Fusion now?

[Uncle Bob]

DefenseNews Article

I don't think this is a scam. Bussard has all the right credentials (he invented the Bussard Ramjet in the 1960s). I was afraid this was another casualty of the Islamicist War, but it looks like DARPA has taken it over from the Navy and the hardware and technical personel moved to SpaceDev, Inc.

Google video

Transcript

 

[Anthony]

It looks more like a kook than a scam. If the technology was actually remotely solid, finding investors would not be a challenge.

 

[Space Cadet]

A kid built a fusion reactor in his basement, it was called a fusor.

 

[veltyen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

Wow. It is based on the farnsworth fusor.

In 2006, Dr Bussard and the Polywell device were awarded the Outstanding Technology of the Year Award by the International Academy of Science.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hm, the information sources about this stuff are pretty limited.
I would be interested in some more substancial scientific feedback....

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by veltyen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

Wow. It is based on the farnsworth fusor.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In 2006, Dr Bussard and the Polywell device were awarded the Outstanding Technology of the Year Award by the International Academy of Science.

</font>[/QUOTE]Nice catch. Note that his test model uses D-T, a nice, dirty, but low-energy, reaction, but he hopes to use aneutonic p+B=>3 He4 for a working reactor. Still no clue how to get from H=> He without some neutrons (as in Traveller), but we are closer.

After fifty years of investing in dry holes I am not surprised that private funds have dried up. Nice to see DARPA is involved, though. DARPA has a pretty good record on fast-tracking developments.

 

[epicenter00]

I remember a physics instructor of mine during High School who told me that "Cheap, controllable, plentiful fusion power is always ten to fifteen years away. Ask me today, and I'll tell you it's ten to fifteen years away. Come back and ask me in ten to fifteen years and I'll tell you the same thing. After that and I'll be dead, but my widow will tell you the same thing."

 

[atpollard]

I calculate break-even fusion around 2020 with large scale power plants in common use by 2060. Starship sized Fusion power should be gradually phased in between 2060 and 2100 and fusion powered 'cars' will be part of the 22nd century.

This gives me a lot more time to be proven wrong and fits nicely with the 40 years per TL started with TL 4 (1860-1900) and TL 5 (1900-1940).

TL 6 = 1940-1980 (missiles, fission power)
TL 7 = 1980-2020 (big lasers, space craft)
TL 8 = 2020-2060 (personal lasers, flying cars)
TL 9 = 2060-2100 (Interstellar travel)

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'm watching and listening to the video now. I'm doing my best to recall my high school and university chemistry, but am following Bussard's lecture.

Assuming he's got his equations right to describe the reactions he's been trying to get and control, all I can say is I hope he's right. And I hope DARPA can tease out the details as to the feasability.

*edit*

Okay, I've finished watching the lecture. I don't doubt the science is solid, but I think there's got to be a more efficient "wiffle ball" effect to shave off the particles he's talking about. If I understand the gist he's working with deuterium to achieve an Nth order reaction via a kind of induction to create fusion. And that the best way to do this is with these coils placed at right angles to one another. The end effect is to get a high pressure magnetic field to get the induction to grab the right particle for said reaction.

I don't think he's a kook. There may be something more efficient than what he's come up with, but, as he stated at the end of his lecture, he's running up against the walls of preconception; i.e. "why is nobody else doing this if it's so great" kind of thing. And his only historical precedence were experiments done after the turn of the century (early 1900s).

 

[shadowdragon]

but it does explain the blue glow at the tail end of ships in traveller- gotta dump the He4 somewhere!!!!
lol

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
-clip-
I don't think he's a kook. There may be something more efficient than what he's come up with, but, as he stated at the end of his lecture, he's running up against the walls of preconception; i.e. "why is nobody else doing this if it's so great" kind of thing. And his only historical precedence were experiments done after the turn of the century (early 1900s).

I wonder how much farther and faster we could advance if we just accepted experimental results (with rigorous testing and repeatability) without demanding that they conform to current theory or the historically accepted best path?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
I wonder how much farther and faster we could advance if we just accepted experimental results (with rigorous testing and repeatability) without demanding that they conform to current theory or the historically accepted best path?

No faster than we do now. Rigorously tested and independently replicable experimental results are accepted (they are considered anomalies in need of explanation, but they're accepted). Most fringe theories are neither.

Now, if you have a fringe theory it's a bit hard to get it independently tested, because potential testers often have better things to do with their time. The problem with Bussard's device is that it hasn't been demonstrated at all (that is, it hasn't been demonstrated to be useful; neutron production is not by itself interesting) and that a full scale test would cost an estimated $150-200M. If it worked, that would certainly be a good investment, but there are strong odds in favor of it not working.

 

[TheEngineer]

I would even tend to the contrary POV.
If the scientific community would deal with any stuff presented somewhere and eagerly try to reproduce some effects, which are in fact bullshit, we would advance much more slowly.
Given unlimited resources this would result in brute force or trial and error science.

Now as resources like brains and money are limited its much more senseful to think first, verify and then act upon some aspects, which appear to have a chance to produce a usable result.

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by TheEngineer:
I would even tend to the contrary POV.
-clip-
Given unlimited resources this would result in brute force or trial and error science.

Science IS trial and error - educated trial and error to be sure, but trial and error none the less.

Now as resources like brains and money are limited its much more senseful to think first, verify and then act upon some aspects, which appear to have a chance to produce a usable result.

I agree - we should think first, verify our assumptions, and then act/experiment. I'd add that we should review the results next and then continue the process.

In this case I believe funding was cut by a bureaucrat, not a research scientist.

Since Bussard is reported to have the data to back up his claims and the cost to verify his claims is small compared to the cost of current fusion research (which has had disappointing results to say the least), it makes sense to investigate Bussards claims further. However, for a bureaucrat, it is much easier to just say, "We don't think this will work" and have the prophecy fullfilled as the project dies for lack of funding, than to justify to other bureaucrats why you chose to investigate an unusual avenue of thought.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
Science IS trial and error - educated trial and error to be sure, but trial and error none the less.

Sure, but the distinction was vs 'brute force' trial and error.

[qb]
In this case I believe funding was cut by a bureaucrat, not a research scientist.

A project with significant support from other researchers can get bureaucrats to change their minds. In any case, there are several labs which I imagine could be tempted if they thought Bussard's experiments were likely to prove fruitful. There are multiple labs working on fusion, and not all of them are working on the 'mainstream' magnetic confinement designs, either (LLNL has NIF, Sandia has Z-Pinch IFE). In particular, Los Alamos doesn't seem to have its own fusion project, and wouldn't object to embarrassing other labs.

Since Bussard is reported to have the data to back up his claims

He detected 3 neutrons. The wanted data is not 'does fusion occur', it is 'does enough fusion occur to beat breakeven'. There is reason to think his machine cannot.

and the cost to verify his claims is small compared to the cost of current fusion research (which has had disappointing results to say the least)

As I said, there are multiple machines. There are also plenty of people who have advisers. Apparently these advisers do not think the odds of success are high enough to justify the cost.

 

[aramis]

DoE has supposedly actively suppressed fusion research in the private sector.

Repeatedly. Usually just a few days before results are expected.

Which means that finding funding is next to impossible, as the people willing to do so want positive results.

Military researchers tend to be exempt.

Even if he did get a good reaction going, he's got to be able to convince scientists AND their funding sources.

Oh, and Bussard is a bit of a wacko... but he's not too far out there, or DARPA wouldn't have funded him for as long as they did.

Most really new science starts with a wacko who thinks well outside the box.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Navy funded him, not DARPA

But DARPA has taken over his research w/o Dr Bussard

 

[redwalker]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
I wonder how much farther and faster we could advance if we just accepted experimental results (with rigorous testing and repeatability) without demanding that they conform to current theory or the historically accepted best path?

No faster than we do now. Rigorously tested and independently replicable experimental results are accepted (they are considered anomalies in need of explanation, but they're accepted). Most fringe theories are neither.

Now, if you have a fringe theory it's a bit hard to get it independently tested, because potential testers often have better things to do with their time. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree with part of this.

IMHO science does move too slowly.

However, IMHO, 99% of people posing as kooks aren't even real kooks, they're con men trying to get money, or neurotics trying to get attention.

A real kook has a real kooky theory or apparatus and is willing to have it tested. Many effects are real, just not suitable for development. I used to work on Linux setups with a lot of kooks. Kooky can be effective.

A con man says he wants his stuff tested, but plays around with silly NDAs because he's just fishing for money. A neurotic says he wants his stuff tested, but exaggerates his successes, obfuscates the relevant ideas, puts impressionable students in important roles to promote experimental error, etc.

Unfortunately, some fringe operations contain both con men and neurotics.

 

[redwalker]

I should have added that kooks often don't have that much trouble getting independent testing, and they often don't complain much because they are often really focussed on the work, not on ego.

 

[redwalker]

Originally posted by Aramis:
DoE has supposedly actively suppressed fusion research in the private sector.

Repeatedly. Usually just a few days before results are expected.

I'd like to research that, could you link some websites that talk about how DoE suppresses this?
Thanks.