BROUGHT TO THE FRONT MARCH 2009. I’ve brought this one to the front largely because I now know how to imbed these videos. But also because this one fell on deaf ears the last time and I think I know one of the reasons why.
FUSIONS MARKETING “PRESCENCE”
You see Fusion is associated in peoples minds with clean-but-pie-in-the-sky. Whereas Fission is associated with some people as being dirty-and-dangerous but a winner. And with others as being dirty and dangerous but being expensive in terms of tangential costs. With me fission is clean and cheap. Because I’ve investigated the matter and I try and work by REASON and not osmotic mental association.
Well I’ve got to go with the flow. And so I must tell you that it is totally arbitrary that this process is called FUSION. It could just as well be called FISSION. Technically speaking we’d be better off calling this proposed process FUSION-FISSION.
Now there is another thing. This is not Fusion. But I always thought of fusion as being a loser. I never imagined that it could work and it never played any part in my thinking. Until I first heard about Helium 3. Helium 3 would be an easily controllable fusion reaction if we had access to a good source of helium 3.
But helium 3 aside I always thought of FUSION as a loser. Not worth worrying about. You’d never get the return. And there were a number of reasons for that. And then I stumble across this fellow and he systematically supercedes all of these ideas I had about this FUSION being a loser.
Now why do I call this business FUSION-FISSION? When this brilliant man is calling it FUSION?
Well here is what the process involves. You shoot a proton (ie an Hydrogen-Ion) at this Boron atom (at maybe 1 billion degrees celsius) and it briefly becomes an unstable Carbon atom and then it splits into 3 Helium atoms.
One of many supercool things in this story is that the energy produced is not heat-energy, as in a hydrogen bombs fireball…. but rather a straight electrical charge…. Now can you see how this is DIFFERENT? How this is by no means anything like trying to tame a hydrogen bomb explosion for commercial purposes?
This will be old hat to some people. But as a business idea, the above point is BUT ONE overcome objection in a string of objections that I originally had for fusion generally. So you might say the idea of the energy produced being a straight electric current…. is the commercial point I’m directing at the laity. Who may not have known about this before. But its about one astounding difference in a dozen that this fellow came out with.
I hope I’ve done a better job of selling this fellow, and his idea, than I did the last time. I want you guys to take this all seriously. And particularly some of you deep pocket guys, and you guys who can pull a few strings in Canberra….. You know for a tax exemption… never for a subsidy. They are not the same thing you know and a subsidy is never acceptable.
JANUARAY 2009. THE ORIGINAL THREAD.
I thought I better restore some balance here, after spending months beating up on dumb science-workers. Just watch this magnificent fellow in action. The absolute confidence. The clarity. No attempt at evasiveness. And the wonderful introduction showing the MORAL REASONS!!!!!!! why we need to produce (AND!!! consume) vastly and stupendously more energy then we currently do.
I must confess my suspicion that plasma physics has to be about the most exciting science that is out and about there. Surely a rock star in the making. It hasn’t got the hardened arteries of some of the old stuff.
MARCH 2009. BUGGER IT. I CANNOT SEEM TO IMBED THE VIDEO AS I THOUGHT I WOULD. ITS A GOOGLE-VIDEO DEAL, AND NOT AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE. I’LL HAVE TO JUST LINK IT.