🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <269@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1114@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>>We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK 
>>plasmoid, ...
>> ... consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium +
>>helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible.  ... That means that 
>>operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with 

>... Do you have any more information?  I'd like to take
>a look at it.    ... . .  (whatever happened to Migma?) 

The reference noted in my previous article appears in a supplement 
to "FUSION TECHNOLOGY" which covers reviewed papers from The 
American Nuclear Society's Salt Lake Meeting on "The Technology 
of Fusion Energy".  The proceedings are just now being shipped 
by the printer to libraries and participants, although I have 
not yet received my copy.  The article title is: 'PLASMAK(tm) 
Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications'.   

The article also briefly discusses MIGMA.  Basically, progress on 
Migma has been quite steady to date.  However, it must reach several 
orders of magnitude higher plasma density before it will be commercially 
successful.  Each order of magnitude increase in density represents 
a new development or research challenge and an evolved MIGMA device.  
Each level requires millions of dollars and at least one or two years 
time.  Also, there is a chorus of theorists chanting "instability"
at each level of density, but so far so good.  It would be great
if Migma and the PLASMAK(tm) concept both worked.  The former
would be a sort of thermonuclear birthday candle, while the
latter, with its deca-gigawatt output, would be more like an
electric cutting torch by comparison.  


>I think, though, that pushing "no radiation" in an attempt to placate
>those who run screaming in horror at the word "radiation" is futile.

Not Quite so!!  That is not the engineering reason for greatly minimizing 
or zeroing the "radiation problem."  Let me explain and put aside the 
biological/environmental effects which can be discussed elsewhere. 

Certain applications need very high power density with little
cooling. To fly from the earth's surface to Mars surface and turn
around and fly back again within four to six weeks, requires an
extremely low mass but exceptionally powerful energy device that
can heat planetary atmospheric gases for reaction mass during 
boost phase and then "transform" to closed cycle electric power 
generation, which in turn drives a small reaction mass to great
velocities, i. e. a plasmoid accelerator interplanetary rocket 
engine. 

The very energetic (fast) neutron flux from a D-T reaction carries 
most of the reaction energy and would penetrate a dense gas blanket 
and deposit that energy in the inertial compression driven walls.  
The walls would not be insulated from the fusion energy as they would
be by a dense blanket gas in an aneutronic burner.  Consequently,
they would change state (i. e. melt to liquid or sublimate to gas
or plasma).  Therefore, NEUTRONIC burners (as with D-T) can NOT burn
at much power density. Tokamaks face the "wall power limit" and that
results in a few watts per cubic centimeter from the fuel plasma. 
Consequently, tokamaks are colossal in size.  By comparison the volume 
of the compressed thermonuclear plasma in a 60 hertz three phase (180 
pulse burns/second) 10 gigawatt PLASMAK burner is about that of a 
small plum.  

It is only natural that if the aneutronic fuel contains millions of 
times the energy per unit mass as common chemical fuels, then the burn
power density should also be substantially higher, and with a developed 
PLASMAK device it will be.   Yet there is no risk that it will
become unstable and ignite or explode outside of a controlled burn
that takes place in the normally functioning engine.  The fuel
itself is not dangerous.  On the other hand NEUTRONIC fuels such
as tritium or certain plutonium/uranium isotopes are hazardous. 

>radioactivity of fission plants can be dealt with, too, as the French
>are so ably demonstrating.

Hmmmm?  I understand they handle their alcohol a diluted sip at a
time so well, that, it is now impossible to find an imbibing French
continental who can remember the details of his/her own experiences 
in the second world war.  Handling is relative.  

>.. .   If we don't figure out some way to ignore the technophobes, in 

Probably a form of xenophobe.  I worry more about the investor
that a few years ago considered IBM clones a "really high risk," and
the tons of people apparently hooked on credit instead of piling up 
stock in companies on the cutting edge of technology. 

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+