[vansig]

Free Water and Energy for All wrote: Hello Everyone,

I wanted to update the group with the latest test we conducted. We passed electricity through several samples of Water for 60 seconds; you won’t believe the results, or maybe you will! The most shocking to me and everyone that sees this is the Zephyrh***s water (Bottled).

Please check the file and leave your thoughts!
🙂

Ricky,
as a general rule, i’m unimpressed by gloss, and glitter, and snazzy photos. where is the critical technical info? i followed your links to look for this, and i did not see it right away.

the phrase “$35/month until you own it” makes me extremely suspicious. it’s plainly deception if you don’t disclose the up-front cost.

what’s its physical size, and weight?
how many watts of power does the device draw?
what was the temperature and humidity of the environment it was tested in?
how much water did it extract in what period of time?
and how does it differ from a dehumidifier that i might buy, like the typical $200 ones i see at http://www.consumersearch.com/dehumidifier-reviews ?

[vansig]

Rezwan wrote:
Now, lets think about this. Everyone’s out there, trying to get a linkback to their sites. Desperate for attention. As are we, of course. We’re all in this boat. So…they’re signing up for a membership account to pepper with links. Now – what human looks at other people’s membership profiles? Not enough to get any real attention, I’d think.

Robots might scan them and tally them.

How effective is this strategy?

I certainly want our legitimate members to be able to share things (links) about themselves to their hearts content. I don’t want to install a freeze on linkbacks from our forum.

So…I guess we’ll just make membership more rigorous.

Desperation is an empty shell of baffles, traversed by zombies.

Real content filters by quality. Your current policy of ’email response demonstrating knowledge’ is an excellent filter. As a newbie I felt nervous (“would i be allowed to qualify to join?”), and therefore promise to make any link i add relevant, and survivable; because if, in future, any of these become stale, then it degrades the forum’s quality.

So,
if we can have captchas AND email response AND people scrutinizing the links we add, AND modding down irrelevant or stale links, then this resource can remain cohesive and valuable in the long term.

[vansig]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I think it is a fair assumption that globally we consume more than 10% of our energy in the form of electricity. So if you install 10 times the current capacity in form of FF reactors these reactors would be able to power EVERYTHING that needs energy today.

A perfectly sensible observation but the real expansion will be those things we don’t do today because the energy cost is too high. (In some places that includes living beyond 40 but that is not what I am getting at here). Imagine what could be done if energy was not a constraining factor.

Yes, of course, other raw materials and scarce resources kick in and will be a big issue – but again I say; Imagine. 🙂

How much of what we regard as waste material could be recycled if-only energy were a small fraction of its current cost?
Then I could obtain high purity bulk samples of each element/isotope in any waste material, by ionizing it and streaming it through a magnetic field.

What does the supply and demand curve for energy really look like?

[vansig]

vansig wrote:

Proposing to install more than 10 times the current capacity every year makes us look a bit out of touch

only just a few high-profile installs will change the demand profile quite a bit. eg: a large container ship requires ~60 MW to run. if that’s fusion instead of crude oil, then it’s carbon footprint drops to nothing. voila.

and because of that, we should be looking at this page, as well…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

[vansig]

HermannH wrote: Proposing to install more than 10 times the current capacity every year makes us look a bit out of touch

only just a few high-profile installs will change the demand profile quite a bit. eg: a large container ship requires ~60 MW to run. if that’s fusion instead of crude oil, then its carbon footprint drops to nothing. voila.

[vansig]

jamesr wrote: If they are all charged in parallel to the same voltage, can’t you just have one spark gap in the middle?
James

and you do! the one spark gap in the middle is the DPF device, itself.
seems we want the rise time for 0 to 30 kV to be ~ 10 ns; and to hold at ~ 1.25 MA for 1 µs.

To combat inductance in the LPP’s setup, it would be useful to know where the stray magnetic fields are found during a shot.

[vansig]

theanphibian wrote:
p-B fuel is simply free. Free in the sense that it’s so cheap it’s completely out of the picture compared to the other challenges.

Correct. Take the waste from a typical desalination plant, extract the B-11, and use as fuel to power the desalination plant and waste reclamation. Then every byproduct becomes a valuable resource to sell.

[vansig]

vansig wrote:
what kind of feed wires are used in FF1?

okay, after viewing the wiring setup,
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/85/
i’m beginning to wrap my head around this. all the plates are arranged so that the electricity approaches the platform on a fairly flat, conductive surface, from outside to inside, which will tend to cancel induced magnetic fields, which is good. but what about parallel capacitance?

[vansig]

Tasmodevil44 wrote: In one of my previous posts, I suggested the possibility of a free alpha laser that works on a somewhat similar princple to a free electron laser. Only instead of using a beam of negatively charged electrons to amplify a laser beam, it would employ an energetic beam of positively charged alpha particles from a focus fusion device to serve much the same purpose.

Among the many uses for such a device considered are faster rates of deep well drilling through hard rock, boring tunnels through mountains and other construction work, and for solar sailing spacecraft operation in conjunction with an onboard focus fusion thruster.

I’d like to hear some feedback from people out there as to what other possible uses or applications such a potentially extremely powerful fusion – fed alpha laser might be good for.

something like this, perhaps the ion beam, or laser, maybe could make a shock wave modifier for reducing drag in hypersonic flight.

Lerner wrote:
So that leaves the ion beam. In space it is very hard to aim a charged particle beam because of the earth’s magnetic fields. In air, the beam will just not penetrate very far.

I wonder how far, though.

[vansig]

vansig wrote:

a 13.5 cm diameter copper pipe will rise to full current in 10 ns. is this good enough?

if we model as an RLC series circuit, then based on recently-measured 1.8 microsecond rise time, it seems like circuit inductance is a factor ~3000 greater than where it needs to be. what does this translate to? larger diameter conductor? coaxial shield? change in overall geometry?

Here is a hard line cable, used in broadcasting. what kind of feed wires are used in FF1?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coaxialcableoneandfifthofan.jpg

[vansig]

Rezwan wrote:
So…what do we name our flags? Just the standard “up, neutral, down”? One star through five stars? “peer reviewed” through “pseudoscience”?

someone complained that ranking becomes a matter of how much you agree with something rather than something about quality. perhaps by naming these rankings about quality, that wont be a problem? eg: drivel, off-topic, dubious, relevant, insightful, accurate

[vansig]

Rezwan wrote: Hi Vansig,

I’ve configured it to show avatars, not photos. I thought people would be more inclined to use an avatar than a picture, being that many people are not ready for self disclosure.

I suppose I could set it up to show a picture if there was no avatar pic, but there was a photo.

It’ll take me a while to get to that. For now, just use your picture as your avatar and it will show up.

Actually, clicking on your name and visiting your profile, I see your photo looks more like an avatar. Is that really you?

Aha! got it. this will do. thanks

[vansig]

I take it you are now able to see all the posts again.

pagination gets in the way, though, and foils attempts to print the whole thread.
pretty-well all my replies so far can only be found on page 2 or later.
i’m wondering if anyone will see them?

perhaps there is a config setting for that?

[vansig]

belbear wrote:
Just a matter of finding out how to build 40000 klicks of carbon nanotube cable that weighs less than a conventional rocket can carry and you’re halfway there.

What’s this i hear about colossal carbon tubes being a better choice for tether material? they’re already macroscopic, and when you look at breaking length, they exceed nanotubes because they are less dense.

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

[vansig]

belbear42 wrote: The main problem of getting in space (LEO, at least) is not reaching a certain altitude, it’s reaching a certain velocity (about 7 km/sec) and once you are above an altitude where wings provide lift, you have accelerate to orbital speed within a given time with a given minimal acceleration or else you will simply fall back to Earth.

Yes, space ship 2 reaches its max speed of mach 3.5 after a 70-second burn and coasts up to its 110km max altitude.
This is way short of orbital velocity (~mach 24), requiring (24/3.5)²=47 times as much energy.

Consuming 200kW, one VASIMR VF-200 engine will have 5N thrust, and weigh 300kg. if you’re not already at orbital velocity, this doesn’t get you there.

[Author]

Posts