Fusor Computer Modeling

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

The keys to a successful (physically meaningful) model or simulation are, first of all, having a specific problem that is within the domain of validity of the model, and second, furnishing a relevantly-accurate representation of the system being studied.

Often, our discussions about modeling don't begin with a clear statement of any problem. Instead, some powerful computer code or collection of codes are conceived of as virtual "black boxes" inside of which one can, apparently, synthesize reality to suit any and all information needs. And that's a total pipe dream:
You can't begin to talk about "how close" a model would come if a problem isn't defined. You can't meaningfully consider how to represent the system (does one ignore or not ignore gravity, the Uncertainty Principle, and all that other stuff in the list) if a problem isn't defined. And you can't propose what tool to use (SIMION, Poisson Superfish, etc.) if a problem isn't defined.

SIMION and Poisson Superfish are indeed applicable to SOME fusion-related questions. I have never heard of a "cloth simulator," though; Maybe it helps crackpot free-energy inventors pull the proverbial wool over their investors' eyes?

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Me personally I like to watch the pretty simulations and play with the possibilities the software provides :) It gives me ideas. It's fun :) and educational. Better models mean more meaningful results! I'm sure if your looking for magic in the software you wont find it! Because we would have to know the magic to program the software for it. It just a tool SIMION works if your doing beam simulations for sure. The idea is to advance the software for our thing.

Monroe
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

SIMION works if your doing beam simulations for sure.
Again, it depends entirely on the problem. It's useful for SOME beam transport simulations (often those without significant space charge effects or collisions or transient fields).

A hammer is useful for some repair tasks, but not for repairing fine bone china.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

So there is no possible chance for useful software for a fusor? BS There's plenty that could be done interesting and educational just based on fusor experiments you could make a simulator for various sizes voltages and currents and pressures with various grids ect.. that model what you can and cant do well. Hell you could make a spreadsheet that would help most guys make their first fusor. It doesn't have to be perfect lol just a guide.

Something that could be built upon made useful. It's not quite as easy as a tesla coil but it's not that big a deal you cant model it to help others decide what they want to build in a general way. These other tools like SIMION are far advanced for what I'm talking about anyway.

Why make it a big joke around here to do something useful?

At least make it easy to design a good neutron source. There's nothing hard about that!
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett »

Carl, is there some specific reason for the crackpot joke you'd like to elaborate on? I understand that there's a large number of them out there, and I'll probably come to understand this site is a magnet for them, but there's nothing particularly crack-potish about computer modelling of physical phenomena that I know about.

The problems of ICR are well-defined, I think, and I'd like to simulate all of the major ones, whatever the major ones may be. Finding out what those may be and how to do that is the point of this discussion, right?

I'd like to start by modeling a spherical apparatus with some disturbances to the sphere where there may be a window, gas valves, vacuum pump port, high-voltage feedline for the grid and any other disturbance others may think is necessary to model. I'd then like to introduce, with user-defined controls available, some number of deuterium atoms, some number of unwanted particles (oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, Argon, oil particles, whatever else experts here think would be relevant). I would like to have adjustable software controls on voltage and current on the grid and then set everything loose to interact. Each "step" of the program, the particles each judge the forces on them from each other item in the system, and set a velocity vector. Next step, re-evaluate based on present position and velocity. Probably Heisenberg's uncertainty will have to become involved there, with some randomizer algorithm tweaking the positions and/or velocities to simulate real uncertainty. That's what the purpose of the list is - which interactions are most important, and which don't matter? In my college days when I took Semiconductor Device Physics most all of our calculations showed that gravity was completely irrelevant. So maybe it's irrelevant at a range of 1 mm from another particle but relevant when there's some free space. Or maybe there's never more than a mm of free space. If no one knows, then that's fine, software can be designed to turn these controls on/off as their importance is shown or disproven (but it takes probably some significant computing time to show that).

The significance is that if this is feasible, 3D videos can be produced with open-source software that at least I understand (Blender 3D) and give some visibility to the interactions going on. I feel the most valuable question this would answer that so far it doesn't seem like is known, is where does the fusion occur most? In the transit zone between the shell and grid? Inside the plasma ball? On the grid itself? Answering those questions, which are of particular interest to me right now without having yet studied the problem much, would give me ideas about what changes to the apparatus might be effective to increase fusion.

Note: I am not a computer programmer, nor do I have personal experience with particle simulation, but I have read about it a lot and do understand math/physics/programming. Specialization is for insects. :)

EDIT:
I'm doing some investigating to see what the viability of this sort of model is with modern computers. This is not meant to be accurate, but a general, quick back of the envelope study.

At 10e-4 Torr, a 12" spherical chamber completely filled with deuterium following the ideal gas law has 9.6368727e16 deuterium atoms. We'll round that to 100 peta-particles, or if calculating for every particle on every step, 100 petacalculations per step. The Intel I7 4-core processor is available in a 3.9 GHz package with 187 GFLOPS of power. I'm going to make an assumption that floating point precision is useful for the model - it may require double floats. Who knows how many operations are required per particle-step without setting up an actual model, so I'm going to use a large number and assume 1000 operations. That reduces the number of particle-step calculations that can be done in a second to 187 million. That's 17 years to model one step of the entire system on a particle-by-particle basis on a crazy good home PC. The IBM roadrunner in Los Alamos would take around 28 hours per step.

That's a significant enough roadblock that I see significant modelling and simplification of a specific problem would need to take place, and free-particle simulation is not really viable. Maybe if we reduce to the scale of Iron Man's fusion power cell, it's something that could more easily be simulated. :)

I also found what may be a useful book to help model the problem.
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

It seems to me that to be meaningful, all these modeling discussions ought to start with:

What do I want to know, and how accurate or precise is good enough?


Instead, we invariably get into talking about tools. Sometimes very specific ones.

My point remains that you can't select (or build) the right tool without knowing what the job is.

Russ, toward the end of your own tool discussion, you hinted briefly at a real question: "where does the fusion occur most?" Let me focus on that as an example. The specifics of the question are of huge importance to the tractability of answering it with existing models or having a reasonable chance at a meaningful result from a custom approach. If one happens to know as an input specification the steady-state angular (w), energy-dependent (E), reactant particle flux F(r, w, E) at all locations r within the assumed system, then computing a spatial reaction rate at all r from the well-developed nuclear cross-section databases is likely to give predictions that are accurate enough for most practical information needs. But usually one does not know F(r, w, E) and implicitly wants to model this, too. In some apparatus, e.g. high-vacuum colliders with ion sources, the particle sources are well-defined; one can predict the fluxes using various techniques or can directly compute spatial reaction rates with a Monte Carlo approach. But what if you are interested in the "simple" Hirsch-type fusor that almost all hobbyists build? Holy shit, do you have a difficult problem to deal with! Fusors are often characterized by only a few macroscopic measured attributes, like voltage, total current, and pressure of a background gas. The flux of reactant particles is being generated throughout the reaction volume by a self-sustaining glow discharge, a complex soup of atomic physics processes. Predicting F(r, w, E) and somehow benchmarking that prediction against reality are massive challenges. Under certain favorable conditions, particle-in-cell codes can provide useful information in such a problem, but the capability is not generally well-developed. In fact, the cross-section measurements needed to support the atomic process simulations often don't even exist!

The question one asks and the input information one can provide about the physical reality of interest are central to any modeling exercise. Without specifics, there is nothing to talk about, no meat on the bone.

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Why not simulate the observed and forget about the physics that are so difficult then. I'm talking about a tool to help new folks build a fusor so they can make the observations themselves? Something that will advance what IS known. Something open source something that can be built upon. Rather than waste everyone's time with vagueness about generalities something quick to get to the point. If you make it so and put in X energy you can expect operation to be so.
I would hope it would get developed as computers advance and simulators advance to the point where they can simulate the harder physics. As I am sure without a doubt that will occur at some point maybe sooner rather than later. You have to start somewhere and starting with observed operation is better than nothing.
Right now the hardest thing to accomplish to launch big high powered rockets is 3 sigma dispersion analysis the FAA requires for launches. The software that does a mediocre monte carlo 3 sigma cost a grand. If your connected to DOD you can obtain TAOS (which the FAA uses) for free.

I'd rather get something started now to avoid similar things in the future here. Some of these young guy's are pretty sharp and they might pick up the ball on the harder programming if they have a place to start. The 3 Sigma dispersion analysis you can buy has been developed from a simple program called Rocksim and the original 3 Sigma was a free program called Splash.

All I know is nothing from nothing leaves nothing. I'd rather encourage someone to try the hard thing rather than say Oh it's too hard and Oh it's just not worth the effort. Because I think it is always better to try the hard thing even if you fail. You tried at some point someone will succeed! Standing on the shoulders of those before him. Give em something to stand on or all the research is for nothing! Today you need programs to teach because that's what the young use rather than books today like it or not. It needs to be fun to learn! Doesn't make it right it's just the way it is. You have to work with what you've got.

Monroe
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:24 pm
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett »

Carl, you're absolutely right, as I was able to discern from my back-of-the-envelope calculations. I need to read up on fusion modelling to decide for myself whether any sort of simulation at all is worthwhile to pursue for my purposes. Do you know of any particularly good books?
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

http://www.efda.org/fusion/focus-on-jet ... n-plasmas/ Here's a nice basic look at fusion modeling.

Monroe

What has happened here is I was talking about some basic modeling for fusor design and it got turned into a discussion about what someone else wanted. Indeed complete modeling of plasma physics is difficult. What I meant was something much simpler. However I would also like a complete model indeed and the more the better and eventually so.
Adding some of the effects from SIMION and such was just an idea I did not intend the model to be based on such advanced work, but I did get caught up in the idea. I guess I'll just have to write my own modeling software.

Sorry I even brought it up
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Carl Willis
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
Real name: Carl Willis
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Carl Willis »

some basic modeling for fusor design
What do you mean by this? If you can communicate clearly what you want out of this "basic modeling," then it will be infinitely easier for people in the community to point you in a viable direction (or tell you what the challenges are).

-Carl
Carl Willis
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/
TEL: +1-505-412-3277
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

I don't think the obvious needs an explanation! What the hell where they thinking? I wanted something that would require an army to develop? Nothing I'm into requires more than some collaboration between 3 or 4 guy's. I'm starting to rethink my participation here. What would I want to model everything we can within reason! DUH!

Monroe
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
jelopez777
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:39 pm
Real name: Jose Lopez

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by jelopez777 »

You have to start off with something, I would recommend modeling just one ion within an internal chamber and see what happens. You will find with one ion is a challenge already. Simulate a few random collisions along its path and see if you can achieve confinement. This will allow you to investigate basic variables such as chamber voltage, chamber shape and size. It will also allow you to understand what the problem is, a mandatory path towards the solution.
Jose Lopez
User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
Real name:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Chris Bradley »

Monroe Lee King Jr wrote:I don't think the obvious needs an explanation!
OK ... what do you say is the obvious mechanism by which fusible collisions occur?

Modelling is the process by which a model is reduced down to a mathematical form to make it tractable. You have to have a model you think, or want to test, before you can create a mathematical simulation.

In your case, I do feel you are now suffering from a problem that confronts the, let's say, 'more capable' and experienced person who contemplates building a fusor, which is that there are so many opportunities to do 'mini-projects' within the main project (that on the face of it looks quite simple) that you risk becoming continually distracted by 'other projects'.

You might find it is a whole lot easier to actually build a working fusor first, which will give you a visceral insight into the behaviour and operation of the device which pictures and words cannot relay. Most folks who run one, or similar device, get a 'feeling' about what is going on in it. If you get to that stage, then you can begin turning what you think is going on, your 'model', into a mathematical form. Without that step, it would be a hopeless venture to simply try to predict every particle and interaction in the operating space (which you would otherwise need to do if you cannot rationalise the significant mechanisms in your model).

Once you have a working fusor, you can then look at these other projects, trying to build a diffusion pump, etc.. If you try to do everything in one single project, I am fairly confident it will never get finished. Set your objective, set a plan to achieve it along the path of least resistance, then focus on that. If you let yourself get distracted in an uncontrolled manner, you'll not get anything done. Seems to me that you've set too many hares running now and are over-stretching yourself.
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Naa I can do it- watch me. I'm not happy without too many things to do. It will take longer but it's fun watching a critical mass develop. Round robin style :) little here little there it gets done. I'm still running a rocket and balloon program too! http://www.photostospace.com/launch-par ... rometheus/ And running a review of the VR Brain at DIY Drones. http://diydrones.com/group/ardupilot-space-program
working on a cold gas thruster system at Foxteam UAV Clan
http://www.virtualrobotix.com/group/team-prometheus
And a optical tracker with GPS back-up with optictracker
http://www.optictracker.com/Home.html
And perhaps a few other projects when people from those projects contact me I help them out too!
Team Prometheus is all I do 24/7 sometimes around the clock!
I do this all in my head without a notebook! I started a notebook for the fusor project! Because it's off my beaten path. Over the last 5 almost 6 years.


Monroe

I've been involved in several successful Kickstarters that went over $100,000 Like:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/575 ... t-in-space
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mic ... a-tethered
and we just won the DIY ROCKET contest with Team Sol-X @ http://www.openspaceuniversity.org/#!ro ... enge/c22xk
Oh yeah and I'm working on the gravity development board with Sol-X http://www.solarsystemexpress.com/gravi ... board.html

I'm busy on SKYPE! lol
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Richard Hull »

Models are only as good as the data fed to them and the parameters covered within them. Intimacy with all the processes and parameters are things only a hands-on guy can begin to explain to the sit-at-desk modeler. This is the weak link in the modeling chain.

Models can be very predictive when the variables are few and independent of each other. (not mutually interacting on or altering each other) variables changing other variables in a non-linear fashion is a crazy business. I think Bussard understood this at a core level.

The Tokamak boys and plasma physics guys, in general, have spent many years on models using some of the best computers available and the best minds working on those models. They have spent more time modeling than on hardware run time and we see how far they are along the road to fusion.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Tom McCarthy
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 3:36 pm
Real name: Tom McCarthy
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Tom McCarthy »

Speaking of plasma physics, is anybody involved with the Max Planck insitute for plasma physics in Germany?

Sorry to hijack the thread - I know I should be sticking to the subject or not posting, delete the post if you guys want to.

Tom
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

I think all that's needed for fusor modeling (for amateur fusor design) are the effects of voltage pressure, free space and grid size in the ranges used there is no need in other words for a 12" diameter chamber at 6kv at 10 micron. And you would expect to see x plasma density (from residual air in this case). I'm always into the minimal expenditure for maximum result with least effort within reason.

Monroe

One ion would be sufficient for such a model.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Richard Hull »

I fear the fact that you are new here leaves you open to a Cassandra-like overview of the operation of the simple fusor as built here. Those who have been here many years, who have done fusion and know the actual workings of the fusor realize the extreme complexity of its operation stemming solely from its very simplicity. There are no real controls, just variables. All of these are co-dependent and mutually interacting. These actions often operate in a contrarian manner to fusion while others are surprisingly helpful in ways not imagined at first glance.

Where is your posited single ion born or created in your fusor model's volume?

Those of some foreknowledge here know that deuterons are created all over the volume of the chamber. This fact alone sets a multitudinous ion lifetime and interaction paradigm that is virtually incalculable. The ion energy spectrum can be from 14 ev to that of the applied voltage. Fusion may be caused in any number of possible modalities and interactions.

It is a merry nightmare for a modeler who really comprehends the fusing/ion action within the device.

A simple model will always lie and be a non-starter, but perhaps leave the simple modeler smug and confident. A perfect setup for a fall when his hardware doesn't answer the model. Assuming the modeler continues to seek enriched understanding, there will begin a continuous, long term fight to understand what goes on in the fusor as relates to the many processes that allow it to fuse.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Well I'll join the fight then :) See what I can come up with.

Monroe

Ah these are quadrpole mass spectrometers yep I was looking at making one. I've seen one made I believe at the Bell Jar.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Richard Hull »

If you go to this URL

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/presentations/jfs_aps02.pdf

You will see the work done up to 2002 in a poster presented by the folks at U of W. It shows a segmented region of the fusor and what has been seen to that time in the D,e plasma models as found in our fusors. It ain't simple and they knew it. The poster shows it in, still, a rather simplified manner. Lots of other contributors, I am sure.

Ricahrd Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:57 pm
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr »

Neet O! But I don't think we need a complex model to judge the grid arrangement on the scale I'm looking for. I don't have time to look into it right now as I don't need it yet! But when I do I'll come up with something that will work I always do.

Monroe
Today's the Day! We go into Space!
JamesC
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:32 pm
Real name: James Caska

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by JamesC »

I was new once here too. Software simulation seems such an obvious step for such as seemingly simple device. What little I knew. Like many I was inspired by Dr Buzzards Google Presentation to investigate fusion. The fusor is a mixed blessing since it is in the range of the individual serious engineer to build and achieve fusion, it just needs to be tweaked.. right? Nope. I say mixed blessing because its also within range of every crackpot in town. This fusor list has a delicate balance to walk, without the interest of at least the possibility of a world changing breakthrough there would be no traffic to pontificate to. On the other hand let the trolls run amuck and the noise to information ratio makes the site worthless.

I happen to write simulation software for a living, my own electronics simulation software packages or rather mostly emulation. Its an important distinction on the one hand you model the fundamentals and let the behaviour emerge, on the other you model the behaviour itself.

To explore the fusor I started like I always do with things, in code. I can build 'real things' well enough but I am not in this to make 'yet another fusor'. For those of you thinking cool, there is going to be some code for me to play with at the end of this post. Sorry. Let me explain, mastering the fusor is not about getting some software that you think represents the real world and the tweaking away at the parameters until it spits out what seems to be your very own little Eureka break-through. That's just so not how this thing works.

>I feel the most valuable question this would answer that so far it doesn't seem like is known, is where does the fusion occur most? In the transit zone between the shell and grid? Inside the plasma ball? On the grid itself?

This is from earlier in this thread and its really an important point. The fusor is a highly dynamic system and there is absolutely no way in hell it can be tweaked to become a net energy device. At any given moment depending on the dominant transient parametrics you can get (microscopic) amounts of fusion in any of these ways. It a moving target, a dynamic chaotic system. Capturing this in software so you can tweak it is not a good use of software. You would end up making assumptions about what is happening and invalidate the result in any case.

Nevertheless software does have a critical role to play in exploring fusor like dynamic systems. But sorry, you have to write it yourself for it to have any value. Its actually the process of writing the software that gives you the understanding of the processes. So a few years ago I did that, wrote a N:N particle simulator toolkit for exploring the fusor. The way it works is that you create various software experiments and run them. It spits out results like this
Image

Actually I can't remember specifically this experiment. Its marked FICS in my toolkit (it was the last one I had loaded ) - so I think I remember I was trying to verify some of the principles of steves FICS setup.

I learned *a lot* about the fusor and dynamic particles in building the software and running the experiments. Here is a list of virtual experiments

'******* Tests **********
'testSynchronizer()
'testIonShaper()
'testElectronGlue2()
'demoBridge()
'demoStar()

'Test 1 with field..
'testFlat()
'testMagField()
'testSpin()
'testWave()
'testOscillator()
'testSynchronizer()

'testIonTrap()
'testElectronGlue()
'testIonTrap2()

'******* Experiments **********
' experiment = New IonTrapCoolor

' experiment = New MagneticLens2()
' experiment = New SwitchingCooler()
' experiment = New PathDampening()
' experiment = New DifferentialCompression2
' experiment = New MagneticLens()
' experiment = New EBDriftTrap()
' experiment = New DifferentialCompression
' experiment = New TargetTrap
' experiment = New SwitchingCirculiser()
' experiment = New EBDrift()
' experiment = New PingPong()
' experiment = New VelocityFocus()
' experiment = New VisualiseMagneticField
' experiment = New Cyclotron()
' experiment = New SpinningDisk
' experiment = New PulseSplitter
' experiment = New ForceBetweenChargedPlates

experiment = New FICS

For Each instrument As Instrument In experiment.getInstruments
Panel2.Controls.Add(instrument.create())
Next
experiment.runSim()

- you can see its for only for my use as a coder because instead of fancy user interfaces and select boxes I just have commented out the experiment when I created a new one.

So this my point, even if you go ahead and download a somewhat related open-source project its not going to be useful to you simply because you wont understand enough about its limitations and assumptions if you are only a user. All software of this type is based on assumptions all of which will invalidate the result if you are only trying to use it as a 'user'.

As for my take on the fusor. Its not a power device but it does give us hints and tangible starting place to begin building something. So this is how I use the software, not for modelling a fusor but for identify physically realisable building blocks for controlling the uncontrollable using symmetry and special case mathematics to "cross-out" the loss generating processes.

In fact I do have a design now based on my virtual experimentation, just maybe there is something in it. If I ever get my hands free for long enough I will invest in the proof of concept physical experiments to validate the building blocks of the design ( and will in the process of doing that no-doubt prove myself foolish ).

So in regard to software. Absolutely essential in my opinion but sorry its not a shortcut to glory, it *IS* the knowledge you seek and *you* have to write it to understand it enough for it to be useful.

JC
jelopez777
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:39 pm
Real name: Jose Lopez

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by jelopez777 »

I have a basic computer model of a single ion movement within a spherical fusor. I know most comments favor a fully populated ion simulation but that requires so much computing power as to be impractical. My approach is to study the movement of a single ion and introduce collisions and repulsions that are expected to occur within a fusor. I discovered soon enough the difficulty of containment, in other words preventing collisions with the sphere wall. I have since experimented with adding magnetic fields (the Bussard approach being one of them) with the simulations and discovered the Lorentz effect was even more counter productive. I have had better results with electromagnetic waves but the fusor diameter requirement grew in size to a full meter. I am now stuck, just like most experimenters, with no funds to build such a massive fusor. On the topic of funding simulations maybe it would be better to fund it not just for the simulation but also for the actual fusor to be built.
Jose Lopez
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”