Meet Doug Coulter: the man with nuclear fusion in his SHED!

First off: I know this has been posted before by chinabean, but it hasn't received the intention it has in my opinion deserved. So here it is again (hoping for the best).

Doug Coulter from Virginia is a former member of the intelligence community of the U.S. but can in the current phase of his life truly be called a "Renaissance Man". In the field of (open-source) he does it all, programming, racecar-driving, chemistry, machining, weapons fabrication and recently Nuclear Physics!

Doug has always supported the noble cause of free energy and thought he would do his part by creating a Nuclear Fusion reactor IN HIS SHED!! Unbelievably enough, he claims to be well on his way toward creating a self-sustaining reaction which can create free energy in a safe and clean fashion. In the video you are about to see, he goes even further than this. He fully intends to revolutionize our energy system he accurately determines dysfunctional. Al-tough the task ahead may well be impossible I personally wouldn't be surprised to see a man of this resolve actually pull it of. Doug Coulter: SOMEONE GIVE THIS GUY A MEDAL!!

His tech forum is definitely worth checking out too: www.coultersmithing.com...



CerdoFuego

originally posted by: Cerdofuego
Doug has always supported the noble cause of free energy and thought he would do his part by creating a Nuclear Fusion reactor IN HIS SHED!!

Putting aside all the other questions, even if he were to make a functioning fusion reactor it would not produce 'free energy'. A fusion reactor needs fuel, the fuel is not free.

We already have free energy. Only a very small group are allowed access to it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

By free energy they mean it outputs magnitudes higher than what is required for input, coupled with the cost of input to the value of the output.

We're talking about $0.01c or less per kWh of electricity being deemed as 'Free' energy.
Your average home uses roughly 25 kWh per day, at $0.01c or less, your days worth of energy usage is practically nothing.

Multiply that over your billing period (AU - 90 days), it still amounts to less than a dollar.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Cerdofuego
Doug has always supported the noble cause of free energy and thought he would do his part by creating a Nuclear Fusion reactor IN HIS SHED!!

Putting aside all the other questions, even if he were to make a functioning fusion reactor it would not produce 'free energy'. A fusion reactor needs fuel, the fuel is not free.

Exactly...you always need something at some point. Now if he had a way to continue the part to feed without adding fuel then we are on to something.

originally posted by: Sovaka
By free energy they mean it outputs magnitudes higher than what is required for input, coupled with the cost of input to the value of the output.

An output higher than input (fusion energy gain factor or Q Factor) does not equal free. The cost of fuel still needs to be factored in as well as infrastructure, delivery, maintenance and operations. A practical reactor is predicted to need a Q of 22 with 15 being possible on the low end. What is the Q factor is the reactor in the Original Post?

We're talking about $0.01c or less per kWh of electricity being deemed as 'Free' energy.
Your average home uses roughly 25 kWh per day, at $0.01c or less, your days worth of energy usage is practically nothing.
Multiply that over your billing period (AU - 90 days), it still amounts to less than a dollar.

Your speculating until you can factor in the output and include the ancillary costs I mentioned above. Nothing is free. Cheaper is possible, but cheaper is not free.

I have a feeling that *if* someone was to crack the fusion problem, it wouldn't be allowed on Earth. It would cause to many stability issues in geopolitics.

a reply to: Cerdofuego

He didn't build a fusion reactor, he built a Fusor, which does not produce more energy than it requires, and no one (apart from this guy, I guess,) believes that it ever will. And it's not that big of a deal -- a 13 year old kid built one a while back.

He claims it's a fusion reactor that's cooled with the fan from a computer? Seriously?

The only medal he's gonna get is this:

So how does he overcome the fact that it is supposedly impossible to use say a metal reaction vessel, as the heats necessary for fusion to occur can not be reached or maintained due to heat loss? To my knowledge the only method that has been able to overcome this started with the TOKAMAK I want to say back in the 60's or 70's or so, which was the first to use a magnetic field as a reaction vessel. I am not certain on the history, but I know that is basically how it works. So either this guy has found a way around that, or his method is different. Other methods of achieving fusion include using laser beams, but I didn't see anything like that in this instance. I think they basically shoot a laser at a pellet of fuel, but to my knowledge there is not a way to make it sustainable, that we know of at this point. So I would be interested in how this works. I am going to poke around on his forums.

ETA: The Tokamak was made in the 50's in the USSR. Or first made. And I didn't mention this in my post, but the heat of the reaction itself could likely cause it to melt.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's where a device like this would change a lot of that mindset... if true.
Because with such a unit, you'd be able to run one in every house... Eliminating every other cost outside of initial purchase and refueling.

There is no such thing as $0 cost energy... The misconstruing of 'Free Energy' as "without cost" is beyond reason or logic.

There will ALWAYS be a cost involved with ANYTHING Humans do.

Despite the cheap output of energy, you have the cost of the manufacturing of the unit and its maintenance.

I will maintain that a next to nothing operational cost (IE change found on the street) can be classified as 'Free Energy'.

Not even Solar or Wind is "Free Energy".

originally posted by: Sovaka
I will maintain that a next to nothing operational cost (IE change found on the street) can be classified as 'Free Energy'.

You just mentioned, in this same post, manufacturing and fueling costs, if you amortize them into the unit the cost is far from free. You have no idea the requirements in either process so it is not possible to say what the final breakdown in operating costs would be for such a unit.

Either way the point is moot, the unit in the Original Post does not produce a sustainable fusion reaction with a Q greater than 1 as has been pointed out by another poster.

Posted this in another thread on him.

I don't know if he will crack the nut of fusion (BTW neither does he admittedly), but I think he is a pretty interesting guy that would be fun to know and shoot the sh!t with on occasion.

The fact he is open sourcing everything is what gives him credibility in my book. Just a squirrel chasing a nut and if he gets it will share it with the world.

He gets a big thumbs from me.