Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 175 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Volunteers wanted for oil spill fusion video #7021
    benf
    Participant

    Patientman, a request was made to create a 30 second video as a timely response to the oil spill crisis. I think we should honor that request by Eric and focus on that particular issue and how to respond to it. I’m in agreement on the value of images. The web site content however is really on another topic, in my view it is saturated with valuable content. That draws people in and engages them too.

    in reply to: Volunteers wanted for oil spill fusion video #7016
    benf
    Participant

    Rezwan, perhaps we could combine what you first posted from Eric with what you have further elaborated. I think Patientman’s marketing approach makes some sense. With Eric’s script we have Attention and Awareness of the issue. With your follow up script we have Attitude as you become more ethically oriented. What needs development is the Action aspect. What can people from different walks of life do to support FF? Invest in the project as well as promoting this website and it’s interaction with different ideas, large and small, education, technical, social impact, futurist, etc. Ending on a positive outlook for the future here on our planet ties in with the beginning better than reaching for the stars (“pan galactic”), which might be overreaching here, but could be the subject for another video!

    in reply to: Californians one up #7012
    benf
    Participant

    Yes, PGE spent many millions to promote Prop 16. Their ads on TV and the web were slick, relentless and self assured. The opposition spent around 100k and had no ads.
    Apparently people want to have options with their power source. πŸ™‚

    in reply to: Volunteers wanted for oil spill fusion video #6997
    benf
    Participant

    vansig-21 June 2010 12:10 AM

    They seem to indoctrinate their people to regard with distaste anything that has a nucleus. Many are even leery of microwaves. I predict a long education for this group.

    They largely have had a fear of fission nuclear, which is justified. I may not agree with tactics some environmental groups have used, but overall they have for years been trying to call peoples attention to issues concerning the planet’s health, which I respect. They can help spread the word about new technologies that are real solutions to our energy problems and shouldn’t be excluded. These people have helped launch energy alternatives into the mainstream through their advocacy. From what I’m seeing on the web, some of these folks are open to clean nuclear energy research already.

    Another angle I’d suggest would be this: In another eight administrations, the world’s population is expected to grow 50% (by 2050). We need serious solutions to our energy demands that we take for granted today and for overcoming poverty both now and with future generations. Focus Fusion can produce power on a scale to meet these needs, without stressing natural resources the way other alternatives can.

    in reply to: Volunteers wanted for oil spill fusion video #6945
    benf
    Participant

    I have a some photos of pristine beaches and ocean wildlife and could volunteer with production as well. Sounds like a good idea to me.

    in reply to: clean up the oil spill with a plasma torch? #6894
    benf
    Participant

    It’s a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. Studies I’ve been reading point to a couple of factors. One is phototoxicity. The oil becomes more toxic being exposed to sunlight. Another is that oil that gets covered up degrades much more slowly. As it gets covered with sediments, creatures and plant life that try to burrow into it are poisoned and it continues to seep into the water. It only takes small amounts to do damage to life:

    According to a National Academy of Sciences report Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects (2003); “Several studies have demonstrated the potential for oil residuals on beach sediments to have significant toxic effects on fish eggs and embryos. Heintz et al. (1999) reported embryo mortality of pink salmon with laboratory exposure to aqueous total PAH concentrations as low as 1 ppb total PAH derived from artificially weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil. This is consistent with the field observations of Bue et al. (1996) of embryo mortality of pink salmon in streams traversing oiled beaches following the spill from the Exxon Valdez. Carls et al. (1999) exposed Pacific herring eggs for 16 days to weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil and observed that exposure to initial aqueous concentrations as low as 0.7 ppb PAH caused developmental malformations, genetic damage, mortality, decreased size at hatching, and impaired swimming. Concentrations as low as 0.4 ppb caused premature hatching and yolk-sac edema. Exposure to less weathered oil produced similar results but at higher exposure concentrations (9.1 ppb).
    Other investigators have observed developmental effects on fish and invertebrates exposed to low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons (Capuzzo et al., 1988). The high toxicity of weathered oil reported by Heintz et al. (1999) and Carls et al. (1999), however, suggests that higher concentrations of one or more constituents in weathered fractions relative to total PAH contribute to the increased toxicity.” Oil in the Sea 2003

    So our food chain can be affected long term. I would say jumping on spills quickly and removing all traces would be a better way to go if done carefully. I leave it to the engineering experts to figure out how to employ a FF powered plasma torch carefully. It could remove the oil with minimal emissions.

    in reply to: clean up the oil spill with a plasma torch? #6885
    benf
    Participant

    Edit: error

    in reply to: clean up the oil spill with a plasma torch? #6884
    benf
    Participant

    Well if we could start with just one FF Plasma Torch and give it a try….The baked (or steamed) soil could be mixed with some non polluted soil as seed material. It would regenerate the ecosystem a lot faster than leaving it contaminated the way it is now. Also regarding the current spill in the Gulf of Mexico, they’re currently deploying 1200 ships in the clean up. Each one could be outfitted with remote operated Plasma Torches to help deal with beach and marsh areas that are inaccessible. The ships I’m sure are burning prodigious amounts of diesel just to motor around and will be for many years. If they were powered by FF generators instead, decontamination would be a cleaner, less expensive process.

    in reply to: Questions around the copper Anode #6879
    benf
    Participant

    I envision a control knob like on my old train set transformer. Turn up the juice for higher output and faster speed. Is that all there is to do to reach unity now? That would be lucky…What are the mechanisms of control to optimize the formation of the plasmoid aside from gas pressure, positioning of the cathodes to the anode and increasing current? I’m wondering about how the filaments interact with the gas. Apart from increased pressure of the gas increasing density. The density is homogeneous, would there be any benefit to imparting motion to the gas medium as you do with the angular momentum to the magnetic field? A swirling vortex of gas would mimic galaxy/solar system formation, would that apply to a DPF? The circulation also might aid in cooling, or would this make everything unstable?

    benf
    Participant

    A link to NASA’s website has some new videos of solar flares.
    Solar videos

    in reply to: Everything is possible #6588
    benf
    Participant

    If they would flap their arms like birds they’d stay above water longer (one nanosecond)! πŸ˜†

    in reply to: Boron availability #6425
    benf
    Participant

    Ah, I see this subject has already been discussed in a previous thread, “New Anode Cooling β€˜Limits’ Likely”, so I’ll stop being redundant with my 2 cents. Glad to see you all have been thinking about material impacts.

    in reply to: Boron availability #6415
    benf
    Participant

    Matweb is an awesome site, thanx!

    in reply to: Boron availability #6412
    benf
    Participant

    Not sure what use they’re referring to, it’s talking about a substitute for beryllium oxide…Here’s the link to the pdf (page 6 Details of Finding):

    beryllium oxide

    in reply to: Boron availability #6410
    benf
    Participant

    Thanks for the info. I agree that the benefits of FF outweigh the drawbacks of the use of Beryllium. I’ve read a DOE document that refers to a classified safe substitute, but I don’t know if it would be x-ray transparent or of any use otherwise. My question would be whether we would consider a safer material such as Boron or other conductive element, even though it may heat up more and degrade faster. If it’s inexpensive enough to produce and recycle. Say it lasts two years instead of Beryllium’s five years for example, would it be worth it as a substitute, given that it is so much less hazardous, less expensive and makes selling the FF concept so much easier?

    Also, there are other useful metal alloys out there that could include cooling components as part of there structure. Are these being considered?

    MIL composites

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 175 total)