[Transmute]

Excuse me but I’m not a fan of Gore and I object to this thread title, I did not create this thread and it was a split off from some other thread.

[Transmute]

Brian H wrote: [
a) Heard about Climategate yet?

yes, yet the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is not limited to IPCC, for example where in this argument is the IPCC data cited? Your argument is equivalent to saying the sky is not blue because the filters on a specific camera are suspect.

b) FF will delay peak oil indefinitely, as its use will plummet. So it’s on the way to being an irrelevancy.

Assuming FF is achieved and soon.

[Transmute]

Methanol is certainly a good option, its makes for much easier FT synthesis of even hydrogenated syngas, but methanol is not as flexible as fuel and feedstock as oil is, and transporting methanol is not as oil pipes would need to be replaced to transport such a highly oxygenated fuel.

As for you global warming deniers; this thread has nothing to do about global warming, unless you want to deny peak oil as well.

[Transmute]

I find the thread title as a insult to me, I’m not a fan of al gore, I was simply denounce a mis-truth. Say what you want about George Bush Jr. But if you claim he did not help thousand if not millions of Africans in aid then your wrong.

Brian H wrote:

for crying out loud it was the first hit in a Google search, their are tons of other sources if snoopes so bothers you! Of course if is not primary research and not worth squat, but this is an Internet forum and is worth even less.

For squawking out loud, you were the one who used Snopes as an authority for your assertion, and I indicated that while they are often taken to be some kind of elaborate research and fact-checking organization, they are anything but.

and your the one that bitching about it in a red haring, instead of admitting the fact the Gore never said that.

As far as Gore being a technocrat, he doesn’t have the chops for the ‘techno’ part, just the ‘crat’. He took 2 undergrad science courses and graded C+ and D. He was born and bred to wield power and money.

So, Einstein was not exactly good at math either, what your point? Technocrat is a ideology, anyone can believe in an ideology, no matter background.
As long as we’re chopping logic, actually:
Technocracy is a movement and ideology, advocating rule by technocrats, or
Government by experts.

A technocrat is either an expert member of a highly skilled group in an official position of power, or
An advocate of technocracy. (Usually capitalized in this use, as in “Technocrat, a follower of Technocracy”.
________

Converting to DC will never happen except in very narrow local situations, as changing voltages is such a hassle. You must either transmit long distance at high voltage, unusable by the customer, or ultra-high amperage, which vaporizes the transmission lines.

I don’t see how that countered what I said previously, thank you for agreeing with me then.

[Transmute]

Brian H wrote:

for crying out loud it was the first hit in a Google search, their are tons of other sources if snoopes so bothers you! Of course if is not primary research and not worth squat, but this is an Internet forum and is worth even less.

For squawking out loud, you were the one who used Snopes as an authority for your assertion, and I indicated that while they are often taken to be some kind of elaborate research and fact-checking organization, they are anything but.

and your the one that bitching about it in a red haring, instead of admitting the fact the Gore never said that.

As far as Gore being a technocrat, he doesn’t have the chops for the ‘techno’ part, just the ‘crat’. He took 2 undergrad science courses and graded C+ and D. He was born and bred to wield power and money.

So, Einstein was not exactly good at math either, what your point? Technocrat is a ideology, anyone can believe in an ideology, no matter background.

[Transmute]

for crying out loud it was the first hit in a Google search, their are tons of other sources if snoopes so bothers you! Of course if is not primary research and not worth squat, but this is an Internet forum and is worth even less.

[Transmute]

Rematog wrote: In either case, All Al did is co-sponsor enabling legislation…. that’s a long way from create, invent, install, etc. He was just another pol claiming credit for what scientists and engieers were doing. He just got the law out of our way.

“God wanted to chastise mankind, so he sent lawyers”
Russian Proverb

True. but if him and other legislators of the the “Atari Democrat” class in the late 1970’s and early 80’s had not done so then quite possible the Internet would still be ARPANET and still be a function of DARPA and we would not be talking now. Gore deserves some thanks for being a technocrat and lobbying for engineering achievements.

[Transmute]

Brian H wrote:

Al never claimed to have invented the Internet:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Snopes? Double check anything they say. They’re a retired couple with an agenda. No special sources or credibility.

let me get this straight, if I said X did not not say Y, and I find reference for it, your response is “well they are just biased”? So if i say “2+2=4” your response is “well the mathematicians are just biased” even a child can say 2+2=4 and has no special source or credibility, well if your so inclined then prove to me 2+2 =/= 4 then, while your at it show me where and when Al Gore (the bore) said he invented the internet!

[Transmute]

Already been covered in other threads:
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/141/
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/220/

For more general information on fusion driven, subcritical, superfast neutron, nuclear waste burning reactors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical_reactor

[Transmute]

B11+P does not produce significant quantities of neutrons needed to breed Pu239 from U238. But a D+D or T+D dense plasma focus reactor would produce intense amounts of neutrons, Though neutratic fusion produces fast neutrons which would need to be moderated to thermal neutron energies to transmute U238 instead of fissioning it. A moderate sub-critical reactor using one or more dense plasma focus D+D/T cores as neutrons sources could provide an excellent means of breeding plutonium: providing much higher breeding ratios than conventional breeder reactors. Ideally sub-critical reactors would not be built with moderators or constant fuel recovery and processing and would simply burn radiactive waste (actinides and lighter element radioisotopes) into a mix of short term radioisotopes which would be unproductive in producing fissile fuels for atomic bombs, let alone difficult to separate out the desired Pu239 from Pu240 and all the other isotopes. International regulatory groups could monitor the construction and use of such “waste disposal reactors” to make sure moderators are not being used or the product processing is not extracting plutonium, Likewise such reactors would probably only be built in a handful of numbers in trust worthy countries (like France) who already have a large nuclear industry and need of waste disposal.

Now I always figured an irradiation weapon could be built out of a D+T dense plasma focus reactor, Its small enough it could be fitted into an unmanned plane or tow glider and flown low over an area to irradiate its occupants with ideally lethal doses of radiation. It would not be the sort of weapon that could be hidden though or made and operate with little money and resoruces, “The human crop dusters” would have to be complex machines with cooling and high power sources to power the DPF neutron generator, I figure it would have to be tugged in a glider 1km behind say a Hercules C-130 and would weight several tons and require at least a megawatt of power, After use it would be so radioactive and damaged from neutron activation it would have to be discarded. But of course the people might quickly figure out what it is doing and shot it down, being a low flying slow speed weapon, this would be rather easy. Most of all the weapon would be wrong on so many levels that only the nazis would consider it worth while if that is they are around in the future, let alone the present. At least that would sum up the opinions express on the last thread I raised that idea on. I still think it would be a pretty “cool” weapon in a horrific cutting-edge sense.

[Transmute]

maihem wrote:

Does DPF pump out DC?

AIUI, it is like rectified AC – that is you get a rising edge from zero then a falling edge, then nothing, then another rising edge, etc. This is easily smoothed to DC and really shouldn’t be sent over transmission cables (even short ones) directly but should be converted either to DC or AC.

I imagine the first round of focus generators would have AC converters but due to the cost savings of DC at the point of use there will be great demand for DC services so people will pay for infrastructure upgrades in the cost of their energy. The cost will be low, look at how easily the UK installed cable TV infrastructure. Demand was not even all that great.

Let the DC be supplied from the focus generator at a high voltage and let each house have DC steppers.

Converting every peak into DC would require titanic caps or batteries, As is the caps are already needed so enough said about that, The question then becomes how much cheaper (so you claim) would be dumping the DC on to a new DC power distribution network (add in the cost of replacing the existing network) using new DC steppers to step the voltage down for homes, using new appliances in every home that can run off DC, the logistic alone say that converting to DC now would be hellishly not worth the price of having an AC converter at the reactors,

[Transmute]

Does DPF pump out DC?

I don’t think there is really much of a motive to switch from AC to DC now with are exiting AC infrastructure in place, maybe for HVDC long range power transmission. True solid state equipment now allows us to easily change DC voltages which was the biggest reason why DC lost the AC/DC wars more than a century ago, but changing the infrastructure of all home utilities to DC is not going to be easy.

[Transmute]

All this talk of launching waste into space is just silly, lets try to do something reasonable and maybe profitable with the waste like convert it into energy.

[Transmute]

JimmyT wrote:

JimmyT – 27 October 2008 01:08 AM

You see, I’m a practicing pharmacist and my most frequent contact with CFC’s was in the propellant for aerosol canisters for asthmatics. I dispense a lot of these. Probably a couple of dozen each day. Over the last decade I’ve watched the price of these medications drop steadily, until they seemed fairly reasonable. (about $10 per canister). But then drug manufactures were forced to switch propellants. Suddenly the price for these went up to about $40 each. Oh, and the new ones don’t work as well.

Can you prove causality rather then correlation? The price could have gone up for any number of reasons not stimply because of propellant change to HCFC and HFC.

I suppose I should have said: When the newly formulated one’s were released they were $40 each. Causality was certain.

It’s true the cost of the propellants was very small. But prior to marketing a newly formulated drug (and just the change of propellant does make a newly formulated drug) the entire safety and efficacy test procedures must be repeated. Dispersion of the drug particles in the propellant must be tested. Clinical trials must be done. Raw materials supply chains must be established. New ingredient must be tested for purity. (This often involves the establishment of new analytical testing procedures.) New drug applications must be submitted to the FDA. And on and on and on……… This takes years and costs tens of millions of dollars.

And guess who pays?

So basically your saying we should stay with tings because of the price of change? Hey guess what NO FOCUS FUSION, lets just keep pumping oil, change infrastructure because of impending doom, f that! it would cost to much to change lets just ride this wave to hell!

[Transmute]

You see, I’m a practicing pharmacist and my most frequent contact with CFC’s was in the propellant for aerosol canisters for asthmatics. I dispense a lot of these. Probably a couple of dozen each day. Over the last decade I’ve watched the price of these medications drop steadily, until they seemed fairly reasonable. (about $10 per canister). But then drug manufactures were forced to switch propellants. Suddenly the price for these went up to about $40 each. Oh, and the new ones don’t work as well.

Can you prove causality rather then correlation? The price could have gone up for any number of reasons not stimply because of propellant change to HCFC and HFC.

[Author]

Posts