• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fusion, eh?

If he's right and it can be done for $100 to 200 million that sounds like small change when set against the USA's need for energy (epsecially when you consider where a lot of that energy has to come from in the form of oil). I bet the Chinese would be interested too ...
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested in knowing the operation - inertial confinement (if that's what it is) systems are very tricky to get running continuously and to remove the power from, which is why magnetic confinement in tokamaks is generally preferred. I'd like to know how he's solved those problems.
 
After working since 1987, they made unexpected discoveries in spring and summer 2005 and had a unique machine running by October, then ran out of money?

And they can build an operational demonstration fusion reactor for $200 million in 4-6 years?

Call me a sceptic, but this sounds awfully like many another "we're on the brink of free energy" scheme.

Yes, Bussard's name lends it more credibility than most such schemes, but just a minute- has anyone actually seen a Bussard Ramjet operating either?
(From an appropriate distance).

Still , it would be nice if he called Bill Gates. Micro$oft need a new killer app.
 
Their company is called EMC2?
They have the solution to oil shortage but are out of funds?
It doesn't make sense to create a downscaled demonstration model, for economical reasons?
All they need is 200m?

What's that alarm I hear in my head?


OK, benefit of doubt and all that: Maybe they're sincere, but then might I suggest that whoever have reviewed their results so far were somewhat less sanguine about the potential of the project?

Hans
 
Wow! My little university's little Tokamak got a brief (if somewhat disparaging) post.

I didn't read too much commentary on the status of ITER...
 
Johnny Pneumatic said:
Hmmm, : http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_announce&key=1143684406

Look at what dude wrote it, yes, that's the real Robert Bussard, of Bussard ramjet fame. I wonder if this is on the level?
Click to expand...

Philo T. Farnsworth, the television guy, invented a "fusor" a long time ago. It's basically a sphere, with a charged electrode in the middle, which is placed at a high enough potential that the kinetic energy of hydrogen ions reaching it is equal to their kinetic energy at fusion temperatures. This is called "electrostatic confinement fusion."

It has only one tiny problem, and that is that no one knows how to shield the center electrode well enough to prevent the hydrogen plasma from contacting it, and getting quenched.

So I would assume he's serious. That doesn't mean, of course, that $200 million later, he's going to have something that works well enough to be used as a commercial power generator. A lot of people have tried to fix the fusor, and so far, they have not met with any success. Farnsworth worked on it for 30 years, and didn't get it to work well enough to be useful.
 
Last edited:
That Farnsworth guy would be the same one as Fry's relative in Futurama, right?
 
You're thinking of Hubert J. Farnsworth, who dreamed of inventing a "finglonger."

:D
 
Cyphermage said:
So I would assume he's serious. That doesn't mean, of course, that $200 million later, he's going to have something that works well enough to be used as a commercial power generator. A lot of people have tried to fix the fusor, and so far, they have not met with any success. Farnsworth worked on it for 30 years, and didn't get it to work well enough to be useful.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable. So the real story is not that funding was pulled just as they were on the verge of a break-through, but that they could no longer convince the sponsors that pay-back was anywhere near. Actually, that version makes much more sense ;).

Of course, now they are hoping to find sponsors that are easier to convince (=more credulous).

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Sounds reasonable. So the real story is not that funding was pulled just as they were on the verge of a break-through, but that they could no longer convince the sponsors that pay-back was anywhere near. Actually, that version makes much more sense ;).

Of course, now they are hoping to find sponsors that are easier to convince (=more credulous).

Hans
Click to expand...
Remember that the best shams, be they personal or technological, are corruptions of legitimate things. The truth is the present energy industry embracing being hugely downsized or going out of business entirely and not attempting to derail any fell-swoop solution defies the reality of greed today. It's equally important that legitimate channels for innovation and funding be protected. If I actually invented something that would put Exxon and everyone else out of business, you think I wouldn't be majorly paranoid?

In Bussard's case, three issues:

1) Can the device be proved theoretically, or at least on strong, independent assumption to work, that would merit persuing the idea.

2) If not, can the investment be established in a way that, if unsuccessful, Bussard would not personally benefit.

3) Failing theoretical and independent qualification, could a small-scale device be fabricated for considerably less, and why not.
 
Last edited:
i find it amusing that they claim to be able to tackle such a complex, revolutionary issue, but he gives such a loose estimate on budget...i mean, 100-200 million? indicates they have no real idea what they are up against. imagine if i did the family buget that way.
 
SirPhilip said:
Remember that the best shams, be they personal or technological, are corruptions of legitimate things. The truth is the present energy industry embracing being hugely downsized or going out of business entirely and not attempting to derail any fell-swoop solution defies the reality of greed today. It's equally important that legitimate channels for innovation and funding be protected. If I actually invented something that would put Exxon and everyone else out of business, you think I wouldn't be majorly paranoid?
Click to expand...

In fact I think you would be majorly rich and not at all in need of investors, but in need of a big stick to fight them off with.

The big oil companies are facing the end of their business, and even without that, what would entice them to not embrace a new clean, politically correct energy source, in favor of dirty, tricky, and investment-heavy oil? They would be scampering to get in on it, and in that contex, a few hundred million would be pocket money.

In Bussard's case, three issues:

1) Can the device be proved theoretically, or at least on strong, independent assumption to work, that would merit persuing the idea.

2) If not, can the investment be established in a way that, if unsuccessful, Bussard would not personally benefit.

3) Failing theoretical and independent qualification, could a small-scale device be fabricated for considerably less, and why not.
Click to expand...

1: Apparantly not, otherwise he would say so, and probably patent the stuff.

2: In theory, yes.

3: He says it is not economical because it will not be competitive with existing energy. .. Which is perfect BS, because if it could produce at all, he would not have difficulty finding investors.

So, I think the inescapable conclusion is that whether he is sincere or not, he is much farther from being able to deliver than he claims.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
In fact I think you would be majorly rich and not at all in need of investors, but in need of a big stick to fight them off with.

The big oil companies are facing the end of their business, and even without that, what would entice them to not embrace a new clean, politically correct energy source, in favor of dirty, tricky, and investment-heavy oil? They would be scampering to get in on it, and in that contex, a few hundred million would be pocket money.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There are no Oil Companies anymore. They are Energy Companies.

 
What bugs me is it sounds like a 419 scam. "We had it, lost funding that week, and now just need a small kick of $150 mil."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom