Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

In article ,
ess says...

On 16/10/2014 2:43 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


A bit more detailed article on this.

Did you intend to post a link, but forgot?

Here is a link:

Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details
Lockheed Martin aims to develop compact reactor prototype in
five years, production unit in 10
Oct 15, 2014 Guy Norris | Aviation Week & Space Technology
http://tinyurl.com/n9dbofr

As usual, Aviation Week includes more technical details than the
"mainstream media".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 16/10/2014 10:33 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...


"Lockheed shares fell 0.6 percent to $175.02 amid a broad market selloff."

Suggesting the market believes that Lockheed is throwing money down the
drain?

Considering that it only fell 0.6 percent "amid a broad market selloff",
how do you arrive at that conclusion? Besides, this is just one
research project amid many other government funded projects.

I have to wonder at the ten times smaller claim. Given that there are
no
functioning fusion power generators, ten times smaller than what? Ten
times smaller than other reactors that don't produce a net power output?

This is not much different than the Skylon/SABRE claims, which seems to
be a pet project of yours. It's always easy to claim your paper project
will be better than someone else's paper project.

It think you missed the point, which is that it's hard to be ten times
better than something else where there is no something else to be better
than.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...

On 16/10/2014 2:43 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


wrote in message
...

"Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a
technological breakthrough in developing a power source
based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small
enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready
for use in a decade.

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small
team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's
secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now
going public to find potential partners in industry and
government for their work.

Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a
100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet,
which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is
about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire
told reporters."

See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0I41EM20141015



A bit more detailed article on this.

Did you intend to post a link, but forgot?


Yes. Sorry.


"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...
On 16/10/2014 2:43 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


wrote in message
...

"Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a
technological breakthrough in developing a power source
based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small
enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready
for use in a decade.

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small
team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's
secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now
going public to find potential partners in industry and
government for their work.

Initial work demonstrated the feasibility of building a
100-megawatt reactor measuring seven feet by 10 feet,
which could fit on the back of a large truck, and is
about 10 times smaller than current reactors, McGuire
told reporters."

See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0I41EM20141015



A bit more detailed article on this.

Did you intend to post a link, but forgot?

Sylvia.

http://aviationweek.com/technology/s...eactor-details



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
ess says...

On 16/10/2014 10:33 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

This is not much different than the Skylon/SABRE claims, which seems to
be a pet project of yours. It's always easy to claim your paper project
will be better than someone else's paper project.

It think you missed the point, which is that it's hard to be ten times
better than something else where there is no something else to be better
than.

You mean how Skylon is claimed to be a better launch system than a
reusable TSTO despite the fact that there is no reusable TSTO sytem
currently in operation? No, I get it.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

... And why is it these guys *always* need partners to see it through? Just build the damn thing! You'll have no problem selling them if they work!

It's Lockheed Martin. They can't do much of anything without asking the
US Government for a handout. Because today's stockholders can't seem to
go longer than a year without expecting a return on their investment.


I think you're giving them too much credit. 90 days is considered a
long-term outlook.

Or the traders using automated computer based trading because having
people in the loop just slows down trades. I have little respect for
many of today's "investors". They're looking for a quick buck out of a
company's stock, not "investing" in the future of the company. :-(

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:52:10 AM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...


Did you intend to post a link, but forgot?

Yes. Sorry.

http://aviationweek.com/technology/s...eactor-details

Bah, another pay-walled article. Sorry Greg, not helpful... I'll Google around when I get a chance...

Dave

Some other non-paywalled links:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/1...actor-details/

From Lockheed:
http://lockheedmartin.com/us/product...ct-fusion.html

Video from Lockheed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlYClniDFkM

OK, now related picture in 2nd link above to the first illustration from he

http://www.alternative-energy-action...l-tokamak.html

Looks like a spherical-tokamak derivative of some kind. Did the AvWeek article describe the Beta for this reactor?

The illustration from WattsUpWithThat looks like a spherical-tokamak with a neutron shield heat exchanger. The "breed fuel" part means that it can be used to fuel a fission reactor if the right materials are used in the shield to yield fissile fuel under neutron activation. Thinking U-Np-Pu...

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 16/10/2014 2:43 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:


A bit more detailed article on this.

Did you intend to post a link, but forgot?

Here is a link:

Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details
Lockheed Martin aims to develop compact reactor prototype in
five years, production unit in 10
Oct 15, 2014 Guy Norris | Aviation Week & Space Technology
http://tinyurl.com/n9dbofr

As usual, Aviation Week includes more technical details than the
"mainstream media".

And it seems they give rather different dimensions than the Reuters
article. Almost looksl ike a meters versus feet thing (I'm assuming
that tinyurl URL is to the article I think it is, I have a slightly
irrational unwillingness to follow tinyurl-esque links).

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:27:32 PM UTC-4, Rick Jones wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/n9dbofr



As usual, Aviation Week includes more technical details than the

"mainstream media".

And it seems they give rather different dimensions than the Reuters
article. Almost looksl ike a meters versus feet thing (I'm assuming
that tinyurl URL is to the article I think it is, I have a slightly
irrational unwillingness to follow tinyurl-esque links).

Me too. And I thought I'd tried that URL earlier today and it hit a pay-wall. Oh well, working now....

Dave

On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:06:54 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote:

Looks like a spherical-tokamak derivative of some kind. Did the AvWeek article describe the Beta for this reactor?

From AvWeek article:

/quote
The CFR will avoid these issues by tackling plasma confinement in a radically different way. Instead of constraining the plasma within tubular rings, a series of superconducting coils will generate a new magnetic-field geometry in which the plasma is held within the broader confines of the entire reaction chamber. Superconducting magnets within the coils will generate a magnetic field around the outer border of the chamber. "So for us, instead of a bike tire expanding into air, we have something more like a tube that expands into an ever-stronger wall," McGuire says. The system is therefore regulated by a self-tuning feedback mechanism, whereby the farther out the plasma goes, the stronger the magnetic field pushes back to contain it. The CFR is expected to have a beta limit ratio of one. "We should be able to go to 100% or beyond," he adds.
/end-quote

Limit ratio of 1? Build it. Let's see....

Dave