Jump to content
Science Forums

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy


erich

Recommended Posts

Dear Uncle Al,

Your logic and math are impeccable, However you seem to ignore the macro energy equation.

All fossil and nuke fuels ultimately add to the heat load of the biosphere while most of the solar / wind / thermal conversion technologies (except geothermal) recycle solar energy instead of releasing sequestered solar energy. This is the goal and definition of sustainability, not over loading the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.

 

Dear Damocles:

At least you seem to take account of this. Although I feel you dismiss the rising curve of increasing efficiency for PV, direct solar to hydrogen, wind and thermal conversion to electricity.

 

Cheers,

Erich J. Knight

 

Mr. K.

 

Uncle Al is a formidable no-nonsense logician. I KNOW he didn't ignore the heat loading question. He has a flair for the dramatic to make his point without cluttering the argument with "secondary" considerations-his primary point being that electrical efficiencies involve concentrations of generating capacity as well as throughput efficiencies of delivered work.

 

GSWB is not as efficient as the fossil-fuelled system we have now or simple economics(the profit motive) would have people(corporations) drilling heat taps, building solar collectors, establishing wind farms, erecting PV cell arrays and producing ethanol by the million gross metric ton lot.

 

There are many reasons why this doesn't happen;

 

NIMBY

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/main560595.shtml

 

is just one.

 

I understand that PV cells have recently shown dramatic increases in efficiency that promise a decrease of up to 2x in surface area to generate the same amount of electricity as current PV cells.

 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/documents/DRAFT_PIER_ENPV.pdf

 

That is significant.

 

But note that some of the PV cell approaches require scarce and often extremely poisonous resources with energy intensive extraction processes?

 

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Technologies.htm

 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cram PV cells or GSWB applications into the overall scheme wherever we can.

 

But how do you supply electricity to a continental railroad network? PV celled locomotives? Try dragging 20,000 ton trains with that solution!

 

How do you run a wheat combine? Or a farm tractor?

 

How do you move 100,000 ton freighters?(I have the idea that returning to efficient airfoil[sailing] ships for freighters under 5000 tons; when the cargo transshipped is not time critical makes great economic and environmental sense. Engineering scales where appropiate?)

 

See? You can be sensible, green, and PRACTICAL.

 

My argument is that GSWB is not the primary means. It is a niche approach to our energy needs.

 

Fusion is the means we know that gives the energy outputs we require to maintain our current standards of living in our concentrated cities. It is hugely scalable so that we can become energy rich per person. It isn't clean, though.

 

Those shells that surround the fusor and act as neutron traps will be radioactive hells to process and safely discard, as one example. And there is HEAT POLLUTION.

 

Still the throughput work efficiencies of fusion, while lower than our hydrocarbon fuelled generating plants at present, have no limit to scalability or improvement to its practical upper bound as we learn by doing. We can build HUGE and we can build efficient as we learn more about working plasmas in commercial fusion plants.

 

Then we have to tackle the HEAT LOADING in the bio-sphere. I know this may sound crazy to some, but you could pipe or radiate that heat to secondary systems to do work. Like a two-stage generating plant does now. We are clever hominids. We will find a way to mitigate.

 

Hydrogen fuel cells by comparison is like the stepchild in the overall energy equation. It, however, to my mind, is the GREEN half of the equation. In the United States, about half of our manmade greenhouse gases comes from autos and trucks. I would clearly like to replace that air pollution with water vapor.(More potable water to precipate out as RAIN! See I lump everything together. Hydrogen fuel cell cars can[very marginally] affect the current potable water shortage in America's west.)

 

Jokes aside, I have very green reasons for my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JennFinn

Eric - When you say you doubt their viability, do you mean the groups working on instituting Tesla's ideas - or do you mean Tesla's ideas specifically. I've been reading a lot of material about his idea's and they seem sound - but it appears that for financial reasons (that being the loss of) large institutions don't want his designs used. Am I way out of line here? I am by no means as knowledgeable as you all are, but I find your debates and ideas facinating. I thought you could shine a bit of light (and insight) on the Tesla issue for me. I know just enough to think Tesla's ideas sound wonderful - but not enough to have any clue about the pitfalls of his theory. I genuinely would like to understand. Please be patient with my persistent question . . .and enlighten me just a bit.

 

Jennfinn:

 

There are many Tesla groups working , but a Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/ on them makes me dought their viability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The throughput efficiencies of delivered work is exactly the kind of improvements that I see in the applications nano-tech. Let's take your locomotive and apply Borealis's motors, Power Chips, and graphite hydrogen storage. If I were uncle al I'm sure I could give you the exact well to wheel efficiency of todays diesel electric locomotives, but let me guess say 25%,This Thermionic locomotive design would be over 50%. The same goes for tractors and freighters. Although Airfoil Clipper ships sound cool.( the sailing speed record will probably break 50 knots this year)

 

But also note that some of the nano PV cell approaches require less scarce and often extremely non-poisonous resources with low energy intensive extraction processes.

 

P-B11 fusion looks real clean ( a little dirty helium)

 

Heat loading can be dealt with in many ways, cogeneration with thermionic chips, salting iron in areas of the ocean for plankton blooms to eat co2.( 1 lb of iron could conceivably sequester 100,000 lbs of CO2)

 

Jenn:

Unfortunately, on the Internet you'll find huge numbers of moderately technical people trying to pass off stuff they've made up as amazing breakthroughs. Its everywhere -- new types of fusion (cold or hot), inertialess drives, antigravity, zero-point energy etc. None of it is real to me unless it passes the google scholar test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erich, this is you?

 

1. NASA is right. Chen is wrong.

http://www.nanovip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=571

Did they ever solve the electrode problem?

 

2. Nano-machines(including PV cells) fry in the palm of my hand.

 

3. A PV cell powered train would work, if you accepted;

a. slow.

b. PV cells distributed across all the cars of the the entire train along with the drive motors for traction.

c. inability to climb a grade under load.

 

4. Borealis power chip motors are EXCELLENT! Mate that to a first class electrical generation scheme for a traction electric motored vehicle at the wheel and you indeed improve desired characteristics like torque and throughput work efficiencies. You could run a combine using such motors to capture waste heat and use it for work, but you need the current motors for things like PTOs and the traction. Fuel cells versus PV cells in such a combo? I know where my money goes.

 

5. Nothing says that we can't use direct solar to electrolysis for hydrogen extraction. I just wonder about scales. We need a LOT of hydrogen.(10 billion cubic liters liquified per year minimum?)

 

6. When I mention heat pollution, Erich, I mean HEAT as in thermal radiation. When you start discussing generating electricity at the orders of magnitude like a Category Three hurricane and call for that to be done by a collection of fusion plants(100 to 500 such generatiing plants) with working efficiencies that realistically might be 12-18% on the low side to as much as 30-50% on the high end.(There is that much uncertainty:

 

http://www.fusion.org.uk/techdocs/tofe16_cook.pdf

 

as to the throughput.), what is not uncertain is the amount of HEAT that you will generate as waste. That heat has to be either released into the environment or it has to be recovered as work. Either way it is a formidable problem to solve.

 

Aside from this, on goals we would be in complete agreement. Means we may quibble a bit, though I am open to any viable mix of electrical means of production(that doesn't offer the chimera of biomass as one of its elements) that puts oil to its proper use-as a lubricant, a souce for plastics, and as jet fuel; until we figure out how to build a hydrogen powered plane that actually works.(Good luck on that one!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.... That's me............. those postings with Clint and Eric put my concerns to rest, although embarrassing, they were simple math errors and NASA accepted Clint's corrections.

 

What electrode problem? His work has a funding problem.

 

1,2,3 & 4: Power chips (and Cool Chips) are quantum tunneling thermocouples not PV.

 

The Thermionic locomotive (and car) would work like this: Solar direct hydrogen (or bio-hydrogen) http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html ....is stored with an equal energy density of diesel in cheap graphite New look for hydrogen storage (July 2005) - News http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/10 ....Burned.... direct heat to electric Power Chips (@ 80% carnot efficiency).....to Chorus electric motors drives ( 300% increase in torque with equal loads ).

......and you get to over 50% well to wheel efficiency and there ain't no wells.

 

 

5: Here's another solar approach, they claim a 50 MW array will produce at $.046/KWhr Barnabus Energy, Inc. (OTC BB : BBSE) Investor Facts http://www.otcfn.com/bbse/report.html

I finally found some more specific info on the Suncone, The numbers look better than any solar technology I have seen at this level of development, that you can invest in. The credentials and track record of Dr. Melvin L. Prueitt are most impressive, And the solar roofing technology they are acquiring also looks solid.

Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.html

 

6: Again I was speaking of using arrays of thermocouples to recapture waste heat back to work.

 

Cheers,

Erich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.... That's me............. those postings with Clint and Eric put my concerns to rest, although embarrassing, they were simple math errors and NASA accepted Clint's corrections.

 

Glad to here it. His scalars may still be wrong.

 

What electrode problem? His work has a funding problem.

 

This electrode problem.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor

 

Electrodes

There are a number of unsolved, and possibly unsolvable, problem with the electrodes in a fusor power system. To begin with, the electrodes cannot influence the potential within themselves, so that the fusion plasma will be in more or less direct contact with the inner electrode, resulting in contamination of the plasma and destruction of the electrode. Also, the transparency of the electrode will have to be unbelievably good since an ion will have to pass through it on the order of 1010 times before undergoing a fusion reaction. (See Inertial confinement fusion.)

 

This is equally acute in;

 

http://www.focusfusion.org/what/plasmafocus.html

 

Simple and dirty explanation: The generated plasma has a property called impingement. It contacts the anode, pitting it. This destroys the anode via uneven surface cratering. Result? The anode erodes.

 

1,2,3 & 4: Power chips (and Cool Chips) are quantum tunneling thermocouples not PV.

 

I know this. Perhaps you thought that I was referring to TMCs as PV cells in powering locomotives? Sorry. I need to be clearer in writing I suppose. What I thought I was writing was that these TMCs would convert waste heat into additional current for locomotive traction motors. Chorus motors are scalable for such traction motors. Where I seem to have confused youi was failing to clarify that the TMCs were ancillary to primary current supply by hydrogen fuel cell and/or PV cell.

 

Subsequently I read;

 

The Thermionic locomotive (and car) would work like this: Solar direct hydrogen (or bio-hydrogen) http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html ....is stored with an equal energy density of diesel in cheap graphite

 

That, we are in agreement. That is a fuel-celled locomotive hydrogen storage system up to that point.

 

New look for hydrogen storage (July 2005) - News http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/10 ....Burned.... direct heat to electric Power Chips (@ 80% carnot efficiency).....to Chorus electric motors drives ( 300% increase in torque with equal loads ).

......and you get to over 50% well to wheel efficiency and there ain't no wells.

 

Okay. Suppose you do burn the hydrogen for heat and use your TMCs for heat to electric current direct conversion? The efficiencies are closer to 30-40% by the time that wheel turns on that rail. Burning hydrogen and putting that heat to work is not as efficient as some might claim.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html

 

Ideally the situation has us taking hydrogen at 300 degrees kelvin and burning it at 500 degrees kelvin for a Carnot cycle efficiency of 66% in an idealized TMC powerchip which outputs it as electric current.

 

But; that is current fed to a traction motor, correct?

 

http://www.powerchips.gi/technology/pcalc.shtml

 

Realistically due to material retardation in the TMCs, we should expect real world thermal to electric efficiencies of less than fifty percent before we ever feed current to the traction motor.

 

http://www.uow.edu.au/~mo15/O'Dwyer,%20Humphrey,%20Lewis,%20Zhang,%20AIP%20Congress%202005.pdf

 

Here we have problems with some claims, specifically for the Chorus motor;

 

http://www.memagazine.org/supparch/mepower01/5thharm/5thharm.html

 

The Chorus motor actually benefits from a harmonic-laden waveform, Edelson said. Since all the harmonics up to the phase count contribute to rotor rotation, a motor can be made more efficient by as much as 3 percent. To lay ears, that might not sound like much. But the typical 10-hp three-phase motor is already 90 percent efficient, he said. A 3 percent efficiency gain equates to a 30 percent reduction in the losses. From the start, users of high-phase order machines are using less electricity.

 

Let me say that again; a three percent gain in efficiency here.

 

So that thermionic locomotive, will be somewhat akin to the efficiency of the standard more 'conventional' hydrogen fuel-celled cousin. What you haven't considered is that it is not as scalable to size as the fuel-celled cousin. Perhaps 1200 HP output? That is a small locomotive for hauling a long train up the Rockies?

 

Then we have this little problem. Remember this cite you suppiied ?

 

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/10

 

According to their calculations, thin layers of graphite or graphene -- two-dimensional sheets of carbon atoms -- spaced between 6 and 7 Angstroms apart can store hydrogen at room temperature and moderate pressures of just 10 MPa. Moreover, the amount of hydrogen stored comes close to a practical goal of 62 kilograms per cubic metre set by the US Department of Energy. Another advantge of the graphite is that the hydrogen gas can be released by moderate warming.

 

That got me to thinking;

 

A. Casimir Effect;

 

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

 

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=731897

 

In 1997, Researchers led by Steve Lamoreaux at the Los Alamos National Labs were able to create an experiment accurate and sensitive enough to measure the Casimir force. Recently, experiments at Purdue University, led by Professor Ephraim Fischbach, have verified the effect to within 5% of Casimir's original predictions. They team used a MEMS torsional oscillator plate and a gold-plated aluminum sphere (easier than two plates to align properly) to measure the force, varying the distance between the two structures from 200 nanometers to 2 microns.

 

Ouch.

 

B. Van der Waals forces:

 

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

 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae206.cfm

 

Hydrogen bonding is the third type of van der Waals' forces. It is exactly the same as dipole-dipole interaction, it just gets a special name. A hydrogen bond is a dipole dipole interaction that occurs between any molecule with a bond between a hydrogen atom and any of oxygen/fluorine/nitrogen. So, Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), Water (H2O), ammonia (NH3)....any kind of substance that has a hydrogen bonded to either an oxygen, fluorine or nitrogen atom, exhibits hydrogen bonding. The hydrogen bond is just the dipole dipole force but it is extremely strong compared to either dipole dipole forces like HCl. It is extremely strong because F N and O are extremely good at attracting electrons and H is extremely good at losing them. So basically, the bond is EXTREMELY a one-sided affair, resulting in an extreme dipole situation, thus named, a hydrogen bond. The extremely positive side of the molecule will orient itself with the extremely negative side of another molecule.

 

You can see what happens if there is any kind of 'oxygen' contamination of the proposed hydrogen storage scheme?

 

Double ouch.

 

5: Here's another solar approach, they claim a 50 MW array will produce at $.046/KWhr Barnabus Energy, Inc. (OTC BB : BBSE) Investor Facts http://www.otcfn.com/bbse/report.html

 

Despite my dead link I GOOGLED for it and I like Barnabus Energy a lot. The company has a very practical market-driven approach to renewables, and their technologies make a great deal of sense to me.

 

I finally found some more specific info on the Suncone, The numbers look better than any solar technology I have seen at this level of development, that you can invest in. The credentials and track record of Dr. Melvin L. Prueitt are most impressive, And the solar roofing technology they are acquiring also looks solid.

Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator

 

http://www.barnabusenergy.com/en/projects/suncone.asp

 

Its a GOOD design for that niche application of "solar' in the GSWB category, I discussed above. It is scalable solar power for the homesteader being this specific example.

 

The practicality here; is that the homeowner is not confronted with an excessive life cycle system cost, or maintenance load beyond what I would expect for the family car. Added to that, is the fact that the Suncone; if necessary can be fited with a simple fixed suntracker drive in azimuth to point the collector at the sun. I like that.

 

6: Again I was speaking of using arrays of thermocouples to recapture waste heat back to work.

 

Noted. I suggest though that this solution is best left to chemical energy systems as the waste heat recovery for those systems is simple to engineer. There are serious(as in deadly) engineering issues with trying to incorporate TMCs in a fusor design.

 

ADDENDUM; I seem to recall a research paper somewhere;

 

http://www.gerhard.de/gerold/owa/gerhard.browsen_soif?form_seq=979306&form_timestamp=&form_language=1

 

PB-11 hydrogen/boron fusion produces radioactive carbon 12 and up to 0.1% neutrons as ancillary byproducts. Nasty. Have to shield against that.

 

Best wishes;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You certainly do your homework Democles, wow...... what a reply..........

 

 

Concerning P-B11 fusion :

 

I sent the link to Gerhard's paper to Clint Seward, here's his reply:

 

" Hi Erich,

 

Thanks for the email. I found your references to be fascinating.

 

I scanned the science forum and it tracks things accurately so I will be reading it faithfully.

 

I read the Gerhard reference and can explain the issue he is raising. I would tend to agree that in a hot plasma of sufficient energy for a p,B reaction the He ions will form and remain in the plasma. I would tend to agree with the author’s concern that these He ions would then tend to interact further with the plasma and might well form neutrons in subsequent reactions as he suggests. However, this is not the reaction that we are using, and therefore these subsequent reactions can not happen. Please let me explain.

 

In the simplest form, the EST Spheromak has all of the ions in a single shell, a single ion thick, so assume this for this discussion. When two EST Spheromaks collide (one with H ions, one with B ions), the ion shells interact a la Wells work on TRISOPS. There is no high temperature plasma in the vicinity and none is created during this process. As Davidson noted in a companion paper to Wells, the two TRISOPS spheromaks adhered, but did not coalesce, and the surfaces interacted, and I expect the same thing since calculations support this. Calculations show that the intersecting portions of the ion surfaces will pass back and forth rapidly, thereby giving the ions (p,;) many chances to collide (greater than 1.0 E6/sec). When a collision occurs, the He ions will immediately leave the surface to be absorbed in the containment wall (there is no need of magnetic containment, but a heat absorbing wall is necessary such that heat can be transported for use elsewhere). Since the He does not encounter a high energy plasma, I do not see that Gerhard’s reference applies, and there is no mechanism for neutrons to form. Having said that, this remains to be confirmed experimentally.

 

Clint "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JennFinn

What exactly is it that I should do to perform a "Google Scholar Test"? I used the link that you provided and entered - Nikola Tesla - I was presented with many sites. By what criteria do you judge a subject when performing this "Google Scholar Test? I don't mean to bother you, but I honestly want to understand and know how to judge. It seems to me, from what I have read about his work, that he had some brilliant designs.

 

 

Like the one he presented in 1931 as stated in the book I'm reading now:

Under the financing of Pierce-Arrow and George Westinghouse, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow was selected to be tested at the factory grounds in Buffalo, NY. The standard internal combustion engine was remaoved and an 80-HP 1800 rpm electric motor installed to the clutch and transmission. The A.C. motor measured 40" long and 30" in diameter and the powerleads were left standing in the air-no external power source! At the appointed time, Nikola Tesla arrived from New York City and inspected the Pierce-Arrow automobile. He then went to a local radio store and purchased a handful of tubes (12), wires and assorted resistors. A box measuring 24" long 12" wide and 6" high was assembled housing the circuit. The box was placed on the front seat and had its wires connected to the air-cooled, brushless motor. Two rods 1/4" in diameter stuck out of the box about 3" in length.

Mr Tesla got into the driver's eat, pushed the two rods in and stated, "We now have power". He put the car into gear and it moved forward! This vehicle, powered by an A.C. motor, was driven to speed of 90 mph and performed better than any internal combustions engine of its day. One week was spent testing the vehicle.

 

The article goes on to state that the vehicle never had to be charged.

 

I just think that if Mr Tesla was capable of something like this - he must have know what he was talking about when he presented his ideas for "Wireless Transmission of Energy"

Doesn't anyone have an opinon on this. I would really love to hear what every one elste thinks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jenn:

Unfortunately, on the Internet you'll find huge numbers of moderately technical people trying to pass off stuff they've made up as amazing breakthroughs. Its everywhere -- new types of fusion (cold or hot), inertialess drives, antigravity, zero-point energy etc. None of it is real to me unless it passes the google scholar test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take a naturally occurring deep depression (a canyon, etc), preferably in a non-water permeable region. Make it even more watertight. Layer it with insulation, and another layer of waterproofing. Keep everything as flexible and resilient as possible.

 

Embed lotsa heat exchangers.

 

Flood it.

 

Cover it with an insulating layer, and some concrete, dirt, etc. (leave a sturdy hatch)

 

Take a hydrogen bomb (The nuclear nations have lotsa these laying around, many costing a good bit of money to render inoperable). Drop it into the center of this underground pool, and make it go boom.

 

Use the heat exchangers to generate electricity from the big heat difference between the enclosed water and whatever outside of it.

 

When the temperature difference becomes too small, drop in another H-bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is it that I should do to perform a "Google Scholar Test"?

I mean Google scholar any person who claims he has developed a Tesla car or other "free energy " technology to see if the work has been peer reviewed and cited . Otherwise they are probably con artist.

 

Cheers,

erich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erich?

 

Just out of curiousity, how much boron would we need to seed a 1000 MW fusor?

 

http://clasnews.clas.ufl.edu/news/clasnotes/9801/monk.html

 

Henk Monkhorst's latest research, published in a recent Science article, seems almost too good to be true. Monkhorst and Norman Rostoker (UC-Irvine), have theorized a fusion reactor that could efficiently provide electricity at a fraction of current costs. The fuels for his reactor are abundant, cheap and environmentally benign: hydrogen and boron-11. Hydrogen is easily attainable (using electrolysis) from ocean water, and boron deposits are plentiful (for example: 140 million tons in California, 500 million in Turkey). A 100 mega-watt power plant (10-15 of which would equal the total power generated by GRU) would burn only 200 grams of boron a day, as opposed to the over 700 tons of coal needed to power a similarly sized coal-burning plant. Better yet, the reactor emits no radiation; in fact, it has no adverse by-products at all. In addition, because the reactor is safe and clean, it would be possible to build small "neighborhood" power plants right in the area where the power is to be consumed, eliminating wasteful long distance electricity transport.

 

Assuming that those boron numbers were optimistic at the time, and that the numbers are closer to 500-750 grams a day for a 100 MW fusor; has Clint and Co. come close to building a successful pilot model? Has the electrode problem been solved?

 

Is this a good investment?(Deployment in 5-10 years?)

 

Best wishes;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Has the electrode problem been solved? "

 

The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium?

 

His device is not a "fusor" He uses a type of neutron gun to produce his toroid plasmas and acelerates them into each other for the fusion reaction :

 

http://www.electronpowersystems.com/Images/6kw%20wp%20non%20prop.doe.pdf

 

Fuel: For the proposed 6KW home generator 2kg of hydrogen/boron per year

 

He feels , with funding , two to three years for a prototype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes........but a 60/40 bet for a few $100,000, with this kind of upside is certainly worth it.

 

After posting to several Science, physics and Energy forums I collected up comments and questions and asked Clint Seward , president of Electron Power Systems, to respond:

 

"Your most important point was that others have suggested that I should be

able to demonstrate a collision of EST's and even a level of fusion with a

few hundred thousand dollars and about a year. I agree. Here is what I

need to do:

 

1. Capture the EST in a way that I can measure them. I have designed a

method in the last two months that will do this.

2. Measure the density of the EST. This requirement is something everyone

is asking for, and will enable me to get serious funding from sponsors.

3. Collide two EST's. I have found a simple way to do this based on the

TRISOPS work by Wells.

4. Consulting work by Chen to verify the physics I have outlined for the

density.

5. Make and measure an EST based on Deuterium.

6. Collide two Deuterium EST's.

 

Each of these requires some cash outlays, so I am working them as I can get

resources. Several people, including yourself, are considering helpful

investments of $5k to $10k to 25K to 50K to 100k. Work will progress with

any investment, no matter how small. Capturing an EST is a $5k investment.

 

Your second most important point is that more people want to see more data

and even a video. I have many of these, but have not published them yet. I

have concentrated on the physics, which I feel I now know completely, and

can get confirmed. This is a smaller effort, about $15k.

 

You suggested an article from the SF Chronicle that you might send. Please

do.

 

Again, thanks for the call.

 

Clint Seward"

 

 

Also Eric Lerner of Focus Fusion sent this report on his progress:

 

"Dear friend of Focus Fusion,

 

<>Thanks for your support of and interest in Focus Fusion. <>

 

I’m writing you to update you on our Focus Fusion project and to ask for your help. As you may know from our website or newsletter, this year we came very close to winning a $2 million grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), US Dept. of Commerce. The grant is to develop the dense plasma focus as a powerful x-ray source for infrastructure inspection, but the research involved is essentially the same as that required to reach fusion break-even. While NIST gave us high marks for the technical proposals and we passed Gate 1 of their procedure, we failed Gate 2, which judged the financial side of the plan. In the de-briefing, the NIST representatives assured us that we had an excellent chance of getting the grant in 2005 if we corrected some problems in our business submission.

First, they said we needed more proof that we had tried to raise the $2 million privately and from other government agencies and were unable to. Second, since they will not fund facility rent, considering this an indirect expense, they needed to see pledges from investors that they would cover this cost for at least the first year, in the event the grant was awarded. We estimate that this will involve a maximum of $100,000. In addition, they wanted more evidence that state departments of transportation and other final customers would actually want the x-ray scanner if we succeed. (We have already started to receive these assurances. I’ve attached one from the California DOT.)

 

<>Finally, they did say that they expected to see at least some small technical progress during the period since our last application in January, even though they realized that this would be limited by available funding. <>

 

So I am writing you to ask you to do one of three things, any of which would be helpful to us. First, I would like to ask you to consider investing in Lawrenecville Plasma Physics, Inc.(LPP)’s x-ray source project. (NIST rules require this money go to a for-profit, rather than not-for-profit entity, so we applied on behlaf of LPP, not Focus Fusion Society). I’ve attached a summary of the project. This project contributes immensely to the development of focus fusion, but it also has a lower risk, and a faster prospect of financial return. Your investment will contribute in three ways: first, it will help to finance the small new simulation we will carry out to optimize x-ray production, increasing our chances of winning the NIST grant. Second, in the event we do win the NIST grant, it will aid us in accomplishing the project. While we believe we can succeed with $2 million, unexpected contingencies are always possible in research and more money is useful. Third, this money can go toward the $100,000 that we need for the first year’s facility rent. You can see LPP's overall business plan at our website, http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com. <>

 

Investments can be made by purchasing LPP non-voting shares at $120 a share in minimum blocks of 25 shares. By SEC regulations, to make this investment you must be an “accredited investor” which means that you have one million dollars in net worth (house included) or an income of $200,000 dollars year. <>

 

If you can not make an investment in this project now, I would very much appreciate your sending me a letter, on your letterhead, explaining very briefly why you can’t do this (too high risk, insufficient funds available, not an accredited investor, etc.) We can use these letters as proof that we can’t raise $2 million from private sources in our next NIST application, so they are very important. You can send these letters either as hard copy to our new address: LPP, 11 Calvin Terrace, West Orange NJ 07052, or to my email address as a PDF file. This will only take you a few minutes, but is going to be invaluable to us. <>

 

Third, you can make a contractual pledge to provide all or part of the $100,000 that we need to cover our first year facility rent in the event that we are awarded the NIST grant. This money will only be due IF we get the $ 2 million grant and are thus assured the funds we need to do the job. Again, this investment will be in the form of the purchase of LPP shares and will be subject to the same “accredited investor” restriction. <>

 

I hope that you will be able to help us in one of these three ways. I look forward to your response. Feel free to contact me by email or at 973-736-0522. <>

 

Warm regards, Eric J. Lerner <>

President

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. "

 

 

Cheers,

Erich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Folks,

This new work By Dr.Kuzhevsky on neutrons in lightning: Russian Science News http://www.informnauka.ru/eng/2005/2005-09-13-5_65_e.htm is also supportive of Electron Power Systems fusion efforts http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ . I sent it to Clint Seward and here's his reply:

 

"There is another method to producing neutrons that fits my lightning model that I have described to you.

It is well known that electron beams have been used extensively to produce neutrons, above electron energies of 10 MeV, well within the voltages reported in the lightning event. (An Internet search produced several articles that reported this). I do not pretend to have researched this extensively, and do not know the actual target molecules or the process, but it appears plausible from what the papers report, and is consistent with my lightning model.

The proposed method you sent to me is a lot more complex, and I would have to say I can not agree with the article as written without experimental results."

 

 

 

 

Democles, you will love this:

Wow..............1 million g's...............I had never seen van der Waals interactions measured in these terms.......and shouldn't it be considered " van der Waals forces" (london & Waals) because the electron density in a molecule is redistributed by proximity to another pole? or, Are individual atoms a different story?

 

As you can see I only know enough to be dangerous or look ignorant.

 

Science News Daily http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-6724.html

 

A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

 

Cheers,

Erich J. Knight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...