In my recent post Starting A Fusion Program In Your Home Town I talked about expanding the fusion design and testing environment to increase the rate of progress in the development of a power producing reactor.
The lead Bussard Fusion Reactor (BFR) experimenter, rnebel, has read that article and has chimed in here with his thoughts.
One of the things we have been considering is selling a "turnkey" version of the WB-7. In this case we would design, build, license and deliver an operating Polywell, probably on the scale of the present machine. Operator training and tech support would also be part of the deal. The model is to use a plug and play concept where the user could substitute their own parts (electron sources, for instance) in an open architecture system. This is similar to what IBM did with the PC in the early 80s. It would give people who are interested in Polywells a chance to develop their own new patentable concepts and new companies without having to go through the entire learning curve that we have been on for the past several years. This struck us as a way to jumpstart the industry and get a lot of new ideas and people involved in Polywells. These devices could be funded through government grants (we have found a mechanism) or privately. I think we could do a turnkey machine for a ~ $500k-$1000k depending on how many people are interested. The idea would be for the government to make grants to institutions and then we would be able to competitively bid on providing the hardware. Ideally, I would like to see at least one Polywell in every Congressional district in the US. Since the cost is cheap, this is a tractable. Is this something you might be interested in?
My reply went as follows:
Sign me up.
I think it might also be useful to do a $10K to $100K fusor type device for those on a more limited budget. Jr. Colleges etc. There is a lot that can be learned from such a device that would help with more efficient (Pollywell) devices.
BTW in other places (fusor forum) I have made the evolution of the computer hobby argument.
Great minds etc.
Also a range of devices and power supplies. i.e. 25KV, 50KV and 100KV pulsed supplies. Then the same range of continuous operation supplies. Same for the reactors. Pulsed and continuous operation. The equipment should be standardized as much as possible - at least for the starter kits so we could get the efficiencies of mass production. Also standardized test equipment. Standardized control.
If we had 435 tests going on at once in each district that would cause the Congress critters to all get behind the fusion push. Very astute. That was sort of my idea.
Again - contact me and tell me how I can help. I'm rarin' to go.
Simon
Any venture capital people who would like to start something - contact me.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6665
Comments
First demo reactor must work with up-time stats and thorough and rigorous checking of all components for life-time maintenance issues.
My first thought for reactors was along similar lines: aim at the 'on-demand' generators now using natural gas. With good and demonsntrated low cost to operate and maintain with minimal consumables, these things should sell themselves into that market. These are the 'peak hour' generators that only kick in for limited times during the day and have problems being situated due to air quality concerns in metropolitan areas. The more automated the Polywells are the better the bargain they become, which includes the entire life-cycle maintenance regimen. With luck the first reactor will be run ragged with full power cycles and periods of continuous up-time and then more heavy cycling: make sure that everything we think we know actually works out the way we think. Those hard cycle numbers, from full shutdown to full output and back again are very, very important for non-continuous production and yet can start shifting that on-demand market away from petroleum resources.
I'm never going to be a VC on the big end, but investment? Yes. Show me the numbers and the target market.
These are strictly test reactors suitable for research institutions that want to do fusion/plasma physics research.
I'm thinking of a range of equipment. Everything from high schools to Universities.
I have been looking at this field for the last year and a half and our level of ignorance is just astounding.
Plasmas are hard because they are reactive. Apply an electric or magnetic force and the movement of the plasma affects that force. Equations and theory (which at the base are simple) can't take you to far because everything is moving and every movement affects every thing that is moving.
This is one field where experiment will trump computation for a long time to come. Computation can be suggestive. It will never be definitive.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
First demo reactor must work with up-time stats and thorough and rigorous checking of all components for life-time maintenance issues.
My first thought for reactors was along similar lines: aim at the 'on-demand' generators now using natural gas. With good and demonsntrated low cost to operate and maintain with minimal consumables, these things should sell themselves into that market. These are the 'peak hour' generators that only kick in for limited times during the day and have problems being situated due to air quality concerns in metropolitan areas. The more automated the Polywells are the better the bargain they become, which includes the entire life-cycle maintenance regimen. With luck the first reactor will be run ragged with full power cycles and periods of continuous up-time and then more heavy cycling: make sure that everything we think we know actually works out the way we think. Those hard cycle numbers, from full shutdown to full output and back again are very, very important for non-continuous production and yet can start shifting that on-demand market away from petroleum resources.
I'm never going to be a VC on the big end, but investment? Yes. Show me the numbers and the target market.