tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post9026485641844467885..comments2008-02-14T07:54:18.492-08:00bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-25198817200939115002008-02-14T07:54:00.000-08:002008-02-14T07:54:00.000-08:00Ack! - thanks for that bw, a classic example of not doing my homework!<BR/><BR/>I'll read the article you referenced later on - there's a lot to get through there.<BR/><BR/>cheers<BR/>Tonetonemcdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14322434086921194970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-31804400370590301652008-02-14T06:45:00.000-08:002008-02-14T06:45:00.000-08:00tonemcd,<BR/><BR/>I have written over a dozen articles on or referring to the Bussard IEC fusion system. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/bussards-inertial-electrostatic.html" REL="nofollow">Here is my explanation of it and the prototype work this year</A><BR/><BR/>I do not think that the General Fusion approach is overly complex and both approaches are targeting a commercial system at about the same time. Tri-alpha Energy's colliding beam fusion is also targeting a roughly similar timeframe. IEC fusion would be better for space craft and seems to scale better to 10+GW size systems and is aneutronic unlike the General Fusion approach, although GF contains the neutrons with liquid metal. Colliding beam fusion would also be aneutronic.bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-33123664052825835842008-02-14T01:49:00.000-08:002008-02-14T01:49:00.000-08:00I'm all in favour of efforts that at least have a chance of working (unlike ITER), but this system seems overly complex.<BR/><BR/>I'd recommend people to look at Dr Robert Bussards work, on IEC (Inertial Electrostatic Confinement) fusion - lots of details at http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/ and details of how the Bussard reactor works at http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-low-cost-no-radiation-fusion.html<BR/><BR/>The major differences between tokomacs (ITER etc) and the Bussard reactor are that the Bussard has no radioactive by-products, generates electricity directly, and uses Boron as it's major fuel.<BR/><BR/>We'll know in a few months whether it will work...tonemcdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14322434086921194970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-26035354251232170692008-02-09T13:24:00.000-08:002008-02-09T13:24:00.000-08:00I want one!<BR/>Actually, if one can be allowed to comment at all from a position of extreme lack of expertise fin things nuclear, I prefer both this an Bussard's idea for commercial fusion than the Tokamac, which appears to be largely a way of spending money.<BR/>It is a shame that other approaches have such problems finding funding, whilst billions go on the Tokamac.DaveMarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15874375831375117259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-76338156489792946942008-02-08T19:58:00.000-08:002008-02-08T19:58:00.000-08:00Am I the only one or does anyone else see a similarity between this, and the time travel machine on Napoleon Dynamite? Wait, I forgot the crystals!Big Jayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07360566401042519921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-73085079805910158452008-02-07T15:28:00.000-08:002008-02-07T15:28:00.000-08:00This is the ultimate "steam-punk" fantasy - Steam powered fusion!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com