Scientist Behind The Navy's "UFO Patents" Has Now Filed One For A Compact Fusion Reactor

This_person

Well-Known Member
Scientist Behind The Navy's "UFO Patents" Has Now Filed One For A Compact Fusion Reactor

The War Zone has been reporting on a set of bizarre patents assigned to the U.S. Navy that describe radical new technologies that could absolutely revolutionize the aerospace field, and frankly, the very way we live our lives. These include high-energy electromagnetic fields used to create force fields and outlandish new methods of aerospace propulsion and vehicle design that basically read as UFO-like technology. You can learn all about these patents, their viability, and the issues surrounding them in these exclusive features of ours. Now, the same mysterious Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division engineer behind those patents has produced another patent—one for a compact fusion reactor that could pump out absolutely incredible amounts of power in a small space—maybe even in a craft.

Energy dominance has become a cornerstone of American military policy as laboratories seek to develop the ‘Holy Grail’ of power generation: nuclear fusion. These attempts at developing stable fusion reactors utilize incredibly powerful magnetic fields in order to contain the nuclear reactions occurring inside. Creating a stable fusion reaction is difficult enough, but some laboratories are going even further by attempting to create compact reactors small enough to fit inside shipping containers or even possibly vehicles.

If it can be achieved, nuclear fusion would be a massive improvement over fission in that it produces much lower levels of radioactive waste and greenhouse gases, does not require enriched nuclear material that could be used to produce weapons, has a far lower risk of meltdown, and can be powered by more sustainable fuel sources. Fusion has long been hailed as a long-term solution to humankind's energy needs.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
It would be great if we could actually get to fusion.

Having said that, wrt the article, I can't help but wonder if some of this (i.e., the patent filings) is misinformation for Russian, Chinese, NK, Iranian, etc. consumption....

--- End of line (MCP)
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It would be great if we could actually get to fusion.

Having said that, wrt the article, I can't help but wonder if some of this (i.e., the patent filings) is misinformation for Russian, Chinese, NK, Iranian, etc. consumption....

--- End of line (MCP)
Excellent possibility. I mean, uh, never happen - we don't do that kind of thing.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Hahahah. LOL. Yup, we would NEVER do anything like that. Would we?

--- End of line (MCP)
The concept makes me think of Tranny's issues with Russia now being more involved in Syria. As I recall, Prez Reagan won the Cold War by "helping" Russia spend itself militarily into the ground until they just couldn't keep up any more. I have no idea if that was the plan, but that sure did work. I have even less confidence that is the plan now, but.....Russia did so well with Afghanistan before, you'd think they'd learn, or we would have, or something.
 
Reactions: BOP

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
The concept makes me think of Tranny's issues with Russia now being more involved in Syria. As I recall, Prez Reagan won the Cold War by "helping" Russia spend itself militarily into the ground until they just couldn't keep up any more. I have no idea if that was the plan, but that sure did work. I have even less confidence that is the plan now, but.....Russia did so well with Afghanistan before, you'd think they'd learn, or we would have, or something.
Nice comment. Thank you.

Like you, I think the "spend" angle doesn't quite work. Afghanistan was Round X in The Central Asian Great Game (and important for Russian sovereignty concerns), while this Syria thing is Round X in Russia's historic need for access through the Bosporus coupled with an opportunity to help Iran (and secondarily, Assad) via making mischief in the Middle East.

So unlike Afghanistan, this Turkey/Syria/Iran thing is a "low expense (not sure if it's low risk, though), but the potential for high reward" exercise."

Historically, this is an area where U.S. influence (outside of Israel and points west) is minimal and problematic implementing. Easier for the Russias, etc. Could be much easier for us (the U.S.) if our European "allies" were on-board. But they're not (each for their own reasons).

--- End of line (MCP)
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
It would be great if we could actually get to fusion.

Having said that, wrt the article, I can't help but wonder if some of this (i.e., the patent filings) is misinformation for Russian, Chinese, NK, Iranian, etc. consumption....

--- End of line (MCP)
Back in the 80's, I worked - briefly - for a professor at U of Md who was working on the magnetic field side of fusion research.
It was then he mentioned a "joke" that I've heard many times since - a working fusion reactor is 25 years away.
As in - ALWAYS 25 years away. No one I know of having ever researched it believes we will achieve it at all.
Not for any actual practical purpose.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I think we'll nail it. No idea when though. If any service has a great need and desire for a workable fusion reactor, it is the Navy though. Imagine the savings in fuel, and of course the extra everything you get when you replace a fission plant with fusion. Weight, space, budgeting for new fuel rods and the expense of removing and storing old ones.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I think we'll nail it. No idea when though. If any service has a great need and desire for a workable fusion reactor, it is the Navy though. Imagine the savings in fuel, and of course the extra everything you get when you replace a fission plant with fusion. Weight, space, budgeting for new fuel rods and the expense of removing and storing old ones.
I think that will be great. I do think most of the world's energy needs would be resolved by it, although it would certainly create new ones.
For instance, the world WILL ultimately generate a lot more heat, even if it isn't trapped by gases or generated by fossil fuels. That's going to happen
if you create a nearly inexhaustible supply of cheap electrical energy. People will use more of it.

When I was in college - ancient history - they talked about a concept known as the Lawson criteria. Basically - scientific break even point. That's from a scientist's perspective. When do I get more out than I use to make it. But that isn't what engineers who want commercially useful fusion are looking for. They are looking for usable - and hopefully continuous - energy that can be used. Most of the energy currently observed in the process gets burst out in one big hit, and it's not - useful. Roughly analogous to the idea that an incandescent light bulb expends most of its energy making HEAT and not light. Most fusion energy is expended in a way that's not going to help us. So we can't JUST break even - we have to have a BIG "break even" or it's just a damned waste of time.

But to date, the people I knew (and that's past tense, so I don't have a recent perspective) felt that it was more of a scientific curiosity, like creating new elements - that the problem was Return On Investment. That you could achieve fusion - but that even at a break even point you still won't be able to provide it in sufficient quantities to make it commercially workable. I asked them then why did they do it? Basically - science. They weren't trying to solve the world's energy needs - they were doing research. That's it.
 
Top