Bussard is pretty much out with most details for those looking and has a strong reputation in both the physics and the engineering. Rostocker’s group is much more quiet and is well funded. One can see at all over the Internet a wealth of information about Bussard’s concept – its elegant, simple and using physics principles of sheer speed to drive the fusion events.
Good Work Guys!
Good Work Guys!
http://www.switchfuel.com/the-focus-fus ... ic-lerner/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Good Work Guys!
exciting stuff. i like lerners approach. like a folded-up-screw-down mono-well. i can see nasa's interest. sound like these guys have been surviving on tiny budgets. any more recent news from the setup?MSimon wrote:http://www.switchfuel.com/the-focus-fus ... ic-lerner/
Bussard is pretty much out with most details for those looking and has a strong reputation in both the physics and the engineering. Rostocker’s group is much more quiet and is well funded. One can see at all over the Internet a wealth of information about Bussard’s concept – its elegant, simple and using physics principles of sheer speed to drive the fusion events.
and a big up to the Bussard epromo..
I've never been clear what Lerner brings to the 'table', in terms of inventive fusion devices.
Dense plasma focus's have been well-known for years. An idea out or Russian, I think, if you look at the history.
What does Lerner bring? He brings a 'twist' in the electrodes. That is the single feature of the device he can call his own.
OK, you know me know, always the pessimist but always a little hopeful I'm wrong (!) - if this extra 'twist' really does do it for DFP's then that'd be great. I'd push to the front of the 'congratulations' queue. But from what I've read it's all talk at the moment - and has been for the last >10-20 yrs since Lerner started drumming up attention. I've seen nothing that says this will be any better than a regular DPF (which is already pretty good at spewing out neutrons and x-rays profusely).
I'm a bit fed up with seeing these folks getting endless courting in the press when they've got no more to show now than what they had years ago. No improvement and no new news should mean no press coverage. It's just static filling up a void. A new result, a new contract, a change of something-or-other in the plan, OK, that's news. But what's the news here? And you've no doubt guessed that I feel that way about Polywell and tokamaks aswell. But, hey, how can I really criticise Lerner - well done him for keeping up the press interest!
Dense plasma focus's have been well-known for years. An idea out or Russian, I think, if you look at the history.
What does Lerner bring? He brings a 'twist' in the electrodes. That is the single feature of the device he can call his own.
OK, you know me know, always the pessimist but always a little hopeful I'm wrong (!) - if this extra 'twist' really does do it for DFP's then that'd be great. I'd push to the front of the 'congratulations' queue. But from what I've read it's all talk at the moment - and has been for the last >10-20 yrs since Lerner started drumming up attention. I've seen nothing that says this will be any better than a regular DPF (which is already pretty good at spewing out neutrons and x-rays profusely).
I'm a bit fed up with seeing these folks getting endless courting in the press when they've got no more to show now than what they had years ago. No improvement and no new news should mean no press coverage. It's just static filling up a void. A new result, a new contract, a change of something-or-other in the plan, OK, that's news. But what's the news here? And you've no doubt guessed that I feel that way about Polywell and tokamaks aswell. But, hey, how can I really criticise Lerner - well done him for keeping up the press interest!
hi chrisbchrismb wrote:I've never been clear what Lerner brings to the 'table', in terms of inventive fusion devices.
Dense plasma focus's have been well-known for years. An idea out or Russian, I think, if you look at the history.
What does Lerner bring? He brings a 'twist' in the electrodes. That is the single feature of the device he can call his own.
OK, you know me know, always the pessimist but always a little hopeful I'm wrong (!) - if this extra 'twist' really does do it for DFP's then that'd be great. I'd push to the front of the 'congratulations' queue. But from what I've read it's all talk at the moment - and has been for the last >10-20 yrs since Lerner started drumming up attention. I've seen nothing that says this will be any better than a regular DPF (which is already pretty good at spewing out neutrons and x-rays profusely).
I'm a bit fed up with seeing these folks getting endless courting in the press when they've got no more to show now than what they had years ago. No improvement and no new news should mean no press coverage. It's just static filling up a void. A new result, a new contract, a change of something-or-other in the plan, OK, that's news. But what's the news here? And you've no doubt guessed that I feel that way about Polywell and tokamaks aswell. But, hey, how can I really criticise Lerner - well done him for keeping up the press interest!
you are starting to sound like a well known british comic.
do i detect some dispair? fear not.
let us not forget, He's got His own Lab and His own Fusor and 1/2 mill.
(i bet you have too. i weap and draw pictures in ascii).
and so what if he's copying the work of another girl and trying to pass it off as his own. who can blame him. it was/is a good concept, i think. (now art will tell us otherwise, i feel sure).
as to 'stealing the limelight' - tosh.
i predict mutiple technogies breaking on to market, more or less within a year or two of each other. the pi is big gentlemen.
let us not be greedy. they are only atoms.
This is what you get when the press' bandwidth is unlimited...vast reaches of white noise.chrismb wrote:I've never been clear what Lerner brings to the 'table', in terms of inventive fusion devices.
Dense plasma focus's have been well-known for years. An idea out or Russian, I think, if you look at the history.
What does Lerner bring? He brings a 'twist' in the electrodes. That is the single feature of the device he can call his own.
OK, you know me know, always the pessimist but always a little hopeful I'm wrong (!) - if this extra 'twist' really does do it for DFP's then that'd be great. I'd push to the front of the 'congratulations' queue. But from what I've read it's all talk at the moment - and has been for the last >10-20 yrs since Lerner started drumming up attention. I've seen nothing that says this will be any better than a regular DPF (which is already pretty good at spewing out neutrons and x-rays profusely).
I'm a bit fed up with seeing these folks getting endless courting in the press when they've got no more to show now than what they had years ago. No improvement and no new news should mean no press coverage. It's just static filling up a void. A new result, a new contract, a change of something-or-other in the plan, OK, that's news. But what's the news here? And you've no doubt guessed that I feel that way about Polywell and tokamaks aswell. But, hey, how can I really criticise Lerner - well done him for keeping up the press interest!
why not pink noise?vankirkc wrote:This is what you get when the press' bandwidth is unlimited...vast reaches of white noise.chrismb wrote:I've never been clear what Lerner brings to the 'table', in terms of inventive fusion devices.
Dense plasma focus's have been well-known for years. An idea out or Russian, I think, if you look at the history.
What does Lerner bring? He brings a 'twist' in the electrodes. That is the single feature of the device he can call his own.
OK, you know me know, always the pessimist but always a little hopeful I'm wrong (!) - if this extra 'twist' really does do it for DFP's then that'd be great. I'd push to the front of the 'congratulations' queue. But from what I've read it's all talk at the moment - and has been for the last >10-20 yrs since Lerner started drumming up attention. I've seen nothing that says this will be any better than a regular DPF (which is already pretty good at spewing out neutrons and x-rays profusely).
I'm a bit fed up with seeing these folks getting endless courting in the press when they've got no more to show now than what they had years ago. No improvement and no new news should mean no press coverage. It's just static filling up a void. A new result, a new contract, a change of something-or-other in the plan, OK, that's news. But what's the news here? And you've no doubt guessed that I feel that way about Polywell and tokamaks aswell. But, hey, how can I really criticise Lerner - well done him for keeping up the press interest!
a recognisable line is all we ask
A bit of advice here guys, taken from a space investment conference I attended last year. When investors go from project to project listening to their pitches, they ask about the other approaches. If every project tells them all the other approaches are useless, they conclude all approaches are useless.
Fusion already is fighting that perception.
I have yet to see the Focus Fusion group badmouth the Polywell. The first mention I saw of their effort was when I was searching for news on the Polywell and found Lerner's positive comment about it, several years ago. I reciprocate.
Last fall I attended an asteroid deflection symposium, and noticed that group has a healthy attitude. There are a number of approches we might take, depending on the circumstances. All have merit, none are universally applicable. They are not in competition. In a given situation we will use the one that is most likely to save the planet. (Which, in my opinion, is more likely if we have fusion-powered spacecraft).
I'm a Polywell enthusiast, but underneath that I'm a fusion enthusiast. Let the projects sink or swim on their own merit. The Focus Fusion approach is novel, and probably is capable of making fusion ... the question is how much (as for all fusion projects). Tri-Alpha is murky on equipment but has been more open on math than EMC2 ... from what I have seen they're using the same math approach.
Fusion already is fighting that perception.
I have yet to see the Focus Fusion group badmouth the Polywell. The first mention I saw of their effort was when I was searching for news on the Polywell and found Lerner's positive comment about it, several years ago. I reciprocate.
Last fall I attended an asteroid deflection symposium, and noticed that group has a healthy attitude. There are a number of approches we might take, depending on the circumstances. All have merit, none are universally applicable. They are not in competition. In a given situation we will use the one that is most likely to save the planet. (Which, in my opinion, is more likely if we have fusion-powered spacecraft).
I'm a Polywell enthusiast, but underneath that I'm a fusion enthusiast. Let the projects sink or swim on their own merit. The Focus Fusion approach is novel, and probably is capable of making fusion ... the question is how much (as for all fusion projects). Tri-Alpha is murky on equipment but has been more open on math than EMC2 ... from what I have seen they're using the same math approach.
hear hear to that TomTom Ligon wrote:A bit of advice here guys, taken from a space investment conference I attended last year. When investors go from project to project listening to their pitches, they ask about the other approaches. If every project tells them all the other approaches are useless, they conclude all approaches are useless.
Fusion already is fighting that perception.
I have yet to see the Focus Fusion group badmouth the Polywell. The first mention I saw of their effort was when I was searching for news on the Polywell and found Lerner's positive comment about it, several years ago. I reciprocate.
Last fall I attended an asteroid deflection symposium, and noticed that group has a healthy attitude. There are a number of approches we might take, depending on the circumstances. All have merit, none are universally applicable. They are not in competition. In a given situation we will use the one that is most likely to save the planet. (Which, in my opinion, is more likely if we have fusion-powered spacecraft).
I'm a Polywell enthusiast, but underneath that I'm a fusion enthusiast. Let the projects sink or swim on their own merit. The Focus Fusion approach is novel, and probably is capable of making fusion ... the question is how much (as for all fusion projects). Tri-Alpha is murky on equipment but has been more open on math than EMC2 ... from what I have seen they're using the same math approach.
ps. asteroid deflection symposium - sounds fascinating - are the poor earth creatures aware of the risks of which we speak? do you hav your flight tickets yet? is it too late to book?
I'm also a spaceflight enthusiast, but I don't wanna do an asteroid deflection with present technology.
The main two options are this:
1) Standoff nuclear blasts. Use the old Dyson-Orion principle to deflect them. This is for big ones, and since we have no idea how fragile these bodies are, a last resort.
2) Gravity tugs. Set a spacecraft in a non-orbiting parking position near the asteroid and let gentle gravity work ... for years. Decades even. With present thruster technology (DS-1 thrusters, as seen in my ISDC talk, thrust something like 93 millinewtons), a craft with half a dozen such thrusters could nudge the smallish Aphophis asteroid if the effect were sustained for a decade. Trajectory change: about 30 km. What a boring way to do almost nothing.
Naturally, since the risk during our lifetime of a world-ending hit is almost zero, nothing will be done until too late.
Leaving me to desire Option 3: Establish a vibrant space economy based on fusion propulsion. If a dangerous asteroid were noticed, grind it up and process it for useful materials before it got anywhere close to Earth.
The main two options are this:
1) Standoff nuclear blasts. Use the old Dyson-Orion principle to deflect them. This is for big ones, and since we have no idea how fragile these bodies are, a last resort.
2) Gravity tugs. Set a spacecraft in a non-orbiting parking position near the asteroid and let gentle gravity work ... for years. Decades even. With present thruster technology (DS-1 thrusters, as seen in my ISDC talk, thrust something like 93 millinewtons), a craft with half a dozen such thrusters could nudge the smallish Aphophis asteroid if the effect were sustained for a decade. Trajectory change: about 30 km. What a boring way to do almost nothing.
Naturally, since the risk during our lifetime of a world-ending hit is almost zero, nothing will be done until too late.
Leaving me to desire Option 3: Establish a vibrant space economy based on fusion propulsion. If a dangerous asteroid were noticed, grind it up and process it for useful materials before it got anywhere close to Earth.
-
Art Carlson
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:56 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
"Badmouthing" is not the category I use to think about alternative fusion concepts. Politics has its place, but I am more concerned with an open, honest, objective, and differentiated exchange on the physics and engineering. If Lerner or Rostocker (not to mention Bussard) have some gaping holes in their concepts, I don't see any reason not to talk about them. (Unless you're trying to raise money for them, of course.)Tom Ligon wrote:I have yet to see the Focus Fusion group badmouth the Polywell.
risk - yep like the risk of throwing a six on your n'th throw. baysian. we just dont know down there, anything can still happen, tomorrow.Tom Ligon wrote:I'm also a spaceflight enthusiast, but I don't wanna do an asteroid deflection with present technology.
The main two options are this:
1) Standoff nuclear blasts. Use the old Dyson-Orion principle to deflect them. This is for big ones, and since we have no idea how fragile these bodies are, a last resort.
2) Gravity tugs. Set a spacecraft in a non-orbiting parking position near the asteroid and let gentle gravity work ... for years. Decades even. With present thruster technology (DS-1 thrusters, as seen in my ISDC talk, thrust something like 93 millinewtons), a craft with half a dozen such thrusters could nudge the smallish Aphophis asteroid if the effect were sustained for a decade. Trajectory change: about 30 km. What a boring way to do almost nothing.
Naturally, since the risk during our lifetime of a world-ending hit is almost zero, nothing will be done until too late.
Leaving me to desire Option 3: Establish a vibrant space economy based on fusion propulsion. If a dangerous asteroid were noticed, grind it up and process it for useful materials before it got anywhere close to Earth.
how about just landing a craft, spreading out its collectors and propulsing them back into space (ie reverse its rockets). we can use the gravitoids its own rotation to vector the deviation of trajectory very finely.
i recall some american built unmanned vessel recently achieved such an intercept/landing. we got pictures and everthying, right up to impact/rough landing. what was it?
Last edited by rcain on Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Once you have enough groups doing a particular thing, the chance of one or more of them being successful increases. There are 5-6 space launch start-up companies. Last fall, one of them, Space X, finally made it with a successful launch to orbit. We did not hear much about it because the news was drowned out by the financial earthquake, which occurred about the same time.Tom Ligon wrote:A bit of advice here guys, taken from a space investment conference I attended last year. When investors go from project to project listening to their pitches, they ask about the other approaches. If every project tells them all the other approaches are useless, they conclude all approaches are useless.
Fusion already is fighting that perception.
I have yet to see the Focus Fusion group badmouth the Polywell. The first mention I saw of their effort was when I was searching for news on the Polywell and found Lerner's positive comment about it, several years ago. I reciprocate.
Last fall I attended an asteroid deflection symposium, and noticed that group has a healthy attitude. There are a number of approches we might take, depending on the circumstances. All have merit, none are universally applicable. They are not in competition. In a given situation we will use the one that is most likely to save the planet. (Which, in my opinion, is more likely if we have fusion-powered spacecraft).
I'm a Polywell enthusiast, but underneath that I'm a fusion enthusiast. Let the projects sink or swim on their own merit. The Focus Fusion approach is novel, and probably is capable of making fusion ... the question is how much (as for all fusion projects). Tri-Alpha is murky on equipment but has been more open on math than EMC2 ... from what I have seen they're using the same math approach.
Asteroid deflection is necessary, but it requires low-cost space access, as does any other thing we want to do in space.
yeah, but something like that, wouldnt you expect the government to do it for us. i mean on our behalf. (the markets dont give a flying ****, they already assume the markets/planet will be here tomorrow - present 'seasonal' fluctuations excepted )kurt9 wrote:Once you have enough groups doing a particular thing, the chance of one or more of them being successful increases. There are 5-6 space launch start-up companies. Last fall, one of them, Space X, finally made it with a successful launch to orbit. We did not hear much about it because the news was drowned out by the financial earthquake, which occurred about the same time.Tom Ligon wrote:A bit of advice here guys, taken from a space investment conference I attended last year. When investors go from project to project listening to their pitches, they ask about the other approaches. If every project tells them all the other approaches are useless, they conclude all approaches are useless.
Fusion already is fighting that perception.
I have yet to see the Focus Fusion group badmouth the Polywell. The first mention I saw of their effort was when I was searching for news on the Polywell and found Lerner's positive comment about it, several years ago. I reciprocate.
Last fall I attended an asteroid deflection symposium, and noticed that group has a healthy attitude. There are a number of approches we might take, depending on the circumstances. All have merit, none are universally applicable. They are not in competition. In a given situation we will use the one that is most likely to save the planet. (Which, in my opinion, is more likely if we have fusion-powered spacecraft).
I'm a Polywell enthusiast, but underneath that I'm a fusion enthusiast. Let the projects sink or swim on their own merit. The Focus Fusion approach is novel, and probably is capable of making fusion ... the question is how much (as for all fusion projects). Tri-Alpha is murky on equipment but has been more open on math than EMC2 ... from what I have seen they're using the same math approach.
Asteroid deflection is necessary, but it requires low-cost space access, as does any other thing we want to do in space.
ps. interesting piece on 'what to do when the space shuttle retires' here http://www.spacex.com/
pps. nice vid here: http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=35
- why are they not building it triangular? ruddy squares.
Here, here.Art Carlson wrote:"Badmouthing" is not the category I use to think about alternative fusion concepts. Politics has its place, but I am more concerned with an open, honest, objective, and differentiated exchange on the physics and engineering. If Lerner or Rostocker (not to mention Bussard) have some gaping holes in their concepts, I don't see any reason not to talk about them. (Unless you're trying to raise money for them, of course.)
Hmmmm...Tom Ligon wrote:A bit of advice here guys, taken from a space investment conference I attended last year. When investors go from project to project listening to their pitches, they ask about the other approaches. If every project tells them all the other approaches are useless, they conclude all approaches are useless.
Fusion already is fighting that perception.
I have yet to see the Focus Fusion group badmouth the Polywell.
I understand your argument and am also inclined to agree with it.
But, as Art says, there are legitimate discussions to be had.
I agree that Lerner has been very positive for 'all kinds' of fusion, possibly more so that any other, in point of fact. That earns him brownie points, but doesn't get him closer to fusion. I've nothing bad to say about him, I'm just asking what he can show that he brings.
Fusion has received vast swathes of investor funding over the last few decades, but has precious little to show for it, save for some 'fundamental' plasma science knowledge. If investors are put off by the 'internal bad-mouthing' between different fusion 'factions', then they *should* be put off. They might even argue a lack of 'due diligence' if they're not properly briefed on the underlying causes of these debates, prior to an investment.
VC investments should be based on them seeing some form of factual, evidenced results that indicate further investment is called for. But at the moment this field, of small-scale 'alternative' (non-magnetic confinement) fusion energy, is pretty much on a par with zero-point energy and those self-generating motors that only Australians and Bulgarians seem to know how to make.
I say that it is right and proper that investors should keep a hold of their cash whilst debates rage, and wait to see who pops up to the surface first with some REAL results. If they stoke up unfounded and false promises, it merely causes others to come in who may be more focussed on specific maleficence and an intent to defraud. Stoking up false promises, without upfront results, merely squashes the chances of smaller, honest efforts that are focussed on doing something real and getting real results, rather than a load of well-funded hyper-bole and jaunts into media-land. the loudest voices will prevail, and those with the biggest chance to make the loudest noise will be the better funded ones. It is a self-fulfilling outcome whose final place will be one primadonna scheme that pulls in all the cash but without any real solid outcome, to the detriment of other schemes that also seek to become the premiere scheme. It becomes a race not for fusion, but for simply being the 'premiere scheme'.