Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

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: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:44 pm

Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor able to produce nuclear fusions with a mechanical gain superior or equal to 18

Hello to all,

In a previous paper, I supposed that beams could avoid thermalization thanks to the "Corkscrew" magnetic device, but it appears that this device can't transform the radial energy in axial energy, in this case.
So in this paper, I leave the beams naturally thermalize. Note that it is only a proposal. The simulation is limited to straights pipes (not loops). So I don't know if this reactor has even a little chance to work in the reality (look at the "Points to deepen about this proposal of D/T fusion machine" in §6.2.5).

The paper can be downloaded here http://f6cte.free.fr/Proposal_of_a_prog ... _Rev_A.pdf.

Abstract: in the standard fusion reactors, mainly tokamaks, the plasma, in thermal equilibrium, is heated up to an energy of about 15 keV with complicated devices. At the present time, the mechanical gain obtained by these reactors is below 1. In the other hand, there are colliding beam fusion reactors, as for example the « Fusor », for which, the particles are initially injected radially. 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 colliding beam fusion reactor using initial directed beams, but D+/T+ ions are injected in opposition, with electrons, at high speeds, so as to form a neutral beam. All these particles turn in a magnetic loop in form of figure of “0” (“racetrack”). The plasma is initially non-thermal but, as expected, rapidly becomes thermal, so all states between non-thermal and thermal exists in this reactor. The main advantage of this reactor is that this plasma after having been brought up near to the optimum conditions for fusion (around 68 keV), is then maintained in this state, thanks to low energy non-thermal ions (≤15 keV). So the energetic cost is low and the mechanical gain (Q) is elevated (≥18). There is no net plasma current inside this reactor, so no disruptive instabilities and consequently, the working is continuous. Moreover, the main plasma control by the particles injectors (I and U) is relatively simple. This reactor has been partly checked on a simulator.

Patrick Lindecker

Joe Gayo
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:34 am
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Joe Gayo » Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:06 am

Hello Patrick,

I downloaded your Multiplasma simulator and wondered if you could elaborate on the method you used to simulate particle motion. Did you use a PIC approach?

Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:47 pm
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Proposal of a progressive thermalization fusion reactor which mechanical gain is ≥18

Post by Patrick Lindecker » Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:04 am

Hello Joe,

>I downloaded your Multiplasma simulator and wondered if you could elaborate on the method you used to simulate particle motion. Did you use a PIC approach?
I have not used specific approach or method (I did not know that there were different approaches). My "method" is the following:
I calculate the electrostatic and magnetic fields in each point of the volume, then determine the forces on each point and make evolve each particle over one step, thanks to the 3D elementary force applied on each particle (determined according to its exact position). Interactions between particles (particulary coulombian collisions) are more complicated. In all cases, it is an application of physics laws using calculation methods coming from the digital processing domain (I'm used to these methods).
It's just a lot of (interesting) work.

Patrick

Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”