Forum Replies Created

Viewing 3 posts - 106 through 108 (of 108 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Steps towards FF-1 Feasibility #11860
    Joeviocoe
    Participant

    break wrote: And the other two are…?

    1) Several MW of waste heat

    2) Very high efficiency of Ion Beam energy conversion. Roughly 80%

    3) Energy extraction from X-rays using the photoelectric effect. The science is WELL known, but I don’t think engineers ever had reason to build such a thing. X-rays are usually produced from other power sources because X-rays are desirable. This, I believe, would be the first device that is the other way around. LPP wants greater than 80% efficiency with this as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSYOIayQ7bI

    @ 4:02

    in reply to: Steps towards FF-1 Feasibility #11848
    Joeviocoe
    Participant

    Yes, engineering problems take much longer, require more people, and result in much more frustration. I am skeptical that 5 or 6 years would be enough to work out all the problems. But LPP is counting on a flood of money and personnel around the world to be working on those engineering concerns once feasibility is proven. When (if) this thing hits the news. A low cost, proliferation free, no harmful radiation, abundant, small, quiet, ‘holy grail’ of energy solutions…. governments will focus all efforts to get that anode erosion problem taken care of.

    in reply to: Steps towards FF-1 Feasibility #11846
    Joeviocoe
    Participant

    asymmetric_implosion wrote:
    I hope the yield number is wrong…66 kJ per shot with a 5 MW plant means 75 Hz operatio

    That was taken from their Sankey diagram as “gross fusion yield” and after reasonable losses are taken away, they will get 5 MW @ 200 Hz.

    asymmetric_implosion wrote:
    Ceramics are the devil

    😛

Viewing 3 posts - 106 through 108 (of 108 total)