Re: The Five-Billion-Star Hotel / propulsion

["Patrick Q. Collins"<collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi- thanks for the ideas about new propulsion systems.

Although in future I'm sure such new systems will be used,
I don't believe that we need new propulsion systems in order
to have a booming space tourism industry of at least millions 
of passengers/year.  So I tend to focus on getting started with 
existing technology, rather than work on even better new 
technology.  WIth luck, we should see whether someone
can win the new "Orbital X-Prize" by 2010.

Re China and oil, there's presumably a potential problem - but 
only in the near term.  Getting off oil seems to be trivially 
simple if governments gave it priority.  The wind in
North Dakota alone is more than all the electricity that
Americans use . . .   100 years from now I guess solar energy
in its various forms - including solar energy "farms" on 
the Moon - will supply 10 times the energy humans use
today.    

Best,

	Patrick Collins


> I would be very interested in hearing more discussion on this subject. I am a writer living in Burbank California. I am currently developing an episodic television series set 100 years on the first colony on the moon. One of the holes in my research are possible future propulsion systems and their neighbor weapons system. It is also interesting that you mention China and it's need for oil as that very subject figures prominently in my prehistory. 
> 
> I thank you for submitting this information and would love to hear everyone's thoughts. Especially as I am currently on a major deadline to finish the show bible (the technical document that outlines the series details) and get it to my manager poste haste!  The actual pilot is completed and is being reviewed by a possible investor tomorrow.
> 
> Ellen Hughes
> fishbone123@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: 
> To: sf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 2/17/05 6:48:11 PM 
> Subject: Re: The Five-Billion-Star Hotel
> 
> 
>   
> Dear Sirs:
> I have posted these questions at many physics forums, and to academics in this field, with little response. After reviewing your web site I thought you may be interested in the low cost implications, and near term implementation of this technology for space propulsion,
> 
> There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems. A resent DOD review of EPS technology reads as fallows:
> 
> "MIT considers these plasmas a revolutionary breakthrough, with Delphi's
> chief scientist and senior manager for advanced technology both agreeing
> that EST/SPT physics are repeatable and theoretically explainable.  MIT and
> EPS have jointly authored numerous professional papers describing their
> work.  (Delphi is a $33B company, the spun off Delco  Division of General
> Motors)."
> 
> and
> 
> "Cost: no cost data available. The complexity of reliable mini-toroid
> formation and acceleration with compact, relatively low-cost equipment
> remains to be determined. Yet the fact that the EPS/MIT STTR work this
> technology has attracted interest from Delphi is very significant, as the
> automotive electronics industry is considered to be extremely demanding of
> functionality per dollar and pound (e.g., mil-spec performance at
> Wal-Mart-class 'commodity' prices).
> 
> Potential Operational Payoff: used as KEWs, even a tiny (microscopic-scale)
> EST would generate enough kinetic energy to destroy any military vehicle or
> projectile operating in the atmosphere, including solid-rod anti-armor
> penetrators. These charge-neutral plasmas would be produced in large numbers
> in rapid succession to form a steerable beam. Impact velocities of 600
> km/sec, possibly several times higher, may be possible, based on MIT's
> extrapolation of AFRL's compact-toroid acceleration experiments for vacuum.
> 
> Metrics:
> - Effects: target destruction by kinetic impacts far above hyper velocities
> (defined by the speed of sound in metal and nonmetal targets)
> - Speed: up to 600 km/sec (MIT estimate), possibly up to 2000 km/sec (EPS
> estimate)
> - Range: endoatmospheric line-of-sight up to space/atmosphere boundary
> (officially defined as 62 miles)
> - Power requirements: EPS proposes using EST mini-fusion reactors, whose
> initial power could be provided by a car battery, to produce and accelerate
> its ESTs"
> 
> 
> 
>  EPS, Electron Power Systems seems the strongest and most advanced, and I love the scalability, They propose applications as varied as home power generation@ .ooo5 cents/KWhr, cars, distributed power, airplanes, space propulsion , power storage and kinetic weapons. 
> 
> It also provides a theoretic base for ball lighting : Ball Lightning Explained as a Stable Plasma Toroid
> 
> 
> The theoretics are all there in peer reviewed papers. It does sound to good to be true however with names like MIT, Delphi, STTR grants,  NIST grants , etc., popping up all over, I have to keep investigating.
> 
>  In my searches for efficient home technology I came across Electron Power Systems. I E-mailed EPS about the obvious synergies for their home generator with the power chips of Borealis. I also contacted Borealis. I have been mediating an argument between Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems   with Rodney T. Cox  of http://www.powerchips.gi/.  Basically Rodney said they got the math wrong and NASA is right and Clint says MIT doesn't get their math wrong.  I thought you may have an interest and be of help. Both companies are proposing very disruptive technologies, Borealis in thermoelectrics and EPS in micro fusion.   
>   
>   Mediating, in this case, means in the middle of e-mail exchanges. 
> The issue seems to be Dr. Chen's paper and whether his assumptions of the aspect ratio for the plasma toroids, match the model of Clint Seward proposed device. Will the ion stability condition be satisfied to maintain equilibrium? 
> I'm in way over my head here and have been seeking help from interested parties, if you know any plasma physicist that may help that would be great. All pertinent papers are at EPS's web site. 
> 
> You may be familiar with Eric Lerner's work, Focus Fusion integrityresinst.crosswin...oc42793577 , His theories on quasars, his book, The Big Bang Never Happened are very interesting. 
> Focus Fusion seems to making progress, they got threw gate 1 for a 2 million NIST grant for a spin off of their fusion technology to build a low cost X-ray source.
> 
> 
> 
>  If you are intrigued, please contact me for a full report on my contacts with these companies.
>   
>  Also, a Recent speech by Rodney Cox : http://www.borealis.gi/press/NEW-GOLDEN-AGE-IBM.Speech.6=04.pdf is very inspiring.  The big line of the speech is about power being to cheap to meter.
> 
> There have been several recent calls for a new mannhattan program for clean energy .   Thomas Friedman, of the Times, wrote a great column a few months ago. His dream of head lines he would read on return from sabbatical, the top one, China and America announce Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. The geopolitical implications of china's oil thirst as the paramount problem of our time. 
> The New York Times> Search> Abstract
> 
> 
> and Richard Smalley:  Nobel laureate rings energy alarm bell
> 
> This technology is so green (only by product helium) and solves such a panoply of world problems, if it is as viable as the Department of Defense feels it is, it is the fuel of the American dream.
> 
> Thanks for your attention,
> 
>  
> Erich J. Knight 
> Shenandoah Gardens
> E-mail: shengar@xxxxxxx
> (540) 289-9750


-- 
Space Future        | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".