Forum Replies Created

Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: A better use for the axial field. #9477
    Matt M
    Participant

    I suspect the Focus Fusion people are going to find that a pinch is a very difficult thing to contoll – much less optimize.

    I cannot help but recall that Edison tried over 2000 times to develop a filament for his electric light bulb. If he was not such an incredibly stubborn visionary – we might still be sitting in the dark.

    Unfortunately for FF, they will have thousands of helpful people watching over their shoulders, highlighting the problems with the first 1999 approaches, explaining in detail why the approach will never work.

    Matt M
    Participant

    Well, more specifically, has anyone fused Boron and actually measured the charge released? Until
    someone does, it’s all just an educated hypothesis.

    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
    But in practice there is.

    Matt

    Matt M
    Participant

    The theory is boron fusion would be: p + 11B→34He + 8.7 MeV.

    My question was whether the 8.7 MeV result has ever been documented?

    in reply to: Thorium energy as an alternative to Aneutronic Fusion #9397
    Matt M
    Participant

    You are right. My mistake.

    But that actually illustrates the fact that Thorium can replace Uranium in a reactor design that is similar in nature to existing reactors. India is pursuing this for the simple reason that they have almost no domestic uranium but lots of thorium.

    To go to liquid thorium you would have to build the infrastructure to handle and process the waste – mostly gasses that are given off. And, it would require an investment of several billion dollars.

    Ultimately, the question is not whether Thorium is better than fusion. Because it’s not.

    in reply to: Thorium energy as an alternative to Aneutronic Fusion #9393
    Matt M
    Participant

    The thing to remember is the MSLT reactors were operationally 35 years ago. They have
    successfully replaced coal fired plants. They are a lower cost option to Coal and Uranium.
    And, if Focus Fusion is never successful Thorium reactors could be a great fallback position.

    Matt M
    Participant

    Another silly question. I know that Farnsworth’s fuzor actually fused hydrogen.
    But, has anybody ever successfully fuzed Boron before? Did it throw off the
    electrons just like it should in theory?

    in reply to: Plan B for Focus Fusion #2735
    Matt M
    Participant

    Could the escaping neutrons be used to generate electricity with the new radiation-to-electricity
    nano materials?

    in reply to: NIMBY FUD #2601
    Matt M
    Participant

    But let’s remember the crazies who will be opposing anything nuclear.
    They will always take the worst possible scenario.

    Example – That swimming pool contains enough liquid water to
    drown over 100,000 people!

    in reply to: 50 years… hmm #2463
    Matt M
    Participant

    Using a 50 year timeline effectively removes the researcher
    from every having to produce anything workable in his
    lifetime. He will be retired and living on his pension
    before anyone realizes he never actually acomplished
    anything.

    Matt

    in reply to: 50 years… hmm #2462
    Matt M
    Participant

    Using a 50 year timeline effectively removes the researcher
    from every having to produce anything workable in his
    lifetime. He will be retired and living on his pension
    before anyone realizes he never actually acomplished
    anything.

    Matt

    in reply to: Need of beryllium and other rare materials for Focus Fusion #2461
    Matt M
    Participant

    We have plenty of beryllium mines here in North Carolina. Most have been shut
    down because of low demand.

Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)