Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:54 am

Uhm... I am afraid that if they will go in hiding again we will not hear from them until the Navy will be ready to show a working device....

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:37 am

I dunno that they want to hide so much as only say as little as they can. They haven't turned down interviews so far but rather said there wasn't much to report..

What is the difference now from back when Alan Boyle interviewed Dr Nebel and got a few small nuggets of info, about once a year?

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:17 am

Betruger wrote:I dunno that they want to hide so much as only say as little as they can. They haven't turned down interviews so far but rather said there wasn't much to report..

EMC2 is leaving Recovery money on the table if "Final Report Submitted -Yes" means EMC2 is switching to a money source less open to tracking. I can see no other interpretation than someone wants the practical development stage to be a lot more subdued. Could a $200 million demonstration Polywell be kept quiet, even out of the political theatre? Maybe it will be moved to area 51?

Can a Polywell match the volumetric footprint of a fission reactor, could it power a sub? Crew safety would be so much greater, no reactor scrams, etc.

I can't imagine the Navy lolligagging around at this point, and Dr. Park did mention that shortening development time is of great importance...

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:20 am

Even with this excellent news, Polywell is still a bit of a long shot -- especially in the eyes of all those guys at DOE who have invested their lives in tokamaks.

I wouldn't be surprised if it plays out the way Giorgio suggests, or if the program is just shut down, excellent confinement or no. ONR already had the FEL cut.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:50 am

mvanwink5 wrote:
Can a Polywell match the volumetric footprint of a fission reactor, could it power a sub?

Subs, Carriers, DD's. that is the idea for the ONR interest. and it matches other ONR projects for electric Marine drives and lasers.

Um, with a mag core of 10ft (3.1m), P-b11 fuel, 18 ft vac chamber, 30 to 35 ft room=1000Mw. IIRC MSimon thinks 35 ft, so maybe 2 can fit into the space of a fission nuke, easy, 1000Mw for the electric drive the other (1000mw) for the laser air defense unit. Might even fit into a 500 ft Frigate with a 50 ft beam.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:00 am

In addition to all that, I would want to see it as a propulsion system for RLVs...
There is some interest in the DOD to have new, cheaper LVs for defense pruposes. But that is handled by the airforce, I am affraid.

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:45 am

So any news of more than 3 neutrons that Bussard reported?

Confinement is a lovely property to report but is not the final arbiter of success in this venture .... unless is it?

Emmet · Post by **Emmet** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:05 pm

I just sold my last oil related stocks

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:47 pm

Roger wrote:
mvanwink5 wrote:
Can a Polywell match the volumetric footprint of a fission reactor, could it power a sub?
Subs, Carriers, DD's. that is the idea for the ONR interest. and it matches other ONR projects for electric Marine drives and lasers.

Um, with a mag core of 10ft (3.1m), P-b11 fuel, 18 ft vac chamber, 30 to 35 ft room=1000Mw. IIRC MSimon thinks 35 ft, so maybe 2 can fit into the space of a fission nuke, easy, 1000Mw for the electric drive the other (1000mw) for the laser air defense unit. Might even fit into a 500 ft Frigate with a 50 ft beam.

I think your # are a bit off here. Dr B always talked about a 2m (not 1.5) radius reactor for 100MW (not 1000MW) using pB&J. This also doesn't include the space for the direct converter.

Of course, 100MW is probably acceptable for a sub. 1000MW for electric drive?? Wow, that could maybe produce a super cavitating submarine! 200kt anyone? But so much for stealth!

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:41 pm

And toss in diesel 10MW to start the thing. Or do they just lug around batteries and capacitors?

I hope someone over at ONR is thinking "Hmm, maybe we can leverage a successful Polywell reactor into restoring funding for FEL..."

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:10 pm

TallDave wrote:And toss in diesel 10MW to start the thing. Or do they just lug around batteries and capacitors?

I hope someone over at ONR is thinking "Hmm, maybe we can leverage a successful Polywell reactor into restoring funding for FEL..."

Personally, I think they need something more like a 5MW EDG and a high power, high capacity pulse power storage system like flywheels or similar.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:15 pm

Yikes. FEL got canned?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:53 pm

Betruger wrote:Yikes. FEL got canned?

I think that when the Navy demonstrated that they can get almost everything they want from a laser thru ganging existing commercial lasers, the urge for the FEL went mostly away.

There could be other reasons too. For example:

Both of the above, the railgun and the laser have one big shortcoming. The power supply system required to power them on board the ships are still non-existent or “in development”.

per the blog
http://propulsiontech.wordpress.com/201 ... wired-com/

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:32 pm

It is not canned yet. Just on its way after the congressional committee rec to dump it. But that said, it is not over until the budget is written and signed without it. It may yet live given the leap they made this year. Or, the navy can do keep alive by redirecting funds.

I hope that they do not write it out of the budget, as FEL has so many possible uses, not just a cool blaster.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:38 pm

ladajo wrote:It is not canned yet. Just on its way after the congressional committee rec to dump it. But that said, it is not over until the budget is written and signed without it. It may yet live given the leap they made this year. Or, the navy can do keep alive by redirecting funds.

I hope that they do not write it out of the budget, as FEL has so many possible uses, not just a cool blaster.

Which is the "It" you are talking about, FEL or RailGun? If FEL, what "leap" did they have this year?