Lockheed

Reflections on fusion history, current events, and predictions for the 'fusion powered future.
Kreso
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:52 pm
Real name:

Lockheed

Post by Kreso » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:12 am

Dear Gentlemen,

It seems Lockheed is looking for investors into their own fusion research?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8459949298/

Kind Regards,

RobertTubbs
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:49 pm
Real name:

Re: Lockheed

Post by RobertTubbs » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:00 pm

Fusion is wonderful, it makes great neutron sources.

Neutron sources are wonderful, they drive fission reactors.

Fission reactors are wonderful, they make power.

RT

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11335
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Lockheed

Post by Richard Hull » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:13 pm

More "feel good" stuff about fusion.

I remember similar talks just like this in , 1956, 1959, 1964, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1973, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and now a fresh new 2013 promise of a wonderful future. How often can you repolish a turd and call it a future diamond?

It is so clean, no meltdown, just on and off, no hassles like fission, and what's more seawater will be the fuel! With fusion's dream, you still have....no power.....unlike fission which has been on the power grid lighting up TV's, electric razors and heating homes since 1957.

Fusion!.......The energy of the future!...........And, it always will be.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Jack Puntawong
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:10 am
Real name: Kunakorn Puntawong
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Contact:

Re: Lockheed

Post by Jack Puntawong » Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:18 am

I agree with Richard. When is it going to be:

" Fusion!.......The energy of the PRESENT! "

Fusion has potential to become an unlimited energy source. What we need is not something that has potential but something that is works NOW

User avatar
Jim Kovalchick
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:00 am
Real name:

Re: Lockheed

Post by Jim Kovalchick » Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:01 am

Jack,
I'm sure many share your sentiment about fusion as an energy source. My challenge to you is for you to realize that if its ever going to happen it will be because people like you put your passion about it into action.

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Lockheed

Post by Chris Bradley » Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:07 pm

Jack Puntawong wrote:
> What we need is not something that has potential but something that is works NOW

.... oh dear ...

You sound like an accounts manager, not a physics hobbyist.

We need both, don't we!?!?

Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:29 am
Real name:

Re: Lockheed

Post by Dan Tibbets » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:41 pm

Actually, we have something that works now, sort of. I think the JET Tokamak demonstrated validity to a large extent. I see no reason why ITER shouldn't get the job done. BUT, the cost and time required makes the system nearly impractical for useful power. Then there are all of the engineering issues such as lithium blankets and diverters.

I think the Skunks Works approach may be a derivative of the Polywell concept. As such it seems interesting (from a Fan Boy perspective) that this large corporation has chose to run with this. It may represent a validation of the concept from a source outside of EMC2.

Dan Tibbets

Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:29 am
Real name:

Re: Lockheed

Post by Dan Tibbets » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:53 pm

PS: We already use fusion power. It is just that the conversion is complicated. The Sun is the ultimate source of power from photo voltaics, wind, and even fossil fuels.
Exceptions to this would be tidal power (in part) and geothermal power. Geothermal power comes from heat left from gravitational collapse and radioactive decay of unstable isotopes in the Earth's core.

It would be nice to have more intimate control of the fusion source at relatively cheap prices.

Dan Tibbets

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Lockheed

Post by Chris Bradley » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:47 pm

Dan DT wrote:
> PS: We already use fusion power.
Comparing the mechanisms of solar fusion with what could be achieved on earth is like comparing the process of rusting with that of fuel combustion in a space rocket engine - in those cases, both are 'oxidation' reactions, but they differ in fuel-types/reactivity/time-scales by oom.

... You'd hardly say that you are 'rusting too much fuel', or that your old car with poor bodywork on the driveway is 'burning up in the rain', now .... would you?

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Lockheed

Post by Chris Bradley » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:51 pm

Dan DT wrote:
> I think the JET Tokamak demonstrated validity to a large extent. I see no reason why ITER shouldn't get the job done.

... err.. how about the 41GJ of magnetic energy needed to create the necessary magnetic fields - that's equivalent to 82 seconds at the hoped-for 500MW rating - or maybe call it 250 seconds for equivalent converted electrical power, before the magnetic energy alone has been 'paid back'.

Have you seen a tokamak run at its maximum rated power for more than 250 seconds. Not reason enough?

Post Reply