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.
Sunday, August 30, 2026
Saturday, August 29, 2026
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:
- 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.
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:
- 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.
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.
Friday, August 28, 2026
DIY Wind Turbine for $32
8/28/26:
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 ^^^^^^
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
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.
Thursday, August 27, 2026
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.
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.
Monday, August 24, 2026
ant killer borax!
8/24/26:
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.
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.
Sunday, August 23, 2026
Gobsmacked!
8/23/26:
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.)
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.)
Saturday, August 22, 2026
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:
... 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.
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.
Friday, August 21, 2026
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.
That's just the opening of the video. It is close to an hour long.
Thursday, August 20, 2026
BFR's potential
8/20/26:
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)