USAF Energy Vision

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

USAF Energy Vision

Post by DeltaV »

Energy Horizons
United States Air Force
Energy S&T Vision
2011-2026
AF/ST TR 11-01
31 January 2012


Not one peep about p-11B fusion, Polywell, FRC, DPF or LENR.

Sad. What a miserable waste of my tax dollars.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Re: USAF Energy Vision

Post by MSimon »

DeltaV wrote:Energy Horizons
United States Air Force
Energy S&T Vision
2011-2026
AF/ST TR 11-01
31 January 2012


Not one peep about p-11B fusion, Polywell, FRC, DPF or LENR.

Sad. What a miserable waste of my tax dollars.
Is this a good place to start a Navy vs AF fight? That said it is sad.

OTOH when the Polywell stuff was fresh ('07 IIRC) I had a group of exAF officers who are now R&D guys contact me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

I'd love to see USAF and USN try to outdo each other on Polywell funding.

Not politically correct, though (therefore unlikely to happen), as it doesn't involve solar, wind, etc.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

They probably spent more on that worthless "vision" paper than all Polywell funding to date.

Skipjack
Posts: 6812
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

They probably spent more on that worthless "vision" paper than all Polywell funding to date.
I think that this is actually quite likely.

kurt9
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: USAF Energy Vision

Post by kurt9 »

DeltaV wrote:Energy Horizons
United States Air Force
Energy S&T Vision
2011-2026
AF/ST TR 11-01
31 January 2012


Not one peep about p-11B fusion, Polywell, FRC, DPF or LENR.

Sad. What a miserable waste of my tax dollars.
These things are showing promise. But until I see working reactors, I think they still must be considered speculative. At least the Navy is funding the most promising of these, which is the polywell.

It is the nature of bureaucracy to be averse to any kind of innovation or risk.

What I would like to see is more on Thorium nuclear power (LFTR, MSR, etc.) as well as the various small modular reactors being commercialized. If stuff like polywell or LENR do not show up, advanced fission power is the future of energy production.

Skipjack
Posts: 6812
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Actually, I (as do Slough, Rostoker, Art Carlson and others) that FRC- colliding beam reactors have a higher chance of success than Polywell, even.

Enginerd
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:29 am

Post by Enginerd »

Skipjack wrote:Actually, I (as do Slough, Rostoker, Art Carlson and others) that FRC- colliding beam reactors have a higher chance of success than Polywell, even.
I for one would be ecstatic if both solutions prove practical...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick

Skipjack
Posts: 6812
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I for one would be ecstatic if both solutions prove practical...
Well that of course would be the best of all possible outcomes. Personally, I have given up on being optimistic about anything lately.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

Presuming the Polywell works, the navy can certainly use in on their ships. A fusion powered aircraft are certain to be much harder, if the weight doesn't kill the idea outright.

On a tangent, fusion ramjet cruise missile with an unshielded reactor?

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

On a tangent, fusion ramjet cruise missile with an unshielded reactor?
Like Pluto? Be fun.

According to all we know at this point, you can probably fit a polywell on a plane the size of a 747. Your payload will suffer greatly however. Likely a polywell world would see a more flying wing type configuration to increase usable volume while keeping within the limits of airports, at least until they can expand to the new, permanent system.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

ANTIcarrot
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:47 pm
Contact:

Post by ANTIcarrot »

I see the project limits itself to goals achievable within 15 years.

The F-22 took 24 years from initial requirement to entering service. Development of the Nimitz class would only just barely fit in that time period.

I understand the USAF wanting to identify achievable goals, but I wonder if they understand that real improvement takes time; and usually longer than 15 years.
Some light reading material: Half Way To Anywhere, The Rocket Company, Space Technology, The High Fronter, Of Wolves And Men, Light On Shattered Water, The Ultimate Weapon, any Janes Guide, GURPS Bio-Tech, ALIENS Technical Manual, The God Delusion.

Skipjack
Posts: 6812
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

real improvement takes time; and usually longer than 15 years.
Only if the government does it.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

How bout if they use it as the powerplant of a very large dirigible. May not even need to be helium filled, just a massive hot air machine.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

20 MW of waste heat from a reactor could heat a BIG hot air dirigible.
(estimate based on a 100MW reactor with direct conversion system).

Post Reply