radon1 wrote:The problem with that kind of designs has been their inability to provide a continuous baseload power supply. They generate tons of energy within microseconds, but then nothing at all afterwards. The challenge is to even out the energy burst over a reasonably long period of time.
radon1 wrote:The problem with that kind of designs has been their inability to provide a continuous baseload power supply. They generate tons of energy within microseconds, but then nothing at all afterwards. The challenge is to even out the energy burst over a reasonably long period of time.
StarvingLion wrote:If you can't use your physics to build a better battery, why would anyone give you a lot more money to play around with nuclear reactors or mini-H bombs?
ITER, NIF, and other fantasy fusion projects have military relevance. Your fantasy projects do not.
Any new nuclear reactor design requires 40 years of operational testing and billions of dollars in investment.
This is what 40 years of digital computers has produced: a bunch of dreamers who think industrial projects are easy. Its like that Eric Drexler idiot and his nano fantasy book 'Nanosystems' which is nothing more than a book of cad drawings. There is no physics there and there is no physics in this thread either.
StarvingLion wrote:
ITER, NIF, and other fantasy fusion projects have military relevance. Your fantasy projects do not.
Tikib wrote:Quinny wrote:Nothing like a bit of advanced science /engineering to save the world! ...... and this is nothing like a bit of advanced science /engineering!
Just to clarify this. The design its not really mine. I am sure LLNL have had designs like this on the drawing board for the last 10-20 years.
The genius is in its simplicity. You design something incredibly complicated like a Tokamak and it will be incredibly costly to run.
You design something simple but effective like this and it will give you a huge energy payback just like hydrogen bombs do.
Fusion researchers tried to make the perfect fusion system, when they should have based there system off of a design that achieved gain 50 years ago. Ivy Mike.
Tikib wrote:Seriously this forum is moronic, all you do is whine all day about oil is running out and that we are all going to die because of it.
And I show you a possible solution and all you do is whine that its too much like a hydrogen bomb and therefore doesn't suit your sensibilities.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
I mentioned this idea a long time ago(like 2005), but I think it's a good idea, and I got a lot of positive feedback over it.
It's an idea on how to achieve fusion, in a way we know has high EROEI.
Basically the government could build giant holes in the ground, use coat the walls with a water and heat resistant metal, and cap the top of the device with a large metal structure that would use the pressure and steam generated as a power source.
In this pool of water small nuclear devices could be detonated, with a very small quantity of uranium or plutonium, but an extraordinarily large amount of deuterium. The higher the deuterium to uranium/plutonium concentration, the more cost effective it would be. Of course you need a minimal amount of uranium/plutonium to reach critical mass for such an explosion.
Project PACER, carried out at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in the mid-1970s, explored the possibility of a fusion power system that would involve exploding small hydrogen bombs (fusion bombs)—or, as stated in a later proposal, fission bombs—inside an underground cavity. As an energy source, the system is the only fusion power system that could be demonstrated to work using existing technology. However it would also require a large, continuous supply of nuclear bombs.
SeaGypsy wrote:Usually attempts to contain high explosives only serve to intensify the resulting damage, create a bigger explosion. Having worked a lot with high temperature crucibles, they are anything but tough, especially in the protracted warm up & phase change, which is part of all extreme temperature containment vessel materials. How do you slow cook a hydrogen bomb to plasma temps, slowly enough to not fracture the vessel, then how to set off a bomb in a ceramic vessel even at plasma temps, without destroying it? There are no metal vessels capable of containing thousands of degrees centigrade & lazer & EMF manipulation is pie in the sky stuff when it comes to containment, else someone in the smelting of something somewhere would have done it, furnace maintenance is a pain in the ass.
The requirement for an endless supply of nuclear bombs might not be a theoretical problem, as long as you are happy living forever in the theoretical world.
SeaGypsy wrote:Usually attempts to contain high explosives only serve to intensify the resulting damage, create a bigger explosion. Having worked a lot with high temperature crucibles, they are anything but tough, especially in the protracted warm up & phase change, which is part of all extreme temperature containment vessel materials. How do you slow cook a hydrogen bomb to plasma temps, slowly enough to not fracture the vessel, then how to set off a bomb in a ceramic vessel even at plasma temps, without destroying it? There are no metal vessels capable of containing thousands of degrees centigrade & lazer & EMF manipulation is pie in the sky stuff when it comes to containment, else someone in the smelting of something somewhere would have done it, furnace maintenance is a pain in the ass.
The requirement for an endless supply of nuclear bombs might not be a theoretical problem, as long as you are happy living forever in the theoretical world.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests