Fusion Reactors can now be built

Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=1143684406
Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support.
Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005.
This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions.
We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results!
We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical!
The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power.
These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation.
Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?
R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

On Mar 29, 7:04 am, Bussard wrote:

Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=...
Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support.
Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005.
This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions.
We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results!
We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical!
The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power.
These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation.
Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?
R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

If the potiential power output that you claim is true.. you might have to wait until a non-oil interest administration comes into office. Your efforts might be construed as a threat to oil industry profits.
Else, you may have to go to some energy resource strapped area such as the countries of the EU.

On Mar 29, 10:04 am, Bussard wrote:

Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=...
Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support.
Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005.
This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions.
We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results!
We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical!
The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power.
These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation.
Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?
R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

As I've indicated, this is not a popular technology. It would change things a bit, wouldn't it?

<sarcasm> This technique will produce energy that is too cheap to meter. We must begin building All Electric Homes (tm) in anticipation of fusion reactors. </sarcasm>
"Bussard" wrote in message

Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built
http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=1143684406
Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support.
Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005.
This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions.
We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results!
We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical!
The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power.
These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation.
Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?
R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

Bussard wrote:

Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=11436 84406
Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support.
Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005.
This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions.
We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results!
We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical!
The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power.
These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation.
Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?
R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

Forwarded to sci.environment.
-- regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk

On 29 Mar, 16:30, lorad...@cs.com wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:04 am, Bussard wrote:


Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=...
Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support.
Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005.
This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions.
We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results!
We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical!
The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power.
These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation.
Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?
R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor
If the potiential power output that you claim is true.. you might have to wait until a non-oil interest administration comes into office. Your efforts might be construed as a threat to oil industry profits.
Else, you may have to go to some energy resource strapped area such as the countries of the EU.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I'm just a ****teeeentsy bit****** worried that one of his former financial backers was Bob Guiconne of Penthouse Magazine & he's been published in Analog Sci Fi mag.
When will a desktop fusion posting appear?

lorad474@cs.com wrote:

If the potiential power output that you claim is true.. you might have to wait until a non-oil interest administration comes into office. Your efforts might be construed as a threat to oil industry profits.

Controlled fusion is the energy source of the future. It has been 30 years in the future for the last 60 years.
Google <Lawson Number> and see why if you hold your breath for controlled fusion to become practical you will turn purple and swoon.
In particular see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion
Bob Kolker

Bussard wrote:>

R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

Write us when you can produce a sustained positive net output fusion reaction for an hour.
Controlled nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future. It has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years and a hundred years from now it will still be thirty years in the future.
Yodah says: Do not your breath hold until practical fusion there is, else purple turn you will.
Bob Kolker

On Mar 29, 3:07 pm, Bob Kolker wrote:

Bussard wrote: R.W. Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor
Write us when you can produce a sustained positive net output fusion reaction for an hour.
Controlled nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future. It has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years and a hundred years from now it will still be thirty years in the future.
Yodah says: Do not your breath hold until practical fusion there is, else purple turn you will.
Bob Kolker

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

As I've indicated, it can be approached as a nanotechnology problem with microlasers. Energy release would be at conventional levels. Containment problems would be minimized. This would also be much cheaper to build and develop. Why is this not being pursued?

Jerry Kraus wrote:

As I've indicated, it can be approached as a nanotechnology problem with microlasers. Energy release would be at conventional levels. Containment problems would be minimized. This would also be much cheaper to build and develop. Why is this not being pursued?

Write us when it happens, will you? Will I have to wait thirty years?
Fusion has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years.
Bob Kolker

On Mar 29, 3:36 pm, Bob Kolker wrote:

Jerry Kraus wrote:
As I've indicated, it can be approached as a nanotechnology problem with microlasers. Energy release would be at conventional levels. Containment problems would be minimized. This would also be much cheaper to build and develop. Why is this not being pursued?
Write us when it happens, will you? Will I have to wait thirty years?
Fusion has been thirty years in the future for the last sixty years.
Bob Kolker

I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to be this way. There are practical approaches to the problem. They're simply not being pursued. In the case of well-funded research laboratories in Universities and Industry, I'm not quite sure why they're not being pursued. It could be conservatism and rigidity. It could be stupidity. It could be that free energy would be perceived as disruptive to our current economic structure, and practical approaches to the problem are discouraged. But, you are correct, so far no one has made significant progress on this problem. Despite huge investments, which continue.

Baldin Lee Pramer wrote:

No. It's relatively easy to start a fusion reaction. Keeping it confined is the hard part. What is your idea for confining the plasma? Light pressure from a mass of nanolasers around a containment sphere?

That is true. Fusion reactions are a dime a dozen. Any old H-Bomb will do. H-Bomb detonations are the closest thing we have gotten to useful fusion reactions.
I have a proposal. Blow up H-Bombs underground to heat up the rocks, then generated steam from the hot rocks to run an electric generator. That is at least doable.
Bob Kolker

On Mar 31, 9:34 am, "Baldin Lee Pramer" wrote:

On Mar 29, 2:59 pm, "Jerry Kraus" wrote:


On Mar 29, 3:46 pm, Bob Kolker wrote:
Jerry Kraus wrote:
I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to be this way.
Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy is the technological equivalent of vaporware.
Google <Fusion Lawson Number>.
Bob Kolker
Yes Bob, but why??? Aren't you just the little tiniest bit curious as to why, given the importance of this techology? Is it corruption, incompetence, stupidity, obstructianism, technical difficulties,
It is technical difficulties. Look, Jerry, some of the smartest people in the world are working on this stuff, and the potential payoffs are enormous. If you think you have a method that will work, write a four page article and submit it to PRL. You will become world renowned. If you have a method that will work, patent it. You'll be rich.
bad luck, dishonesty...?? What's the problem? We've had fusion bombs since 1952. Why should the enormously more useful practical application of controlled nuclear fusion be so impossibly difficult? Don't you find this rather an interesting intellectual puzzle?
No. It's relatively easy to start a fusion reaction. Keeping it confined is the hard part. What is your idea for confining the plasma? Light pressure from a mass of nanolasers around a containment sphere?
Baldin Lee Pramer- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think there might be some obstructianism going on here, Mr Pramer. Take a look:
There's some interesting information in this thread from raylopez99 in reply to some points I made, questioning the wisdom of the Department of Defence classifying the research on Inertial Containment fusion technologies -- simply using very small areas of fusion, lasers and implosion of energy -- in terms of future research directions. This is the alternative to magnetic containment, which is expensive and unstable.
The Inertial Containment approach appears very promising. The major problem is simply that, even with pellets the size of a pinhead, the conventional reactor walls tend to melt. So......make the pellets even smaller!! Use even smaller microlasers. As I've said, nanotechnology is the way to go here. Cheap, safe, simple. What's the problem?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/threa...
On Mar 28, 3:48 pm, "raylopez99" wrote:
- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -

- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -

On Mar 28, 1:20 pm, "Jerry Kraus" wrote: My problem with the global warming agenda is that it ignores the obvious solutions to both our environmental and energy problems: controlled nuclear fusion. I am reasonably convinced that a combination of economic self-interest and simple incompetence explain our miserable failure in developing this technology. Free energy would be very disruptive to the conventional economy, and that's what controlled nuclear fusion would give us. But, I just don't buy that this problem is so impossibly difficult. Take ten thousand micro- lasers, aim them at a common focal point. Conventional energy levels produced, no obvious containment problems. What's so difficult? I could not agree with you more Jerry. Without getting into details, which would cross uncomfortably into my real world persona, suffice to say that one reason, IMO, that inertial confinement is not as popular as magnetic confinement (see:http://www-fusion-magnetique.cea.fr/gb/fusion/principes/principes02.htm for definitions) is that the former is still classified (I'm not in privy with anything classified when I write this reply) Another more practical problem is that though tiny inertial confinement fusion 'bombs' exist (literally smaller than a pin head) and can be imploded by lasers, keeping up the implosions and getting energy from them without melting container walls is an engineering problem, from what unclassified documents I've read. I would urge the DOD to declassify the inertial confinement technology--I am convinced that it has civilian applications, that the DoD has not even considered and/or does not have the funds to develop. Remember even Teflon was classified for the longest time as a military secret. BTW I once estimated that you could build a nuclear fusion hand grenade with an inertial confinement system. Imagine the 'punch' that would give! Not to mention the terrorist possibilities if it fell into the wrong hands, literally. The good news is that even with declassified magnetic confinement technology some people estimate by 2050 we'll have a fusion reactor. But right now that's science fiction. I bet Steve Schulin knows a lot more about this topic...Steve? steve.schu...@nuclear.com RL

Jerry Kraus wrote:

The Inertial Containment approach appears very promising. The major problem is simply that, even with pellets the size of a pinhead, the conventional reactor walls tend to melt. So......make the pellets even smaller!! Use even smaller microlasers. As I've said, nanotechnology is the way to go here. Cheap, safe, simple. What's the problem?

Write us when it is working, won't you?
Promises are cheap. Results are dear.
Bob Kolker

On Mar 29, 10:04 am, Bussard wrote:

Inertial Electrostatic Fusion systems can now be built http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=...
Our company, EMC2, has been working since 1987 on the R&D of Iour polyhedral IEF concept for fusion; mostly under DoD support.
Final tests were made last Oct/Nov on a unique new design, based on unexpected discoveries made in Spring/Summer 2005.
This final machine, WB-6, showed 10x lower e- losses than any predecessor and produced DD fusions at a rate over 100,000x times higher than the data of Farnsworth-Hirsch in the 1960's for same drive conditions.
We have now proven the engineering and physics scaling laws that allow design of full-scale net-power systems, whether on DD or pB11. USNavy budget line item that supported our work was zero-funded in FY2006, and our lab had to shut down and close one week after achieving these results!
We are probably the only people on the planet who know how to make a real net power clean fusion system, and we are out of support! Somewhat ironical!
The next logical step MUST be a full-scale net-power demo system, simply because there is not much left to do at small scale; when it is realized that the fusion output of these devices scales as the 7th power of the size, and the gain scales as the 5th power.
These outlandish scalings (inherent in the engineering physics of the thing) make it useless to build half-scale systems (for example). Unless you are AT the net-power size, you are nowhere in power and gain, even though the physics IS relevant. We have always been limited to about 0.1 scale, and have learned nearly all there is to know about the system's basic operation.
Thus, we have the ability to do away with oil (and other fossil fuels) but it will take 4-6 years and ca. 100-200 M$ to build the full-scale plant and demonstrate it. Anyone care?

Going to be hard, towing them behind each car.