[vansig]

Steven Sesselmann wrote:
As now becomes obvious, the Universe was never expanding, when viewing the stars through his telscope, Hubble could see a redshift, and falsely assumed they were receeding, when in fact it was himself that was imploding.

If everything were imploding, then symmetry-breaking would result in atoms of the same kind having different size. This is not observed.

[vansig]

amanasleep wrote: There is an independant variable which will continue to prevent EV’s from penetrating fully, focus fusion or no: Battery charging rates. Currently, the most advanced batteries safe enough for consumer use cannot be charged quickly, regardless of power supply, with most taking hours to acquire a charge. EV batteries that can be charged fully in under 5 minutes are probably a necessary precurser to EV adoption by the world consumer.

Have you heard of LiFePO4 batteries?

Lithium Iron phosphate is quick charge, and safe enough to be approved for use in the OLPC programme. http://www.olpcnews.com/hardware/power_supply/olpc_power_boost_lifepo4.html

It has an energy density slightly less than other lithium cells, but is really very safe.

[vansig]

there’s a shop like that, in Toronto: http://site3.ca/

[vansig]

For consumers, the comparisons that work for EV are: (a) the distance you can cover between recharges, and (b) time-to-recharge. To create a market for EV, these need to compare favourably to internal combustion. It’s a tough sell, because in terms of energy density, battery technologies are not yet as good as liquid fuels, and that ultimately limits the range, efficiency, and convenience of EV.

Until the next breakthrough, LiFePO4 batteries have the fastest recharge time, and good power.

But what charges them? it all boils down to cost per watt.

At $1 per watt production cost, silicon solar cells are pretty good. But fusion will be better.

[vansig]

regardless of peer review, about 97% of published science papers report finding the effect that the researcher was looking for. publication bias begins early

[vansig]

Siuboy wrote: Dear Old Timer,

Siuboy,
why do you keep addressing people by that, instead of their name?

[vansig]

proof reading has become too expensive and been replaced largely by automation

[vansig]

KeithPickering wrote:
From my reading, not so much. You need to alternately heat/cool the ferroic material to make it work, it seems. That takes a while, so although current and voltage look OK on an instantaneous basis, the actual power obtained is low.

but the temperature difference at the transition is small.

[vansig]

optimal zone for p+B11 fusion is ~600 keV. i believe these temperatures would be unachievable without the quantum magnetic field effect.

When we compare thermal to magnetic regimes, Lindemuth seems an appropriate reference: http://fire.pppl.gov/fpa10_Fusion_principles_Lindemuth.pdf

[vansig]

1 MW per person would have some impact on heat dissipation.

to maintain temperature below about 50 C, users would have to dissipate
around 620 W/m^2, which implies a spherical surface 23 meters diameter… for each person, for a radiator.

[vansig]

in fact “oil sands” is the greenwashed term invented by the oil industry.

they are tar sands.

but that does not mean that oil production necessarily needs to be polluting. the tailings sludge is a “ketchup-consistency mix of water, oil and clay”, that contains “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), napthenic acids, heavy metals, salts and bitumen”; but would be considerably remediated by incineration, if you had the energy to do that.

[vansig]

if this works for you, please use it

Attached files

[vansig]

awesome. perhaps this image will go with it?

Attached files

[vansig]

Boron (as boric acid or borate ion) is a by-product of desalination and dietary-salt extraction from sea water, and is a well-known contaminant in fresh water wells. So you’ll be starting with a waste product, that is ordinarily regarded as a pollutant, and reversing the economics of dealing with its disposal.

Hypothetically, extraction could be achieved by reverse osmosis in two stages, during desalination: the first stage eliminates alkaline earth halides from the sea water, but passes dissolved boric acid; the pH is then adjusted with ammonia, and a second reverse osmosis passes the desalinated water. The waste from this second pass then has boosted levels of ammonium borate.

http://www.trusselltech.com/media/1.pdf
http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/boron/boron-and-water.htm

Yet, boron is not in short supply. “About 500,000 tons are produced per year for a price of about $700/ton.”

Also, boric acid may be purified by re-crystallization of saturated solutions;
solubility is 2.52 g/100 mL at 0 °C, but 27.53 g/100 mL at 100 °C.

Achieving isotopic purity is somewhat harder. Probably some process involving boron trifluoride is used.

If i recall correctly, presently, boron-10 (a.k.a. enriched boron) is used for neutron shielding; and boron-11 (a.k.a. depleted boron) for radiation-resistant microelectronics. Focus fusion wants the boron-11, in the form of the solid decaborane, B10H14, (or perhaps as the gas diborane, B2H6.)

[vansig]

It would be an error to imply that Canada’s oil is any more deadly than Saudi oil, or Alaska’s oil, or Gulf of Mexico’s oil.

I support the notion of using nuclear energy, (even fission) to help extract oil from tar sands with less waste, and less harm to the environment.

[Author]

Posts