[belbear]

Tulse wrote:
I’m not sure that’s true — once in space FF may make technologies like VASIMR far more practical, but the big problem will always be getting into space. I don’t see how FF will significantly change the problems of launching to orbit, at least not without other major technological advances (such as space elevators or huge magnetic launch tracks).

What do you think of a focus fusion powered turbojet/scramjet powered launch vehicle with a chemical LOX/LN2 upper stage glider (type X-33) to fill the gap from high-atmospheric hypersonic flight to orbit?

Fusion-generated electricity drives compressor fans (instead of a turbine) and fusion heated air (instead of fuel combustion) provides jet thrust. Everything fully reusable.

[belbear]

So if I got things right, the X-ray converter would have to be many layers of p-n junctions that work like a stack of highly transparent solar cells on top of each other.
But the concern is that the energetic X-rays themselves would be destroying the delicate layered structure by breaking important chemical bonds, shorting out the junctions and rendering the expensive device useless after a short time of exposure?

But our hopes are in the fact that X_ray conversion is such a novel field of research that we cannot yet rely on existing knowledge to either confirm or deny its feasability.

[belbear]

Brian H wrote: Nah. Even He3 fusion is a waste of time and money compared to FF p-B11 generators. But of course, once FF’s operating full blast, going to space (moon, Mars, asteroids) will be a piece of cake.

Not to mention the fact that we can have a probe transmitting from Alpha Centauri or Sirius in about the same time it took the Voyagers to get to the edge of our solar system.

[belbear]

Brian H wrote:
And I pointed out the He3/He4 switch above. Anybody who wants He3 will have to sift it out of moon dust! 😆 🙂 :cheese:

Phew! You just saved NASA’s Ares program from obsolescence! 😆

[belbear]

Rematog wrote: Yes, many of the loudest proponents of Biofuels are those that consider the Midwestern United States “Flyover Country”… i.e. they fly over it in their jets going from New York and Washington to Los Angles and San Fransisco. Because the can’t see very much that’s man-made from 40,000 ft, they assume it’s empty.

Not to mention the “water crisis”, which for the Midwest may well replace the oil crisis everyone fears so much.
Another Dustbowl, anyone?

[belbear]

Dr_Barnowl wrote:
Several laments that the current state of the art in “Big Fusion” is outside the US.

Eric Lerner, the hope of all US Patriots to make fusion “made in USA” now rests on you!

[belbear]

Dr_Barnowl wrote: They are correctly identifying the advantages of fusion energy.

Lots of “It is imperative to provide funding for our programme!” for both ITER (and any potential American tokamak project), and NIF.

No mentions of anything but tokamak fusion and inertial confinement with focus on ITER and NIF.

Some focus on the potential for intellectual property rights and precision manufacturing reinvigorating the US economy.

And NIF doesn’t even offer a perspective on energy generation. It’s nothing but an excellent weapons-research tool to create mini termonuclear explosions without violating the nuclear test ban treaties. The fusion energy argument in NIF is only a decoy to draw public attention away from the nuke research. And to give Arnold Schwarzenegger something better to say than “For a better understanding of Judgement Day”

Gigantic lasers, with an overall efficiency of less than 0.5% are used, so 99,5% of all input energy is already wasted before the beams even strike the target. And this target is a “hohlraum” that converts IR light to X-rays, which again wastes about 80% of the laser input energy.

It will take an awfully high Q (Q=1000, anyone?) to compensate for that, given the fact that less than half of this DT-fusion output energy (in neutrons) can ever be converted to electricity.

Am I right that focus fusion nees a Q of “only” 3 or 4 to produce net power?

And last but not least, the NIF laser can fire only once every 5 hours. The laser delivers about 2 megajoules per pulse, so the laser pump energy must be around 400MJ. That’s more than 200 pounds of TNT. Or you could also use it to shoot an enemy satellite out of the sky when it passes over.

If I had to choose between ITER and NIF as a hope for future energy, I would definitely put my eggs in the ITER basket.

[belbear]

Brian H wrote: Well, we have incandescent, which is wasteful and hot, and florescent, which is kind of ugly and uses mercury, and LCD, which is cheap, durable, promising and gradually getting less ugly — and now perforated aluminum foil.

http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/news/archive/index.php?xId=071508160672

Kind of a foil sandwich with thousands of tiny plasma-filled gaps. Bright, flexible, and cheap enough to be disposable. Interesting!

Definitely interesting, given the current light sources.

They don’t mention what kind of electricity is needed to drive this panel. I suspect a rather high frequency AC voltage is needed.
This again assumes some drive electronics, the weak spot of fluorescent or LED lighting.

Sale of most types of incandescent lightbulbs is now prohibited in much of Europe, while the only alternative are those screw-in fluorescent lamps, which fail almost as often as the lightbulbs they replace.
Not that the fluorescent tube ever fails. The electronic unit fails, usually from overheating. So the mercury-containing lamp goes with the garbage..

Yes, there are LED lamps (not LCD, Brian), but they emit this ugly blueish light, and not very much of it. And LED lamps don’t have eternal life as so often advertised. They degrade rather quickly when overheating…

But if we all have cheap and clean fusion power, why not return to the venerable “Edison Electric Light” 🙂

[belbear]

Rematog wrote: Just “Food” for thought…..

I just attended a seminar on biofuels….

Switchgrass is one of the leading contenders for biofuel crops (as opposed to wood waste from logging).

To generate the 5 MW that a FF module would, you would need, roughly, 2,900 acres of switchgrass growing. At the very least, an alternate use for this land would be grazing and forage…. so it will reduce potential food production.

This assumes a reasonably efficient boilers/turbines (10,250 Btu/kw heat rate) and…. very high crop yield (no crop failures, storm damage, etc) and low spoilage of the switchgrass crop.. remember, very large quanties (small mountains) of “dead grass” would have to be stored between harvests to fuel a boiler running 365 days a year.

Something to chew on….

This scheme, as any biofuel scheme, assumes you have lots and lots of otherwise useless land available to grow this grass on. I live in a country where every acre of land already has a use. So we have to import all our biofuels from countries like Brazil, where they have lots of useless rainforest to make room for biofuel farms… :-/

[belbear]

This is also my idea of scalability: Using “multicore” vacuum vessels. (why stop with three? Why not 10 or more electrode sets in a single vessel?)
Even if every core needs its own drift tube, the X-ray converter and the capacitors can be shared. A failed electrode set is simply skipped in the firing sequence until repair can be done.

Multiple, complete units side by side can even be made “hot pluggable”, so power generation does not need to be interrupted when one unit fails. All the other ones can simply increase their pulse rate if normal operation has sufficient headroom.

Additional control over power output can be done by simply varying the pulse rate to match power demand. This VPR (Variable Pulse Rate) system will be very handy for FF reactors hooked up to a very small power grid. A ship for instance, where the power demand varies greatly from “all stop” standby power to “full speed ahead”.

Who says a 330Hz reactor cannot operate at 10Hz “standby power”? If it’s so small and cheap this can even be cost effective to increase overall reliability of a FF cluster power plant.

[belbear]

Besides governmental regulation, there may also be a strong influence from existing power and oil companies (a powerful multi-trillion $$ business)
In developed countries such as the US and Western Europe, especially the oil lobbies are very strong and will oppose focus fusion. And their CEO’s are NOT democratically elected!

Fast-growing countries such as China and India on the other hand, have no such inhibitions. If their government finds focus fusion useful, they will simply use it to the maximum possible extent.

At present, These countries have to import most of their fossil fuels (except coal) and thus have no other choice than to generate ever more electricity using new polluting coal plants or landcape-devastating hydropower.
I’ve been in China this year and I noticed that petrol there is extremely expensive compared to the average Chinese income. It’s more or less the European fuel price. As a result the Chinese are using much more electric vehicles than we do. In places like Beijing and Shanghai, electric scooters are the rule, not the exception.

All these rapidly industrializing countries will welcome focus fusion with open arms, and not only because it makes dirty coal plants obsolete.
Focus fusion will also diminish the need for a new, more powerful electricity grid (through decentralizing the fusion plants) and reduce the need for fossil fuel import because using electric vehicles and appliances will become even cheaper and ships can use focus fusion directly.

Chinese may well be the first to mass-produce focus fusion reactors. After all, if they can copy an iPhone, they can copy a fusion reactor.

A bad scenario:

While there may be el-cheapo made in China “fusion-in-a-box” units already shipping worldwide, our own lobby-driven regulations may prohibit us from buying them. Except for the military, of course. THEY will use focus fusion to upgrade their nuclear subs and carriers. (and dieselelectric vessels too)

A good scenario:

Multiple, competing companies selling “fusion-in-a-box” units with a mandatory maintenance contract to anyone who wishes to invest in them.
Every so-often a qualified technician comes by, opens the hermetically sealed unit, checks everything out, replaces worn parts such as electrodes, and replenishes the fuel supply. In addition, a small bottle of recuperated helium may also be replaced with an empty bottle.

“Unauthorized opening of this reactor core is a federal crime and will be legally proscecuted.” 🙂

I don’t think DIY “Mr.Fusion” kits will become a likely option in the near future.

[belbear]

JimmyT wrote: Rematog,

I’m reluctantly forced to agree with you about the probability of regulation. It is interesting to note, however, that all the safety issues discussed do not involve the reactor. But rather the high voltage transmission equipment. And this equipment is present at all power facilities, be they coal powered, hydroelectric, etc.

I think regulation of FF reactors is inevitable.

Compare with aviation:
100 years ago, everyone could build and fly his own flying crate using bedsheets and broomsticks. With many deadly consequences.
Nowadays, everyone still has the right to own, fly and even build an aircraft, as long as machine, pilot and constructor comply with an ever growing list of FAA regulations.
But these regulations still permit private aviation, for fun or profit. Despite it’s not as cheap as it could be without regulation, at least it’s safe.

As long as regulation is for safety purposes, there should be no objection against it.
The goal must be to insure that any privately owned fusion equipment does not pose any electrical, radiation or chemical hazard to its operators and the general public, and to insure that only qualified people build, operate and maintain it.
After all, A FF generator IS a dangerous piece of equipment, operating with ten thousands of volts, lethal radiation and poisonous substances like decaborane.
So a regular inspection by some sort of organisation (DOE or others) to insure that everything is safe and sound may be desirable, just like with airplanes.

In other words, I would not mind a FF plant next door, but then I want to be confident that their 40000 volts do not come jumping out of my power sockets because the greedy owner cuts back on maintenance.

What should not happen is a very restrictive regulation, like with nuclear fission (for THAT there is a good reason), that prohibits private persons and small companies from owning and operating a focus fusion reactor unless they comply with regulations made to the measure of big power companies like the ones that now operate fission plants.
These big companies WILL oppose focus fusion, if only because their expensive investments in current power sources are at risk.

The media also plays an important role in the early days of commercial FF power. If they happen to scare the general public with horrific comparisons a la Chernobyl or Harrisburg, out of pure ignorance and sensationalism, the government may feel the need to respond.

Okay, I’m a European, so I may incline somewhat more toward the need for government regulation than the average American does.
And we all know what happened to Wall Street and the banks because of “deregulation”

[belbear]

Aeronaut wrote: [
Found some specs and pix of the UN’s version of FF in case anybody’s interested: http://www.icdmp.pl/pf1000.html Other than 24 cathodes, its in Baby’s ballpark for energy, current, voltage. This is from a very determined string of Google searches for competitors/independent verification candidates that ultimately led to Wiki. Go figure, right?

That’s a big 10-404 on that link. Stripping the pf1000.html produces a dry message “It works!” Must have a good sense of British humor 🙂

[belbear]

Besides giving the baby a name, we should also give it a face, or better: a symbol that can stand for focus fusion in general.

The peace-emblem I see on this web site may look good on a T-shirt, but if you want to paint it on the side of a fusion reactor, or put it on some company stationery it’s a bit 60’s Woodstock hippie-esque, isn’t it?

So I designed a focus-fusion symbol that is both abstract, hopely not trademarked yet, and a direct reminder of where it all started: With the first DPF experiments.
This logo is essentially a circle surrounded by eight smaller circles.
Regardless of how the actual electrodes of a FF generator will look like, it resembles the classic rod-cathode electrode set of many DPF’s.

The logo I designed can have a solid center or a hollow center, to accomodate a central company logo for instance.
I took the liberty of borrowing your LPP logo for the purpose of demonstration…

Attached files

[belbear]

Breakable wrote: I suggested “Apollo”,
Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of light and the sun; truth and prophecy; archery; medicine and healing; music, poetry, and the arts; and more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo

Apollo is already taken. For me and many others not so familiar with Greek gods, Apollo is practically a synonym for walking on the moon. A good name should not have such associations with something well known but totally unrelated.
Okay, for young people, the Giant Leap For Mankind may be just as much dead history as Greek mythology, but I am still one of those who had his eyes glued to a black&white;TV screen in those days…

Well, our baby may indeed have an association with the Apollo program: The Next Giant Leap For Mankind. Too bad the acronym sucks… 🙁

[Author]

Posts