[JimmyT]

Axil wrote:

An interesting factoid is that the earth with its orbital velocity is more than half way out of the sun’s gravitational well. (Actually the figure is closer to 98%) That means that once you are out of the earth’s gravitational well, you would have to apply less acceleration (about 50 times less) to an object to eject it from the solar system then to plunge it into the sun.

I think that fourth generation molten salt reactors are a better way to dispose of long term nuclear waste anyway. They eliminate them by bombarding the wastes with neutrons. This causes them to decay into short lived isotopes and in the process of doing so they serve as part of the fuel.

One of the chief expenses of running nuclear fission reactors is the fabrication of the fuel rod Assemblies. This is a very labor intensive operation and one which is entirely eliminated in this type of reactor.

Also the radioactive fuel/salt mixture is not pressurized, so they have a safety advantage.

We could discuss many of the design details of this type of reactor, but I’m not sure that this is the appropriate venue.

You are a very wise man.

I appreciate the complement. I really do! But in the end I’m just one of Eric’s groupies. Perhaps more dedicated than most.

I feel sometimes like the researcher in Flowers for Algernon who claimed to be a man walking on stilts among giants.

[JimmyT]

Have you read Richard Feynman’s lecture series? They are probably about the best fundamental physics texts you can get. Not particularly easy though.

[JimmyT]

To stay really current you probably need to read the journals. Books will supply you with the background you will need to understand what is printed in the journals.

[JimmyT]

A launch velocity equal to the 11.2Km/sec escape velocity means this: Regardless of which way you “point” your launch vehicle, once it gets out of the earth’s gravitational well, its velocity with respect to the earth is zero. Its entire velocity will be dissipated climbing out of the well. That means it is in the same orbital path around the sun as the earth. You still have to further accelerate it or decelerate it to either plunge it into the sun or fling it out of the solar system.

O.K. realistically you are never going to exactly achieve escape velocity so……

Case 1: Launch vehicle is slightly BELOW escape velocity. The object will continue in a very high earth orbit. Slowly orbiting the earth as the earth orbits the sun.

Case 2: launch vehicle is slightly ABOVE escape velocity. The object will slowly drift away from the earth as they both orbit the sun.

[JimmyT]

An interesting factoid is that the earth with its orbital velocity is more than half way out of the sun’s gravitational well. (Actually the figure is closer to 98%) That means that once you are out of the earth’s gravitational well, you would have to apply less acceleration (about 50 times less) to an object to eject it from the solar system then to plunge it into the sun.

I think that fourth generation molten salt reactors are a better way to dispose of long term nuclear waste anyway. They eliminate them by bombarding the wastes with neutrons. This causes them to decay into short lived isotopes and in the process of doing so they serve as part of the fuel.

One of the chief expenses of running nuclear fission reactors is the fabrication of the fuel rod Assemblies. This is a very labor intensive operation and one which is entirely eliminated in this type of reactor.

Also the radioactive fuel/salt mixture is not pressurized, so they have a safety advantage.

We could discuss many of the design details of this type of reactor, but I’m not sure that this is the appropriate venue.

[JimmyT]

I just got my January Popular Science magazine in the mail. It contains an article about a couple of Canadians who have a nuclear fusion candidate device.

It seems to work (or rather not work) by mechanically generating a shock-wave which is focused in a central area to create ignition.

Will it work?

Well, I guess it depends what you mean by that. The hard part with this scheme is going to be how to extract the energy efficiently and economically in order to power the next cycle. Even if they do achieve fusion they are still going to have to go through a typical Rankine steam cycle to generate electricity. Then Mr Carnot is going to have something to say about the conversion efficiency’s

They presented no measurable results (data) which indicate they are making substantial progress in spite of having multimillion dollars in funding.

Interestingly, they mentioned TriAlpha’s attempts in the article but completely omitted any mention of Mr Lerner and his work.

The time line which they presented to achieve break even is 10 years.

[JimmyT]

You should watch Eric’s Google video. In it he talks about TriAlpha and their attempts at controlled fusion. Their attempts are not a scam, but in my humble opinion, they haven’t a prayer of success.

In his video Eric displays in a graph the progress of the various attempts at fusion. One of the results he displays is TriAlpha’s result.

The graph he uses has been a standard method of displaying fusion progress for decades. On the vertical axis is temperature and on the horizontal axis is the product of confinement time multiplied by density. In the upper right hand corner of this graph one could draw an area which is the envelope that defines the conditions necessary for sustained fusion. It is properly defined as an area rather than a discreet point because there are trade-offs which can be made. You can meet the necessary conditions with a little lower temperature if you have higher density, or longer confinement time, for example.

I think TriAlpha results will never get inside that envelope. Currently they aren’t even close.

I really don’t think that Dr Bussard was ever going to get inside that envelope either, much as I admired the man and his efforts.

And I have some doubt whether they are ever going to do so with Tokamaks either. At least not before Eric does, and certainly never on an economically competitive basis.

[JimmyT]

willit wrote: I’m learning more every day. exciting stuff……….for a gearhead like me. never stop learning. don’t get discouraged. and never give up. :wow:

Have you watched Eric’s on line video? Or watched the animations which describe the process? I went thru Eric’s calculations a couple of times before I understood where he got all his numbers, and the meaning of all his graphs.

[JimmyT]

I went thru the calculations a long time ago on how much energy it took to desalinate sea water. It was the equivalent of the water falling several hundred feet. A very energy intensive enterprise. There are some attendant equipment problems which add to the complexity and cost too.
The point being, that if fresh water is available somewhere it makes sense to move it quite some distance, even with the infrastructure costs involved, to avoid desalination. The preceding post I think has it right. Water redistribution makes much more sense (usually) than desalination.
This is going to be inexpensive energy. But It’s still not free.

This doesn’t have to mean more dams or redirection of entire rivers. I could see using a tiny fraction of the Mississippi for irrigation without disrupting ecological systems. That river transports a lot of water! I grew up fairly close to the Ohio river and I thought it was big!

[JimmyT]

Whatever. You obviously have a much better understanding of this process than I do.

[JimmyT]

Hey Brian, Nice to hear from you.

To answer your question. I think one of the most immediate casulitys will be the coal industry and maybe secondary to that the specific railroads which rely of hauling coal for their profitability.

Probably companies which mine urnanium would be close seconds.

Just about any alternative energy company I would think would have to go out of business. With the exception of those involved in energy storage for transportation.

Course’ these are just my opinions. Worth what you paid for them.

[JimmyT]

Two excellent investments come immediately to mind given this scenario.

The first is one of the companies which will be building these devices. Current short term plans are to sell licences for manufacture of these, and not to build them ourselves. I think profit margins of the first hundred thousand or so of these which are produced will be huge. These will go to remote locations where fuel availability is low and transportation is expensive. Think how beneficial one of these would be at the base near the south pole. Diesel fuel for their generators there has to be flown in at I’m sure a tremendous cost.

The second are very energy intensive industries. The primary one of these is Aluminum manufacturers. Other electrochemical companies are also heavy electricity users. Like chlorine manufacturers. And, as Brian mentioned, fertilizer manufacturers. Specifically ammonia producers.

Raw material prices could go either way. If I were a mine owner in a remote location. I’d buy a DPF device and build a ore processing and smelting facility right at mine site; instead of transporting the ore for hundreds of miles to process. This will not only reduce their costs, but it will also make some ore deposits which could not previously be economically available.

Shipping will certainly be an investment opportunity. The first shipyards to incorporate these into there electric drive freighters will make gigabucks.

[JimmyT]

I’m not sure what country you are from. But here in the USA government involvment always means hinderence and increased cost. And no benefit. Again, maybe things are different there. But the absolute best thing that could happen with our marketing in THIS country. once we get to that point. Would be for our government to STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!

[JimmyT]

I think antimatter is more properly viewed just as hydrogen or batteries should be viewed. That is as an energy storage medium. You have to make the hydrogen from some other energy source and you have to charge your batteries from something. Just so, you have to have an energy source to make antimatter.

That having been said, it is the densest energy storage medium concievable and would be invaluable as a propellant in space. Just as Annodomini2 suggested.

[JimmyT]

While I am generally opposed to the whole man made global warming thing. I do believe that the cap and trade policies if enacted will have the effect of making focus fusion even more attractive as an energy of choice. I don’t understand exactly how one gets emission rights for CO2 under the cap and trade policies.

Would coal burning power plants who replaced their generating facilities with focus fusion receive carbon credits they could sell? How sweet would that be?

This seems like a Rematog question. Particularly since it is independent of the whole centralized power issue.

[Author]

Posts