Talk:Migma: Difference between revisions
OhanaUnited (talk | contribs) clean up, Replaced: {{Energy development}} → {{environment}} using AWB |
Copied from my own comments at Bogdan Maglich entry. |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|[[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|Wikipedia|right|40px]] |
|[[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|Wikipedia|right|40px]] |
||
|} |
|} |
||
|class=Stub |
|||
|priority= |
|||
|auto=yes |
|||
|s&a-work-group=yes |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Physics|class=Stub|importance=|auto=yes}} |
|||
I am not a physicist, just an avid amateur scientist. I have been following the migma concept and think it deserves serious scientific consideration for the following reasons:<br> |
|||
1. It does not require the preparation of any rare isotopes (the collection of which requires enormous energy resources). The articles I have seen named normal lithium and beryllium as the most likely fuel sources. Both are plentiful.<br> |
|||
2. It does not produce neutrons. Therefore it does not produce secondary sources of radioactive contamination which result from the neutron bombardment of surrounding materials. This is the greatest problem facing both fission and fusion.<br> |
|||
3. It does not involve a chain reaction. It is a sustained and fully controllable process, according to the descriptions I have read. This reduces the inherent dangers of energy production by many levels of magnitude. As an aside: it is not a candidate for another weapons program, which, of course, makes it very unattractive to many funding sources.<br> |
|||
4. It can allegedly be manufactured on very small scales as well as larger installations.<br> |
|||
5. It apparently produces an electrical potential directly; electrons are released to one collector and protons to another. This means that heat is not the main form of energy and that turbines and other moving parts are not involved. This would be a huge efficiency improvement over all other energy plans I have heard of.<br> |
|||
It seems to me that any one of these criteria should generate a great deal of interest in the scientific world and would be reason enough to devote a small portion of the billions of dollars that have been going into a great many other projects, which have so far led nowhere, or done as much harm as good.<br><br> |
|||
[[User:Dave Lea|Dave Lea]] 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Dave Lea - Fish Creek, Wisconsin, USA |
|||
Revision as of 08:16, 21 December 2007
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Environment Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
An entry from Migma appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 November, 2006. |  |
|class=Stub |priority= |auto=yes |s&a-work-group=yes
}}
| Physics Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
I am not a physicist, just an avid amateur scientist. I have been following the migma concept and think it deserves serious scientific consideration for the following reasons:
1. It does not require the preparation of any rare isotopes (the collection of which requires enormous energy resources). The articles I have seen named normal lithium and beryllium as the most likely fuel sources. Both are plentiful.
2. It does not produce neutrons. Therefore it does not produce secondary sources of radioactive contamination which result from the neutron bombardment of surrounding materials. This is the greatest problem facing both fission and fusion.
3. It does not involve a chain reaction. It is a sustained and fully controllable process, according to the descriptions I have read. This reduces the inherent dangers of energy production by many levels of magnitude. As an aside: it is not a candidate for another weapons program, which, of course, makes it very unattractive to many funding sources.
4. It can allegedly be manufactured on very small scales as well as larger installations.
5. It apparently produces an electrical potential directly; electrons are released to one collector and protons to another. This means that heat is not the main form of energy and that turbines and other moving parts are not involved. This would be a huge efficiency improvement over all other energy plans I have heard of.
It seems to me that any one of these criteria should generate a great deal of interest in the scientific world and would be reason enough to devote a small portion of the billions of dollars that have been going into a great many other projects, which have so far led nowhere, or done as much harm as good.
Dave Lea 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Dave Lea - Fish Creek, Wisconsin, USA