Skunk Works & fusion PP's

[sideranautae]

Interesting preso from 2/2013.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY

Don't know if it is possible (the power plant by 2017) but makes for some good game fodder.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Maybe I'll use that instead of thorium in Triplanetary.

 

[sideranautae]

Maybe I'll use that instead of thorium in Triplanetary.

I wish there were a few more details. But it has a size and a power output range at least.

 

[enderra]

Thanks for the bump and the link. I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt 2017 but hey if they prove me wrong then I won't bitch about it. Notably they do state they can build a commercial reactor "in ten years" which is the running gag of fusion power plant tech, isn't it?

Info for people who did not watch the video: The dimensions given for their experimental setup are 1m diameter 2m long or 6.28 cubic meters. Presenter says a 100MW reactor would be "twice that size", whatever that means. He also points out that their reactor could be built on an assembly line instead of being an infrastructure project like ITER.

 

[sideranautae]

Thanks for the bump and the link. I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt 2017 but hey if they prove me wrong then I won't bitch about it.

I wouldn't put any money on this either.

 

[simonh]

I'm cautiously optimistic.

I have little time for pie in the sky stuff like warp drives and magic microwave thrusters. A couple of sketchy or highly speculative papers, by one or two scientists without a proven track record and with farly obvious holes and unknowns in their research, isn't a lot to go on.

But these guys are practical engineers with a solidly proven track record of building stuff that works. Also this isn't just a paper or a proposal, they actually have a team of very smart, experienced people working on it. They have put their money where their mouth is.

That's no guarantee of success, Fusion is a complex process with many difficult engineering challenges. There may be all sorts of unanticipated, intractable problems they may hit along the way. But fusion energy is a real thing that we know exists. In fact building a working Fusor is essentialy just a very advanced highschool project.

So the idea of having cheap fusion power being commonplace in just a decade or so does seem too good to be true, but there's nothing inherently impossible or implausible about it. If they say they have figured out how to make it work, I have no particular reason to disbelieve them.

With re-useable space rockets from SpaceX and vehicle mounted fusion reactors from Lockheed, I'm more excited about the future my kids are growing up into than I have been in a long time.

Simon Hibbs

 

[sideranautae]

I'm cautiously optimistic.

I have little time for pie in the sky stuff like warp drives and magic microwave thrusters.

At least there are 3 working and tested models of that. AND, the guy who invented the EM drive is a VERY proven engineer.

But these guys are practical engineers with a solidly proven track record of building stuff that works. Also this isn't just a paper or a proposal, they actually have a team of very smart, experienced people working on it. They have put their money where their mouth is.

Actually, we have ZERO idea of their hit/miss rate as most of their stuff is black projects. So, they may have a success rate on pjts that is horrible. As most of their R&D money is unaccountable tax payer $ it is an unknown. I take it that you aren't from the US?

 

[enderra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

"The plan is to reach a high-beta ratio. Plans call for a compact 100 MW machine. The company hopes to have a prototype working by 2017, scale it up to a full production model by 2022 and to be able to meet global baseload energy demand by 2050."

So, yeah. We'll know in three years.

 

[sideranautae]

"The company hopes to have a prototype working by 2017, scale it up to a full production model by 2022"

Based on the small size, simplicity of design and concept, 5 years from fully functioning prototype to a small commercial model is strange. But, then again, gov red tape could easily triple that...

 

[simonh]

I'm cautiously optimistic.

I have little time for pie in the sky stuff like warp drives and magic microwave thrusters.

At least there are 3 working and tested models of that. AND, the guy who invented the EM drive is a VERY proven engineer.

They haven't proven a thing. None of the teams can even agree how these things are supposed to work, and they don't even know how to disable them. At this point, they're just randomly assembling and modifying components to see what 'works', for very tenuous and poorly substantiated values of 'works'. The point of publishing scientific papers is so that results are repeatable, and those three experiments are fundamentally different designs, are based on contradictory competing theories and have produced wildly different results.

But these guys are practical engineers with a solidly proven track record of building stuff that works. Also this isn't just a paper or a proposal, they actually have a team of very smart, experienced people working on it. They have put their money where their mouth is.

Actually, we have ZERO idea of their hit/miss rate as most of their stuff is black projects. So, they may have a success rate on pjts that is horrible. As most of their R&D money is unaccountable tax payer $ it is an unknown. I take it that you aren't from the US?[/quote]

Nope, I'm a Brit. It's a fair point that we know less about what the Lockheed fusion reactor is and how it's supposed to work than we do in the case of the microwave thruster. Well just have to wait and see.

Simon Hibbs

 

[sideranautae]

They haven't proven a thing.

Sure they did. The UK and China teams proved that it produces thrust.

None of the teams can even agree how these things are supposed to work,

FALSE. The Chinese & UK published in their papers the forces they both believe are involved.

The item tested at NASA was of a different patent design and manufacture so can't compare with the other two tests.

 

[simonh]

They haven't proven a thing.

Sure they did. The UK and China teams proved that it produces thrust.

We've been over this before, so there's no point trotting out all the arguments again. I've looked at the published research and pointed out what I believe are fundamental errors in the experimental design and the purported theory behind it, while you find it convincing.

We'll see how it pans out in reality.

Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

Another potentially commercially viable fusion reactor concept.

Their claims aren't as hyperbolic as the Skunkworks announcement, but still pretty interesting. I wonder if Lockheed are actually pursuing the same approach or if there are significant differences. Either way, it's good that several teams are tackling this because it may be possible to take the best ideas from both teams to come up with something better than either on its own.

I bet I know why Lockheed emphasised their design's suitability for mobile deployment. They're primarily a military contractor, so sketching that's portable by truck or helicopter would appeal more to your primary market. That also means the economics are different for them. Their design doesn't have to be cheaper that conventional alternatives, it just has to offer tactical or strategic advantages that compensate for any higher cost.

Simon Hibbs

 

[sideranautae]

They haven't proven a thing.

Sure they did. The UK and China teams proved that it produces thrust.

We've been over this before,

Yes, we have. Lab testing data vs. Your NO data.

Anything else? (evidence based that is) rather than opinion?

 

[Matt Wilson]

Get a room, you two.

 

[simonh]

Yes, we have. Lab testing data vs. Your NO data.

Anything else? (evidence based that is) rather than opinion?

Oh, well, if it was done in a lab it must be true! Maybe we should tell all the journals not to bother having research peer-reviewed before publication, and just ask the submitter if their research happened in a lab. No need to bother checking the experimental design or looking for possible sources of error anymore. This would make telling good science from bad much easier.

Get a room, you two.

Ahhh, if only I could express my true feelings!

Simon Hibbs

 

[sideranautae]

Oh, well, if it was done in a lab it must be true!

Simon Hibbs

I don't know. I tend to lean towards the scientific method. Empirical data rather than feelings. ALL the testing on the British designed system shows it to produce thrust. I hope NASA tests it soon.

 

[simonh]

Oh, well, if it was done in a lab it must be true!

Simon Hibbs

I don't know. I tend to lean towards the scientific method. Empirical data rather than feelings. ALL the testing on the British designed system shows it to produce thrust. I hope NASA tests it soon.

The data is only as good as the rigour of the experimental design. And we have the experimental design. I've already given my opinions of it, but what do you think of it? What aspects of it make you trust the data so much? What weaknesses have you found in my critique?

The problem is that data from a badly designed and badly conducted experiment is intellectual toxic waste. It draws attention, time and resources away from worthwhile science, forcing proficient scientists to expend those resources 'cleaning it up', i.e. debunking the result by performing more rigorous experiments instead of conducting useful research.

Take cold fusion as an example. Just think of the cost of all those efforts wasted trying to recreate the results or come up with better experiments. It probably set back scientific research programmes and publications a total of hundreds of millions of dollars, when you add it all up.

Simon Hibbs