A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

[damocles]

Hello Erich!

 

http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-6724.html

 

You are correct. I find it amazing.

 

I'm going to have to look at this result a lot more before I comment. I must say I kind of expected it, but not at those distances and not with such effects!

 

Best wishes;

[erich]

knew you would like it,

 

This finding exemplifies the type of discoveries that are coming now hand over fist in the quantum and nano worlds. My imagination cannot do justice with the implications for new technologies flowing from these labs. It's a whole new concepts of "solid state devices" with new wholly novel materials, It makes one wish for several "UncleAl size" brains just to keep up.

 

Every time I turn around a new process or configuration for CNTs , with entirely new utilities:

Argonne theorist gains new insight into the nature of nanodiamond http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-09/dnl-atg090905.php

 

It's tough being a technology gadfly these days:):doh:......... But fun!!

 

Erich

[erich]

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13502#13502

Here's a reply to UncleAl by Ophiolite

 

"Erich,

re your earlier post quoting Uncle Al. Uncle Al is of course living proof that intelligence plus an education do not always equal correct conclusions. Your response to him was a pertinent one.

You might have added this.

The surface area of the sphere at the Earth's orbital radius is 1.81 E16.

The surface area of this sphere intersected by the Earth is 2.01 E08

The portion of the sun's output interesected by the Earth is 1.11 E-08

The sun converts 4 billion tons of mass to energy per second

In one year it converts 1.46 E12 tons

The Earth intercepts the energy of 1.46 E12 x 1.11 E-08 converted tons: 1.62 E04

The amount of this incident energy required to meet US energy needs is 0.007%.

Even if I am out somewhere by a factor of 100, then the needs would be met by less than 0.1% of the energy falling on the Earth."

 

Cheers,

Erich

[erich]

Dear folks:

Here's an email that is very good news for Paul Koloc's and Eric Lerner's work on P-B11 fusion.

 

He's referring to a power point presentation given at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion . 1.) Prometheus II , 2.) Field Revered Configuration, and 3.) Focus Fusion http://www.focusfusion.org/about.html

 

It's by Vincent Page a technology officer at GE.

Email me and I'll send it to anyone interested.

 

 

from : Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,

| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075

| Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ -;* http://www.neoteric-research.org/

| http://www.prometheus2.net/%A0%A0%A0------ [email protected]

 

 

"Erich,

Thanks for your update,

 

A friend of mine, Bruce Pittman, who is a member of the AIAA, recently sent me a copy of the attached paper by Vincent Page of GE. Please keep in mind that I have never communicated with Vincent, but he found our concept to have the highest probability of success for achieving a commercial fusion power plant of any that he examined.

 

A program manager at DARPA submitted a POM for sizeable funding of extended research on our concept, both here and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. However, it didn't stay above this year's cut line for the budget funding priorities.

 

BTW, I agree with Cox that the analysis done by Chen does not fit the criteria of the EST plasmoid that Clint produces. The poloidal component of current in his toroid dominates his topology, which means that the corresponding toroidal field, which is only produced within the torus, also dominates. Consequently, the outward pressure on the EST current shell must be balanced by some external inward force. The toroidal component of current is weak and cannot produce the external poloidal magnetic pressure that would bring the toroid into stable equilibrium. If the plasmoid lasts for .6 seconds without change of shape or brightness level, then it must be continuously formed with his electron beam source. Otherwise, the plasma would decompose within microseconds.

 

By comparison, our PLASMAK magnetoplasmoids (PMKs) have negligible change in shape, size or luminosity over a period of one or two hundred milliseconds after the initial tens of microseconds impulse that forms them has ceased. That may not sound like much of a lifetime, but compare that to the decomposition of Lawrence Livermore's spheromak plasma within 60 microseconds. The other interesting thing is that we have recently produced PMKs of 40 cm diameter (under work sponsored by DOD), and with the installation of our new, additional fast rise capacitors, we expect to obtain lifetimes of seconds.

 

Cheers,

Paul "

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Erich

[erich]

I got anerror message, sorry for the multi posts

[erich]

Dear Folks:

 

I am glad to see the interest in Vincent Page's presentation in other forums, (Below Is an excerpt) He quotes costs and time to development as ten million, and years verses the many decades projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts:

 

 

"for larger plant sizes

Time to small-scale Cost to achieve net if the small-scale

Concept Description net energy production energy concept works:

Koloc Spherical Plasma: 10 years(time frame), $25 million (cost), 80%(chance of success)

Field Reversed Configuration: 8 years $75 million 60%

Plasma Focus: 6 years $18 million 80%

 

Desirable Fusion Reactor Qualities

• Research & development is also needed in

the area of computing power.

• Many fusion researchers of necessity still

use MHD theory to validate their designs.

• MHD theory assumes perfect diamagnetism

and perfect conductance.

• These qualities may not always exist in the

real world, particularly during continuous operation.

• More computing power is needed to allow use of a more realistic validation theory

such as the Vlasov equations.

• ORNL is in the process of adding some impressive computing power.

• Researchers now need to develop more realistic validation methods up to the

limits of the available computing power.

• Governments need to fund these efforts."

 

 

I feel in light of the recent findings of neutrons, x-rays, and gamma rays in lightening, that these threads need to be brought together in an article.

 

You may have seen my efforts with my "Manhattan Project" article, which got published on Sci-Scoop but rejected on Slashdot. (I've tried posting it on OSEN but for some reason I can't log in.)

 

About a year ago, I came across EPS while researching nano-tech and efficient home design. I started a correspondence Clint Seward, Eric Learner, and Paul Kolac, sending them science news links which I felt were either supportive or contradictory to their work. I also asked them to critique each other's approaches. I have posted these emails to numerous physics and science forums. Discussion groups, science journalists, and other academics, trying to foster discussion, attention, and hopefully some concessus on the validity of these proposed technologies.

My efforts have born some fruit. Clint and Joe Dwyer at FIT have been in consultation on Clint's current charge transport theory for cloud to ground lightening.

I have had several replies from editors, producers, and journalists expressing interest. From organizations as varied as PBS, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, New Energy News, the Guardian (U.K), and the San Francisco Chronicle. However, none of this professional interest has resulted in a story yet.

 

I have been responding to all of the articles that filter in via my Google alerts on "fusion power". The most recent was the "Happy News" article by Kris Metaverso.

http://www.happynews.com/news/112220...ependently.htm

 

This post is a plea to the science writers among you to craft a story covering aneutronic fusion, the P-B11 efforts, Eric's high temperatures and x-ray source project, Clint's lightening theories, and DOD review, and Paul's review by GE. The minimal cost and time frame for even the possibility of this leap forward seems criminal not to pursue. If you read my Manhattan article, you may have noticed that I am not a writer. I am a landscape designer and technology gadfly wondering why this technology has never been put in the public eye.

My hope is that someone, more skilled, would step up to give a shout out about these technologies. Please contact me for copies of my correspondence with the principles, interesting replies and criticisms from physics discussion forums and academic physicists who have replied to my queries.

 

Thanks for any help

 

 

Erich J. Knight

[erich]

Clint Seward just sent this update of their progress:

 

"Hi All,

 

 

The following is the annual update to the EPS progress toward a clean energy solution to replace fossil fuels. Below is a brief summary of where we are. Attached is an updated copy of the manuscript describing our project.

 

 

It remains clear that we have made and patented a new discovery in physics: a plasma toroid the remains stable without external magnetic fields. This is so far beyond the experience and understanding of plasma scientists today that, to say the least, we are having trouble convincing reviewers. We have completed the design of an improved neutron tube. This is what we have to build to demonstrate a clean energy source, and I plan to do the first steps in 2006, with a first demo in 2007 if all goes well.

 

Clint Seward, EPS

 

Chapter 27. Colliding EST Spheromak Neutron Tube

 

In 2005 we completed a detailed design of the apparatus we need for the first demonstration. This is possible because of two things. First, we understand the EST is really just a special case of a spheromak, a plasma ring that is being studied by others, except that the EST is high density spheromak, which will overcome the limitations of spheromaks for the clean energy application. Secondly, we can adapt the EST Spheromak to the well known neutron tube, by applying all of the pieces we have developed over the years.

 

We plan to do this by making a new, high energy neutron tube. There are several thousand neutron tubes in use in the US today that safely collide hydrogen ions to produce neutrons, which in turn are used for explosives detection, industrial process control, and medical testing. Figure 1 shows the neutron tube schematically. An ion source produces hydrogen ions (deuterium), which are accelerated to 110 kV, then directed to hit the target (also deuterium), a process which produces neutrons (see reference below).

 

 

 

Figure 1: A One Meter Long Neutron Tube Schematic

 

Neutron tubes today are limited by the low density of the hydrogen ions. We plan to overcome this limitation by adapting the EST Spheromak to increase the ion density to produce a high output neutron tube. The EST Spheromak is patented jointly by EPS Inc. and MIT scientists who also have published papers confirming the physics and data. Since each part of the development has been done by others or by EPS, we anticipate that this will be an engineering project to produce a proof of concept lab demo in two years, with modest funding.

 

The major application is a high output neutron tube for clean energy applications. The high output neutron tube can be thought of as a heat generator to replace a furnace and/or generate electricity. Fuel costs for energy will 20:1 less than fossil fuel costs. Ultimately we plan to use the hydrogen/boron process to produce clean energy without neutrons.

 

The development is a scale up of work completed to date. We make EST Spheromaks in the lab and accelerate them. Each step has been shown to work individually, and we plan to adapt them to produce a lab demo in two years. Milestones:

 

1. Defining Patent: (Note: co-inventors are MIT scientists). 2000

 

2. Spheromak acceleration: 2001

 

3. Spheromak capture in a magnetic trap: 2006

 

4. Spheromak collision for a lab proof of concept demonstration: 2007

 

5. First neutron tube commercial prototype: 2008

 

6. First commercial product: 2009

 

Our best estimate at this time (December 2005) is that we will need 24 months and approximately $500,000 to demonstrate a colliding EST fusion process.

 

Reference: Chichester, D. L., Simpson, and J. D. “Compact accelerator neutron generators.” The Industrial Physicist. American Institute of Physics. http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-6/p22.html. December, 2003."

[erich]

Looks like Eric Lerner is moving down the road!!

 

U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_LPP_Chilean_Nuclear_Commission/

 

Erich J. Knight