I exchanged email with Hyperion Power Generation (the maker of the new power generator). They indicate that the Sante Fe reporter made a mistake. The output is about 25-17 MW ELECTRIC [This statement was also consistent with the patent which talked about tens of MW in electricity.] They also said that the containment vessel will be dense enough that no radiation will escape even if it is not buried in the ground. So in addition to the regular electric generation there would be probably double that amount of thermal power. Which could be partially converted to electricity using thermoelectronics. 30-66% with better technology like powerchips.
This is not radioisotope thermal generation.
I have looked at the patent and it is a simplified variant of solid core nuclear reactors.
Up to 50% of the fuel would be burned. It would provide for 20-50 times more efficient use of Uranium and allow for the use of Thorium.
This technology make it three times cheaper and faster (less infrastructure and piping) to tap 1.1 trillion barrels of oil that is in the form of oil shale in the USA. Increasing US oil reserves by 30-40 times and perhaps eliminating the need for oil imports in 10-15 years. Helping to more economically unlock global oilsands and oil shale. Plus it would at the same time allow up a 100 year transition to a lot more nuclear power and renewables. It would be possible for a shorter transition with less air pollution and fossil fuel use as well by eliminating coal.
Edward Teller tried to make Uranium hydride bombs but was only able to get the equal of 200 tons of TNT to explode. A nuclear power generation system would not have the bomb optimizations that Teller had so the reactors would be far safer.
I have also examined using this reactor to power Vasimr plasma rocket engines to send rockets to Mars in 39 days.
This works by reflecting laser light between mirrors.
Amplification is achieved by the number of times light is reflected between the mirrors.
The best mirrors can achieve 100,000 reflections
I am curious as to why I am practically the only one who actually is providing information on how this actually works, yet I do not get any score boosts ? I guess it is because none of the modders can actually recognize correct answers.
I also had submitted articles with complete information on this back in February and the editors did not choose to publish more informative information.
Seriously just take a look at the information that I have assembled and presented with pictures and references.
Comments from Geoffrey Landis (Nasa guy who wrote a lot of seminal papers on laser propulsion.)
You can actually find out what this is about instead of just parsing a press release.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/photonic-laser-propulsion.html http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/use-67-kilowatt-solid-state-lasers-for.html http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/03/putting-brakes-on-laser-mirror-systems.html
The demo system used a 10 watt laser.
We can build 100 kw solid state lasers 10,000 times more powerful
We can build more than one laser and they can work in an array
We just need to power the lasers with electricity
There is an efficiency loss converting electricity to laser power
There are wavelengths that can easily go through the atmosphere (it is how we still see faint stars)
All of the laser pushed solar sail ideas can be made 100,000 times easier because of the reflections.
We can also use reduced laser size.
Please read the articles and you could actually have an informed discussion about what this is all about
How to scale up 3.3 billion times.
The original demo was from 10 watt lasers and 3,000 reflections
It is good to actually research original papers to know what is being discussed, so we know what is being scaled.
It is theoretically possible to achieve 100,000 reflections (you may have to go outside the atmosphere to ensure less losses of energy (ie like from a lunar launch system)
We will soon be making 100 Kilowatt solid state lasers. (US military made 67 kw earlier this year and will have 100 kw system done later this year or early next year.
We can use arrays of lasers
(ie more than one). Power is provided in electrical form to the lasers. Say from nuclear power (3.2 GW twin reactors, and can have more reactors) or hydro power (Three gorges dam generates 18 GW). So wattage can go up say 100 million times to 1GW. (reduced the nuclear plant power by inefficiencies of converting electricity to laser power.)
The reflections can increase by 33 times.
Therefore, 3.3 billion times more power.
How to scale up.
The original demo was from 10 watt lasers and 3,000 reflections (it is good to actually research original papers to know what is being discussed.)
It is theoretically possible to achieve 100,000 reflections (you may have to go outside the atmosphere to ensure less losses of energy (ie like from a lunar launch system
We will soon be making 100 Kilowatt solid state lasers. (US military made 67 kw earlier this year and will have 100 kw system done later this year or early next year.
We can use arrays of lasers (ie more than one).
Power is provided in electrical form to the lasers. Say from nuclear power (3.2 GW twin reactors, and can have more reactors) or hydro power (Three gorges dam generates 18 GW).
So wattage can go up say 100 million times to 1GW. (reduced the nuclear plant power by inefficiencies for the lasers.
the reflections can increase by 33 times.
Therefore, 3.3 billion times more power.
This is interesting that you do not research the scientific papers to determine that this is BS.
This is a variation on laser pushed sails. Geoffrey Landis believes that it can work, it is just a question of how well.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/photonic-laser-propulsion.html
Geoffrey said...
Depends on how technologically optimistic you want to be-- I'm a little dubious about keeping beam quality up, and of course for a large number of reflections even a small deviation from perfect reflectivity destroys the concept. Robert Metzger [they wrote a paper on laser bounced sails], on the other hand, is a bit more of a technological optimist, and thinks it's reasonable, and he's a really smart guy.
Source: University of California - Berkeley
Date: February 25, 2007
Researchers Create New Super-thin Laser Mirror
But it might be a reasonable approach.
Acceleration depends upon the scale of the system.
If you are using tiny lasers and a large ship then you are getting tiny acceleration.
The micronewtons system is just for positioning satellites relative to each other with nanometer precision
This is great for a telescope array
Just turning around does not work. You are being pushed by a laser from a remote source.
You either have to first deploy the receiving laser array and power system.
Or bring an alternative drive for breaking.
Outline of how to win the prize using potentially less than the prize money [PICS] [Links to reference papers details]
1. $10 million to get to orbit with a Dnepr rocket. (rules do not say build your rocket)
2. Use low energy transfer from earth orbit to lunar orbit (Done in 1993 by Japan's Hiten satellite)
3. Make and use a more powerful than Armidillo Aerospace lunar lander.
Would be far smaller than the 10 ton LEM descent module.
do not need to carry astronauts or 5 ton ascent vehicle
4. Make a small MArs sojourner size rover (11kg)
Six months ago I had a series of articles that described scaling this up and putting on the breaks and using laser arrays to replace the massive lasers we do not have yet. A pity that more informative articles was less slashdotable than a less detailed press release, but you can see what you were missing now and get answers to questions. I also referenced and corresponded with Geoffrey Landis one of the giants of laser propulsion.
I had described how the demo system can be scaled up The demo system used 10 watt lasers. We are completing 100 kw solid state lasers now.
We can use arrays of lasers.
I have the information on the rapid trip to MarsPutting breaks on the system is something that I have worked out as well You either carry a drive to provide breaking power or you pre-launch the laser array to your destination via a probably slower method. The receiving laser array and power system would then slow you down.
The system is a way to achieve the laser pushed sail concepts designed for sending ships and probes to other stars or around the solar system. However, we can use systems that are up to 100,000 times more efficient.
Note: laser diode ineffiencies int he 20-80% range mean that the power source has to be a certain amount larger than the laser power needed.
Besides rapid prototyping there is also rapid manufacturing which is using the equipment of rapid prototyping to make production grade parts and products.
There are various system that can produce metal parts including titanium. Also, completely functional electronics and MEMS can be produced.
When does it make sense to use rapid manufacturing ?
- Short production runs where you do not want to set up dedicated high volume production.
- Require bridge manufacturing while waiting for tooling.
- Manufacture jigs and fixtures.
- Require rapid turnaround of 2-5 days. (Alpha and beta product launches, for example, require a very small total production but very fast turnaround time.)
- Need parts that utilize complex geometries with negative angles, undercuts, thin walls or complex injection molded parts. It's also appropriate for parts without draft angles or ejector pin placements, or those with critical dimensional stability requirements.
- Need to conserve capital for cash flow.
- Conduct continuous design iterations during feasibility and market validation studies. Rapid manufacturing parts allow engineers and manufacturers to design, build and test their parts as many times as necessary.
There are service bureaus for Rapid Manufacturing as well. Just like going to a Kinkos to print off 24 inch by 36 inch architectural drawings for $2-10 each. Small and mid-size companies can go and get functional short run products produced for a few hundred bucks. The $20,000 to 1 million price of these machines is coming down. So first there will be a lot more 3D service bureaus.
Breakthroughs to reduce the capital and operating costs could change the situation.
the fab@home and reprap projects are more affordable capabilities.
The DIY person who has a fully equipped workshop and CAD system could eventually upgrade when nanotech breakthrough versions arrive 2015-2030.
What is the scale of the solutions for the inconvenient truth?
4 Terawatts of global electricity usage and 13 Terawatts of total power.
50% of world electricity is from coal.
Coal kills over 400,000 people per year directly from pollution.
(Other sobering statistics in the report, called "Connecting Asia," include estimates of 6.4 million work years lost annually in China to air pollution, 178,000 premature deaths in major cities every year caused by the use of high-sulfur coal and the fact that 52 urban river stretches have been so contaminated that they are no longer suitable for irrigation. Those numbers do not necessarily incorporate the effects of deforestation, overgrazing, dust clouds, desertification and the strains of the great increase in internal migration and tourism. Add in rural deaths and deaths from other countries like the 27,000 that the American lung association estimates for the United States and you get well over 400,000 per year.)
Solar power added 1.7 GW of power in 2005.
Wind power added 12 GW of power in 2005.
Existing nuclear power plants can be up-powered fairly easily by 50% This would add 160GW of power globally.
Then we need to build more than the 50 or so reactors that are planned for the next 15 years. Mostly planned in China and India.
GE and Hitachi are talking about being able to make 100 reactors in the next 20 years. There are several other makers of nuclear reactors France's Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear reactors, and Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd said they would cooperate in this sector. Toshiba Corp. completed a $4.2 billion deal to take control of Westinghouse, the U.S. power plant unit of British Nuclear Fuels.
We need to develop Thorium liquid flouride reactors which do not produce transuranic waste (the 10,000 year waste) and can process that waste we do have and which does not have the proliferation issues. We transition in 10-20 years to better reactors but we use what we have now to take care of the coal and climate problems first.
We still push ahead as fast as we can with conservation, biofuels, solar, wind and other climate friendly energy options.
Slashdot Mirror
I exchanged email with Hyperion Power Generation (the maker of the new power generator). They indicate that the Sante Fe reporter made a mistake. The output is about 25-17 MW ELECTRIC [This statement was also consistent with the patent which talked about tens of MW in electricity.] They also said that the containment vessel will be dense enough that no radiation will escape even if it is not buried in the ground. So in addition to the regular electric generation there would be probably double that amount of thermal power. Which could be partially converted to electricity using thermoelectronics. 30-66% with better technology like powerchips. This is not radioisotope thermal generation. I have looked at the patent and it is a simplified variant of solid core nuclear reactors. Up to 50% of the fuel would be burned. It would provide for 20-50 times more efficient use of Uranium and allow for the use of Thorium. This technology make it three times cheaper and faster (less infrastructure and piping) to tap 1.1 trillion barrels of oil that is in the form of oil shale in the USA. Increasing US oil reserves by 30-40 times and perhaps eliminating the need for oil imports in 10-15 years. Helping to more economically unlock global oilsands and oil shale. Plus it would at the same time allow up a 100 year transition to a lot more nuclear power and renewables. It would be possible for a shorter transition with less air pollution and fossil fuel use as well by eliminating coal. Edward Teller tried to make Uranium hydride bombs but was only able to get the equal of 200 tons of TNT to explode. A nuclear power generation system would not have the bomb optimizations that Teller had so the reactors would be far safer. I have also examined using this reactor to power Vasimr plasma rocket engines to send rockets to Mars in 39 days.
This works by reflecting laser light between mirrors.
Amplification is achieved by the number of times light is reflected between the mirrors.
The best mirrors can achieve 100,000 reflections
I am curious as to why I am practically the only one who actually is providing information on how this actually works, yet I do not get any score boosts ? I guess it is because none of the modders can actually recognize correct answers.
I also had submitted articles with complete information on this back in February and the editors did not choose to publish more informative information.
Seriously just take a look at the information that I have assembled and presented with pictures and references.
Comments from Geoffrey Landis (Nasa guy who wrote a lot of seminal papers on laser propulsion.)
You can actually find out what this is about instead of just parsing a press release.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/photonic-laser-propulsion.html
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/use-67-kilowatt-solid-state-lasers-for.html
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/03/putting-brakes-on-laser-mirror-systems.html
The demo system used a 10 watt laser.
We can build 100 kw solid state lasers
10,000 times more powerful
We can build more than one laser and they can work in an array
We just need to power the lasers with electricity
There is an efficiency loss converting electricity to laser power
There are wavelengths that can easily go through the atmosphere (it is how we still see faint stars)
All of the laser pushed solar sail ideas can be made 100,000 times easier because of the reflections.
We can also use reduced laser size.
Please read the articles and you could actually have an informed discussion about what this is all about
Here is the link to the Geoffrey Landis (Nasa) and Robert Metzger paper on multi-bounce laser sails.
http://www.rametzger.com/nonfic-mblbs.htm
How to scale up 3.3 billion times.
The original demo was from 10 watt lasers and 3,000 reflections
It is good to actually research original papers to know what is being discussed, so we know what is being scaled.
It is theoretically possible to achieve 100,000 reflections (you may have to go outside the atmosphere to ensure less losses of energy (ie like from a lunar launch system)
We will soon be making 100 Kilowatt solid state lasers. (US military made 67 kw earlier this year and will have 100 kw system done later this year or early next year.
We can use arrays of lasers
(ie more than one). Power is provided in electrical form to the lasers. Say from nuclear power (3.2 GW twin reactors, and can have more reactors) or hydro power (Three gorges dam generates 18 GW). So wattage can go up say 100 million times to 1GW. (reduced the nuclear plant power by inefficiencies of converting electricity to laser power.)
The reflections can increase by 33 times.
Therefore, 3.3 billion times more power.
Thus you can send several ton vehicle to Mars at high speed http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/use-67-kilowatt-solid-state-lasers-for.html
electricity powers the lasers. The efficiency is boosted by mirrored reflections.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/photonic-laser-propulsion.html
How to scale up.
The original demo was from 10 watt lasers and 3,000 reflections (it is good to actually research original papers to know what is being discussed.)
It is theoretically possible to achieve 100,000 reflections (you may have to go outside the atmosphere to ensure less losses of energy (ie like from a lunar launch system
We will soon be making 100 Kilowatt solid state lasers. (US military made 67 kw earlier this year and will have 100 kw system done later this year or early next year.
We can use arrays of lasers
(ie more than one). Power is provided in electrical form to the lasers. Say from nuclear power (3.2 GW twin reactors, and can have more reactors) or hydro power (Three gorges dam generates 18 GW). So wattage can go up say 100 million times to 1GW. (reduced the nuclear plant power by inefficiencies for the lasers.
the reflections can increase by 33 times.
Therefore, 3.3 billion times more power.
Thus you can send several ton vehicle to Mars at high speed
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/use-67-kilowatt-solid-state-lasers-for.html
This is interesting that you do not research the scientific papers to determine that this is BS.
This is a variation on laser pushed sails. Geoffrey Landis believes that it can work, it is just a question of how well.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/photonic-laser-propulsion.html
Geoffrey said... Depends on how technologically optimistic you want to be-- I'm a little dubious about keeping beam quality up, and of course for a large number of reflections even a small deviation from perfect reflectivity destroys the concept. Robert Metzger [they wrote a paper on laser bounced sails], on the other hand, is a bit more of a technological optimist, and thinks it's reasonable, and he's a really smart guy.
I don't know if you've seen this one:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070213101025.htm
Source: University of California - Berkeley
Date: February 25, 2007
Researchers Create New Super-thin Laser Mirror But it might be a reasonable approach.
Acceleration depends upon the scale of the system.
If you are using tiny lasers and a large ship then you are getting tiny acceleration.
The micronewtons system is just for positioning satellites relative to each other with nanometer precision
This is great for a telescope array
If you have an array of millions of 100 kilowatt lasers then you are generating significant force. This could provide high acceleration for a very light mirrored sail.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/use-67-kilowatt-solid-state-lasers-for.html
Just turning around does not work. You are being pushed by a laser from a remote source.
You either have to first deploy the receiving laser array and power system.
Or bring an alternative drive for breaking.
Here is my desciption of how to perform this in more detail
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/03/putting-brakes-on-laser-mirror-systems.html
Outline of how to win the prize using potentially less than the prize money [PICS] [Links to reference papers details]
1. $10 million to get to orbit with a Dnepr rocket. (rules do not say build your rocket)
2. Use low energy transfer from earth orbit to lunar orbit (Done in 1993 by Japan's Hiten satellite)
3. Make and use a more powerful than Armidillo Aerospace lunar lander.
Would be far smaller than the 10 ton LEM descent module.
do not need to carry astronauts or 5 ton ascent vehicle
4. Make a small MArs sojourner size rover (11kg)
Six months ago I had a series of articles that described scaling this up and putting on the breaks and using laser arrays to replace the massive lasers we do not have yet. A pity that more informative articles was less slashdotable than a less detailed press release, but you can see what you were missing now and get answers to questions. I also referenced and corresponded with Geoffrey Landis one of the giants of laser propulsion. I had described how the demo system can be scaled up The demo system used 10 watt lasers. We are completing 100 kw solid state lasers now. We can use arrays of lasers. I have the information on the rapid trip to Mars Putting breaks on the system is something that I have worked out as well You either carry a drive to provide breaking power or you pre-launch the laser array to your destination via a probably slower method. The receiving laser array and power system would then slow you down. The system is a way to achieve the laser pushed sail concepts designed for sending ships and probes to other stars or around the solar system. However, we can use systems that are up to 100,000 times more efficient. Note: laser diode ineffiencies int he 20-80% range mean that the power source has to be a certain amount larger than the laser power needed.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/05/aluminum- instead-of-gasoline-to-power.htmlFor 800 million cars driving 350 miles per week, you would need to moving 140 million tons of aluminum per week in and out of cars to the recharging centers.
The fuel cells are still expensive. over $3000 per KW.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/02/storage-s ystem-breakthrough-for.htmlThere was a breakthough in gas storage using corn cob brickets
Plug in hybrids as a route to all electric cars seems to be the best option and path forward.
Toyota is going all hybrid for new cars by 2020. 3-6 years for mass market plug in hybrids.
Besides rapid prototyping there is also rapid manufacturing which is using the equipment of rapid prototyping to make production grade parts and products. There are various system that can produce metal parts including titanium. Also, completely functional electronics and MEMS can be produced. When does it make sense to use rapid manufacturing ? - Short production runs where you do not want to set up dedicated high volume production. - Require bridge manufacturing while waiting for tooling. - Manufacture jigs and fixtures. - Require rapid turnaround of 2-5 days. (Alpha and beta product launches, for example, require a very small total production but very fast turnaround time.) - Need parts that utilize complex geometries with negative angles, undercuts, thin walls or complex injection molded parts. It's also appropriate for parts without draft angles or ejector pin placements, or those with critical dimensional stability requirements. - Need to conserve capital for cash flow. - Conduct continuous design iterations during feasibility and market validation studies. Rapid manufacturing parts allow engineers and manufacturers to design, build and test their parts as many times as necessary. There are service bureaus for Rapid Manufacturing as well. Just like going to a Kinkos to print off 24 inch by 36 inch architectural drawings for $2-10 each. Small and mid-size companies can go and get functional short run products produced for a few hundred bucks. The $20,000 to 1 million price of these machines is coming down. So first there will be a lot more 3D service bureaus. Breakthroughs to reduce the capital and operating costs could change the situation. the fab@home and reprap projects are more affordable capabilities. The DIY person who has a fully equipped workshop and CAD system could eventually upgrade when nanotech breakthrough versions arrive 2015-2030.
Robert Bussards improved electrostatic fusion reactor. It is 100,000 times better than standard electrodstatic fusion It needs 200 million to make a full scale reactor. Magnetized target fusion is another option that seems cheaper and simpler than tokomaks We should try some of the cheaper alternatives to tokomaks. 10-20% of the 12 billion tokomak budget for alternative fusion and fission power. Fission already works and we can make fission better for immediate major contributions to our energy problems. Current nuclear reactors can be made 50% more powerful by changing the shape of the nuclear fuel and adjusting the cooling water This would add 160GW to global power. Thorium fission reactors were made in the 1960's and would be better than our current uranium boiler reactors Thorium liquid flouride reactors do not produce transuranic 10,000 year waste and would not have weapon proliferation issues.
What is the scale of the solutions for the inconvenient truth? 4 Terawatts of global electricity usage and 13 Terawatts of total power. 50% of world electricity is from coal. Coal kills over 400,000 people per year directly from pollution. (Other sobering statistics in the report, called "Connecting Asia," include estimates of 6.4 million work years lost annually in China to air pollution, 178,000 premature deaths in major cities every year caused by the use of high-sulfur coal and the fact that 52 urban river stretches have been so contaminated that they are no longer suitable for irrigation. Those numbers do not necessarily incorporate the effects of deforestation, overgrazing, dust clouds, desertification and the strains of the great increase in internal migration and tourism. Add in rural deaths and deaths from other countries like the 27,000 that the American lung association estimates for the United States and you get well over 400,000 per year.) Solar power added 1.7 GW of power in 2005. Wind power added 12 GW of power in 2005. Existing nuclear power plants can be up-powered fairly easily by 50% This would add 160GW of power globally. Then we need to build more than the 50 or so reactors that are planned for the next 15 years. Mostly planned in China and India. GE and Hitachi are talking about being able to make 100 reactors in the next 20 years. There are several other makers of nuclear reactors France's Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear reactors, and Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd said they would cooperate in this sector. Toshiba Corp. completed a $4.2 billion deal to take control of Westinghouse, the U.S. power plant unit of British Nuclear Fuels. We need to develop Thorium liquid flouride reactors which do not produce transuranic waste (the 10,000 year waste) and can process that waste we do have and which does not have the proliferation issues. We transition in 10-20 years to better reactors but we use what we have now to take care of the coal and climate problems first. We still push ahead as fast as we can with conservation, biofuels, solar, wind and other climate friendly energy options.