It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New information on T4 fusion reactor

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Interesting news :
aviationweek.com...




posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.


Seems a lot safer than detonating miniature nuclear devices and riding the shockwave through space, but not as exciting. I cannot wait for this and other LM technologies to come into the light, they are so much more than just an aircraft manufacturer.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear


Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.


Seems a lot safer than detonating miniature nuclear devices and riding the shockwave through space, but not as exciting. I cannot wait for this and other LM technologies to come into the light, they are so much more than just an aircraft manufacturer.
This will enable far more powerful ion drives though. it's acceleration may not be spectacular but it makes up for it with efficiency and endurance. you could always get the sexy acceleration by putting water or fuel through it sort of like an afterburner. something like this could easily power a hall, elf, VASIMR, M2P2, NEP/FEP or EM drive for quick trips to mars or beyond. future generations could power a interstellar probe.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: StratosFear


Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.


Seems a lot safer than detonating miniature nuclear devices and riding the shockwave through space, but not as exciting. I cannot wait for this and other LM technologies to come into the light, they are so much more than just an aircraft manufacturer.


This will revolutionize energy creation. I am very interested in seeing these machines in action.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7
Interesting news in October of last year. Previous thread on this from last month. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I read most of the article and then skimmed the rest looking for the amount of power one may be expected to produce but didn't see that info. Any ideas?

I do wonder how much waste one may create. Still great for exploration without that worry but I wonder about the waste for earthbound purposes. A reactor is perfect for research bases in Antartica. If that one is small enough then mobile bases could become a reality again.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Much like electric generators that use fuels to spin magnets around wire coils I'm fairly sure that while looking at the design that the power of one of these things would increase with the size of the generator.




originally posted by: Grimpachi
I read most of the article and then skimmed the rest looking for the amount of power one may be expected to produce but didn't see that info. Any ideas?

I do wonder how much waste one may create. Still great for exploration without that worry but I wonder about the waste for earthbound purposes. A reactor is perfect for research bases in Antartica. If that one is small enough then mobile bases could become a reality again.


edit on 7-3-2015 by Asynchrony because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Asynchrony

Thing is I have no way to base the energy output off its size.

I could figure that out roughly by looking at an engine but that thing isn't something I am familiar with.

Big ones power cities others navy vessels, but I have no idea what that can power.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Asynchrony

Thing is I have no way to base the energy output off its size.

I could figure that out roughly by looking at an engine but that thing isn't something I am familiar with.

Big ones power cities others navy vessels, but I have no idea what that can power.
older articles give the projected power output (I think)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Lockheed said the test reactor is only two meters long by one meter wide, far smaller than existing research reactors. “In a smaller reactor you can iterate generations quicker, incorporate new knowledge, develop faster, and make riskier design choices. That is a much more powerful development paradigm and much less capital intensive,” McGuire said. If successful, the program could produce a reactor that might fit in a tractor-trailer and produce 100 megawatts of power, he said. “There are no guarantees that we can get there, but that possibility is there.”


www.technologyreview.com...

they appear to be shooting for 100 MWs on a lowboy trailer form factor.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Awsome!!!

1 MW can potentially supply 200 homes and that is designed to put out 100 MW.


That is very impressive. With one of those a Mars colony really could happen.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Awsome!!!

1 MW can potentially supply 200 homes and that is designed to put out 100 MW.


That is very impressive. With one of those a Mars colony really could happen.

a typical home can get by on under (or about) two kilowatts with higher surges to cover the start up of refrigerator and air conditioner compressors.
edit on 7-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


for a colony or a space ship you would want more than one if only for redundancy if something goes wrong with one of them. my personal star cruiser will have at least 4 LM T10 500 MW main reactors as well as a dozen smaller APUs and several man portable minireactors.

edit on 7-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Sounds about right.



As already explained, ADMD assumes that not all properties are utlilising their maximum demand at the same time, so an ADMD might appear to be surprisingly low. So, as an example, let's assume an ADMD of, say, 5 kW, would mean that one megawatt could supply 200 properties. How many homes can a megawatt power?



As far as the Mars thing I am just saying that because they are ably to have such a compact energy source it makes such a venture feasible. I am sure they will have solar arrays as well.
edit on 7-3-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
well its gonna happen. besides LM's CFR you have the DPF guys, the polywell guys and at least half a dozen others before you get to ITER and NIF.

DPF looks sort of like a big salt canister sized sparkplug inside a dome of layered material to convert gamma rays into electricity.

the polywell looks like a cross between a quartet of vandergraf generator corona shields arranged in a cube and a farnsworth FUSOR.

there is also a half tomokak half horseshoe looking thing...
edit on 7-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I wonder what to timetable is until it's applied to practical application?
I see it as a possible power source for the neww FXX if they can whip it out fast enough.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I wonder what to timetable is until it's applied to practical application?
I see it as a possible power source for the neww FXX if they can whip it out fast enough.
the LM reactor is way too heavy and bulky to fit in a fighter jet. it is possible that one of the other fusion reactor designs might be small enough but most of these are counting on scaling factors to bring thier designs above break-even. which means that they think that once they have the separate components sorted out they should be able to achieve net power by making thier reactors larger. for example the polywell people think they can do it with a reactor about a meter and a half on each dimension. i think the DPF guys can go smaller but am not sure. but most designs count on a set of projected minimum sizes that are larger arrived at by standard scaling calculations.
edit on 8-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
No matter what happens with this or future energy technologies, remember that in the late 19th century the oil boom was thought to revolutionize the world and cure its ills. Did it? It certainly changed the world, but it's still recognizable. Some ills were cured, but this wave of change also brought new ills, like the atomic bomb and germ warfare. The roundabout is none of these technologies are likely to change anything fundamentally. It's instead an incremental - though subtle - progression. So while today we might be bound to planet Earth, tomorrow we might be travelling to Mars. And while today we might be living to 77 on average, tomorrow we might be living to 95.

Mark Twain — 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.'

EDIT: I'm not implying large unexpected changes can't happen in our future, but I think they tend to be overblown by our imagination.
edit on 8-3-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I wonder what to timetable is until it's applied to practical application?
I see it as a possible power source for the neww FXX if they can whip it out fast enough.
the LM reactor is way too heavy and bulky to fit in a fighter jet. it is possible that one of the other fusion reactor designs might be small enough but most of these are counting on scaling factors to bring thier designs above break-even. which means that they think that once they have the separate components sorted out they should be able to achieve net power by making thier reactors larger. for example the polywell people think they can do it with a reactor about a meter and a half on each dimension. i think the DPF guys can go smaller but am not sure. but most designs count on a set of projected minimum sizes that are larger arrived at by standard scaling calculations.


Umm you do know that most fighters are bigger than a truck right? the current one in its size could be dropped in a fighter chassis if the one i saw was average size.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I wonder what to timetable is until it's applied to practical application?
I see it as a possible power source for the neww FXX if they can whip it out fast enough.
the LM reactor is way too heavy and bulky to fit in a fighter jet. it is possible that one of the other fusion reactor designs might be small enough but most of these are counting on scaling factors to bring thier designs above break-even. which means that they think that once they have the separate components sorted out they should be able to achieve net power by making thier reactors larger. for example the polywell people think they can do it with a reactor about a meter and a half on each dimension. i think the DPF guys can go smaller but am not sure. but most designs count on a set of projected minimum sizes that are larger arrived at by standard scaling calculations.


Umm you do know that most fighters are bigger than a truck right? the current one in its size could be dropped in a fighter chassis if the one i saw was average size.


Even if the CFR might fit inside the outlines of a jet fighter (which i doubt) the reactor is not a propulsion engine by itself. thus you need something to turn that reactor power into motive force you need something to direct that, you need space for weapons, comms either a pilot or autopilot...plus it's pretty heavy. you'd probably need more lift area from the wings.

I'd say your fighter would end up about the size of the space shuttle.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
there are a couple of direct conversion schemes that produce electricity intrinsically. these cannot produce thrust by themselves but must power an electric motor or something like that. then you have to figure out how to make that motor work at various altitudes with thinner and thinner air.

the other fusion reactors are not direct conversion models and try their best to keep the plasma inside to reduce the energy input needed to keep them going. thus the first generations of these types of reactor are not suited to be plasma rockets. future generations could have enough excess power to not worry about spewing hard won plasma out the back though. until then these models will also need to power a second motor too.
edit on 9-3-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join