Fusion: Cold fusion? Aneutronic? Hmmm...
tjb...@amherst.bitnet
the results been validated?
Also, what does eutronic mean?
Tom
TJBRYCE@AMHERST
Mark H. North
>I thought cold fusion was a farce? Wasn't it a mistake? Or have
>the results been validated?
>
No, you're right it's pretty much of a farce. A farce characterized by
sloppy technique and wishful thinking. (And honest error). Honest error
is not a farce it's a mistake. Anyway, we have both here.
>Also, what does eutronic mean?
>
Aneutronic, in this context, means a fusion reaction occuring in which
no neutrons are produced. In a P&F type cell all likely fusion reactions
will produce neutrons. None have been observed at the level necessary to
explain claims of 'excess heat' (whatever that means). There are a couple
of reactions which occur with probability 10 to 1000 times less than
DD fusion (which produces copious neutrons). These reactions are D + Li
and H + D. In the first case He would be produced and in the second
gammas would be produced (no neutrons). Neither of these products have
been observed. (Actually, the H + D would also produce an isotope of He).
Early on much was made of the lack of neutrons by the skeptics so the
True Believers searched around for a reaction that didn't produce neutrons.
At this point many of the skeptics have moved on to more productive
endeavours not bothering to point out to the TB's the flaws in their
proposition. It has become clear that for some people no amount of evidence
or logic will sway them. So you will continue to hear about this for some
time but don't put any money on it. Unfortunately, many managers don't
have the background necessary to recognize bogus science when they see it
and will continue to fund the TB's until the managers patience or money
runs out or until the TB's reputation has been ruined.
Mark
Paul M. Koloc
It is a term coined by Bogdan Maglich, inventor of the MIGMA,
a combination trapped particle beam collider and magnetic
plasma confinement concept.
Now back to the definition: a-neutronic means without neutrons and
it is applied to nuclear reactions which yield less than 5% of the
resultant ash or reactant products as neutrons.
Both Fission (splitting of heavy nuclei) and Fusion (melding of light
nuclei) reactions produce neutrons. In a range of heavier "light"
nuclei the melding does not produce a neutron in the reactants, but
instead two or more nucleii. For example, helium(isotope weight 3)
will meld with heavy hydrogen (deuterium) nuclei to produce common
Helium (isotope weight 4) and a proton (ordinary light hydrogen)
Combining a proton with a boron nucleus(isotope weight 11) will
produce three helium, although an intermediate carbon(isotope weight
12) is produced which instantaneously fissions to form a 3 Helium(4).
A distinction** can be made between fusion and aneutronic energy:
Fusion == light nuclei --> light nuclei + neutron
Aneutronic == light nuclei [--> heavier light nuclei (virtual) ]
--> light nuclei
Of course both reactions yield energy.
I tend to view aneutronic energy as a special case of fusion.
** may be helpful when selling this approach to a
nuclear energy sensitized environmentally
aware public.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; p...@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
Mark H. North
>In article <13...@manta.NOSC.MIL> no...@manta.nosc.mil.UUCP (Mark H. North) writes:
>>.. .. . In a P&F type cell all likely fusion reactions
>>will produce neutrons.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>We agree that the reaction can not be DD since the lack of an
>appropriate amount of neutrons is persuasive.
>
>The two remaining aneutronic? cases may behave completely differently
>for reasons other than their respective reactivities.
>
>Looking at D + H, the lack of gammas is persuasive and thus it is
>eliminated.
>
>However, the remaining case may be more complicated. In Palladium
>the much smaller magnetic moment of one of the isotopes of Lithium and
>of deuterium may be significant in that it would enhance mobility.
The magnetic interaction in condensed matter is a second order effect
and as such there is no reason to suppose it could dominate the much
stronger electric interaction. Hence, this is unlikely.
>Furthermore, the spin states of these same two element-isotopes may
>also contribute to modify the expected fuel pair reactivity in a highly
>loaded region of Palladium.
Same point. The energetics of the spin states are a small perturbation
on the electric interaction.
>
>As you mention Helium(4) would be expected to be formed and you also
>indicated that this product has not been observed.
>
>That may not rule out the presence of this reaction for the following
>reason. Helium(4) is a tough one to test for by comparison to tritium,
>for example.
You have it backwards. Tritium in solution is notoriously difficult due
to possible contamination and chemiluminescence. I submit this is why
there is still debate about the presence of Tritium and relatively
little about the absence of Helium.
>First of all, it is one of the two most plentiful isotopes
>in the universe, and consequently, we have Helium present in the
>air. For this reason it is expected that it would be present as
>an impurity to contaminate the palladium during either the experiment
>or transfer or physico-chemical analysis. If I am correct the assumption
>is that the specimens ARE contaminated with Helium and so a layer of
>the surface is stripped away and the tests are then carried out on
>the uncontaminated palladium cores.
I'm not sure what your point is here but the amount of Helium in the
universe is irrelevant here on Earth. We have what we have. It's a
background subtraction problem.
>
> [ a lot about Lithium - D ]
>
The D - Li reaction is down by 1-3 orders of magnitude from DD. If you have
D - Li then you have DD which we know we don't have due to lack of neutrons.
>>Early on much was made of the lack of neutrons by the skeptics so the
>>True Believers searched around for a reaction that didn't produce neutrons.
>>At this point many of the skeptics have moved on to more productive
>>endeavors not bothering to point out to the TB's the flaws in their
>>proposition.
>
>Huh?
>
I have moved on to more productive endeavours but I don't mind pointing
out flaws when I see them. (I'm not saying you are a True Believer (TB)
but your tenacity is begining to make me wonder).
>> .. . It has become clear that for some people no amount of evidence
>>or logic will sway them.
>
>If everything was so logical then why would we ever have to run
>experiments. Perhaps we should "deduce" reality.
We *have* run the experiments and they have been negative.
>Until that becomes
>the "true way of science" the results:
>
> " > .. . 'excess heat' (whatever that means). "
>
>should be explained. Careful thought, patience, and PERSISTENCE are
>usually necessary.
I hope you don't mean to imply that these qualities have not been applied
to the majority of experiments finding negative results.
>When all of the options are exercised and gaps
>are filled, then if we don't get some "rippingly blasting results",
>I for one will give it up. Unlike Mark, I'm a little slower on
>that trigger.
>
I've been squeezing the trigger for over a year, I think that's long
enough for me. But others may differ. Just don't kid yourself into
oblivion.
Mark
Paul M. Koloc
>The magnetic interaction in condensed matter is a second order effect
>and as such there is no reason to suppose it could dominate the much
>stronger electric interaction. Hence, this is unlikely.
That's not my point.
In a metal crystal lattice the regular alignment of atoms provides
pathways through which highly mobile atoms such as deuterium can glide.
Since these pathways have "electric field walls" then a magnetic
interaction would tend to "deflect" an otherwise mobile metal ion out
of the straight and narrow pathway. Tritium and protium do not enjoy
mobility in palladium for this reason. The Palladium lattice can be
HIGHLY loaded much more easily with deuterium then its sister isotopes.
>Same point. The energetics of the spin states are a small perturbation
>on the electric interaction.
Same misunderstanding
There is a relatively small volume of the total Palladium lattice which
lodges the light metal ion solutes. How tightly packed into these
microvolumes the deuterium (or other element isotope combination) can be
made in part depends on its spin state.
In hot fusion three body collisions are probably not important. In
a reacting plasma those particles in the higher velocity part of
the distribution, can collide and during that collision are inertially
compressed into a small volume for a fleeting instant. During this
close encounter "tunneling" can occur resulting in a fusion event.
The reaction rate depends on the closeness of the approach and the length
of time it is maintained. The total close-encounter-time can be
increased by adding more close encounters (near approach collisions).
This is accomplished by substantially increasing density. The rate
of collisions are important to determine the fusion power; it varies
with the density squared. For a thermonuclear fusion plasma the
density could be 10^13 while for a cold fusion experiment the average
density might be 10^22. However, this last estimate should be modified
to reflect the fact the light particles are confined to a small fraction
of the Palladium volume so the actual density could be locally 10^24
(that right?). Note the square of the density ratio is 10^20+. So
even if the reactivity is small, the power density (total reaction
rate) from a cold fusion experiment could easily exceed the crumby
five watts/cubic centimeter expected from a DT tokamak reactor.
Another environmental difference, relates to lattice thermal activity.
The micro volumes containing the light atoms could experience "a
constant rhythmic three dimensional adiabatic compression" driven by
the thermal activity in the lattice. In the tiny regions of the
microvolumes, the effect could be on the order of multikilobars of
pressure. This effect is a COLLECTIVE one. ANY increase in squeezing
will increase the probability that a fusion reactions will take place.
By comparison, a tokamak plasma experiences a average pressure of about
five atmospheres (five joules/cc).
In hot fusion electric field shielding by plasma electrons is not nearly
as effective as the shielding of the conducting electrons in palladium,
especially since the "stuffed microvolumes" are hanging in the
conduction bands.
So: Hot versus Cold
A) Is it better to have tons and tons of close interaction time
at not quite such a close approach to produce a fusion
"channeled" reactions??
OR..
B) Is it better to have directional but closer approaches and
a much less significant interaction time.
Answer, isn't known. 1. Tokamaks don't have enough pressure as a
credible thermonuclear fusion device.
2. We don't know what is happening in CF to
make a reliable estimate.
So 3. Let's toss the tokamak and move up to something
more interesting on the magnetic fusion side.
4. Let's show why the calorimetry is certainly
invalid or explain the heat of CF.
Then 5. Let's go on to something else or commercialize.
The numbers out so far (25yrs) show that a tokamak produces an
insignificant fraction of fusion power compared to the total power
that goes into trying to get it to do its thing. But of course that's
old technology; we really can't expect much progress from something
that for political reasons can't evolve to a more promising concept.
On the other hand a cold fusion reaction by comparison MAY sporadically
have already produced better out/in results and could be a real winner,
provided the right fuel is used and .. . of course
IT does WORK
>You have it backwards. Tritium in solution is notoriously difficult due
>to possible contamination and chemiluminescence. I submit this is why
>there is still debate about the presence of Tritium and relatively
>little about the absence of Helium.
Since tritium is not abundant in nature and chemically reactive, it
can be nearly eliminated as an impurity source with careful work. It
is radioactive, and hence it (its emissions) can be detected in a
teeny weeny itsy bitsy amount. It doesn't take much to release
tritium from a slice of palladium (solution) and keep it trapped
for measurement within an ampule of glass or ceramic.
>I'm not sure what your point is here but the amount of Helium in the
>universe is irrelevant here on Earth. We have what we have. It's a
>background subtraction problem.
Helium is very mobile and it is a relatively colossally more abundant
than tritium. Therefore it presents a relatively huge subtraction
"signal to noise problem" compared to tritium. After all the amount
of helium expected to be present due to fusion isn't that much. Any
slight presence of tritium should raise interest.
>The D - Li reaction is down by 1-3 orders of magnitude from DD. If you have
>D - Li then you have DD which we know we don't have due to lack of neutrons.
Sounds correct, BUT, except for low level measurements from lattice
destructive loading and unloading of palladium, titanium, essentially
we don't see ANY deuterium fusion. There still must be an explanation
for the "excess heat" ... remember. We don't want any loose ends, so
we must look further.
Are there any possible mechanisms to explain this? In hot fusion
the effect of the higher charge of a stripped lithium would require
a higher collisional velocity with deuterium (ignition temperature)
to gain the close approach required for "tunneling effect" to allow
a fusion reaction. Another way to produce a respectable reaction rate
is to extend the time the two fuel species are in close proximity or
to increase their close proximity (lower separation distance). For
example, if each microvolume available for packing was no larger for
lithium deuterium occupancy than it was for d-d, the average effective
distance between the regions of strong nuclear interaction could
actually be reduced for D-Li(6) and the tunneling (reaction rate)
would increase. Since the ratio of the close to remote distance
increases, the time spent in the close configuration would increase.
Also the effective confinement pressure will also increase.
This is the same effect that requires a need for a the stronger
force to stuff a two person sleeping bag into "stuff bag" that was
originally made to hold a single size.
There may be other subtleties that might contribute significantly to
an inverted reaction rate versus element. For example the lithium
may "pull" conduction electrons, deeping its trapping. Still at
this point, it is all speculation. What we need is a serious effort.
>I hope you don't mean to imply that these qualities have not been applied
>to the majority of experiments finding negative results.
It's too early to tell. It does seem that the "positive" results tend
to come from those best versed in the practice of physical electro-
chemistry/metallurgical science and its TECHNOLOGY. IF such technical
art and skill are slightly lacking, a "positive result" can be lost.
If they only have a piece of this thing, that is to say the artisans
aren't doing it quite right (say by assuming deuterium fusion), the
results at best would be marginal. Further, having the most excellence
in diagnostics skill and apparatus will not make up for the slight lack
of experimental technical excellence in electrochemistry. There are
other historical cases where a sizable number of "good labs" missed
verifying nascent technology.
Furthermore, there has been a perception that groups, at a certain set
of highly managed facilities whose MAIN work is very, very, expensive
thermonuclear fusion, would be shooting themselves in the foot, if
they reported CF success. Such a perception can weigh on researchers.
After all fusion is fusion to the average Jane or Joe and Congress
has already whacked another 50 megabucks off the rather fruitless per
buck hot mag fusion budget.
Incidentally, Ron Davidson is replacing Harold P. Furth at PPPL
(Princeton fusion). Ron booted an engineering physicist, L. Lidsky,
from MIT's Fusion Center for discussing the tokamak "Wall Problem"
in an editorial in the Center's fusion rag. Then OMB crunched
the MIT fusion program.. of course no connection was admitted.
>I've been squeezing the trigger for over a year, I think that's long
>enough for me. But others may differ. Just don't kid yourself into
>oblivion.
Fusion requires PRESSURE, it's just that simple. Ask any star and
perhaps the enhanced levels He(3) that comes from some deep volcanic
vents. Don't let up on the your personal pressure to make fusion,
Mark. $5*10^6 is hardly worth a sneeze. The happy note is the REALLY
wasteful fusion funding is grinding to a slow, but critical tokamak
eliminating level. So squeeze triggers all you want, as long as
as they are palladium appropriately loaded with selected light and
fusionable "stuff" :-).
What makes me skeptical about "science says it can't be" is that
too many times "text book science" turns out to have missed something.
For example, in plasma physics there persisted for a couple of decades
the belief that every possible magnetic confinement configuration was
NOT stable. Science isn't mature... by definition. Let's keep the
surprises coming. It isn't the Bible nor is it Canon law.
Ahhhh! I bet someone in another time on a far away planet mused:
Vacuum electron tubes, that's reality
Solid state electronics.. what a joke.
CF that is another story.
All Rights Reserved Paul M. Koloc 1990
Robert I. Eachus
A thought inspired by Paul's message:
Assume for a minute that PFH fusion (and BYU fusion for that
matter) exist and are strongly pressure sensitive. Now follow through
on Paul's line of thought and assume that "working" cells involve
vibrations of the metal lattice. What do we get? Three answers:
How does the fusion occur? Deuterium diffuses into the lattice
when the local planes of palladium atoms are far apart, and get
squeezed a half cycle later. Since the entire crystal structure is
doing the compression we have atomic/chemical forces amplified since
moving one metal atom out of the way would require breaking the
crystal.
Where are the neutrons? Since there is no momentum to be carried
away by the products. (Two deuterium atoms with no relative velocity
and coupled to the lattice.) Not only is the D+D --> He reaction
favored relative to hot fusion, but the coupling to the lattice allows
energy to be carried away through the inelastic reaction with the
matrix. In fact this coupling can (partially) drive the vibration
mode, which may explain the bursts of energy.
Why do only some cells (and some labs) succeed? This theory
requires that 1) the metal be a pure single crystal (not quite, but a
close approximation, so preparation of the electrode is crucial), 2)
there must be a driver to initially excite one of the resonant modes
of the crystal (cosmic rays? decay of embedded radioisotopes? clanking
of glassware? you tell me), and 3) since leakage will occur near the
edges, the material must not be a thin foil.
If this theory (idle speculation?) is true, the test is easy:
attach an rf driver to a well refined and drawn electrode and a
variable frequency signal generator, get behind lots of parafin, and
twiddle the nobs. (This is NOT a table top experiment. If the theory
is true, you may be very famous and very dead. Remember that once the
reaction starts, current anecdotal evidence says it won't stop when
the driver is turned off, it will stop when the electrode melts. I
wouldn't bet my life on the reaction being completely aneuronic.) (If
this sounds very optimistic, it isn't really, good experimental
practice says not to perform an experiment if you can't live with a
success OR a failure.)
Any takers?
--
Robert I. Eachus
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
Raul Baragiola
Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>
> A thought inspired by Paul's message:
>
> Assume for a minute that PFH fusion (and BYU fusion for that
>matter) exist and are strongly pressure sensitive. Now follow through
>on Paul's line of thought and assume that "working" cells involve
>vibrations of the metal lattice. What do we get? Three answers:
>
> How does the fusion occur? Deuterium diffuses into the lattice
>when the local planes of palladium atoms are far apart, and get
>squeezed a half cycle later. Since the entire crystal structure is
>doing the compression we have atomic/chemical forces amplified since
>moving one metal atom out of the way would require breaking the
>crystal.
Atomic vibrations in solids have amplitudes of a small fraction (10-20%)
of the lattice spacing, and they are not amplified by a concerting motion.
> Where are the neutrons? Since there is no momentum to be carried
>away by the products. (Two deuterium atoms with no relative velocity
>and coupled to the lattice.) Not only is the D+D --> He reaction
>favored relative to hot fusion, but the coupling to the lattice allows
>energy to be carried away through the inelastic reaction with the
>matrix. In fact this coupling can (partially) drive the vibration
>mode, which may explain the bursts of energy.
>
For this to be true, the lattice must respond to take the excess
momentum in times of the order of nuclear reaction times, which can
be estimated as h-bar/Energy or of the order of 10^-22 secs (also
the time for a fast particle (10^9 cm/s) to escape from the nucleus
(~10^-13 cm). So this time is 9 orders of magnitude too short.
I cannot comment on: "In fact this coupling can (partially) drive the
vibration mode, which may explain the bursts of energy". I do not
understand what you mean. Can you elaborate on this?
Raul A. Baragiola \Internet: ra...@virginia.edu
Dept. Nuclear Engnr. and Engnr. Physics \Phone: (804)-982-2907
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901 \ Fax: (804)-924-6270
Mark H. North
You win. I quit. No way am I going to wade through your comments with
my comments. Some were OK most were full of misconceptions and wishful
thinking. This is not a flame, I do not wish to have the last word. Please
keep posting. The bottom line will be evident soon enough and then you
can send me a crow pie (baked in a fusion powered oven, I hope)
or I will send you one 8^). (I would really like it to work if it could
but 'no way' I'm afraid).
Mark
Matt Kennel
Dr Koloc, what do you propose as an alternate fusion technology other
than tokamaks? Of course, they're hard to build, but the reason that
they're still around is that, nonetheless, they seem to work better than
competitors.
If indeed, boosting pressure is the key, what will do it in a way that
maintains the temperature? I.e., how do you do without magnetic confinement?
(I already know about laser-fusion, the technology is about 5-10 yrs behind
tokamaks) Who's been doing the research? Is there a review article in
a journal somewhere?
BTW: I'm not asking about P&F type cold fusion now, I think that's been
rehashed enough.
Matt K
m...@inls1.ucsd.edu
Stanley T.H. Chow
>
>Dr Koloc, what do you propose as an alternate fusion technology other
>than tokamaks? Of course, they're hard to build, but the reason that
>they're still around is that, nonetheless, they seem to work better than
>competitors.
Hmmm, this sounds like pretty weak justification. For purposes of getting
fusion technology, we like methods that *work*. On the other hand, for
purposes of getting grant money, "better than competitors" is often
enough.
Please note I am not condeming tokamaks, just this lame excuse.
Stanley Chow BitNet: sc...@BNR.CA
BNR UUCP: ..!uunet!bnrgate!bcarh185!schow
(613) 763-2831 ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
Paul M. Koloc
>than tokamaks? Of course, they're hard to build, but the reason that
>they're still around is that, nonetheless, they seem to work better than
>competitors.
Tokamaks are hard to build, and therefore justify large expenditures
making it the single solitary fusion concept that can keep the total
fusion budget of the world's plasma techs "busy" for the next fifteen
centuries, if need be. MICF and Spheromaks concepts have not been
funded at a level yet to make a good evaluation of their ultimate
prospects. In the government funding game, one biggy usually survives
big in each catagory . Robert Bussard has a new concept (well, a
reworked older untried one) and its funding was cut off with the
Field's fiasco at US DARPA.
Then there is our own PLASMAK(tm) concept, an advanced form of our
first (Spheromak) concept, but with a gas compressible plasma shell.
This has been funded internally just to see if such an object can
exist with exceptionally long life time and stability. It can and
it does. Now we will go forth from here..
>If indeed, boosting pressure is the key, what will do it in a way that
>maintains the temperature?
The compression not only increases pressure and density (cube of the
compression ratio "cr" ) but it increases temperature (square of "cr").
The burn rate would increase by the sixth+ power of "cr".
> I.e., how do you do without magnetic confinement?
If a magnetic field can confine a plasma, then a plasma can confine a
magnetic field. So .. . simply confine a central Kernel plasmoid
ring within its own self generated fields and then trap the external
vacuum boundary of that confining magnetic field within a highly
conducting shell (Mantle) of plasma. External fluid pressure backed
up by a high tensile strength material compression chamber wall will
determine the ultimate confining external pressure. What is nice is
that its internal magnetic topology "focuses" pressure on the fusion
fuel ring so that its pressure can be a substantial fraction of an
order of magnitude higher. It's not that the magnetic field is absent..
it's just that it is transparent to the user. :-)
>(I already know about laser-fusion, the technology is about 5-10 yrs behind
>tokamaks) Who's been doing the research?
Not much around,. after all the international fusion effort the IAEA (a
combined effort of the world's DoEs) is run by old "duffers". Consequently,
they agree to fund what they know about in common.. Tokamaks, Stellarators
and Mirrors. Those are the machines that produce most of the research
literature. Laser fusion has "classified" objectives so there is a
relative paucity of research publication. With meager private funding
going into the innovative work, there is a reticence to publish outside
of patents, because of the necessity to protect the risk of the hard
earned investor dollars.
> Is there a review article in a journal somewhere?
Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications"
FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141
>BTW: I'm not asking about P&F type cold fusion now, I think that's been
>rehashed enough.
Until what is technically and/or scientifically causing the results AND
non-results of CF is combed out of the research, press releases stop
being sought after, and the and the world's cf researchers come to a
consensus, we must continue to "rehash". Who knows, one of us my
discover the missing key to unlock this thing, assuming it's there.
Barry Merriman
>
>Then there is our own PLASMAK(tm) concept, an advanced form of our
>first (Spheromak) concept, but with a gas compressible plasma shell.
>This has been funded internally just to see if such an object can
>exist with exceptionally long life time and stability. It can and
>it does. Now we will go forth from here..
>
>magnetic field. So .. . simply confine a central Kernel plasmoid
>ring within its own self generated fields and then trap the external
>vacuum boundary of that confining magnetic field within a highly
>conducting shell (Mantle) of plasma. External fluid pressure backed
>up by a high tensile strength material compression chamber wall will
>determine the ultimate confining external pressure.
You have said elsewhere that some folks write off your PLASMAK(tm)
due to overzealous use of the Virial Theorem.
(Aside: The Virial Theorem says that an ideal (no internal resistance)
MHD (behaves like a fluid) plasma cannot ``confine itself'',
i.e. it can't be in equilibrium (== net force of 0 on any bit of plasma)
unless it is contained inside a conducting vessel.
In the absence of such a vessel, it must expand.)
So, how do you wiggle out from under the VT? My guess is that
you don't plan to be in equilibrium. But perhaps you also think the Mantle
can play the role of a conducting vessel, in part?
In any case, VT applies only to establishing MHD equilibrium. This
is a good regime for theorists to operate in, since the equations take on their
simplest form. But what about nonequilibrium configurations? In
particular, has anyone ever considered ``dynamic equilibrium configurations'',
in which the forces on a plasma element don't sum to zero, but do
oscillate in such a way that they time average to zero?
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
ba...@math.ucla.edu (Internet)
Paul M. Koloc
>In article <1990Nov23.1...@prometheus.UUCP> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>
>>Then there is our own PLASMAK(tm) concept, an advanced form of our
>>first (Spheromak) concept, but with a gas compressible plasma shell.
>>This has been funded internally just to see if such an object can
>>exist with exceptionally long life time and stability. It can and
>>it does. Now we will go forth from here..
>>
>>If a magnetic field can confine a plasma, then a plasma can confine a
>>magnetic field. So .. . simply confine a central Kernel plasmoid
>>ring within its own self generated fields and then trap the external
>>vacuum boundary of that confining magnetic field within a highly
>>conducting shell (Mantle) of plasma. External fluid pressure backed
>>up by a high tensile strength material compression chamber wall will
>>determine the ultimate confining external pressure.
>
>You have said elsewhere that some folks write off your PLASMAK(tm)
>due to overzealous use of the Virial Theorem.
>
>(Aside: The Virial Theorem says that an ideal (no internal resistance)
>MHD (behaves like a fluid) plasma cannot ``confine itself'',
>i.e. it can't be in equilibrium (== net force of 0 on any bit of plasma)
>unless it is contained inside a conducting vessel.
>In the absence of such a vessel, it must expand.)
(This discussion relates to a spheroidal sandwich or "onion" of
pressurized plasmas, fields, and surrounding chamber compressed fluids.)
Of course the plasma fluid has no confining capability but a "tied"
magnetic field does. You will note that I put the "confine itself" in
parens. Since the "confining field" is itself externally confined by
surrounding Mantle mediated pressure, the PLASMAK(tm) as a whole DOES
NOT confine itself. Again, it is the conducting shell (Mantle) which
itself is in pressure equilibrium (confinement) with its surrounding
fluid blanket (such as ordinary gas pressure) that provides the external
support for the "self Kernel plasma confining field". These fields are
self confining only in the sense that all of the currents used to produce
these fields are generated by the currents of the confined central Kernel
plasmoid itself. (Their external boundary is neutralized by Mantle
current.)
Incidentally, "net force of zero" does NOT SIMPLY apply to systems which
have "two dimensional surface tension" and this includes soap bubbles.
Soap bubbles are "mostly" confined by external atmospheric pressure,
and partially by their own surface tension. Here the surface integration
of the VT should make a cut through the bubble surface and integrate
over its inner surface to pick up he contribution from surface tension.
This makes the region "simply connected". In a PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid
most of its high internal pressure comes from the interlinked flux and
only about 8 to 10 % from the pressure at its external boundary
(blanket pressure).
>So, how do you wiggle out from under the VT?
In the PLASMAK(tm) configuration, it is the interaction of both toroidal
and poloidal field "lines" that produces the equivalent "surface tension"
(actually an infinity of nested toroidal pressure bearing surfaces). The
toroidal field produces compression of the plasma in the major radius and
the poloidal field in the minor radial direction. Application of the VT
to plasma systems WITHOUT BOTH COMPONENTS OF FIELD or no field at all
reduce to a simple form, since there is NO NET internal pressure bearing
(volume trapping) surface in these objects. For a PLASMAK(tm) case one
must integrate over the multiplicity of nested magnetic pressure bearing
surfaces as well as the external gas boundary. Consequently, it is
"cheaper" to do a straight forward volume integration to obtain its total
energy (pressure).
> My guess is that you don't plan to be in equilibrium.
In plasma physics, any SMALL plasmoid that has a constant size with a
viable, and stable long lifetime on the order of a second, can be
considered to be in equilibrium. The plasma is in pressure equilibrium
with the sum of the plasma pressure (the smaller component in a lower
Beta system) and the pressure transmitted to it from its magnetic
topology (the larger component).
> But perhaps you also think the Mantle can play the role of a conducting
vessel, in part?
It IS the vessel for the vacuum field it traps; however, the ultimate
external pressure bearing surface is the high tensile strength pressure
wall that traps the blanket (which the Mantle excludes). In the case of
Ball Lightning it is gravitational compression of atmospheric gases that
determine its external confinement pressure. The Mantle has all the
conductivity needed, since its relativistic vacuum/plasma boundary layer
current is collisionless (Magnetic diffusion times from 5 to 30 seconds).
>In any case, VT applies only to establishing MHD equilibrium. This
>is a good regime for theorists to operate in, since the equations take
>on their simplest form.
I agree as long as care is taken with respect to the boundary values. For
our case it should be useful in evaluating the equilibria achieved during
strong adiabatic compressions we intend to use in fusion related
applications.
> .. . . But what about non-equilibrium configurations? In
>particular, has anyone ever considered ``dynamic equilibrium configurations'',
>in which the forces on a plasma element don't sum to zero, but do
>oscillate in such a way that they time average to zero?
I'm not too sure what you are hinting at.
Usually, it is the time averaged sums that determine equilibrium. Forms
of Inertial Confinement, pondermotive, and Magdellan(sp?), magnetic
instabilities, etc., forces can all drive non-linear (dynamic equilibrium)
effects.
Energy density and pressure are closely coupled. So one might imagine
a huge and dynamic PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (perhaps buried under the
surface of the sun or Jupiter). At formation it is compression heated to
ignition, and then it expands and cools, quenching the fusion burn. But
if it over shoots on the fusion driven expansion phase, it could re-ignite
during the equilibrium recompression, thus producing the energy for a
second expansion. For a while these fluctuations might grow in intensity.
The big problem with doing this work in the sun, is that these monster
PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasma bubbles rise, adiabatically cool, and then near
the surface where the differential vertical pressure is de-stabilizing,
they will tear open and spill out the strongly cooled and magnetized
disintegrating Kernel plasma, producing BIG UGLY sun spots. Our periodic
research there is being blamed for the occasional droughts, floods, etc.
:-)
Micro PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids are formed by a fusion approach
called MICF (Magnetic Inertial Confinement Fusion). Perhaps PLASMAK(tm)
plasmoids of the right size and fuel choice could be made to flash burn
and re-burn on each return of the fusion driven compression wave
reflected from the chamber wall. That may or may not make for a
promising engineering application.
PLASMAK(tm) fusion can produce all the power you need,
But you wouldn't use it to directly drive
your razor.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1990 Paul M. Koloc
Paul A. Houle
I read one of your papers on ball lightning and it seemed pretty
interesting in it's description of how it is self-confining. However,
it seems to me that the PLAMAK configuration would pose some engineering
problems. It seems to me that if you're burning D+T, you'd have very
high neutron loading on the walls; in addition, you'd have very high
temperatures and pressures on the walls of the reactor, making things
kind of tough. Now, if you could get high enough kernel temperatures
and pressures to use an aneutronic reaction like Li7+p, you might be
able to solve of those problems.
Would the fluid surrounding the mantle have to be a gas? If
you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat
pretty well. Practically, how would you assemble a PLASMAK
configuration? How far have you come in experimentation work on
PLASMAK? What would the specifications of a commercial PLASMAK
reactor look like? What power output? Size? Weight?
--
Barry Merriman
>
>it seems to me that the PLASMAK configuration would pose some engineering
>problems. It seems to me that if you're burning D+T, you'd have very
>high neutron loading on the walls;
This is no less true in standard Tokamak designs, though. The only
saving grace is that the projected size of commercial reactors
is so large that the loading/ wall area is small.
> Would the fluid surrounding the mantle have to be a gas? If
>you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat
>pretty well.
Actually, gases are better than liquids in many cases, because they
convert heat to radiation which can be dispersed over a large volume.
The most promising designs for handling the plasma wall interface
in the next generation of Tokamaks (ITER, etc) are gas pockets into which
the exhaust plasma from the core is directed by magnetic fields.
It heats the gas, and the heat converts to radiation and is
effectively dispersed.
Alternatives like liquid metal blankets to convect away exhaust
heat are much trickier---for example, the metal vapor may contaminate
and cool your plasma, a disruption may coat your machine
with liquid metal, and the amount of metal passing through the machine is
large (estimated at a ``truck a second'' in some devices).
>How far have you come in experimentation work on
>PLASMAK?
One possible problem I sense with a PLASMAK is that it may be too
clever---i.e. there may be too much integration of the confinement,
power generation and heat removal facilities, not leaving enough room
for tweaking the design. In a tokamak, these are all handled in a modular
fashion, mostly independent of one another. More robust, thereby.
Paul M. Koloc
>problems. It seems to me that if you're burning D+T, you'd have very
>high neutron loading on the walls;
For D-T, the pressure would be backed way down; but, operating wide open,
you are correct. This is why it is a great disadvantage to use neutron
producing fuels in fusion burners without the severe pressure limitations
of a tokamak. It should be illegal to burn such fuels in a PLASMAK(tm)
generator in the first place, since hot neutrons are environmentally
hazardous and they can be energy moderated easily and used to breed
Plutonium for use in disrupting human societies.
> . . . . .. in addition, you'd have very high
>temperatures and pressures on the walls of the reactor, making things
>kind of tough.
Remember the "first wall of the reactor" is a liquid density fluid.
Since a PLASMAK(tm) burner operates in the megawatts per cubic centimeter
range the device is very tiny compared to a tokamak, which occupies
several acres of ground to handle the "modular" auxiliary buildings
needed in support of its operation. Also, the pressure wall in a
PLASMAK(tm) unit is very unsophisticated (dumb but strong) as it is
insulated from the fusion power output by a liquid density gas
compression blanket. The high power density ensures small size, and
that coupled with the compression induced high burn rates means the
cycle time is very fast. Thus the compression wall will not see the
hot central blanket temperatures, and furthermore, each compression
shell can be operated with an arbitrary duty cycle.
> . . . [with an]. aneutronic reaction like Li7+p, you might be
>able to solve of those problems.
A fuel like p-B(11) is my choice since it doesn't have side neutronic
side chains and both ingredients are very common. Also p-B11 requires
a high optimal compression to produce the burn and that means the
highest cycle rates and power output/cc (power per unit mass or volume).
> Would the fluid surrounding the mantle have to be a gas? If
>you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat
>pretty well.
The blanket surrounding the Mantle could be any fluid (liquid, gas
or plasma), and if it started out as a liquid or gas it would change
state under the injection of huge amounts of fusion energy. In a
tasmanian devil design (pB)_, the fast burn rate ensures multiple
cycling per second. That means nearly all of the energy of ignition,
compression and burn is carried off as the blanket and disrupted spent
PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid are dumped out through magnetic apertures into
an inductive MHD (IMHD) energy conversion unit.
> . . . .. Practically, how would you assemble a PLASMAK
>configuration?
We can form PLASMAK plasmoids reliably and efficently. However, we
can't answer that question AT THIS TIME, because of the paranoid belief
it is likely to work well, and it has a potential of being exploited
by jerks with bent agendas. When its potential is investigated to
compression burn tests, then the IAEA (and greens) can handle and crush
or strongly discourage any proliferation problem.
> How far have you come in experimentation work on
>PLASMAK?
Far enough that it looks very very promising, so: The slogan "SEND
MONEY" !!! That is our cry for this coming year. From day one with
the $$$ in hand we'll need <3-5 years to first commercial burn.
After all, we don't have to wait years to build a small city to
support this thing, and we can make each PLASMAK(tm) (tokamak chamber
and magnet equivalent) in a few microseconds.
>What would the specifications of a commercial PLASMAK
>reactor look like? What power output? Size? Weight?
A fifty meg burn device would be about the size of a desk and the
drivers would fit on one side of an office housing five or six grad
students. Device modules would scale a tad less than the cube root
of the power. That doesn't consider the output energy buss.
The IMHD unit would be bigger, and in the case of an atmospheric
thruster (rocket engine) it would be smaller again.. but don't
stand in the first kilometer of its output stream (at sea level).
The power units can range from 50 megawatts to 100 gigawatts. Several
of the latter will be a great size for energizing the mag PLASMAK(tm)
accelerator thrusters to drive fast space freighters between planets.
Sound good??? All we need is one tough, interested and gutsy SoB with
10-20 hard earned megabucks to do it. Cheap for an aneutronic CBEF.
Paul M. Koloc
>>you could somehow make it a liquid, it could carry away the heat
>>pretty well.
>Actually, gases are better than liquids in many cases, because they
>convert heat to radiation which can be dispersed over a large volume.
>The most promising designs for handling the plasma wall interface
>in the next generation of Tokamaks (ITER, etc) are gas pockets into which
>the exhaust plasma from the core is directed by magnetic fields.
>It heats the gas, and the heat converts to radiation and is
>effectively dispersed.
Sounds like a job for high pressure helium rather than a more viscous
high Z radiation trapping gas. But I really don't know this scheme
and haven't been following the "ITER soaps" (all things for everyone).
Secondary radiation effect can not be the main fusion heat transfer
mechanism. Thermal conduction through the "vacuum first wall" is. That
means it is quite inefficient. This "gas pockets" gimmick suggests that
it is there to handle plasma disruption or fast mag shutdown, which would
then allow the fuel plasma to crash toward the walls. Considering the
short time and energy content of such an event, serious first wall damage
would occur if there is not an adequate dumping mechanism.
>Alternatives like liquid metal blankets to convect away exhaust
>heat are much trickier---for example, the metal vapor may contaminate
>and cool your plasma, a disruption may coat your machine
>with liquid metal, and the amount of metal passing through the machine is
>large (estimated at a ``truck a second'' in some devices).
Very true!
The contamination comes from the low conductivity of the metal vapor
which can then diffuse rapidly across the insulating field into
the trapped ignited fuel (plasma). Moving conducting metal "inside"
the magnetic confinement region, as in tokamak, is a beast. It wants
to "freeze into the field" and stop flowing thereby cutting off its
heat transfer purpose. More pump pressure causes EMF driven currents
in the metal which then heat the metal and dissipate even more energy.
In the PLASMAK(tm) scheme the Mantle/blanket (first wall) is essentially
OUTSIDE the magnetic field. Secondly, it doesn't use the blanket
for convective/conductive heat transfer, but instead uses convective/
adiabatic expansion which DIRECTLY drives either IMHD electric power
or propulsive power. No cascading the energy density to produce steam,
as in other energy schemes (including tokamak). PLASMAK conversion
efficiencies could be .. perhaps 95% with p-B(11) and co-generation.
Consequently, the initial state of a blanket can be a non-metallic
liquid. Converted to a hot very dense plasma by the fusion burn, and
unencumbered by the lack of tied magnetic confinement fields, it
is then conductive enough after its expansion for efficient IMHD
electric power conversion.
>One possible problem I sense with a PLASMAK is that it may be too
>clever---i.e. there may be too much integration of the confinement,
>power generation and heat removal facilities, not leaving enough room
>for tweaking the design. In a tokamak, these are all handled in a modular
>fashion, mostly independent of one another.
But with PLASMAK(tm) there will be a much, much smaller component of heat
to remove, meaning the plant size will be greatly reduced (or for
PLASMAK(tm) converted sites, the power output very greatly increased
using the original plant size). PLASMAK(tm) technology has no need
for huge vacuum handling modules, or huge magnetic confinement modules,
or the homopolar module needed for startup, or the substation sized
power unit to keep its systems operating, or RF beam heating modules,
or particle beam heating modules, or the monstrous control network,
or the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to
handle a shorted toroidal field coil, or the long zig-zag corridors
designed to dissipate the shock expansion wave, or the monster tritium
handling building and apparatus, etc. A PLASMAK(tm) power unit works
sort of like an auto engine (diesel), you just fill up the tank, switch
it on and put the petal to the metal.
> .. . . [tokamak is ] .. . More robust, thereby.
A PLASMAK(tm) unit by comparison is very, very LEAN and MEAN. If
attacked it could drop its IMHD, convert to thrust output, and chase
the invader out of the solar system and eat its lunch.. .. just
kidding.. .. . :-)
...but not by much.
Paul M. Koloc
>BTW, you said it would cost about $10 to $20 million to build?
No! It was cost for one shot at a time COMMERCIAL (engineering) Break
Even demonstrator. It is too early to estimate prices. However, prices
for a PLASMAK(tm) reactor would be a small fraction of the current
estimates projected for an equivalent power output tokamak reactor.
>P.S.: I have completely lost the number of that guy who saw ball lightning
>after lightning hit.. . Since you're generating them already, I doubt
> this matters much...
It will be interesting to compare behavior range of the artificially
produced PMKs (Plasma Mantle and Kernel plasmoids) with naturally
produced Ball Lightning. It would be comforting if it turns out that:
Anything Ball Lightning
Can do
PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids
Can do better
Paul M. Koloc
>Paul M. Koloc writes:
>>But with PLASMAK(tm) there will be a much, much smaller component of heat
>>to remove, meaning the plant size will be greatly reduced (or for
>>PLASMAK(tm) converted sites, the power output very greatly increased
>>using the original plant size). PLASMAK(tm) technology has no need
>>for huge vacuum handling modules, or huge magnetic confinement modules,
>>or the homopolar module needed for startup, or the substation sized
>>power unit to keep its systems operating, or RF beam heating modules,
>>or particle beam heating modules, or the monstrous control network,
>>or the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to
>>handle a shorted toroidal field coil, or the long zig-zag corridors
>>designed to dissipate the shock expansion wave, or the monster tritium
>>handling building and apparatus, etc. A PLASMAK(tm) power unit works
>>sort of like an auto engine (diesel), you just fill up the tank, switch
>>it on and put the petal to the metal.
>
>immediately either---they were tacked on as needed.
I'm not sure I buy that.
>For example, I gather the PLASMAK is heated resistively---but resistance
>drops rapidly at high temperatures (which you plan to use,
>for your P-B11), leading to reduced heating capability. So
>what if resistive heating can't take you all the way?
The PRINCIPAL method of heating comes from STRONG ADIABATIC COMPRESSION.
You are absolutely, right that the effectiveness of ohmic heating at high
temperatures is USUALLY inadequate. For p-B11 an INITIAL TEMPERATURE
(pre-compression) of one to two keV is required from resistive effects
and this should not be a problem considering the Z and density of the
fuel.
In addition, aside from the straight forward temperature rise from
compression, it turns out that both the total current increases and the
current cross section drops during compression. Add to this the fact
that for energetic currents, the resistivity (heating) goes up in
proportion to plasma density. The density goes up with the cube of the
compression ratio. So these things seem to work backwards from the
classical thermal electron driven ones! :-)
> Can PLASMAK be heated by external beams?
EXTERNAL beams? Probably not. But, its own energetic currents are
extremely dense, corresponding to its much higher magnetic pressure.
In fact, these currents can be treated as beam currents, so in a sense
a PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid is heated by INTERNAL beams.
>This ...[external beams]... would seem to disrupt its magnetic
>configuration, which is rather delicate being totally self induced.
More likely it would be the intrusion of the beam gun head through
the vacuum-field/Mantle interface, that would destroy the PMK (plasma
Mantle and Kernel plasmoid). This would be sort of like doing
X-ray cancer therapy on the brain by punching the output tube through
the skull.
As far as the notion of "delicacy". Consider that Ball Lightnings
bounce and survive rain and ripping wind turbulence for thousands of
times the equivalent magnetic resistive decay times of tokamaks. Note
that this is without compression. With compression, the magnetic
confinement for a very, very hot p-B11 in a PMK will produce 10^18 +
densities where a tokamak with D-T is lucky to get to 10^14 in a
relatively very cold (5-10keV) plasma. Punching the tip of your
finger into a p-B11 burning PMK for just a millisecond, would change
its topology drastically. In a tokamak the THERMAL effects would
hardly be noticeable.
One of the things we were considering is impulse accelerating a
compressed PMK to ultra-kinetic velocities just to see how much steel
we can punch through. During drift it takes on a topology like the
earth in the solar wind. It is ram and bow shock compressed. Fired
from orbit (with PLASMAK(tm) driven power) in certain sandy locations,
it would produce ingots of molten steel from intrusive heavy tracked
vehicles.
>Or, what about various MHD instabilities---in a tokamak, you can use
>the applied magnetic field as a knob to eliminate some of these,
>such as kinks. In the PLASMAK you have no such knob?
Most active plasma feed back systems aren't fast enough. Consider the
forces and mass of the plasma compared to the inductance of the
currents being "twiddled". It was tried on Syllac at LLNL.
Assuming no strong de-stabilizing externally applied magnetic field and
given its anomalously high conductivity, a well formed PMK topology
is IDEALLY MHD stable*. Consider its natural forms of BL and the solar
PMKs that drift for YEARS to the surface of the sun where they hatch
out an unsupported expansion cooled Kernel plasmas. Even our very
meager work so far have produced PMKs that have stable lifetimes a
nearly thousand times that of the DoE lab produced Spheromaks.
* M. Bussac, H. Furth, et al, "Low Aspect Ratio Limit of the Toroidal
Reactor: The Spheromak", IAEA CN-37, Innsbruck, 1978.
* M. Rosenbluth and M. Bussac, "MHD Stability of Spheromak, Nuc Fus 19,
489, 1979.
Fraering Philip
sci.space, as well as the space-tech mailing list.
I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.
BTW, you said it would cost about $10 to $20 million to build?
Phil Fraering
dlbr...@pc.usl.edu
P.S.: I have completely lost the number of that guy who saw ball lightning
after lightning hit his [deleted in case it's close to one of your proprietary
mechanisms]. Since you're generating them already, I doubt this matters
much...
Barry Merriman
>In article ba...@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>>One possible problem I sense with a PLASMAK is that it may be too
>>clever---i.e. there may be too much integration of the confinement,
>>power generation and heat removal facilities, not leaving enough room
>>for tweaking the design. In a tokamak, these are all handled in a modular
>>fashion, mostly independent of one another.
>
>But with PLASMAK(tm) there will be a much, much smaller component of heat
>to remove, meaning the plant size will be greatly reduced (or for
>PLASMAK(tm) converted sites, the power output very greatly increased
>using the original plant size). PLASMAK(tm) technology has no need
>for huge vacuum handling modules, or huge magnetic confinement modules,
>or the homopolar module needed for startup, or the substation sized
>power unit to keep its systems operating, or RF beam heating modules,
>or particle beam heating modules, or the monstrous control network,
>or the twenty foot thick concrete and steel containment building to
>handle a shorted toroidal field coil, or the long zig-zag corridors
>designed to dissipate the shock expansion wave, or the monster tritium
>handling building and apparatus, etc. A PLASMAK(tm) power unit works
>sort of like an auto engine (diesel), you just fill up the tank, switch
>it on and put the petal to the metal.
But the Tokamak people didn't invision the need for all these
immediately either---they were tacked on as needed.
For example, I gather the PLASMAK is heated resistively---but resistance
drops rapidly at high temperatures (which you plan to use,
for your P-B11), leading to reduced heating capability. So
what if resistive heating can't take you all the way? Can PLASMAK
be heated by external beams? This would seem to disrupt its magnetic
configuration, which is rather delicate being totally self induced.
Or, what about various MHD instabilities---in a tokamak, you can use
the applied magnetic field as a knob to eliminate some of these,
such as kinks. In the PLASMAK you have no such knob?
Barry Merriman
>
>Assuming no strong de-stabilizing externally applied magnetic field and
>given its anomalously high conductivity, a well formed PMK topology
>is IDEALLY MHD stable*. Consider its natural forms of BL and the solar
>PMKs that drift for YEARS to the surface of the sun where they hatch
>out an unsupported expansion cooled Kernel plasmas. Even our very
>meager work so far have produced PMKs that have stable lifetimes a
>nearly thousand times that of the DoE lab produced Spheromaks.
If it is such a preferred configuration, why haven't the
MICF folks met with great success---after all, it appears
they are trying to generate something very similar to the
PLASMAK configuration.
Paul A. Houle
I was interested in the PLASMAK (tm) rocket engines you were
talking about. What kind of thrust/weight and specific impulse would
you expect from them? Seems to me that you might still have problems
with radioactive contamination if you fire one at sea level -- seems to
me that the temperature/pressures that you'd need to push the boron
reaction through would also start the proton-proton chain. That produces
D, and the reaction p+D->T+gamma can then go through... And even a small
amount of tritium contamination would be considered intolerable by the
general public. (Of course, the reaction is multistep and neither have
a high cross-section, but still, it might be a problem.)
Also, how big of a PLASMAK (tm) can you generate today? How
long does it last? What does it look like? I looked at some of the
theory in one of your papers and the only thing that doesn't look totally
OK to me is the integrity of the outer mantle - what keeps it from mixing
with the outside fluid? I can understand how the kernel is confined
perfectly -- all my doubt rests in the mantle being confined by the
surrounding atmosphere.
I've noticed that there are at least four companies (including
yours) that are pursuing work on commercial fusion.) All are keeping a
pretty low profile -- is the threat of proliferation the major influence?
How big is Prometheus II now, and how many people do you have working
for you? What do you think about Maglich and his migma cell?
--
John Logajan
>>What do you think about Maglich and his migma cell?
>
>for going on 15 years now, with no earth-shaking results. What
>conclusion do you draw?
The only conclusion possible from the information given by you
is that it has been 15 years. No other conclusion is possible.
Maglich has advanced his concept almost exclusively by means of private
contributions. I'm sure Mr. Koloc, Bussard(sp?) et all can relate the
level of funding granted non-main-line approaches.
As far as I know, Maglich has maintained his migma at far higher energies
(temperatures) and confinement times than any other main-line device.
The third parameter, density, was the last remaining area to develop.
Throughout migma development, critics had claimed that at X density,
the migma would become unstable. Each time migma increased its density
the instabilities did *not* appear, so the critics kept (keep) moving
X out further. Now, of course, the critics are *sure* that the new
X value will prove the end of migma.
At low levels of funding, fusion ideas might never get developed, or
take long periods. This has *nothing* whatever to do with their
scientific viability.
--
- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- log...@ns.network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Paul M. Koloc
> I was interested in the PLASMAK (tm) rocket engines you were
>talking about. What kind of thrust/weight and specific impulse would
>you expect from them?
There are two types, direct and electric driven. The first utilizes and
heats the planetary gas as the mass propellant, and it is useful to lift
(lower) one out of deep gravitational wells, such as large solar and
planetary satellites. Specific thrust is large, but variable, and would
depend on the variable radial position (atmospheric density) with some
modification from an onboard mass bank.
The second type produces the energy as electric power which then drives a
PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid (PMK) accelerator for thrust. It can have a very high
specific thrust so just using the helium as the reacting mass can yield
very acceptable interplanetary trip times. For inter-planetary trips, the
payload to fuel ratio is still huge, so doubling or tripling the helium
mass by drawing from an onboard mass bank can significantly shorten the
trip time. I. e., with helium alone Mars might be two or three weeks,
but with enhanced reacting mass that could be cut to a week. There is no
need to lean out the reacting mass flow rate, below fusion ash production
levels, and consequently, there is no need to bring the specific impulse
up to the maximum where the reacting mass would be expelled at fractional
light speeds (.1 to .3c).
In this scenario the ship is accelerated and decelerated under power
(~50 gigawatts). For longer trips it's not bad because the solar gravity
climb is lessening and the acceleration could easily get the ship up to
several million+ mph. Consequently, one would NOT want to lose his power
until AFTER decelerating. In fact the destination "PLANET" wouldn't want
that to happen. I think with the accelerated phase but no UNDECELERATED
one, a nearby Mars return could easily wipe out Delaware. That's a fair
size lake.
>Seems to me that you might still have problems
>with radioactive contamination if you fire one at sea level -- seems to
>me that the temperature/pressures that you'd need to push the boron
>reaction through would also start the proton-proton chain.
Not even close.. although my rather thorough CTR fusion references do
not even list p-p so I can't give you a numerical value. Perhaps Ethan
can or one of the sci.astro buffs can help here. Figure a protium
density a few times 10^18 and a temperature of 350keV. What's the p-p
(protium-protium) yield from a duty burn of 120 milliseconds/second from
a 100 cc of burn volume?
> That produces
>D, and the reaction p+D->T+gamma can then go through.. And even a small
>amount of tritium contamination would be considered intolerable by the
>general public. (Of course, the reaction is multistep and neither have
>a high cross-section, but still, it might be a problem.)
The real problem for boost phase rocketry, is the millions of pounds of
chemical pollutants that are injected into the atmosphere with each
flight. Consider the number of flights to fuel a manned interplanetary
rocket with enough fuel for the Mars mission. Florida already has a
copious sea teratogenicity in the area of the Cape.
Most of the weight of a shuttle launch is fuel.. perhaps a one percent
of that mass is payload. If we could reduce the amount of fuel by a
factor of four million, then the mass of the payload could be increased
to two million pounds, and the payload to fuel ratio would go from 1%
to somewhere in the Oort. There are always ugly tradeoffs that pop up,
but this one isn't so bad. Consider a few ounces of helium and a
fraction of femto-mole of tritium spread over a hundred miles of
atmosphere by comparison with the amounts spewed out by the
aforementioned chemical technology.
Safety is important, and right now NASA shuttles fly close to the safety
margins. With this technology of fusion, the safety factor will not be
pushed until we start interstellar missions.
> Also, how big of a PLASMAK (tm) can you generate today? How
>long does it last? What does it look like?
Producing the entire size and lifetime range of observed Ball Lightning
(formed from lightning -- not volcanism) should not be a problem. Assuming
air composition, they look the same. . . probably. so far at least.
Composed in other gases a PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid (PMK) will have an altered
external appearance, especially in its brightness and hue.
> . . .. . I looked at some of the
>theory in one of your papers and the only thing that doesn't look totally
>OK to me is the integrity of the outer Mantle - what keeps it from mixing
>with the outside fluid? I can understand how the Kernel is confined
>perfectly -- all my doubt rests in the Mantle being confined by the
>surrounding atmosphere.
If one puts a white hot poker in to cold water, there is a film of
steam that forms over the rod, and surrounding that a layer of steam
heated boiling water. There is a thermal transition surrounding this
dynamic region, which can be convective. Now why is the boiling
layer confined? Actually, it is a renewing boundary encompassing an
energy source. Here the energy source is driven by the dense magnetic
energy of the Kernel and flows from hotter Kernel plasma it powers.
The Mantle is in an isobaric fluid pressure state. Further it is in
a fluid PRESSURE equilibrium with its surrounding fluid blanket. And
there is nothing to hold it together as in the example above. So it
exists as an exotic energy cascade. Well, almost, .. . it does
have a kind of spit or glue and baling wire. The Mantle has an embedded
stray magnetic field that is weak but effective, and it tangles and
sticks to the Mantle's plasma. Since the field is parallel to the
Mantle's surface over 90% of the total area, it also does an excellent
job at inhibiting thermal and electron diffusion. Nevertheless, that
field is just a fraction of the Mantle neutralized Kernel field.
Incidentally, in flames and high pressure open arcs, gravitationally
drivent convection is the largest cooling (heat loss) mechanism. The
presence of this stray field is strong enough to inhibit radial convection
within the Mantle (except at the poles). Strong convective blanket eddies
can, however, erode the outer covering of photochemicals such as ozone
nitrous oxides and their off spring, such as massive nitrogen pentoxide.
That's one of th reasons some Ball Lightnings are yellow to red orange
while others are bluish to white. (air case)
> I've noticed that there are at least four companies (including
>yours) that are pursuing work on commercial fusion.) All are keeping a
>pretty low profile -- is the threat of proliferation the major influence?
>How big is Prometheus II now, and how many people do you have working
>for you? What do you think about Maglich and his migma cell?
Please Name the others. I'm only aware of Maglich's and Bussard's
inspirations. A chap named Golka also was once promoting a fusion
concept. This list excludes others who are doing DoE more classical
stuff.
Threat: It's in the noise level of doing business. I might possibly tilt
a decision related to dealings with off shore interest.
Size: We are the smallest that I know about right now, but things change
and fluctuate, sometimes drastically just overnight. Of course, we are
just gearing up to do the serious financial wheeling that produces the
capital to reach our preliminary CBEF target.
Maglich: Several tough density orders of magnitude to struggle through
(but inspite of critics .. . so far so good). The real problem is the
low POWER DENSITY from a very restricted VOLUME of reacting fuel (about
tokamak densities. Each unit would be a sort of fusion "candle".
Incidentally, Maglich's and Bussard's past funding levels seem about
right for us to demonstrate CBEF with a compressed PMK fueled with D-He(3)
Paul M. Koloc
[Speaking of PLASMAK(tm) fusion ] ..
>Anyway---there will definitely be a lot of hard X rays and gammas
>released by a P-B11 reaction, so this will be a more significant
>radiaiton hazard.
This radiation will be thermalized in the liquid density blanket.
>In article <1990Nov28....@nmt.edu> pah...@nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) writes:
>> I've noticed that there are at least four companies (including
>>yours) that are pursuing work on commercial fusion.) All are keeping a
>>pretty low profile -- is the threat of proliferation the major influence?
>Just guessing: I doubt it! I think the projected capital outlay,
>and the probability of failure (the best scientist in the world
>have tried for 40 years!) are greater considerations.
Not a good comparison. If that previous effort was spent on
a restricted primative set of concepts, and more recently one, and
if that concept can't ever work, an infinite time and capital outlay
is not enough.
The collective intelligence of such organized efforts isn't additive.
In government collective programs one divides the average IQ of
the scientists working on the programs by the sum of the number
of scientists (or pi * number of bureaucrats). The problem is that
all of the fusion work down under the funding of the internationally
organized governmental efforts is not capable of reacting to
intellectual progress produced within.
For example: The dictum "Magnetic fields confine plasma" has a corollary:
"Plasmas can confine Magnetic fields". Yet the latter is totally
unknown to plasma orthodoxy, so how could they invent the PLASMAK(tm)
configuration? They couldn't even grasp that the concept, that putting
a coil current in the plasma to produce a Tokamak from the stellarator,
could be generalized and used to invent the Spheromak.
So, except for the early just getting started phase: "we'll back anything
that looks reasonable", the program has become stuck on the a single
dinosaur of a an idea that matches well its own collective personality.
Consequently most fusion money could have been spent blindly drilling
into a granite mountain. Even that wouldn't be so bad except that it
is incapable of backing out of its hole. It looks too big to drag out
by the tail, but there are procedures for handling animals in that
predicament.
Albert Boulanger
writes:
Producing the entire size and lifetime range of observed Ball Lightning
(formed from lightning -- not volcanism) should not be a problem. Assuming
air composition, they look the same. . . probably. so far at least.
Composed in other gases a PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid (PMK) will have an altered
external appearance, especially in its brightness and hue.
I have a reverse question to ask: Can one use your ball lightning
knowledge (possibly a theory of ball lightning?) to PREDICT the
circumstances in nature when they occur? (Such as positive return
strokes on the order of 300KA, say ;-)). Paul, you have been in this
business for a while! I just opened my copy of "Ball Lightning and Bead
Lightning" by James Barry, Plenum Press, 1980 in the back and saw:
"A New Model for Ball Lightning", P.M. Koloc, Neophysics Research, LTD,
College Park, MD, Unpublished *1977*.
================
Unrelated query:
Has anybody studied in the lab the the particle acceleration mechanism proposed in:
"Minimal Chaos and Stochastic Webs"
A.A. Chenikov, R.Z. Sagdeev, D.A. Usikov, M. Yi Zakharov, & G. M. Zaslavsky
Nature, Vol 326, 9 April 1987, 559-563
Abstract:
"Particles within a stochastic -- or chaotic -- web in phase space can
be accelerated to high energies even by weak magnetic fields, and the
properties of the web show similarities to the quasicrystal state. ..."
Yours in inquiry,
Albert Boulanger
aboul...@bbn.com
Paul M. Koloc
>>
>>Assuming no strong de-stabilizing externally applied magnetic field and
>>given its anomalously high conductivity, a well formed PMK topology
>>is IDEALLY MHD stable*. Consider its natural forms of BL and the solar
>>PMKs that drift for YEARS to the surface of the sun where they hatch
>>out an unsupported expansion cooled Kernel plasmas. Even our very
>>meager work so far have produced PMKs that have stable lifetimes a
>>nearly thousand times that of the DoE lab produced Spheromaks.
>If it is such a preferred configuration, why haven't the
>MICF folks met with great success---after all, it appears
>they are trying to generate something very similar to the
>PLASMAK configuration.
NOTE: .. .. well formed .. .. .
In MICF, the PMK is inertially confined by the mass of a metal shell.
Its compression comes about from the volume displacement produced by
the explosive displacement of the fuel by a vacuum magnetic field that
is produced by hyper thermalized electrons (currents). These currents
are not relativistic so they decay about a thousand times faster. Further
the pellet size is very small (compared to a typical gas formed PMK), so
its inductance is proportionally very much smaller. Other differences
such as the Z of the shell also lower conductivity expectations. The
product of conductivity and inductance results in a reduction of viable
lifetimes of orders of magnitude, or typically about one hundred
nanoseconds. Still that is three+ times the compression time of the
standard method, and since the densities are about the same and time
figures in the triple product, this results in an interesting approach.
The lack of a uniform equilibrium pressure boundary is also a serious
disadvantage.
One of the big problems is reliability of production. Most shots do not
form a PMK and those that do, will have a significant dispersion of grade.
Unfortunately, considering the avalanche and distortion statistics of high
short pulse power laser technology and the uniformity and smaller size of
the target hole compared to the pellet size of the standard approach, it
is amazing that this strategy works as well as it does.
================= Start Epic Descriptive Background ============== :-)
On a far, far away island State across a vast and seething sea, long
ago, the beginning MICF was an alternate inertial confinement scheme to
cajole the shell and inner fuel pellet to absorb more laser energy.
The standard approach was to bathe the OUTSIDE of the target in energy
by directing the laser light over the external surface of the compression
driver shell. That would heat the shell's surface to the blow off point
and the reaction pressure of its explosive expansion would then drive the
compression of the inner portion of the shell and the fuel contents.
At first ejected COLUMNS of the more mobile hot thermal electrons would
lead the way from the surface. This is followed by a plasma blow off
so very dense, it would absorb any additional incoming laser light or
reflect it away. Consequently, the ablation exposed instantaneous fresh
outer surfaces of the shell would suddenly see a dramatic drop off
in laser heating power from the initial impulse.
The electron columns are initially reminiscent of the shape of the central
column that rises from a milk drop splashing onto a surface of milk,
viewed caught in a freeze frame playback of high speed tape. These
electron shafts cover the outer surface, pointing outward like the
spikes on a medieval mace.
By making a multiplicity of beams coming in from all sides precisely
simultaneously, the non-uniform ablation could be reduced and the
total effective compression increased. Nevertheless the little electron
jets would occur and even drive small "solitons", a kind of micro smoke
or Spheromak ring like plasmoid. This is THE EFFECT that is used to
make an MICF PMK.
In the MICF scheme an optical hole was made through the metalized (gold)
compressor shell, and the laser energy is dumped into the INTERIOR.
The idea was that the Metal shell would be reflective and would trap
the light flux making it more likely that the darker target plasma
would pick up a greater amount of energy. What actually happened was
massive internal turbulence was caused by the non-uniform illumination
technique. The hot thermal electrons would very often form a few, but
very powerful current jets. The corresponding current driven magnetic
field would catastrophically cavitate in the plasmatized fuel medium
at a pressure massive enough to blast the plasma aside, in spite of the
fuel's liquid density. This process is not unlike the first steam bubble
suddenly forming at the bottom of a water pot just starting to boil.
Here also the lighter steam (magnetic field) displaces the liquid water
(plasma fuel), producing a short high pressure wave that results in a
bumping sound in the sides of the metal pot.
Back To MICF
Frequently, a Spheromak like object results. Here the magnetic flux is
trapped within the conducting shell; the current jets close to form a
highly magnetized plasma ring. The suddenly produced magnetic field
excite trapping currents in the shell, so these rings are magnetically
suspended and insulated within the surrounding strong magnetic field
and displacement produced vacuum region (Kernel). Because massive
amounts of energy are injected into miniscule fuel mass, temperatures
rip upwards to extremely high values. The resulting radiation plus the
residual laser energy ablate the compression shell producing even more
force to compression heat the nascent plasma ring. This also explodes
plasmatizes the metal shell and accelerates it inertially outward. NOTE:
the physical embodiment jumps in configuration space from a Spheromak
(rigid shell) to a PLASMAK(tm) with a Mantle plasma fluid shell.
Unfortunately, without surrounding fluid pressure as in the Sun and
standard PLASMAK(tm) technology, the expanding MICF PMK is unstable.
Compression energy scaling goes as a product of the applied pressure and
the volume of displacement. The problem here is that after the initial
formation with its magnetic field displacement compression, there isn't
any other source for continued compression (heating to thermonuclear
ignition and confinement).
In conclusion, by comparison to the MICF approach, a very wide range
of PMK's made the direct way are much more efficiently produced - cost
and energy wise, are formed containing relativistic currents, are
contained with a stabilizing isobaric external pressure boundary, and
can be compression heated strongly because of both their low initial
boundary pressure and their large initial volume.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1990 Paul M. Koloc
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| +Commercial*
| Paul M. Koloc, President (301) 445-1075 ***FUSION***
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 ***in the***
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; p...@prometheus.UUCP **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
==============================
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's coming, elsewhere?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1990Nov25.2...@nmt.edu> <7...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <1990Nov26....@prometheus.UUCP> <8...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <1990Nov27.161906.22864@pr <8...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Sender:
Reply-To: p...@promethe.UUCP (0000-Admin(0000))
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
Keywords:
In article <8...@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> ba...@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
Barry Merriman
[On commercial fusion ventures]
>
>Threat [of proliferation]: It's in the noise level of doing business.
>I might possibly tilt
>a decision related to dealings with off shore interest.
>
>Size: We are the smallest that I know about right now, but things change
>and fluctuate, sometimes drastically just overnight. Of course, we are
>just gearing up to do the serious financial wheeling that produces the
>capital to reach our preliminary CBEF target.
>
>
>Incidentally, Maglich's and Bussard's past funding levels seem about
>right for us to demonstrate CBEF with a compressed PMK fueled with D-He(3)
>
Hmmm...you know better than I, but I sorta doubt it. Bussard got a total
of what today would be about 10 million. Thats barely enough to keep
a staff of 50 people going for two years, much less acquire the needed
laboratory set up.
You approach may indeed not cost ``too much'', but I suspect there
are some ``startup costs'' prior to directly proceeding towards
a demo. These are one-time costs, but may be on the order of 10-20 million
themselves.
Why don't you take a lesson from Bussard's experience: sell your idea to the
Japanese. Bussard gave the U.S. a shot, and they didn't back him. Don't
expect things to be any different, especially with the fusion budget
and outlook worse than ever.
The japanese have the money (and lack of politics) to perhaps consider
your approach. I would make them your primary target for funds.
(I've always thought the Arab countries would also be a good target,
since they must realize their oil resources will not last long, and should
be looking to invest their current windfall in a replacement cash cow.
But maybe now is not a good time to ask...)
Isaac Dimitrovsky
Barry Merriman writes:
>The japanese have the money (and lack of politics) to perhaps consider
>your approach. I would make them your primary target for funds.
>
>(I've always thought the Arab countries would also be a good target,
I think both the Japanese and Arab countries are experiencing
a financial crunch right now. How about Edward Bass? If he can
afford $100 million for Biosphere 2, who knows?
Isaac Dimitrovsky
Paul M. Koloc
>In article <1990Nov30....@prometheus.UUCP> p...@prometheus.UUCP
>(Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>Producing the entire size and lifetime range of observed Ball Lightning
>>(formed from lightning -- not volcanism) should not be a problem. Assuming
>>air composition, they look the same. . . probably. so far at least.
>>Composed in other gases a PLASMAK(tm) plasmoid (PMK) will have an altered
>>external appearance, especially in its brightness and hue.
>I have a reverse question to ask: Can one use your ball lightning
>knowledge (possibly a theory of ball lightning?) to PREDICT the
>circumstances in nature when they occur? (Such as positive return
>strokes on the order of 300KA, say ;-)).
For sightings frequency of lightning induced Ball Lightning formed
near the ground, the likelihood is highest in regions of largest
lightning and wind turbulence activity, located closer to the
magnetic poles, and with a substantially large outdoorsy populations.
A study of BL observations by "electric linespersons" doing storm
repair work should be done. That would resolve both storm density
and intensity as well as population density (power usage).
Spurious factors other than peak current are important, so I would
give that one "3 or 4" of 10.
> ........ .. . . Paul, you have been in this
>business for a while! I just opened my copy of "Ball Lightning and Bead
>Lightning" by James Barry, Plenum Press, 1980 in the back and saw:
>"A New Model for Ball Lightning", P.M. Koloc, Neophysics Research, LTD,
>College Park, MD, Unpublished *1977*.
That was supposed to have been a privately circulated primitive version
or "hypothesis". Oh well, just can't keep a lid on anything. J. Barry
digs DEEP for reference material.
Paul M. Koloc
>
>>Incidentally, Maglich's and Bussard's past funding levels seem about
>>or PMK fueled with D-He(3)
>Hmmm...you know better than I, but I sorta doubt it. Bussard got a total
>of what today would be about 10 million. Thats barely enough to keep
>a staff of 50 people going for two years, much less acquire the needed
>laboratory set up.
Ah! The pound of flesh... are you a banker??? The meaning had to
do with the difficulty of raising the funds, so VALUE is the key..
value of the bucks raised at that time and ITS equivalent amount today.
And even then, the number is UNACCELERATED for overhead.
>You approach may indeed not cost ``too much'', but I suspect there
>are some ``startup costs'' prior to directly proceeding towards
>a demo. These are one-time costs, but may be on the order of 10-20 million
>themselves.
I'm sure you aren't speaking of Maglich's "art collection" or Bussard and
partner's very expensive super luxury car rental company.
Otherwise, it depends on the operation and the goals. The frolicking and
splurging would come much later.
>Why don't you take a lesson from Bussard's experience: sell your idea to the
>Japanese. Bussard gave the U.S. a shot, and they didn't back him. Don't
>expect things to be any different, especially with the fusion budget
>and outlook worse than ever.
If it gets very much worse, then tokamak would fail and things would
really look up for getting something done with private AND government
funds.
>The Japanese have the money (and lack of politics) to perhaps consider
>your approach. I would make them your primary target for funds.
Had money.. :-) Big banks, sky high real estate, -- down, down...
how far is down?? ? Those people are very conservative and aren't
really big on radical new concepts from the wings of the distribution
function. They have their own encumbrances. Remember Bussard's idea
wasn't nearly as radical as this one is. Amdahl and a number of others
have had some very difficult times with the Japanese.
>(I've always thought the Arab countries would also be a good target,
>since they must realize their oil resources will not last long, and should
>be looking to invest their current windfall in a replacement cash cow.
>But maybe now is not a good time to ask...)
Ahh! Investment! The banker's concern showing through?
Israel and Japan. They need oil.. NOW!!!
However, I could have it backwards, as this is not my area at all.
Perhaps you have some more definite ideas you could e-mail to me.
The biggest application of all this power and energy is space. The
second is to drive the overpopulation of the earth"s" (all the grid
electric power you want), and that one pushes the third, which is
to drive war. Fortunately, the first will take a few centuries to
"reach boredom" before # 2 and 3 really come on line.
Then think of all those PLASMAK(tm) energized family owned asteroid
micro-earths and other moonlets. They would be hanging around
stargazing, preserving the fauna, and flora and staying ready to
replenish things on the "big" planets every once in a while. After
that things will probably splash back and forth until, we start
populating other star systems.
Do we really want to do this?
Big responsibility
Bigger fun
Christopher Neufeld
>
>(~50 gigawatts). For longer trips it's not bad because the solar gravity
>climb is lessening and the acceleration could easily get the ship up to
>several million+ mph. Consequently, one would NOT want to lose his power
>until AFTER decelerating. In fact the destination "PLANET" wouldn't want
>that to happen. I think with the accelerated phase but no UNDECELERATED
>one, a nearby Mars return could easily wipe out Delaware. That's a fair
>size lake.
>
before starting deceleration, it would miss the target planet by
millions of kilometres. For a one week trip from Mars to Earth, if the
power failed before starting deceleration you'd miss the Earth by about
nine million kilometres. If you didn't miss the planet it means your
power plant failed only at the very last minute, and the energy you'd
have would be no more than that of a meteor of the same mass. Even
that would be difficult to plan. It's hard to hit things unless you
try.
With such a large payload to fuel/reaction mass ratio as you're
describing, if a power plant failure seemed likely they'd probably
include a backup, or two running in parallel. A failure in one of the
two would just mean a month or two extra travel time to match up with
the target again. Such a large available delta-v would also make
possible the old science fiction plot element, the space rescue.
--
Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student |
neu...@helios.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | S = k log W
cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-micol}.cts.com | Boltzmann's epitaph
"Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
Paul M. Koloc
>In article <1990Nov30....@prometheus.UUCP> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>
>>In this scenario the ship is accelerated and decelerated under power
>>(~50 gigawatts). For longer trips it's not bad because the solar gravity
>>climb is lessening and the acceleration could easily get the ship up to
>>several million+ mph. Consequently, one would NOT want to lose his power
>>until AFTER decelerating. In fact the destination "PLANET" wouldn't want
>>that to happen. I think with the accelerated phase but no UNDECELERATED
>>one, a nearby Mars return could easily wipe out Delaware. That's a fair
>>size lake.
> Space is big. It's very big. If your spacecraft lost its powerplant
>before starting deceleration, it would miss the target planet by
>millions of kilometres.
This is true even at much smaller "miss-distances" that may occur.
Seeing probes surviving encounters with planetary rings and a comet,
I'm inclined to agree the likelihood of such an event is very small.
This posting was made on inspiration of a rerun of "[the crash of] The
Silver Streak". The numbers were given to emphasize the maximum kinetic
energy involved in making such power-on trips. As suggested this number
was estimated for a "short trip" distance between earth and Mars when
the planetary separation is minimal as it is now. Longer distances
would of course produce even higher kinetic energies. The energy of a
large hydrogen bomb is tiny by comparison.
Still the problem is more significant with regard to the outer planets
and their moons. It also depends on the kind of approach that is made
to the target gravitational well (planet). A power trajectory that was
slightly outside the orbital plane of the planets would reduce
such a small possibility considerably.
> . It's hard to hit things unless you try.
My guess is that if PLASMAK(tm) power plants work as well as expected,
the human population will jump and the number of interplanetary flights
a couple of centuries from now would dwarf the number of commercial
aviation flights today. With the independence this technology might
bring, the current level of control by the world's FAA type agencies
may not be matched. But, it is far more likely that the most serious
risk by far (as you suggest here) will be from disgruntled space jockeys
(family, country, company, confederation, etc.) that have a bursting
desire to make the ultimate plunge. Consequently, it may be premature
to rule such events out, completely.
> .. . . Such a large available delta-v would also make
>possible the old science fiction plot element, the space rescue.
In the dirty snow ball fields of the Oort. .. . How romantic?