[annodomini2]

Andrew Palfreyman wrote: I never saw the point of NIF. There’s no way it will ever be a production technology, even if it eventually works.

It’s primary purpose is weapons research, the fusion is political spin to sell it to the public.

[annodomini2]

Why are the reports not making their way onto the website front page?

[annodomini2]

JimmyT wrote:

The other issue being a large component of that energy usage is also transport and heating (in colder climates).

The article only seems to discuss electricity generation, which FF is ideal to compete with, but what percentage of that usage is purely for electricity generation?

The main one that will take more time to replace is heating, the transport cycle is usually around 10-15years for the bulk of the market, so if electric based vehicles became widespread and cheaper (may take some advancement here as well), transport could be converted quite easily.

The issue is heating, many countries which developed with large gas reserves, their heating systems in the properties tend to be based around gas fired heating systems, which do not in themselves easily convert to electricity. The users of these systems will be quite averse to changing them due to cost. Unless the electricity is so cheap that the change will pay for itself within a few years.

If, as is predicted, the cheap electricity comes to pass; I plan to very quickly buy a cheap electric space heater. If I place this next to my furnace and set the furnace thermostat a couple of degrees colder than the space heater’s setting it should take care of most of my home heating. And at minimal expense.

Unfortunately energy is a market and every kWh has an innate value.

The financial backers will want to see a return on their investment when these systems are installed, therefore charging the market rate is logical, the price only drops when there is a significant surplus in supply.

This will only occur when smaller investors can get onto the market, currently it’s impossible to compete with the large generators, FF may offer this opportunity, but it will not be as simple or clean cut as many would imply.

[annodomini2]

If the pulse rate can be efficiently varied, it may even be able to load balance at the generation point.

[annodomini2]

Antimatter, while theoretically ideal for interstellar travel, currently isn’t practical.

I’m not saying we won’t get there, but it’s a very far reaching goal.

First we need a reliable (and CHEAP!) way to manufacture it.

Then we need to be able to contain it for long periods of time. I believe the record is currently a few minutes.

Then we need to have some mechanism that will use the energy from the reaction and convert it into propulsion.

Anti-matter as a fuel is a long way off, unless several breakthroughs are made.

[annodomini2]

But if an FF is light enough they may want it for Aircraft, they already have electric turbines.

This may offer shielding for use in aircraft.

Additionally, some uses may require portable units, reducing their weight may also be beneficial.

[annodomini2]

Can you not do it in reverse, pressurise the system and use leak detection fluid?

Probably not the best method, but an idea.

[annodomini2]

1. You didn’t answer my question.

2. With the higher altitude and lower air pressure you have resultant lower reaction mass available for propulsion.

=========================================================================================================

You hit 2 balancing points:

1. Where you are at an altitude that there is sufficient reaction mass to generate sufficient thrust to overcome drag and accelerate.

2. The input air temperature is actually low enough to provide sufficient delta T that your heating mechanism is actually imparting energy into the incoming air flow.

[annodomini2]

vansig wrote: i had previously estimated amount of helium used for primary coolant, to be about 2 kg/s flow past the hot tip
in order to draw away 5 MW of heat. maybe that’s not liquid, but it is compressed a lot.

Would that much heat need to be extracted?

I thought the intended efficiency was much higher?

[annodomini2]

Thanks! 🙂

[annodomini2]

Joeviocoe wrote:

All that high-powered laser technography just lying around, and too big to strap to a sharks head…

Build a bigger shark 😉

Megladon?

[annodomini2]

Henning wrote:

Its not surprising since this is what the thing was built for in the first place.

Right. That energy-sidetrack was just to get funded additionally.

Probably more of a political stunt to keep the nuclear weapons protesters away.

[annodomini2]

How’s the progress with this going?

Inquisitive minds wish to know! 🙂

[annodomini2]

While my question was innocently intended, it seems to have generated some interesting discussion.

Keep up the good work! 🙂

[annodomini2]

vansig wrote:

Above about Mach 5-10 you’ll need internal mass to throw out the back as the temperatures will well exceed the limits of the materials we have today.

Starlite was a possibility, but unfortunately Maurice Ward died last year and as far as is public, he took the recipe with him.

As you state more speed/energy can result in reduced mass, but there is a limit, in the sense that, above a certain temperature you’re effectively throwing a hugely powerful ion beam out the back of the engine. This would (at least) create the same political issues as with flying a Fission reactor, if not more.

Actually,
my understanding is that Ward’s family holds the Starlite recipe, but that industry isn’t really that interested in dealing.
Starlite is an ablative heat shield, and adequate ablative heat shields already exist.

Apart from the NIMBY attitudes about anything “nucular”, the ion beam will have about as much environmental impact as a lightning strike. presently lightning is seen as good for the planet, as it replenishes the ozone layer and makes nitrates, which are good for growing plants.

At what thrust level are you doing these numbers?

[Author]

Posts