Re: Robert Bussard's approach to fusion
- From: "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Mar 2007 06:02:27 -0700
On Feb 26, 4:00 pm, Joe Strout <j...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just learned about this today... there's a company called EMC2, under
the leadership of Dr. Robert Bussard. His research and credentials go
way back, and I don't believe he's a con man. Anyway, they've been
developing an approach to fusion called inertial electrodynamic fusion.
In a nutshell, they produce a deep almost-spherical electrical
potential, by confining electrons with magnetic fields. They then drop
ions (e.g., of deuterium) into this potential well, where they
accelerate down to the center and collide, producing fusion.
This work was done under Navy contracts until 2005, and they weren't
allowed to publish technical details, but those contracts dried up and
now they're looking for other funding -- but they're also able to
publish their methods and results. It sounds very promising -- they've
achieved good levels of fusion on their small-scale machines, and worked
out pretty much all the details they need to build a full power plant.
Here's a presentation Bussard gave on the topic at Google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
And here's a paper on it:
http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/2006-9%20IAC%20Paper.pdf
Any reactions?
Best,
- Joe
A ram fusion source would have worked as a drive. Except certain
variables were not found.
Meaning a source of hydrogen was not present.
A basic theory as the drive was well formed. I liked the exposition,
then was trying, to one-up the design and found it real hard to do
original thinking.
So many years later I finally figured out a design to compete. I have
posted the real one earlier, that makes about 10% of light speed.
So I am a bin ther done that kind of thinker.
I never allowed esoteric drive designs as a rule because energy is
dangerous to handle and to make dense energy requires all sorts of
plasmas and such. mY real drive is a REAL magnetic monopole. It turns
out that atleast in theory artifical magnetic monopoles can be tricked
out of nature.
That said here is a fun design that takes the limit of true theory to
the limit.
A single relation has to be considered and found true for this
design. And it is untested and not easy to refute.
Here is the data.
A f as the shape of the plasma has to effect. And this is new fangled
symmetry theory.
Given that here is the design:
It is just a fancy idea.
"A space as the equilibrium, meaning that location where c appears
equilibium a."
So a symmetry symbol effect on the kind of space defined. Equilibrium
space is a real necessary logical step in my thinking without physical
meaning. It allows all inertial frames to have relative direction.
This is just gerberish because I am just going to state the fancy
iddea with caveotes.
The only allowed symbol to effect would then be- A train.
Abstract relative appearance. Highly contentious but maybe? Can the
symbol effect all frames? I use the term symbol as logical transform
only.
Given the postulate of inertial frame effect, and not just frame
relative existence as second inference may be applied! This is like
postulating that a force developes between frames of reference and not
just bodies withing the frame.
Maybe there is such a space. It has not been tested.
Given a, an exact relation of our symbol may allow theorectical
apppearance of non-conservation. Our symbol is a simple logcial
transform that relates forces found in ALL train frames.
And to test effect as such is the first step. So to design this
machine required a test. And space is huge! As a spiritual man I
believe us living in never ending mystery and wonder. Empty space
just might be a living place for people.
SO the first test was the tacyon. Can things exist!
And to detect them was the easy part. Do systems exist where anomally
appears to violate conservation? And the data point was a meson.
Just take the data. A cause to charge as effect required charge
conservation cause to be assigned. And the cause was found
anomalous. I dispense with charge anomaly by reducing the breath or
extent of ocmpleted theory.
We can not accurately predict the size or charge of matter appearing.
We can only predict the relative force with each occurance! So I use
a small non-cosmology quantum theory. None of the Big Bang new
universe logic is entailed.
Just good old fashion momenta statment in a background. And the space
I refer to is called the fixed background frame of ALL inertial
systems. It has a property of only existing to state force direction.
And to make it a frame causes it to exhibit matter property. So I
allow one step into the land of conjectuer.
I will restart the post soon.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: If I can't buy it, I invent it. And I don't sell it.
- Next by Date: Re: I rank Web TV users at the highest level.
- Previous by thread: Re: Robert Bussard's approach to fusion
- Next by thread: who can tell why we say the electromagnetic field carries no charge?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
