In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Sat, 16 Dec 2017 13:15:59 -0800:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
>? What bothered me most, is that the device is a "one shot", IOW it gets 
>destroyed
>and replaced with each reaction. Now I haven't run the numbers, but intuitively
>I suspect that the cost of the little device is going to exceed the monetary
>value of the energy produced in a single shot.
>
>Robin,
>
>This fellow Hora is nearby to you in NSW, no ? Does he have a good reputation?

I don't know him, so your guess is as good as mine. 

>
>The added fabrication cost for targets would be true even of the ‘hohlraum’ as 
>used at Livermore with the gigantic laser. A mass production robotic factory 
>would need to be nearby to make the targets.
>
>If we are to believe the estimates, apparently he suggests that 10^e5 more 
>energy per pulse can be had than with current systems which require many 
>explosions per second.
>
>He is talking about one explosion per second – which is about 30 million per 
>year. If each target costs 10 cents, that is an extra 3 million of added cost, 
>or if it is one dollar per target, then 30 Million/year just for targets.
>
>If the capacity is one gigawatt and the electricity price to the customer 
>brings in 5 cents per kWhr, then the income from operations is $400,000,000 
>year.
> 
>Even at one dollar per target the cost of mass produced devices is manageable 
>for that amount of cash flow … if the assumption of a gigawatt power plant can 
>operate at one pulse per second. 

You are probably correct about this. As I said, I haven't run the numbers.
>
>See reference 45 where he outlines the details of a running system - which are 
>not completely clear.

Which document is "reference 45" in?

Upon some further reading, I have come across a few other things which bother
me.

1) I can't tell whether or not the loss of energy to ionization has been taken
into account in the cascade process, though this may not be significant, since
at the end of the patent application he says that the avalanche only adds a few
percent, if I interpret it correctly. (Perhaps the laser pulse has removed most
of the electrons?)

2) In the 1 GJ calculation, the assumption appears to have been made that all
(or at least most of) the Boron in the target undergoes fusion, and I suspect
that that is unlikely, in part because I would expect the explosion to blow some
of fuel away before it can react. However this may also not be significant
because unreacted fuel can eventually be recycled. The only likely consequence
of importance if that the power may be lower than anticipated.

3) The energy conversion device is based upon the assumption that charged alpha
particles overcome a space charge in traveling to the outer sphere. However
electrons are very light, so many of the alpha particles may reacquire electrons
while underway, and become neutral. The result would be arrival of a fast atom
at the outer sphere, rather than a slow charged particle. This would generate
heat in the outer sphere rather than depositing an electric charge on it.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Reply via email to