more efficient fusor

[longstreet]

First, my equation is wronge. I was trying to work around solving the differential, and I left out that the rate of change of potential energy STILL relies on the rate of change of the distance. So I don't think this is a simple thing to solve, but it does have a solution somewhere.

However, many people, including Einstein, have tryed to do what you are talking about. Not only does matter behave completely differently at those small scales, there are other forces that we have *measured*. Einstein also tried to ignore the weak and strong force in his theories, and didn't succeed. There must be a way to unite all the effects of nature because nature does it all the time, obveously. But what we like in a theory doesn't dictate how nature works.

I don't want to say you're wronge, because to say that with certainty I would have to already know the correct answer, and I don't. I can say it's not the whole picture. But, keep searching deeper and deeper.

Carter

[Steven Sesselmann]

Carter, First I need to make a correction to what I said yesterday.

We should keep the strong force and the electrostatic force and then the
electroweak and gravity become superfflous. They are just "apparent"
forces caused by the way the other two interact.

This is good news, because i think it is much easier for us to get an
accurate measure of the strong force than we have ever managed to get
of gravity.

So first off, lets forget "G" !

Let's bastardise newtons theory and insert a new constant "S" for the
relationship of the strong force to mass/r.

The static strong force is then F=SMm/r^2

However, as already explained you can not simply integrate this from r to
r=infinity to find Up.

Integrate to find Up = -(SMm/r + e^(-GM/rc^2))

A non linear attractive force where the energy applied to separate the
masses cause the masses to gain mass.

The Electrostatic force on its own is simpler, it is repulsive and simply
inversely proportional to the radius.

However they always act together, and where the two forces cancel
eachother out no force is required (Coulumb barrier). Therefore the 99.9%
of the mass increase happens when the radius is below the Coulumb
radius.

PS: Relativists will tell you that you are wrong, make up your own mind.

Steven Sesselmann

[Steven Sesselmann]

Richard, Looks like I had you a bit worried there, with my Alien
scenario

Does a mousetrap have more inertial mass when the spring is cocked ?
(Ignoring the cheese in this case)

Steven Sesselmann

[Richard Hull]

The strong force is not related to gravity. I once sought to link this. A proton has no strong force present yet is gravitational in nature. The strong force never existed anywhere in the universe until the first fusion occured. The first fusion couldn't occur until stable electrons and protons existed which was thermally late in the universal evolution. The strong force is not found as part of a proton or electron which are primal particles so far as the current universe is concerned.

Gravitation is attractive only. negative gravity or gravitational repulsion is never observed.

I have stressed this all before. I think in this thread! As the bulk of the univese is hydrogen, thus only, protons and electrons, we must conclude there is no strong force in the universe as a whole. It is only seen in isolated islands of very cold CONDENSED, FUSED, matter which makes up only the tiniest fraction of all existance. Like light and magnetism, it is a manufactured byproduct of the action of matter being digested and energized via the PE mechanisms of Coulombic and gravitational interactions.

Coulombic force is both attractive and repulsive in nature. This is why these two potential energies, (gravity and coulombic forces), rule the current universe. They are mutually exclusive, omni-present and unrelated in nature or form.

They keep things dynamic through their matter exchange processes related to each; one form being stored and recocked and the other acting in opposition as a spring oscillator which WILL run down, but only over eons. (entropy).

It appears that potential energies get locked down over time and evolve to more stable forms that become ever more difficult to both cock and release. One of these near the edge is the strong force, itself. In a vastly more intensely energetic (hot) and compact universe, I'll bet the strong force was overcome with a frequency approaching that of electron orbital upset in our current much cooler universe. The strong force is one of those PE forces that is on the cusp of extinction and is no longer a major universal player in the PE game. Only Gravity and Coulombic PE remain in the mix as easily cocked and unleashed.

Another point...............

A mouse trap gains no weight when cocked. The molecular structure at the electron orbital, crystalographic level is just under micro tension per crystalline bond within the spring and trap wire.

This inconceivably tiny micro stressing of each metalo-crystalline bond sums upon release of the tensioned mechanism to enable it to dispatch a macroscopic item like a mouse, most of the input energy from the setting going off in dynamic energy snapping the mouse's neck, crushing its windpipe and flipping the mouse and trap into the air a bit. Meanwhile, the case hardened spring's crystalline structure returns to its normal, unstrained condition. The mouse trap is a purely coulombically operated device. Thus, it is totally electric in nature of its ultimate action so far as the poor mouse was concerned, though initially set solely due to fusion energy (gravitational in nature) on the star that grew the food that gave you energy enough to stress those coulombic bonds and set the trap in the first place.............And the wheel goes round and round.........

Richard Hull

[Retric]

Given enough time everything decays even electrons. With the right
time frame even led has more potential energy than that much mass
as realy low temperature radiation.

PS: See :http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html for a quick
look at the end times.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Richard, I follow what you say and I guess it works. My problem is that it
is too much like reverse engineering.

We observe an action, then we invent something to explain it.

What exites me is when we invent a beautiful theory and observe it in
action.

I am not saying that I have that theory, but I am certainly looking for it.

I don't know if you have ever been in Copenhagen, but they have the best
beer over there, so it is not surprising that the "Interpretation" ended up as
a Zoo (just making fun).

I know that quantum theory is very successful at explaining what we
observe, but to me it is still a patchwork.

Maybe I don't fully understand it yet.

Steven Sesselmann

[Richard Hull]

The quatum theory is a patch work dike holding back the waters that would devour it, but it has lots of little dutch boys to plug leaks. Thus, it survives until it breaks and once again scientists are sent scurrying about, but the break itself will be the big clue.

reverse engineering, or backing up into the truth is just fine. It is the very essence of science. Observe and then theorize. Observe some more and modify. It is why we have senses and brain to process the input data.

Dreaming up ideas and theories with no observation is really bad, if not impossible. Our senses and relational thought processes are too much with us at every turn to be free to invent without reference.

Richard Hull

[Hayabusa]

Richard,

I have been puzzled by this e=mc^2 for such along time .
Thankyou for clearing this up, the picture is still far from being understood, but your explanation helps quite a bit.

Thanks.

Also, the notion of an object composed of matter gaining more and more mass as its velocity approaches "c" (speed of light), actually does not gain more matter as in more matter particles, rather it gains more of this mass defect you speak of.

Is this correct?

T.I.A.

Rog

[longstreet]

E=mc^2 is always the total energy, whether we are talking about a 2 ton car parked outside or a spaceship traveling at 90% the speed of light. It conveinently encapsulates all the energy that was required to create the matter, and accelerate it to a velocity if it's moving. And I'm not just talking about the nuclear binding energy here, what Richard calls mass defect. E=mc^2 includes everything, which includes some stuff we really don't understand. But somehow we can amazingly represent it in a couple characters.

What you should take away from this is that energy has mass, whatever energy you are talking about. When you run down the sidewalk, you increase your mass because you increased your kinetic energy. It's just a coincidental and amazing thing that we can convert some mass into energy through nuclear reaction, at least small slivers of it anyway.

Carter

[Steven Sesselmann]

Carter, I see the old thread has woken up again....my favorite subject

That's right all the energy can be accounted for in one simple equation,
very elegantly E=mc^2.

What many beginners have difficulty understanding, is that
we are all born rich......very RICH! ie: Pre-energized.

I like to think that the birth of the universe was one big "energy" donation,
and that half that energy went into creating the mass and the other half to
create the spaces between the mass ie. the potential energy.

So, therefore in my opinion, we should concider that the universe has
twice as much mass/energy as what we can see.

On the other hand, if you believe that the stars and the planets were there
all the time, and that all we humans are doing, is re-arranging the
mass slightly, then we have to explain why gravity is not behaving the
way Einstein predicted.

Two perfectly valid views, since non of us were there at the time, just a
matter of opinion, or which explanation is more beautiful.

Steven

[Richard Hull]

Roger, the true mass gain due to velocity is not verified to my satisfaction. There IS a RELATIVE kinetic energy gain! Of this there is no doubt. We assume that since there are only two factors in the KE equation, (mass and velocity), that relative mass must have increased.

Obviously, regardless of what is real and what is conjecture or assumption, there are no new charged particles in the fast moving matter. No new electrons, no new protons and, also, no new neutrons. A swelling mass defect?......I do not know.....Nor does anyone else.

The key is that the mass gain is said to be "relative" and this is where the issue lies....and it lies quite dead, I might add. If you weigh yourself at near C you are still the same old weight.

So where is this conjectured, "relative mass" coming from? A far deeper issue than physics can plumb at this moment, I am afraid. Although, I am also afraid that in and effort not to appear emasculated, many well meaning physics gurus may step into the breach offering ad hoc, almost or even generally accepted explainations which may or may not be satisfying to you.

Suffice it to say the in any energy transferance via normal atomic/nuclear reactions using e=mc^2 you are seeing conversions of only mass defect and not, bulk charged matter.

Richard Hull

[longstreet]

That brings up a question I've had for a long time, and that's how black holes don't seem to be semetric it it's treatment of matter and energy. It seems we can throw matter into a black hole, and get random energy back out through hawking radiation. I think this is a classic problem in quantum mechanics because it seems information was lost. Maybe the problem's been solved and I haven't been paying attention.

Carter

[Hayabusa]

Carter,

"It seems we can throw matter into a black hole, and get random energy back out through hawking radiation."

How do we know that the emitted radiation is in fact random? What is the evidence so far?

I wonder about the nature of emitted particles from the D-D fusion reaction.

Are the trajectories of the product particles predictable, if the incident trajectories of the D-D atoms prior to collision are know, or are the product velocity (trajectories) random?

Said in another way:
If it were possible to collide two D-D atoms in a series of collisions, with the exact same incident trajectories for each collision.
Then,
Would the daughter (product) particles depart along like trajectories after each collision?

All responses are welcome...

Rog

[longstreet]

Of course there is no evidence. We don't have many black holes around to run tests on. Good old wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_loss

As for collisions, I think you can just look at it as a kind of scattering problem. I imagine there would be a range of angles of deflection with a probability distribution for the products. Just like with gold foil, you'd probably get a fairly wide angle of "near misses", and fairly sharp regions of "hits". I don't think it's possible to get the exact same angles, however, since this isn't a classical problem.

Carter

[Richard Hull]

Carter is correct. In fusion, the direction or tragectories of the resultant particles is not necessarily the same as the parent particles. Fusion has taken place and the particles will respond randomly, especilly at our low energies of bombardment.

Richard Hull

[Hayabusa]

It sounds like the answer is not known. Still I wounder why some of you tend toward a random result.

Im still thinking of a method of extracting energy from the Fusor. In one of the posts (I believe it was "resonent nuclear battery"), there was talk of organizing the product particles in order to capture their energies. Kinda reminds me of a laser.

Consider a DC motor, When a battery is attached to this motor the shaft will rotate at a certain speed. Now if an external rotating force with a higher speed but same direction were applied to the already rotating shaft, then the motor would become a generator and start pumping energy back into the battery.

Now consider the diagram I have attached (yes its the same one from another thread). The coil shaped inner grid generates a magnetic feild which helps to organize the D atoms before collision (it also causes them to follow a longer path inside the inner grid). After collision the products fly off with a trajectory which is related to the incident, only with added kinetic energy. This added energy is then absorbed by the coil inner grid, which gives us some output current.

I haven't really drawn this out in any great detail as I don't really have much faith in it. My hopes are that they will inspire better ideas.

Rog

[longstreet]

Well, I was actually speeking to collisions. If fusion happens all bets are off as to where the products go. It basically only needs to conserve total momentum. The idea behind direct conversion of fusion energy to electrical can be done simply by having extra grid voltage in the mega-volt range, and as the positivly charge products leave the area, no matter which direction they go they have to climb the potential, which does work on the field. This also stipulates that you gotta keep it from falling back in so you don't then just waste the energy accelerating it back into the chamber. However, this doesn't work for chargless products.

This doesn't work for magnetic fields because a charge can't do work on a magnetic field and a magnetic field can't do work on a charge. Magnetic fields can only change the directions of motion while kinetic energy remains constant.

What happens in a motor is the magnetic effectively changes the direction of the electrons inside the wires. If you can imagine shutting off the voltage, and then somehow turning on the magnet with the electons still moving, the elctrons will turn to collide with the wall of the wire, and the wire will twirl a bit until friction slows it down. Kinetic energy was completely constant here. The mag field didn't do any work. However, the current was destroyed in exchange for a moving wire. A constant voltage does the work, add to the electron kinetic energy as the electron kinetic energy is being converted to the wires kinetic energy. The mag field simply acts as a tool to do this and no energy is actually extract from the magnet. A similar argument can be constructed for generators, but the wire is accelerating the electrons and the magnetic field converts this kinetic energy into a current.

That is only true for constant magnetic fields though. A magnetic field *contains* some amount of energy itself. And this energy can be extracted by destroying the magnetic field, generating a voltage that can do work. That's where I'll leave off, even through that's where the fun just begins...

edit:

I'm not sure how a alternating magnetic field could extract energy, because as soon as the field oscillates it creates an electric field which starts doing work on the charged plasma. So I'm not sure how you get anything out when it seems like it would only heat the plasma. It would seem that would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics if you could cool things down that way!

[Richard Hull]

Roger was disucssing organizing the deuterium atoms prior to collision with a mag field.......... Sorry..........neutral atoms don't respond to simple magnetic fields prior to collision and ionization.

If you meant deuterons then that needed to be made clear. A deuteron is not a deuterium atom, it is a deuterium nucleus and this is positively charged and will respond to a mag field. A deuterium atom is neutral and will not respond.

A fine point, but a major one in any discussion.

Richard Hull

[Hayabusa]

Yes, sorry about that.

I was reffering to the ionized atom (deuteron).

What do you think about the use of a static (DC supplied) magnetic coil type inner grid. Also to increase flux density at the inner grid, and eliminate flux between the inner grid and the shell, a core with a low reluctance (the stuff they use to shield TV tubes with) could be used with a gap (vacuum gap) coinciding with the inner grid. I have attached a new picture which tries to show this core (high permeability), and the flux lines that move through it.

This magnetic field would increase the path length inside the inner grid don't you think?

I wonder what effect an AC magnetic field would produce. Of course such an experiment would have to be carried out using different frequencies, to see what effects may occur.

Rog

[Wilfried Heil]

A magnetic field would produce more ions close to the grid, which is exactly where you don´t want them. If possible, they should form farther out, so that the ions can fall though a higher potential difference. The concept would work if the deuterons were accellerated outwards, to a collision with the outer shell.
This is in fact done in some neutron generators, with good results.

[Hayabusa]

"A magnetic field would produce more ions close to the grid, which is exactly where you don’t want them. If possible, they should form farther out, so that the ions can fall though a higher potential difference. The concept would work if the deuterons were accelerated outwards, to a collision with the outer shell.
This is in fact done in some neutron generators, with good results."

Why would the presence of a magnetic field passing ONLY through the inner grid produce ions at the inner grid?

Ions are produced by electrons colliding with the neutral D atoms.

Electrons are more likely to be emitted from the outside surface of the inner grid do to the electrostatic field radiating radially out toward the shell. Is this correct?

Since the magnetic field is weaker outside of the inner grid the electrons will follow a curved path outwards. Hopefully some of these electrons will collide with neutrals and ionize them, they (ions) in turn will then accelerate towards the inner grid do to the electrostatic field.

Once they enter the space of the inner grid they will be force to follow a cork screwed or circular path do to the magnetic field (lengthened path).

Other ions will then enter and hopefully collide with the ions that are already inside the space of the inner grid, and result in a fusion reaction.

I have revised my picture, because I think that the coil producing the magnetic field will produce a distorted magnetic field. Instead I will leave the inner grid as a coil for purely cooling purposes (see my other diagram for cooling method). I have placed the magnetizing coil outside the shell instead. This should produce a more uniform field passing through the inner grid.

What do you think?

Rog

[longstreet]

Well, as I'm sure you already know, tokomaks use magnetic fields to contain their plasma. They don't use them to heat it, just to contain. The problem with this design is that even if you can make the magnetic field strong enough, the ions will smash into your poles, defeating the purpose. That's why tokomaks are torroidal. Perhaps there is legitimacy to a hybrid electrostatic/magnetic fusor, which magnetic fields doing containment, and electric fields doing the heating. But probably not as simple as this particular design. You might look into penning and paul traps as well. There is also an idea by Robert W. Bussard, I think, which creates a multi-poled magnetized inner grid to trap electrons there and to ferry ions away from the grid.

Carter

[Wilfried Heil]

A magnetic field around the grid would make it a Penning ion generator. The ions are produced by collisions between electrons and neutral gas molecules. The magnetic field will just keep the electrons on a longer path close to the grid, than without it.

However, I don´t see how the ions formed in the vicinity of the grid could gain enough energy for fusion in the center of the fusor.

A magnetic field close to the outer electrode might do some good: here we should have a cloud of low energy secondary electrons, which could be guided by a magnetic field. We should then get a higher ionisation rate close to the outer shell.

An electromagnet in the center could do it, but so would a couple of NIB magnets around the outside of the fusor. Has anyone tried this?

[Hayabusa]

Thank you for all the responses.

I came across a links which I would like to share:

http://www.casetechnology.com/source.html

Im going to study this stuff.

Thanks for the references...

Rog