[Glenn Millam]

Here is another link with another documentary, this from the CBC, which questions global warming. Some of the same scientists are in it as the first link, but there are some other ones as well. These people aren’t fringe operators, but from major organizations like MIT and Harvard. Interesting stuff.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/cbc-global-warming-doomsday-called-off.html

[Glenn Millam]

You make a lot of good points. The key thing to keep in mind is that the curves given for fossil fuel production et. al. all work on the theory that things will continue as they are. If we move to fusion, those curves will elongate tremendously.

Transmute wrote: As for the your theory that global warming is non-anthropomorphic, most climatologist disagree, as evidence show that cloud formation is actually up (from all the aerosols we pump into the atmosphere)

This is global dimming. Dirt and crap we put in the air has kept temperatures down by combatting, what some feel, the effects of increased solar activity via increasing the brightness of clouds. Here’s a good link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Here is a link to a Wikipedia entry about a documentary which projects the “sun activity” hypothesis for global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The documentary was shown on the BBC, who then tried to distance itself from it. There is actually much good science in it, but there are also some disputed facts. I suggest looking into it, if for no other purpose but to get both sides of the debate.

The more I research global warming, I am beginning to think it is kind of like the Big Bang Theory, in where most agree with it because everybody agrees with it, not looking at it critically and questioning the holes and missing pieces. I am hoping that the advent of F2 will make it all irrelevant.

[Glenn Millam]

Transmute wrote: Not to seem laconic but “if” is the problem: if it works and if its as cheap as advertised, if not well at least it makes a nice x-ray generator :p

Quite true. “If” is the biggest problem.

Transmute wrote: One problem is that F2 powered coal to oil conversion would also become economical and competitive with F2 powered biomass to oil (hydrogenated depolymerization), biomass would not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere, coal as we all know does. So even though F2 would cure our energy problems via the automatic demand of economics, it would still require both a political and social conscience demand to make sure it also cures are environmental problems.

I don’t see biomass or coal-to-oil happening at all, if Focus Fusion occurs. Once FF (or F2, as you say) reaches a certain level of use, conventional oil prices will drop dramatically, as there will be more supply than demand, and the oil producers will want to move their product. The costs of converting coal-to-oil, even using DPFs, won’t compete with pumping oil and refining it. Think about it. You have to mine the coal, take it to the refinery, process it to remove all the sulfur and other contaminants, and convert it. Then you have to transport the fuel to market. Much of this is the same as conventional oil. Also, coal is used for other things already, such as steel production. That coal needs to last as well.

Thus, those who have regular cars will have cheaper gasoline because of it. However, if you have an electric car, the fuel costs will be so much cheaper, and the performance (acceleration, speed, noise, stink) will be so much better, that people will be attracted to it via normal market forces. Also, it would be seen as the “latest, greatest thing,” and people will want to by them the same way they want to buy big flat-panel HD TV’s over the old CRT TV’s. There will be early adopters, the bugs will get worked out, technology will improve with the additional capital and investment, and the cars will improve to the point where only the “gas-car freaks” will want one.

And there will be gas-car freaks who will hold onto their cars and keep them maintained, and sell them to each other for increasingly higher prices for many decades to come. Gasoline production may not end for another three centuries. But the amount of gasoline, the cost, and how it is distributed, will fluctuate as time goes on. Initially, gasoline will drop as there will be a spike in supply. Then, as it becomes increasingly uncompetitive, more players will merge and shrink, and the price will level out at a high level, made to supply those who have to have the need and money. As those uses that require a liquid fossil fuel decrease, gasoline refinement will become a niche industry, with limited supply networks. Only the devoted or truly needy will buy gasoline. And there it will remain, for a long time, like a small, slow burning star.

And thats OK. You see, in order to halt and reverse global warming, we don’t have to totally cease fossil fuel use. We need to reduce it down to a level where nature can handle it. Thats all. Focus Fusion alone can do it.

This is, of course, assuming that global warming is caused by human CO2 production. There is evidence that it is actually being caused by increased solar activity, which increases the amount of Solar System plasma via the solar wind. This, in turn, decreases the amount of cosmic ray radiation we get, which lessens cloud formation, thus increasing global temperature. This increase in solar activity is normal and cyclic, and is thought to reverse itself naturally. Even then, the point is moot, as we need Focus Fusion for far more than just reducing CO2 emissions.

[Glenn Millam]

On the economics of who will get Focus Fusion when… it’ll come to a combination of supply, price, and motivation. The initial installation of focus fusion will occur where there is the most need times the most capital to pay for it. Chile, the US and western Europe would be the first places it will show up, most likely, followed by Japan, South Korea, China and India.

Chile is obvious; it is where the biggest efforts are happening. With its current investments in the project, Chile will want to use FF not just to offer cheap power to its citizens, but as a symbol of Chile’s national wisdom. Also, since Chile paid for a big chunk of the research, it will want free reign to install the technology without royalty, thus making it the least expensive place to convert the current grid to fusion. This will offer Chile a massive economic advantage globally.

The US has a huge motivation to rapidly switch to Focus Fusion. It offers energy independence, large economic boons, and a way out of the Middle East and to possibly win the War on Terror. It also renders the argument about Global Warming and greenhouse gas emissions moot. The US will want to roll out focus fusion as quickly as possible, proclaim that it is doing more for combatting GW than any other country (other than Chile), and divorce itself from the economic bonds that keeps it from doing the right things in the Middle East. The cost of rolling out focus fusion is less than the current plans for conventional power plant growth currently being debated in Congress. The money is already there to install focus fusion. It is a matter of getting the research done. Between its own oil, coal and boron reserves, the US could be completely energy self-sufficient very quickly, and over time, focus fusion will replace everything else.

Western Europe looks even better than the US, on the surface. The first big private investor to the project is from Europe, and Europe has also tended to be more forward-thinking when it comes to energy. The problem is that Europe is not exactly what you would call united. France already has a huge investment in fission. Other countries already have their limited capital tied into wind and other alternative energy initiatives. These initiatives have their own political power, and won’t give way easily. Between the byzantine nature of European politics and the entrenchment of those who have their power tied to other initiatives, I see that a focus fusion rollout being slower than in the US.

Once focus fusion has proven itself in Chile, Japan will be very interested in it. I am not up on the level of use of fossil fuels for electrical generation in Japan, but as Japan is almost completely reliant on other countries for energy. Since Japan’s government generally moves more quickly than most, I expect Japan to be a rapid adopter, and may be the first to achieve 90% conversion. South Korea will not be far behind, and will likely offer to building plants for North Korea.

In fact, the two countries with the greatest motivation to move to focus fusion is China and India. Huge populations, fast growing economies, and poor fuel resources mean that they can use focus fusion to directly power their future growth. They will want to license and build out a massive grid of FF power stations to fuel their economies and relieve themselves of the shackles of fossil fuels. Other east-asian economic powers such as Malaysia and Indonesia will follow suit.

So where does this leave the rest of the world, particularly Africa? The African dream is to develop, as they say, but except for South Africa and maybe Nigeria, they are capital-poor. The rest of the world will need help in getting focus fusion technology. Which is why I say that the license structure for the technology needs to generate lots of money for the license holders. With lots of capital, they could then shunt a large portion of this wealth towards direct relief of poorer areas, possibly using the Focus Fusion Society as their non-profit arm. They can also use the wealth as political power to get the governments of richer countries to help poorer ones electrify fully.

It will take some time, but, if and when focus fusion technology becomes proven, I don’t see any reason why it can’t reach everywhere on the planet, and become a positive influence in the lives of everyone.

[Glenn Millam]

Duke Leto wrote: Just a quick point, Glenn: If we do get global warming via CO2 emissions largely under control, then it makes real good sense to keep global dimming around a bit longer to let the ice build back up where it needs to be.

That is true. In fact, global dimming is probably helping us more than its hurting us at the moment. But as time goes along we will need to address this issue. Given that most life on Earth is based on photosynthesis-created chemical energy, I wonder what the impact of a century or more of greatly reduced sunlight will have on the already stressed ecosystem.

[Glenn Millam]

You provide every extraordinary claims with no evidence what so ever to back them up. What your suggesting is an ultracapacitor with energy densities 10X+ existing ultracapacitors, if you can provide proof that this has been achieve and is marketable as claimed then I

[Glenn Millam]

Transmute wrote: The idea of a dramatic difference between cheap electrical energy from fusion and depleting multi-purpose energy from oil is a little presumptuous. Oil, coal and natural gas, fossil fuel in general provide energy in many ways: heat for homes, hydrogen stock from making fertilizer, explosive fuel for internal combustion engines, heat for steam turbines for electricity. DPF fusion would be ideal for producing electricity and some heat, it size would forbid it from powering small things like cars and self-powered machinery, or vehicles which need very high power densities and low mass like airplanes and helicopters (jet turbines).

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/dealflow/archives/2005/09/kleiner_perkins_1.html

EEStor is developing the technology that will make electrical energy truly portable and efficient for most uses. It also has great financial backing. I do see where we would want to use DPF energy to make plastics and other non-fuel synthetic oil products to support our current supply of crude oil. But the natural tie of EEStor and DPF will replace almost all need for fossil fuels. Both techs look to be ready in the same time frame.

Transmute wrote: Garbage, sewage and agriculture waste are a plentiful source of organic matter, many attempts are being made to salvage this vast amount of literally thrown away energy and organic feed-stock. A technique called Hydrogenated Pyrolysis could make all other technique to extract oil substitutes and energy from these sources pale in comparison. Hydrogenated Pyrolysis consist of placing any organic matter under pressure and heat, add hydrogen and the organic matter will convert into petroleum and water (CxOyHz + H2 -> CxHn + H2O), the process is very efficient as even carbon dioxide will be converted into petroleum (CO2 + H2 -> CH4 + H2O), but Hydrogenated Pyrolysis is highly energy negative (requires much more energy in then comes out) because of the need to make hydrogen to fuel the reaction, because of this Hydrogenated Pyrolysis is at present not considered viable, if only there was a cheap energy source that could provide heat and electricity to make hydrogen and power the pyrolysis, this is what DPF fusion could provide if it becomes viable.

I’m not sure we need to continue the use of carbon-based fuels. We don’t need to recycle the CO2 that we are using; we need to sequester what we have already burned. Global warming needs to be stopped dead in its tracks. If we create synthetic oils via DPF and put it into cars in NY and LA, the CO2 isn’t going to make it to trees, grass and corn. Its gonna go into the air and add to the problem.

The atmosphere is already saturated with CO2. We need to find a way to stop emitting non-resperatory CO2.

One other consideration. As DPF hits the market and spreads, oil prices will drop, and as people get rechargeable electric cars, it will bottom out. Making synthetic fuel will have to not be cheaper than current oil prices, it will have to be cheaper than oil prices at 1990’s levels or less to be economically viable. DPF, being on the order of 10-100x cheaper than current oil prices, will always remain cheaper than fossil fuels. Same cannot be said with fuels manufactured with DPF electricity. That, and an EEStor car has the convenience of being able to recharge at home in a few minutes.

Transmute wrote: Imagine a world were all organic waste is recycled into oil: no more landfills, no more complex and energy expensive sewage treatment and wasted dry sludge, all of this becoming oil (assuming non-organic waste like metals and ceramics are extracted and recycled separately).

Imagine a world where all trash is recycled using machinery fueled by DPF electricity. With such low energy costs, we could tag all manufactured materials with readable codes and everything we junk could be recycled robotically. We could also dedicate towers to do nothing but sequester atmospheric CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses. No oil needed.

Fusion oil likely be more lucrative then making electricity from fusion only. Especially as world demand from fossil fuel flies over limited extraction rates. Hydrogen will likely be cheap in a DPF fusion powered world and could replace some of oil’s uses, but the rest that hydrogen can

[Glenn Millam]

Please don’t use this forum to spam.

[Glenn Millam]

That animation is way cool, dude. This is the type of stuff Charles Wilcox talked about in that thread about improving the graphics. Between it an the first one you did, it really shows the concept of what the researchers are after. I love it. Top notch.

[Glenn Millam]

Lerner wrote: The key thing is how much energy you actually produce, not whether you are close to equilibrium or not.

And this says a lot about the difference in attitude between big tokamak-based projects and FF. From what I have read, its sounds a lot more like those projects are more interested in controlled scientific discovery and research than they are about creating a power source. As far as I am concerned, if we were getting large amounts of net energy from FF because tiny 10-dimensional space monkeys were found to be dancing inside the plasmoids and making the p-boron fuse, then go, monkey, go!

[Glenn Millam]

Jolly Roger wrote: Nuplex uses waste heat to boil salt water, and the vapor is condensed into fresh water. Focus Fusion creates electricity almost directly. Electricity is notoriously inefficient for heating. Perhaps a better method would be to pass electricity through the salt water and dissociate it into hydrogen and oxygen (electrolysis). The hydrogen could be used for vehicle fuel, or recombined with the oxygen to make fresh water. The heat from that reaction could boil additional salt water to fresh.

So is electrolysis. The key thing is that FF itself is so cheap and efficient that it lends its economics to things that would otherwise be too expensive. Desalinization is going to be one of the key changes in a fusion-based world. Saudi Arabia will go from pumping sludge to eat to growing its own food, maybe exporting it. Sounds crazy now, but it can happen.

[Glenn Millam]

Charles Wilcox wrote: Glenn, is it possible to revisit the “original” purple color and see if the CMYK colors can be tweaked? It seems odd to me that Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue can work just fine, yet a Deep / Dark Magenta color doesn’t come out right; I mean… Magenta is one of the primary pigments.

I find myself attached to that color: it could be the X-rays connection… but it’s more likely first impression.

I’m working on it. I do love that original design. There MUST BE A WAY!

Give me a few days though. Work is killing me at the moment. Hopefully next weekend will bring more goodies, including design adaptations for more products.

[Glenn Millam]

Admin wrote: Glenn! The hordes are restless for their black T-shirt design. Upload/fire when ready.

David, the link you put goes to a shirt that has a long vertical rectangle design, but that is the design itself. Our designs are all squares, so it will only be a square that covers/is centered in the whole shirt or a square in the pocket.

At some point we could use a design that’s a wide rectangle. This would come in handy for bumper stickers, too. It being the holidays, I don’t know if anyone has time to whip such a design like that up right now.

Just uploaded the design. My broadband was out this weekend… in fact, my mail is still down. (Thank god for Yahoo Mail.) While I was there I bought me a hooded sweatshirt. I bought the blue fusion design (I just liked it better, for some reason.) Can’t wait ’til it gets here!

[Glenn Millam]

Yeah, overall, I think I like the second design best. But I’m not the ones that are gonna buy all of them. Doing this in the forum is kind of like working with a focus group (pardon the pun).

[Glenn Millam]

And here is the second variant I spoke of.

Attached files

[Author]

Posts