Hello, everyone
I was wondering if fusion can occor in a collision between a deutron and a Deutrium-molecule, or is this prevented by the electrons around the molecule.
It seems to me, that's a reaction that could happen in a fusor, but of course i'm not sure.
collision between Deutron and D2?
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Absolutely! If the dueteron has enough energy it can fuse with molecular deuterium. All fusions are probabilities and the probability increases with increasing energy, temperature. particle density and confinement times.
Energy and tempearture are the same, effectively. However, the energy in the IEC concept is DIRECTED, electrostatic kinetic energy and is not random motion heat, nor maxwellian .
The sun is far too cold to do fusion well. It is really a terrible fusion engine on a volumetric basis! Why it fuses at all is due solely to the near infinite confinment times at only warmish nuclear nuclear temps coupled with quintillions of tons of stuff colliding all the time in an incredible dense soup.
Richard Hull
Energy and tempearture are the same, effectively. However, the energy in the IEC concept is DIRECTED, electrostatic kinetic energy and is not random motion heat, nor maxwellian .
The sun is far too cold to do fusion well. It is really a terrible fusion engine on a volumetric basis! Why it fuses at all is due solely to the near infinite confinment times at only warmish nuclear nuclear temps coupled with quintillions of tons of stuff colliding all the time in an incredible dense soup.
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
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
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Does the presence of the electron(s) make any differrence as to how the reaction proceeds?
I've been wondering whether there is any noticeable difference between a fusion reaction caused by two ions colliding and one in which an ion collides with a neutral, which the UoW report states is the most common mode in their IEC fusion experiments.
IJV
I've been wondering whether there is any noticeable difference between a fusion reaction caused by two ions colliding and one in which an ion collides with a neutral, which the UoW report states is the most common mode in their IEC fusion experiments.
IJV
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
The single electron in deuterium should not impact the fusion process at all. It would be blasted away instantly upon even most neutral-neutral collisions in a D2 fusion chamber. (most neutrals are whacked about pretty badly in the fusor and you can bet that most are fairly energetic.
Certainly, a high speed deuteron impacting, in most any fashion, with a neutral would blow the electron off with ease. Fusion energy deuterons hitting neutrals wouldn't even see the electron as being extant.
Of course there is the grand complication of water molecules, (most common gas in any evacuated chamber), nitrogen, oxygen, etc. I bet 98% of the electrostatically accelerated collisions in a simple amateur fusor are deuteron-neutral collisions where the neutral is NOT deuterium!
Richard Hull
Certainly, a high speed deuteron impacting, in most any fashion, with a neutral would blow the electron off with ease. Fusion energy deuterons hitting neutrals wouldn't even see the electron as being extant.
Of course there is the grand complication of water molecules, (most common gas in any evacuated chamber), nitrogen, oxygen, etc. I bet 98% of the electrostatically accelerated collisions in a simple amateur fusor are deuteron-neutral collisions where the neutral is NOT deuterium!
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
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
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
First of, thanks for the replies.
IMO this reaction is really simple to achieve, though not in a fusor. more likely in a device similar to a cyclotron. Accelerating a deutron to the speed where it has enough energy to fuse with a deutrium molecule can be done in millimeters-distance between the electrodes. after that the deutron can be kept at this energy in a magnetic field. The particle will move in a circle.If the entire operation is performed in a environment of some D2 the deutron will eventualy collide. Of course the average distance between D2-molecules need to be much larger than the accelerating distance, so only fully accelerated deutrons collide.
If my description of the operation is clear enough you'll probably agree that this sounds way to easy to make fusion work, so i'd like to know where the catch is.
ciao!
IMO this reaction is really simple to achieve, though not in a fusor. more likely in a device similar to a cyclotron. Accelerating a deutron to the speed where it has enough energy to fuse with a deutrium molecule can be done in millimeters-distance between the electrodes. after that the deutron can be kept at this energy in a magnetic field. The particle will move in a circle.If the entire operation is performed in a environment of some D2 the deutron will eventualy collide. Of course the average distance between D2-molecules need to be much larger than the accelerating distance, so only fully accelerated deutrons collide.
If my description of the operation is clear enough you'll probably agree that this sounds way to easy to make fusion work, so i'd like to know where the catch is.
ciao!
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
With regard to Richard's comment on non deuterium collisions. The best way to minimize this is to alternatively purge and fill the chamber and pull down to full vacuum. If bleed in is a problem then occasionally refilled and repurge. I have worked with materials 20 orders fo magnitude more basic than sodium hydroxide by doing just this under inert atmosphere. These materials do not tolerate any substantial amount of water or oxygen. Of course this was atmospheric so this does make a difference. Perhaps some kind of getter would be in order. There are many materials which would be reactive towards oxygen and water. Just a suggestion.
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Many things regarding nuclear processes sound logical and abysmally obvious, but conditions fostering those processes are actually, often a physical impossibilty or, if they can be achieved with herculian effort, are sullied by other processes not imagined in the simple thought experiment.
These very things have bamboozled the smartest physicists for 50 years in the search for the fusion genie.
Magnetic confinement in plasmas has been shown to be a joke with stunning and costly failures since the very beginning of the effort, but still, the magnetic containment alure draws folks like moths to a flame.
Again, fusion is very eay to do. Efficient fusion...self sustaining fusion.........simple regenrative ignition fusion remains a total and complete impossibility on planet earth.
All the kings horses and all the kings men are just bungling boobs thus far in this effort.
Lotsa' good ideas........lotsa' failures matched perfectly to each one of 'em.
There is not even a single example of even a "Close, but no cigar" experimental example.
We tend to imagine, in our heads, idealized experiments. Unfortunately, we cannot achieve idealized conditions in the real world to make them work.
Richard Hull
These very things have bamboozled the smartest physicists for 50 years in the search for the fusion genie.
Magnetic confinement in plasmas has been shown to be a joke with stunning and costly failures since the very beginning of the effort, but still, the magnetic containment alure draws folks like moths to a flame.
Again, fusion is very eay to do. Efficient fusion...self sustaining fusion.........simple regenrative ignition fusion remains a total and complete impossibility on planet earth.
All the kings horses and all the kings men are just bungling boobs thus far in this effort.
Lotsa' good ideas........lotsa' failures matched perfectly to each one of 'em.
There is not even a single example of even a "Close, but no cigar" experimental example.
We tend to imagine, in our heads, idealized experiments. Unfortunately, we cannot achieve idealized conditions in the real world to make them work.
Richard Hull
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
I'm not so sure, richard. The electron in a neutral atom would have one very significant effect. It would alter the electrostatic barrier. I would think a head-on collision between a D ion and a D atom would be much more likely to produce fusion than an ion-ion collision. That would explain the results out of UW.
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Hi Richard,
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I did not expect to hear that ol' caveman argument (if it could be done it would have been done) from people who fuse atoms. (or theorize about it)
You are right that over-unity fusion is impossible, but so was flying and high-temp superconductivity. (so you never know)
I am interested in mechanisms by which nature functions, and in manipulating those mechanisms to provide a lot of energy to the world.
I posted that thought experiment for others to point out to me mechanisms i had overlooked and might prevent the fusion. Or maybe direct me to people who did that experiment in reality.(and failed)
I hope you are not offended by this post because i would really like to engage in serious conversation about fusion based on current knowledge.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I did not expect to hear that ol' caveman argument (if it could be done it would have been done) from people who fuse atoms. (or theorize about it)
You are right that over-unity fusion is impossible, but so was flying and high-temp superconductivity. (so you never know)
I am interested in mechanisms by which nature functions, and in manipulating those mechanisms to provide a lot of energy to the world.
I posted that thought experiment for others to point out to me mechanisms i had overlooked and might prevent the fusion. Or maybe direct me to people who did that experiment in reality.(and failed)
I hope you are not offended by this post because i would really like to engage in serious conversation about fusion based on current knowledge.
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
It is not unfortunate that fusion is hard.
The sun would have petered out long ago if it had been too easy.
The only known example of man made fusion is the hydrogen bomb.
It is pitifilly inefficient around 2%. It is not even self sustaining. Once the fission bomb starter goes the fusion reaction grinds to a stop. Every bit of energy it makes happens in a microsecond. After that it dissassembles into a hot cloud of plasma. It is the dissapation of that cloud of plasma that takes 10 or so minutes give people the mistaken idea that the fusion process is still going on in that mushroom cloud.
Wrong!
It generates that 1 megaton of yield in the time it takes for electricity to travel 100 feet down a wire.
Is it wrong to be realistic about the process?
Richard Hull has made more progress than a whole room of government men in this field.
I would be happy to discuss theory with anyone.
It is not like Richard Hull has not discussed theory before .... I've asked him many a question... I may or may not like the answer I got but I did bother to take it into account. He has sucessfully changed my mind on some stuff. Made me reexamine some closely held beliefs. Strengthened some.
You've probably seen my posts on pulsed fusion before.
I base pulsed fusor technology on the established research that has been on going for many years now in the universities. I work in the pulse fusion area because of my background in special weapons.
If you can show it to work we the group will listen.
If you think we are closed minded look at the post on
solid state fusion.
But we will verify to see if it can be repeated.
New theory needs to match what the reality is. Experiment seems to bear this stuff out about the neutrals.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
The sun would have petered out long ago if it had been too easy.
The only known example of man made fusion is the hydrogen bomb.
It is pitifilly inefficient around 2%. It is not even self sustaining. Once the fission bomb starter goes the fusion reaction grinds to a stop. Every bit of energy it makes happens in a microsecond. After that it dissassembles into a hot cloud of plasma. It is the dissapation of that cloud of plasma that takes 10 or so minutes give people the mistaken idea that the fusion process is still going on in that mushroom cloud.
Wrong!
It generates that 1 megaton of yield in the time it takes for electricity to travel 100 feet down a wire.
Is it wrong to be realistic about the process?
Richard Hull has made more progress than a whole room of government men in this field.
I would be happy to discuss theory with anyone.
It is not like Richard Hull has not discussed theory before .... I've asked him many a question... I may or may not like the answer I got but I did bother to take it into account. He has sucessfully changed my mind on some stuff. Made me reexamine some closely held beliefs. Strengthened some.
You've probably seen my posts on pulsed fusion before.
I base pulsed fusor technology on the established research that has been on going for many years now in the universities. I work in the pulse fusion area because of my background in special weapons.
If you can show it to work we the group will listen.
If you think we are closed minded look at the post on
solid state fusion.
But we will verify to see if it can be repeated.
New theory needs to match what the reality is. Experiment seems to bear this stuff out about the neutrals.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
okay,
So why do you think that arranging a collision between an electrically accelerated deutron and a D2-molecule in a cyclotron cannot be done at break even efficiency?
Is it because the cyclotron wastes too much ions?
Is there some phenomena causing most of the collisions not to result in fusion?
Is this to much to ask? : )
So why do you think that arranging a collision between an electrically accelerated deutron and a D2-molecule in a cyclotron cannot be done at break even efficiency?
Is it because the cyclotron wastes too much ions?
Is there some phenomena causing most of the collisions not to result in fusion?
Is this to much to ask? : )
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Richard Hull writes:
"There is not even a single example of even a "Close, but no cigar" experimental example."
To which I can only reply with one word:
"yet."
--PS
"There is not even a single example of even a "Close, but no cigar" experimental example."
To which I can only reply with one word:
"yet."
--PS
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Diatribe to follow:
Larry is pragmatic and that is good. You can tell he has been a "doer".
Results of emperical experiment are where the rubber meets the road. Thus far in fusion, we have not even reached a point where we are spinning our wheels! Spinning wheels may not be getting you anywhere but it does mean you HAVE the power. We aren't even close to this yet.
The perfesser is also correct... the key word is YET. I believe IT WILL happen. How it will happen or when it will happen or by what process, probably hasn't even been imagined yet.
Jeroen asked about fusion possibility with deuterons hitting neutral deuterium atoms. The answer is yes...it is possible.
Neutrals colliding with neutrals will never do fusion for to be neutral means everyone has a full electron compliment and this means close to zero kinetic energy and right at zero probability of fusion. ALL OF THE ABOVE IS BASED ON HOT OR KINETIC FUSION BEING "THE WAY" TO DO IT. Which is the way it has been persued and envisioned since the 1930's.
There is always that naughty solid state fusion issue, the ugly duckling laughed at by the big boys hanging around in the background about which no one can comment on with any degree of certainty. Who knows?
Jeroen's original thought train involved an accelerator where deuterons would bombard either other deuterons or deuterium directly. The losses here are tremendous in the form of beam divergence and collisional loses. Huge energies needed to accelerate the deuterons and the attendant misses, glancing blows, etc., are common to any acceleration effort. Work in the field will give the lie to the idealistic thought that all deuterons sent down the line at full or far beyond fusion energy are going to fuse. They just will not cooperate! Fully 99.9999% of those accelerated, fusion-ready deuterons will heat, via the maxwellian, the walls of the accelerator slamming into junk in the walls or other non deuteriium gas atoms.
Still, this very accelerator idea of Jeroen's was the first ever fusion done by man way, way, back before fusion power efforts even began. It was easy to do fusion in an accelerator, as in a fusor, (fusor is cheaper), however, the efficiency was such that to say it was TERRIBLE would be a gift!!! A million fold increase in efficiency might raise it to TERRIBLE. A hundred million fold increase would make it BAD. A billion fold increase would make it POOR. We have run the numbers here before (back on the old songs list), and we just ain't makin' it... YET... Ain't no where close... YET. Most schemes in current review are rehashes of stuff already tried and found wanting.
I have faith in the spirit of man, but not in man the animal. When fusion is done, I am convinced it will either be by blind luck or singular devine inspiration.
Nature can't even do fusion right!!! Her best fusion reactors are pitiably inefficient and massive beyond comprehension. Not to worry her though, for she has lots of space, lots of hydrogen and uses gravity in a way we can't.
Someone has to belly up and be, if not the class naysayer, atleast wear the gravity boots here. I work on this issue of how to do fusion, too, but it always comes back to what has been tried (researching prior research) and particles failing to follow a pure, elegant and logical train of thought crafted by the mind of man, (Natures myriad of complex interactions unseen and unappreciated until you try and make stuff happen based on the affore mentioned idealistic and well considered thoughts).
Finally, just because I poo-poo an idea here doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong. I offer my opinion based on my own study of the subject, my own experiments and full knowledge of nature's 'gotchas' having bitten me on the arse many times over the years.
Ultimately, the proof is in the experiment! As Franklin said, "Let the experiment be done!". If you have an idea, I poo-poo it, and you are not happy with the answer, do the experiment you propose. I really hope I am wrong and you are successful. You just don't know how much I hope I am wrong. For IF you are right, we are on our way to the fusion dream we all seek.]
But to know for sure, YOU will have to do the experiment YOU put forth, for I have no faith in it, as I stated, based on experience, prior published work and simple science principles.
The idea is not bad, for it shows you are thinking. The idea is just not likely to succeed.
Richard Hull
Larry is pragmatic and that is good. You can tell he has been a "doer".
Results of emperical experiment are where the rubber meets the road. Thus far in fusion, we have not even reached a point where we are spinning our wheels! Spinning wheels may not be getting you anywhere but it does mean you HAVE the power. We aren't even close to this yet.
The perfesser is also correct... the key word is YET. I believe IT WILL happen. How it will happen or when it will happen or by what process, probably hasn't even been imagined yet.
Jeroen asked about fusion possibility with deuterons hitting neutral deuterium atoms. The answer is yes...it is possible.
Neutrals colliding with neutrals will never do fusion for to be neutral means everyone has a full electron compliment and this means close to zero kinetic energy and right at zero probability of fusion. ALL OF THE ABOVE IS BASED ON HOT OR KINETIC FUSION BEING "THE WAY" TO DO IT. Which is the way it has been persued and envisioned since the 1930's.
There is always that naughty solid state fusion issue, the ugly duckling laughed at by the big boys hanging around in the background about which no one can comment on with any degree of certainty. Who knows?
Jeroen's original thought train involved an accelerator where deuterons would bombard either other deuterons or deuterium directly. The losses here are tremendous in the form of beam divergence and collisional loses. Huge energies needed to accelerate the deuterons and the attendant misses, glancing blows, etc., are common to any acceleration effort. Work in the field will give the lie to the idealistic thought that all deuterons sent down the line at full or far beyond fusion energy are going to fuse. They just will not cooperate! Fully 99.9999% of those accelerated, fusion-ready deuterons will heat, via the maxwellian, the walls of the accelerator slamming into junk in the walls or other non deuteriium gas atoms.
Still, this very accelerator idea of Jeroen's was the first ever fusion done by man way, way, back before fusion power efforts even began. It was easy to do fusion in an accelerator, as in a fusor, (fusor is cheaper), however, the efficiency was such that to say it was TERRIBLE would be a gift!!! A million fold increase in efficiency might raise it to TERRIBLE. A hundred million fold increase would make it BAD. A billion fold increase would make it POOR. We have run the numbers here before (back on the old songs list), and we just ain't makin' it... YET... Ain't no where close... YET. Most schemes in current review are rehashes of stuff already tried and found wanting.
I have faith in the spirit of man, but not in man the animal. When fusion is done, I am convinced it will either be by blind luck or singular devine inspiration.
Nature can't even do fusion right!!! Her best fusion reactors are pitiably inefficient and massive beyond comprehension. Not to worry her though, for she has lots of space, lots of hydrogen and uses gravity in a way we can't.
Someone has to belly up and be, if not the class naysayer, atleast wear the gravity boots here. I work on this issue of how to do fusion, too, but it always comes back to what has been tried (researching prior research) and particles failing to follow a pure, elegant and logical train of thought crafted by the mind of man, (Natures myriad of complex interactions unseen and unappreciated until you try and make stuff happen based on the affore mentioned idealistic and well considered thoughts).
Finally, just because I poo-poo an idea here doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong. I offer my opinion based on my own study of the subject, my own experiments and full knowledge of nature's 'gotchas' having bitten me on the arse many times over the years.
Ultimately, the proof is in the experiment! As Franklin said, "Let the experiment be done!". If you have an idea, I poo-poo it, and you are not happy with the answer, do the experiment you propose. I really hope I am wrong and you are successful. You just don't know how much I hope I am wrong. For IF you are right, we are on our way to the fusion dream we all seek.]
But to know for sure, YOU will have to do the experiment YOU put forth, for I have no faith in it, as I stated, based on experience, prior published work and simple science principles.
The idea is not bad, for it shows you are thinking. The idea is just not likely to succeed.
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
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
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
It is not to much to ask.
We assume some really wacked out concepts in physics. Like the one I'm about to throw at you.
In order for the deuterium ion to fuse it must physically touch the other deterium ion or neutral deterium molecule. This causes electrostatic repulsion. It is the cost of overcoming this repulsion between the nucleii that is a cost of doing business. The electron causes some attraction but it will only affect the repulsion of the positively charged nucleii only slightly.
so.... 2ke is about ke^2/(rd1+rd2)
( 9.0 x 10^9 Nm^2/C^2)(1.6 x10^-19 C^2)
--------------------------------------------------------
2(3.2 x 10^-15 m)
Works out to about 3.6 x 10^-14 joules/ reaction in which 1 neutron is formed about 1/2 the time.
(two competing reactions one with neutron one without)
so if we double the energy we are sure to get a neutron
so it is 7.2 x 10^-14 joules.
So in order to get watts we simply divide the joules of each neutron by a second to get watts.
So each neutron takes 7.2 x 10^-14 watts
If you take a look at neutron production methods(fusion) in The Fermi guide to Nuclear Physics You will find the following data. p179
Beam energy == Yield in n's per deuterons
__________________________________
>50 kev == 0 neutrons
50 kev == .20 E -7 neutrons
100 kev == .68 E-7 neutrons
200 kev == 3.00 E -7 neutrons
300 kev == 6.90 E -7 neutrons
500 kev == 19.00 E -7 neutrons
1 mev == 81.00 E -7 neutrons
2 mev == 400.00 E -7 neutrons
To get what it takes to make one neutron at each voltage I could work out all the voltages but I will start with the most energetic producer of neutrons. One will
find the voltages below that threshold will produce neutron at a lessor degree. Right? So at 2 mev you get
4.00 E -5 neutrons per deuteron.
So to get one neutron
it will take 2.5 E 4 deuterons. The cost in energy to accelerate these deuterons will be.....
4mev = 4E6(1.60 E -19 J/ev)=6.4 E -13 J per deuteron.
To get the total energy required takes....
(2.5 E 4 deuterons)(6.4 E -13 J)=1.5 E -8 J
The difference in process energy is about a million fold loss!
The problem with solid targets is the deuterons have a lot of space to bounce around in the lattice. Fusion only occurs when a surface atom is struck. If the deuteron goes into the lattice, it simply bounces around shedding kinetic energy till it stops. It ends up heating the target not producing fusion. That's why it takes so many deuterons to produce one neutron.
It is highly dense this lattice about a billion times more probable than hitting a "free" molecular deuterium in a gas or liquid. The plasma enviroment of the Wisconsin fusor falls almost to zero outside the plasmid focus area.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
We assume some really wacked out concepts in physics. Like the one I'm about to throw at you.
In order for the deuterium ion to fuse it must physically touch the other deterium ion or neutral deterium molecule. This causes electrostatic repulsion. It is the cost of overcoming this repulsion between the nucleii that is a cost of doing business. The electron causes some attraction but it will only affect the repulsion of the positively charged nucleii only slightly.
so.... 2ke is about ke^2/(rd1+rd2)
( 9.0 x 10^9 Nm^2/C^2)(1.6 x10^-19 C^2)
--------------------------------------------------------
2(3.2 x 10^-15 m)
Works out to about 3.6 x 10^-14 joules/ reaction in which 1 neutron is formed about 1/2 the time.
(two competing reactions one with neutron one without)
so if we double the energy we are sure to get a neutron
so it is 7.2 x 10^-14 joules.
So in order to get watts we simply divide the joules of each neutron by a second to get watts.
So each neutron takes 7.2 x 10^-14 watts
If you take a look at neutron production methods(fusion) in The Fermi guide to Nuclear Physics You will find the following data. p179
Beam energy == Yield in n's per deuterons
__________________________________
>50 kev == 0 neutrons
50 kev == .20 E -7 neutrons
100 kev == .68 E-7 neutrons
200 kev == 3.00 E -7 neutrons
300 kev == 6.90 E -7 neutrons
500 kev == 19.00 E -7 neutrons
1 mev == 81.00 E -7 neutrons
2 mev == 400.00 E -7 neutrons
To get what it takes to make one neutron at each voltage I could work out all the voltages but I will start with the most energetic producer of neutrons. One will
find the voltages below that threshold will produce neutron at a lessor degree. Right? So at 2 mev you get
4.00 E -5 neutrons per deuteron.
So to get one neutron
it will take 2.5 E 4 deuterons. The cost in energy to accelerate these deuterons will be.....
4mev = 4E6(1.60 E -19 J/ev)=6.4 E -13 J per deuteron.
To get the total energy required takes....
(2.5 E 4 deuterons)(6.4 E -13 J)=1.5 E -8 J
The difference in process energy is about a million fold loss!
The problem with solid targets is the deuterons have a lot of space to bounce around in the lattice. Fusion only occurs when a surface atom is struck. If the deuteron goes into the lattice, it simply bounces around shedding kinetic energy till it stops. It ends up heating the target not producing fusion. That's why it takes so many deuterons to produce one neutron.
It is highly dense this lattice about a billion times more probable than hitting a "free" molecular deuterium in a gas or liquid. The plasma enviroment of the Wisconsin fusor falls almost to zero outside the plasmid focus area.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Thats kind of where my question was headed.
How much of a "screening" effect (if any) does the electron supply to the mutual repulsion of the Deuterium nuclei?
How much of a "screening" effect (if any) does the electron supply to the mutual repulsion of the Deuterium nuclei?
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Just a thought or two on the "solid state fusion" idea.
With the usual D-D collision process involving D+ ions and neutrals, the real limitation is collisional probabilities being very low, along with low gas density - a double whammy against efficiency.
The gas density in the typical fusor or other fusion device, has to be low in order for the mean free paths of the ions to be long enough to reach their intended target regions.
What if one uses a Helium cooled target ( a kind of Cryo Pump) at the center of am initially well pumped fusor sphere?
Maintained below about 20K,the cryo target will do two beneficial things. First is will cryo pump the chamber of residual gasses. Second it will, when Deuterium gas is admitted, also cause the Deuterium to condense onto the target. When a layer a number of molecules thick has formed, the target is then bombarded with a deuteron beam from the ion gun.
This configuration appears to address the stray neutral molecules issue ( they are much reduced by cryo pumping). It also raises the collision probability by many orders of magnitude( or so it would seem) since the condensed and ultimately frozen Deuterium coating lowers the inter- molcule distances of target molecules by probably some 9 orders of magnitude, and raises densities by about 27 orders of magnitude. Superficially, it would appear far superior to even the Deuterium adsorption in thin foils concept.
Any comments??
Dave Cooper
With the usual D-D collision process involving D+ ions and neutrals, the real limitation is collisional probabilities being very low, along with low gas density - a double whammy against efficiency.
The gas density in the typical fusor or other fusion device, has to be low in order for the mean free paths of the ions to be long enough to reach their intended target regions.
What if one uses a Helium cooled target ( a kind of Cryo Pump) at the center of am initially well pumped fusor sphere?
Maintained below about 20K,the cryo target will do two beneficial things. First is will cryo pump the chamber of residual gasses. Second it will, when Deuterium gas is admitted, also cause the Deuterium to condense onto the target. When a layer a number of molecules thick has formed, the target is then bombarded with a deuteron beam from the ion gun.
This configuration appears to address the stray neutral molecules issue ( they are much reduced by cryo pumping). It also raises the collision probability by many orders of magnitude( or so it would seem) since the condensed and ultimately frozen Deuterium coating lowers the inter- molcule distances of target molecules by probably some 9 orders of magnitude, and raises densities by about 27 orders of magnitude. Superficially, it would appear far superior to even the Deuterium adsorption in thin foils concept.
Any comments??
Dave Cooper
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
It still creates a lattice as the deuterium freezes. Refrigerating it doesn't do what you would think.
All cooler temps means is slower movement of the lattice but the cavity problem still looms there.
The solid state fusion in the palladium foil occurs due to the fact d2 fills voids in the metallic interstices .
When a deuteron goes into a channel it meets packs of trapped deuterons increasing the probability of fusion. More than one deuteron can enter that channel due to faraday shielding provided by the free valance electons in metal interstice.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
All cooler temps means is slower movement of the lattice but the cavity problem still looms there.
The solid state fusion in the palladium foil occurs due to the fact d2 fills voids in the metallic interstices .
When a deuteron goes into a channel it meets packs of trapped deuterons increasing the probability of fusion. More than one deuteron can enter that channel due to faraday shielding provided by the free valance electons in metal interstice.
Larry Leins
Physics Teacher
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
Dave there would still be plenty of neutrals floating about for the moment the high energy deuterons collided with the target,the deuterons on same would be released into the chamber and wouldn't recondense until random motion had them hit the cryo traget again. Still, the fusion return would be increased, I would think.
Richard Hull
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
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
-
guest
Re: collision between Deutron and D2?
The real question is, would the increase in production outweigh the energy cost of refrigeration?