« Extension (and clarification) of Fabulous Free Money Offer | Main | Complete set of predictions: Mark Bahner vs IPCC TAR »

April 01, 2006

Comments

superkuh

Pyroelectric fusion is a compact neutron source only. It is not for energy output.

The energy required to heat the pyroelectric crystal mass with a useable acceleration voltage and area is hundreds of joules. This is at least ~10^5 times higher than the energy output (mJ) of the theoretical maximum possible fusion events based on the surface field ionizing the fill deuterium.

Mark Bahner

Hi Steve,

Yes, at the time I wrote my summary of alternatives to tokamak fusion, I hadn't heard about Bussard's reactor.

I was aware of the Farnsworth fusor, which as I understand it is universally agreed as never going to generate breakeven energy.

But I wasn't aware of Bussard's alternative. It does seem very intriguing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

Mark

Steve Kunkee

Where is information on Bussard's reactor? It is at least as far along as the focus device.

Rob McMillin

How does sonofusion get to have no minuses, while pyroelectric crystal fusion "May never be capable of generating breakeven energy"? Doesn't the same problem hold for both? In light of Seth Putterman et al's research indicating Taleyarkhan's alleged fusion is the product of Californium isotope decay and a widespread inability to reproduce results (not to mention over a decade of research in this area by various parties), doesn't that sort of make both of these dead ends (at least, so far)?

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29          
Blog powered by Typepad