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: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
From what I've read, Lockheed is actually pretty far away from getting this to work. They haven't said how they're dealing with a very important part -- the plasma.

There's a company in Canada that's been struggling with the same issue, and hasn't made much headway.

I have a feeling that one of two things is what we're seeing:

1. They've got this technology working, as they're 40-50 years ahead of current mainstream technology.

2. They want investor money and this is a publicity stunt.

If you realistically look at fusion, we've been hearing the same promises from companies since the 70's. We're really no closer to fusion power than we were back then.

I don't think we're going to see fusion power on Earth in our lifetimes, even if the science and technology are figured out in order to make it a reality. The energy hegemony and political structures on Earth won't allow it.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
such cynicism is no longer warranted despite the history. Those intractible problems are no longer quite so intractible. Though i loathe ITER and NIF on principles i will use them as an example. You do realize that they have reached an important break even goal. They got more energy out of the fusion process than got beamed in. That's the first time that has ever happened. and they are only a hair away of true break even where the thing puts out more energy than the input energy *AND* losses in the rest of the equipment.

Also several schemes including this LM one figured out a new way to handle the plasma. one even uses plasma instability to help instead of hinder the fusion. as i said most of these independent groups think that now achieving break even is just a matter of scaling and not on uninvented technology.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
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.


too bad. id love to see plasma afterburners one day.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
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.


too bad. id love to see plasma afterburners one day.
I didn't say there wouldn't be any. i just think it's a bit much to ask of first generation reactors. later when the main problem isn't keeping the machine hot enough and under enough beta to eek out a net power gain they will happen the following ways:

a working fluid will be heated by either direct exposure to some diverted plasma or indirectly in a heat exchanger. this is the fusion equivalent of nuclear thermal rockets. then in the 3rd or 4rth generation it could be a direct fusion thruster.

but the first propulsion will likely be fusion powering a electric turbine jet in the atmosphere or powering a VASIMR plasma rocket or a M2P2 or ion engines of the hall effect or ELF species in space. these can reduce the transit time anywhere in the solar system by an incredible amount. enough to make traversing the solar system routine. the longest would just take a few months and eventually just weeks. Mars in under 30 days. and because electric propulsion just keeps on firing and accelarating unlike chemical propulsion; it goes faster the longer the trip distance and trips to neptune are just a few months.



posted on Mar, 10 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
that 100MW reactor will only use about 22KG of fuel per year.




"Our studies show that a 100 MW system would only burn less than 20 kg of fuel in an entire year of operation," a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman told eWeek. "Tritium fuel is continually bred within the reactor wall and fed back into the reactor along with deuterium gas to sustain the reactions."


www.spacedaily.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Interesting that you say that...


www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 29-3-2015 by Imperium Americana because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Imperium Americana

Ha, General Atomics is what I was talking about. "They" probably won't allow fusion power on Earth though. I'm fairly certain there are secret or unspoken agreements to never allow it.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Asynchrony

I feel you... I think in near future we are going to see massive improvement in energy creation.
Pretty sure that in couple of decades from now, looking back at todays energy creation is like looking back to first telephones compared todays "smartphones"



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

GA is out of San Diego. And, given that they make drones, they run in the same circles.

I understand the pessimissim, but I think we will see something soon.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

MM. Until the oil companies get their infrastucture in place to switch to hydrogen and tritium production.Then they will release it. Which might happen sooner than later with the middle east getting more exspensive.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear
I retired from LM 5 years ago after 26 years. It was a great place to work and you are right, most people are not aware
of all the various fields that LM develops programs and products for advancement. It is not just military.




posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: justdust
a reply to: StratosFear
I retired from LM 5 years ago after 26 years. It was a great place to work and you are right, most people are not aware
of all the various fields that LM develops programs and products for advancement. It is not just military.



That's pretty cool, what did you work on if you are able to say? Quite a few people would be interested to read about a 1st hand account, especially if its aviation related.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
From what I've read, Lockheed is actually pretty far away from getting this to work. They haven't said how they're dealing with a very important part -- the plasma.

There's a company in Canada that's been struggling with the same issue, and hasn't made much headway.

I have a feeling that one of two things is what we're seeing:

1. They've got this technology working, as they're 40-50 years ahead of current mainstream technology.

2. They want investor money and this is a publicity stunt.

If you realistically look at fusion, we've been hearing the same promises from companies since the 70's. We're really no closer to fusion power than we were back then.


That's actually not true. If you look at the key confinement parameter, fusion has been getting steadily better in logarithmic scale--like Moore's law. The problem is that unlike computers there's no payoff until you reach a very high point of capability.

What has happened is that we've discovered many new different instabilities and complexities not known in the 1970's.

From what's been revealed of the Lockheed machine, they're much earlier stage than I expected. The basic mirror geometry has been known for decades and discarded as it didn't work well enough; unless Lockheed shows some pretty major results showing why those old results don't apply and how they can do MUCH better, I'm staying skeptical.

Realistically I think something else is more likely to work in the short run:

www.electronics-eetimes.com...

People knock tokomaks, the conventional ones are much too big and expensive (e.g. ITER), but there's a reason they became popular: compared to most alternatives, they work much better more easily. In the 1960's the West was completely skeptical of claims coming out of Russia about their fusion progress, far beyond Western experiments. When they were able to go to Russia and see the data themselves, they found the Russians really had made a big breakthrough.

The main advantage of Lockheed is not the fusion technology but the management capability and potentially money. If they have a secure, substantial (100 million +), guaranteed pot of money and management support, they could iterate on the technology much faster than either a poor startup, or the usual academic/government/mliitary R&D system which takes ages and interminable grant reviews.




I don't think we're going to see fusion power on Earth in our lifetimes, even if the science and technology are figured out in order to make it a reality. The energy hegemony and political structures on Earth won't allow it.


That's silly. It's more likely bureaucracy and screwups, and not any intentional conspiracy.
edit on 7-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

They're talking about playing with anti protons at the Haydron and you think that fission is scaring them?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Just something someone that might know about these things told me...



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Not quite plasma afterburners but they are using plasma actuators to ring the exhaust nozzles of jet engines to smooth out the turbulence of the flame coming out the back. Reduces noise and eliminates the engines roaring sound to a large degree.


Mystic,

I agree that there probably is a lot of walls set up by the energy hegemony to stop things like alternative energy.

I would favor Klimovs Quantum Solar Cells over the fusion reactor. Power it with Q Dots. It's safer, can be miniaturized easier. And it's got an easier marketing scheme, after all it's solar power.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I won't jump you for that, at all.
I often speak of things I have been told believing my integrity is sufficent but POSSIBLY like you THEY will NEVER confirm a thing.
...Or they're dead.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join