Welcome to the "real world" of communicating with the "masses".
There is a problem with "technical people" that they (this author included) presume everyone knows as much as they do about a subject or more.
This isn't arrogance. It's more like IGNORANCE. Ignorance of the fact that once you become techincally involved in a field, after a bit of "specialization" you leave the "general public" behind.
SO I'm going to try to make "amends" with some "General Energy" talk.
The first thing I want to do is to introduce the "basic" measurement of energy we are going to use throughout this blog. That unit of energy is called the JOULE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
(Named after James Prescott Joule, who was one of the first people to study the nature of heat energy and to work on methods of quantifying such energies.)
You might say, "Oh my, this is something I have no grasp of!" Yet, you DO! Yes, you are much MUCH more familiar with Joules of energy than you can imagine.
You know what a 100 Watt light bulb is like don't you?
Well, a 100 Watt light bulb uses 100 Joules PER SECOND.
So in one hour (3600 seconds) a 100 Watt Light Bulb needs 3600*100 = 360,000 joules to run.
Now we can start TALKING about the work of Proton21 (www.proton21.com.ua) and the significance of their results. Because their INPUT PULSES in their discharge chamber (which they claim cause a transient 8000:1 compression wave to travel through the tips of their Copper Anode "targets", have a mere 500 joules or less in them.
HOWEVER they observe (from Xrays, Light Flashes, energetic particles, electromagnetic pulses) about 30,000 JOULES of net energy OUTPUT during one of their discharges.
What does this mean? It means if you made one of their pulses every second, you could produce about 30,000 Joules of net energy per second, or about 30,000 Watts (runs a few small homes).
In coming posts, we will explore the "source" of this energy. And we will explain how it can be traced to a process which is DIRECTLY CONVERTING MATTER TO ENERGY. We will also explain why this discovery should lead to the "Ideal" energy source for humanity.
But first, let's talk "All Known Energy Sources".
Obviously we have oil, gas and coal! And the primary problem with these sources, is NO, not "Global Warming", but the fact that they are difficult to locate in the needed quantities, and that they will "run out". Thus we need "alternatives" to "conventional energy.
Alternatives to the current systems of, Oil, Coal, Gas
· Nuclear Power (Fission)
· Nuclear Fusion
· Solar and Wind
I will discuss the limitations of each.
A. Nuclear Fission: Nuclear fission requires a huge investment in plants and equipment before any energy is produced. It also requires a huge infrastructure for processing natural uranium into "enriched" uranium for fuel. (I suggest use of Wikipedia for the definition of "enriched uranium.)
Nuclear fission requires a huge investment in plants and equipment before any energy is produced. It also requires a huge infrastructure for processing natural uranium into "enriched" uranium for fuel. (I suggest use of Wikipedia for the definition of "enriched uranium.)
B. Nuclear Fusion: This is the (alledged) way the sun makes its energy. This is the power source in a "hydrogen bomb"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace) in 1953. This was a year after the first Hydrogen (fusion) bomb was detonated in 1952. Part of continued funding for weapons programs was made contingent by congress, on investing money in a “nuclear fusion” research program. Approximately $700 million to $1000 million per year is allocated for “nuclear fusion” research currently on through the Federal government. (Department of Energy).There is an observation by some that nuclear fusion is the “power source which never was and never will be”. The track record of nuclear fusion is one of proclamations about every 5 to 10 years that a new device/test/lab has created a “hotter/longer/stronger” fusion reaction. This is followed by the claim that in 10 to 15 years a “break even” fusion device will be available. Sadly, articles and references making this promise, going back to the early ‘60’s can be obtained readily.
To date there has never been any fusion fusion research device which has come near or gone over "breakeven". (That would be when the energy produced by the fusion reaction in the test device exceeds the energy put into the device.0 The exception would be the Princeton Tokomak, which, in 1999, was injected with tritium, and produced a 17 MW burst for a 10 MW input. (Lasting seconds only.)
Since tritium costs about $7000 a gram, and the gram of tritium has a energy potential of about 900 gallons of gasoline, the "gasoline equivalent cost" would be $7 a gallon.
Another problem: This would presume an infrastructure for supplying hundreds of pounds of tritium per year. Current production is pounds per year, for weapons and research work. Even a mere "renovation" of the current supply source, 10 years ago, cost over a billion dollars. Building enough "converter reactors" to supply the tritium for the fusion reactors would cost TRILLIONS of dollars. Not practical or economic.
C. Solar and Wind
Solar and Wind have been the golden children of those who advocate a so called “soft energy path”.
It takes a hard look and a hard heart to understand that if we attempt to turn our energy dependence to solar and wind the immediate effects would be:
1. An increase in the cost of cost for electric and heating power by factors of 5 to 10 times..
2. A commitment of huge amounts of expensive resources for the building of collection devices. This commitment which would strain production of copper, aluminum, steel, plastics, to the limit. (And influence the ultimate cost factor, driving it higher than original estimates based on current costs of production materials.)
3. Projects to date have been vastly over-subsidized and with daunting payback intervals measured in decades.
Unfortunately, clarifying this issue in the minds of the general public is a difficult, if not impossible task. It would be best left to potential investors in these alleged “free energy sources” to investigate these ill-founded projects to find the true costs. The generic lesson is that low density power sources have “recovery and capitol equipment costs” which are not economically feasible.ing
What is needed is something which is :
B. High power density.
C. Has no waste (except heat energy release)
D. Is acheivable with reasonable investment in equipment. (Realistic pay backs.)
In coming blogs we will show that Proton21 probably has found this "ideal energy source".