Guest Bussard Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=1143684406 Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support. Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005. This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions. We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results! We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical! The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power. These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation. Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care? R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor Quote
Guest lorad474@cs.com Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 On Mar 29, 7:04 am, Bussard <B...@nospam.com> wrote: > Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built > http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=... > > Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 > on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; > mostly under DoD support. > > Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, > based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005. > > This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses > than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate > over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch > in the 1960's for same drive conditions. > > We have now proven the engineering and physics > scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, > whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported > our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down > and close one week after achieving these results! > > We are probably the only people on the planet > who know how to make a real net power clean > fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical! > > The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, > simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; > when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as > the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power. > > These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics > of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems > (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, > you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics > IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, > and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's > basic operation. > > Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) > but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale > plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care? > > R.W. Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor If the potiential power output that you claim is true.. you might have to wait until a non-oil interest administration comes into office. Your efforts might be construed as a threat to oil industry profits. Else, you may have to go to some energy resource strapped area such as the countries of the EU. Quote
Guest Jerry Kraus Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 On Mar 29, 10:04 am, Bussard <B...@nospam.com> wrote: > Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built > http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=... > > Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 > on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; > mostly under DoD support. > > Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, > based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005. > > This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses > than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate > over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch > in the 1960's for same drive conditions. > > We have now proven the engineering and physics > scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, > whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported > our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down > and close one week after achieving these results! > > We are probably the only people on the planet > who know how to make a real net power clean > fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical! > > The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, > simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; > when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as > the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power. > > These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics > of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems > (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, > you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics > IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, > and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's > basic operation. > > Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) > but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale > plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care? > > R.W. Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor As I've indicated, this is not a popular technology. It would change things a bit, wouldn't it? Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 <sarcasm> This technique will produce energy that is too cheap to meter. We must begin building All Electric Homes in anticipation of fusion reactors. </sarcasm> "Bussard" <B@nospam.com> wrote in message news:130nlcafkv3sd32@corp.supernews.com... > Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built > > http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=1143684406 > > Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 > on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; > mostly under DoD support. > > Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, > based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005. > > This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses > than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate > over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch > in the 1960's for same drive conditions. > > We have now proven the engineering and physics > scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, > whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported > our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down > and close one week after achieving these results! > > We are probably the only people on the planet > who know how to make a real net power clean > fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical! > > The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, > simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; > when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as > the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power. > > These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics > of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems > (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, > you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics > IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, > and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's > basic operation. > > Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) > but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale > plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care? > > R.W. Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor > > Quote
Guest Peter B. P. Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Bussard <B@nospam.com> wrote: > Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built > http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=11436 > 84406 > > Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour > polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support. > > Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on > unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005. > > This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor > and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data > of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions. > > We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow > design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy > budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and > our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results! > > We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real > net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat > ironical! > > The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply > because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized > that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the > size, and the gain scales as the 5th power. > > These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the > thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless > you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even > though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 > scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's > basic operation. > > Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but > it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant > and demonstrate it. Anyone care? > > R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor Forwarded to sci.environment. -- regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 lorad474@cs.com wrote: > > If the potiential power output that you claim is true.. you might have > to wait until a non-oil interest administration comes into office. > Your efforts might be construed as a threat to oil industry profits. Controlled fusion is the energy source of the future. It has been 30 years in the future for the last 60 years. Google <Lawson Number> and see why if you hold your breath for controlled fusion to become practical you will turn purple and swoon. In particular see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Bussard wrote:> > R.W. Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor Write us when you can produce a sustained positive net output fusion reaction for an hour. Controlled nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future. It has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years and a hundred years from now it will still be thirty years in the future. Yodah says: Do not your breath hold until practical fusion there is, else purple turn you will. Bob Kolker > > Quote
Guest Jerry Kraus Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 On Mar 29, 3:07 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > Bussard wrote:> > > R.W. Bussard > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor > > Write us when you can produce a sustained positive net output fusion > reaction for an hour. > > Controlled nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future. It has > been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years and a hundred > years from now it will still be thirty years in the future. > > Yodah says: Do not your breath hold until practical fusion there is, > else purple turn you will. > > Bob Kolker > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As I've indicated, it can be approached as a nanotechnology problem with microlasers. Energy release would be at conventional levels. Containment problems would be minimized. This would also be much cheaper to build and develop. Why is this not being pursued? Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Jerry Kraus wrote: > > As I've indicated, it can be approached as a nanotechnology problem > with microlasers. Energy release would be at conventional levels. > Containment problems would be minimized. This would also be much > cheaper to build and develop. Why is this not being pursued? Write us when it happens, will you? Will I have to wait thirty years? Fusion has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Jerry Kraus Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 On Mar 29, 3:36 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > Jerry Kraus wrote: > > > As I've indicated, it can be approached as a nanotechnology problem > > with microlasers. Energy release would be at conventional levels. > > Containment problems would be minimized. This would also be much > > cheaper to build and develop. Why is this not being pursued? > > Write us when it happens, will you? Will I have to wait thirty years? > > Fusion has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years. > > Bob Kolker I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to be this way. There are practical approaches to the problem. They're simply not being pursued. In the case of well-funded research laboratories in Universities and Industry, I'm not quite sure why they're not being pursued. It could be conservatism and rigidity. It could be stupidity. It could be that free energy would be perceived as disruptive to our current economic structure, and practical approaches to the problem are discouraged. But, you are correct, so far no one has made significant progress on this problem. Despite huge investments, which continue. Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Jerry Kraus wrote: > > I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to > be this way. Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy is the technological equivalent of vaporware. Google <Fusion Lawson Number>. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Jerry Kraus Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 On Mar 29, 3:46 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > Jerry Kraus wrote: > > > I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to > > be this way. > > Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy > is the technological equivalent of vaporware. > > Google <Fusion Lawson Number>. > > Bob Kolker Yes Bob, but why??? Aren't you just the little tiniest bit curious as to why, given the importance of this techology? Is it corruption, incompetence, stupidity, obstructianism, technical difficulties, bad luck, dishonesty...?? What's the problem? We've had fusion bombs since 1952. Why should the enormously more useful practical application of controlled nuclear fusion be so impossibly difficult? Don't you find this rather an interesting intellectual puzzle? Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:572mb9F2bi5iiU1@mid.individual.net... > Jerry Kraus wrote: >> >> As I've indicated, it can be approached as a nanotechnology problem >> with microlasers. Energy release would be at conventional levels. >> Containment problems would be minimized. This would also be much >> cheaper to build and develop. Why is this not being pursued? > > Write us when it happens, will you? Will I have to wait thirty years? > > Fusion has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years. Holographic optical data storage has been a "sci-fi" technology since the 1960's. Now it is a reality: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8370 The times, they are a'changin'. As Jerry points out, nanotechnology is altering fusion research, in a way similar to the transformation of computing by the integrated circuit. "Going small" changes the game entirely. Cold fusion - formerly the poster-boy for sloppy science - is being pursued by DoE funded research, with interesting results. Is it ready to deploy on a utility scale? Hardly; but if you're looking for the production of Helium 4 and net excess energies not explainable by mere chemical reactions, then cold fusion research might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Experimental_evidence When Einstein's theories enabled the production of nuclear fission devices. Recent revelations in the physics world may have similarly disruptive implications. For example, it turns out that the universe may be a string-net liquid. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19325954.200&feedId=online-news_rss20 Things are changing rapidly and disruptively across the spectrum of science. At this rate of discovery and change, even 10 years could produce fundamental new technologies. With the amount of money and computational horsepower being thrown at energy development (and research in general) worldwide, we should be seeing some very interesting renewable energy products in the next few years. I would bet we'll see fusion in production by 2020, if not sooner. Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1175201963.293927.3290@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 29, 3:46 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> Jerry Kraus wrote: >> >> > I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to >> > be this way. >> >> Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy >> is the technological equivalent of vaporware. >> >> Google <Fusion Lawson Number>. >> >> Bob Kolker > > Yes Bob, but why??? Aren't you just the little tiniest bit curious as > to why, given the importance of this techology? Is it corruption, > incompetence, stupidity, obstructianism, technical difficulties, bad > luck, dishonesty...?? What's the problem? We've had fusion bombs > since 1952. Why should the enormously more useful practical > application of controlled nuclear fusion be so impossibly difficult? > Don't you find this rather an interesting intellectual puzzle? Bob must be from Missouri, "The Show-Me State." It is much easier to bet against fusion and other renewables, since they are the underdogs. Renewables have been overlooked, neglected and underfunded (privately and publicly) for decades. How many serious fusion labs are there right now? Not many, compared to the number of chemistry labs churning out new types of petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi novels. Now it's becoming big business. Technology is exploding. Fundamental science is being challenged. A whole new crop of brash, brilliant young scientists are causing a revolution. It's great time to be alive - unless you don't care about scientific progress. Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 Jerry Kraus wrote: > > Yes Bob, but why??? Aren't you just the little tiniest bit curious as I don't care. I am interested in results, not excuses. When someone can get a controlled fusion reactor to produce net usable power let us know, will you? I have been hearing about controlled fusion for nearly sixty years. Where are the results? Nowhere in sight. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 What Me Worry? wrote: > > Cold fusion - formerly the poster-boy for sloppy science - is being pursued > by DoE funded research, with interesting results. Is it ready to deploy on > a utility scale? Hardly; but if you're looking for the production of Helium > 4 and net excess energies not explainable by mere chemical reactions, then > cold fusion research might be of interest: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Experimental_evidence It is producing usable amounts of energy? Yes or No? Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 What Me Worry? wrote: > > > Bob must be from Missouri, "The Show-Me State." It is much easier to bet You are fucking-a well told that I am skeptical. I have been hearing this -bullshit- for going on sixty years. I am interested in usable results, not excuses. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest David Johnston Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote: >petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi >novels. Now it's becoming big business. Which big business would that be? Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com... > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> > wrote: > >>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi >>novels. Now it's becoming big business. > > Which big business would that be? Ask Ford and Boeing: http://www.nsti.org/news/item.html?id=25 Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:572qvrF2b2ierU2@mid.individual.net... > What Me Worry? wrote: >> >> Cold fusion - formerly the poster-boy for sloppy science - is being >> pursued by DoE funded research, with interesting results. Is it ready to >> deploy on a utility scale? Hardly; but if you're looking for the >> production of Helium 4 and net excess energies not explainable by mere >> chemical reactions, then cold fusion research might be of interest: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Experimental_evidence > > It is producing usable amounts of energy? Yes or No? It is producing net excess energy, and it's not blowing up. That is a very good start. Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 What Me Worry? wrote: > > It is producing net excess energy, and it's not blowing up. That is a very > good start. I take that as a No. How long does it run producing excess energy before it stops. Is it measureable in milli-seconds, seconds, minutes or hours. A generator that does not run days on end is useless. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:57306oF2bg302U1@mid.individual.net... > What Me Worry? wrote: > >> >> It is producing net excess energy, and it's not blowing up. That is a >> very good start. > > I take that as a No. How long does it run producing excess energy before > it stops. Is it measureable in milli-seconds, seconds, minutes or hours. A > generator that does not run days on end is useless. You're not a researcher, are you Bob? Quote
Guest Mani Deli Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:46:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >Jerry Kraus wrote: >> >> I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to >> be this way. > >Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy >is the technological equivalent of vaporware. > Gee, they said heavier than air flight was also impossible . Quote
Guest Roger Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 "Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:a3lo03dkm8gvooea7b83mfar8v6j5pk4lh@4ax.com... > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:46:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> > wrote: > >>Jerry Kraus wrote: >>> >>> I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to >>> be this way. >> >>Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy >>is the technological equivalent of vaporware. >> > Gee, they said heavier than air flight was also impossible . Yeah, and they said teleportation to distant planets was also impossible. Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 "Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:a3lo03dkm8gvooea7b83mfar8v6j5pk4lh@4ax.com... > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:46:16 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> > wrote: > >>Jerry Kraus wrote: >>> >>> I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to >>> be this way. >> >>Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy >>is the technological equivalent of vaporware. >> > Gee, they said heavier than air flight was also impossible . They also said the researchers attempting it were fools. Today, we call them "geniuses." Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.