A vacuum chamber for the 100MW Polywell demonstrator?

[JLawson]

Maybe I'm misreading the general mood, but - I think it sounds like a great engineering challenge. An awesome design challenge, with working fusion reactor as reward. How could you turn that down?

(Looks in wallet, shakes head...)

Easily, unfortunately.

I could hock the wife, kids, everything I own as well as a few of my organs... still wouldn't have enough for this thing, much less shipping.

Anyone got Bill Gate's number?

[ladajo]

For the record, 1 50MW polywell is overkill for one shaft. Our current line shafting tech and design runs in at 50K HP per shaft. 50MW would be 67K HP.

Now if we go to some other tech base, like direct drive or pods, that may change. However the final limiter is the propulsor itself, be it a wheel or thruster, or whatever. 50K HP is a very solid number for propulsor limits as well.

End result, for shipboard, you could get away with a smaller polywell per shaft than 50MW. Assuming direct conversion PB&J and say 95% efficient.

And of course that does not consider weapons systems power needs. The new multi band radars, and other sensors, plus proposed weapons themselves are all power hogs.

So at the end of the day, it may well be dedicated 50MW polywell per "line shaft" and another one or two to run topside gear...

[MSimon]

For the record, 1 50MW polywell is overkill for one shaft. Our current line shafting tech and design runs in at 50K HP per shaft. 50MW would be 67K HP.

Now if we go to some other tech base, like direct drive or pods, that may change. However the final limiter is the propulsor itself, be it a wheel or thruster, or whatever. 50K HP is a very solid number for propulsor limits as well.

End result, for shipboard, you could get away with a smaller polywell per shaft than 50MW. Assuming direct conversion PB&J and say 95% efficient.

And of course that does not consider weapons systems power needs. The new multi band radars, and other sensors, plus proposed weapons themselves are all power hogs.

So at the end of the day, it may well be dedicated 50MW polywell per "line shaft" and another one or two to run topside gear...

I wasn't being exact. Just ball park. For ball park I use 1 hp = 1 Kw.

I have looked at direct conversion and it may be no better than a thermal plant (for early iterations). The big deal is that venetian blinds are much cheaper to mfg. than turbine blades and they can be built quicker.

And think of all that high quality waste heat. Good for the evaps. Unlimited fresh water hot showers. And you know how the DD boys love that stuff. All stinky and smelling of oil they loved visits to a nuke. 2nd Class and above. RHIP.

[Betruger]

Maybe I'm misreading the general mood, but - I think it sounds like a great engineering challenge. An awesome design challenge, with working fusion reactor as reward. How could you turn that down?

(Looks in wallet, shakes head...)

Easily, unfortunately.

I mean the challenge of designing pumps to match a "dirty" Polywell.

[ladajo]

For the record, 1 50MW polywell is overkill for one shaft. Our current line shafting tech and design runs in at 50K HP per shaft. 50MW would be 67K HP.

Now if we go to some other tech base, like direct drive or pods, that may change. However the final limiter is the propulsor itself, be it a wheel or thruster, or whatever. 50K HP is a very solid number for propulsor limits as well.

End result, for shipboard, you could get away with a smaller polywell per shaft than 50MW. Assuming direct conversion PB&J and say 95% efficient.

And of course that does not consider weapons systems power needs. The new multi band radars, and other sensors, plus proposed weapons themselves are all power hogs.

So at the end of the day, it may well be dedicated 50MW polywell per "line shaft" and another one or two to run topside gear...

I wasn't being exact. Just ball park. For ball park I use 1 hp = 1 Kw.

I have looked at direct conversion and it may be no better than a thermal plant (for early iterations). The big deal is that venetian blinds are much cheaper to mfg. than turbine blades and they can be built quicker.

And think of all that high quality waste heat. Good for the evaps. Unlimited fresh water hot showers. And you know how the DD boys love that stuff. All stinky and smelling of oil they loved visits to a nuke. 2nd Class and above. RHIP.

These days with RO units and Gas Turbines, unless something breaks in CRUDES world, water hours are rare. Lots to go around.

The steam amphibs still have some issues when the marines are embarked, but it is better than it was back in the day of steam or electric evaps. RO's have made a huge difference.

In the bigger picture though, size and weight still matters afloat, and getting away with a 40MW poly invece a 50MW from the size standpoint, may be worth the argument.

[MSimon]

ladajo,

A Polywell with venetian blinds is going to weigh a LOT less than a turbine/condenser/gen set. Volume may be a problem.

[mvanwink5]

I wonder how much design information can be gleaned from WB-8/.1? Is there any way to make a good guess? For instance, could geometry advantages of a dodec vs losses from more structural members be inferred, or alpha collection ease vs collection density be projected? I am wondering if trade offs could be conceivably calculated without having first made a WB-D cube...

Could Venetian blinds be set up with a WB-8.1 to evaluate alpha energy collection?

Of course, it assumes scaling goes according to Dr. Bussard's projections.

[ladajo]

ladajo,

A Polywell with venetian blinds is going to weigh a LOT less than a turbine/condenser/gen set. Volume may be a problem.

But how will it compare weight wise to a Gas Turbine engine room? The other consideration is fuel and fuel systems weight savings.

[ltgbrown]

There is also the range between fuelings advantages, change in logistics, not being dependent on a product produced in the ME, ...

And being "green".

[JLawson]

Maybe I'm misreading the general mood, but - I think it sounds like a great engineering challenge. An awesome design challenge, with working fusion reactor as reward. How could you turn that down?

(Looks in wallet, shakes head...)

Easily, unfortunately.

I mean the challenge of designing pumps to match a "dirty" Polywell.

To paraphrase both "The Right Stuff" and the hookers on Clairmont St. - "No Bucks? No sucks, Rogers..."

[ladajo]

There is also the range between fuelings advantages, change in logistics, not being dependent on a product produced in the ME, ...

And being "green".

Concur that it would change the flavor entirely of the logisitics programs we have. It will change a lot of things we do and think.

One argument revolves around fleet justification. If the PETRO monster dies, then what need do we have for all the strike groups and ships? We will no longer need to sustain ME presence, nor West Africa. The only conceivable argument other than non-specified contingencies would fall to Korea and Taiwan.

More reason to pursue a "Space Navy" I think...

Polywell will be a blessing and possible curse for the navy as we know it.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Historically, the world has kind of needed the pre-eminent superpower of the day to help out with maintaining order on the seas. The Roman Navy, the Royal Navy, and the U.S. Navy have greatly helped to preserve international trade in the 1-4th, the 18th-19th, and the 20th centuries respectively.

The alternative is widespread piracy. I don't expect a United Nations led coalition navy to be able to control that. Look at the situation off the coast of Somalia.

Oil or no oil, it's in the interests of the U.S. for world commerce to flourish. Not only because it provides U.S. merchants the opportunity to trade with large overseas markets, but because politically it enhances the allure of capitalist democracy around the world. Furthermore, a strong navy gives you more options for inserting air assets and ground forces into destabilized areas around the world. If the oil revenue goes down the drain, expect more instability in the middle east, not less...

[rjaypeters]

If the oil revenue goes down the drain, expect more instability in the middle east, not less...

Relative poverty might induce an attack of rationality, I hope, but do not expect.

Ensuring world-wide freedom of navigation probably does not require nearly a dozen carrier battle groups, etc. We would have a different navy (again I hope) for a different world.

[JLawson]

The alternative is widespread piracy. I don't expect a United Nations led coalition navy to be able to control that. Look at the situation off the coast of Somalia.

That situation could be dealt with, but we're not - at this point - willing to do what would be required. We COULD, but there'd be a vocal strain aghast at the carnage.

I'm of the 'give 'em ice cream and cake' solution, myself. Have them come along side, and drop a steel-cased 'Ice Cream and Cake' cooler on them. Cone shaped, weighing about 200kg, with enough room for 200kg of ice, a 100kg chunk of hard-frozen ice cream, and five cases of canned cakes. And 50kg of steel spoons and forks...

Oh, so sorry, didn't realize your boat was that fragile... tell you what, just let your weapons sink and we'll leave you a little inflatable that should get you to shore...

If anyone objects to that, we could always use a variant of the Mk. 19 automatic grenade launcher to shoot canned pound cakes at them.

"But you're hurting them!"

"What? We're giving them FOOD!"

"Yeah, at 800 feet per second!"

"Hmm. You're right. That'll leave a mark. Hey, Harry! Break out the sponge cakes!"

[MSimon]

ladajo,

I guess that makes me Old Navy. Heh.