"If you're dreaming of over-unity with this beam-target setup, forget it.... Plus, I see no benefit whatsoever to aneutronic fusion with IEC fusion systems, so why not stick with DD? "
Chris, maybe you'd care to enlighten us with your reasons why over unity is not achievable?...I'll understand if you just point us to your previous thread on this subject.
Even Curtis' 'spin theory' is attempting to address the 'unity' problem
Any system that achieves over unity that produces neutrons will destroy itself due to neutron bombardment. Even ITER doesn't have any 'workable' plan to overcome this problem. This is the reason why people like Doug are working on proton-lithium 7 fusion (which produces alphas of 16MeV), the polywell people are planning to use proton-boron 11, and why there is so much interest in aneutronic fusion.
Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Ash Small wrote:
> Chris, maybe you'd care to enlighten us with your reasons why over unity is not achievable?...I'll understand if you just point us to your previous thread on this subject.
Exactly. I thought I'd covered the calculation on that one.
Ash Small wrote:
> Any system that achieves over unity that produces neutrons will destroy itself due to neutron bombardment.
Where d'you get that notion from?
What do you mean 'destroy' itself? 3dpa is the usual design criterion, at which point the irradiated parts are [would be] replaced.
Why wouldn't a p-11B scheme not equally detroy itself by alpha bombardment?
> Chris, maybe you'd care to enlighten us with your reasons why over unity is not achievable?...I'll understand if you just point us to your previous thread on this subject.
Exactly. I thought I'd covered the calculation on that one.
Ash Small wrote:
> Any system that achieves over unity that produces neutrons will destroy itself due to neutron bombardment.
Where d'you get that notion from?
What do you mean 'destroy' itself? 3dpa is the usual design criterion, at which point the irradiated parts are [would be] replaced.
Why wouldn't a p-11B scheme not equally detroy itself by alpha bombardment?
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
"What do you mean 'destroy' itself? 3dpa is the usual design criterion, at which point the irradiated parts are [would be] replaced.
Why wouldn't a p-11B scheme not equally detroy itself by alpha bombardment? "
Maybe you could explain '3dpa'?
It is generally believed that (for example) DEMO would be offline more than it was online due to 'expensive rebuilds'.
Alpha particles don't penerate to the same level as neutrons. (that's the simple answer)
Why wouldn't a p-11B scheme not equally detroy itself by alpha bombardment? "
Maybe you could explain '3dpa'?
It is generally believed that (for example) DEMO would be offline more than it was online due to 'expensive rebuilds'.
Alpha particles don't penerate to the same level as neutrons. (that's the simple answer)
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Ash Small wrote:
> "What do you mean 'destroy' itself? 3dpa is the usual design criterion, at which point the irradiated parts are [would be] replaced. Why wouldn't a p-11B scheme not equally detroy itself by alpha bombardment? "
> Maybe you could explain '3dpa'?
'displacements per atom', the number of times nucleii that can get shoved around by particle bombardment, before degrading the material too far. So, back to why a device would 'detroy itself' with neutrons??....
> It is generally believed that (for example) DEMO would be offline more than it was online due to 'expensive rebuilds'.
Believed by whom, and with what data/assumptions/in what respect?
> Alpha particles don't penerate to the same level as neutrons. (that's the simple answer)
Exactly.... which means.....they do more damage to the surface of the facing materials, rather than distribute their kinetic energy amongst a wider thickness. See what you make of ; viewtopic.php?f=7&t=325#p2422 et seq.
> "What do you mean 'destroy' itself? 3dpa is the usual design criterion, at which point the irradiated parts are [would be] replaced. Why wouldn't a p-11B scheme not equally detroy itself by alpha bombardment? "
> Maybe you could explain '3dpa'?
'displacements per atom', the number of times nucleii that can get shoved around by particle bombardment, before degrading the material too far. So, back to why a device would 'detroy itself' with neutrons??....
> It is generally believed that (for example) DEMO would be offline more than it was online due to 'expensive rebuilds'.
Believed by whom, and with what data/assumptions/in what respect?
> Alpha particles don't penerate to the same level as neutrons. (that's the simple answer)
Exactly.... which means.....they do more damage to the surface of the facing materials, rather than distribute their kinetic energy amongst a wider thickness. See what you make of ; viewtopic.php?f=7&t=325#p2422 et seq.
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Chris, firstly, IFMIF is being set up, parallel with ITER to try and develop materials to line the tokamak with. There was some talk that they would be researching the possibility of using lithium to 'breed' tritium in plates possibly manufactured from a boron based compound. These plans have now been 'put on hold', but work will be done to try and develop suitable materials to line the tokamak with (possibly boron based compounds).
These 'lining plates' will still require replacement quite regularly, and I understand (possibly from one of Tom Ligon's articles) that it may well take a few months before radiation levels inside the tokamak fall to a level where this work can be carried out safely.
Neutrons will be 'moderated' by these 'hypothetical' lithium containing plates, but will still penetrate into the tokamak structure itself.
My understanding is that alpha particles will not penetrate a lining inside a reactor vessel. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.
The second point I'd like to make, and this does rely on a 'hypothetical assumption', but....assuming that both ITER and WB-9 achieve 'over unity', how would we apply/extrapolate the developments/modifications made with these devices (ITER and WB-9) over their predecessors to out own fusors/beam-target devices to improve efficiency?
(I understand this is a controversial point as many people believe that ITER and WB-9 won't achieve unity, but assuming hypothetically that they do, how should we apply what is learned to other fusion devices?)
These 'lining plates' will still require replacement quite regularly, and I understand (possibly from one of Tom Ligon's articles) that it may well take a few months before radiation levels inside the tokamak fall to a level where this work can be carried out safely.
Neutrons will be 'moderated' by these 'hypothetical' lithium containing plates, but will still penetrate into the tokamak structure itself.
My understanding is that alpha particles will not penetrate a lining inside a reactor vessel. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.
The second point I'd like to make, and this does rely on a 'hypothetical assumption', but....assuming that both ITER and WB-9 achieve 'over unity', how would we apply/extrapolate the developments/modifications made with these devices (ITER and WB-9) over their predecessors to out own fusors/beam-target devices to improve efficiency?
(I understand this is a controversial point as many people believe that ITER and WB-9 won't achieve unity, but assuming hypothetically that they do, how should we apply what is learned to other fusion devices?)
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Ash Small wrote:
> Chris, firstly, IFMIF is being set up, parallel with ITER to try and develop materials to line the tokamak with. There was some talk that they would be researching the possibility of using lithium to 'breed' tritium in plates possibly manufactured from a boron based compound. These plans have now been 'put on hold', but work will be done to try and develop suitable materials to line the tokamak with (possibly boron based compounds).
There never have been any actual plans to put in lithium breeding modules. Several of the countries have put forward proposals, particularly Japan and Russia who are keen, but lithium modules have never been formally adopted as part of ITER programme, so could not have been put on hold.
> These 'lining plates' will still require replacement quite regularly, and I understand (possibly from one of Tom Ligon's articles) that it may well take a few months before radiation levels inside the tokamak fall to a level where this work can be carried out safely.
Work inside tokamaks is done by robots. JET, for example, is now fully robotic maintenance and people don't go inside, and that's having only used up a few 1E20's of their neutron budget. More to do with the tritium.
> Neutrons will be 'moderated' by these 'hypothetical' lithium containing plates, but will still penetrate into the tokamak structure itself.
Berillium is the plan for ITER's plasma-facing panels. It's carbon fibre in JET. As for moderating neutron, as you say, I think there are many questions over the actual wall modules of ITER still.
> My understanding is that alpha particles will not penetrate a lining inside a reactor vessel. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.
Of course they penetrate it, it's just a question of depth - not very deep. There will be helium embrittlement in the plasma facing surfaces. But most of the alphas get slowed and stop in the plasma itself, scarce few make it to the wall. Very unlike an IEC system, as I said in the link I provided.
> The second point I'd like to make, and this does rely on a 'hypothetical assumption', but....assuming that both ITER and WB-9 achieve 'over unity', how would we apply/extrapolate the developments/modifications made with these devices (ITER and WB-9) over their predecessors to out own fusors/beam-target devices to improve efficiency?
Not at all. Completely different process and of no cross-over relevance.
> I understand this is a controversial point as many people believe that ITER and WB-9 won't achieve unity, but assuming hypothetically that they do, how should we apply what is learned to other fusion devices?
I suspect very little, unless you're building another tokamak.
> Chris, firstly, IFMIF is being set up, parallel with ITER to try and develop materials to line the tokamak with. There was some talk that they would be researching the possibility of using lithium to 'breed' tritium in plates possibly manufactured from a boron based compound. These plans have now been 'put on hold', but work will be done to try and develop suitable materials to line the tokamak with (possibly boron based compounds).
There never have been any actual plans to put in lithium breeding modules. Several of the countries have put forward proposals, particularly Japan and Russia who are keen, but lithium modules have never been formally adopted as part of ITER programme, so could not have been put on hold.
> These 'lining plates' will still require replacement quite regularly, and I understand (possibly from one of Tom Ligon's articles) that it may well take a few months before radiation levels inside the tokamak fall to a level where this work can be carried out safely.
Work inside tokamaks is done by robots. JET, for example, is now fully robotic maintenance and people don't go inside, and that's having only used up a few 1E20's of their neutron budget. More to do with the tritium.
> Neutrons will be 'moderated' by these 'hypothetical' lithium containing plates, but will still penetrate into the tokamak structure itself.
Berillium is the plan for ITER's plasma-facing panels. It's carbon fibre in JET. As for moderating neutron, as you say, I think there are many questions over the actual wall modules of ITER still.
> My understanding is that alpha particles will not penetrate a lining inside a reactor vessel. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.
Of course they penetrate it, it's just a question of depth - not very deep. There will be helium embrittlement in the plasma facing surfaces. But most of the alphas get slowed and stop in the plasma itself, scarce few make it to the wall. Very unlike an IEC system, as I said in the link I provided.
> The second point I'd like to make, and this does rely on a 'hypothetical assumption', but....assuming that both ITER and WB-9 achieve 'over unity', how would we apply/extrapolate the developments/modifications made with these devices (ITER and WB-9) over their predecessors to out own fusors/beam-target devices to improve efficiency?
Not at all. Completely different process and of no cross-over relevance.
> I understand this is a controversial point as many people believe that ITER and WB-9 won't achieve unity, but assuming hypothetically that they do, how should we apply what is learned to other fusion devices?
I suspect very little, unless you're building another tokamak.
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
"Berillium is the plan for ITER's plasma-facing panels. It's carbon fibre in JET. As for moderating neutron, as you say, I think there are many questions over the actual wall modules of ITER still.
> My understanding is that alpha particles will not penetrate a lining inside a reactor vessel. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.
Of course they penetrate it, it's a question of depth. There will be helium embrittlement in the plasma facing surfaces."
I think we basically agree on this, Chris. I'm sure I read Boron based compounds would be considered, Carbon can be used, so can lihium and beryllium.The point I was making is that neutrons will pass right through any moderator, whereas alphas will penetrate, but not pass through. They will be contained within the plates, whereas neutrons will pass through and cause embrittlement of the structure iself.
I have some photos of the robotic arms used at RAL. I'll post one below..
I think we also basically agree on the tritium breeding modules....There was some talk about it, but it wasn't incorporated into the current objectives of ITER.
"> The second point I'd like to make, and this does rely on a 'hypothetical assumption', but....assuming that both ITER and WB-9 achieve 'over unity', how would we apply/extrapolate the developments/modifications made with these devices (ITER and WB-9) over their predecessors to out own fusors/beam-target devices to improve efficiency?
Not at all. Completely different process and of no cross-over relevance.
> I understand this is a controversial point as many people believe that ITER and WB-9 won't achieve unity, but assuming hypothetically that they do, how should we apply what is learned to other fusion devices?
I suspect very little, unless you're building another tokamak. "
I can see that he point you are making about tokamaks could be the case, but wha about WB-9?
WB-9 is basically a big fusor without grid losses. They also plan to use p-B11 as a fuel.
Now, workonh on the assumption that it is successful, there must be something we can infer from this. Unless you are suggesting that at the proposed size and field strength of WB-9, the thing goes thermonuclear?
> My understanding is that alpha particles will not penetrate a lining inside a reactor vessel. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.
Of course they penetrate it, it's a question of depth. There will be helium embrittlement in the plasma facing surfaces."
I think we basically agree on this, Chris. I'm sure I read Boron based compounds would be considered, Carbon can be used, so can lihium and beryllium.The point I was making is that neutrons will pass right through any moderator, whereas alphas will penetrate, but not pass through. They will be contained within the plates, whereas neutrons will pass through and cause embrittlement of the structure iself.
I have some photos of the robotic arms used at RAL. I'll post one below..
I think we also basically agree on the tritium breeding modules....There was some talk about it, but it wasn't incorporated into the current objectives of ITER.
"> The second point I'd like to make, and this does rely on a 'hypothetical assumption', but....assuming that both ITER and WB-9 achieve 'over unity', how would we apply/extrapolate the developments/modifications made with these devices (ITER and WB-9) over their predecessors to out own fusors/beam-target devices to improve efficiency?
Not at all. Completely different process and of no cross-over relevance.
> I understand this is a controversial point as many people believe that ITER and WB-9 won't achieve unity, but assuming hypothetically that they do, how should we apply what is learned to other fusion devices?
I suspect very little, unless you're building another tokamak. "
I can see that he point you are making about tokamaks could be the case, but wha about WB-9?
WB-9 is basically a big fusor without grid losses. They also plan to use p-B11 as a fuel.
Now, workonh on the assumption that it is successful, there must be something we can infer from this. Unless you are suggesting that at the proposed size and field strength of WB-9, the thing goes thermonuclear?
- Attachments
-
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Ash Small wrote:
> WB-9 is basically a big fusor without grid losses.
If only it were that simple.
FYI: JET's handling arm.
> WB-9 is basically a big fusor without grid losses.
If only it were that simple.
FYI: JET's handling arm.
- Attachments
-
-
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
It looks like the same system. the second target station at RAL has two arms either side, Jet has two arms mounted on an extending boom. I may be at JET next month.
In what other ways does the polywell differ from a standard fusor, apart from using electromagnets to confine the electron cloud at the centre? I know some of the electrons circulate through the magnets, but they are outside the 'business area', they just confine the electron cloud at the centre. Positive ions are introduced inside the orbit of the outer electron field, and oscillate inside it. As I said before, unless you argue tha thermonuclear condiions exist inside WB-9, any improvement in efficiency has to be relevant to other non thermonuclear, electrostatically confined fusion.
In what other ways does the polywell differ from a standard fusor, apart from using electromagnets to confine the electron cloud at the centre? I know some of the electrons circulate through the magnets, but they are outside the 'business area', they just confine the electron cloud at the centre. Positive ions are introduced inside the orbit of the outer electron field, and oscillate inside it. As I said before, unless you argue tha thermonuclear condiions exist inside WB-9, any improvement in efficiency has to be relevant to other non thermonuclear, electrostatically confined fusion.
-
Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
I don't see what isn't understood about the fusor that information from another system would help with. Seems largely self-evident that it will be several orders of magnitude inefficient, as per my simplistic calculations, seeing as it is no more than a high voltage discharge lamp. Sure, there's plenty of layers of behavioural complexity, but the top level order of magnitude behaviour seems straight forward enough to me.
I tend to feel you're asking "what do we need to do to make motor cars do 40 billion miles per gallon. Maybe electric cars will give us some clues". That *is* the scale of improvement that needs to be made here.
If you want to keep ions *in* the fusor, you have to put up with a constant flow of electrons streaming through it, whilst they try to attempt to 'neutralise' the ions. I've already offered an idea to mitigate some of the electron current; viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2854#p12364 but it is moving into being a different device, and could only hit a few couple of orders of magnitude better, even if it did work. Whatever, you'll need to figure out a *new* IEC arrangement, there's no quick fixes for the fusor as it is. I don't believe the grid poses much of a problem and it was an error on Bussard's part to think that fusor fusions occur at the centre, but on this misconception he appears to have based his own ideas for 'an improvement'.
I tend to feel you're asking "what do we need to do to make motor cars do 40 billion miles per gallon. Maybe electric cars will give us some clues". That *is* the scale of improvement that needs to be made here.
If you want to keep ions *in* the fusor, you have to put up with a constant flow of electrons streaming through it, whilst they try to attempt to 'neutralise' the ions. I've already offered an idea to mitigate some of the electron current; viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2854#p12364 but it is moving into being a different device, and could only hit a few couple of orders of magnitude better, even if it did work. Whatever, you'll need to figure out a *new* IEC arrangement, there's no quick fixes for the fusor as it is. I don't believe the grid poses much of a problem and it was an error on Bussard's part to think that fusor fusions occur at the centre, but on this misconception he appears to have based his own ideas for 'an improvement'.
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Chris, it's late....and I've had a drink or three....and, while I DO agree with more of your ideas than you probably realise....BUT...Maybe the 'lucky donkey' doesn't understand maths in the same way that we do?.....
(I'll probably live to regret this post, but it DOES need saying.)
(I'll probably live to regret this post, but it DOES need saying.)
-
John Futter
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
- Real name: John Futter
- Contact:
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Ash /Chris
Yes I can make a B11 target max 10 x 10 mm. I have started making a number for John Hendron but implanter time is at premium, as is beam time (RBS / PIXIE) to analyse.
It would be easier if work allows, to to use a 0.65MeV proton beam onto a B11 target to prove the assumptions. I will try when things cool down
Ash the 3MV accelerator uses an RF excited ion source it only produces +charge states, we have tried to establish a 2+ charge state beam of protons but the yield was one thousandth of the single charge state ions. This is in contrast to the implanters using penning type ion sources that produce multiple charge states.
hope this helpps
Yes I can make a B11 target max 10 x 10 mm. I have started making a number for John Hendron but implanter time is at premium, as is beam time (RBS / PIXIE) to analyse.
It would be easier if work allows, to to use a 0.65MeV proton beam onto a B11 target to prove the assumptions. I will try when things cool down
Ash the 3MV accelerator uses an RF excited ion source it only produces +charge states, we have tried to establish a 2+ charge state beam of protons but the yield was one thousandth of the single charge state ions. This is in contrast to the implanters using penning type ion sources that produce multiple charge states.
hope this helpps
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Thanks John, Most helpful. What you are saying is 'forget about RF ion sources, and concentrate on the alternatives'
I've just read Dustin's 'pulsed beam' post, and, as I suspected, it looks like current is the main factor here, whether pulsed or otherwise.
"Unity within reach??"
If increased current (pulsed current) works for WB-6 and for Miley, (and is also used for beam-target neutron production at RAL, etc.) Then it looks like I should start making some big capacitors too.
I've just read Dustin's 'pulsed beam' post, and, as I suspected, it looks like current is the main factor here, whether pulsed or otherwise.
"Unity within reach??"
If increased current (pulsed current) works for WB-6 and for Miley, (and is also used for beam-target neutron production at RAL, etc.) Then it looks like I should start making some big capacitors too.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15027
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
A long and rapid blast of postings on this topic. In the end, over unity is the must have if you are talking about fusion energy, per se.
Over unity means the power companies might be interested and would certainly be interested at 10X over unity. Let us say overunity is achieved in fusion systems. Let us say 6X over unity.
We make a 300 megawatt plant.
We need a continuous 50 megawatt power source to run this puppy. So, regardless of size or whether this thing is D-D, D-T, P-B11, etc. the unit is disappating 50 million watts up front. 300 megawatts of heat, alpha particles, neutrons, gamma rays or what ever your "goodie is that is supplying power has to be down-converted to electricity. More losses and disappation. You just can't handle 350 megawatts of anything without savaging components and structures!!! Yes, 300 megawatts of alphas will grind stuff up into chum as well as neutrons or protons or whatever. Do not kid yourself. All items will have a working life span and some of those components will have a very short lifespan in fusion systems.
Fission reactors work off heat from neutrons and fission fragments to simply boil water. No grand complications here. Materials are savaged, but are massive enough that nothing but fuel and the their containers within the reactor vessel need any sort of out and out replacement for many years. Short of replacing the rather simple reactor vessel, itself, the fission reactor is maintenance free! Good thing too as it is not repairable
This doesn't appear to be the case for any of the proposed fusion systems regardless of type or fuel. They are repairable, but the frequency of natural repair and internal component replacement cycles will be regular and reside within the reactor, itself.
Everyone who heats water has to deal with steam/mechanical issues. 300 megawatts of steam against precision turbine blades trying to turn a 50 ton rotor and 70 ton generator armature takes its toll. Fission nuclear is shut down more often due to old coal plant related mechanical issues than nuclear issues.
P-B11 is no saviour; it is a carrot hung out in front of the aneutronic crowd. If fusion is ever done for the mains distribution of electricity, you can be sure it will be whatever is the simplest and easiest of the fusion choices. Give it another 75-100 years and we will see what shakes out.
Ricahrd Hull
Over unity means the power companies might be interested and would certainly be interested at 10X over unity. Let us say overunity is achieved in fusion systems. Let us say 6X over unity.
We make a 300 megawatt plant.
We need a continuous 50 megawatt power source to run this puppy. So, regardless of size or whether this thing is D-D, D-T, P-B11, etc. the unit is disappating 50 million watts up front. 300 megawatts of heat, alpha particles, neutrons, gamma rays or what ever your "goodie is that is supplying power has to be down-converted to electricity. More losses and disappation. You just can't handle 350 megawatts of anything without savaging components and structures!!! Yes, 300 megawatts of alphas will grind stuff up into chum as well as neutrons or protons or whatever. Do not kid yourself. All items will have a working life span and some of those components will have a very short lifespan in fusion systems.
Fission reactors work off heat from neutrons and fission fragments to simply boil water. No grand complications here. Materials are savaged, but are massive enough that nothing but fuel and the their containers within the reactor vessel need any sort of out and out replacement for many years. Short of replacing the rather simple reactor vessel, itself, the fission reactor is maintenance free! Good thing too as it is not repairable
This doesn't appear to be the case for any of the proposed fusion systems regardless of type or fuel. They are repairable, but the frequency of natural repair and internal component replacement cycles will be regular and reside within the reactor, itself.
Everyone who heats water has to deal with steam/mechanical issues. 300 megawatts of steam against precision turbine blades trying to turn a 50 ton rotor and 70 ton generator armature takes its toll. Fission nuclear is shut down more often due to old coal plant related mechanical issues than nuclear issues.
P-B11 is no saviour; it is a carrot hung out in front of the aneutronic crowd. If fusion is ever done for the mains distribution of electricity, you can be sure it will be whatever is the simplest and easiest of the fusion choices. Give it another 75-100 years and we will see what shakes out.
Ricahrd 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
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
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
A B-11 is a serious and long undertaken - I have been working on such a system for quite a number of years. It is a grandiose idea to design to produce mega anything - allowing the system is basically aneutronic, the Alpha impact will produce a lethal dose of Neutrons - there will need to be substantial shielding.
My reaction chamber is a tiny 0.8 mm dia x 1 mm chamber set in a tungsten slug, to hold the Boron target, the shield is a five meter deep pond and the chamber in a dry well some two meters down the pond which is filled with water. It uses a tiny piece of Berylium to generated dectectable neutrons in the chamber - Alphas are not detectable in such a hostile enviroment.
It is in the watt range of expection - I dare not work at higher output and I have 10 off 25MFD 25 kv Caps + 16 off 4 MFD 12KV Caps to play with and a voltage to 250kv max. but tend to use not more than 10kv and a pair of 4 MFD Caps to work with on the beam - it uses the Starfire Ion gun and I now have two bubble detectors for Richard - with thanks to Steven Sesselmann.
I wish you well with such an undertaking and hope you have a large wallet.
My reaction chamber is a tiny 0.8 mm dia x 1 mm chamber set in a tungsten slug, to hold the Boron target, the shield is a five meter deep pond and the chamber in a dry well some two meters down the pond which is filled with water. It uses a tiny piece of Berylium to generated dectectable neutrons in the chamber - Alphas are not detectable in such a hostile enviroment.
It is in the watt range of expection - I dare not work at higher output and I have 10 off 25MFD 25 kv Caps + 16 off 4 MFD 12KV Caps to play with and a voltage to 250kv max. but tend to use not more than 10kv and a pair of 4 MFD Caps to work with on the beam - it uses the Starfire Ion gun and I now have two bubble detectors for Richard - with thanks to Steven Sesselmann.
I wish you well with such an undertaking and hope you have a large wallet.
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
>What you are saying is 'forget about RF ion sources, and concentrate on the alternatives'
Not the reading I'd take home...
John was stating that his RF source is good at making atomic (H+) ions. An (H2)+ or molecular ion beam is a generally undesirable product if the end goal is to use protons, though there are exceptions, and the RF ion sources have been popular largely because they CAN produce a high atomic ion (H+) fraction. They can also be designed to produce molecular ions.
-Carl
Not the reading I'd take home...
John was stating that his RF source is good at making atomic (H+) ions. An (H2)+ or molecular ion beam is a generally undesirable product if the end goal is to use protons, though there are exceptions, and the RF ion sources have been popular largely because they CAN produce a high atomic ion (H+) fraction. They can also be designed to produce molecular ions.
-Carl
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
Thanks for putting me straight on that, Carl.
If the number of neutrons produced by John Hendron is unavoidable, I'm beginning to doubt whether aneutronic fusion has any real prospects, but if protons are hitting the tungsten slug, this will also produce neutrons, will it not?
If the number of neutrons produced by John Hendron is unavoidable, I'm beginning to doubt whether aneutronic fusion has any real prospects, but if protons are hitting the tungsten slug, this will also produce neutrons, will it not?
Re: Proposed design for an electrostatic beam to target p-B11 fusion device.
I have a gamma spectrometer to make qualitive measurement Ash and look for particular energys - there may be Neutrons from many materials and they will have different energys - my big problem is that the design will produce a very fast burst of Neutrons of different energys from second sources. I doubt if there is such a thing as a totally aneutronic reaction.