Karl Johanson wrote:

"Paul M Koloc" <xpmk@starpower.net> wrote in message

Our concept promises a Carnot efficiency of 90-95% while the
"prometheus" fission project will be lucky if it can generate an
efficiency of 15%.

Why would the source of the heat (fission or fusion) affect the Carnot
efficiency?

The Carnot efficiency is based on the throughput temperature of the thermal source.  The higher the temperature, the better the efficiency.  Since most thermal power is mediated through water cooling cycles and its temperature depends on the strength of steel at elevated temperatures, efficiencies average around 30 to 40% or so.  A PLASMAK(tm) electric aneutronic fusion burner would use inductive MHD, and so its dense fusion heated blanket temperature of a few to tens of eV determines the Carnot efficiency (90-95%).

The neutrons from the fission beast will travel
through space unabated.

Goodness. Man made neutrons in space? The cosmic rays & solar wind will be
jealous.

I don't think so. The Solar Wind is kept at bay by the earth's magnetic field (although CMEs can bounce the field around).  Neutrons absorbed in a number of elements make them radioactive, and those neutron generated unstable nuclei utilized by living tissue can be concentrated there, which is known by the State of California to cause cancer.  The neutron emission from earth bound fission reactors are shielded, but the fission units for NASA space craft will not be shielded, since NASA can not afford the shielding's lifting costs to space.  Besides, the effective acceleration using a fission powered rocket would be diminished by the additional mass associated with a shielded space craft.

Launch your own craft then.

I would love to launch a PLASMAK(tm) propelled spacecraft.

Yeah, well your throwback fusion craft is nothing compared to my antimatter
space craft concept that I've done a few drawings of. (All we need is to
quickly invent a cheap way of making and containing anti-matter (we can use
the synchrotron you wanted for the fusion craft) then a craft capable of
using the antimatter). Of course neither NASA or you will pay to design &
build the thing and give me all the credit, because your jealous that my
idea is better than yours. You simply don't support advanced concepts. Why
won't you spend money on my roughed out ideas?

I know of no stable multi-charge antimatter nuclei.  It does not (to my understanding) seem to be theoretically possible.  Of course, you might know better.  The containment of milligrams or more of antimatter (anti-protium) could be excessively dangerous.  Do you have any US or world patents?  Your engineering physics might need refreshing.

BTW in a compressed burning fusion fueled PMK, the synchrotron radiation is reflected through the tenth harmonic back into the Kernel burning plasma by the dense electron conduction shell of its surrounding plasma mantle.

Karl Johanson

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075
| Grid Power  -Raising $$Support$$ <http://www.neoteric-research.org/>
| http://www.prometheus2.net/  mailto:pmk@plasmak.com
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------