Lockheed Fusion

[Chris A]

Well, I see the skeptics have begun to question, and that's good.

 

In order to understand "defense appropriations 601" (i.e., advanced topics in defense acquisition spending), I've found that sometimes the tail has to wake up the dog--so to speak.  I've seen so much money excreted away for purely political reasons (and that includes my nearly 4 years in the superconducting magnet division of the Superconducting Super Collider [sSCL] in the early-mid 1990s as a lead engineer), that I don't blame contractors for "grandstanding" in order to generate and sustain public interest in projects that are going to change people's lives for the better (not just "technology development"). 

 

Some of the worst politics I've ever witnessed surrounds the DoD: tanks and airplanes that the DoD itself didn't ask for, but they're going to get them anyway, and on the subjects where the country (and the free democratic world, oftentimes) needs politicians to forget their trade craft and start passing bills that have nothing to do with "money for politician Jones' district" and instead do what really needs to happen.  I'm really sorry to say that manned moon missions aren't on that list, but viable fusion reactors for generating electricity for the population is on this list. 

 

I read the headlines today on a notable health threat--and even the President of the U.S cannot do the right thing to address root issues and lasting solutions to pressing public needs.

 

So in that light, I applaud Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (Palmdale) for their showmanship.  From my experience, they'll need every ounce of public support that they can muster.  And we all win.  This could be a really big deal--on the order of the Manhattan project--if it works anything like it seems to be headed for. 

 

Just think about the shift in international world politics if it works vis-à-vis Middle East petroleum.  The world would be a different place--at least where I live and from my knothole.

 

Chris

Edited October 18, 2014 by Chris A

[Mallette]

Good stuff, Chris.  Sorry to hear about your experience on the SCSC.  I cried when that communist bastard from Arkansas finally managed to kill that project over half completed. 

 

I'd like to hear thoughts on this question:

 

Given the ability to eliminate the massive weight and 20 percent or more of the space required for the nuclear reactors in our submarines and all navy ships, power aircraft with plants that can keep them aloft only limited by the consumables on board, outright ownership of the solar system...and such...how is it that this project needs investor support and that the government wouldn't have it black as the Glomar Explorer or FB-117...projects hardly in the same category?

 

I have more...but one at a time.

 

Dave

 

.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Mallette

[joessportster]

There have been many an advance shut down by big business over time, I will have to wait and see if they allow this one to fruition.  All one needs to do is think about the BILLIONS in lost revenue from fossil fuel to see this will be a WAR to have wide spread usage

 

 

I certainly hope we can find better cheaper energy that both safe and good for mankind and the planet we call home,  Greed has always stood in the way of progress.

[Chris A]

I'd like to hear thoughts on this question: Given the ability to eliminate the massive weight and 20 percent or more of the space required for the nuclear reactors in our submarines and all navy ships, power aircraft with plants that can keep them aloft only limited by the consumables on board, outright ownership of the solar system...and such...how is it that this project needs investor support and that the government wouldn't have it black as the Glomar Explorer or FB-117...projects hardly in the same category?

It's always a matter of priority: (importance) x (urgency).  Getting away from having to use Middle East petroleum could save billions of lives by avoiding war(s) and terrorism - and all within the next couple of decades. 

 

But there are interests within US government to keep things the way that they are: dependent (as always--throughout history).  What are the top 10 most profitable corporations in the US?  Okay, how many of them are mostly oil companies?  They don't currently own or have IP in this fusion reactor project.  Do the math.  Influence isn't created equal for every citizen--or even every corporate entity.

 

Now, why do projects go black?  I can't say. Defense has always been over-focused on acquiring fighting capabilities and gaining intel on what the other guys are doing, but not so much on ways to assure avoiding wars altogether by addressing the root economic or environmental issues--and solving those issues instead (a subject that Gen. McCrystal tried to raise awareness on until he was summarily fired by our current US Pres for stuff that one or two of his staff said to the boss' politician sent to "control the situation"). 

Edited October 18, 2014 by Chris A

[Dr Morbius]

Good stuff, Chris.  Sorry to hear about your experience on the SCSC.  I cried when that communist bastard from Arkansas finally managed to kill that project over half completed. 

 

 

​……………….I also cried, too bad Clinton couldn't save it like he wanted to from the stupid congress. (Yes, they were dimwits even back then!)

[ZAKO]

I,M SKEPTICAL !!!!

[Mallette]

They done wonderful things at CERN....but it is a toy compared to the SCSC.

 

Dave

Edited October 18, 2014 by Mallette

[Chris A]

I also cried, too bad Clinton couldn't save it like he wanted to from the stupid congress. (Yes, they were dimwits even back then!)

I didn't cry, but I grew up to see the world a bit more clearly and less "ideally".  The world didn't NEED a super collider in Texas, but it would've been an investment that would likely have paid off.  Silicon Valley was started and sustained by defense intel and acquisition budgets over 30 years, and led to other stuff that has actually stabilized world politics, instead of unbalancing the equation for yet another world war. It thereafter led to economic prosperity in terms of silicon chip development and manufacturing, remote sensing, networking, and other notable industries now serving mostly non-military markets. 

 

A fusion reactor that works, is small (relative to that monster fusion reactor project in the EU that will likely never work), and that is cost effective is something that everyone needs--yesterday.  It solves a lot of problems simultaneously.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Chris A

[Mallette]

No arguments, Chris.  But we will never know what secrets the SCSC might have revealed.  I think it's safe to say there is even more beyond the Higgs to be found...and that probably would have been found in the first round with that beast.

 

However, if I could only choose one I'd go with fusion.

 

Dave

Edited October 18, 2014 by Mallette

[Jeff Matthews]

I have heard stories of conspiracies to destroy fountains of youth ever since I was a teenager. I just can't wrap my head around it.  In my untrained, unscientific, unmathematical opinion, it just seems like there is no stopping progress.  If the knowledge exists, I can't see how it can be destroyed or stifled.  To me, it would be like one big game of Survivor, where anything goes as concerns politics and alliances.  The guy with the knowledge wins, and he can only win if he uses it.

[JJkizak]

This ranks with the new communication security systems using Quantum Physics particles unbreakable code that are being manufactured and sold as I last heard.

JJK

[Mallette]

JJK, the quantum computing world is TRULY both a black one and one that is to computers what fusion is to energy.

 

Dave 

[Jeff Matthews]

JJK, the quantum computing world is TRULY both a black one and one that is to computers what fusion is to energy.

 

Dave 

 

To this day, I still don't get what a quantum computer is supposed to do, except be super-fast.  I realize that if you get super-fast enough, it might be a great leap in technology.  But I don't know what technological breakthrough would emanate from it.  Big deal if I can edit photos or save Word documents 1 million times faster.  What is it that would be new and transformational if we could achieve such super-fast computing?

[Mallette]

To this day, I still don't get what a quantum computer is supposed to do, except be super-fast.

 

Add yourself to the greatest minds on the planet. 

 

Main thing it appears to do it work partially outside time.   It's Schrödinger's cat in action

 

Dave

[joessportster]

I have heard stories of conspiracies to destroy fountains of youth ever since I was a teenager. I just can't wrap my head around it.  In my untrained, unscientific, unmathematical opinion, it just seems like there is no stopping progress.  If the knowledge exists, I can't see how it can be destroyed or stifled.  To me, it would be like one big game of Survivor, where anything goes as concerns politics and alliances.  The guy with the knowledge wins, and he can only win if he uses it.

You could have asked Preston Tucker

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_48

 

His vision for cars was YEARS ahead of its time

 

alas the big 3 had other ideas

Edited October 19, 2014 by joessportster

[ZAKO]

WE USED QUANTUM COMPUTERS TO DESIGN A PLANE TO GO FROM NEW YORK TO LA CALIF. IN LESS THAN AN HOUR,,,...TRY DOING THAT WITH A SLIDE RULE...

[Don Richard]

 

JJK, the quantum computing world is TRULY both a black one and one that is to computers what fusion is to energy.

 

Dave 

 

To this day, I still don't get what a quantum computer is supposed to do, except be super-fast.  I realize that if you get super-fast enough, it might be a great leap in technology.  But I don't know what technological breakthrough would emanate from it.  Big deal if I can edit photos or save Word documents 1 million times faster.  What is it that would be new and transformational if we could achieve such super-fast computing?

 

 

A couple of years ago I saw in an engineering trade publication an article titled "Computing Power" that said "conventional" supercomputers were going to need small, integrated nuclear power plants to run them. Increased power demands due to more logic gates and faster clocking speeds were cited as the reasons for needing local power production. It seems one of these small fusion reactors would be exactly what they need to power these next generation supercomputing complexes.

[Daddy Dee]

really exciting to think of this possibility for energy in the forseeable future!

[Mallette]

I am hopeful, though objective.  Of course, this will be second only to fire in human history if it pans out and the paradigm shift rather extraordinary. 

 

Another Aviation Week article.  Your mileage may vary, but over the decades I've found AW to be extremely credible and not very gullible.  This one suggests they held this story by request until the public announcement.

 

First point is that the Skunk Works has no history of hyperbole that I am aware of.  In fact, announcements of anything from there are pretty rare.  They have considerable credibility. 
 

Next, as opposed to those black projects from Skunk Works of the past, where little or nothing was leaked until, in many cases, many years after the project was complete we have an announcement and a timetable.  Almost total blackness in the past and for projects not remotely as critical to national security as a small, safe source of a reliable 100 megawatts, then an announcement of a source of power without remote equivalent in human history.  Such an energy producing device would place our military orders of magnitude beyond the rest of the world combined.  Bit of a stretch to see them revealing it in advance.
 

Then, looking as an intelligence analyst (which I am not), one thing that struck me was McGuire stating that the device would fit in a 23 X43 container.  So, begs the question: How can he possibly know precisely what it will fit in before it's been built?  Possible slip of the tongue? 
 

Hypothesis:  It HAS been built.  But the shock of releasing it all it once on an unready market would so throw the entire planetary economy into  chaos the decision was made to give it a decade to get used to the idea. 

 

Pure speculation, folks.  But warranted under the circumstances. 
 

BTW - I work for a drilling company.  When introduction of such a device becomes imminent my 13 billion dollar company will simply cease to exist.  More than adequate proven fields for centuries when not burned as fuel. 

As I retire in 5 years, a bit of doubt and time are certainly welcome.  But given the huge drop in cost of living from energy costs no longer being a significant factor in anything I'll deal with it gladly if need be. 

 

Dave

Edited October 21, 2014 by Mallette

[Don Richard]

BTW - I work for a drilling company. When introduction of such a device becomes imminent my 13 billion dollar company will simply cease to exist. More than adequate proven fields for centuries when not burned as fuel.

 

A reduction in demand for sure, but crude oil will still be needed as raw material for plastics manufacturing, solvents, etc.