ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 288 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Should Google Go Nuclear?
    Posted on Saturday, November 18, 2006 @ 14:10:58 GMT by vlad

    Science Fom http://slashdot.org/: Baldrson writes: "One of the founders of the US Tokamak fusion program, Dr. Robert W. Bussard, gave a lecture at Google recently now appearing as a Google video titled 'Should Google Go Nuclear?'. In it, he presents his recent breakthrough electrostatic confinement fusion device which, he claims, produced several orders of magnitude higher fusion power than earlier electrostatic confinement devices. According to Bussard, it did so repeatably during several runs until it blew up due to mechanical stress degradation.

    He's looking for $200M funding, the first million or so of which goes to rebuilding a more robust demonstrator within the first year. He claims the scaling laws are so favorable that the initial full scale reactor would burn boron-11 — the cleanest fusion reaction otherwise unattainable. He has some fairly disturbing things to say in this video, as well as elsewhere, about the US fusion program which he co-founded."

    See comments: http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/11/18/0616205.shtml


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 5
    Votes: 2


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Should Google Go Nuclear?" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: Should Google Go Nuclear? (Score: 1)
    by nobodyII on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 @ 12:05:16 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Excellent, well worth the time it takes to watch.



    Electric Fusion - Proven, Safe, Cheap Energy Device (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 @ 23:25:02 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    Vital Electric Fusion: Proven, Safe, Cheap Energy Device in Funding Limbo for 2 Decades - Dying on the Vine for Lack of Nuclear Weapon Potential. US Physicist Dr. Robert W. Bussard has produced proven consistent multiple working prototypes of a fusion device that does not need to release neutrons as part of the fusion process. Neutrons induce radioactivity to their immediate surroundings - only one of the Achilles heels of the Tokamak project. The massive ( 30 meters X 110 feet [www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov] - see the scientist in lower left quadrant) Tokamak/ ITER [www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov] project (D-T/Deuterium - Tritium) fusion reaction produces about 20 million units of energy mostly in the deadly neutron (neutral charge) production and requires gravitational strength containment/compression, while Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) Fusion reaction produces about 10 million units of energy per reaction, requires much weaker electric forces/fields for confinement of the reaction and is only about 2% of the size (about 15 X 12 feet) of the Tokamak reactor.

    Radioactive Tokamak technology has received 18 billion dollars of US subsidy with 30 billion more earmarked for future development. There has never been a working prototype of ITER technology. Funding is based on theories and equations. A working model is not even anticipated for another 30 to 50 years. There are many proponents of Tokamak that believe that this technology will never be economically viable and others that believe it will never come to fruition at all.

    In contrast, IEC/Electric fusion devices are smaller, significantly more economical, non radioactive, has had working prototypes [www.defensenews.com] producing 10 kv of energy, much more likely to be a viable option, and could come to reality in about 5 - 6 years from appropriation of 200 million dollars (less than the cost of one day of economic support for the Middle East oil wars without a single loss of life - 1/90th of what has been spent on D-T fusion).

    Dr. Bussard's IEC fusion advancements are based [www.centauri-dreams.org] on the 1924 concepts of Langmuir and Blodgett, the efforts of Watson in 1959, and the developments of Philo Farnsworth and Robert Hirsch. These early works all involved the use of a grid which defeats the process involved. The Polywell device using magnetic fields removes the hindrance of the previously required grids in the fusion reactors (fusors). Over the years there have been isolated reports on Dr. Bussard's works similar to ex-NASA employee Kelly Starks' 1996 post [www.ibiblio.org], but as usual, the corporate media has been and is still currently ignoring this major breakthrough in energy production.

    ....

    Full article: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/05/07/ward.htm [www.thepriceofliberty.org]




     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.