Fusion power in a year Breakthrough

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by BRZBoy, Oct 15, 2014.

  1. #1 BRZBoy, Oct 15, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
    Astounding news today. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works apparently for the last couple years has been hard at work on compact Fusion Reactors. If you know anything about Skunk Works they have made some pretty amazing things.
     
    They have apparently achieved some sort of break through and will have the working prototype ready in a year with full production by 2017.
     
    Heres some links and there promo video. The 2nd link is the reporter team that Lockheed allowed into to watch it. What is holding up Lockheed on getting it peer reviewed is they have patents pending on it.
     
    Basically though this thing has less then a gram of radioactive substance in it, it can't melt down and something the size of a jet engine can power 80,000 homes. The future is now.
     
    The great thing about it is Skunk Works is ultra secure secret work so they were able to do this under everyone's noses with out any interference.
     
    The scale and pace there working at dwarfs the Euro team with ITER. EU says be decades before even theres is fully operational.
     
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/10/15/lockheed-martin-claims-fusion-breakthrough-that-could-change-world-forever/
     
    http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UlYClniDFkM

     
  2. I also read they should have a truck sized version in ten years... ten years with all of their resources? What a joke! All the while Rossi's much smaller device is producing verified results. Consider this. “We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects. It would take an Act of God to ever get them out to benefit
    humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do. We have the technology to take
    ET home” - Ben Rich, Second Director of Lockheed's Skunk Works. Here is a link concerning Rossi's device. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ziffdavis/extremetech+%28Extremetech%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+view
     
  3. #3 ExcretingCretin, Oct 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
    It is amazing when you think about it. I recently heard about that place and when one thinks of the type of people who make up its employee base... and the type of people who hire them.. This is probably one of their lesser priorities, and yet its still amazingly innovational and important to the general public.

    Like you said norse, they probably have the ability to make and do things only you and i can dream of.

    But of course thats why they are.
    Sent from my LG-E980 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  4. #4 BRZBoy, Oct 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
     
    Already read that and whats strange is that same article on there website was up earlier in the year. If you look up Rossi he is a crack pot who has been discredited numerous times.
     
    His device has been out for years and he no backers, no customers, and not one scientist has peer reviewed it. He demos it without you looking at all the parts etc. Reeks of fraud.
     
    Thats why the Lockheed thing was exciting. They have shareholders to answer to.
     
  5. I suppose one point of mine is Lockheed likely has technology superior to this anyway but i suppose this is the public consumption version. I think Rossi is an oddball but I think his device likely works. 3 respectable universities has investigated his device and they cannot explain how it works. But it is still exciting, the prospect that Lockheed may make these somewhat affordable.
     
  6. #6 yurigadaisukida, Oct 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2014
    I'm gonna ssay this is probly.overhyped and overexagerated

    Probly wont see fusion for the public for at least 5 years after 2017

    Science and especially media, likes to create sensation.

    Why aren't we all in solar powered hover cars now?

    -yuri
     
  7. IMO, the power companies want this stuff buried..
     
  8. no, they just want control over it.

    They probly plan to buyout all the patents, milk oil for all it's worth as the price climbs and supply runs out; then swoop in with solar and fusion peer breakthroughs and play the hero.

    -yuri
     
  9. IMO things like computers and 3d printers were made public to speed the pace of innovation. Imagine intersteller travel with ancient computers? Now Nasa is talking about 3d printing food and parts. And as someone above said, they like to control things so they release these things when it will benefit them.
     
  10.  
    5 or even 10 years from 2017 is nothing. ITER in the EU which is the international attempt to make Fusion work is baby steps per decade realm. Its a joke really. If you could have traditional reactors of any kind or power plants replaced with something that demolishes ever form of energy generation by 2028 that is a big deal.
     
  11. I agree. Its still close

    I'm just used to people overhyping science breakthroughs and then we are disappointed when they don't come for a while aafter

    -yuri
     
  12.  
    I am to why I generally tune it out, but Lockheed would of not made a video unless there close. There one of the largest companies on the planet and have many shareholders there responsible for. Then Skunk Works...good book on amazon about them...generally does not fail. They are like the Bell Labs of the past. They seem to make the impossible happen.
     
  13. #13 *ColtClassic*, Oct 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2014
    I see this being marketed exclusively for the military industrial complex (as they receive essentially zero-liability investment via the tax base). We are talking about Lockhead Martin here....
     
    Reminds me of:
     
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/08/u-s-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/
     
    Technology that could be used for a greater could....
     
     
    Rothschilds are already investing heavily in Solar (after their global carbon tax legislation basically got snuffed).
     
  14.  
    All depends on the market. If there is money to be made then they will sell this thing if its viable and works.
     
    Thank god the carbon tax got snuffed.
     
  15.  
    And there actually are serious discussions concerning mining the moon for the fuel since the rocks brought back imply large quantities of the otherwise rare He[SIZE=11.8181819915771px]-3, a key isotope used to fuel the fusion reaction.[/SIZE]
     
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]An astronomical source of power from a fuel derived from mining the moon! And it would be cost effective, with international space and mining companies competing for the market.!  :cool:[/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px] [/SIZE]
     
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]Augest, 2014 [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]China is taking lunar mining seriously[/SIZE]
     
    [SIZE=11.8181819915771px]MIT Technical Review - [/SIZE][SIZE=11.8181819915771px]Mining the Moon[/SIZE]
     
  16.  
    There are many large scale energy ventures being considered and explored. Japan not to long ago proved the viability of extracting methane hydrate off the ocean floor. Deep in the ocean there is literally enough fuel right on top of the soil in the form of ice for thousands of years.
     
    Based on there results of that they have not to long ago given the green light to begin figuring out how to do on a large scale.
     
  17. #17 IDTENT, Nov 9, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2014
    \t 
    \tYea they'll do their best to get every dollar they can. This reminds me of how the pharmaceutical companies are doing their best to control weed.
    \t 
    \tIf I don't see their findings published in a scienctific journal, and if they don't explain in more detail, I'll remain dubious of how significant their 'breakthrough' really is. They have a vested interest to exaggerate and hype this kind of thing.
     

Share This Page