Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Tom Claytor has a way of making tritium based on LENR that might supply
> tritium to the hot fusion program.  Nevertheless, once LENR is understood,
> who needs hot fusion?  Public funding is not determined by logic, facts, or
> even rational analysis. It is controlled by politics, i.e. self-interest.
> The sooner people realize this, the quicker we can make progress getting
> support.

Well, our nuclear arsenal has depleted of tritium by 50% since the
turn of the millennium.  Not that is necessarily a bad thing.

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Edmund Storms]

On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:





Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
LENR system be engineered to supply enough
He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?



No, because tritium is a very minor product of LENR. If LENR  
worked, the
energy created by this process could be used directly without the  
need to

create a big machine to use the He3.

Ed


Thanks for this reminder.
Can you imagine any reasons why hot fusion researchers might divert
some of their own money into LENR research because it could advance
their own program?


Tom Claytor has a way of making tritium based on LENR that might  
supply tritium to the hot fusion program.  Nevertheless, once LENR is  
understood, who needs hot fusion?  Public funding is not determined by  
logic, facts, or even rational analysis. It is controlled by politics,  
i.e. self-interest. The sooner people realize this, the quicker we can  
make progress getting support.


Ed



Or will funding for hot fusion research dry up soon after the first
public investment is made in LENR research? Are the two energy
programs fundamentally antagnasitic with respect to public funding?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Harry Veeder]

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

>
> Thanks for this reminder.
> Can you imagine any reasons why hot fusion researchers might divert
> some of their own money into LENR research because it could advance
> their own program?
> Or will funding for hot fusion research dry up soon after the first
> public investment is made in LENR research? Are the two energy
> programs fundamentally antagnasitic with respect to public funding?
>
> Harry

I mean antagonistic.
Harry

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

>>
>>
>> Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
>> LENR system be engineered to supply enough
>> He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?
>
>
> No, because tritium is a very minor product of LENR. If LENR worked, the
> energy created by this process could be used directly without the need to
> create a big machine to use the He3.
>
> Ed

Thanks for this reminder.
Can you imagine any reasons why hot fusion researchers might divert
some of their own money into LENR research because it could advance
their own program?
Or will funding for hot fusion research dry up soon after the first
public investment is made in LENR research? Are the two energy
programs fundamentally antagnasitic with respect to public funding?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Edmund Storms]

On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


Indeed,

However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to  
have
some big science experiments running. Science is not about profit  
but having

fun!



Well Jouni, when over 25 billion dollars are spent, the question is  
who has
the fun from this money.  As a tax payer, I could have had much  
more fun if
the money had been sent on something that lowered my energy bill  
and reduced

the risk of global warming . But to each his own.



If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn
profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion.



Yes, and where do you get the He3?  Yes, this is present on the  
Moon, but at

what cost?


Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
LENR system be engineered to supply enough
He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?


No, because tritium is a very minor product of LENR. If LENR worked,  
the energy created by this process could be used directly without the  
need to create a big machine to use the He3.


Ed


Harry

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Harry Veeder]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> Indeed,
>>
>> However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to have
>> some big science experiments running. Science is not about profit but having
>> fun!
>
>
> Well Jouni, when over 25 billion dollars are spent, the question is who has
> the fun from this money.  As a tax payer, I could have had much more fun if
> the money had been sent on something that lowered my energy bill and reduced
> the risk of global warming . But to each his own.
>>
>>
>> If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn
>> profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion.
>
>
> Yes, and where do you get the He3?  Yes, this is present on the Moon, but at
> what cost?

Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
LENR system be engineered to supply enough
He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Edmund Storms]

On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


Indeed,

However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to  
have some big science experiments running. Science is not about  
profit but having fun!


Well Jouni, when over 25 billion dollars are spent, the question is  
who has the fun from this money.  As a tax payer, I could have had  
much more fun if the money had been sent on something that lowered my  
energy bill and reduced the risk of global warming . But to each his  
own.


If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn  
profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion.


Yes, and where do you get the He3?  Yes, this is present on the Moon,  
but at what cost?


It is nicer, because it does not produce a neutron flux, but it  
emits fast protons. This means in practice that protons can be  
captured with magnets and their kinetic energy can be transformed  
directly into electricity with high efficiency (over 70%).




This would negate at least your arguments (1) and (2) that are  
devastating for the deuterium based plasma fusion to have any  
economical prospects. However argument (3) is still valid and it  
hard to see how even he-3 plasma fusion could compete economically  
with solar electricity, wind power and 4th gen nuclear.


I agree. However, why not suggest just a little of this money be used  
to explore cold fusion?


China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium  
cooled nuclear plant at Rongcheng.


Yes, China is on the front of many technologies now because the West  
is captured by various self-interests that have no relationship to  
general benefit.


Ed


—Jouni

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms   
wrote:


This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been  
solved or even widely acknowledged.


1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because  
it is not a natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron  
flux into tritium which is fed back into the reactor.  
Unfortunately, this conversion process is not 100% efficient  
because many neutrons are lost without making tritium. This missing  
tritium must be made using a fission reactor or accelerator, with  
the added expense this gives.


2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a  
result, its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a  
major problem and requires shutting down the reactor for an  
extended time. During this time, the missing power must be supplied  
by expensive backup generators, thereby increasing the average cost  
of power.


3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure  
modes, most of which have not been identified. These will only be  
identified after the money has been spent and the machine is put  
into service. Consequently, more money will be required, but at  
this stage too much will have been invested to abandon the method,  
which seems to be the case even now.


The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of  
money and will never produce commercial power.  The method was  
given its chance to prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes  
on.  In contrast, cold fusion was never given a chance to prove its  
worth.


Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Jouni Valkonen]

Indeed, 

However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to have some big 
science experiments running. Science is not about profit but having fun!

If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn profits on 
a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion. It is nicer, because it 
does not produce a neutron flux, but it emits fast protons. This means in 
practice that protons can be captured with magnets and their kinetic energy can 
be transformed directly into electricity with high efficiency (over 70%).

This would negate at least your arguments (1) and (2) that are devastating for 
the deuterium based plasma fusion to have any economical prospects. However 
argument (3) is still valid and it hard to see how even he-3 plasma fusion 
could compete economically with solar electricity, wind power and 4th gen 
nuclear.

China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium cooled nuclear 
plant at Rongcheng. 

—Jouni

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been solved or even 
> widely acknowledged.
> 
> 1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because it is not a 
> natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron flux into tritium which 
> is fed back into the reactor. Unfortunately, this conversion process is not 
> 100% efficient because many neutrons are lost without making tritium. This 
> missing tritium must be made using a fission reactor or accelerator, with the 
> added expense this gives.
> 
> 2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a result, 
> its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a major problem and 
> requires shutting down the reactor for an extended time. During this time, 
> the missing power must be supplied by expensive backup generators, thereby 
> increasing the average cost of power.
> 
> 3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure modes, most of 
> which have not been identified. These will only be identified after the money 
> has been spent and the machine is put into service. Consequently, more money 
> will be required, but at this stage too much will have been invested to 
> abandon the method, which seems to be the case even now.
> 
> The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of money and 
> will never produce commercial power.  The method was given its chance to 
> prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes on.  In contrast, cold fusion 
> was never given a chance to prove its worth.  
> 
> Ed Storms
> 

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Edmund Storms]

This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been solved  
or even widely acknowledged.


1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because it  
is not a natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron flux into  
tritium which is fed back into the reactor. Unfortunately, this  
conversion process is not 100% efficient because many neutrons are  
lost without making tritium. This missing tritium must be made using a  
fission reactor or accelerator, with the added expense this gives.


2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a  
result, its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a major  
problem and requires shutting down the reactor for an extended time.  
During this time, the missing power must be supplied by expensive  
backup generators, thereby increasing the average cost of power.


3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure modes,  
most of which have not been identified. These will only be identified  
after the money has been spent and the machine is put into service.  
Consequently, more money will be required, but at this stage too much  
will have been invested to abandon the method, which seems to be the  
case even now.


The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of money  
and will never produce commercial power.  The method was given its  
chance to prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes on.  In  
contrast, cold fusion was never given a chance to prove its worth.


Ed Storms


On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:23 PM, James Bowery wrote:


My response:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power&posted=1#comment-18


18. jabowery
06:21 PM 1/24/13
From a founder of the US Tokamak Fusion Program to Congress:

The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant  
magnetic tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and  
that is what the program has been about for the past 15 years - a  
defense-of-budget program - not a fusion-achievement program. As one  
of three people who created this program in the early 1970's (when I  
was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction  
Division) I know this to be true; we raised the budget in order to  
take 20% off the top of the larger funding, to try all of the  
hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try.
Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation  
management thought the big program was real; it was not. Ever since  
then, the ERDA/DoE has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue  
big-budget support. This worked so long as various Democratic  
Senators and Congressmen could see the funding as helpful in their  
districts. But fear of undermining their budget position also made  
DoE bureaucrats very autocratic and resistant to any kind of new  
approach, whether inside DoE or out in industry. This led DoE to  
fight industry wherever a non-DoE hopful new idea appeared.


See http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Terry Blanton   
wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
(PPPL) in New Jersey.



Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!

RE: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan]

This is not 'Fusion' proper;  This is Plasma Breach Reactor technology. (which 
'can' support
fusion but which would be so monumentally counter productive) and so much so 
that simply using the Plas-Breach
Reactor in 'INCIPIENT'-Plas-Breach(restrained-eye)XO-Plasma bleed-through mode 
provides
a self sustaining EM-induction production  level that makes nuclear
power appear a clumsy & wasteful dinosaur.  This is seriously both GREEN and 
CLEAN. . .
And once 'online' eg. Giga-High-Denstiy jump-started it goes into 
self-sustaining mode
and the up-keep expense is 'nill.'  
 
I always knew that the inevitable MONSTER STAG-FLATION of the world economy 
would
finally be that which brought this Plas-Breach/XO-Plas tech into the opening.  
And this
because only relative low cost full energy independence & coupled with relative 
low cost
Super-Weapons systems would bring the GUNS & BUTTER equation back to 
relative Global Stabilization.
 
Sister tech 2 this is
Electro-Plasmic-Meteor Broadcast 'incipient Plasma-Breach toroid' missle 
interdiction systems.  
 
They are just announcing this now because it's already been installed.  The 
Electro-Plasmic
Meteors Broadcast units (which are mini-low-power Plas-Breach Reactors) needs 
be arrayed
across an  latitudinal grid line because the FLY-PATTERN follows the 
geo-magnetic grid
NORTHward(only).  The Magneto-Gravionic Wake creates a long-path devastating 
airborne hyper
gravity 'sump' effect which is more like hypr-grav trenches in the sky.  In UK 
I watched
the prototype literally RIP 5 jet-fighters out of the sky across about a 
nautical mile. It tends
to make a believer out of you.  This was public but few commentators had a clue 
as to 
what exactly they were watching. . . ultimate stealth equals INVISIBLE but the 
effects are stunning.
 
This technology being installed in South Korea will CUT OFF NORTH KOREAN missle 
launches
OFF AT THE KNEES since it is instantaneous 1/2 C/light speed response.  If the 
Electro-Plasmic
Meteor(Hyper-grav frisbees-toroid fields and wakes) is launched at a shallow 
enough horizon skimming
trajectory it stands to RIP A TRENCH in any installation in its path for a 
least as far north as the 
northern most border of North Korea.
 
Note the 'timing' and location:  This is an American project 'totally.' Jack
 
 

> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:11:36 -0500
> From: hohlr...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power
> 
> South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
> design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
> the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
> (PPPL) in New Jersey.
> 
> 
> 
> Such a waste. Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[James Bowery]

BTW:  I don't know why rational fusion people don't continually rub the
noses of pseudoskeptics in this letter.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> My response:
>
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power&posted=1#comment-18
>
>
> 18. 
> jabowery06:21
> PM 1/24/13
>
> From a founder of the US Tokamak Fusion Program to Congress:
>
> The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant magnetic
> tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and that is what the
> program has been about for the past 15 years - a defense-of-budget program
> - not a fusion-achievement program. As one of three people who created this
> program in the early 1970's (when I was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's
> Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division) I know this to be true; we
> raised the budget in order to take 20% off the top of the larger funding,
> to try all of the hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try.
> Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation management
> thought the big program was real; it was not. Ever since then, the ERDA/DoE
> has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue big-budget support. This
> worked so long as various Democratic Senators and Congressmen could see the
> funding as helpful in their districts. But fear of undermining their budget
> position also made DoE bureaucrats very autocratic and resistant to any
> kind of new approach, whether inside DoE or out in industry. This led DoE
> to fight industry wherever a non-DoE hopful new idea appeared.
>
> See http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power
>>
>> South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
>> design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
>> the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
>> (PPPL) in New Jersey.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Daniel Rocha]

Sorry, I thought this was a case of plasma pinch. This is the old Tokamak,
so I mistook this project with another one.


2013/1/24 Daniel Rocha 

> That might be as good as cold fusion, according to some simulations they
> did with some configurations. They surprisingly got a COP of 1000x.
>
>
> 2013/1/24 Terry Blanton 
>
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power
>>
>> South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
>> design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
>> the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
>> (PPPL) in New Jersey.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[James Bowery]

My response:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power&posted=1#comment-18


18. jabowery 
06:21
PM 1/24/13

>From a founder of the US Tokamak Fusion Program to Congress:

The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant magnetic
tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and that is what the
program has been about for the past 15 years - a defense-of-budget program
- not a fusion-achievement program. As one of three people who created this
program in the early 1970's (when I was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's
Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division) I know this to be true; we
raised the budget in order to take 20% off the top of the larger funding,
to try all of the hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try.
Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation management
thought the big program was real; it was not. Ever since then, the ERDA/DoE
has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue big-budget support. This
worked so long as various Democratic Senators and Congressmen could see the
funding as helpful in their districts. But fear of undermining their budget
position also made DoE bureaucrats very autocratic and resistant to any
kind of new approach, whether inside DoE or out in industry. This led DoE
to fight industry wherever a non-DoE hopful new idea appeared.

See http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power
>
> South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
> design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
> the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
> (PPPL) in New Jersey.
>
> 
>
> Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!
>
>

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

[Daniel Rocha]

That might be as good as cold fusion, according to some simulations they
did with some configurations. They surprisingly got a COP of 1000x.


2013/1/24 Terry Blanton 

>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power
>
> South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
> design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
> the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
> (PPPL) in New Jersey.
>
> 
>
> Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com