Good question, but is this a good answer?

 

Even though it is New Year's Eve, this post will be about something else. It is going to be about nuclear fusion again...

There is no problem in achieving nuclear fusion. The problem is getting more energy out of the reaction than what is put into it. So, why is it so hard? That is what you call a "good question". A good question is one in which an answer is not so easy.

Allow me to speculate a bit. It takes a lot of energy to get to fusion in the first place. In order to produce a plasma, the electrons have to be driven off. This takes a lot of energy. In order to produce this much energy, it will take a lot of energy. That energy has a lot of losses associated with it in order to produce it. Imagine a really big internal combustion engine that requires a really big starter to get it moving. The principle is the same, but the magnitude necessary for a fusion device is much more difficult to achieve.

I like Bussard's Polywell concept because it doesn't confine positively charged hydrogen nuclei ( or protons), but uses electrons instead. Think about it. It takes a minute amount of matter, which electrons possess, to produce the electric equivalent of millions of degrees of thermal energy. Electrons are the negatively charged component of the electrically neutral atom. An electron masses at 1/2000th the mass of a corresponding proton or neutron. That is quite a difference in mass. Consequently, to contain it would require a lot less mass as well. Bussard's device is much more compact than the ITER approach, which takes a office building sized structure. A polywell device could be as small as a ordinary room.

In order to fuse two positively charged nuclei, it requires a force that is greater than the electrostatic repulsion to each nuclei. This explains the need for so much thermal input. The nuclei must be hot as the interior of the sun, and it has to be confined so that the atoms cannot repel each other, and thereby forcibly fused together. The fusion releases tremendous amount of energy that we'd all like to harness to run our contraptions. Not only hot, the plasma must be confined by some force. With the sun's mass, the enormous gravity well provides it. In lieu of this gravity well, another force must be utilized, since gravity is out, and that may well take a lot more energy.

Consequently, in order to achieve fusion, a way must be found that is much more energy efficient as well. The Focus Fusion device uses a characteristic of plasmas in order to achieve confinement. There is a phenomena called the "pinch", which is being employed. The "pinch" will enable the fusion. Focus Fusion is using a natural force, not unlike what gravity provides, in order to arrive at the desired conditions that will enable fusion. This is an economy as well, as the Focus Fusion device is also much smaller than a Tokomak device that ITER is employing in its fusion experiments.

But what about the success mentioned recently? These employ lasers. Light can exert pressure as well. Concentrated light, which is what laser are, will provide even more pressure. Therefore, a laser light in the form of a powerful laser device, will provide the necessary confinement so that fusion can occur. Light pressure doesn't produce much pressure. Concentrated light COULD. Evidently it does, since the experiment worked well enough to produce more energy than what it took to make the laser beam. The trouble seems to be what it takes to make a laser that powerful. Much more powerful lasers must be developed.

The Helion device is another possibility. It seems to use a combination of plasma and kinetic energy. The plasma is accelerated and smashed together. The device doesn't appear to be all that large. Perhaps it can work.

Since the devices use so much energy to produce the conditions, I'd speculate that this is a major reason why it is hard to produce net energy from a device. The devices must be smaller and more compact. Such a smaller device would minimize energy losses, or so I think. Just to maintain a large plasma in an office size building would require a lot more energy than in a device that is the size of a room. This would entail energy losses that have to be made up by the fusion reactions.

Besides the energy losses in producing the conditions for fusion, their are losses that occur from the conversion of fusion energy into electricity. These losses are the normal losses in producing energy, but there are others. There are Xrays that are produced from the nuclear reaction, for example. These losses have to be minimized as well. If all the losses can be minimized, a net energy device could then be feasible. There are those who say that they are close to acheiving that vision.

Are we really that close? That's another good question. If I were a betting man, the best bet would not be the laser device. But in the end, that may be the only one that could work. But it appears to be quite difficult to produce a laser that is powerful enough to do the job. In the end, the laser device may never produce a commercially viable process. As they say, time will tell.

Comparative fusion strategies

 

The recent announcement from the NIF in Collyfornia that they've reached fusion net energy allows an opportunity to discuss a few of the methods by which fusion energy is being pursued. (Phew!, what a sentence)

I've studied over a few of the strategies, and it seems to me that Focus Fusion has the best chance to succeed in the near term. The business which was hyped by the Brandon Administration isn't likely to achieve anything for decades. The accomplishment was put into perspective in the last post, not by me, but by the people at Focus Fusion.

Polywell Fusion was the first one I studied, and this was over 15 years ago. It took awhile for me to understand, or come about as close to understanding it as I am capable. The thing that was hard to grasp what the fact that it does not thermalize. Instead, it depends upon the equivalency of heat from charge potentials. To elaborate, the proton is positive, and the electron is negative. Instead of confining protons, the polywell concept confines electrons instead. This creates a deep "well" of charge potential, which the protons are sent into and "fall" into the well with enough energy ( in theory) to cause fusion to occur. It does seem like an elegant concept, and the US Navy did fund it for awhile. The inventor, Robert Bussard died, and the concept seems to have died with it.

In other words, I think that it could work, but it lacks a champion. There is an importance of a champion, who will pursue a concept until it is successful. Bussard didn't live long enough to see his vision to its fruition. There doesn't appear to be anyone of enough substance who could pick up the fallen torch, so to speak.

What Bussard was to Polywell, Eric Lerner is to Focus Fusion. He has the qualities of a champion. If he has enough time to see this to completion, I think he can succeed. It is the human element that matters most. There are many potential paths to net energy from fusion, but nobody really knows which one is the best. It could well be that any number of ways may be successful, but the one that is pursued the longest and with the most persistence is the one that is most likely to succeed. The main obstacle in the way of Lerner is time and money. That is something that plagues us all, for we are only human.

Although money is important, a lot of money may not be necessary. The ITER project is using a lot of money, and probably is the least likely to succeed. It MAY succeed, but it is way too big, and is way too costly to be a practical machine. In my opinion, so is the NIF. It is currently the size of a stadium, and produces less net energy than it would take to cook a decent hot meal. Such a device is wildly impractical, and must be scaled down to something much more reasonable before it has any chance at all of being commercially viable. The Polywell could fit in a room. So could Lerner's Focus Fusion device.

There is another fusion device from a younger man, who is talking big. That would be Helion. The way that concept works is to crash two plasmas at high speed against each other. The fusion occurs, and then the plasma pulsates. The pulsation would create the conditions that would bring about an electric output. The plasmas are charged particles, after all, and if the plasma could be made to pulse, it can induce a current. Voila! A net energy potential could be closer than anyone thinks. It is not possible to say if he turns out to be the champion, but he is claiming to be close to net energy and a commercial device soon. We'll see.

Report December 30, 2022

---------- Forwarded message ---------

Report December 30, 2022

View this email in your browser Report December 30, 2022 Happy New Year to All! Summary:  Success! Switch Tests End, FF-2B to Fire in January Independent Team Confirms Cosmic Non-Expansion, Debate Grows NIF Advance Builds Support for Fusion Wefunder Campaign Ends, New Campaign on the Way Success! Switch Tests End, FF-2B to Fire in January LPPFusion's testing of switch designs has ended successfully this month with the achievement of a switch configuration that cures the problems we have encountered since 2019. The tests showed that we have eliminated random pre-fires, surface flashovers, late and non-synchronous firing, excessive soot production, excessive current oscillations and the notorious negative voltage pulse. The switch pair has demonstrated repeatable synchronous firing with 5 ns (billionths of a second.) While we were not able to meet our initial goal of 32 synchronous shots in a row, we're convinced that is due to limitation of the test set-up, not of the switches. This success will lead to a resumption of firing in January of our FF-2B experimental fusion energy device.   In November, we demonstrated that the new dual switches could pass a greater current than the single switches. However, the greater current turned out to be too much for our spare test capacitor, which failed. Fortunately, we were able to locate a smaller, used but suitable capacitor within days and got back to testing after only a few weeks down. We upgraded our test bed to include coils of wire acting as a resistor. These coils limit the current and harmlessly dissipate energy (see Fig.1).  We also attached old plasma focus electrodes into the circuit and pumped the vacuum chamber down to better simulate the actual firing conditions of the FF-2B device.   Our first week of firing with the upgraded testbed started tensely as we were plagued with loose connections and similar gremlins. But the coils functioned exactly as calculated to reduce the currents to safe levels for the capacitor. We were able to systematically test various combinations of design configurations suggested by Research Scientist Dr. Syed Hassan and Chief Scientist Eric Lerner.   On December 13th, we achieved success, with one configuration yielding 8 shots in a row with the switches firing with an average difference of only 5 ns, well within our goal of 10 ns. Examination of the switch interiors confirmed that the surface breakdowns that had plagued earlier switch designs, and the random pre-firing and soot production that they caused had disappeared. The cracking of the outer Lexan insulator which we had seen on earlier designs had also disappeared. There was also strong evidence that current oscillations were smaller than previously. However, oscillations are a product of the interaction of the switches and the entire device circuit, so we can't be sure they have been reduced far enough for good functioning until we go back to firing FF-2B. Figure 1. The upgrade testbed includes cable coils (red circles of wire) to limit current to safe levels for the new capacitor (barely visible under the switches in the foreground). The switches are the thick disks underneath the plastic housings of the trigger heads. The vacuum chamber is the golden-colored cylinder in the background. We were at first concerned that we encountered some shots when only one of the pair of switches fired, after the initial good run of 8 shots. But we concluded that this was due to the non-optimized functioning of the external circuit and the lower level of current in the new set-up. When the current and voltage rose fast enough, both switches maintained the current throughout the pulse. However, when the current fell, due to variability in the external circuit, the current flickered out in one switch. We don't see this being a problem when the switches are installed on FF-2B, as in that case a much faster rise in current and voltage always occurs. The situation is similar to that of a garden hose: at low pressure the stream will wiggle back and forth but at high pressure, it will be steady.   Based on the tests and the new switch configuration we have ordered parts for the full 16 switches to go on FF-2B. While waiting for the parts, we intend to carry out some control shots using the old single switches. We expect these tests in January and February will lead to advances in FF-2B's performance and fusion yield, kicking 2023 off to a good start. Independent Team Confirms Cosmic Non-Expansion, Debate Grows In a big step forward in the developing revolution in cosmology, a group of researchers based in Russia and the UK have independently confirmed that, as they write, "the first JWST observations of high-redshift objects cannot be explained by the expanding-Universe model". In a paper published December 1st in the peer-reviewed journal Galaxies, Nikita Lovyagin of St. Petersburg State University and his colleagues came to the same conclusion as did LPPFusion's Eric Lerner and colleague Riccardo Scarpa that the size of the galaxy images obtained with JWST contradicted the prediction of the Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis that objects should look larger at greater redshifts. Instead, the paper showed that the image sizes were just what would be expected for a non-expanding universe, as Lerner and Scarpa had predicted prior to the JWST image releases.   This is an extremely important development in the debate over the validity of the Big Bang that was set off by Lerner and Scarpa's analysis and the initial widespread publicizing of this analysis in Lerner's popularized article "The Big Bang Didn't Happen" in IAI News. An essential step in validating any scientific discovery is replication by independent groups of researches and the Galaxies paper is the first published replication of Lerner and Scarpa's work on the JWST data. As such it adds a great deal of credibility to the evidence against the dominant Big Bang model and undermines efforts by Big Bang supporters to dismiss the evidence as the work of a single heretical group or individual.   Like Lerner and Scarpa, Lovyagin and colleagues compared the angular size of galaxy images (their apparent size on the sky), using multiple data bases to plot how angular size change with redshift, and thus with increasing distance (see Fig.2). While Lerner and Scarpa had compared only the brightest and therefore largest galaxies, Lovyagin and team compared all galaxies, so got a larger scatter in size. But they reached the same conclusion: the JWST images at the highest redshift continued the downward trend in angular size with distance expected in a non-expanding universe and showed no sign of the sharp upward trend towards larger apparent sizes predicted by the expanding-universe theory. Figure 2. Two ways of viewing the same conclusions: The graph on the left, from the new Lovyagin paper plots the angular diameter of ALL galaxies observed against redshift, showing the decline predicted by the non-expanding universe hypothesis. On the right, Lerner's own latest unpublished plot, based on JWST data show that the linear size of the brightest galaxies remains the same with redshift, as predicted with the same non-expanding hypothesis.    The Lovyagin paper does not directly reference Lerner and Scarpas' recent work on the JWST data, but does cite Lerner's 2018 paper on the same subject based on Hubble Space Telescope data. Lerner has contacted the authors to explore possible collaborations. This independent confirmation will no doubt feed the growing public debate over the validity of the Big Bang hypothesis. Already, the debate, bubbling on the web since August, is spilling into prominent general-circulation publications for the first time. In the December 17 issue of Spectator magazine, University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank has replied to Lerner. Spectator is the oldest continuously-published weekly, starting in 1828. Although it is not massively circulated, it is prominent in the UK, especially in Conservative Party circles, with Boris Johnson serving as editor on his way to becoming Prime Minister. Dr. Frank ignored Lerner's key point about image size, but did acknowledge another big problem for the Big Bang in JWST data: the galaxies observed seem to be too old for the Big Bang. Their spectra indicate they have a lot of older stars, which tend to be redder, far too many for their hypothesized age as just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. Frank writes that this is "like going to a nursery to visit your newborn and finding a room full of teenagers." However, Frank concludes that the Big Bang is still in great shape and that the correct conclusion is that, to paraphrase him: " Gee, those babies grew up awfully fast!"  Spectator prevented Lerner from posting a comment on Frank's article, but the debate is continuing. The in-person debate of Lerner with astrophysicist Claudia Maraston and Julian Barbour is now available online, although at the moment only to IAI subscribers. We'll share it when we get a free link. NIF Advance Builds Support for Fusion As fusion fans no doubt have heard, on December 5th the National Ignition facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California achieved a major fusion advance with its giant laser. We at LPPFusion join in congratulating the three thousand researchers and staff at NIF on their achievement. What exactly has been achieved? The December 5th shot for the first time achieved plasma net energy: more fusion energy out of the plasma than was put into the plasma by the laser. The laser focused 2.1 MJ (megajoules) of energy onto a tiny pellet of deuterium-tritium fusion fuel. The fusion yield was 3.1 MJ, a doubling of NIF's previous best yield, achieved last year, of 1.6 MJ. This is certainly a significant advance, as getting more energy out of the plasma that goes into it is a necessary step toward practical fusion energy generation. However, as much reporting has correctly emphasized, this achievement is quite different from the ultimate goal of the fusion energy research effort: device net energy. This is when more energy comes out of the fusion generator than is drawn into it from the grid. So, device net energy is thus the ratio of the total system energy out divided by total energy in, not just the plasma net energy. We at LPPFusion refer to it as "net energy" or "wall-plug efficiency" and we strive to deliver a device where a total energy out of the device is larger than the total energy in.  However, the language in media uses unclear terms such as Q for total fusion yield where Q is often just a plasma net energy, and not a total wall-plug efficiency measure. For NIF's latest shot, 300 MJ was used to run the lasers, almost 100 times more than the fusion energy produced. This 1% "wall-plug efficiency" is still a record, surpassing the previous record of 0.6% set by the JET tokamak device, located in the UK. NIF's giant laser approach is not likely to close the gap in wall-plug efficiency any time soon. Lawrence Livermore's own leadership estimated that it will take 30 years for their approach to produce commercial fusion energy.   However, we at LPPFusion join the rest of the fusion research community in viewing the NIF announcement as helping the whole field, mainly in public perception. The new advance, despite its limitations, drills through the popular narrative that there is no progress in fusion energy and that records set 20 years ago never get surpassed. The US government's trumpeting of the NIF's results help to ensure that fusion energy will from now on be included in the options available to shift from fossil fuels' energy sources. Overall, this will certainly aid LPPFusion as well as others in getting the needed funding.   Interestingly, this advance may prove to be a "last hurrah" for the purely inertial confinement approach that NIF has used. In this approach, no magnetic fields confine the plasma, which just does not have time to expand during the fusion burn. But NIF was unable to replicate its record shot of 2021 and may not be able to replicate the December 5th  shot as well. To overcome this super-sensitivity to nanometer flaws in the fuel pellet, NIF researchers have done initial experiments using a hybrid laser- magnetic confinement approach. They run current through a thin coil of wire around the pellet (see Fig.3) and then use the laser to compress the resulting magnetic field. This hybrid approach has promised to be more repeatable than the pure inertial confinement and may well be NIF's future.   At LPPFusion, we hope to catch up with and surpass NIF's achievement of 1% wall plug efficiency. To do so, we will transition from deuterium to our final pB11 fuel, and we hope to do that soon. Stay tuned! Figure 3. In recent experiments (not the Dec. 5th record one) NIF researchers used this hybrid pellet with a solenoidal coil to supply an initial magnetic field. When hit with laser light (purple) the pellet contracted rapidly, intensifying the magnetic field and briefly helping to contain the hot fusion plasma. Wefunder Campaign Ends, New Campaign on the Way The LPPFusion 2022 Wefunder campaign closed on December 9th, with a total raised of $316,520 from 386 investors. We thank all who invested! Unfortunately, the campaign did not meet our full goals for it. The campaign only raised half as much as we did last year, from fewer than half as many investors. To a large extent, this reflected the 45% fall in US total crowdfunding investments for all companies from last year, a product of the global economy's impact on small investors. Together with the $81,000 grant from Focus Fusion Society, the reduced Wefunder round left us well short of our goal of $100,000 a month in the past six months. To catch up with this goal, and surpass it, we are planning to restart very soon crowdfunding on the StartEngine platform, reaching a new audience of over a million investors. We have also received interest from a number of potential larger investors. We will be trying out some new ideas to better publicize our work. The good news that we're sharing in this report should help reassure wary investors of our progress! Accredited investors can still invest in our Reg. D round at the same $200/share price, with a $5,000 minimum. View this email in your browser LPPFusion Address: 128 Lincoln Blvd., Middlesex, NJ 08846-1022 Phone Number: (732) 356-5900 Fax: (732) 377-0381 To contact us directly: Current Investors - eric@lppfusion.com Prospective Investors - jeff@lppfusion.com Questions, Donations - fusionfan@lppfusion.com Subscribe for Monthly Donation Copyright © *|2021|* *|Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc.|*, All rights reserved. You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Thoughts on the current scene, in the year 2022 ending soon

There hasn't been much posting of late, and in particular, the situation in Ukraine. Information may not be reliable, so there seemed to be little point of discussing it. However, some broad strokes may be ascertained with a certainty approaching 100%. Those are these: the war is ongoing, the USA is somehow involved fairly deeply, and the Russians don't seem to be winning, but the outcome is uncertain.

Then it could be examined here on the "home front". Biden isn't popular, but is holding on. The Congress is divided, and the GOP is definitely divided. Hard to compare with Russia, though. Russia is said to be "authoritarian", but what does that mean anymore? Isn't the USA just as much so? If Putin whacks his political enemies, then how is it different than what is occuring here? Stuff that would never have happened in a previous time is happening now in America. The once "shining city on the hill" doesn't look so shiny now. Not much patriotic fervor in the air.

The elections do not inspire confidence. This is hardly any difference than in foreign lands that once were considered "authoritarian". Saddam Hussein's Iraq had "elections", for crying out loud. "Elections" mean nothing if there aren't free nor fair. The "elections" we have here cannot said to be free if they cannot be verified, and the powers-that-be will not allow an open and fair process to determine the truth of the matter. The recent court case in Arizona pretty much seals that. There won't be a fair election if said fair election unseats the powers-that-be. Kari Lake should have won her lawsuit if the laws were followed and the facts were recognized. Neither of these occurred. Free and fair elections are now a thing of the past in Arizona, and in other places in this country now. It is only a matter of time before there won't be any freedom left anywhere in America.

We aren't in a shooting war with Russia yet, but that could still occur. It seems that the powers-that-be are hellbent on a war. They are pushing Putin to the very wall. It is clear that they want Russia to become just another one of their possessions.

It seemed in years gone by that America stood for freedom. Ukraine is not a free country. Neither is America anymore. Why then are we called upon to support this war? For what do we risk war? To "free" an unfree society? How can that be taken seriously when it isn't practiced here nor in Ukraine?

The recent election in this country wasn't much of a choice. The powers-that-be run both parties. There is no real difference between the two. Anybody who differs with the powers-that-be will be canceled out. Their talons are going deeper and deeper into all of us, yet we are called upon to support it. I say NO. I say HELL NO.

The remaining "patriotic" contingent is awfully quiet. If a shooting war DOES break out, who will man the armed forces? The recruitment effort is lagging a bit. Seems like nobody really wants to fight for "massa". Maybe the homos will, but what kind of army would that be? Maybe they could fight with machines, but what if the "education" system won't produce the kind of people who can run them, nor make the machines any more?

Just my opinion, for what it is worth. The powers-that-be are picking a fight that they don't seem very interested in winning. If they don't find somebody who is willing to fight, they are in a lot of trouble. But like Rhett Butler said, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Just wondering how many people really do give a damn.

'Tis the season

 

Today is Christmas, so ho-ho-ho... It's been awhile since I last posted. Nothing else really out of the usual, though.

Or if there was, it wouldn't be mentioned here. Generally speaking, all is reasonably well, all things considered.

But it really isn't all about me, I hope.

One thing that I did today was to go out and get some vittles. It's been cold, like it is in many places in the country, and I was getting a bit stir crazy. It didn't occur to me that everywhere would be closed. Everybody is observing the holiday, it seems. To me, that is rather striking. This may not be a Christian country anymore, but it seems that everybody is taking the day off.

So I didn't get anything to eat, except what I've got around here. Don't want to tattle on myself, but I get a little tired of my own cooking. My culinary skills are rudimentary, cuz I don't exactly like to cook. It DID surprise me a bit that nobody seemed to be open today. Not even Mickey D's. Geez, I'd figure one of those Godless corporations would have been out there seeking the almighty dollar today, but nope. Whataburger was closed too. Oh no!

It might seem a bit Scrooge-like for me to expect people to be working today. Well, to tell the truth, I think 'ol Scrooge might not have been the bad guy that was portrayed. Anyway, he came out okay in the end.

I know one thing, this cold weather is a drag. One good thing about it is that it keeps the bugs in check. Hurray for that.

Better clean up this act

There has been some talk that Trump's support is falling. There has also been some talk that he is still leading by a lot.

It is perhaps understandable that some folks would like a different choice. Understandable in the sense that they never did like Trump. However, if he gets the nomination, I would hope that there would be an end to the division that only encourages the Democrats.

If that division is serious enough, then forget about it for 2024. If they GOP doesn't do anything else, they had better clean this up.

The Case for Malthusianism

Yesterday's announcement of a breakthrough in fusion research has led to some reactions here and elsewhere. There was something on the Powerline blog, which cites the frequent opposition from the green crowd with respect to all technological advancements. Generally, they are quite negative about it. Powerline quotes some environmentalists on the possibility of cold fusion back in the 80's, and laments the negativity of these Malthusian types.

This allows me to segue into a comment on the Malthusians. Given that their arguments are wrong, that such arguments can be taken seriously in some quarters is enough to give pause in itself. If technology can be misused, it is most likely going to come from bad argumentation like the Malthusians made, than from the technology itself. Paradoxically, this could be a reason why technology may be a flawed way towards advancement. These idiots may get their hands on it and abuse it. Like they do with social media.

The Brandon mal-Administration has hyped up a modestly succesful advancement as a cure for a problem that may not even exist, for example. It is neither a cure ( because it isn't anywhere near commercialization), nor is there really much of a need for the cure they claim is needed. We cannot overheat the Earth even if we tried. But we can do a lot of other very stupid things.

If genuine scientific advancement cannot even be understood properly, how can it be managed properly? That's the question. Malthusianism is nothing more than a bunch of misinformed cranks who couldn't fix a bowl of soup, much less a real problem. The problem is really that so many people listen to these nincompoops.

If there's a real problem with a technology, they cannot be trusted with it.

I'd worry a lot more about artificial intelligence than in nuclear fusion, for example. You cannot count on these clowns to get it right. There's my best case in favor of the Malthusians.

Utopia has come! ( not really)

There has been something of an amusing announcement from the Brandon mal-Administration. A notable scientific achievement has been reached! Yay, team!

I've checked out a few approaches to fusion, and one of these wasn't covered all that much. That's because I didn't think that it lent itself to commercial development. It so happens that this approach towards net energy from fusion was the National Ignition Facility in Collyfornia.

Although the Biden mal-Administration wants to hype this scientific achievement by claiming that fusion is now around the corner, it needs to be mentioned that nobody should get carried away by the hype. The achievement, if real, is notable. The first time that fusion has been produced while getting more energy out than they put in. Well bravo on that, but it isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

If they achieved ANEUTRONIC fusion, it might be said to be "clean energy". But if not, it will produce neutrons, which will impart some of that nasty radioactive stuff to the environment. Not likely to have reached nirvana just yet. Sorry to burst that little bubble. ( not really)

But the Biden mal-Administration would have everyone believe that they've conquered this clean energy hill with this announcement. That's where the hype is.

Beside the likelihood of it not being really "clean energy", the thing is monumentally impractical. The device is the size of a stadium, yet produces only enough net energy to make a cup of coffee, perhaps. Let's not get too excited. There is a LONG way to go to make a commercial device. That is, with this approach. My impression is that it isn't EVER going to produce a practical device because it needs to be much, much more compact.

There are better approaches than this, in other words. They got a scientific coup, but that is all.

Griner-Bout trade gets curiouser and curiouser

 

1) Very odd Victor Bout arms merchant statment

2) James Carville on swap



Comments upon links:

With respect to link #1, it would seem that the Russians see an opportunity to look for sympathy along racial lines. Although it DOES seem like the wokesters are on a crusade against the purportedly Christian Russian nation, it doesn't mean that we should join them. As I've written all along on this, it is not our fight. We shouldn't have anything to do with this. That is not based upon racial lines, but I would bet that the wokesters LOVE the idea of whitey fighting whitey. I know I've seen it on the web that certain Muslim nations would like Russia and the USA to destroy each other. We don't need Russia for that, though. We are doing it well enough on our own.

The James Carville reference in link #2 pretty much cements the idea. The left runs the government on the basis that the purpose of government is to divvy out the goodies on the basis of political support. Therefore, if you criticize the deal, it is only because you would prefer that it go to the white dude. Well, that would be a rather jaundiced view of race relations in this country. Number one, if such a deal were made on that basis, the Democrats would go insane. They might even have a legal case, as it is in the law based upon non-discrimination on the basis of race ( and other things that are getting added to the list of aggrieved groups). Nobody would do it overtly on the basis of race, except Democrats, because that is where their bread is buttered. Number two is that there is a basis for concern on the basis that this guy is an "arms-merchant to terrorists". This label was applied by the Obama Administration. So, maybe they are saying it sotto-voce, that the guy isn't so dangerous after all. Or that they don't care even if he is. Is he dangerous or not? It is "their words". Now they are refuting their own words. It must be okay then, to endanger the country in favor of their pet groups. If you disagree, it is only because you are a bigot. At least, according to Carville and Co.

Somewhere in this lies the problem in this country today. It's all about me, me, me. Nobody can say anything against "me", because I am going to be offended. Lord help anybody that offends "me". The country cannot endure it. /sarc

But we CAN endure terrorist acts because "shut up".

Stupid is as stupid does

Today was a day for watching some videos, and one of them jogged the memory of things gone past. People have this tendency to talk "out their asses", and so do I. I've tried to tone it down a bit, but the tendency is strong.

Anyway, on one of the videos, a guy was telling about how a guy trash-talked Ringo Starr, and the narrator showed him up a bit on it. The trash-talker really didn't know what he was talking about, and he was shown why he didn't know. That's what reminded me of something that I've noticed before. Somebody was talking out their ass, and so it happened in this story. It happens often enough that I wonder if it is a universal thing.

How can I work this into something general that may illustrate a point worth considering? There was something in the news recently that may do the trick. The news item is that Biden's poll numbers are up near 50% in the Rasmussen Poll. That's pretty high for him. But it seems pretty undeserved to me. Why?

What could make people think that Biden deserves this high of a rating? Is it the lower gasoline prices lately? Or the release of the female basketball player? Neither of those indicated any merit on Biden's part. Yet his polls are up. If those are the reasons, then could it be that people are really "talking out their asses" with their opinions about the guy. Well, it is either them doing it, or those (like me) who don't like Biden are wrong. Who is right and who is wrong? Everybody has opinions. But that doesn't make it right. Those dumb-asses could be right, but I don't think so.

The people who opine that Biden is doing well are being manipulated into saying that. That's what makes them wrong. If you really know what you're talking about, the media cannot so easily influence your opinion. The media DOES influence opinions, and that's what makes them troublesome. That, and these people who won't think for themselves. Just because the media hypes these things doesn't make these things true. That is what you should be approving or disapproving of someone for, not what someone says about it that you allow to influence your opinion. The media will go out of their way to protect Biden, and trash their opposition. This has had consequences, and the consequences can be severe.

The release of the basketball player was a poor choice of exchange with the Russians. The "bargain" was no bargain at all, and in fact, was a very bad deal. Even if the basketball player was a stature of Michael Jordan, it still was inappropriate. That's because they should have never released somebody who is an arms merchant, and who is responsible for getting arms to TERRORISTS. This will result in people getting killed. Is the release of ONE basketball player really worth the lives of this that will cause others to be lost? This was a really bad choice. Not to mention that the Russians offered an exchange of a Marine who really did rate our concern far, far more than this athlete.

It is an example of the stupidity that is running so rampant in our society that people REWARD someone like Biden, who will be responsible for a lot of suffering later on. Biden doesn't deserve any credit, and in fact, should be getting raked over the coals for this. He is, in some quarters. But the media, as usual, is covering for Biden. They are playing games with people's lives, and these idiots are cheering it all on. Just because they won't think for themselves.

You'd think that people would wise up by now. But it looks like they never will. Too many people are stuck on stupid.

Starship musings

 

The morning started with some thoughts about the Spacex Starship project. It appears that there is something of a problem with the launch pad. The enormous amount of thrust has caused concrete to come loose and rain down on the complex. Some videos show that repairs are ongoing to the launch pad, and probable upgrades. There has yet to be a full 33 engine static fire. This will delay the eventual launch of the new rocket for awhile. What should be done?

There has been some discussion about the purchase of offshore rigs, and possibly using them as offshore launch pads. Also, some discussion about a flame trench, which would divert the rocket's blast so that the facilities don't get so damaged with each launch. A crazy idea came to mind. Maybe more than one crazy idea. What if a "flame trench" could be built offshore? The rocket's blast could be diverted into tubes below the water line. The water will keep the tubes from getting too hot ( presumably). What's more, some blowback could actually supply some more thrust! This is reminescent of some undersea launches from submarines. The rocket pops up out of the water, and goes airborne. Could something like this work? Is it even being considered? There was an idea from sixties to use a "Sea Dragon" concept rocket, which would take off out at sea. The rocket would have been monstrously big. Even bigger than anything Musk is proposing now. Such a study said it was a feasible idea back in those days.

Or would they just use the offshore facility as a testing facility? But in the same manner discussed above. No need to land rockets that aren't intended to land anyway. Or perhaps a combination. It could be a way station to the main site onshore. Rockets could land out there too, but only first stages. They could be tested out there, and then fly back on their own power to the main facility. They could be positioned to catch the rocket offshore, and then reload it offshore and fly back to the main base. This would allow them to devote more fuel to the payloads. It wouldn't take as much fuel to take a mostly empty first stage back to base, where it could be launched with a full payload. With the fuel savings not having to be used to take the empty stage back to land, they could put more payload onboard the land based launches. Every pound of fuel saved saves at least 20 more for additional payload. This could make it all worthwhile.

Obviously Musk is thinking about something like this, or why acquire their offshore platforms? Evidently, he doesn't want big flame trenches like NASA used for the Saturn V launches in the sixties. He needs some sort of testing facility and an offshore platform might be suitable for that purpose. A short hop to land for the main launch doesn't seem too way out of an idea. He has already perfected the technique with the Falcon 9 of landing out at sea. What would prevent such a scenario? It might be what he has in mind.

This wasn't the really way out idea I thought. It might even be brilliant.

The thing that is way out there may be in putting the rocket under water and launching it. What would happen then? Maybe it would explode. Too much power in too little space, perhaps.

But it isn't that far out of an idea to do it as I've laid it out above. It might even be considered "conservative" to use the offshore facility to land the rocket, while increasing its payload fraction a bit because it didn't need a boost back burn to get the rocket back to base. The main transit to get the payload in orbit doesn't get so penalized by having to save fuel for the boost back burn. It could be a difference maker.

Assorted links December 8th 2022

Artificial intelligence : Good or bad?

Comment: Here's something to worry about. But I've been worried about it for years now. As soon as these people looked like they were going to make self-driving cars, I figured my job was going to be made obsolete. It's a lot worse than that. Human beings may be made obsolete. Something that these developers need very much to be aware of, but probably aren't sufficiently so.



Indian reservation life

Comment: Here's a video that cuts to the chase without bullshit. Too bad our media isn't like this.



Update on Spacex Starship

Comment: I've wasted a lot of time on click bait posts on youtube in an attempt to get this kind of information. Behind the Black blog has a good link here that tells what's going on.

Agw is bunk (again)

Instapundit article link to substack article against Mars colonization

 Note:  Google docs won't accept my uploaded file, so I made a pic and used that.

Update:

Some footwork is now needed

Here's the file:

AGW is bunk ---again

Arguments against Mars colonization

Comment:

This comment isn't about the link's title, it is about something within the article. In particular, it is about "greenhouse gases". It is my opinion that there's no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

People who write about science OUGHT to know a little about it. If you don't know that there's no way that any gas can act in the manner of a greenhouse. That's because of the nature of gases. Gases expand rapidly. They also contract rapidly. All gases do this.

Once upon a time, I latched on the theory of "global warming" because it seemed plausible. Trouble is, I didn't actually think about the idea being presented. That's why these things get by people. They hear it, the same way I did, and they don't question it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't be fooled by nonsensical arguments like this again.

Basic chemistry tells you what happens to any gas that is heated up. There is a formal equation for the phenomenon, known as the gas law. It is "pv=nrt", which means that pressure times volume equals a constant "r" times the number of molecules ( moles ) of a gas times its temperature. When the variables change, like temperature, the other side of the equation must also change to keep it in balance. Therefore, if temperature goes up, pressure or volume must also go up. This is a mathematical CERTAINTY.

There can be no "greenhouse" unless there is something that prevents the increase of volume. In an actual greenhouse, that would be a SOLID substance, like glass. In a planetary system, gravity can hold gases in place. But there's freedom to move anyway. What you would get is an increase in pressure, and an increase in volume. In a closed system, like a greenhouse, volume cannot change.

Since a planetary system isn't a closed system, there can be no greenhouse effect. Heat up the atmosphere enough, and it will achieve escape velocity. In fact, when the sun expands outward in a few billion years, the Earth's atmosphere will be the first thing to go. Leaving all other things equal, an increase in temperature will lead to an increase in pressure and volume. That would mean the atmosphere would expand in size. Any increase in temperature would be limited by that mechanism.

Global warming theory is bunk. But I repeat myself yet again.