Two beams are produced. A positive and a negative beam. The positive beam has 2000 times more mass than the negative beam. If that is moving in one direction ( as a beam ), its usefulness as a means of propulsion should become evident.
This is one of the two main reasons why I am intrigued by this proposed means of aneutronic fusion. The other is a low cost source of energy.
If the cost of energy is low enough, it will enable a lot of things that currently are uneconomic. That is what intrigues me.
I don't buy the AGW theory. However, here's a way to deal with AGW if you do believe it. As a bonus, you can get real economic benefits.
What's not to like?
If you hold a significant investment in current means of energy production, you may not like this idea at all. Therein lies a problem. If AGW really is a problem, then we have a lot of folks who have a vested interest in not solving this theorized problem.
It makes a controversy. But an improvement in material well being should not be controversial. That is why I suggest the economic benefits of this tech.
There is an argument that to replace fossil fuels with aneutronic fusion would be harmful to the economy. No doubt that some people would be hurt. But more people would benefit. Cheaper energy benefits everyone. Expensive energy benefits the few.
No comments:
Post a Comment