So here’s an idea. Invest in something that doesn’t have the "giggle factor" (Dr. Bussard, Defense News) that fusion has. Get the company going, and then use it as a cash cow to fund fusion research.
One idea:
It seems possible with existing technologies to replace the laptop with a pocket sized device, albeit maybe with not the same battery life. Take Microvisions' PicoP technology along Lumio's Virtual Interface Technology and place them in something like a PDA or smart phone. Microvision’s technology allows for placement of a mini projector in a portable device. Lumio’s technology allows for a functional projected keyboard as a solution to the problem of a small display and small buttons. Such a combination, to my knowledge, does not exist on the market. However, the development appears inevitable.
This could be a good funding source if it could be developed and marketed by a savvy individual. Hopefully development costs wouldn't be the killer. At least the key technology is out there. It seems to be mainly an issue of putting together the parts, and developing good business connections. With Google bidding to buy the 700 MHz band, it might be even easier. Hopefully it would be cost competitive for the "happiness factor" it would entail.
And then there is the software realm. If this is developed by someone else, likely in my mind, then there is going to need to be software for it.
Any thoughts, or other ideas?
Something more Risk Averse than Polywell to fund Polywell
changed title
I thought the title was a little misleading, so I changed it. I hope that's ok.
At this point money is no problem.
As far as I can tell everything has gone quiet, waiting for WB-7 results.
The US Navy has promised $200 million over five years for WB-100 if WB-7 results show promise.
There are other players in the wings.
Our most critical need at this point is an experimental plan and test equipment that can be used to diagnose exactly what is happening in the plasma. Instruments will need to be designed and built. Oh, yeah. We will also need positive results from WB-7.
As far as I can tell everything has gone quiet, waiting for WB-7 results.
The US Navy has promised $200 million over five years for WB-100 if WB-7 results show promise.
There are other players in the wings.
Our most critical need at this point is an experimental plan and test equipment that can be used to diagnose exactly what is happening in the plasma. Instruments will need to be designed and built. Oh, yeah. We will also need positive results from WB-7.
There are people paying millions of euros to help create perpetual motion machines (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn as just one example). I would think getting money for real energy devices would be a lot easier to come by.
That's strange to me. One would think that if this was the case, more private funding would be in the works. It is my impression (knowing the least in this community) that it would get funding if some Europeans are taking such a great risk. Then again, I believe that Europe is known for being more forward at exploring, or at least commercializing, new forms of energy.There are people paying millions of euros to help create perpetual motion machines (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn as just one example). I would think getting money for real energy devices would be a lot easier to come by.
In some ways I think it's good that the government is funding the project. Cheap energy without radioactive byproducts would be a boon to an economy, and denying it could be a political weapon. Having an active research project in the U.S. could do well to prevent it from being pushed around. I'm thinking OPEC, but worse.
If the U.S isn't watchful, they could one day find themselves answering to someone else. Maybe as result of making poor energy choices. They just need to remain ahead I think.
I've heard(?) that IEC Fusion may take longer to be commercialized with the government in firm control over it. I guess we need to decide what is best for the country, and as citizens of the world, what is best for other nations as well. I think people realize that a healthy country, whichever one it may be, also requires a healthy world. In my view, I really hope this technology will be shared. It could really help a lot of people. I just don't know the prudent way to go about it. You want some people to have it, then others you'd be afraid if they had it. I think we're going to have to reach a point to realize that we are all pretty much the same if we don't want upset people. Well, I'm getting a little off topic. I'll probably say something on another part of the forum.
In 2006 Dr Bussard had a letter posted to a James Randi Foundation forum explaining some details about his work. One thing he said there about ITER sticks in my mind, that it keeps the scientists busy and happy, the gov't can say it's funding advanced energy research, and it's no threat to oil.There are people paying millions of euros to help create perpetual motion machines (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn as just one example). I would think getting money for real energy devices would be a lot easier to come by.
I don't want to be paranoid, BUT, what if the DOD is able to make this thing go, but to please the oil companies, controls the tech for the military use only, like driving submarines etc? Or are we one big happy America here?
I would say this is not true. One reason why: Alliance-Bernstein believes that plug hybrids are about to become the dominant design of automobiles, and that hybrid technology will be, to use an overused adjective, a driving force in the industry.MSimon wrote:JohnP,
A working fusion reactor is no threat to oil. At least for 10 to 30 years.
In the mean time they might be good for extracting oil from rocks. Like shale.
https://www.bernstein.com/public/story.aspx?cid=39433
Key to that is cheap energy to charge batteries. We will be forced off oil, no matter what. The big question is, can widespread, cheap, private automotive transport survive this? I'm pretty skeptical about a number of aspects about the A-B research; for one thing, they fail to consider the global availability of resources needed to convert the global fleet (large amounts of neodymium, for instance, not to mention copper). Nevertheless, this is a transition that will happen, mainly because it has to.
I don't care if PIHs were being produced at the rate of 10 million a year starting today.
It takes 30 to 50 years to change a dominant energy source. There is a lot of capital that will have to be amortized by wear out. As the energy changes over there will come a point where oil is very cheap. This will extend its useful life and help pay off the capital invested i.e. cheap oil will then be a sign of liquidation of capital. Which is a good thing.
Plus PIHs are more expensive than pure Hybrids (not by much) and Hybrids raise the price of an auto by $2K to $10K depending. I think $8 a gallon gasoline might be enough push. But maybe not.
In any case I think gasoline might hit $2.50 in March. Supplies are rising faster than demand.
Let me add: I hope we can take our time and not commit to a technology or a course of action that precludes us from something better. The decision should be made at the very last possible moment. And it should come about because people are trying things. VHS vs BETA.
It takes 30 to 50 years to change a dominant energy source. There is a lot of capital that will have to be amortized by wear out. As the energy changes over there will come a point where oil is very cheap. This will extend its useful life and help pay off the capital invested i.e. cheap oil will then be a sign of liquidation of capital. Which is a good thing.
Plus PIHs are more expensive than pure Hybrids (not by much) and Hybrids raise the price of an auto by $2K to $10K depending. I think $8 a gallon gasoline might be enough push. But maybe not.
In any case I think gasoline might hit $2.50 in March. Supplies are rising faster than demand.
Let me add: I hope we can take our time and not commit to a technology or a course of action that precludes us from something better. The decision should be made at the very last possible moment. And it should come about because people are trying things. VHS vs BETA.
A working polywell or similar would find use in electric power generation, mid to large size ships, and spacecraft. I don't know figures, but my impression is that most electric generation isn't powered by oil. Most ships burn oil for their engines, but that seems a small part of the oil pie. So I agree, the short term threat to the oil industry is small.
In the US 52% comes from Coal. In a few EU countries, they get 20% from Wind, and 20% from Solar, combined with Bio Diesel, Ethanol, increasing refinery capacity for crude that has higher sulfur content and a higher API gravity, increasing Automotive MPG, etc will help us transition to a non oil economy.hanelyp wrote: my impression is that most electric generation isn't powered by oil.
The British Empire was powered by coal, it took 100 years for that to play out, before the US Empire (powered by oil) came to be.
Oil took at least that long to take over from coal.MSimon wrote:It takes 30 to 50 years to change a dominant energy source.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
In the US 52% comes from Coal. In a few EU countries, they get 20% from Wind, and 20% from Solar, combined with Bio Diesel, Ethanol, increasing refinery capacity for crude that has higher sulfur content and a higher API gravity, increasing Automotive MPG, etc will help us transition to a non oil economy.hanelyp wrote: my impression is that most electric generation isn't powered by oil.
The British Empire was powered by coal, it took 100 years for that to play out, before the US Empire (powered by oil) came to be.
Oil took at least that long to take over from coal, so yeah that sounds right.MSimon wrote:It takes 30 to 50 years to change a dominant energy source.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.