DescentBB

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6673788606

Most excellent lecture by Dr. Bussard (of \"Bussard Ramjet\" fame) given to staff of Google. I hope he manages to get some funding, because I have zero confidence that ITER will produce anything except a busload of Ph.D.s at around a billion dollars a pop.

Bussard's power generators would be smaller than a shipping container, and as such, have the potential to utterly change the world as we know it today.

Despite the fact therere are a lot fo technical details discussed in the middle, I recommend you sit through that and see the whole thing, even if you are only slightly interested in fusion research.

I am NOT going to watch that for 1.5 hours, even though I am interested in fusion.

If we get fusion, we can put it everywhere. Replace all the fission plants with fusion ones, power our space stations with fusion cores, hell, build colonies on other planets. I'm down for that.

I haven't watched the video yet, but everything is hand waving until you have a proof of concept. Also, how do you prevent disasterous accidents or acts of terrorism if these reactors are so small and easily transportable?

Bussard you say ? Will watch later at night for sure.

Acts of terrorism need things that go \"boom\", not things that fizzle and die...

No - these reactors CAN NOT be used as bombs or as sources of radiation.

This is FUSION not FISSION.

In this mode of fusion, there are no heavy particles (neutrons) formed and hence there is no radiation per se: once the device is turned off (and it cools down) you can crawl inside the reactor containment vessel without any protective gear at all.

It can't blow up like a bomb, because you have to continually provide the electricity to contain it magnetically. If you switch it off wrong, it might ruin the containment vessel, but it won't \"melt down\" because there's nothing to melt down, and you have to keep trickling the fuel INTO the reactor.

There's no way to poke too much fuel in - that will just shut down the fusion reaction.

No - Fusion is clean, cheap AND safe. Plus the fuel is non-radioactive, there are no radioactive by-products. And the fuel is sitting in the water you drink every day. (1 in 6000 atoms of hydrogen in water is Deuterium, or fusion fuel).

It's not the existing nuclear plants which will be replaced - those are no-hopers - they need hundreds of millions of dollars in decommissioning. No - you convert existing coal and oil fired power stations to Fusion quite easily: simply build a new building next to the steam generators, and reroute the pipes to the fusion reactors (you'd have banks of them). Then you can rip down the old furnaces.

TIGERassault wrote:I am NOT going to watch that for 1.5 hours, even though I am interested in fusion.

Apparently then, you are NOT interested in fusion.

Although I'm no science expert, I like to hear about new ideas from anybody. I watched the whole thing, and although I didn't know much about the physics or engineering, it blew my hair back. Very cool and I hope they get funding for this project.

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

http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2 ... 0Paper.pdf

We're talking about nuclear fusion right? The kind that requires tremendous heat and pressure to get to happen? What happens if the containment breaks when under that amount of heat and pressure? We're talking millions of degress, it's plenty enough be dangerous and more so than fuel used in every day cars. You also need pure hydrogen, something that is explosive on its own. I suppose you could store it as water and then seperate it out right before it's fused, however you'd have to have enough power being generated by the reactor to power this as well (you'd need a heck of a starter). Finally, instead of producing CO2 as a byproduct, we'd be producing helium. What (different) effects would it have on the enviornment then?

helium would just float away, however little manages to be vented as waste - we'd probably collect it, as the only other way to produce it is with radioactive decay.

However, consider the damage a stream of plasma 10 million + degrees would do if containment is ever breached.

Simply because the process isn't using fissionable fuel doesn't reduce the catastrophic effects of a method that we expect to produce more energy than fission, that in itself uses fission as part of the reaction.

fliptw wrote:However, consider the damage a stream of plasma 10 million + degrees would do if containment is ever breached.

That's why you attach 4 mechanical arms to your back with superior A.I. to fix the breaches as they occur! DUH! As long as the inhibitor chip doesn't break, you'll be good!

If the containment is ever breached, it won't be long before there's no problem anymore. Seriously; these things would probably be distant from things that could be affected by it, and there's zero danger of it exploding. Take away the fuel and the reaction stops within seconds. The heated gas would leak out, yes, but there's very little of it and it would dissipate very quickly. I'd like fusion way better than nuclear, coal or basically anything else available right now. It'd be difficult to cause anything more than a very localized catastrophe with fusion.

I think that's the point:

Nuclear fusion-based reactors are considerably safer than fission-based.

Neither one is completely 100% safe; an accident could still occur, destroying whatever/whoever is nearby. But the main difference is that fusion reactions naturally \"wind down\" in a catastrophe, whereas fission reactions \"wind up\" (see Chernobyl).

fliptw wrote:However, consider the damage a stream of plasma 10 million + degrees would do if containment is ever breached.

Not much, really. Plasma has a very, very short life span (if it had a life) before... doing whatever the transfomation of plasma to gas is called. That's why plasma energy now isn't able to keep more than a spark going to power the generatiors.

Have they finally crossed the barrier from ridiculously too expensive to use in the real world over to a new cost effective power source?
If not, regardless of how interesting it is, it's still a pipe dream.
I'm not saying the project doesn't have merit but it's hard to get excited about fission as a power source when they got us all excited about it 25 years ago and still haven't pulled it off yet.

Samuel Dravis wrote:If the containment is ever breached, it won't be long before there's no problem anymore. Seriously; these things would probably be distant from things that could be affected by it, and there's zero danger of it exploding. Take away the fuel and the reaction stops within seconds. The heated gas would leak out, yes, but there's very little of it and it would dissipate very quickly. I'd like fusion way better than nuclear, coal or basically anything else available right now. It'd be difficult to cause anything more than a very localized catastrophe with fusion.

For the kind you'd see in Civilization and Simcity, yes

the issue is at hand is small portable fusion reactors

Holy sh*t ! Finaly someone smart w/ a plan. If he can get funding to do the engineering it'll certainly change things. Hope he gets it going.

Here's a brief of the Polywell fusor.

Afaik fusion creates radiation during the process affecting the housing materials, making some even radioactive. That was a major problem with fusion reactors in the past.

Never mind fission or fusion. What you want is free power! This company has invented it, but isn't releasing any details or working prototypes:

http://www.steorn.net

Diedel wrote:Afaik fusion creates radiation during the process affecting the housing materials, making some even radioactive. That was a major problem with fusion reactors in the past.

Only true for DD & DT fusion. p11B fusion is fairly "clean", see Aneutronic Fusion

Genghis wrote:Never mind fission or fusion. What you want is free power! This company has invented it, but isn't releasing any details or working prototypes:

http://www.steorn.net

Looks like a scam to me. Even if it's not, remember there's no such thing as a free lunch..

Edit:

Steorn wrote:Steorn is making three claims for its technology:

1. The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.

2. The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.

3. There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

Riiiight. No wonder they won't tell you how they do it. Here's some writeup on Steorn. If I'd have to choose sides I'd rather put my eggs into Bussard's nest..

Can't resist the resurrection -- Clarke's law #1:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

this is very interesting and looks promising

topher, you need to get this guy a copy of power point.