This one flew over the administrations head by a mile. Its clean, its viable, and its hear today. This alone could release us from Oil's strangle hold on the economy, but you will not see Bush and his oil buddies even admitting it exist

I'm so shocked it's not all over the mainstream news, you know, given our dependence on oil and how gas prices are overwhelming working poeple's budgets and all...

/sarcasm

Would pump several million in R&D over at MIT to make this technology readily available in 2 years. Every time OPEC meets flood the media with press releases. Let the cartel know we're putting the "Fossil" in fossil fuels

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and EPS. A NYT Thomas Friedman column wished this would become a Manhattan Project for Clean Energy.

There is an interesting chat on this topic by Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com with Rodney T. Cox of http://www.powerchips.gi/ chat on EPS with Eric Lerner comments at:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6965

Per review for the Office of the Secretary of Defense:

"MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable. MIT and
EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
work. (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco Division of General
Motors - but undergoing bankrupcy reorg.).

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
compositions."

Details:

Technology Review of Electron Power Systems (by an independent consulting
group) for Office Of The Secretary Of Defense July 2004

Technology Title: Electron spiral toroids (EST) as kinetic-energy weapons
(KEWs)

Development Organization: Electron Power Systems, Inc., Acton, Mass.

Description: EPS teamed with MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center under an
STTR grant to develop a theoretical framework and laboratory methods for
reliably creating small (0.5-1.0 cm diameter) self-organized plasmas, called
"electron spiral toroids" (ESTs) or "spiral plasma toroids" (SPTs). EST
electrons travel in parallel orbits around a torus in densities sufficient
to create a stable, self-sustaining internal magnetic field. These novel
laboratory-level plasmas, whose physics resembles that of ball lightning,
are unusual in that they remain stable in partial atmospheres without
requiring external magnetic fields for their containment, yet can also be
accelerated in a directed fashion to potentially very high velocities (e.g.,
600 km/sec) and kinetic energies. Parallel work on formation and magnetic
acceleration of "compact toroids" is also underway at DoE's Livermore lab
and at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland AFB, NM, although
these plasmas - which can only exist in vacuum - require large (multi-meter
long) machinery that uses magnetic field pressures associated with "Tokamak"
fusion reactors to create large-diameter (0.5-1.0 meter) plasmas, which must
then be greatly reduced in diameter and volume to be useful. By contrast,
EPS uses much smaller, cheaper hardware to repeatably generate
high-ion-density plasmas that have remained stable in air for up to 0.6
seconds at 1-Torr atmospheric pressures. The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest
from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation, a
major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion
reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long
"neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision.

Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale)
EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or
projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor
penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers
in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600
km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's
extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum.

Metrics:
- Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities
(defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets)
- Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS
estimate)
- Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary
(officially defined as 62 miles)
- Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose
initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate
its ESTs.

Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices).

Estimated Development Funding, FY 2005-2011 (combined KEW, mini-reactor)
- appr. $2M so far (Army Research Office, NASA SBIR, NASA-IAC (Institute for
Advanced Concepts) grant, BMDO STTR for $1M). EPS estimate: over FY
2005-2009, would need $0.5-$1.0M/yr (not including funding for MIT support),
but with a Phase 1 and 2 SBIR, could achieve a lab demonstration (TRL 4-5)
within 2.5-3 years of a proof-of-principle device that hits targets with
visible kinetic damage. Industrial co-funding from strategic partners
(agreements with Raytheon, Delphi (formerly GM Delco) and Titan Pulse Power)
could accelerate this.
-MIT estimate: with adequate staff and facilities funding ("at least
$2-$5M/year"), could demonstrate basic physics within 2 years, followed by
development of an integratable engineering package.

TRL 3-4. MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with
Delphi's chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both
agreeing that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable.
MIT and EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing
their work.

Revolutionary Impact: High - reliable generation and acceleration of these
plasmas using compact mobile machinery could provide US forces with a unique
generic defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, manned and unmanned
aircraft, and kinetic-energy projectiles of all sizes, velocities and
compositions."

which is 50 years away

Still clean alternatives for factory consumption as opposed to burning coal or other fossil fuels would help the environment and the economy. I don't see the applications they are suggesting such as "home use, and Aircraft" but I do see it as a viable alternative to reducing oil dependence and toxix emissions to the enviroment

It requires too much shielding for other than industrial application, however.

So you should assume that the phrase "possible in only a few years" is being used in it's loosest conceivable sense :-)

Their only trying to work out the details for economic viability and consumer use now.

Notice the research is Co-patented and confirmed by MIT

hell, I've written a few, and I know the smell of marketing hype when I read it :-)

The phrase "co-patented and confirmed by MIT," plus $2.50, will buy you a small coffee at Starbucks. I should also point out that "economic viability" and "consumer useability" aren't "details." They're pretty important :-)

Any time you see a company saying "all we have to do is work out details of economic viability and consumer use," back slowly away... It means they they don't have an economically viable product, and they don't know how to make it useful for customers!

pebble bed technology

Mostly, because the fuel is extremely hard to recycle. Our resident expert, NNadir, has explained that pressurized water reactors, or molten salt reactors, are much preferable. I'm not the guy to ask. I do software, not atomic nuclei.

Or, there's always wind power.

If these guys can scale up their laboratory neutron source into a useable fusion power plant, I wish them all the luck in the world. If I was independently wealthy, I might even invest in them, if they could convince me in person.

I just know the smell of "don't hold your breath," and that press release had the smell. I've made my living, such as it is, trying to bring new tech to market, and I smell like that most of the time myself :-)

DOD labs, DOE labs and many many commercial projects.

The present administration encourages oil use, discourages wind, solar, and other viable means to at least assist are current facilities. Presently were dumping 1 billion per week in Iraq. I don't see the reasoning in not funding the MIT half of this research

Now that I've played devil's advocate about this, I'll do a 180 and say that I'm very interested in the potential of "nonstandard" plasma technologies. R+D that goes beyond the classic tokamak kind of configuration. We know relatively little about the possibilities of how plasmas can be made to behave, if you just set up the right conditions.

In fact, yesterday I read an article describing a few new directions. I'll post it.

We all know how the present admin chooses to discredit any theories not supported by the oil industry.

Besides, I'm tired of watching this country burn the candle at both ends

...or 1200 modified, C-E type tubes (presumably deuterium/deuterium) in use for energy generation? The former is NOT the latter. As far as I can see, the latter remains a speculative endeavor for which EPS is still seeking about $10 million in R&D funds.

n/t

touting energy from "aetheric" sources and "orgone".

whats wrong with that

It makes me question their overall credibility.

They seem to be interested in replicating so-called "free energy" ideas, using an open source model. Replication is a part of the Scientific Method, if I recall correctly. And without better explanations for what's making the electricity, the words "etheric" or "orgone" are being used -- just because those words have attracted ridicule in the past doesn't mean they're not suitable replacements for verbal atrocities like "X Energy". The process is also considerably more open and honest than things like the Methernitha energy generator, or Joseph Papp's fusion gas.

Joe Cells are fairly inexpensive to build and don't seem to require much precision engineering, so big budgets aren't required to test the ideas out. And if the cells don't work, disappointment will be the biggest cost of the project.

That said, the Joe Cell probably won't turn out to be a real energy generator. After all, most inventions of any sort fail. But if loose networks of hobbyists can eventually demonstrate proof-of-concept for new technologies, good for them -- and us. If nothing else, the approach can free scientific discovery from the requirement of university, corporate, and military sponsorship, and may lead to a renaissance of amateur scientists doing valid and valuable work. And that may be the real breakthrough.

--p!

just reduce all of it to plasma.

I've been suggesting THAT for years.



See:

Plasma (physics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics and chemistry, a plasma is typically an ionized gas, and is usually considered to be a distinct phase of matter in contrast to solids, liquids and gases. "Ionized" means that at least one electron has been dissociated from a proportion of the atoms or molecules. The free electric charges make the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields.

<snip>

More specifically, a plasma is an electrically conductive collection of charged particles that responds collectively to electromagnetic forces. Plasma typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds or charged ion beams, but may also include dust and grains (called dusty plasmas) <5> They are typically formed by heating and ionizing a gas, stripping electrons away from atoms, thereby enabling the positive and negative charges to move freely.

<snip>

Plasmas are the most common phase of matter. Some estimates suggest that up to 99% of the entire visible universe is plasma<6>. Since the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, although a very sparse one (see interstellar- and intergalactic medium), essentially the entire volume of the universe is plasma (see astrophysical plasmas). In the solar system, the planet Jupiter accounts for most of the non-plasma, only about 0.1% of the mass and 10−15% of the volume within the orbit of Pluto. Notable plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén also noted that due to their electric charge, very small grains also behave as ions and form part of plasma (see dusty plasmas).

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

Aren't those "impossible"? /sarcasm

In my experience "over-unity" is a term used to describe things that are essentially perpetual motion machines. Those are impossible.

However, that's not what this is. Assuming it works, this is a fusion device and is therefore no more "over-unity" than is the Sun. Like the Sun (or a gasoline engine, for that matter) it requires a fuel and emits a waste product. A gasoline engine consumes it's fuel through a chemical reaction (burning) and emits various waste products. This device, like the sun, consumes hydrogen or hydrogen and boron in a nuclear reaction (fusion) and emits a waste product, helium.

Whether or not this particular device actually works as advertised is, in my mind, an open question. But if it does work it isn't violating any natural laws and it's not creating energy from nothing. The resultant helium has less energy in its bonds than the hydrogen or hydrogen and boron that went into it.

I was rushed this morning, and didn't read deeply, yet this is what I noticed in a quick scan of the OP's referenced article:

"...The efficiency of an internal-combustion engine is limited by the amount of energy inherently contained in a given type of fuel, as well as by the practical limitations on the Carnot cycle to about 30% of the possible energy of 1.184 watt-hours (wh) per kilogram. A D/D pair of ESTs has about 2.0E10 wh/kg, or 2.6E6 times the energy of gasoline. By these calculations, then, one kg of EST Spheromak fuel may provide usable energy equivalent in output to 2,600,000 kgs of gasoline."

They went from 30% to well past 100% of the Carnot cycle, the maximum extractable energy of a fuel in a perfectly-efficient heat engine, in this case, specifically, gasoline. That makes it sound like "over-unity," or stated differently, over-perfect-efficiency, and by definition, impossible, according to Carnot's theorem. (I guess)

Thanks for going slow and explaining it to me.

"They went from 30% to well past 100% of the Carnot cycle, the maximum extractable energy of a fuel in a perfectly-efficient heat engine, in this case, specifically, gasoline."

I don't think that's what that quote says. It says that a D/D pair of ESTs has 2.6E6 times the energy of gasoline. I think this means the theoretical potential energy, not the real world usable energy (as limited by Carnot). Note that the last sentence refers to the usable energy. A kilgram of EST Spheromak fuel has 2,600,000 times the potential energy of a kilogram of gasoline so it therefore has 2,600,000 times the usable energy (which is limited to <= 30% of the potential). So if a kilogram of gasoline has a potential energy of 1 then the usable energy is <= .3 and the potential and usable energies of a kilogram of Spheromak fuel are 2,600,000 and <= 2,600,000/3 respectively. The paragraph is referring to relative amounts of energy rather than actual. I hope I'm explaining that well.

I did misread the quote
on my first reading. I wrote on DU what my first reading told my mind, so you'd understand my statement.

The article quote is apparently comparing two dissimilar devices, spheromaks to heat pumps.

Here's another quote:


The C-E tube apparently doesn't produce heat--they think--since it seems they haven't built one yet, or are they stating "comparable to" the heat pumps? Then why the next statement(?):



It seems they said there is no "heat" in this process. If it doesn't produce heat, then why would the Carnot Cycle and/or thermo-dynamics apply?

Do plasma torids correlate to electron obits? Are electron orbits torids? As far as I know, a torid is a donut shape, but shape doesn't relate to size. Are these self-organizing torids larger than the size of one atom? Two atoms?

Perhaps my first misreading wasn't as severe as the third suggests: I don't really know: I guess it's something to ponder. The more I read it, the more it sounds like a plasma torid is an over-unity phenomenon.

Over-unity? Perhaps the two words combined mean different things to different folks.

or the sun, is over-unity. But maybe we're using the term differently.

we can all verify that, we feel its heat. some of the text of this article leads one to believe that the C-E tube's process doesn't use heat in its direct electricity generation scheme. if true then "Wow."

life.

In fact there was a "fusion breakthrough" a few months after I was born. It was the "Mike" test, the hydrogen bomb which removed the Island of Elugelap from maps of the earth.

I was a baby and the explosion was to protect me from the Soviet menace.

I have been hearing about "fusion breakthroughs" ever since.

Shortly after the "Mike" test I mutated into a giant and ate large parts of Queens, New York, although the matter was covered up by the government.

Like the fellow played by Eric Idle in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," I got better.

What a breakthrough.