[zapkitty]

edit… quote from Aeronaut got et… was about perceived limitations of containers

errr… errrrr… 🙂 as to what can be done with containers… well, very little of what you claimed for the flatbed cannot be done for a current custom container.

Nowadays just about anything can be and is done with them… imagine a 40′ hi-cube with eight (8) roll-up doors along each side. That’s just a random example off the net.

So flexibility would seem to not be an issue with containers, and their strength, durability and cross-platform transport capability would be a huge plus.

And the point of the execise remains..: to attempt to determine what auxiliary equipment is actually needed for a DPF to operate independently. Thus the portable auxiliary and emergency power setup with the additional ability to be an initial or replacement power utility.

So onwards… 🙂

[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote: good catch, Zap. I’d keyed on the picture without reading the description. Unlike a generator, FF scales output by varying the pulse frequency. This means the cooling system is most likely to physically scale with output. The neat thing about semi-trailers is the ground clearance is over a meter, and they have lots of surface area to spread radiators over.

Nitpick: a shipping container is not a semi-trailer, although a lot of semis on the roads are actually specialized flatbeds hauling shipping containers.

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

And that pretty much prohibits anything being done through the floor of the container.

But nothing like that should be needed anyway…

Aeronaut wrote: A variation of this topic might be how inherently road-worthy is a design? Iow, do we need an over-width permit? A house-moving permit? Special routes to avoid bridges? How does this work on flatbed railroad cars, etc.

It would be like any other shipping container on the roads (or on the rails or on ships at sea)… no special measures are needed if you build to standard container specs.

Given my predilection (fetish? 🙂 )for more-than-ample margins while designing, the container I have in mind is a standard double-length hi-cube…

Exterior Dimensions
length 40′ 0″ 12.190 m
width 8′ 0″ 2.438 m
height 9′ 6″ 2.896 m

Interior Dimensions
length 39′ 4″ 12.000 m
width 7′ 7″ 2.311 m
height 8′ 9″ 2.650 m

The standard containers are tough, durable and stackable.

If the container is custom-built for the job then there should be no problems fitting in all the stuff a portable DPF would need… and you have the option of just leaving it sitting at the site if that seems indicated.

My first vague impression for a 2MWe portable DPF is that half the container’s length should be reserved for cooling at the moment… that could mean that the DPF actually runs at 2.5-2.7 MWe with the excess devoted to cooling… a transformer block of about 2m x 2m x 2.5m is reserved for the moment… with 10cm margins all over the place that still leaves about 3 cubic meters for the vacuum pumps, fuel gear and whatever else I forgot… and that still doesn’t count the volumes above and below the DPF box…

(the volumes to the sides of might be reserved for the box supports and perhaps rails for the box to slide out on when it needs maintenance?)

Now I’ve provided some simple 3d renderings to illustrate the point for those who can see past the end of their noses (half the time I can’t even see that far)… and, well, people have a habit of overinterpreting these simple visual estimations as if they were detailed schematics or something. I blame Foundation Imaging 🙂

Please let’s not go there again. It’s depressing. Read what I actually wrote above before trying to interpret the images below.

Green is the cooling tower
Black indicates the intakes along the sides
Yellow indicates the exhaust fans on top of the tower
Blue indicates the transformer block
Gold indicates the volume for the vacuum pumps et al
Orange is the DPF box

renderings are:
01 – Undeployed
02 – Deployed
03 – Side view

… and again these are preliminary estimations for a 2MWe output setup… The cooling may be overdone… the transformer block may be undersized… the hamsters may be on strike… whatever… 😉

Attached files

[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote: And from their rentals section springs a picture of at least one container ready to roll: http://www.generatorsurplus.com/generator_rentals.html

… that’s a 2MWe generator in a custom container-sized trailer…

… to get the 5MWe of a default DPF box you’d need 2.5 such containers… which is the upper boundary of what I figure a DPF deployment might need…

Now if you want to limit the DPF to 2MWe available output then I’d bet it could be done in a single custom container… albeit, perhaps, a somewhat fancy one when deployed…

… and yes it’s the same principle as the sub-megawatt boxes for space… why do you ask? 🙂

[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote:

both onion and ion exit beam could yield raw voltages from 50 kV to 2 MV depending on actual circuit design

Outstanding! Several standard US transmission voltages are in that range!

Okay, that would mean that cooling and transformers can be off-the-shelf parts. (The quantum dots being an upgrade possibility.)

Cooling should probably budget one shipping container and an onsite water supply for now. Could get better quickly. (or could already be better and I’m just unaware of the fact… 🙂 )

And depending on exactly what the box outputs in terms of power and the desired specifications at the work site the transformers could range in size from 1/4 to 1 container. (lot of leeway in there but there’s a lot of options…)

A dedicated engineering solution might even get
the whole shebang into two containers including the DPF but that’s not off-the-shelf…

And the work site may already have cogeneration and/or HV transformer capabilities on hand… in which case there might need to be only one container with a DPF and some spare ducting and cabling stuffed in with the DPF gear.

But we want to find out what is required for a DPF to operate on its own so let’s assume that we’re planning for either an initial power situation with little to no infrastructure in place or an emergency situation with damaged or unknown infrastructure… so let’s examine what I hope is a representative sample of the competition…

Taurus 60 5MW Industrial Power Generator, the mobile version.

Burns fuel at 11 MWt to generate 5200 kWe

http://www.generatorsurplus.com/used_inventory_page4.html

5200KW Solar Taurus

5200 kW Solar Taurus T-60 Portable Gas Turbine Power Modules. Capable of paralleling with utility grid or island mode (isolated bus) operation, 13,200 Volts, Sets up in 24 hours, 230 psi gas pressure minimum. Packages built in 2001. Solar Maintained since new. Capable of supporting both Natural Gas and Dual Fuel.

… and some stats…

http://www.utilitywarehouse.com/info2/solarTaurust-60.htm

Performance Data ISO*, XQ5200 Mobile Power Unit
*(english units omitted by zapkitty)

Power Output 5,200 kWe
Heat Rate 11,900 kJ/Kwe-hr
Fuel Flow (LHV) 59.8 mmBTU/hr
Emissions,
NOX 25 PPM vd 2.65 kG/Hr
CO 50 PPM vd 3.22 kG/Hr
Gen. Voltage 12.47 or 13.8 kV
Gen. Frequency 60 Hz

Length 14.6 meters
Width 6.4 meters
Height 8.1 meters

(near as I can make out it’s on two trailers – zapkitty)

Installed Weights
Turbine Section 54 M tons
PCR Trailer 25 M tons

Natural Gas Fueled
Gas Pres. 172 KPAG
Max. Gas Demand 39.6 M3/Min
Foundation
Gravel Compacted to 120 kPA
Fuel Quality
Clean Dry Fuel Per Solar Spec ES 9-98

Hmmmmmmm… off the bat a DPF appears to be at least competitive… while the gas turbine easily sheds most of its heat by expelling its exhaust gases it must burn fuel and pollute to do so. Also it uses up volume for noise control.

I wonder how a DPF’s vacuum pumps would do in a comparison of noise and moving parts maintenance as well…

The T-60 produces the power to industrial specifications so no extra transformers needed?

Would attempting to meet or exceed the T-60 specs be an appropriate target for a first cut at a DPF installation?

[zapkitty]

some good news… I think… if I got the numbers right, that is… 🙂

One thing about the cooling needs of the box is that part of the notional 5MWe would be needed to power the gear that got rid of the unwanted 5MWt… indeed if you wanted to go for all-electric air cooling without big radiator and heat sink equivalents such as cooling towers and lakes you’d unsurprisingly have to use almost all of your MWe to get rid of the MWt…

… but the current advanced micron-gap thermal photovoltaics (quantum dots) which are supposed to operate at 15% efficiency (with much better to come) could draw 750 kWe from that waste heat… enough to power the cooling systems for the rest of the setup and reduce the cooling load to ~1200 tons…

… and that brings up the possibility in the future of eschewing the pond and just having your second shipping container telescope upwards layer-cake style into an electric air-cooled tower that only needs a few tons of water onboard, enough to provide the heat sink and working fluid for the tower… have to get actual industrial cooling people to chime in on the feasibility of this but the concept is cool… 😉

[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote:

So could we get away with, what, two shipping containers for a fully self-contained DPF installation? Or would the cooling and transformers require more space than that?

Some cherry-picked applications could have very small apparent cooling and or transformer requirements…

But if you don’t have cogeneration or trigeneration as an option (or quantum dots 🙂 )then you’ll have to deal with 5 megawatts of waste heat for the classic FF DPF… which means that one shipping container would actually be a 1400 RT cooling tower in disquise that you’d stand on end in a nearby pond…

… had to come down from orbit to look that up :)… while the vacuum of space produces serious challenges in cooling, I think there’d be some difficulties with a radiator 11 meters on a side jutting out of your planetside power facility while running at 400 degrees C…

and a wtf sig for today…
“Sub-megawatt boxes for space!”

… we return now to earthbound considerations… anyone have a clue yet as to what the raw output voltages might look like?

… still assuming that the net power comes from the onion…

[zapkitty]

Rezwan wrote: Thanks for bringing up this topic, Derek.

Our organization is idealistic in its emphasis on openness. This is good, but I’m not sure it’s practical.

A “pros and cons” chart would be good here.

STEALTH MODE
Pros:
.

One particular con, and what I was referring to upthread, is that you can’t easily undo the stealth mode if things go south and you need even more investment… especially if you’ve made statements regarding openess before going stealth.

Very bad PR move. And PR equals investors, PR equals money.

And potential investors will look at the flip-flop, or potential double flip and be leery of exactly what LPP is after. The current investors, especially the small-dollar ones, might not like the thought of being used as bait to lure the sharks in when the whole project might wind up eating everyone’s lunch with the next round of tests.

Given the stakes a lot of the more charitable explanations might have trouble gaining traction in that environment…

[zapkitty]

Option 5 for the poll: It would be a potentially fatal PR move as disappearing this late in the game after the repeated declarations of openess would raise serious concerns as to failure or capitulation to the oligarchs.

It’s LPP’s project… but its potential for change is vast and these are desperate times in all too many different ways. Starting openly and then shutting down access would be a very bad PR move and financially that would be a strong counter to any promised “stealth” funding gains.

[zapkitty]

JimmyT wrote:

Cooling tower, or heat exchanger with lake water discharge, or dry cooling unit (3 times as big as the wet one) or some combination of these, and associated pumps. Transformers to adjust electricity to needed voltage(s).
None of these need to be or, in some cases can be, in the box.

The vacuum pumps for the containment could be inside or outside of the box.

[zapkitty]

… a ~2 meter sphere could fit in a lot of places a 2 meter x 3 meter cylinder would not fit…

[zapkitty]

Tulse wrote: Correct me if I’m wrong, but the critical part of the capacitor for DPF fusion is the switches, and not the capacitors per se. Smaller capacitors might be a bit cheaper, but they wouldn’t help with the most important part.

I believe they’re thinking of the prospects for making DPFs more compact… notice the mass, volume and requisite structural supports of the FFX caps…

[zapkitty]

Rezwan wrote: Is there any reason not to put it in the technology section under Plasma Focus? I’ve renamed it DPF-Plasma Focus, if that makes it any better. And moving it now.

As you like, and I think the clarification in description may help a bit.. at least innocent bystanders won’t be wondering “why is that guy going on about abstruse spaceship details again in this area of the forum?” 🙂

[zapkitty]

benf wrote: If I understand correctly, a charged particle beam is created by the fusion reaction in the plasmoid. The beam will exit the pinch and be directed to the solenoid, which converts the concentrated energy into electricity. I presume this will be hot, as with a lightning strike? And it will be focused into a beam which would mean a small surface area will be impacted. Can it be absorbed without damage to the solenoid, long term?

?…

I’d assumed that the power takeoff for the alpha particles would be via pass-through coils and thus no physical impact with anything until the helium ions had been slowed way down by those coils?

As this is a very predictable beam one doesn’t need plates scattered across the interior of the containment volume ala a polywell and thus no need for impacts.

It’s the electron beam heading in the opposite direction that would pose a threat to equipment.

[zapkitty]

Aeronaut wrote: ALL STOP!!!

… errrrr… stop what? … as near as I can tell that was a response to my post?

If so I’m not sure what that was about… I have an idea but I want to make sure it’s the right idea before I try and answer 🙂

[zapkitty]

Breakable wrote: I scared of 2 things:
1)War fueled by fusion power

Inevitable… unless you can somehow find a way to make war less profitable for the oligarchs than maintaining peace.

If a tool is available humans will use it for war… that is, if the result is not immediate destruction. Fusion powered weapons will not be equated with nuclear bombs or germ warfare and will be used.

Breakable wrote: 2)Runaway pollution and garbage mountains when manufacturing costs become unimportant

Welcome to China 2010. Again you rail against the inevitable… and they don’t even have fusion power yet.

Solve the problems that make people do that sort of thing even when they don’t have fusion power and you’ll have the tools needed to steer them clear of continuing to do it when they do have fusion power… one of the tools undoubtedly being the advent of fusion power itself…

[Author]

Posts