Fusor Computer Modeling

[Tom McCarthy]

Speaking of plasma physics, is anybody involved with the Max Planck insitute for plasma physics in Germany?

Sorry to hijack the thread - I know I should be sticking to the subject or not posting, delete the post if you guys want to.

Tom

[Monroe Lee King Jr]

I think all that's needed for fusor modeling (for amateur fusor design) are the effects of voltage pressure, free space and grid size in the ranges used there is no need in other words for a 12" diameter chamber at 6kv at 10 micron. And you would expect to see x plasma density (from residual air in this case). I'm always into the minimal expenditure for maximum result with least effort within reason.

Monroe

One ion would be sufficient for such a model.

[Richard Hull]

I fear the fact that you are new here leaves you open to a Cassandra-like overview of the operation of the simple fusor as built here. Those who have been here many years, who have done fusion and know the actual workings of the fusor realize the extreme complexity of its operation stemming solely from its very simplicity. There are no real controls, just variables. All of these are co-dependent and mutually interacting. These actions often operate in a contrarian manner to fusion while others are surprisingly helpful in ways not imagined at first glance.

Where is your posited single ion born or created in your fusor model's volume?

Those of some foreknowledge here know that deuterons are created all over the volume of the chamber. This fact alone sets a multitudinous ion lifetime and interaction paradigm that is virtually incalculable. The ion energy spectrum can be from 14 ev to that of the applied voltage. Fusion may be caused in any number of possible modalities and interactions.

It is a merry nightmare for a modeler who really comprehends the fusing/ion action within the device.

A simple model will always lie and be a non-starter, but perhaps leave the simple modeler smug and confident. A perfect setup for a fall when his hardware doesn't answer the model. Assuming the modeler continues to seek enriched understanding, there will begin a continuous, long term fight to understand what goes on in the fusor as relates to the many processes that allow it to fuse.

Richard Hull

[Monroe Lee King Jr]

Well I'll join the fight then See what I can come up with.

Monroe

Ah these are quadrpole mass spectrometers yep I was looking at making one. I've seen one made I believe at the Bell Jar.

[Richard Hull]

If you go to this URL

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/presentations/jfs_aps02.pdf

You will see the work done up to 2002 in a poster presented by the folks at U of W. It shows a segmented region of the fusor and what has been seen to that time in the D,e plasma models as found in our fusors. It ain't simple and they knew it. The poster shows it in, still, a rather simplified manner. Lots of other contributors, I am sure.

Ricahrd Hull

[Monroe Lee King Jr]

Neet O! But I don't think we need a complex model to judge the grid arrangement on the scale I'm looking for. I don't have time to look into it right now as I don't need it yet! But when I do I'll come up with something that will work I always do.

Monroe

[JamesC]

I was new once here too. Software simulation seems such an obvious step for such as seemingly simple device. What little I knew. Like many I was inspired by Dr Buzzards Google Presentation to investigate fusion. The fusor is a mixed blessing since it is in the range of the individual serious engineer to build and achieve fusion, it just needs to be tweaked.. right? Nope. I say mixed blessing because its also within range of every crackpot in town. This fusor list has a delicate balance to walk, without the interest of at least the possibility of a world changing breakthrough there would be no traffic to pontificate to. On the other hand let the trolls run amuck and the noise to information ratio makes the site worthless.

I happen to write simulation software for a living, my own electronics simulation software packages or rather mostly emulation. Its an important distinction on the one hand you model the fundamentals and let the behaviour emerge, on the other you model the behaviour itself.

To explore the fusor I started like I always do with things, in code. I can build 'real things' well enough but I am not in this to make 'yet another fusor'. For those of you thinking cool, there is going to be some code for me to play with at the end of this post. Sorry. Let me explain, mastering the fusor is not about getting some software that you think represents the real world and the tweaking away at the parameters until it spits out what seems to be your very own little Eureka break-through. That's just so not how this thing works.

>I feel the most valuable question this would answer that so far it doesn't seem like is known, is where does the fusion occur most? In the transit zone between the shell and grid? Inside the plasma ball? On the grid itself?

This is from earlier in this thread and its really an important point. The fusor is a highly dynamic system and there is absolutely no way in hell it can be tweaked to become a net energy device. At any given moment depending on the dominant transient parametrics you can get (microscopic) amounts of fusion in any of these ways. It a moving target, a dynamic chaotic system. Capturing this in software so you can tweak it is not a good use of software. You would end up making assumptions about what is happening and invalidate the result in any case.

Nevertheless software does have a critical role to play in exploring fusor like dynamic systems. But sorry, you have to write it yourself for it to have any value. Its actually the process of writing the software that gives you the understanding of the processes. So a few years ago I did that, wrote a N:N particle simulator toolkit for exploring the fusor. The way it works is that you create various software experiments and run them. It spits out results like this


Actually I can't remember specifically this experiment. Its marked FICS in my toolkit (it was the last one I had loaded ) - so I think I remember I was trying to verify some of the principles of steves FICS setup.

I learned *a lot* about the fusor and dynamic particles in building the software and running the experiments. Here is a list of virtual experiments

'******* Tests **********
'testSynchronizer()
'testIonShaper()
'testElectronGlue2()
'demoBridge()
'demoStar()

'Test 1 with field..
'testFlat()
'testMagField()
'testSpin()
'testWave()
'testOscillator()
'testSynchronizer()

'testIonTrap()
'testElectronGlue()
'testIonTrap2()

'******* Experiments **********
' experiment = New IonTrapCoolor

' experiment = New MagneticLens2()
' experiment = New SwitchingCooler()
' experiment = New PathDampening()
' experiment = New DifferentialCompression2
' experiment = New MagneticLens()
' experiment = New EBDriftTrap()
' experiment = New DifferentialCompression
' experiment = New TargetTrap
' experiment = New SwitchingCirculiser()
' experiment = New EBDrift()
' experiment = New PingPong()
' experiment = New VelocityFocus()
' experiment = New VisualiseMagneticField
' experiment = New Cyclotron()
' experiment = New SpinningDisk
' experiment = New PulseSplitter
' experiment = New ForceBetweenChargedPlates

experiment = New FICS

For Each instrument As Instrument In experiment.getInstruments
Panel2.Controls.Add(instrument.create())
Next
experiment.runSim()

- you can see its for only for my use as a coder because instead of fancy user interfaces and select boxes I just have commented out the experiment when I created a new one.

So this my point, even if you go ahead and download a somewhat related open-source project its not going to be useful to you simply because you wont understand enough about its limitations and assumptions if you are only a user. All software of this type is based on assumptions all of which will invalidate the result if you are only trying to use it as a 'user'.

As for my take on the fusor. Its not a power device but it does give us hints and tangible starting place to begin building something. So this is how I use the software, not for modelling a fusor but for identify physically realisable building blocks for controlling the uncontrollable using symmetry and special case mathematics to "cross-out" the loss generating processes.

In fact I do have a design now based on my virtual experimentation, just maybe there is something in it. If I ever get my hands free for long enough I will invest in the proof of concept physical experiments to validate the building blocks of the design ( and will in the process of doing that no-doubt prove myself foolish ).

So in regard to software. Absolutely essential in my opinion but sorry its not a shortcut to glory, it *IS* the knowledge you seek and *you* have to write it to understand it enough for it to be useful.

JC

[jelopez777]

I have a basic computer model of a single ion movement within a spherical fusor. I know most comments favor a fully populated ion simulation but that requires so much computing power as to be impractical. My approach is to study the movement of a single ion and introduce collisions and repulsions that are expected to occur within a fusor. I discovered soon enough the difficulty of containment, in other words preventing collisions with the sphere wall. I have since experimented with adding magnetic fields (the Bussard approach being one of them) with the simulations and discovered the Lorentz effect was even more counter productive. I have had better results with electromagnetic waves but the fusor diameter requirement grew in size to a full meter. I am now stuck, just like most experimenters, with no funds to build such a massive fusor. On the topic of funding simulations maybe it would be better to fund it not just for the simulation but also for the actual fusor to be built.