Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Post Reply
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Sun May 10, 2020 12:13 pm

Hello to all,

For the ones interested by new proposals about fusion, here is an article about of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor (at principles level). It can be downloaded here:
http://f6cte.free.fr/Proposal_of_a_new_ ... _Rev_A.pdf

Abstract: in the standard fusion reactors (as tokamaks, stellarators…), the plasma is in thermal equilibrium. At the present time, the mechanical gain obtained by these reactors is below 1. In the other hand, there are non-thermal fusion reactors, as, for example, the « Fusor », “Migma”, etc, for which the speed of a particle is directed around one direction (anisotropic distribution) and around one value (so closer to a monoenergetic distribution). However the plasma not being neutral in these reactors, the space charge limits the number of fusions to a very small number. Consequently, for this reason and for others reasons, the mechanical gain is extremely low.
The proposed reactor is also a non-thermal fusion reactor using directed beams, but D+/T+ ions are injected with electrons, at high speeds, so as to form a neutral beam and in opposed speed so as to produce frontal fusions. All these particles will turn in a magnetic closed loop in form of figure of “8” to avoid any global drift. The advantage of this reactor is that fusions are done in an optimum way with a limited Bremsstrahlung effect. It permits to consider aneutronic fusions. This reactor has been checked on a simulator.

Patrick Lindecker

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12103
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Richard Hull » Sun May 10, 2020 7:16 pm

An interesting and complex paper, that is well presented.

Do you have any idea what this concept might cost in a realistic experimental setting? There are, as usual, many complex physical construction issues that touch on many scientific disciplines. I imagine the cost would be in the millions of the money.

The neutral beam concept is interesting as relates to secondary electron injection and its effect on aiding fusion.

Thanks for sharing.

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.

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Sun May 10, 2020 8:53 pm

Hello Richard,

Thanks for have a look.

About the cost, I think that a colliding reactor (as Fusor and others) is much cheaper that a Tokamak because you have not to carry a plasma to 100 mlllions of degrees (or more) through different complicated ways. Instead you use particles injectors. A neutral beam is a necessity (as on Tokamaks) if you want to produce MW and not mW. And as in the Tokamaks, electrons and ions must be in kinetic equilibrium. However not in the thermal way as for Tokamaks.

If it was my money and if I was rich☺, I will go step by step and first, I will test if the "corksrews" (for ions not for wine ☺) work as expected, i.e. if they are able to normalize the ions of a small ions beam so as to keep a monoenergetic beam directed in only one direction (taking into account the space charge so as to have the same magnitude of radial forces than with a neutral beam). If they will not work as expected, better would be to abandon. Corksrews are the key.

Patrick Lindecker

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12103
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Richard Hull » Mon May 11, 2020 5:05 am

Very wise to test as you go in any venture that is complex. One never knows when seemingly ideal theory and math don't play well in the real world of the doing.

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
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1788
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Dennis P Brown » Mon May 11, 2020 9:19 pm

Skimmed the paper; first off, you obviously spent a great deal of time on this and over all, tried to be thorough - I'd say you did a good job and should continue your invesigations via paper research.

My primary (through, not only) issue is the basic design:

The figure eight plasma containment configuration is used by stellators (highly modified, of course) but the magnetic fields in those devices are hidiously complex for a simple reason - if not, the simple figure eight leaks so badly keeping the plasma hot is impossible. This design, as presented, suffers from this exact problem that this type of device exhibits; as such, that simple figure eight design was shown not to work at all. Not clear if this issue was even thought of by the writer since it is not discused nor how that issue (without building those very complex magnets), will be addressed.

Injecting opposing ions in a race track pattern is, of course, old hat for particle accelerator people. That said, the cross section of interaction isn't very impressive (for single pass, of course). The trouble is, that figure eight device will not support multiple passes as hoped. So why does this approch claim that their device will produce net energy? Since they'll never keep the plasma stable for multiple collisions for the very reason I stated earlier - the plasma just isn't stable enough in that configuration - so it is highly unlikely this approch will work (even ignoring the hot ion injection and and having oppositly traveling ions in the same 'ring' (they aren't just going to drift after injection and the issue of Bremsstrahlung isn't as easy to solve as they present) are more issues that are treated too simply but the basic design is the critical one that is a "show stopper".)

This issue of lost plasma via leakage in that primative field (5T magnets doesn't solve that issue at all) is fundemental to their design but that doesn't mean fusion via accelerators isn't worthy of investigation; just that such a simplistic plasma 'bottle' will never work regardless of the string of calculations (that apparently assume rather perfect containment.)

Again, good overall paper study on some simple aspects of the plasma and certainly trying new approaches is always a good thing; since building hardware is a bit expensive (lol), calculations are the way to go;however, ignoring reality (others work) will lead one down a blind alley.

You might want to read the wiki for a general overview of the real world issues related to collisional fusion device to get a better handle on these problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colliding_beam_fusion

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Tue May 12, 2020 8:14 am

Hello Dennis,

As far as I know (i.e through my books) the main source of leak of tokamaks (and hence stellarators) is the magnetic field drift (due to the fact that magnetid field is not constant on a section), this variation of field acting on the ions radial speeds (by separating particles before making them leak). In these reactors, there is naturally radial speed as the ions are in thermal state (movements are isotropic).

Moreover when I leave the simulator without any radial speed control, it is clear that ions are lost simply due to Coulomb collisions between them.

About ions, in what it is proposed, the goal is to constraint ions in an only axial speed. Removing radial speed is removing the main source of leak. It is the function of "corkscrews" to renormalize beams.
Now about electrons, there is no radial control, as it is not possible. So there will be certainly a leak (but due to the very small weight of electrons, it will be weak). But in that case it participates (with the controlled extraction of electrons proposed) to compensate the Bremsstrahlung (which is a big problem even with the D/T fuel and much more with other fuels). To solve this problem, I proposed that lost electrons will be replaced by electrons injected at the double level of energy compared to the extraction ones. So the difference of energies will compensate Bremsstrahlung.

Thanks to your link. I proposed to you these two references (which are among my "Bibles" in the subject):

[1] "A general critique of inertial-electrostatic confinement fusion systems » by Todd H. Rider
Physics of Plasmas 2, 1853 (1995); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871273
[2] "Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium » by Todd Harrison Rider
Physics of Plasmas 4, 1039 (1997); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.872556

Patrick Lindecker

User avatar
Dennis P Brown
Posts: 1788
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 2:46 pm
Real name: Dennis P Brown
Location: Glen Arm, MD

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Dennis P Brown » Tue May 12, 2020 10:00 am

First of all, an interesting idea (couter rotating ions) and an excellent start.

Again, good work and keep at it. In time, learn how to apply far more complex (realistic) issues like the massive leakage of the plasma from that device (will happen regardless of your simplistic 'corkscrew') and look for methods to correct this problem enough so the device can create some fusion (people have spent thirty years just on those calculations & experiments). I'd bet you end up with the same stellator solution as the German's in their W-7x (your "corkscrew" is a very simple variation on that concept but highly unlikely to work as shown in your paper - that being the heart of your idea it certainly needs far more refinment and actual testing.)

However, using injection and couter rotating ions in a singular plasma 'bottle' is beyond current techonolgy - issues such as how to continue adding energy to the couter flowing ions and sereve coulomb scattering by ions will lead to massive de-stablization issues within the plasma. However, do continue to refine your approch. You have a good start and a very interesting and well worked paper.

On the otherhand, your idea of replacing 'lost' electrons will likely be very costly in energy and a possible 'show stopper' as well (disruption of the field could also be extremely serious and even the German's are being very careful about that issue. Microwave heating is how it is now done but that is impossible for couter rotating ions of identical charge.) Since your ions (the D+ and T+) are counter flowing (ignoring scatter issues between ions) you can't use electrons to accelerate the existing couter flowing ions selectively - two opposite electron beams will simply create a massive mess of replusion between those electron beams within the field and will never accelerate the ions axially no matter how you try. In any case, these problems are definitely not something that can answer via calculations & simple models but needs a test bed (simple) to demonstrate that approch - might I suggest a linear plasma vacuum bottle (simple glass pipe with axial field coils) with opposte ion injection (low power/energy) and electron beams to see if you can accomplish this critical part of your idea. Might be worth your effort to experimentally examin that issue.

In no case do I think your approch isn't interesting and worthy to examin in more detail. Again, excellent work and look forward to seeing you continue and post more on your ideas as you refine them.

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Tue May 12, 2020 8:17 pm

Dennis,

About interactions between particles (electrons and ions), I'm relatively confident on my calculations (and simulations). However, it's true that it must be not so direct because first tokamaks confine plasma 0.01 s or less whereas the last generation confine about 100 s. Moreover, I have not considered possible instabilities.

As you point out, the weakness is relative to the magnetic corskrews which exact behaviour would deserve more calculation/simulation (possible) and testing (beyond my possibilities).

Thanks for your comments and proposals.

Patrick Lindecker

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a new type of colliding beam fusion reactor which electrical gain is superior to 1

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:43 pm

The link to this paper will not work for a certain time. Sorry.

Patrick Lindecker

Post Reply