Maybe the UN should step in and claim the islands as the common heritage of all mankind. Then, the sale of drilling rights could be used to fund research into viable energy sources for the future.ladajo wrote:Maybe they will get it done in time to fix this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... oubleatsea
Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
UN has a mouse in their pocket? LOL
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
ROARING with laughter... 
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
Here is one idea we have not breached. Smaller company's get absorbed by larger ones all the time. Google buys out the rights to competitors all the time. LM might have bought the rights to develop their own version of the polywell. "Hey good job EMC guys here is 200 million, we will take it from here."
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
And what indication do you have that EMC2 is no longer working on it?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
LM may have bought the rights for D-T only, and using only RF heating. That leaves EMC2 to work on pure Polywell.
Pure speculation. No basis at all.
Pure speculation. No basis at all.
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
None what so ever, pure speculation on my part with no basis in reality at all. Its just a contractor trend I have noticed for them to "buy into" good ideas for future benefits. so I though I might float the Idea to see what other may think or heard.ladajo wrote:And what indication do you have that EMC2 is no longer working on it?
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
Ok.
So we all agree, we simply do not know enough to make any sort of conclusion. But we can speculate the crap out of it.
I think the next thing we really need out of Lockheed Martin is some sort of commentary on the construct.
In the mean time, every piece of evidence we have would seem to indicate that EMC2 continues to churn along.
So we all agree, we simply do not know enough to make any sort of conclusion. But we can speculate the crap out of it.
I think the next thing we really need out of Lockheed Martin is some sort of commentary on the construct.
In the mean time, every piece of evidence we have would seem to indicate that EMC2 continues to churn along.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
I am really disappointed by the quality of the technical journalism these days, btw. All the tech news and websites and blogs only seem to regurgitate the contents of papers and press releases. Noone seems to bother to digg a little deeper and maybe contact these people to get some more information. I know that Brian Wang is lurking here every now and then. So if you read this Brian, this potential fusion powerplant is a big deal and I think it would warrant some follow up with LM, no?
-
CherryPick
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:39 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
I am share your feeling. It is difficult to know the facts behind marketing hype created by the press releases. At least I would like it to be easy to classify the papers toSkipjack wrote:I am really disappointed by the quality of the technical journalism these days, btw. All the tech news and websites and blogs only seem to regurgitate the contents of papers and press releases. Noone seems to bother to digg a little deeper and maybe contact these people to get some more information. I know that Brian Wang is lurking here every now and then. So if you read this Brian, this potential fusion powerplant is a big deal and I think it would warrant some follow up with LM, no?
- just a speculative idea
- just a computer model
- idea with strong references to evidence
- proof of concept as a demo
- technically feasible prototype
- commercially feasible prototype
- product that can be bought soon
Unfortunately bad journalism is not restricted to climate propaganda. Keyword "green" rises the warning flags immediately.
--------------------------------------------------------
CherryPick
Ph.D.
Computer Science, Physics, Applied Mathematics
CherryPick
Ph.D.
Computer Science, Physics, Applied Mathematics
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four years
http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheed ... four-years
If someone else has already posted this my apologies.
http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheed ... four-years
If someone else has already posted this my apologies.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
Clues:
-high beta
-min-B / good curvature
-no plasma current
-RF heating
-cylindrically symmetric
-internal conducting coil
-mirror field at the end
-"very few open field lines"
Sounds like they've copied the LDX somehow, except that it's located inside a strong mirror field. It's kinda like an oblate FRC with the plasma current replaced by the internal coil. Anything with internal coils is out of the question in my book, in terms of reactor feasibility. I have no idea why Lockheed Martin is involved with this.
-high beta
-min-B / good curvature
-no plasma current
-RF heating
-cylindrically symmetric
-internal conducting coil
-mirror field at the end
-"very few open field lines"
Sounds like they've copied the LDX somehow, except that it's located inside a strong mirror field. It's kinda like an oblate FRC with the plasma current replaced by the internal coil. Anything with internal coils is out of the question in my book, in terms of reactor feasibility. I have no idea why Lockheed Martin is involved with this.
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
Here is something I dug up.
Glen Wurden’s Extemporaneous Public Comment FESAC Feb 2012
Ok, what can I add to that? Let me start by saying it is all about the plan. We do not have a
viable plan to fund our proposed programs…that includes ITER…and especially it is driven by
ITER’s (funding needs). We have seen this coming for years, this is not a new thing. In a sense
this (the FY13 budget) is exactly a disruption, without a precursor…..because when you call up
the provost at 8:30AM on the same morning, and tell them at their university that their main
project is going to be shut down. ….this is exactly a disruption. And in fact, there is no
mitigation system for this disruption. And we don’t have a way out of it, without other
consequences. So, …a…people talk about ITER being the “capstone of the American fusion
program”. I do not want ITER to become the “tombstone” of the American fusion program. And
if we go down this pathway, where we can look at the out-year numbers that we need for ITER,
the obvious conclusion is that there is another machine down the road (DIII-D) that will have the
same problem that C-Mod is now experiencing.
I’ve been through the disruption of a program, back when alternates were killed in Los Alamos
in 1990. We lost our machine, ….actually multiple machines, our groups and our entire division.
It took ten years to recover from that, and even then we probably haven’t recovered. We can’t
do this to our human capital. It is our human teams that are the most important thing here. I don’t
care about the $200M investment in hardware (at C-Mod)…that is not the issue. Because you
know, every person has a career plan, every person has an education plan, they have an
investment plan, and they even have a retirement plan if they are lucky. (In the same way) we
should think about our programs too. I mean, every machine will turn off. I have no doubt. I have
worked on many machines. The will turn off (at some point). But you need to do it in a way
where it is not a disruption. You need to do it in a way that you have a plan. And whether it is a
5-year plan, or a 10-year plan mandated by our friends in Congress…..and we must deliver that
plan…..if we don’t deliver that plan there are even bigger consequences to our program.
But it is actually a good thing to have a plan. It is not a bad thing. You can see where you are
going (with a plan). And if you see where you are going, and you have talked about it with the
community….then you can, you can tell your students what the future is. When there are
disruptions, you have no future. And we can’t let our premier tokamak team in this country, with
a premier education mission, disappear overnight. And even when they are told that their
research money is ok for next year at some reduced level …..what about FY14? If their number
is zero, how can they plan? They can’t plan. By the way, my budget at Los Alamos is down
48%, or even more, from $5.3M in FY11 to $1.88M in this god-awful plan for FY13. We can not
go down this course…….(silence)……by the way, a vision without a plan, is a nightmare.
Dr. Glen A. Wurden
LANL Fusion Energy Sciences Program Manager
P-24 Plasma Physics Group
Glen Wurden’s Extemporaneous Public Comment FESAC Feb 2012
Ok, what can I add to that? Let me start by saying it is all about the plan. We do not have a
viable plan to fund our proposed programs…that includes ITER…and especially it is driven by
ITER’s (funding needs). We have seen this coming for years, this is not a new thing. In a sense
this (the FY13 budget) is exactly a disruption, without a precursor…..because when you call up
the provost at 8:30AM on the same morning, and tell them at their university that their main
project is going to be shut down. ….this is exactly a disruption. And in fact, there is no
mitigation system for this disruption. And we don’t have a way out of it, without other
consequences. So, …a…people talk about ITER being the “capstone of the American fusion
program”. I do not want ITER to become the “tombstone” of the American fusion program. And
if we go down this pathway, where we can look at the out-year numbers that we need for ITER,
the obvious conclusion is that there is another machine down the road (DIII-D) that will have the
same problem that C-Mod is now experiencing.
I’ve been through the disruption of a program, back when alternates were killed in Los Alamos
in 1990. We lost our machine, ….actually multiple machines, our groups and our entire division.
It took ten years to recover from that, and even then we probably haven’t recovered. We can’t
do this to our human capital. It is our human teams that are the most important thing here. I don’t
care about the $200M investment in hardware (at C-Mod)…that is not the issue. Because you
know, every person has a career plan, every person has an education plan, they have an
investment plan, and they even have a retirement plan if they are lucky. (In the same way) we
should think about our programs too. I mean, every machine will turn off. I have no doubt. I have
worked on many machines. The will turn off (at some point). But you need to do it in a way
where it is not a disruption. You need to do it in a way that you have a plan. And whether it is a
5-year plan, or a 10-year plan mandated by our friends in Congress…..and we must deliver that
plan…..if we don’t deliver that plan there are even bigger consequences to our program.
But it is actually a good thing to have a plan. It is not a bad thing. You can see where you are
going (with a plan). And if you see where you are going, and you have talked about it with the
community….then you can, you can tell your students what the future is. When there are
disruptions, you have no future. And we can’t let our premier tokamak team in this country, with
a premier education mission, disappear overnight. And even when they are told that their
research money is ok for next year at some reduced level …..what about FY14? If their number
is zero, how can they plan? They can’t plan. By the way, my budget at Los Alamos is down
48%, or even more, from $5.3M in FY11 to $1.88M in this god-awful plan for FY13. We can not
go down this course…….(silence)……by the way, a vision without a plan, is a nightmare.
Dr. Glen A. Wurden
LANL Fusion Energy Sciences Program Manager
P-24 Plasma Physics Group
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
This makes me afraid the new devise is manly for get jobs for fusion researcher.
They may have hyper hyped there project for getting money.
Hope I'm wrong.
They may have hyper hyped there project for getting money.
Hope I'm wrong.
Re: Lockheed Martin Skunkworks - Compact Fusion
I was looking at the thesis by the lead guy on the Skunkworks project, the output of the commercial version and the timeline for development. It fits with a magrid refinement of his earlier work, and Bussards timeline and output for a full scale Polywell, I hope it all doesn't get killed by budget cuts.
CHoff