Posted on 04/22/2018 4:59:06 AM PDT by BenLurkin
As Dr Thomas McGuire, head of Skunk Works’ Compact Fusion Project, detailed in a 2014 report, the smaller reactor is more feasible than a large-scale one.
If the system functions as expected, the CFR could take 11kg of fuel in the form of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, and run the reactor for an entire year without needing to stop.
Throughout that time, it would be consistently pumping out 100MW of power, enough to power up to 80,000 homes.
When discussing how it could impact aircraft design, Lockheed Martin said that this amount of power would allow it to fly indefinitely and would only be hampered by the crew’s need for food and water on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at siliconrepublic.com ...
Developing the first practical fusion reactor for use in an small airplane seems akin to developing a working anti-gravity device to eliminate the need for belts. Sure, that’s one application but in the grand scheme of things that’s a ridiculously narrow view of things.
I have been tracking fusion power for the last 60 years. This is total BS. I heard this same exciting news in the early 1960s. Fusion power, only ten years away based on the latest patents. Been there, done that. Also, if Lockheed has truely solved the problem of fusion power generation that could power 80,000 homes a year with a pound of water, why use it to solve a problem that does not exist? With the help of tankers, fighter planes can already stay in the air until the pilot dies of thirst. Total BS.
11 kg of deuterium/tritium is a lot!
From the wiki article on tritium:
“Ontario Power Generation’s “Tritium Removal Facility” processes up to 2,500 tonnes (2,500 long tons; 2,800 short tons) of heavy water a year, and it separates out about 2.5 kg (5.5 lb) of tritium, making it available for other uses.”
“Maybe there’s a way to heat the air going through the engines directly.”
Yes, there is, per NASA Glenn researchers. Related to use of MHD principles to remove kinetic energy from intake air, and return same energy to engine exhaust. Project goal is to allow typical military turbines to burn conventional fuels, operate to Mach 7, and replace the intake shock-diffuser to avoid the heating issue.
One operational requirement is to generate an alternative version of plasma which is not incandescent; yet, is highly electrically conductive. The initial weak plasma condition allows further strong manipulation by magnetic fields to heat and accelerate the atmospheric composition plasma. The MHD accelerator, which in the NASA project acts mostly like an electrical version of an afterburner, allows using electricity to produce a turbine-exhaust like flow.
I built a Compact Fusion Reactor for my bicycle as a teenager for my newspaper route. The toroid worked inside the tire tubes. Kids being kids.
Government grant money mining continues.
MSM looking for a free easy story are their free ad men.
How much thrust can a fusion reactor provide?
If you said, “None,” you’re probably right.
+1
They keep saying planes but if what they are working on is real and usable, then the plane they are talking about operates above the atmosphere, very far above ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.