Dr. Bussard's Final Interview

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:43 pm

I just read where Ms. Hillary is proposing a $50 bn fund for energy research.

Assuming a 10 year plan that is $5 bn a year.

derg · Post by **derg** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:13 pm

MSimon wrote:I'm somewhat more connected on this than most. People email me. I can tell you that even without a WB-7 success that the pressures are intense to get this project fully funded. Right now. I'm not at liberty to say more, except that your fears are unfounded.

Big forces are at work behind the scenes, both political (both parties) and economic.

They will show themselves when it is time to make a move publicly.

If you want to join the project when it gets funded study, study like a fiend. A lot of talent will be required. All kinds. Lawyers. Accountants. Engineers, chemists, physicists, lab technicians etc. Project historians. Photographers. Facilities designers. Even an artist or two.

But this would all be U.S. Navy funding, and I doubt that their doors would be as open to new talent as say, the private sector (especially to the kind of people who frequent this forum, who despite their passion and enthusiasm, may lack official academic credentials). Or do you disagree?

Nanos · Post by **Nanos** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:58 pm

I went to a government job interview once and at the end they asked me what my degree was in again..

I'd written on my CV 'I have a degree of understanding about computers'..

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:04 pm

derg wrote:
MSimon wrote:I'm somewhat more connected on this than most. People email me. I can tell you that even without a WB-7 success that the pressures are intense to get this project fully funded. Right now. I'm not at liberty to say more, except that your fears are unfounded.

Big forces are at work behind the scenes, both political (both parties) and economic.

They will show themselves when it is time to make a move publicly.

If you want to join the project when it gets funded study, study like a fiend. A lot of talent will be required. All kinds. Lawyers. Accountants. Engineers, chemists, physicists, lab technicians etc. Project historians. Photographers. Facilities designers. Even an artist or two.
But this would all be U.S. Navy funding, and I doubt that their doors would be as open to new talent as say, the private sector (especially to the kind of people who frequent this forum, who despite their passion and enthusiasm, may lack official academic credentials). Or do you disagree?

I'm a non-degreed engineer and am considered by many to be one of the top engineering experts in the field. It may even be true.

Actual talent is going to count for more than paperwork.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:06 pm

Nanos wrote:I went to a government job interview once and at the end they asked me what my degree was in again..

I'd written on my CV 'I have a degree of understanding about computers'..

nanos,

The rules are different if you contract. I expect a lot of that. The advantage of an at will contract is that if a person can't perform no great loss. You just lell the agency to send over more resumes.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:16 am

David,

I think it might work that way depending on how fast we can move.

OTOH these devices when run on D-D are great neutron producers. Add a U-238 blanket and you have a plutonium maker.

pstoller78 · Post by **pstoller78** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:24 am

I think the risk of proliferation could be mitigated by proper independent oversight. I would think the IAEA would be capable of monitoring fusion facilities to ensure the reactors were not used for this purpose.

Nanos · Post by **Nanos** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:42 am

Except for those countries not signed up to the IAEA, yet with nuclear facalities.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:14 pm

Uranium has all kinds of uses besides making bombs.

A coloring for glass for instance.

TheRadicalModerate · Post by **TheRadicalModerate** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:32 pm

Doesn't U-238 have a fairly lousy cross-section with fast neutrons?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:31 pm

TheRadicalModerate wrote:Doesn't U-238 have a fairly lousy cross-section with fast neutrons?

Water blankets are cheap and easy. About 2" to 4" of water (plus cooling to dissipate the energy deposited by the neutrons) should do the trick.

drmike · Post by **drmike** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:24 am

TheRadicalModerate wrote:Doesn't U-238 have a fairly lousy cross-section with fast neutrons?

Here's a plot of the neutron cross section over on fusor.net:
http://fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fuso ... 1192914434
Looks like it drops off the face of the earth above 10 MeV, so moderators like water
or parafin would work pretty well to bring you down to thermal.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:47 am

The thermalization distance in water for 2 MeV neutrons (to .025 eV) is 5.7 cm. About 2".

Since we are starting with 10 MeV neutrons (or is it 16 MeV)? and want to get them into the 5 KeV to 10 KeV range that should be approximately the right thickness. Maybe a little less. In fact the ideal would be a saturated solution of a uranium salt in a moderating blanket about 4" to 6" thick.

It wouldn't need to be very efficient since the neutrons are so cheap.

There will be problems with fission products. And chemical separation of Pu239.

Nothing insurmountable if you are intent on bomb making.