The Quonset Hut

From the “Stockholm International Peace Research Institute” (SIPRI) available data (http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments ... s-industry) emerges the fact that the 2013 list for the 10 Top Armament and Military Services “providers” (excluding China) that year … shows a listing of 6 American and 4 European names.

Top-dog among those 10, ruling Supreme, is Lockheed-Martin.

The Human Race.png (118.18 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

That, in itself and far as I’m concerned, is just another fact of our miserable and unfortunate present Economics.

So, that’s not the point.

But data shows something else … it shows that Lockheed-Martin’s arms peddling represent 78 % of its “total sales”.

And that, is a point. Or rather, half of my point.

Meaning, this company, once a proud “aerospace” business, is nowadays almost just a simple and ghastly gun-running business.

Or, is it really… “just that” ?
Or – better yet – why have it “transmute” into such ?
These questions are the other half of my point.

Which is (the whole point) – what if Lockheed-Martin just chose an “easy way” to make a buck (in hundreds of billions !) so as to be able to sustain the cost of doing what is truly in that company’s “founding genes”, that is, exploiting its “aerospace” capacity ?

Till some 150 years ago or so, the UK had smuggled hard drugs (Opium) on a colossal scale to finance its Empire. They even made War on another country to protect their “trade”.

So, it has precedent, it has, to run shady and shaky businesses as a means to generate enough revenue so as to enable the pursuit – and the pay – for other, shall we say ?, more distinguished objectives.
If an Empire did it, why wouldn’t a Company ? Times change, everything’s relative nowadays and, in the case at hand, it’s just Guns and Stuff, is it not ? I mean, Guns and Stuff don’t kill, right ? people do ! so what people do with our Guns has nothing to do with who us ! Right ? (all abjectly wrong, but hey … whatever).


But I digress ….

You will pardon me if I’m just getting excited about nothing,

but I don’t know if you are aware (I wasn’t, so there you have it) of Lockheed-Martin‘s claim made last October (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/53 ... n-machine/) : “(we have) come up with a compact design, called a high beta fusion reactor, based on principles of so-called “magnetic mirror confinement … (which is) a much more powerful development paradigm and much less capital intensive”.”


Further, they added that “ …. Lockheed could develop a completed prototype within five years and a commercial application within a decade (that) could one day power ships and planes”.

Presently, Lockheed-Martin, in their site (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... usion.html), boasts
a) “Nuclear fusion is the process by which the sun works. Our concept will mimic that process within a compact magnetic container and release energy in a controlled fashion to produce power we can use.
b) A reactor small enough to fit on a truck could provide enough power for a small city of up to 100,000 people."

The irony of things going as they usually go, a scientist named Ian Hutchinson – that’s the Scottish version for “John Hutchinson”, which is a creepy close enough shave for "John Hutchison" ! - who is a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT and one of the principal investigators at the MIT fusion research reactor, says that “the type of confinement described by Lockheed has long been studied without much success.”

Well, Time will tell, will it not Ian/John ?

I tried to find what “type of confinement” meant.
It goes without much ado that all I could come up with was some sparse interviews and descriptions of no depth and even less interest. The following article, published by “The Enginneer” magazine October 2014, gives the more “in-depth” explanation I could find. It is not something up my alley. But maybe it’s (ahem) Up Yours !

So, you can (if interested !) read it here : http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/news- ... 93.article

And they have even patented this thing :
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2 ... 1517A1.pdf
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2 ... 1519A1.pdf
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Journals/2 ... cument.pdf

So,
Maybe there’s more than simple explanations about Lockheed-Martin‘s "Guns and Stuff".


I’d like to think there is.
I'm an optimist.

Ken Shoulders presented this to MIT in 2005
I suggest you pause the video and read carefully what is there
....of course, one could make it work in "reverse"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8kGY21lKLk

Video doesn't run ....

I guess the rebellious sort that I am, will allow me the opposing perspective regarding the Sun. Tesla asserts that it is an electric dynamo and after reading what Aspden had to say on the subject of the Sun and the temperatures and mass and rate of decay and yada yada.

I will agree with the good professor in that magnetic containment does not seem to be method to success.

In my limited sphere of hands-on I will postulate that static electric fields may offer the most promising results.

But hey! What do I know?

FM No Static At All wrote:I guess the rebellious sort that I am, will allow me the opposing perspective regarding the Sun. Tesla asserts that it is an electric dynamo and after reading what Aspden had to say on the subject of the Sun and the temperatures and mass and rate of decay and yada yada.

I will agree with the good professor in that magnetic containment does not seem to be method to success.

In my limited sphere of hands-on I will postulate that static electric fields may offer the most promising results.

But hey! What do I know?

they are building "suitcase size nuclear reactors" at CORVALIS.
we have tracked numerous leaks

Nancy_Hutchison wrote:
they are building "suitcase size nuclear reactors" at CORVALIS.
we have tracked numerous leaks

That may be true, but it's fission not fusion.