http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/fusionworldwide.html
http://fusioned.gat.com/images/pdf/what_is_fusion.pdf

2020? It seems...
I've seen some news in the New Scientist that they have solved some of the hardest problems...
I haven't been able to get the article from the internet... :rolleyes:

When enough funding is give to research it. Like I always say we could have been to mars by now if we had only put enough money into NASA. Same goes to fusion which requires giant test reactors and facilities of extreme price.

I thought there was already enough money into that. I have seen many advancement news about fusion before...

No man, I mean like instead of going to the moon or mars by 2030 we should be putting tens billions into this! the proposal for this was made over 30 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2798197.stm
it should have been funded then not now.

It's taken the last 40-50 years to figure out how to contain a plasma, a good analogy i heard somewhere is it's like trying to contain a jelly with elastic bands, you have to get the right configuration of magnetic fields, this has been solved now. Plasma temperatures have been reached 10 times that of the sun and the required 16 megawatts can be easily generated. Now they want to build a prototype to prove that they can put all the developed technologies together, scientists working for a british devision of ITA, have estimated this to take about 30 years.

Yes, this is very exciting! But what to do with old reactors? I understand the walls become radioactive eventually.

Spidergoat,

Yes, this is very exciting! But what to do with old reactors? I understand the walls become radioactive eventually.

This is also a possibility with fusion plants. One of the challenges is to come up with construction materials that are less subject to activation by bombardment or radiation. Fusion doesn't generate the same radioactive by-products as fission and hence is MUCH cleaner but still presents the problem of activation of structural materials.

However, such materials are generally less of a problem than fission by-products.

Rather than ascribe to the propaganda pseudoscience that we can not use fusion energy now we should embrace science and go for increasing the use of fusion derived energy currently and in the near future.

Thanks guys. That's pretty useful information. ;)

I wonder what will be the consequences of free energy... :)

WellCookedFetus,
No man, I mean like instead of going to the moon or mars by 2030 we should be putting tens billions into this! the proposal for this was made over 30 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2798197.stm
What about the Quantum Computer? ;)

What about it? Trust me if you put more money, people and research into any technology you could develop it faster proportional to how much money, people and research you place into it. Of course you can’t develop something at infinite speed by placing infinite resources behind it, but you can increase the speed of development of any present technology. Again take the space race as an example, if Russia and US had continued are space exploration budgets at 1960’s levels we would had bases on the moon and been to mars by now.

No man, I mean like instead of going to the moon or mars by 2030 we should be putting tens billions into this! the proposal for this was made over 30 years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2798197.stm
it should have been funded then not now.
Exactly! What is the point of sending missions to mars if we can't survive long enough to take advantage of such an accomplishment in the future? There is science to be gained, yes, but in reality it will all be a waste if we can't sustain ourselves on earth.

When we run out of oil without having developed a reliable alternate energy source, we'll be screwed!

My impression is that fusion power has been a constant 20-30 years away since around 1950. Much like AI.

Not that this means I think it won't ever happen. But I'll wait until it's five years away until I begin to get excited.

The pseudoscience reference to the term fusion here is what the oligarchies want, few in control of the power rather than the people controlled distributed energy sources. The fact that we have, can, should and will use fusion energy is sound science based on a factual and fair appraisal of reality unlike this absolutely crass and anti-science claim that we have yet to know how to use fusion.

Don't like the truth that a large faction of so-called engineers should exhibit such blatant corruption of their world view, especially since they are playing with some big and powerful toys? It is kind of scarey. Maybe if you ignore it, it will go away but I suggest instead you start questioning. Sometimes being frightened is sane and leads to efforts to analyze and change conditions for the better. Then again, pandemic anomie has led to conditions where people just don't care whether or not they adhere to science or the propaganda. Just ignore truth and go on with the grand illusion that all is well as long as you kiss the butt of the alienated and estranged sociopathic powers that be by paying service to the lies.

What would happen if the magnetic containment field failed. What would happen to the super hot plasma?

What would happen if the magnetic containment field failed. What would happen to the super hot plasma?

The reactor will probably be damage and need re-titling. There is not much plasma in there, there will be no explosion. Loss of just a little plasma to the walls of the container or even outside of it will stop fusion because of temperature drop. In fact that’s been the central problem with Tokamak reactors is that the plasma they try to contain gets unstable at fusion temps and touches the walls and cools off. Other reactor designs have greater potential.
Solenoid reactor (NASA is working on one) would be just a vary long magnetic tube that avoids the plasma turbulence issues in Tokamak reactors. Solenoid reactors would leak the fused plasma out of each end, this plasma can go down a particle decelerator were the charged very high speed plasma is forced through magnetic baffles that decelerates the plasma converting its kinetic energy into electricity. A particle decelerator could cover 70% of the fusion reactors energy into electricity as compared to standard heated steam turbines that can only do 55%. Theoretically a combined particle decelerator with steam turbine cooling could convert 85% of the fusion energy into electricity! The more electricity made the closer to break-even and beyond power.
Pulsed focus plasma reactors focus a plasma discharge into a single point, temp of over 1 billion are possible. Focus plasma reactors could under go B11+P fusion that produced no neutron radiation like H3+H2 fusion. Boron and Hydrogen are also much cheaper fuels then hydrogen isotopes. Focus plasma reactors could be made small (only a few tons or less!) and also us particle deceleration.

Reference:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/96/6.6.96/plasma.html
http://www.focusfusion.org/symposiumfinal.htm
http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/astptechbriefs/Fusion_Propulsion.pdf
http://content.aip.org/APCPCS/v608/i1/801_1.html
http://www.focusfusion.org/energy3.html

Dear Folks,
In my searches for efficient home technology I came across EPS. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/. Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong. I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion.

Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges.
The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium?
I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great.


I guess you are familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion http://integrityresinst.crosswinds.net/FocusFusion-Ver5.htm#_Toc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. I spoke with him about my concerns regarding EPS's fusion model. Below are his points and Clint Seward's responses. Please share any thoughts you have.

Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source.


"Hi Erich,

I glanced at the NASA analysis and the reply, neither of which address
the fusion application. A few points:

1)NASA is right that plasmoids, smoke rings of plasma can easily be
crated by many approaches. The photos don’t prove that anything else is
happening. As seen in our experiments, you need a lot of diagnostics to
understand what is going on in a plasma and the EPS experiments don’t
seem to use many other than the photos.

2)The NASA report pointed out VERY serious algebraic errors, leading to
errors of many orders of magnitude in Chen's work. This is of concern to
say the least.

3)NASA's stability analysis seems a bit simple minded, so I would not
fully trust it.

3) Shooting two plasmoids at each other will not necessarily lead to net
fusion energy. Dan Wells worked on this idea for quite some time, but he
also used an external magnetic field to compress the plasmoids when they
hit and to keep them together. The problem is that if to plasmoid hit
each other at high velocity, it is not clear that they will stick
together. If they merely collide or pass through each other, the
collision time will be short. With a velocity of 3x10^8 cm/sec, you only
have a collision time of a few nanoseconds with a plasmoid a few cm
across. To get net energy, you need to have about 3% of the particles
fusing. For pB11 this will require ion densities in excess of
3x10^22/cc. This is close to 100 times more than the densities claimed
by EPS. Also, this means that the initial energy has to be nearly a GJ--
a billion joules. That is a lot of energy. But to make it work, either
you have to get the density up by a factor of 100 or make the plasmoids
stick together for 100 times longer. There does not seem to be any
experimental or theoretical reasoning shown that would indicate that
much longer confinement times will happen.

Over all, the EPS project is at a much earlier stage of development than
focus fusion. They have some experiments with a few diagnostics and some
theoretical ideas, but they have not demonstrated even theoretically
that net energy could be produced. Our project has a detailed theory,
published for the most part in peer-reviewed journals (or favorably
reviewed through the NIST process), and experiments with good
diagnostics that confirms at least part of the theory. We are also
extrapolating from the huge data base of experimental studies with the
dense plasma focus.

Of course, they, like us would need money to do the diagnostics. But
they should at least demonstrate theoretically that they can reach break
even. I don't see how they can justify the 1% or 10% collision they
claim.

I hope this is of some use. That's all I have time for on EPS. Glad to
answer questions on focus fusion when you get them.

Eric"

And Clint's response:

"Dear Erich,

Thanks for the info from Eric Lerner. We have information to respond to each of his points.

1. First, be a bit careful of the NASA report. It was based on the papers we had published up until 1999. They did not include any information MIT gave in response to their comments and questions.

NASA was correct. You need a lot of diagnostics. We have proposals to our sponsors to fund the diagnostics. We shall see.

2. The NASA report did find algebraic errors. We corrected them all. But since it was not done before 1999 they elected not to include them or acknowledge them intheir report. In fairness, the reviewer, MSE engineering, did request further NASA funding to begin research into our technology, where they planned to include some of the information they omitted, but NASA did not fund any further work.

3a. NASA's stability analysis is not complete. MIT completed such analysis, and NASA elected to not include it in the report. MIT subsequently published it in a peer reviewed journal. That paper is on our website.

3b. Eric's concern about shooting plasmoids is well founded. Our method is much different, and we have found a way around this. Eric points out that it is not clear the plasmoids will "stick together." Actually, this is not the case. Well's data shows clearly that two toroids will indeed "stick together." Read his paper that I have referenced in our documents.

3c. Eric is correct as to the ion density. We can demonstrate that the ion density is in the range that he has noted. I might have sent you a copy of this paper, but will do so if you have interest.

3d. We have completed theory and density of the order of magnitude Eric is calculating. In addition, we have calculations, not yet published, that demonstrate that two toroids will adhere together, will persist for several seconds, and will pass break even. We can make this discussion available if you have interest, but caution that it is highly proprietary.

Eric is correct that from what we have published and from what he can see it looks like we are in an early stage. Actually, the EST is quite a bit further along. The theory is complete enough to show break even with a simple apparatus.

Hopefully this helps.

Clint Seward"

Clint Seward recently sent me this e-mail, the applications, across such a broad spectrum, deserve your attention. Delphi.....Wow!

"An independent consulting group in Washington,DC has just reviewed our
technology for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They just sent me a
draft for comments, and I have included it below. It is based on their
having talked with our technology partners.

Since it is a full page of technical detail before the conclusion, I have
copied the conclusion here first so you get the idea of their review.

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors).

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
compositions."

Please let me klnow what you think.

Clint


Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting
group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004

Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons
(KEWs)

Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass.

Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an
STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for
reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called
"electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST
electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient
to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel
laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning,
are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without
requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be
accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g.,
600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic
acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab
and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although
these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter
long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak"
fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must
then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast,
EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate
high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6
seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest
from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a
major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion
reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long
"neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision.

Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale)
EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or
projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor
penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers
in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600
km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's
extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum.

Metrics:
- Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities
(defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets)
- Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS
estimate)
- Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary
(officially defined as 62 miles)
- Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose
initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate
its ESTs.

Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices).

Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor)
- appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for
Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY
2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support),
but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5)
within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with
visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners
(agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power)
could accelerate this.
-MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least
$2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by
development of an integratable engineering package.

TRL 3-4. MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with
Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both
agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable.
MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing
their work.

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
compositions."


After reviewing your posting on fusion message board I thought you may be interested.




Thanks for your attention

Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd. McGaheysville, VA, 22840
(540) 289-9750 shengar@aol.com

so plasma weapons is what i'm getting out of this?! what about generators!!! jezz, some people are so freggin trigger happy when it comes to funding...

When enough funding is give to research it. Like I always say we could have been to mars by now if we had only put enough money into NASA. Same goes to fusion which requires giant test reactors and facilities of extreme price.

Many countries have been trying to get fusion to work for well over 50 years now. 100's of billions of dollars have gone into trying to get this technology to work over those years. So when you say "if more money was given to develop fusion" it wouldn't have done any better than it has.

hey why not put in a few trillion?

Hey Weed,
eps is proposing a 5Kw home generator, they estimate .005 cents/Kwhr, Delphi is interested for the applications in cars, The weapons are an application that provide goverment funding. Check out their web site. http://www.electronpowersystems.com
erich

hey why not stop wasting money on a dubious war? ;)

Fusion power is here for everyone, right now: Look up in the sky.

hypewaders,

Ya but is hard to harness that one efficiently and continuously 24hr, in any weather and in a confined space.

Why must we be confined? The sun will come out tomorrow. Bet your bottom Dollar. Just thinking about it, you'll understand that there are energy storage and transmission solutions everywhere, and our most continuous, reliable, and safe source is jolly old Sol.

We would need a lot of cheap solar electric converters and even more cheap energy storage for the night and bad weather. That’s the problem with renewable energy (except maybe hydroelectric & geothermal) is that it is not continuous.

how about instead of massive improvements right now, we just get closer, to more intense light, like a huge solar power station orbiting mercury or something, and that station would beam the power to collectors near earth? or maybe it'd load the energy into spacecraft of some kind to better control it's path and ensure its arival here. you could probably milk alot outta the sun that way

Remember the underdeveloped space exploration thing I was talking about? Ya that why space solar power is impractical simply because we lack the ability to launch such a things at any reasonable price tag.

Well a Fusion Generator is still years off and is probably not the most feisible source of energy in theory. Do you have any idea the amout of power the lasers use for the fusion? Like 1TW worth!! TeraWatts! ... due to this you already have major energy loss! Scientists are looking for better (cheaper) sources. There is a possiblity of a new type of nuclear reactor being introduced that uses Sr90 radioisotope and a soft X-ray generator 10-20% more effecient than typical nuclear reactors. Actaully this concept is being used to power remote drones for the US army!

When? Probably never. You are talking about bottling the sun. I'm very sceptical about any research effort attempting to create something not already existing in nature. The stars are testimony to the reality of fusion itself but they require a lot of mass to light up. It's gravity driving that process. We can duplicate it by replacing gravity with other forces but that's a lot of energy being expended. For a thermonuclear bomb we build a hard shell around an explosive to cause a massive implosion which causes criticality in the fissile material used. Bang. Fusion for a millisecond. For commercial power we still can't get a fraction of the energy back that we put in. Despite many decades of research the incremental advances have been pitiful. Our grandparents were having similar discussions as this when THEY were young and hopeful.

Sure it might be possible one day but the technologies employed are going to be complex, immense and extremely costly to maintain. For spaceflight you need high energy to low weight. I can't see that being the case with a fusion drive. For me spaceflight is the most interesting application for energy. With fusion its a non-starter. Of all the nuclear plant innovations conceptualised, fusion ranks right up there near the top as being hard to achieve. Only an anti-matter plant would be more difficult to construct. We still haven't put enough serious effort into fission plant development and we are wasting time on leapfrogging it. Further research into building more efficient plants including breeders to recycle mox should be the priority right now. We are a high energy civilisation and our needs have to be met right now. Not in some 'maybe but unlikely future' new source of energy.

Over 10,000 people die each year from coal burning. World temperatures are increasing. One in four kids is developing Asthma from particulates dumped into our atmosphere. We need a REAL solution. Not a pipedream. Nuclear fission exists right now in hundreds of plants across the globe. It was nearly destroyed after the decision not to recycle waste crippled the industry economically. We have over half a century of hard won experience in dealing with this technology and if we get serious about recycling it will be far more cost effective than dirty fossil fuels. Nuclear power emits no CO2 or nasty atmospheric toxins. It's the cleanest form of energy around that makes any kind of sense for the scale of energy consumption required.

Do you two have any sources for oyu beliefs?

Which two?

you, and don't give me that site, you know the one you posted it on the Big bomb thread, spamming is the quickest way to get bannished here.

Here's a link page. Lots of pages on fusion and fission pulse engines.

http://www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/

For commercial energy I wouldn't know where to start. The Canadian Nuclear Society has a nice site I suppose.

http://www.cns-snc.ca/

The objectives of the Canadian Nuclear Society are as follows:

:to act as a forum for the exchange of information relating to nuclear science and technology;
:to foster the development and beneficial utilization of nuclear science and technology for peaceful uses;
:to encourage education in, and knowledge about, nuclear science and technology; and
:to enhance the professional and technical capabilities of those involved in nuclear science and technology in the Canadian context.

The CNA is also a good source. Probably better as they have their own articles online.

http://www.cna.ca/

I'm not Canadian. It's just that Canada is a little bit more developed in its attitude towards nuclear power and is an english speaking country, mostly.
***********************
Article: 'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming' - May 25, 2004 (The Independent, U.K.)
Leading environmentalist, James Lovelock, urges the environmental movement to rethink its opposition to nuclear energy.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313

Sorry, but that's a pay per view site and I'm broke.