[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

In my opinion some taxes are actually good. I believe we all can imagine the outcome if all taxes are abolished.

It is also my idea that nobody can predict the full impact of any law, because we don’t have a model of our society, so all the speculation is what it is – speculation. Even if we had a model it would have to deal with the Chaos theory.

Currently if you want to know how a law works you have to put it into force, and still determining all of actual outcome is not actually possible – we can only see what we can measure. And the outcome can depend on the circumstances.

So I guess the best politics in this situation is to become corrupt 😀

PS:opinions are not facts.

But all facts are opinions, with or without evidence.
Read up on Bastiat.

As for taxes, you get less of whatever you tax. My point is that lowering carbon production is has no evidence to support the benefits claimed, and much to reject them.

Something you may not have read about is the origins of the whole shambamboozaloolah.
When Maggie Thatcher was faced with yet another coal miners’ strike crisis, she had the brilliant idea of discrediting the industry by funding research that showed burning coal harmed the climate. She also wanted to supplant coal-burning power plants with nuclear, so it all fit together. The academics responded enthusiastically, and began cranking out papers and studies, all with her required conclusion, of course. And we were off to the races …

And our British heritage led to the infamous campaign statemement, lol.

Rather than debate the alleged scientific facts, let’s start cataloging the big winners from carbon credits and how easily they could be brought on board…

[Aeronaut]

Rematog wrote: Power-wise, FF is a good match to locomotives. Currently, around 6,000 Hp is a really big diesel electric. FF at 5 MW would be about this size. So, just need to be able to mount it on a locomotive frame and provide cooling, etc.

No idea what a locomotive frame looks like, but I’m sure the form factor will work without the diesel fuel tanks. What I really like, though, is the idea of melding an elegant energy solution (heat first, and electric as it evolves) into an aluminum or copper processing plant with minimal use of transformers.

[Aeronaut]

Breakable wrote: In my opinion it is a very good idea to create a carbon pollution tax – the oil and coal wont look such an attractive energy source.
The implementation is not so easy though, but something (imperfect) is better than nothing.

President Obama’s recent UN speech was right on the mark. It remains to be seen if his reasons align with ours, though, since his immediate concerns seem to be financially and politically motivated.

Once we do publicly show an alternative, people and corporations will effectively be taxed to burn fossil fuels. And it could happen in a New York minute. 😉

[Aeronaut]

Alas, the persistence of standards. Paddle wheel steamers work for me, too. What I had in mind with my last post was DC powered diesel-electric submarines. Locomotives may have been a stretch, lol.

[Aeronaut]

Two applications where DC would be a distinct advantage are in vehicles such as locomotives and ships, as well as to replace the RF power switching in inductive furnaces. DC would work best where the FF unit(s) are designed structurally and electrically into the load(s) to minimize resistance losses. This would drive down the cost of aluminum, copper, and possibly steel almost as much as the fuel savings.

Brian H wrote:

The solid state transformers I found on a quick search of the internet are very small (1 amp output or less). Also, all that I found mention of are step DOWN transformers. Unless you generate the power at 100,000 volts (which I really doubt), there will be a need for large step UP transformers.

Solid state technology is, currently (pun), normally limited to relatively low currents. The supplier I checked with stated that there are no solid state transformers available on the commerical market today.

The most common application of solid state power technology today is the variable frequency drive (VFD), which would be generally similar to a transfomer application. For example, a 100 hp motor VFD is expensive (A “VFD” is a “smart” solid state drive the rectifies the AC to DC, then creates AC at a new, controllable frequency (it can also adjust voltage to a certain extent), in order to control motor speed, which can reduce in-rush (start-up) current surge, conserve power at lower motor torque/speed demands, and control the “process” being driven by the motor in question (speed control).

For a 100 HP drive a quoted list price is $13,000. I’d assume a solid state transformer to process the power from a 5 MW (6,670 Hp) Focus Fusion power generator would cost around the $500,000 your assuming the generator would cost.

Based on $13,000/2 /100 x 6670 = $434,000, (cost of 100 hp VFD / 2 for economy of scale / 100 to get per Hp x 6670 HP of 5 MW FF generator).

hmmm….

Well, that’s pretty much it, then, game-set-match. There is no reasonable way ($$$) in prospect even today for commercial large scale DC transformers, which means strictly local DC power and electronics.

BTW, TeslaMotors chose AC motors for their BEV Roadsters and upcoming Model S for the exact reasons you cite. Their 115-lb watermelon-size motor puts out ~250hp, and accelerates the car 0-60 in 3.7 seconds (Sportster performace model) — using a single-gear transmission. More or less flat torque 0-14,000 rpm, =~125 mph.

[Aeronaut]

Even if we don’t pitch the decision makers directly, we’ll be reaching sales-oriented people who have ready access to a bunch of decision makers. Great find, James!

[Aeronaut]

I like the digg and cloud functionality. I can help out with image resizing and contrast adjustments if need be.

[Aeronaut]

jamesr wrote:

I doubt it would be beneficial, James, since the design is entirely about moving magnetic fields. ‘Sides, you know what more moving parts do to MTBF and profitability projections….

There will be moving parts in the system; coolant pumps, vacuum pumps etc. (multiples of each for redundancy). I was just thinking whether modulating the pressure in the chamber over the course of the cycle would reduce the wear and load on the inner surface and components inside exposed to the few thousand degree plasma that will exist between cycles. Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of mechanical parts and extra complexity?

There is a comprimise between cooling the waste heat out of the plasma in the bulk of the chamber between pulses, and letting it cool too far so the it starts recombining and leaving deposits.

Yes, the system will probably always have moving parts. I’d recommend drawing up a timing chart of the current–> fields–>plasmoid–> beam processes before even trying to fit moving parts into a future design’s chamber dynamics. I suspect you’re going to encounter more energy required to move your parts far enough, fast enough, than first appears (ask me about my gravity engine, lol).

[Aeronaut]

I doubt it would be beneficial, James, since the design is entirely about moving magnetic fields. ‘Sides, you know what more moving parts do to MTBF and profitability projections….

Otherwise, the similarities to the spark plug are one of FF’s strongest safety points- one spark, one cycle.

jamesr wrote: I have been thinking about the similarities between a plasma focus device and an internal combustion engine.

Both are a pulsed process in which a plasma is created in a metal container. The spark plugs in cars need to be able to cope with millions of repetitions without wearing down. The combustion chamber needs to be cooled externally to a level so that the internal surface temperature of the metal doesn’t get too high. etc.

Would it be sensible to add a piston onto the plasma focus vacuum chamber? The piston could withdraw after a pulse, expanding the plasma/gas cooling it. Then go back in just before the next pulse was set off to get the pressure & temperature quickly back to optimal conditions before discharging the capacitor bank through the overgrown sparkplug. The piston could also draw off some of the waste heat and make it into useful energy, albeit and insignificant amount, but maybe enough to power a coolant pump. Thus providing a secondary passive cooling circuit that would follow demand.

The alloys used for spark plug contacts have been refined over the years, such as Iridium Spark Plugs. These, however, contain heavy metals and would not be very conducive to the xray flux. However there must be a compromise between the physical robustness of the alloy and resistance to wear and the extra absorption & heating due to the X-rays.

Most of the diagrams show the cathodes as simple rods surrounding the anodes. Would there be an advantage in putting a couple of narrow spikes on the end of each cathode, made of something like the Iridium alloys used in spark plugs. These would then act as the point where the filament forms when the sheath reaches the end of the cathode. So whereas the rest of the cathodes may be copper or even beryllium. the area where the highest wear rate is tailored to be able to cope with the load.

[Aeronaut]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Aeronaut; I agree with your basic premise but I think you underestimate what could be done for $3trillion. 5,000 to 15,000 FF installations? Rematog says “At the most optimistic, (20MW power blocks with installed cost of $500k ea), repowering America’s electrical generating capacity will cost about 30 BILLION dollars”. On that basis $3trillion gives you 6 million units or 1,000 times the total US requirement. How would that rate on the score card that started this thread.

100 times the US needs just might be enough to repower most of the world’s population. Now all we have to do is sell the various special interest groups the idea of spending an hour or two in a garage with a running car or charcoal fire. (Dramatization, not smart-aleck ;-P ). Wouldn’t hurt to show them how they can actually make more by promoting FF. This would hopefully show up in favorable political/regulatory environment…

Remember, it’s possible to show laboratory breakeven in 2010 and a crude engineering prototype above Q in 2011.

[Aeronaut]

texaslabrat wrote:

Indeed…however if the predictions on the ultra-low cost per unit and per kWh hold true…you can bet that there will be millions of them built and then much more overall waste heat will be produced as we consume orders of magnitude more power in our society due to the near-free cost of it 😉 That old supply-and-demand curve thing.

No one would ever need more than a megawatt.

Just as no one would ever need more than 640K bytes of memory in their computer.

-Dave

ROFL absolutely!

How’s this scenario- 20 years from now, (if that) when the X-ray converter engineering is cut-and-dry, and ever smaller, lighter packaging become THE competitive advantages for FF factories, the electric air car will become the new Model T. Imagine at least one FF in every garage or back yard…

[Aeronaut]

So we’re back to the question of do we need government funding or do we need political support in Congress and the DOE? We need political support to avoid being regulated precisely like fission plants. Government funding can wait…and wait…

[Aeronaut]

dash wrote:

That’s why I suggested doing the math. Get the cost of the “add-on”, and you will discover that the price per kwh is HUGE compared to ¼¢.

Wouldn’t waste heat be a problem at some point? If 20% of the energy comes out as useful work, and 80% is lost as heat (I’m just making up numbers), as civilization expands, won’t that waste heat become a serious issue?

Brian, as you once posted, heat is the bottom rung of the energy chain. The most energy-efficient conversion is to a lower temperature, so a really motivated engineering team could leverage the working fluid’s convection currents to reduce pumping power, thus various related system expenses (pipe wall thicknesses, structure, etc.). Existing residential and office high-rises are made to order, imho.

Dash, all we know for sure about thermal pollution is that some special interest group will trumpet the excess heat figures to make headlines if we don’t address it early on. Perhaps a group with billions to lose in turbine site construction or mineral rights :coolsmirk:

[Aeronaut]

Sorry I can’t offer you an official, or even farticularly educated explanation, Tex, but my understanding of this machine is that the envelopment-> compression-> heating -> fusion cycle is based entirely upon massive current for a very minute time frame per pulse. This is why we can (hopefully) get as much as 12GG fields without that incredible apparent wattage flowing more than a microsecond, if that. (Haven’t read the patent or seen the video recently).

This incredibly short time frame is also our cooling advantage- the duty cycle of the heating is actually very low per power cycle, just as the input power per second, at 330 hz. I’m going with the 43kJ from the video’s slide for now, but I’d love to see a timing diagram for the current and heating.

[Aeronaut]

Warrior Forum is a mixed bag. Ten years ago it was an underground legend. Today it has many upstanding members (I know many of them from another forum), but most of the visible traffic is from people who want to game the system and haven’t been google-slapped enough to realize it’s counter-productive. And almost anybody can publish a Warrior Special Offer (WSO) for only $20.00.

Sad, but true, and unlikely to change any time soon. Maybe your communications with them will keep FFS off of future linking lists…

[Author]

Posts