Lockheed's Skunk Works promises working Fusion Reactor by 2017

[edhopper]

This story escaped my notice, but could be significant.

http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years

Chase didn't give a whole lot more technical detail, but he seemed confident in predicting a 100mW prototype by 2017, with commercial 100mW systems available by 2022, implying that all global energy demands will be able to be met by fusion power by about 2045.

Skunk Works is not known for talking about what they are working on.
We'll have to wait and see, but if this is true, it will be the end of fossil fuel and clean cheap energy for everyone.

[Sunlei]

1. Love to have one for my house too

Personal portable power please

[Lurks Often]

2. I certainly wouldn't bet against Lockheed's Skunk Works

They have certainly delivered in the past, with the SR-71 being their most famous success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor

[TroglodyteScholar]

5. That's quite a bit of public info on the high beta

We'll see....

[Brother Buzz]

14. The secrecy at Skunk Works wonderfully shrouds their blunders, too

I'm just saying.

[TroglodyteScholar]

25. It's the same with any program that exists on the black budget

If you can't find the money's origins, you can't stop the flow of money, can you?

[Lurks Often]

65. I would use the word failures instead of blunders

and yes, any cutting edge design group is going to have some failures.

[Brother Buzz]

66. Agree

[Aerows]

67. Thomas Edison once famously said

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”

[yawnmaster]

76. R&D must always have some failures. Generally, the fewer the failures,...

the further one is from the cutting edge.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. 100 milliwatt fusion reactor?

I'll keep my AAA cells, thanks.

[think]

10. Pretty sure that would be mega watt /nt

[Fumesucker]

47. GMTA

[jberryhill]

69. I was wondering about that....

I'm thinking, "are they looking to make a self-powered LED flashlight?"

[yawnmaster]

78. It's 100 Mega Watts. Here is a link to C.Chase giving a talk about it...

The article writer doesn't seem to know the difference between mW and MW.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. I figured that. Using mW when one means MW (or vice versa) is a pet peeve. n/t

[RobertEarl]

4. Cheap energy for everyone?

Define what you mean by everyone, please.

Funny, lockhead and exxon hate the one free source of cheap energy for everyone, and i do mean everyone.... we call it the sun.

Fusion is a crack pipe dream, much as nukes were. Too cheap to meter, right? How about just a crazy scheme to make money and blow the place sky high?

Using nukes, like using crack, you feel good for a bit, but then reality returns and you find you've shit your sheets.

[Trekologer]

7. There's a little problem with solar power called nighttime

Solar is great but it can't provide 24x7 power.

[RobertEarl]

8. Right

We can't live without power 24/7.

Just like the crack smokers who will do whatever for their 24/7 crack.

How did we ever survive with the sun being part time?

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. You must be an absolute blast at parties. n/t

[RobertEarl]

20. We are

Me and Jimmy Carter. That there's my kind of party.

Some like their crack. Or booze. And they are on the hellbound train. Jimmy and I tried to tell yall to just be cool and drop the crack pipe, but NO. Now they are burning down the house. Party on, dude.

[Logical]

19. LOL, yes, that should be an easy sell! nt

[NuclearDem]

23. Because our bodies aren't solar powered?

"I know you've got doubts about this tech that depends exclusively on the sun to function, but it'll work, since this other thing that doesn't exclusively need the sun to function works fine during nighttime."

[Sunlei]

54. or we can be Eskimos who have 24/7 night part of the year, low light other parts and....

eat a lot of fish and sea creatures to get our vities!

[Orrex]

30. Pretty much the same way we survived without antibiotics and indoor plumbing

Uncomfortably.

[Logical]

18. Many ways to store it during the day! nt

[rickford66]

32. True but entirely predictable which ..

will allow for storage during daylight. There are any number of storage solutions, each one suitable to various locations. Anyway, what's the problem with using the Sun for half a day?

[Duppers]

62. exactly. thank you for some sanity in this thread.

[itsrobert]

12. Doesn't the Sun use fusion?

Am I missing something here? Is the Sun on crack?

[RobertEarl]

15. We tried copying the sun

It's not turning out so well, is it?

Not only is it creating deadly pollution, it will end up costing more money than we can imagine.

Here's what happens with some of the waste from our crack pipe dreams:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4846608

WIPP it. WIPPP it good!

[oldhippie]

21. We did? Where?

What didn't turn out well? What pollution is it creating?

[RobertEarl]

22. Hello? Anybody home?

I have heard some of the old hippies were lost in time. I didn't believe it until now.

[NuclearDem]

24. I'm not sure Robert understands the difference between fusion and fission.

[itsrobert]

26. Why don't you tell me?

or

http://www.universetoday.com/18707/fusion-in-the-sun/

The Sun is a main-sequence star, and thus generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. In its core, the Sun fuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second

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

http://www.bing.com/search?q=the+sun+fusion&form=IE10TR&src=IE10TR&pc=MAARJS

UPDATE: I AM CONFUSED ON WHICH ROBERT HA HA

[NuclearDem]

27. Other Robert.

[oldhippie]

50. I know, but .....

... he sure can be entertaining, in an odd, republican-like anti-science way.

That's why he's still my buddy, even though he can't post in the E&E Group anymore.

[RobertEarl]

53. Yall are like climate deniers

The sun is a nuclear reactor. It may not be fission but it is a nuclear reactor.

Moi never said it wasn't fusion.

Yet you people carry on in denial using slander and bs to try and make yourselves look smart? Talk about acting republican.

[NuclearDem]

58. Then what was your point?

Do you think nuclear power plants are fusion plants? You said we tried to "copy the sun." Either you think the sun operates by nuclear fission, or you think nuclear plants are fusion.

[jeff47]

38. So much wrong in one post.

But then, it is you talking about nuclear power. Btw, are we all dead yet? You claimed Fukushima would render the Northern hemisphere uninhabitable by now.

Fission power uses Uranium, and produces radioactive by-products. The reaction is critical and can cause an explosion or meltdown if not actively controlled.

Fusion power uses hydrogen, and produces helium. Neither is radioactive. The energy comes from E=mc^2'ing a couple neutrons per reaction. The fusion power plants we have developed generate fusion by a very strong magnetic field crushing the hydrogen. If something goes wrong and that field goes away, fusion stops. Instead of actively trying to prevent the reaction, we are actively causing the reaction.

But hey, that's just what those evil scientists say. Clearly, we should ignore the massive differences between fission and fusion.

[RobertEarl]

46. Oh?

We get no radiation from the sun?

It is amazing what you will say to get a leg up.

[jeff47]

48. We get no nuclear radiation. We get electromagnetic radiation.

The fact that you don't know the difference is why you're wrong.

[Fred Drum]

55. fusion does produce gamma rays

i agree fusion is much cleaner than fission, you still wouldn't want to be standing to close

[jeff47]

73. And gamma rays are EM.

Most importantly, they stop the instant that the fusion source stops. As opposed to the nuclear radiation from Uranium and its fission byproducts.

Turn off the magnetic field, and the gamma rays stop instantly.

[yawnmaster]

79. Dude, you don't want to stand to close to a fire either!! be careful out there. eom

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are two different things

a sustained fusion reaction has yet to be initiated.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Yes. Fusion is simple and natural.

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

If you start with a ball of hydrogen that wi Dr h a mass 100,000 times (give or take) more than the Earth.

Otherwise, achieving the forces needed is non-trivial.

[IDemo]

31. This is not your father's nuclear

Fusion power doesn't involve uranium, plutonium, control rods, cooling ponds, meltdowns, or barrels of waste, toxic or otherwise. It is an entirely separate process.

[RobertEarl]

34. Right

But it is nuclear power.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

36. so it must be bad?

think again or perhaps read up on FUSION waste products...

sP

[RobertEarl]

41. Its all in how it is used: good or bad

The sun is a comfortable 93 million miles away.

It still can cause harm even tho we can't live without it. Someone above seems to think solar is not needed. Good gawd, the idiocy, right?

Einstein was heard to mention that human mentality must change if we are to use such great powers, or we are doomed. Have we changed our mentality? The proof is: No, we have not.

[jeff47]

42. Robert claimed Fukushima would render the Northern hemisphere uninhabitable.

When that didn't pan out, he moved on to claiming Fukushima will wipe out all life in the Pacific ocean. That didn't pan out either, but AFAIK he hasn't started with a new doomsday scenario.

[RobertEarl]

44. Cheap slander from you, again

Just because I showed you to be wrong every time you have to make shit up to make you feel big? I feel sorry for you, jeff.

[jeff47]

49. Yes Robert, continue to demonstrate the Republicans don't have

the market in anti-science cornered.

So how 'bout that starfish die-off? You remember, the one you claimed was due to Fukushima, despite the minor problem of the die off starting before the accident?

ETA: You do tend to repeat yourself quite a bit. Perhaps you consider repetition to be showing someone wrong.

[JJChambers]

57. Is RobertEarl really that foolish or is he just trolling?

Someone get him some tinfoil, pronto!

[jberryhill]

71. He's just passionate

He goes off the rails sometimes, but there are those here who like to poke him with a stick now and then. So, there's that.

[IDemo]

39. What aspect of fusion do you feel equals the hazard potential of fission?

Saying "a rose is a rose" doesn't exactly meet scientific standards.

[Duppers]

60. wtf? "blow the place sky high"

Fusion generator or reactor will not actually blow up because it's very difficult to keep the reaction going and that's the reason we already don't have it.

I've a PhD physicist sitting next to me disputing what you said.




Do you have fission confuse with fusion?

[cemaphonic]

68. Fun fact - The sun is a giant fusion reactor.

And an inherently unsafe one too, as it will one day expand and boil off all of the atmosphere and oceans.

So put that in your (crack) pipe and smoke it.

[struggle4progress]

6. Fusion has been just around the corner for at least forty years now

[Trekologer]

11. This time it might really be

Recently, scientists have been able to get more energy out of a fusion experiment that was put into it, passing the break even point.

[struggle4progress]

59. From your link:

"... The fuel itself produced more energy than was put into it, but the entire process requires roughly 100 times more energy, for instance to power the lasers, than was generated ..."

[hatrack]

9. Sounds nice, and also sounds like bullshit

They have three years to roll it out.

Good luck with that.

[Duppers]

63. how do we know how long they've been working on it ?

We fucking need something just stop this fossil fuel pollution that's driving GCC.

[AngryAmish]

13. Short Lockeed.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. So that reverse technology is paying off now?

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/TGthU39F5Y6zP.x_nOWXFw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTI0MA--/

The one-page memo, dated March 22, 1950, was addressed to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover from Guy Hottel, then head of the FBI's Washington, D.C., field office. It relayed some information from an informant.

The subject:

FLYING SAUCERS
INFORMATION CONCERNING
"An investigator for the Air Force stated that three so-called flying saucers had been recovered in New Mexico," Hottel writes. "They were described as being circular in shape with raised centers, approximately 50 feet in diameter. Each one was occupied by three bodies of human shape but only 3 feet tall, dressed in metallic cloth of a very fine texture. Each body was bandaged in a manner similar to the blackout suits used by speed fliers and test pilots.”

No further evaluation was attempted, Hottel reports.

The file, published by the vault in April 2011 under the Freedom of Information Act, has been viewed nearly a million times, the FBI said, in part because media outlets "erroneously reported that the FBI had posted proof of a UFO crash at Roswell, New Mexico [in 1947] and the recovery of wreckage and alien corpses."


I guess since they found the element in the zone of stability they have a way to power something now.

wink wink

[cantbeserious]

28. Here's The Video

[tridim]

29. I like that they announced it now, Old-Energy needs to be shaken up.

[PFunk]

33. Actually a couple of places/groups in europe (mostly french and german) had basicly said the same.

After all the fusion part they got down. It's the power consumption part (i.e. it uses more power than it produces) that they still have problems with. So I wouldn't dispute this.

[jeff47]

35. We already have working fusion reactors.

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

What we haven't had is a fusion reactor that uses significantly less energy than it produces - it's only fairly recently that Tokamaks became net-positive. Barely. They need either make much more power or use much less power before they're commercially viable.

[Vogon_Glory]

37. I'll Be Delighted If They Can Do It BUT

I'd be dElighted if they could do it. Fossil fuel plants, particularly coal, are filthy carbon-belching monsters.

However, I'm in my late fifties and remember various Dr Bunsen Honeydews making equally cheery predictions about practical fusion since my teens.

At this stage in life, my first response tends to be skepticism, my second is to say "Show me!"

[BootinUp]

40. I want one to mount on my Z-Car

cause I don't have a De Lorean.

[Calista241]

45. Bitch, bitch, bitch

At least they're trying to do something to save our planet. The rest of us are sitting behind a keyboard contributing to the problem.

[Takket]

52. I'll believe it when i see it

i don't for one second believe big oil and their employees in the federal government (read: Congress) would ever allow a fusion reactor to operate in the US commercially. Skunk works might be able to build it, but it will never see commercial use.

[BootinUp]

56. They couldn't stop it if the public

knows.

[Duppers]

64. you got it.

[Lionel Mandrake]

70. Again?

This story keeps getting repeated, and I wonder whether it's even worth repeating my answer. But here goes:

The skunk works has expertise in military aircraft. They are engineers and managers, not physicists. In taking on controlled fusion, they are jumping into a business they know nothing about. What are their chances of success? I'd say close to zero.

[edhopper]

72. So what is the purpose

Of this story?
I am not disagreeing with you, since I only have the info from the report.
But why are they saying this if they have zero chance.

[Lionel Mandrake]

75. Good question.

Maybe they are looking for suckers (oops, I mean investors) to back their project. Maybe they believe their own bullshit. Maybe they think that because they can make stealthy airplanes, they can do anything.

I am reminded of the time GM bought Hughes Aircraft for $5 billion, thinking that the geniuses who designed satellites could surely apply their advanced ideas to cars. Guess what happened: Hughes didn't help GM, and GM mismanaged Hughes. Big mistake all around. The moral of the story is that aerospace guys should stick with what they know.

[BootinUp]

77. The High beta fusion reactor at Lockheed was designed by Dr. Thomas McGuire

who did his PhD thesis on fusors at MIT. Presumably they gave him additional resources in terms of qualified people to work with.

[IDemo]

74. M.I.T. has an ongoing fusion research effort as well

It has been the target of funding cuts but appears safe for the time being.

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/alcator/