Lockheed Martin Skunkworks Announces Fusion Break Through

Excuse me if its a stupid question, im pretty new to this topic. Is this supposed to replace power as far as the oil industry goes etc.?

originally posted by: LongishLongo
Excuse me if its a stupid question, im pretty new to this topic. Is this supposed to replace power as far as the oil industry goes etc.?

not entirely. but for lots of applications. it could eliminate every oil coal or natural gas powered power plant in the world. however; unless we get better batteries or super capacitors many vehicles will still be petro powered. vehicles that are utilized in a 150 mile radius of home could be electric powered. this is because that is as far as a vehicle with a 300 mile range can go without needing to recharge before returning home. also vehicles in cold climates will likely continue to be powered by gas or diesel because the cold greatly weakens current battery technology. however; this will reduce the need for fuel by about 35 to 40 percent (perhaps even more if my assumptions about the ratio of short range users to long range users are wrong) which if you are concerned about clean energy and carbon and all of that is good news.
also if electricity is really cheap people who burn oil, coal or LNG or propane might switch to electric heating, cooking, and cooling.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: stormbringer1701

That's a breakthrough!

When do they start work on the war machines? You thought it was going to feed the hungry? LOL

the first war uses of this will be for propulsion, to power defensive lasers to provide counter RAM defense of important installations or capitals or C3I nodes. Second will be in the naval fleets to provide power for counter RAM and to power rail gun artillery.

the end effect in terms of offensive capability is not much more drastic than existing weapons and unless the space treaty is annulled or violated the war potential for this is hard pressed to outweigh the peaceful usage.

what this does do that is new is provide plentiful power and all that enables to remote locations, locations effected by disasters, greatly reduce dependence on hydrocarbons, and open all of the solar system and beyond to rapid and safe exploration, and exploitation.

I strongly disagree on how they will work it as a weapon into the services. The first implementation will be to loft it into space to fire rail guns from orbital platforms--which some of us assume are already in place with fairly standard missiles.

originally posted by: Aliensun

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: stormbringer1701

That's a breakthrough!

When do they start work on the war machines? You thought it was going to feed the hungry? LOL

the first war uses of this will be for propulsion, to power defensive lasers to provide counter RAM defense of important installations or capitals or C3I nodes. Second will be in the naval fleets to provide power for counter RAM and to power rail gun artillery.

the end effect in terms of offensive capability is not much more drastic than existing weapons and unless the space treaty is annulled or violated the war potential for this is hard pressed to outweigh the peaceful usage.

what this does do that is new is provide plentiful power and all that enables to remote locations, locations effected by disasters, greatly reduce dependence on hydrocarbons, and open all of the solar system and beyond to rapid and safe exploration, and exploitation.

I strongly disagree on how they will work it as a weapon into the services. The first implementation will be to loft it into space to fire rail guns from orbital platforms--which some of us assume are already in place with fairly standard missiles.

weapons in space; other than small arms up to crew served MGs, are prohibited by treaty. The Soviets had crew served weapons on almaz but gave it up when firing the thing spun and moved the station around comically but panic inducingly.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So this means after decades of saying "its impossible its impossible" this company is now racing around to steal all the designs of all those foreign scientist who came right out to the public saying 'its possible and I have done it"

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So this means after decades of saying "its impossible its impossible" this company is now racing around to steal all the designs of all those foreign scientist who came right out to the public saying 'its possible and I have done it"

nope. because they are only making one design; not dozens. There are at least half a dozen small fusion design schemes not counting the big government debacle in the making ones. the LM one seems to borrow a few ideas from some of the small schemes out there but they are all open to the public down to a moderate level of detail. and just because thier fusion machine might work does not mean that the others must stop or won't work. they may work and work better or work better for some applications. it does not mean that one of the others might have a working prototype before them either. for example DPF guys just gottheir berylium electrodes and are getting thier tungsten electrodes milled now. if this works they may beat LM to it because their design is simpler and smaller.

I'm ready for my Mr Fusion home reactor

Wow

a reply to: stormbringer1701

and here are a couple of threads that are months old.
the search engine here now ia s little better than it was.

Compact Fusion Reactor ala Lockheed Martin

Lockheed says makes breakthrough on Fusion Energy project

FUSION...IS...COMING. (courtesy of that darned ol' Skunkworks)

Disclosure of Secret Power Source by Skunk Works

there are more.

And how old are nuclear subs?
and nuclear harts? bet you dont even remember them!
and only Now do they make this!
oh! let us know about them.
Oil must be finish't.

Those of you who have worked on a classified program are familiar with the cover story concept. It is the store that you are allowed to tell if the first line of defense of “no comment” doesn’t work against persistent inquirers.

This has all the ear marks of a cover store. (Come on ATSers, Think!) Do you really think Lockheed is going to give the press the real, should be classified, story or the cover story.

I speculate that Lockheed is working an ST thruster. A fuel less jet engine that uses the patented synthetic tornado concept. This makes since considering lockheed is known more for aircraft work (like the SR71,F117,????,????,.....) than “fusion work”. Also, They start there work right about the time I published my practical ST design (Aug. 2011)

The ST is not a secret nor is the fact that it works. What is a secret is the fact that classified independent testing has shown that it really dose work! Well enough for Lockheed to proceed with the develop phase.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yep. We know too its been said that before we were 50 years away from things...and now-a-days...we're already doing things 50 years ahead of things we can't even imagine.

John Q. Public just doesn't know about it...as in the Stealth programs...around many decades before they would admit it. But they WERE there....

Skunkworks finally back engineered that Roswell power plant they pulled out of the crashed saucer hey......
Something tells me this is a game changer of the first order....but guys like me wont be around to see the real proliferation of it.....probably half of us wont......
Good news for yer kids though hey.....

They need to be working on Helium 3 power generators.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

But this cannot be!

But, but...the ATS expert panel of debunkers have repeatedly informed the membership that all these wacky fusion reactor research was all a fraud, the people involved were all on the make and probably had a book to flog too.

Don't say all those well known names, repeatedly jumping on each and every thread that even insinuated fusion could be possible were....utterly and hopelessly wrong!

I suppose that means we will have to examine in fine detail each and every one of their other 'definite fraud', 'completely impossible' and 'obvious hoax' allegations, as they are likely to be a pile of useless detracting negativity, misinforming us and causing would-be experimenters among us to abandon alternative energy / propulsion projects.

Perhaps now the members will see the 'experts' around here for what they really are...windbags, full of vitriolic hot air and not a lot else.

a reply to: MysterX

Let's wait until some actual evidence is presented first. You also seem to fall into the trap of thinking that potential validation for one piece of research automatically validates every idiotic scam and wild claim even vaguely related. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

originally posted by: superman2012
S & F!

I wonder if they'll be using this for the Mars mission!?

That was my immediate thought (putting aside my skeptiscm). If this really did come to fruition then colonisation of off world bodies becomes a much more viable prospect.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: LongishLongo
Excuse me if its a stupid question, im pretty new to this topic. Is this supposed to replace power as far as the oil industry goes etc.?

not entirely. but for lots of applications. it could eliminate every oil coal or natural gas powered power plant in the world. however; unless we get better batteries or super capacitors many vehicles will still be petro powered. vehicles that are utilized in a 150 mile radius of home could be electric powered. this is because that is as far as a vehicle with a 300 mile range can go without needing to recharge before returning home. also vehicles in cold climates will likely continue to be powered by gas or diesel because the cold greatly weakens current battery technology. however; this will reduce the need for fuel by about 35 to 40 percent (perhaps even more if my assumptions about the ratio of short range users to long range users are wrong) which if you are concerned about clean energy and carbon and all of that is good news.
also if electricity is really cheap people who burn oil, coal or LNG or propane might switch to electric heating, cooking, and cooling.

I disagree. Although you may be correct for the US. Over here in Europe the average journey length is much shorter than 150miles. It has also been shown that to charge an electric vehicle takes as long as a driver takes to go to the toilet and have a cup of tea. So long journeys are not a problem. Road haulage is another matter. Although I would strongly suspect that a nuclear train will be far more efficient and the balance of logistics would shift.

It could certainly be a game changer . The unanswered question is the nuclear waste? We still do not have a solution for all the waste we currently have. Fusion still generates nuclear waste in large quantities it's all to do with the irradiated reactor and coolants not the fuel.

the reason fusion is so difficult to manage..apart from the sun... is the coulomb barrier. that is put a bunch of protons together, as in a nucleus, and they repel, or wont fuse with, other protons. but neutrons, get in just fine. BUT a neutron has a half life in the wild of 12 minutes, and are really really difficult to produce. as you need an atomic bomb pit. so the likely secret of Lockheed Martin is the production of neutrons without the atomic bomb. hopefully someone with background in physics (say, read the Feynmann lectures...) could comment on this.

This "news" is just 'part two' of the manipulation of oil prices as a way to stifle Putin.

The idea is to blackout any light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel on current petroleum unprofitability.

Not gonna be any commercial fusion generators in this man's lifetime.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: LongishLongo
Excuse me if its a stupid question, im pretty new to this topic. Is this supposed to replace power as far as the oil industry goes etc.?

not entirely. but for lots of applications. it could eliminate every oil coal or natural gas powered power plant in the world. however; unless we get better batteries or super capacitors many vehicles will still be petro powered. vehicles that are utilized in a 150 mile radius of home could be electric powered. this is because that is as far as a vehicle with a 300 mile range can go without needing to recharge before returning home. also vehicles in cold climates will likely continue to be powered by gas or diesel because the cold greatly weakens current battery technology. however; this will reduce the need for fuel by about 35 to 40 percent (perhaps even more if my assumptions about the ratio of short range users to long range users are wrong) which if you are concerned about clean energy and carbon and all of that is good news.
also if electricity is really cheap people who burn oil, coal or LNG or propane might switch to electric heating, cooking, and cooling.

I disagree. Although you may be correct for the US. Over here in Europe the average journey length is much shorter than 150miles. It has also been shown that to charge an electric vehicle takes as long as a driver takes to go to the toilet and have a cup of tea. So long journeys are not a problem. Road haulage is another matter. Although I would strongly suspect that a nuclear train will be far more efficient and the balance of logistics would shift.

It could certainly be a game changer . The unanswered question is the nuclear waste? We still do not have a solution for all the waste we currently have. Fusion still generates nuclear waste in large quantities it's all to do with the irradiated reactor and coolants not the fuel.

America is huge with long distances between population centers. at least half of us live in rural isolated areas.

as for nuclear waste even the crudest fusion scheme is cleaner in that regard than nuclear fission. The fusion chains that produce neutrons do produce nuclear waste if only in the form of reactor materials with induced radiation. However; the radioactivity of such materials is fairly short lived and therefor storage and disposal is less complicated and less dangerous. And some advanced fusion chains are actually waste free. PB fusion is waste free. Some fusion chains are nearly waste free.

the issue is the "dirty" (dirty is relative. all fusion chains are dramatically cleaner than fission) chains are easier to achieve fusion with than the clean chains. So the first fusion plants will probably produce waste albeit wastes that become harmless after 30 to 100 years not 10K to 90K years like fission poo.