More on solar fusion.

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".
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11964
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

More on solar fusion.

Check out

http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html

This is the PPPL fusion educational site.

The URL relates to solar fusion. In the table below we note that at the core of the sun a miserable 275 watts of energy per cubic meter is the norm while at 9% of its radius from the core it is down in the 100 watt per meter range.

This is actually pretty damned sad power density performance based on what we need to do for power ready fusion here on earth.

A 6" fusor would only need to do less than a single watt-sec of fusion to surpass that of the core of the sun! A watt second is nothing, of course, in the scheme of power distribution needs.

Interesting fact if the PPPL data is assumed correct.

Simple math would yield the successful power density needed to make a 100 megawatt fusion reactor viable. Say with a 100 cubic meter fusion zone in a doughnut. That would be 1 megawatt per cubic meter.

What chance fusion?

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.

tligon
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:58 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Chance of fusion? 100%! Several options are proven viable.

Pile a lot of hydrogen in one place and let gravity do the rest.

Put a little deuterium and tritium around a fission bomb.

Put a little deuterium in a linear accelerator of one form or another and apply a few tens of kV.

Chance of build a working fusor, tokamak, or laser-fired device that burns plain hydrogen? Not too terribly likely. And I'm an optimist.

Chance of making something work with a fusion fuel with a little pep in it? Somewhere in between.

Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:39 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Richard Hull wrote:

> http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pag ... ayers.html
> This is the PPPL fusion educational site.
> The URL relates to solar fusion. In the table below we note that at the core of the sun a miserable 275 watts of energy per cubic meter is the norm while at 9% of its radius from the core it is down in the 100 watt per meter range.

Perhaps heretical for Fusor Form but worth a read, the
"Electric Star Model":

See: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf

Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:50 am
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

The fuel in the sun is not a perfect mix.

How many joule/seconds per cubic meter would the sun achieve, if it was made from pure deuterium, or a mix of D-T ?

I imagine a lot more than 250 watt, so maybe there is still hope.

If not ..., we are as Richard suspects, flogging a dead horse!

Steven
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG

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

Re: More on solar fusion.

I suspect we may be trying to compare apples and oranges.

That the Sun is a very gentle, low power density quasi- black body radiator of large mass, ...is necessary for life to exist on earth. Our planet hangs around this thermal and higher energy radiation field, in a nice and regular orbit because of the mass..

This doesn't really have much to do with whether there might be other methods of energy generation involving mass-energy conversion processes that are not so gentle and have neglible mass (at least in an astronomical scale)..

While so far, it is clear that our science has not found a stable, manageable higher power density method. I don't think there is any evidence yet, that such a method is forbidden on physical principles.

If such a conclusion could in fact be reached on sound theoretical basis, then this would be a "good" thing. It would end a huge economic drain on the resources of scientific exploration, and free up minds to think of other things.

Dave Cooper

Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11964
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: More on solar fusion.

My, "chance of fusion?" Query at the end referred solely to the holy grail of distributable fusion power. We all know that fusion is abymally easy to do.

As for a heretical model related to this site noted by Bob........What can I say?...... It is virtually universally accepted as part of church doctrine. To call P-P fusion heretical is to step way outside the bounds of accepted science and pee on a Nobel prize awarded principally for its discovery.

Richard Hull

P.S. I am somewhat of the heretic related to p-p fusion here but quote the party line often to avoid the sheaf of arrows cast at dissenters. I also used the church's data on fusion densities as they seem to have the data boldly displayed and, undoubtedly, the references are very tracable to only the best minds and researches. Thus, it is all we have.

It does show how pitiable the solar fusion is even under the might of the ultimate confiner, gravity....... (thank the Lord for that, at least). This is much more satisfying than Lord Kelvin's burning lump of coal calc's.

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.

Posts: 2930
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: More on solar fusion.

At the risk of repeating prior thread content, it does appear to be the case that even a goodly fuel like DT is likely only to dribble a power output. 0.5W/cc is the current rate of magnetic confinement systems, which isn't too bad but explains why ITER is a colossal device that still won't be able to put out too much energy relative to its size.

(As far as I understand its status, ITER is going to produce less energy than it actually could because the material properties/designs to resist the thermal fluxes are just not good enough at the moment to take what ITER's plasma core might actually put out.)

I do not believe it will ever be possible to control a steady fusion plasma better than ~1W/cc because the pressures that come out of a calculation to that effect results in forces that cannot be attained by currently ‘practical’ magnetic pressures, nor can be successfully moderated by electric fields. (To go higher in specific power output, I think someone will have to devise a system which self-generates its own magnetic fields from a seed field.)

I understand Richard's reticence over the pp chain - it is a reaction only seen at extrapolated-ly higher energies, the weak force that mediates it being too unlikely to show much up in lab experiments operating at the sun's actual core temperatures. But the sums do add up 'as advertised', so we are into relying on science to explain what cannot ever be directly observed – which is no less than the function of theoretical science. Finding a flaw in the 'existing physics' of fusion rates from quantum tunneling and Gamow energies, or otherwise coming up with an evidenced alternative explanation, would be the only way to legitimately bring the theory of the proton chain into question, but it has to be admitted to being 'a theory', I think, no matter how strong or weak its case.

mheslep
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:42 am
Real name:

Re: More on solar fusion.

As before, don't forget other types of stars, 10^24Watts/M^3 will get 'er done, though unfortunately that kind of reactor does not stay intact. We need plan C, something in between our Sun and a super nova.

inflector
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:11 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: More on solar fusion.

Richard Hull wrote:

> It does show how pitiable the solar fusion is even under the might of the ultimate confiner, gravity......
> Richard Hull

I'm sure we can do better using some stronger force like an electrical charge. Gravity might be the ultimate confiner but it is by far the weakest force we can bring to bear.

- Curtis

Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 11964
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: More on solar fusion.

Gravity is indeed among the weakest of forces, but, for all that, it is the only force out there doing continuous, controlled fusion and powering the universe, in effect.

How many years do we get using the 'really strong forces' before we succeed? We have been in the stronger force fusion taxi for 60 years and the meter is still running and billions in fares are already spent and, yet, we ride perpetually around the block.

I wonder what will break first...Public support for fusion research or some miracle hatched out by a lucky donkey. Thus far, the collected efforts of the best and brightest has fallen on its face.

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.