OT Why No Fusion Powerplants?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.emc2fusion.org/2007-3-5%20DefenseNews.pdf

Seems like Robert Bussard discovered the trick but this has been buried so
that we wouldn't obtain cheap reliable power.

1) Blame the Capitalists, TK. They might not be cowardly, but they
sure are dastardly, you know?

2) No problem with someone with money to burn (<g>😉 like you, right?

Thanks for the link. --D-y

Tom Kunich said:

http://www.emc2fusion.org/2007-3-5%20DefenseNews.pdf

Seems like Robert Bussard discovered the trick but this has been
buried so that we wouldn't obtain cheap reliable power.

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

--
Bill Asher

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.emc2fusion.org/2007-3-5%20DefenseNews.pdf

Seems like Robert Bussard discovered the trick but this has been buried so
that we wouldn't obtain cheap reliable power.

Dr. Bussard passed away a couple months ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard

Note the last line in the article. It says that six weeks before he
died his project received funding and his work is being carried on by
others. I haven't been able to find another reference to this,
however.

William Asher said:

Tom Kunich said:

http://www.emc2fusion.org/2007-3-5%20DefenseNews.pdf

Quoted message said:

Seems like Robert Bussard discovered the trick but this has been
buried so that we wouldn't obtain cheap reliable power.

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

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

From Tom's link:
"We've solved the physics; now it's time for engineering
development." That's what everyone always says. 19 years
ago, I saw a fusion talk at Livermore where the mantra was
"We see no show-stoppers." The basic physics was
understood, so after that it would be just engineering.
"Just" engineering. The thing is, I'm not sure they were
lying, misguided or even wrong. Problem is the engineering
is hard. Magnetic or inertial confinement of a billion degree
plasma is extremely difficult, even on Livermore's budget.

As for Bussard, his supposedly working apparatus wasn't
even tested with proton-boron fusion, he was using deuterium,
which requires 10 times lower energy. The article says,
no problem, we'll just build it bigger! If it was that simple,
we'd all own rocketships. Uh, I don't believe he managed
table top deuterium fusion either. But I wasn't there; his
acolytes should publish the results, and then they won't
have to worry about not getting their phone calls returned.

Ben
If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I'll take one of those Michelin antigravity bicycles though.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

I know this is difficult for you to grasp but the math of the Tokomak
plainly demonstrates that if it works at all it will require an installation
so huge that one would power a major portion of the USA.

Quoted message said:

As for Bussard, his supposedly working apparatus wasn't
even tested with proton-boron fusion, he was using deuterium,
which requires 10 times lower energy. The article says,
no problem, we'll just build it bigger! If it was that simple,
we'd all own rocketships. Uh, I don't believe he managed
table top deuterium fusion either. But I wasn't there; his
acolytes should publish the results, and then they won't
have to worry about not getting their phone calls returned.

Again, the math has been demonstrated and shows that working fusion can be
achieved at MUCH smaller installation sizes. They can easily calculate
breakeven and the theory behind the entire process - something that the
Tokomak research has continuously failed at.

Quoted message said:

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I'll take one of those Michelin antigravity bicycles though.

You can't even make sense when you think you're making sense.

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]..
.

Quoted message said:

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

I know this is difficult for you to grasp but the math of the Tokomak
plainly demonstrates that if it works at all it will require an
installation so huge that one would power a major portion of the USA.

Quoted message said:

As for Bussard, his supposedly working apparatus wasn't
even tested with proton-boron fusion, he was using deuterium,
which requires 10 times lower energy. The article says,
no problem, we'll just build it bigger! If it was that simple,
we'd all own rocketships. Uh, I don't believe he managed
table top deuterium fusion either. But I wasn't there; his
acolytes should publish the results, and then they won't
have to worry about not getting their phone calls returned.

Again, the math has been demonstrated and shows that working fusion
can be achieved at MUCH smaller installation sizes. They can easily
calculate breakeven and the theory behind the entire process -
something that the Tokomak research has continuously failed at.

Quoted message said:

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I'll take one of those Michelin antigravity bicycles though.

You can't even make sense when you think you're making sense.

You know, when you start to lecture Ben on physics that's when this froup
has really jumped the shark.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

You know, when you start to lecture Ben on physics that's when this froup
has really jumped the shark.

Kunich invented cold fusion, but now he's waiting
for those cargo planes to start landing again.

"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know, when you start to lecture Ben on physics that's when this froup
has really jumped the shark.

What do you do for a living Asher?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

I know this is difficult for you to grasp but the math of the Tokomak
plainly demonstrates that if it works at all it will require an
installation so huge that one would power a major portion of the USA.

I'm not getting this one. I mean, I think I have the concept... that a
fusion reactor would be difficult but not impossible to build, that the
benefits in terms of cheap power would be enormous, and that this would have
the effect of toppling the current power structure (so to speak) and thus
the powers-that-be will do what they can to keep it quiet and put it down.
Do I have it right so far?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

I know this is difficult for you to grasp but the math of the Tokomak
plainly demonstrates that if it works at all it will require an
installation so huge that one would power a major portion of the USA.

Quoted message said:

As for Bussard, his supposedly working apparatus wasn't
even tested with proton-boron fusion, he was using deuterium,
which requires 10 times lower energy. The article says,
no problem, we'll just build it bigger! If it was that simple,
we'd all own rocketships. Uh, I don't believe he managed
table top deuterium fusion either. But I wasn't there; his
acolytes should publish the results, and then they won't
have to worry about not getting their phone calls returned.

Again, the math has been demonstrated and shows that working fusion can be
achieved at MUCH smaller installation sizes. They can easily calculate
breakeven and the theory behind the entire process - something that the
Tokomak research has continuously failed at.

Quoted message said:

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I'll take one of those Michelin antigravity bicycles though.

You can't even make sense when you think you're making sense.

William Asher said:

Tom Kunich said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]..
.

Quoted message said:

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

I know this is difficult for you to grasp but the math of the Tokomak
plainly demonstrates that if it works at all it will require an
installation so huge that one would power a major portion of the USA.

Quoted message said:

As for Bussard, his supposedly working apparatus wasn't
even tested with proton-boron fusion, he was using deuterium,
which requires 10 times lower energy. The article says,
no problem, we'll just build it bigger! If it was that simple,
we'd all own rocketships. Uh, I don't believe he managed
table top deuterium fusion either. But I wasn't there; his
acolytes should publish the results, and then they won't
have to worry about not getting their phone calls returned.

Again, the math has been demonstrated and shows that working fusion
can be achieved at MUCH smaller installation sizes. They can easily
calculate breakeven and the theory behind the entire process -
something that the Tokomak research has continuously failed at.

Quoted message said:

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I'll take one of those Michelin antigravity bicycles though.

You can't even make sense when you think you're making sense.

You know, when you start to lecture Ben on physics that's when this froup
has really jumped the shark.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/10b978e18a8011d3

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/a61d0db1e88c7947

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2fd2ee030dfe4181

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/55bc350d0ebd4ea7

All very ELIZA-like, wouldn't you say?

I don't know how more obvious I can make it. I don't
consider him to be my best work. And people still
respond to him. Hell if I know what is up with that!

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/10b978e18a8011d3

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/a61d0db1e88c7947

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/2fd2ee030dfe4181

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/55bc350d0ebd4ea7

All very ELIZA-like, wouldn't you say?

I don't know how more obvious I can make it. I don't
consider him to be my best work. And people still
respond to him. Hell if I know what is up with that!

How do you know I am not a bot written by your other personality, the evil
one, designed to take down your bot?

I would do the "BWAHAHAHA" thing now but that is really lame unless you
have a voice like Dennis Haysbert.

--
Bill Asher

--
Bill Asher

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden].
..

Quoted message said:

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

I know this is difficult for you to grasp but the math of the Tokomak
plainly demonstrates that if it works at all it will require an
installation so huge that one would power a major portion of the USA.

I'm not getting this one. I mean, I think I have the concept... that a
fusion reactor would be difficult but not impossible to build, that
the benefits in terms of cheap power would be enormous, and that this
would have the effect of toppling the current power structure (so to
speak) and thus the powers-that-be will do what they can to keep it
quiet and put it down. Do I have it right so far?

That is the conspiracy theorists take. Most reasonable people acknowledge
the engineering issues with DT fusion power are huge, and that with pB are
even larger in some respects. So what is really going on is that the
government has sunk vast sums of money into fusion research and gotten
essentially [censored] from it so far and they are a little gun-shy of sinking
even vaster sums of money into it if the reasonable minds point out
engineering issues (e.g., neutron embrittlement) that nobody has the
faintest clue how to address at present.

Wags will state that cheap fusion power is 25 years off and has been for
the last half century.

The current power structure would make vast sums of money no matter how the
power is generated. They just want to make vast sums of money and it isn't
clear they can with fusion without spending even vaster sums of money.
That's the real conspiracy.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

Wags will state that cheap fusion power is 25 years off and has been for
the last half century.

Oddly enough, the same can be said of AI. I think the Kunich
bot is evidence of this state of affairs.

Tom Kunich said:

What do you do for a living Asher?

Better question: what would you do for a dead Asher?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

http://www.emc2fusion.org/2007-3-5%20DefenseNews.pdf

Seems like Robert Bussard discovered the trick but this has been buried so
that we wouldn't obtain cheap reliable power.

Who needs it? Why not:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/toshibas-building-a-micro-nuclear-reactor-for-your-garage/

William Asher said:

You know, when you start to lecture Ben on physics that's when this froup
has really jumped the shark.

I thought it was pretty funny when Hansen Brother #1 asked GBShaun if
he'd ever ridden on a track.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is like asking if Michelin is suppressing antigravity
to maintain their tire monopoly. (RBR readers will now
point out that Michelin doesn't actually even _have_ a
tire monopoly.)

Quoted message said:

I know this is difficult for you to grasp but the math of the Tokomak
plainly demonstrates that if it works at all it will require an
installation so huge that one would power a major portion of the USA.

I'm not getting this one. I mean, I think I have the concept... that a
fusion reactor would be difficult but not impossible to build, that the
benefits in terms of cheap power would be enormous, and that this would have
the effect of toppling the current power structure (so to speak) and thus
the powers-that-be will do what they can to keep it quiet and put it down.
Do I have it right so far?

What fusion conspiracists want to claim is, I think:
1. The conventional designs for magnetic or inertial
confinement of the plasma scale up to really huge
structures that are too expensive and probably won't work.
The tokamak Tom references is one such design,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
2. A lone visionary working in a small lab has come
up with an unconventional process (different
confinement scheme, proton-boron reaction, cold fusion,
muon-catalyzed fusion, etc) that avoids the problems of
the way all the boring mainstream stick-in-the-muds are
doing it.
3. The Man - which can mean the Dept. of Energy, the
energy companies, black helicopters, etc - is suppressing
this revolutionary discovery because it threatens to
provide a near-infinite supply of cheap clean power.

None of this really makes much sense, except the part
about how a working tokamak would be very expensive -
but I don't think Tom's right that it would have to be
big enough to power a significant fraction of the US.
That's unimaginably big.

The payoffs from developing a cleaner, more sustainable,
non-Middle-East-dependent source of energy would be
very large, even if the energy is no cheaper.
(Obviously, solar and wind fit this bill, but there
you have both expense and capacity problems currently.)
Given the potential, even scientists working for The Man
would be all over Bussard's method if they thought it
would work.

Even if they are all out to get him, the path to fame
and fortune is pretty simple:
1. Construct tabletop, or room-size, fusion device
2. Detect fusion byproducts (helium, neutrons) and
measure confinement time and plasma temperature
3. Publish results and convince the world
4. Profit

You'll notice I left out the traditional "???" step.

By the way, I'm no expert on fusion physics. Apparently
Tom knows all about the math of the tokamak, so I'll
leave that for him to explain.

Ben

On Jan 23, 1:01 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That's unimaginably big.

Sit in the lotus position and mantra "U S guvmint, U S guvmint, U S
guvmint, U S guvmint, U S guvmint, U S guvmint, U S guvmint, U S
guvmint....

Be careful though, if you fall asleep you might have a nightmare.

"Ted van de Weteringe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

What do you do for a living Asher?

Better question: what would you do for a dead Asher?

I would actually protect him. I think that people like him are best made
public in order to see just why the world is so screwed up.