Pulsotron 1A and 1B D-D factor lawson conditions reached

[Javier Lopez]

I shot 31 targets, 7 of them using the new Pulsotron 1B device. 18 of the targets failed due unstabilites rejected injected energy.

I am working now to increase the factor lawson and direct electric generation

[Javier Lopez]

I need two new voltage probe dividers. Do anybody know if shrink down plastic tubes breakdown voltage is higher than 20kv (every tube wall)?

[Chris Bradley]

I'd strongly recommend against it, even if it is nominally rated OK.

Suggestion; use several wraps of kapton tape, overlayed with silicone rubber, then heat shrink all of that up. Test it first with some potential test before use.

[Javier Lopez]

Thanks Chris. Somebody said me is better using high temperature silicone for HV.

Here is a simulation of the probe. It does not depend very much of parasitic capacity probe-circuit. I have set parasitic capacitor inductanmce=6nH:

[Javier Lopez]

I simulated Direct Electric Generation using exiting ions and MHD. I obtained 44% of energy conversions
Whait is the % of the energy of D-D fusion is ion cinetics and what is heat?
Neutron energy is not possible to recover by magnetics conversion.
I have built some targets in order to do some direct electric conversion tests

[Chris Bradley]

The direct answer to your question is that once the deuterons join up they become a very excited helium with an excess of 23.85MeV. This energy is, occasionally (1 per 10000 reactions), released as a photon that takes all that energy and leaving behind a 4He with only its ground state mass. This is the electromagnetic mediated fusion of DD and can be mostly ingnored for this purpose.

Two other reactions are then possible mediated by the strong force, which are thus far more likely - a decay into a tritium and a proton, or a 3He and a neutron. [I suppose it could also break up into two deuterons again, but how you'd tell that apart from a coulomb scatter I'm not sure!!].

In the case of the tritium/proton, these carry off 4MeV 's worth of that excitation energy. Classic mechanics will tell you that the lighter one walks off with most of the energy, inversely proportional to its mass, but in terms of what the energy of ions is, they are both ions so between them have the 4MeV.

In the case of the 3He/neutron, these carry off 3.27MeV. Again, the lighter neutron walks off with most of the energy, 2.45MeV's worth, leaving the 3He with 0.8MeV.

So I guess the answer to your question is that the energy taken away in two average DD reactions is 0.8MeV + 4MeV = 4.8MeV for the 3H, 3He and p, and 2.45MeV for the neutron.

Now onto the questions you have not asked!!.. I am not at all sure what physical mechanism you are proposing for this conversion, so am unable to say if there is any chance of fusion or not. Estimating from your graph, it looks like you've put in about 55J worth of total energy. The question is, what fraction of all this energy goes into accelerating deuterons, and how many does it accelerate? You need to know what their actual energy is before trying to undertake any sort of calculation. It's 'easy' to warm up and ionise some deuterium with 55J of energy, but unless those particles take on >10keV EACH then there is no prospect for fusion.

The second comment is as I have made before - if you can measure an actual heat output from an unguarded, unscreened fusion reactor and you are standing anywhere near it [and trying for a direct EM conversion is always going to be much less sensitive a tool for output than thermal measurements], you should expect to have been grossly irradiated and quite possibly likely to die soon after.

A neutron detector is the way. The neutron has very specific means to measure it that discriminate its presence to the exclusion of other experimental errors. If you are proposing a successful DD reaction, you would need to be able to demonstrate neutrons before getting anyone to take your results seriously. You would simply HAVE to do this to put your results beyond any sort of doubt and critisism that would come with any other measured outcome.

best regards,

Chris MB.

[Javier Lopez]

I am with you: now the next step is to generate neutrons in order to reach ignition (not ignitions conditions), but as you said, I could be radiated. I have not now right instalations and chemical argon chamber to manage DLi6. I have not DLi6 also because it is impossible to buy due militar restrictions.
I am thinking about buying something like Lithium deuteroxide, but I would use in right instalations as long as I do not want die or go to jail. Is not possible to reach ignition with that but it will be good for testing hundred of targets

Remember that I am only an amaterur with very few free time

Also the other problem is that I have to heat up the plasma to 10keV (or more), so I am increasing more and more the energy density. Somebody working on fusion bombs wrote that is more efficient higher compression than heating up the plasma.
I included in my simulations not only plasma compression but also plasma heating. I used the high pressure density test data of deuterium.

Very best regards,

Javier Luis Lopez

[Javier Lopez]

I managed to take enought time to build new 37 targets to be burn. Here are a photo of some of them. I am going to use Rogowsky coils to measure particles speed and external current to main circuit.

I also would like measure fast B fields using coils.

I am also building dinamic holraum new targets in order to reach 1600 teslas. I have not set the new tesla fields at my fusion simulator. Does anyone know what happens to plasma exposed to such fields?

I have also very big trouble to build very little magnetic field sensors that support to 50 Gpascals

[Carl Willis]

Javier,

What are your "targets" or "hohlraums"? How are they built? I see some little boxes with wire sticking out.

I know from your previous simulations that your general idea is to blow something up with a large capacitor. I see mention in your other threads of many gigavolts, of 10^20 neutrons per second, of the Lawson criterion being reached, and other attention-grabbing claims. But what I don't understand are the very fundamentals of what I am looking at in your photo and how these things are supposed to function. Can you provide a diagram, or a good description of what this is?

-Carl

[Steven Sesselmann]

I am with Carl on this one..

I have skimmed through Javier's posts, and I have no idea what kind of experiment this is, usually there is talk of simulations only, but law and behold, this thread has pictures of physical components.

I would love to know more about the theory and experiment. Maybe a Google translation from Spanish would clarify things.

Steven

[Javier Lopez]

Re: I know from your previous simulations that your general idea is to blow something up with a large capacitor.
I discharge the capacitors into the glass devices in order to generate a very high current flowing through the fuel site in order to generate 40 teslas that generates enough magnetic pressure to maintain the generated plasma. When the current stops, then the target explodes, but after reaching Lawson conditions for fusion.

Re: I see mention in your other threads of many gigavolts, of 10^20 neutrons per second,
I do not place any fuel at the target because it could generate 10^21 neutrons and also would destroy my unit and myself and anybody close to me.

Re:of the Lawson criterion being reached, and other attention-grabbing claims. But what I don't understand are the very fundamentals of what I am looking at in your photo and how these things are supposed to function

Please make more precise questions, yesterday I went to bed at 1:00 after building the new dynamic hohlraum targets.

I have downloaded this video of some shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1M_AO_1Fvo
I am sorry it is very difficult to see because I have not a high speed camera (Canon ixus 80)

Here is a photo of one of the shots I made. Also I downloaded a photo of the rogowski coils that I have built. I calculate that using a 20millioms sensing resistor I will have enough bandwidth. I will use Rogowski's in order to measure particles speed and current outside main circuit.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Javier,

Thanks for the extra information and the video. I have a few questions..

a) Could you give us a schematic diagram of how your targets are built?
b) how would you propose to fill the target with fuel, and what fuel would you use?
c) What are the toroidal coils in the picture above?
d) How many volts/amps are released with each shot?
e) have you conciders a simple shield around your blast zone

Steven

[Carl Willis]

Hello Javier,

Please describe how to build your "dynamic hohlraums" such that another person can read what you wrote and reproduce what you built. That was the essence of my question; sorry if it wasn't clear.

The "Lawson condition for fusion" that you mentioned is obviously based on simulation or calculation rather than observation since you "do not place any fuel at the target."

As I understand it, you have made sweeping and perhaps questionable assumptions about your fusion scheme: temperatures achieved, cooling rates, the nature of the fuel (which realistically is not pure D or DT), and your tests that you present now consist of measuring electrical currents and discharge times that you have related by calculation to achievement of the Lawson criterion (if some specific kind of fuel were present).

How will you test your calculations and assumptions to make sure they are valid? Right now, it sounds like you won't do it because of concern for making 10^21 neutrons. There is a simple and obvious way to avoid this hypothetical problem; do tests with smaller amounts of fuel, right?? 10^21 neutrons requires the complete consumption of ludicrous amounts of deuterium. Simply limit the number of nuclei of deuterium present in the target.

-Carl

[Richard Hull]

Such claims demand experimental results to prove that they occur and that means instrumentation that is acceptable and precise data given in a format that allows remote second party analysis. As Carl notes, clearly state what you have done and what methods you have used to actually measure results.

Anyone can present calculations, graphics and hypothetical assumptions based on same. Bubbles in a BTI fast neutron bubble detector is another matter; a matter of reality and not claims based on assumptions. Your explosive electric environment virtually obviates any attempt to use the classic electronic He3 or BF3 neutron detectors.

Richard Hull

[Edward Miller]

If I hadn't already shipped off all the bubble detectors I would totally have donated one to Javier. Looks like some interesting stuff.

[Javier Lopez]

Green light! I will test all reactors and also the dynamic Holhraum by the Saturday. I expect have raw data from scope and enough calibration data in order to allow external control of the project.

About radiation:

The following calculus I have made for Lithium deuteride:
Legally is not allowed receive >5000mRem/year, but 100k mrem would not produce any symptoms

I obtained for man 130kg/m2 (13cm thick and 1cm2)
100um x 100um x 100um of fuel produces 358 kjoules if burned 100%, 33.6% is neutronics.
Then at 50m from source it is received 3.83 joules/m2, that is 0.295 Syeverts/kg, that is 29500 mrems/shot. I did not calculated neutrons reflected from the floor from elastic shocks, so perhaps is much greater (perhaps if I can set the system underground this will not happnes)

It is possible cover by using water pots in order to try to shield, but it is very difficult cover the target top. I took in account all neutron are absorbed because I can not calculate neutron shielding (and slowling) of air or walls.

I could operate some targets using a time delay system using a servo at a country house without humans close to it, until reaching ignition, then advise to authorities

I do not believe in other options: using less enriched fuel as Lithium hydroxide or less power and increase it slowly, because as I tested Z pinch "works or not" is like digital

Bubbles can work with 10us neutron pulses?. Do the bubbles disappear sometime after in order to reuse?

[Carl Willis]

Javier,

Perhaps you could do your experiment first with regular lithium hydride in milligram amounts. If you expect 10^21 n / s with the pure deuteride, regular material will give you plenty of neutrons just from the natural D concentration. Also, as I said before, getting 10^21 neutrons is physically impossible if you keep the mass of your fuel below a few dozen milligrams (there won't be enough fuel).

>100k mrem would not produce any symptoms

100k mrem = 100 rem. You would have serious immediate physical problems from this to be sure. I'm not worried about you though. A person doesn't go from zero to keel-over-dead doses in this business. They typically have to work hard to even measure their first neutrons.

-Carl

[Javier Lopez]

Thank you Carl. Using LiH is the best choice: I will have lots X rays easy to measure and to shield, but it has a lot different ignition conditions more difficult to reach.

Before that I have a lot of tests to do before charging the targets:
1. I have to decide what will be my next capacitor bank
2. Related to last point if being succeed with dynamics holhraum capacitor inductance can be greater
3. Simulations does not agree with test results, that can be due plasma permeability increased in pulse operation
4. I am not happy with Lawson factor 60, I would like have at least IVY Mike figures

I agree with you that I would have to make lots of tests using charged targets before being succeed, but these tests must be done in the right installations (here in Spain is a lot easier obtain ignition than CIEMAT managers recognition).

I am not sure about having neutrons using natural LiH because is very difficult to deuterium to reach another deuterium)

Richard Hull could help me about sonoluminescence because it could be used in my job to obtain some funds to buy new capacitors bank

Javier Lopez Segura

[Richard Hull]

Sonoluminescence?!! What is this divergence about? I have all the components on hand to make my own S.L. device. However, I bought them 15 years ago at a point of high interest and excitement, but haven't got off the dime to make anything yet and perhaps I never will. You are going to the wrong source for info on this topic. Sorry.

Richard Hull

[Frank Sanns]

There is a huge difference between vaporizing a material and nuclear "burning" a material. I am sure that you are vaporizing much of your target but with the setup that you have in your video, you do not have suffient energy for a nuclear reaction to occur.

Your long thin wires have so much impedance that your pulses are no where near as short as you might think.

You do need shielding but not from neutrons. You need hearing protection and safety googles for sure and good ventilation for the bad chemicals and metals that you are putting into the air.

Frank Sanns

[Chris Bradley]

Javier Lopez wrote:
> Please make more precise questions

1) What is the essential difference between your experiment and a z-pinch, such as at Sandia, and do you think you will be able to match their 27MA current at 90kV max?

2) What is the internal structure of you hohlraums?

3) How much will it cost to dispose of the country house that will become radioactive, what is the house made of, and what colour is it?

4) Do you think the frequencies of x-rays that get through your shielding could cause your hair to fall out?

5) What is the end-objective of your experimentation? For education/fun? To make a country house radioactive? To make commercially viable fusion energy?

[Javier Lopez]

1) What is the essential difference between your experiment and a z-pinch, such as at Sandia, and do you think you will be able to match their 27MA current at 90kV max?

I reduced the burning area to some dozen of microns, I increased the discharge time and increased the magnetic field that is used to shrink the fuel but only in the fuel area.
At the beginning targets where destroyed when injected less than 10% of the capacitors energy but now I managed to not destroy them until 80% of the energy is injected

2) What is the internal structure of you hohlraums?
I am testing dozens of different structures

3) How much will it cost to dispose of the country house that will become radioactive, what is the house made of, and what colour is it?
Do not worry about I will not do that, I wrote about radiation numbers to say that it is too dangerous to try. It would be possible with only LiH, but I have to do a lot of tests before in order to choose the right next capacitors bank (with less inductance in caps, transmission line and switch, I would like have less than 1nH, but with some targets perhaps requirements will be easier to obtain), and to continue improving the targets.

4) What is the end-objective of your experimentation? For education/fun? To make a country house radioactive? To make commercially viable fusion energy?

End objective: reach ignition in a commercial way, save the world from global warming and save million persons of hungry. I spend in it all my spare money and time until last second.

[Chris Bradley]

Javier Lopez wrote:
>> 1) What is the essential difference between your experiment and a z-pinch,

> I reduced the burning area to some dozen of microns, I increased the discharge time and increased the magnetic field that is used to shrink the fuel but only in the fuel area.

> End objective: reach ignition in a commercial way

I remain very unclear on what you think you are bringing to z pinch research that is unknown in this field. If Sandia are struggling to get fusion going with a 300 terawatt pulse but you think you can, then I would presume that you must also think you know something they do not. Is there something you can tell us, or are there commercial secrets you are trying to keep secret?

You appear to be setting light to something, in a very "chemical" way, by dumping a charge across it. I cannot actually see what more you are achieving. I would refer you to my previous post;

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7171#p50855

and subsequent responses. It makes no sense to a reader, because you're not describing any physical mechanisms.

[Javier Lopez]

Chris, I usually does not like speak about some details until I have publicized before. I would give details if you or somebody else gives me the possibility to write them at ARXIV. I tried but I cant because I must be famous to write there, but I cant be famous if I cant write. I would like have time for triyin again or expend in moretests. Have I to pay for writting a paper?

I wrote equations at 2008-01-06 13:39 post, giving simulation plots in order to verify Lawson.

[Chris Bradley]

Javier,

This forum is a *very* public site. If you wish to prepare a formal paper then there is nothing stopping you. Once done, if you post it here I am quite sure it will begin to appear in other websites and references - if it has merit.

Writing here IS publicising it. This site has now been referenced by several leading journals and media sources. Please post a paper and you will get suitable peer reviwing by many professionals up to the task. I review JeS applications through EPSRC myself (in my own non-nuclear speciality) and there are many others here far more qualified than me, I am sure.