[Jolly Roger]

A copy of the EM Drive theory paper is now available to be downloaded in pdf format at the New Scientist website http://tinyurl.com/npxv8

[Jolly Roger]

DaveMart wrote: For aircraft travel a practicable Focus fusion power supply would greatly reduce the fuel weight, and also eliminate the substantial fire risk and most of the terrorism threat, together with eliminating most of the issues of exhaust pollution from the aircraft affecting climate, and so is hugely relevant to the Air industry’s needs.

In another thread, Lerner said powering aircraft is possible, but not probable.

Lerner wrote: Basically even with shielding, a focus fusion reactor is light enough to fit into a train, plane (airliner) or ship. But, except for ships, that might not be the best way to go.

Commercial aircraft is only a small but very visible part of the transportation sector. Focus Fusion will have a bigger effect on transportation powering container ships, freight trains and electric vehicles indirectly through the power grid.

Conversion of an airliner to Focus Fusion would be high-profile advertisement for FF, an “orange grove in Alaska” as someone put it. It would be saying, “If Focus Fusion can do this, it can do anything!” Widespread acceptance of FF for mundane power generation would soon follow.

[Jolly Roger]

Lerner wrote: Maglev would certainly be great for long-distance travel. The key thing is to build it underground in evacuated tubes. Of course you have to dig very long tunnels, so the thing would cost tens of billions to build, much like the highway system.

Concrete tubes above ground might be as effective, but far cheaper. It would also allow the possibility of windows. It would be nice to have a view on the trip besides miles and miles of tunnel walls.

[Jolly Roger]

Lerner wrote: Basically even with shielding, a focus fusion reactor is light enough to fit into a train, plane (airliner) or ship.

From the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Focus Fusion could be used in a large airplane.

Enough said on this thread. Let’s continue on Lerner’s thread.

[Jolly Roger]

appan wrote: CONTACT DETAILS OF A D2F TECHNOLOGY PROVIDER PLEASE ?
COST,SIZE, TIME FOR A 100 MW POWER PLANT ?

By D2F, I am guessing you mean D2 Fusion, or Cold Fusion. I found this:

http://d2fusion.com

They are associated with Cold Fusion pioneer Dr. Martin Fleischmann.

Not much credence is given to his work, as it has not been consistently reproducible.

Apparently, the Focus Fusion work so far is quite reproducible by anyone with the same equipment. But there is the rub. FF has some of the most advanced DPF equipment in the world.

[Jolly Roger]

appan wrote: Combination of Andy Engine [Rotary , No Crank Shaft] ,Air bearing & Vapour Jet will eliminate the need for ” Maglev “

Appan,
please post links to “Andy Engine”, “Air Bearing” and “Vapour Jet”.

Also, please edit previous posts to explain the meaning of all the abbreviations. I did not understand them.

[Jolly Roger]

Glenn Millam wrote: I see FF as being a good technology for MagLev trains, but not airplanes. … you still have a lot of x-rays to shield for, so this makes carrying onboard reactors weight-prohibitive for aircraft.

Perhaps the FF reactors could be placed near the wingtips to minimize the amount of shielding required.

jets are one of the main contributors to global dimming.

Because of unburned hydrocarbon fuel in the exhaust. No fuel, no exhaust.

airplanes have to be light, so they will probably always need a conventional chemical-based fuel.

A fully-fueled airliner is pretty heavy, too.

But what if you could zoom from Baltimore to New York at 600+ kph … ? It’s only possible with maglev.

Maglev is not the only way to levitate a train. Wing-In-Ground-Effect (WIG) can also be used. It would use only 1/3 the energy to raise the train off the tracks, so more energy could be used to make the train go faster.

Common WIG train designs have horizontal wings, but one that is no longer on the Web had angled-down wings gliding over a triangular-cross-section track. It was to be powered by linear induction motors at the wingtips.

Whether Maglev or WIG, bullet trains would need new track, and in some cases, new right-of-ways. In the near-term, I foresee diesel locomotives being replaced with Focus Fusion.

[Jolly Roger]

appan wrote: First Quality of FF [D2F] is NOT Radio active. Can be used for anything.

In the FAQ “Focus Fusion vs. Nuclear Reactors” it is admitted that there is (at least) one secondary reaction that can create neutrons. Some of those neutrons will strike reactor internals and make them radioactive. It is these activated materials that are of concern.

Secondary reactions can be minimized, but not totally eliminated, by adjustment of the operation cycle. Activation products can be minimized, but not totally eliminated, by proper selection of construction materials.

Only operational experience will tell how much radioactivity is generated and how concerned we need to be.

I hope that my concerns are unfounded. I hope that Focus Fusion will find wide-spread application and power our world into a bright future.

[Jolly Roger]

Though I do not understand the calculations (some kind of shorthand). I do agree that Focus Fusion could power a ship or WIG-ship (Wing-In-Ground effect).

Fission is already powering submarines, aircraft carriers and icebreakers. Focus Fusion could take over the nautical niche.

I have also thought about FF-powered locomotives, WIG-trains and propeller-driven aircraft. However, trains and planes do crash, and the reactors would be radioactive from side-reactions. It may be possible to design reactors to survive a crash intact.

[Jolly Roger]

Glenn Millam wrote: Here is a concept for the Peace t-shirt on black cloth, ala Jolly Roger.

Glenn,

Great designs! I suggested the light green because green is the color of environmental friendliness. However, my wife would like to see it with a pastel blue Peace symbol, and I wonder how pastel yellow and goldenrod would look.

As for the radwaste one, I prefer the muted version.

As for another symbol representing radwaste, how about the “Jolly Roger”, the “skull and crossbones” which is a well-known symbol for poison?

We don’t have to mention that the decaborane fuel is toxic. That is an industrial issue, not a radiological one.

P.S. I’d like to mention that I used to prepare manifests for radioactive waste shipments from a nuclear power plant.

[Jolly Roger]

Glenn Millam wrote:
As for the black t-shirts… their printing process demands line-art (hard-edged graphics, like the current t-shirt back) with no transparent pixels. This is because the inks have to be opaque to make it work, unlike a white or lightly colored t-shirt. None of the current designs fit the criteria. We will have to create new designs for this.

How about if we go with white lettering above and below a solid light green Peace symbol, with the nuclei and arrows on it? Will that work?

[Jolly Roger]

I read up a little on the Thorium Reactor. It would be a little improvement on the current Uranium and Plutonium reactors, but not much.

Though it can’t melt down, it still generates radioactive waste that has to be isolated from the environment for 500 years. That is still too long.

It still generates electriclty using the old heat-steam cycle. Generating plants will still be large and expensive, too expensive for developing countries.

Let’s just get Focus Fusion producing net energy. Then the world will beat a path to our door!

[Jolly Roger]

Cheesy or not, I like the Peace symbol. People are familiar with it. Here, we are using something familiar to introduce something that is not.

I suggest changing the question mark to an exclamation mark! We are making an emphatic statement, not asking a question.

Same thing on the nuclear waste logo as well.

As someone already said, the red circle and crossbar need to be darker. It looks orange, not red.

[Jolly Roger]

Charles Wilcox wrote:
The only worry is that someone might confuse this action as a form of fission and not fusion. However, I think somewhere on the Focus-Fusion site it discusses how this is in fact fusion. And maybe this enigma would make people think about it more. Thoughts?

Check the FAQ’s. I asked the question about whether this reaction is fission or fusion. It turns out that it is both. It is fusion-fission. It is a fusion of a proton and Boron-11 into Carbon-12 that immediately fissions into Helium-4.

It has more in common with light-element fusion (of which most reactions are fusion-fission also) than it does with heavy-element fission. Calling it fusion is close enough for who it’s for.

In any case, it is aneutronic, which is the most important thing about it. No radioactive fuel, no radioactive waste, no bombs. What’s not to love?

FUSION! It’s closer than you think!

[Jolly Roger]

Local Focus Fusion generators could also power hydrogen gas generators (electrolysis) at fuel stations to produce hydrogen for fuel-cell-electric vehicles and hydrogen-burning internal combustion engined vehicles.

[Author]

Posts