[Breakable]

I don’t think it is an issue when participating in TEDx (not TED) first and maybe later we can climb higher.
Also ITER main researcher was on TED recently.

[Breakable]

Once I send one of the guys responsible for topic picking in technology an email about some perspective Fusion and Solar power technologies, but I never heard from him back.
I am guessing that either that Innovative Confinement Concepts have not made a serious mark yet or the understand that energy is the most important issue is not widespread.
Edit:Or maybe he just missed my message, next time I will know to ask the community to give a helping hand.

[Breakable]

Just to clarify I am talking about tedx conferences. It is like ted, but for poor peoples 😉

[Breakable]

And then you need to put a FF reactor to power it all (in the handle?) 🙂

[Breakable]

I have sent my application, I hope future collaboration would bear some fruit!

[Breakable]

So the sweet spot for pB11 is around 160 keV or do you need higher temperatures to get decent output?

[Breakable]

Just to point out what kind of criticism has to be dealt with:

Comment
by from discussion
inenergy

[Breakable]

LFTR are as much of a vaporware as FF is. In any case I would bet on the aneutronic competitor.

[Breakable]

MTd2 wrote: …
BTW. Being a member of focusfusion should grant me a copy of Big Bang Never Happened signed by Lerner. Was it sent to me?

Hey i want mine too 😉
Where did you read it?

[Breakable]

While failure of ITER makes other energy projects more competitive, the overall environment for fusion funding might degrade, as more investors will think of fusion as unreachable.

[Breakable]

zapkitty wrote:
Reduced shielding? Even if you reduce the frequency of the pulses the amount of prompt radiation from each pulse will stay the same and thus the required shielding will also be the same.

I think radiation dose can be calculated by Dose=Time*Intensity. So if you reduce frequency, you reduce the time.

[Breakable]

Also to put solar in perspective, current goal (which is partially achieved by FirstSolar and Nanosolar) is 1$/watt,
which would put it at 5 million even without addressing capacity or availability issues.
With addressing those issues the cost would probably rise to about ~20 million,
which I think what would cost to run a gas turbine for ~10-20 years.

Still I believe FF units could be made much cheaper if their capacity factor would be reduced to about 5 kw,
by reducing the frequency and getting rid of most cooling, shielding and maybe other systems
(maybe even use a HVDC network for powering and not a capacitor bank)?
Of course then they would be less efficient and more expensive to run,
but maybe in most applications this drawback would not be an issue.
Who cares if the electricity costs 0.01 cent or 0.001 cent per kwh at home?
Only some factories/desalinization/processing/refining and other high power usage locations should care for higher efficiency due to competition.

[Breakable]

I am not sure if you got me, I meant FFS members. While we are all members of this forum, only some of use choose to contribute to FFS financially.

[Breakable]

Welcome, welcome. I really wonder who are the members here on the forum. Anyone wants to do some proclaiming? 😉

[Breakable]

While I appreciate your initiative to pry additional details from the LPP team
could I suggest to tone down the requests, ant let them do their job? 😉
It is not science 2.0 decade yet, so the workflows of participating in the investigation are not present yet.
It is possible that you are slowing down the progress instead of speeding it up.
Regards

[Author]

Posts