for a couple million dollars

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:03 am

There are several projects that given just a couple million dollars, could yield life changing results so far as our ability to generate cheap energy, and our ability to travel to new worlds. Maybe you have thoughts on this. IMHO, there are three projects that given a couple million dollars, we the taxpayers would have some much needed answers. My very short list includes:

1) Mach Effect Thrusters--if Mach Aleph Devices had just a couple million dollars to pay the best electrical engineers, I expect we'd have real answers whether gravinertial technology is the way of the future.

2) EEStor Supercaps--if we could just get the results of AFRL's discovery on this electrical power storage invention, we'd know whether there's hope for electric cars. Why is it that USAF got involved more than a year ago and STILL, there is no word back to the general public?

3) BlackLightPower's CIHT hydrogen fuel cell supposedly would generate fantastic power density, useful not just here on Earth in power generation infrastructure and electric cars, but super-enabling all manner of spaceflight. Its a crime that the public can't get a serious investigation into this proposed technology for a couple million US dollars.

What's on your list?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:22 am

The only one I would finance from the three is the Mach effect thruster, and only for the openness of the researchers in discussing even negative results.

You know my (strongly negative) opinion on Black light power and EEStor.

I would throw a couple of millions at Heim theory, just to get a clear and final reply about the theoretical background and the particle mass equation derivation.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:28 am

Giorgio wrote:The only one I would finance from the three is the Mach effect thruster, and only for the openness of the researchers in discussing even negative results.

You know my (strongly negative) opinion on Black light power and EEStor.

I would throw a couple of millions at Heim theory, just to get a clear and final reply about the theoretical background and the particle mass equation derivation.

I haven't even thought about Heim theory for a couple years. There was just much too much evidence against back then.

But yeah, Giorgio, I get that BLP and EEStor don't work for you. I'm a little surprised that you don't think either of them deserve a mere 2 million US dollars. After all, any US Congressional investigation with our National Academies, gets a minimum 1 million.

But yeah, I'm picking long odds. . .

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:39 am

I am not too much onto US political money waste (I have enough of the Italian one), but I do not make a money issue for not financing them.

My point is that they already burned enough cash and time to be able to prove something if there was something to be proved.
Not having put forward any tangible results they should be dropped or reassigned to a completely different team of person for an independent check of previous results.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:37 am

I would put a lot of money into the stuff John Slough (MSNW LLC and Helion) is doing. Would probably need more than a couple of million, but would have a higher chance of success than the others mentioned.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:30 pm

It's more than a couple million dollars and it is a political nightmare, but the one technology that should be developed is Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactors.

Nearly guaranteed chance of success for clean cheap abundant energy for as long as you can imagine.

I wouldn't fund a single other government supported energy project until I first fully funded LFTR. It should be the Manhattan Project of our age.

regards

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:07 pm

Good choice, I second that.

It will require more than a couple of millions, but a Thorium reactor combined with a supercritical CO2 power cycle could really usher to a new era of power production/consumption.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:28 pm

Mach-Woodward Effect.

Superconductors - Prins (diamond, polymer), Eck (planar weight disparity).

Widom-Larsen LENR theory.

Nanomaterials, metamaterials, graphene, graphane, ceramic-metal and cheaper metallic glass.

Polywell, DPF and FRC fusion efforts also, if they have any use for such chump change (!).

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:39 am

seedload wrote:It's more than a couple million dollars and it is a political nightmare, but the one technology that should be developed is Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactors.

Nearly guaranteed chance of success for clean cheap abundant energy for as long as you can imagine.

I wouldn't fund a single other government supported energy project until I first fully funded LFTR. It should be the Manhattan Project of our age.

regards

Just out of curiosity, how many here would throw their interest in such a scheme behind a congressional candidate, especially if he was from CA? Is there a significant body of human resource here, who would advocate for next gen fission, safer than anything in the past and capable of cleaning up much of the nuke waste we've created these last few decades?

I'm not promising anything, but I'm asking. . .is there a significant body of human resource here, who would throw themselves behind a next gen Fluoride reactor if that were a workable possibility? If so, please expound about how that would work. And please feel free to invite "Vanilla" from NSF to comment on this issue.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:18 pm

GIThruster wrote:
seedload wrote:It's more than a couple million dollars and it is a political nightmare, but the one technology that should be developed is Liquid Thorium Fluoride Reactors.

Nearly guaranteed chance of success for clean cheap abundant energy for as long as you can imagine.

I wouldn't fund a single other government supported energy project until I first fully funded LFTR. It should be the Manhattan Project of our age.

regards
Just out of curiosity, how many here would throw their interest in such a scheme behind a congressional candidate, especially if he was from CA? Is there a significant body of human resource here, who would advocate for next gen fission, safer than anything in the past and capable of cleaning up much of the nuke waste we've created these last few decades?

I'm not promising anything, but I'm asking. . .is there a significant body of human resource here, who would throw themselves behind a next gen Fluoride reactor if that were a workable possibility? If so, please expound about how that would work. And please feel free to invite "Vanilla" from NSF to comment on this issue.

Sorry, your question is confusing to me. Probably just my bad reading skills.

Are you saying that there is a candidate for congress in CA that will have LFTR in his platform?

If so, are you then asking how much support we would be able to give that candidate beyond just a vote?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:55 pm

I'm wondering about a friend who would make a good CA candidate, and whom might embrace energy independence and the need for things like LFTR as part of his platform. I've told him before he needs to run and one nice thing is that his wife and her family have worked around the country for more than 40 years. They're all quite knowledgeable from a practical standpoint. Can't help but wonder if people here really want to see nukes that burn waste, etc. Any candidate proposing something like LFTR would need a panel of experts in support of that position.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:28 pm

Who on this panel is an actual expert on this?
If I had the chance to just pass a single law, it would be a law that defines who is allowed to be called an expert

IMHO expert is:
Professor, better a leader of an institute concerned with the subject at an accredited university and then only if it is his core competence with a signifficant amount of impact points in scientific publications again only on the actualy topic he is supposed to be an expert in.
Other people could be called maybe specialists, or professionals, but not experts. I would reserve that for a very small group of people.
To many times you see so called experts cited or interviewed in the usual places and they talk nothing but BS and make themselves important and provide disinformation of the public, who buys it "because he is an expert, right?".

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:13 pm

People who work in the national labs in fission design are experts, people like Vanilla at NSF, IIRC.

Luzr · Post by **Luzr** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:22 pm

GIThruster wrote: What's on your list?

AI. But I guess not need to finance that, IBM and Google invest just fine there...

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:51 am

I like this:

http://www.greenarraychips.com/index.html

The chip design is revolutionary.

Talk-Polywell.org

for a couple million dollars

for a couple million dollars

Re: for a couple million dollars