Fusion. Not Carbon

::: by blues :::

Here’s why I don’t worry about CO2:

Focus Fusion Society — What is Focus Fusion?

“Focus Fusion” is the aneutronic fusion of hydrogen & boron (pB11) fuel using the Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) to create the greenest energy imaginable. Can it be done? We’ll know when the LPP Experiment is done.


“a-neutronic” = “no neutrons”. The ideal fusion reaction generates essentially no neutrons, ergo no radiation and no weapons capacity. This is not your grandpa’s fusion.

Focus Fusion Society — Could A Deuterium-Boron Fusion Reactor Be Used To Produce H2O2 As A Fuel? — by blues

I’m not a physicist or chemist, but come from an electronics background, and have done some “amateur” projects in math and linguistics. I’m retired now, and mainly do political and economics blogging. In my blogging, I took a special interest in the energy issue and began a quest to find the best possible means of obtaining and storing energy. The info I was able to find on the web began to look rather grim.

There are multiple complex problems with both the production and storage of energy, which turn out to be distinct issues. And even efficient systems of energy storage tend to be either too heavy to be portable, require exotic materials that will soon become scarce, are too toxic, produce “sludges” or solids that are very difficult to manage or recycle, etc. I also observed that there is a distinction between “soft” and “hard” energy. Soft energy can be used to provide warmth and light in buildings, but you cannot, for example, melt steel with it, and modern industry requires hard energy. Hard energy is intense, or “focused.” For example, bituminous coal does not burn hot enough to melt steel — it’s energy is too soft, so it must be converted to coke, which does burn hot enough — it produces harder energy. A narrow light beam is harder than a wide or diffuse light beam, even if they represent the same quantity of energy — so it can melt substances.

After reviewing many ways to store and use energy, such a burning lithium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, lithium hydride or boron hydride, etc., I found that they generally produce “sludges” or solids, which interfere with their utilization, and are often quite caustic. Many people are trying to find ways to store pure hydrogen, but it easily leaks through containers, and other storage methods require exotic substances or tremendous pressurization. Then I hit upon “high test” (over 60% to 90% pure) hydrogen peroxide, or H2O2, which actually seems to be the most reasonable fuel available. It’s ignition produces only pure water and oxygen. Another other storage possibility would be compressed air, which seems practical in some ways, but its “energy density” is sadly low.

H2O2 is not a “perfect” fuel, but it is pretty good. It always is “contaminated” with some water (H2O), which acts as a mild catalyzer, (normally) slowly transforming it into more H2O and oxygen (O2), but there are many good stabilizers, such as sodium stannate. However, when high test H2O2 rapidly decomposes into H2O and O2, the reaction is very energetic, so energetic that it has been used to power rockets. Yet, in the absence of catalyzers, it is no more dangerous to handle than gasoline. It explodes upon contact with silver (acting as a catalyst), and could probably function as a carbon-free substitute for gasoline in automobiles! The oxygen exhaust would presumably be “sacrificed,” but I think it would be wise to cool, retain and recycle the resultant water vapor.

It seems reasonable to guess that the power of a deuterium-boron fusion reactor could be used to produce H2O2, possibly even directly by projecting electrons and/or X-rays directly into ordinary water! (I have already posted articles about this in Free Speech Zone Blog, Pffugee Camp, and Culture of Life News.) Improved methods of generating H2O2 are currently being investigated by groups of chemists. See:

ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2009):

Gold-Palladium Nanoparticles Achieve Greener, Smarter Production Of Hydrogen Peroxide

Phys.org — Tests find Rossi’s E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source

(Phys.org) —In the ongoing saga of Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer (E-Cat) that promises clean, cheap power for the world, the latest events continue to bring as many questions as answers. Several scientists have performed supposedly independent tests of two E-Cat prototypes under controlled conditions and using high-precision instrumentation. In a paper posted at arXiv.org, the researchers write that, even by the most conservative of measurements, the E-Cat produces excess heat with a resulting energy density that is at least 1 order of magnitude—and possibly several—higher than any other conventional energy source, including gasoline.

Of the seven scientists who authored the paper, two are from Italy (Giuseppe Levi at Bologna University and Evelyn Foschi of Bologna, Italy) and five are from Sweden (Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér at Uppsala University; and Hanno Essén at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm).

Climate issues are probably insignificant in comparison with fresh water depletion and desertification. About 1/3rd of the ocean rise in recent decades is the result of humans draining fresh aquifer (deep underground) water into the oceans. For example, we are emptying the Ogallala Aquifer to grow corn, for example. When the fresh water’s gone, we will have no more abundant corn. We used to use lead to make gasoline work, by increasing its ability to withstand compression before detonating (its octain), but it was poisoning the environment. So we switched to the chemical MTBE, but that turned out to be almost as toxic. Now we use ethanol made from corn to achieve the necessary octane levels. So now at least 25% of corn is used to power motor vehicles. By using gasoline, we are trading dwindling fresh water for fuel. This is obviously absurd. So I suggest using high-test hydrogen peroxide. It is easy to make, and anyone can easily concentrate hydrogen peroxide in any kitchen.

(By clicking HERE you can read or write comments below.)

← Back to front page


One response to “Fusion. Not Carbon

  1. Pingback: Fusion. Not Carbon | Simple Score Voting — Democracy Was …