Arguments for not building BFRs

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Thanks for the help on that little exercise people.

To the folks concerned about BFR fuel scarcity, A store bought box of a common laundry enhancer, Twenty Mule Team Borax, contains enough B11 fuel for a BFR polywell to light up a small town for more than a day. Cost at retail, $4.00

At that cost, it could make economic sense to use the hydroelectric reservoir to flood the fish ladder so that we can eat salmon at a table lighted by BFR fusion.
Aero

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Re: Arguments for not building BFRs

Post by Helius »

rj40 wrote:Assuming BFRs work as we all hope, what are some of the potential arguments against integrating working BFRs into human society? Not just stuff that would be easy to shoot down, at least to your average voter, but tougher arguments.
Here's a fetch: Extremely ubiquitous BFRs will turn a fuel's resource problem into a materials resource problem. They will also make space travel and space mining common. The problem comes with the mining of, first, near earth Asteroids, and later the Asteroid belt in order to solve the BFR caused materials resource problems.

The real problem is all the dust that is kicked up from all this mining activity in the inner solar system and the asteroid belt. This prolific activity and resulting dust will make space travel very hazardous, from NEO to Jupiter.

On the plus side, we will be able to see hundreds of shooting stars every night. :)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

With all that alpha flux, the magrid super-charges, rapidly deepens the well, increases the flux, and off it goes to the races, KABOOM!!!

Oy, vatt a day!

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

choff wrote:I've had a hard time finding 20 Mule Team Borax the last few years, somebody said there was a strike at the Borax mine. When I was a kid you could get a 20 Mule team model kit. Anybody know if they're still available?
I don't know, but they don't advertise such a thing on the box. I do know that in southern California (San Diego) I had to buy a product named "Boraxo" also provided under the Twenty Mule Team label, which seemed to be the same thing. I didn't check the ingredients, though.
Aero

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

Here is about the global warming from hat pollution. I’m convinced what this becomes the new dogma of the radical greenish if the BFR works.

http://www.ltu.se/shb/2.1492/1.5035

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!gcgw-bn.pdf

http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!no ... %203-4.pdf

long url - science direct


It’s not a complicated model. It can be easy to support or debunk.
If I understand it right…
The sun give us 1,5 bilion TWh every year.
The nuclear power to day gives 10 000 TWh every year. Most of it becomes heat.

rj40
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:31 am
Location: Southern USA

Re: Arguments for not building BFRs

Post by rj40 »

Helius wrote: Here's a fetch: Extremely ubiquitous BFRs will turn a fuel's resource problem into a materials resource problem. They will also make space travel and space mining common. The problem comes with the mining of, first, near earth Asteroids, and later the Asteroid belt in order to solve the BFR caused materials resource problems.
This sort of reminds me of an episode from that TV show called The Lone Gunmen (an X-files spinoff):

http://www.tv.com/the-lone-gunmen/like- ... view;recap

They find a car that can run on water, but everyone decides to keep it hush-hush because the environment would be destroyed. I found this a bizarre idea. In hindsight, I kind of think the writer(s)/producer(s) just didn’t want to have to keep track of yet another alternate reality.

So, do you think the concept of a working BFR might be susceptible to this argument? The argument might go something like: “sure, we can curb greenhouse gas emissions as well as money exports to terrorists, but now everyone is going to want bigger homes, more cars, more air conditioning, and the like. Where is all the raw material going to come from?” This argument doesn’t hold water for me, but I wonder if it would be enough for other people to slow BFR development?

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

The materials resource problem may not be so big. Cheap energy may make recycling more effective and make it possible to get metals from sea water.

Yes its can be more environmental problems from cheap energy from BFR.
But these problems must be solved on by one and not all in one solution by bans the BFR.
In the big picture the BFR solves fare more than it mess up.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

Here are some critics of profesor Nordels theory.
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/gl ... -heat.html
I have also find that Nordell have make “research” on “divining rod is used for prospecting water or ores”
http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5014!dowsing.pdf
But this will not stop eko-fundamentalists to use the theory.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

When the greens support the greenhouse gas theories, they stand with a large body of scientists, decades of well-funded research, etc. Nordell's stuff is just bad science, and obviously bad at that. I think he's pushing it just for fun, and nobody will take it seriously. Or if the greens do, it'll end up seriously hurting their movement.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Torulf2 wrote:There is a theory that global warming not comes from greenhouse gas but from the heat produced by fossil fuel burning and nuclear reactors, and the heat from devises using the energy from this sources. If so, fusion would not be a bright idea.
But these seams not are so likely. But some environmentalists maybe change their ideas of the nature of the global warming.
The big deal is the "water vapor multiplier" assumed to be 3X or 4X. Recent research claims it is actually 1.1X - of course that is disputed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply