Fusor Computer Modeling

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:57 am
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:44 pm

Guy's I've been doing a lot of rocket work and for guidance systems we have soft and hardware in the loop computer modeling to help design and test guidance systems. I was wondering if the fusor had progressed to a point that computer modeling was available? If not I think now would be a good time to work on a computer model openly that would allow us to do simulations of the device before we build it.
I think a good model could be built and everyone could benefit and actually enjoy playing with it? I myself am not a very good programmer however I don't expect anyone to do something for nothing. I would find a way to compensate those that might have an interest in doing the work part of the simulator. I myself am only interested in the use of said program and I would do the work of raising the funds for you.

Monroe

Contact me if your interested in such a project.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Chris Bradley » Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:13 pm

Hello Monroe, and welcome.

The forum sees newcomers seeking to perform what they claim will be 'real' work-performing fusion on a semi-regular basis. In some cases it is merely words that are doomed from the start to remain a dream. In your case, given your background, I am confident you are a committed and practical experimenter who will make in-roads into some form of experimentation. So I am sure the folks here will, like me, be supportive of your dedication to this new 'road' of discovery for you, but will equally wonder at what point you will ramp up the learning curve to the point where you come to recognise the reality.

In one way, the fusor is too simple to be worth bothering simulating - it is an accelerator based neutron generator with a gaseous target. In another, the plasma discharge behaviour is so complicated that it is not worth attempting to simulate it. In general, folks focus on the latter in the hope that it will make some sort of difference. In reality, it is the former that is dominant.

The most energetic beam to plasma-target reaction is from the neutral beam injectors at JET, where 20MW of 100~200 keV neutral deuterium atoms are hammered into a 20~30 keV plasma. The fusion product is some 2~3MW of fusion power. So, even with the most extremely favourable conditions, beam-target fusion still does not pay back the energy you put in.

One day, who can really say, maybe a fusion energy amplifier, or break-even, machine will materialise. But there's no current reason to think it will look anything like a fusor.

User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:57 am
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr » Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:47 pm

Indeed! I surely know the odds of me making any progress with the fusor are very low indeed. I have a few ideas I'd like to try focusing ions and setting up resonances. What I'd like to model is the effects of magnetic fields and electrostatic fields at different energies. Indeed the plasma modeling would be beyond the simulation I had in mind. I have some old beam optics software (dos lol) from my fathers work at Eaton and Hughes I can borrow for starters.
I'd also like to simulate cyclotronic resonance and different shape chambers for cavity resonance.

Monroe

I am just using this as a starting point for research I don't have any real plans to solve the fusion problem yet :) Iyselft's really just Mr Wizards fun with fusion for now. I expect to learn what I wanted about electrostatic confinement or Electrodynamic Confinement. I wanna see for my self I'm a visualize it experimenter and I need a toy to play with I can afford. It's not a lost cause in that respect by far.
I have access to resources to do some interesting work anyway.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!

User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:57 am
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:32 pm

For those interested I have found with the help of Mike V. several softwares you may find useful I'll add to the list as I find more. If others have useful software to mention I will add them to the list:

Poisson Superfish
EPHI
Today's the Day! We go into Space!

User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:57 am
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:16 am

SIMION is another my father mentioned.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!

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

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:30 am

Monroe,

I think we can exclude all the simple solutions and all of it's variations after 60 years of intense fusion research, so electrostatic confinement (first order approach) on it's own isn't going to do it, electrostatic/magnetic or electrostatic/mechanic (second order approach) probably isn't going to do it either, it is possible that the solution lies in the third or fourth order approach.

If we look at the sun, it more or less fits the third order, using electrostatic, gravitational and to an extent mechanical confinement in it's core, maybe there are also some magnetic forces that play a role in the fusion process as well.

Time wise, it may have taken 6 years to explore the first order devices, then 60 years to explore all the second order devices, and maybe 600 years to take it to the next level

Better get going, no time to loose :)

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

User avatar
Monroe Lee King Jr
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:57 am
Real name: Monroe Lee King Jr
Location: Lampasas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Monroe Lee King Jr » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:10 pm

The software is not a solution it's just a tool to allow better understanding.

I would love to discuss this in my fusion theory thread.
Today's the Day! We go into Space!

Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:24 am
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:55 pm

In Bussard's talk, "Should Google go Nuclear?" Bussard mentions that the reason he spent 12 years experimenting without computer models was that it would take 14 years of time on a Cray supercomputer to model his system.

I don't believe that for a minute - at least not with today's computers (definitely what he said is true in 1992).

Especially with parallel processing in a graphics card I think its do-able to model lots of systems and configurations in considerably less time (and $$$) than it would take to perform the experiments.

So what effects on the particles are most important to model? Each option below adds orders of magnitude of time to do the calculation, due to the need to calculate for each particle. I'm still in the beginning of understanding nuclear fusion reaction forces, so please do add your insight on what else should be in the list. I've been a long time out of Semiconductor Physics so my quantum physics is rusty.

Gravity
Electrostatic forces of Container walls, grid, apparatus fixtures
Magnetic forces
Quantum uncertainty of position/velocity
Particle loss by diffusion into grid, wall, vacuum pump or other apparatus
Nuclear forces (haven't completely researched this one, but assume this is only necessary at near distances)

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12201
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Richard Hull » Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:48 pm

All the solutions and predictions will forever fall short of what is really going on in the complex multibody system to be modeled. Too many cross interacting forces and probabilities.

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.

Ross Moffett
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:24 am
Real name: Ross Moffett

Re: Fusor Computer Modeling

Post by Ross Moffett » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:27 pm

Do you feel the models could come close, though? Even within 25% of reality?

Lots of fluid dynamics simulators, cloth simulators, particle simulators out there. They're at least close enough to be believable, if not the exact combination of chaotic reactions occurring in a real experiment, by using realistic variable in the algorithm. Existing data for inertial confinement reactors should be a good start, that you could then move on with to simulate other designs, energy inputs and reactor sizes.

Blender 3d particle video render

Post Reply