Lockheed Martin Skunkworks Announces Fusion Break Through

I normally take any "Fusion Breakthrough" news with a grain of salt.

But if Lockheed says it, I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Also, if Lockheed is letting the public know only now, imagine how long this has been in the hands of the military.

originally posted by: darkstar57
the reason fusion is so difficult to manage..apart from the sun... is the coulomb barrier. that is put a bunch of protons together, as in a nucleus, and they repel, or wont fuse with, other protons. but neutrons, get in just fine. BUT a neutron has a half life in the wild of 12 minutes, and are really really difficult to produce. as you need an atomic bomb pit. so the likely secret of Lockheed Martin is the production of neutrons without the atomic bomb. hopefully someone with background in physics (say, read the Feynmann lectures...) could comment on this.

hehehehe! you know... well- a form of early fusion device called a "fusor" is a neutron source. it (Farnsworth Fusor and similar devices) cannot produce break-even fusion but it is used commercially as a neutron source. So i suspect that if they need neutrons for fusion they can use a popular fusion device to get them though of course someone like LM would also have no problem getting a supply of radioisotopes. using a fusor is cleaner and safer though.

producing neutrons is easy. tons of fusion experimenters produce neutrons. what they have not done is produced more electricity than went into their machines to produce those neutrons.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So we can safely assume they've had this technology for at least 20 years?

No, this article is from october 2014, so they now have 8 months or less to complete their goal/statement.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
news.yahoo.com...

In a statement, the company, the Pentagon's largest supplier, said it would build and test a compact fusion reactor in less than a year, and build a prototype in five years.

So the timeline for demonstration is less than a year and thier timeline for a full commercial ready prototype is now 5 years instead of ten. Full commercialization is now just ten years away.

Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a 100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet, which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire told reporters.

that means town sized reactors can be air-mobiled anywhere in the world in any terrain. also it means current heavy lift launch carriers are capable of putting one of these into space for a space station, moon, mars or any other rocky bodied moon or worldlet colony or a large spaceship assembled in orbit.

also a technology reveiw article on the same public information release from LM.

www.technologyreview.com...


This thread has been promoted on the ATS Twitter Feed with the following image:

I cannot believe people are actually praising this technology.

Compact more powerful per space Fusion reactors that can be used both to produce power or build bombs ( H bomb) is a Really bad idea.

It's MORE powerful than today's Fission reactors which give us residential nuclear power ( and bombs a-bombs) because it requires lots more energy input to join the atoms than it does in the weaker reaction of Fusion power to split atoms.

Sure you get a trade off, almost no radiation and cheaper easier to work with materials - But for gods sake people it's many multiple times potentially MORE DANGEROUS because of Fusions larger energy input and output.

C'mon - LM - one of the largest defense contractors - The Pentagon Not gonna use this for Bombs - if ya think so your Dreaming.

Here folks.. check out this good laymans comparison between Fission and Fusion and then think about how foolish all of you are being. This will Only bring death. www.diffen.com...


None of this fission or fusion energy is "clean" energy. We need to look to wind, solar, hydro power, gravitational and Earth kinetic energy power as long term viable alternative resources.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

How is this going to be used to build a weapon?

We already have a thermonuclear device which uses the Teller-Ulam principle.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I read a bit of the skeptical commentary following their October, 2014 statements and I'm not going to get too excited just yet. However, if they pull it off, it would be nearly impossible to overstate how big of a deal this is.

Totally agree. Not gonna get too excited yet. But as someone who studied physics at uni...This is exciting and if true then we are moving into the next league.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I normally take any "Fusion Breakthrough" news with a grain of salt.
But if Lockheed says it, I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.

I know. As far as I know, nobody has even accomplished fusion with a big huge reactor, and here they are saying they'll have little ones cooking in no time?

Aliens must have helped.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: JohnPhoenix

How is this going to be used to build a weapon?

We already have a thermonuclear device which uses the Teller-Ulam principle.

How many weapons does the government have powered by things like black powder, or electricity or light or sound for that matter - many of them. They build weapons out of anything simply because they can and there might one day be an application for it. - Not to mention other governments who do not have the USA's weapons may seek to distort this technology.

It's not just that aspect. Can you imagine when we have a reactor sitting on a city block that's 5 to 10 times more powerful per size and that much more potentially dangerous in case of an accident -

That's 5 to 10 times the amount of area destroyed and 5 to 10 times the cost in human lives. People shouldn't think of this as something to tinker with, people should Run from it.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: stormbringer1701

That's a breakthrough!

When do they start work on the war machines? You thought it was going to feed the hungry? LOL

Sooooooo tired of this constant negativity in this forum. Yes I realise that this is a conspiracy forum but do you Dr Doom depressing types ever look around you? Do you not see all the incredible things we have in this world? Too many to list. I'm talking about technology by the way. Not nature.

Stop being so negative...i can't imagine how exhausting that is.

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix

It's not just that aspect.

Yeah, it is. You said a weapon could be built from this, how?

Can you imagine when we have a reactor sitting on a city block that's 5 to 10 times more powerful per size and that much more potentially dangerous in case of an accident -

That's 5 to 10 times the amount of area destroyed and 5 to 10 times the cost in human lives. People shouldn't think of this as something to tinker with, people should Run from it.

A fusion reactor does not function in the same way as a fission reactor. If the containment field fails on a fusion reactor the reaction, for the sake of oversimplification, stops without incident. There is minimal radiation, which is isolated to the containment structure, and none is spread into the atmosphere.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Hate to break this to you but we already got something way more powerful that a fusion weapon. And cooler. And it also gives really great tans.

All in good time. I don't like the idea of more mobile nuclear reactors when humanity can't even prevent accidents with the ones we've got that can't move. That's great and all but the last thing we need is a nuclear explosion on the highway when one of these things goes up.

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
I cannot believe people are actually praising this technology.

Compact more powerful per space Fusion reactors that can be used both to produce power or build bombs ( H bomb) is a Really bad idea.

It's MORE powerful than today's Fission reactors which give us residential nuclear power ( and bombs a-bombs) because it requires lots more energy input to join the atoms than it does in the weaker reaction of Fusion power to split atoms.

Sure you get a trade off, almost no radiation and cheaper easier to work with materials - But for gods sake people it's many multiple times potentially MORE DANGEROUS because of Fusions larger energy input and output.

C'mon - LM - one of the largest defense contractors - The Pentagon Not gonna use this for Bombs - if ya think so your Dreaming.

Here folks.. check out this good laymans comparison between Fission and Fusion and then think about how foolish all of you are being. This will Only bring death. www.diffen.com...


None of this fission or fusion energy is "clean" energy. We need to look to wind, solar, hydro power, gravitational and Earth kinetic energy power as long term viable alternative resources.

i guess you do not understand the difference between fusion and fission reactors. fission reactors can enrich uranium to bomb grade and can produce plutonium. a fusion reactor absolutely cannot do that. a fission reactor melt down is a disaster. a fusion reactor cannot melt down in the same sense and a breakdown of the reactor is an inconvenience. a fusion reactor cannot generate an atomic explosion. A fission reactor generates tons of waste that is dangerous for tens of thousands of years. a fusion reactor may ideally produce no radioactive waste in the case of aneutronic fusion and in the case of neutron producing fusion reactors they produce only low grade and or short lived radioactive waste requiring far less in terms of secure storage.

arguing a contrary position out of total ignorance of the facts of the matter at hand should be eshewed.

originally posted by: Thorneblood
Didn't the rapidly falling price of oil pretty much imply this was the case. Chances are, at least, China and Russia have something similar or even exactly like it.

Wow!

I never thought of that.

And the fact that Apple is coming out with it's own electric car to compete with Tesla was another thing that made me pause.

originally posted by: Asynchrony
All in good time. I don't like the idea of more mobile nuclear reactors when humanity can't even prevent accidents with the ones we've got that can't move. That's great and all but the last thing we need is a nuclear explosion on the highway when one of these things goes up.

fusion reactors cannot explode. when something goes wrong in a fusion reactor the reactor simply stops producing fusion. fusion is so hard to maintain that the slightest problem halts it. furthermore moment per moment at best a few gigawatts are being produced. really the first reactors will be hard pressed to do a tenth of that. to put it into perspective a lightning bolt produces more. lightning bolts don't amount to an atomic explosion. and a reactor doesn't produce it all at once its a cumulative count.

it is traditional to know the data on a subject before one argues about it. particularly claiming it is going to do something like produce an explosion or atomic explosion or stuff like that.

originally posted by: smarterthanyou
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So we can safely assume they've had this technology for at least 20 years?

probably not. i know of no signs that fusion is available at all. you could argue some deep conspiracist like black organization might have em but something like this would solve so many military logistical problems that it would never be kept sequestered like that. i know of no shift in fuel logistics that would indicate military utilization. think of all the portable generators, trucks, tanks, self propelled howitzers, ships, planes and helicopters that consume diesel or gasoline or similar stuff.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: smarterthanyou
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So we can safely assume they've had this technology for at least 20 years?

probably not. i know of no signs that fusion is available at all. you could argue some deep conspiracist like black organization might have em but something like this would solve so many military logistical problems that it would never be kept sequestered like that. i know of no shift in fuel logistics that would indicate military utilization. think of all the portable generators, trucks, tanks, self propelled howitzers, ships, planes and helicopters that consume diesel or gasoline or similar stuff.

I agree. Not everything is a conspiracy and there is no hint or suggestion anywhere that fusion reactors have been achieved by anyone (unless you believe scammers like Rossi) Some things would come out..This is one of those things that would. In my opinion.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

i guess you do not understand the difference between fusion and fission reactors. fission reactors can enrich uranium to bomb grade and can produce plutonium. a fusion reactor absolutely cannot do that.

Urm, well, if you're running D-T mix, you can take some of the neutron flux and breed plutonium from DU. Yup. That's another reason it would be fine to have a p-B11 only sort of setup, if that's possible. Can't do crapola weapon-wise with a p-B11 reactor.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

i guess you do not understand the difference between fusion and fission reactors. fission reactors can enrich uranium to bomb grade and can produce plutonium. a fusion reactor absolutely cannot do that.

Urm, well, if you're running D-T mix, you can take some of the neutron flux and breed plutonium from DU. Yup. That's another reason it would be fine to have a p-B11 only sort of setup, if that's possible. Can't do crapola weapon-wise with a p-B11 reactor.

neutron flux even from the dirtier fusion chains is not anywhere near as intense as from a critical nuclear pile. if it were then the reactor walls and shielding would be more dangerous than they are. even if that were not the case a fission reactor provides the breeding capability already so if a fusion reactor was suitable for such a thing it would not add new capabilities to the hands of belligerants.