• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

PRACTICAL fusion device by Princeton physicist suppressed

metamars

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
1,207
I'd like to comment more on this, but don't have the time right now.

See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606 for a talk given at Google.

According to a very bright, Princeton educated physicist Robert Bussard, who has successfully created fusion in small, magnetically confined polyhedral devices, all of the physics problems have been solved, and all that is required to solve are engineering problems.

To find out what the benefits are, and why they had to be underfunded to get any government funding, at all, you can just watch the last part starting at 1:00.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Bussard that China or possibly India are likely to develop this before the US. This is tragic, in that Bussard is an American, the patents are owned by an American company, and there's no good reason why the US couldn't lead the way to a very benign ecological future.

Of the two, it is China that is working on "very interesting" tokamak fusion devices, apart from the huge (and, according to Bussard, likely futile) international ITER fusion project, and that "will beat ITER to the punch".

Developing these power plants would allow very rapid space travel. Going to Mars should only take about 4 weeks, and 76 days to Titan, a Saturnian moon.

So, don't be surprised when China not only leaves the US in the dust economically, but furthermore leaves the US still piddling with kerosene fueled rockets while they zoom throughout the solar system on fusion powered systems.

Maybe if we ask them nicely, they will let us hitch a ride. :)

Finally, Bussard's project got completely defunded a few years ago. He was getting funding from the Navy, "under the radar", but even the chump change he was getting was cut when the Navy's R&D budget got cut by 26%. The money was needed for George Bush's Iraq fiasco.

To find out why he's given up on the US government, including and especially DOE, watch the video. There is definitely a 'conspiracy' of careerism and bureaucracy (if you can call it that - Bussard certainly didn't).

Is there more to it than that?


edited to correct spelling of Bussard's name
 
Last edited:
One hour and 32 minutes. :(

Ok here is a comment:
all of the physics problems have been solved, and all that is required to solve are engineering problems.
The same could be said for time travel to the future.
 
Metamars:

"All of the physics problems have been solved, and all that is required to solve are engineering problems."

Sounds like any nuclear reactor to me!
 
To find out why he's given up on the US government, including and especially DOE, watch the video. There is definitely a 'conspiracy' of careerism and bureaucracy (if you can call it that - Broussard certainly didn't).

Is there more to it than that?
Yes. Bussard has a greater problem to solve, for which neither the physics nor the engineering has been figured out: returning from the dead.
 
Last edited:
That is a speed of 464285.7 mph. Or, more speed from energy than these Tokamak reactors appear to produce. (which is , currently 1000eV according to Wikipedia)

I find it unlikely, honestly.

Bussard's design is not a tokamak, as he makes clear in his Google talk.

If you can get a 1 g acceleration, Mars is doable in about 49.5 hours. ( I used 78 million km in http://www.cthreepo.com/cp_html/math1.htm )
 
As others have already noted, "Robert Boussard" is in fact the late Dr. Robert Bussard. Yes, if you've ever read any Larry Niven, that's him. Over the past 40+ years he created a significant body of work on fusion research.

Having his Navy funding (ONR, I assume) cut is no basis to say his work has been "suppressed." This kind of thing happens all the time. By that standard, I would be equally justified in saying that my own, less controversial research had been "suppressed" seven times in the last decade. Whoever drew that conclusion betrays a fundamental lack of understanding and experience with government funded research. To wit, if such alarmist folk ever heard of ITAR, I suspect they would conclude that the United States Government was determined to suppress everything.

As to the claim of its revolutionary impact on spaceflight, this is much more dependent on how much the technology can be miniaturized. I see no evidence that it can, at least within our lifetimes. If it cannot, then fusion reactions offer no practical benefit over an alternate form of nuclear propulsion that largely "had all the science worked out" almost 50 years ago. This approach is simpler, of comparable efficiency, and has been demonstrated in small scale, yet for reasons that should be obvious has never been put into practice.

I am not opposed to fusion research, but the wording of the OP is little more than fatuous sensationalism.
 
So earth is the reference point in interplanetary travel? Again I ask why is 1 G acceleration an imposibbility?
In space you can get 1 g and go places. Go for it. 1 g space travel from earth? We are sitting at 1 g. Good luck. Not impossible, I am at 1 g right now. Which direction do you want to go? Or do you mean 2 gs. I give up. How are you getting off the earth surface with 1 g. Not more than 1 g in the z plane, or any plane. Gee make it sun centered, or galaxy centered. Any reference you want. I am having a hard time getting off the surface with 1 g. Oops, 1.1, I just jumped, but then back to earth. At 1 g I have maintained 5 feet 11 inches. If I get an impulse above 1 g, I can go higher. 1 g sideways is 1.414s overall and go no where in space yet, or am I missing something. Even in a sun reference system the equations of motion are tough, but I have not left the surface of earth yet. It could take a while to get to mars from here at 1 g.

Let me think, is the earth hollow? Could we accelerate through the earth at 1 g and come out the other side and launch into orbit. But I am still doing 1 g and my house is still on earth. Should I give it 2 gs? I tried 1 g side ways, but we were getting a resultant acceleration of 1.414 or something. Is that 1 g?
 
Last edited:
In space you can get 1 g and go places. Go for it. 1 g space travel from earth? We are sitting at 1 g. Good luck.
I think what metamars means is that the spacecraft accelerates at 1g (that is, 32 ft/s²) for half the journey, then turns around and decelerates at 1g for the other half of the journey. This means for the duration of the trip the crew would feel as if it was under normal Earth gravity.

I assume he meant the ship would depart from orbit, not the Earth's surface.
 
Last edited:
Having his Navy funding (ONR, I assume) cut is no basis to say his work has been "suppressed."

Wrt the Navy funding situation, I completely agree. Wrt having to go to the Navy, instead of the DOE, I think it's reasonable to characterize Bussard's statement that he was told that DOE would kill his project as "suppression".

How much of this suppression goes beyond selfish career concerns and bureaucracy, I have no way of knowing.

BTW, the title was chosen mostly to be catchy. I am more interested in having the public know what is possible. This is just one more forum where I posted about Bussard. And all with incorrect spelling!

As to the claim of its revolutionary impact on spaceflight, this is much more dependent on how much the technology can be miniaturized.

Why do you say "miniaturized"? Certainly, all of his prototypes were small. You must mean that you expect a model big enough to power a spacecraft to be enormous. Do you have any firm basis for such a belief?

I don't have a firm basis for believing in the contrary, but Bussard sounds legitimate enough to me that the sort of review panel that Bussard called for could offer a substantive opinion.

Do you know of any fusion physicists, who do not have a vested interest in some other fusion technology, who have properly reviewed Bussard's work and pronounced his claim re spacecraft to be unsound?
 
Do you know of any fusion physicists, who do not have a vested interest in some other fusion technology, who have properly reviewed Bussard's work and pronounced his claim re spacecraft to be unsound?
something tells me you will pronounce any fusion expert (other than bussard himself) as having a "vested interest" in some other technology
 
So, don't be surprised when China not only leaves the US in the dust economically, but furthermore leaves the US still piddling with kerosene fueled rockets while they zoom throughout the solar system on fusion powered systems.
My first grade class has left you in the dust in knowledge. And if you are a US citizen, you may give most Chinese the false impression nut case ideas are normal for Americans.

But alas, the Chinese will leave us in the dust if you were indicative of the education our kids are getting. Did the Chinese invent capitalism; they are not slackers at capitalism. Ironic, ain't it …
 
You're not too bright, are you?
i think beachnut is saying 1g of acceleration isnt going to get you off the earths surface

however i would assume a fusion-powered spacecraft would probably be lifted into orbit via conventional rockets, then accelerate from orbit

however my question is, can a fusion powered spacecraft maintain 1g of acceleration? what is it using as a propellant? i would figure it would be more akin to ion propulsion (very low acceleration, but virtually no upper speed limit and little to no fuel requirements other than an electric power source, such as your fusion reactor)
 
In space you can get 1 g and go places. Go for it. 1 g space travel from earth? We are sitting at 1 g. Good luck.
Well read what metamars posted and he said travelling to Mars. He didn't say staying seated on earth like you decided to pick on. If 1 G acceleration is impossible just prove it or stop being a damn spoiled brat.
 
Wrt the Navy funding situation, I completely agree. Wrt having to go to the Navy, instead of the DOE, I think it's reasonable to characterize Bussard's statement that he was told that DOE would kill his project as "suppression".

Only to a paranoiac.

Why do you say "miniaturized"? Certainly, all of his prototypes were small. You must mean that you expect a model big enough to power a spacecraft to be enormous. Do you have any firm basis for such a belief?

Dr. Bussard himself describes the "break even" requirement as one of scaling. There's no reason to expect it to downsize well, and in fact Dr. Bussard despaired of building anything less than a full production model even before demonstrating practicality.

The technology also requires enormous field generators, radiation shielding, and startup power. You won't be able to cold-start something like this in space without monstrous auxiliary power supplies.

Do you know of any fusion physicists, who do not have a vested interest in some other fusion technology, who have properly reviewed Bussard's work and pronounced his claim re spacecraft to be unsound?

Academic. Until a practical model exists on the ground, there's no value at all to speculating what it "might" do in spaceflight. There are numerous special difficulties with spaceflight. Why make your life harder? Tackle one problem at a time.

I'm reminded once again of Samuel Pierpont Langley, who might have been the first to achieve powered, controlled flight, had he not also insisted on launching from a houseboat, thereby requiring development of a catapault launch system as well as the first heavier-than-air aircraft. I repeat: Tackle one problem at a time.

And leave the paranoia at home.
 
however my question is, can a fusion powered spacecraft maintain 1g of acceleration? what is it using as a propellant? i would figure it would be more akin to ion propulsion (very low acceleration, but virtually no upper speed limit and little to no fuel requirements other than an electric power source, such as your fusion reactor)
You're concerned about whether the ship could carry enough reaction mass? How much reaction mass you need depends on how cheap the energy is. If you accelarate the reaction mass to a very high speed you can get away with a very small mass of it, but the energy requirements go up non linearly.
 
Actually, the Bussard fusion reactor is currently being actively funded by the navy.

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-official.html

The WB7 reactor has been built, and is currently being used for fusion tests.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/09/566532.aspx
Well, sure: now they're funding it, but obviously they had to kill him so they could steal his technology.

Earth calling all metamartians: probably best not to comment on the intellectual deficiencies of others here!.
 
I think what metamars means is that the spacecraft accelerates at 1g (that is, 32 ft/s²) for half the journey, then turns around and decelerates at 1g for the other half of the journey. This means for the duration of the trip the crew would feel as if it was under normal Earth gravity.

I assume he meant the ship would depart from orbit, not the Earth's surface.
Yes I hope he meant that otherwise the abrupt stop definitely would cause at least one problem. Unless that one problem was fatal, there would be more :)
 
Yes I hope he meant that otherwise the abrupt stop definitely would cause at least one problem. Unless that one problem was fatal, there would be more :)
that was my first though as well, but i did some rough calculations on his 49.5 hours figure and seems to be consistent with accelerating at 1g halfway there, and decelerating at 1g for the second half
 
You're concerned about whether the ship could carry enough reaction mass? How much reaction mass you need depends on how cheap the energy is. If you accelarate the reaction mass to a very high speed you can get away with a very small mass of it, but the energy requirements go up non linearly.
well my question was more with how the acceleration of the reaction mass is to be achieved, a fusion reactor doesnt provide any kinetic energy on its own, the problem i see is the ability to translate the heat/eletrical/whatever energy produced by the fusion reaction to kinetic energy to move the space craft

my initial thought was ion propulsion, but that i dont think that would provide near enough kinetic energy to accelerate at 1g

i also thought of mass drivers, but that may require a prohibitive amount of fuel mass (also this seems an ineffecient way of translating energy)
 
Yes I hope he meant that otherwise the abrupt stop definitely would cause at least one problem. Unless that one problem was fatal, there would be more :)
Well, you could accelerate at 1g for the entire trip and get there quicker. But of course when you reach Mars you won't have much time to admire it before you zoom past. :)
 
Well, you could accelerate at 1g for the entire trip and get there quicker. But of course when you reach Mars you won't have much time to admire it before you zoom past. :)
well as enigma pointed out zooming past isnt the only option :D

of course that would result in an acceleration quite a bit higher than 1g
 
Well, you could accelerate at 1g for the entire trip and get there quicker. But of course when you reach Mars you won't have much time to admire it before you zoom past. :)
Or zoom through their newly dug tunnel :D

Now that would be an interesting exercise. Calculate how far through Mars would a 7500 Kg spaceship that accelerated at a constant 1 G after leaving Earth orbit plunge during a crash landing?

ETA - This really isn't a CT but it's a fun thread.
 
Last edited:
My name, my name is… … i want to be an astronaut

Well read what metamars posted and he said travelling to Mars. He didn't say staying seated on earth like you decided to pick on. If 1 G acceleration is impossible just prove it or stop being a damn spoiled brat.
What was the energy required for the flight? He never said he was in space either. Go fly with M man, he has a way with science. I doubt he knows where he is departing from.

I doubt he is slowing down. Just how far is mars on this 1 g trip to enter orbit? Who is the navigator? Who is the pilot. You may have enough energy for 1g acceleration, I do not know, no body has spoiled this brat with numbers, distance, reality, energy, initial points, end points, failure modes, orbital mechanics. The energy is how much on this flight with WTC nuke man who see CT everywhere. I have always dreamed of these things, and in 1964 these things were our science goals; still are. I listened to Kennedy say it much better. So spoiled I am, as I went to be an engineer because we were going to the moon. If I am spoiled so be it, but I have sat though solving the equations of motion in many reference systems, and it is not trivial. I have almost flunked and lost my job taking courses taught by a person who finds new moons on Saturn. I am spoiled because I had the opportunity to fail and beat it to pass. I have seen on the board the terms for lift due to flying to the east due to the earths rotation negligible unless you are traveling at Mach 3. Spoiled I am. Thank you for reminding me how spoiled I was.

I did not talk about flying at 7.33 gs,, I went to UPT and flew 7.33 gs. I do not talk about space travel, I worked with future astronauts. Sorry, if I assumed M man was starting from earth, he has no clue on the OP he started himself. I must be a brat. And spoiled, in that I am going to the weightless simulator that is doing 1 g right out side under the stars and see how far into space I can get in my 1 g weightless simulator commonly know as a …

Sorry, but I have seen this in 1964, it is called space flight. It has been a dream for thousands of years. I have tried to help in a small way. So where is M man taking off from. Numbers now please. Off to the simulator. Good night and thanks for reminding me how spoiled I really am. I had front row seats for some great fire works too. All expenses paid.

/random thoughts on that
 
Last edited:
well my question was more with how the acceleration of the reaction mass is to be achieved, a fusion reactor doesnt provide any kinetic energy on its own, the problem i see is the ability to translate the heat/eletrical/whatever energy produced by the fusion reaction to kinetic energy to move the space craft
Well, the fusion product is a plasma of high velocity particles. It could be exhausted through a magnetic nozzle.

Magnetoplasmadynamic drives are basically scaled up ion drives.
 
What was the energy required for the flight? He never said he was in space either. Go fly with M man, he has a way with science.

I doubt he is slowing down. Just how far is mars on this 1 g trip to enter orbit? Who is the navigator? Who is the pilot. You may have enough energy for 1g acceleration, I do not know, no body has spoiled this brat with numbers, distance, reality, energy, initial points, end points, failure modes, orbital mechanics. The energy is how much on this flight with WTC nuke man who see CT everywhere. I have always dreamed of these things, and in 1964 these things were our science goals; still are. I listened to Kennedy say it much better. So spoiled I am, as I went to be an engineer because we were going to the moon. If I am spoiled so be it, but I have sat though solving the equations of motion in many reference systems, and it is not trivial. I have almost flunked and lost my job taking courses taught by a person who finds new moons on Saturn. I am spoiled because I had the opportunity to fail and beat it to pass. I have seen on the board the terms for lift due to flying to the east due to the earths rotation negligible unless you are traveling at Mach 3. Spoiled I am. Thank you for reminding me how spoiled I was.

I did not talk about flying at 7.33 gs,, I went to UPT and flew 7.33 gs. I do not talk about space travel, I worked with future astronauts. Sorry, if I assumed WTC nuke man was starting from earth, he has no clue on the OP he started himself. I must be a brat. And spoiled, in that I am going to the weightless simulator that is doing 1 g right out side under the stars and see how far into space I can get in my 1 g weightless simulator commonly know as a …

Sorry, but I have seen this in 1964, it is called space flight. It has been a dream for thousands of years. I have tried to help in a small way. So where is M man taking off from. Numbers now please. Off to the simulator. Good night and thanks for reminding me how spoiled I really am. I had front row seats for some great fire works too. All expenses paid.

/random thoughts on that
We are talking about your wrong assumption that 1 G acceleration isn't possible. This has nothing to do with his woo beliefs on any other subject. That is your hang up. I hope you wear it proudly.
 
Well, the fusion product is a plasma of high velocity particles. It could be exhausted through a magnetic nozzle.

Magnetoplasmadynamic drives are basically scaled up ion drives.
still, even that doesnt provide a lot of actual thrust, just high velocity, so 1g still seems unlikely
 
Back
Top Bottom