Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
RobertBryant
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat May 30, 2020 10:08 am
Real name: RobertBryant

Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by RobertBryant » Sat May 30, 2020 10:16 am

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.12849.pdf
E.V. Tsiper
e.tsiper@yahoo.com
(Dated: May 21, 2020)
A design principle is suggested to overcome obstacles that prevent positive net energy output in
nuclear fusion devices based on electrostatically accelerated ions.
Since Coulomb scattering crosssection dwarfs that of nuclear fusion, the focus is on re-capturing energy of elastically scattered ions
before the energy is lost to heat.
Device configuration to achieve efficient energy re-capturing is proposed and a favorable estimate of net energy gain is obtained

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by Dennis P Brown » Sat May 30, 2020 1:52 pm

First, I am treating your paper as a serious attempt to explain what your idea/goal is. Please do not take my questions as saying your idea isn't correct or fessible. That, however, is the problem I am facing with many aspects of the paper and I'd like you to better clarify the issues I am noting.

First, this statement puzzles me:

"The majority of the ions will not scatter or undergo fusion, but will de-celerate as they reach the opposite side of the chamber, returning their energy back to the cirquit(sic)."

How is this essential function going to be achieved? I assume (but maybe not) the word "circuit" was intended? If so, what circuit? If this essential energy recovery aspect is supposed to be achieved by your "Patent Pending", then ok; I understand it cannot be discussed but please wait until that is approved and then write your paper on this subject of claiming you can gain net energy. Otherwise, this is just unproven speculation and does not provide any new information. The very least one must offer real data demonstarting your proposed idea does work; even if the exact how is not revealed.

That said, I have no issue with it being posted here as a simple excerise in scattering concepts but your claims of gaining any net energy are totally unsupported and need to be removed.

You state that only fully elastic (exact head on) collisions are the only ones that allow your system to recover energy (and you say in the paper that this is the "focus of this work".) If so, you do realize that that type of collision almost never occurs compared to the many orders of magitude of ions that scatter inelasticly at all other angles? So, these very rare perfect head on collisions are essential for your proposed but unexplained process, then you really need to show (ignoring your patent pending recovery device is fine) what energy percent is recovered from these very rare ions and how that makes up for the massive losses that do occur.

Another issue in your paper that needs to be addressed because it is very misleading. You fail to meantion that direct collisons that over come the coulomb barrier (via KE alone) contribute almost zero fusion energy in a fusor. Essentially all energy is produce via tunneling (as the Sun does.) That is how fusors create their energy. Yes, that is still a type of 'collision' (off angle tunneling capture) but this tunneling process does not need to be head on to work (thank goodness) nor is that type of collison anywhere as common. That is why fusors work at only 20 kV.

You say: "these un-scattered ions can be made to hit the opposite cold ion injector, in which case these ions can be either collected ... ." Collect ? That does not make any sense from the context I read. What does that mean and how is that done?

You also state: "It is imperative to not allow the ions scattered at angles greater than some value (say, of the order of α) to return back to the chamber, as the next scattering event will not be head-on and will cause energy re-distribution ... ." How you can achieve that function without massive energy losses is not explained and makes that point mute, otherwise. So you really need to clarify that statement.

You claim that a fusor is within five orders of magitude of break even energy generation. I checked your reference on that claim and I do not see them make any such claim. Thier experimental results are nearly identical to the average fusor run here (they claim 5 x 10^4 neutrons/sec.) These are many more orders of magitude lower than even the five such orders below break even you said they achieved. Could you provide the correct location you reference in their paper to support that claim?

I will not further examin your paper's many issues (there still more) since the ones I am posting are extremely serious and should be addressed so one can understand what you are really trying to do.

Thank you for posting your initial paper. Again, I am not saying your paper is wrong but these issues are serious and should be addressed before one makes such significant claims. In any case, I am sure that after you clarify these points your idea for a better fusor will be both interesting and discused in a manner useful for us all.

RobertBryant
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat May 30, 2020 10:08 am
Real name: RobertBryant

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by RobertBryant » Sat May 30, 2020 11:59 pm

Its not my paper..
I noted the absence of detailed calculations as well.
Thanks for the response.
I think the author has not worked in research for while or in this field at all

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Evgueni_Tsiper

User avatar
Rich Feldman
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:59 pm
Real name: Rich Feldman
Location: Santa Clara County, CA, USA

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by Rich Feldman » Sun May 31, 2020 2:16 am

Hi Robert, and welcome to the forum.

You could have avoided some confusion in this thread, by having at least one sentence written by you
to introduce the Tsiper paper link. All I saw was a snip from what looks like Tsiper's abstract, without comment.
All models are wrong; some models are useful. -- George Box

RobertBryant
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat May 30, 2020 10:08 am
Real name: RobertBryant

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by RobertBryant » Sun May 31, 2020 3:30 am

Hi Rich

I am just reviewing the literature at the moment..
there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of new stuff

looking intially to see if Steve Sesselmann's quite high neutron rates at 5kev has some explanation..

Fred's fusor notes
http://www.fusor.eu/theory.html#Choice_of_Energy

show that the calculations for the fusor neutron rate are not a simple as just assuming the Coulomb equation

so I am working through that slowly..

some new plasma ( after two decades) work by Thomas Schenkel... financed by Google LLC ... also shows that the situation is complex..
with D3+ ions beeing a possiblity, also that 4kev and lower can give measurable neutron rates..

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.03400.pdf

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12742
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by Richard Hull » Sun May 31, 2020 6:03 am

I was rather intrigued by the arxiv paper, just above....

It appears to be little more than a paper on "how low can you go". A study in just how fine and accurately can a group measure fusion above a background floor. Palladium loading for all forms of hydrogen is well known and the tunneling effect is also well known. Here we have huge pressures (incredible fusion fuel densities) and rather tremendous ion currents, (lots of ionic reactions per unit volume) Is it any wonder that marked fusion is not seen over the same applied voltages in our low pressure, lower current fusors? The marked fusion is represented by a quoted 1n/s, 60cpm, in the later charts at 12.5 kv and high pressures and high pulsed currents! Nothing to write home to mom about. They seem to give the high efficiency 3He counter a tiny segment, but note that most of there best counting was done with the 10% efficient liquid scintillator which has issues with gamma detection to the point that a pulse shape recognition smart program is needed. I really did not like that a full measured fusion rate, (neutron count rate versus cathode voltage), chart was not shown for just the 3He detector by itself where gamma rejection is far greater than the scintillator.

For those neophytes on neutron measurement, this point is as serious as a heart attack!

The data handling here, for me, was a bit manipulative and suspect in spite of a seemingly tortured path favoring the scintillation detection. It seems in an effort to assure us of the veracity of the data, a very confused and tortured path was used while neglecting an obvious error barred count and chart from the obviously favored high efficiency neutron detection 3He detector.

I am worried about pulsed operation perhaps fouling the 3He detection noise floor to the point of no statistically viable result. Perhaps this is why they went with the less noise susceptible but more background gamma ridden scintillator. If so, they might have said this in plain terms. If this is the case, the ultimate reliance in the data is based solely on the viability and accuracy of the pulse shape detection software.

One thing all of us competent fusioneers know is that neutron measurement at the noise floor is not a place to find oneself or to merely read someone else's results near this floor and take for granted, but to critically weigh and consider. (adapted from Bacon's piece "On Studies")

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

RobertBryant
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat May 30, 2020 10:08 am
Real name: RobertBryant

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by RobertBryant » Sun May 31, 2020 8:16 am

The Schenkel study got a mention in Nature and was published in a journal quickly.. perhaps uncritically..

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5109445
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0530-1

The abstract says..

]For palladium targets, we find neutron yields as a function of cathode voltage that are over 100 times higher than yields expected for bare nuclei fusion at ion energies below 2 keV (center of mass frame). A possible explanation is a correction to the ion energy due to an electron screening potential of 1000 ± 250 eV, which increases the probability for tunneling through the repulsive Coulomb barrier.[/i][/i]

So they apparently could get neutrons at 3kEV and explained it by 1000 ev "screening"

Its good to get some critical opinion on the paper..such as the neutron measurement

I didn't register that the pressure was so high.. 0.1 to 2 Torr which is way above the base pressure of 10(-7) bar..

Livermore and other heavily financedphysics labs usually go the high energy route with Mev energies so the venture into the low keV region was new for them..

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by Dennis P Brown » Sun May 31, 2020 9:34 am

Besides providing an introduction and some explaination when posting others work it would best to review papers before posting so an extremely flawed ones like this are not posted. Still, I should have checked the aurthor vs. poster. I'll delete my post since it is both irrelavent and inappropriate.

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Sun May 31, 2020 9:56 am

Hello to all,

I read this interesting paper. It is based on the main hypothesis that two ions of the same mass and the same speed colliding head on
keep their energy (without any energy exchange) but change of direction (with probably small scattering angles).
For more information, see the Appendix D (Equilibrium of ions energy under Coulomb collisions) of the paper
http://f6cte.free.fr/Proposal_of_a_new_ ... _Rev_A.pdf

I did not understand all, perhaps because it misses a diagram of the device (reported to a patent pending (patent on an idea??)).

Note that the Gain/loss ratio formula (page 3) is wrong (in my opinion). The dE of the denominator must be replaced by E0 because
what must be considered is the energy necessary to bring these ions to the E0 energy not their "loss" dE.
So the G/L is in fact equal to 0.00364 Mu instead 2.8 Mu.
Moreover, dE is not clear for me as it does not really correspond to a "loss of energy" but to an exchange of energy between ions.

Patrick Lindecker

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12742
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor theory variant on arxiv.. EV Tsiper

Post by Richard Hull » Sun May 31, 2020 7:07 pm

I think that in spite of our not being anointed to the degree of some of the paper posters, We can comment and critically review any paper as long as our comments are taken for what value they contain, if any. I can see no need for deletions here. We are not contrarian for its sake, but merely questioning. This is the very basis for weighing and considering, so as to avoid blind acceptance because of some supposed or real elevated peerage.

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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Post Reply