11

Lockheed Martin: Fusion Power!

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 6 months ago to Technology
59 comments | Share | Flag

Somewhere at Lockheed Martin there is a John Galt!
This could be a fantastic breakthrough and change the world!
SOURCE URL: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192126-lockheed-says-itll-make-a-truck-sized-fusion-reactor-within-10-years


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 6 months ago
    "an airplane with a CFR on board could stay in the air for years"....From the article.
    I think....well.....there might be some "new" physics involved here.....or a little over-zealousness by the author.
    There have been many "JG's" involved in power generation of this type. I think one of the earliest was Aveco Everett with thier MHD project; not fusion, but the predecessor. I hope Lockheed will prevail where Aveco did not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
      Hello Commander,
      Indeed! The possibilities are endless. To be free from the utility companies... the constant whining from the anti fossil fuel crowd alone brings a smile to my face.
      I hope they are successful. This could be as big, or bigger than splitting the atom was in the 20th century.

      You could be Commander of an airship with unlimited power... a fleet of them!
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 6 months ago
        O.A!
        Ok.....The propulsion for "engines" requires superexpansion of a "fuel". In the case of fusion power, water. An aircraft could not carry the mass required.
        I'll settle for my sailing.....slow and easy....on my 150 foot yacht....with a CFR as a back-up! LOL!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by NealS 9 years, 6 months ago
          Is not water the byproduct of the fusion, not the fuel for it? They could fly over fires and dump the water, or water areas of draught from the by-product. I remember back in early 60's when I worked at Rocketdyne's Field Lab in the Santa Susana Mountains overlooking the San Fernando Valley. We had a Sodium Reactor up there for research. Not knowing much about this stuff, the whole facility and surrounding area got contaminated. I wonder if you can see it glow from space? I wonder what effect it might have had on how I feel today?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jcabello 9 years, 6 months ago
            No, the product of fusion (of hydrogen that is ) is helium nuclei, also called alpha particles. Hydrogen nuclei, that is protons, can come from anywhere, but the most common source is water. If the hydrogen fusion ever works, there would essentially be no pollution, because helium is chemically innert and it is so light that gravity can't keep it and diffuses out of the atmosphere.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by NealS 9 years, 6 months ago
              Thank you. I was questioning the comment at the top, "Ok.....The propulsion for "engines" requires superexpansion of a "fuel". In the case of fusion power, water. An aircraft could not carry the mass required." I don't get the "water" part. Would water be necessary to provide a source of fuel?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 6 months ago
                I'll use the J-57 engine aboard a B-52 as example to explain. This is a water injected / thrust augmentation technique for take-off.
                8 engines consume 1280 gallons of water for two minutes during take-off. This increases thrust approximately 8%. Average jet fuel consumption for the same time is 110 gallons (8% of water consumption)
                By weight, jet fuel is approx 80% of water.
                The B-52 carries 48,000 gal. of fuel....it's payload is 70,000 max. The amount of water required to do the same job as combustible fuel, by weight, is approximately 15 1/2 to 1
                This exceeds the weight of the fuel capacity and payload combined.
                jcabello explained hydrogen fusion and it's by-product; helium. This source is used to produce heat. The heat is used to create steam. To date, we have used wood, coal, associated petroleum products and nuclear fission as a heat source to boil water....turn it to steam and direct the steam across a turbine or into a piston. I hope the above gives a, pardon the pun, "boilerplate" explanation of why the mass of "fuel" could not be carried.
                My background for this is 4 years as a jet engine specialist in the USAF.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by NealS 9 years, 6 months ago
                  Thank you, I had no idea or knowledge of this outside fuel requirement. My experience is only with F1, J2, and others from the Saturn V Rocket, including small thrusters for steering, slowing space capsules, etc.. The big ones only mixed liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to produce thrust, and the smaller used things like Unsymmetrical Di-Methyl Ethel Hydrazine mixed with things like Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (as in the Army Lance Missile). The Saturn V was is too heavy to lift off at launch until it burned off a few thousand pounds of LOX and LH2, then it's all get up and go, 7.5 million pounds of thrust.

                  I guess maybe we could use this new ground based energy to produce laser power that an aircraft could receive and use to power it. Set up networks similar to the cellular networks that transmit the energy to aircraft as they need it. It's all way over my head today, but Rocketdyne was a job I really relished. I was so excited about going to the moon. Then we finally made it in 1969 while I was taking a tour in Vietnam. Rocketdyne offered me deferment but I would have had to relocate to Mississippi, I didn't..
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 6 months ago
                    You got to work on the fun stuff! Closest I've been to your field was precision assy. of two valve components for Teledyne (oxy mixing for the Shuttle of some sort). Rotational reference of +/- 1 arc min. on a 1.75 dia. contact surface.....like shootin a barn from the inside!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by NealS 9 years, 6 months ago
                      It was a blast. Speaking of mixing, the Army Lance Missile used a block of metal with ports bored through it for the fuel. Then there was a plunger that was crammed into the hole on the top to stop the flow of fuel. The hole was like 3" in Dia and the plunger tapered up to like 3-1/2" in Dia. Needless to say it was a one time valve, fused the metal into one piece. The propulsion to cram that plunger into the hole was created from a solid propellant gas generator. When we tested this valve a technician with a high powered rifle had to crouch behind a piece of think steel and shoot it if it misfired, or anytime it didn't go off after they hit the button. The design always befuddled me. We also got to do explosive forming up there at one of the facilities. That was really interesting especially when we blew up things that were not meant to blow up. One night we burned about a ten story test stand to the ground in just a couple of minutes. It's amazing how quickly steel will burn and melt when a little liquid oxygen in added to the fire. The sky over the San Fernando Valley would light up and sometimes the ground would shake. But the roar of those J2 engines was always exciting. We tested the F1's up at Edwards Air Force Base. They were too big to test at Santa Susana. I'm going to dream tonight, this actually brings back good memories and lots of excitement.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 6 months ago
                        You would not believe how many times I've heard: "Well.....it looked good on paper/computer".
                        This was after I was approached and asked: "Can you make it like this....just not broken?"
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by NealS 9 years, 6 months ago
                      I lucked out with that job. My father-in-law (at the time a grounds maintenance manager at Rocketdyne) set me up to get a job in maintenance at Rocketdyne, Canoga Park. When I went to the employment office I forgot to mentioned him or the set up, but got hired as an instrumentation technician for a job up in the mountains at the Field Test Lab. I guess my electronics hobby and electronics correspondence degree helped me get a job up there rather than pulling weeds in Canoga Park.

                      A couple of weeks later he called me and asked why I didn't show up for the interview he had set up for me. I told I got the job and was working at Santa Susana Test Lab. He was astounded, we laughed about it and had a beer over it the next weekend. He never knew I had the background. I had come out of a job selling electronics and the latest new invention called Stereo Hi-Fi. You could actually get stereo on your radio by tuning one radio to an AM station and one to an FM station prior to that. this new technology could broadcast stereo on FM station by adding this new box to your receiver. It was an exciting time, around 1962(?)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by jcabello 9 years, 6 months ago
                In the case of fusion, you would get much more energy per weight than any chemical reaction. So yes, you would need water or any source of hydrogen, but the energy that you would get from fusing a few hydrogen nuclei is immensely larger than combustion. I don't know precisely the numbers, but as an example, a hydrogen bomb has very little weight of hydrogen and a huge energy yield.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 6 months ago
                  But you're not describing an air-breathing reaction engine, which is what an American means by "jet" today. You're describing a rocket engine, one that carries its own oxidizer as well as propellant. The specific energy of such an engine is considerably less, even with fusion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 6 months ago
            helium is fused from hydrogen, releasing huge
            amounts of energy....... and the liquid sodium
            reactor used liquid sodium as the cooling fluid
            for a regular uranium reactor -- a friend at X10
            worked on these. -- j

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 6 months ago
      The only way such an aircraft could stay aloft for that long, is by running a water-vapor electrolyzer and constantly feeding a steady stream of hydrogen to the aircraft's jet engines. Even then the energy budget just wouldn't be there.

      Now on the other hand, a CFR could conceivably replace a piston engine. And a CFR could definitely replace the Auxiliary Power Units most jet aircraft, and especially jet transports, carry. A modern APU is a miniature jet engine that provides no propulsion to speak of, but delivers electricity to power the aircraft's systems when the main engines are shut down. You have to start that engine before you can start any of the othere.

      The big application of a CFR would be totally decentralized power generation. A property owner in an industrial district could clean up by supplying cheap, local power to his neighbors. An office park could run on a single one of those things. And imagine a vast apartment complex running on one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 6 months ago
        If a CFR can replace a piston engine, we could see a revival of propeller-driven passenger aircraft.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 6 months ago
          Airliners, I would say. No single-engine plane will be able to carry the weight of one of those CFRs. We're talking about a load suitable for a tractor-trailer rig--or maybe--just maybe--for a pickup truck. An airliner could fit that aboard easily and would not have to carry jet fuel. But: we're talking about an airliner built for the long haul, and it would have to be built for comfort. It could not be built for speed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccwho 9 years, 6 months ago
    I find this much more promising:
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/19175...
    Cold Fussion never died, the press just tried to discredit it. Reaseach has never stopped and repeatable experiments have been verified at several major reasearch labs, all around the world. This has been going on for many years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
      Hello mccwho,
      Very interesting. I can't help but think that technologies like this are being suppressed by big energy companies and political cronies... When the government needed a bomb they "threw caution to the wind" and if required would have spent us into bankruptcy to get it into use... The need at the time is a separate question. A power source like these could have inestimable benefit.
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccwho 9 years, 6 months ago
        The Government has always influenced which technology is used. The current reactor technology being used by almost every reactor/power station is direct result of the givernments wanting nuclear material that could be used in bomb production. IT had nothing to do with cheap, safe efficient power. There are several reactor designs that have been around since the beginning that were safer and produced higher amounts of energy, they did not produce material for bombs though.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
          The military industrial complex...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccwho 9 years, 6 months ago
            Yep... I agree!
            The "givernments", want us to believe they have our best interest at heart, but actually its their own interest. They crave power, and we give it them, without even thinking about the ultimate consequences of our actions, votes, etc... The most dangerious thing to us is our attempt to take power away from a government that has already grabed it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by mccwho 9 years, 6 months ago
              They don't want the average person to have this technology, Why? IT would destroy their profits and force a restructure of the economy. There are several research projects going on around the world , and have been for decades. Here is one example: http://www.researchcoldfusion.com/
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mccwho 9 years, 6 months ago
                This is the one that I subscribe to:
                http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
                Cold Fussion Times -- Many scientific studies and results (including MIT, Livermore, etc...)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
                  The Russian government no doubt hopes its scientists are right... The Russian economy is extremely reliant upon traditional fuel exports.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by mccwho 9 years, 6 months ago
                    Yea, I saw that top story, I have not had time to read it yet but, unless the Russian's furnish proof of their claim, its just rhetoric. Why waste time denouncing someone else's claim???? Makes me wonder.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Commander 9 years, 6 months ago
                      You are spot-on about government and the fossil fuel industry destroying the options of new generation technology. I had the great privilege of speaking with Bill Bottum of Bottum and Townsend years past. I had technology applicable for micronizing coal for injection into power generation boilers....no one would look at it. Bill and I also discussed the "failure" of the MHD project in the 60's, run by Aveco-Everett. So many tools available to quash what would be healthy for a free economy.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by KDanagger 9 years, 6 months ago
                        The actual development and deployment of such a technology would be considered extremely disruptive by the global collective of corporate crony capitalists.
                        It would be opposed like a fictional green metal that was much stronger and lighter than steel. MULTIPLY that opposition by a factor of 100.
                        I personally think this is more of a publicity stunt than the announcement of a currently viable technology.
                        Any technology this powerful would be immediately seized and sequestered by the government in the name of "national security".

                        Such a breakthrough would have to be of a type that could be inexpensively duplicated, and it would have to be released to the broad scientific community at large without advance gov't knowledge.

                        Watch the movie "Chain reaction" (1996) to get a feel for what I believe would have to happen.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 6 months ago
    It's Back To The Future part 3.
    If humanity can stop fighting with itself, this breakthrough can signal the end of the need for utility power and the need for conflict except by those who want another kind of power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years, 6 months ago
    Could be fantastic.....if it isn't just a come on to get a government grant to study it further.....I'm putting my money on it being a come on so the Lockheed can suck on the government teat.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 6 months ago
    My understanding is that 'fusion' is not a problem; getting fusion such that 'energy output' is greater than 'energy input' is the problem. I was puzzled by two things about these press releases: they did not give any data on how much more power the system produced than it needed to power itself, and the fact that Lockheed is distancing itself from the project. You would think that if Lockheed thought that this would work it would say, "MWHAHAHAHahaha" and then "airplanes? they are our secondary product now". Instead they seem to be saying that they will provide workspace but the developer has to find his own funding through investors.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 6 months ago
    I was privileged to visit the 196-laser facility at
    Livermore, and to see the charts showing local
    maxima when the fusion burst was being tracked;;;
    since the skunk works built the sr-71, I wouldn't
    put it past them to do exactly this. we need fusion
    to tame some of the dictators on this planet. -- j

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 6 months ago
    Hardware in the background of the video looks suspiciously like Bob Bussard's Polywell Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion device. I always hoped someone would give the IEC concept more attention. IEC was first conceived by the brilliant mind of Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of the Cathode Ray tube television. Bussard added magnetic confinement to create the Polywell that promised to plug the leaks, so we'll see if Lockheed can take that idea to the breakeven point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 9 years, 6 months ago
    I mentioned this almost a year ago I think. Same story with Andrea Rossi's work. Very promising. But LM's stuff says it still has some key breakthroughs required. Rossi's work has been third party verified multiple times, and he's still fighting our friends in the patent offices that say it's impossible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 9 years, 6 months ago
    I'm all for it. Let's start drilling on the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, the West Coast, Alaska and frack everywhere. We can use it all up in about 500-700 years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo