Is there an easy solution to cleaning the contamination in the fuel supply for Starship?

Speculation alert: A bit of persumption here, as the question probably answers itself. If there was an easy solution, SpaceX would be using it, yes?

10/7/26:

How to implement the idea? This idea differs from the AI discussion in that the contaminants are created. If they are created, then they must be removed. Is the removal feasible?

To answer that, I refer to the testing for the Skylon concept SSTO vehicle. It uses a pre-cooler that enables it to fly at hyper-sonic speeds. Although the Skylon has not flown, the pre-cooler has been tested and found feasible. Perhaps a device similar to the Skylon pre-cooler can take the carbon dioxide and water contaminants out of the oxygen mix coming off the pre-burner pumps? The pre-cooler from the Skylon can handle a lot of hot gasses, that's its job.

Besides, there's really not that much, about 2 tons according to the deep dive mentioned in an earlier post.

Perhaps the hot gases off the pre-burner can melt the ice and vaporize the dry ice so that they can be released?

That would imply a two-step process. First, freeze the mixture, then melt and dispose of it.

If it is two-steps, then that implies two devices or chambers. A freeze chamber, and a melt chamber.

Perhaps a mechanism can alternate between the two? A third chamber may need to hold gases from the pre-burner until a chamber is ready?

All this implies a level of complexity and control that SpaceX would rather avoid?

In that case, on chamber only, and it just freezes it until it can be disoposed of later.

10/6/26: The original post is below:

Anyway, not knowing any better, let's look at one possibility. First of all, SpaceX's contamination problem results in the icing problem that starves the engines for fuel. It's my guess that this is a large part of the reliability issues that the engine appears to have. Note that I use the word "appear". It isn't an engine problem per se, but a system problem.

The "system" uses the contaminant to maintain pressure in the tanks as they empty during flight. The contaminants come from the burning of the methane and the oxygen in the pre-burners that deliver fuel to the engines at high pressures. So there's some burning of the fuel, and it gets mixed into the tanks. The tanks are holding cryogenic fuels, so the contaminants will freeze and that's where the problems start.

Carbon dioxide is one of the contaminants, and it is the bigger of the two issues. Water ice floats on the liquid oxygen, but dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) sinks. When it sinks, it can clog up the fuel intakes. No bueno.

The idea I had was to freeze it out of the exhaust BEFORE it gets injected into the oxygen tank. It is mostly oxygen, with the contaminants as mentioned. If the contaminants are frozen out, then there's no more contamination, right? But what to do with these contaminants?

Carbon dioxide (dry ice) can be vented off since when heated, it will revert to a gaseous state. Water ice will melt, but isn't a huge problem anyway if it refreezes.

How to heat it? It may not take much, as the freezing point is about 100 degrees below zero Farenheit. This is actually much warmer than the cryogenic oxygen.

All this may seem simple in concept, but there may be a catch. Or is there? That's what I'm not too sure of. Carbon dioxide will behave differently when under pressure. If you pressurize it, it may get a little tricky to handle.

In practice then, you would cool the exhaust from the pre-burners, using the cryogenic fuel as a means of cooling down to a solid state. Then you would have to obtain a heat source, perhaps from some return gas from another heat exchange in order to return the dry ice to a gaseous state, which can then be vented off.

Easier said than done, perhaps...

Water freezes at a relatively high temperature. Perhaps the water could be used to change the state of the dry ice to a gas.

Could this work? It probably would, but would it be worth it? It all depends on how much hardware you'd need in order to implement it.

There's a lot of heat exchanging going on, and maybe that would make it too complicated.

But this is just a speculation anyway.

How SpaceX Solved Superheavy's Major Fuel Contamination Problem

This is a deep-dive that may appear to be out of date. It may also have been blogged here or on the main blog. If it was blogged before, I cannot find it yet. So, at the risk of repeating myself, and since the Starship/Superheavy is still experiencing some troubles with engine outs, I theorize something here that may have been seemingly fixed, but hasn't been really fixed for good.

The possible issue here is the development of ice in the ship and booster, and this ice could be the reason for the engine failures.

Indeed, the AI was quizzed and seemed to deny that this is a problem, but I have an issue with that conclusion. To be sure, I haven't watched all of this deep dive as of this writing, but I think I've seen enough to make a post. So here it is: NOTE: AI dialogue not included, but may be added later...



Updated:

I watched the rest of the video, and I was still dissatisfied. Rather than ask the GAB AI, I asked the Brave AI. I was in luck. It turns out that I am most likely on the right track. It is not clear that the Starship system has done away with the problem altogether, or not. It appears from the Brave AI that they've probably not implemented the most likely permanent fix.

If so, I thought as much because I saw or heard somewhere about icing again. That's what made me come back to this CSI Starbase deep-dive to take another look.

Anyway, here's the Brave AI part that I saved for your perusal below:

## Autologous vs. Autogenous: The Distinction

The term **"autologous"** (as used by SpaceX engineers in CSI Starbase Q&As) refers specifically to the **clean-gas** variant of autogenous pressurization. The distinction:

| | **Autogenous** (current Starship) | **Autologous** (clean / proposed) |

|---|---|---|

| Gas source | Preburner exhaust | Dedicated heat exchanger on a propellant bleed |

| Gas composition | "Dirty" — O₂ + H₂O + CO₂ + trace CH₄ | **Pure** single-component (O₂ or CH₄) |

| Contamination | Icing, dissolution loss | None |

| Hardware | Tap-off valve from preburner | Dedicated heat exchanger + bleed line |



## How Autologous Pressurization Works

The mechanism is straightforward:

1. **Bleed**: A small flow of liquid propellant (O₂ or CH₄) is tapped from the turbopump discharge — the same high-pressure liquid that's already being pumped to the main injector.

2. **Heat exchanger**: That liquid passes through a **dedicated heat exchanger** that is thermally coupled to the engine's waste heat (typically the gas generator or turbine exhaust, or the regenerative cooling loop). The liquid absorbs enough heat to fully vaporize.

3. **Feed back**: The resulting **pure gaseous propellant** is routed back up into the ullage of the tank it came from.

The critical difference from the current "dirty" system: the gas **never contacts combustion products**. It's the same molecule that was in the tank, just in a different phase. No water, no CO₂, no unburned fuel.

## Historical Precedent: The Space Shuttle

The Space Shuttle External Tank used exactly this approach. After SSME ignition:

- A small bleed of LH₂ was taken from the turbopump, heated in a dedicated heat exchanger (warmed by the gas generator exhaust), and fed back as gaseous hydrogen into the LH₂ tank.

- A parallel bleed of LOX was heated and fed back as gaseous oxygen into the LOX tank.

This is the textbook autologous system — clean, single-component pressurant, no contamination.

## Why Starship Ditched It (For Now)

The Raptor 1/2 originally **did** have a heat exchanger for this purpose. SpaceX removed it in favor of the simpler preburner-exhaust tap because:

- One less heat exchanger = less mass, fewer parts, less thermal management

- The preburner exhaust is already at very high temperature (the O₂-rich preburner runs at ~1,500 °C), so it's an almost free heat source - The "dirty gas" problem (icing) was initially underestimated

The tradeoff is the contamination: water and CO₂ in the LOX tank cause ice formation on cold surfaces, and the pressurant gas dissolves into the liquid (a parasitic propellant loss).

## The Path Back

The CSI Starbase Q&A (referenced in community discussions) explicitly identified autologous pressurization as the fix:

> *"One solution would be autologous pressurization where they could heat the oxygen and methane separately instead of using combustion product to pressurize the tanks."*

For Raptor 3, the question is whether the **auxiliary cooling system** (ACS) — the additional heat exchanger surface added to handle the higher chamber temperatures — has enough thermal capacity to double as the autologous heat exchanger. If so, the engine can produce clean pressurant gas without adding a separate component. This would:

- Eliminate the icing problem entirely

- Eliminate pressurant dissolution losses

- Make the ullage gas safe to use as a **hot-gas thruster** propellant (pure O₂ or CH₄, rather than a reactive mixture)

- Enable **non-pumping mode** operation (pressure-fed burns) for Mars landing and in-space operations, where you can't spin up the turbopumps

It's not yet confirmed as a flight implementation, but it's the logical end-state for the system.

The $600 tank that beats a $10k powerwall

9/30/26:

The author of the video says he made a mistake, and he made a corrective video to make up for it. You can find it on his channel in the videos section. It should also be said that it doesn't change the fact that it is a useful idea, but perhaps it isn't the end-all type of solution that it may appear to be with that first vid.

9/29/26: The original post is below:

This isn't friendly to Elon Musk. But I don't worship Elon Musk. I don't worship his enemies either. For me, when it makes sense do it. When it doesn't, then don't do it. Other folks may have other decision rules. You decide which to follow. I like mine better. Maybe you like yours better. To that i say, vive la differnce! At least you have the freedom to choose.

Rain in West Texas

9/27/26:

It still hasn't made its way through West Texas. The forecast doesn't show anything alarming ahead, so maybe this will pass by the area without much impact. Rainfall in the area doesn't appear to be anything to be alarmed about. Not yet, at least. Still watching it.

9/23/26: The orginal post is below:

Hurricane Polo needs to be watched. It looks like it could be a threat to the area in which I have land. But since nothing's out there but the jackrabbits, there's no property damage possible for moi.

It gives me the opportunity to take a few notes, which I have. Indeed, I got a link from the AI which can give me comprehensive information about rainfall in the region. So I've got that going for me, besides the jackrabbits.

Amazing video

It begins with a discussion of Starship and Orion. Then it swerves into a rocket concept that was never pursued. It was a concept that I knew about, and once asked about on a written question to the Space Show. It is called the Sea Dragon. The Sea Dragon would've been so large that it would've dwarfed even the Starship. It was designed for 500 tons to orbit.

Such a design would've jumpstarted human presense in space.

It was described as somewhat "dreamy" on the Space Show. Now here it is again, said to be decades ahead of its time. Perhaps someday it will actually be attempted.

The video will be jipped to that portion of the video that discusses Sea Dragon.

The Boring Company's "Insane" hyperloop concept

Have you noticed anything about Elon Musk's ideas and the way they are presented? It seems that the word "insane" keeps showing up in their titles.

The following video is an example of that. It has that word in its title, then it shows why the idea isn't so insane after all.

The original idea was insane, because it was too difficult to pull off. This concept is much more modest, and already has a track record. Not exactly insane, ya'll. Anyway, here's the video. The hyperloop is just one part of the video, by the way.

DAMS system?

Is this for real? It seems to be the kind of configuration that I favored in an earlier post. No, it is the brainchild of an individual who may or may not be associated with SpaceX. Actually, I asked a series of questions of GAB AI, and posted it here not that long ago. The DAMS system won't work. But something like it might.

It uses "pods" to land on the moon, and to be recovered for return to the Earth. If you can carry a "pod" in a Starship, then it MIGHT work. The Starship will have to be like a tug. It wouldn't land on the moon. Just the pod, which can take off from the moon and meet the Starship in orbit.

Now THAT might work.

Fusion energy isn't 30 years away anymore

It's no longer a joke, says this video.

One of the themes of this blog is the mastery of energy. If fusion energy is mastered, so many other things will begin to fall into place. Namely, the mastery of space. With fusion, space colonization becomes feasible. You can take your own sun along with you anywhere you go.

So I've studied various strategies to master fusion energy. There was Bussard's Polywell. Then there's Lerner's Focus Fusion. That's only two of the approaches. Many others are in this race.

This video mentions Helion. It seems to me that I've written about it before, or if not, I am aware of the company.

Here's the video. I haven't watched all of it yet, so I'll watch it before I post it.



Comment on what the rest of the video was about:

The narrator mentions other companies besides Helion. But he doesn't mention Lerner's company. Lerner's company is seeking to perfect an approach the video DOES mention. Funny that he didn't mention Lerner's company.

Is there a problem with Lerner's approach? Maybe. His approach isn't to go with the BIG MONEY. He went with the LITTLE MONEY. It's a people's plan. The trouble with that, as I've been mentioning, is that the people have become dull-witted. I don't necessarily agree with Lerner. It may be naive.

So, either I'm wrong about investing in Focus Fusion, or this narrator is right. Like all things, we will see. Lerner's approach may be wrong in that he doesn't want to go with the BIG MONEY. Or Lerner may be right about the approach, but wrong about the people. Too many dumb-asses.

Addendum:

I didn't read through Lerner's link, and I'm really sorry to have done so. What a total loon.

His ideas are a disaster.

But his machine might work. Or it might not. If his machine is anything like his politics, he will fail miserably. Oh, well. It wouldn't be the first mistake I've ever made. However, note that Lerner DEPENDS upon this free enterprise to make his plan meaningful. Does he have enough snap to understand what he is undermining with his stilly political nonsense?

He should stay out of politics and stick with science. What he suggests is socialism, which is HUGE mistake.

Video: How NASA Will Build The Artemis Moon Base

It's a plan alright, but all plans are subject to that little something called uncertainty. None of this is certain. HOWEVER, if there is a will to do this in spite of the difficulties, then one thing IS certain. They will succeed.

The missing ingredient is this: Is there a will to do it?

It seems highly doubtful to me. Since this plan came from the Trump administration, a will a Democrat administration follow it? Don't bet on it. It hasn't been happening in recent history. Every change of party leads to a change in NASA priorities.

Making a homemade refrigerator that runs on fire

..cools down to 18 C. (about zero Farenheit)

A question is this: what practical use would this device have?

I can think of possibilities. However, for this to be practical, you'd have to know just how much cooling in terms of BTU, can be expected.

A clue is that he uses a 12 oz. soda to show that it can cool it down (for a summer day).

Cooling down one soda at a time doesn't sound like much.

Starship Flight 14 is taking shape, but pad is empty

NASASpaceflight Youtube channel

Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces

9/8/26:

How interesting..

There was a comment made in 2012 here too. I didn't even notice it. So sorry about that.

I am curious about the results of his research. I presume it is a "he". Who knows these day, eh?

There may be a plausible scientific explanation for the lack of neutrons offered as a reason to doubt that any nuclear reactions are taking place.

A question arises: Do the critics actually WANT to know what is going on? They presume that it is a measurement error. What if that is not the case?

As written in an earlier post, this question is going to be researched again. Hopefully, it is a fair examination, and not a stacked deck against finding a new phenomenon that can be useful to mankind. There are those who have much to lose if that turned out to be the case!

Sept 2nd, 2011: The original post is below:

via New Energy Times ( Widom-Larsen )

If low energy neutrons can be detected, does that prove the Widom Larsen theory?  After all, where do they come from?  I scanned the file and looked for evidence of such an observation.  A few excerpts from the file:

• These will rarely be experimentally
  detected. In this regard, ultra low momentum
  neutrons may produce “neutron rich” nuclei in substantial
  quantities. These neutrons can yield interesting reaction
  sequences [19, 20]. Other examples are discussed below in
  the concluding section.


• In summary, weak interactions can produce neutrons
  and neutrinos via the capture by protons of heavy electrons.
  The collective motions of the surface metallic hydride
  protons produce the oscillating electric fields that
  renormalize the electron self energy, adding significantly to
  the effective mass.

Along with the slow neutrons, you may want to find heavy electrons.

• laser light fields can “dress” an electron in
  a non-perturbation theoretical fashion with an additional
  mass as in (5). Such mass modifications must be applied
  to electrons and positrons when pairs can in principle be
  blasted out of the vacuum [9, 10] employing colliding laser
  beams. The mass growth in the theory appears in a classic
  treatise on quantum electrodynamics [8]. 


• The classical equation (21) holds true in the fully quantum
  mechanical theory if the electron density ˜n represents the
  electron density at the proton position [ comment: emphasis in the original] 

 One explanation applies the analogy of a single goose flying through an atmospheric disturbance as opposed to a flock of geese.  The flock has a better chance of making it through.  Think of it as a flock of electrons trying to get to the proton in order to form the low energy neutron.

There may be a problem verifying this.  How do you observe neutrons of this type that are rarely observed.  And how do you find the heavy electrons?  It may not be easy, but it doesn't say it is impossible.

Anastasi in Tech: New chip factory terrifies TSMC

Elon Musk is building a huge chip fab in Texas. Will it work?

Aquaponics

9/5/26:

This is very similar to another post about that time. Such a long time ago. Going on 16 years.

11/7/10: The original post follows:

How do you stay alive for two years in outer space?  NASA will have to learn how if they are going to send a crew of astronauts to Mars.   The study of Aquaponics may show a way to do this.

Aquaponics is the simultaneous cultivation of plants and aquatic animals in a symbiotic environment where the animal effluents that accumulate in the water are used and filtered out by the plants as nutrients, after which the water is recirculated back to the animals.

Nothing can get wasted in outer space.  There is no room for pollution either.  It must be kept clean.  Water and carbon dioxide must get recycled continuously.  Food must be produced that includes a balanced diet of meat and vegetables.  This system looks like it can do this.  What can go wrong?

Aquaponics systems can have multiple 'single points of failure' where problems such as an electrical failure or pipe blockage can lead to a complete loss of fish stock

In practice, that's how it can happen.  Clearly, there needs to be backup systems in order to recover from times when things go wrong.  But this is true in all space flight systems.   Perhaps the system can be productive enough so that, in case of failure, reserves of food can be produced that will be enough to sustain a crew until a new crop can be grown.  Perhaps this is not the most critical of worries for NASA.

Update:  Not only can you grow food, you can cultivate yeasts which can produce plastics.  Hat tip: Instapundit.

SpaceX is in transition??? No more Falcon 9 flights? Starship will take over??

How to classify this video? That is to say, which blog should it go on--this one, or the main blog? I decided that it should go here, because these are still experimental. They are not operational as yet, therefore, there is a speculative quality about them. On the other hand, they are like current events, and therefore news. It could easily go on the main blog because the main blog is more like current events, and this one is more like futurism.

Does that mean the future has arrived??

Grow your own food without the farm

9/3/26:

Such a long time ago... One would think I'd be doing this by now..

10/27/10: The original post is below:

How is that possible?  Take a look at this.

Update:  The part that got my attention was that so much could be grown in so little area.  On the basis of this, I began reading some stuff on hydroponics and aeroponics.  I suppose if I look long enough I may find something like "Hydoponics for Dummies".  Haven't gotten to that yet.  Here's a YouTube video on aeroponics.  Here's another video showing how to build your own (as opposed to buying one).

Update 2: This is funny.  People use this to grow weed.  Very funny.

Update 3: Not exactly on topic with this post, but here is how to promote your "whatever".  It could be a blog, or videos on YouTube.

Financial roadmap for LPPFusion

9/1/26:

If memory serves, there's another post with the disclosure of an increase in my holdings. It is more than the minimum investment now. So if this ship comes in, there will be a potential for a large payoff.

According to this post, a conservative estimate runs from 10-100 times your money.

In my opinion, that is indeed a conservative estimate. It could go a LOT higher than that. More valuable than SpaceX? Maybe!!!

This one could set you up for life... But it is an investment, and a risky one at that. If it doesn't work, you may well lose it all. So don't go overboard... Know what I mean, Vern???

7/10/26: The original post is below:

Disclosure: I own shares ( originally 1 share, but there was a split, so now it is ??).

Comment: This is what you call "risk-capital". That is to say, it won't be ruinous for me to lose all of my investment, because $200 investment that goes kaput won't kill me. Read on to see the large potential payoff.

A copy of an email is shown below:

Ivy here with the financial roadmap and exit strategy.

Most investors want to know:

When do I see returns?

What's the exit path?

What's the projected valuation growth?

Let me break it down.

Timeline to Liquidity:

2025-2026 (Current Phase):

Raise $4-5M (this round)

Achieve net energy by end of 2026 (more energy out than in)

Surpass China's hydrogen-boron fusion record

Expected share price increase when net energy achieved

2027-2030 (Prototype Development):

Demonstrate working commercial prototype

Begin licensing discussions with manufacturers (GE, Siemens, Samsung)

Raise additional capital (likely at higher valuation)

Expected share price increases as prototype milestones hit

2030-2031 (Commercialization & Exit):

Execute licensing deals (revenue begins)

IPO / Acquisition (liquidity event for investors)

Projected valuation: 10-100x current ($83.9M - $800M-8B+)

Exit Options:

Option 1: IPO (Most Likely)

Timeline: 2030-2031

Once we demonstrate working prototype and secure licensing deals

Comparable: Helion Energy (projected $3B+ valuation pre-IPO)

LPPFusion advantage: Published results (not just promises)

Option 2: Acquisition

Potential acquirers: GE, Siemens, Samsung, Energy companies

Strategic value: Patents, know-how, team expertise

Precedent: Many fusion startups acquired by larger players

Option 3: Secondary Market (Available Now)

Some investors already selling shares to each other

Liquidity available before IPO (though limited market)

Price: Negotiated between buyer/seller

Financial Projections:

Revenue Model:

Licensing fees: $10-50M per manufacturer

Ongoing royalties: 3-5% of generator sales

Target: 10-20 licensing deals by 2035

Market Capture:

Goal: 25% of global energy market by 2040

100,000 generators deployed globally

Each generator: $5-10M manufacturing cost, powers 4-5K homes

Investor Returns (Hypothetical):

Scenario 1 (Conservative):

IPO valuation: $800M (10x current)

Your $50K investment @ $25/share = 2,000 shares

At 10x: $500K value = 10x return

Scenario 2 (Moderate):

IPO valuation: $4B (50x current)

Your $50K = $2.5M value = 50x return

Scenario 3 (Aggressive):

IPO valuation: $8B+ (100x current)

Your $50K = $5M+ value = 100x return

Disclaimers:

Projections are estimates, not guarantees

High-risk investment (R and D company, technical execution risk)

Past performance (10x share price growth since 2003) doesn't guarantee future results

But here's what we DO guarantee:

Published, peer-reviewed science

Transparent financial audits (SEC-required)

Mission-driven team (refused VC control)

Capital efficiency (proven track record)

Ready to discuss your investment strategy?

Book a call to explore:

Detailed financial projections (Excel model)

Risk factors and mitigation strategies

Large investor perks ($100K+: advisory board seat, lab tours, etc.)

Timing your investment (now vs. waiting for milestones)

BUTTON: deleted

Or invest now:

BUTTON: deleted

The math works. The science works. Let's build it together.

Ivy

P.S. - Investors $100K+ can negotiate custom terms (board seats, advisory roles, preferred reporting). Book a call to discuss.

Don't reinvent the wheel revisited

8/29/26:

The goal of the Shuttle system was reusability. It really did not reach that goal. Why not?

Private enterprise works better. There were too many chiefs, and not enuff injuns. You need one chief who runs the show. Then the injuns fall into line. The caveat is that the chief has got to know his business.

Elon Musk has the same goal, which is reusability. He is very close to achieving that. The shuttle wasn't all that close, but with the government, as it is set up in the USA, cannot make such a system work. Once they get into a program, the chiefs change, and the program is revised. That won't really work, ya'll.

Anyway, the Shuttle didn't, and now it is gone. The Shuttle derived system is designed to be expendable. So they've given up.

The "wheel" in the case of the Shuttle, didn't get invented.



Nov 21,2010: The original post is below:

I didn't know this before I wrote the original post- that the shuttle external tank reaches 98% of orbital velocity.  With a little more power, it can get into orbit instead of being sent back to a fiery doom during reentry from space.  So, why not use this as a resource as opposed to wasting it?  That's what I was writing about before, so I'll return to that subject again.

The Augustine Commission considered a Shuttle derived system as one of the possible heavy lift vehicles that will replace the Shuttle.  With a little less mass, as would be the case without a shuttle to put into orbit, the Shuttle derived system could reuse its external tank.  Since the tank already has 98% velocity with more mass, the reduction in mass (from not having to lift the shuttle) should make virtually the entire system  reusable.  But not as it is.  Once it arrives in space, it will need a little work to set it up as a permanent facility in space.

The external tank can be remodeled into a useful bit of machinery that could save a lot of money and do something useful.  Instead of putting extra rocketry on its sidemount, it could carry equipment and supplies that would be transferred to the inside of the tank so it can do the remodeling job.  How can you do that?  Well, I think that it would take a few modifications to the external tank in order to make this possible.  You would need to make a large door at end of the tank so that stuff could be put inside the tank after its launched into space.  Think of it as a hood and/or trunk type setup.

Each subsequent launch would add more equipment and supplies, but not a duplicate of what was sent earlier.  Instead, after the first tank was finished, launch the next tank into space.  Transfer the equipment that was no longer needed on the first, and equipment from the second is tranferred to the first for further work on the first.

In such a manner, an assembly line could be set up in space which would build a fleet of large habitats in space for future missions.  All that would be required after construction of one habitat is for a crew to come up in a separate vehicle and transfer to the large habitat.  Not only would the big external tank be a habitat, it would still have a large powerful rocket that could take it on missions back and forth.

 

AI discussion: BECNF and Cold Fusion

AI discussion of Cold Fusion II Question:

This question relates somewhat to the Cold Fusion post. With respect to the theoretical foundation, or shall we say, proposed theoretical foundation for the alleged phenomenon of Cold Fusion, there was mention of a term called "quasi-particles". My question is this: What exactly are quasi-particles? Do they actually exist? If so, can such particles behave in any comparable way with plain old particles?

Answer:

To understand quasiparticles, it helps to step out of high-energy particle physics (where people smash things together in a vacuum) and step into condensed matter physics (where trillions of particles interact in a solid, liquid, or lattice).

Here is a breakdown of what quasiparticles are, whether they "actually exist," how they compare to fundamental particles, and why they frequently show up in theoretical discussions like Cold Fusion / LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions ). 1. What Exactly Is a Quasiparticle?



A quasiparticle is an emergent, collective excitation inside a many-particle system (like a crystal lattice) that behaves mathematically and physically as if it were an independent, free-moving particle.

Instead of tracking the mind-bogglingly complex quantum interactions of 1023 electrons and atomic nuclei simultaneously, physicists noticed that the collective disturbances in the medium can be treated as single, localized entities with their own mass, charge, energy, and momentum.

The Stadium Analogy

Think of "The Wave" moving through a crowded sports stadium:

Comment: Cool!  Didn't know you could be a quasi-particle, didja?



- You can measure the wave’s speed, its direction, its wavelength, and the energy it carries.

- It can bounce off an empty section of seats or crash into another wave.

- Yet, there is no physical "wave particle." There are only individual people standing up and sitting down. The wave is an emergent phenomenon—a quasiparticle of the crowd.

Common Physical Examples

- Phonons: Quantized packets of sound or vibrational energy traveling through a crystal lattice. When atoms vibrate together, quantum mechanics quantizes that vibration into a particle called a phonon.

- Electron Holes: When an electron leaves its position in a semiconductor's valence band, the empty spot leaves an excess positive charge. Surrounding electrons jump into the void, making the "bubble" or empty spot move. Instead of tracking all the moving electrons, physicists treat the empty space as a positively charged particle called a hole.

- Polarons: An electron moving through a dielectric crystal pulls surrounding positive ions slightly toward itself, creating a cloud of local polarization that travels with it. The electron plus its surrounding distortion field behaves as a single, heavier quasiparticle called a polaron.

- Magnons: A quantized ripple in the magnetic alignment (spins) of electrons in a magnetic material.

- Cooper Pairs: Pairs of electrons bound together by interactions with phonons at low temperatures, responsible for conventional superconductivity.

2. Do They "Actually Exist"?

It depends on how you define "exist":

- If "real" means fundamental: No. If you take a crystal into deep space, smash it to dust, and vaporize it into a vacuum, the quasiparticles vanish. You cannot put a phonon or a hole in a jar and take it home. They cannot exist outside their host medium.

- If "real" means physically measurable and causally active: Yes, absolutely.

In modern physics, quasiparticles are not just convenient mathematical fictions; they are real physical entities within their environment: 1. You can collide things with them: If you shoot a neutron or an X-ray photon into a crystal, it will physically collide with and scatter off a phonon, exchanging measurable energy and momentum according to the exact same conservation laws that govern billiard balls.

2. They dictate real-world technology: Every modern semiconductor, computer chip, solar panel, and LED operates entirely on the physics of electron quasiparticles and holes. Superconductors and MRI machines rely on Cooper pairs.

3. Can Quasiparticles Behave Like "Plain Old" Particles?

Yes, almost completely. Inside their host medium, quasiparticles mirror fundamental particles in nearly every way:

A. Quantum Statistics (Bosons and Fermions) Quasiparticles strictly follow the rules of quantum mechanics:



- Fermionic Quasiparticles (like holes or polarons) have half-integer spin, obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and follow Fermi-Dirac statistics.

- Bosonic Quasiparticles (like phonons and magnons) have integer spin and can condense into the same quantum state via Bose-Einstein statistics.

B. Effective Mass (m*)

Inside a crystal lattice, an electron feels forces from all surrounding nuclei. Because of these interactions, the electron accelerates differently under an applied electric field than it would in empty space. It behaves as though its mass has changed:

- In some materials (like heavy fermion systems), electron quasiparticles behave as if they are hundreds or thousands of times heavier than a normal electron.

- In graphene, electrons interact with the honeycomb carbon lattice such tha t their effective mass becomes zero, causing them to move like massless relativistic particles (Dirac fermions) at a fraction of the speed of light.

C. Charge and Exotic Properties

Quasiparticles can even do things that isolated fundamental particles cannot:



- In the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect, two-dimensional electron gases produce quasiparticles that carry fractional electric charges (such as e/3 or e/5), something completely impossible for isolated fundamental particles in standard field theory (quarks have fractional charges, but cannot exist freely).

- Majorana quasiparticles act as their own antiparticles inside topological superconductors.

Why Do They Come Up in Cold Fusion / LENR Theories?

Standard nuclear fusion requires extreme temperatures (millions of degrees) to overcome the Coulomb barrier (the electrostatic repulsion between positively charged nuclei). In a vacuum or standard plasma, two deuterons simply push each other away until smashed together with violent kinetic energy, releasing high-energy gamma rays and neutrons.

Cold Fusion / LENR theorists invoke quasiparticles to propose alternative mechanisms:

1. Screening the Coulomb Barrier: If electrons inside a metal lattice (like palladium or nickel) form heavy quasiparticles or collective electron-cloud states, their high effective mass or density might theoretically "screen" the positive charges of deuterons/protons, allowing them to get close enough to fuse at room temperature.

2. Energy Dissipation Without Gamma Rays: If fusion were to occur in a solid, where does the mega-electron-volt (MeV) energy go without lethal radiation? Theorists (such as Peter Hagelstein at MIT) have suggested that the nuclear energy is transferred directly into trillions of phonons (lattice vibrations) through coherent quantum coupling, turning nuclear energy directly into heat rather than dangerous radiation.

While mainstream physics remains skeptical about whether these lattice mechanisms can realistically bridge the massive energy gap between chemical solid-state physics (electron-volts) and nuclear physics (mega-electron- volts), quasiparticles are the primary theoretical bridge proposed.

Follow up question suggested by the GAB AI:

How do they relate to Cold Fusion?

Answer:

To understand how quasiparticles relate to the proposed mechanisms of Cold Fusion (now more commonly referred to in technical circles as LENR or Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), you have to look at the "Energy Gap Problem."

If you want to fuse two deuterium nuclei, you are fighting a massive electrostatic wall (the Coulomb Barrier) and you are trying to deal with a massive energy release (the Q-value). Mainstream physics says this requires extreme temperatures (stars/tokamaks) to bypass the barrier and typically results in high-energy neutrons.

Proponents of LENR argue that the condensed matter environment—the solid crystal lattice of a material like Palladium—changes the rules of the game via quasiparticles. Here is how they apply the concept:

1. Screening the Coulomb Barrier

The biggest hurdle to fusion is that positive nuclei repel each other. In a vacuum, two deuterons need immense kinetic energy to get close enough for the "Strong Nuclear Force" to take over.

- The Quasiparticle Theory: In a metal lattice, the electrons are not just sitting still; they are part of a dense, collective "electron sea." Some theorists argue that the deuterium atoms inside this lattice interact with polarons or high-density electron quasiparticle states.

- The Effect: If these quasiparticles can "bunch up" or create a high-density negative charge cloud around the deuterons, they could effectively "screen" or neutralize the positive charge of the nuclei. This would allow the nuclei to approach one another much more closely than they could in a vacuum, potentially allowing fusion to occur at room temperature.

2. The "Energy Dumping" Problem (The Phonon/Lattice Coupling)

In traditional "hot" fusion, the energy released (mostly as fast neutrons and gamma rays) is carried away by the products of the reaction flying apart at high speeds. This is why fusion reactors are so radioactive.

- The Quasiparticle Theory: One of the most common criticisms of Cold Fusion is, "If it were fusing, where is the radiation?" Proponents argue that the energy isn't being released as high-speed neutrons.

- The Mechanism: Instead of the energy going into kinetic motion, they propose that the nuclear reaction is coupled to the crystal lattice. In this scenario, the energy is transferred almost instantaneously into a massive number of phonons (quantized lattice vibrations).

- The Result: By "shunting" the energy directly into the vibrational modes of the metal lattice, the energy is converted into heat (lattice heat) rather than radiation. In this view, the crystal acts as a giant "heat sink" that absorbs the nuclear energy via quasiparticle excitations before it can manifest as dangerous gamma rays.

3. Coherent Quantum States

Some

- These theories suggest that instead of two nuclei fusing in isolation, the entire lattice acts as a "quantum system."

- Through the collective behavior of quasiparticles, the lattice can effectively "mediate" the nuclear reaction. This is often compared to a Maser or Laser, where a vast number of atoms act in unison rather than as individuals. If you can force a large number of particles to occupy a collective quantum state, you can potentially manipulate the energy levels of the reaction in ways that individual particles would never allow.

The Skeptical Viewpoint

To provide a balanced perspective, it is important to note why the mainstream scientific community remains highly skeptical of these quasiparticle models:

1. Energy Scales: There is a "10-order-of-magnitude" problem. Chemical/lattice effects (quasiparticles) operate at the level of electron-volts (eV). Nuclear reactions operate at the level of mega-electron-volts (MeV). Converting a million eV of nuclear energy into phonon excitations without producing intermediate high-energy particles is theoretically extremely difficult to justify.

2. Experimental Reproducibility: While the math of quasiparticles is rigorous and well-understood in semiconductor physics, applying it to nuclear fusion requires assuming that these collective effects can scale up to influence the nucleus. To date, no experimental data has demonstrated this "coupling" in a way that is universally accepted by the nuclear physics community.

In summary: Quasiparticles are the "glue" in these theories. They are the proposed mechanism that allows the environment (the solid metal) to reach into the heart of the atom (the nucleus) to either lower the barrier to entry or catch the energy on the way out. Whether this actually happens in nature, however, remains one of the most controversial topics in modern physics.

Boots and Oil Blog: What are magnons?

8/29/26:

This subject really won't die. There's going to be another government study of the issue of Cold Fusion to put it to bed for all time.

That might be a mistake. You cannot kill this thing unless you have a wooden stake.

Anyway, a search of the blog mentioned reveals a Rice University Professor's blog---NanoScale News. I did a search of his blog for posts on the subject of Magnons... Here's the search and results.

1/16/20: The original post, which in itself is a re-post of a 2010 post:

Boots and Oil Blog: What are magnons?: Good morning. This BECNF theory is on my mind this morning, so I'll start with that as my first post. I found the blog below in my qu...


I've seen a lot of clicks on the old cold fusion posts.  Here's a video that discusses Kim's BECNF theory.  It relies upon Bose-Einstein condensate ( BEC ) theory as a foundation for a theory on how cold fusion takes place.

DIY Wind Turbine for $32

8/28/26:

Your automobile's 12 volt charging system will put out a surprising (at least to me) amount of power. At idle, my van uses about 3/5ths of a gallon per hour.

It wouldn't be cheap nor efficient, but why buy anything? Keep the energy requirments low, and just hook up your 12 volt system in your car to your off-grid battery, and let the car's alternator charge her up.

I've already tried it out on the ranch, so it works. But of course it does, otherwise, how could you drive your car?

It may be a bit better to upgrade the voltage to 24 volts. I've tried that too in my experiments. There's a 24 volt inverter just collecting dust.

That reminds me, I haven't worked on my solar power trailer for awhile. Something wrong with the wiring. Always is. Anyway, you don't have to complicate things too much to have a workable scenario. Remember the KISS method--Keep it Simple, Stupid.

4/3/19: The original post follows below:

Retired at 40


He says that it works, but offered no proof.  It may have a weakness that even I can see.  Nevertheless, I am putting it up because it might actually be worth an attempt.  Someday, maybe.






A test of an actual out - of - the - box system rated at 400 W, but actually it got only about half that, he says.





Why bother with this???  Maybe for the exercise???

It generates about 10 amps according to his test.  A couple of solar panels will do that much, and would cost less.

Wind could be used if you want something of a backup in cloudy weather, which also has wind.

Also wind is 24/7, while the sun is only half a day.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another dude, John Daniel, who has a video showing his set up.  He is enthusiastic about his stuff, so maybe this would be worth another look some fine day.









Here's an older video below, which is probably the same turbine a year later above ^^^^^^




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

Installation of the wind turbine:

Shows how to do some welding.  Interesting.

Whatever happened to "cold fusion"?

The blog covered the topic for awhile, but moved on.

There seems to be an interest in the topic, so here's what GAB AI had to say about it.

GAB AI chat about cold fusion

There was a sensational claim in the eighties about "cold fusion". What happened to that? Were there new developments? Please give the history of this topic up until this very day.

Answer:

The story of "cold fusion" is one of the most famous controversies in modern science, beginning as a global sensation and settling into a long-standing stalemate that persists even today.

The 1989 Sensation

In March 1989, two reputable electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann (University of Southampton) and Stanley Pons (University of Utah), announced in a press conference that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature.

They claimed their "tabletop" apparatus—a glass cell filled with heavy water and a palladium electrode—produced more heat than could be explained by any known chemical reaction. They hypothesized that deuterium nuclei from the heavy water were being forced together within the palladium lattice, releasing energy. Because fusion (as seen in stars and hydrogen bombs) typically requires millions of degrees of heat, the scientific community was initially stunned and then deeply skeptical.

The Immediate Backlash (1989–1990s)

The global attempt to replicate the results yielded a series of failures. Within months, independent laboratories—including MIT and Caltech—reported that they could not detect the "excess heat" or the nuclear byproducts (such as neutrons) that should accompany fusion.

- Methodological Flaws: Critics identified significant errors in the duo's calorimetry (heat measurement) and nuclear monitoring.

- DOE Review: In November 1989, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) panel concluded there was no convincing evidence for the phenomenon, effectively halting federal funding and labeling the research as "pathological science."

- Academic Isolation: Fleischmann and Pons left the University of Utah for France in 1992, and the field largely disappeared from mainstream academic journals.

The "LENR" Transition and Continued Research

Despite the scientific consensus, a small, dedicated group of researchers continued the work, often renaming the field Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR),

Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS), or Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) to move away from the stigma of "cold fusion."

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, this community continued to publish in niche journals and advocate for funding, claiming they had identified repeatable experiments, though none achieved the level of rigorous validation required for acceptance by mainstream physics.

Developments and Current Status

The scientific establishment has revisited the topic periodically, but rarely with a change in outcome:

- 2004 DOE Review: A second DOE review, which looked at new data, again found that the evidence was not compelling. The panel was evenly split on whether "excess heat" occurred, but the majority remained unconvinced that a nuclear reaction was taking place.

- The "Break the Stalemate" Effort: As of August 2026, the field has seen a notable, if cautious, injection of interest. In February 2026, the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy) announced $10 million in funding for eight new projects. The specific goal of this initiative is not to "prove" cold fusion, but to finally "break the stalemate" and determine—once and for all—whether LENR holds any scientific merit or if it can be definitively debunked using modern, state-of-the-art materials science and diagnostic tools.

Summary

Today, cold fusion remains a fringe subject. While it is no longer considered a "hot" topic for mainstream physics, it has not been fully extinguished. The current scientific position remains that there is no accepted theoretical model for how such a reaction could occur at room temperature, and historical claims have not been robustly replicated. The ongoing ARPA-E projects represent the most significant formal scientific engagement with the topic in two decades, reflecting a desire to move beyond the 1989 controversy toward a final, data-driven conclusion.

Comment:

Some things never change. However, one thing that does puzzle me... Why didn't Fleischman and Pons not get any neutrons? There should've been neutrons in that reaction.

I'll ask GAB AI again as a follow-up.

I understand the scientific position, but what did Fleishman and Pons have to say about the absence of neutrons in their original experiment?

Answer:

Fleischmann and Pons were aware that the lack of detected neutrons was a major problem, as conventional fusion theory dictates that deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion should produce neutrons as a primary byproduct. Their response to this discrepancy evolved as they faced increasing scrutiny:

1. Initial Claims of Detection

In their initial March 1989 announcement, they claimed to have observed neutron emission. However, this was almost immediately challenged by the scientific community. When MIT researchers analyzed the data Fleischmann and Pons had published, they found the "neutron peak" in their data was statistically indistinguishable from background noise and that the detector used had been calibrated incorrectly.

By May 1989, as reported by the Washington Post, Fleischmann openly admitted that the neutron graph in their published work was inaccurate due to a malfunctioning detector, though he insisted the fundamental phenomenon (excess heat) remained real.

2. The "Nuclear Transmutation" Hypothesis

Once it became clear that the expected neutron flux was not present (or was at best several orders of magnitude too low), Fleischmann and Pons were forced to hypothesize a different, non-standard mechanism for their results. They suggested that the fusion occurring in the palladium lattice was fundamentally different from the fusion occurring in high-energy plasma (like in stars or tokamaks).

Their primary arguments included:

- Alternative Channels: They proposed that the reaction might be proceeding via a "neutroless" path. They speculated that the energy was being transferred directly into the palladium lattice as heat through a process they could not fully explain, rather than being released as high-energy particles (neutrons or gamma rays).

- Helium-4 Production: Because they were not seeing the expected neutrons, they hypothesized that the product was not a neutron and Helium-3, but rather Helium-4. They suggested that the extra energy was being carried away by the lattice itself in a "multi-body" reaction. This was highly controversial because, in standard physics, Helium-4 production requires the emission of a high-energy gamma ray, which they also did not observe.

- Screening Effects: They speculated that the dense electron cloud within the metallic lattice of the palladium might "screen" the positive charges of the deuterium nuclei, allowing them to approach one another more easily, though this theory never gained traction among nuclear theorists who pointed out the massive energetic barriers still involved.

3. The Shift to "New Physics"

Ultimately, to justify the absence of radiation, the pair and their subsequent supporters moved away from standard nuclear physics. They argued that the lattice environment was a unique "condensed matter" system that altered the behavior of the nuclei, essentially creating a "black box" where traditional conservation laws of radiation were bypassed by the metal's structure.

The critical issue remained:

The scientific community viewed these explanations as post-hoc justifications designed to save a failing hypothesis. If the reaction did not produce the energetic particles predicted by known physics, critics argued it was more likely that the "excess heat" was simply the result of flawed calorimetry (e.g., uneven temperatures within the electrolysis cell or chemical energy being mistaken for nuclear energy) rather than a novel, unknown type of nuclear reaction.

In short, Fleischmann and Pons' pivot to "neutroless" fusion was the point at which their work moved from being a "controversial physics claim" to being viewed by most of the scientific establishment as a "pseudoscientific error."

Final comment:

It appears to me that a concerted effort was made to discredit the two scientists who came up with this theory.

If Cold Fusion ever does make it to scientific orthodoxy, it wouldn't be the first time that a scientist was treated as being wrong, but eventually confirmed as being right.

Just human nature, I suppose.

ant killer borax!

8/24/26:

Insects in general do not like anything with boron in it. Borax has as one of its ingredients the element of boron. Seems like I've seen videos showing how to kill off wasps with a mixture of boron mixtures. Lately I've got an idea of using borax detergent to clean my clothes, and then using the waste water therein to spread around the perimenter of the joint. Over time, it will concentrate and form a natural barrier against ants, wasps, roaches and other of these nasty critters. In short, anything with boron in it will kill off insects. Probably not too good for people or pets either, so use common sense.

10/25/19: The original post follows:

Comment:

Updated:

10.25.19:

More ways to get rid of the ants in your pants.  Actually, the borax mixture with honey seems to work.  Ants are really attracted to the honey.



7.22.19:

It should be no surprise, but it is.  Mix up some hot water, borax, and put something sweet in the mixture.  The sweetness to the mixture attracts the ants, and they consume the poison.  It is slow acting, but it will kill them in a few days.

It reminds me of how well that stuff works with roaches.  However, the methods differ somewhat.  Roaches will die by crawling on it, but ants will consume it.  Will roaches consume the borax mixture?

Warning!  Do not let kids, pets, or other creatures to consume the stuff.  Not good.  Other than that, it is better and cheaper than bug spray.

Gobsmacked!

8/23/26:

It looks pretty danged real. I've seen videos of model planes that could land. But it is also possible that it is a CGI fake. In any case, it is pretty danged realistic looking.

Having seen the real thing, of course this is not IT. The noise from the real thing is so loud that you can FEEL it miles away.

This video is almost 7 years old, too. Something like this might be possible. Just look at how Ukraine is stalemating Russia with drones. Remote controlled vehicles are a real thing. The difference between this and the real thing is in the scale. SpaceX's machines are freaking huge and freaking powerful.

10/25/19: The original post follows:

Comment:

Is this real? If so, it is an RCS controlled device.  People do mess around with RCS planes and such. ( But I haven't seen rockets, especially ones like this.)

GAB AI chat about beavers

Here's another stab at the Beaver question, through AI:

... Recently, I became interested in beavers. It seems that those creatures can help in restoring degraded land into thriving oases. In particular, I was wonde- ring about any introduction of beavers into West Texas in the trans-Pecos region. Has anything been proposed or even implemented along those lines? Thank you.

Answer: 

 The idea of using beavers as "ecosystem engineers" to combat land degradation is a concept gaining significant traction in arid-land restoration. In the Trans- Pecos region of West Texas, the conversation is active, though the implementation faces unique challenges compared to wetter climates.

The Beaver's Role in Arid Restoration

As you noted, beavers are powerful restoration agents. By building dams, they:

- Slow the flow: They turn flashy, erosive streams into a series of interconnected ponds. - Raise the water table: This rehydrates riparian zones, bringing back native vegetation like willows and cottonwoods. - Filter sediment: They trap nutrient-rich soil that would otherwise be washed away during flash floods, which are common in the Trans-Pecos.

The Situation in the Trans-Pecos

There is no widespread "reintroduction" program in the Trans-Pecos, primarily because beavers have historically been present in parts of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. However, their populations were decimated by over-trapping in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and they have not naturally recolonized many of the smaller, intermittent streams where they could do the most good for restoration.

Current Initiatives and Proposals:

1. Beaver Dam Analogues (BDAs): Because introducing live animals into remote, arid, and often private lands is logistically and legally complex, many conservationists in Texas are currently favoring "Human-made beavers." BDAs are structures made of wooden posts and woven willow branches that mimic the effect of beaver dams. Organizations like the Texas Riparian Association and various soil and water conservation districts have been encouraging landowners to build these structures to jumpstart the restoration process.

2. The Rio Grande Advocacy: There are ongoing efforts by groups like the Rio Grande Joint Venture and academic researchers at institutions like Sul Ross State University (in Alpine, TX) to study the impact of riparian restoration. They recognize that if the water table is restored through beaver-like structures, it creates the necessary habitat for the beavers to potentially return or be reintroduced safely later.

3. Private Landowner Engagement: The Trans-Pecos is almost entirely privately owned. Implementing any program requires buy-in from ranching communities. Some progressive ranchers are experimenting with these methods to increase water availability for cattle and wildlife, viewing the beaver as a partner rather than a nuisance.

Obstacles to Implementation

- Water Rights: In the West, water law is notoriously rigid. Some opponents argue that beaver ponds might "consume" too much water through evaporation or unauthorized usage, potentially infringing on the rights of downstream water users.

- Extreme Flashiness: Unlike the perennial streams in the Pacific Northwest where beaver research is most famous, Trans-Pecos streams often run dry for months and then become raging torrents during "monsoon" thunderstorms. There is legitimate scientific debate about whether a beaver dam can survive a major West Texas flash flood.

- Legal Classification: In many parts of Texas, beavers are classified as "furbearers" or sometimes as nuisances that can be trapped or hunted with few restrictions. This makes it difficult to establish protected "colonies" where they can work undisturbed.

Summary

While you likely won't find a state-sponsored "Beaver Release" program in Alpine or Marfa today, the region is currently in the "proof of concept" phase. Through the use of Beaver Dam Analogues, conservationists are testing whether the landscape can support the return of the creatures. If these man-made structures prove successful in stabilizing the streams and raising the water table, you may see more formal proposals to reintroduce actual beaver populations to help maintain those systems in the future.

If you are interested in local efforts, the Borderlands Research Institute at Sul Ross State University is the primary hub for research on Trans-Pecos ecological restoration and would be your best resource for tracking specific local projects.

Every part of Elon Musk's empire just started connecting...

Brian Wang of NextBigFuture is in this interview, which is on the YouTube. It seems like Elon Musk has now gotten into medicine as well. It involves using AI to make customized drug treatments to cure cancer. Huge hopes are running on this.

That's just the opening of the video. It is close to an hour long.

BFR's potential

8/20/26:

Interesting to review this in light of what actually happened. SpaceX didn't call it the BFR, but renamed it the Starship/Heavy. The cost of development of the rocket itself came in at about the number mentioned below (if memory serves of one estimate I saw).

A moonbase will likely be constructed, as a return to the moon is now a NASA priority. Elon Musk wants to develop the Moon too.

I would favor a new ship be constructed that would launch from the moon to an EML collection point. It would be huge and capable of transporting thousands of colonists in relative comfort and safety. It would likely be a torus that could be rotated, and would have ample shielding from the deadly cosmic rays in interplanetary space.

The lunar base could supply some of the materials for the ship. The rest could come from the Earth. The "Battleship Galactica" would launch from an EML spot, which would require a minimum of Delta V to get into a Martian Capture orbit. From there, the crew could disembark via the Starship on multiple visits to the Martian surface. It could refuel there as many times as needed in order to bring all the colonists to the surface of Mars.

One hundred thousand colonists could traverse the distance from the EML location to Mars on each Holman cycle of about two years. Thus it would take about 20 years to get a million colonists on Mars.

10/30/18: The original post:

There was an article on NextBigFuture,  mentioned courtesy of Free Republic, which was about the BFR's development cost.  It is estimated to be anywhere from $2 billion to $10 billion.
Given the great potential of this rocket, it would be of the utmost national importance for the government to grant enough business to SpaceX so that they can have the necessary funds to develop the rocket.

You could do this with a moonbase project. It was estimated by NASA to be a project that was doable under the current NASA funding scheme.  The actual numbers ran out to about half of the Apollo project.

If a moonbase was turned into a commitment, such as with Apollo, it could be done in ten years at a price that should be even less than the NASA number.  Of course, SpaceX would have to win a competitive bidding war.  But it should be done as a national priority.

The government is not likely to do this however, as funding tends to get spread out over a number of states.  This doesn't work well with one company getting the lion's share of the business.

What purpose would a moonbase serve?  It could process lunar regolith into fuel.  The fuel could be used for deep space missions.

The most likely fuel from the moon would be oxygen.  Oxygen is not a fuel, but is a reaction mass.  For all intents and purposes, it is the same thing.

For the raptor engine, which uses methane, oxygen would be close to 80% of the reaction mass.  In such a scenario, it would be profitable for the BFR to land on the moonbase, load the oxygen, and transport it to a refueling depot at the L1 Lagrange point.

The advantage of using these points is that it takes less energy to get to the Lagrange point than to the moon itself.  Morever, the big rocket could be mostly fueled up for a trip outbound to Mars and other destinations.  One big rocket can service the Lagrange point, and provide extra for more ambitious missions.

Almost all of a rocket's launch mass is fuel and oxygen, so if you can get it elsewhere as opposed to the Earth, you can vastly improve access to the Moon and points beyond.

Best part of the show was this part

8/20/26:

It is odd that this kind of post is in this blog. What was I thinking???

Nostalgia... memories of things past... Well, in life, there are no "mulligans". You pass through just one time. Whatever you want to do, you better do while you have the chance.

12/11/25: The original post is below:

A bit of nostalgia about the 70's nostalgia period that produced this show--"Sha na na".

The Fly in the Ointment argument against anti-matter propulsion

8/18/26:

Civilization should be much further along than what it is. It's a shame.

12/24/24: The original post is below:

There's always a "but", isn't there

The stuff you need for this kind of rocket doesn't exist yet. It has to be invented. The fly in the ointment is the chicken and the egg too. If there's no bucks, there's no Buck Rogers.

The problem is that the Luddites have managed to convince us that economic growth is bad. It's called "Limits to Growth". It grew into the so-called environmentalism that has choked off economic growth in the West, and encouraged it to take place in the East.

In other words, the communists did it. We let the commies talk us into sabotaging our own economies. They'll lie about politics being downstream from culture, but amongst themselves they tout the reverse, which is described by Gramscii. Gramscii held that if the commies grabbed all of the high ground of the culture, they can seize the power. And so they have.

The cure is to take it back. But the fly in that particular ointment is that you can vote your way into communism, but you'll have to shoot your way out.

The issue hasn't been decided too much in favor of the commies yet. But they are really close. We have but a few years to turn this around.

Off-grid post 2.19.19 ; cinematic woes

8/15/26: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In French, according to google translate, it is: Plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les mêmes

But things do change. No more trailer. Plans may change because of circumstances. But I haven't given up on my off-grid project. It is still on the back burner. I think about it, but action is not in the cards at this time.

If the Focus Fusion device works, I may be coming into some money. It's always about the Benjamins. Even for me. I try not to, but there's no getting around it.

2.19.19, the original post is below:
A study of the videos reveals that my cinematic skills leave something to be desired.  I
resolve to do better in the future.

However, I do have a lot of video to look at now, which is of some comfort.

The attention recently has been in terms of maneuvering the trailer into a suitable spot.

The general area is decided, but details, details, details...

In addition to that, I am giving thought about a construction procedure for the foundation
pods.

For some reason, I am already running out of words.  But I wanted to put something up
anyway, so here it is.

"Cold Fusion" Facts Page

8/13/26:

Obviously, I haven't kept up on the news in this topic. Since nothing really big happened in the news, I suspect that not much is going on.

The website linked to is still good, by the way. I haven't reviewed the info. Perhaps it has been updated in the last decade. It's a little hard to tell. A bit of speculation: It may well be the case that the reactions do not produce enough energy to make electricity. If it does produce heat, and is economical to run, then perhaps the problem is in extracting what value that there may be in it. The production of heat for climate control may be a possible application. Quick update: Some of the old sites are still up. It isn't dead. Rossi is still out there.

5/28/11: The original post follows below:

Frequently Asked Questions About Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as "cold fusion")

Pretty good summary of what is known.  However, it hasn't been updated since 2009.

I support this project, please join me today!

8/12/26:

This has been 14 years. I don't recall if I made any kind of donation or anything.

The molten salt project was still alive, so far as I know. Perhaps when I have more time, I can check in with Gordon McDowell and see what he's up to these days.

Quick update:

Here's his video channel on YouTube

2/25/12: The original post was a video embed that no longer displays:

Using gravitational lens to image exoplanets. What a concept!

Raising the level of civilization may be a pipe dream

8/9/26:

Some say the internet is forever. But these old links go dead a lot. It's a good practice to check the old posts on a regular basis and see if they're still good. This one has a link that is still working, but the article link isn't there, or it wasn't good to begin with.

As for the title of this post, the level of civilization will rise, but not evenly. There is always the possibility of collapse, though.

The original post was on 2/15/12:

After getting back into the world for the last few weeks, I realize the difficulty of the concept of raising the level of civilization. Progress doesn't come easy, and it is also not guaranteed to continue with the gains that have been made.

People are not that civilized. I see it every day.

Are people really just smart apes after all?

Civilization has outraced biology. Human beings may not be ready for the high tech living we now enjoy, nor for any further advances.

This is not in any way considering the Luddites as correct. I would prefer continued progress, but progress may not be easy against the headwinds that also exist.

Docudharma ...blogging the future

8/8/26:

As Yogi Berra once said: "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."

The hydrogen economy didn't materialize. It looks like the world is going to go for the batteries. But how to charge the batteries? It still takes hydro-carbons to power the world.

So-called "renewables" won't cut it. If that was going to work, it would've by now.

Nuclear power yields the most power, but that is being blocked for various reasons. Perhaps molten-salt reactors? Perhaps aneutronic fusion? It's still a waiting game after all these years.

11/6/11: The original post:

Marrying Stranded Wind and Freight Rail Electrification

The darker the blue, the windier it is- that's better for power generation

excerpts:

• It should, I hope, be clear that much of the best resource is in areas that do not have the highest electricity consumption.
• That right of way is used to establish long distance High Voltage DC trunk lines to bring sustainable energy from the places that have it to places the need it [ comment:  What if you can do away with high voltage trunk lines?  What I'm saying is, why does this have to be necessary?  Couldn't you make your fuel "in situ" and use it on the spot?  That is, synthesize fuel from wind power.  You can synthesize methanol and then use the methanol in a fuel cell, or use the methanol to make diesel.  How to build the synthesis plants?  You could possibly use airships to bring in the construction equipment and supplies to build the plants.  After finishing construction, the airships could bring raw materials for the synthesis of the fuel.  The fuel can be also be transported to fuel depots in a like manner.]

The next step is to see if airships can operate in high altitudes. That might be a problem, as most of these windy areas are in high altitudes.  This may be achievable if the effort needed was deemed to be worthy.

Update:

Strolling through memory lane.  Here's a post almost a year old which describes how methanol can be synthesized in a nuclear reactor.  Substitute wind power for nuclear power and you can synthesize methanol that way.  It is all a part of the master plan to switch to the hydrogen economy.

The Morning Summary, April 25, 2011

8/6/26:

Folks may want to know some stats. This blog was cross-posted from the original blog, and so this post was on the original blog. It should still be there, but this update won't be. Different blog now.

I'll give some general stats for this blog starting now.

All time views, per Google's Blogger Platform: 361464

April 25, 2011 : The original post:

The statistics:

Time approx 4:30 am

Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun

Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.

Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon.  Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.

New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.

YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.

It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.

Update:

I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.


Update:

One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.

Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.

Update:

It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this.  It is all an education, just like yesterday.  I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show.  It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.

If I may interject a thought into these discussions.  Everybody is going at this in their own way.  But what if no single way exists?  That's a question that should be considered.  Take fusion, for example.  The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute.  The problem is getting it to do what we want.  But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach.  Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth.  But I don't think anyone is thinking that way.  Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power.  Maybe that isn't even necessary.  That's my point. 

The human factor in research

8/6/26:

I'll take this opportunity to disclose that I've increased my position in Focus Fusion. This took place more than a month ago, but I've kept it quiet. Not sure about what to say about it. Let's say it's a hope and a prayer that this ship comes in soon.

4/16/26:

Today is an oldies kind of day. I'm reviewing posts for those which gathered the most attention. This one and the one previously posted this morning caught my eye. So I wrote an update for each.

What could be more human than finding something and then forgetting it? Then finding it again? The same is true on the historic scale as it is on the personal. I'm thinking of the Roman era, which was more advanced than some may have thought. Roman life may have been like living in nineteenth century, but it was a very long time ago--in ancient times. When Roman civilization collapsed in the Western half of Europe, there was an era called the Dark Ages. Life became primitive for centuries. It took a long time to recover.

There are lessons in history if you bother to notice. It is a lot like studying this blog and rediscovering posts like these. A question comes to mind: what does the future hold? As of now, there is no solution to the energy problem. There seems to be a war in Iran that is closely related to the problem of energy. If the energy problem were solved, would that help bring about world peace? It's a thought.

5/20/11:

Not too long ago, I did a number of posts on the subject of Rossi Focardi fusion research.  Then, yesterday, I came across the energy from Thorium proposition.  Both are attempting to do the same thing: generate energy from the atom.  The difference between the two is that one is fusion while the other is fission.  The similarities are that both had a lot of promise at one point, but seemed to fall by the wayside and recently rediscovered.

There has been a great deal of fear about nuclear energy.  Not to mention the worry about the wastes.  This did not concern me as much as others may have been because of what I read in Dixy Lee Ray's book  Trashing the Planet.  I suspect that a lot of the fear has to do with a lack of understanding which is exacerbated by the way that mishaps get reported in the news.  Hence, the Three Mile Island incident effectively shuts down the nuclear industry here.  A few years later, Chernobyl reinforced that fear.  Now Fukishima just adds to the climate of fear of things nuclear- these things just don't seem safe.  Now, Germany abandons nuclear power.  All of this is an overreaction.  Sadly, it may be unavoidable.  People will fear something they don't understand.   What to do?

The star crossed history of fission has been the impetus for fusion research.  But fusion is much harder.  After all these decades, we still don't have a fusion reactor which is net energy.  But people are looking and looking hard.  As for me, I've been looking closely at the energy issue for several years now.  I came across Dr. Bussard's Polywell concept.  It was one of the first things I wrote about on this blog.  Lately, two other concepts have caught my attention- Focus Fusion and Rossi Focardi's "cold fusion".   My own experience studying these ideas has brought something else to my attention- the human factor.  People fall in love with their ideas.  It is entirely human, but it is also hazardous in its own way.  It may blind us to other paths that we may take.  That's because to fall in love means the exclusion of all other choices.

To fear and to love are all too human.  But it is also possible to learn and keep an open mind.  Unfortunately, when emotions take over, the mind tends to close down.  Reason and logic go overboard and big mistakes can be made.  The reaction to this may draw the reaction- who do you think you are, Spock?  Yeah, maybe you weren't thinking that at all, and the Spock reference turns you off.  I've described times when I got turned off by something only to reconsider.  Sometimes to reconsider can be helpful.  Jumping to conclusions can't be good.  But it is easy to fall into that trap.  I try to avoid that as well as avoiding "drinking the Kool Aid."  I wrote about this Kool Aid stuff on this blog too.  I won't be drinking anybody's Kool Aid.  I'm keeping an open mind.

I haven't fallen in love with any one way of solving the energy problem.  It may turn out that the best way will get overlooked when something else is found.  Such has been the case of fission.  Just looking at the way we generate electricity now may look foolish in the future in comparison to how it might be done better with Thorium reactors.  Thorium reactors are smaller, cheaper and safer.  That is not a mere theoretical possibility.  They have already been built.  They weren't commercialized because it was thought better to be able to make bombs.  Thorium is not useful for making bombs.

However, Rossi Focardi may be right around the corner.  This idea may get the lead on Thorium and it may be back to the sidelines for Thorium.  Frankly, it doesn't make any difference to me who wins.  I think we all win when we solve the energy problem.  If it gets solved by fission or fusion- who cares, as long as it works.