Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
At first blush I thought this was something to compete with Northrup's reactor, but this Boeing thing seems bizarre and baffling -- an April Fool's joke. So, you're going to do like 100 MW of D-D or D-T fusion with no heavy shielding a few meters from hundreds of passengers?
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
Once.
Not to mention the associated materials challenges.
Not to mention the associated materials challenges.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
Just proofs that you can get a patent for everything if you are a big corporation, these days.
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
Funny nevertheless.
If I remember correctly someone also patented a thermonuclear jet engine right after WWII, so this is just the "natural evolution" of the technology
.
If I remember correctly someone also patented a thermonuclear jet engine right after WWII, so this is just the "natural evolution" of the technology
.A society of dogmas is a dead society.
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
I'm not sure what the patent is for. Fusion via laser inertial confinement is nothing new. Fission rockets is nothing new either. The design seems to include a Uranium 238 layer in close proximity to the fusion source. The fusion fuel, either D-D or D-T will produce plenty of fast neutrons. Even without fusion breakeven, the fast neutrons may be ment to produce fission in the uranium, much as with a boosted atomic bomb. The only difference is the method of producing the fusion is a laser rather than a fission bomb. The mechanics of producing the fusion componete is different but the end result would be hot exhaust of extremely radioactive fission products. This would be much more radioactive than the old fission rockets that Bussard worked on. The reactor is apparently not heating a working fluid, but directly producing fusion and fission product thrust.
Compare this to direct fusion product thrust that Bussard described. Here P-B11 fusion produced hot alpha particles, with further heating of a passive hydrogen by the alpha particles- this produces almost no radiation in the exhaust gasses/ plasma. The alphas are cooled or remain a trivial radiation concern easily managed due to the very limited penetration ability of alpha radiation along with the useful charged particle nature of all of the exhaust- which can be magnetically and electrostatically directed. That is much different than this design. Such a modification of the old pulsed fission bomb rocket concept still has most of the radiation. It would perhaps avoid some of the pulsed shockwave acceleration challenges, but otherwise be similar. Certainly this would only be usable beyond low Earth orbit. Radiation shielding of any personnel or sensitive equipment would also add considerably to the weight beyond the heat management requirements. The weight of the uranium layer itself would be considerable, assuming this layer contributes significant ejected/ spalled fission products . A fair amount of uranium would have to remain at the lifetime end of the rocket to prevent degradation of the fission produced thrust products. I think the uranium is present as a thrust enhancer, and possibly as an energy enhancer to get the final Q above one. Choice of much lighter substances such a Boron 10 or water/ plastic would be more efficient as a neutron shielding otherwise (if secondary fission was not a goal)
This appears to be a direct fission product thrust rocket- extremely dirty. The only difference from the bomb approach is the use of a different trigger- fusion derived neutrons rather than the natural neutron radiation in a critical mass of uranium 235 or plutonium. It may allow the use of cheaper Ur238 and have finer control, but otherwise it is a fission bomb thrust approach. It doesn't even have the saving grace of a fission rocket where the fission products are contained in a closed reactor with the heating of a passive gas. This is a variation on the Project Orion, and short of the Project Daedalus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_O ... pulsion%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
Dan Tibbets
Compare this to direct fusion product thrust that Bussard described. Here P-B11 fusion produced hot alpha particles, with further heating of a passive hydrogen by the alpha particles- this produces almost no radiation in the exhaust gasses/ plasma. The alphas are cooled or remain a trivial radiation concern easily managed due to the very limited penetration ability of alpha radiation along with the useful charged particle nature of all of the exhaust- which can be magnetically and electrostatically directed. That is much different than this design. Such a modification of the old pulsed fission bomb rocket concept still has most of the radiation. It would perhaps avoid some of the pulsed shockwave acceleration challenges, but otherwise be similar. Certainly this would only be usable beyond low Earth orbit. Radiation shielding of any personnel or sensitive equipment would also add considerably to the weight beyond the heat management requirements. The weight of the uranium layer itself would be considerable, assuming this layer contributes significant ejected/ spalled fission products . A fair amount of uranium would have to remain at the lifetime end of the rocket to prevent degradation of the fission produced thrust products. I think the uranium is present as a thrust enhancer, and possibly as an energy enhancer to get the final Q above one. Choice of much lighter substances such a Boron 10 or water/ plastic would be more efficient as a neutron shielding otherwise (if secondary fission was not a goal)
This appears to be a direct fission product thrust rocket- extremely dirty. The only difference from the bomb approach is the use of a different trigger- fusion derived neutrons rather than the natural neutron radiation in a critical mass of uranium 235 or plutonium. It may allow the use of cheaper Ur238 and have finer control, but otherwise it is a fission bomb thrust approach. It doesn't even have the saving grace of a fission rocket where the fission products are contained in a closed reactor with the heating of a passive gas. This is a variation on the Project Orion, and short of the Project Daedalus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_O ... pulsion%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
Perhaps the passengers are 'Reavers!'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_(Firefly)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_(Firefly)
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
Seems like in IBM they give some nice bonuses for every patent an employee earn to the company.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1143972
Maybe they do it as self defense to avoid patent trolls, or maybe they want to become the patent troll of the new century.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1143972
This was 15 years ago. Compensations could be much higher now.Although many companies make only modest payments or none at all for patents, IBM pays its patent winners relatively well. A first filing nets an engineer $1,500 and subsequent filings $750. From there, designers acquire three points for each new patent they earn, netting $1,200 when they reach 12 points. In addition, each year IBM's patent attorneys rank that year's patents on a handful of criteria to determine which are the most significant. Those in the top 5 percent get $5,000, the next 25 percent get $1,500 and the rest get $500.
Maybe they do it as self defense to avoid patent trolls, or maybe they want to become the patent troll of the new century.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.
-
daveklingler
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:42 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
"3. The propulsion apparatus of claim 1 wherein the thrust-producing medium comprises a hydrogen gas or a helium gas."D Tibbets wrote:The reactor is apparently not heating a working fluid, but directly producing fusion and fission product thrust.
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
Inert gas may be introduced to provide thrust through thermalization with a very hot primary gas/plasma or the inert gas may be heated by contacting hot surfaes or be atively heated via microwaves or ionization and electrostatic acceleration, etc. The degree of thrust through this secondary heating of a working fluid or gas is not the issue I am emphasizing. The drawing shows a uranium 238 wall at the base of the thrust chamber. The lasors heat a fusion fuel next to it. With D-D or D-T the neutrons produced hit the uranium and other structures. This produces heat and also secondary radiation. It als can lead to fission of the Ur238 through rapid neutron capture, producing proportionatly much more heatthan the fusion fuel itself (on a molar basis) This is the whole idea of an early hydrogen or boosted fission bomb. The primary purpose of the fusion fuel is to make more neutrons, not produce the majority of the energy. A laser driven fusion rocket engine by itself is conceptually reasonable, but to avoid a seperate powered energy input the fusion would have have a Q greater than one or better. If this is the case, I see no reason for the uranium. It might be a good X-ray shield, but it is not a good neutron shield (you need light elements for that. I perhaps erroneously extrapolate that the uranium is providing the bulk of the energy through neutron induced fission. Not only that, but that the fission process is open to the propellant gas. It is not a closed system where the radioactive fission products are contained and heat is transferred to the inert gas through conduction across a confineing shell.
This is just like Bussard's (and others?) Direct fusion product thrust concept- except this uses highly radioactive fission products as the mediator of most of the high energy particles that mix with and heat the working fluid. You can mix in only a little inert fluid for high ISP and low thrust, or a lot of inert fluid for lower ISP and higher thrust. The difference is that the radioactive fallout is mixed in the exhaust. The P-B11 fusion only approach is different in that 'radiation' is almost exclusively alpha particles that are tremendously less penetrating and once cooled with mixing with an inert gas are not a continuing radiation source. P-B11 fusion direct fusion product thrust with or or without dilution has most of the advantages. The D-T laser inertial fusion with secondary profuse fission supplement has similar thrust consequences and methods but it is radioactively dirty. The advantage of such a fusion- fission scheme is that the laser fusion yield could be less, perhaps much less than a Q of one. The power of the lasers and associated power supplies may be much less. If you could get profitable fusion power without the fission supplement, I see no reason for the weighty uranium. I seriously doubt that this represents new thinking, though the details that might allow for practical application may be the key. In deep space the radioactive exhaust trail may be of minor concern. Neutron shielding and cooling may be the major limitations. In Low Earth Orbit or for boosting though, the radiation would be painful.
Dan Tibbets
This is just like Bussard's (and others?) Direct fusion product thrust concept- except this uses highly radioactive fission products as the mediator of most of the high energy particles that mix with and heat the working fluid. You can mix in only a little inert fluid for high ISP and low thrust, or a lot of inert fluid for lower ISP and higher thrust. The difference is that the radioactive fallout is mixed in the exhaust. The P-B11 fusion only approach is different in that 'radiation' is almost exclusively alpha particles that are tremendously less penetrating and once cooled with mixing with an inert gas are not a continuing radiation source. P-B11 fusion direct fusion product thrust with or or without dilution has most of the advantages. The D-T laser inertial fusion with secondary profuse fission supplement has similar thrust consequences and methods but it is radioactively dirty. The advantage of such a fusion- fission scheme is that the laser fusion yield could be less, perhaps much less than a Q of one. The power of the lasers and associated power supplies may be much less. If you could get profitable fusion power without the fission supplement, I see no reason for the weighty uranium. I seriously doubt that this represents new thinking, though the details that might allow for practical application may be the key. In deep space the radioactive exhaust trail may be of minor concern. Neutron shielding and cooling may be the major limitations. In Low Earth Orbit or for boosting though, the radiation would be painful.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
The wastes in the form of nanoparticles out the exhaust would kill.the radiation would be painful.
Re: Boeing Laser Fusion Engine Patent Accepted
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/07/boeing ... ybrid.html
Boeing's fusion-fission hybrid propulsion patent is weak compared to the detailed NASA NIAC Pulsed Fission-Fusion design
Boeing's fusion-fission hybrid propulsion patent is weak compared to the detailed NASA NIAC Pulsed Fission-Fusion design