A very interesting and thought provoking paper

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".
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by Richard Hull » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:38 pm

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRtheoretica.pdf

All must check out this pdf!

The Chubbs offer an interesting paper presented in 2000 regarding alternate fusion ideas. It is worth a read by all who would do any kind of fusion.

The Chubbs are NRL(Naval Research Lab), Phds, (father-son), and are only two among a cadre of Naval researchers who are deep into fusion in the cold. (CANR-LENR)......go Navy!

The paper suggests expanding concepts from "inside the box" to expand "the box". This stems from thinking outside the box while still sitting in it. As knowledge expands, so must "the box".

True fusion.........You know..........The one we can't do......D + D = He4.........It is the one seen in CF cells for the most part. I forget who the poster was here in the discussion of the O-P reaction noted that all our fusion was a form of stripping (from one to the other). While this though might be extreme it impressed the hell outta' me. True, absolute fusion is, indeed, total fusion of both bodies as is D+D=He4 (obviously, the other reactions are also forms of fusion and must involve the hypothesized strong force).

We may still be on the slow, upward part of the "understanding fusion" curve and nowhere near as far a long as we might want to think we are. There could be many ways to skin this cat.

The crux of the Chubb's paper is that we tend to see fusion in geometrically regular, loaded metal latices where the density of coherence capable "cells" is high and coherence opportunities at the EMI levels are more probable. Interesting....And the math tends to show that one would truly need ideal conditions that just might not be repeatable at a macro scale casually. Furthermore that heating due to energy output might just shut the whole thing down due to changing the parameters. They further note that in their posited scenario, the requisite 17+ mev gamma would not be demanded which is observed in the rare hot fusion reaction as the energy-momentum balance is occuring at a lower energy state.

I could easily imagine biological systems self-organizing to do this stuff at low levels without our explicit permission over the eons. Bio-physicists in some quarters are sniffing around at this, currently. While Kervran might have been a been out there a bit in his 70's book, the gist of his overall argument might have been right on all along.

I found the conundrum of the Chubb's paper regarding precise conditions a bit like the early fission piles wherein they would "bump", (start then stop then start again). This confounded early nuclear researchers. Unfortunately, the unpredictability of the CF reaction will not be solved as easily as venting off the Xenon gas poisoning of those early piles.

By going to the CANR-LENR home page.....

http://lenr-canr.org/


......and clicking on the "US Navy special collections" You can access thermal camera image movies taken at Naval Warfare Research Center of a CF electrotrode having the CF reaction spread over the electrode over 90 seconds. The formal paper presented regarding this is also highlighted, among other NRL papers.

Yet more grist for the mill.

Richard Hull

P.S. I swear, I see more hope in the new science scratched and clawed at here than any results proceeding from a system of hot gases in vacuo. The hope is for new forms of fusion and new science and not, necessarily, immediate new energy. RH
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
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 1721
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 6:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by Frank Sanns » Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:15 pm

Interesting indeed and this is one paper I for one agree with.

In chemistry, chemicals don't usually just react. There are intermediate steps for even the simplist of reactions. It would not surprise me in the least if this is true with nuclear reactions like fusion. It would be naively simplistic to think that 2 deuterons just happen to jump together to make helium if they are in the local femtometer neighborhood. Things must be just right.

Often I have talked about resonance in the fusor using RF potentials. Perhaps my use of the word is not sufficient. The noun string, coherent resonance is more accurate. If the overlap of wave functions occurs in a matrix of atoms that can fuse, then there is a good statistical chance that they will indeed fuse. In the case of cold fusion, deuterium atoms (not D2 molecules like we start with) are in a very unique and environment. They sit tighter with other atoms that are at the equivilent of thousands of atmospheres pressure. Colder temperatures enhance this effect and work to make the uniformity in the matrix much higher.

My point is that the minimum ~20 KV potential for fusion to occur in a fusor is not necessary correct under coherent resonant conditons. If the atoms can be made to overlap thier probability of being in nearly the same place, at the same time, with other atoms then there can be fusion.

I believe strongly that the answer is in front of all of us. We just need to quit trying to hit the deuterons together harder and start thinking how to get them together smarter!

Frank S.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:44 pm

Right on Frank!

One thing that hurts CF is the relatively low apparent carnot efficiency and shutdown of the reaction as if it is poisoned.

The CF energy out is far in excess of any chemical energy per unit reacting atom, but also far below the classic hot fusion output with its MEV flyoffs.

The key to making CF a goer in the energy field is getting a large amount of burnup that can be controlled and predicted (long way off, I bet). There is a vast gulf between classic chemical reactions and the fission/fusion/nuclear reactions.

In the chemical reaction, virtually every molecule joins in and supplies an ev or two to the energy output. There is not a lot of unconsumed residue in a nitro explosion. (naturally all the mass is still there, effectively. It is just in another chemical form that is now stable and recombined or separated)

In the nuclear reaction, the opposite occurs. Virtually all of the mass in the reaction remains as it was before the reaction.... untouched. A criminally small amount is actually consumed. However that tiny amount produces 6 to 8 orders of magnitude more energy per unit atom than the chemical reaction.

While CF is still being quantified, the figures bandied about are on the order of 1 to 3 orders of magnitude greater than a chem reaction per unit atom so reacted. If we could just reach 50% reaction, then that output would serve us well.

Unfortunately, as in hot fusion, the act of "cold" fusing in metal lattices leaves the lattice shattered and unusable for a second run just as the hot plasma can't be contained in classic HF.

As in the "Don Juan" play of Shaw, The Devil's words haunt us.

"Mans strength is measured by his destructiveness"

Fission we can do as we are the destroyers of matter, releasing long pent up energies within the nucleus placed there in some long gone super nova that created the Uranium or its parent.

As nuclear assemblers, it appears, we are bunglers!

We are poor creators, but superb destroyers.

Are we doomed to forever be destroyers of matter and chemistry for our energy quest?

"hard sayins" as Brother Dave Gardner used to say (50s-60s southern comedian)

More "ifs" and no direction leaves this issue for the future.

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.

Edward Miller
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:50 am
Real name: Edward Miller
Contact:

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by Edward Miller » Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:04 pm

Richard, I absolutely love reading your posts.

ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by ChrisSmolinski » Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:20 pm

Richard's spot on - we human use high density sources of potential energy
(oil, coal, fission), which the universe has spent millions of years slowly
building up. We need lots of energy, and we want it NOW.

What strikes me as interesting regarding the current attempts at hot fusion is
the apparent lack of "big picture" thought about the models nature has
provided us with - namely the stars. That is, if you could reproduce the output
of the Sun, would it be useful?

The best figure I could find for the sun is 230MW/sq m toal power output,
which works out to 1.40e+27 W (using 6.1e+18 sq m as the surface area).
The core of the sun is roughly the inner 30% radius region, or a volume of
about 3.81e+25 m^3. So the Sun's "power generation density" is roughly 37
W per cubic meter. (Please, someone, check my math)

37W / m^3 does not excite me very much. For example, my house uses
about 1600 kW/hr of electrical power every month (it's a 100% electric house
down to the well pump). That's 53 kW/hr a day or about 2222 W continuously.
I'd need a 60 cubic meter "Mr. Fusion Reactor" to power my house, assuming
100% efficiency of conversion to electrical power, and negligible additional
volume other than the reactor core itself. Or do we think we're going to find a
way to do fusion *better* than nature does in stars?

It sometimes baffles me that we're trying to hard to build our own fusion
reactors when we've got one operating in the "neighborhood" sending energy
our way already. And this one didn't even need an NRC license.

The trick, IMHO, is thinking "outside the box" and finding novel ways of using
that energy. Everyone's focused on turning it into electricity (using solar cells)
because electricity is our hammer and everything looks like nails. So we
want to turn solar energy into electricity (at some horribly low efficiency) so
we can later use it to heat something up.

There's a great little book from the early 1960s called "Direct Use of the
Sun's Energy" (or close to that). Yeah, it's 4 decades old, but sadly enough
not much has changed since then. Besides the basics of using solar energy
to heat your house and water, you can also use it to cool things down. Think
basic chemistry and phase changes of materials.

Frank's post also was very interesting, I too have pondered whether or not
there are certain "magic" operating conditions that suddenly make the fusion
reaction rate increase by several orders of magnitude. That's an area
researchers IMHO should be looking into, not beating down the same old
path over and over, which we know leads nowhere. But I guess it's easer to
get grant money doing what is "accepted" rather than something new and
might upset the apple cart.

john_h
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:00 pm
Real name:

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by john_h » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:00 pm

There is a similar, longer, less densely mathematical and more conversational review paper by Scott Chubb. He fills in a lot of historical context.

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publicat ... 2-vol1.pdf

This is a book. Goto page 101 to find the paper.

Incidentally, Talbot and Scott Chubb are Uncle and Nephew, respectively.

Best, John

Alex Aitken
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 10:33 am
Real name:

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by Alex Aitken » Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:04 pm

Chris, its not an impressive number but then the sun does it the hard way. 4H an all and even that wouldnt happen if it wasnt cheating by using a catalyctic method.

1kw/m2 might seem reasonable for sunlight but this is peak under the best conditions and its not much use for a power plant anywhere land costs real money. In the northern half of europe of course a solar power plant is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by Richard Hull » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:09 pm

Sorry about the error on the Chubb's. I know the Uncle is retired from NRL after many years service and they have a small research facility carrying on the work.

This is the way it happens........good scientists smell a winner, devote as much time as an employer will allow and ultimately quit their jobs or retire early to follow the CF dream. Ed Storms is another fine example. (I think ex-Los Alamos)

Chris' calcs are about right as an average. The sun isn't doing fusion very well. It is just doing it on the large. This is one reason I don't hold out a lot of great hope on plasmas.

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.

DaveC
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:13 am
Real name:

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by DaveC » Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:49 am

Was thinking a little bit about the comment that the sun's output is not very efficient. I wonder .. efficient as compared to what?

I actually calculated about 46 MW per cubic meter, for the energy output as light (the 1kW/sq m ) incident on the earth's upper atmosphere . or the std 1 Sun energy level. )

But this number far exceeds anything we do on earth... particularly if you consider the mean time between "major maintenance events".

I think some combustion turbines, might get close to the 46MW/m^3 figure, if you consider only the combustion volume, O f course they don't last a long time at these operating power levels. But the firebox volumes of std power plants are in the range of 5000 cu meters give or take.... so that with a 3000MWt (thermal) output, gives about 0.6 MW/ cu meter. Old Sol does it pretty well, wouldn't you say?

I didn't bother to look up how much more energy is emitted at higher energies, and as particles... So if Jon's figure of 230 MW/cu meter covers all that, old Sol looks even more impressive.

Our fusors are generating about a nanowatt with a cubic mm (??) of poissor volume... that's about 1 watt per cu meter. And if the site of fusion events in the table-top IEC device is actually out in the neutral gas volume, then the power density is lower by several more orders of magnitude.

Interesting things to ponder.

Dave Cooper

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12431
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: A very interesting and thought provoking paper

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:58 pm

I was referring to volumetric efficiency of fusion. Obviously, the bulk of the sun is not involved in any form of fusion, only the tiniest of fraction is. All of this is according to a number of sources. I have read many conflicting claims being an average of 0.5 fusions/cubic meter/second to 100 fusions/ cubic meter/second. I have no way of knowing the base line for these calcs.

The actual mechanism whereby the sun fuses is hidden, perhaps in the interior. Remember, there is a range of energies for each fusion depending on what fusion type occurs. Some fusions make our D-D fusion look pretty poor.

In the fusor, our fusion zone is pretty tiny and pretty active. There are obviously areas of the sun where it is an amazingly prodigious output that is beyond our comprehension. The bulk of the sun is fusing ZIP and this drags the average fusion rate per unit volume down ( I assume the figures I have read are based on only hydrogen and helium burning which appears to be the bulk of the solar fusion work.)

We are pretty much at the mercy of what "THEY" tell us. Of course, "THEY" are the ones we have allowed to try and do fusion for us with billions of the money.

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.

Post Reply