[annodomini2]

A 747 produces approximately 85,000 HP peak (Thrust doesn’t translate to HP linearly!)

Which is approximately 64MW, how big would a 64MW FF reactor be??

[annodomini2]

Tulse wrote: I think that cathode erosion is likely to be much less of a problem than ensuring that 200 pneumatic pistons all fire in with nanosecond precision continually day after day, as in the case of GF.

I’m curious if the General fusion reaction creates a reverse pressure wave?

[annodomini2]

vansig wrote: cathodes are metal rods, that could be made longer than they need to be, and pushed into the chamber as they wear.
adjustments could be done in micrometers; and may include turning, if needed. so servicing them is a matter of whether
the fine adjustments may be made without taking the reactor offline.

One expansion of this, could be having a machining laser in the chamber to re-profile the rods and as you state an actuator to push the rods in a bit more once this process is complete.

There would probably need to be some form of 3D scanning technology to tell the laser where to cut and how much material to take off.

However the reactions would probably have to stop to perform this action.

[annodomini2]

Unlimited is inaccurate

For the tag line, I personally like: “Always positive and never neutral!”

[annodomini2]

Do NOT under estimate these companies desire to use every dirty trick in the book to get in the way:

1st They will try and buy and regulate the technology themselves.
2nd They will make all attempts to make this device expensive to build and run.
3rd They will attempt to undermine the intellectual property.
4th They will attempt to prevent the device being made or used.
5th They will play the safety card.

Various legal and illegal events WILL occur to protect their investments.

They will LIE, CHEAT and STEAL to get what they want!

History is littered with examples:

1. High pressure vs Low pressure steam engines
2. AC vs DC electricity

And there are many more

[annodomini2]

I personally believe that even if a device along the lines of Focus Fusion was available today, it will still take 20-30years before it overtakes all other sources.

If they were to replace existing power stations, this would take time, the existing systems represent a huge investment buy the operators.

Governments may want to encourage the take up of the technologies for their ‘climate change’ projects and programs.

Many homes in colder latitudes require large amounts of heating during the colder months of the year, many of these use wood, coal, gas or oil for heating.

Replacing these systems in these homes is not cheap, not everyone will have the money available to convert to electricity overnight.

Additionally people are not going to go out and buy electric cars overnight;

1. The technology for electric vehicles is not mature enough for a large volume mass market.
2. Significant investment in a vehicle by the individual and the manufacturers.

Aircraft take many years to design and develop and again existing machines have received huge investment from manufacturers and operators.

The only game changer technology wise would be if the device was small to tiny and comparable size, weight power output to an equivalent battery.

This could potentially have a greater impact especially if cost effective for the purchasers.

As soon as the device is announced the price of it’s fuel would rocket, it’s likely to take some time for the market to sort itself out.

What you will see is a steady, but drastic shift in the capital expenditure points on energy.

[annodomini2]

JimmyT wrote: I saw a report recently on about an experiential advertising program which they are developing in England. It involves those LED bill boards, but with a twist. As you walk by cameras figure out who you are using facial recognition, then it figures out just what add to play to you based (I suppose) on your previous buying patterns.

As in Minority report, they also use positionable directional speakers to specifically target audio as well.

[annodomini2]

Maybe I missed something in an earlier post, why is everyone avoiding the hole in the anode questions?

[annodomini2]

Found this in a little search:

http://www.abb.ch/product/ap/db0003db004291/c12573e7003304adc1256efc004d2922.aspx?country=US

Claim to have High Voltage/High Current solid state pulse power supplies, doesn’t specify details just contact information, but may be an avenue of investigation

[annodomini2]

Speaking of materials, Iridium?

[annodomini2]

Tulse wrote: I’ve been following EESTOR for a while, but at this point I’m somewhat skeptical, as they seem to make a lot of claims without any real product. Perhaps I’m just being cynical, however (I’ve also followed Moller because I want my goddamned flying car already, but that’s also seen years and years without anything concrete).

Moller’s plan is a pipe dream until he actually shows something that fully works. The guy’s been working on it for 40years with little success

Now these guys at least have shown something that works, if not perfectly reliable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7828408.stm

[annodomini2]

From what I understand the plan is to use some mechanism to convert the x-rays into usable energy? So the mechanism used here could be the shielding here could it not?

So is the biggest concern the neutron emissions?

[annodomini2]

Aeronaut wrote:

Anyone considered using the capacitors themselves for shielding?

Other than possible dielectric breakdown, is there anything else that may suffer from this approach?

I sketched out a similar idea a few weeks when the pix started coming out. You could save a lot of plate steel by using an octagonal water jacket with 4 of the sides doubling as a common wall for 3 of the caps. This would reduce the shielding effectiveness due to not having a continuous boron and lead shield around the entire reaction chamber.

This would help make a smaller and lighter design but is a public relations nightmare because that would raise the operating radioactivity levels above background levels. I went with mounting the caps, charging, trigger controllers, and high voltage/high current parts on a sleeve that slides over the proper 3 layer shielding.

Which type of radiation, neutons or x-ray? (again have I missed something?)

[annodomini2]

Anyone considered using the capacitors themselves for shielding?

Other than possible dielectric breakdown, is there anything else that may suffer from this approach?

[annodomini2]

If you look at their patent, it is a slightly modified Ultra-capacitor, running at 4000v (to keep leakage current down to a minimum)

And some semi-conductor modifications to the electrolyte to reduce the leakage current further.

They are still quite heavy.

The main benefits over a conventional battery are energy density, dump current, supposed life span and charge time (no different to existing capacitors really)

The benefit over a standard capacitor are its supposed capability to store charge for long periods of time. This is where many of the professional arguments are focussed as EEStor after approximately 2years since they announced this device, have to the best of my knowledge still not released any data or allowed a device to be tested.

[Author]

Posts