Nuclear fusion anyone?

...There are no new laws of physics we need to discover for this though, just a change in perspective of how to apply the ones we know well.

That may be true for controlled fusion reactors, but how could the alternate universes you spoke of in connection with time travel not involve new laws of physics? Have these universes been shown to exist under the current laws of physics?
 
Tritium is a kind of Hydrogen. FYI
 
That may be true for controlled fusion reactors, but how could the alternate universes you spoke of in connection with time travel not involve new laws of physics? Have these universes been shown to exist under the current laws of physics?

Other parallel universes are not disallowed under current rules of physics and are well discussed and considered in Quantum Physics, including the potential for infinite parallel universes.

As for 'new' laws of physics, kinda.... We will discover new to us laws of physics that fill the gaps and failures in our currently known laws of physics, a perception and understanding of things formerly unknown, and questions currently unanswered, but they will not be "new" in the true sense of the word.
 
It's easy to call the Skunk Works a bunch of charlatans on a forum, but I don't think you would say that to their faces.

I don't want to call them charlatans, put down your strawman. All I want to ask is:

- how are they going to handle lithium to tritium conversion? did they even start to design the process yet? any other viable processes (e.g. from water) and what are their energy inputs?

- how are they going to protect the semiconducting coils from the neutron intrusion, and how does their coil cooling system work?

- how are they going to deal with the plasma leaking through the necks of the containment bottle?

- how are they going to remove the accumulating helium?

The publications thus far do not provide any answers.

The big difference with Elon is that he produces results. Yes, his hype is equal to this, and yes he encountered a number of setbacks. He is also late by years to his promises. But he does have a positive track record. So bringing SpaceX into this conversation proves absolutely nothing. There's no comparison between what SpaceX accomplished and what current crop of SkunkWorks boffins accomplished.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to call them charlatans, put down your strawman. All I want to ask is:

- how are they going to handle lithium to tritium conversion? did they even start to design the process yet? any other viable processes (e.g. from water) and what are their energy inputs?

- how are they going to protect the semiconducting coils from the neutron intrusion, and how does their coil cooling system work?

- how are they going to deal with the plasma leaking through the necks of the containment bottle?

- how are they going to remove the accumulating helium?

The publications thus far do not provide any answers.

Ha....

I have asked these EXACT same question to the Delta Hawk Diesel Engine company when they didn't deliver my motor on time and as promised...:D....:goofy:
 
I'm getting a kick out of "big money is the root of all our evils" Henning, switching to...

"I'm going to send my money to a giant corporation, THROUGH the evil investment system, and then 'have faith' they'll do something good with it... because they got a cool nickname for making fast airplanes in the '60s and '70s."

YGBFKM. That is AWESOME!

The purpose and goals of the whole of LockMart couldn't be tighter in bed with the people Henning claims are destroying humanity. Or something like that.

I know what I have faith in. You can always find totally bat-**** crazy stuff on PoA! ;)

Such fun! :)
 
I'm getting a kick out of "big money is the root of all our evils" Henning, switching to...

"I'm going to send my money to a giant corporation, THROUGH the evil investment system, and then 'have faith' they'll do something good with it... because they got a cool nickname for making fast airplanes in the '60s and '70s."

YGBFKM. That is AWESOME!

The purpose and goals of the whole of LockMart couldn't be tighter in bed with the people Henning claims are destroying humanity. Or something like that.

I know what I have faith in. You can always find totally bat-**** crazy stuff on PoA! ;)

Such fun! :)

Yes they are, but it doesn't have to stay that way. Change is a constant when time exists. This is opportunity to direct change in a positive way. I never said Money is the root of all evil, I said Love of Money is. When you don't consider what the money does and just make money for money's sake the decisions one makes tend to be poor ones. This is not a typical decision by one of these companies from a historic perspective. This is completely opposite, this is real change. Is there profit motive? Oh yes there is. Will they profit from it? Beyond their wildest imagination, we all will. They have decided to invest in, and suceed at, doing the right thing, creating an energy source the world has been waiting for for over half a century. One that can provide all we need and then some, enough to take care of our water problem and allow for hydroponic vertical farming in abandoned industrial buildings in our cities. This opens up city jobs and food production, light, heat, and water, all provided by fuel cells.

Yep, you bet I will back these companies when they do the right thing, that's the way investment is supposed to work. Your 'interest' in an investment is supposed to be the result of the product besides 'money'. The result of this product gives the potential to have a world I want to live in, a world of prosperity and peace. It really comes down to how it gets used and deployed, but that won't strictly be up to the board. The good thing about big publicly traded companies is that the stockholders have a say in the direction.

If there is a chance for us to survive as a species, this is likely our last one. My conscience tells me to back this, that's all I really need for direction.
 
1) I enjoyed Lawrence Krauss's "The Physics of Star Trek".

2) At least a couple of Clarke's Three Laws seem relevant:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


3) Without naming names, it's entertaining to watch a forum member who knows very little on a topic debate another who knows a lot. The efficient way is to only read the posts of the more learned member in response to the other.
 
IMO, a great scientist, engineer, mathematician, or physicist never uses the word impossible. Impossible implies that you know all the answers. That you know all there is to know so that you can arrive at the conclusion of "impossible". The word impossible is used by mediocre scientists.

Improbable is a far better thing to say and to believe because it leaves your mind open to the potential of unforeseen possibilities. Maybe we haven't had fussion power yet because too many scientists working the problem are so rigidly wedded to their "facts" and "laws", that impossible is the only possible outcome. I could be wrong, but I don't think we know all the answers yet.
 
I don't want to call them charlatans, put down your strawman. All I want to ask is:

- how are they going to handle lithium to tritium conversion? did they even start to design the process yet? any other viable processes (e.g. from water) and what are their energy inputs?

- how are they going to protect the semiconducting coils from the neutron intrusion, and how does their coil cooling system work?

- how are they going to deal with the plasma leaking through the necks of the containment bottle?

- how are they going to remove the accumulating helium?

The publications thus far do not provide any answers.

Maybe you should go work for them and find out? My belief is that they are doing this for profit. In this case, do you think they would lay out all the little details of how they are going to accomplish this for world peer review? I don't.
 
I have a stupid question about a nuclear fusion reactor.
What would be the worst case scenraio if all safeguards failed and the thing blew up. Would the self-sustaining fusion process continue and spread or would it fizzle out on it's own before creating a second sun in our solar system? Or would it become a hydrogen bomb and take out a limited (but large) amount of geography in one big but short event? Or would it be a real life adaptation of the China Syndrome?
 
I have a stupid question about a nuclear fusion reactor.
What would be the worst case scenraio if all safeguards failed and the thing blew up. Would the self-sustaining fusion process continue and spread or would it fizzle out on it's own before creating a second sun in our solar system? Or would it become a hydrogen bomb and take out a limited (but large) amount of geography in one big but short event? Or would it be a real life adaptation of the China Syndrome?

Considering how tricky it has proven to sustain a reaction, once the conditions to sustain that reaction have blown up, my bet is it ends there.
 
I have a stupid question about a nuclear fusion reactor.
What would be the worst case scenraio if all safeguards failed and the thing blew up. Would the self-sustaining fusion process continue and spread or would it fizzle out on it's own before creating a second sun in our solar system? Or would it become a hydrogen bomb and take out a limited (but large) amount of geography in one big but short event? Or would it be a real life adaptation of the China Syndrome?

My understanding is it would be a great big boom, but no worm holes, no runaway reaction engulfing the planet, or second sun. Just a good old fashion nuclear blast.
 
My understanding is it would be a great big boom, but no worm holes, no runaway reaction engulfing the planet, or second sun. Just a good old fashion nuclear blast.

I don't think there would be a 'nuclear blast' at all. A fusion reactor is more like a conventional diesel motor. Fuel is compressed in a chamber until it ignites, producing energy.

A fusion bomb works by first setting off a fission bomb that then squeezes the fusion fuel in a huge 'cylinder'. The fusion fuel tank is right next to the bomb. This fuel burns very quickly, the more fuel, the bigger the energy output. Somewhat analogous to detention in your big bore Continental.

Note that it takes an atomic bomb right next to the fusion fuel tank to make that really big bomb.

A civil fusion reactor is more like a conventional diesel motor in that is has a small fuel line going in to a compression chamber, where it is squeezed until fusion occurs. Like a diesel motor, they won't put the fuel tank right next to the combustion chamber. They also don't put dynamite in the fuel tank.

If something happens to disrupt the combustion chamber of a civil fusion reactor then the squeeze goes away and no chain reaction can continue.
 
I don't think there would be a 'nuclear blast' at all. A fusion reactor is more like a conventional diesel motor. Fuel is compressed in a chamber until it ignites, producing energy.

A fusion bomb works by first setting off a fission bomb that then squeezes the fusion fuel in a huge 'cylinder'. The fusion fuel tank is right next to the bomb. This fuel burns very quickly, the more fuel, the bigger the energy output. Somewhat analogous to detention in your big bore Continental.

Note that it takes an atomic bomb right next to the fusion fuel tank to make that really big bomb.

A civil fusion reactor is more like a conventional diesel motor in that is has a small fuel line going in to a compression chamber, where it is squeezed until fusion occurs. Like a diesel motor, they won't put the fuel tank right next to the combustion chamber. They also don't put dynamite in the fuel tank.

If something happens to disrupt the combustion chamber of a civil fusion reactor then the squeeze goes away and no chain reaction can continue.

Yes, but a tremendous amount of heat and energy is being contained. Hence the idea of a power plant. If there is a failure of the reaction containment, the heat and energy is vented out into the atmosphere. It seems to me there would be an explosion of some type, but perhaps not an atomic blast. I don't know, I'm not a nuclear physicist.
 
I have a stupid question about a nuclear fusion reactor.
What would be the worst case scenraio if all safeguards failed and the thing blew up. Would the self-sustaining fusion process continue and spread or would it fizzle out on it's own before creating a second sun in our solar system? Or would it become a hydrogen bomb and take out a limited (but large) amount of geography in one big but short event? Or would it be a real life adaptation of the China Syndrome?

It's not a stupid question at all. In fact, it's the 64 trillion dollar question. What happens if the whole thing goes haywire? If anyone says they know, or even have an idea, I wouldn't trust it. There just isn't any empirical data to work with in the field of fusion. All we've done in the past is uncontrolled fusion

Throttling fission is child's play compared to throttling fusion. How is it going to be valved? The radio-chemistry is pretty straight forward:

^2D + ^3T = ^4He > n (Deuterium, Tritium yields Helium isotope and a free neutron)

So, like Pete said before, how are you going to exhaust the He, and how are you going to intake the D and T? Anyway, somehow it's gotta be throttle-able or the whole process will hit nuclear runaway. At this point, no one is offering up how much of intake x and y have produced isotope z thus proving a contained fusion reaction. Despite press releases to the contrary, no one has achieved any kind of unity(same power out and was put in). Not even close. The example would be the proverbial diesel engine where the starter is cranking over a V12, and fuel is only being pumped into one cylinder, and that one cylinder may be firing, but it's not nearly enough to overcome the friction and pumping power required to sustain the motion/reaction.

Now, lets suppose the good folks at LM come up with a workable goofamak reactor. They dip it in a giant vat of water, and it produces gobs of heat to boil the water, and produce steam, turn the turbine, make electric. Some of that electric power is going to have to go back into the process of maintaining the fusion. This is called the beta, or gain. Lets say they get real lucky and a 100MW reactor only requires 40MW to maintain fusion(just for giggles, don't go off on the numbers). That 40MW has got to come from somewhere, if the goofamak goes offline. No 40MW to keep it idling and the containment fails.

I can assure you, that at the temps and pressures of a working goofamak reactor, bad things are going to happen. Really, really bad things. This is why I know that none of the reactors are achieving anything close to unity, because they are running in places like downtown LIVERMORE CA! With prolly 3 million people in the potential blast radius if/when something 'bad' happens.

You'll know things are progressing apace when a company moves it goofamak reactor to a cave in NM, and starts asking the grid for gobs of power from the utility. This is a sign that they are actually fusing the D and the T(or other close isotopes of their choice), and that they are worried about the results of the reactions. This is exactly why the boys at Fermi lab in IL relocated to a deserted part of NM. Because -- they fear greatly what could happen when things go very bad. Heck - they might even move it to the Gobi desert or something and get completely out of the country.

Some things can be fairly well discounted. There won't be any chance for a China syndrome because there is no fissionable materials to 'melt'. There's very little chemical fuel like Hydrogen or Carbon, but there will be some byproducts of the exhaust of ^4He as it decays, but the decay products are pretty well controllable in most cases. If there is a chemical explosion like happened at Chernobyl, it won't be much of an issue in light of the fusion reaction occurring withing the reactor.

Hard to know what will transpire, but this is one of the biggest questions of all in the fusion power process. LM can maybe make a reactor that will fit on a few big tractor trailers, but would you want it parked down the road from your house? Not me, no effing way do I want a fusion reactor anywhere within 100 miles of me. Sorry, no can do. What if the whole things comes apart? "sorry" is kinda weak once a hundred square miles are leveled by some kind of accident. My guess is that the whole thing will be sunk 4 miles deep in the ground, and the only thing that comes out is a couple of big cables for power, and a service tunnel to refuel, etc.

YMMV, don't try this at home, and may cause anal leakage.
 
Interesting comments in the Aviation Week article posted above:

observer on Oct 15, 2014

Evidently "Fusion" is like buses. You wait for ever and then 2 come along at the same time. The University of Washington have a proposal this week.

http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/...uels.html?cmp_id=7&news_id=222922663&vID=1907
And then, a few comments down:

jarboe on Oct 15, 2014

It is difficult to comment without the scientific papers. However, based on the figure I see one problem. The interior super conducting coils must be shielded from 14meV neutrons. Assuming the blanket and shielding shown on the coil is 1 meter the machine is the size of a football field. Even if it is just shielding, its half a football field and probably will not be able to make enough tritium to work. The fundamental problem with the tokamak is that you cannot blanket and shield a toroidal (doughnut shaped) vessel cheap enough to make an economical reactor. This design has two doughnuts and a shell so it will be more than four times as bad as a tokamak. (Our concept has no coils surrounded by plasma and solves the problem.)
I would have to study their scientific publications on the confinement claim to see if their data justifies the claim. I have not seen the papers, but the nuclear engineering clearly fails to be cost effective.
Our claim of the possibility of fusion cheaper than coal is backed by scientific papers in top journals.
A cost effective controlled fusion configuration call the spheromak has been efficiently sustained while stably confining high pressure fuel.[1] The new sustainment method [2] may lead to fusion power that is cost competitive with coal.[3]
[1] B.S. Victor et al., Physics of Plasmas, 21, 082504 (2014)
[2] T.R. Jarboe et al., Nuclear Fusion, Nucl. Fusion, 52 (2012) 083017
[3] D. A. Sutherland et al., Fusion Engineering and Design 89 (2014) 412–425
Tom Jarboe, University of Washington
And then, a comment on the comment:

mauboussin on Oct 15, 2014

I believe you are assuming they are using standard Ni3Sn superconducting wiring like ITER. They may be using an alternative material with higher resistance to neutrons.
See:
High Temperature Superconductor Cable Concepts for Fusion Magnets, By Christian Barth
Also:
http://www.conductus.com/
 
Last edited:
It's not a stupid question at all. In fact, it's the 64 trillion dollar question. What happens if the whole thing goes haywire? If anyone says they know, or even have an idea, I wouldn't trust it. There just isn't any empirical data to work with in the field of fusion. All we've done in the past is uncontrolled fusion

Throttling fission is child's play compared to throttling fusion. How is it going to be valved? The radio-chemistry is pretty straight forward:

^2D + ^3T = ^4He > n (Deuterium, Tritium yields Helium isotope and a free neutron)

So, like Pete said before, how are you going to exhaust the He, and how are you going to intake the D and T? Anyway, somehow it's gotta be throttle-able or the whole process will hit nuclear runaway. At this point, no one is offering up how much of intake x and y have produced isotope z thus proving a contained fusion reaction. Despite press releases to the contrary, no one has achieved any kind of unity(same power out and was put in). Not even close. The example would be the proverbial diesel engine where the starter is cranking over a V12, and fuel is only being pumped into one cylinder, and that one cylinder may be firing, but it's not nearly enough to overcome the friction and pumping power required to sustain the motion/reaction.

Now, lets suppose the good folks at LM come up with a workable goofamak reactor. They dip it in a giant vat of water, and it produces gobs of heat to boil the water, and produce steam, turn the turbine, make electric. Some of that electric power is going to have to go back into the process of maintaining the fusion. This is called the beta, or gain. Lets say they get real lucky and a 100MW reactor only requires 40MW to maintain fusion(just for giggles, don't go off on the numbers). That 40MW has got to come from somewhere, if the goofamak goes offline. No 40MW to keep it idling and the containment fails.

I can assure you, that at the temps and pressures of a working goofamak reactor, bad things are going to happen. Really, really bad things. This is why I know that none of the reactors are achieving anything close to unity, because they are running in places like downtown LIVERMORE CA! With prolly 3 million people in the potential blast radius if/when something 'bad' happens.

You'll know things are progressing apace when a company moves it goofamak reactor to a cave in NM, and starts asking the grid for gobs of power from the utility. This is a sign that they are actually fusing the D and the T(or other close isotopes of their choice), and that they are worried about the results of the reactions. This is exactly why the boys at Fermi lab in IL relocated to a deserted part of NM. Because -- they fear greatly what could happen when things go very bad. Heck - they might even move it to the Gobi desert or something and get completely out of the country.

Some things can be fairly well discounted. There won't be any chance for a China syndrome because there is no fissionable materials to 'melt'. There's very little chemical fuel like Hydrogen or Carbon, but there will be some byproducts of the exhaust of ^4He as it decays, but the decay products are pretty well controllable in most cases. If there is a chemical explosion like happened at Chernobyl, it won't be much of an issue in light of the fusion reaction occurring withing the reactor.

Hard to know what will transpire, but this is one of the biggest questions of all in the fusion power process. LM can maybe make a reactor that will fit on a few big tractor trailers, but would you want it parked down the road from your house? Not me, no effing way do I want a fusion reactor anywhere within 100 miles of me. Sorry, no can do. What if the whole things comes apart? "sorry" is kinda weak once a hundred square miles are leveled by some kind of accident. My guess is that the whole thing will be sunk 4 miles deep in the ground, and the only thing that comes out is a couple of big cables for power, and a service tunnel to refuel, etc.

YMMV, don't try this at home, and may cause anal leakage.


Yep, that's why you run all this stuff offshore and cable electricity ashore as well as fill tankers with hydrogen. You can even have the reactors running in hulls far underwater, safe from any natural disaster that wouldn't be a species killer anyway, and safe from most human attacks.
 
Great! Now we have competition. That might actually speed development along. Langley vs. Wright Brothers, Tesla vs. Edison, something like that. All I know is the world needs these things right now!
 
Great! Now we have competition. That might actually speed development along. Langley vs. Wright Brothers, Tesla vs. Edison, something like that. All I know is the world needs these things right now!

When we are ready for the information, we get the information, it's always been that way. Simultaneous discovery/inspiration is more the rule than exception.
 
Two questions:

1) It's not clear to me how a fusion reactor could blow up downtown Livermore.

Yes it's a big steam boiler, and boilers can explode so I can envision that.

But once the containment of the reaction fails the fusion is going to stop.

If you have fissile material like uranium you have to be real careful to not let too much of it clump together or you will have sudden critical chain reaction. Boom! Now you have all kinds of radioactive material flying all over the place, some of it will stay radioactive for very long periods of time.

Fusion, as I understand it, is the opposite. You can have an ocean full of fusion fuel and nothing interesting is going to happen. You have to squeeze your fusion fuel as hard as you can to get it to even start to producing energy. Relax your squeeze and now fusion energy production just stops. Even if your steam boiler explodes there will not be much, if any, radioactive material distributed by the blast.

What is going to 'go nuclear' in our hypothetical commercial fusion reactor on a truck?

2) What is the common pronunciation of the element 'tritium', symbol T, a tasty flavor of hydrogen ?

I ask because I recently listened to the audio version of the excellent book 'Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters; From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima'.

This is an excellent book by an experienced nuclear engineer. It details dozens of accidents and incidents involving nuclear energy dating back to the 1800s. One takeaway: Only a handful of people have died due to radiation exposure from commercial nuclear reactors. Almost none if you discount Chernobyl.

Anyway, I knocked a star off my rating of narration of this book because the otherwise excellent narrator kept talking about something called 'trish-um'. I knew that there was an element called 'trit-e-um' but I'd never of heard of 'trish-um', so I just figured the producer and narrator just got the pronunciation wrong.

My wife, the former English teacher, found a dictionary that listed 'trish-um' as an alternate pronunciation, and suggested I was being unfair to audio book narrator.

Has anyone ever heard of element T pronounced as 'trish-um'?
 
And then, a comment on the comment:
I was not as much concerned with the neutron impingement itself damaging the coil, but the kinetic energy transfer that is associated with braking of neutrons in the coil. That is going to heat the coils up quickly and make them lose the superconducting state.
 
Anyway, somehow it's gotta be throttle-able or the whole process will hit nuclear runaway.

I hoped that the leakage past the necks could be used productively to exhaust He_4. Unfortunately they aren't saying if that trick works.

Throttling is done by metering the fuel delivery. Unlike a fission reactor where the fuel is pre-loaded, here it is continuously injected. There is no chain reaction, because the products are not inputs. So as long as they don't inject too much, there will be no explosion. I'm not too concerned about the throttling.

Note that the hot He_4 is essential to maintain the reaction. It is that is going to ionize and heat up the injected fuels.
 
.41 PetaJoules per Kg of ^4He fused from ^2D and ^3T considering a 100% effective yield(yes, I had to look it up). Lets say it's only running about 80% efficient exchange:

0.8 X .41PJ X 10Kg(mass of reactants) = 3.9 PetaJoules. Even if it stops instantly when the containment field collapses there's gonna be enough backscatter and neutron flux energy to make a damn big hole. It's also prolly gonna create a nasty beta particle release depending what the coef of the backscattering is at the pressures and temps involved. Sure - a lot of 'who knows' involved but the working energies involved are unbelievably high.

There will be blood.
 
I hoped that the leakage past the necks could be used productively to exhaust He_4. Unfortunately they aren't saying if that trick works.

Throttling is done by metering the fuel delivery. Unlike a fission reactor where the fuel is pre-loaded, here it is continuously injected. There is no chain reaction, because the products are not inputs. So as long as they don't inject too much, there will be no explosion. I'm not too concerned about the throttling.

Note that the hot He_4 is essential to maintain the reaction. It is that is going to ionize and heat up the injected fuels.

Looking at what I can see, what I see shows that there are possibilities for such provision, though I have no clue as to how they intend to make it function or if what I'm looking at is intended to serve that purpose. The close of the decade shows promise, it'll be interesting to see how it's handled.
 
I hoped that the leakage past the necks could be used productively to exhaust He_4. Unfortunately they aren't saying if that trick works.

Throttling is done by metering the fuel delivery. Unlike a fission reactor where the fuel is pre-loaded, here it is continuously injected. There is no chain reaction, because the products are not inputs. So as long as they don't inject too much, there will be no explosion. I'm not too concerned about the throttling.

Note that the hot He_4 is essential to maintain the reaction. It is that is going to ionize and heat up the injected fuels.

Alright, I'm ok with that method, but how is the injection accomplished in a supposedly plasma sealed containment? That's the whole idea with any of the goofamak methods is to magnetically and thermally bottle the fusion. What happens when you open a 'valve' for lack of a better term to inject some D and T isotopes?

I know all about loading and unloading fission fuel rods. I made no comparison to that process purposely. The only places I mentioned fission in my prev post was to discount a china syndrome melt down.

Also, what about the waste ^4He? Sure, some of it is going to maintain the fusion reaction, but eventually some of it has to come out of there. You mentioned this pages ago, and it's a valid question. Unlike fission, which is a manual load and unload cycle, the fusion reactants have to be fuel delivery.

Or, are you postulating a closed loop recovery with the ^4He losing some energy state and then splitting it back down? Can't see how or where that would be possible, but I'm willing to find out.
 
but how is the injection accomplished in a supposedly plasma sealed containment? That's the whole idea with any of the goofamak methods is to magnetically and thermally bottle the fusion.

I think they hope that the D and T atoms get across magnetic containment before they hit plasma and become ionized. As long as they are neutral, they can cross containment force lines. Look, there's a lot of handwaving going on here.
 
I think they hope that the D and T atoms get across magnetic containment before they hit plasma and become ionized. As long as they are neutral, they can cross containment force lines. Look, there's a lot of handwaving going on here.

Agreed. Right now most of the projects are on something like step D(micro-pulse containment) or so, and most of the serious challenges arrive around step N(steady state) or T(beta > about 2N*mass product) or later. :D

Oh - and getting to step D is taking about 30+ years, cause I worked on it back in 84-ish.
 
Yes, most of them aren't worth having, this most definitely is. Skunk Works has arguably the best engineers in the world and they are confident. Like I said, I put my money on them, for the first time in 49 years I put money in the Stock Market.

You know you are not giving money to LM by buying their stock, right?

If you want to give them money send them a check. By buying stock you are just acquiring a piece of the corporation from someone else that acquired it before you. LM already got the money for that piece long long ago, all it's doing now is switching hands.
Kind of like buying a used Ford from some guy doesn't really bring any money to Ford.

You probably did give money to a stock broker though, in the form of commission.
 
You know you are not giving money to LM by buying their stock, right?

If you want to give them money send them a check. By buying stock you are just acquiring a piece of the corporation from someone else that acquired it before you. LM already got the money for that piece long long ago, all it's doing now is switching hands.
Kind of like buying a used Ford from some guy doesn't really bring any money to Ford.

You probably did give money to a stock broker though, in the form of commission.

No, USAA doesn't charge a commission, I have 90 free trades, I'll never make them all. You are correct though, but our convoluted financial system puts more value on stock price than real value, so stock value is more important than actual money in LMs ability to access future funds by leveraging that value.
 
Last edited:
BTW, I just realized that the geniuses at LM proposed to infuse the blanket with Lithium. This way the reactor makes Tritium... It makes all those neutrons, so why waste them, right? Brilliant idea guys, now you have a potential for the chain reaction (well it's still regulated by the inflow of Deiterium).
 
Back
Top