[Breakable]

Yes, lets leave it for the future generations!!!

[Breakable]

You are welcome.
Sorry for being so obscure, but I hope it was fun to figure it out.

[Breakable]

Jolly Roger wrote:
This fusion process involve neutronic fusion, not the aneutronic fusion/fission of Focus Fusion. FF could not be used for this unless alpha particles could be used instead of neutrons.

If you burn different fuel you get neutronic fusion.

[Breakable]

No offense Tasmodevil44, but it seems you like to speak (write) alone a lot 😉

[Breakable]

There are two different processes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_gasification
disposes common organic waste by gasifying it into flammable compounds that is totally unrelated to fusion or nuclear waste.

Another method is using fusion to burn up wasted fission fuel:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2589/fission-fusion-hybrids-could-mop-nuclear-waste

[Breakable]

In case you read the news, the boy who constructed its fusion reactor at home did not reach a point where he generates more energy than the fusion outputs. Nobody has constructed this type of reactor yet. And claiming the output energy is even further down the road.
Still it is possible to construct one that demonstrates fusion itself, even if the output is negligible. I don’t think you can find a guide or tutorial that explains in detailed steps how to build one, so you will have to learn a lot and design one yourself. A hobby group on the internet could help, I don’t know where to find one, but try looking here:
http://49chevy.blogs.com/fusor/2007/01/what_is_this_si.html
or
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php

[Breakable]

Btw about the CFB, you need to buy the expensive branded ones from Philips if you want them operating for long time. The no-named ones burn out pretty quickly.

[Breakable]

Rematog wrote:
The Nano Tax increase will pay for nano-defence, and the war on the moon will be funded by the drug taxes put in place at the end of the war on drugs.
Oxigen??? Free as the air we breathe…..
Rematog

What I meant that there will always be short-term problems that might seem more important than investing into long term solutions.

An about Oxigen, remember “bottled water”. It might even make sense someday if pollution keeps up.

[Breakable]

Rematog wrote: … 30 years or so after initial deployment, FF modules may become accepted enough to site at a shopping mall, but not right away.
REMATOG

An how do you think people are gonna pay for oxigen, nano-defence and war on the moon if all the money is wasted on grid decentralization? 😉

[Breakable]

Rational being should consider lack of evidence as disproof, because there is no way you can prove a negative like “there is no cold fusion”. You can only say “we tried some things, and they did not work”.
Of course investing some effort into research is always a good idea, but priority is given to most perspective approaches. The problem is that “understood” and “perspective” is mixed up.

[Breakable]

Great!

[Breakable]

This video is a very nice definition of open-mindedness,
and explains why open-minded people should use EVIDENCE to consider any ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[Breakable]

Jolly Roger wrote: I am buying an RV soon, and I would love to have appliances that run on AC or DC. If manufacturers made all appliances dual function, it would provide incentive to change the infrastructure to DC.

“Built it, and they will come!”

This seems like a nice new feature for appliances in 5-10 ears or so. Having solar battery system at home might help push for it sooner.

[Breakable]

Jerry wrote: …
Is there a way to achieve superconductivity in a plasma?

Learning to teleport before knowing how to walk?

[Breakable]

Jolly Roger wrote:

…
Nobody has created a DC driven reactive engine, because there was no need for one yet.

.. just not for aircraft, but for rockets ..

That’s what I tried to state.
😛

[Author]

Posts