Energy efficient proton production?
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
>6x(10^23) protons at 161keV=161kW
The energy needed to accelerate one such proton is 161 keV or equivalently 2.6E-14 joules. The energy needed to accelerate 6E+23 of them would be 6E+23*2.6E-14 = 15.6 GJ. If you define the proton current then you can calculate the beam power. Otherwise, units of power do not come out of your calculation.
Let's try the other one:
>6x(10^23) Alpha particles at 3.76MeV+12x(10^23) Alpha paricles at 2.46MeV= 8.68MegaWatts
The first particle has 3.76 MeV of kinetic energy or equivalently 6E-13 J. The second and third particle each have 2.46 MeV (4E-13 J). All three collectively have 6E-13 + 4E-13 + 4E-13 = 1.4 pJ. 6E+23 of a set of these three particles has 840 GJ. The calculated quantity as before has units of energy, not power. It also tells you nothing about where breakeven is. It tells you that N times the kinetic energy of one particle is the total kinetic energy of N particles. In other words...not much.
>Working on the fact that fission reactors are only 40% efficient at converting energy to electricity, Any proposed fusion reaction has to be at least 5% efficient to reach break-even
This makes no sense to me. A power plant of any kind has a thermal efficiency that is less than unity and that's about the only generalization that can be made. It need not be limited to 40%. High-temperature gas cycles can be more efficient; Rankine steam cycles tend to be much less efficient unless superheat is added to the steam. Point is, the heat source could have Q(out)/Q(in) be arbitrarily larger than 1 (e.g. 1.000000001) and still work, as long as the heat source is at a high enough temperature and the cold sink at a low enough temperature. Carnot's theorem and all.
P-B11 is a classic, hashish PIPEDREAM as we know it on this site. No member has built SQUAT that accomplishes it, or even tried. And yet, we keep rehashing basic thermo and Bert-and-Ernie math in the discussions. I'm not trying to get personal or display an unwelcoming attitude. (Maybe I am displaying an unwelcoming attitude?) The minute someone does their background research and makes a hardware commitment on a worthy p-B11 project I may stop looking down my nose every time I hear its name.
-Carl
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
I think you've missed the point, Carl....Either that or I have the wrong font.
-
David D Speck MD
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:05 pm
- Real name: David D. Speck MD
- Location: Auburn, NY
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
I was just reading the ORNL web page about their neutron spallation source. They dump 500 kW of protons into a target of liquid mercury to make a whole lotta neutrons in a hurry.
Of interest is the description of their proton source -- they negatively charge Hydrogen ions and accelerate them through a thin metal foil, which strips off the two electrons and leaves bare protons behind.
I wonder if this would be possible on an amateur scale.
Dave
Of interest is the description of their proton source -- they negatively charge Hydrogen ions and accelerate them through a thin metal foil, which strips off the two electrons and leaves bare protons behind.
I wonder if this would be possible on an amateur scale.
Dave
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Negative ions through a foil is, I thought, normally the way to make a neutral beam, not a charged particle beam? I wonder why it'd help to strip 2?
Ash, if you pile MW of protons at a piece of 11B, statistically speaking you'll end up with no fusion at all. Almost all, bar a trillionth, will just scatter around and generate heat [destructive to the boron]. You need to come to understand this. beam protons into a lump of something isn't a fusion reactor - it is merely the way you learn how unreactive that really is.
Ash, if you pile MW of protons at a piece of 11B, statistically speaking you'll end up with no fusion at all. Almost all, bar a trillionth, will just scatter around and generate heat [destructive to the boron]. You need to come to understand this. beam protons into a lump of something isn't a fusion reactor - it is merely the way you learn how unreactive that really is.
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Sorry, that happened when I tried to type Roman characters on a public Internet cafe computer here in Kobe, Japan. I thought I had it figured out because it looked right on my screen. Evidently not. I am going back to edit it now...
*Earlier post fixed. Small-to-medium-sized rant appended to it.*
*Earlier post fixed. Small-to-medium-sized rant appended to it.*
-
John Futter
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
- Real name: John Futter
- Contact:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Chris / Ash
Yes we use a negative ion source on our EN tandem
You have to to get the atoms De jour to go through it. A previous post from me on the activation of iron for wear coupons is a case in point for protons.
our unit uses an extremely thin carbon foil at the terminal in the middle of the machine to strip the electrons of the atoms selected, other machines use a recirculating gas stripper to do the same. The terminal is positive at 6MV so the ions get attracted towards it, on loosing their electrons going through the foil they want to get away from the positive terminal as they are now positively charged so the tandem gives a second 6MV push, the ions now have 12MV of push (for hydrogen) other elements of greater mass like silver we can strip more electrons off say up to 11 so the total acceleration is now 12, 1 going to the foil + 11 after the foil so you end up with a 72MeV silver beam.
Now back to your enquiry
If your ion source is working right the H2 will have been dissasociated into H+ ions. Neutral H2 if remaining will leak slowly out of the ion source and not be accelerated towards the H+ target area and will be pumped away and or mass selected by a Wein filter or mass selection magnet to make sure that only H+ ions get to the target.
Ash back to your previous answer/ question to my last post.
cold cathode or hot the ion source if working right keeps the ions bottled up in the centre via the external electromagnet so they do not touch the inner surfaces (anode) of the ion source. If the magnet is not strong enough the ion source interior would get sputtered by the active ions hitting it ( although the sputtering yield for H+ is lousy) For the back cathode and the front cathode (the one with the hole in it to extract the ions we use a material with high work function) we use Aluminium or Tantalum.
The cathodes have to be replaced every 100 hours of running but the anode surfaces only need a clean and this is when using Argon not hydrogen.
Our other accelerator the KN (single ended machine) uses H2, He, He3, D2 in an Rf excited ion source this ion source runs for about 18 months continuously before it needs service.
Remember the more + ions you produce the more they push against each other (repulsion) which means an ion source producing more needs a greater mag field to keep them compressed to the middle section. Also extracted beams of higher ion current will defocus further due to the same repulsive forces.
Yes we use a negative ion source on our EN tandem
You have to to get the atoms De jour to go through it. A previous post from me on the activation of iron for wear coupons is a case in point for protons.
our unit uses an extremely thin carbon foil at the terminal in the middle of the machine to strip the electrons of the atoms selected, other machines use a recirculating gas stripper to do the same. The terminal is positive at 6MV so the ions get attracted towards it, on loosing their electrons going through the foil they want to get away from the positive terminal as they are now positively charged so the tandem gives a second 6MV push, the ions now have 12MV of push (for hydrogen) other elements of greater mass like silver we can strip more electrons off say up to 11 so the total acceleration is now 12, 1 going to the foil + 11 after the foil so you end up with a 72MeV silver beam.
Now back to your enquiry
If your ion source is working right the H2 will have been dissasociated into H+ ions. Neutral H2 if remaining will leak slowly out of the ion source and not be accelerated towards the H+ target area and will be pumped away and or mass selected by a Wein filter or mass selection magnet to make sure that only H+ ions get to the target.
Ash back to your previous answer/ question to my last post.
cold cathode or hot the ion source if working right keeps the ions bottled up in the centre via the external electromagnet so they do not touch the inner surfaces (anode) of the ion source. If the magnet is not strong enough the ion source interior would get sputtered by the active ions hitting it ( although the sputtering yield for H+ is lousy) For the back cathode and the front cathode (the one with the hole in it to extract the ions we use a material with high work function) we use Aluminium or Tantalum.
The cathodes have to be replaced every 100 hours of running but the anode surfaces only need a clean and this is when using Argon not hydrogen.
Our other accelerator the KN (single ended machine) uses H2, He, He3, D2 in an Rf excited ion source this ion source runs for about 18 months continuously before it needs service.
Remember the more + ions you produce the more they push against each other (repulsion) which means an ion source producing more needs a greater mag field to keep them compressed to the middle section. Also extracted beams of higher ion current will defocus further due to the same repulsive forces.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
John Futter wrote:
> Remember the more + ions you produce the more they push against each other (repulsion) which means an ion source producing more needs a greater mag field to keep them compressed to the middle section.
Do you get involved in the actual calculations looking at ion denisties? Various reading suggests the Brillouin limit is the one applicable to anaylsis of such situations - I believe - but I've also read academic treatments and experiments that say it can be a few orders of mag better than Brillouin suggests - and other that say the precise opposite!! What is your feeling for 'n' for a given B? Is Brillouin generally right, in practice?
> Remember the more + ions you produce the more they push against each other (repulsion) which means an ion source producing more needs a greater mag field to keep them compressed to the middle section.
Do you get involved in the actual calculations looking at ion denisties? Various reading suggests the Brillouin limit is the one applicable to anaylsis of such situations - I believe - but I've also read academic treatments and experiments that say it can be a few orders of mag better than Brillouin suggests - and other that say the precise opposite!! What is your feeling for 'n' for a given B? Is Brillouin generally right, in practice?
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
"I was just reading the ORNL web page about their neutron spallation source. They dump 500 kW of protons into a target of liquid mercury to make a whole lotta neutrons in a hurry."
RAL use a similar system, but they use a Tungsten target....I have photos of it that I took while installing it, (the most recent ones were taken a few days before they first fired the proton beam to target) but I'm still trying to work out how to upload pics here.
(I also have photos of the beryllium neutron moderators, and the rest of their target system)
"they negatively charge Hydrogen ions and accelerate them through a thin metal foil, which strips off the two electrons and leaves bare protons behind. "
Thanks for that advice, I though something like that would be possible.
RAL use a similar system, but they use a Tungsten target....I have photos of it that I took while installing it, (the most recent ones were taken a few days before they first fired the proton beam to target) but I'm still trying to work out how to upload pics here.
(I also have photos of the beryllium neutron moderators, and the rest of their target system)
"they negatively charge Hydrogen ions and accelerate them through a thin metal foil, which strips off the two electrons and leaves bare protons behind. "
Thanks for that advice, I though something like that would be possible.
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
"if you pile MW of protons at a piece of 11B, statistically speaking you'll end up with no fusion at all. Almost all, bar a trillionth, will just scatter around and generate heat [destructive to the boron]. You need to come to understand this. beam protons into a lump of something isn't a fusion reactor - it is merely the way you learn how unreactive that really is. "
I did rather suspect that may be the case, but wondered if the energy levels of the protons were high enough (Giga-Watts?), that maybe the impact ebergy would be sufficient. While I respect your reasoning and advice, Do we know this for certain until it has been tried?
RAL use a solid Tungsten target for their beam, (I can look up the energies involved if you are interested), this produces 'a lot' of neutrons, which, after moderation, are then used to create pions, which, in turn, create muons. One of the things they are doing (RIKEN-RAL) is 'muon catalyzed fusion', which, although it is not what this site is about, may be of interest to some here.
http://riken.nd.rl.ac.uk/ral.html
I did rather suspect that may be the case, but wondered if the energy levels of the protons were high enough (Giga-Watts?), that maybe the impact ebergy would be sufficient. While I respect your reasoning and advice, Do we know this for certain until it has been tried?
RAL use a solid Tungsten target for their beam, (I can look up the energies involved if you are interested), this produces 'a lot' of neutrons, which, after moderation, are then used to create pions, which, in turn, create muons. One of the things they are doing (RIKEN-RAL) is 'muon catalyzed fusion', which, although it is not what this site is about, may be of interest to some here.
http://riken.nd.rl.ac.uk/ral.html
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Ash Small wrote:
> "if you pile MW of protons at a piece of 11B, statistically speaking you'll end up with no fusion at all. Almost all, bar a trillionth, will just scatter around and generate heat [destructive to the boron]. You need to come to understand this. beam protons into a lump of something isn't a fusion reactor - it is merely the way you learn how unreactive that really is. "
> Do we know this for certain until it has been tried?
Yes. Definitely. It was the first approach ever tried, by Oliphant, and, fortunately for him I guess, the rate of fusion reactions did not produce enough energy to provide an excess of energy to keep the reaction going. This is just what a fusor does, and does it with a 1E-9 inefficiency.
The way physicists refer to it is simply to say "cross-section[scattering]>>cross-section[fusion]" meaning a nucleus will scatter of another waaaaaay more often than it will fuse, so all that almost all the scattered energy just ends up as heat rather than powering a fusion reaction. So if you see "sigma[scattering]>>sigma[fusion]" in anything you read on the subject, then it's their shorthand for saying "beam-target fusion? you gotta be kidding".
....and that's not even counting the electrons that soak up the particles energy from ionisation.....
> "if you pile MW of protons at a piece of 11B, statistically speaking you'll end up with no fusion at all. Almost all, bar a trillionth, will just scatter around and generate heat [destructive to the boron]. You need to come to understand this. beam protons into a lump of something isn't a fusion reactor - it is merely the way you learn how unreactive that really is. "
> Do we know this for certain until it has been tried?
Yes. Definitely. It was the first approach ever tried, by Oliphant, and, fortunately for him I guess, the rate of fusion reactions did not produce enough energy to provide an excess of energy to keep the reaction going. This is just what a fusor does, and does it with a 1E-9 inefficiency.
The way physicists refer to it is simply to say "cross-section[scattering]>>cross-section[fusion]" meaning a nucleus will scatter of another waaaaaay more often than it will fuse, so all that almost all the scattered energy just ends up as heat rather than powering a fusion reaction. So if you see "sigma[scattering]>>sigma[fusion]" in anything you read on the subject, then it's their shorthand for saying "beam-target fusion? you gotta be kidding".
....and that's not even counting the electrons that soak up the particles energy from ionisation.....
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Carl, firstly, I don't claim to fully understand he maths involved, however your reply does not give figures for input energy versus output energy (theoretical) for this reaction.I'm curious to know what the theoretical figures are, and was hoping some-one would 'correct me', or at least start a debate on the subject.
My figures were based (loosely) on what has been published by Tom Ligon and Robert W Bussard, who, would appear to have convinced the US govt. that It will work (although I am dubious about their proposal to convert the energy directly to electricity)
I would have assumed, from the 'hype' of the British Govt in the past, that the theoretical 'payback' of a fusion reactor would be considerably higher than fifty-fold, although this will obviously depend on the reaction concerned. I assume those involving large amounts of neutrons have a higher theoretical payback, but I'm only guessing here.
There seems to be a consensus, particularly on this site, that ITER and DEMO will be destroyed by neutron bombardment from the inside out, so proton-boron 11 has to be considered, along with others, if the claims of Bussard and others are true, even if neutrons give more theoretical energy.
While I'm aware that some power stations have run at over 60% efficiency, they have all 'broken' as a result. I was being conservative with my estimates.
Finaly, it wouldn't be much of a 'forum for debate' if we all agreed all the time. I respect your right to your opinions, and I also respect your opinions in their own right.
If we are not 'collectively' working towards a solution, then all we are really doing is contributing to global warming, etc..
My figures were based (loosely) on what has been published by Tom Ligon and Robert W Bussard, who, would appear to have convinced the US govt. that It will work (although I am dubious about their proposal to convert the energy directly to electricity)
I would have assumed, from the 'hype' of the British Govt in the past, that the theoretical 'payback' of a fusion reactor would be considerably higher than fifty-fold, although this will obviously depend on the reaction concerned. I assume those involving large amounts of neutrons have a higher theoretical payback, but I'm only guessing here.
There seems to be a consensus, particularly on this site, that ITER and DEMO will be destroyed by neutron bombardment from the inside out, so proton-boron 11 has to be considered, along with others, if the claims of Bussard and others are true, even if neutrons give more theoretical energy.
While I'm aware that some power stations have run at over 60% efficiency, they have all 'broken' as a result. I was being conservative with my estimates.
Finaly, it wouldn't be much of a 'forum for debate' if we all agreed all the time. I respect your right to your opinions, and I also respect your opinions in their own right.
If we are not 'collectively' working towards a solution, then all we are really doing is contributing to global warming, etc..
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
"the rate of fusion reactions did not produce enough energy to provide an excess of energy to keep the reaction going."
You may have mis-inderstood. I'm not suggesting that this would trigger a 'chain reaction'.....just a sort of 'energy amplifier. It needs a constant supply of protons to initiate 'reactions'....Alhough I can accept that, no mater how high the energy of the proton, inless ot is a 'head on' collision, the proton will 'glance off'.....however, if the energy level was sufficiently high, ot could still have enough energy for fusion even after 'several' glancing blows. The 'success rate' needn't be a very high percentage to reach 'break even'.
Can you explain what happens with the proton beam to target at RA? I installed this target station last year. (target station 2). The target is Tungsten, and it gives off neutrons, I'm assuming that the neutrons are 'knocked off' the nucleus, rather than being expelled due to a fusion event, but what happens to the protons?...Where do they end up?
You may have mis-inderstood. I'm not suggesting that this would trigger a 'chain reaction'.....just a sort of 'energy amplifier. It needs a constant supply of protons to initiate 'reactions'....Alhough I can accept that, no mater how high the energy of the proton, inless ot is a 'head on' collision, the proton will 'glance off'.....however, if the energy level was sufficiently high, ot could still have enough energy for fusion even after 'several' glancing blows. The 'success rate' needn't be a very high percentage to reach 'break even'.
Can you explain what happens with the proton beam to target at RA? I installed this target station last year. (target station 2). The target is Tungsten, and it gives off neutrons, I'm assuming that the neutrons are 'knocked off' the nucleus, rather than being expelled due to a fusion event, but what happens to the protons?...Where do they end up?
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
John, Thanks...That's a very informative post.
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Would this not also depend on how quickly they are accelerated away from the source?...The slower they are accelerated away, the greater the concentraion, and vice versa.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Ash Small wrote:
> "the rate of fusion reactions did not produce enough energy to provide an excess of energy to keep the reaction going."
> You may have mis-inderstood. I'm not suggesting that this would trigger a 'chain reaction'.....just a sort of 'energy amplifier.
No, I understood, just a comment to reflect the total lack of efficiency of the process.
> It needs a constant supply of protons to initiate 'reactions'....Alhough I can accept that, no mater how high the energy of the proton, inless ot is a 'head on' collision, the proton will 'glance off'.....however, if the energy level was sufficiently high, ot could still have enough energy for fusion even after 'several' glancing blows. The 'success rate' needn't be a very high percentage to reach 'break even'.
I didn't say "cross-section[scattering]>>cross-section[fusion]" meant there was no future for considering alternatives, just that it's a tough nut to crack and there is currently no substantiated, viable way forward with it. I've done my best with my own discussions on breaking through this issue;
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7183#p49055
but it is still unsubstantiated and the calcs. show you're only gonna get to a max of something like Q=3 anyway, even if there is a way to do what I suggest.
So what you're saying is right, protons will scatter and get a few 'stabs' at fusion, but the probability is a billion billionths and they get a hundred scatters before they've lost all their energy (these numbers are indicative of what can happen... you can do the calcs for yourself if you think they're not very accurate, but they're about right for, e.g. a fusor at a few 10's keV).
>
> Can you explain what happens with the proton beam to target at RA? I installed this target station last year. (target station 2). The target is Tungsten, and it gives off neutrons, I'm assuming that the neutrons are 'knocked off' the nucleus, rather than being expelled due to a fusion event, but what happens to the protons?...Where do they end up?
They'll loose their energy and take up an electron. Hydrogen embrittlement will result. Some might stay stuck in the target nucleii - all manner of things, I can imagine, but there are others far more able to say, mine are only guesses as I don't really need to know much more detail than that.
> "the rate of fusion reactions did not produce enough energy to provide an excess of energy to keep the reaction going."
> You may have mis-inderstood. I'm not suggesting that this would trigger a 'chain reaction'.....just a sort of 'energy amplifier.
No, I understood, just a comment to reflect the total lack of efficiency of the process.
> It needs a constant supply of protons to initiate 'reactions'....Alhough I can accept that, no mater how high the energy of the proton, inless ot is a 'head on' collision, the proton will 'glance off'.....however, if the energy level was sufficiently high, ot could still have enough energy for fusion even after 'several' glancing blows. The 'success rate' needn't be a very high percentage to reach 'break even'.
I didn't say "cross-section[scattering]>>cross-section[fusion]" meant there was no future for considering alternatives, just that it's a tough nut to crack and there is currently no substantiated, viable way forward with it. I've done my best with my own discussions on breaking through this issue;
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7183#p49055
but it is still unsubstantiated and the calcs. show you're only gonna get to a max of something like Q=3 anyway, even if there is a way to do what I suggest.
So what you're saying is right, protons will scatter and get a few 'stabs' at fusion, but the probability is a billion billionths and they get a hundred scatters before they've lost all their energy (these numbers are indicative of what can happen... you can do the calcs for yourself if you think they're not very accurate, but they're about right for, e.g. a fusor at a few 10's keV).
>
> Can you explain what happens with the proton beam to target at RA? I installed this target station last year. (target station 2). The target is Tungsten, and it gives off neutrons, I'm assuming that the neutrons are 'knocked off' the nucleus, rather than being expelled due to a fusion event, but what happens to the protons?...Where do they end up?
They'll loose their energy and take up an electron. Hydrogen embrittlement will result. Some might stay stuck in the target nucleii - all manner of things, I can imagine, but there are others far more able to say, mine are only guesses as I don't really need to know much more detail than that.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
I don't think so, but I don't know and would be interested to hear how to calculate likely ion concentrations in a, e.g., anode layer source.
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
This is a hobby community. We don't work collectively towards a solution to anything. We work individually. Or more accurately, we play. Some play with neutrons. Some play with plasma phenomena. A few are interested explicitly in solving the energy crisis with fusion and maybe one or two of those types have built something that actually does fusion.
>your reply does not give figures for input energy versus output energy (theoretical) for this reaction
That is a bit irrelevant if getting units correct and doing a multiplication problem are a stretch! Also, there is no one solution to the question of what the "theoretical" input vs. output energy is. It is driven by circumstances particular to the method. So many rustlings about the putative virtues of p-B11 fusion have come blustering through this forum with not a single sycophant committed enough to the cause to build anything! Armchair physics. I've watched many years of this.
It's up there with shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings. Every few months, the time has come to talk about it. Time never comes to do something other than move jaw on it though. Why reopen the debate? Don't our voluminous archives do it justice, at least in light of the vacuum of actual practical involvement with the subject?
-Carl
>your reply does not give figures for input energy versus output energy (theoretical) for this reaction
That is a bit irrelevant if getting units correct and doing a multiplication problem are a stretch! Also, there is no one solution to the question of what the "theoretical" input vs. output energy is. It is driven by circumstances particular to the method. So many rustlings about the putative virtues of p-B11 fusion have come blustering through this forum with not a single sycophant committed enough to the cause to build anything! Armchair physics. I've watched many years of this.
It's up there with shoes and ships and sealing wax and cabbages and kings. Every few months, the time has come to talk about it. Time never comes to do something other than move jaw on it though. Why reopen the debate? Don't our voluminous archives do it justice, at least in light of the vacuum of actual practical involvement with the subject?
-Carl
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
I can't say I disagree with you, Chris...... And I'm not even going to bother suggesting a fusor with a central cathode made of crystalline boron 11.
It looks like the MaGrid/Polywell is the only way to go.....
It looks like the MaGrid/Polywell is the only way to go.....
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
That would probably be a function of charge (voltage), vacuum,teperature of anode and size. Do you mean +ions radiated by, or -ions attracted by the anode?
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
Like I said, I based my calculations on those of Robert W Bussard, as published by Tom Ligon. Bussard's fusor has, I understand, $200,000,000 funding from US Govt to achieve proton-boron 11 fusion. Busard contributed to this site before he died, and Tom Ligon has discussed this topic in detail on this site and has been published elsewhere.
Bussard's fusor is an electromagnetic fusor, as opposed to an electrostatic fusor, otherwise it is identical to other fosors on this site, just a bit bigger than most (3m x 3m x 3m MaGrid).
The general consensus is that, using duterium/tritium as a fuel, the fusor would self destruct in a very short time, due to internal neutron bombardment.
I may be repeating what others have said elsewhere.
This is, after all, what the purpose of the fusor is, to produce power through fusion without self-destructing.
Bussard's fusor is an electromagnetic fusor, as opposed to an electrostatic fusor, otherwise it is identical to other fosors on this site, just a bit bigger than most (3m x 3m x 3m MaGrid).
The general consensus is that, using duterium/tritium as a fuel, the fusor would self destruct in a very short time, due to internal neutron bombardment.
I may be repeating what others have said elsewhere.
This is, after all, what the purpose of the fusor is, to produce power through fusion without self-destructing.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
No, I think it'd just be a function of magnetic field.
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
I think I mis-understood your question, crossed threads. I can see what you mean now. The magnetic field required to constrict the ions.
btw, I can see from your maths that the protons would need a HUGE amount of energy in order to maintain sufficient velocity to attain a sufficient number of collisions to reach break even. Like I said earlier, I wasn't going to attempt to do the maths until I had some idea of the losses involved.
Do you think the WB-8 and WB-9 polywells will achieve proton-boron 11 fusion?
btw, I can see from your maths that the protons would need a HUGE amount of energy in order to maintain sufficient velocity to attain a sufficient number of collisions to reach break even. Like I said earlier, I wasn't going to attempt to do the maths until I had some idea of the losses involved.
Do you think the WB-8 and WB-9 polywells will achieve proton-boron 11 fusion?
Re: Energy efficient proton production?
why dont u try to make a new element thats more efficiant and is capable of using all the energy it creates and has minimum waste produce.