Not a reactor. No fission or fusion, it is a quantum battery, encouraging electrons to drop to lower orbitals, releasing 60x the energy needed to \’encourage\’ them.

Would be quite useful perhaps for Project Prometheus.

They say they are using Halfnium, not Naquadria, however ;-)

It\’s \”hafnium\” not \”halfnium\”. That may account for some of your search difficulties. Scientists are unsure as to whether a nucleonic reactor could produce the thermal output to maintain jet propulsion. And for steve - a reactor is any device built to contain and promote a reaction. It is not inherently nuclear - I work with reactors all the time in the chemistry lab.

An informative article on this subject can be found in the May 2004 issue of Popular Mechanics. It elaborates more on the same information presented in the above emails.

http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Tutorial.htm

This provides an explaination of the process involved

It’s wierd as hell that there doesn’t seem to be ANY mention of this technology on ANY official site! I’m buzzed about this thing and nobody seems to have any site on it!!! All I can find are message boards and articles! Whatever, maybe the Air Force is keeping it quiet for a reason, but then how’d Popular Mechanics find out about it?

Dan

how is heat generated in the heat exchanger by the emmited gamma rays?

how can the emmited gamma rays be used to produce a jet of heated air to drive the jet engine?

someone plz dare to answer this if u can and send this answer to shrimanamit2004@yahoo.com.

It’s similar to the micro-waves in your micro-wave oven. Gamma rays have a huge amount of energy that heat any molecules they come into contact with. They are very dangerous to living animals as they will kill living cells.

The heat exchanger is simply a principle where the gamma rays aren’t directly exposed to the air outside. You want to keep gamma rays contained so they don’t harm living beings. The heat exchanger is simply a process by which the gamma rays heat something up and this heat alone is moved out from the dangerous environment (where the gamma rays are) into a safer environment (like a jet engine). Air is then heated and it expands. The motion of movin hot air then runs a turbine like any conventional jet engine.

If you understand how jet engines work, how your micro-wave oven works and how simple heat exchangers work, you can understand this hafnium based powerplant. It’s really quite simple. Just do a bit of research at the included link. So easy a 10 year old can get it!

We know about the big power potential of this new system. My biggest question is: how much power per pound of hafnium 178 can you really get befroe it’s depleated? At over $100/pound, hafnium 178 isn’t cheap. But if it can produce a huge amount of power over a long term, it might be much more cheaper than other forms of producing power. Replace the jet engine with an electric generator/turbine combo and you could have a nice powerplant. We know it’s safer than fission based nuclear reactors, but it could possibly turn out to be even cheaper too! I doubt it though! But I want Power per pound to dollars figures to compare first before I know fo sure.

Here’s a comparission of power vs weight:

Best Batteries - 300 Wh/Kg
Fuel Cells (aluminum) - 4,000 Wh/kg
Isomer Nucleonic - 800,000,000 Wh/Kg
Fusion - 90,000,000,000 Wh/Kg

These are Watt/Hours of power per kilogram. “Isomer Nucleonic” is this new “Quantum Reactor”. So it’s not as power as fusion, nor fission I’m sure, just as I expected.

Still, compare it to batteries or even a fuel cell. Holy crap that’s a lot of power!!!! If you can build the exchanger, turbine etc. for a fraction of the cost of a nuclear reactor, it might actually be more cost effective in the long run, not to mention safer than nuclear reactors on such things as submarines and aircraft carriers.

You will also have to factor in the cost of storing the nuclear waste that is produced by conventioinal nuclear reactors vs. the cost of storing spent hafnium.

So, I am reading that 2.2 pounds of has the energy potential of 800 Megawatts?

an idea, instead of heating plain air to power a jet, why not use it it seriously amp up a rocket? Take the exhaust gases, expose them to ultra-high amounts of gamma radiation to where they’re heated up significantly more, and voila, rocket exhaust on steroids. Hotter, faster expansion, and I don’t even know if this would work seeing as this idea would rely on the ability to orient gamma radiation as not to melt the engine walls, and to heat gasses very quickly in less than a microsecond (with air flying through in the order of a few mach).

Hafnium reactors could seriously cut air travel costs, and more importantly cut the dammage caused by air travel to the environment.
on a side note, its a shame we cant harnese the power released in nuclear waste… If its radioactive enough to be harmful, it must still have alot of energy to be tapped

I’m very interested in the Zeusers microwave jet and powerturbine theory.
I’ve worked as a technician and overhauler
on General Electric jet turbine powerplants. Everything from CF6-6 through -80’s , J79’s , & F404’s aircraft engines along with LM5000 & LM2500 utility powerturbine engines. I’ve have studied and researched jet powerturbine
alternatives for about 14 years now. The
uses of microwaves to produce heat energy has some similarity to my theory.
My theory is to uses radiowaves or microwaves to ionize gases to develope
thermal energy. And transfer that thermal energy through cyclonic convection.

I believe that this is probably a case of emerging technology that has been quickly hushed up due to its obvious millitary implications. Imagine a hafnium powered gamma ray cannon if you will.

step one
- shut up anyone credible that might confirm viability

step two
- Credible sources debunk said viability
step three

- develope technology under cloak of plausible deniability

In the early days of the manhattan project someone published a detailed description of a nuclear bomb in a sci-fi pulp magazine which atracted the attention of the FBI, soon after all technical papers and publications having even a hint of info about the technology were quietly confiscated for National Security reasons.

However - you people seem to ignore 1 ‘little’ problem/issue : How on earth will one contain/control/direct gama rays? Is meaningless to say in here who I am or what I do - one fact I will point out thou. Gamma rays go straith, right tru anything and everything. They only can be stopped ! No bending, no turning, no focusing, no re-directing, no nothing ! And even the stopping isn’t a child’s play. Depending on intensity/strength one will need lots and lots of very dens and preferably inert material (hmmm lead comes to mind) to get the job done ! Never the less - a very interesting idea - if one at all.

I myself had to laugh a little when i heard the name of this thing, and of course i “googled” it to make shure it wasn’t fake. later on i became pretty interested in it as well, and if you know how to do your research you would know that it is not just the Air Force that started this work. It started at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. I forget the man’s name, but he’s a Sergant in the AF working at Wright Pat. He is supposedly the guy behind it. i read one or two people believe the air force is trying to hide this technology. i work for the air force myself. it is not likely they want to hide this from the public. the air force is probably still trying to assess wheather they want to invest into this project. the last source i heard from said they are wanting to put it into jet engines to see if they can at least make our current jet’s more efficient. one statment i do agree with is that the sources have gone a little dry, but probably due to the man behind the program at wright pat. either way, this project looks very promising, and i will keep my ear out till i hear something new about it. there are also some people wanting to power a craft remotely by ground, using induction. much like the way those new motorized toothbrushes work, they can recharge on it’s stand without any metal contact. look it up,….if you can.