Fusor Forums

I'm wondering if Lockheed is going after this to get a piece of the fusion pie so to speak. It sure sounds like what EMC2 was up to ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/ ... EM20141015. Funny how they don't mention exactly the method though they are using.

Here is a better write up on the concept

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skun ... or-details

Ah, I got it wrong. This is a Tokamak concept, not a fusor.

McGuire's thesis looked to me to be riddled with one assumption after another.

Looking at this machine, he appears to have jumped to the conclusion that folks doing mirror-machine fusion for years didn't know what they were doing, so he'll have a go, because that's all I see in these pictures.

Back in March there was a post about Lockheed/Skunk Works doing fusion on the forums viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9222&p=62520

It referenced articles that where at least a year old. Lockheed/Skunk Works said last year that in 5 years they would have a 100MW prototype and in 10 years a 100MW power system https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY#t=728 This again was back in 2013. It doesn't seem like much has changed though they are still moving forward and a say again they are only 5 years away from a prototype. I really do hope the succeed but this makes me think of the quote "Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be"

-Will

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-te ... clear-fusi

Sent by a friend, was about to ale a new post when I realised somebody had got to it already.

Tom

Yet another 'fluff' report of the same regurgitated material, or non-material if you prefer.

Virtually every sentence is a fantasy stretch of the imagination with no substantiating information on any of it.

Reflecting the seriousness of the piece, it ends with a comparison with the 'e-cat'. Whether an intentional sleight, or clever journalism, the Lockheed effort appears to have been inadvertently compared with its true peers.

The Lockheed patent applications were just published (October 9). To see them, search Google Patents for
US20140301517, US20140301518, US20140301519. The inventor name is Thomas John McGuire.
Hopefully, the skeptics will read them before they spew forth venom. Skeptics would be well advised to use discretion in selecting the names they apply to these researchers. Lockheed is probably likely to be less tolerant of libel than university professors.

You seem to be missing a number. US patent applications consist of a year number followed by 7 digits.

Sorry, transcription error. Correct numbers are:
US20140301517, US20140301518, US20140301519.
Thanks for catching this.

Original post of patent numbers has been corrected.
For some reason the Google Patent search function is having trouble pulling these up.
The direct links are:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20140301517,
http://www.google.com/patents/US20140301518,
http://www.google.com/patents/US20140301519

Give 'em a break it is only 5 years and it's a done deal.......Real soon now........Heard that loud and clear. We can wait for fusion. We are good at that.

Richard Hull

This reminds me of a statement by Hyman G. Rickover on the nature of (fission) reactor design.

An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.
On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

-Hyman G. Rickover

I belive that this design falls entirely into the former category and, after more development I belive that it shall either cease to exist or be brought into the realm of reality beyond paper and be far closer to what Rickover called a "practical reactor" with all of it's problems.

That being said I also hope I am wrong and it does become real to their original specifications; however, that seems unlikely as there will be significant technical hurdles and the reactor will need it's own systems designed custom, and I do not see that forthcoming in such a short time frame.

The Lockheed Skunkworks approach is not a Tokamak,or a Polywell or a FRC. It is reported to draw from these other approaches. I think it may most closely resemble a Polywell, except it apparently does not use electrostatic confinement of ions with an electrostatic potential well. Heating has to be by other means like neutral beam injection and microwaves. There appears to be some effort to reduce cusp losses and for viability a high Beta condition near one is needed, like in the Polywell. Still, I have the impression that cusp losses will be considerable and recirculation- ions and electrons looping around to another cusp for reentry is paramount. B field geometry may lead to edge instabilities in areas, and ExB ion cross field diffusion would seem to be a problem, but both areas have been addressed and solutions presented (I'm in no position to judge the viability).

They have apparently done some experiments. What experimental data has been obtained and its significance to the computer modeling is unknown.

Dan Tibbets

Where's th' beef! I know..."real soon now" ...."these guys are finally on the right track"...."this is the way forward"....
Fusion is the energy of the future and it always will be.

Richard Hull

https://cdnapisec.kaltura.com/html5/htm ... p9Jfavwg==

A more recent video, with more technical details (after about 20 minutes of general propaganda)