Why 10-25 times net power?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:57 am

djmelfi wrote:I would be interested in comments on possibility of both thermal conversion AND electron capture in a BORON BFR. I understand the issues of cost for thermal turbines etc, but that suits our 1400MW Nuclear Base comparison.

In a fission plant 80% of the cost is in the thermal conversion eqpt. So you can start from there.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:30 am

alex,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 005651.pdf

Nice find. From what I'm reading it looks like a beam power tube configuration (focused beam) would have a lot of advantages including a narrowing of energy spread due to energy interchange between the lower and higher energy particles.

djmelfi · Post by **djmelfi** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:51 am

Quote MSIMON: We can help you through the difficult points and you may even come up with stuff that hasn't been properly addressed. But it is easier if you show a little humility (I know - it is hard - I don't do it well either).

With respect, I dont think my humility is an issue, my ignorance MAY BE. I would only point out that I started this thread and that generates a implied right and responsibility to moderate it as well. Possesing more Knowledge isnt an altar where others are required to worship. where the uninitiated bow and grovel.

I assume your references to humility reference my efforts to keep this thread on target within the original premise which is where the gain/profit factors really are. Else I have no glimmer.

A number of persons have graciously contributed freely to helping me understand. Others seem to need to exact some sort of PAYMENT, and others just pursue their own embeded discusions, and I can tolerate that as well.

Not being a drinking man I'm not subject to that infuence on my behavior, or have it on my list of absolutions.

I have absolutely no embarassment in pursuing knowledge, nor in being wrong. I only hope to become aware of my errors and to procede.

I would point out that participation in this thread I started is voluntary and anytime the burden exceeds the return,,, well. I have consistantly thanked those participating for their contributions, and I thank you (MSIMON) as well, and I do feel I have gained from the experience. Thanks to all, and Happy and prosperous New Year.

I have absolutely no interst in any personal exchanges in excess of these and there are a plethora of social sites if that were my goal.

I will consider my questions answered at this point, thank you all.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:55 am

MSimon wrote:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 005651.pdf

Nice find.

I can't claim any credit. Aero found it back in July. It's under "Theory->Making Electricity with the p-B Polywell" and again at "Design->Alpha collector geometry idea..."

MSimon wrote: From what I'm reading it looks like a beam power tube configuration (focused beam) would have a lot of advantages including a narrowing of energy spread due to energy interchange between the lower and higher energy particles.

It's being discussed on the two threads I mentioned above. You probably don't need a polywell to investigate this experimentally.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:09 am

djmelfi wrote:I have absolutely no embarassment in pursuing knowledge, nor in being wrong. I only hope to become aware of my errors and to procede.

DJ,

You've got the right attitude. Stick with it, you're doing fine.

Best regards,

Alex

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:50 am

MSimon wrote: From what I'm reading it looks like a beam power tube configuration (focused beam) would have a lot of advantages including a narrowing of energy spread due to energy interchange between the lower and higher energy particles.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream ... 01.001.pdf

Check out section 3.3.2...

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:22 pm

With respect, I dont think my humility is an issue, my ignorance MAY BE. I would only point out that I started this thread and that generates a implied right and responsibility to moderate it as well. Possesing more Knowledge isnt an altar where others are required to worship. where the uninitiated bow and grovel.

Dude you get more resistance with acid than you do with honey.

But since you asked: you are way more ignorant than you know while at the same time preening about your knowledge. But we love such fools around here. Good for a larf or a thousand. So keep up the good work. I'm a tad short of entertainment presently.

If your ignorance bothers you (no evidence of that so far) you might want to brush up on:

Physics
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Materials Science
Manufacturing Technology
Electronics
Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
Nuclear Reactions
Economics
Engineering Economics
Polywell Physics
Polywell Engineering

to start.

As to moderation: you might want to look at the front page and see who is listed as moderator(s). It ain't you.

I guess the likker has worn off. My apologies.

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:59 pm

MSimon wrote:you are way more ignorant than you know while at the same time preening about your knowledge.

That's as harsh a personal comment gets, short of talking about the guy's mother. He asked rational questions, then clarified subsequently with some sample numbers. Seemed sensible points to me, just with some minor frustration at not seeming to get his points understood.

Ad hominem attacks appear to be the modus operandi for debate here. Very disagreeable indeed.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:01 pm

chrismb wrote:From:

http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/EMC2 ... plants.pdf

"Note that nearly all of the energy of the alpha particles
produced in p11B fusion can be converted with a modest
2 MeV convertor that may be only 0.4!1.6 meters or so
in width. This is because these alphas are at xed and
predictable energies, none exceeds 4 MeV, and their
charge state is always Z = 2."

This is wrong. They come in two wide distributions of alphas and can come at up to 10MeV. see "Observation of neutronless fusion reactions in picosecond laser plasmas V. S. Belyaev, A. P. Matafonov, and V. I. Vinogradov".

Bussard wrote this report in 1994, whereas the paper you quote was in Physical Review E 72 (2005), over ten years later.

Your assumption that a picosecond laser plasma will be identical to one produced by a polywell deserves challenge. I'm keeping an open mind.

Mike Holmes · Post by **Mike Holmes** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:09 pm

Funny that somebody mentioned that a particle accellerator was the opposite of what we're talking about in terms of energy capture. They can also be exactly what we're talking about, it turns out:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114433.htm

11 Mev

Mike

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:34 pm

djmelfi wrote:
MSimon wrote:
Normal plants convert one energy source to another. Fussion Reactors can be self breeding and convert a realtively cheap feed stock (Boron) to energy. You do not have the continuing cost of energy input in this scenario so it would seem that operational costs would be competitive.
Well yes you do. It is called accelerating the ions.
Thats done from energy from the reactor, hence no "NEW" fuel, we need new energy not new fuel, the Boron forms a catalyst of sorts and is our only NEW fuel and we divert energy from generated output. Assuming a net gain greater than 100%, this seems plausible. I DO GET THE BASICS.

drmike · Post by **drmike** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Thanks for that pointer Mike, that's a great proof of principle they have.
I'm not so sure it will apply to something like Polywell, but certainly the
basic physics is all the same. They can suck energy out repetitively as the
beam goes around, I'd think Polywell wants to do it in one pass. Pretty
interesting, I'm sure it took years to get to the stage they are at.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:02 am

Mike Holmes wrote:Funny that somebody mentioned that a particle accellerator was the opposite of what we're talking about in terms of energy capture. They can also be exactly what we're talking about, it turns out:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114433.htm
11 Mev
Mike

Unfortunately, they are talking about electron acceterators and receivers, and beta-batteries are a dime a dozen (well maybe in high stakes Vegas lingo dimes). What we need is an alpha receiver.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:54 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Mike Holmes wrote:Funny that somebody mentioned that a particle accellerator was the opposite of what we're talking about in terms of energy capture. They can also be exactly what we're talking about, it turns out:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114433.htm
11 Mev
Mike
Unfortunately, they are talking about electron acceterators and receivers, and beta-batteries are a dime a dozen (well maybe in high stakes Vegas lingo dimes). What we need is an alpha receiver.

The principles are the same.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:31 pm

MSimon wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Unfortunately, they are talking about electron acceterators and receivers, and beta-batteries are a dime a dozen (well maybe in high stakes Vegas lingo dimes). What we need is an alpha receiver.
The principles are the same.

True, but the magnitudes are horrifically different. And that difference is what makes the BFR a reasonable technical possibility while other mirror machines remain a dim wish. Let us hope that it isn't the same for direct conversion.