Is Cold Fusion Making a Comeback?

This is already past the theory testing and does generate power very economically:

Eric Lerner - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Focus Fusion Society: Developing an environmentally safe, clean, low cost, unlimited energy source for everyone.

Conventional Fusion vs. Focus Fusion

Jul 13, 2006 Energy production has three main elements: fuel, reactor and generator (why these three?). Conventional fusion and focus fusion differ significantly in their approach to these three elements:

  • Fuel: Focus Fusion uses a different fuel, hydrogen and boron, rather than the conventional Deuterium and Tritium.
  • Reactor: It uses a much smaller, inexpensive, more elegant reactor, the Dense Plasma Focus. In contrast, conventional approaches to fusion revolve around the tokamak, a large, unwieldy and very expensive device that has consumed billions of dollars in research money and is still very far from achieving net energy.
  • Generator:The Focus Fusion approach seeks to generate electricity directly. The tokamak is designed to generate heat which then has to be converted to electricity using expensive turbines and generators.

Conclusion

As explained in our “Conventional Fusion vs. Focus Fusion” page, Focus fusion is the only known method that can achieve hydrogen-boron fusion. It also has other advantages over tokamak based deuterium-tritium fusion reactors. Focus fusion reactors will be much less expensive for the same amount of power. Tokamak reactors generate electricity by boiling water for a steam powered generator (high energy neutrons provide the heat.) This is the same method that nuclear fission and coal power plants use. The only difference is the heat source.
In a coal power plant the steam generator is the most expensive part of the plant so replacing the heat source will not result in a lot of savings. Also, this method of generating electricity is limited by the fundamental efficiency limits of heat engines. Focus fusion reactors do not require a heat engine. They generate electricity directly. After all, electricity is just moving charged particles. The particle decelerators in a focus fusion reactor merely transfer the electricity of charged particle beams into a wire. This process does not face the efficiency limits of heat engines.
A focus fusion reactor should be able to economically generate power in quantities as small as 20MW from a power plant the size of a two car garage. This means they will be useful for powering individual villages in the third world where regional electricity grids are not as well developed (for more about focus fusion and poverty, click here). And in developed nations focus fusion power can be generated near where it will be used to reduce transmission losses and can be owned by the communities it serves to reduce dependence on speculative energy markets.
 
Hi Shawn, cold fusion and focus fusion use different technology. Focus fusion is a type of hot fusion.
 
OAT said:
Hi Shawn, cold fusion and focus fusion use different technology. Focus fusion is a type of hot fusion.
Click to expand...
I know, but the cold fusion is a theory which hasn't had a public demonstration of workability yet, beyond the most basic.
I think it works, but it is a ways from being viable.
DPFF on the other hand is a very workable method with boron as the principle fuel.
There is enough fuel on the planet to last humanity a very long time and without the problems that fission reactors have.
These are low cost, small, no dangerous radioactivity and is proven.

Plus, I know very little about cold fusion but thought that this would be useful info in any case.
 
shawn said:
I know, but the cold fusion is a theory which hasn't had a public demonstration of workability yet, beyond the most basic.
I think it works, but it is a ways from being viable.
DPFF on the other hand is a very workable method with boron as the principle fuel.
There is enough fuel on the planet to last humanity a very long time and without the problems that fission reactors have.
These are low cost, small, no dangerous radioactivity and is proven.

Plus, I know very little about cold fusion but thought that this would be useful info in any case.
Click to expand...
Thanks Shawn. Cold fusion has acquired a bad reputation in the past. However, the articles in the links that I posted suggested that there are now evidence of cold fusion or low energy nuclear reaction as they called it, and that cold fusion is gaining some respectability. If so, I would like to know more about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top