carry the structural weight of a changing fuel load greatly simplifies the airframe design as well as makes the balance points and other dynamic issues easier to predict and control. That was the point I was trying to get across…that you would need to make the power source VERY small and VERY light to be advantageous over a conventially fueled craft…but if you could do so…it would revolutionize air (in addition to space) travel as you could then have non-range-limited aircraft in addition to the spacecraft previously discussed. All for a bit of boron…not too shabby. Very much “pie in the sky”…but an interesting thought experiment for sure.

In the mean time, I’ll still be putting my money on the space elevator tho 😉

The rocket equation taxes the living daylights out of any mass, weather it’s needed or not. Imagine ditching not only the boosters, but redesigning the payload structure so that it has no aerodynamic or re-entry heat loads to deal with. Now the remaining questions should be

1. How much is NASA going to blow on the mars program?
2. Why not use those monies to build an elevator on both planets?

[Aeronaut]

Thanx for the link. Those hardy visitors who are willing to read the entirety of the current posts are about to witness the heavens unfolding before them. :coolsmile:

[Aeronaut]

Welcome to FFS, Ormund. Excellent first post, too. If you can really tell the compelling story in only 1,000 words, my hat’s off to you. I say go for it.

[Aeronaut]

Rematog wrote: So literal….

The point is that the cost of O&M;can, in some cases, be the deciding fractor in the economics of a proposal.

Where do I get my Union card?

Brian, we can beat the scaling challenge by not scaling A plant. Rather, a few FF plants along the coasts of Africa, along with some new(?) transmission lines, could power thousands of these desalination plants and entirely transform that continent. Solving the local security situations may be more complex…

[Aeronaut]

belbear wrote:

I’m not sure that’s true — once in space FF may make technologies like VASIMR far more practical, but the big problem will always be getting into space. I don’t see how FF will significantly change the problems of launching to orbit, at least not without other major technological advances (such as space elevators or huge magnetic launch tracks).

What do you think of a focus fusion powered turbojet/scramjet powered launch vehicle with a chemical LOX/LN2 upper stage glider (type X-33) to fill the gap from high-atmospheric hypersonic flight to orbit?

Fusion-generated electricity drives compressor fans (instead of a turbine) and fusion heated air (instead of fuel combustion) provides jet thrust. Everything fully reusable.

The rocket equation makes it perfectly clear that the space elevator is the enabling technology for meaningful space exploration. My understanding is that raising around 50G$ is a far greater challenge than incrementally increasing the tether strength.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote: A pilot project using low grade heat and small amounts of electricity to desalinate water has been set up here in Vancouver, BC, and it seems to me to mesh perfectly with FF requirements.
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14743791
and
http://www.saltworkstech.com/technology.php

In simple terms, it uses heat or sunlight to concentrate some seawater, then ionic gradients to run a kind of double loop of Cl and Na ions in opposite directions to seawater separately pumped to the process chamber. The resulting process requires 1 kwh per 1,000 liters of purified water (mainly for pumping, etc.) So a 5MW FF generator would be able to provide the energy to purify 24×5,000×1,000 120 million liters of water a day, or about 40 million USG, at a cost of around $300 plus any expense for (passive?) heat transfer/transport into the process.
Not tea bags!

Cool idea except for their math. I agree with Rematog’s staffing numbers plus throw in the fact that this design would not scale well without using huge stainless steel pipes, pumps, and motors. So I’m reading a tradeoff between lots of jobs or lots of startup capital to make 40M g/day.

[Aeronaut]

Sad but predictable.

[Aeronaut]

msmith wrote: OK – No high pulse rates.
So enlarge the “Onion” slightly and have 3 focus devices clustered together inside aimed at a single drift tube and fire serially.
Individual pulse rate 330 Hz.
Combined pulse rate – 990 Hz.
Combined output – 15 MW.
Drift tube made of unobtainium and pixie dust.
Promote using Squirrel Marketing (borrowed term) small, agile and nuts. 😛

It’s a whole lot quicker and cheaper to drop 5MWe +/- 8MW thermal wherever it’s needed in a factory or ore processing facility. One of the finer selling points would be how it simplifies the facility’s energy distribution systems.

[Aeronaut]

HermannH wrote:

Scalability of a reactor?

What about the pulse rate?
If 330 Hz produces 5 MW could the pulse rate be dialed up to 660 Hz with output at 10 MW?
How about 3.2 GHz with output at 48 TW? 😛

Nice try, but the maximum rate is largely determined by the ability to cool the system. Just like computer chips.

Sounds like an interesting cost/benefit chart for pressurized helium vs super-cooled helium cooling. The questions would be where it becomes cost-effective, and how much electric output is THE limit?

Let’s not forget that the ion converter coils have to be made of tubing to cool what may be a kilo amp output, even at 5MW.

[Aeronaut]

I’m thinking more along the lines of a new years’ blurb saying something like “The primer paint is dried, now we’re beginning the top coat”.

[Author]

Posts