Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!ulowell!wpi.wpi.edu!mchamp%harvard@husc6.harvard.edu From: ulowell!wpi.wpi.edu!mchamp%harvard@husc6.harvard.edu (Marc J. Champagne) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Message-ID: <5474@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 7 Apr 89 03:04:57 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass. Lines: 89 Approved: military@att.att.com From: ulowell!wpi.wpi.edu!mchamp%harvard@husc6.harvard.edu (Marc J. Champagne) To: maniac@garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ >Wrong! Use current steam turbines, please (rather than gas >turbines to harness fusion heat for propulsion). (engineering-type detail: >they allready exist and were around for Years before gas turbines. :) Point well taken. Your choice is better. >> The whole point is that you have a slightly higher initial outlay, >> but then don't have the logistics difficulties of supplying >> large amounts of fossil fuels. We probably would have seen > >Aack! Aack! 'slightly higher initial outlay'...? Choke! >Palladium is 3 times the cost of Gold! And we'd need TONS for a reactor! >One time, maybe, but what i've seen says that the Palladium for a useful >plant would be in the close to low Billions: DD's currently run roughly >$250 million, plus $20 million a year to operate and maintain. > I may be crazy, but I'm going to be an engineer: and in the real >world things that cost too much don't get built. Then I suggest you check your facts. You are off by 1 order of magnitude in the price of palladium, it is **1/3** the price of gold, not 3 times the price of gold. Also, 800 watts of heat is the peak ouput figure so far in the cold fusion process.....from a 1cu/cm block of palladium. You are VASTLY overstating the costs. I agree that the prices you give are unconscionable. But they are also completely incorrect. >>As for use aboard subs, I do not think that that would be a safe >> course of action. Again, if a fusion plant using the principles in >> the Utah project is powered down, the deuterium ions fly out of the >> lattice structure in the palladium. Then you're without your main >> propulsion system for 10 hours or so while you try to resaturate it. >> >It's a little early to be assuming that we have to pull the entire thing >down to stop it. According to sources who have been valiantly trying to >replacate said experiments here at UCB, it apparently requires a pretty >hefty electrical field to fuse, so it can probably be turned off by simply >shutting down the electricity, leaving the palladium fueled. Note that putting >the Palladium into heavy water may well not be necessary: a far more >practical idea is a steel pipe, with a palladium core and a hold down the centerfor the deuterium. Immerse in water and run electricity through palladium. 1) You MUST have the palladium and platinum in heavy water. No question about it. That's where your easy to handle source of deuterium (hydrogen isotope) is. 2) You'd power down the reactor for the same reason you power down a fission plant.......so you don't have lots of pump noise when you're in close to shore on a covert mission (I'm assuming that we've learned our lesson about natural-circulation cooling systems and WILL stick with pumps). Problem is when you power down this plant, your deuterium ions will fly out of the matrix because there's no electric current forcing new ions in at the higher than normal density. Fusion stops and you have to resaturate the matrix...several hours of work at the minimum. If you DON't power down, fusion keeps occuring, your pumps will have to keep running, and you'll still be making lots of noise. In other words, this type of power plant will take longer to start than a fision plant (which takes a long time in itself....I work at our school's reactor...only 10kwatt...and it takes us quite a few minutes to go critical...if your fission reactor was running at high enough power before you scrammed it, you WON'T be restarting for several hours/days). Come to think of it, the fusion charging delay isn't that bad compared to fission plants at all, it you're fission power down was sudden. I assume the reactor on an SSN would be run at very low power prior to going in and shutting down for a covert op. If it wasn't being run at low power, powering down is out of the question since you won't be restarting anytime soon for ANY reason....it's simply not possible. I guess I've just reasoned myself into seeing some limited fusion applications for submarines. But the idea still makes me nervous too. [Note: so far it looks like this is a really tough reaction to regulate. Too little current through the heavy water and the deuterium leaves the palladium lattice and you have to recharge. Too high a current density and nothing happens. Lower the current density a little and you get fusion. Lower it a little more and your fusion setup melts-down......very disturbing]