Slashdot Mirror


Bussard Gets Navy Funding For Fusion Research

UnreasonableMan writes to let us know that Robert Bussard, the fusion researcher whose talk at Google was discussed here a few months back, has won continued funding from the Navy. The word on this spread from Kent Brewster at the Speculations blog, who reportedly had the word from Bussard himself. (The link is to another blog that reproduces Brewster's post, because Speculations has no permalink.)

146 comments

  1. Dr. Robert Bussard by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 0
    I only know about Dr. Bussard by the many times I have read and re-read Niven's Known Space series. If he's the true source of the "Bussard Ramjet" then whether or not it's a workable concept, I laud the man for thinking further out of the box than anyone since R.B.Fuller.

    We need minds like that, I'm glad to see he's being fed.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Informative
      Ok, I R'd TFM. Now I'm even more impressed -- nuclear power without stray neutrons. Ubergreen.

      And there should be plenty of Boron about.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by GringoCroco · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Where did the "'d" come from?
      R'd TFM
      Read'd TFM?

    3. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did the "'d" come from? ... Read'd TFM?

      It's more like, I "arred the effin em."
      No, it's not a 100% literal substitution...

    4. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did the "M" come from?

    5. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by mobby_6kl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >Where did the "M" come from?

      Manuscript?

    6. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, too bad it'll never work.

    7. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Funny
      Ok, let's cross over to a place where "other cultures" live, i.e. Welsh and Old Folks. I be nothing like the former (although I do have friends who say only Welsh can spell a sneeze phonetically) and definitely an early entrant in the latter, so let's get down to it:

      Welsh "dd" is kind of a shortish "th" sound, so I "R'd" meaning "Readtha".

      "F" is silent, although some folk say it stands for "Fine".

      And a long time ago in the IT profession (back when it was known as "Programming") we had these innovations held together by thin strips of razor blade called "printed Manuals" with words like "PL/I" and "CORGZ" and "DBOMP" on them. ("Paper" is kind of like a blank .html file, only well, sort of entirely different. Ours had holes punched in them and the odd bloodstain). So RTFM meant, loosely, "Read The Fine Manual". I wrote that abbreviation (and why is "abbreviation" such a long word?) so many times my fingers kind of took over there for a moment. Perils of old age slipping into me dotage. Apologies to all you young nerds who couldn't make the linguistic transition there. But brush up on your "old", if you're lucky you'll need to speak that language some day.

      Iffn' ye don't like that explanation, give me a few and I'll invent another one. In the mean time, "dddd" to the lot of ye.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Low neutron fusion means viable fusion. Neutrons are extremely hard to stop. Hence, they easily steal energy from the fusing plasma and require great amounts of shielding in order to intercept the energy that they carry.

    9. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by hey! · · Score: 1

      Now that's impressive. If it works, Bussard will be a household name.

      He'll be known as Mr. Fusion.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by radtea · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, I R'd TFM. Now I'm even more impressed -- nuclear power without stray neutrons. Ubergreen.

      p + 11B -> alpha + alpha + alpha has been known for a long time, and has some serious problems. Google "migma" to get some of the background.

      The basic issue is that the Coulomb barrier is large and the radiative losses in the plasma will always be larger than the generated power for reasonable configurations. This is not to say that it is impossible, just very, very hard, and some of the most promising approaches involving disequilibrium plasmas have been proven on very general theoretical grounds to be unworkable.

      Furthermore, any system that contains high energy alpha particles will also produce neutrons via secondary reactions. "A-neutronic" fusion is usually defined as "one neutron or less per hundred fusion reaction. pB fusion has the potential to reach this limit, but because the number of fusing nuclei is staggeringly large to produce interesting amounts of power, if you stood beside an unshielded pB reactor you would still die of radiation poisoning in short order. This does not really qualify as "without neutrons" as that phrase would normally be understood, making the "aneutronic" name an unfortunate piece of scientific marketing-speak.

      Low-neutron-emission fusion scenarios are worth exploring, but it is important to have reasonable expectations of what the fundamental physics actually limits the technology to doing.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    11. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by hey! · · Score: 1

      True story. I worked as an electromechanical tech on a fusion experiment for about a year. I was one of the first employees, so I wasn't there when things got interesting; mostly my job was checking out equipment scrounged from other closed down experiments, cannibalizing some things for parts, assembling and preparing various stainless widgets to go into hard vacuum.

      I don't remember the name of the PI, but it was Dick Hardacre or something like that. He was one of these guys who was promoted to his level of incompetence: as an administrator he was damned good physicist. Which meant 4/5 of the time we had nothing useful to do, then 1/5 of the time we were trying to get a month's worth of work done in a week, a process that was complicated by "Dr. Dick" either looking over our shoulder, or running around screaming orders for us to throw out the progress we had made in order to do essentially the same thing but in a different order.

      Apparently he had a reputation outside our happy little group, because one day we got a shipment of surplus equipment from his old lab that had been sent to the attention of "Dr. Dick Hardass".

      I wonder of Dr. Bussard gets equipment shipped to the attention of "Dr. Bastard"?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      So RTFM meant, loosely, "Read The Fine Manual". I wrote that abbreviation (and why is "abbreviation" such a long word?) so many times my fingers kind of took over there for a moment.

      If you using the Emacs usenet client to do tech support for noobs on the Linux kernel forums, you might like to know that you can type "Read The Fine Manual" quickly with Meta3-Ctrl-~ Shift-R Shift-T Shift-F Shift-M Meta2-Ctrl-~ !-%-Esc-Alt-Meta-Escape-Return. You need to install lisp-acronym-expander obviously, and change the bindings from the default which needs a keyboard with Meta4 and Meta5 keys.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      The basic issue is that the Coulomb barrier is large and the radiative losses in the plasma will always be larger than the generated power for reasonable configurations. This is not to say that it is impossible, just very, very hard, and some of the most promising approaches involving disequilibrium plasmas have been proven on very general theoretical grounds to be unworkable.

      Ah, you refer to Todd Rider. Interesting papers, to say the least, but they don't state what it is often reported that they state: that plasmas not in thermodynamic equilibrium cannot produce a net energy gain. In fact, in one of his papers, Rider himself proposes some nonequilibrium designs. The key is that you can't act on the ions in bulk; you have to filter out the low energy ions and focus on accelerating them. As collisions tend to bring the plasma back into a Maxwellian distribution, any uniformly acting accelerating force won't help.

      I've also heard it stated that Rider's papers rule out fusion power from a IEC Fusor or Bussard's design. This also seems to be untrue, if you look at his assumptions: a quasineutral, anisotropic plasma. IEC fusion is not anisotropic (it operates in "star mode", in which most of the fusion occurs in focused beams), and it is most definitely not quasineutral (a grid won't accelerate a quasineutral plasma). He has one section titled "Fusion without electrons" or something to that nature, but it's simply a Brillouin limit calculation (magnetic confinement).

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    14. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Ok, shouldn't your signature be

      'Someone says "Haiku" / ten blocks away, and I go / all drifting snowflakes'?

      If the pattern is 5/7/5, "Somebody" bumps you right out. Slice out that extra syllable. Besides, 'Someone' just sounds more poetic than somebody, at least at the beginning of a line. It's an English Iam/stress/foot thing I suspect. At the end, it has a better match to the lay of the stress: "We hit somebody / with our brand new Subaru / swerve, squish those turtles" -- but then, that last line needs to be more natureful. Oh, well.

      My coworker looks over my shoulder and intones: "Matematical / precision in each snowflake / but not your Haiku."

    15. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already named the Bussard collectors after him. I'd rather be known for that than being called "Mr. Fusion"...
      Leave that moniker to the food processor.

    16. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a touch typist, it's faster just to type the whole sentence.

    17. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Geez. You know, until I read this thread, I thought I was pretty smart. I bow before your effortless use of terminology I still don't understand even after looking it up.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    18. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Ok, shouldn't your signature be 'Someone says "Haiku" / ten blocks away, and I go / all drifting snowflakes'?

      Yes, it should. Funnily enough, I'd only meant that as prose. I will trim that little root, thank you.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    19. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      And I bow, deeply, to your coworker.

      ---

      A fractured Haiku

      Makes the old geek tremble so

      Like water torture.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    20. Re:Dr. Robert Bussard by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's funny how Americans focus on the 5/7/5. While that's the most common stanza for Haiku, it's not the only one. The keys to Haiku are extreme brevity and a focus on nature symbolism. It's poetry condensed to an extreme degree. 5/7/5 in English doesn't even stay true to the original poetry because Japanese syllables are shorter.

      My favorite English haiku is by Nicholas Virgilio, about his brother who died during the Vietnam War:

      Lily
      Out of the water
      Out of itself


      Of course, even this is considered by some** to not be true to the form because the imposition of a metaphor is to detract from the purity of the haiku. Ultimately, a haiku strives for perfection -- a state in which changing just one word, in any way, shape, or form, will ruin the haiku.

      ** - This opinion was not shared by the then emperor of Japan, who reportedly was pleased by this Haiku

      --
      Present day. Present time.
  2. How about by OverlordQ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    linking to the Speculations blog anyways. I mean it's not like it isn't the very top story on there or anything . . .

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:How about by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      It might be the top post today, but what about tomorrow or next month?
      This is described in the blurb:

      (The link is to another blog that reproduces Brewster's post, because Speculations has no permalink.)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:How about by someone1234 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Like anyone cares about a month's old Slashdot article.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    3. Re:How about by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'd love it if the mod that rated this Offtopic could explain just how in the hell this was offtopic. Yes, I'm fully aware that would negate the moderation.

    4. Re:How about by Kent+Brewster · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but it's not that big of a deal. Speculations is a magazine for writers, and could do without being Slashdotted again. :)

  3. Louis Wu will be happy by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    His future on the ringworld is safe!

    Bussard ramjets are vital to stability.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Louis Wu will be happy by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Rambrakes. Bussard rambrakes.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Louis Wu will be happy by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      and the city-builders get to strip them for their n00b spaceships...

    3. Re:Louis Wu will be happy by sgholt · · Score: 1

      Stocking up on superconductor cloth...

    4. Re:Louis Wu will be happy by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Sounds like something you might read in World of Starcraft someday.

      [2. Trade] WTS stacks of [Superconductor Cloth] 20cr each PST

    5. Re:Louis Wu will be happy by ultranova · · Score: 1

      His future on the ringworld is safe!

      Bussard ramjets are vital to stability.

      Only if you fail to shoot all cowardly two-headed aliens on sight.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Tom Ligon (ex-colleague from Bussard) disagrees by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Evidently somebody got carried away with some fairly routine bookkeeping. The contract still exists, and there is still the same un-spent money on the books. Evidently, what happened is a "no-cost extension". That is, the period of the contract has been extended, but they're not sending any checks."

    http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn= fusor_historynews&key=1177038530

    Anyone have further information ?

    1. Re:Tom Ligon (ex-colleague from Bussard) disagrees by XNormal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IIUC, this means Bussard won't be getting any new money for now but the money already allocated for the project will resume flowing.

      Note that the $200 million number is for Phase 2 (full scale 100 MW reactor). Phase 1 (validate and review WB-6 results) was estimated at $3-5 million so "two orders of magnitude below $200 million" is in the ballbark.

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    2. Re:Tom Ligon (ex-colleague from Bussard) disagrees by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/04/false- report.html

      Same site ... same report about this not meaning any money. So this is a fake.

  5. The report was incorrect by InDi0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/04/false- report.html It was a false report. The only good news I heard in a long time, this guy seemed so promising. But it is incorrect, the guy that posted the news piece took it down.

    1. Re:The report was incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, heck. Dr. Bussard could really use some money, and the world could really use the security fusion power would bring.

      After all, can you imagine a world where we don't have to get involved in OIL WARS with Islamic extremists?!?

  6. Cue all the jokes... by tttonyyy · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...about the reactor having an "I feel lucky" button, but with a "Do you feel lucky, punk?" Navy twist to them.

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    1. Re:Cue all the jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ducks are Touring complete. They move across a (theoretically) infinite river in either direction. They have memory. In each step, they can catch fish, take a dump, or quack.

    2. Re:Cue all the jokes... by tttonyyy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ducks are Touring complete. They move across a (theoretically) infinite river in either direction. They have memory. In each step, they can catch fish, take a dump, or quack. This is the perfect example as to why standing next to an unshielded fusion reactor is Bad News(tm).

      Personally I like the idea of starships powered by Bad News. As Douglas Adams points out, it is the only thing that travels faster than light - but wherever you go, you're unpopular when you get there. :)
      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    3. Re:Cue all the jokes... by NoMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      As Douglas Adams points out, it is the only thing that travels faster than light
      Pratchett would disagree - monarchy also travels faster than light.

      (I won't go into the whole theory here, but suffice to say the particles involved are "kingons" and "queeons", the path of which can only be blocked by "republicons"...)

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    4. Re:Cue all the jokes... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      I knew a kid who quacked. He was also really good at arithmetic, so that might explain it.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    5. Re:Cue all the jokes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watson Ladd is still an idiot.

  7. Starcraft quote by Xel'Naga · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Thank God for cold fusion"
    -Terran marine, getting a can of beer from a nuclear device

    1. Re:Starcraft quote by thepotoo · · Score: 1
      Reading through your post history, you've made a half-dozen Starcraft references just on the first page. Geez.

      If your name wasn't Xel'Naga, I might be tempted to accuse you of fanboyism ;)

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    2. Re:Starcraft quote by Xel'Naga · · Score: 1

      Woohoo! My first stalker! ;)

  8. More info by Johnno74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The international acedemy of science awarded Bussard & team the "Outstanding technology of the year award" last year (linky)

    According to that page, Bussard's reactor could be on the market in 6-10 years.

    Interestingly the design isn't a "steam kettle" system, like all existing thermal power plants - coal, natural gas or nuclear, which all use a heat source to boil water to spin a steam turbine.

    Bussard's Pollywell design generates high-energy alpha particles, which can be used to directly produce an electrical current.

    It looks like Bussard is finally getting the attention he deserves, rather than the incredibly expensive magnetic confinement systems like ITER, which has so far spent billions of dollars and needs billions more before anyone can even say for sure if it will work or not...

    If Bussard pulls this off, this could be an incredibly disruptive technology. Clean, cheap power... what the nuclear age has so long promised but failed to deliver.

    1. Re:More info by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a rather huge if, he came across like someone who is desperate to make his idea work long after everyone has realized it won't. I wrote this just after having seen his Google talk so I won't rewrite it:

      I watched the whole thing though I'm sad to say; what a waste of time. In a nutshell:

      • Fusion is simple and elegant, it powers the stars, just take a look at the sun to see it work!
      • The Tomakak is just a problem on top of a problem, it's going nowhere fast.
      • So we had this ingenious idea for making charged particles go into the center of a load of magnets oriented in a certain way which would solve all the Tomakak's problems.
      • The first one we tried the particles escaped onto the metal welds which bring the magnets together.
      • The second one didn't have metal welds, but the particles escaped onto the magnets themselves.
      • The third one had insulated magnets, but the particles escaped onto the metal stands.
      • For the nth one we insulated everything, and on *the day* before we lost all funding and had to close the lab down we achieved some fusion! We now know exactly what we're going to do!
      • It will solve world hunger, create a stable economy, enable space travel, make ethanol viable, stop the oil wars, cure cancer, etc.
      • It's all in this paper I wrote, it doesn't actually have any formulas or concrete evidence in it "but it does talk about it".
      • Now all we need is $200M funding to build the final thing *cough*and solve the crippling engineering problems*cough*. Questions?

      If you want to prove that you're not full of it why not rebuild the last machine you built, which would be relatively cheap, to recreate the results you got the day before you had to close the labs down?
      - Well the $200M will build ones which will be 50x better, one of them will be a dodecahedron.

      It looks like the military thought exactly the same thing by the way, hence the much smaller amount of funding.

      Why is no-one funding you?
      - No-one thinks outside the box. If you let me choose who goes on the panel who gets to decide whether it's worthwhile I'll pick some people who can think outside the box. There are lots of people in China and other countries who can think outside the box, and if I don't get funding here in America I'll give my patents to China for free and you wouldn't want that. (I'm not making this up, he literally threatened the audience with giving the tech to China for free)

      How do you get the helium waste products out?
      - We have a grid on the outside which lets the helium slowly come to a stop, we haven't tried this yet but it's an engineering problem. There are also serious problems with arcing due to the high voltages, but these are merely engineering problems not physics problems.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Clean, cheap power... what the nuclear age has so long promised but failed to deliver. Oink oink, flap flap.
    3. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm not making this up, he literally threatened the audience with giving the tech to China for free

      Why is that a "threat"?

    4. Re:More info by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      nuclear is clean and cheap, if people let it be. too bad the media do a great job of whipping up bullshit the moment anyone says radiation.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      because his statement was in the form of a threat: "if you don't X, then i will Y".

      given politically correct logic, the above statement is a threat when Y is not 'give technology to china'.

    6. Re:More info by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Clean cheap power

      choose 2

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:More info by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 3, Informative

      # The Tomakak is just a problem on top of a problem, it's going nowhere fast.
      # So we had this ingenious idea for making charged particles go into the center of a load of magnets oriented in a certain way which would solve all the Tomakak's problems.


      FYI - it's a tokamak

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    8. Re:More info by FridayBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly the design isn't a "steam kettle" system, like all existing thermal power plants - coal, natural gas or nuclear, which all use a heat source to boil water to spin a steam turbine. Bussard's Pollywell design generates high-energy alpha particles, which can be used to directly produce an electrical current.

      Very interesting indeed. Where did you get that?

      I was always wondering how he was planning to produce energy with this device: if he was going to boil water with it, then I couldn't figure out how he was going to keep the Pollywell device itself from overheating.

      Oh, well. It seems we're still looking for 200 million dollars. Google could easily have done it -- hell, they're always looking for cheap electricity! -- but it seems #@^%! Doubleclick was more important to them. On the other hand, judging from the number of Google employees that walked out during Bussard's famous speech, maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.

      How's this for an alternative: if a million Slashdotters were to pitch in $200 each, we'd be able to finance it ourselves! Come to think of it, if a million Slashdotters were to pitch in only $10 each -- or even $1 -- we might actually attract enough attention to the project to get it rolling anyway...
    9. Re:More info by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      The international acedemy of science awarded Bussard & team the "Outstanding technology of the year award" last year

      So? The International Academy of Science appears to be a tiny special interest association, mostly concerned with promoting the 'Acellus Learning System'. (And the list of other nominees is impressive with its concentration on consumer electronics.)
       
      This 'award' is about as impressive and meaningful as being the Man of the Year for the East Podunk Elk's Club.
       
       

      It looks like Bussard is finally getting the attention he deserves

      On what basis does he 'deserve' attention?
    10. Re:More info by Bamfarooni · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, I was at the famous speech at Google and you don't know what you're talking about. The room was completely packed even though he went 30 minutes over.

    11. Re:More info by pashdown · · Score: 1

      Cheap clean. I hate housework.

    12. Re:More info by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Honestly, I could write a post in a similar tone from a 1943 POV on how Los Alamos will never produce anything useful.

      That said, he really should have toned his money request down. =) But he does have a new way of solving some of the problems of existing Farnsworth-Hirsch fusors and we probably could determine whether he is on to something really useful or just delusional for less than $10e6. Compared to the costs for ITER that's low enough that we should at least try to recreate his last experiments.

      How do you get the helium waste products out?

      - We have a grid on the outside which lets the helium slowly come to a stop, we haven't tried this yet but it's an engineering problem. There are also serious problems with arcing due to the high voltages, but these are merely engineering problems not physics problems.

      The charged particles that are the result of the fusion process have a vastly higher energy level than the fuel (that's the point of the device). Just about all of them should have more than enough kinetic energy to leave the potential well.

      And is arcing really a problem in a device that's mostly vacuum where the coils aren't charged but carrying a current instead?

      Imho, much more interesting is the question whether the device's good enough at keeping the fuel at discrete energy levels that it can actually break even instead of devolving in a far less efficient thermodynamic equilibrium.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    13. Re:More info by Rei · · Score: 1

      Well, his solution solves the grid issue, but at the cost of introducing relevant Bremsstrahlung losses into the system.

      I'm not going to weigh in yet as to whether his system will work or not. It bothers me how many people simply listened to his talk and are now convinced that it's the solution to all of our problems. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to get a good grip on the concept of Debye screening and to what degree it applies to IEC fusors ;) I don't think it's right to insist on people that they fund something when you don't know the physics behind what you're promoting.

      And is arcing really a problem in a device that's mostly vacuum where the coils aren't charged but carrying a current instead?

      1) You need high voltages both for coronal discharge ionization and for accelerating the ions toward the core.
      2) Even a vacuum has a dielectric breakdown voltage -- and it's lower than many materials, like plastics.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    14. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      it's not possible that people "walked out" because they had other scheduled work to do?

    15. Re:More info by Rei · · Score: 1

      Interestingly the design isn't a "steam kettle" system, like all existing thermal power plants - coal, natural gas or nuclear, which all use a heat source to boil water to spin a steam turbine. Bussard's Pollywell design generates high-energy alpha particles, which can be used to directly produce an electrical current.

        Very interesting indeed. Where did you get that?


      Bussard talked about it. However, it's not exactly a true statement; google magnetohydrodynamic power. Most interesting to me is the prospect of a "dusty fission fragment reactor" (which can also directly provide thrust for a rocket). Basically, most of the energy coming from a fission reaction is in the form of "fission fragments" -- tiny chunks of your fuel that shoot off at high speeds when a fission reaction occurs. Needless to say, they're ionized. However, they quickly impact other parts of your reactor and are then thermalized. Thus, you're forced to suffer Carnot-cycle losses to recover the power. A "fission fragment" reactor is designed so that most of your reactor is sparse, with little for the fragments to collide with, so that they can reach the walls and be converted to power directly by decelerating them. The most advanced design I've read about is a "dusty" fission fragment reactor. Your fuel is nanoparticles of reasonably highly enriched uranium with a microscale graphite coating or nanoparticles of graphite. You positively charge the walls of the reactor. Since the fuel is fissioning, it will self-ionize and ionize the graphite, leaving both perfectly dispersed throughout the reactor. Since there's so much surface area on the particles, they radiate away their excess heat effectively. According to calculations, you can reach criticality easily while still allowing most of your fragments to reach the walls. Magnetic fields then channel them into your MHD generator. Or, in the case of a rocket, straight out the back for extremely high ISP thrust.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    16. Re:More info by GrassSnake · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the "Outstanding Technology of the Year" award you mention was not given by the prestigious International Academy of Science. It was given by a sketchy Missouri-based organization that capitalizes on the same name to offer non-accredited technical degrees. Let's avoid increasing their page rank any further...

    17. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It bothers me how many people simply listened to his talk and are now convinced that it's the solution to all of our problems.

      On the other hand, that's no surprise. Look at the buzz from Inconvenient Truth

      (Please note I'm not presenting an opinion on global warming here, only the hype generated by Gore's over-the-top drama)

    18. Re:More info by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Out the bottom. On a rocket, up is defined by the direction of thrust.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    19. Re:More info by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      "Two-hundred-million dollars? How am I gonna get that?"

      "You could sleep with a million fat chick for $200 each."

      "Or 200 really fat chicks for $1M each."

      "What? Why are you all looking at me like that? Fat chicks need love, too.... but they gotta pay."

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    20. Re:More info by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      Well, his solution solves the grid issue, but at the cost of introducing relevant Bremsstrahlung losses into the system. That's why I'm not really sold on his reactor either. Not the Bremsstrahlung per se but the fact that his design will stand or fall with the actual losses and efficiencies. What we're doing here is qualitative reasoning but we'd need quantitative answers =)

      Nevertheless I think I'd be worth the 10 million to find out whether his design scales as well as he assumes.

      1) You need high voltages both for coronal discharge ionization and for accelerating the ions toward the core. Yes, but those voltages should be orders of magnitude lower than the kinetic energy of the resulting particles.
      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  9. I guess this rules out interstellar travel by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1
    From your linky:

    This is the only nuclear-energy releasing process in the whole world that releases fusion energy and three helium atoms -- and no neutrons.
    Too bad it doesn't work off-world.

    Science reporting like this from the "The International Academy of Science"???
    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  10. Bussard Ramjet! by trawg · · Score: 1

    Completely offtopic, but my first thought when reading this was the phrase "Bussard Ramjet", which I've read in various sci-fi novels (most notably 'Footfall' by Niven and Pournelle) - lo and behold, it is the same Bussard. Science is cool!

  11. Damned Buzzard by vivaoporto · · Score: 1

    Damned Buzzard! I hope Woodpecker alert the authorities about this well known con. How dare he!

    1. Re:Damned Buzzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey guys, we have a person who has just now stumbled across his first joke.

  12. A big if... by Flying+pig · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's interesting how every new energy generating technology that doesn't actually work yet "could" be running in a 10 year time frame, but it never happens. I suspect the world was seduced by the fact that conventional nuclear energy did get up and running fairly quickly - because nobody knew about the dangers at that time, and because the principle of getting a load of radionucleides to get hot and boil a steam kettle wasn't exactly rocket science. Since then we've had fuel cells (over 50 years old and nowhere near large scale commercialisation, plus there may well not be enough catalyst in the world to make it feasible), wave power, bioethanol (fine until you want to power a first world economy) and hydrogen, which might come good in 30-40 years time. Peoppe have been taken in: Mercedes built (in Europe) a small car platform designed to accomodate either fuel cells or efficient batteries, but it's unlikely to happen in the platform's lifetime.

    Even wind power, which has been around in rotary form for over 1000 years, is proving slower to adopt than expected. Wind power is very conventional technology, but scaling up is quite hard and taking a lot more than 10 years.

    So here we have a process based on a rareish isotope of boron, which will require major engineering developments just in the delivery and manufacturing system alone, along with a novel method of extracting power which has never been used on a commercial scale. A bit different from piling fuel rods and boiling water.

    Being practical, let's say three new technologies to be industrially scaled along with the infrastructure, regulatory and planning issues and call it at least 50 years to real commercialisation. It's unsurprising, given the need for real energy output contribution by, say, 2030, that this is not likely to get much funding.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:A big if... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I suspect the world was seduced by the fact that conventional nuclear energy did get up and running fairly quickly - because nobody knew about the dangers at that time,



      And because governments were throwing wads of cash at the brightest minds of that time, maybe ?

    2. Re:A big if... by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      WWII plus Cold War = rapid technolgy...

      This is so true. We had a totally different mindset towards rolling out new technology back then. It was a nation security crisis if the Russians had mastered something that we didn't. Because of that urgency, we didn't mess around.

      Now it feels like many new technologies are "optional", would be great, etc... Where's the crack team from skunkworks to figure out if this fusion tech has legs?

      From websites alone Blacklight Power LOOKS much further along. Of course I think BLP is a sham. They do have lots of pretty pictures, and some data that is not well recognized in the scientific community. Ten years later and they are still in the pretty picture business... That's why you don't just "throw $200 million" at these projects.

    3. Re:A big if... by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      For tabletop stuff, getting to market may not be all that difficult. But it sounds as though he has to scale up to get energy positive. In that case you have to weigh the cost of abandoning the current technology against adopting the new technology since it will occur in the same sector. Investors don't like to see their cash cows shut down without seeing a very positive alternative so adoption will be pretty conservative if they can act as gate keepers and want to protect the return on investment in sunk costs.

      This seems to me to be the reason why most of the examples of disruptive technology are shifts to smaller scale wider deployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology #Examples_of_disruptive_innovations. The barrier they are overcoming is the economies of scale that big investment allows and subsequently tries to protect. So, to get a distuptive technology to actually disrupt an industry, you usually want a privately held company that is dedicated to the mission of making a fundemental change and most likely working at the consumer level. It will get a lot of flak as entrenched (heavily invested) interests feel threatened but it might not be bought off before establishing the benefits of adoption.
      --
      Disrupt Peabody! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

    4. Re:A big if... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      That's why you don't just "throw $200 million" at these projects.

      Yeah. I think "back then" politicians were much better at picking the right people to throw money at. Today, it's just "my corporate buddies".

    5. Re:A big if... by LarsBB · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I suspect the world was seduced by the fact that conventional nuclear energy did get up and running fairly quickly..."

      Nuclear fission up quickly? This is not true! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project. Nuclear fission power was a huge undertaking, "...the Manhattan Project would eventually employ more than 130,000 people and cost a total of nearly $2 billion USD".

      Just because it has not worked yet, or is not easy, is not the same thing as it is not a good idea or possible.

    6. Re:A big if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both you and the GP are correct collectively. The safety risks were not as greatly appreciated at the time, and the government (especially the navy) threw tons of money into the development of nuclear power.

      However, the GP is also correct that fission power is very simple. If you stick enough radioactive material together, it reaches a critical mass and starts a chain reaction. The first nuclear reactor was built by hand by stacking layers of graphite and uranium bricks under the bleachers of the stadium at University of Chicago. The two biggest complications are not irradiating yourself or letting the reaction get out of control, and getting enough fissile material. That's why it took 12 years before the first commerical power plants opened and why it was the Russians who built it.

      Fusion is far more complicated than just sticking a bunch of atoms together. You need to get them closer together than electrostatic forces will allow, and doing that requires either impossibly high pressures (like in the core of the sun) or incredibly high temperatures (like in a thermonuclear explosion). Maintaining those conditions is very complicated. The Tokamak requires huge electromagnets 20 feet in diameter consuming megawatts of power.

  13. More info and less hype by dbIII · · Score: 1

    According to that page, Bussard's reactor could be on the market in 6-10 years.

    That's wonderful - can we see the prototype please? There isn't one? Let's leave the marketing hype timescales to the drug addled Eloi in public relations.

    That said, a nuclear power device that is more than an expensive way to boil water really deserves decent funding to possibly get somewhere useful in a decade or two - or teach us something else that is useful even if it doesn't work.

    1. Re:More info and less hype by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      That's wonderful - can we see the prototype please? There isn't one? Let's leave the marketing hype timescales to the drug addled Eloi in public relations.

      That explains why I'm so hungry as I gaze at the PR bunnies at the tradeshows through my sunglasses.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  14. Trolls like to compare Apples to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is pursuing consumer electronics. Try comparing Apple's operating system to even just one flavour of GNU/Linux: This

    1. Re:Trolls like to compare Apples to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dorkbot, when was the last time you saw anyone spell it "MacOS"? Here's a fairer comparison.

    2. Re:Trolls like to compare Apples to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dorkbot, when was the last time you saw anyone spell it "OSX"? Here's a fairer comparison.

    3. Re:Trolls like to compare Apples to oranges by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Dumbass, your own link has "Ubuntu" walk all over "OS X".
      Anyway, OSX, OS X are not that different (but you were right): http://www.google.com/trends?q=OSX%2C+os+x&ctab=0& geo=all&date=all

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  15. See the device in action by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like it works to me:
    http://www.emc2fusion.org/

    I can't believe the gov't doesn't just immediately fund the full-scale reactor, given the fossil fuel crisis we're currently stuck in. 200 million dollars is a handful of days in Iraq, and we could immediately drive the price of oil down to 10 dollars a barrel with fusion as a reliable commercial power source.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:See the device in action by heinousjay · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I can't believe they can produce cheap nuclear power and control election losses. This guy is Bush's dream come true.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    2. Re:See the device in action by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can't believe the gov't doesn't just immediately fund the full-scale reactor,



      I can't believe any government that has $200M to spare doesn't immediately throw the money at the guy.



      Heck. I can't believe any corporation that has $200M to spare doesn't do it. $200M for what amounts to the license to print money ?

    3. Re:See the device in action by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 2, Informative

      You'd have to go a long way to get oil down to 10 bucks a barrel. After converting all the natural gas and coal fired power plants (which don't have a lot to do with oil, by the way), you'd have to convince everybody to ditch their gas powered cars for electric cars. Then you've still got a whole transportation industry that probably will never convert. I've never heard of an electric airplane, have you? And diesel trucks are designed to drive for hundreds and hundreds of miles pulling huge payloads - not something that's practical with electricity yet. Trains, ocean tankers - same deal. Also, petroleum is used for quite a few other applications than fuel or lubrication. There are dozens of products that come out of oil that are used for making plastics which, in case you haven't looked lately, are EVERYWHERE.

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    4. Re:See the device in action by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your argument is actually logical however their are options.
      1. Natural gas and not oil is used for a lot of plastic and fertilizer production. It is cheaper and easier to work with. Coal could be used as well but natural gas is the cheapest.
      2. If this power system lives up to its billing then yes you could power ships and trains with it. The US built a nuclear powered cargo ship in the 60s so a fusion powered tanker and or container ship wouldn't be that big of a leap. Using electric motors to power large ships has been done since the early 1900s. The first large US Aircraft carriers the USS Lexington and Saratoga where both "electric" ships.
      3. A lot of trains in Europe and Asia run on electricity. While not real practical for large parts of the US if the cost of electricity was low enough then it would become practical along the east and west coast of the US.
      Finally if you have enough cheap electricity it becomes practical to make liquid hydrocarbons from water and CO2.
      If this will actually work then you could over time drastically reduce oil consumption.

      BTW it is economical right now to convert Coal into gasoline and diesel fuel. I can only think of two things stopping it. Fear that the oil prices will fall. It will take billions to create refineries that can convert Coal into oil. And the fact that it will create a lot of Carbon, probably many times more than just burning Oil.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:See the device in action by maxume · · Score: 1

      If electricity were nearly free, you would see trains electrifying all over the place. If the reactors are safe and clean, you just put one on your cargo ship. Cars and trucks and planes are certainly a different matter entirely.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:See the device in action by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      You'd have to go a long way to get oil down to 10 bucks a barrel.



      If the US stopped buying the stuff today, I could see that happen.



      you'd have to convince everybody to ditch their gas powered cars for electric cars.



      If you have cheap and unlimited power, you could just synthesize gasoline (as well as pretty much any other petrol product) from CO2 and water. It's perfectly doable, just completely uneconomic right now.

    7. Re:See the device in action by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

      BTW it is economical right now to convert Coal into gasoline and diesel fuel. I can only think of two things stopping it. ...

      There's another thing stopping it -- or at least slowing it down a bit, I hope. The cheapest way -- in the narrow, corporatist sense of "cheapest" -- to get at coal is to basically scrape entire tops off of mountains and dump the non-coal parts into valleys.

      Meanwhile, some folks express concern that wind turbines ruin views. That's not totally unreasonable, but at least the ridge-line is still there.

    8. Re:See the device in action by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt it. They are already doing that now so I don't see that as being a reason for corporations.

      I figure that the biggest reason is still that they are afraid that oil will plummet in price and make their investment worthless. Just like what happened in the 80s.

      Of course in the 70s people tried to cancel the Indy 500 because of the gas shortage... Just goes to show how stupid people can be.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:See the device in action by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And diesel trucks are designed to drive for hundreds and hundreds of miles pulling huge payloads - not something that's practical with electricity yet. Trains,


      Actually, pulling a large payload is more efficient with electric motors. If you are already hauling a large load then adding some heavy batteries is not that much of an addition to your weight compared to the load.

      Almost all modern freight trains in the US are diesel-electric, which means their wheels are already driven by electric motors. It would be a fairly simple operation to convert a locomotive to run on batteries or fuel cells, providing the efficiency is increased or the hydrogen infrastructure is built, respectively.

      --

      Enigma

    10. Re:See the device in action by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Trains are all already electric. Their drivetrains are "diesel-electric": they have a diesel engine driving a generator, and electric motors driving the wheels.

      It'd be easy to convert them to some other electricity source; just rip out the diesel engine and replace it with the new source.

    11. Re:See the device in action by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      Actually, pulling a large payload is more efficient with electric motors. If you are already hauling a large load then adding some heavy batteries is not that much of an addition to your weight compared to the load.

      True enough, but I'm just wondering if it's feasible with current battery technology. If you need 800 pounds of batteries to get 400 miles of range out of a relatively light passenger car, how many pounds of batteries would you need to get the same range out of a vehicle that weighs 40 times more? Plus, cross country hauling trucks are limited by weight, so if the weight of the propulsion system goes up, you have to take weight out of the cargo which reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of that mode of transport. Plus, that would suck on a 1200 mile haul where you have to drive 4 hours, then wait for 3 or 4 hours for your batteries to charge back up before doing the next 400 miles. Maybe some kind of hybrid approach where a fuel cell charges the batteries and all you have to do is fill up the fuel cell at fueling stops instead of waiting for the batteries to recharge. Hmmm...

      I knew about the trains being electric at the wheel, but they use diesel to generate that electricity. I did find a cool Union Pacific experiment called the "Green Goat" (look it up - too lazy to link) that replaced the 2000HP motor with a bunch of lead acid batteries, however it's kept charged by a much smaller gasoline engine (I think they said it was a 6 liter engine running a big alternator). Currently used only in switching, but they are testing other applications.

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    12. Re:See the device in action by maxume · · Score: 1

      A fusion reactor is likely to be big and expensive, I imagine that electric lines would be run down thousands and thousands of miles of track.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:See the device in action by Teancum · · Score: 1

      In looking at the scales of the Bussard fusion reactor, I don't see it becoming a "Mr. Fusion" (aka Back to the Future) type device on an automobile, but I do see that it can be used in places like a Submarine, Aircraft Carrier, or perhaps in a locomotive. The age of steam-powered locomotives may yet come back in the 21st Century, but it won't look like the original "iron horse" that ran on wood cut from the hills the train ran through.

      Bussard's suggestion that it could be a viable power source for a genuine spaceship (as opposed to a spacecraft) conducting interplanetary commerce is certainly something to pay strong attention to as well. With Dr. Bussard's design of the only real working interstellar spacecraft that can be built with modest technological improvements and not whole new discoveries in physics (such as a Star Trek warp core), his ideas certainly need to be examined in this realm as well. And yes, this is the same Dr. Bussard.

    14. Re:See the device in action by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I thought the idea of this particular reactor was that it could be made very small.

      Besides, with super-cheap electricity, it'd be easy to use it to generate hydrogen, which could then be used in vehicles to generate electricity, which brings me back to the electric powertrains currently used in trains as well as a growing number of cars.

    15. Re:See the device in action by labradort · · Score: 1

      Like it was hard to get everyone to ditch their cars with no airbags?
      Please, we've heard garbage arguments like this before. When I was 20
      I was told recycling was too expensive - it would never happen. Hah!

      Perhaps there isn't an electric airplane, but hydrogen powered. NASA has at least one.
      Batteries are not the only way to store electricity.

      What I know for certain is that someone who keeps their head completely inside the box
      will not be the person to solve our energy issues.

  16. Collection by chr1sb · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he needs a Bussard collection.

  17. Is this the same Bussard... by Tokimasa · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...that the Bussard Collectors in Star Trek are named for? And is this technology the same concept?

    --
    --Thomas J. Owens
    1. Re:Is this the same Bussard... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      ...that the Bussard Collectors in Star Trek are named for? And is this technology the same concept?

      #1: Yes
      #2: No

    2. Re:Is this the same Bussard... by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Err more like Yes and Sorta.

      Yes he is the same guy, but the sorta part comes from the Ramjet concept being part of the Warp Drive nacelles in Star Trek, but not the actual power source of them but part of it.

      In the Star Trek concept, the forward part of a Bussard Ramjet is used to collect interstellar hydrogen which is then used as the matter portion of the anti-matter propulsion system (ie the actual Warp Drive reactor) The thing being its concept has been changed so much from the original series to Enterprise that its hard to pin down if this really is the matter portion of the reaction, or if this is now used as part of a supplemental system and the hydrogen is stored elsewhere for use in the impulse drive or for emergency power.

      The other big kicker was the fact that between production of TOS and TMP it was found that there just wasnt enough hydrogen out there to actually make such a concept able (ramjet OR bussard collector) That was part of the reason Andrew Probert started to change the forward nacelle around on the Refit Enterprise to de-accentuate the whole collector portion. The Excelsior got rid of it entirely (though odds are this was more due to the stupidity of the ILM modelmakers in concepts related to Trek, which had a lot of real life science basis thanks to Genes work with NASA scientist). Then it reappeared on the E-D (which funny enough was also designed by Probert.) and the concept was retrod back into the concept.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    3. Re:Is this the same Bussard... by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Actually it is a workable concept and has been explored -- at least on paper -- for collecting hydrogen for fusion reactors for whatever spaceship could be invented in the future. Unfortunately, someone (was it Krauss?) calculated that just to collect one gram of hydrogen per second, moving at a decent fraction of lightspeed even, you'd need a collector approximately 25 miles wide.

      I always figured that in Star Trek, the fancy red thing on the front end of the engines (even in the original series) was some kind of.. electromagnetic.. quantum... thing.. of some sort that somehow attracted hydrogen to it.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    4. Re:Is this the same Bussard... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I always figured that in Star Trek, the fancy red thing on the front end of the engines (even in the original series) was some kind of.. electromagnetic.. quantum... thing.. of some sort that somehow attracted hydrogen to it.

      Acutally, you figured right. The ramscoop of course isn't a physical object 25 miles wide (can you say 'micrometeorite hell'), it uses magnetic fields to capture protons ("hydrogen ions").

    5. Re:Is this the same Bussard... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      In all technical manuals, as well as several episodes, it is made clear that the purpose of the Bussard Ramjets is to provide a mechanism to refill the matter storage side of the matter/antimatter reaction. The clearest example is either the TNG episode "Night Terrors" or the Voyager episode "Flashback," but you can also check TOS The Doomsday Machine, Catspaw, TNG Samaritan Snare, Relics, VOY Unforgettable, The Haunting of Deck 12, Real Life, DS9 Captive Pursuit, the movie Insurrection, several cards in the TNG card game, more than a dozen of the novels, and the movie Insurrection.

      Class dismissed.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    6. Re:Is this the same Bussard... by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      Sorry your wrong. Based ON SCREEN (which is the ONLY canon source) it conflicts both ways, with it either being for collection for storage of the matter portion of the M/AM engine, OR for the impulse engine. It wavers between episodes though toward the end of TNG on it pretty much was retrod back into it being the former.

      Tech manuals are NOT CANON. Some where not even written by the people involved such as the original Starfleet Technical Manual which was the FIRST to spell it out.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  18. no comment .. unfortunately by mholt108 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    .. i watched the video and read around a bit .. i really really wish i had some intelligent and piercing comment to make about this post, but i don't ... like in the cube .. infinite human stupidity ..

    but if i were to say something it would probably be .. the navy is the best place for this guy, i hope they take him back..

    if not then branson or google or germany

  19. Sceptical by BlueParrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First of all table-top fusion is really simple to do, and devices exist that achieve it using a 9V battery. Such devices are routinely used for various kinds of scanners, as neutron-sources for nuclear experiments, various kinds of material testing... etc Getting D-D fusion or D-T fusion is sufficiently easy for hobbyists to do it in their basement. What is tricky, however, is to generate a controllable plasma that can produce enough energy for it to be practical as a power source, and this is orders of magnitude more difficult. Every month I hear some new plan about how to achieve fusion, the truth is, getting fusion to work is not hard. What would be interesting would be if this device could demonstrate a high triple-product. I.e if it can achieve a high plasma density, high temperature, AND high confinement time simultaneously. In practice THAT is really difficult to do, mainly because for any feasible pressure the temperature required will be in the range of hundreds of millions of degrees, meaning it will radiate A LOT of energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, leading to a low confinement time. ( the sun gets away with "only" ten million centigrades because of the intense pressure in the core ). The only way this could possibly work would be if he has actually reduced bremsstrahlung losses A LOT. If I understand it correctly he claims to have done that by separating nuclei and electrons, which quite frankly is bullshit. 1 gram of hydrogen contains [roughly] 10^23 nuclei, giving 10000 coulomb's of charge if not kept neutral by electrons. Now, for those of you who know your electrostatics, try sticking 10000 coulomb into coulomb's law of electrostatic repulsion for a device that separates the charges by a distance of 1 meter or so, and then tell me this scheme will work. There is a reason you need a strong containment field for a fusion reaction...

    1. Re:Sceptical by neomalkin · · Score: 1

      Good call. Electrostatic confinement is cute, but is not the way to get there on any reasonable scale. Especially not for the p-B11 reaction. Bussard should be praised for his past contributions to science, and I admire him for calling BS on the tokamak program, but he needs to tone down the rhetoric on this one. Making absurd claims about free energy is what's given fusion researchers a bad name. My concern is that the Navy will divert funding from real fusion programs like HAPL to pay for this toy. Also, I was part of some research on p-B11 fusion a few years ago, and we had to use some pretty toxic chemicals to get there. I mean, aneutronic fusion great if it works, but who wants to deal with decaborane/diborane?

    2. Re:Sceptical by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I think you are misapplying the triple product here. This is basically beam fusion so the temperature part is ill-defined. The low density is compensated by the long path length (multiple passes) and you want the charged plasma temperature kept low to avoid thermal charge leakage. The energetic beam will heat the plasma through Coulomb losses so this needs to be balanced against the probablity that a fusion reaction occurs before the beam particle losses too much energy to the plasma. The basic issue is whether energy can be harvested from the fusion reaction well enough to provide power to accelerate the beam and still have something left over.

    3. Re:Sceptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be interesting would be if this device could demonstrate a high triple-product. I.e if it can achieve a high plasma density, high temperature, AND high confinement time simultaneously.

      Unlike a tokamak, he can get away without doing this. In a thermal plasma, particle energies have a normal Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, so they need extremely high temperatures to get even a tiny fraction of the nuclei at the right energy for fusion. In a polywell (or any other fusor), the energy of the particles can be controlled precisely by adjusting the depth of the potential well, so they should all be at precisely the right energy to maximise the cross-section of the desired reaction.

      The rest of your post indicates that you're still thinking in terms of a tokamak or other thermal-plasma confinement device. Read up on the Farnsworth fusor, which achieves fusion without the dire problems which you predict, and then think of a polywell as a slightly modified version which neatly sidesteps the Farnsworth fusor's primary problem - that of energy loss from collisions with the central electrode.

      If I understand it correctly he claims to have done that by separating nuclei and electrons, which quite frankly is bullshit. 1 gram of hydrogen contains [roughly] 10^23 nuclei, giving 10000 coulomb's of charge if not kept neutral by electrons.

      And is there any reason why he should require more than a tiny fraction of a gram of hydrogen and boron in the apparatus at a time? You seem to have misunderstood this in the first place, anyway - the plasma is roughly neutral, with only a slight excess of electrons in the centre of the polywell.

      I'm not saying that Bussard is necessarily correct, but he's plausible as far as I can tell - and I don't believe it's possible to spot any inconsistencies without a knowledge of physics well in advance of that of the parent.

  20. Anybody heard of this organization? by asadodetira · · Score: 1

    How impressed should we be about the "International academy of science" award?

  21. More likely this is about the admin/congress games by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Back in the 80's, I was working on darpa grants. In one case, reagan and congress got into it over the budget. Just before the tussle started, we were advised that our research was good, but that our funding was frozen until the budget was approved. The military was simply making certain that they had their bases covered. It is likely that Bussard has the same deal going on. Though there is a problem with this. It is likely that he is BOTTOM of the priority since his money is now frozen. That means that if money is cut, he may be cut. It would be wise to write those letters and notify your local congressman, that they need to consider side-effects, including making certain that the contract continues. This is more important in whatever state that this is occurring in. They are VERY likely to make certain that this gets funded on the side by DOE or NASA (not likely) if needed.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. Focus Fusion by freefrag · · Score: 2, Informative

    I wonder if there's anything to this approach to fusion.

    1. Re:Focus Fusion by neomalkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sadly, no. The dense plasma focus is an excellent neutron and x-ray source, but an inadequate fusion reactor. Despite what the theorist that runs that site would have you believe, the focus does not produce a true thermonuclear plasma. It's more beam-like. There's simply no more funding to go to focus work RE: it's potential as a full scale fusion device. If we see practical fusion demonstrated in the next 15 years, it will be at one of these three places: NIF at Lawrence Livermore, the Z-Machine (soon to be Z-R) at Sandia, or at ITER in Cadarache.

    2. Re:Focus Fusion by Rei · · Score: 1

      Well... while NIF, Z-R, and ITER seem the most likely, they're also incredibly expensive. It's all about weighing prospects of success against costs. Even Rider's papers don't rule out all small-scale devices, and that's probably some of the most pessimistic literature out there. I think each device ought to be weighed on its chance of success, but also on its cost. Not every device will make the cut, certainly, but I'm sure one could justify the economic argument for a number of them.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    3. Re:Focus Fusion by freefrag · · Score: 1

      That's what I was afraid of. Lerner's Electric Universe theory also seems a little kooky.

  23. this means that... by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    OMG Star Trek is REAL!

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  24. Good News/Bad News by hey! · · Score: 1

    The good news is that we kick of dependency on petroleum, of which 2/3 of the world's proven reserves are in the Middle East, a region we have little knowledge of, dominated by people of a religion we have little understanding of.

    And the bad news is, 63% of the world's proven Boron reserves are in Turkey.

    Mind you 3% and Asian Minor are steps in the right direction.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Good News/Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The good news is that we kick of dependency on petroleum, of which 2/3 of the world's proven reserves are in the Middle East, a region we have little knowledge of, dominated by people of a religion we have little understanding of.

      Huh? We have a perfectly good understanding of their religion. It's just that most people refuse to admit to what's totally obvious because of political correctness.

      The people are followers of the Islam religion, which is a primitive, backwards, and utterly barbaric religion that advocates mass murder of unbelievers and abuse of women. That it still exists after all this time is really amazing.

  25. WARNING: tinfoil hat rquired beyond this point by paulxnuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've followed Bussard's work in this area, and we're darn lucky to have him. Working for the Navy makes me nervous, though.

    It's always been rumored that the Farnsworth fusor was buried (and it was, big time and deliberately) because it looked like it might work. While that device would probably never have become economically feasible as a power generator, there's not much likelihood the current Tokamak-based designs will either, and they're getting billions for research worldwide. One theory is that Farnsworth's method (a direct ancestor of Bussard's) was too easy to downscale to town or neighborhood size, where a working Tokamak would require an enormous plant that only government or big industry can build (and control.)

    If the bad guys want to do the same thing again, it would be awfully easy to just classify Bussard's work (which is not yet practical for anything, and may never be), say it failed, and let it be forgotten. Or maybe just hide it until we're up against the wall (fossil fuel and uranium getting too expensive, breeders still won't work, other fusion research still going nowhere) when it would be the last hope of staving off the apocalypse. Maybe the governments will be sufficiently in Control by then that they'd risk releasing such disruptive technology.

    1. Re:WARNING: tinfoil hat rquired beyond this point by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be too worried about this as there are some serious national security issues that are around with more than half of all oil used in the USA coming from abroad. In this situation the U.S. Navy is one who would want to be explicitly involved with the development of a fuel source they could use for their own ships and be able to continue to fight without having to invade an oil producing country in order to merely maintain their own ships.

      A major world conflict involving the USA (Iraq is not a major world conflict from this viewpoint) could easily cut off needed petroleum reserves and nearly kill off the U.S. ability to fight.

      And as I pointed out, the Navy is also very interested if this might become a replacement for their own nuclear fission plants, which have been nearly the only new construction of nuclear power of any kind in the USA over the past 30 years. If Bussard's research is accurate and can achieve the real breakthroughs he is suggesting, putting one of these on board a submarine is nearly a no-brainer. That just doesn't seem to even be a remote possibility if the Tokamak design even reaches the break-through numbers that are being claimed with that design.

      Also, if there is even a marginal improvement over the Farnsworth/Hirsh Fusor technology (as it seems some huge gains have indeed been made over that design), there are already practical commercial applications for even that sort of technology. The ability to create a strong source of neutrons that can be controlled with a simple electronic switch may even be useful to enhance a fission reactor if nothing else. This as a radiation source for cancer treatment may be another huge application that has nothing to do with the ability to actually "break even" and actually generate power. Current sources of neutrons tend to be spent nuclear fission reactor fuel or other radioactive substances.

      The information about these reactors is already "out there", so trying to bury the information is not going to do much good. The real issue is trying to convince prominent physicists that Bussard isn't off his rocker and to critically but fairly review the existing papers that have been published about the topic. Several have been published, including this article that was peer-reviewed and published in a respected international physics journal. The references in this paper alone are sufficient to request "Freedom of Information Act" request for the rest of the research if you really want to dig into it, as well as to dig up the patents that have been filed on behalf of this fusion method.

      BTW, Breeder reactor technology does work and a working plant is just 200 miles north of where I'm at (in the Idaho National Engineering Lab). The problem with breeder reactors (and finally mentioned on the CBS - 60 minutes TV "newsmagazine" about nuclear power plants) is that they produce large quantities of Plutonium at concentrations that are sufficient to build nuclear bombs with the material. Bomb grade Plutonium works just fine in a nuclear reactor, but it is so easy to "accidentally" pull some out and build the bomb that the major nuclear powers don't want to see the technology be widespread among countries that currently don't have nuclear bomb programs of their own. This is also how North Korea got its bomb material in the first place. This gets rid of nuclear waste, but that is one heck of a social cost to worry about instead that General Electric can have their own private arsenal of nukes if they wanted them and had these sort of breeder reactors. That knowledge is enough to put your tin hat back on again.

  26. Fusor says "false alarm" by dgec · · Score: 1
    Comment link on the Power & Control blog to, blah blah... http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn= fusor_historynews&key=1177038530

    Evidently somebody got carried away with some fairly routine bookkeeping. The contract still exists, and there is still the same un-spent money on the books. Evidently, what happened is a "no-cost extension". That is, the period of the contract has been extended, but they're not sending any checks.
    Considering Bussard said in the video that the company's remaining assets and some of the researchers were taken up by another gov. contractor, it sounds like this does nothing useful for the research company. Unless it's just to keep the project alive. Despite the hype, we'd all love to see more success. (even if if it is "no wait, don't cut our funding we just had a breakthrough" kind.
  27. Paul Allen Knows Something More... by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Informative

    His VC arm has put money into Tri Alpha Energy near Irvine, CA which licensed technology from UCI patents for creating the proton - boron 11 fusion/fission reaction. Paul Allen would not invest without some SERIOUS high level investigation by his own independent PHDs.

    FocusFusion.org notes this as do other public references available on the web.

    1. The proton - boron 11 fusion/fission reaction has been well known for decades & has been picked because is is "clean" of gamma rays and neutron production, meaning the equipment doesn't become radioactive.
    2. Controlling a continuous reaction process has been the stumbling block
    3. Tri-Alpha Energy has obviously produced enough test data and analysis to convince serious investors to fund development of a demonstration unit.

    A quick web page for noting various fusion concept/projects:

    http://www.eastlundscience.com/FUSION2050.html

    1. Re:Paul Allen Knows Something More... by holomorph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Paul Allen's science advisors don't necessarily know enough about fusion to be capable of evaluating whether or not Tri-Alpha's scheme will work or not. Even the guys at Tri-Alpha know it probably won't, but it might, and the investors (including Paul Allen) are aware that it is a very high risk investment, but they have enough money that they feel it is still worthwhile. After all, if someone does come up with a workable fusion power machine those that funded it stand to make a lot of money.

  28. Ammonia as fuel by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    I've been thinking about getting the carbon out and am wondering if ammonia is a better working material that hydrocabons. Here is my blog entry on this: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/smelling-salts .html. See what you think....

  29. Fundamental misunderstandings in parent by Melee_Fracas · · Score: 4, Informative

    What would be interesting would be if this device could demonstrate a high triple-product. I.e if it can achieve a high plasma density, high temperature, AND high confinement time simultaneously

    High triple product is interesting and difficult to achieve for neutral plasmas because the have a Maxwellian temperature distribution. At pressures and temps we can achieve, only a small fraction of the ions in the plasma are available to fuse, because only that small fraction are in the small high-energy range where fusion occurs. The polywell design overcomes this by dropping the ions into a potential well at exactly the right energy. Everyone who gets into the party has sufficient energy to fuse. This is huge, as the the population of particles available in a neutral plasma are wayyy out on the long tail of the energy distribution curve.

    n practice THAT is really difficult to do, mainly because for any feasible pressure the temperature required will be in the range of hundreds of millions of degrees,

    The triple time is difficult to achieve in a toroidal field because the field is almost everywhere convex outwards. Every plasma instability there is drives the plasma away from the dense inner portion of the magnetic field to the less dense outer portion. This is why you need huge tokomaks. The Larmour radius of an ion is huge because of the mass of the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleii. For every collision that happens, whether or not it results in fusion, the colliding particles wander, on average, two Larmour radii outward. Polywell differs from this in two fundamentally important ways. First, the quasi-spherical field is convex inward everywhere except at the point cusps that serve as the injection points. This "spherical field" accomplishes this by being composed of smaller fields at it's periphery. An analogy: Imagine you're a ping-pong ball in a close packing of ping-pong balls. Everywhere you look you see your neighbors, and they are convex toward you. But the sphere that their centers lie upon is convex away from you. It's the same thing in the polywell. The plasma core is inside a sphere, but the geometry of the boundary is composed of smaller fields that are convex toward it. Second, the fields are containing electrons, not ions. The Larmor radius of electrons is much smaller than that of protons (and ions) because of their much smaller mass (on the order of 3000x smaller IIRC). Basically, this means that electrons stay confined for all practical purposes, subject to the constraint that they don't impinge on a conductor.

    the sun gets away with "only" ten million centigrades because of the intense pressure in the core ).

    Simply incorrect at a factual level. The corona of the sun reaches ten-million or more degrees, but the core of the sun, where fusion happens, is only ~ten-thousand. It's the extreme pressure and density of the hydrogen in the core that allows fusion at this relatively low temperature. (Imagine a place where a hot proton-electron soup had the density of seawater, if you can.)

    The only way this could possibly work would be if he has actually reduced bremsstrahlung losses A LOT.

    Irrelevant because of the above.

    If I understand it correctly he claims to have done that by separating nuclei and electrons, which quite frankly is bullshit. 1 gram of hydrogen contains [roughly] 10^23 nuclei, giving 10000 coulomb's of charge if not kept neutral by electrons.

    You do not understand correctly. The plasma at the center of this device is nearly neutral, with a charge sufficient to attract the ions at high velocity to the core. This is accomplished by recirculating the electrons in the magnetic field with the special geometry described above. Basically, the electrons stay confined in the magnetic field as they circulate toward the center, and the inverse-square function that their density follows as they approach the core creates a negative well there. Then ions are dropped into this well, almost entirely neutralizing it, and bumping into each other (with a probability that is a function of the ion density, which again follows and inverse square law).

    1. Re:Fundamental misunderstandings in parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's basically a magnetic mirror system with a mirror at every polygon face. It's going to be hard to maintain the non-Maxwellian distribution. And if tokamak experimental results are any indication, ions will dump their energy to the electrons on a much faster timescale than suggested by theory.

  30. Three Neutrons by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

    The wikipedia article you linked to only seems to mention one run achieving fusion, with 3 neutrons detected. That's with 12.5 kV running current through some rather large solenoids, which suggests quite a significant power investment. This is far, far, far below unity. In fact, I'm not sure how high of confidence 3 neutrons offers. He says it scales extremely well, but it seems to me an intermediate demonstrator is warranted before investing $200 million in a 100 MW prototype. He's trying to run before he walks.

    He's a very long ways from extracting useful power. Assuming it actually does scale as well as he claims, an analogy for the stage he's at right is like striking flint on steel to get a spark, but he's not even very adept at that yet. That's where the Tokamak design was 20-30 years ago. Tokamak now has a rudimentary firepit built and they're using matches. They both need to get a roaring fire before the industry can take over and build something useful around it to capture the energy. Except Bussard is talking about induction or electron capture or something like that, which is another change of direction. Additionally, one Dr. Todd Rider has suggested (via his thesis) that there are fundamental limitations to electrostatic confinement that may prevent it from ever being practical.

    Don't get me wrong. This seems perhaps the most promising design in electrostatic confinement I've seen. But don't get Bussard wrong either. He hasn't shown anything significant yet.

    My thoughts: Navy or DOE through a university (preferrably the latter or both) should provide funding for a 7th generation prototype incorporating some of his advances. The main goals should be consistently initiating and detecting fusion and experimentally verifying the output levels. If all that works, then a major investment may be justified, but at this point, I just don't see it.

  31. You can show your generosity here (link) by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    For those who want to donate to this cause, from the bottom of the www.emc2fusion.org page:

    Send Your Supporting Contributions to:

    New Mexico Community Foundation
    http://www.nmcf.org/
    Santa Fe Office:
    343 East Alameda,
    Santa Fe, NM 87501
    505.820.6860

  32. I am so happy! by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

    I'm so happy about this I could burst! We are SOOOOOO close to this I can just about taste it. The world is going to be a very different place with Polywell DD Reactors. I'm trying to figure out what it means for the standard of living for the millions (Billions?) of people who currently have to spend all day searching for wood to cook their meals, and have to go to sleep when the sun goes down.

    I reckon that 30 years of investing could result in teh 3rd world draggingitself out of the dark ages. Just a single cooking ring, and a single light bulb per mud hut will bring wondrous changes to these people's lives - just as it did in South Africa after Apartheid fell.

    I'm really looking forward to stable economies in Africa: it could be the first time in the history of the world where the nomadic life, and the associated wars it brings leave Africa behind for good.

    OK, so I'm dreaming...

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  33. Wonderful!!!! a-neutronic, break-even boron-deuter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fusion that -works-! And based upon a vacuum tube designed by the American inventor of the television, P. T. Farnsworth!

    You, too, can make a fusor at home (but you won't get breakeven, just a plasma glow)

  34. Pirate Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, let's cross over to a place where "other cultures" live... ... ...Welsh "dd" is kind of a shortish "th" sound, so I "R'd" meaning "Readtha".

    Well matey, I Arrrrrrrrr'ed the F.M. too!

  35. You can fund his work by the_olo · · Score: 1

    Did you know that since the government has pulled the funding, Bussard started collecting funds through New Mexico Community Foundation? There's also an online petition to resume his funding by the government.