Guest Jerry Kraus Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 On Mar 31, 9:34 am, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 2:59 pm, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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, > > It is technical difficulties. Look, Jerry, some of the smartest people > in the world are working on this stuff, and the potential payoffs are > enormous. If you think you have a method that will work, write a four > page article and submit it to PRL. You will become world renowned. If > you have a method that will work, patent it. You'll be rich. > > > 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? > > No. It's relatively easy to start a fusion reaction. Keeping it > confined is the hard part. What is your idea for confining the plasma? > Light pressure from a mass of nanolasers around a containment sphere? > > Baldin Lee Pramer- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think there might be some obstructianism going on here, Mr Pramer. Take a look: There's some interesting information in this thread from raylopez99 in reply to some points I made, questioning the wisdom of the Department of Defence classifying the research on Inertial Containment fusion technologies -- simply using very small areas of fusion, lasers and implosion of energy -- in terms of future research directions. This is the alternative to magnetic containment, which is expensive and unstable. The Inertial Containment approach appears very promising. The major problem is simply that, even with pellets the size of a pinhead, the conventional reactor walls tend to melt. So......make the pellets even smaller!! Use even smaller microlasers. As I've said, nanotechnology is the way to go here. Cheap, safe, simple. What's the problem? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/threa... On Mar 28, 3:48 pm, "raylopez99" <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Mar 28, 1:20 pm, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > My problem with the global warming agenda is that it ignores the > > obvious solutions to both our environmental and energy problems: > > controlled nuclear fusion. I am reasonably convinced that a > > combination of economic self-interest and simple incompetence explain > > our miserable failure in developing this technology. Free energy > > would be very disruptive to the conventional economy, and that's what > > controlled nuclear fusion would give us. But, I just don't buy that > > this problem is so impossibly difficult. Take ten thousand micro- > > lasers, aim them at a common focal point. Conventional energy levels > > produced, no obvious containment problems. What's so difficult? > I could not agree with you more Jerry. Without getting into details, > which would cross uncomfortably into my real world persona, suffice to > say that one reason, IMO, that inertial confinement is not as popular > as magnetic confinement (see:http://www-fusion-magnetique.cea.fr/gb/fusion/principes/principes02.htm > for definitions) is that the former is still classified (I'm not in > privy with anything classified when I write this reply) > Another more practical problem is that though tiny inertial > confinement fusion 'bombs' exist (literally smaller than a pin head) > and can be imploded by lasers, keeping up the implosions and getting > energy from them without melting container walls is an engineering > problem, from what unclassified documents I've read. > I would urge the DOD to declassify the inertial confinement > technology--I am convinced that it has civilian applications, that the > DoD has not even considered and/or does not have the funds to > develop. Remember even Teflon was classified for the longest time as > a military secret. > BTW I once estimated that you could build a nuclear fusion hand > grenade with an inertial confinement system. Imagine the 'punch' that > would give! Not to mention the terrorist possibilities if it fell > into the wrong hands, literally. > The good news is that even with declassified magnetic confinement > technology some people estimate by 2050 we'll have a fusion reactor. > But right now that's science fiction. > I bet Steve Schulin knows a lot more about this topic...Steve? > steve.schu...@nuclear.com > RL Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Jerry Kraus wrote: > > The Inertial Containment approach appears very promising. The major > problem is simply that, even with pellets the size of a pinhead, the > conventional reactor walls tend to melt. So......make the pellets > even smaller!! Use even smaller microlasers. As I've said, > nanotechnology is the way to go here. Cheap, safe, simple. What's > the problem? Write us when it is working, won't you? Promises are cheap. Results are dear. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest It's Americans OR Democrats Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 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? > > Going to be hard, towing them behind each car. Quote
Guest Snap Whipcrack.............. Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Bussard wrote: > 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 > > The majority of people don't know fission from fusion and fear both. Large idiot population prevent progress through fear. -- Snap Hey, I eat my vegetables. Potatoes are vegetables arent' they? So I eat my French Fries and I get my vegetables. Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Snap Whipcrack.............. wrote: > The majority of people don't know fission from fusion and fear both. > Large idiot population prevent progress through fear. One big difference. We have controlled nuclear fission. We do not have controlled nuclear fusion. The only successful manmade fusion device that has met its technological goals is the H-bomb. I would not call that controlled. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest The Ghost In The Machine Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 In sci.econ, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote on Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:14:45 -0400 <577fnlF2bqel6U4@mid.individual.net>: > What Me Worry? wrote: > >> >> Here is a list of links to scholarly papers on Lorentzian wormholes (aka >> "spacetime shortcuts") and similar phenomena: >> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/barcelo00brane.html > > Write us when a significantly massive object can be move somewhere > through a worm hole. I promise not to hold my breath. > > There is the troublesome matter of stability of a worm hole and the only > reliable way of producing or getting a wormhole is an a Kerr black-hole. > Do you want to try your luck? Most likely you will be spaghettified. > > Bob Kolker > There is a routine calculation somewhere that suggests that a usable wormhome would have to be larger than our solar system. (It's apparently a University problem taught to graduate physics students.) Also, how one moves a black hole is a very disturbing question. More likely it will move the attempted mover...straight into its maw. :-) -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129: std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++) if( i == thing) {...} -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest liberalhere Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in news:5759jvF2c1jr6U4 @mid.individual.net: > Mani Deli wrote: >> >> They are further away since Reagan, hero of Granada, stopped funding >> alternative fuel research which was started by Carter. > > Throwing money at a problem is no substitute for brains and cleverness. > The Freres Wright invented modern aviation with $1200 1903 dollars, from > their own pocket. Samuel Langley, on the other hand, crashed three of > his experimental aircraft in the Potomac with %$50,000 dollars in aid > and grants from Congress. > > It just goes to show you have effective government financing can be. Very interesting observation. Let's see 1) Who paid for the development of the composite materials StarShipOne was made of? 2) Who paid for the development of the radar used to follow the flight of StarShipOne? 3) Who paid for the development of the flight suit worn by the pilot of StarShipOne? 4) Who paid for the development of the telemetry that tracked the performance of StarShipOne? 5) Who paid for the development of the hybrid solid rocket used on the StarShipOne? 6) Who paid for the development of the compact, high efficiency jet engine used to launch StarShipOne? 7) Who paid for the development of the swing-wing system used by StarShipOne? 8) Who paid for the research needed to devise the mathematics to design StarShipOne and its flight control systems? You see, it's easy to pay $0.02 to build something when someone else paid the $1.00 to do the basic R&D to get to the point something can be built. Also, it's a lot cheaper to build something when you don't have to spread benefits around the country to bribe members of Congress with contracts to their districts to fund a project. Oh, and by the way, one reason NASA is no longer as productive as it was in the early '60s is that NASA has to put more effort into political considerations than technical issues. Those Apollo-era engineers lived, breathed, and drank space travel. Today's NASA and contractor engineer see it as only a 9-to-5 job. That's not NASA's fault, it's the fault of people who see government as basically evil and incompetent. > > Bob Kolker > Quote
Guest David Johnston Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:04:58 -0000, liberalhere <liberalhere@yahoo.com> wrote: >Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in news:5759jvF2c1jr6U4 >@mid.individual.net: > >> Mani Deli wrote: >>> >>> They are further away since Reagan, hero of Granada, stopped funding >>> alternative fuel research which was started by Carter. >> >> Throwing money at a problem is no substitute for brains and cleverness. >> The Freres Wright invented modern aviation with $1200 1903 dollars, from >> their own pocket. Samuel Langley, on the other hand, crashed three of >> his experimental aircraft in the Potomac with %$50,000 dollars in aid >> and grants from Congress. >> >> It just goes to show you have effective government financing can be. > >Very interesting observation. > >Let's see > >1) Who paid for the development of the composite materials StarShipOne was >made of? > No need to go that far. Just remember that once the Wright Brothers had completed their proof-of-concept, to actually build practical flying machines required funding from the United States Army. Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 David Johnston wrote: > > No need to go that far. Just remember that once the Wright Brothers > had completed their proof-of-concept, to actually build practical > flying machines required funding from the United States Army. Not true. The DC-3 was funded privately by Douglass Aircraft. If flew several years before the government purchased a version of the plane for military use. In fact all of the commercial jet aircraft produced by Lockheed, Douglass etc were funded privately since the aircraft were not designed for military use. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted April 1, 2007 Posted April 1, 2007 liberalhere wrote: Bert Rutan developed some of the ultra light composite on his own. Much of the other material was purchased off the shelf from commercial sources. The design of the ship is all Bert Rutan's. It was his baby. Rutan, unlike NASA has continually developed innovative airplane designs. He is the greatest aircraft designer since Kelley Johnson of The Skunk Works. One wonders why NASA does not build ships using off the shelf parts. They could do it much better and cheaper. NASA has shot its wad. Few young innovative designers are joining NASA. Its best people have left, retired or died. What you have are a bunch of hanger's on with nowhere else to go. In the mean time NASA has not develop a single technology for space propulsion since the 1981. That is 25 years of nothing from NASA in the way of propulsion systems. NASA has developed some workable non-manned projects but their manned program sucks lemons. It should be abandoned. If you look at the Space Shuttle you behold a Camel. A Camel is a Horse designed by the government. It is an abomination which presents a one in fifty chance of killing its crew. Bob Kolker 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.