more efficient fusor

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
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 » Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:08 am

So, you too think about relativity in the shower....

It's a real bummer for water restrictions :-)

Steven
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: 12281
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:40 pm

Steven mentioned in a fusor getting protons to fuse with a solid inner grid system with a hole in the middle. I am sure he ment deuterons because proton-proton fusion can't be done here. At least no one has seen it done.

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.

SJSVOB
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:21 pm
Real name: Stephen Svoboda

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by SJSVOB » Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:56 pm

>If the energy we extracted was the origional mc^2, where did >the increased mass of the black hole come from?

The way I look at it is that the energy extracted was the potential energy created at the moment of the big bang when all matter was driven away from a central point, and not that energy was extracted from the black hole. As far as I know the only method by which energy is extracted from black holes is Hawking radiation.

longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by longstreet » Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:31 pm

Ok, I've mulled it over a bit. I think you are right that the classical potential energy equation is not right. The relativistic energy of a particle is E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). So, we get the relativistic mass of a particle for a given velocity. As the particle accelerates it gains mass, which increases the gravitational force.

The force we see should be something like F = GMm/((r^2)*sqrt(1-v^2/c2)). In this equation dU should be GMm/((r^2)*sqrt(1-v^2/c2)) dr, but I have a dr/dt (v) there so it's a differential equation. I'm not sure how to integrate that. Maybe your equation is right, but I'd have to look at how you derrived it.

At any rate, if we just let an object fall to the schwartchild radius it will have a kinetic energy which we get from the new potential energy equation. However, if we drop it in at a constant velocity we use the old potential energy equation to find the energy we extracted, not the new equation.

So, if we drop a mass into the black hole to extract energy, we could turn that energy into mass and then drop that into the black hole, over and over again. That's ok because the energy we extracted should be much less than what the kinetic energy would have been if we let the origional object just fall in.

This may seem round-a-bout, but I had to do it. :)

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 » Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:18 pm

Carter, we seem to have two threads running under the same heading,
cosmology and fusor grids :) Over to cosmology...

I wrote down that equation sometime in 1999 and I would have to think a
bit before I remember how I derived it. I have tried talking with many
relativists about this problem, but sometimes I don't think they understand
their own equations. The Universe should not be that hard to explain.

My theory is simple, all energy has mass and all mass gravitates. The
sum of all kinetic and potential energy divided by C^2 equals the mass in
the universe. The arrow of time is in the direction of decreasing energy.
Any process, thing or person that can break break energy down from high
potential to low will be successful (in the eyes of the universe).

Sorry, no room for conservationists :-)

Seems to me that we could free up some thinking time too;

No black holes
No missing mass
No need for four forces
No issues with unexplained slowing of space craft etc.

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

Todd Massure
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:38 am
Real name: Todd Massure

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Todd Massure » Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:26 pm

Steven, one thing I will point out is that inside a hollow charged sphere there will actually be no charge and therefore no "squeezing" effect.
In a fusor there isn't a net charge felt inside the grid, but there is a potential between the outer shell and the inner grid which causes acceleration. We call it Inertial Electrostatic Confinement, but possibly it would be better to describe it as inertial confinement by (or due to) electrostatic acceleration.
Truthfully the word "confinement" is a little misleading also as far as the Hirsch style fusor that is most commonly being constructed by the members of this site, it's more like ionic collision. Others here may disagree on my nitpicking about the exact labels we put on things...I don't really care IEC works for me.

-Todd

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 » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:53 am

I have started a new thread for the discussion on the ball fusor grid.

See "You need balls to do this!"

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

longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by longstreet » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:42 am

I really need to take a course on just general relativity. But, I used your method of relating the rate of change of the mass to the rate of change of the potential energy divided by c^2. But, I didn't get your equation when I integrated, and it's very strang. I get the normal "-GMm/r" potential energy; but I also get an extra "-e^(-GM/rc^2)", which is wierd. So the whole thing would read as so:

-(GMm/r + e^(-GM/rc^2))

Ok, so in the limiting case when M is really small and r is really big (i.e. not a black hole) it gives back the origional equation, which is good. But I'm still not sure the ramifications of the equation, or if it is even valid. One thing is when m=0 then somehow there is still potential energy, which is just wacky... I don't think this is right.

edit: actually, no. that limiting case is wronge. M would have to be huge and r would have to be small to get the origional equation. So even that doesn't make sense.

Thanks,
Carter

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 » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:54 am

Carter, a course in GR would probably stuff up your thinking.

Stick with common sense, it is there to be used. Your equation is good, it
says that potential energy gravitates. Suddenly all the mystery
disappears. As you have discovered, when you separate to masses
against a force, you are actually adding to their mass at the rate of E/C^2.

Okay, why is it so hard to get this across to the average scientist?

Because this rule only applies when the energy for the separation comes
from outside the system. Let me use another one of my favorite thought
experiments;

Let there be a small planet in space, with a man, a table and a brick. Now
let the man pick up the brick and place it on the table. The brick has
gained potential energy at the expence of the man's energy, but the
planet, brick man system has neither gained or lost any energy.

Scenario 2;
This time there is a planet a table and a brick, but no man. Instead an alien
space ship arrives on the planet from which an alien steps out and picks
up the brick and places the brick on the table. The alien subsequently gets
back in his space ship and goes back home.

As you can see there is a difference, the system has now gained energy
and a small amount of mass.

As occupants of this small insignificant albeit nice planet, we often fail to
see the big picture.

Now, I would like you to look at the forces in the Atom. Again, what does
your common sense tell you about the strong force, being a short range
force and the electrostatic force being a long range force, and then
another electroweak force and gravity to complicate things
further???

No creator in his right mind would come up with a scheme like that.

How about a two forces Gravity and Electrostatic, that makes more
sense, one deals with Space & Time the other with Electricity &
Magnetism.

Protons and neutrons are very dense and the forces required to separate
them in space are very large, which means that the potential energy
gained will have a significant mass.

Now calculate the potential energy required to separate two protons for
each force separately. Gravity produces a negative potential and the
electrostatic force produces a positive potential.

add the two together and you will see that something strange happens. At
first when the radius is small, the sum is negative, but then at a certain
radus it becomes positive.

I attach a spreadsheet that I was experimenting with.

The numbers don't represent real values, it was just to demonstrate that
the two potentials together can replicate the pattern we see.

This new thinking really opens up a can of worms, or should I say
solutions.

PS: I think I have made a breakthrough on my fusor design.

Steven Sesselmann
Attachments
ForceCalc.xls
(39.5 KiB) Downloaded 106 times
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: 12281
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: more efficient fusor

Post by Richard Hull » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:15 pm

Unfortunately the planet and the system does receive energy from fusion regardless of any scenario. No planet can exist without stars (matter). No man can exist without food and no food can be grown or processed without starlight. Therefore there is no energy to lift the brick against gravity whether by the man or the alien without an initial source of energy and in this case it was the separation of charge by gravity on a distant sun and the resultant fusion at some point in time.

The dynamic energy of the man or alien was required to cock the potential energy gun of the brick being raised in the gravitational field. The man or alien's energy came from electron orbital fall exchanges (chemistry) in his burning his food fuel.

The electron orbitals got raised and the chemical potential energy gun was cocked by solar energy falling on crops.

The solar quanta that grew the crops came from solar separated charge recombination and from fusion energy all from within the nearest star. This ultimately came about solely due to the urgings of gravity. It is a closed cycle.

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