[Jolly Roger]

#2 is much easier to read, at least on my TV screen (MSNTV).

[Jolly Roger]

From
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=359

Eric Lerner:

I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address the fusion application. A few points:

1) NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be created by many approaches. The photos don

[Jolly Roger]

Transmute wrote: Sounds dubious, even more so then DPFF, and did you check the references?

No, I did not check the references. I actually had not read the whole article before I posted it here.

It is controversial, and that is what this forum is for, to discuss things, and that is controversy.

What I like most about the article is its hopeful tone. Maybe EST won’t work, maybe FF won’t work, but we need to keep trying.

[Jolly Roger]

On the Fusion FAQ page I previously cited it states that the p-Li6 reaction gives up 4.0 MeV energy, whereas the p-B11 reaction gives up 8.7 Mev energy, more than twice as much.

However, according to

http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/nuc/reactions.htm
(“Nuclear Reactions of Interest”.)
there is a secondary reaction. p-Li6 produces He3 and He4. He3 further reacts with Li6 to produce 16.9 Mev energy.

The p-B11 reaction requires a higher operating temperature. I do not know how much higher.

As x-ray production (and x-ray cooling) is proportional to the square of the charge (Li=+3, B=+5), the Boron reaction produces 25/9 more x-rays than the Lithium reaction, almost 3 times as much. However, Dr. Lerner has stated that the Magnetic Effect may mitigate that problem.

The Li6:Li7 abundance ratio is only 8:100, but isotopic separation is said to be not difficult.

I think that Lithium-6 should be investigated as a potential alternative fuel, and not dismissed outright.

[Jolly Roger]

Transmute wrote: I have read p-Li7 fusion would be aneutronic and produce nearly twice as much power per mol as p-b11 fusion. So what is wrong with p-Li7 fusion?

According to

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fusion-faq/section1-physics/

p-Li7 is aneutronic only 20% of the time and yields a neutron in an endothermic reaction 80% of the time.

p-Li6 is better, as it is entirely aneutronic. but p-B11 is also, and produces more energy.

[Jolly Roger]

cccccttttt wrote: Have seen descriptions of the focus fusion device as the size of a coffee can.

Why has this size been chosen?

If the device were designed much smaller, which inputs do not scale down?

The Research Plan

https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/research_plan/

mentions in general terms experimenting with the size of the electrodes to find the optimum size for focus fusion.

That will be one of the most time-consuming phases of the project.

Though scaling down might be good for the reactor vessel, scaling up might be better for the auxiliary equipment such as capacitors, switches, decelerators, etc. (Economies of Scale)

[Jolly Roger]

Transmute wrote: Although making isotopically pure B10 and H1 might add alot more cost.

Transmute:

You mean “B11”, and yes, separating the desirable B11 from the undesirable B10 seems to be a problem, as a significant fraction of Boron (~20%) is B10. However, as they are chemically separable and the (fission) nuclear industry uses B10 and dumps the B11 onto the electronics industry, B11 should be readily available in the near future.

Deuterium is only 0.015% of Hydrogen, so it should not be a significant problem, but if it is, pure Protium should be available from the Canadian nuclear industry, which uses a lot of Deuterium and dumps the Protium.

Even after the fission nuclear industry is phased out and replaced with Focus Fusion, the separation technology and infrastructure will remain.

[Jolly Roger]

Transmute wrote: Ok here is a idea for a weapon system: what if there was a large drone plane fitted with unshielded D-T fusion generator, they fly it over enemy territory like a crop duster and irradiate everyone to death, like a neutron bomb only no blast, better precision and delightfully evil.

Apparently, a Focus Fusion reactor would have to be highly modified to run on D-T. Even then, the neutron density would not be high enough to be an effective weapon. The aircraft would have to patrol a small area for a long time, which would be suspicious. Even if the reactor were clandestinely left on a rooftop, it would soon be detected and destroyed.

An unshielded p-B11 reactor X-ray source may be a concern, however. I would think that it would be easy to remove the shielding from a standard FF reactor. But Time-Distance-Shielding applies to X-rays (and neutrons, for that matter). For maximum radiation damage, exposure time must be maximized and distance from the source and shielding must be minimized. The X-rays would not be immediately lethal, and the aircraft would have to be flown low and slow to deliver a dangerous dose. An outdoor sports event would be a likely target, but intended victims could scatter (distance) and seek shelter (shielding) very quickly (time).

Or how about a fusion bomb, a fusion generator is used to try to start a chain fusion reaction,

According to info on the FF site, FF cannot start a runaway chain reaction, which a bomb requires.

There are easier ways than FF to cause mass destruction. There are a few Soviet nuclear weapons that are unaccounted for. We should be worried about those.

[Jolly Roger]

appan wrote: FF is not sitable, adaptable for 15 m dia Tunneling

Appan,

I do not understand the word sitable, as it is not a standard English word. Do you mean suitable? If so, why do you say so?

Why would a diameter of 15 meters be required for an evacuated tube? 5 meters may be sufficient.

With a cross-continental transit time of 30 minutes, a single tube could provide service from either end every hour-and-a-half or two hours. A second tunnel need not be built at the same time as the first, nor immediately next to it.

Reasonable Dim may be 3-5 km

What do you mean by “Dim”? 3 to 5 kilometers for what?

Tunneling is done by GIANT Cutter and Micro second time-delayed [detonator.]

What do you mean by “micro-second time-delayed detonator”?

[Jolly Roger]

Torulf wrote: Desalination with fission for [making] the desert green. The Nuplex concept [became too] expensive but with focus fusion it may be [brought] to life again.

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.

In addition, the hydrogen and oxygen can be created in the form of Brown’s Gas, which is reported to have some rather amazing properties.

http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html

[Jolly Roger]

Admin wrote: Yes, Andy Tech aka appan, you’ll need to write in complete sentences and just state your case/introduce your agenda in one clear post and put a link to a website rather than post these cryptic messages throughout our site. … communicate in standard English.

Admin,

Thanks for your post. Appan’s comments have been tiresome to read, as they are difficult, if not impossible, to understand, without substantiating references. At least when I am guessing about something, I say so.

Everyone,

I appreciate your comments, but if you have trouble communicating in English, please get some help.

Also, mult abbrevs r hrd 2 rd! SPELL IT OUT!

[Jolly Roger]

appan wrote: Tunneling is done by GIANT Cutter

A mechanical cutter could be Focus Fusion powered. Multiple reactors could be used, if one is not enough.

[Jolly Roger]

Lerner wrote: Of course you have to dig very long tunnels

Perhaps the Helium beam exhaust of the Focus Fusion could be be used as a plasma torch to cut the maglev tunnels. The minimum rock to be vaporized would be around the circumference and a hole cut in the center to insert a rotary torch to cut out the back side of the rock plug. The rock plug would be removed mechanically, still a daunting task, I am sure. Or, we could just blast!

I am not familiar with tunneling techniques and am not sure how a fusion plasma torch could be incorporated into the operation.

[Jolly Roger]

Perhaps the Helium beam could be be used as a plasma torch to cut the maglev tunnels being discussed in other threads.

[Jolly Roger]

In 1973, Gene Roddenberry made a TV-Movie “Genesis II”, starring Mariette Hartley as a mutant with two navels.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0070101/

I recall that it featured a subterranean tube system as being discussed here.

[Author]

Posts