more efficient fusor

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
zexelon
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:19 pm
Real name:
Contact:

more efficient fusor

Post by zexelon » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:23 pm

Fist things first, I fully understand that building an efficient fuser will kill the operator when using the D-D reaction. Therefore there is currently no intent to build something along these lines.

I was wondering however since the major problem with the fuser is that most of the ions collide with the inner grid. Would it not be possible to move the fusion outside the grid by having the ions rotate around it with sufficient speed to over come the atractive force of the grid (probably requires a very powerful magnetic field)?

Another possibly better idea would be to charge the shell of the fuser with sifficiant voltage to confine the ions inside the sphear.

Now comes the loaded question: What laws of physics do these ideas violate?

Sincerely
Melvin Newman

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11832
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:25 pm

No laws are violated in your scenario, however, you have just stabilized the ions out of fusion capable collisional modes. Thus, no fusion. Almost all neat ideas like this either kill the fusion process or are un-engineerable in the physical sense with current technology or materials and if they are workable, they are so far beyond an amateur budget that we can't test them.

The big boys with all the dough have a consistent track record of total failure at all processes and methodologies. Efficient fusion is not easy and may not even be possible! Nature can't even do it well in stars, either!

Nature puts severe skids on fusion ideas as she doesn't seem to want the uncontrolled burning up of the entire universe. This seems patently obvious as the bulk of all matter in the enitre universe is fusion fuel. It is the only reason the universe has a long history.

1. Nature isn't good at doing fusion but does it anyway by using gravity as the primary fusion confinement force.

2. Nature has laws in place to not only keep herself in check in a fuel rich universe, but also any other little creepy-crawly who evolved out of her ooze from setting the place on fire as well.

I often wonder if nature kept this one for herself.

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

zexelon
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:19 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by zexelon » Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:54 pm

In responce to your last line in your reply Richard; nature has tried to keep many things from humanity in the past. There is nothing humanity has discovered that nature has not attempted in some way to keep hidden.

As a side note, I have noticed that most of the discussions on fusion efficiency have become very phylisofical in nature.

In the first scenario, you are quite right that the ions would be stabalized. However could a secondary beem be injected into the mass that would be rotating about the inner sphere? This beem would try to rotate in the same direction as the as the rest of the mass however since it was injected oposite the rotation it would simply be slowed down. This would cause a buildup of mass (something like a pressure wave) in the area where the mass and the beem intersected, could fusion take place in this scenario if given enough energy? Hopefully less energy than the currently accepted method, though now that I think about it I do doubt it would be any better.

As for the second method of positively charging the out shell in an attempt to keep all of the ions confined in the grid, is this a possible method? It would simply be a matter of using a second power supply. Or would this just create a cathod ray beem and disrupt everything?

Sincerely
Melvin Newman

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11832
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Richard Hull » Mon Oct 17, 2005 6:42 pm

A more positive outer shell would not confine the ions any better.

Lets think about this. A more positive shell would just effectively ADD to the acceleratory potential unless referenced to an inner grid that is at zero potential, in which case it would hog electrons and heat the shell in collisonal attraction. Likewise, the horrific losses by fast neutrals would not even see any potential, anywhere. These are wall bound losses that can't be steered or controlled electrostatically.

Lots of very clever ideas stomped on, again, by nature.

The carte blanc idea that man can triumph over nature is as false as the idea he can triumph over his own nature. We can certainly do work arounds if we can get our hands on enough energy and concentrate it enough to outdo nature at her own game. Thus we can do,....but at what cost, and at what payback level?

We can defy the natural law of gravity and lift 100,000 lb shuttles into orbit provided we spend billions in the money operate massive cryogenic plants for weeks and months at full capacity to produce and liquify oxygen and hydrogen and fluorine and mine or chemically produce metric tons of solid propellant oxidizers and complex radical fuels to mix and burn at the rate of tons each second of the accent of the rocket proving our glorious triumph over nature.

We could mine thousands of tons of uranic rock, transport it hundreds of miles, burn off megawatss of electricity grinding it to powder, turn it to the oxide and transport it hundreds of miles and use about 6 tons of chemicals per ton of powder to purify to uranium 238 and then centirfuge it for weeks on end in hundreds of centrifuges to get grams of U 235 to make energy via fusion. When the fuel is depleted there is still 60% of it left in the fuel cell, but we throw it away anyway. We have done nothing here really other than take stuff nature does casually and on the little and spend massive amounts of energy, money and effort to do it in concentrated form. We don't beat nature, we concentrate and alter matter and energy at great cost and get out material or energy also in concentrated form beyond nature's natural rates. Again, at what net cost and what net efficiency?

To what percentage per unit watt delivered is the fission biz really a hydrocarbon biz in the end. (gas and diesel all along the way to mine and transport), chemicals to reduce and convert, electricity via coal, natural gas, oil to heat solutions, electro-refine and concentrate and ultimately to centrifuge, reconstitute and package to fuel cells for use in the reactor)

The best deal going is solar power via hydro-electric where we let nature do virtually all the work for us. She heats the earth bound water via the nearest star. It rises to cloud. It falls on high ground and graivty drags it over a convenient man made cliff to fall on turbine blades to turn a shaft and spin magnets in a cage of wires and we get, virtually free, small infrastructure, low maintenance megawatts. This is watching nature and using many of her artifices well. This is where man shines. He is clever at using nature and concentrating her bounty.

Fusion is not a bounty. It is creation itself. An assembly process. Man is a user of disassembly processes, a destroyer, relying, as any good hunter-gatherer does, on a large number of extant processes for the realease of stored potential energy. There is no stored energy in fusion to release. It is energy waiting to be born requiring vast amounts of seed energy to bring forth. This makes fusion unique in man's questing for energy. We are totally out of our element here.

We will never burn a fusion fuel vapor via fusion in a controlled manner without gravity or its mime fully at our command. I am pretty sure of this one. The key to fusion lay in some force or action that makes electrostatic charge and magnetic forces pale and impotent before it. We have yet to even dream of what that might be.

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.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:53 am

Richard, it's not quite right to say that Fusion energy is not stored potential
energy. Fusion energy, just like the water in the mountain lake is potential
energy, it was just put there a long long time ago.

Something or someone (we can only speculate), donated a massive
amount of energy, and this energy is what we call the Universe.

Half the energy donated went into making the actual matter and the other
half was used to separate matter (potential energy).

Fortunately there were some laws that prevented the whole darn thing
from instantly collapsing back into nothing, these laws acted as a ratchet,
much like the ratchet on a car jack.

One of these ratchets is the Columb barrier :-)

So what Fusioneers are trying to do, is force the jack to fail, and thereby
releasing the ancient stored potential energy !

My view...

Steven Sesselmann
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11832
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:16 pm

Fusion energy is not potential energy, in spite of the clever jack analogy.

There is zero potential energy in free protons outside of any secondary momentum or primal gravitational attraction and possible primal coloubic reactions they may be subject to.

These are the only observed potential energies in a cloud of protons. It is important to remember that so far as the universe and the bulk of its matter is concerned all fusion is gravitationally produced either directly or through indirect secondary reactions stemming from same.

The universe and protons DO NOT want to fuse. However, when, due to gravity, they do fuse they STORE and RELEASE energy.

The stored energy IS potential, (binding energy), in nature for it can later be released via fission (in larger atoms). Binding energy is mass converted to energy in this case, which is the common case seen in nature. ( fusion results in a reduced mass net product)

The released fusion energy is due to a mechansim related to what appears to be a mysterious law of physics associated with fusion.

You seem to opt for this release energy coming from some sort of universal continuum. A totally theoretical point of view.

However, if this released energy comes from the differential from the sum of the two protons mass minus the resultant mass showing some converted mass energy going to binding and some going to released energy then all is easily explained without a continuum. As such, there would be no potential energy here at fusion time with the released energy. It came from mass-energy conversion. Potential energy was CREATED in the form of binding energy, (strong force).

Again, the strong force is never extant anywhere in the universe prior to fusion. It is created at that time only.

There are many issues here that boggle the mind. As the universe is mostly protons, we may confidently state that within the bulk of all matter extant in the uiniverse, the strong force doesn't exist and cannot be found as a naturally extant force in natrure. It is a secondary, created force in nature much as is the case for light and magnetism, weak force, etc. All are secondary items and not primal in nature.

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.

winterhaven
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by winterhaven » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:47 pm

Well it could be said that all matter is potential energy, as shown by E=mc^2
But conversely it can also be said that all energy is potential mass ( m=E/c^2 )
I don't think that the universe favors either state. Only the huge gravitational forces of stars and black holes make either conversion routine in nature.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11832
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:09 pm

As I have written before, E=MC^2 never, ever refers to what you and I might call particulate mass, but only to MASS DEFECT, big big difference.

The mass of protons and electrons that make up matter ARE NOT a form of potential energy as they can never be converted to energy regardless of any form of nuclear hand waving.

No protons are ever turned into energy, no electrons are turned into energy. Charge would be lost or destroyed if they were and to my way of seeing things net loss of charge is impossible anywhere in the universe. The ultimate conservation law is that of charge conservation. Forget baryon number, spin, etc. they are just assumed based on good evidence.

What E=MC^2 talks to is merely mass defect- binding energy(strong force)-weak force exchanges! Sort of an appearance-disappearance of mass via smoke and mirrors. There are no protons or electrons dropping out of sight or being created. Yes, we see and measure real, inertial mass come and go away, but not the stuff of matter, protons and electrons.

Many famous scientists have stressed this over the years. Robert Serber in the manhattan project's, "Los Alamos Primer", pointed this out rigidly.

What form this chargeless inertial mass takes is a genuine mystery with lots of ad hoc, goof ball, theories entrained.

Only the neutron weighs more than the apparently contained proton and electron summed. All other fused matter weighs less up to iron. This is why the neutron is unstable outside the nucleus and is often considered as a whole form of matter by itself. Uranium and Thorium self destruct giving up the E=MC^2 mass defect to energy via EM (photonic) and kinetic energy of the debris. No lost particles or charge here, just mass defect fun and games via an unknown smoke and mirror act which we are not privvy to.

So the next time you imagine E=MC^2 turning the real stuff of matter into energy or vice-versa.... Imagine again.

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.

winterhaven
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by winterhaven » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:20 pm

What about if a proton and anti proton meet? It is uncommon and unlikely, but I believe it will result in total mass energy conversion which agrees w/ E=mc^2 and I think it does conserve charge at the same time.
But yes you are right, it is important for everyone to remember that the protons, neutrons and electrons of atoms are not converted to energy in a nuclear reaction.

User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Richard, I respect your view, which is in line with classical theory, let me
however use another one of my metaphors, to express my view.

Imagine if you and everything you knew existed on the rooftop of a 100
level building. Around the edge of this rooftop there was a massive fence
erected to prevent you and everyone else from falling down.

This fence was so high that nobody in your world had ever peered over it,
and as a consequence nobody in your world knew that your whole world
was situated on the top of a tall building.

You and everyone else in your world may be forgiven for thinking that
your ground level is as low as it gets, and that there is no more potential to
exploit.

One day a wild haired scientist comes along and tells people the truth, and
that E=MC^2. (The people find it amusing and print it on their T-Shirts.)

Einstein told us how high the building is, and that matter can be
converted into energy. In other words, if you throw something off the edge
of the building you can theoretically extract 100% of its mass as potential
energy.

Fortunately there are these ratchets along the way, that stop all of the
energy from being exploited all at once.

The Coulumb barrier, is the first ratchet, and once we get over that barrier
some mass is released as energy, until the proton hits the next ratchet.

We know this because the total mass of the fusion product is less than
the mass of the Deuterons before the fusion by you know what.

My view..

Steven Sesselmann
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

Post Reply