[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Pellet track
In a message dated 8/19/97 6:51:53 PM, you wrote:
>> Initiate, is different from maintaining. Lots of magnetic confinement
>> systems have started fusion. But just about none got out more power then
>> they put in, and few could keep the system runing more then a tiny
>> of a secound. Magnetic confinement is considered a NASTY way to try to do
>> this. Comercial concerns have pretty well written it off as unusable
>> to the anoyence of U.S. government researchers).
>Gee, it has been a long time since I thought about this particular concept.
>was not aware/did not know the status of stellarator research, I just sort
>half remembered it from years ago. IF I remember correctly, a "stellarator"
>sort of a hybrid pinch/confinement/accelerator concept that was never even
>designed to generate continuous sustained fusion. It was simply a research
>to INITIATE a fusion burn long enough to gain additional information to
>more capable reactors.
>My thought however, is that a stellerator could be easily improved using
>TODAY'S technology to produce a continuous reaction just as long as we keep
>stuffing fuel down the accelerator end. This could be used for a Bussard
>a pellet track, both, whatever...
Hard to say. It might work. But with fuel blasting through it at
All forms of magnetic confinement/compression have been beating themself
blood trying to make it work. So mucg time and money spent with so little
results makes me cynical.
>An unrelated comment: in a previous discussion on another thread you were
>discussing heat gain. Someone said something to the effect that we would
>to physically tap the exhaust stream for power and that this would create
>some sort of weak point for excess heat transfer (I know I am paraphrasing
>I may even be misremembering). There is absolutely know need for ANY
>connection to the exhaust stream. It can be tapped for power easily and