I WORKED FOR DR.PARKINS, AT ATOMIC'S INTERNATIONAL, THE INTEREST BEGAN WITH 'TOCOMAK' WHICH REQUIRED MORE ENERGY THAN IT PRODUCED.THE CURRENT SCEINCE IS MOST INTERESTING, AND FUSION IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

Fusion Power;

I do not have the foggiest idea who is correct in this debate.
However, the history of science has repeatedly shown that human ingenuity, combined with stubborn persistence results in the "impossible" becoming reality.
Not to many years before the Wright Bros. flew their first airplane, an English Nobel Prize winning physicist stated that heavier than air flying machines were impossible. Boy, was he wrong!!
Just around the time that Einstein was formulating his ideas on relativity, many scientists believed that all that remained for physicists was to refine important constants. Wrong again!!
Not to long ago, two Australians received a Nobel Prize in Medicine for their discovery of a bacteria that causes ulcers. When they first presented their findings many years ago on this topic, they were literally ridiculed by the medical "researchers" within this area of study. Some critics even stated that ".... if a bacteria was the cause of ulcers it would have already been discovered." The idiocy of this latter statement defies credulity.
And scientists are supposed to think critically and objectively.
"Experts" in any field - including science- often become arrogant, self-centered and close minded. They resist or become immune to new ideas or possiblities, especially if it conflicts with their own views.
The history of science has demonstrated this repeatedly.

The tokamak approach is a white elephant. Billions have been spent with zero to show for them. Neutron fluxes from the D-T reaction will degrade everything around. Why not research bombardment of Li-7 with protons?. No neutrons, just high speed alpha rays. The required proton energy can be achieved with a very old fashion cyclotron. The molten Lithium circulates transferring the reaction heat to the steam plant. The only problem with the scheme is to generate enough protons out of plain Hydrogen, but then, this is also the problem with D-T reactors.

Fusion power has been "only a few years away from commercial use" for as long as I can remember, which is probably getting on thirty years. I don't think I'll be holding my breath waiting.

It is extremely unlikely that people alive today will see a working fusion reactor for technical and financial reasons unless a "real" energy crisis obliges us to set up a Mahattan-like project to make it happen. Not impossible but unlikely. New technologies for energy conservation will be much cheaper and faster to develop. I wouldn't be surprised if our society uses much less energy in 50 years than we envision today. Economic growth and energy consumption are supposed to grow together because they have always done so until now but what if "intelligence" i.e. computer power, helped us invert the trend? That would be an interesting twist to the question.

I thought you all may be interested in the new technology I high light to deal with this largest problem of them all, Climate Change, Energy and Space propulsion.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, a form of aneutronic fusion , Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as follows:

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors)."

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation 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 (Below Is an excerpt).
He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ 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 see my efforts with my "A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy" article:

http://www.scienceforums.com/earth-science/3665-a-new-manhattan-project-clean-energy.html

which got published on Sci-Scoop and the Open Source Energy Network but rejected on Slashdot. The New Energy News will soon run an article on these companies efforts toward aneutronic fusion.

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 lightning 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. I am 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
shengar@aol.com

As a scientist and primarily an engineer, I have learned to ignore the opinions and prognostications of "learned" aging Scientists who are not active in the field for many years.

And I conclude that most "environmentals" have next to no scientific training and their principal knowledge is lawyering, PR and fund raising.their opposition t hydroelectricx power is a testament to thier ignorance as the only slolar power system to produce appreciable amounts of energy. Intensdive use of any of their favorite nostrums would engender as much enviromental opposition as hydro if ever implemented due to the very low power concentratiosn and therefore enormous investments in scale and impact that they would require in wide spread adoption.

Indeed I formed an environmental organization called "SPARE US", the Society for the Prevention of Albedo Reduction in the USA. This environmental organization addresses the impact of wide scale solar power use and its consequent effects on climate, weather & living conditions caused by absorbing rather than reradiating the solar flux on a widespread scale. Anyone for wide spread creations of multiple Sahara Desserts? I thought not. Typical enviromental knownothings have not even recognized thsi as a concern for thier mindless worries.

The reality is that ITER marks the transition from scientific research to engineering development.

It is like the difference that Professor Langley and the Wright brothers had prior to 1904. The question was "Could you fly?" rather than "What is an improved aeroplane design?"

ITER is the "last" large scale scientific experiment where the physics of the question of controlling fusion is paramount; in its later years it blends into answering the practical engineering considerations of designing a commercial fusion power plant and the economic concerns that acrue to those issues.

The question is not then whether controlled fusion is possible, but rather what the tradeoffs of capital costs versus operational costs and that is an engineer's concern. We all know that those costs will steadily decline as more and better methods are adopted. But fusion is competitive today and will be in a improved situation tomorrow. ITER at twice the size will still only cost $8 billion or so and that is both in the ballpark and even at the low end of an investment for a 1000 Megawatt base load energy plant today.

For example, is the Tokomak as designed in ITER the best geometric configuration for maintaining a plasma? It can be shown that Spherical Tokomaks and Compact Stellerators are possible design basis for more economical designs.

In short, the issue is no longer..."Can fusion work?" but rather "When and how much will a fusion plant cost to build and own and how much will it cost to operate?"

In both cases early implementations will be expensive but so were early fission plants, the Cat Scanners and MRI devices for medical imaging, and their prices plunged down the learning curve as enginneering prowess and empirical evidence advanced.

Itis overwhelmingly heartening to realize that this past generations concern with sufficient energy is a mere transitory blip in an energy abundant and high per capita econiomic lifestyle for everyone that it thus implies.

My thanks to Nature for once again clarifying irresponsible information published in Science. I would have thought that Donald Kennedy of Science would have been embarrassed to publish an out of date and erroneous editorial hot on the heels of the bursting of the "bubble fusion" controversy that they were largely responsible for creating. Those who are interested in more current research on this subject should pursue the fusion technology links at http://vlt.ucsd.edu/advanced.pdf and http://www.fusion.ucla.edu/. These studies indicate that fusion power could be made competitive with current large-scale energy sources, but without the attendant environmental consequences.

Historically, Fusion research has been addressed as a way to educate doctorial candidate physicists. What is needed is a goal directed engineering program.

The Apollo program to put men on the moon is a good model. The Apollo goal was probably more difficult than development of a fusion reactor. The Apollo project required developments ranging from tiny rocket motors to motors many times larger than any others, up to that time. It required development of a life support system that could support humans for several weeks. It required the development of a dune buggy that could operate on the moon. It took the 1960 engineers and scientists 7 years to complete Apollo. The fusion reactor engineers will only be required to develop a utility fusion reactor. They too should be able to complete the task in less than 10 years with a maximum effective effort.

The arguments regarding cost irrevelant. Matthew Simmons, author of “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy” (ISBN 0-471-73876-X) was asked where he thought the price of oil was going and his reply was: “The figure I would use is $182 a barrel”.

Combine this price with the nearly infinite value of preventing the melting of all the ice, and fusion reactors at almost any price are a bargan. Look at: www.endtoglobalwarming.com

The US DOE seems willing to burden our descendants with the consequences of our failures. They want to sequester carbon dioxide and nuclear waste, when we do not know how to do either for the required thousands of years.

Much of the fault of DOE can be traced to the complete inability of the main line economists and accountants to estimate the future value of anything beyone next year. Everyone should look closely at the efforts to conquer this difficiency, promoted by Robert Constanza from the University of Maryland.

Read what Sir David King, chief Scientist for the UK government has to say on fusion energy, New Scientist, April 10 2004.

Nothing can be more convincing here than a down-to-earth test of the underlying theory – in the light of breakthrough empirical findings in related fields since fusion research got under way over a half century ago. Removing blinkers, do kindly access the webpage, http://www.shedali.co.uk/ses/ITER.Test.htm, where I have outlined that test to unequivocally show once, and for all, the viability or not of high-energy fusion. What’s more, it’s a simple and low-cost one that could be carried out in existing facilities (I am an engineering consultant by profession, having also worked for some leading US-based international project-management consultancies in the past; please refer Discover April 2002, pp 66-71, for a short biography.)
Proponents or critics, we are but a negligible number even banded together; but we, who are more in the know of the subject, owe such a final test and review to that less enlightened majority, the paying public.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eugene Sittampalam
www.sittampalam.net

Clean energy.

The entire world is looking for a source of clean energy. I have discovered a certain paradox basing on which a machine called METOZ can be built which by harnessing the gravitation of our EARTH can produce clean energy.
The energy producing process is demonstrated in:
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/paradox.html
and can be very easily confirmed by an experiment.
I am also in possession of a set of calculations which prove that the METOZ machine:
1/ does not consume water / 39 A5-pictures /;
2/ does not consume compressed air / 39 A5-pictures /;
3/ produces energy to the outside = 4 839 kGm during a „ deflection cycle”
39 A5-pictures /;
/ this is a „weight cycle” = the centre of gravity of the water in the METOZ machine sinks ( downward movement ) /
4/ energy is produced / released to the outside = 44 600 kGm during the „straightening cycle” / 39 A5-pictures /.
/ this is a “pressure cycle” = the water mass centre of gravity inside the METOZ machine travels upwards (upward movement) /
Features: 1/; 2/; 3/; 4/, of the machine owing to appropriate dimensions of individual elements of the lever mechanism.

[Editor's note: this entry has been shortened from the original]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By

Orlowski Zygmunt

Poland 2005

Comment for METOZ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By

Orlowski Zygmunt

Poland 2005

index html

Comments concerning machine "METOZ"
"METOZ" is able to realize the cycle "deflection" and the cycle "straighening." Both cycles are in accordance with current physic's laws. "METOZ" as machine can not work and hand over the energy because it would be inconsonant to the law of conservation of energy.
I propose to execute the following intelectual process:
we have found ourselves in the Europe of XVII century. We know the trigonometry in the scope of being occured for "METOZ." We know what is the even-arm lever and moment of force too. Just appeears Mr. Baise Pascal / 1623--1662/ and he publishes his hydraulics law with adequated experiment. All thinkers are sure that this law is correct and quite real. This time someone invents machine "METOZ". Now turn up the following questions:
1/ why the implementation of the cycle "deflection" is impossible?
2/ why the implementation of the cycle "straightening" is impossible?Both groups: opponents and followers of bulding "METOZ" live in XVII--th century and they not know that:
a/ the idea of an "energy" will be introduced into science scarlerly in mid. of XIX century,
b/ the law of conservation of the energy will be exist scarlerly after 1847 y.
QVESTION!!!
WHAT KIND OF RATIONALY ENTERELY / ARGUMENT/ CAN BE DREAMED UP THE OPPONENTS OF BUILDING THE MACHINE "METOZ' IN XVII CENTURY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My idea is very difficult for understanding. It is not difficult for engineer - mechanic, who knows very good the Pascal's law and even-arm lever.

Please open GOOgle and klick metozor and after : index of metozor At is site that explains technical details in easy to understand language. example : http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/for_greenpeace.html or
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_for_everybody.html
Everyone is able to build just the model of METOZ machine and test it. It is not a long shot.It is very easy. I can help.
In my elaboration " METOZ", no one is able to find even one small mistake. Please, have a look at http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/supplement.html Perhaps METOZ is some duplicating machine of a clean energy. SO YOU THINK WE HAVE AN ENERGY PROBLEM ??? NO, WE HAVE A POLITICAL PROBLEM !!!
I am inventor and owner of Metoz machine invention. Everyone can take absolutely and legitimate the METOZ invention and build the Metoz machine. I can help only. I can not build METOZ. I am moneyless.
I look forward to hear from you soon!
Orlowski Zygmunt metozor@nets.pl

Fusion power sounds great, lots of energy, with little or no pollution and certainly no green house gases. However, if I remember correctly all energy eventually degrades to heat energy, right? So if you are converting matter into energy, you are releasing heat (directly or indirectly) into the atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere can only dissapate so much heat. A little extra heat is probably not a terrible thing, but eventually, say 1000 years, the heat from 10,000 fusion power plants will build up. Global warming and melting ice caps are one thing, but if this is not stopped (and with an unlimited supply of power, it won't be) the biosphere itself will be endangered. True it is a long way off, but it still seems like a bad idea to me. Can anyone explain to me how this can be avoided?

Lan Jenness
lan.jenness@gmail.com

For Fusion Energy Sciences, the Committee recommends $307,001,000. This program advances plasma science, fusion science, and fusion technology through collaborations among U.S. universities, industry and national research laboratories, and the international fusion community. Consistent with Budget descriptions, the Committee has shifted $11,949,000 provided for High Energy Density Science to the new office within the Department of Energy."

Should Google go nuclear

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

If anyone could make the Fusor work it probably would be Google.


Also:
The Navy Heats up "Cold Fusion" with Use of CR-39 Detectors in LENR Experiment:

Extraordinary Evidence - "Cold Fusion"

The field of low energy nuclear reactions, historically known as cold fusion, has never had simple physical evidence of the claimed nuclear processes to physically place in the hands of doubters.

Until now.

Scientists at the U.S. Navy’s San Diego SPAWAR Systems Center have produced something unique in the 17-year history of the scientific drama historically known as cold fusion: simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.

Using a unique experimental method called co-deposition, combined with the application of external electric and magnetic fields, and recording the results with standard nuclear-industry detectors, researchers have produced what may be the most convincing evidence yet in the pursuit of proof of low energy nuclear reactions.

New Energy Times, issue #19
"Extraordinary Evidence"
http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee

Regards,
Erich

this seems like strange question but if the extra energy produced as heat is not chemical or nuclear will the us gov berry it as they don't want to see the laws of thermal dynamics rewritten or would they allow this technology yo be researched and deployed as if their known chemical or nuclear reaction at play the chance of accident is slim to none

what we have an explosion of boiling water that would most likly be contained in the building that it occurred in not a hazmat or a melt down situation

New kind of clean energy has been invented!!!
Please open GOOgle and klick metozor and after : index of metozor At is site that explains technical details in easy to understand language. example : http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/for_greenpeace.html or
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/energy_for_everybody.html
http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/prolog_for_metoz.html
Everyone is able to build just the model of METOZ machine and test it. Please, have a look at http://www.nets.pl/~metozor/supplement.html Perhaps METOZ is some duplicating machine of a clean energy.
Thank you for your time and interest.
E-mail this article to friends.