Polywell transportation: how small?
Polywell transportation: how small?
How small in terms of size and mass could a polywell for transportation use practically be? Naval destroyers and submarines seem likely. Civilian naval shipping seems likely at some point given a working polywell plant. Railroad locomotives? Airliners? Trucks?
Dr Bussard, in an interview http://www.americanantigravity.com/grap ... erview.wma
mentioned designs for a truck based polywell. I think he mentioned 100MW.
mentioned designs for a truck based polywell. I think he mentioned 100MW.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 2:42 pm
- Location: Vermont
From what I have seen on this forum and generally around it appears that power output scales as r^7 with a 2 meter radius reactor putting out 100MW. As I understand this changing the output power drastically will not drastically change the radius. So I dont see a polywell fitting on a train or truck.
However, i think that it is about time for hybrid super blimps to make an appearance/resurgance, you've even got helium production on board...
I think Dr. Bussard started out in the field of Nuclear flight
also, What is Generation III?
-Eric D
However, i think that it is about time for hybrid super blimps to make an appearance/resurgance, you've even got helium production on board...
I think Dr. Bussard started out in the field of Nuclear flight

also, What is Generation III?
-Eric D
Timescale guesstimate on each generation?MSimon wrote:Gen I - stationary plants
Gen II - ships/ large aircraft
Gen III - trucks and trains
IIRC, the el humungo 8000MWth plants mentioned for the QED rockets were 5m radius grid, 10m radius vacuum vessel. Though the 10m radius might have included the direct conversion system, with a smaller-radius vacuum vessel..
Here's an oddball option. A "deployable" Gen 1 or 2 reactor. Components packed densely, for transport, and then unfold like a toy transformer when in place. Transport mode no larger than a standard international shipping container.
Duane
Vae Victis
Radiation shielding...
What's this I hear about a 477keV gamma emitted from a boron-10 neutron capture event? That's almost positron annihilation energy.
Maybe lithium-6 would be better. The cross section is one-fourth that of boron-10, but it doesn't emit gamma rays. It does, however, produce a tritium nucleus... hmm... where have I heard about THIS before?
Uranium-235 is another commonly mentioned option, but its cross section is even lower, and... why am I trying to come up with excuses not to use uranium as radiation shielding in a truck? Methinks I've heard about this reaction somewhere before too...
What's this I hear about a 477keV gamma emitted from a boron-10 neutron capture event? That's almost positron annihilation energy.
Maybe lithium-6 would be better. The cross section is one-fourth that of boron-10, but it doesn't emit gamma rays. It does, however, produce a tritium nucleus... hmm... where have I heard about THIS before?
Uranium-235 is another commonly mentioned option, but its cross section is even lower, and... why am I trying to come up with excuses not to use uranium as radiation shielding in a truck? Methinks I've heard about this reaction somewhere before too...
One of the known problems is the large pulse power required for start up. Could be 1 to 20 MW for from 100 microseconds to as long as 10 seconds. That says you have to have a certain minimum size to be worth the power supplies. Of course if the start up problem can be reduced or eliminated then it is a different ballgame.hanelyp wrote:Given that reactor gain, a key factor to reactor go / no go, is projected to scale with B^4R, R and total power could be pretty small given the right magnet technology. But what about radiation shielding?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.