A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

[Erich]

Dear Folks,

The Fusion stuff I've posted before, but the rest is new

 

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

 

Over the past year many luminaries have made clarion calls for a concerted effort to solve the energy crisis. It is a crisis, with 300 million middle class Chinese determined to attain the unsustainable lifestyle we have sold them. Their thirst for oil is growing at 30% a year, and can do nothing but heat the earth and spark political conflict.

 

We have been heating the earth since the agricultural revolution with the positive result of providing 10,000 years of warm stability. But since the Industrial revolution we have been pushing the biosphere over the brink. Life forces have done this before -- during the snowball earth period ( Cryogenian Period ) in the Neoproterozoic toward the end of the Precambrian - but that life force was not sentient!

 

Thomas Freedman of the New York Times has called for a Manhattan Project for clean energy The New York Times> Search> Abstract. Richard Smalley, one of the fathers of nanotechnology, has made a similar plea http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html3month/2004/040902.Smalley.energy.html.

We are at the cusp in several technologies to fulfilling this clean energy dream. All that we need is the political leadership to shift our fiscal priorities.

 

I feel our resources should be focused in three promising technologies:

 

1. Nanotechnology: The exploitation of quantum effects is finally being seen in these new materials. Photovoltaics (PV) are at last going beyond silicon, with many companies promising near-term breakthroughs in efficiencies and lower cost. Even silicon is gaining new efficienies from nano-tech: Researchers develop technique to use dirty silicon, could pave way for cheaper solar energy http://www.physorg.com/news5831.html

New work on diodes also has great implications for PV, LEDs and micro-electronics Nanotubes make perfect diodes (August 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/11

 

Thermionics: The direct conversion of heat to electricity has been at best only 5% efficient. Now with quantum tunneling chips we are talking 80% of carnot efficiency. A good example is the proposed thermionic car design of Borealis. ( http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf ) . The estimated well-to-wheel efficiency is over 50%. This compares to 13% for internal combustion and 27% for hydrogen fuel cells. This means a car that has a range of 1500 miles on one fill up. Rodney T. Cox, president of Borealis, has told me that he plans to have this car developed within two years. Boeing has already used his Chorus motor drives http://www.chorusmotors.gi/.

on the nose gear of it's 767. (Boeing Demonstrates New Technology for Moving Airplanes on the Ground http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q3/nr_050801a.html )

The Borealis thermocouple power chips http://www.powerchips.gi/index.shtml (and cool chips) applied to all the waste heat in our economy would make our unsustainable lifestyle more than sustainable.

You may find an extensive discussion on thermo electric patents at: Nanalyze Forums - Direct conversion of heat to electricity http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1006੾

 

2. Biotechnology: Since his revolutionary work on the human genome project, Craig Venter has been finding thousands of previously unknown life forms in the sea and air. His goal is to use these creatures to develop the ultimate energy bug to produce hydrogen and or use of their photoreceptor genes for solar energy. http://www.venterscience.org/ Imagine a bioreactor in your home taking all your waste, adding some solar energy, and your electric and transportation needs are fulfilled.

 

3. Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts and maybe bubble fusion - Is bubble fusion back? (July 2005) - News - PhysicsWeb

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/8 )

 

On the big science side I do have hopes for the LDX : http://psfcwww2.psfc.mit.edu/ldx/.

 

.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as fallows:

 

"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)."

 

and

 

"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)."

 

EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons.

 

It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid http://www.electronpowersystems.com/Images/Ball%20Lightning%20Explained.pdf

The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants, NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.

 

Recent support has also come from one of the top lightning researcher in the world, Joe Dwyer at FIT, when he got his Y-ray and X-ray research published in the May issue of Scientific American,

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00032CE5-13B7-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F

Dwyer's paper:

http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/PDF/Gammarays.pdf

 

and according to Clint Seward it supports his lightning models and fusion work at Electron Power Systems

 

Clint sent Joe and I his new paper on a lightning charge transport model of cloud to ground lightning (he did not want me to post it to the web yet). Joe was supportive and suggested some other papers to consider and Clint is now in re-write.

 

It may also explain Elves, blue jets, sprites and red sprites, plasmas that appear above thunder storms. After a little searching, this seemed to have the best hard numbers on the observations of sprites.

 

Dr. Mark A. Stanley's Dissertation

http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~stanleym/dissertation/main.html

 

And may also explain the spiral twist of some fulgurites, hollow fused sand tubes found in sandy ground at lightning strikes.

 

 

The learning curve is so steep now, and with the resources of the online community, I'm sure we can rally greater support to solve this paramount problem of our time. I hold no truck with those who argue that big business or government are suppressing these technologies. It is only our complacency and comfort that blind us from pushing our leaders toward clean energy.

 

 

Erich J. Knight

shengar@aol.com

(540) 289-9750

[insane_alien]

it think all we have to do at the moment to get useable fusion power is get a stable vortex of plasma in the reactor. is that right? we have tokamaks that can produce power(but not enough to break even) for a short period.

[LucidDreamer]

Very nice post Erich.

[ldavidcooke]

Would an alternative utilizing positron emission be considered a clean alternative as well?

 

(I am ignorant of the protocols for this venue and have gotten tired of a general lack of serious discussion on the Yahoo News pages and was attracted by what appears to be a possible serious alternative. I am hoping this may be a reasonable alternative.)

 

Anyway, back to the original question. I remember a series of studies done by Irene Curie and her husband dealing with alpha particle emitters. Apparently they had used a Radium source and a Aluminum plate. The radiated reaction had the characteristic of persistence.

 

I also still have my Junior College Physics books that related to early Radar's oscillators being fired by isotopic salts. One of the techniques they used was to bend the emitted photonic emissions with a magnetic field. And using a strip line filter and wide band generator too create a tuneable SHF oscillator.

 

I was curious if a Radium source, (Or subsequent research has indicated Rb 82 and Na 22) source could be used to scan a high density metallic target. The intent was to dope the metallic target with Carbon to allow the absorption of the photonic emissions and re-radiation in the 12 to 14um range. The idea would be to use a tritium bath or a heat exchanger to extract the IR energy emitted.

 

The primary driver for this attempt was the relatively short half life of this type of reaction and the relative low neutron and gama ray generation. The issue appeared to be that the reaction was not efficient enough. What I was hoping was that it would be "just" efficient enough.

 

If this is bunk, my apologies. I have been told that this idea was strictly Sci-Fi and not possible. I don't know, logically this seems reasonable based on the long line of research that has occurred around this technology. The only difference was rather then trying to measure the sub-atomic particles generated by the collision of a positron and an electron, the idea was to put this technique to work to generate energy for residental or industrial purposes. Your observations are welcome.

 

Thanks,

Dave Cooke

[Erich]

In two other approaches:

What do you all think of this direct solar to hydrogen technology? I was told they have hit 10% efficiency and solved mass production problems. Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html

 

And This company:

Barnabus Energy, Inc. (OTC BB : BBSE) Investor Facts http://www.otcfn.com/bbse/report.html

I finally found some more specific info on the Suncone, The numbers look better than any solar technology I have seen at this level of development, that you can invest in. The credentials and track record of Dr. Melvin L. Prueitt are most impressive, Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.html , and the PV solar roofing technology they are acquiring looks solid.

 

And just coming out of the lab, this looks very strong:

UB News Services-solar nano-dots

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=75000009

 

Cheers,

Erich J. Knight

[Erich]

Dear Folks:

 

To really gain some perspective on the energy problem , and understand what a tough nut it is, read this reply by Uncle AL, from another Sci-forum:

 

"Do you have any idea how much energy the US uses/year? It has held reasonably steady at 60 bbl oil equiv/capita. 1 boe = 1700 kWhr-thermal. There are 290 million US folk or

 

1.74x10^10 boe/year, or

2.96x10^13 kWhr-thermal/year, or

1.065x10^20 joules/year, or...

 

...or the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2. Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae, git, or catch wind

 

The US consumes the equivalent of 1.2 metric tonnes of matter 100% converted into energy each year, E=mc^2.

 

You are all clueless. Sparrow farts run through a gas turbine won't get you 10^20 joules/year. Not now, not ever. Pulling 10^20 joules/year out of wind or waves would monstrously perturb the weather. Where do the energy and raw materials necessary to fabricate and install your New Age hind gut fermentations originate? Who pays for the environmental impact reports and litigations therefrom?

 

What are the unknown hazards? Can you guarantee absolute safety for 10,000 years? Let's have a uniform set of standards, eginineering and New Age bullshit both. Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

 

mi^2

Area, Modality

====================

1000 biomass

300 wind

60 solar

0.3 nuclear

 

3x10^7 GWhr-thermal/year would need 9 billion mi^2 of wind collection area. The total surface area of the Earth is 197 million mi^2. 24 hrs/day. Looks like yer gonna come up a little short if 100% of the Earth were wind generators powering only the US.

 

Are ya gonna alternatively burn algae to generate 10^20 joules/year? Now you are a factor of 3 even worse - before processing and not counting inputs. THEY LIED TO YOU. They lied to you so poorly it can be dismissed with arithmetic. Where are your minds?

 

--------------------

Uncle Al

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/

(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf "

 

 

 

Now ya know how big the problem is!!

My reply to UncleAl:

 

"Dear Uncle Al,

Your logic and math are impeccable, However you seem to ignore the macro energy equation.

All fossil and nuke fuels ultimately add to the heat load of the biosphere while most of the solar / wind / thermal conversion technologies (except geothermal) recycle solar energy instead of releasing sequestered solar energy. This is the goal and definition of sustainability, not over loading the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.

 

At least you seem not to take account of this, and I feel you dismiss the rising curve of increasing efficiency for PV, direct solar to hydrogen, wind and thermal conversion to electricity, not to mention P-B11 fusion.

From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs. ( Hydrogen Solar home http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html )

 

And the nano-dot approach to PVs also promises full spectrum conversion efficiencies along with clean production processes. ( UB News Services-solar nano-dots http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-ex...rticle=75000009 )"

 

 

And This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . I sent it to Clint Seward and here's his reply:

 

"There is another method to producing neutrons that fits my lightning model that I have described to you.

It is well known that electron beams have been used extensively to produce neutrons, above electron energies of 10 MeV, well within the voltages reported in the lightning event. (An Internet search produced several articles that reported this). I do not pretend to have researched this extensively, and do not know the actual target molecules or the process, but it appears plausible from what the papers report, and is consistent with my lightning model.

The proposed method you sent to me is a lot more complex, and I would have to say I can not agree with the article as written without experimental results."

 

Science News Daily http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-6724.html

Wow..............1 million g's...............I had never seen van der Waals interactions measured in these terms.......and shouldn't it be considered " van der Waals forces" (london & Waals) because the electron density in a molecule is redistributed by proximity to another pole? Are individual atoms a different story?

As you can see I only know enough to be dangerous or look ignorant.

At any rate this gives you an appreciation of the powers in the Nano and Quantum worlds

 

 

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

 

Cheers,

Erich J. Knight

[Erich]

Dear folks:

Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Lerner's work on P-B11 fusion.

 

He's referring to a power point presentation at the 05 AIAA conference on alternative forms of fusion which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion . 1.) Prometheus II , 2.) Field Revered Configuration, and 3.) Focus Fusion http://www.focusfusion.org/about.html

 

It's by Vincent Page a technology officer at GE.

Email me and I'll send it to anyone interested.

 

Erich

 

 

 

from : Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,

| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075

| Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ -;* http://www.neoteric-research.org/

| http://www.prometheus2.net/%A0%A0%A0------ mailtomk@plasmak.com

 

 

"Erich,

 

Thanks for your update,

 

A friend of mine, Bruce Pittman, who is a member of the AIAA, recently sent me a copy of the attached paper by Vincent Page of GE. Please keep in mind that I have never communicated with Vincent, but he found our concept to have the highest probability of success for achieving a commercial fusion power plant of any that he examined.

 

A program manager at DARPA submitted a POM for sizeable funding of extended research on our concept, both here and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. However, it didn't stay above this year's cut line for the budget funding priorities.

 

BTW, I agree with Cox that the analysis done by Chen does not fit the criteria of the EST plasmoid that Clint produces. The poloidal component of current in his toroid dominates his topology, which means that the corresponding toroidal field, which is only produced within the torus, also dominates. Consequently, the outward pressure on the EST current shell must be balanced by some external inward force. The toroidal component of current is weak and cannot produce the external poloidal magnetic pressure that would bring the toroid into stable equilibrium. If the plasmoid lasts for .6 seconds without change of shape or brightness level, then it must be continuously formed with his electron beam source. Otherwise, the plasma would decompose within microseconds.

 

By comparison, our PLASMAK magnetoplasmoids (PMKs) have negligible change in shape, size or luminosity over a period of one or two hundred milliseconds after the initial tens of microseconds impulse that forms them has ceased. That may not sound like much of a lifetime, but compare that to the decomposition of Lawrence Livermore's spheromak plasma within 60 microseconds. The other interesting thing is that we have recently produced PMKs of 40 cm diameter (under work sponsored by DOD), and with the installation of our new, additional fast rise capacitors, we expect to obtain lifetimes of seconds.

 

Cheers,

Paul "

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Erich

[LucidDreamer]

This may be a bit off topic for this thread, but I would like to mention the importance of approaching the problem from the other direction. Instead of just concentrating on creating energy alternatives to meet our incredible energy demands, we should also be considering methods to decrease the energy consumption. The world is not in an energy crisis; it’s in an oil crises caused by some amazingly wasteful transportation systems. The United States could cut it's oil use to 1/4 its current consumption levels by simply improving public transportation and switching to hybrid and fuel-efficient cars. In addition to this, we could make tiny changes to the car's carburetors and add a certain percentage of ethanol to our gas to further reduce our oil consumption. I think if we are really going to solve our energy/oil problem we will need to reduce consumption in addition to developing safe and environmentally-friendly alternatives.

[Erich]

Dear folks:

Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Lerner's work on P-B11 fusion.

 

He's referring to a power point presentation at the 05 AIAA conference on alternative forms of fusion which"

 

Correction: Vincent Page's presentation was given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research

 

Erich

[bigsplit]

An electrolosis chamber small enough to be placed in an automobile which can break down water to H2 and O quickly enough to run the engine through combution or fuel cell. This would be a modern wheel if we could pull that off.

[[Tycho?]]

An electrolosis chamber small enough to be placed in an automobile which can break down water to H2 and O quickly enough to run the engine through combution or fuel cell. This would be a modern wheel if we could pull that off.

 

If by wheel you mean "stupid invention" then yes.

[CPL.Luke]

luciddreamer,

 

problem with taht is that the government can't force all car manufacturers to produce car's with hybrid engines in them. Only way for that to happen is if the oil price rises to the point where it becomes cheaper to spend the extra money upfront on a hybrid vehicle, and save money on gas.

[Erich]

An electrolosis chamber small enough to be placed in an automobile which can break down water to H2 and O quickly enough to run the engine through combution or fuel cell. This would be a modern wheel if we could pull that off.

 

 

The thermionic power train would run like this:

 

1. Any external combustion heat source.

a. my ideal would be hydrogen from direct solar conversion / super bugs / excess power from nuclear plants / Fusion plants. ( none of this could be onboard, except EPS's scaleable reactors)

b. Storage in graphite or carbon nanotube tanks

 

2 . Thermionic chips ----------to Chorus Motor drives----------- regenerative braking--------and you've got over 50% well to wheel efficiency, ----------- with no wells.

[LucidDreamer]

luciddreamer' date='

 

problem with taht is that the government can't force all car manufacturers to produce car's with hybrid engines in them. Only way for that to happen is if the oil price rises to the point where it becomes cheaper to spend the extra money upfront on a hybrid vehicle, and save money on gas.[/quote']

True, I was thinking along the lines of incentives for buying fuel-economy cars and extra taxes on non-work SUVs and trucks. I was also thinking about non-governmental social initiatives started by people like us. Like you said though, rising oil prices have already resulted in a movement towards buying more fuel-efficient cars—capitalism at its finest.

 

The government should definitely be working on building more public transportation though.

[bigsplit]

'']If by wheel you mean "stupid invention" then yes.

 

 

What would be stupid about it?

[MattC]

The whole point of having hydrogen in a car is to turn it into electricity to make it run. using electrolysis to produce hydrogen requires electricity. That would sort of be like giving your buddy a huge pile of quarters, then having him give them to another friend, and having that friend give them back to you. Why would you do it? You KNOW you're not going to get every single last quarter back ... why not just take those quarters to the laundry place yourself?

 

Another analogy ... it would be like using a car's combuston engine and gasoline to produce electricity. Then using that electricity to create gasoline. Then using that gasoline to drive your car.

[Erich]

Bigsplit:

 

If the efficiency of direct solar to hydrogen cells could be boosted by a few magnitudes your idea would be feasible, Or if the electrolysis of H2O and PV efficiencies increase by the same amount. However if PV's did, there would be no need for any hydrogen system at all.

[bigsplit]

Bigsplit:

 

If the efficiency of direct solar to hydrogen cells could be boosted by a few magnitudes your idea would be feasible' date=' Or if the electrolysis of H2O and PV efficiencies increase by the same amount. However if PV's did, there would be no need for any hydrogen system at all.[/quote']

 

I understand what you are saying...but I have heard that one of the greatest obsticles to alternative systems for automobiles is the industry's obsession the the internal combustion engine. How much energy does it take to break down say a gallon of water, and which is more efficient for auto...combustion or fuel cells. Also, I have read that some chemicals actually increase the conductivity of the water making the process more efficient.

 

Once I was also curious about using mercury and its strong reactions to temperature changes to operate a two stroke engine...same problem I am sure.

 

But I guess all in all the simplest and best answer is to build a better battery.

[Erich]

Dear Folks:

 

Clint Seward just sent this update of their progress at http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ , a very nice time frame, if Clint can find the funding:

 

"Hi All,

 

 

The following is the annual update to the EPS progress toward a clean energy solution to replace fossil fuels. Below is a brief summary of where we are. Attached is an updated copy of the manuscript describing our project.

 

 

It remains clear that we have made and patented a new discovery in physics: a plasma toroid the remains stable without external magnetic fields. This is so far beyond the experience and understanding of plasma scientists today that, to say the least, we are having trouble convincing reviewers. We have completed the design of an improved neutron tube. This is what we have to build to demonstrate a clean energy source, and I plan to do the first steps in 2006, with a first demo in 2007 if all goes well.

 

Clint Seward, EPS

 

Chapter 27. Colliding EST Spheromak Neutron Tube

 

In 2005 we completed a detailed design of the apparatus we need for the first demonstration. This is possible because of two things. First, we understand the EST is really just a special case of a spheromak, a plasma ring that is being studied by others, except that the EST is high density spheromak, which will overcome the limitations of spheromaks for the clean energy application. Secondly, we can adapt the EST Spheromak to the well known neutron tube, by applying all of the pieces we have developed over the years.

 

We plan to do this by making a new, high energy neutron tube. There are several thousand neutron tubes in use in the US today that safely collide hydrogen ions to produce neutrons, which in turn are used for explosives detection, industrial process control, and medical testing. Figure 1 shows the neutron tube schematically. An ion source produces hydrogen ions (deuterium), which are accelerated to 110 kV, then directed to hit the target (also deuterium), a process which produces neutrons (see reference below).

 

 

 

Figure 1: A One Meter Long Neutron Tube Schematic

 

Neutron tubes today are limited by the low density of the hydrogen ions. We plan to overcome this limitation by adapting the EST Spheromak to increase the ion density to produce a high output neutron tube. The EST Spheromak is patented jointly by EPS Inc. and MIT scientists who also have published papers confirming the physics and data. Since each part of the development has been done by others or by EPS, we anticipate that this will be an engineering project to produce a proof of concept lab demo in two years, with modest funding.

 

The major application is a high output neutron tube for clean energy applications. The high output neutron tube can be thought of as a heat generator to replace a furnace and/or generate electricity. Fuel costs for energy will 20:1 less than fossil fuel costs. Ultimately we plan to use the hydrogen/boron process to produce clean energy without neutrons.

 

The development is a scale up of work completed to date. We make EST Spheromaks in the lab and accelerate them. Each step has been shown to work individually, and we plan to adapt them to produce a lab demo in two years. Milestones:

 

1. Defining Patent: (Note: co-inventors are MIT scientists). 2000

 

2. Spheromak acceleration: 2001

 

3. Spheromak capture in a magnetic trap: 2006

 

4. Spheromak collision for a lab proof of concept demonstration: 2007

 

5. First neutron tube commercial prototype: 2008

 

6. First commercial product: 2009

 

Our best estimate at this time (December 2005) is that we will need 24 months and approximately $500,000 to demonstrate a colliding EST fusion process.

 

Reference: Chichester, D. L., Simpson, and J. D. “Compact accelerator neutron generators.” The Industrial Physicist. American Institute of Physics. http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-6/p22.html. December, 2003."

 

 

 

Also:

 

I am glad to see the interest in Vincent Page's presentation given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion in other forums, (Below Is an excerpt). Vincent Page is a technology officer at GE!!

 

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:

 

 

"for larger plant sizes

Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale

Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:

Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)

Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%

Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%

 

Desirable Fusion Reactor Qualities

• Research & development is also needed in

the area of computing power.

• Many fusion researchers of necessity still

use MHD theory to validate their designs.

• MHD theory assumes perfect diamagnetism

and perfect conductance.

• These qualities may not always exist in the

real world, particularly during continuous operation.

• More computing power is needed to allow use of a more realistic validation theory

such as the Vlasov equations.

• ORNL is in the process of adding some impressive computing power.

• Researchers now need to develop more realistic validation methods up to the

limits of the available computing power.

• Governments need to fund these efforts."

 

 

I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening, that these threads need to be brought together in an article.

 

You may have seen my efforts with my "Manhattan Project" article, which got published on Sci-Scoop and the Open Source Energy Network but rejected on Slashdot. The New Energy News will soon run an article on these companies efforts toward aneutronic fusion.

 

About a year ago, I came across EPS while researching nano-tech and efficient home design. I started a correspondence Clint Seward, Eric Learner, and Paul Kolac, sending them science news links which I felt were either supportive or contradictory to their work. I also asked them to critique each other's approaches. I have posted these emails to numerous physics and science forums. Discussion groups, science journalists, and other academics, trying to foster discussion, attention, and hopefully some concessus on the validity of these proposed technologies.

My efforts have born some fruit. Clint and Joe Dwyer at FIT have been in consultation on Clint's current charge transport theory for cloud to ground lightening.

I have had several replies from editors, producers, and journalists expressing interest. From organizations as varied as PBS, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, New Energy News, the Guardian (U.K), and the San Francisco Chronicle. However, none of this professional interest has resulted in a story yet.

 

I have been responding to all of the articles that filter in via my Google alerts on "fusion power". The most recent was the "Happy News" article by Kris Metaverso.

http://www.happynews.com/news/112220...ependently.htm

 

This post is a plea to the science writers among you to craft a story covering aneutronic fusion, the P-B11 efforts, Eric's high temperatures and x-ray source project, Clint's lightening theories, and DOD review, and Paul's review by GE. The minimal cost and time frame for even the possibility of this leap forward seems criminal not to pursue. If you read my Manhattan article, you may have noticed that I am not a writer. I am a landscape designer and technology gadfly wondering why this technology has never been put in the public eye.

My hope is that someone, more skilled, would step up to give a shout out about these technologies. Please contact me for copies of my correspondence with the principles, interesting replies and criticisms from physics discussion forums and academic physicists who have replied to my queries.

 

Thanks for any help

 

__________________

Erich J. Knight

"Religion Is Bunk " T. A. Edison

[navynuke]

This may be a bit off topic for this thread, but I would like to mention the importance of approaching the problem from the other direction. Instead of just concentrating on creating energy alternatives to meet our incredible energy demands, we should also be considering methods to decrease the energy consumption. The world is not in an energy crisis; it’s in an oil crises caused by some amazingly wasteful transportation systems. The United States could cut it's oil use to 1/4 its current consumption levels by simply improving public transportation and switching to hybrid and fuel-efficient cars. In addition to this, we could make tiny changes to the car's carburetors and add a certain percentage of ethanol to our gas to further reduce our oil consumption. I think if we are really going to solve our energy/oil problem we will need to reduce consumption in addition to developing safe and environmentally-friendly alternatives.

Good point, but with some corrections. We don't use carburetors anymore, but computer controlled fuel injection. Ethanol in carbs was a disaster, but in fuel injection it is a lot more feasible. Public transportation only works in high density population areas, such as large cities and major metropolitan areas. But I agree that reducing consumption should be given just as much effort and funding as finding new sources of energy.

[[Tycho?]]

Good point, but with some corrections. We don't use carburetors anymore, but computer controlled fuel injection. Ethanol in carbs was a disaster, but in fuel injection it is a lot more feasible. Public transportation only works in high density population areas, such as large cities and major metropolitan areas. But I agree that reducing consumption should be given just as much effort and funding as finding new sources of energy.

 

Public transportation only works in major metropolitan areas? Um, no. I live in a city, but I can easily catch a bus to any number of tiny towns and villeges. These busses are usually packed as well, I'd say it works pretty well outside of metropolitan areas.

[navynuke]

'']Public transportation only works in major metropolitan areas? Um, no. I live in a city, but I can easily catch a bus to any number of tiny towns and villeges. These busses are usually packed as well, I'd say it works pretty well outside of metropolitan areas.

 

But a lot of areas have poor ridership, and taxpayer subsidies are the only thing that makes them work. In the Phoenix area, the buses are often full, but only in the downtown area. Go out to the fringe communities and the ridership is low. Still, we need them, and they help mostly the poor who can't afford cars, and the elderly who shouldn't be driving.

Phoenix is getting a light rail system, and hopefully it will help with our pollution problems, but our growth is outpacing all attempts at keeping up. The smog lately has been worse than ever, and lots of people are getting respiratroy illnesses. We haven't had a good cleansing rain in almost 4 months. And almost all of our pollution is from cars. Gas is $2.40 a gallon and still people will not carpool.

Yes, we need a new Manhattan project, and the first effort should be to change some attitudes and habits.

Street racers should have their cars impounded and licenses revoked, their should be a gas guzzler tax on non-commercial vehicles getting less than 20 MPG (hiway), and an environmental impact tax could be levied on sales of gasoline during high smog conditions. Until we start feeling it personally, Americans will continue to waste energy without thinking about it.

[Erich]

I understand what you are saying...but I have heard that one of the greatest obsticles to alternative systems for automobiles is the industry's obsession the the internal combustion engine. How much energy does it take to break down say a gallon of water, and which is more efficient for auto...combustion or fuel cells.

 

With an internal combustion engine a car has about the same 15% water to wheel (Hydrogen) or well to wheel (Gas) efficiency.

Fuel cells, at the current technology, have about a 27% water to wheel efficiency. The Borealis Thermionic Power Chip car should be over 50%.

 

But!,, with new technology the equation changes:

 

Direct Solar to Hydrogen:

A newspaper guy, Rupert Leach, Director, Newspath Ltd, from the UK posted me about his talking to the Chairman of Hydrogen Solar, Julian Keable http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html, saying that they will be well over 10% efficiency in the near future with their Tandem Cell™, technology, and that they had initial issues with scale-up, but these seem to have been overcome and they were sounding rather optimistic a few weeks ago.

 

OR: BIO Hydrogen

 

http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=10697

About NanoLogix, Inc.

 

"NanoLogix is a nanobiotechnology company that engages in the research, development, and commercialization of technologies for the production of bacteria, disease testing kits, alternative sources of fuel"

 

 

Efficiency is also good:

 

The Energy Blog: Sleek Aptera Hybrid Designed for 330 mpg

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/accelerated_com.html

[sunspot]

I always thought a good source of renewal energy is at the interface between the salty oceans and fresh water rivers. The chemical potential is significant and the volumes of water are high. We can amplify the potential and use it to make electricity. Or use it directly with a little energy input for the production of hydrogen. Eventually some of the hydrogen could be recycle for steam turbines to drive the net production of hydrogen.

[Saryctos]

What about harnessing the power of osmosis?

 

All you really need is to make a U shaped tube with a film in the center of the curve, and have a tube connect the 2 on a downward slant from the solute side to the 'clean' side with a filter keeping the solute in solution.