S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
For the last two years, I have been working on a new approach to fusion, and so far I have managed to keep the cat in the bag, but it looks as if quantum mechanics has got the better of the cat. Although we still don't know if the cat is dead or alive.
The new Sesselmann Tube Accelerator Reactor or STAR, has been designed to minimize electron losses from the grid to the anode. It does this by insulating the anode from the cathode with transformer oil. Leaving only one or more narrow tubes for the ions to be accelerated through. The transformer oil also acts as a good moderator, keeping the energy and a fair number of neutrons within the reactor, where they can do more good. The He3 and Tritium fusion product is also retained within the core, keeping the energy centrally where it is most needed.
As Richard correctly states, in a previous post
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3770#p24190
electrons can not be eliminated all together, but they can be minimized. The star reactor is essentially a deep potential energy hole in space, into which one can drop and trap any ionized particle. If the heat in the core can be maintained, and particles remain ionized, then there is no way for the positive ions to escape the well.
Some rough calculations that I did shows that I need to fuse 1 deuteron for every 7200 accelerated, in order to break even.
At the very least, this method of fusion if it works is extremely cheap and simple to build, easier than a standard Hirsch fusor.
At the moment I am about 3-4 weeks from finishing my MK2 STAR reactor, so until I have some neutrons to prove my case, the discussion goes on.
Last it should be mentioned that there is a PCT patent on the reactor chamber which if all goes well will go into the national phase sometime next year.
Happy to answer questions
More information can be found on my web site;
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
Steven
The new Sesselmann Tube Accelerator Reactor or STAR, has been designed to minimize electron losses from the grid to the anode. It does this by insulating the anode from the cathode with transformer oil. Leaving only one or more narrow tubes for the ions to be accelerated through. The transformer oil also acts as a good moderator, keeping the energy and a fair number of neutrons within the reactor, where they can do more good. The He3 and Tritium fusion product is also retained within the core, keeping the energy centrally where it is most needed.
As Richard correctly states, in a previous post
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3770#p24190
electrons can not be eliminated all together, but they can be minimized. The star reactor is essentially a deep potential energy hole in space, into which one can drop and trap any ionized particle. If the heat in the core can be maintained, and particles remain ionized, then there is no way for the positive ions to escape the well.
Some rough calculations that I did shows that I need to fuse 1 deuteron for every 7200 accelerated, in order to break even.
At the very least, this method of fusion if it works is extremely cheap and simple to build, easier than a standard Hirsch fusor.
At the moment I am about 3-4 weeks from finishing my MK2 STAR reactor, so until I have some neutrons to prove my case, the discussion goes on.
Last it should be mentioned that there is a PCT patent on the reactor chamber which if all goes well will go into the national phase sometime next year.
Happy to answer questions
More information can be found on my web site;
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
- Mike Beauford
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:24 pm
- Real name:
- Location: Morton Grove, IL
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Good luck with your design Steve. I hope it works or at least increases the neutron yield considerably!
Mike Beauford
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Now this is a radical approach
Having read your Patent, I await the Mk2 with bated breath.
Just wonder how the inner sphere will stand up to the bombardment if she runs - the oil will transfer the heat at low power but the sparks may happen if the thermal transfer rate is inadaquate on higher power runs.
Having read your Patent, I await the Mk2 with bated breath.
Just wonder how the inner sphere will stand up to the bombardment if she runs - the oil will transfer the heat at low power but the sparks may happen if the thermal transfer rate is inadaquate on higher power runs.
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
John,
If I melt the reactor chamber, I won't be back to tell you all how the experiment went, maybe I should get a web cam?
Two solutions spring to mind, one is to put a Tungsten lining in the cathode chamber, this will tolerate more heat, and also serve to reflect some neutrons back into the chamber. The other is to machine cooling ribs on the outside of the cathode.
Steven
If I melt the reactor chamber, I won't be back to tell you all how the experiment went, maybe I should get a web cam?
Two solutions spring to mind, one is to put a Tungsten lining in the cathode chamber, this will tolerate more heat, and also serve to reflect some neutrons back into the chamber. The other is to machine cooling ribs on the outside of the cathode.
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
When you light her up - just don't get carried away ( pun - as in a box
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
and don't forget to make a will - and leave me a few shares in case it works.
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Steven - I don't want to pour cold water into your project concept, but tell me why this concept will have a better fusing yield than the others of similar design - (similar, other than the grid structure details).
As I understand these processes, what limits the fusor's output is not grid losses, but fusion yield. That's not intended to be double talk, but the yield of the these devices is very limited because the number of fusion opportunities is low, because of lack of focus, and all the things we have discussed for a long time.
The fusor slings lots of ions around. This takes power to get them up to speed, but that's all. We only see additional input current when ions are replaced after striking an electrode of opposite polarity. So the continuing current drawn by the fusor, IS the measure of ion- electrode collisions. "Ions" in this context include both electrons and deuterons.
If you are successful in eliminating all (or most) wall/grid collisions, your input current after a brief surge at startup, will be representative of the actual fusion rate. So neutrons/ sec will become a measure of the absolute minimum current, ignoring all losses.
Be interesting to see how your device does in this regard.
Cheers...
Dave Cooper
As I understand these processes, what limits the fusor's output is not grid losses, but fusion yield. That's not intended to be double talk, but the yield of the these devices is very limited because the number of fusion opportunities is low, because of lack of focus, and all the things we have discussed for a long time.
The fusor slings lots of ions around. This takes power to get them up to speed, but that's all. We only see additional input current when ions are replaced after striking an electrode of opposite polarity. So the continuing current drawn by the fusor, IS the measure of ion- electrode collisions. "Ions" in this context include both electrons and deuterons.
If you are successful in eliminating all (or most) wall/grid collisions, your input current after a brief surge at startup, will be representative of the actual fusion rate. So neutrons/ sec will become a measure of the absolute minimum current, ignoring all losses.
Be interesting to see how your device does in this regard.
Cheers...
Dave Cooper
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Dave,
There is no reason for primary deuterons to hit the walls, what will hit the inside walls of the cathode is the fusion products He3 and T these are high energy positive ions that will either bounce off the inside surface and not pick up an electron, or become embedded in the metal and take up an electron.
The principle is similar to a Van deGraaf generator, where electrons are shunted to the outside surface of the cathode, leaving the inside surface neutral. The cathode wall is permeable to electrons and beta particles, but is impermeable to any positively charged particles.
The MK2 reactor will have a powerful ion source, which will hopefully light the STAR FIRE
Steven
There is no reason for primary deuterons to hit the walls, what will hit the inside walls of the cathode is the fusion products He3 and T these are high energy positive ions that will either bounce off the inside surface and not pick up an electron, or become embedded in the metal and take up an electron.
The principle is similar to a Van deGraaf generator, where electrons are shunted to the outside surface of the cathode, leaving the inside surface neutral. The cathode wall is permeable to electrons and beta particles, but is impermeable to any positively charged particles.
The MK2 reactor will have a powerful ion source, which will hopefully light the STAR FIRE
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Steve,
What you're doing is placing the cathode into the oil filled areas to keep the ions from striking the grid and taking an electron? Effective insulating the cathode?
What you're doing is placing the cathode into the oil filled areas to keep the ions from striking the grid and taking an electron? Effective insulating the cathode?
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Yes Mark, rather like turning a Farnsworth fusor inside out.
This will allow me to create a deep static potential energy well in space, without using any current (a very minimal amount of current).
Once you have this electrostatic potential energy hole, you can just drop your ions down the hole and stand back
Steven
This will allow me to create a deep static potential energy well in space, without using any current (a very minimal amount of current).
Once you have this electrostatic potential energy hole, you can just drop your ions down the hole and stand back
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Ah.
So whats to keep the ions going in a straight line in and out of the center of the virtual cathode? Wouldn't the D2 if it didn't make it straight in and out as pictured collect on the wall?
Could the walls donate electrons to the positive ions because they are negative with respect to the ions?
So whats to keep the ions going in a straight line in and out of the center of the virtual cathode? Wouldn't the D2 if it didn't make it straight in and out as pictured collect on the wall?
Could the walls donate electrons to the positive ions because they are negative with respect to the ions?
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
I see three possible scenarios.
a) The ion goes straight down the hole and up the other side hitting nothing.
b) two ions have a direct hit and fuse
c) two ions pass very close and deflect
In case c) there is always a chance that the ion will hit the cathode wall, where it may still have enough energy to deflect off the wall without picking up an electron. Remember, the inside walls of the cathode are not negatively charged, all the negative charge is on the outside of the cathode.
Electrons repell each other, so when a conducting sphere is negatively charged, the electrons try to get as far away from each other as possible, forcing them to hover on the outside surface of the sphere.
Steven
a) The ion goes straight down the hole and up the other side hitting nothing.
b) two ions have a direct hit and fuse
c) two ions pass very close and deflect
In case c) there is always a chance that the ion will hit the cathode wall, where it may still have enough energy to deflect off the wall without picking up an electron. Remember, the inside walls of the cathode are not negatively charged, all the negative charge is on the outside of the cathode.
Electrons repell each other, so when a conducting sphere is negatively charged, the electrons try to get as far away from each other as possible, forcing them to hover on the outside surface of the sphere.
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
I see...
its brilliant!
For the sake of the future don't fry yourself with the STAR
its brilliant!
For the sake of the future don't fry yourself with the STAR
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Brilliant concept. Focus should be better than a grid system. Have you considered cooling your oil?
Joe Sal
Joe Sal
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Without further adding to Dave's cold water unnecessarily, I, too, do not see the increase in fusion, at least to a degree where significant fusion energy will be released. I still see losses as you note in several areas. Any time a deuteron hits a wall or goes anywhere and is absorbed or de-ionized, it is a net loss.
Increasing fusion, as I have noted by one, two or even three orders of magnitude (1000X) still leaves one standing nowhere in the IEC fusion energy game. Instead of nanowatts you will have micro watts for many watts expended.
For the record, I do feel 1000X improvement is possible in IEC. Whether this device is the answer, remains an open question.
Like Dave, I await full reports on this effort. I also realize the need to protect an idea that is held dear with some secrecy, but that was never what these forums were about.
Folks have had many fantastic and useful ideas regarding fusion energy generation since the mid forties, but so far, not one has made a dime off any concept or produced the first watt of fusion energy who wasn't safely employed in some sort of academic effort. (Their paychecks and advancement were the patent's end product or reward to the applicant)
Fusion has been an "inventors need not apply" world. Yet, the patents related to fusion litter the floors of past efforts! Thus far, the extant patents will reap future benefits to their applicants only if some entity looks to the manfuacture of devices that have proven themselves to have FAILED in past fusion efforts
Fusion is, indeed, the energy of the future and always will be.
As always, all the best of luck in the effort and I have a hat I am ready to eat if you can demonstrate more than ten microrwatts of continuous fusion using 500 watts of total input energy.
Richard Hull
P.S. added 10/7/07
The results of the recent testing tend to indicate pretty amazing numbers which have never been witnessed in D-D. We will hopefully see the results from a passive type detector like a bubble detector which will verify or refute the reported numbers.
Some issues remain unanswered like how much energy is spent in the ion source.
RH
Increasing fusion, as I have noted by one, two or even three orders of magnitude (1000X) still leaves one standing nowhere in the IEC fusion energy game. Instead of nanowatts you will have micro watts for many watts expended.
For the record, I do feel 1000X improvement is possible in IEC. Whether this device is the answer, remains an open question.
Like Dave, I await full reports on this effort. I also realize the need to protect an idea that is held dear with some secrecy, but that was never what these forums were about.
Folks have had many fantastic and useful ideas regarding fusion energy generation since the mid forties, but so far, not one has made a dime off any concept or produced the first watt of fusion energy who wasn't safely employed in some sort of academic effort. (Their paychecks and advancement were the patent's end product or reward to the applicant)
Fusion has been an "inventors need not apply" world. Yet, the patents related to fusion litter the floors of past efforts! Thus far, the extant patents will reap future benefits to their applicants only if some entity looks to the manfuacture of devices that have proven themselves to have FAILED in past fusion efforts
Fusion is, indeed, the energy of the future and always will be.
As always, all the best of luck in the effort and I have a hat I am ready to eat if you can demonstrate more than ten microrwatts of continuous fusion using 500 watts of total input energy.
Richard Hull
P.S. added 10/7/07
The results of the recent testing tend to indicate pretty amazing numbers which have never been witnessed in D-D. We will hopefully see the results from a passive type detector like a bubble detector which will verify or refute the reported numbers.
Some issues remain unanswered like how much energy is spent in the ion source.
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
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Interesting idea but…
This assumes “one can drop and trap any ionized particle” but at room temperature each ion is going to be traveling at several hindered miles an hour in a random direction before you accelerate it. Think of it like dropping a machine gun down a mile deep well, assuming it’s not going off everything works fine in theory but if it’s firing all the time there is going to be issues.
You drop an ion down the well and it will accelerate for a while and then hit the “chamber wall” slowing down and possibly gaining an electron or two and you still lost an electron.
If you want to understand star mode in a fuser it looks like you only accelerating things in these vents but that’s just areas of higher plasma density you’re accelerating far more ions in areas that don’t recycle well.
Anyway, in a small fuser using low density gas it would take around 500,000 as the average # of recirculation’s before you’re at break even. Long before then you have a non fusing collision which means you’re now dealing with particles going 100's of miles a second in random directions at random locations within your plasma.
PS: Yea, you can probably get some fusion using this approach.
You drop an ion down the well and it will accelerate for a while and then hit the “chamber wall” slowing down and possibly gaining an electron or two and you still lost an electron.
If you want to understand star mode in a fuser it looks like you only accelerating things in these vents but that’s just areas of higher plasma density you’re accelerating far more ions in areas that don’t recycle well.
Anyway, in a small fuser using low density gas it would take around 500,000 as the average # of recirculation’s before you’re at break even. Long before then you have a non fusing collision which means you’re now dealing with particles going 100's of miles a second in random directions at random locations within your plasma.
PS: Yea, you can probably get some fusion using this approach.
- Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Steven,
This is an interesting and thought-provoking design. What I like the most about it is that the cathode is cooled by oil and hence will never be a thermionic emitter of electrons that would otherwise result in a parasitic electron current heading back up the beamlines. The arrangement also obviates the need for a vacuum-sealed high-voltage feedthrough. One could get by with cheap Alden or other suitable HV connectors that only have to hold up against oil.
Like Richard and some others have said, it is not evident that this arrangement actually buys you better fusion efficiency (other than removing cathode thermionic losses), or the possibility of higher fusion rates. In fact, particles that do not fuse but scatter elastically within the cathode are likely to be lost to the cathode walls because they scatter into a solid angle not subtended by the beamlines, and hence I would expect that any such "linear" collider arrangement will not be capable of recirculation to the degree that a true fusor is. Another related problem is that the STAR will be space-charge-limited at currents much lower than can be used in a classic fusor. You are trying to squeeze a lot of beam current down one narrow path, instead of allowing that beam current to be distributed over the entire 4*PI solid angle.
Good work, and keep us posted on how it works out!
-Carl
This is an interesting and thought-provoking design. What I like the most about it is that the cathode is cooled by oil and hence will never be a thermionic emitter of electrons that would otherwise result in a parasitic electron current heading back up the beamlines. The arrangement also obviates the need for a vacuum-sealed high-voltage feedthrough. One could get by with cheap Alden or other suitable HV connectors that only have to hold up against oil.
Like Richard and some others have said, it is not evident that this arrangement actually buys you better fusion efficiency (other than removing cathode thermionic losses), or the possibility of higher fusion rates. In fact, particles that do not fuse but scatter elastically within the cathode are likely to be lost to the cathode walls because they scatter into a solid angle not subtended by the beamlines, and hence I would expect that any such "linear" collider arrangement will not be capable of recirculation to the degree that a true fusor is. Another related problem is that the STAR will be space-charge-limited at currents much lower than can be used in a classic fusor. You are trying to squeeze a lot of beam current down one narrow path, instead of allowing that beam current to be distributed over the entire 4*PI solid angle.
Good work, and keep us posted on how it works out!
-Carl
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Carl, I know you are a good engineer, and you have quickly identified some of the advantages of the STAR reactor, like not requiring a vacuum feedthrough. In fact it is really simple to build, the only tricky bit is joining the dielectric tubes to the cathode, and the technology to do this does exist.
Someone further up the thread mentioned the focus of the beam being an issue. The MK2 reactor will have a powerful ion source at the entrance to the reactor, once the ions enter the tube, they will be drawn in a straight line towards the center of the cathode.
Once the ions start colliding in the reactor core, scattering will occur, causing further collisions and further ionization of the gas in the core. In a -100 KV electrostatic energy well only neutral particles and ions with energies over 100 KV can escape, and in this case, only through the tubes. Therefore by flooding the reactor core with ions from the powerful ion gun, the plasma density in the core will become higher and higher, to a point where primary and secondary collisions become inevitable.
The beauty of the STAR design is that it is scalable, if 100 KV doesn't work, then just make the tubes a bit longer and go for 200 KV!
Then if things get a bit hot, the oil becomes the perfect heat exchange fluid, and can be pumped through a heat exchanger.
Alternatively, I could send Richard a ticket for a flight to Sydney, so he can stand next to the reactor and pour cold water on it
Picture:
MK1 (60mm) Cathode before welding together, this one used Swagelok fittings with Teflon ferrules, but did not give a good seal to ceramic. Brian Mc.Dermott asked me what this was 12 months ago when I posted a picture of it, sorry Brian that the answer took so long
Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
Someone further up the thread mentioned the focus of the beam being an issue. The MK2 reactor will have a powerful ion source at the entrance to the reactor, once the ions enter the tube, they will be drawn in a straight line towards the center of the cathode.
Once the ions start colliding in the reactor core, scattering will occur, causing further collisions and further ionization of the gas in the core. In a -100 KV electrostatic energy well only neutral particles and ions with energies over 100 KV can escape, and in this case, only through the tubes. Therefore by flooding the reactor core with ions from the powerful ion gun, the plasma density in the core will become higher and higher, to a point where primary and secondary collisions become inevitable.
The beauty of the STAR design is that it is scalable, if 100 KV doesn't work, then just make the tubes a bit longer and go for 200 KV!
Then if things get a bit hot, the oil becomes the perfect heat exchange fluid, and can be pumped through a heat exchanger.
Alternatively, I could send Richard a ticket for a flight to Sydney, so he can stand next to the reactor and pour cold water on it
Picture:
MK1 (60mm) Cathode before welding together, this one used Swagelok fittings with Teflon ferrules, but did not give a good seal to ceramic. Brian Mc.Dermott asked me what this was 12 months ago when I posted a picture of it, sorry Brian that the answer took so long
Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
- Attachments
-
- Cathode.jpg (17.85 KiB) Viewed 5343 times
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Steven -
I think you will find that the central hollow core will become your ion sink. Ions have to either go to the inner walls or the charge will build till no further ions can penetrate, ... creating the ultimate space charge limit.
As I see it, the positive deuterons will fly towards the center, and do the things you identify - collide/fuse or deflect/scatter or escape up the opposing tube to the opposite source. When they scatter, (as most will) , they will be deflected into the inner electrode interior walls.
The degree of improvement, over the wire grid design, would seem to be in the difference between the inner surface area of the cathode, versus the exposed outer surface area of all the grid wires.
With the dielectric tubes maintaining the vacuum path to the center electrode, - and incidentally, I think this is very clever idea, to connect the HV to the outside of the center electrode and avoid the expensive HV Vacuum feedthrough - you WILL definitely have to contend with wall charging. It is not a matter of if, but how much. The high energy ion impacts in the center electrode will also launch copious backscattered secondary electrons, as well as ions. This stew will rattle off the walls, and deposit some net amount of charge.
Where this charge is deposited, depends on the exact ion paths, which are in turn deflected by existing areas of charging. This usually creates large swings in local potentials and steers the beams wildly everywhere. This is a common problem of glass and ceramic walled HV vacuum devices. At a former company, we struggled with this exact problem. There are ways to handle this, one involves a slightly conductive internal coating on the tube walls. Another way is to actually build grading rings into the tubes. Still others involve, overlapping electrode shells, that prevent ion-electrons paths from "seeing" surface charges. The latter idea works very well. Classic example of the problem being handled, is the "dag" coating on the inside of the CRT shell. It's there for exactly this reason.
Did want to encourage you, though, by noting that we're a group of people who have "been there, done that" . There is a wide range of skills and experience here, which does engender a vigorous amount of scrutiny of almost any idea that's new. While this is sometimes a little bruising to one's ego, it is healthy all around.
From my experiences here, there is a rare level of comraderie and professionalism on this board. There's a good natured enthusiasm for anyone making measurements, cutting metal, doing wiring, vacuum or just thinking.
So I read the comments here as critical examination of your concepts and evaluation of your explanations and expectations.. as these demonstrate all your creativity and hard work.
The hard anvil of facts respects and spares no one. All of our ideas get hammered there at the experimental bench... So, soon you will have answers and data to evaluate and one hopes, be able and willing to share.
All the best,
Dave Cooper
I think you will find that the central hollow core will become your ion sink. Ions have to either go to the inner walls or the charge will build till no further ions can penetrate, ... creating the ultimate space charge limit.
As I see it, the positive deuterons will fly towards the center, and do the things you identify - collide/fuse or deflect/scatter or escape up the opposing tube to the opposite source. When they scatter, (as most will) , they will be deflected into the inner electrode interior walls.
The degree of improvement, over the wire grid design, would seem to be in the difference between the inner surface area of the cathode, versus the exposed outer surface area of all the grid wires.
With the dielectric tubes maintaining the vacuum path to the center electrode, - and incidentally, I think this is very clever idea, to connect the HV to the outside of the center electrode and avoid the expensive HV Vacuum feedthrough - you WILL definitely have to contend with wall charging. It is not a matter of if, but how much. The high energy ion impacts in the center electrode will also launch copious backscattered secondary electrons, as well as ions. This stew will rattle off the walls, and deposit some net amount of charge.
Where this charge is deposited, depends on the exact ion paths, which are in turn deflected by existing areas of charging. This usually creates large swings in local potentials and steers the beams wildly everywhere. This is a common problem of glass and ceramic walled HV vacuum devices. At a former company, we struggled with this exact problem. There are ways to handle this, one involves a slightly conductive internal coating on the tube walls. Another way is to actually build grading rings into the tubes. Still others involve, overlapping electrode shells, that prevent ion-electrons paths from "seeing" surface charges. The latter idea works very well. Classic example of the problem being handled, is the "dag" coating on the inside of the CRT shell. It's there for exactly this reason.
Did want to encourage you, though, by noting that we're a group of people who have "been there, done that" . There is a wide range of skills and experience here, which does engender a vigorous amount of scrutiny of almost any idea that's new. While this is sometimes a little bruising to one's ego, it is healthy all around.
From my experiences here, there is a rare level of comraderie and professionalism on this board. There's a good natured enthusiasm for anyone making measurements, cutting metal, doing wiring, vacuum or just thinking.
So I read the comments here as critical examination of your concepts and evaluation of your explanations and expectations.. as these demonstrate all your creativity and hard work.
The hard anvil of facts respects and spares no one. All of our ideas get hammered there at the experimental bench... So, soon you will have answers and data to evaluate and one hopes, be able and willing to share.
All the best,
Dave Cooper
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Dave,
Thanks for the feedback, no ego has been bruised, on the contrary, I appreciate that you have put some thought into it and that you are giving me a well considered opinion.
I am acutely aware of the charge leakage from the inside walls of the cathode, and believe me it has given me many sleepless nights. Most mornings I wake up positive that it is not such a big problem.
The arguments that keep convincing me are;
a)
The inside surface of the cathode is electrically neutral, obviously this would not stop it from giving up an electron to a positive ion, however at least we are not starting with a handicap.
b)
Primary scattered ions move at 20-100KV which may not be enough to become embedded, but still too fast to deionize.
c)
New ions pouring into the core maintain the temperature in the core , ensuring that a fair proportion of the gas in the core are fully ionized and unable to escape confinement. This in my opinion is the essential function which is going to ignite the fire.
Most likely (hopefully) my power supply will not be powerful enough to ignite the mix, however I did some quick calculations to see what I may be able to achieve.
My power supply is 100KV-6 Ma, so I calculate as follows:
Power supply max output = 0.006 amps
0.006 amp seconds = 0.006 Coulombs
0.006 Coulombs = 3.7 e+16 elementary charge units
ie. we can accelerate that many ions into the reactor core per second..
Assuming every 2D2 +ion collides and undergoes (7.2 Mev) fusion, we would potentially generate...
3.7 e+16 x 7.2 e+6 = ~ 2.7 e+25 ev per second
multiply by 3600 to get ev/hour = 9.72 e+28 ev
this converts to........ 4.32 Mega Watt Hours
D+T fuel would equate to around 10 mega Watt Hours
Okay, this is hypothetical, but at least it shows that we can afford for a few ions to miss their target
We have to fuse one ion for every 7200 ions accelerated, in order to break even.
So clearly 3.7 e+16 ions is the maximum that I will be able to inject into the core. Only time will show how many fusions I will get from this.
However, unlike the Hirch fusor, the STAR reactor can handle a virtually limitless power supply, and ion source, to the point where the core can no longer withstand the heat.
If the core was lined with Tungsten and machined with cooling ribs on the outside, and the oil was circulated through a heat exchanger and you still melt the core without ignition, then we have a problem, and Richard can proudly wear his hat.
I have more faith in the people in this group, than I have of the big fusion organizations. The guys who post here do it because they love the science and never spend a minute worrying about justifying the budget for the next 5 years. I reckon we can solve this problem.
Oh, by the way, the guy in the picture looks like me
Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
Thanks for the feedback, no ego has been bruised, on the contrary, I appreciate that you have put some thought into it and that you are giving me a well considered opinion.
I am acutely aware of the charge leakage from the inside walls of the cathode, and believe me it has given me many sleepless nights. Most mornings I wake up positive that it is not such a big problem.
The arguments that keep convincing me are;
a)
The inside surface of the cathode is electrically neutral, obviously this would not stop it from giving up an electron to a positive ion, however at least we are not starting with a handicap.
b)
Primary scattered ions move at 20-100KV which may not be enough to become embedded, but still too fast to deionize.
c)
New ions pouring into the core maintain the temperature in the core , ensuring that a fair proportion of the gas in the core are fully ionized and unable to escape confinement. This in my opinion is the essential function which is going to ignite the fire.
Most likely (hopefully) my power supply will not be powerful enough to ignite the mix, however I did some quick calculations to see what I may be able to achieve.
My power supply is 100KV-6 Ma, so I calculate as follows:
Power supply max output = 0.006 amps
0.006 amp seconds = 0.006 Coulombs
0.006 Coulombs = 3.7 e+16 elementary charge units
ie. we can accelerate that many ions into the reactor core per second..
Assuming every 2D2 +ion collides and undergoes (7.2 Mev) fusion, we would potentially generate...
3.7 e+16 x 7.2 e+6 = ~ 2.7 e+25 ev per second
multiply by 3600 to get ev/hour = 9.72 e+28 ev
this converts to........ 4.32 Mega Watt Hours
D+T fuel would equate to around 10 mega Watt Hours
Okay, this is hypothetical, but at least it shows that we can afford for a few ions to miss their target
We have to fuse one ion for every 7200 ions accelerated, in order to break even.
So clearly 3.7 e+16 ions is the maximum that I will be able to inject into the core. Only time will show how many fusions I will get from this.
However, unlike the Hirch fusor, the STAR reactor can handle a virtually limitless power supply, and ion source, to the point where the core can no longer withstand the heat.
If the core was lined with Tungsten and machined with cooling ribs on the outside, and the oil was circulated through a heat exchanger and you still melt the core without ignition, then we have a problem, and Richard can proudly wear his hat.
I have more faith in the people in this group, than I have of the big fusion organizations. The guys who post here do it because they love the science and never spend a minute worrying about justifying the budget for the next 5 years. I reckon we can solve this problem.
Oh, by the way, the guy in the picture looks like me
Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
- Attachments
-
- Steven.jpg (45.93 KiB) Viewed 5343 times
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
- Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Here would be my construction approach to the STAR concept. I present this because I don't think one actually gains any benefit from being constrained to spherical geometry.
1. Get a 1-1/3" Conflat cube. This will be the cathode.
2. Get six 1-1/3" CF ceramic vacuum breaks. These will be the acceleration tubes, one per each port on the cube.
3. Out of thin sheet stock, make a box that will be the oil tank. Each face would have a hole in the center that can pass the metal end of an unflanged vacuum break. Braze CF flanges onto the exposed tube ends. Braze the backsides of the CF flanges to the box wall to effect an oil seal there. Now you have a box with a flanged beamline port in the middle of each face, all supporting the cathode in the center of the box.
4. One or more of the beamlines could have an ion source mounted on their flanges. The others would be either blanked off or used for vacuum / gas / instrumentation. Note that you get recirculation benefit from having more beamlines even if they are not ion-gunned.
5. With a glass-to-metal seal or a ceramic vacuum break, you need to move the high fields away from the sharp "Housekeeper" seal or metallized coating where the seal is made. One way to do this would be to braze a tube inside the copper CF gaskets so that it runs up inside the vacuum break past the seal edge.
6. Make a high-voltage feedthrough to the cathode with an Alden socket, or even with cheap compression fittings around a silicone x-ray cable.
So this would be a cubic fusor. You could make linear fusor, a planar square fusor, a crazy icosahedral fusor, etc. by the same method.
-Carl
1. Get a 1-1/3" Conflat cube. This will be the cathode.
2. Get six 1-1/3" CF ceramic vacuum breaks. These will be the acceleration tubes, one per each port on the cube.
3. Out of thin sheet stock, make a box that will be the oil tank. Each face would have a hole in the center that can pass the metal end of an unflanged vacuum break. Braze CF flanges onto the exposed tube ends. Braze the backsides of the CF flanges to the box wall to effect an oil seal there. Now you have a box with a flanged beamline port in the middle of each face, all supporting the cathode in the center of the box.
4. One or more of the beamlines could have an ion source mounted on their flanges. The others would be either blanked off or used for vacuum / gas / instrumentation. Note that you get recirculation benefit from having more beamlines even if they are not ion-gunned.
5. With a glass-to-metal seal or a ceramic vacuum break, you need to move the high fields away from the sharp "Housekeeper" seal or metallized coating where the seal is made. One way to do this would be to braze a tube inside the copper CF gaskets so that it runs up inside the vacuum break past the seal edge.
6. Make a high-voltage feedthrough to the cathode with an Alden socket, or even with cheap compression fittings around a silicone x-ray cable.
So this would be a cubic fusor. You could make linear fusor, a planar square fusor, a crazy icosahedral fusor, etc. by the same method.
-Carl
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Carl, on the geometry outside the cathode, I fully agree with you, but as Bussard nicely put it in his Google lecture..
"we know there are billions of fusion reactors that work, and not one of them are toroidal"
Well as far as I know there are also no square ones
Ion reflection inside the cathode can be debated, but if the ions do deflect off the walls inside the cathode, you want them to reflect back into the middle of the core. A straight tube may see them reflect back up the tube, which is not where you want the ions.
The STAR is about confinement and not recirculation. Recirculation was Farnsworth's idea, where ions moved in circular orbits through the center of the fusor.
As for the feedthrough, ceramic transformer bushings are perfect for the job, and only cost around $30-$80 depending on size.
To keep it really simple and cheap, you can use a plastic tank with a chicken wire anode inside
Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
"we know there are billions of fusion reactors that work, and not one of them are toroidal"
Well as far as I know there are also no square ones
Ion reflection inside the cathode can be debated, but if the ions do deflect off the walls inside the cathode, you want them to reflect back into the middle of the core. A straight tube may see them reflect back up the tube, which is not where you want the ions.
The STAR is about confinement and not recirculation. Recirculation was Farnsworth's idea, where ions moved in circular orbits through the center of the fusor.
As for the feedthrough, ceramic transformer bushings are perfect for the job, and only cost around $30-$80 depending on size.
To keep it really simple and cheap, you can use a plastic tank with a chicken wire anode inside
Steven
http://www.beeresearch.com.au
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
- Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Steven,
>if the ions do deflect off the walls inside the cathode, you want them to reflect back into the middle of the core. A straight tube may see them reflect back up the tube, which is not where you want the ions.
An ion colliding with the cathode is very unlikely to re-emerge at a useful energy--or to re-emerge at all, for that matter. The wall is nearly black to ions, not specularly reflective. But supposing an ion does re-emerge by Rutherford backscattering, it is electrostatically shielded from the accelerating field (excepting any relatively small virtual electrodes within the cathode, which are inherently much harder to establish in this type of design than in a gridded fusor). And why would reflection into the beamline be a bad thing? In fact, an ion headed back up the beamline will see the acceleration field again and get turned around with no loss in energy. The cathode walls can't do that except in a tiny fraction of events. Look up Rutherford's famous gold-foil experiment to get an idea of the numbers involved.
One point of my illustrating a "cubic" design was to show that what I see the merits of your invention to be are unrelated to the spherical geometry of a traditional fusor. Spherical geometry is a good thing for gridded fusors because it causes ion recirculation and focusing, but your design, though spherical as drawn, is not exploiting sphericity for anything too significant.
-Carl
>if the ions do deflect off the walls inside the cathode, you want them to reflect back into the middle of the core. A straight tube may see them reflect back up the tube, which is not where you want the ions.
An ion colliding with the cathode is very unlikely to re-emerge at a useful energy--or to re-emerge at all, for that matter. The wall is nearly black to ions, not specularly reflective. But supposing an ion does re-emerge by Rutherford backscattering, it is electrostatically shielded from the accelerating field (excepting any relatively small virtual electrodes within the cathode, which are inherently much harder to establish in this type of design than in a gridded fusor). And why would reflection into the beamline be a bad thing? In fact, an ion headed back up the beamline will see the acceleration field again and get turned around with no loss in energy. The cathode walls can't do that except in a tiny fraction of events. Look up Rutherford's famous gold-foil experiment to get an idea of the numbers involved.
One point of my illustrating a "cubic" design was to show that what I see the merits of your invention to be are unrelated to the spherical geometry of a traditional fusor. Spherical geometry is a good thing for gridded fusors because it causes ion recirculation and focusing, but your design, though spherical as drawn, is not exploiting sphericity for anything too significant.
-Carl
- Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Carl, the fusion product ions will have enough energy to escape the 100 KV potential energy well, so if some of those ions head up the tubes, they will be lost. I would rather stop them in the catode, and use the heat where it is needed.
I don't know if there are any materials that would reflect more ions?
Tungsten was a thought I had, which is very dense and has a high melting temperature.
Steven
I don't know if there are any materials that would reflect more ions?
Tungsten was a thought I had, which is very dense and has a high melting temperature.
Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Re: S.T.A.R. A new approach to fusion
Perhaps a better reflective material would be a P-type material used in semi conducting electronics, it should have a positive field about it.