Tri Alpha recruiting

Munchausen · Post by **Munchausen** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:34 pm

http://www.jobs-salary.com/tri-alpha-energy-salary.htm

Staff Scientist Tri Alpha Energy $75k Foothill Ranch, CA (09/2004)
salary of the position in CA, Foothill Ranch, this employer
employers of the position, jobs of the employer
Accelerator Scientist Tri Alpha Energy $80k Foothill Ranch, CA (05/2006)
salary of the position in CA, Foothill Ranch, this employer
employers of the position, jobs of the employer
Electrical Control Engineer Tri Alpha Energy $126k Foothill Ranch, CA (05/2006)
salary of the position in CA, Foothill Ranch, this employer
employers of the position, jobs of the employer
Mechanical Engineer Tri Alpha Energy $55k Foothill Ranch, CA (12/2006)
salary of the position in CA, Foothill Ranch, this employer
employers of the position, jobs of the employer
Diagnostic Scientist Tri Alpha Energy $86k Rancho Santa Margarita, CA (07/2007)
salary of the position in CA, Rancho Santa Margarita, this employer
employers of the position, jobs of the employer
Mechanical Engineer Tri Alpha Energy $80k Foothill Ranch, CA (06/2009)
salary of the position in CA, Foothill Ranch, this employer
employers of the position, jobs of the employer
Scientist Tri Alpha Energy $92k

A perfect opportunity to stop wasting time at talk-polywell, get a shave and a haircut, and go for a decent job instead.

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:59 pm

things are starting to move then. i just found out that Rostoker is 80 years old! he better get a move on.

Tri Alpha still ultra-secretive it seems. perhaps we will glean more on FRC from John Slough if he ever attracts sufficient funding.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:59 pm

It would appear that Tri-Alpha has moved beyond the computer modeling stage.

Munchausen · Post by **Munchausen** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:37 pm

A recent patent

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100002823

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:48 pm

Tri Alpha still ultra-secretive it seems. perhaps we will glean more on FRC from John Slough if he ever attracts sufficient funding.

Yeah, Slough has been more forthcoming with information. I think, he is on the right track and I do hope that he will find the funding that the needs.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Skipjack wrote:
Tri Alpha still ultra-secretive it seems. perhaps we will glean more on FRC from John Slough if he ever attracts sufficient funding.
Yeah, Slough has been more forthcoming with information. I think, he is on the right track and I do hope that he will find the funding that the needs.

A recent patent

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100002823

Interesting, this seems to suggest that they are, against all odds, aiming for aneutronic fusion with their FRC- device. IIRC, then Slough is currently focusing on DT fusion, right?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:38 pm

Munchausen wrote:A recent patent

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100002823

Pdf version for better reading:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20100002823.pdf

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:41 am

Interesting that Tri-Alpha, Polywell. and Focus Fusion all may be trying for p-B11 fusion this year. As best I can tell it hasn't been done in reactor-type machines before.

Starting to look like we might actually have economic fusion power in 10-15 years.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:39 am

Starting to look like we might actually have economic fusion power in 10-15 years.

If one of them succeeds, I bet with you, governments and private enterprise will throw so much money at this, that we will have it 5 years later. There are so many investors waiting for an actually working solution that they can throw their money at.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:24 pm

Skipjack wrote:
Starting to look like we might actually have economic fusion power in 10-15 years.
If one of them succeeds, I bet with you, governments and private enterprise will throw so much money at this, that we will have it 5 years later. There are so many investors waiting for an actually working solution that they can throw their money at.

I agree.

However, if all of them fail, my money's on fission concepts like LFTR and the traveling wave reactor. As compared with the energy output, there is almost as much minable Thorium in the Earth as Boron. The traveling wave reactor can burn either thorium or natural uranium and no isotopic separation is necessary, thus reducing the possibility of manufacturing weapons grade material.

In any case, the energy future is good.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:57 pm

However, if all of them fail, my money's on fission concepts like LFTR and the traveling wave reactor.

I fully and wholeheartedly agree.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:21 pm

I say this because, although Slough's FRC concept is good (probably the best of the D-T fusion concepts), Tritium breeding seems to be a major hurtle for a pure fusion energy generation.

Also, the neutron flux, which is about 20 times greater than equivalent fission processes (based on output energy), makes any D-T fusion concept more suited for fusion/fission hybrid process than fusion only (lots of neutrons, better to use them than to just throw them away).

There is so much Thorium and Uranium in the Earth that we have plenty of time (like thousands of years) to figure something new if all of the current fusion concepts fail.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:36 pm

Yeah, those traveling wave reactors sure sound good to me. We just have to get them going already.
Biggest problem with fission is the fact that the public is suffering from some kind of mass hysteria when it comes to nuclear fission power.
"no we dont want that powerplant here, because it is nucular and has radation in it"...
Yeah, what can you do?

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm

kurt9 wrote:However, if all of them fail, my money's on fission concepts like LFTR and the traveling wave reactor. As compared with the energy output, there is almost as much minable Thorium in the Earth as Boron. The traveling wave reactor can burn either thorium or natural uranium and no isotopic separation is necessary, thus reducing the possibility of manufacturing weapons grade material.

Laser isotope separation was cracked (Sandia?) c. 1990 and promptly "forgotten." However, as "public" laser tech continues to advance, the practicality of laser separation for second tier players only goes up. Allows for the separation of Pu239 out of reactor grade Pu w/o centrifuge cascades optimized for Pu, small facilities, etc...

kurt9 wrote:In any case, the energy future is good.

Yup.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:46 pm

djolds1 wrote:Laser isotope separation was cracked (Sandia?) c. 1990 and promptly "forgotten." However, as "public" laser tech continues to advance, the practicality of laser separation for second tier players only goes up. Allows for the separation of Pu239 out of reactor grade Pu w/o centrifuge cascades optimized for Pu, small facilities, etc...

No, its not "forgotten".

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/silex- ... y-has.html

My comment about the LFTR and traveling wave reactors not needed isotopic separation is that a nuclear power industry not needed isotopic separation is one that is more resistant to nuclear weapons manufacturing. I would prefer that it remain difficult and expensive to make weapons grade material.