IEC fusion, simple, elegant, can power a trip to Saturn in 76 days

[FogerRox]

Fusion is a simple and elegant idea. You smash 2 atoms together, they fuse into a single atom releasing energy ( the resulting single atom will have a bit less mass than the 2 atoms combined before fusing). The difference in mass is released as energy according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc². In simple terms the "fuel" needs to heated, put under great pressure and our 2 atoms need sufficient speed to fuse upon collision. For nearly 30 years the leading field of fusion research has been in Tokamak style devices. Tokamaks' provide pressure, heat and swirl the fuel in a donut shape.

One alternative to the Tokamak design that has gained attention during the last year, is Inertial Electrostatic Confinement or IEC Fusion. Recent research in IEC Fusion by Dr. Robert Bussard was described in the now famous
google tech talk:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=bussard++IEC+fusion

IEC Fusion relies on speeding the fuel ions to collision, causing fusion. Test results in late 2005 with the WB6 device showed a very high output in relation to input, though a few magnitudes from break even.

Dr Bussard believes that if he scales up his one foot scale model to 9 foot that it will achieve net power, and be able to generate 100 mega watts of electricity. There are 2 scaling factors involved in this type of device: the power output scales as the 7th power of the size, and the power gain as the 5th power of the size. These scaling factors indicate a break even device would be about 6 foot square and that net power will be achieved with a 9 foot square device.

http://askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf






WB6 operating in November 2005.

Here's some eye candy for the geeks:



A 2 minute video showing a schematic flow of electrons & ions.

http://www.youtube.com/v/XiHsSAS_SQw

DR. Bussards website http://www.emc2fusion.org

IEC powered spacecraft can make the trip to SAtrun in 76 days.

[hobbit709]

1. Can we build it

and load all the neocons on it for a oneway trip?

[FogerRox]

3. I hear ya.

If anyone has an account at D-KOS please consider going there to REC this article

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/12/171119/055

[Deja Q]

2. Now THAT is a nice ion accelerating well!

:D

[FogerRox]

4. Whats neat is that P-B11 fuel sees the well better

SO any device that burns D-D fuel should easily burn P-B11. & P-B11 fuel creates no neutrons, very good thing.

[warrior1]

5. Wouldn't you

be just a smear on the opposite side of the nose of this rocket?

[FogerRox]

6. No, acceleration is well under

1/10th gee. Its just that you could accelerate for 1/2 the trip, then turn around and decelerate the 2nd half.

[warrior1]

7. kewl

[Zynx]

8. Acceleration kills, not speed.

In real world examples, it's as comfortable and safe - assuming vehicle doesn't stop - to be going two miles an hour on your feet or sixty miles per hour in your car or 500 MP in a jet, or 20,000 MPH in the space shuttle.

So long as the G's are kept sane, it's not an issue.

*makes bad joke about everything being relative*

[FogerRox]

10. Right, if we could build a spaceship

that accelerates at one gee, for 1/2 the trip, then turns around to decelerate @ one gee, Mars might be less than a week away, Saturn 3 weeks, Jupiter 5 weeks.

The exhaust speed of a P-B11 fueled ship is something like 11,800,000 m/s, which is about 400k mph, check my math... please. So this ship is very good for solar system scale traveling, not so good getting to orbit. IIRC from Low earth orbit to lunar orbit is like 25-30 hours.

[krispos42]

26. It's not the fall that kills you...

it's the sudden stop at the end :rofl:

[leftofthedial]

9. do you think we could

shove one of those up Dick Cheney's ass and see what happens?

[Kelly Rupert]

11. A non-reproduced experiment, and no peer-reviewed journal

article? I'll hold my excitement for just a little bit longer.

[FogerRox]

12. New funding acording to Bussards plan

would pay for WB7 & WB8, which would be tweaks on the WB6 design, and reproduce the results of WB6, hopefully improved due to those tweaks.

Problem with peer review, theres 2 guys @ University of Wisconsin, 2 guys at Urabana in Illinois, Dr Hirsh former AEC director ... and thats about it as far as peers. But you are spot on, reproducing the results and peer review are to be part of the process.

[Kelly Rupert]

14. A bit of clarification.

When scientists refer to reproducing the experiment, they mean "by someone else, without the original team having any input whatsoever."

Peer review is a bit more complicated. Rather than explain it, I'll link you to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review

[NeoGreen]

13. Question...

What is the limit for acceleration? "C" or the mass of fuel?

And how much time would it take to achieve max speed?

edited for spelling.

[FogerRox]

15. well

P-B11 fuel would have an exhaust speed of 11,800,000 m/s.(400,000 mph?) so thats top speed.... A very high ISP, but low thrust. Shuttle main engine has hi thrust but low ISP. Its about payload, more payload, the longer to top speed.

This might help

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/Bussard_Fusion_systems.HTML

[eppur_se_muova]

16. Top speed depends also on the fueled/empty mass ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propulsion#Calculations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

δv = -v_eln((M+P)/P)

so a vehicle can reach several times its exhaust velocity, if the mass of propellant is several times the mass of the empty vehicle.

PS: 11.8 M/s is about 26.4 MILLION mph, so aim for "several times" that. :) Seriously, I don't think you can get sufficient flux for that.

[CK_John]

17. Unfortunately this is still at the comic book stage. Maybe someday. n/t

[TheMadMonk]

19. IF the results are genuine then it already shows better results than the Tokomak.

And for a whole lot less bucks. I'd like to see how electromagnets arranged in a dodecahedron or buckyball fare too. Intuitively they should leak less than the cube, though there is the problem of balancing the larger number of elements.

As far as fuel for deep space flight is concerned, it should be which ever one gives the better thrust. Neutron pollution isn't a concern in this application.

Given that this is genuine and scales as predicted, it is the Magic Bullet closest to large scale realisation.

[FogerRox]

20. Actually Bussards next models are

WB7 a truncated cube & WB8 a truncated, dodecahedron, the same size as WB6...



Bussard expects a 3 to 5 times increase in performance thru the WB7 & WB8 models, at the same size as WB6. Yes neutrons are a problem in space, you have to shield the passengers, there also problems with deterioration of reactor components by neutrons.

And a P-B11 spaceship wouldn't need all that shielding, so it weighs less, and the size of the payload limits acceleration.

[TheMadMonk]

23. You got me backwards. I don't believe neutrons are a prob in space.

You have to take the shielding with you as a matter of course in case of solar activity. Simplest solution is a tank of water with a void (bunker) in the middle. Putting the reactor/engine a long way back on a boom significantly reduces the cross section of any crew quarters.

Magnetically confined plasmas are looking promising as an active defense against charged particles. Neutrons unfortunately don't qualify.

So it comes down to which fuel gives the best result. And if i recall my nuclear physics correctly the lighter one's starting point, the greater the energy output with fusion. D-D should be the winner.

As for funding, perhaps the new research trust set up by the Australian Federal Government might be approached.

[FogerRox]

24. But, hi ISP can get crazy

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/Bussard_Fusion_systems.HTML

Doesnt high ISP mean low thrust? I want a ship that could accelerate @ one gee.... know where I can find one cheap.. LOL.

[conscious evolution]

34. Can't be polluting space you know.

'I don't believe neutrons are a prob in space.'

I actually heard someone use this argument while discussing fusion reactors with a friend recently.They actually thought there is no radiation in space and that we humans would pollute space with fusion drives.Said it would make space uninhabitable due to the radiation poisoning.
It was one of those what the fuck moments.

[Posteritatis]

36. Oh gods, there's more than one of those?

I encountered the phrase "polluting the pristine environment of space with deadly radiation" - the exact wording is branded into my very soul - awhile back.

I suppose I can wish you ran into the same guy; I don't like the idea of more than one person that mindwitheringly stupid floating around this world. Augh.

[conscious evolution]

37. You will love this one

I heard someone say they should send radioactive waste on a one way trip to the sun.
Someone was shocked that he would ever consider polluting the sun like that.

[Posteritatis]

39. I don't love that one at all! :( (nt)

[Occulus]

21. You won't be saying that after you watch

this.

I don't know why I'm the only one to ever link this lecture given by Dr. Bussard; it's a fairly good, in-depth look at his research, and runs a bit over 1 1/2 hours. Well worth the look, even if (perhaps especially if) you think there's nothing to this.

[FogerRox]

22. I linked to the google tech talk in the OP, its very compelling

[FogerRox]

25. DOD funding for 11 yrs = comic book ?

[FogerRox]

18. Show some love people

click that rec button... please... ?

[krispos42]

27. So, can this be used to replace coal and gas powerplants?

Or is it just a space propulsion device?

[FogerRox]

28. YES.....The full size proof of concept is geared to being the prototype

for a 100mgw electrical generator.

Try page 21 of this pdf

http://askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf

[krispos42]

33. Thank you

I wasn't sure from the article if the power generated heat for steam turbines or was intended for making thrust for propulsion.

With an all-fusion power grid, we will be able to heat our homes, water, and food with electricity, saving natural gas, gasoline, and diesel only for transportation.

As lithium-ion batteries become cheaper, electric cars (see my Journal) will be able to be charged from home for most driving needs, with longer trips done by either renting a conventional car or by getting a 'generator trailer' for the electric with auxillary engine car I described. A 50hp 300VDC generator on a small trailer that plugs right into the car's DC power grid would be able to power the average car or small SUV at highway speeds indefinately, with the car's internal battery able to provide burts of power for hills and highway merging/passing.

Eventually, we will only need liquid fuels for planes, trucks, ships, and buses, and to make lubricants and plastics.

Also, with limitless fusion power, we will be able to make all the hydrogen gas we need to replace battery-powered cars with fuel cells. Heck, there can be a little hydrogen generator in each house, so you can fill it up every day as needed if you wish. Won't matter that the efficiency rate of turning electricity into hydrogren is low. You have all the power you need for pennies.

[FogerRox]

35. Both

I wasn't sure from the article if the power generated heat for steam turbines or was intended for making thrust for propulsion.

Also direct conversion to electricity, or a fusion reactor could replace a coal fired furnace, just hook up the steam and water lines.... same thing with a nuke plant, use the existing steam and water lines,,

[tkmorris]

29. No, this has power applications

In fact, in the short term, that seems more important to me.

I was at Costco today, pouring gasoline into my van, and watching those numbers tick over higher and higher. Filling your gas tank is a lot lot taking a shower solo; there is nothing to do but muse. So, I'm looking at all that cash flowing, and thinking of the struggle to control the world's oil, and meanwhile I am just BAKING in the sun (I'm in South Florida). It occurs to me for perhaps the 10,000th time that our energy problem is inherently solvable, if we have the will. Hell, energy is all around us. It's simply a matter of harnessing it, and efficiently using it. Sun, wind, the atomic force, even gravity has the potential to yield energy that can be harnessed.

Bussard's fusion plant is just another way to do this. It is far from a comic book, at this point it is a straightforward engineering problem to make it practical. The real struggle will not be in accomplishing it, it will rather be in CONTROLLING the technology. There is more money to be made in selling power than there is in any other industry. Think of how much money Exxon made last year, even last quarter. Believe it, these people will first try to prevent such technology from existing, and when that fails (as it eventually must), they will instead attempt to control it, to package it, and to sell it. It will cost far less to produce, but they will attempt to make just as much profit or more as they do today. That is the real problem. Making the power practical and cheap is just a matter of money, brain sweat, and time. Making certain it is used for the public good is going to be the hard part.

[FogerRox]

30. Right on.

[FogerRox]

31. Only 3 rec's, oh well

[CabalPowered]

40. Sorry I was late

Very interesting post. :thumbsup:

[donco6]

32. Oh no! It's Doc Oc's machine!

Look out New York!

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Interesting stuff.

I like reading about this sort of thing. Certainly, it would be incredible if they pulled it off.