richard Dell interview -claims space propulsion breakthrough

[GIThruster]

ISS specific: it would seem that even at 10 times the thrust of other ion thrusters this concept would still involve continuous thrust periods and given the ISS primary role of microgravity research any low thrust long duration drives are contraindicated... whether the ions be propelled by solar-powered grids or fusion processes.

Actually I think the reverse--ideally the thrust is so low that it balances the drag from the atmosphere and the station experiences a perfect time like geodesic--no gravity at all.

[chrismb]

IIRC, Miley is Emeritus, has earned his free lab space through decades of teaching at Urbana and isn't looking for money. He's just looking for results. How can you have a beef with that?

So, let me get this right... if I contact Miley and Urbana and say 'here is an experiment that I think is more important than Miley's work, so can I have his lab space' and - just for the point I am making - let's say he actually thinks 'wow, this is real cool, this guy has already come a lot further than me and this work should be supported' then do you think Miley would then say either A: "Please come and take over my lab space", or B: "This is good work you are doing, so you need to go find some university support for it somewhere, because we're full right now!".

Frankly, A sounds unreasonable to, even, me! I wouldn't expect him to go with B. But my point is that with finite resources in a finite number of universities, someone somewhere has to think about chucking out one experiment for another - yet no-one is prepared to follow option B.

This is just human nature; you may drop a single piece of litter and think 'well, there's so much litter in the world, my bit doesn't matter'. Well, it does. Everyone must live by the standards they would hope to see others, else it falls into the shambles that it is falling into. Someone needs to decide which resources need to go to which experiments, and so long as there is tenure then that whole process is distorted, because those with tenure won't want to give it up - even [or, perhaps, especially!] for an experiment better or more likely to progress than theirs.

It's a bit like when someone wants to build an incinerator, or a prison, in their neighbourhood. 'Not in my backyard' attitude. Well, it has to go somewhere because society needs it. And when a society needs the best experiments, who's making the decisions then? Well, it's the guys who are already in control of those facilities... and whadaya think their decision will be!?!

Does this explain my beef?

[EDIT: PS, please don't red this as me having the slightest complaint with Miley. By all accounts, he is very personable and enthusiastic about such work. I'm just trying to lay out how the world works, and my opinion is that tenure is not a very optimum basis on which to decide experimental direction, because however much good will there is on the tenured person's behalf, they are naturally going to prefer to see their own research done, even if they know it is likely less beneficial and more risky than someone else's idea.]

[kurt9]

They are starting with Q< 1 devices that are better than current ion thrusters. Space applications are less demanding than power generation.

It is much easier to develop fusion powered spacecraft than fusion power energy.

Current launch costs are $2000-20,000 per pound. Propulsion beyond orbit is also not very good and the station keeping for satellites is also not so good. For launch the system would only need to work for a few minutes. For beyond orbit there can also be lower reliability versus fusion to power the world. Fusion to power the world would take many tens of gigawatts to begin to have an impact. A few tens of megawatts and you have revolutionized space travel for trips to Mars.

So fusion for space travel first because it is thousands of times lower demands to have a huge impact. Thousands of times less power, can be thousands of times more expensive, can work for shorter times and less reliably, and there would be less environmental study and legal issues.
the downside for space applications is space rating and weight, but IEC fusion can have very low weight and can scale down.

Of course EMC2 or these others can crack power generation too all the better.

George Miley has been building IEC fusion systems for a long time. The work is there. It is just a different approach.

EMC2 is funded by the Navy so they need a particular kind of reactor to meet their applications (powering destroyers, frigates and air craft carriers and submarines)

The ISS (Space station) uses 8 tons of fuel per year to maintain orbit. 8000 lbs. It costs $2000-20,000 per pound. $16 million to $160 million to launch fuel. Same kind of situation for communication and other satellites. An early version of this that is better than an ion thruster could reduce fuel demand down to 600 lbs.

100 KW to 1 MW systems would be a big early market

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/iec-th ... ering.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/review ... ed-in.html

This is correct for another reason as well. Space launch and deep space transportation are a much higher value added application than electricity generation itself. New technologies are usually commercialized for the highest value added application first. This is because such applications can pay for the upfront development and commercialization costs more easily. Also, new technologies are usually expensive when they first come out. As the technology matures and costs come down, then it is applied to lower value added (but larger total market size) applications over time.

[93143]

the p-15N reaction

Isn't one of the products ¹²C? I can see the interior of the reactor getting very black in a big hurry, to say nothing of the vacuum pumps...

Other than that, yeah, it looks reasonable to me...

[chrismb]

12C. Indeed. A very good first-wall material that doesn't, itself, activate. (JET is still graphite walled, I think, until it gets its ITER-like beryllum wall installed - please correct me if that is in error).

I forgot to mention that was another benefit.

Clearly, if the reactor chamber has electrodes in it then you don't want their stand-offs coated in conductive material, but that'd happen (due to sputtering of the electrodes) anyway. So, I'd suggest making the electrodes out of carbon aswell, and then every so often you'd flood the chamber with oxygen and reduce down any surface depositions of carbon (as - again another good benefit - carbon is one of the very few gaseous oxides, so it can then be pumped away).

Thanks for reminding me of those additional benefits!

Of course, the reality in a 'real' MW reactor is that there'd be a lot of carbon, but bear in mind that it is usually quire practical to construct shields around the stand-offs that shadow the stand-offs in the direction of the reaction region. This is known engineering, from sputter-coating technologies.

[GIThruster]

IIRC, Miley is Emeritus, has earned his free lab space through decades of teaching at Urbana and isn't looking for money. He's just looking for results. How can you have a beef with that?

So, let me get this right... if I contact Miley and Urbana and say 'here is an experiment that I think is more important than Miley's work, so can I have his lab space' and - just for the point I am making - let's say he actually thinks 'wow, this is real cool, this guy has already come a lot further than me and this work should be supported' then do you think Miley would then say either A: "Please come and take over my lab space", or B: "This is good work you are doing, so you need to go find some university support for it somewhere, because we're full right now!".

Frankly, A sounds unreasonable to, even, me! I wouldn't expect him to go with B. But my point is that with finite resources in a finite number of universities, someone somewhere has to think about chucking out one experiment for another - yet no-one is prepared to follow option B.

Chris, you're posing a false choice. Both your options are, quite frankly; utterly demented. Miley has earned his place through decades of hard work. Honestly, you'd need to be pretty delusional to contact someone with such a proposal. Why don't you go ahead and do that?

[chrismb]

Chris, you're posing a false choice. Both your options are, quite frankly; utterly demented.

Exactly my point.

My point is that in the current culture of science that we work with both outcomes do sound ridiculous. But there are a finite number of projects that can be run at a finite number of universities, and if your argument is that, in this case, Miley has spent a lifetime at the university and therefore gets to choose which projects run and which don't, then how are you proposing projects that don't enjoy the support of tenured staff get on? You make it sound simply like a 'first come, first served' lottery kinda choice, because those that get a foot on a low rung then enjoy unchallenged 'rights' to resources forever after (unless they choose to step off, for their own reasons).

Why do you think there are the likes of Focus Fusion and General Fusion and the countless other hopefuls that never even get a look in on public funding, yet the whole projects of which cost less than a single sub- project of a sub-project of ITER? ..My opinion is that they have no stakeholder interest embedded in any universities, and those at universities are not moved around enough to get fresh ideas going. That's not their fault, they are just choosing the best options presented to them in the circumstances they are in. I'm saying it is the problem of the academic culture we have these days. Too much 'tenure' and not enough encouragement for new ideas to come in and get tested out.

[93143]

A nuclear reactor that also produces carbon dioxide? Greenpeace is gonna love this...

(No, I'm not seriously arguing this as a significant disadvantage...)

[DeltaV]

Coca-Cola, Pepsico, etc. would love that...

Two questions about the p-15N reaction:
1) Gammas?
2) Rough estimate of power out compared to same size p-11B?

[GIThruster]

Chris, you're posing a false choice. Both your options are, quite frankly; utterly demented.

Exactly my point.

My point is that in the current culture of science that we work with both outcomes do sound ridiculous. But there are a finite number of projects that can be run at a finite number of universities, and if your argument is that, in this case, Miley has spent a lifetime at the university and therefore gets to choose which projects run and which don't, then how are you proposing projects that don't enjoy the support of tenured staff get on? You make it sound simply like a 'first come, first served' lottery kinda choice, because those that get a foot on a low rung then enjoy unchallenged 'rights' to resources forever after (unless they choose to step off, for their own reasons).

Every university is different and every situation is different, but common sense (which you seem to lack) remains the same. Those academics who have spent their lives doing research at universities, are first in line for lab space, etc. The universities file for grants based upon who they have on staff, what other resources are unique to their situation, etc. Now you're pretending there is a "merit" system of some sort, where some mysterious eye in the sky will dictate from above what projects any particular university ought to support, regardless of staff etc. You're just not making sense.

If you want to work in academia, you start by teaching and you pay your dues. You research. You publish. You teach the best minds all you can. If then after a lifetime, you have gathered around you the consequences of a life well lived, there really ought not be any ignorant, maladjusted skeptics impugning your reputation with no evidence and no knowledge of your situation.

[chrismb]

Every university is different and every situation is different, but common sense (which you seem to lack)

I don't quite think you have ever got this conversation-thing worked out, have you?

The way it works is that one person stimulates a debate by expressing an opinion. Then another expresses a different opinion and/or goes through each point of the proposition, with comments in support of, or that oppose, them.

You seem to have completely defeated this in almost every post you've made on this forum. You appear to only want to quote, or are only capable of, rhetoric [with as much personalised venom as you can add to it] about matters of status quo without any recourse to actually coming up with some new ideas or opinions of your own. Your comments have the intellectual edge of a brick that couldn't pass the grade to make it into a wall.

If you want to work in academia, you start by teaching and you pay your dues.

I was a Research Fellow in computational electromagnetics for 4 years. The work I did in that time, jointly with one other Research Fellow, was rated as 'tending to Internationally Leading' by EPSRC. So, by your favoured 'I'm-more-important-than-you-so-my-argument-is-better' criterion of 'debate', my opinion counts for more than yours.

[GIThruster]

In instances like the one you're considering, it is often the case that the Emeritus in question holds certain patents, and that his university is jointly assigned to those patents. This often results in said Emeritus having access to a lab in order to continue his research.

These are the kinds of real world facts that you seem oblivious to. In a complete absence of facts, you have posed a handful of truly crackpot notions, and even suggested that one of the most brilliant minds of our age, someone held in the highest esteem by all who know him; should be out of a job because he didn't turn in results quickly enough to suit you.

You're not merely expressing your opinions, Chris. You're posing complete nonsense, destructive kinds of nonsense; and impugning a man who is at the top of his game.

How did you think people here should treat with such lunacy?

[chrismb]

You're... impugning a man who is at the top of his game.

I presume you are suggesting I have impugned Miley. Can you please repeat, in a quote, what I have said that impugns him?

How did you think people here should treat with such lunacy?

Yours, or mine?

[GIThruster]

George Miley has been building IEC fusion systems for a long time.

...I suggest it's probably a good time for him to give up, then, if he still has no practical bit of kit he can hand over to someone to test out and/or make use of.

As I suggested, self-aggrandisement appears to be a necessary feature in the current culture of gravy-train science, and to best achieve that function it is consequent that they displace others in a manner that others can't make gains for real attention over their own work.

This debate has run here before and replies to this line of mine tend to run along the line of 'everyone can join in'. But, y'know, there's only so much space at the front of the crowd and if the ones there already like it then they won't want anyone else getting attention. It is just the way of human nature. Attention is distracted away from the talented and hard-working, when there are so many blaggers and schmoozers who have pushed their way to the front with tall stories of romantic notions of intergalactic travel.

--I suggest it's probably a good time for him to give up

--a necessary feature in the current culture of gravy-train science

--when there are so many blaggers and schmoozers

I'm done with this conversation. I can't imagine how I continually fall for the trap of a social misfit , trying to provoke a dispute so he can try to prove he's clever.

Just FYI, Miley is by all reports an excellent man, and you don't deserve to walk in his shadow, let alone run your mouth saying he should give up his life's work, calling it "gravy-train science" and implying he's a "blaggar and schmoozer". I'm sure you do it here because you know of course, if you did it in person, you'd get the slap therapy you so richly deserve.

[kunkmiester]

No-one has ever repeated my p-15N suggestion, that I have noticed, but if you really want to talk about the long-term implications for all of this, then take a look at p-15N. Not such good outputs, but very clean and very easy to handle the non-toxic gaseous fuels to a degree that wanting to use p-11B looks almost irresponsible!

I've mentioned particular uses for it in other threads, I was the one that originally proposed that if polywell works, larger reactors should have the ability to burn other fuel combinations--it was originally a sci-fi scene point: imagine exploring the ruins of a dead alien civilization and finding football stadium sized reactors to burn a variety of fuel.

IIRC the nitrogen reaction also has no gamma rays or anything like that. My thought was that you would use a nitrogen reactor on your space shuttle, where the weight requirements would welcome a system that doesn't need the shielding mass. Orbit-to-orbit and surface power systems would use boron since they don't have to worry about mass ratios as much.

To add something else useful to the discussion, a reactor for propulsion doesn't really need to be very efficient. It just needs to be cheaper in regards to money and mass than current systems. 5 seconds ISP can beat a million if it's cheap enough.

another thing here is that if you attach a turbine to the end of a rocket, you can run a generator. All you need is really really cheap rocket fuel/power.