| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bussard" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2007 09:53:01 AM |
| Object: |
Fusion Systems Can Now Be Built |
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
.
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Fusion Systems Can Now Be Built |
29 Mar 2007 10:17:14 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Bussard
<Bussard@nospam.com>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:53:01 -0000
<130nkmdnm58e67e@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
Around here? Probably not. Talk to the DoE. They're far more likely
to have $200M dollars ready for grants. ;-)
--
#191,
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Strout" |
|
| Title: Re: Fusion Systems Can Now Be Built |
29 Mar 2007 12:59:19 PM |
|
|
In article <qs1td4-uk3.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>,
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
Around here? Probably not. Talk to the DoE. They're far more likely
to have $200M dollars ready for grants. ;-)
Dr. Bussard has expressed skepticism that the DoE is likely to fund
projects that compete with ITER.
However, Jim Benson (founder of SpaceDev, which now has most of the lab
equipment and three of the lab techs) has said that only about $5M is
needed for the next phase of research, which would involve reproducing
the final WB-6 results, extending them slightly, and convening an expert
review board.
Best,
- Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Strout" |
|
| Title: Re: Fusion Systems Can Now Be Built |
29 Mar 2007 10:11:08 AM |
|
|
Note that I find it rather unlikely that Dr. Bussard actually posted
this, despite the "Bussard@nospam.com" address. What's below is a
word-for-word quote of the March 23 2006 post at fusor.net, plus a
couple of wiki references that fail to include the one describing
Bussard's recent work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell).
So, while this work is important and the words below probably are
originally Dr. Bussard's, they're from a year ago, and it's highly
unlikely that he will see any replies here. (He's gotten difficult to
get ahold of lately; my understanding is that he's very busy writing a
lengthy technical paper about the work, and at the same time, his health
is not so good.)
However, we can certainly discuss this amongst ourselves. Let's just
try to do it without impersonating anyone!
Best,
- Joe
In article <130nkmdnm58e67e@corp.supernews.com>,
Bussard <Bussard@nospam.com> wrote:
Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=1143684
406
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Eagleson" |
|
| Title: Re: Fusion Systems Can Now Be Built |
29 Mar 2007 01:13:28 PM |
|
|
On Mar 29, 10:53 am, Bussard <Buss...@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
A cheap universal nuclear source as a neutron gnerator is a good way
to make theory pay. DD accelerators are the hardest to make payoff.
A static focus as an accelerator target allow neutron multiplication
in the target mass itself. Conserving reactant.
So massive targets can function! A containment of the fluid is all
that is required and inertial dime sized frozen trigger pellets would
work fine. Remember the trick is in reusing neutrons!
A real test is a simple thing. A micronuke. Place compressed
hydrogen arround the pellet then trigger. A sure fire way to get an
uninterested DOE.
I am afraid your technology just might be blacklisted. Try to realign
the laboratory to another angle. A simple test.
Make cheap neutrons only as the benefit! A DOE mandate will someday
cause th etrue fusion plants to be constructed. For now the
technology is to only be thought of as cheap neutrons, not cheap
fusion energy.
Make little versions for microsources even.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Strout" |
|
| Title: Re: Fusion Systems Can Now Be Built |
29 Mar 2007 02:07:39 PM |
|
|
In article <1175192008.175470.209680@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote:
A cheap universal nuclear source as a neutron gnerator is a good way
to make theory pay. DD accelerators are the hardest to make payoff.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Most researchers would
say p-B11 is the hardest reaction to make work at all, but Bussard's
calculations show that a polywell machine can do it (and still be only a
few meters across).
A static focus as an accelerator target allow neutron multiplication
in the target mass itself. Conserving reactant.
I think you're picturing a very different sort of reactor. There is no
accelerator target here. The ions you're fusing simply "fall" down the
electrostatic gradient caused by all the electrons confined in the
center of the device. In doing so they accelerate to high speed by the
time they reach a very small central region, and have a good chance of
colliding with other ions that have done the same thing (and note that
these ions all have pretty much the same energy at that point -- a big
advantage over Maxwellian schemes like a tokamak). If they fail to
collide, then they just roll "up" the potential well, losing kinetic
energy, until they reach zero, and then they roll back down for another
try.
So massive targets can function! A containment of the fluid is all
that is required and inertial dime sized frozen trigger pellets would
work fine. Remember the trick is in reusing neutrons!
If they use the p-B11 reaction, there won't *be* any neutrons (not that
escape the machine at any rate).
A real test is a simple thing. A micronuke. Place compressed
hydrogen arround the pellet then trigger. A sure fire way to get an
uninterested DOE.
Er... to get them to do what?
Make cheap neutrons only as the benefit! A DOE mandate will someday
cause th etrue fusion plants to be constructed. For now the
technology is to only be thought of as cheap neutrons, not cheap
fusion energy.
Except there are already cheap neutron sources, such as the FusionStar.
I don't think there's much of a market for another one (especially one
that has to be a couple meters across -- that's very small for a power
generator, but very large for a neutron generator).
Best,
- Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "PureGold" |
|
| Title: Re: Fusion Systems Can Now Be Built |
29 Mar 2007 03:51:14 PM |
|
|
Our first one was in 1967, exploded when a wire dropped off . One death
neutron radiation sickess. The second one 1969 20 deaths by vapourizing,
exploded - solder melted. Later ones were more stable.
Deemed too dangerous for commercial use.
"Joe Strout" <joe@strout.net> wrote in message
news:joe-E9ADB7.13073929032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <1175192008.175470.209680@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@yahoo.com> wrote:
A cheap universal nuclear source as a neutron gnerator is a good way
to make theory pay. DD accelerators are the hardest to make payoff.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Most researchers would
say p-B11 is the hardest reaction to make work at all, but Bussard's
calculations show that a polywell machine can do it (and still be only a
few meters across).
A static focus as an accelerator target allow neutron multiplication
in the target mass itself. Conserving reactant.
I think you're picturing a very different sort of reactor. There is no
accelerator target here. The ions you're fusing simply "fall" down the
electrostatic gradient caused by all the electrons confined in the
center of the device. In doing so they accelerate to high speed by the
time they reach a very small central region, and have a good chance of
colliding with other ions that have done the same thing (and note that
these ions all have pretty much the same energy at that point -- a big
advantage over Maxwellian schemes like a tokamak). If they fail to
collide, then they just roll "up" the potential well, losing kinetic
energy, until they reach zero, and then they roll back down for another
try.
So massive targets can function! A containment of the fluid is all
that is required and inertial dime sized frozen trigger pellets would
work fine. Remember the trick is in reusing neutrons!
If they use the p-B11 reaction, there won't *be* any neutrons (not that
escape the machine at any rate).
A real test is a simple thing. A micronuke. Place compressed
hydrogen arround the pellet then trigger. A sure fire way to get an
uninterested DOE.
Er... to get them to do what?
Make cheap neutrons only as the benefit! A DOE mandate will someday
cause th etrue fusion plants to be constructed. For now the
technology is to only be thought of as cheap neutrons, not cheap
fusion energy.
Except there are already cheap neutron sources, such as the FusionStar.
I don't think there's much of a market for another one (especially one
that has to be a couple meters across -- that's very small for a power
generator, but very large for a neutron generator).
Best,
- Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
